[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 109 (Wednesday, June 23, 2021)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4720-S4723]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                               RETAIN ACT

  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, last year, the Federal Communications 
Commission approved an application by Ligado Networks to repurpose the 
Federal spectrum in a way that will drastically interfere with GPS and 
satellite communications. This a big deal. There are so many people who 
understand this situation. There is a list of companies behind us that 
grows every day. Almost every company in America that you know of or 
have heard of--their name is on this list.
  The decision that was made will threaten GPS and satellite 
communications reliability for millions of Americans who depend on it. 
The reliability of GPS and satellite communications is necessary for 
safety of life operations, national security, and economic activity.
  I am going to pause here for a minute to drive home what this 
actually means for every American because people don't know this. They 
don't know how important GPS is. Yet there is not an American I can 
think of by description who isn't using it every day. So if something 
happens to it, there is a serious problem. Here are some of the day-to-
day activities that would be difficult when experiencing GPS 
interference from Ligado.
  A big one--using your credit card or your debit card. When you are 
making a purchase or using an ATM, our financial systems rely on GPS 
timing in order to work.
  Another one--making a phone call. Cell phone networks rely on GPS to 
synchronize cell towers so calls can be passed seamlessly. If they 
experience interference, your call could be dropped when moving from 
one tower to another.
  Another one that people are not aware of and don't expect is energy, 
whether that is filling up your tank with gas at the pump or electrical 
grids to light our homes. We rely on GPS timing to safely operate 
underground pipelines and our electricity grid.
  Farmers and ranchers--this is something that a lot of people are not 
aware of, but they depend on GPS and satellite communications when 
planting crops, applying fertilizer, and during harvesting operations 
to move large and critical machinery with precision.

  Working out--a lot of people don't. I don't as much as I used to, but 
a lot of people do. They say that one-fifth of the population, 20 
percent of the population, of all Americans, use a fitness tracker or a 
smartwatch. The majority have used GPS to count steps to track 
distance. We all know that. You see them out there every day. They 
depend on GPS.
  Taking a flight--I have been involved in aviation for over 70 years 
now and had occasion with three friends to fly around the world in 1991 
using GPS. At that time--it may have been the first--the equipment I 
used was a Trimble TNL 2000. Trimble is one of the big GPS companies. I 
was using one, the TNL 2000. At that time, that may have been--we are 
checking to see--the first time that had been used for private

[[Page S4721]]

aviation, flying all the way around the world. Again, that is GPS, and 
that was 1991.
  Driving around right now, each day, countless Americans rely on 
Google Maps, Waze, Apple Maps, and any other navigation system to get 
them from point A to point B. While no one hopes to ever need a 
firetruck or an ambulance or the 9-1-1 operators, the EMS, they use GPS 
on a daily basis.
  There is more--weather forecasting, the movement of goods on our 
highways, surveying maritime harbors, channels, and everything else. 
The list goes on and on.
  How do we know that Ligado will cause interference? The FCC told us 
when they approved the Ligado order. I will read that now because 
people need to understand. I guess you could say we were warned.
  The FCC said in their document--that was the document they used on 
their approval order. They said:

       Ligado shall expeditiously repair or replace as needed any 
     U.S. Government GPS devices that experience or are likely to 
     experience harmful interference from Ligado's operations.

  That is a quote. That is what they said. That is what the FCC said at 
that time.
  Over 21 organizations and companies and industries filed petitions 
for reconsideration after the order was released, documenting the 
damage they would face from the Ligado interference. This thing right 
behind me is now up to 82; it was 78 this morning. The list goes on and 
on. You can hardly think of a corporation in America that isn't on this 
list. So it is something that is a very serious problem and widespread.
  Here is one way to put the interference into perspective. Because GPS 
signals travel from satellite in space, by the time those signals get 
to Earth's surface, they are low power. Because the FCC order allows 
Ligado to repurpose spectrum to operate a terrestrial-based network, 
Ligado's signals on Earth's surface will be much more powerful than 
GPS, causing substantial and harmful interference.
  While the FCC required Ligado to repair damage to Federal Agencies 
that results from the interference, congressional action is needed 
because the FCC's Ligado order fell short in two important ways.
  First, the order did not provide an adequate description of costs to 
the Federal Agencies that would result from Ligado's interference.
  We took bipartisan steps to correct this last year in the NDAA.
  The NDAA is the largest bill of the year. I happen to have been for 
several years the chairman of this thing. The NDAA is the national 
defense authorization bill. It does all the things that we do in the 
military. So that is the bill we are talking about.
  We included in that bill a provision directing the Department of 
Defense to produce an estimate of damages and costs associated with the 
harmful interference to GPS. We also directed DOD--Department of 
Defense--and the National Academy of Sciences to conduct an independent 
technical review of the harmful interference that Ligado can cause.
  Secondly, the FCC failed to require that Ligado bear the costs of 
interference in State governments or pay for interference to devices 
owned by individual users. Now, we are talking about all Americans out 
there now--not just government, not State government, not Federal 
government, but everyone else, these individual users. I talked already 
about how many ways we rely on GPS in everyday life. None of that would 
be protected from interference under the existing Ligado order.
  That is why I am introducing legislation--it is a long name, but I am 
going to say it anyway. It is called the Recognizing and Ensuring 
Taxpayer Access to Infrastructure Necessary for GPS and Satellite 
Communications Act, 2021. Got that? All right. I call it the RETAIN 
Act. That is a little more accurate and easy to understand.
  My legislation ensures that Federal Agencies, State governments, and 
all others negatively impacted by the actions of a private actor are 
not left holding the bag when it comes to costs, the amount of money it 
would cost to rectify, and, worse, aren't put in a position where they 
have to push the costs onto the American consumers.
  Why is this legislation necessary? Reliable GPS and satellite 
communications are important to everyone in the world and drive much of 
the Nation's economy. That is why I am going to ask my colleagues to 
embrace, endorse, and cosponsor this legislation. Otherwise, others may 
be forced to pay for damage that is done by the system.
  Anyway, I am going to ask our colleagues to join me in cosponsoring 
this legislation. If we don't do this and something happens, then it 
will be paid for not by those responsible parties but by the taxpayers.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from New York.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 1520

  Mrs. GILLIBRAND. As if in legislative session, I ask unanimous 
consent that at a time to be determined by the majority leader in 
consultation with the Republican leader, the Senate Armed Services 
Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 1520 and the 
Senate proceed to its consideration; that there be 2 hours of debate, 
equally divided in the usual form, and that upon the use or yielding 
back of that time, the Senate vote on the bill with no intervening 
action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. INHOFE. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mrs. GILLIBRAND. I rise for the 14th time to call for every Senator 
to have the opportunity to consider and cast their vote on the Military 
Justice Improvement and Increasing Prevention Act, which would ensure 
that servicemembers who have been subject to sexual assault and other 
serious crimes get the justice they deserve.
  For nearly a decade, the DOD has argued that removing convening 
authority from command, as our bill does, would undermine military 
readiness and good order and discipline. But yesterday, our Secretary 
of Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin endorsed the Independent Review 
Commission's recommendation that sexual assault and related crimes be 
moved from the chain of command to trained military prosecutors.
  It is historic. It is historic that we have, for the first time ever, 
a Secretary of Defense agreeing that good order and discipline does not 
rest on a commander deciding whether a case goes forward or not.
  But we have to remember that the limited changes he endorsed come 
from a panel that was only asked to look at one type of crime. They 
were specifically asked to look at ways to solve the problem of 
military sexual assault and harassment. They drilled down on those 
issues of sexual assault, sexual harassment, domestic violence, and 
child abuse, and they agreed that all of those crimes must be taken out 
of the chain of command and put in the hands of specialized, highly 
trained military prosecutors. They see no conflict with making those 
changes and retaining command control.
  I remind my colleagues the mission we are tasked with is larger than 
the mission that the IRC was tasked with. Our job is to provide our 
servicemembers with a military justice system that is worthy of the 
sacrifices they make for our country every day. That is why our bill 
addresses the fundamental flaw in the military justice system that puts 
the fate of our servicemembers in the hands of commanders who often 
know both the accuser and the accused and are not trained lawyers.
  Our reform draws a bright line and moves all serious crimes, which 
can lead to serious consequences, to independent military prosecutors.
  Secretary Austin's endorsement of the IRC's reforms makes it clear 
that he understands what we understand--convening authority is not 
necessary for maintaining command control or

[[Page S4722]]

for maintaining good order and discipline. Right now, 97 percent of 
commanders maintain good order and discipline without having convening 
authority for general court-martial. Only 3 percent, level 06 and 
above, have that unique authority.
  Our allies have drawn a similar bright line. They decided that in 
their military, serious crimes should be taken out of the chain of 
command and given to trained prosecutors. They have told us, through 
letters and testimony, that they saw no diminution in command control 
or good order and discipline.
  Good order and discipline rests not on the commander's ability to act 
as judge and jury but on their ability to do their job of instilling a 
culture of respect between servicemembers and instilling a command 
climate where these types of actions aren't tolerated.
  There is no reason to continue to subject servicemembers to a system 
where commanders, rather than trained military prosecutors, are 
deciding which cases go to trial. We must move decisions about whether 
to move forward on cases dealing with serious crimes to the most 
qualified, most highly trained person. That would be trained military 
prosecutors. That is all that our bill does. That is what the Military 
Justice Improvement and Increasing Prevention Act does.
  In addition to having a filibuster-proof support in the Senate, this 
is now a bipartisan, bicameral piece of legislation. This morning, I 
stood with Congresswoman Speier, Speaker Pelosi, Congressman Turner, 
and a bipartisan group of Members in the House as they introduced this 
version of the legislation. The bipartisan support we have in the House 
includes Republicans with years of military service--former JAGs, 
former commanders. We had a general from the Republican Party stand up 
and support that bill this morning.

  Not only do they understand the importance of having a military 
justice system that is impartial and highly trained but also the 
importance of command and what their role is. We have a great deal of 
bipartisan support.
  This type of bipartisan, bicameral support is rare. It speaks to the 
importance of this reform, the importance of us meeting our obligation 
to provide oversight of our military, and the importance of serving 
those who serve our country in uniform.
  This morning, we were also joined by the sisters of Vanessa Guillen. 
Her youngest sister Lupe talked about what happened to Vanessa. She 
said: ``The system that we have now failed my sister, [and] it's up to 
us to change [it].''
  To change the system that failed Vanessa, moving just sex crimes out 
of the chain of command would not be enough. She was murdered. We must 
move all serious crimes, including murder, to independent, impartial 
military prosecutors.
  This morning, Lupe said: ``Someone will always have to suffer for 
someone to care--but that stops now and it stops with us.''
  It is time for us to do the job right, to prove Lupe right. Our 
servicemembers, as Secretary Austin said, deserve nothing less.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MORAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                               Filibuster

  Mr. MORAN. Madam President, earlier this week--in fact, yesterday--
the Senate Democrats attempted an unprecedented power grab in the 
Senate that, in my view, clearly would have affected the sanctity of 
our elections and violated our Constitution.
  S. 1 was one of the most monstrous bills I have seen during my time 
in Congress, and it certainly didn't meet my standard of doing things 
that are constitutional.
  In doing so yesterday, the Senate Democrats underscored for me 
something I thought I knew well, and they reaffirmed it, and that is 
the importance of maintaining the legislative filibuster, the 60-vote 
threshold for legislation.
  I am sorry we went down the path of changing the rules for judges, 
then for the Supreme Court, and now, potentially, for legislation. 
Sixty votes is a good thing. Sixty votes allow--people say they want us 
to work together--60 votes require us to do that. In the absence of 60-
vote rule, everything becomes political. In the absence of 60-vote 
rule, there is no certainty.
  A party in power, one that has the majority of the Senate, the 
President--the election changes, and there is a new majority, and then 
we change what we just passed 2 years before. There is nothing good for 
job creation and economic security. There is nothing good for families 
and trying to figure out what is next in their life when the law can 
change every time a new, a different party has the majority in the U.S. 
Senate and House or there is a new President.
  My view is that what happened yesterday was not by design. As a 
matter of fact, the vote, among others, was designed to fail in order 
to pressure Democratic Senators into altering the rules of the Senate 
and render this place a majority-run institution.
  Democrats achieved control--the voters gave them control of both 
Chambers of the Congress and the White House--and are convinced that 
they have a mandate to erode the governing norms of the Senate. By my 
count, the Senate stands at an evenly divided, 50-50, and the majority, 
by a slight number, Democrats have in the House of Representatives. 
Surely, this is hardly a mandate for a radically progressive agenda, 
much less changing the threshold for which minority rights are 
protected and bipartisan cooperation is promoted.
  Should the legislative filibuster meet its demise at the hands of 
this Senate because Democrats decide on a majority vote, that the rules 
that have been in place for decades should be changed overnight on a 
whim, the august U.S. Senate will be condemned to a partisan spectacle.
  The idea that everything should be decided by one vote means that 
everything here becomes political and that the American people become 
even more partisan. If every vote in the U.S. Senate--every outcome--is 
determined by one person, then politics become the passion of the 
American people by necessity. The 60-vote rule is designed to moderate 
both sides of a question, to bring us together, to pull us to the 
middle in something that is more acceptable to the American people than 
anything we might decide if we could decide it on our own, Republican 
or Democrat. It means that every citizen would feel the need to lobby 
us.
  The normal course of life becomes much more about politics. While 
politics is important to the country and while it is important for the 
American people to be engaged, they send us here to make decisions. 
That 60-vote rule allows us to make decisions that are more acceptable 
to them so they can spend their lives living their lives, not worrying 
about what, on any given day, the U.S. Senate might pass.
  I don't think the motivation by the Senate Democrats is what it may 
seem to some. The suggestion is that we can't seem to pass any 
legislation here. I read this week in the Wall Street Journal an 
editorial, an op-ed piece, by Mike Solon and Bill Greene, and this was 
a comment that stood out to me:

       The movement to end the filibuster is less about a Senate 
     that doesn't work than it is about a socialist agenda that 
     doesn't sell.

  The idea that everything is decided on the margin of one means that 
we become politics, that politics rules in this country. The freedoms 
and liberties that the American people enjoy every day because they can 
rely on not radical change but modest change--on improvements day by 
day, not improvements overnight--means that we have a different 
country. We certainly would have a different Senate, but a consequence 
of having a different Senate means America is not what it is today.
  Again, I say this in a way that would, I hope, remind my colleagues 
on both sides of the aisle: I stand ready to work on many issues on 
which we can bring ourselves together. I hope this week--tomorrow, 
today--that we learn there is an infrastructure agreement, a bipartisan 
agreement. This isn't a belief that I have the ability to dominate the 
agenda of the U.S. Senate or that one party should. It is a reminder 
that America is better when we work together and that eliminating the 
60-vote

[[Page S4723]]

rule, ending the filibuster, changes America for the worse.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
scheduled vote proceed immediately.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.


                      Vote on Boardman Nomination

  The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the Boardman 
nomination?
  Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 52, nays 48, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 248 Ex.]

                                YEAS--52

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Collins
     Coons
     Cortez Masto
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Hickenlooper
     Hirono
     Kaine
     Kelly
     King
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Lujan
     Manchin
     Markey
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Murphy
     Murray
     Ossoff
     Padilla
     Peters
     Reed
     Rosen
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Sinema
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warnock
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--48

     Barrasso
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Braun
     Burr
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Grassley
     Hagerty
     Hawley
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Inhofe
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Lankford
     Lee
     Lummis
     Marshall
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Portman
     Risch
     Romney
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Shelby
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Tuberville
     Wicker
     Young
  The nomination was confirmed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ossoff). Under the previous order, the 
motion to reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table, and 
the President will be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

                          ____________________