[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 174 (Monday, October 4, 2021)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6882-S6887]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          LEGISLATIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

         PROMOTING PHYSICAL ACTIVITY FOR AMERICANS ACT--Resumed

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of the House message to accompany S. 1301, which 
the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       House message to accompany S. 1301, a bill to provide for 
     the publication by the Secretary of Health and Human Services 
     of physical activity recommendations for Americans.

  Pending:

       Schumer motion to concur in the amendment of the House to 
     the bill.
       Schumer motion to concur in the amendment of the House to 
     the bill, with Schumer amendment No. 3835, to change the 
     enactment date.
       Schumer amendment No. 3836 (to amendment No. 3835), of a 
     perfecting nature.
       Schumer motion to refer the bill to the Committee on 
     Finance, with instructions, Schumer amendment No. 3837, to 
     change the enactment date.
       Schumer amendment No. 3838 (to (the instructions) amendment 
     No. 3837), of a perfecting nature.
       Schumer amendment No. 3839 (to amendment No. 3838), of a 
     perfecting nature.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. I ask consent to speak as if in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                              Debt Ceiling

  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I listened closely to the speech by the 
Republican Senate leader, and I have heard statements made over the 
weekend on television. I think this is a moment where we might consider 
for just a minute or two a lesson on Senate 101 so there is an 
understanding of where we are and why we are at this place.
  There are 100 Members of the Senate. Currently, there are 50 
Democrats and 50 Republicans. Under the ordinary course of business, 
which has become extraordinary in this Chamber, a majority rules, so 51 
votes will pass an amendment or a bill in most cases.
  However, there is a creature in the Senate known as a filibuster, and 
the filibuster requires that 60 votes be found in order to prevail on a 
motion or a measure.
  The filibuster raises the requirement from a simple majority to 60 
votes. The Senator from Kentucky knows that as well as I do, he has 
been here longer than I have, that filibuster makes all the difference 
in the world. So to argue ``The Democrats have the majority; why don't 
they just take this majority and do their business?'' is to ignore the 
obvious.
  What the Republicans have decided to do is, for the first time 
perhaps ever--I don't want to say that without checking the record for 
sure--but certainly in modern history, to require that when we pass the 
debt ceiling, we need to have 60 votes on the floor of the Senate. 
Well, it is no great revelation that with 50 Democrats, we would need 
10 Republicans, and the Senate Republican leader has made it clear: He 
ain't giving us a vote, not one. So we have come to a standstill.
  We are 2 weeks away from a default. For the first time in the history 
of the United States that we would default on our debt, it is as if 
America had a big home and a big mortgage and decided one month not to 
pay on the mortgage. Well, let's hope the day would come when the 
payment would be made, but in the meantime, there is a serious question 
then raised about the credit reputation of the United States, and that 
is exactly the fire that the Republicans are playing with by imposing a 
filibuster on this simple measure. They know that they can stop us as 
long as 60 votes are needed and they give none.
  One of our colleagues, Senator Whitehouse, made an interesting 
observation in our caucus lunch last week. I hope he will forgive me if 
I try to paraphrase it. He said: Many people argue that we need a 
filibuster because it really encourages bipartisanship. We have to come 
together. We have to look for compromise.
  Well, how do you compromise when the debt ceiling question is whether 
you do it or don't do it? And that is what is at stake here. Are we 
going to acknowledge the debt of the United States to its creditors far 
and wide and continue the business of this economy and this government? 
Republicans say: No, we would rather play fire with it. But they leave 
out that one element that is so critical: It is their decision, their 
filibuster that stops this.
  I believe that Senator Schumer and the Democrats will offer them this 
opportunity again this week. Senator Schumer said as much. But it 
really troubles me that we are at a point in our history, recovering 
from this pandemic, businesses getting back on their feet, employees 
need to go back to work--and the Republicans have taken this strategy 
of defaulting on the national debt.
  As far as the characterization of what reconciliation will do, 
Senator McConnell continues to come to the floor repeatedly and say: 
``It will hurt families.'' Well, one of the provisions in the 
reconciliation bill, which I hope survives our compromise negotiation, 
will help families find affordable, quality daycare.
  When you look at the fact that the vast majority of those who are not 
returning to work are women, you understand the circumstances. Many of 
them question whether or not school is going to be in person or by 
Zoom. They question whether or not they can find affordable daycare in 
any direction, and they question whether they can afford it once they 
find it.
  If we took that worry off the family plate and said ``We are going to 
make sure that you have accessible, affordable childcare for your 
children,'' think of the relief it would give and the fact that many 
would return to the workplace.
  According to the Senator from Kentucky, Senator McConnell, that hurts 
families. Hurts them? It helps them in ways that many of us don't even 
understand. Can you imagine frantically leaving a child at home in the 
care of someone you don't quite trust because you have no alternative 
but to go to work and try to earn a paycheck to feed that child and pay 
the rent? I wouldn't want to be in that desperate situation. I wouldn't 
want anyone in family to face it. To say that hurts families, to do 
that, is certainly wrong. It would help them if reconciliation includes 
that measure.
  We also have a pre-K program to give kids who struggle a helping hand 
and a fresh start. We know the Head Start Program--it was created I 
guess almost 60-plus years ago--has had positive results in preparing 
people to go to college. Yes, Head Start Programs when they are young 
children--3, 4, and 5 years old--can make difference in their lives, 
how they learn, and what they do. So we want to make that the official 
policy of this country, that we have 2 years of pre-K education 
available to families. I think they will thank us for it, and in the 
future, generations that are helped with this will thank us as well.
  The notion of extending the school year from K-12 through K-14, to 
put 2 years of community college without cost for families, is an 
extraordinary commitment.
  There was a time in the turn of the 19th to the 20th century when 
America decided to make a big, bold experiment. It was called high 
schools. Up until that point, most families were lucky to get kids 
through eighth grade. The rich families, the ones well-positioned, 
would take them to high school. Well, we decided to make high school a 
universal, national experience in America. So you wouldn't quit at the 
8th grade; you would finish in the 12th grade. Did it result in 
anything good for us? Take a look at the 20th century. With an 
educated, motivated workforce, America led the world. It is

[[Page S6883]]

no accident that extending education brought us to that moment.

  Now, Joe Biden and many of us agree the 21st century is a brandnew 
set of challenges and putting 2 more years that you don't have to worry 
about going deep in debt affording on to a person's education gives 
them a better chance. Some will go to college. Some will develop skills 
that they need to get into the workforce and succeed. Some will have an 
experience that will change their lives. That is what this additional 2 
years will be.
  Senator McConnell thinks an additional 2 years of free higher 
education hurts American families. What is he thinking? I don't know 
what it is like in the Commonwealth of Kentucky, but just north of it, 
in Illinois, we appreciate education and how it liberates, motivates, 
and educates young people to be part of the future.
  So I would say to Senator McConnell: Understand Senate 101. Your 
filibuster is stopping the extension of the debt ceiling, and stopping 
the extension is going to jeopardize our credit rating, raise interest 
rates, and cost 6 million American jobs, according to the best 
economists. Why would we do that to America at this moment in history? 
We should be doing just the opposite, helping everybody we can.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to return to my statement 
that I was making earlier when I voluntarily surrendered the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           U.S. Supreme Court

  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I noted that the shadow docket in the 
Supreme Court was a subject of the Senate Judiciary Committee last 
week. It is one of those esoteric subjects you wonder if anybody will 
even notice. We thought it was important enough to talk about it in 
light of the Texas abortion statute.
  We noted the fact that in the last 4 years, there were 36 times when 
the Trump administration asked for the shadow docket to be used. The 
Court granted 28 of those Trump Justice Department administration 
requests. In the previous years, under George W. Bush and Barack Obama: 
16 years; 8 requests; 4 were granted--4 versus 28 out of 36.
  You can tell that something is happening in the Court. The day after 
our hearing, someone happened to notice. That person was Justice Samuel 
Alito. He made headlines for a speech he gave at Notre Dame Law School 
criticizing lawmakers--I suppose that is myself and the Presiding 
Officer--journalists, and scholars who raised concern about the Court's 
use of the shadow docket.
  There doesn't appear to be a publicly available transcript or video 
of the full speech given by Justice Alito, so I ask unanimous consent 
to have printed in the Congressional Record an article from The Hill 
newspaper entitled ``Alito bristles over criticism of Supreme Court's 
`shadow docket'.''
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                    [From The Hill, Sept. 30, 2021]

     Alito Bristles Over Criticism of Supreme Court's Shadow Docket

                            (By John Kruzel)

       Justice Samuel Alito on Thursday bristled over recent 
     criticism of the Supreme Court's handling of emergency 
     matters under its so-called ``shadow docket,'' a phrase the 
     justice said plays into a warped portrayal of the court as a 
     ``dangerous cabal.''
       The staunchly conservative 71-year-old justice said he 
     welcomes substantive debate over the court's rulings, but 
     takes exception to what he characterized as a distorted 
     depiction commonly found in media reports on the court's 
     emergency activity.
       ``The catchy and sinister term `shadow docket' has been 
     used to portray the court as having been captured by a 
     dangerous cabal that resorts to sneaky and improper methods 
     to get its ways,'' Alito told students during a speech at 
     Notre Dame Law School.
       ``And this portrayal feeds unprecedented efforts to 
     intimidate the court or damage it as an independent 
     institution,'' he said.
       The phrase ``shadow docket,'' originally coined by 
     University of Chicago Law School professor William Baude, has 
     come to refer to the court's use of a truncated process to 
     issue rulings on an emergency basis. The procedure departs 
     from the court's regular operations by forgoing a 
     comprehensive set of paper briefs and oral arguments in favor 
     of ruling quickly on an emergency application.
       Although Alito's speech Thursday gave the impression that 
     the principal critics of the court's shadow docket were 
     observers and politicians, three of his fellow justices have 
     criticized the shadow docket's recent use as a vehicle for 
     rulings of major significance.
       In recent weeks, the court's three more liberal justices--
     Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan--have either 
     individually criticized the procedure's use or joined a 
     dissenting opinion that did so.
       The liberal jurists denounced the majority's use of the 
     shadow docket in August to block an eviction freeze put in 
     place by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) 
     to shield cash-strapped renters from the coronavirus 
     pandemic. Likewise. a 5-4 majority court refused to block 
     Texas' six-week abortion ban from taking effect earlier this 
     month.
       Kagan took direct aim at the practice in a dissent from the 
     majority's Texas ruling that was joined by her two fellow 
     liberals.
       ``[T]he majority's decision is emblematic of too much of 
     this Court's shadow docket decisionmaking--which every day 
     becomes more unreasoned, inconsistent, and impossible to 
     defend,'' Kagan wrote.
       The shadow docket itself is nothing new. But the Supreme 
     Court had previously used the abbreviated process only 
     sparingly to render decisions of major consequence, according 
     to a report by The Economist, which found the practice became 
     more common during the Trump administration.
       Alito conceded in his Thursday speech that the emergency 
     docket has seen an increase in activity.
       ``Now it is true that we have issued more emergency rulings 
     in recent years, but there is a simple reason for that and 
     it's not part of a nefarious strategy: it's because we had 
     been receiving more emergency applications,'' he said.
       ``We would much prefer to have days or weeks or months to 
     think about these matters before we have to do anything,'' he 
     added. ``But we don't have that luxury. The world will not 
     sit still while we cogitate.''

  Mr. DURBIN. In his speech, Justice Alito reportedly zeroed in on our 
Senate Judiciary Committee hearing last week and criticized one of the 
experts who testified, University of Texas law professor Steve Vladeck. 
He also reportedly criticized an article by a respected journalist who 
writes about the Court frequently for a major magazine.
  Justice Alito derided the phrase ``shadow docket'' as a ``catchy and 
sinister term'' meant to convey something ``sneaky and dangerous.'' In 
fact, the phrase ``shadow docket'' was coined by a University of 
Chicago law professor, William Baude, who, incidentally, clerked for 
Chief Justice Roberts and has spoken more than 30 times in Federalist 
Society events.
  Justice Alito dismissed concerns about the shadow docket. He said:

       The media and political talk about the shadow docket is not 
     serious criticism.

  What he failed to mention, however, is that some of the strongest 
warnings about the Court's changing use of the shadow docket have come 
not from politicians like ourselves or journalists but from Justice 
Alito's colleagues on the Court.
  Our hearing in the Judiciary Committee highlighted how Justices 
Kagan, Sotomayor, Breyer, and even Chief Justice Roberts sounded the 
alarm about the Supreme Court's shadow docket ruling on the Texas 
abortion ban.
  Justice Sotomayor said of the Court's shadow docket decision on the 
Texas law:

       The Court's order is stunning. Presented with an 
     application to enjoin a flagrantly unconstitutional law 
     engineered to prohibit women from exercising their 
     constitutional rights and evade judicial scrutiny, a majority 
     of Justices have opted to bury their heads in the sand.

  That is from Justice Sotomayor.
  How about Justice Kagan? Justice Kagan expressed alarm that the 
Court's shadow docket decisionmaking ``every day becomes more 
unreasoned, inconsistent, and impossible to defend.
  The Justices made it clear that the Court's shadow docket handling of 
S.B. 8 in Texas raises urgent concerns that American people should be 
aware of. That is why we had the hearing. Chief Justice Roberts noted 
that Texas has now created ``a model for action,'' in his words, 
showing how States can undermine constitutional rights by using a 
bounty hunter enforcement scheme that avoids judicial scrutiny, thanks 
to the shadow docket. Lawmakers in a number of States are eyeing this 
procedure to try to copycat Texas's enforcement model. That ought to 
trouble anyone who cares about our Constitution.
  With its order on the Texas abortion ban, the Court's majority has 
also shown its willingness to use the shadow docket to allow 
``flagrantly unconstitutional'' laws, in the words of Justice 
Sotomayor, to take effect, at least when the laws align with the 
majority's ideological beliefs. As a result,

[[Page S6884]]

millions of Texans have had their constitutional rights stripped away, 
and the rights of all Americans are less secure. That is a major change 
that demands serious discussion.
  Justice Alito may bristle at perceived criticism of the Court's 
practices, but that doesn't mean the Court should be immune from 
scrutiny from the American people, a free press, even legislative 
branch of government.
  Historically, Congress has played an important and essential role in 
debates over the proper functioning of the courts.
  First and foremost is the Senate's advise and consent role that 
results in the appointment of men and women to the Supreme Court. In 
addition, many aspects of the Supreme Court's operation, including the 
starting date of the Court's fall term, are established by an act of 
Congress. In fact, much of the Court's jurisdiction is set by Congress.
  Congress is asked regularly by the Judicial Conference to pass new 
legislation governing the operations of the judiciary, and Justices 
have routinely come before Congress to discuss the requests and a wide 
range of other matters. In March 2019, for example, Justice Kagan 
testified before the House Appropriations Committee about such topics 
as whether the judicial code of conduct should apply to the Supreme 
Court. With her that day was none other than Justice Alito.
  The Senate Judiciary Committee has frequently and appropriately been 
the forum for many debates over the Supreme Court's operations. I 
remember in 2011 when Justices Scalia and Breyer appeared before the 
Judiciary Committee for a wide-ranging discussion of the role of judges 
under the Constitution.
  Our committee also has robust debates about the appropriate degree of 
transparency for the Court's operation. Earlier this year, the 
committee approved bipartisan legislation to allow cameras in the 
Supreme Court so that all Americans can see what is going on.
  We are going to continue this debate in the Judiciary Committee over 
the shadow docket. It is not politicizing the Court to do so. And 
Republicans have no standing to accuse Democrats of politicizing the 
Court, especially after their unprecedented, politically motivated 
blockade of President Obama's Supreme Court nominee in 2016 and their 
haste to confirm a third Trump Justice mere weeks before the 2020 
election--both acts of raw, political power.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. TUBERVILLE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Duckworth). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                              Afghanistan

  Mr. TUBERVILLE. Madam President, in the winter of 2010, American 
intelligence picked up the chatter of Afghan fighters in Pakistan.
  ``Why are you back?'' asked the Taliban leaders. ``You are supposed 
to be fighting the Americans.''
  ``Yes,'' one of the fighters said, ``but the Americans run toward the 
bullets.''
  That story captures the American fighting spirit. If you ever find 
yourself questioning the greatness of this country, I encourage you to 
go talk to one of our young servicemembers.
  I am not talking about our older generals or warhorses you often see 
on TV or around here on Capitol Hill. They won't renew your faith in 
America. They may even worry you.
  I am talking about the young people. It is the door kickers, the tank 
drivers, the trigger pullers. Some of them are still just kids. I am 
talking about the ones fresh out of college; ones hoping to pay for 
college by signing up for our great military. These young people are 
America's future.
  They are the Americans who fought so hard for us in Afghanistan over 
the last 20 years, and they are the ones so disappointed today of how 
we abandoned our mission in Afghanistan.
  Many of them did not remember the bright blue morning on September 
11, 2001, when evil itself boarded four planes here on the east coast 
and took the lives of 2,977 of our fellow Americans in just a matter of 
hours.
  They were just infants when President Bush demanded the Taliban hand 
over Osama bin Laden and shut down the terrorist training camps that 
littered Afghanistan. And when the Taliban refused, the United States 
and our most loyal ally, Great Britain, invaded Afghanistan.
  We were soon joined by 46 other nations. It was the first time 
Article 5 of NATO had been invoked, which states: An attack on one is 
an attack on all.
  America, in her righteous might, launched Operation Enduring Freedom 
and rained hell on the Taliban on October 7, 2001. We lost 12 brave 
American soldiers that year, but by December 17, we controlled a 
country few Americans could have found on the map months before.
  To call Afghanistan in 2001 ``stone age'' would be an insult to the 
rocks on the ground. We saw diseases only found in textbooks. Eighty-
five percent of the population was illiterate. No girls were allowed to 
attend school. Cell phones and computers were nonexistent.
  We were not there to conquer. We didn't want to nation build. Our 
presence was needed because we wanted to keep Afghanistan from yet 
again becoming a training sanctuary for every would-be terrorist on 
Earth.
  After all, the United States and our politicians of the 1990s looked 
the other way and failed to recognize Afghanistan as a threat. Thirty 
years ago, Afghanistan was a training ground for some 10 to 20,000 
terrorists.
  From Afghanistan, al-Qaida attacked the World Trade Center in 1993; 
two of our Embassies in Africa; and bombed the USS Cole, a ship that 
was docked.
  The Clinton administration thought it could handle al-Qaida and their 
terrorist threat with over-the-horizon capabilities. September 11 
showed us that strategy doesn't work. But, unfortunately, the Biden 
administration has forgotten those lessons of our past.
  During World War II, my father landed at Normandy and fought the 
Nazis in Europe. Hitler and Germany had the will to win, but, thank 
God, America and our allies had more will.
  From the time my dad landed at Normandy to when he reached Berlin, he 
earned five Bronze Stars and a Purple Heart. He was lucky. More than 
400,000 other Americans would never return home. Their blood, sweat, 
and tears saved Europe and the free world.
  Yet the work of the Greatest Generation didn't end on May 8, 1945. 
Americans stayed in Germany. We stayed to prosecute Nazi leadership. We 
stayed to build and rebuild their businesses and banks.
  If you drive a BMW today, it is because America worked to change the 
behavior of millions of Nazis who were still living in Germany after 
the war. And we are, today, still in Germany.
  It is the same success story in Japan and in South Korea. America's 
commitment to freedom and democracy didn't end when the shooting 
stopped. Today, Germany, Japan, and South Korea are some of our most 
vibrant economies and democracies across the world. Those nations are 
also among our closest allies.
  That, ladies and gentlemen, was our hope for Afghanistan. Every 
American wants to see war come to an end. War is ugly. War is brutal. 
War robs lives and destroys property. But freedom is certainly worth 
fighting for.
  Like World War II, our war in Afghanistan was completely justified. 
We took the end fight to the enemy who started it: the Taliban and al-
Qaida.
  Our war in Afghanistan ended in 2014. Operation Enduring Freedom 
transitioned to a supporting role called Operation Resolute Support.
  That support trained the Afghan Army, intelligence, and police forces 
to fend for themselves. It allowed for greater educational 
opportunities for young boys and girls all throughout Afghanistan.
  And as the Afghan security forces became increasingly capable, 
America withdrew her forces. By January 2021, we had reduced our 
presence to just 2,500 from a high of 98,000 in 2011.
  President Trump also wanted to go to zero, but his military advisers 
said it would be unwise. So President Trump listened and maintained 
troop levels at 2,500.
  President Biden claims he doesn't remember his generals telling him 
to keep 2,500 troops in Afghanistan. Yet the President's principal 
military adviser, General Mark Milley, says he

[[Page S6885]]

wanted to see 2,500 troops in Afghanistan. The top commander for the 
Middle East, General Frank McKenzie, said he wanted to see 2,500 troops 
remain in Afghanistan. The top, longest-serving, and most decorated 
commander in Afghanistan, General Scott Miller, wanted to see 2,500 
troops in Afghanistan.
  They clearly told President Biden that, to remain stable and protect 
the U.S. and our allies, Afghanistan needed a small American presence 
of 2,500 troops.
  So when the President says he doesn't recall or he doesn't remember, 
is he telling the truth?
  Well, I don't know. But what I do know is that President Biden didn't 
listen to his military advisers. He didn't listen to troops on the 
ground. He ignored military advice and, instead, made a political 
decision.
  You can't run a war from Washington with an 8,000-mile-long 
screwdriver. If you do, you will screw it up--85 billion in equipment 
captured by the Taliban; valuable air bases abandoned in the middle of 
the night; American citizens still left behind enemy lines to this day; 
journalists and aid workers abandoned; innocent Afghan partners and 
allies left to the will of our enemy; chaos and disorder at Kabul 
airport; desperate Afghans falling from our aircraft, as people across 
our Nation and the world watched in horror; 13 American soldiers dead.
  None of this should have ever happened. But now we must reckon with 
the worst foreign policy decision ever made. Our credibility has been 
eroded and respect from our allies has been destroyed.
  America must return to the peace-through-strength leadership that has 
guided us throughout history. It has made our enemies fear us, our 
allies value us and what it means to have us as a partner on the world 
stage.
  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.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                        Tribute to Lee Greenwood

  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam President, many artists and entertainers have 
staked their claim to fame by bending the rules and changing the 
conventional wisdom that defines their craft. But not many can claim to 
have made an impact on American culture that is at once musical, 
political, and spiritual.
  This month, my friend and fellow Tennessean Lee Greenwood is enjoying 
some well-deserved recognition for doing just that. Next week, he will 
celebrate the 40th year of one of the most significant and successful 
careers in country music history.
  On behalf of the entire Tennessee delegation, I want to thank Lee for 
his artistry, his patriotism, and his belief in the power of a song to 
heal our deepest wounds.
  We thank him for his friendship, for his commitment to our great 
State of Tennessee, and we wish him even greater successes in his 
career.


                           Government Funding

  Madam President, over the weekend, my Democratic colleagues put on a 
terrific show for the American people, arguing over which 
multitrillion-dollar spending bill they wanted to pass first--not if 
they were going to pass one, but which one they wanted to pass first. 
And from what I am hearing in Tennessee, they are saying: We don't want 
either of these. None of this should ever be passed and signed into 
law.
  Those that I spoke with also wanted me to pass on a message. It 
doesn't matter if they were Democrat, Republican, Independent, 
Libertarian. They said what happened here in Washington over the 
weekend was just about the most tone-deaf and disrespectful thing that 
they had seen take place in Washington in a long time.
  All year, Tennesseans have been asking themselves why is it that the 
Democrats are pushing so hard to spend more than a trillion dollars on 
a so-called infrastructure package that really isn't about 
infrastructure? Why are they fighting so hard for a multitrillion-
dollar social spending package that prioritizes all the wrong things?
  Tennesseans have caught on to this insanity. They know with absolute 
certainty that every time Joe Biden's government steps in to take 
control over an aspect of their lives, the goal is not to make their 
lives easier. The goal is to complicate their lives. The goal is to 
take away some of their individual freedom, some of their choice.
  There is no other explanation as to why they would do this in the 
face of some of the issues that we have, like serious supply chain 
vulnerabilities, unsustainable inflation--no, it is not temporary--and 
levels of divisiveness and mistrust that have made even the most 
unplugged, apolitical people that I know sit up and speak out.
  The fact that more people are paying attention is really a problem 
for my Democratic colleagues. They know that there is no chance that 
the majority of the American people will just go along with what it is 
that they are proposing.
  As I said, it doesn't matter if they are Democrat, Republican, 
Independent, Libertarian. They are looking at this and they are saying: 
Hey, wait a minute. These guys that are over there, every one of them--
what are they trying to do? They are trying to drive this socialist 
agenda, tear down our institutions, and build it back as a socialist 
state--which is exactly why the Democrats are opting for a power grab 
rather than an honest debate.
  By seizing that control and taking away that freedom, they are slowly 
but surely setting themselves up to redefine the relationship between 
the people and the government. Eventually, this will allow the 
Democrats to destroy our most important institutions and remake them in 
the image of the grand socialist future that they are so desperate to 
build.
  If you can't beat them--and the Democrats haven't been able to beat 
the people--then what do you do? They go about--the Democrats--and they 
just move the goalpost.
  They have shown this intent time and again over the course of 
decades, but let's start with more recent events. The Federal 
healthcare takeover destroyed the concept of the doctor-patient 
relationship and replaced it with layers of bureaucracy and, now, 
rationing.
  Over the past 3 years, my Democratic colleagues have tried multiple 
times to force through an election takeover bill that would federalize 
voting. That is right--not local control like we have had but 
federalizing elections, intentionally exposing conservative voters to 
an unhinged and violent opposition and making the ballot box vulnerable 
to fraud. That is what they are trying to do.
  Earlier this year, we discovered that the Democrats thought that 
opening up everyone's pocketbook for scrutiny by the IRS would be an 
acceptable way to pay for their so-called infrastructure package. It is 
a neat trick. It is also completely and utterly despicable, and people 
are not buying what the Democrats are selling. They do not want 
socialism ruling their life. They do not want the United States of 
America to be a socialist nation.
  The majority in this Chamber have accused the Republicans in this 
Chamber of many things, and most of them untrue. But what is true is 
that we are indeed getting in the way of this reckless, destructive 
agenda. That is because it is our duty to protect this country and to 
protect our freedoms.
  Joe Biden and the Democratic Party control the entire U.S. 
Government. That is right. We had an election, and you are in charge. 
That government has already made it clear that--mandate or no mandate--
they have their eye on the prize. And that prize is to take away your 
freedom, give that over to the government, and leave you living in a 
socialist nation. All it would cost is all of your money, all of your 
principles, all of your freedom. That is right.
  That is the future that they, the Democratic Party, envision for you 
and your family--they, the Democratic Party, making all the decisions; 
they, the Democratic Party, winning all the elections because they 
federalize them and they let the Federal Government decide who wins, 
with them in charge.
  If the Democrats wish to make those sacrifices, they are more than 
welcome to go about trying to do it, because the American people are 
not buying the agenda that they are pushing.

[[Page S6886]]

  Every day I talk to Tennesseans. What do they want? Freedom--balanced 
freedom that allows them to experience their version of the American 
dream, that allows their children to dream big dreams and then live in 
a country where they can work to make those dreams come true. 
Preserving that is a worthy fight.
  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. PAUL. 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 Jersey.


                  Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 5323

  Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, in May of this year, terrorist groups 
in Gaza launched more than 4,000 rockets at innocent Israelis. For 11 
days, Hamas and others fired off thousands of various rocket systems 
with little guidance into heavily populated areas across Israel with no 
regard, indeed, likely with the intention of killing civilians.
  In the face of this barrage, once again, Israel deployed the Iron 
Dome missile defense system, which intercepted 90 percent of these 
incoming attacks. Because of this purely defensive system, Israel is 
able to protect its own citizens and also direct its response to more 
carefully target those in Gaza who are responsible for launching these 
brutal attacks.
  Now, I have been clear: We should all mourn the loss of innocent 
Israelis and Palestinians who were killed during this conflict. Beyond 
a lack of regard for innocent Israeli civilians, Hamas further 
endangers Palestinians by hiding their stockpiles and themselves in 
densely populated areas.
  But I am not here today to relitigate thousands of years of conflict; 
I am here to point out two simple facts: Hamas is a terrorist 
organization that routinely threatens innocent civilians; Iron Dome, a 
purely defensive system that protects civilians. It saves lives, 
regardless of religion or ethnicity, period.
  Furthermore, by saving those lives, Iron Dome also preserves 
diplomatic space for deescalation, communication, and further 
negotiations about Israeli and Palestinian long-term security and the 
future of a negotiated two-State solution.
  There is no conceivable reason why anyone in this Chamber, on either 
side of the aisle, should stand in the way of U.S. support for this 
lifesaving defense to be fully ready for the next attack.
  I strongly urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join the 
House of Representatives in passing this funding on a broadly 
bipartisan effort.
  So, therefore, Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that at a 
time to be determined by the majority leader, following consultation 
with the Republican leader, the Senate proceed to the consideration of 
Calendar No. 140, H.R. 5323; that there be up to 2 hours for debate; 
that upon the use or yielding back of time, the bill be considered read 
a third time and the Senate vote on passage of the bill without 
intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. PAUL. Madam President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. PAUL. Reserving the right to object, I join the chairman of the 
Foreign Relations Committee in being supportive of Iron Dome, but I 
think it should be paid for.
  I think the American taxpayer dollars that pay for it should come 
from money that could go to the Taliban. There is a fund with over $6 
billion in it that was designated for the Afghan Government, and that 
money, I think, could be spent on the Taliban if we do not rescind that 
money.
  The justification for my proposal for paying this is simple: Only an 
economically strong United States can be a militarily strong ally of 
Israel.
  I support Israel. I voted for hundreds of millions of dollars to 
support Iron Dome. I am glad the United States has a strong bond with 
Israel. But the United States cannot give money it does not have, no 
matter how strong our relationship is.
  The United States is approaching $30 trillion in debt. Our out-of-
control spending added $3 trillion to this debt just in this fiscal 
year.
  A day of reckoning is coming, sooner than you think. Interest on the 
debt will be larger than what we spent on national defense in just a 
few years. If the debt weakens us to the point where we have difficulty 
funding our own military needs, how can the United States continue to 
be a reliable ally to Israel?
  Getting our fiscal house in order does not mean that we are failing 
to support Israel--far from it. The billion dollars under consideration 
today is on top of the more than $1.6 billion the United States has 
already given for Iron Dome, and that is not all.
  The United States provides Israel with just under $4 billion in aid 
annually. To date, the United States has provided over $146 billion in 
aid to Israel. In addition to Iron Dome, the United States has helped 
Israel fund other missile defense systems as well. We spent $2 billion 
on David's Sling and $3.7 billion on Arrow programs. That means the 
United States has contributed $7 billion to Israel's missile defense 
systems.
  Iron Dome is an indispensable defensive tool that not only saves 
Israeli lives but Palestinian lives. I want an Israel strong enough so 
that it does not have to rely on American support. But if we are here 
to add an additional billion dollars in aid, all I ask is that we make 
sure that it is paid for.
  My amendment would rescind $6 billion in Afghanistan reconstruction 
money that otherwise might go to the Taliban. Secretary Blinken said as 
recently as 2 weeks ago that this money may well go to the new Taliban 
government.
  Under this arrangement, we would devote $1 billion to Israel's Iron 
Dome and return the rest to Treasury. This is clear to all of the 
Republicans. So it needs to be very clear today that Republicans 
support paying for Iron Dome, and they support paying for Iron Dome 
with taking away money that would go to the Taliban.
  I hope my colleagues will work with me to strengthen Israel, 
strengthen the United States, and strengthen our alliance.


               Unanimous Consent Request--Paul Amendment

  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator modify his 
request so that instead of his proposal, the Senate proceed to the 
immediate consideration of Calendar No. 140, H.R. 5323; further, that 
the only amendment in order be my substitute amendment, which is at the 
desk. I further ask that there be 2 hours of debate, equally divided 
between the two leaders or their designees, and upon the use or 
yielding back of the time, the Paul substitute amendment at the desk be 
considered and agreed to, the bill, as amended, be considered read a 
third time, and the Senate vote on passage of the bill, as amended, 
with no intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator so modify his request?
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Reserving the right to object. While I respect the 
Senator from Kentucky's consistent approach to foreign aid spending, 
his substitute to H.R. 5323 is problematic for the following reasons: 
This amendment would unleash an array of adverse consequences for our 
broader foreign policy and national security objectives.
  This amendment ultimately proposes to rescind funds from the 
Departments of State and Defense. And this amendment would not 
reallocate funds that would allegedly go to the Taliban, as the Senator 
from Kentucky suggests. The reality is that U.S. dollars are not going 
to the Taliban, nor will they.
  Let me be clear and echo what the administration has said: No U.S. 
foreign aid will go to a Taliban-controlled Afghan Government. This 
does not mean that we remain any less committed to supporting the 
Afghan people. On the contrary, U.S. humanitarian aid could be routed 
through highly vetted partners, like the World Food Programme that we 
trust to put the interests of the Afghan people first.
  So let me be clear. Senator Paul's amendment would actually raid the 
funding that delivers lifesaving humanitarian aid to the Afghan people. 
And they need it more than ever.
  Secondly, Afghanistan is in the grips of a dire humanitarian crisis. 
The economy has collapsed. One in three Afghans do not know where their 
next

[[Page S6887]]

meal will come from. People are afraid to leave their homes.
  And so for those reasons, as well as the following--this amendment 
would also slash refugee assistance being used at this very moment to 
evacuate and resettle the U.S. allies and partners who served alongside 
Americans in the War on Terror.
  Likewise, Senator Paul is proposing we rescind the funding that 
supports important bipartisan priorities like promoting regional 
security, countering Chinese influence, and ending this pandemic.
  And that is not all. The amendment also jeopardizes funds being used 
to recover and secure U.S. military equipment.
  We may no longer be funding the Afghan National Army, but we still 
urgently need these repurposed funds to keep American equipment out of 
the wrong hands.
  In short, Senator Paul's amendment could undermine U.S. national 
security; it would abandon the Afghan people in their darkest hour; and 
it would betray the American people's commitment to supporting our 
Afghan allies.
  Finally, let me just say that this body overwhelmingly supports the 
swift passage of Iron Dome. Despite what others may have said, even on 
this floor, Democrats in the Senate are not holding up this critical 
funding. In the House, there may have been a very small handful of 
bipartisan opposition. And the only reason it is being held up in this 
body is because of this amendment. He is not a member of the Democratic 
caucus.
  This is a defensive, lifesaving system built on years of cooperation 
with our ally Israel. I am disappointed we are in this situation. But 
because of all of these reasons, I must object to the Senator's 
substitute amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection to the modification is heard.
  Mr. PAUL. Madam President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to withdrawing the request?
  Mr. PAUL. Madam President, reserving the right to object, I think it 
is very clear, and very important that it be very clear, that I have 
offered to fully pay for the Iron Dome system with an extra billion 
dollars. The objection is coming from the Democrat side. They are 
objecting to it being paid for.
  We have offered this fund of $6 billion. We have offered to modify it 
and make it less so there will still be some remaining money in this 
system. We have offered other funds. We have offered a basically open 
invitation to the other side that we just think it ought to be paid 
for. So the objection from the other side is to paying for Iron Dome, 
to paying for the billion dollars.
  Interestingly, aid is already going to Afghanistan while the Taliban 
is in charge. Now, allegedly, that aid is going to charitable 
organizations. But the history of the Taliban has been to withhold, 
control, manipulate, and corrupt charitable organizations as well.
  I think it is a mistake to have money already flowing into the new 
government under the Taliban and to charitable organizations because it 
basically makes their job easier. It will make the public more pacified 
if they are being fed by the Western world. They wouldn't be as happy 
if the money is destroyed in this chaos. So, really, in some ways, you 
do help to stabilize the Taliban by sending more money there.
  But Secretary Blinken was asked this very question in committee by 
myself: Can you guarantee the $6 billion will not be released at any 
time to the Taliban?
  And he said no; the implication being that if the Taliban behaves, he 
sees this $6 billion going to the Taliban. I think it is a big mistake.
  This is a big issue. Iron Dome is a big issue, but it is also a big 
issue whether we send money to the Taliban. They already have $80 
billion worth of our weapons. I think it will be a real big mistake to 
send money indirectly or directly to the Taliban so I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Let me just simply say, this is a figleaf.
  We could have, today, passed Iron Dome as the House of 
Representatives passed it, send $1 billion, and make sure that Israelis 
and Palestinians would be safer as a result of the terrifying actions 
that Hamas and others take. There is no reason for this.
  I know my colleague has not been particularly supportive on foreign 
aid in general, and in this case in particular, but the reality is that 
we have an opportunity here.
  Now, I am convinced that Iron Dome will get done. We will get the 
resources to our allies, the State of Israel. But it is a shame that we 
have to have the uncertainty that is pending as a result of the 
objection that has been had.
  We don't need to find a pathway in this particular way, which, you 
know, is only going to undermine our own national security interests as 
it relates to Afghanistan.
  With that I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. PETERS. Madam President, I request that I am able to make my 
remarks prior to the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                  Nomination of Jonathan Eugene Meyer

  Mr. PETERS. Madam President, I rise in support of Jonathan Meyer's 
nomination to be general counsel at the Department of Homeland 
Security, or DHS.
  Mr. Meyer understands the unique challenges facing DHS, and he has 
the legal and management experience and vision needed to succeed in 
this important role. Throughout the confirmation process, Mr. Meyer has 
demonstrated that he understands the complex legal issues facing DHS 
and the importance of ensuring the Department cooperates with 
congressional oversight.
  DHS has not had a Senate-confirmed general counsel for over 2 years. 
DHS needs qualified, Senate-confirmed leaders in place to effectively 
carry out its critical mission of safeguarding our Nation. Mr. Meyer is 
an accomplished lawyer and dedicated public servant who is well 
qualified to serve as the Department's chief legal officer.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the confirmation of 
Jonathan Meyer to be general counsel for DHS.

                          ____________________