[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 199 (Wednesday, December 21, 2022)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9726-S9730]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


     
     
                    KATIMIIN AND AMEEKYAARAAM SACRED LANDS ACT
     
       Mr. PADILLA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
     Committee on Indian Affairs be discharged from further consideration of 
     S. 4439 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.
       The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
       The legislative clerk read as follows:
     
            A bill (S. 4439) to take certain Federal land located in 
          Siskiyou County, California, and Humboldt County, California, 
          into trust for the benefit of the Karuk Tribe, and for other 
          purposes.
     
       There being no objection, the committee was discharged, and the 
     Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
       Mr. PADILLA. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read 
     a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made 
     and laid upon the table.
       The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
       Without objection, it is so ordered.
       The bill (S. 4439) was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, 
     was read the third time, and passed as follows:
     
                                     S. 4439
     
            Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
          the United States of America in Congress assembled,
     
          SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
     
            This Act may be cited as the ``Katimiin and Ameekyaaraam 
          Sacred Lands Act''.
     
          SEC. 2. LAND HELD IN TRUST FOR THE KARUK TRIBE.
     
            (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
            (1) the Katimiin and Ameekyaaraam land is located in the 
          ancestral territory of the Karuk Tribe; and
            (2) the Karuk Tribe has historically used, and has an 
          ongoing relationship with, the Katimiin and Ameekyaaraam 
          land.
            (b) Definitions.--In this section:
            (1) Katimiin and ameekyaaraam land.--The term ``Katimiin 
          and Ameekyaaraam land'' means the approximately 1,031 acres 
          of Federal land, including improvements and appurtenances to 
          the Federal land, located in Siskiyou County, California, and 
          Humboldt County, California, and generally depicted as 
          ``Proposed Area'' on the map of the Forest Service entitled 
          ``Katimiin Area Boundary Proposal'' and dated August 9, 2021.
            (2) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
          of the Interior.
            (c) Administrative Transfer.--Administrative jurisdiction 
          of the Katimiin and Ameekyaaraam land is hereby transferred 
          from the Secretary of Agriculture to the Secretary, subject 
          to the condition that the Chief of the Forest Service shall 
          continue to manage the component of the National Wild and 
          Scenic Rivers System that flows through the Katimiin and 
          Ameekyaaraam land.
            (d) Land Held in Trust.--The Katimiin and Ameekyaaraam land 
          is hereby taken into trust by the Secretary for the benefit 
          of the Karuk Tribe, subject to--
            (1) valid existing rights, contracts, and management 
          agreements relating to easements and rights-of-way; and
            (2) continued access by the Chief of the Forest Service for 
          the purpose of managing the component of the National Wild 
          and Scenic Rivers System that flows through the Katimiin and 
          Ameekyaaraam land.
            (e) Survey.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
          enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Agriculture shall 
          provide to the Secretary a complete survey of the land taken 
          into trust under subsection (d).
            (f) Use of Land.--
            (1) In general.--Land taken into trust under subsection (d) 
          may be used for traditional and customary uses for the 
          benefit of the Karuk Tribe.
            (2) Gaming.--Class II and class III gaming under the Indian 
          Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.) shall not be 
          allowed on the land taken into trust under subsection (d).
            (g) Wild and Scenic Rivers Management.--
            (1) In general.--Nothing in this section affects the status 
          or administration of any component of the National Wild and 
          Scenic Rivers System, including any component that flows 
          through the land taken into trust under subsection (d).
            (2) Memorandum of understanding.--The Secretary of 
          Agriculture shall enter into a memorandum of understanding 
          with the Karuk Tribe, consistent with the obligations of the 
          Secretary of Agriculture under subsection (c), to establish 
          mutual goals for the protection and enhancement of the river 
          values of any component of the National Wild and Scenic 
          Rivers System that flows through the land taken into trust 
          under subsection (d).
     
       Mr. PADILLA. I yield the floor.
       The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
       Mr. BOOKER. I didn't hear that, Mr. President.
       The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
       Mr. BOOKER. Thank you very much, Mr. President. I appreciate that. I 
     appreciate your kindness and the respect you give the great Garden 
     State.
     
     
                       Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 3771
     
       Mr. BOOKER. Mr. President, I would like to talk a bit and then ask 
     for unanimous consent on the South Asian Heart Awareness and Research 
     Act. I am really proud of this work and the bipartisan effort.
       In general, heart disease is widely prevalent. There is an alarming 
     statistic that I want to reveal to everyone: that every 36 seconds, a 
     person in the United States dies of cardiovascular disease. This is a 
     national crisis. But when you break down the data by racial and ethnic 
     group, it is the South Asian Americans who have the highest death rate 
     from heart disease. Almost two-thirds of middle-aged South Asian 
     Americans are at either immediate or high risk for heart failure within 
     the next 10 years. Compared to the general population, South Asians are 
     four times more likely to have heart disease and have a much greater 
     chance of having a heart attack before the age of 50.
       The prevalence of type 2 diabetes, a leading cause of heart disease, 
     is the highest in America amongst South Asians. Some of these 
     heightened risks are connected to social determinants of health, the 
     conditions that people have to face every day of their lives.
       For some South Asian Americans, language barriers even make visits to 
     the doctor more difficult. Others are immigrants who are adjusting to 
     this Nation, trying to make a living working multiple jobs, and often 
     neglecting their personal health experience as well.
       That makes it all the more important that Congress step in and act to 
     promote better understanding, awareness, and research of heart disease. 
     Because of that reason, I am proud to lead the Senate version of the 
     South Asian Heart Health Awareness and Research Act.
       For each year between 2023 and 2027, this bill would authorize 
     additional funding and grant money to promote awareness of the 
     increasing prevalence of heart disease in disproportionately affected 
     communities. It authorizes the Centers for Disease Control to develop 
     culturally appropriate materials to promote health, support community 
     groups involved in heart health promotion, and support conferences and 
     research workshops dedicated to the issue.
       Finally, it establishes a central source of information on heart 
     health to help patients access resources quickly, if need be.
       This bill, again, is a bipartisan bill. It is a bipartisan approach. 
     It is a bicameral approach to address a clear heart health and research 
     gap. With the leadership of Representatives Jayapal and Wilson in the 
     House of Representatives, this legislation has already passed one 
     Chamber of Congress twice--twice, already. It is now up to the Senate 
     to pass this commonsense bill and take a step toward addressing the 
     disproportionate impact that heart disease has on South Asian 
     Americans.
       As a representative of New Jersey, one of the States with the largest 
     South Asian communities in the country, I have the chance to interact 
     often with constituents from Pakistan,
     
     [[Page S9727]]
     
     India, Bangladesh, and other South Asian countries. They are such 
     critical aspects of the American story, the American fabric, and I urge 
     us all today to not let this opportunity slip by. And I now ask for 
     unanimous consent to pass the South Asian Heart Health Awareness and 
     Research Act.
       Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, 
     Education, Labor, and Pensions be discharged from further consideration 
     of H.R. 3771 and that the Senate proceed to its immediate 
     consideration.
       I ask unanimous consent that the Booker amendment, which is at the 
     desk, be considered and agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be 
     considered read a third time and passed; that the title amendment at 
     the desk be considered and agreed to; and that the motion to reconsider 
     be considered made and laid upon the table.
       The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Padilla). Is there objection?
       The Senator from Kentucky.
       Mr. PAUL. I object.
       The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
       The Senator from New Jersey.
       Mr. BOOKER. To the Senator from California, the Presiding Officer, it 
     is good to see you there. I wish you a very merry Christmas.
     
     
                       Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 5768
     
       Mr. President, from 2019 to 2020, we have seen a rise in homicide 
     rates in all corners of our Nation, by 30 percent in urban areas and 25 
     percent in our rural areas. Much of this increase can be traced to the 
     gun violence epidemic that plagues America. But today I rise to ask my 
     colleagues to join me in passing a bill that will address violent crime 
     and bring perpetrators to justice at a time when our assistance is so 
     desperately needed.
       Each instance of violence and each death is especially painful for 
     family, friends, and for the loved ones of victims. Nothing can ever 
     replace losing a loved one, but some semblance of closure can be 
     provided to victims' families when the perpetrators of these crimes are 
     brought to justice.
       It is time to do more. The data indicates that these crimes are 
     committed repeatedly by the same individuals. Less than 1 percent of 
     the population is responsible for over 60 percent of gun crimes in this 
     country. A 2017 analysis of shootings in Oakland revealed that just 0.1 
     percent of the city's population was responsible for most of the 
     homicides.
       Yet the homicide clearance rate, defined as the percentage of those 
     crimes that are solved, has dramatically declined recently, falling 7 
     percent from 2019 to 2020.
       Currently, about half of the murders in the United States--half--are 
     ultimately solved. For every murder and nonfatal shooting that goes 
     unsolved, the public is put at greater danger. The pattern of dismal 
     clearance rates in this country are disproportionately impacting 
     minority communities.
       It is a tragedy that we can solve. Police need the resources to solve 
     homicides and crimes of gun violence nationwide. Police need the 
     resources that the evidence demonstrates, if they had, they can vastly 
     improve their clearance rates.
       This past July, the House passed a bipartisan bill, the bill I 
     introduced in June, the Violent Incident Clearance and Technological 
     Investigation Methods Act, or the VICTIM Act. This bill would establish 
     a new grant program through the Department of Justice to help State, 
     local, and Tribal law enforcement agencies improve their clearance 
     rates for homicides and nonfatal shootings.
       At a time of this wrongful, erroneous language about anybody in this 
     body wanting to defund the police, this is a chance to apply police 
     resources, to give the police more resources to ultimately solve the 
     crimes that are most savaging and hurting our neighborhoods.
       This is a critical bill. It is a bipartisan bill. It is a bicameral 
     bill, and it would provide the kind of grants that we have seen that 
     help dramatically solve violent homicides.
       The VICTIM Act has been endorsed by the largest police groups in the 
     country: the Fraternal Order of Police, the International Association 
     of Chiefs of Police, the Major Cities Chiefs Association, and others. 
     They are telling us they need these additional resources to help make 
     our communities safer.
       It is unacceptable that we have this level of murder in our country. 
     Communities are being shattered, and law enforcement agencies don't 
     have the resources necessary to bring the victims and their families 
     the justice they deserve. This is an issue that cuts at the heart of 
     criminal and racial justice.
       So, today, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the 
     immediate consideration of H.R. 5768, which has been received from the 
     House and is at the desk; further, that the bill be considered read a 
     third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made 
     and laid upon the table with no intervening debate.
       The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
       The Senator from Kentucky.
       Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, our Federal 
     debt is now over $31 trillion, with no end in sight. The legislation 
     before us authorizes a billion dollars in new spending. This bill comes 
     just after, in the dead of night, at 1:30 in the morning, the 
     leadership of this body released a 4,000-page bill that spends $1.7 
     trillion and will add over a trillion dollars in new debt to the 
     country.
       We have learned the hard way that profligate Federal spending comes 
     at a great cost. The trillions of supposedly free money that Congress 
     spent over the pandemic was not free at all. Inflation continues to eat 
     away at the purchasing power of every American family, regardless of 
     income. The least fortunate among us are worse off because of our 
     spending. The working class and those who live on a fixed income are 
     the ones who are hurt worst by inflation. Inflation comes from spending 
     money you don't have.
       This is why I offer to modify the request. We should study this 
     issue. And before we add any dollars to it, we should study this issue 
     further.
       So I have asked that the Comptroller General of the United States 
     conduct a study of crime and crime clearance rates by jurisdiction, 
     identify specific technological methods that improve clearance rates, 
     and determine whether one approach yields higher clearance rates than 
     others. This report should also discern whether efforts to defund the 
     police have adversely impacted those rates and explore fee-based 
     mechanisms to pay for Federal grants to reduce violent crime after the 
     completion of this study.
       It is time we stopped forcing one-size-fits-all policies on States 
     and local law enforcement. Each jurisdiction is unique and deserves to 
     implement the most appropriate practices for their constituents and 
     community. Therefore, I encourage the passage of my amendment.
       So, still reserving the right to object, I ask unanimous consent that 
     the Senator modify his request to include my amendment, which would 
     allow for this report, which is at the desk; that the amendment be 
     considered and agreed to; that the bill, as amended, 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. Does the Senator so modify the request?
       Mr. BOOKER. Mr. President, this might be seen as a Christmas miracle, 
     but I am grateful for that suggestion from the Senator from Kentucky. I 
     am disappointed that he does not accept this bill, which does not 
     impose anything on local law enforcement but gives them opportunities 
     for resources that they can apply for. It is going to help us actually 
     lower the cost for local communities because one murder in one 
     community causes such economic damage. You can't put a price on human 
     life.
       But I do feel a sense of gratitude that the Senator from Kentucky 
     might be willing to work with me on finding a way forward and that 
     there is some area of common ground.
       So I don't accept his amendment now, but I look forward, in the new 
     year, in the next Congress, to finding a way to perhaps work together 
     to some accord.
       So, no. I object to the modification.
       The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the original request?
       Mr. PAUL. I object.
       The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
       The Senator from New Jersey.
     
     
                       Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 1693
     
       Mr. BOOKER. Mr. President, today, right now, Christopher Bass sits in 
     a
     
     [[Page S9728]]
     
     jail cell in Jesup, GA. He will sleep there tonight, and he has spent 
     19 years in that jail cell. Terrance Stanton sits in a jail cell in 
     Wildwood, FL. He has spent the last 8 years in that jail cell.
       Across our country, 8,000 people sit in jail cells who should have 
     left a long time ago. Many have been there for years and will be there 
     for years to come.
       Christopher and Terrance are just two of the people languishing 
     behind bars because of a mistake that Congress made 36 years ago. Their 
     families are two of the thousands of families who are not reconnected 
     with their families during the holiday season, who are not reunited 
     with their children because of this mistake.
       In 1986, Congress passed a law which created a 100-to-1 sentencing 
     disparity between crack cocaine and powder cocaine offenses. The 
     decision to enact this legislation was not based on science or data. 
     Crack cocaine and powder cocaine are pharmacologically the same 
     substance. They have the same effects. They are identical. That is 
     science. But the one which was more prevalent in poor communities, in 
     Black and Brown communities, was punished 100 times more harshly.
       It was only in 2010 that Congress reduced but not eliminated this 
     disparity to 18 to 1--better, yes, but why 18 to 1? Again, there is no 
     reason behind this ratio for the same scientifically and 
     pharmacologically exact substance. And this disparity continues to ruin 
     the lives of hundreds of people convicted for nonviolent crack offenses 
     because they received punishments 18 times longer than those with the 
     powder.
       Those of you who know me will understand that this is an urgency I 
     feel because we are a nation that believes that liberty is one of the 
     most sacrosanct ideals, and to unjustly take a person's liberty is an 
     affront to our constitutional principles that we swear an oath to when 
     we say we are one Nation under God with liberty and justice for all.
       I believe we must deal with this. We know that this is an urgency. We 
     know that this is wrong. In fact, the bill--the EQUAL Act--which was 
     passed overwhelmingly in the House of Representatives, passed with a 
     vote of 361 to 66. Republicans and Democrats joined together all across 
     the political spectrum to say that this was wrong, that we should make 
     these pharmacologically identical substances have the same punishment.
     
       Here in the U.S. Senate, 11 Republicans have joined as cosponsors of 
     the EQUAL Act legislation. This is supported bicamerally and in a 
     bipartisan way. Yet we can't get this done. This bill gathers momentum. 
     It is advocated for from police groups and all the way to think tanks 
     on both sides of the aisle.
       I believe now is the time, as we approach the holidays, to end this 
     injustice, to restore more truth behind the ideals of liberty in this 
     Nation.
       So, Mr. President, therefore, I ask unanimous consent that the 
     Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of 
     H.R. 1693 and that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; 
     further, that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and 
     the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
       The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
       The Senator from Arkansas.
       Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, every 
     American has heard about our drug death crisis. Many have, sadly, 
     experienced it first- or secondhand, seeing loved ones and friends 
     struggle with addiction.
       And it is not just opioids. In the past year, more than 25,000 of our 
     fellow citizens died by cocaine. That is more than a 25-percent 
     increase since Joe Biden took office and more than double the overdoses 
     in 2016.
       At the same time, murders and other violent crime rates are 
     skyrocketing, as we just heard earlier from the Senator from New 
     Jersey. The murder rate has hit levels not seen since the 1990s. Gangs 
     and cartels are emboldened in part because they know that many Soros 
     prosecutors across the country in the Garland Department of Justice 
     will treat them with kid gloves.
       This so-called EQUAL Act is likewise going to go easier on crack 
     cocaine traffickers, including members of gangs and cartels. This would 
     only exacerbate our problems.
       Why would we do that now, of all times, given these facts? Crack 
     cocaine and powder cocaine, while true that they are the same primary 
     chemicals, are different drugs. Their delivery is different. Crack 
     cocaine is more addictive. The typical methods of trafficking and sale 
     are more dangerous.
       According to the U.S. Sentencing Commission, crack cocaine 
     traffickers are more than twice as likely as powder cocaine traffickers 
     to involve weapons in their crimes, and crack cocaine traffickers are 
     the most likely of any type of drug trafficker to be rearrested. Nearly 
     60 percent of crack cocaine traffickers are rearrested, many for 
     violent offenses within just a few years of release. 
     Disproportionately, minorities and individuals in low-income areas bear 
     the brunt of the violence of this trafficking.
       That is why I have to remind everyone that Congress passed laws with 
     enhanced penalties for crack cocaine trafficking in the first place, 
     and I have to remind everyone that those laws passed almost unanimously 
     decades ago, when the Senator from New Jersey and I were just kids, and 
     they were supported by, among other people, the Congressional Black 
     Caucus, Senator Durbin, Senator Leahy, Senator Schumer, and then-
     Senator, now-President Joe Biden.
       This was not an accident. This was a deliberate policy choice for the 
     reasons I have stated.
       The EQUAL Act, though, would not just reduce sentences for those 
     dealing drugs now; it would also retroactively allow crack cocaine 
     traffickers in Federal prison to seek early release.
       Nevertheless, I have heard, as we heard today, for years about this 
     so-called disparity, as if it were an accident, as if it were 
     unintentional--a loophole in the law--rather than people like Senator 
     Schumer and Senator Leahy and then-Senator Biden and the Congressional 
     Black Caucus seeking it as a deliberate policy choice.
       Oftentimes, it is attributed to racism. Again, the disparity is in 
     the law because of the facts I have cited. However, I am willing to try 
     to meet the other side halfway. I have a different plan to eliminate 
     the disparity.
       Rather than reducing sentences for crack cocaine traffickers, I 
     propose that we increase sentences for powder cocaine trafficking to 
     eliminate this disparity. Especially with cocaine overdoses on the rise 
     now, we should start enforcing the law even more rigorously so innocent 
     Americans don't die.
       So, Mr. President, still reserving the right to object, I ask 
     unanimous consent that the Senator modify his request to include my 
     amendment, which is at the desk; that the amendment be considered and 
     agreed to; that the bill, as amended, 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. Does the Senator so modify his request?
       The Senator from New Jersey.
       Mr. BOOKER. Reserving the right to object, I question some of the 
     comments that were made that--over a generation ago when Congress acted 
     wrongly, the Senators whom he named--from the President of the United 
     States, a former Senator; to Dick Durbin; to members of the 
     Congressional Black Caucus--have all said publicly that they think it 
     was a mistake. There are things this body has done before, generations 
     ago, like this that future Congresses said: Enough is enough. This 
     Congress passed laws on gender, on LGBTQ Americans, and later 
     Congresses said that was a mistake.
       Now, the beautiful thing about this is it is not a partisan group of 
     people saying it was a mistake. In the House of Representatives, you 
     have dozens of Republicans and Democrats who were there a generation 
     ago, over 30 years, who said it was a mistake. You now have this loud 
     chorus of conviction that says this was wrong.
       The Senator from Arkansas--I respect him deeply and consider him 
     somebody who has helped to make me a better Senator, but if you look at 
     what we call recidivism rates, the data my colleague from Arkansas 
     cites counts arrests for minor violations of parole or other technical 
     violations as recidivism. Often, it is people returning to low-income 
     communities who
     
     [[Page S9729]]
     
     are more heavily policed. We know we have more interactions with police 
     and more likelihood for rearrest.
       This doesn't take away from the ideal that I talked about, an ideal 
     to which my colleague and I both have this fierce fealty to, which is 
     liberty. Right now, in prisons all over America, there are people who 
     have been in jail for a decade or two decades for nonviolent crack 
     cocaine offenses while people with more cocaine, with weightier drugs 
     that affect more people, have come in and out of jail. The people who 
     are in jail for crack cocaine happen to be disproportionately African 
     American.
       At the time Congress made this mistake, which Republicans and 
     Democrats in both Houses say was a mistake, there was a terrible fear 
     that was gripping this country with a new drug coming along. It was 
     that fear that drove us to do something that has now had people in 
     prison for years and years and years.
       So I do object to what my colleague and friend proposes, and I know 
     that this will be corrected. Mark my words. The arc of the moral 
     universe is long. We will get to one to one; I am confident of that. 
     But why should people have to languish in prison for yet another year 
     to 2 years--another Congress--separated from families, separated from 
     their children? God, at this time of the holidays, where so many people 
     are being reunited, this is not only an act of justice, it would be an 
     act of mercy.
       I object to my colleague's unanimous consent request.
       The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
       Is there objection to the original request?
       Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, just to be 
     clear, powder cocaine sentences are here, and crack cocaine sentences 
     are here. The bill in question would reduce these sentences to 
     eliminate the so-called disparity. My amendment would simply raise 
     sentences for powder cocaine dealing.
       So I would suggest the issue here is not so much the disparity but 
     tough sentences for crimes whatsoever. So I object.
       The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
       Mr. BOOKER. I yield the floor to the great Senator from Louisiana.
       The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
     
     
                            Unanimous Consent Request
     
       Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am joined today with two of my esteemed 
     colleagues from my office, Mr. Bubba Gesser and Henson Webre. And I am 
     here in thanksgiving. I know it is not Thanksgiving. It is Christmas. 
     But I am here in thanksgiving with a small ``t,'' and I want to thank 
     Congress on behalf of the American people.
       I want to talk to you for a second about the Mississippi River-Gulf 
     Outlet. We call it MRGO. Here it is here, this straight channel--a 
     canal, you might call it. This is the Mississippi River here.
       In the 1950s and the 1960s, Congress authorized the Corps of 
     Engineers to build the Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet, to dig it. The 
     idea at the time--and it seemed a good one--was that the Mississippi 
     River-Gulf Outlet, being 75 miles long and a straight line, would make 
     it cheaper, easier, and more efficient for ships rather than going up 
     the Mississippi River, which winds a good bit. They could go up the 
     MRGO, as we call it--straight line, 75 miles--and they could save money 
     by getting to the Port of New Orleans quicker.
       The original canal or channel--MRGO--was about 650 feet wide. As I 
     said, we thought it was a good idea. I am not blaming the Corps of 
     Engineers. The Corps of Engineers was asked to do this. Our decision to 
     dig the MRGO turned out to be a mitigated disaster in more ways than 
     one.
       First, the MRGO got bigger, it got deeper, and it got wider. The 
     original 600 feet in some places became 3,000 feet. It was a huge 
     undertaking, and it caused massive destruction to our wetlands. We dug 
     out more dirt to build MRGO--once again, right here; here is the 
     Mississippi River--than they dug out to build the Panama Canal, and we 
     destroyed tens of thousands of acres of wetlands.
       In addition, because it was pretty much a straight line and there was 
     no current, unlike the Mississippi River, saltwater began to move up 
     the Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet, MRGO, causing enormous erosion and 
     saltwater intrusion.
       When we had Hurricane Katrina in the early 2000s, 2005, well, MRGO 
     became a superhighway for storm surge. I mean, the surge just came 
     straight up this outlet--MRGO--swamping St. Bernard Parish, swamping 
     New Orleans, breaking the levees. There have been estimates that MRGO 
     increased the storm surge and the destruction by 25 percent.
       We made a mistake building MRGO. After Katrina, we tried to correct 
     our mistake, and we have been well on the way to correcting it.
       First, Congress directed the Corps of Engineers to block the MRGO. It 
     is still there, but we built about a thousand feet of barrier here of 
     rock. Once again, this is MRGO, and here is the Mississippi River. So 
     we blocked the channel so nobody can use it, but still, that wasn't 
     enough.
       Congress also directed the Corps of Engineers to come up with a 
     Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet restoration plan, how we are going to get 
     rid of MRGO and repair the damage that it did, and that is why I am 
     grateful. In our Water Resources Development Act--which this Senate 
     just passed, along with the National Defense Authorization Act--we have 
     at long last done something that I have been working on since I got 
     here from day one. I know Senator Cassidy, my colleague, has been 
     working hard on it. We authorized the Corps of Engineers to begin 
     implementing the Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet restoration plan.
       What does that mean? That means that the Corps is going to fill it in 
     and try to start repairing the wetlands and other ecological and 
     environmental damage that was done when we built this channel. And it 
     will not cost the people of Louisiana one single penny. The Corps of 
     Engineers has agreed to fund the entire project. That is why I say I 
     rise in gratitude and thanksgiving. I want to thank this Congress, and 
     I want to thank the Corps of Engineers.
       In the last few minutes I have, Mr. President, I am still in 
     gratitude and thanksgiving. Most of my people in Louisiana celebrate 
     Christmas, and to those who do, I just want to wish them a merry 
     Christmas. I am so proud of my State. We don't take it for granted. God 
     has blessed Louisiana, and having blessed us once, I think God blessed 
     us a second time. We are at the top of the gulf coast. We are in the 
     middle of the gulf south. We straddle one of the mightiest rivers in 
     the entire world, the Mississippi River, right here. We have more oil 
     and gas than most nations. My people are experts in endeavors like oil 
     and gas exploration, petrochemical manufacturing, shipbuilding, 
     agriculture, aquaculture, tourism, food, manufacturing, education, 
     healthcare--and I could continue. My people--I have lived in five other 
     States and a foreign country, and I have never, ever met people like my 
     people in Louisiana. They are hard-working, they are God-fearing, and 
     they are fun-loving.
       I kid my two colleagues from Texas, Senator Cruz and Senator Cornyn, 
     all the time. I say, ``Senators--actually, I say ``Cruz and Cornyn,'' 
     but we are supposed to refer to them as Senators.
       I say: Ted and John, you know, you represent Texas.
       I love Texas. Wonderful State. Texas gets an extraordinary amount of 
     good publicity. And I am happy for them. God bless. But I also tell my 
     friends Senators Cruz and Cornyn: Look at it another way. Texas is 5\1/
     2\ times bigger than Louisiana, but we are 10\1/2\ times more 
     interesting, and that is because of my people, the people of Louisiana.
       So my wish this Christmas to my people is, first, enjoy your family, 
     worship your God, worship our God, and may your sunrises be full of 
     hope and your sunsets be full of peace.
       I yield.
       The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
     
     
                  Unanimous Consent Request--Executive Calendar
     
       Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I have come to the floor this afternoon 
     with a request to confirm a highly qualified nominee. Dr. Brent Neiman 
     is nominated to serve as the sixth Assistant Secretary of the Treasury 
     for International Finance and Development.
     
     [[Page S9730]]
     
       Finance Committee members voted in November of last year--let me 
     repeat: November of 2021, more than 13 months ago, over a year--to 
     approve Dr. Neiman's nomination on a strong bipartisan basis. This is 
     not a controversial nominee. His nomination has waited long enough. And 
     there are a lot of challenges waiting for him at the Treasury 
     Department. For example, China's lockdowns are creating a ripple effect 
     throughout international supply chains. It is one of the major causes 
     of the inflation that has been clobbering family budgets in Oregon and 
     across the country the last few years.
       Dr. Neiman will also have a role to play in dealing with the fallout 
     of Russia's brutal and illegal invasion of Ukraine. He will directly 
     address the economic impact of sanctions and the price cap on Russian 
     oil. He will be involved in maintaining maximum pressure to hold Putin 
     accountable for the horrors of the unprovoked, unjustified war that 
     Vladimir Putin started.
     
       Dr. Neiman will also work on the critically important issue of 
     currency manipulation by foreign governments. This is a subject that 
     the Finance Committee, on a bipartisan basis, has taken very seriously. 
     Most importantly, the Treasury Department urgently needs an expert at 
     the helm to address these issues and solve complicated policy questions 
     that have everything to do with the global economy.
       Dr. Neiman is the right man for the job. His qualifications are 
     undeniable. Following an education in economics and mathematics, he 
     served on the staff of the White House Council of Economic Advisers and 
     the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago. He brings very valuable private 
     sector experience. Let me underline that to our colleagues, real 
     private sector experience.
       At the University of Chicago's Booth School of Business, his decades 
     of research have contributed to his expertise on international 
     macroeconomics, finance, and trade.
       He is an excellent choice for a very challenging job that handles a 
     lot of difficult issues. I strongly support his nomination for this 
     especially important, urgently needed post at the Treasury Department. 
     He has support from both sides of the Senate Finance Committee. His 
     nomination has waited long enough.
       For that reason, I ask unanimous consent that as in executive 
     session, the Senate consider the following nomination: Calendar No. 
     545, Brent Neiman to be a Deputy Under Secretary of the Treasury; that 
     the Senate vote on the nomination without intervening action or debate; 
     that if confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid 
     upon the table and the President be immediately notified of the 
     Senate's action.
       The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there an objection?
       The Senator from Pennsylvania.
       Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, on behalf of our friend and colleague, 
     Senator Barrasso, I object.
       The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
       Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I think this is very unfortunate. We very 
     much need to have this post filled, and we are going to stay at it 
     until Dr. Neiman, a very distinguished individual whose talents are 
     immense and fit for the job, is approved.
     
                               ____________________