[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 197 (Thursday, November 30, 2023)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5688-S5690]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                             CLOTURE MOTION

  Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate the pending 
cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
  The assistant bill clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination 
     of Executive Calendar No. 223, Irma Carrillo Ramirez, of 
     Texas, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Fifth 
     Circuit.
         Charles E. Schumer, Christopher A. Coons, Alex Padilla, 
           Mazie K. Hirono, Benjamin L. Cardin, Richard 
           Blumenthal, Sheldon Whitehouse, Peter Welch, Michael F. 
           Bennet, Robert P. Casey, Jr., Martin Heinrich, Jeanne 
           Shaheen, Margaret Wood Hassan, Tina Smith, Ben Ray 
           Lujan, Jack Reed, Gary C. Peters.

  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 Irma Carrillo Ramirez, of Texas, to be United States 
Circuit Judge for the Fifth Circuit, shall be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Fetterman) is necessarily absent.
  Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from North Dakota (Mr. Cramer) and the Senator from Alabama (Mr. 
Tuberville).
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 80, nays 17, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 325 Ex.]

                                YEAS--80

     Baldwin
     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Boozman
     Brown
     Budd
     Butler
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Coons
     Cornyn
     Cortez Masto
     Cotton
     Cruz
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagerty
     Hassan

[[Page S5689]]


     Heinrich
     Hickenlooper
     Hirono
     Hyde-Smith
     Johnson
     Kaine
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     King
     Klobuchar
     Lankford
     Lujan
     Manchin
     Markey
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Ossoff
     Padilla
     Peters
     Reed
     Romney
     Rosen
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Shaheen
     Sinema
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Tillis
     Van Hollen
     Vance
     Warner
     Warnock
     Warren
     Welch
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden
     Young

                                NAYS--17

     Blackburn
     Braun
     Britt
     Crapo
     Daines
     Hawley
     Hoeven
     Lee
     Lummis
     Marshall
     Mullin
     Paul
     Ricketts
     Risch
     Schmitt
     Sullivan
     Thune

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Cramer
     Fetterman
     Tuberville
  (Ms. KLOBUCHAR assumed the Chair.)
  (Mr. PETERS assumed the Chair.)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Butler). On this vote, the yeas are 80, 
the nays are 17.
  The motion was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.


                            China and Russia

  Mr. WICKER. Madam President, this is a difficult topic for me to 
discuss because it is so serious and because the United States has so 
much catching up to do. Two years ago, Congress created the bipartisan 
Congressional Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United States. 
We gave it the job of examining the strengths and weaknesses of our 
national security position.
  The Commission report was released just last month. The report 
comments on an array of military issues, but its findings can be 
distilled to a single alarming fact: China and Russia are increasingly 
able to match our military might. And if we do not act now, the 
consequences will be seismic. Not only could we fail to deter a war, we 
might actually lose the next war.
  The report finds that we are not prepared for what is coming. And 
here is what is coming: For the first time, we must stand up to the 
ambitions of two nuclear-armed peer adversaries in multiple regions of 
the world at the same time. That stunning conclusion means this report 
should be required reading for each of my colleagues.
  And so I directed my staff to deliver a copy of this bipartisan 
report personally to every Senator, and I hope we take its message to 
heart.
  The American military, in particular, our nuclear deterrent, has been 
one of the principal guarantors of global security--not just American 
security but global security--since the late 1940s. Our power crested 
at the end of the 20th century when the Berlin Wall crumbled, and we 
emerged as the world's sole superpower. But regrettably, instead of 
maintaining that competitive edge, we have allowed it to slip away in 
both conventional and strategic deterrents.
  China and Russia watched as we shuttered our shipyards and ammunition 
plants, as we let our ships rust, and as we neglected to replace our 
aging Cold War nuclear arsenal. Then, as successive Presidential 
administrations let defense assets deteriorate, China and Russia poured 
more funds into their weapons stores. They built the kind of weapons 
needed to take us on in a conventional fight and keep us at bay in a 
strategic one.
  This is not one Senator saying this; this is the bipartisan 
Commission that we tasked with investigating this thoroughly. The 
autocrats who ruled China and Russia began paying attention to more 
than our guns and ships. When our satellites and next-generation 
communications capabilities gave us an unbeatable edge in the Gulf war, 
these enemies, adversaries of ours, took notice.
  We could see, communicate, and shoot from farther away than anyone 
else. When we deployed these tools, we inaugurated new ways to protect 
ourselves, cutting-edge technology, not mere masses of metal, would win 
the final argument of nations. But the leaders of Russia and China soon 
came to recognize this also. They began to meet our advances and ensure 
we could never do to them what we had done to Saddam Hussein's military 
in 1991.
  Among the bipartisan Commission's direst findings is the fact that 
China and Russia have largely succeeded. China has built strike 
complexes of their own that make the prospect of war increasingly 
perilous. Their fleet of anti-satellite weapons and cyber warfare 
capabilities could render our military blind, deaf, and mute in a 
potential conflict over Taiwan.
  U.S. victory, and, therefore, deterrence, was once a fait accompli, 
but today we risk war that would shake the foundations of everyday 
American life and the foundations of global peace.
  The consequences of our negligence, together with the Chinese and 
Russian investment, are most acute when it comes to our nuclear 
position, which has been the foundation of our deterrence capability. 
Russian submarines are becoming much more advanced, and China is 
rapidly bringing missile silos online. Meanwhile, our Air Force 
personnel are still using floppy disks to operate missiles that are 
older than their parents, and they are flying bombers that are older 
than their grandparents.
  Our nuclear submarines--the crown jewels of U.S. military power--are 
having to remain at sea longer as our fleet shrinks. Workforce problems 
and maintenance delays hold the fleet back from its potential. The 
AUKUS agreement is a tremendous diplomatic achievement that can be a 
game changer, but it must be implemented correctly. And right now, we 
are short of the attack submarines needed.
  China and Russia now clearly realize that, by joining forces, they 
can help each other reach their goals. China wants to occupy Taiwan, 
and their leader has said they need to be ready to do that as soon as 
2027. Russia wants to puncture NATO's iron wall, and they want to help 
each other to do both. Their sinister intent and increasing 
capabilities make this the most dangerous national security moment we 
have faced in 75 years.
  Paul Nitze, the Pentagon official whose strategic wisdom helped us 
win the Cold War, once said:

       Our fundamental purpose is more likely to be defeated from 
     lack of the will to maintain it, than from any mistakes we 
     may make.

  In other words, the future is ours to lose, but the future is still 
ours. This report recommends several policies that can help us end the 
damaging defense cuts of the past three decades and begin making 
investments we need.
  The Commission's first recommendation is that we rebuild and expand 
the defense industrial base, including the National Nuclear Security 
Administration's nuclear weapons production infrastructure. In 
particular, Congress should partner with the administration and the 
Navy to establish a third public shipyard to conduct submarine 
maintenance. Again, this is the recommendation of a completely 
bipartisan Commission of experts.
  The second proposal builds on the first. We need educational 
institutions and a talent pipeline to bring skilled tradesmen to this 
industrial base. These high-paying, stable, and long-term jobs do not 
require master's or bachelor's degrees. They can advance both national 
security and expand economic opportunity.
  Finally, the report recommends a series of products we should 
prioritize. We need more conventional forces, and we should increase 
procurement of strategic nuclear capabilities like the B-21 and the 
Columbia-class submarine. We need improved missile defenses and rapidly 
deployable theater nuclear forces like the sea-launched cruise missile. 
Delivering these products would put our adversaries on notice and 
reassure our allies at the same time.
  Of course, these actions come with a pricetag, but we have always 
found our defense investments to be both expensive and priceless. It 
will cost money to deter China and Russia and Iran from threatening us, 
but it will cost much, much more--in money and in lives--if we do not. 
In the words of former Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis, ``America can 
afford survival.''
  The good news is that we have done this before. In the late 1970s, 
the Pentagon sowed the seeds of our defense technological revival, even 
as the Carter administration shrank from the world stage. But then in 
1979, the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan. That attack was a wake-up 
call. It taught Washington there is no substitute for superior military 
might.
  Again, Paul Nitze helped form an organization that educated Congress, 
the Carter administration, and the American people about the Soviet 
Union's threat. The result was the Reagan defense buildup that won the 
Cold War.

[[Page S5690]]

  We can do that again, but we must abandon the status quo and start 
thinking big again. The shocking warnings in this report should spur us 
to abandon our inertia and take bold actions that will lead us into the 
next American century.
  I thank the members of this Commission for their years of hard work, 
and I urge my colleagues in both the House and Senate to take note.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KAINE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________