[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 193 (Tuesday, December 13, 2022)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7122-S7127]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                                 Yemen

  Mr. President, I come to the floor today to provide remarks in 
support of Senator Sanders' resolution that we will consider later 
today.
  I have come to the floor many times to talk about the war in Yemen. I 
think I first came to the floor during the Obama administration, when 
very few people even knew there was a civil war in Yemen that the 
United States was participating in.
  But let me just say again what I hope is common knowledge. The war in 
Yemen has been a national security disaster for the United States. It 
has now been ongoing for 8 years, and by no metric has this war accrued 
to the benefit of U.S. national security. Let me just give you a few 
windows into why this is true.

[[Page S7123]]

  First and foremost, this is a humanitarian nightmare. The world's 
worst humanitarian disaster is in Yemen today.
  The U.N. says that 66 percent of the country's population--and, by 
the way, this is not a small country, right; this is a country of 30-
plus million people--right now, survive only because of emergency aid. 
Twenty-three thousand airstrikes have been launched just from 2015 to 
2021, killing or injuring 18,000 civilians. Eighteen thousand 
civilians--10,000 of them children--have been hit, killed, or maimed by 
airstrikes.
  There is a humanitarian nightmare inside Yemen today. That does not 
accrue to the benefit of the United States' security. Why? Because al-
Qaida and ISIS operate inside Yemen; and when there is this kind of 
misery, when there is this kind of devastation, that is a breeding 
ground, that is fertile recruitment ground for the terrorist groups 
that are organizing against the United States and seeking to recruit 
those who are looking for answers. Al-Qaida, ISIS are growing stronger, 
and the misery in Yemen is growing deeper. And, at the same time, Iran 
is growing more influential.
  This was not, at the outset, a proxy war between Iran and Saudi 
Arabia. Saudi Arabia supports the old regime in Yemen, and Iran, which 
has been partners with the rebel group, the Houthis, that controls the 
capital, Sana'a, has become more embedded, as time goes on, with the 
Houthis. As the war lingers, as it persists year to year, Iran becomes 
more influential, has more power inside Yemen.
  So if our interest in the region is to decrease Iran's power, then 
every year that this war persists, Iran gets more powerful inside 
Yemen. So if we care about the growth of Sunni terrorist groups, if we 
care about the growing influence of Iran, if we care about saving 
people from misery, destitution, and death, then we have to do 
everything in our power to wind down this war. What benefit is there to 
us, to the Yemeni people, to the Middle East region for this war to 
persist year after year after year?
  Now, in 2019, we considered a similar resolution. It passed both the 
House and the Senate, a resolution to end U.S. participation in the 
Yemen war. It was vetoed by President Trump. We didn't have enough 
votes to override the veto.
  Let's be honest. This is a very different moment than 2019. Why? 
Because President Biden has pursued a very different policy than 
President Trump. President Trump backed the Saudis. He, for a long 
time, refueled Saudi planes that were dropping bombs in Yemen. He sold 
them massive amounts of weapon. He embedded American forces with Saudi 
forces to help pick targets.
  President Biden ran on a promise to end U.S. support for the war in 
Yemen, and, by and large, he made good on that promise. The Biden 
administration does not sell Saudi Arabia weapons to be used in the 
Yemen war. They don't refuel the planes midair. They don't help with 
targeting. They don't help with intelligence.
  But Senator Sanders has correctly identified some lingering lines of 
cooperation between the United States and the Saudi-led coalition that 
do continue to help them perpetuate this war, including the work that 
we do to help maintain the Saudi Air Force.
  This is a different moment than 2019, and we should give President 
Biden credit for pursuing a very different policy. The facts on the 
ground are different as well. There have been, for long stretches 
during the Biden administration, ceasefires in Yemen--ceasefires that 
we did not see during the Trump administration.
  The Saudis, to their credit, have been more interested in peace 
during the Biden administration than they ever were during the Trump 
administration. That is, I believe, in part because they don't have a 
blank check from the U.S. regime any longer. In fact, as we stand here 
today, it is the Houthis that are the primary impediment to peace, not 
the Saudis. Now, the Saudis' interest in peace and deescalation, it 
comes and it goes. But today, as we speak, it is, in fact, the Houthis 
who need to make the commitments necessary to sit at the table and find 
a path to permanently end the fighting in Yemen and find a way for 
everyone in Yemen--Houthis included--to be able to live in peace, to 
have a government that everyone can call their own.

  So why support this resolution if President Biden has pulled most all 
of our support for the war, if the primary barrier to a peaceful 
solution today is the Houthis? Well, I think it is pretty simple. I 
think we have seen the impact that we have when we withdraw our blank 
check. And, I think, so long as there are any lines of effort that the 
United States is involved in that continue this war, we are weaker as a 
nation. Practically, we are weaker because, every day this war 
persists, Iran gets stronger and the potential for Sunni extremist 
organizing becomes stronger. But we are also just morally weaker 
because, for us to be a participant in any way, shape, or form in a war 
with this kind of misery, it really shapes the way that people think 
about us in the region and around the world.
  So I am here to support Senator Sanders' resolution and urge my 
colleagues to vote for it, not because I believe that this is the same 
moment as 2019. It is a different moment. But I think it commands the 
United States to send a very clear message, and our message is that 
this war has to end.
  The United States should not be involved in this war--not a little, 
not a lot. This war, every day it persists, makes us less safe and 
harms our credibility, and the Senate, I would argue, should pass this 
resolution.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Markey). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 5244

  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, this Friday at midnight, the government will 
run out of funding. That leaves us with just a few options.
  One, we could pass the massive, yet-to-be-drafted, Pelosi-Schumer 
omnibus spending package, leaving the outgoing Democratic House 
majority in charge of drafting the bill to fund the Federal Government 
for the balance of fiscal year 2023, despite the fact that voters sent 
a clear message this November disapproving of the fiscal direction of 
our Federal Government.
  Two, we could, yet again, pass another short-term stopgap measure 
that just kicks the can down the road for one more week to allow more 
backroom negotiations to take place, in secret. To be clear, this 
accomplishes nothing. It is simply a way to whip up support for another 
inflated spending package.
  So when I say it accomplishes nothing, that is not really true. It is 
very effective at doing some things.
  It marshals very effectively the angst of hundreds of millions of 
Americans who don't want a government shutdown. A lot of these people 
depend on the Federal Government remaining open to process--whether it 
is the paychecks for soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines, or others 
who have contract with the government or receive payments from the 
government of one sort or another or otherwise impacted by the Federal 
Government's inability to operate during a shutdown. They all have 
something to worry about. They all have reasons to fear a shutdown. And 
those anxieties end up being transferred onto their elected 
representatives in the House of Representatives and in the Senate who 
in turn fear a shutdown for the same reasons and feel the collective 
weight of those concerns bearing down on them.
  But there is a dual threat that takes place here. You see, those who 
may be coming to the Senate floor in the next day or two to propose 
exactly this, option 2--that is, to just kick the can down the road for 
another week, for another 1-week spending measure--will be coming down 
here, predictably, foreseeably, in the name of avoiding a shutdown.
  But make no mistake, when saying that they want to delay spending, 
they want to delay any shutdown by another week, they are not really 
saying we don't want the threat of a shutdown. They are saying we want 
to move the threat of a shutdown, the possibility of a shutdown, closer 
to Christmas.
  Why Christmas? Well, that is when the anxiety of the American people 
and

[[Page S7124]]

their elected representatives in Congress are at their maximum. That is 
where we all feel it the most. We all feel the pressure to get 
something done the most. And that is also where Members of Congress, 
being human, understandably, want to be able to get home in time for 
Christmas, to spend the Christmas holidays with their families.
  And it is this dual threat that very often, year after year, is used 
to persuade Members of Congress to vote for a spending bill that spends 
too much money and that does so through a mechanism that they have had 
no part in; that they have been excluded from; that they would never 
vote for in the absence of this dual threat of a shutdown at 
Christmastime.
  No, this isn't right. When we do that to the American people, what 
you are really doing is cutting them out of the process. When you cut 
the people's elected representatives in Congress who have been elected 
by the American people to take care of these things for them so that 
they don't have to worry about it and then you tell them we are not 
going to give those you elect any opportunity to have meaningful input 
into a spending bill which we are going to present to them at 
Christmastime in order to force a nonexistent consensus behind 
something they know they shouldn't vote for, that is wrong. It has gone 
on over and over again, and it has to stop. It must stop now. So that 
is option 2--suboptimal, to say the least.
  Option 3. We could do the right thing, and we could pass a continuing 
resolution that keeps the government funded, maintaining current 
spending levels until after we have sworn in the new Congress, 
including the Republican House majority, early next year.
  It is only this latter option--only the third option--that makes any 
sense at all. And it is only this third option that is fair to voters. 
You see, for the last 2 years, we have seen unprecedented inflation 
driven by reckless government spending, and we have seen that moving 
forward in a way that has crushed American families. Our national debt 
has grown during those 2 years by about $4 trillion, reaching an 
astronomical $31 trillion--a figure that we just reached within the 
last few days.
  In Utah, inflation costs the average household a thousand dollars a 
month every single month, relative to the day that Joe Biden took 
office. They are not, for the most part, people who just have an extra 
thousand dollars to burn, nor is the extra thousand dollars a month 
going toward luxury items. No, it is just groceries, housing, gasoline, 
healthcare--the basic things that the American people need in order to 
live.
  Simply put, the American people can't afford the policies of the last 
few years. They certainly can't afford the kinds of spending bills that 
get passed when we use this dual threat of the shutdown threatened at 
Christmastime under an artificially imposed deadline.
  Unsurprisingly, American voters cast their votes and in so doing 
signaled that they want the government to go in a new direction. After 
listening to an exhaustive list of excuses from the Biden 
administration, blaming inflation on everything from the pandemic to 
Putin, the American people saw through the smoke and mirrors. They 
voted for accountability and made it clear that they expect their 
elected representatives to be responsible stewards of taxpayer dollars.
  Unfortunately, if this body just goes right ahead and passes another 
omnibus spending bill, a bill that we know is coming, a bill that we 
know is going to be thousands of pages long, a bill that we know that 
we will receive, at the most, maybe a day or two before we are expected 
to vote on it, with no intervening committee debate or discussion or 
opportunity for amendment--this body, if it chooses to enact such 
legislation, will be ignoring those legitimate desires on the part of 
the voters.
  We are witnessing a conspicuous recurring trend, whereby leaders use 
the threat of a government shutdown to pressure Members into voting for 
inflated spending provisions without even time to read the bill, much 
less without giving them any time to consult with those they represent 
about how they feel about that spending and those policies.
  So does this tactic remind you of anything? Well, it should. How 
about Speaker Pelosi's now infamous statement about ObamaCare when she 
said: You know, we have to pass the bill in order to find out what is 
in it. We all know how that turned out--not well.

  Like ObamaCare, the resulting omnibus legislation that results from 
that kind of attitude, that kind of dismissive approach--dismissive not 
just to individual Members but of those whom they represent--always 
contains ideologically driven provisions, utterly unrelated to the 
budget, many of which could never pass if they had to withstand the 
light of day if they had to be voted on of their own merit.
  We cannot, we must not, we should never use the threat of a 
government shutdown to force through policy changes that could never 
survive a vote on their own merit.
  I believe we should pass--we must pass--a clean continuing 
resolution, one that will take us into the next Congress. Failure to do 
so will lock the remainder of this fiscal year into a pattern in which 
liberal policies and an inflationary spending agenda, crammed through 
by unaccountable Members of Congress, many of whom have just lost 
reelection or didn't seek it--all those things will descend upon the 
American people in a most unfavorable and unwelcomed way. We can't let 
that happen. I don't want to be any part of that. I don't think most of 
our colleagues on either side of the aisle do.
  Not only would it be poor form and unwise and inconsiderate and 
really unkind for Congress to pass a massive spending bill, but it 
would also be without precedent in modern U.S. history.
  You know, since 1954, the party in control of the House of 
Representatives has shifted from one party to another a total of just 
five times since 1954. In exactly zero of those instances did Congress 
go back after that election and during a lameduck session enact 
sweeping, comprehensive spending legislation. Not one instance since 
1954 has that happened. Not once has there been an instance where 
Congress did that before a newly elected House majority could be sworn 
in.
  We can pass a continuing resolution that doesn't include any of the 
new partisan agenda items that either side has proposed. It would keep 
the government running until the new Congress can develop a full-year 
discretionary budget--one that is agreeable to both sides or at least 
has been adequately vetted on both sides and with our constituents, 
with input from Members of both political parties and both Chambers of 
Congress.
  I urge my colleagues to support the passage of this short-term 
continuing resolution that maintains current spending levels until the 
new Congress takes office. Doing so will ensure that we listen to the 
people's voices and that the incoming House majority has the 
opportunity to make the spending decisions that are in the best 
interests of the American people. We owe them nothing less.
  Mr. President, to that end, as in legislative session, I ask 
unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate 
consideration of S. 5244, which is at the desk; I further ask that the 
bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to 
reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I will, 
but let me explain why. The bill offered by my colleague on the other 
side of the aisle is shortsighted and premature.
  We have been working on this omnibus for months. I would have been 
happy to, among the 50 or 60 Senators of both parties, if they had sat 
down and talked to me about what might be in it. I would have been 
happy to have heard from him, too, but I know he had other pressing 
duties and didn't have time to.
  But I am afraid it would unnecessarily punt our basic 
responsibilities even further down the road. Vice Chairman Shelby, 
Chair DeLauro, and I continue to trade offers and negotiate an omnibus 
spending bill with the Democrats and Republicans who have worked with 
us, and we believe we are close to a bipartisan, bicameral agreement. 
Reaching this agreement now is important for Americans in every State 
across the country.
  I know in my State of Vermont, in my hometown--my farmhouse in 
Middlesex, VT--it was 20 degrees. Next week, it is going to get colder. 
With

[[Page S7125]]

the cost of natural gas and heating oil up more than 25 percent, 
families across my State are sitting down at their kitchen tables 
trying to figure out how they are going to afford to heat their homes 
and feed their families. Groceries are up more than 10 percent. They 
are making these decisions right now because they do not have the 
luxury of simply kicking the can down the road. They need assistance 
now, not months from now, if at all. They are not the ones who got the 
benefit from the huge Trump tax cut which increased the deficit but 
gave money to the highest level of income in our country.
  Reaching this agreement now is important because in my home State, 
opioid deaths are on pace to surpass last year's grim toll. I don't 
think there is a Senator on this floor who hasn't seen opioid deaths go 
up in their State. We have seen it throughout the country. And I am not 
going to stand in the way of blocking money that might help bring those 
opioid deaths down because Vermont is not alone in this fight against 
this scourge. You cannot name a State in this country, if they are 
honest, that is not facing this scourge. Communities across the country 
host grieving families and people struggling with addiction who need 
new resources now, not months from now, if at all. That is Republicans, 
Democrats, Independents, everybody.
  These communities are also pleading for resources to support State 
and local law enforcement. Having spent 8 years in law enforcement, I 
know what is needed. In fact, most of my friends on the other side of 
the aisle claim to support law enforcement. Well, if they really mean 
it, they should pass an omnibus agreement now, which would mean we 
could get more than 1,500 more police officers on the streets and 
provide law enforcement new and needed resources now, not months from 
now, if at all.
  Our Nation's veterans need us to act now. Everybody claims they are 
in support of them--as I am, as our Presiding Officer is, as most 
Senators are. If we do not do our jobs, the bipartisan PACT Act will go 
underfunded and VA medical care will fall at least $7.5 billion short. 
Our Nation's veterans deserve to have the promises we made them 
fulfilled now, not months from now, if at all.
  Victims of natural disasters like Hurricanes Ian and Fiona need us to 
act now. A continuing resolution would delay aid to these communities 
by at least 6 weeks.
  Now, this week, the Senate will pass the NDAA. It will receive 
bipartisan praise because of what it says for our armed services. Well, 
I would remind my colleagues that the NDAA makes many promises, but 
without an omnibus appropriations bill, it is a broken promise; $76 
billion for national defense will be left on the Republican cutting 
room floor--$76 billion for national defense will be left on the 
Republican cutting room floor.
  I could take up the entire day talking about why this short-term CR 
is a dereliction of our sworn duty, a failure for the American people, 
a temporary solution that promises to run headlong into even more 
difficult problems.
  But I will end by saying that Vice Chairman Shelby, Chair DeLauro, 
and I are close to an agreement. The American people sent us here to do 
our jobs, not kick the can down the road, not make statements on the 
floor, but to do our work.
  So for these reasons, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. BRAUN. It is going to be real easy, real short.
  In November, the House of Representatives was returned back to 
Republicans. It was in a much wider kind of popular margin when you add 
up the votes that we won across the country through the House of 
Representatives, slimmer in terms of the number of seats we picked up, 
but we got it back.
  Why would Republicans go along with a huge spending bill like this 
one? It has happened every year since I have been here--no budgeting, 
no appropriations that even an appropriator like myself can look at 
because it is done behind closed doors.
  And all we have got to do is get this into the next Congress.
  Congress funds the government through CRs all the time for the wrong 
reason--because they don't do the homework; they don't do the regular 
order. It kicks the can down the road consistently--standard operating 
procedure.
  It is a slap in the face to those voters to let the outgoing House 
majority set the agenda for the next 10 months.
  We shouldn't fund the government with huge omnibus bills in the first 
place, and we shouldn't give Pelosi--current Speaker Pelosi--a going-
away present when she has been part of the process for all these years. 
We should actually do a budget like it is supposed to be done, and we 
should not do this as we are heading into a new Congress.
  I yield back to the Senator from Utah.
  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Wisconsin.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, you will notice that the senior Senator 
from Vermont didn't talk about overall spending numbers.
  I would ask the President--I would ask anybody listening to these 
floor speeches today: Do you know how much the Federal Government spent 
last year?
  I have been asking that question of my colleagues. I have been asking 
that question of journalists here in Washington, DC, people who report 
on the dealings on the floor, and the vast majority cannot answer that 
question.
  So the question you all ought to be asking yourself is, Why can't you 
answer that question?
  It is not your fault. The reason nobody knows how much the Federal 
Government spent in total last year--virtually no one knows it--is that 
we never talk about it. We are the largest financial entity in the 
world, and we never talk about how much we spend in total. We talk 
about little bits and pieces. We talk about $6 billion here, $76 
billion there--no doubt, necessary funding for top priorities. But we 
don't spend the time talking about how we are mortgaging our children's 
future.
  I have got a couple of charts that I would like to display.
  This first chart shows over 20 years of spending history, going back 
to the year 2002, when the Federal Government spent, in total, a little 
more than $2 trillion.
  If we would have just increased spending from that point by 
population growth and the rate of inflation, last year we would have 
spent a little under $3.8 trillion.
  If you go to the year 2008, when we spent just under $3 trillion, and 
once again just grew spending by population and inflation, last year we 
would have spent $4.4 trillion.
  If you go back to 2016, when we were spending $3.8 trillion--under $4 
trillion--and grew that by just the rate of growth and the population 
rate of inflation, last year we would have spent about $4.8 trillion.
  Instead, last year, we spent $6.3 trillion.
  Now, I realize--and you can see on this chart--that, the last 3 
years, spending was heavily impacted by COVID relief, close to $6 
trillion worth.
  But in 2019, before the COVID pandemic, we spent about $4.4 trillion.
  I have another chart I would like to put up here that puts this all 
in perspective.
  This breaks down spending between discretionary and mandatory plus 
interest, and then you have total outlays.
  Again, if you look at 2019, total outlay is $4.4 trillion. So because 
of COVID, the next year we spent an additional $2.1 trillion--$6.5 
trillion. In 2021, $6.8 trillion; last year, $6.3 trillion.
  Now, I heard President Biden say the pandemic is over. I think most 
of us have gotten back to our normal lives. That is a good thing. Why 
haven't we gone back to a normal spending level?
  I don't know exactly what the total spending will be for fiscal year 
2023. I do know that we are 2\1/2\ months into the fiscal year. We have 
not brought up one appropriations bill on the floor of the Senate for 
debate, for amendments--not one. We are operating on a continuing 
resolution.
  I hear all the time that these continuing resolutions are such a 
terrible way to do business. I agree. It shows the dysfunction--the 
complete dysfunction--which is leading to these out-of-control spending 
numbers.
  You would think, now that the pandemic is over, that we would return 
to a more normal level of spending.

[[Page S7126]]

  Had we just grown the 2019 level by, again, the rate of population 
growth, the rate of inflation, we would be spending about $4.8 trillion 
this year, but it appears--again, we don't know; there are a couple of 
people negotiating this; the rest of us are completely outside of the 
process--that we are going to have some massive omnibus spending bill 
dropped on our desks, and we expect to vote on it in a day or two, or 
maybe just hours. But it is going to be somewhere around $6 trillion.

  Have we literally just increased the baseline since the beginning of 
the pandemic by $1.6 trillion? That is a 36-percent increase.
  I will just put this in perspective. Again, had we grown this just by 
inflation and population growth--that would be a reasonable way to put 
some kind of constraints on what we are spending--that would be $4.8 
trillion.
  Last year, the Federal Government raised in revenue $4.9 trillion.
  Again, I can't predict what revenue is going to be in 2023, but based 
on 2022 revenue, if we are only talking about $4.8 trillion, we would 
actually have a surplus as opposed to a massive deficit almost 
guaranteed to be more than $1 trillion.
  My final point is this. And I know Senator Scott also is in the 
business world, and a number of Senators have been. If we were looking 
at this as, let's say, a division that had a problem, that had to spend 
a lot more money--a fire, some kind of real issue with the business 
where they had to drag increased spending over the last 2 or 3 years--
but that spending issue had been resolved, and that division came to us 
having spent $4.4 million in 2019 and now that the problem has been 
resolved, now they want to spend $6 million, I can guarantee you we 
would be looking for a lot more detail. We would be spending a lot more 
time in terms of why in the world would we be increasing our base 
budget by 36 percent now that the danger or the problem has passed.
  So in the business world, in the private sector, where I and Senator 
Scott came from, we would be spending a lot of time analyzing this. But 
here, in Washington, DC, the world's capital of dysfunction--of 
monetary and budgetary dysfunction--we don't even know what we are 
spending, and we are not even supposed to know because the powers that 
be are negotiating some massive omnibus bill, and they are going to jam 
us up against the Christmas holidays and ask for an up-or-down vote. 
That is outrageous.
  This process--this horribly broken, dysfunctional process--must end, 
which is why I completely agree with Senator Lee's amendment.
  Let's pass a continuing resolution. As much as I hate them, as much 
as that signals dysfunction, it will allow us the time to actually take 
a look at, debate, and question: Why in the world are we talking about 
$6 trillion of spending when, at most, looking back to 2019, growing 
that by inflation and population growth, we ought to be talking 
somewhere in the neighborhood of 4.8, certainly under $5 trillion, and 
maybe looking at the prospect for the first time in many, many years of 
balancing a budget?
  That is the attitude we ought to be taking. That is the debate we 
need to have. We need to have time for that debate, which is why I 
support Senator Lee's amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. SCOTT of Florida. Mr. President, let me begin with a simple 
question: When are we going to say enough?
  The American people are saying it. Heck, even traditionally liberal, 
mainstream news outlets are getting there.
  But here in Congress, it is nothing but business as usual. We just 
keep letting it pile up month after month, year after year. Now it is 
burying our country.
  The ``it'' should be obvious. I am talking about America's massive 
Federal debt, now more than $31 trillion. It has grown by nearly $5 
trillion since President Biden took office, and it was growing like a 
weed before that too.
  We should all be disgusted with the reckless spending in Washington 
that has caused this massive debt.
  Just look at what it is doing to our country. Historic inflation is 
raging across America, hurting families and businesses, and pushing the 
American Dream out of reach, as prices skyrocket and interest rates 
follow closely behind.
  Reckless spending approved by this Chamber and our colleagues in the 
House has caused this.
  I have been in the Senate for almost 4 years. In this time, I have 
talked a lot about my childhood. Maybe you have heard my story of 
someone who was born to a single mom, grew up poor, and lived in public 
housing.
  It is a hard place to start your life, and, today, folks in the same 
situation are struggling more than ever to get by and make ends meet as 
they deal with sky-high inflation. In most places across the world, 
people who grow up like me have no hope of being anything but what they 
were born into--for me, that was poor and watching my mom struggle 
every day to get by. That is untrue in America.

  This is the greatest Nation on Earth because a kid who grows up 
watching their parents struggle and living in public housing can work 
hard and be anything.
  But that promise isn't guaranteed. We have to protect that by being 
responsible with taxpayer money and not allowing inflation and debt to 
ruin us.
  Throughout my life, I have run businesses big and small, from a 
couple of hundred employees to hundreds of thousands of employees. Here 
is one thing that doesn't change no matter how big you get: If you 
don't live within your means, you fail. Same goes for any family. No 
family or business in any of our States gets to burn through money with 
no consequences. The only place that has become acceptable is here in 
Washington. Why? Because Congress stopped doing what it got elected to 
do.
  As I said, I have been in Washington for about 4 years now. One thing 
I have learned is that in Washington, compromise means everyone gets 
everything so nobody has to make a tough choice. The result is gross 
fiscal mismanagement and unsustainable debt. Instead of standing up to 
this broken status quo in Congress--something I think most of us ran 
on--too many people get elected, come to Washington, and become a 
rubber stamp for more spending.
  So here we are again, just days away from a government funding 
deadline. Some of our colleagues are again pushing a massive omnibus--
what we are calling the Pelosi-Schumer spending bill--which keeps this 
inflation-bomb deficit spending going.
  I asked earlier: When are we going to say ``enough?'' Will it be when 
the deficit hits $35 trillion, $45 trillion, $50 trillion? Can you 
imagine $50 trillion worth of debt? No. The answer has to be now. We 
say enough is enough today. And we should start by saying no to a 
massive omnibus spending bill and approving a simple continuing 
resolution being offered by my good friend Senator Lee of Utah.
  Doing this allows the new Congress to put together a real budget that 
is balanced, which is what we should be doing anyway.
  I don't like continuing resolutions any more than I think anyone here 
does. Since my first day in the Senate, I have been vocal about needing 
to pass a budget--a full budget--that is balanced and gets America's 
finances in order. But that is not going to happen in the next 3 days 
or before the next Congress begins, for that matter.
  So the thought of passing a Pelosi-Schumer spending bill now, just 
weeks before a new Republican majority takes power in the House, is 
insane. It is as bad an idea as I have heard of up here.
  It also goes against decades of precedent. As Senator Lee has said, 
since 1954, control of the House has changed five times, and there has 
never been an instance of Congress passing an omnibus spending bill 
before a new House majority takes power.
  Given that America is now in more debt than ever before and inflation 
is the highest it has been in 40 years, why should we choose now to 
break precedent and green-light more reckless spending?
  And let's not forget what Democrats wish to do with the hard-earned 
tax dollars of American families. The last time Democrats passed a 
spending bill, they approved $80 billion so that the IRS can hire 
87,000 new agents to target working families and small businesses. 
Worse still, Democrats are now

[[Page S7127]]

forcing every American to report any transaction of $600 or more to the 
IRS, giving the Federal Government unprecedented access into the 
personal finances of American families. We can expect more of the same 
from them now.
  Maya Angelou was right when she said:

       When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first 
     time.

  Now, we just heard what our Democrat colleagues are saying in 
objecting to this commonsense solution to avoid a government shutdown. 
They are saying that our proposal will cut services. Passing the CR 
into next year will not result in any cuts to funding or services; it 
will simply continue government operations just as they are today.
  Here is the deal. For too long, the failed and ridiculous thinking in 
Washington has been that budgets don't matter and inflation doesn't 
matter because voters will never tie wasteful spending to inflation. 
The only way to get some things done is to shove them into a giant 
spending bill negotiated in secret and pass it before anyone has any 
time to read it. That is wrong, and the American public is disgusted 
with this. It is not how any family or business operates.
  In the real world, you make plans, you meet deadlines, you make 
choices and live within your means, because failing to do so means 
failing to survive and prosper.
  Congress shouldn't be treated any differently. Congress has been 
broken and unaccountable for too long.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, in closing this discussion, I just want to 
respond to a couple of points made by my friend and colleague, the 
distinguished Senator from Vermont.
  Senator Leahy is someone I have really enjoyed working with 
throughout my 12 years in the Senate, and I will miss him when he is 
gone.
  I respectfully but very strongly disagree with his decision to object 
to this commonsense approach toward avoiding a government shutdown, and 
I want to make clear just a few things.
  No. 1, this continuing resolution is not preclusive of anything else 
he may want to do. It doesn't preclude anyone from still working to 
pass an omnibus. It, rather, provides a safety net so that Congress 
doesn't produce a government shutdown and, just as importantly, so that 
Members don't feel coerced into this dual threat of having to navigate 
between the Scylla of a threatened shutdown and the Charybdis of people 
having to cancel their holiday plans with their families. That is what 
we are trying to avoid. So it is a false choice to say that this 
doesn't allow for anything else. That is just not true.
  Now, I disagree with him about his desire to pass an omnibus because 
that omnibus doesn't yet exist. There still isn't an agreement on it. 
The bill has yet to exist and has yet to see the light of day, not only 
to the public but to all but four Members of the United States 
Congress. That is what I object to.
  But make no mistake: What we are proposing today, what we are 
reasonably suggesting today, would not preclude a subsequent omnibus; 
it would just take away the shutdown threat--which is exactly my point, 
which is exactly my concern. When we do this sort of thing--without 
speaking to anyone's subjective motives; I can't read other people's 
minds, but I do know that this pattern has been used before. It is a 
tried-and-true process by which people convince their colleagues to 
vote for things they would never otherwise vote for because, typically, 
we don't like to vote on things that we haven't seen and spend 
trillions of dollars.
  My colleague from Vermont also refers to the fact that he has had 
lengthy conversations with a number of colleagues coming to him with 
their concerns. That is great. I appreciate that. That is a very 
appropriate thing for any Senator to do, particularly the chairman of 
the Appropriations Committee. As great as that is, that isn't 
legislating. That doesn't substitute for actual floor debate, and it 
sure as heck doesn't substitute for transparency and accountability, 
allowing the American people to see what they are going to be spending 
their money on.
  We are going to get, in a matter of days, probably in about a week--
usually, they don't give us more time than that--a bill. It will be 
2,000 or 3,000 pages long, and it will spend probably 1.6 or $1.7 
trillion.
  And the American people understand that 2,000 or 3,000 pages of 
appropriations legislative text does not read like a fast-paced novel. 
Nobody is going to have a chance to review this, and that is the 
problem. So the fact that he is meeting with individual Members, 
hearing their concerns, and talking about possible tradeoffs--that is 
great, but it doesn't provide what the American people need.
  Next, he appeals to the sense of the good things that will be in the 
bill, talking about the need to fund efforts to combat opioid abuse and 
addiction and the need to fund law enforcement--great things, great 
things--but we haven't seen the legislative text, and the fact that 
there may be good things in the bill funding good causes that would 
benefit good, deserving beneficiaries doesn't mean that the bill as a 
whole makes any sense.
  He also says, with some defiance and indignation, that he is not 
going to settle for another short-term CR, that short-term CRs are a 
bad way of doing things, and he is not OK with a short-term CR.
  It is a good point. I am not either. I don't like them. It is a 
default.
  But we have been on a short-term CR since September 30. That is 2\1/
2\ months. So I don't comprehend exactly where he would draw the line 
between a short-term CR that is acceptable and one that isn't. So 2\1/
2\ months is just fine but a few more weeks isn't?
  I suspect it is going to be fine when somebody comes to the floor and 
asks for a 1-week, short-term CR--a 1-week, short-term spending bill.
  That is wrong. Why? Because it moves the threat of a shutdown that 
much closer to Christmas when Members most want to get out of town and 
when the American people and those they elect to represent them here 
are most concerned about a shutdown.
  That is coercive. That isn't trying to avoid a shutdown. No. That is 
playing with fire. That is presenting as a feature, not a bug, the risk 
of a shutdown. It is wrong, and it has to stop.
  Look, the objective today--I hope he will reconsider. This isn't 
right. We know it isn't right. Those who elected us, whether we are 
Republicans or Democrats deserve better. They don't deserve this.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. (Mr. Peters). The Senator from Nevada.