rates in the military than any other ethnic group in the country. special patriotism. mr. sams certainly carries that tradition on quite well. and i have already talked to senator wyden. i intend to -- i intend to work with him and mr. sams, just a few more issues, a few more discussions. again, we had a very good conversation this morning. this is nothing about his qualifications, but i wanted to make sure the administration is aware of some issues, at very high levels, as it relates to this position, this job -- and, again, i agree with my colleague from oregon. this is an extraordinaire -- extraordinarily important agency. it is so important for my state,

i want to explain a little bit for my colleagues, many of whom don't know what the national park services does, but to my state it's enormously important, it's powerful and it can touch on people's lives in huge ways. let me just give you a little bit of the numbers, mr. president. the federal government manages roughly 66% of the lands in alaska. of that the park service controls 55 million acres. two-thirds of all national park service land -- two-thirds of the land that mr. sams will be in charge of are in my state. a lot of people don't recognize that. a lot of people don't recognize that. alaskans understand it. two-thirds. so he is one of the big,

important landlords of the great state of alaska. and, as you can imagine, this agency has outsized influence in alaska beyond what these numbers represent. for hunting, for fishing, for transportation, for culture and for people's livelihoods. and, mr. president, this has been an agency, to be quite frank, that has been abusing its power in alaska for decades. democrat administrations and republican administrations. in 1980, this body passed the alaska national interest lands conservation act, what we call in alaska anilca. the congress took 100 million acres of alaska land. we weren't supportive of it.

100 million acres. that's bigger than almost any state represented in the u.s. senate, bigger than two minnesotas. and a huge part of anicl -- anilca would say how it would interact. they said the way the park service was treating alaskans -- by the way alaska in particular was not according to the law, was not according to anilca. it wasn't just alaskans saying this. in the last two years there have been two united states supreme court decisions where an alaskan who wanted to go hunting sued the national park service and it went all the way to the supreme court. and the u.s. supreme court twice in the last four years, 9-0 --

9-0 agreed with alaskans, that the national park service was not following the law as it related to anilca. as justice kagan, who wrote one of the opinions said, alaska is often the exception, not the rule to issues relating to federal lands and access. now, as you can imagine, the national park service did not getting slammed by the u.s. supreme court twice 9-0, but we liked it. it was a vindication of what alaskans for decades have been saying about the abuse of power of the national park service. so i want to work with senator wyden and mr. sams on further conversations soon -- we're not trying to block this. i know the national park service needs leadership and i think he would be a good leader but to look at making sure the

implementation of these two u.s. supreme court decisions, 9-0, are followed through by the entire bureaucracy. it's not much to ask. these are topics i raised with mr. sams today. he seemed to be in agreement with me but these issues are enormously important to the people i represent. and, mr. president, i'm going to mention one final thing and it's not really in mr. sams' area of expertise, but i mentioned this to him as well. all americans have been experiencing economic pandemic-related pain over the last 20 months. my state, i think, has been hit hard as any other state, particularly on the economic side. and i want to just raise this topic right now because i'm

going to come down to the senate floor and talk about it a lot more here, but it relates to some of these issues. this administration, the biden administration, in the last ten months has issued 19 executive orders or executive actions solely focused on my state -- 19. there's no other state in the country, not maryland, not oregon, no other state in the country that's getting this kind of attention from the new administration, and it's attention that we don't want because almost every one of these executive orders and executive actions is hurting working families, is hurting our economy, is hurting access to our lands at a time when we're already hurting. i just want to ask my colleagues, respectfully -- especially on the other side of the aisle -- can you imagine a

republican administration coming in and saying, we're going to issue 19 executive orders and actions targeting maryland or delaware or oregon or massachusetts? senators would be on the floor, rightfully, sticking up for their states and their fellow citizens. this is a challenging time right now. working families are hurting with inflation, high energy costs, and we have an administration in the white house that thinks it's fine to target the great state of alaska. well, it's not fine. it's not fine. it's a war on working families in my state and i would hope all of my colleagues would recognize that this isn't appropriate. this isn't appropriate. and it's not just these actions, mr. president. the white house has made it known that it's gone to

financial institutions throughout the country, banks, insurance companies, saying don't invest in american energy projects in the arctic. also known as alaska. so i'm not going to hold this against mr. sams, mr. president, my colleague from oregon, i have a lot of respect for. but literally every major project that is resource development, employs people, helps working families -- by the way there are some that aren't economic. there's a law that we passed in the u.s. senate three years ago to help alaska native vietnam veterans. it was my bill. i care deeply about these great warriors who are really screwed by their country when they came home from vietnam. the administration has delayed the implementation of that bill for two years. there will be vietnam veterans -- alaska native vietnam vets in my state who

will die before they get the benefit because they just thought they could do another hit on alaska. so, mr. president, i ask my colleagues to just think about -- put yourself in my state's position. none of you would accept that. and i'm going to start talking about it. and i'm going to start raising these issues, and i hope i can get some of my colleagues, republicans and democrats, to maybe reach out to the white house and say, this isn't really appropriate. alaska's had a rough time, everybody had a rough time, these are just 19 specific ones, there are broader ones that affect us too. i want to work with senator wyden and i want to work with mr. sams, particularly on this issue that i mentioned earlier, i think he is well qualified and his background, especially his navy background and i intend to

lift my hold very soon, mr. president, but right now i'm objecting, but my goal would be to have this nominee who is qualified, after further discussions with me and senator wyden, move to be confirmed by the united united states senatet for now i object. the presiding officer: the objection is heard. the senator from oregon is recognized. mr. wyden: thank you, mr. president. i just want to tell the senate where we are now and -- and what's ahead. i have asked unanimous consent to confirm an oregonian who i have watched in action, chuck sams, to head the national parks service that has gone leaderless for five full years. now, my colleague has said, to his credit, that chuck sams is very well qualified, that he's a good man, that he had good discussions with him.

and i would just say to the senate and my colleague -- my colleague and i have worked together often here in the senate. i remember, as chairman of the finance committee, we had some issues on the budget. and we got together and within 20 minutes we had it worked out. so i would just say to my colleague, i'm ready from this minute on to get together with you, to get together with mr. sams. we're going to be here. it sounds like at least today and then we'll have to see, but i just hope we can work this out because i listened to the senator very carefully and i've been to alaska. i went with your colleague, senator murkowski, when i was chairman of the senate energy committee, and i heard my colleague's concerns. well, to get those kind of concerns addressed, many of them, you've got to have a director, you've got to have

somebody you can hold accountable, somebody you can get on the phone and you can talk to about issues. chuck sams is exactly that kind of person. so i want my colleague to know we're going to be here the rest of today, sounds like some of tomorrow, but we'll have to see. i hope that we can get this work done. i want to pledge to my colleague that i will, myself, be willing to work with him on issues he has with the state just the way we did on those tax concerns with respect to the budget and let's see if we can get this done before we leave this week because the longer we wait -- i mean, just think of the park service here over the holiday. there's going to be a lot of people because the park service is part of the treasures of america who are going to want to enjoy those facilities. so it has real-world consequences. i look forward to working with

my colleague and i hope we can get this done before we leave and i pledge to my colleague i will work with him to respond to his concerns, not just about this nominee and the context of this nominee, but in the context of the concerns he has for his state. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. sullivan: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from alaska is recognized. mr. sullivan: i want to thank my colleague from oregon and i will work with him to get this done before we head out for the recess. we know the treasures in alaska, two-thirds of the parks are in my state which is why i want to medication sure, i -- i want to make sure i have followup conversations. i want to get to issues that matter deeply for the state and you have my commitment to work with you and mr. sams on a few more of these issues and if i may, for all my colleagues, and i'm glad to hear senator wyden mention this -- this shouldn't

be happening with one state. there's a biden white house war on state of alaska. no one is getting treatment like this and it shouldn't be this way. if a republican president were in attacking oregon or maryland, i would be at the white house saying, lay off. i hope my colleagues, republicans and democrats, can send a message to joe biden, the president, that, you know, the war on working families in alaska is not a good idea. they are merntionst americans too -- they are americans too and they have a lot of great resources that we need for our nation. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor.

a senator: mr. president.

the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma is recognized. mr. lankford: thank you. on september 9, president biden told the american people that he was losing patience with them and they need to get vaccinated right now. he laid down a series of executive orders on federal employees, on federal contractors, on companies that had, individuals that had 100 employees or more, on individuals that worked in any health care related, anything that dealt with medicare or medicaid. it reached out to millions of people. he set a date that was within three months, knowing full well it would take months to actually write the rule and it would create choose the country as -- it would create chaos across the country. i believe that was the purpose in writing that deadline. well, mission it accomplished.

it has created chaos across our country and across lots of families. what is the situation right now in america dealing with covid? we're on the backside of our second peak. we've seen hundreds of thousands of people lose their lives to covid. we've seen hospitals fill, get back to order, fill again, get back to order. but in the meantime, three vaccines have been developed, multiple different treatments have been developed, a multitude of tests have been developed, which has been the primary issue that we have every year with the flu. we don't panic yeefer year on the flu because we have testing, we have treatment, we have vaccines. we now have for covid, testing,ing treatment, and vaccines. it becomes much more manageable. in the meantime right at 80% of

all americans who are 12 years old or over have already had at least one dose of one of the vaccines. let me run that past you again. 80% of americans have had at least one dose of one of the three vaccines, of those 12 years old or older. about 45 million americans have recovered from covid. had it, tested positive, and have recovered. the vast majority of americans by far -- like not even close the vast majority of americans have been vaccinated or have recovered from covid or both. but is the administration okay with that? no, they're not. the administration has laid down their own law to say if americans do not get the vaccine, those 20% left that haven't got the vaccine that are 12 years old or older, if they don't get the vaccine, this administration is going to find some way for them to lose their

job, which for many people will also mean lose their insurance, lose their pension, and sometimes lose their home. but the president's response is i don't care. go get the shot. that's what i want you to do. well, mr. president, mission accomplished. let me tell you a story of an individual that works in the eastern part of my state, who works for one of those companies that's 100 people or more. he didn't want to have the vaccine. the reason is not even important. but he said he didn't want to take the vaccine. so what happened in his company of 100 or more? they fired him a couple of weeks ago. you're welcome, mr. president. thanks for firing him. oh, it gets better. he lost his house because he couldn't pay the mortgage. and this adult man has now moved in with his family while he tries to figure out what happens next for him. you know why? because the president said he was losing patience, and he

didn't care if this guy lost his house, lost his job, lost his insurance. the president was just saying go get it or else. well, thanks. right before thanksgiving, he's experiencing the or else. one of my constituents' husband is facing termination. he's from another one of those large companies. he's worked for them for 30 years. he has secret clearance from the d.o.d., and his doctor gave him an exemption because his cardiac numbers fluctuate so much, and he's one of those high-risk individuals for blood clots, which can be a side effect of the vaccines. so his doctor has encouraged him not to take the vaccine. so he went in to his job, he asked for the exemption, the medical exemption, and he was given two forms to sign. the first of the forms said he had to agree to take the vaccination or he would lose his

job. the second form agreed that if he took the vaccination, he would not sue the company if he had a negative reaction. so here's a man who has to choose between taking the vaccine, knowing that his doctor has told him not to do it. and if he does take it, if he has a negative reaction, the company wants to be held harmless for it, and he's got to sign a document saying the company will be held harmless for it, or lose his job. do you know why? because president biden said he was losing patience. so this family gets to sit around over thanksgiving not talking about football, but talking about whether he's going to lose his job or possibly have a blood clot in the hospital. which would you like to have that conversation on over thanksgiving? there's a company who does

electrical engineering that also has one of those federal contracts they talk about. some of the employees don't do the federal contracting. they work for other issues. 50 people of the 250 in the company have said they don't want to take the vaccine, and so they're in the process of losing their jobs, and that company will not be able to fulfill its federal contract because hiring 50 more electricians is not that simple right now with the economy that we're currently in. a constituent told us that her employer is going to lay her off on december 8 because she hasn't had the vaccine yet. so she will spend thanksgiving discussing this with her family as she approaches the time where she's about to be laid off. she works in one of those companies that has a federal contract. she reached out to her primary care doctor who is at the v.a., by the way, and the v.a. instructed her that they're not writing exemptions for medical

exemptions. she's on her own. why? because the president's losing patience, and he's decided he's going to throw all of these families in chaos or they're going to lose their job because he said so. why have i been fighting this mandate since september 9, when the president actually announced it? because it was obvious to me what was coming. it was this. everyone could see it apparently but the white house. americans are stubborn people. that's what's made us the most prosperous freest people in the world. we're entrepreneurs. we take risks. we understand the consequences for our risks. but we also go do because we can. we're americans. and now the president of the united states has announced, i

don't care. you're going to get this or else. so what's the real effect of this? all of this chaos? this is just part of it. there's a whole lot more. how about e.m.s. folks that are in rural oklahoma that are having a hard time actually keeping some of their drivers and folks in because they've chosen not to take the vaccine. what happens in three weeks from now when people get sick at their house or have a heart attack and e.m.s. can't respond because those folks got fired from their jobs because the president said i'm losing patience. what happens? i'll tell you what happens. people die, other families are going to struggle through this process as they're figuring out where they're going to work because they've lost their career because the president said i've lost patience with you. tell me this -- for the person that's the jag officer in the

military, works in the national guard, and for whatever reason, whether it's religious accommodation, medical accommodation, whatever it may be, they choose not to take this vaccine. when they get a dishonorable discharge, what happens to them? they lose their law license is what happens to them. they're disbarred and they're no longer practicing their profession. what happens to the state trooper in oklahoma that also serves on our national guard? when they get dishonorably discharged they don't just lose their military career, they lose their civilian career. what happens to the nurse or the doctor that serves with the national guard? when they get drummed out, what happens? they lose their military career and their civilian career. that's what happens. do you know why? because the president decided he was losing patience with the american people, and they have to do what he says to do. not what they want to do. that's why all this chaos is

happening. i heard from a constituent, 28 years of federal service. 28 years of federal service. i'm not going to give the administration that they work in, but they work behind the scenes in an exceptionally important, exceptionally difficult task, serving their neighbors as a federal employee. she doesn't want to retire, but she doesn't want to take this vaccine either. you know what she's doing? she's retiring. and what's going to happen in this agency in oklahoma when they lose this cornerstone person at this agency? they will struggle to figure out what she did, how she did it. and people in oklahoma will get less help in that agency because a long-term, vital civil servant is about to get run out of civil service because president biden decided he lost

patience with her. that wasn't in her civil service contract. that was never negotiated with any of the collective bargaining rights agreements. never. there is no addition in any collective bargaining rights agreements for federal employees that they have to get a vaccine mandate if the president decides that they do. but he decided -- that is president biden decided -- that he was going to take this on. and so she is going to be discussing over thanksgiving what she's going to do post retirement, wishing she could stay a little longer to build up a few more years, and thought she was going to be able to. but instead she got ran out because she and the president had a difference of opinion about a brand-new vaccine. now i've said to this group before several times, and i'll say it again, i've had the vaccine. i encourage others to take the vaccine. 80% of americans who are 12 years old or older have had the

vaccine. there are plenty of americans that have had the vaccine, that support the vaccine, but do not want their next door neighbor to get fired because they disagree on the vaccine. in fact, i don't know a lot of people that do. i have met some that are just that heartless to be able to say i don't care what you think. i want to feel better, forcing you to go get the vaccine. i met some of those folks. i don't meet many of them. most say, i freely made the decision and they should be table to freely make the decision as well. that's not where the president is and that's not where many of my democratic colleagues are. we have brought an end to the vaccine mandate to multiple committees over multiple places

over the last several months and it gets knocked down every time. just this week we filed a congressional review act dealing with the osha piece, we have another one coming dealing with all of those on c.m.s., to make a simple statement, we have got to stop this vaccine mandate. it is causing chaos in our families, it is causing chaos in our economy, and anyone who doesn't think it is is not talking to people at home. so we'll bring this in the next 18 days to the floor of this senate and we will force a vote to it and put everyone on record, do you stand with the american people that strongly affirm the vaccine but strongly oppose the mandate or will you be one to say, don't care, i stand with the president? i'm losing patience with people, this 20% that hasn't done the

vaccine, i'm losing patience with them and i'm going to force them as well because that decision is coming to every single person in this body. this could be turned off right now and one section of it already is turned off. if this circuit court reached in on the issue of private employers and said that this was way overly broad of the president, no kidding, that it was unconstitutional for the president to reach into companies and to say, i don't care who it is, how important they are to the company, if you don't make them do the vaccine, you have to fire them. the fifth circuit said you cannot do that. thank you, fifth circuit, for finally joining in on that. osha has now said they are not going to enforce that, but there's lots of other companies that have done it anyway. and i will tell you for this individual in eastern oklahoma that's already been fired and lost his house, it's too late

for him for suddenly the biden team to say, just kidding, we're going to pull back. his life has already been wrecked by you. what else has been happening? i reached tout multiple different agency ds out -- reached out to multiple different agencies. by the way, the federal mandate is next week to be able to have it done. when i talked to leaders of agencies of multiple different departments across town, none of them seem to know how many of their employees have been vaccinated yet. none of them. they all say, we think it's quite a few. i say, how many have been vaccinated? we've had an x number who reported to us, but they don't seem to know. it's so chaotic that the federal unions have stepped in -- finally stepped in, finally, i have been shocked at how slow they were to step up for this, they have asked the president

for an extension to say don't make the extension next week, give people more time. people are sitting around thanksgiving deciding whether they are going to keep their job or not and if 10% to 20% of the workforce leaves, we're in such chaos, we'll never able to be finish serving people as we need to do across the federal government. what would i recommend? i had some very frank conversations with the eeoc. when i visited with the e rch oc, -- eeoc, they protect workers whether federal or private. when i talked to the eeoc, what i hear from them is they weren't consulted through the process of developing this new vaccine mandate and all of the exemptions that should be in place. can i tell the workers in my

state and the workers across the country a simple thing? if your employer will not accept your religious accommodation that you put in or your medical examination that you put in, if they do not accept those, you need to go to the eeoc and file a complaint because the eeoc has rules about termination that are inappropriate termination. and if individuals are being terminated from private companies, even if they are federal contractors or if they are federal employees, i encourage you to go to the eeoc and file a complaint if they are not hearing your medical accommodation or religious accommodation. that is your right as an american. when the president of the united states is running over your rights, you have every right to be table to appeal that personally. you don't have to hire an attorney. you can file that complaint on your own to be able to make sure that your employer knows that

you're filing an eeoc complaint against them for inappropriate termination for not accepting your medical exemption and your religious accommodation. interestingly enough, when i approached the office of management and budget about a month ago about how they would handle religious accommodation, they said it is not the business of federal workers to decide an individual's faith, we're going to accept that, but when the document came out, there is a six-part test whether you are religious enough to be able to turn down the vaccine. they literally created a six-part test that every supervisor can go through and check to determine if you're religious enough to be able to turn this down. this would be the first time that i know of that the federal government has actually reached into an entity, to individuals and said, we're going to decide for you how religious you are. that's how crazy this has become. i encourage you again, if individuals have said you're not

religious enough to be able to ask for this accommodation, go to the eoc, file a complaint against your employer, whether it be a federal agency or whether it be a private entity and make sure they are well aware of what's going on. if you work at a federal agency, you have an appeals process at your agency. go through that process. if you're denied or not heard, you do have rights as an american, and i would encourage you to stand up for our rights as an american against unjust hiring and unjust firing in this process. let me read this last letter to you. as we have fought through this process and find every leverage point i can find for the people in my state to be able to make their own decisions, it has been difficult to be able to talk to people in the dug and the

strug -- and the strug thals they have -- struggles that they have. let me read one. this gentleman wrote to me. i retired after 20 years of active service to enjoy time with my family and enjoy the blessings of supreme peace that our country has beyond human measure. now many of our undaunted service members and veterans alike face unemployment because we refuse to take a vaccine. some are being coerced into taking it because they can't support their families while unemployed, the very people who risked their lives and the well-being of their children face persecution for a personal medical choice. his comment to me, this is not american. i agree. that's why we're fighting this. that's why we'll continue to be able to push this. that's why we're bringing a

congressional review act to put every single person in this body on record, do you support forcing people to take a vaccine or be fired or not? i do not. and i hope 99 other of my colleagues also do not. i yield the floor. a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from kansas something recognized. mr. moran: i rise to express my opposition to president biden's nominee to be the comptroller of the united states.

the comptroller of the currency is a prominent and influence position that regulates and supervises all national banks. given the undeniable importance of this position to the economy it has been kept free of extreme views. while i talk about the comptroller of banks, what my concerns are are certainly more than just the financial institutions that are in our country's economy, it's the people, the customers that are served that bother me or worry me the most. rather than offer practical ideas for strengthening our nation's banks, dr. omarova advocates for the elimination of all commercial banks, the very financial institutions she should be interested in partnering with, instead she wants to have them deal with one bank. while the comptroller might not

have control of the federal reserve strughture, this can be be understated. she is a member of the financial institution council and even the board of the fdic, an agency that dr. omarova hopes to eliminate. although the doctor claims to support community banks, the plan would regulate them to mere franchises of the federal reserve and it has alarmed many kansas community bankers. they have grave concerns about her policies that she would, quote, end banking as we know it. one kansas banker told me, i have severe concerns of the president's nominee of the comptroller of the currency, her commentary in favor of abolishing the fdic moves the banking system toward a government-controlled financial system, ee limb the naturing the dual banking system would be disastrous for entrepreneurs and consumers alike.

another banker from kansas said we expect the regulator to have safety and soundness for the banking system, not to force feed social agenda items to us. local lenders, i know this in the state of kansas, local lenders are the cornerstones in many small towns and the comptroller should appreciate the value community banking brings, what i call relationship banking. they provide crucial lending services for the underbanked in rural and urban areas alike, eliminating the one-on-one personal approach that allows community banks to thrive will do permanent damage to personal inclues civility and push people out of the financial system. i said to my colleagues in washington, d.c., that economic development in many places in kansas is whether or not there's a grocery store in town. it didn't take me too long to realize that that answer of whether or not there's a grocery store in town revolves around

whether there's a community bank, a relationship bank in town, one one that makes the decision on the wellness and the ability to repay the loan. how can i make my community and my customers better off through the way this bank operates? another kansas banner noted that dr. omarova is looking to -- with the banking model that would provide no incentive for new products, consumers would no longer benefit from the financial modernization that brought so many people into the banking sector, to many customers to the banking sector. they are best deserved by competitively priced loans and let's lenders invest back in their local communities. we must continuously work to improve our financial sector for everyone but forcing consumers to bank with the government

would do so much more harm than good. kansans want less government in their lives new york city more, as -- lives, not more as this would be. under dr. omarova's proposal they would be able to control investments in socially sub optimal, unquote, activities. subjective definition that can stifle investment .is she believes the federal bureaucrats should hand pick who gains access to credit all but ensuring leftist ideas would be funded. confirming her to this office would provide dr. omarova with ample opportunity to deny funding to companies she finds unfavorable including bankrupting companies. she cheers on companies' bankruptcies families go without income and that american dream so important to all of us is

crushed. the doctor's confirmation only deepened my concerns, her radical views have no place in the role of a nation's top bank regulator. she's entitled to her view, she entitled to her radical views, but not as the nation's top bank regulator. by nominations dr. open rove va, president biden looks to fundamentally reshape bamplegging for market driven industry to a one-size-fits-all government entity. the thought of a centrally planned economy and banking system like that is not only unworkable but it's radical, radically wrong. even if these ideas are just for the sake of some academic thought, she has consequential impacts. this is a powerful position and we cannot -- we would take her views lightly at her own risk. i urge my colleagues to reject

this nominee and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from can sasse. mr. moran: i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from maryland is recognized. mr. cardin: i ask consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cardin: madam president, 12 years ago this tuesday, russian tax lawyer sergey mit nits i ask died in moscow at the hands of prison guards who instead of treating him for the acute illness that his tortuous year long detention provoked, beat him for over an hour. he was found dead in his cell shortly thereafter. his crime was exposing the

largest tax fraud in russia's history perpetrated by government officials. he was 37 years old and left a loving family and many friends. the helsinki commission which i chaired we had heard of sergey months earlier and we were saddened and outraged that such a promising life had been cut short and so few expected his murderers be held to any account. impunity for the murder of journalists, activist, opposition politicians and now simply an honest citizen was and remains a depressing cliche in russia under vladimir putin's rule. while his regime often ruthlessly punishes people for minor infractions of the law. for those on the wrong side of the kremlin, the message is clear and chilling. even the most damning evidence will not suffice to convict the

guilty, nor will the most exemplary evidence spare the innocent. the need for justice in russia and this specific case is not diminished with the passage of time. moreover the doubling down on the cover-up of sergey's murder and the massive tax -- he exposed implicates a wider swath of russian officials with the guilt of this heinous crime. it does not need to be this way. nor is it ever too late for reckoning in this case in the very courtroom that hosted the show trials that ultimately led to sergey's death. as sober as this occasion is, there's reason for hope. vladimir putin will not rule russia forever and every passing day brings us closer to that moment when someone new will occupy his post. who that person will be and whether this transition will ush near a government in russia that respects the rights of its

citizens and abides by its international commitments remains unclear. i hope it does. a russian government that returns to the responsible european powers would increase global security, enhance the prosperity of its own citizens and trading partners and bring new vigor to tackling complex international challenges such as climate change. sergei's work lives on in his many colleagues and friends who are gathering in london this week to celebrate his life and recognize others like him would seek justice and peace in their countries, often facing insurmounting and seemingly impossible obstacles. all too often they pay a heavy price for their courageous integrity. sergei's heroic legacy is exemplified in the global movement for justice sparked by his death and in the wrath of magnitsky laws that began in this chamber and have spread to

over a dozen countries, including allies like canada, the united kingdom and the european union. even as these laws help protect our country's -- countries from the corrupting blood money and deny abusers the privilege of traveling to our shores, they also remind those who suffer human rights abuses at the hands of their own governments that we have not forgotten them. sergei magnitsky is remembered to all of us that one person can make a difference. choosing the truth over lies and sacrificing over comfort, sergei made a difference that will never be forgotten. 55 years ago senator robert f. kennedy addressed the national union of south african students and spoke about human liberty. he spoke about freedom of speech and the right to affirm one's membership in the -- to society. he also speak about commen rat

freedom to be heard, and he stated government must be limited in its power to act against his people so there may be no arbitrary imposition of pains or penalties on ordinary citizens by officials high or low. senator kennedy went on to say, each time a man stands up for an ideal or acts to improve the lot of others or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope and crossing each other from a million different centers of energy and daring, these ripples build a current which can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance. madam president, sergei magnitsky stood up for an ideal. he acted to improve the lots of others. he struck at injustice. he was and remains a ripple of hope. on this sad anniversary of

sergei magnitsky's murder, let us all recommit ourselves to helping those in russia and around the world who seek their rightful share in the government of their own countries and who deserve the confidence of doing so without fear of harm. if we do this, sergei will not have died in vain. i am confident that there will be a monument in stone and bronze to sergei in his native russia. until that day, the law that bears his name -- wall that bears his name will serve as his memorial. with that i would suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

she she mr. president? she she mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire the presiding officer: the

executive calendar number 437, julianne smith of michigan to be unction permanent representative on the counsel of the north atlantic treaty organization and the senate vote on the nomination without intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, department of state, julianne smith of michigan to be united states permanent representative on the counsel of the north atlantic treaty organization. the presiding officer: the question is on the nomination. all in favor say aye. all opposed no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the nomination is confirmed. mrs. shaheen: mr. president, i ask the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, all without intervening absence or debate, no further motions be in order to the nomination, any statements related to the nomination be printed in the record, and that the president be immediately notified of the

senate's action and the senate resume legislative session. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. shaheen: thank you. mr. president, i would also like to speak to jewel my smith and her qualifications to be ambassador to nato. the presiding officer: the senator is recognized. mrs. shaheen: julie is very well qualified to represent the united states with our biggest and most significant security alliance. her 25-year career has focused on transatlantic relations and security, and she served the country as deputy national security adviser and acting national security adviser to then-vice president biden. in 2012 she was awarded the office of the secretary of defense medal for exceptional public service. she's worked at some of the country's most esteemed think tanks that address european issues and as the u.s. confronts challenges around the world, we

need to convey our firm commitment to our allies and our alliances. and for this reason it is absolutely critical that we put julie smith in place as ambassador to nato as soon as possible and i'm really very pleased that those who had a hold on her nomination have finally lifted those holds. it's unfortunate that it's taken so long because as we look at what's happening in eastern europe and particular -- in particular, as we look at the migrants who have -- who are being used by belarus and i assume that vladimir putin is behind this as well to send those migrants to the polish border as a way to distract from what's happening in eastern europe, clearly the more equipped nato is to help deal with those challenges the better. if we're going to participate with nato, we need to have an

ambassador on the ground, should have happened several months ago when she was nominated. so i'm very pleased that she's going to be able to assume her ambassadorship very soon. as cochair of the nato senate group, i look forward to,ing with her in her new role but this should serve as a wake-up call to those people in this chamber who continue to have holds on critical nominees important to this country's national security. as i talk to u.s. allies, it's clear that the delay in sending ambassadors to posts around the world is having a real impact on our relations with our partners, and in the absence of u.s. representation, they are questioning our commitment to our bilateral relationship. now, i would like to think that my colleagues who have put these holds on our nominees aren't doing it in an effort to undermine america's security and

to undermine this administration and protecting the united states. but clearly that's the impact of what they are doing. i've heard from a lot of my colleagues over the last months about u.s. standing in the world after our withdrawal from afghanistan. but as they are blocking administration nominees who would work with our allies, who would engage in our shared priorities and values, who would listen to concerns and who could work together, they are just exacerbating any issues that may exist. i don't know why they're doing this. but right now there are 58 other state department nominees who are waiting confirmation on the floor and every day that passes that we have no ambassador in place in countries around the world, our national security is compromised. and i've got a very close to home example. earlier today i met with diane

folly, the mother of the first american killed by isis. she has done yeoman's work with her foundation to try and help the families of hostages who are being held in countries around the world. and she was talking about what we could do to help those families and do everything to try and help them get their loved ones back to free the hostages who are being wrongly held around the world. well, one of the things we talked about is the fact that in many of those countries, we don't have ambassadors because we have holds on those folks who are so important to help those families, to help address american interests in those countries. and so what our colleagues are doing by holding up these nominees is undermining the national security of the united states. by grinding to a halt our state department nominees, a small

group of my republican colleagues have allowed partisan brinkmanship to pervade a critical aspect of our national security. there is a very important principle established after world war ii about partisan politics ending at the water's edge. it's unfortunate that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are not continuing to support that principle. we are stronger and safer when our diplomatic core, those individuals who support americans and u.s. foreign policy around the world are supported by capable senate vetted and senate confirmed ambassadors. so, mr. president, i hope we will see in the coming weeks a willingness of those few people -- it's only two or three people on the other side of the aisle who have held people up, that they will release those holds in

the best interests of america and of our security. thank you and i yield the floor. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

ms. warren: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts is recognized are. ms. warren: mr. president, are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: we are. ms. warren: i ask that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without

objection. ms. warren: thank you, mr. president. i rise to speak in opposition to the national defense authorization act. as written, this legislation authorizes $778 billion in defense spending just for next year alone. that is more money than we spent on defense during the korean or vietnamese wars. it is even more money than we spent at the height of the extraordinary reagan defense buildup in the 1980's. now congress is set to pass this bill with virtually no debate and with virtually no discussion about how much money we're spending. congress keeps the spigot of cash wide open so long as it's for defense. and please note that not one single dollar of this huge defense budget will be offset either with new taxes or with new spending cuts someplace else. meanwhile, do you know how much

money the president's build back better plan will cost on average each year if congress passes it? $175 billion. that is about one-fifth the size of this defense bill. and unlike this defense bill, every single dollar of the president's plan will be offset with new revenue or savings. but here's the thing. when we want to invest $175 billion a year on child care and paid family leave and expanding access to health care and fighting the climate crisis, and when we're going to offset every single dollar for those new expenses, everybody suddenly becomes so very concerned about spending. when we want to make investments that directly benefit people across this country, we're told that costs too much, or that's socialism. but when we spend nearly five

times that amount of money in the defense bill, it is just a shrug of the shoulders. look around this chamber. it is empty. and let's be clear where most of this defense money is going. it's largely going to the defense industry. the pentagon will take this money and give approximately $400 billion to contractors. that's nearly 40% that will go -- and nearly 40% of that will go to a handful of giant contractors. this is a huge amount of money in an ordinary year. but two years into a global pandemic that's killed 765,000 americans, it is irresponsible to spend this much money on stuff that isn't saving americans from what's actually killing them. america's spending priorities

are completely misaligned, and the threats americans actually are facing, the things that are quite literally endangering their lives, like covid-19 and the climate crisis, don't get this kind of attention. let me be clear, we can spend far less money on defense and still protect americans and american interests. and you don't have to take my word for it. the congressional budget office recently published a report outlining three, three different avenues for cutting $1 trillion in defense spending over the next decade. none of the three proposals were even close to radical. and, by the way, none of them achieved any savings from nuclear modernization, contract spending, and closing bases. and before somebody cranks up the outrage machine, let me say i do not believe that we should

spend nothing on defense. there are real threats to our nation and real interests that we must defend. there are some situations that may require military solutions, but in defense bill goes far beyond that threshold. this bill continues to feed into the wrongheaded idea that america's strength can only be measured by our military domination. this bill is another example of congress granting the pentagon virtually unlimited resources while at the exact same moment pinching pennies on things that will make the american economy work for our children and for our seniors, for workers and students and retirees, for everyone who isn't part of a tiny, little slice at the top. these misplaced priorities chip away at the strength of our

nation, and ironically they undermine the foundation upon which our military is built. if we don't come to recognize this soon, then all this money will have been wasted and the world's most powerful military will rest on a foundation of sand. there are important and valuable provisions in this defense bill. there are even places where we should spend more money, like on cyber defense. but it is long past time for us to rationalize the pentagon's budget and align it with the threats we actually face. and this defense bill, like so many before it, fails miserably to do that. for that reason, i will vote against it. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor, and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. grassley: a november 15

announced it completed its fourth consecutive annual audit and received its fourth consecutive failing opinion. this is what the pentagon believes. if it somehow merely just conducts an audit, then somehow conducting that audit, it's a success, despite the fact that it's been a requirement under the law for the last 30 years for agencies, and that means all government agencies to conduct and pass an annual audit. the department of defense is about the only one that doesn't meet the requirements of law. the department points to other signs of progress, such as they were able to downgrade one

material weakness from a previous audit and the closure of some 450 adverse findings that somehow is progress. and it's not progress. at least it doesn't meet the demands of the law. however, the fact remains that the department of defense is unable to accurately account for billions of taxpayer dollars it spends each year. funding for the department of defense is crucial to our national security. men and women who volunteer to wear the uniform and defend our country, these people deserve to be well paid and well equipped.

in light of the rising threats around the globe, it's more crucial than ever that not one dollar is lost to fraud, waste, and abuse. a clean audit, which the defense department hasn't ever had, is the key to whether department of defense money is spent responsibly. in key underlying problem -- a key underlying problem to the continued failed audits is the financial management systems used by the various military departments. the department of defense uses hundreds of different financial systems that are outdated and are unable to communicate with each other. it cannot generate reliable strans action data --

transaction data and are not auditable. they are in -- their inadequate internal controls in financial analyst systems presenting an environment that's ripe for waste and fraud. without internal controls at the transaction level, military leaders can never know how much more things cost. i tried to work with leaders in the department on this subject for years but time and again i've been disappointed. the defense department's inability or unwillingness to make necessary changes should be unacceptable to any senator. i filed an amendment to a bill before the senate this year to

address the root cause of the pentagon's failed audits. the underlying bill provides for an independent commission tasked with examining the budgeting and planning processes at the pentagon. my amendment will require that very same commission to also make recommendations on bringing financial management systems up to snuff. the department of defense will never be able to get a clean audit opinion while these systems remain unfixed and the department of defense has demonstrated an inability or unwillingness to deploy an accounting system capable of capturing payment transactions and generating reliable data. if you can't follow the money,

you will never be able to get a clean audit. i'm glad that my amendment has been included in the substitute amendment of the defense bill before the united states senate now and i urge my colleagues to support this effort through to final passage to finally make real progress towards getting to a clean opinion. fiscal accountability and military readiness are not mutually exclusive. it's not an either or scenario. earning a clean bill of fiscal health would strengthen military readiness and boost support for necessary increases to defense spending in congress and it would get the backing of the american people to a greater extent than it does today. i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call: