are about. and repressive, autocratic regimes, they never accept the will of the people. so you look at ways in which they can undermine the voting record. what the voters want to do and the voters' will. in the 2020 elections, we should all celebrate the record number of people who cast their ballots. it was a record and the most-ever americans casting their votes for the presidency of the united states. there were repeated reviews done by both democrats and republicans at the federal, state, and local level. it all verified the simple fact that there was no widespread corruption or election fraud. the will of the people prevailed. and joe biden and kamala harris were duly elected. congress and vice president pence counted the electoral votes for president and vice president and did their duty under the constitution on january 6, notwithstanding the armed insurrection in the capitol. but that did not stop former president trump in promoting the big lie.

as a result of that, several states have now taken action to make it harder for people to cast their votes. the brennan center has pointed out that we have seen the worst assault on voting rights since jim crow. so what have these laws done? made it more difficult for voters to vote by mail, recognizing that for many voters, they prefer to vote by mail via states that have had 100% voting by mail. there have been no indications of fraud and voting by mail. states have shortened the time for requesting mail-in ballots for voting, making it more difficult for individuals to be able to vote by mail, requiring certain requirements to vote by mail, making it more difficult to deliver their mail ballot, limiting the availability of ballot drop boxes. why do states take these actions? because it makes it more difficult for people who are likely to vote for their political opponents to vote. that's what these state legislatures were doing. stricter signature requirements, making in-person voting more

difficult, purging voting rolls simply because a person did not vote. and again making it more difficult for people to vote. that should have no place in a democracy. and it goes on and on in terms of the types of legislation that have already passed or is currently being considered by many state legislatures around our country. making it more difficult to register to vote, making it more difficult to vote, targeting potential voters more likely to vote for their opponents, targeting minorities, young voters and older minority voters is a disturbing trend we see across this country and has no place in our democracy. the freedom to vote act provides a basic federal floor on protection of the right to vote. this legislation includes commonsense items such as automatic and online voter registration, uniform early voting, same-day voter registration, vote-by-mail and drop box standards and uniform national standards for voter

identification. these are simple voter protection measures against the actions being taken by state legislatures that are aimed at certain demographic groups and set a federal floor. the freedom to vote act ends political gerrymandering. i don't know how many of my colleagues can defend the way that legislative and congressional lines are drawn today. congressional districts should represent the communities' interests, not an individual congressman's interests. the freedom to vote act takes a major step forward in ending political gerrymandering by creating nonpartisan redistricting reform and banning partisan gerrymandering and allowing states to choose how to develop redistricting plans including having an independent redistricting commission. in terms of election integrity, the freedom to vote act requires voter-verified paper ballots, reliable audits, and voting system upgrades. i think we all would agree that

we want to be able to verify votes. the only way we can is if there is a paper trail. and it provides for that paper trail. the measure takes steps to prevent state election subversions and better inches slate state and local officials who administer federal elections after attempts of both domestic and foreign interference in the 2020 election results. this legislation reduces the dominance of big money in the political system. it does this in a couple ways. one, disclosure. how could anyone be against disclosure of who is putting money into our political system? and secondly, by providing a way in which we can weaken the dependence on large special interest dollars. the legislation requires super pac's, 501-c-4 groups and other organizations spending money on elections to disclose donors and shuts down the use of transfers between organizations to cloak the identity of contributors. it ensures that political ads

sold online have the same transparency and disclosure requirements as ads sold on tv, radio, and satellite. s. 2747 includes two provisions i authored. first it includes the democracy restoration act which deals with laws passed after the end of slavery in an effort to prevent african americans from voting. these states that passed laws back then that are still on the books that disqualify for a lifetime a person quicked of a -- convicted of a felony. the definition of is a felony is pretty general in many states, so we have states where one out of five african americans have been disqualified from voting because of their conviction of a felony even though they are fully part of our society today. they don't have the right to vote. we need to remove that disqualification on voting. i am pleased that my deceptive practices and voter intimidation prevention act is included as a

provision in the legislation. spreading of false or misleading information intended to suppress voting and intimidate the electorate remains one of the most regularly employed and effective methods used to keep individuals, particularly black americans and other racial minorities from voting. advancements in communication including the rise of social media platforms have made it easier for bad actors to use these strategies. for example, the targeting of latina voters in florida with disinformation was widely documented. this provision prohibits individuals from knowingly deceiving others about the time, place, eligibility, or procedures of participating in a federal election. it criminalizes efforts to intentionally hinder, interfere with, or prevent any person from voting, registering to vote, or aiding a person to vote or register to vote. my friend and former colleague was the late john lewis of georgia. the two of us were elected to the house of representatives on

the same day. in an editorial published after his death, representative lewis called an important lesson -- recalled an important lesson taught by dr. martin luther king jr. and i quote our former colleague when he said each of us has a moral obligation to stand up, speak up, and speak out. when you see something that is not right, you must say something. you must do something. democracy is not a state. it is an act. each generation must do its part. well, we cannot take action if we don't start, and we cannot start unless my colleagues allow us to proceed to this issue on the floor of the united states senate. mr. president, i urge my colleagues not to filibuster the right of the united states senate to start the debate on protecting voter integrity or each member will have the opportunity to -- where each member will have the opportunity to debate the issue and collectively we can come together. many of my colleagues have

offered suggestions of how we can further improve s. 2747, how we can make it an even broader consensus. let's build on the work done by senator klobuchar and our colleagues over the august recess, but we cannot do that unless we have the right to proceed to a debate. i urge my colleagues to support taking up the freedom to vote act, which is a critical issue to the preservation of our democracy and the integrity of our right to vote. with that, mr. president, i would yield the floor.

mr. cruz: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cruz: mr. president, i would like to discuss now how nord stream 2 is an unprecedented example, a contemporary example of bipartisan unity. democrats and republicans both know that nord stream 2 is a terrible idea. it's a terrible idea for europe, and it's a terrible idea for the united states. here are several examples of the bipartisan agreement we have. it's been commonplace to say that bipartisanship doesn't exist. but nord stream 2 refutes that. the first wave of sanctions authored by me and by senator shaheen goes back to the summer of 2019. at a july 31 hearing, several

democrats spoke out against nord stream 2 and in support of the cruz-shaheen sanctions to stop it. here's some of the things they said. senator menendez said, quote, i think the international community must stand firm against opening more doors and creating new opportunities for further kremlin aggression in ukraine leading to the loss of life. the russian federation has repeatedly used its energy resources as a lever of power, and i believe nord stream 2 is no exception. not only will it considerably strengthen the kremlin's stranglehold on europe, but it allows moscow to further undermine ukraine's sovereignty and stability. senator shaheen said we have heard in our office directly

from other countries in eastern and central europe and the baltics and many of the nordic states and of course especially ukraine who understand that this pipeline is an effort to increase reliance on russia among europe, and i would argue that this does nothing to strengthen the transatlantic alliance, the nord stream 2 pipeline. in fact, it actually decreases support for the alliance. here's what senator coons from delaware said. quote -- i, like many of us, have been to iewrk, -- ukraine, remain gravely concerned about russia's ongoing aggression against ukraine and the ways in which russia finances its aggression through the use of hits sole remaining export of any interest, which is energy. senator menendez was right. senator shaheen was right.

senator coons was right. that consensus has held for over two years. democrats and republicans. even through the biden administration's catastrophic decision to green light the pipeline and to give a multibillion-dollar gift to vladimir putin. this issue was central to a june foreign relations committee after biden had defied u.s. law and given a multibillion-dollar gift to putin. here's what senator menendez said after biden acted. quote -- i think many of us on a bipartisan basis were deeply concerned about the blinks' decisions to waive sanctions on nord stream 2 a.g. i would have thought that one of the most significant ways to show strength is to ensure that the pipeline is killed.

mr. president, senator menendez was right. senator merkley even condemned the pipeline for issues he said were directly related to climate change, which is something biden officials claim is utterly sacrosanct in this administration. the consensus even after the biden administration formally announced that it had struck a deal surrendering entirely to russia on the pipeline. nonetheless we saw the bipartisan consensus remain. on july 21, senator kaine said, quote, i'm not happy about it. i'm not happy about it in terms of russian politics, and i'm not happy about it in terms of climate change. senator kaine was right. senator shaheen said she was, quote, skeptical that the

agreement will be sufficient when the key player at the table, russia, refuses to play by the rules. mr. president, senator shaheen was right. she was right to be skeptical that the agreement from the biden administration, mind you, will be sufficient when the key player at the table, russia, refuses to play by the rules. and i would note the consensus wasn't limited to the senate. on the other side of the capitol in the u.s. house of representatives, that same sentiment was broadly echoed. both during the previous administration and during the current administration. at the beginning of my push for the cruz-shaheen sanctions in 2019, democratic representative engel said, quote, russia has -- russia has weaponized its energy

resources, expanding into european markets, and creating greater and greater dependency, particularly with projects such as the nord stream 2. representative engel was right. several years later, after the announcement of president biden's complete surrender to russia on nord stream 2, representative kaptur told a polish newspaper that she and much of the house of representatives were disappointed with the deal. she said, quote, i am very disappointed by the biden administration's willingness to let russian gas reach the heart of europe via nord stream 2, endangering energy security. we consider this a dangerous project from a security point of view. representative kaptur was right. supporters of the biden

administration will say, well, then, of course everybody opposes nord stream 2, but there's no way to stop it. mr. president, that excuse is disingenuous. that excuse is laughable on its face. now, why is that? because it's the identical excuse that was central to the russian disinformation two years ago. the summer of 2019, when i first authorized the bipartisan sanctions for nord stream 2, the sanctions was predicated on the proposition that the pipeline was 90% complete and they said, gosh, there's nothing you can do to stop it. they halted construction of the pipeline 15 minutes before our bipartisan sanctions were signed into law. and for over a year the pipeline

laid dorm ant as a -- dormant as a hunk of metal. every time the biden administration said it was too far along, we couldn't have stopped it, you know what, it was just as far along in january of 2020 and we stopped it, we stopped it in march, april, may, june, july, october, november, december. it wasn't until january -- january 24, four days after joe biden took the oath of office that russia resumed building the nord stream 2 pipeline. the only reason they couldn't stop it is because joe biden wanted to surrender to putin. because the answer is, mr. president, republicans and democrats in this chamber had stopped it for over a year until

joe biden came in and turned victory into defeat, until joe biden came in and offered complete capitulation. and might i note, in exchange for nothing. let me ask you, mr. president, what did the biden administration get in exchange for a multibillion-dollar gift. and not a one-time gift, a gift every year for decades in perpetuity? what did the biden administration get? nothing. not a damn thing. it was simply a complete capitulation, surrender. now, defenders of the biden administration will say, well, maybe we could have stopped it a few months ago before the pipeline was complete. but in between january and this month the russian efforts built

the pipeline and they just announced it's complete. so now we should surrender, right? there's nothing that can be done about it. well, that, in fact, is not true. that is a second wave of disinformation. now, why is that true? that's not true because before the pipeline can go online, there are a series of certifications that are required. nord stream 2a.g., the company that's responsible for planning construction and eventual operation of nord stream 2 needs to be granted formal permission as a gas transmitter. there are many regulatory hurdles in their way. the process could take many months and it could be derailed at any time. first there has to be an inspection process. each of nord stream 2's strings has to be inspected to ensure

there's no leaks and part of that is confirming that the pliens were installed -- pipelines were installed correctly. part of that has already been done with air. nobody knows how it's been going. then there has to be an additional technical certification. this will be extremely difficult for nord stream 2, a.g., because the bipartisan legislation i wrote and passed with senator shaheen and that congress passed imposes mandatory sanctions on anyone who certifies the pipeline for operation. pause and think about that for a second. pipeline can't go into effect unless it is certified. united states law passed overwhelmingly by democrats and republicans in this congress signed into law in the u.s. code says that anyone who certifies it faces mandatory crushing sanctions from the united states. the company that was originally

going to certify it withdrew after the sanctions became law. the only way that a different company would dare to certify is if they believed the biden administration would look the other way, would bless their certification in outright defines of -- defiance of u.s. law. then apart from the technical issues, nord stream 2, a.g., has to be certified as a gas transmission operator as a matter of operation in law. that should take at a minimum many months and require delicate negotiations between the company and the regulators. you know what's striking is everything that i am saying has been said by the biden administration. so right now their talking points are, there's nothing we can do, it's a done deal, we surrender, we've given up,

there's nothing we can do. but when they were in the process of surrendering, they said everything i just told you. until recently even the top officials of the biden administration acknowledge that physical completion of nord stream 2 didn't make its activation. on june 8, secretary of state blinken testified that, quote, even when the pipeline is physically complete, for it to go into operation, it still insurance, it still requires various permits and we are looking very carefully at all of that. secretary blinken said that, quote, it was too late to stop the joining of those pipes. its operation is another matter. secretary blinken is wrong that it was too late to stop the building of the pipes because we stopped it over a year but he

wasn't wrong when he said we can still top the -- stop the operation of it. given the timeline, the path for america is obvious, we should sanction nord stream 2, that will automatically isolate the company and signal our readiness to follow the law to impose more sanctions and ensure that everyone know that involvement with putin's plien brings -- pipeline brings with it crippling sanctions, and that's why congress passed legislation, bipartisan legislation to stop this pipeline. but instead of obeying the law, president biden decided brazenly and willfully to defy federal law, to defy congress's mandate.

in may, president biden transmitted a report to congress that acknowledged, yes, he was obliged to impose sanctions on nord stream 2, a.g., for violating the sanctions that congress passed and passed overwhelmingly. but instead of imposing the sanctions on nord stream 2, a.g., given the clear intent of congress, the biden administration chose instead to waive them. it was a disasterous decision. it was a decision based on capitulation to russia and it hurt our friends and allies in europe and it hurt the united states of america. it's a decision that can be reversed. right now the pipeline, if this pipeline goes into effect, will be the biden-putin pipeline. it doesn't have to be. this was designed at the outset to be the putin pipeline.

and when it was the putin pipeline, we stopped it. republicans stopped it, democrats stopped it. we came together at a time of partisan division and we said together, giving billions of dollars to putin to russia for aggressive military hostility, subjecting europe to energy blackmail, making europe dependent on putin's gas and destroying american jobs was -- is bad all around and congress succeeded. it was the putin pipeline, until january 24, 2021. joe biden had just been sworn into office and putin, after a year of dor manse, began -- dormancy began building the

pipeline again because biden already signaled he intended to capitulate. when we convene next week, i'm going to discuss in greater detail the compromise that i have offered to the biden administration and senate democrats to move forward on more of their nominees if they accept a compromised solution on nord stream 2. the biden administration has had this compromise offer for two months and they've done nothing with it. but i would suggest something right now. of course in my remarks i've read quote after quote after quote from senate democrats -- senate democrats know this pipeline is a disaster for america. senate democrats know that surrendering to putin is bad for america. but senate democrats are scared to stand up to a democratic president. i can tell you when we had a republican president, president trump, there were some in the trump administration that

resisted these bipartisan sanctions. and as a republican, i was perfectly willing to stand up to a republican administration. for those who are resisting these sanctions and to press them hard. and so my request to my democratic colleagues is, show that you actually believe what you said in 2019 and 2020 and 2021. show that you care about u.s. national security. let's stand together and let's reclaim that bipartisan consensus we've had for two years that nord stream 2 is bad for america and bad for our allies. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: cloture having been invoked, the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination,

department of state, karen erika donfried, of the district of columbia, to be assistant secretary of state. the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. mr. markey: mr. president, i'd like to speak in support of mr. mr. monica medina. i have known monica for more than 30 years and can say without a doubt she is the most qualified candidate to fill this position. she has worked for decades across multiple administrations on issues of environmental law and policy. she understands well the interconnected world we live in and knows that u.s. foreign policy goes not necessarily beyond the water's edge but throughout the world where universal threats and the solutions lie. monica is a proven public

servant through and through. over the years she's fought for what matters most. during her time at the defense department she worked to end discripple knittive practices against women in the military. after her time at d.o.d., she continued the track record of fighting for what's most important by calling out the connection between illegal wire life trafficking and networks confronting fishing that is tied to piracy. her expertise to our national security is why leon panetta and the center for sta stijic and -- strategic for international studies have turned to her because she knows that she cannot protect our home without strategy abroad. she is a pragmatic servant by

working across the aisle by working with different states and industries across the united states to find ways to protect our oceans after the deepwater horizon oil spill, she collaborated with five -- from oil company b.p. so that states could start rebounding from the disaster. her work at noaa was praised by groups like the seafood harvesters of america who support her experience and legacy of protecting our oceans and the workers and communities that depend upon them. louis pasteur once said science knows no country because knowledge belongs to humanity and it is the torch which illuminates the world. science is the highest personification of the nation because that nation will remain the first which carries the furthest the works of thought and intelligence. monica medina has dedicated her career to promoting america's

excellence in these two realms, the tools of science and the values of humanity because it is there where america's promise to the world can be found. i want to reiterate very strongly that she has served every mission, she has fulfilled every goal that she has been given, and every discussion that she has ever had has always resulted in people holding us in the highest regard by the key stakeholders in every issue she has touched. i want to reiterate my strong support for her nomination and hope my colleagues will join me in confirming her for this important position. i yield back, mr. president.

the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. murphy: mr. president, first i would ask unanimous consent notwithstanding rule 22 that upon the use or yielding back of time on the donfried nomination, the senate vote on the motions to invoke cloture on the medina, phee, robinson, and lewis nominations. that if cloture is invoked on any of the nominations listed, all postcloture time be considered expired and the vote on confirmation of those nominations occur at a time and in an order to be determined by the majority leader following consultation with the republican leader, with one hour for debate equally divided prior to each vote and the republican debate be controlled by senator cruz. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. murphy: for the information of the senate, we expect four roll call votes beginning at around 8:00 p.m. those votes will be cloture on the medina, phee, robinson, and

lewis nominations. mr. president, i am glad that we are coming to some conclusion this evening with respect to a handful of the long list of pending nominations for the state department and the department of defense, but it is a small portion of a list that is growing bigger and bigger. never before has a first-term president had this few national security nominees in place by the fall of his first year, and this is a glowing national security crisis imposed on the country by republicans who have decided to put their hatred of democrats and this president ahead of the security of this country, above the security of this nation. and it just takes a lot of

chutzpah for my colleagues to stand here on the floor and criticize the president's conduct of foreign policy at the same time that they are refusing to allow the president to have staff to conduct foreign policy. let me say that again. we have all sorts of republicans coming down here and sabotaging the president's policy on afghanistan or on china or on russia, but then at the exact same time taking extraordinary steps to prevent the president from having anybody to actually implement policies towards afghanistan or russia or china. it's akin to standing up in a restaurant and complaining about how slow the service is right after you went and barricaded the doors in and out of the kitchen. my colleagues can't have it both ways. you want to complain about the president's policies towards china, then stop standing in the

way of allowing him to have personnel that can execute on sound policy. stop standing in the way of the assistant secretary that will oversee policy in the region. complaints about afghanistan, then why are we continuing to block those that would be in charge of refugee policy, in charge of resettlement policy to get more afghans out of the country. got complaints about russia? well, for a month, republicans have been blocking the key personnel who oversee policy towards russia, whether it be the assistant secretary of europe or our ambassador to nato . here's what voters are left to wonder. are these sincere objections based upon policy or is this really about an intentional effort to try to undermine the security of this country in order to damage joe biden? i don't know the answer to that question. but i can't figure out any plausible reason how this

benefits the country. never before, never before has a minority gone to this length to try to undermine a president's national security team. every single democrat had massive objections, moral and practical to president trump's foreign policy, but not a single one of us contemplated doing what our republican please are doing right now, holding up every single one of donald trump's ambassadors and nominees, because we knew that that would undermine the security of the country, because there are differences that we have but there are far more points of agreement where mid-level civil servants and ambassadors are carrying out policies on behalf of america that republicans and democrats agree on.

here's the list of nominees that are struck what does the chief of protocol have to do with nord stream 2? what does the ambassador to vietnam have to do with the senator from texas' objections over an oil pipeline? why are we blocking the assistant administrator to the united states agency for international development? nothing that's happening here has anything to do with the security of this country. and so i'm glad we are unlocking a handful of nominees, but we're going to be here on thursdays and fridays and saturdays and sundays. i'm going to advocate that we stay as long as it takes in order to protect this country. in order to stop this unprecedented blockade of the people who do the work of

standing up for the security of this nation every single day. one of the critiques that has been lodged here today is about the president's proposal and his execution of his proposal to wind down the 20-year war in afghanistan. in fact, one of my colleagues said until the secretary of state resigns, he will continue to block all department of defense and state department nominees. knowing that that is not going to happen. and so i do want to spend a few minutes this evening talking about the real story behind president biden's decision to bring a 20-year war that has cost this country $2 trillion, has cost this nation thousands of lives, has ended up in hundreds of thousands of afghans being killed.

let's just be very clear at the outset. president biden's decision to bring u.s. troops home from afghanistan is wildly popular, supported by three out of four americans. and i want to talk about the danger of what has happened over the course of the last two months. with this critique of the president's withdrawal plan. some of it is legitimate, but some of it is really dangerous. so in 2009, president obama planned to send a whole bunch of additional troops into afghanistan. it was obama's surge. the idea that we would plus up our troops there, we would partner with diplomats and aid administrators with the means to try to conquer and then hold territory in afghanistan that had been taken by the taliban.

it was a really good plan. it had all sorts of counterinsurgency buzzwords, the powerpoint looked really sharp, it was endorsed by a lot of smart foreign policy thinkers. but then it was a total flop. it didn't work. i saw it in person. in 2011, i went out to a small town in western afghanistan where the surge was taking place, where a group of u.s. soldiers had taken back territory that had previously been controlled by the taliban, and we had a tour of this small town. the elders in that town told us that the taliban forced them to grow poppy. poppy then was given or sold to the taliban, used to fuel and fund the taliban's insurgency against the united states. and now that the u.s. troops were there, poppy was still

being grown in the fields. it was still being sold to the taliban. the difference was that now the taliban wasn't stealing it. the taliban was paying a fairer price for the poppy. but we were still protecting the fields, a crop that was being sold to our enemy, to finance the insurgency against us. a very clear, concrete example of how a plan that looked really good on paper wasn't playing out to our national security benefit in reality. afghanistan wasn't a failure of execution. it was a failure of hubris. we came to believe that we could do something in afghanistan that was in reality unachievable, although on paper achievable. this idea that we could build an american-style democracy, an

american-style military on the other side of the world amidst a culture we did not understand turned out to be an impossibility. but general after general, administration after administration, we refused to accept that reality. we believe that america could accomplish this feat, despite the fact that year after year, especially in the last decade, the taliban got stronger, the amount of territory they conquered was bigger, the ability of the taliban -- the ability of the afghan military and government to be able to deliver services and protect the people became less and less. one would think that the overnight collapse of the afghan government security forces on august 15 would have finally broken the back of this american execute better thinking, this belief that if we just fine tune

the plan once again, we will be able to do the impossible. but it's clear that, in fact, the opposite has happened, that since the fall of the afghan government and military, there has been new life infused into the architects and to the cheerleaders of american military hubris' arguments. the scenes from the kabul airport in the weeks following the afghan government disintegration, they were devastating to watch. the stories of young girls and human rights activists desperately clamoring for a route out of the country, they were heart breaking to hear. but the idea that the united states of america, a country located on the other side of the world from kabul could manage this unexpected collapse in a way that didn't produce panic and confusion or that we would be able to evacuate and find a home outside of the country for every afghan that wanted to

leave, it was, unfortunately, the same kind of magical thinking that got us into this mess in the first place. it kept us there for ten years too long. it is just as i will illusory ae now-proven fantasy trumpeted by war hawks that america could build and train an afghan government and military into a new version of their american counterparts. and we risk falling into this trap again, believing that america can do things abroad that are beyond our reach. there are plenty of fights that are winnable. there is plenty that america can do, but there are limits, especially limits to our authority when we are leading with military intervention. and no doubt there were mistakes made throughout the period of ee vaccinate of -- evacuation. there is no way you run a mission that complicated without going back and finding things you would have done differently.

but in the end we got 130,000 people out. that's the single biggest airlift of americans and partners certainly in our lifetime and likely in the history of this country. it is hard to argue the results. 130,000 americans and afghanistan taken out in two weeks when america only had the airport. but for many in washington, many in the foreign policy consensus, many of the folks that wanted to stay in afghanistan forever, they say that 130,000 wasn't good enough. what's their specific complaint? some of them say that the scenes at the airport of chaos were joe biden's fault. that's maybe the most nonsensical of the arguments. once the afghan military and government fell apart overnight, there was nothing that a couple

of,000 american troops and diplomats were going to be able to do to prevent that chaos. you could argue that the united states should have seen that collapse coming, but the afghan people didn't have access to our intelligence, the afghan people didn't know that was going to fall apart overnight. when they heard that the united states was running flights out of kabul, there was going to be a mad rush to the airport. it just doesn't make any sense to suggest that a couple thousand americans inside afghanistan are going to be able to prevent some very chaotic scenes on the ground. other critics set a lower bar. they say that, well, the president couldn't have prevented the chaos, but he should have managed the evacuation better. and, again, i'll concede that there are thiks that could have been -- things that could have been done better, but let's just talk about what the scene looked

like on the ground. let's talk about the reality. the reality is that the taliban controlled the entire city outside of the airport and when your enemy controls 99% of the country that you're trying to evacuate, unfortunately many of the decisions about how the evacuation goes and how efficient or effective it is are outside of your control. the idea that in two weeks we were going to be able to manage a seamless evacuation of the country when our enemy controlled 99% of it are ludicrous. again, there's no doubt that things could have been done better but in the end we've got 130,000 americans out. we were very creative about the means and the methods by which we used to get our people home. another criticism is that the

president didn't get everybody out. well, let's just remember what happened in the months leading up to the evacuation. 19 different times the biden administration told americans who were there that things were going to get bad and they should leave. that doesn't mean we shouldn't do everything in our power to get those americans out who didn't listen to those reminder, but it does mean that the president doesn't bear all of the blame for those that stayed after having reminded them over a dozen times that it was probably time to leave. and it's a little difficult to hear this righteous indignation from republicans about the president not getting more afghans out when it is the republican party that is standing in the way of these refugees coming to the united states. many of the same critics of the

president's afghanistan policy are the exact same republicans that are right now saying that their state isn't going to take any afghan refugees. you can't have it both ways. you can't criticize the president for not getting more of our partners out but then say they shouldn't go further than an airplane hanger in doha that your state isn't going to take any of these refugees. and lastly, the most recent argument by this execute better crowd, the folks that think just like we could have succeeded in afghanistan if we stayed another ten years, we could have run a perfect and beautiful looking evacuation in the myth of -- midst of a country in chaos is that america could have stayed because it would have been less costly and risky in 2021. these are the folks who said we should have kept a couple of,000

troops there and -- thousand troops and everything would be fine. president trump said that he would draw down to 25,000 troops and in exchange the taliban said we won't attack u.s. forces and we will not advance on provincial capitals, so when joe biden came to office, that was his reality. there was only a couple of,000 troops left, the taliban had immense amounts of territory and they stood outside the capitals. had joe biden chosen to walk away from that deal, hostilities would have begun between the united states and the taliban and i have listened to generals tell us for the last ten years that there is no way that the united states could protect its own forces and stand up an effective afghan military operation with less than 8,500.

all of a sudden 2,500 was enough when for years the military was telling us, if you get below 10,000, you're in big trouble. but that doesn't even speak to the new reality that greeted us in 2021. that was the taliban now not just out in the hinterlands, not just fighting for control of rural afghanistan but on the precipice of these cities ready to get involved in complicated and deadly urban warfare. that argues for the number not being 8,500 but twice that or three times that likely would have been necessary in order to order to buttress and stand up and support the afghan military when street fighting happened inside these provincial capitals. 2,500 wasn't going to be enough. of course the real desire for most of these execute better

thinkers was for america to just stay. i know folks bristle at this phrase forever war. a lot of folks that say we should have kept 2,500, 5,000 there, they say that we weren't going to stay foofer. they -- forever. they just say we should stay until we finish the job, which is defined as establishing an american-style representative government and a american-style unified military command. but if we couldn't accomplish that in 20 years, the longest u.s. war in history, why on earth do we think that things would have changed after another five or another ten? my belief is that the goal that we set out was unfortunately impossible, which is why that powerpoint slide reads, we stay in afghanistan until it's stable

while reality reads, stay forever. it's worth reminding that americans overwhelmingly supported this plan to withdraw because they had seen how the plans never matched up with reality on the ground and it was ultimately their sons and daughters bloodz that -- blood that was going to be spilled. it was their money that was going to be spent. the real danger is casually coming to this collective american conclusion that just like our occupation was possible but executed poorly that the withdrawal was simply a failure of planning rather than inevitability given the circumstances handed to president biden and his team.

there are some military missions that cannot be completed, how -- no matter how smart the planners are. this lesson has got to be learned or we're destined to suffer more iraqs or more afghanistans. and finely, i will end with this, it's worth noting, and i said this earlier, that just because the mission we set out to achieve in afghanistan was not possible, that doesn't mean everything else isn't possible. that doesn't mean that america can't be a force for good in the world. our experience in afghanistan is not a reason to disappear from global engagement, just because this big thing wasn't possible doesn't mean every big thing isn't possible. my hope is by withdrawing from afghanistan, we allow for the biden administration and administrations to follow to be able to pivot to contests and fights that we can win, to put more effort into contesting

chinese expansionism or to put more effort into providing nonmilitary aid to organic local democracy movements or being more of a force for economic empowerment in the developing world. these are goals that are difficult but they are achievable. so there are plenty of negative consequences to our withdrawal from afghanistan, but there are also beneficial consequences as well. the greatest benefit is that we now have this energy and money and manpower that's been devoted to this failing mission for 20 years that can now be directed to the more achievable and worthwhile goals but only if we have a better connection to the military. i think that is necessary so america never gets distracted by achievable goals by another impossible afghanistan-like mission.

thank you, mr. president. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. menendez: mr. president i ask unanimous consent that after the first cloture vote on the medina nomination, that the other three be ten minute votes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. menendez: mr. president, i know of no other debate before the senate. the presiding officer: if there is no further debate, the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22, do hereby bring to a close debate on the nomination of executive calendar number 324, monica p. medina, of maryland, to be assistant secretary of state for oceans and international and environmental and scientific affairs. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived.

the question is, is it the sense of the senate that debate on the debate of monica p. medina to be assistant secretary of state for oceans and international environmental and scientific affairs shall be brought to a close? the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rules. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: the yeas are 57, the nays are 26. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: department of state, monica p. medina of maryland to be assistant secretary for oceans and international environmental and scientific affairs. the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: it's my --. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order.

mr. durbin: it's my understanding we have three roll call votes left and there is a ten-minute rule on the duration, is that correct? the presiding officer: the senator is correct. mr. durbin: thank you. the clerk: cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate move to bring to a close debate on the nomination on executive calendar 331, mary catherine phee of illinois to be assistant secretary of state, african affairs, signed by 18 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is, is it the sense of the senate that debate on the nomination of mary catherine phee of illinois, a career member of the senior foreign service class of counselor to be assistant secretary of state african affairs shall be brought to a close. the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: the yeas are 59, the nays are 25. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: didn't of -- department of state, mary catherine phee, of illinois, to be assistant secretary african affairs. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the cloture motion. the clerk: cloture motion we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22, do hereby bring to a close debate on the nomination of executive number 240, todd d. robinson, of new jersey, to be assistant secretary of state. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. is it the sense of the senate that debate on the nomination of todd d. robinson, a career member of the senior foreign

service to be assistant secretary of state, international narcotics, shall be brought to a close. yeas and nays will be brought to a to close. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: the yeas are 54, the nays are 29. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, department of state, todd d. robinson of new jersey to be an assistant secretary of state. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture cloture. the clerk: we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of of the rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of executive calendar number 334, jessica lewis of ohio to be an assistant secretary of state, political military affairs, signed by 18 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is, is it the sense of the senate that debate on the nomination of jessica lewis of ohio to be assistant secretary of state, political

military affairs, shall be brought to a close. the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: on this vote the yeas are 62, the nays are 21. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, department of state,s jessica

lewis of ohio to be an assistant secretary of state. mr. schumer: mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. schumer: first, let me say thank you to the few remaining colleagues, but everyone else also for staying here late into the evening as we continue to confirm these important nominees to the biden administration. now in a few moments i'll be filing cloture on the continuing resolution that was passed by the house of representatives this week. the resolution is the answer for avoiding numerous fast-approaching crises on the horizon, including an unnecessary government shutdown and first-ever default on our country's sovereign debt. members should be advised the cloture vote will take place this coming monday. every single member in this chamber is going on record as to whether they support keeping the

government open and averting a default or support shutting us down and car reasoning our -- careening our country toward a default. at the end of the day, frankly, mr. president, the only thing that matters in a legislative body is how you vote. it's what our constituents sent us here to do. now our republican colleagues say they don't want a shutdown. they say they don't want a credit default. they say they want hurricane aid. then the answer is simple, just vote yes on this bill and it will all get done. but if republicans vote no, as many of them are saying they will, the republican party will solidify itself as the party of default, the party of default. they will endanger every single american in this country, including those who rely on social security and medicare benefits. they will hurt small business,

pensioneers and our veterans. if our republican colleagues want to help the american people avoid calamity, they can vote yes to keep the government open. they can vote yes on suspending the debt limit. it's in their hands. but come monday, if republicans vote in favor of a shutdown and default, the american people will see exactly who is responsible for throwing our country in crisis. they'll be the president requesting this bill, the house having passed this bill, the majority putting the bill on the floor and then the republicans blocking it. who's responsible for the default? so mr. president, i move to proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all those in favor say aye. all opposed no. the ayes appear to have it.

the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. schumer: i move to proceed to calendar number 137, h5305. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: motion to proceed to calendar number 137, h.r. 5305, an act making continuing appropriations for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2022, and for providing emergency assistance and for other purposes. mr. schumer: i send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the cloture motion. the clerk: cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to proceed to calendar number 137, h.r. 5305, an act making continuing appropriations for fiscal year ending september 30, 2022, and so forth and for other purposes, signed by 17 senators as follows. mr. schumer: i ask consent the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection.

mr. schumer: finally, i ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum call for the cloture motion filed today, september 23, be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to executive session to consider calendar number 248, jane toshiko nishida of maryland to be assistant administrator of the environmental protection agency. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, the clerk will report. the clerk: nomination, environmental protection agency, jane toshiko nishida of maryland to be an assistant administrator. the presiding officer: the question is on the nomination. all those in favor say aye. all opposed no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the nomination is confirmed. mr. schumer: i ask consent the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, all without

intervening action or debate, that no further motions be in order to the nomination, that any statements related to the nomination be printed in the record, that the president be immediately notified of the senate's action and the senate resume legislative session. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of h.r. 5293 which was received from the house and is at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: h.r. 5293, an act to amend title 38 united states code to extend and modify certain authorities and requirements relating to the department of veterans affairs, and for other purposes. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read three times and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection.

mr. schumer: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the consideration of h. con. res. 41 which was received from the house and is at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: house concurrent resolution 41 authorizing the use of the capitol grounds for the national peace officers memorial service and the national honor guard and pipe band exhibition. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent the concurrent resolution be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the consideration of senate res. 381 submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 381, proclaiming the week of september 20 through september 24, 2021, to be national clean

energy week. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection, the senate will proceed. mr. schumer: i know of no further debate on the resolution. the p -- the presiding officer: is there further debate? if not, all in favor say aye. opposed no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the resolution is agreed to. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent 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. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the senate now proceed en bloc on the following senate resolutions which were submitted earlier today -- s. res. 382, 383, 384, and 385. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the resolutions en bloc? without objection, the senate will proceed. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent the resolutions be

agreed to, the preambles be agreed to, and the motions to be reconsidered be considered made and laid upon the table, all en bloc. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the consideration of senate resolution 386, submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 386, relative to the death of robert britton bob dove, parliamentarian emeritus of the united states senate. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and that the motions to be reconsidered be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: now, finally, mr. president, finally, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 3:00 p.m. monday, september 27.

that following the prayer and the pledge, the morning business 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 resume consideration of the motion to proceed to calendar 137, h.r. 5305. further, that the cloture motion on the motion to proceed ripen at 5:30 p.m. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. mr. schumer: if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it stand adjourned under the provisions of s. res. 386. the presiding officer: under the previous order, and pursuant to senate resolution 386, the senate stands adjourned until 3:00 p.m. on monday, september september 27, 2021, and does so as a further mark of respect to the late robert britton dove, parliamentarian emeritus of the united states senate.

live when it returns on c-span2.