[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 149 (Thursday, September 14, 2023)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4503-S4515]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




     MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, VETERANS AFFAIRS, AND RELATED AGENCIES 
                        APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2024

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Cortez Masto). The clerk will report the 
bill by title.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 4366) making appropriations for military 
     construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and related 
     agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2024, and 
     for other purposes.


[[Page S4504]]


  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.


                           Amendment No. 1092

       (Purpose: In the nature of a substitute.)

  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I call up substitute amendment, No. 
1092, and ask that it be reported by number.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment by number.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New York [Mr. Schumer], for Mrs. Murray 
     and Ms. Collins, proposes an amendment numbered 1092.

  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I ask to dispense with further reading 
of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The amendment is printed in the Record of September 7, 2023, under 
``Text of Amendments.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.


                Amendment No. 1205 to Amendment No. 1092

  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I call up my amendment, No. 1205, and 
ask that it be reported by number.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment by number.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Washington [Mrs. Murray] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1205 to amendment No. 1092.

  Mrs. MURRAY. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
  At the end of division C, add the following:

     SEC. 422. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       This Act shall take effect on the date that is 1 day after 
     the date of enactment of this Act.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.


                Motion to Commit with Amendment No. 1207

  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I move to commit H.R. 4366 to the 
Appropriations Committee, with instructions to report back forthwith 
with an amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New York [Mr. Schumer] moves to commit the 
     bill H.R. 4366 to the Appropriations Committee with 
     instructions to report back forthwith with an amendment 
     numbered No. 1207.

  The amendment is as follows:

                (Purpose: To change the effective date)

  At the end of division C, add the following:

     SEC. 422. EFFECTIVE DATE.

  This Act shall take effect on the date that is 8 days after the date 
of enactment of this Act.

  Mr. SCHUMER. I ask to dispense with further reading.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. King). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                  Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 4366

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
substitute amendment No. 1092 be considered an Appropriations Committee 
amendment for purposes of rule XVI, with no other rule XVI points of 
order waived by this agreement; that H.R. 4366, H.R. 4368, as reported 
in the House of Representatives on June 27, 2023, and H.R. 4820, as 
reported in the House of Representatives on July 24, 2023, serve as the 
basis for defense of germaneness under rule XVI for any floor 
amendments and that it be in order for floor amendments to amend the 
substitute in more than one place; further, that it be in order for the 
following amendments to be made pending and that, at a time to be 
determined by the majority leader in consultation with the Republican 
leader, the Senate vote on the following amendments to the Murray-
Collins substitute amendment No. 1092, with 60 affirmative votes 
required for adoption and with no further amendments or motions in 
order to the amendments: Paul No. 1157, Vance No. 1125, Ernst No. 1123, 
Blackburn No. 1155, Lee No. 1121, Stabenow No. 1115, Peters-Cornyn No. 
1122, Rosen No. 1117, Padilla No. 1139, and Schatz No. 1120.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am both surprised and disappointed that 
the Senator from Wisconsin is objecting to this unanimous consent 
agreement. The Senator from Wisconsin has repeatedly said--and I agree 
with him--that we should not end up with an omnibus bill--a 4,000-page 
bill--at the end of the year, with little consideration and having been 
largely drafted by a small group of people.
  So why is the Senator from Wisconsin objecting to proceeding to three 
appropriations bills that were reported unanimously--unanimously, each 
one of them--by the Senate Appropriations Committee after a great deal 
of work? Furthermore, the Senator is objecting to Republican amendments 
being offered to this package--amendments by Senator Paul, Senator 
Vance, Senator Ernst, Senator Blackburn, Senator Lee--and that is just 
the first tranche of amendments.
  Negotiations are ongoing, and there will be additional amendments; 
but if we cannot proceed to consider this bill and the other two 
appropriations bills unanimously reported by the Senate committee, then 
those amendments offered by some of our Members cannot be considered.
  Is the Senator from Wisconsin opposed to the amendments that are 
offered by Senators Paul, Vance, Ernst, Blackburn, and Lee? Because, by 
objecting, he is preventing them from being considered by the full 
Senate.
  We have worked very hard to clear amendments for consideration by 
this body, but if we can't even get passed the procedural amendments 
that allow us to bring the Transportation and Housing appropriations 
bill and the Agriculture appropriations bill to add to the MILCON-VA 
bill, then the Senate is broken once again.
  Senator Murray and I, along with all the members of the 
Appropriations Committee, have worked so hard to achieve bipartisan 
consensus. We held nearly 50 hearings and briefings, asking tough 
questions, reviewing the President's budget request, evaluating the 
numbers in the budget. And we worked hard to develop, draft, and 
approve all 12 of the appropriations bills for the first time in 5 
years.
  How can a Member stand up and object and, at the same time, say: Oh, 
I don't want an omnibus bill. Well, that is what we are heading for.
  We lost last week. I wish that the Democratic leader had brought this 
to the floor last week. We are now losing this week, and needlessly so.
  There has been a great openness by my Democratic colleagues to 
consider Republican amendments. We just asked unanimous consent for the 
first five to be considered. Yet that is objected to.
  Members cannot have it both ways. They cannot block floor 
consideration of appropriations bills that were unanimously reported by 
the committee and yet maintain that they don't want an omnibus bill. It 
is one or the other, or a government shutdown--even worse.
  So I would ask my colleague from Wisconsin to think through this and 
think about the fact that he is blocking Republican amendments from 
getting a vote on the Senate floor. He is setting us up for either an 
omnibus bill or a government shutdown, and none of those outcomes serve 
the American people well.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, let's be clear. To all of my colleagues 
who told me and Senator Collins and the American people that we have to 
get back to regular order, that is exactly what we are working to do 
here. We have been working in good faith to set up amendment votes and 
to get the ball rolling on this bill. Now there are a few colleagues on 
the other side of the aisle who are dismissing all of this out of hand, 
any kind of reasonable agreement to move this process forward, and 
blocking all of the agreements we put together to move forward.
  Listen to this. If we all want regular order, a key part of this is 
allowing Senators to come down, have amendments voted on, and moving 
forward

[[Page S4505]]

with an amendment process so Senators can make their voices heard on 
our funding bills. So we can't move at a glacial pace, and we can't 
have Senators obstructing this process needlessly.
  I do hope they reconsider and work with us on a timely, serious 
process so all Senators, especially those who do not serve on the 
Appropriations Committee, can come here and speak up for their values 
and their constituents.
  I know colleagues are ready to bring forward amendments, some of 
which I don't agree with and will likely vote against, all of which I 
am prepared, with my colleague from Maine, to discuss and debate. But 
the Senate should be allowed to work its will and to debate these 
issues here on the floor, and the American public should be able to see 
for themselves where their elected leaders stand on those issues as we 
consider the legislation that will fund the U.S. Government.
  That is regular order, but that cannot happen until everybody in this 
body gets serious about coming to this agreement about how we move this 
process forward, period.
  Now, I want to be clear. While there are a few Senators who are 
determined now to derail this process--this bipartisan process--the 
vast majority of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle have put 
forward serious efforts into crafting these genuine bipartisan bills. I 
know that because the Senator from Maine and I took great pains to make 
sure everyone could weigh in here. We made extraordinary progress in 
the Senate Appropriations Committee. I have heard about it from so many 
of you, on both sides of the aisle, all week.
  How did we do it? We agreed early on to have an open, bipartisan 
process for our funding bills--exactly what many Senators have been 
calling for. We said: Let's stick to the bipartisan debt limit deal, 
which we all passed in July, and let's keep out partisan poison pills, 
and let's give Members a chance to weigh in and make their 
constituents' voices heard. In other words, let's show the American 
people Congress can actually work.
  Let's be clear. The bills we are considering aren't Democratic or 
Republican spending bills. They are bills both sides--Democrats and 
Republicans--wrote after a lot of negotiation and compromise. Together, 
this package that we have reflects input from Senators from across the 
country and across the political spectrum, working on behalf of the 
people who sent them here. That is exactly why all of these bills in 
this package passed our committee unanimously.

  The American people are watching. They are wondering can Congress 
still work, if we can actually come together and reach common ground, 
even on something as fundamental as funding our government. They do not 
want to see grandstanding or chaos. They want to see results. The vast 
majority of this body wants to show them that we take this job 
seriously, that we take their problems seriously, which the Senator 
from Maine and I greatly appreciate.
  I hope that the few holdouts who are now keeping us from moving 
forward and reaching an agreement so we can line up amendments and 
votes will see reason. Let us show the American people that Congress is 
still capable of working in good faith to help people and solve 
problems, just like they sent us here to do.
  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. BOOZMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, so ordered.


                               H.R. 4366

  Mr. BOOZMAN. Mr. President, I am very happy to join Senator Murray 
today in presenting the fiscal year 2024 and 2025 appropriations bill 
for the Department of Veterans Affairs and for the Department of 
Defense military construction.
  I am proud to be a part of this first minibus as we continue the 
fiscal year 2024 appropriations process and the return to regular 
order. As in years past, this subcommittee crafted the bill in an open 
and bipartisan way, and I expect to continue that today as we consider 
this bill on the floor.
  This bill takes into consideration the needs of our veterans, their 
families, and our servicemembers, and, within that framework, we have 
created a thoughtful and responsible path for both Departments and our 
related Agencies.
  This bill provides $154.352 billion in discretionary spending, which 
is $184 million over last year's level. Within that, the Department of 
Veterans Affairs is provided $134.8 billion in discretionary funding, 
which is $85 million over last year's level. Included in that level is 
$121 billion for veterans' medical care, a $2.3 billion increase over 
last year.
  This bill funds priority accounts to prevent veteran suicide, 
increase rural access to healthcare, and support critical mental health 
programs. It helps to prevent veterans' homelessness and provides 
funding for innovative medical research.
  The bill provides $19.07 billion to support military construction and 
family housing needs and funds a total of 163 major military 
construction projects, which we desperately need.
  This bill will give the Department of Defense the resources it needs 
to project power globally, enhance our warfighting capabilities, and 
train the forces. This bill also provides $1.9 billion to improve the 
quality of life for servicemembers and their families.
  I also want to note that the bill includes $471.3 million for our 
related Agencies, which include the American Battle Monuments 
Commission, the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, Arlington 
National Cemetery, and the Armed Forces Retirement Home.
  I want to thank Chair Murray and Vice Chair Collins for their 
leadership with the total committee, and also I want to specifically 
thank Chair Murray and her staff and my staff for the hard work they 
have done in crafting this bill to get us to where we are at today. So 
we appreciate them.
  Also, we will be encouraging votes so that we can actually get these 
bills across the finish line.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I want to thank Senator Boozman for being 
such a great partner and for his work on this bill and all the 
appropriations bills. I look forward to working with him as we continue 
to try to bring this up and get it rolling and moving on the floor. So 
I thank him very much.
  Mr. President, as I said, we are working in good faith to set up 
amendment votes and get this ball rolling on the bipartisan 
appropriations package that the senior Senator from Maine and I 
assembled, along with all of our colleagues on the Appropriations 
Committee, so we can return the Senate to regular order for the first 
time in a long time, which many of our colleagues have called for.
  In the meantime, today, I want to talk about the Military 
Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies bill that is 
included in this funding package and why the investments in this bill 
are so important for our military readiness, for our military families, 
and especially for veterans across our Nation who have sacrificed so 
much for us.
  As chair of the MILCON-VA Subcommittee, I worked closely with the 
senior Senator from Arkansas, who just spoke, to get input from our 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle and draft the strongest possible 
bill, even under tough top lines from the debt limit deal. I am very 
pleased that the bill we put together, which did pass our committee 
unanimously, makes crucial investments and gets our military and our 
veterans the support they need.
  This bill provides $19.1 billion for military construction--that is 
an increase over the fiscal year 2023 level--and supports hundreds of 
construction projects at base installations so we can improve the 
quality of life for our servicemembers and families, modernize 
maintenance and training facilities, and make military installations 
more resilient against growing threats like climate disasters.
  The $2.4 billion for quality-of-life improvements in this bill will 
support projects like building new barracks and housing and, just as 
critically, maintaining existing housing so that the

[[Page S4506]]

homes military families are living in right now do not fall into 
disrepair. I am proud that our bill provides funding for eight new 
child development centers so we can expand childcare access for our 
military families. These types of quality-of-life investments are 
essential to our recruiting and retention and overall readiness. More 
importantly, they are what our troops deserve and what we owe them for 
the sacrifices they make.
  This bill also funds other essential military construction projects 
like training and vehicle maintenance, improving energy resilience on 
bases, and making sure that our installations are better prepared to 
face severe weather events because, as our generals and admirals have 
made crystal clear, climate change is a national security threat, and 
we absolutely cannot afford to let it undermine our troops and our 
military readiness.
  The bill we are considering also includes investments to strengthen 
our alliances and partnerships around the world, including by 
supporting NATO infrastructure projects and providing funding to 
strengthen our global presence, including over half a billion for this 
work in the Indo-Pacific.
  I am also glad we were able to include funding to address PFAS and 
other toxins--forever chemicals--at former installations that could put 
our communities and military families especially in harm's way. PFAS 
are a serious health hazard, and they have been found in the water 
supply at hundreds of military bases across our country, including in 
my home State.
  Then, of course, there is the VA funding in this bill, which is just 
as essential. I am someone who previously chaired the Senate Veterans' 
Affairs Committee. I specifically asked to be assigned to that 
committee as soon as I came to Congress, and I am really honored to 
have been the first woman ever to serve on that committee because, as 
the daughter of a World War II veteran, I take our Nation's commitment 
to care for our veterans personally.
  When my father was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis, which 
eventually forced him to stop working, his VA benefits were crucial to 
making sure he could get the care he needed. So I know firsthand how 
essential VA care is for veterans and their families, and I am 
constantly meeting with veterans in my State about their experiences 
too.
  Living up to our obligation to those who served our country is simply 
nonnegotiable for me. I know many of my colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle feel the exact same way, and that is especially true for my 
partner across the dais on our subcommittee, the senior Senator from 
Arkansas. We have worked closely together for many years on the Senate 
Veterans' Affairs Committee, so I knew when we started on this bill 
that he was someone who cares deeply about our men and women in the 
military and takes our obligations to our veterans seriously. In other 
words, he is exactly the kind of partner you want across the table to 
negotiate a bill like this with.
  I am pleased to say we were able, together, to draft a bill that 
ensures that we keep our promises to servicemembers and veterans by 
fully funding the VA's budget request.
  That means increasing funding for mental health and suicide 
prevention programs since we know, tragically, that suicide is the 
leading cause of death for veterans, especially our younger veterans.
  It means increased funding for rural healthcare so veterans in every 
corner of the country can get the care they need, homelessness 
prevention programs that help with the challenges of returning to 
civilian life, and for the caregivers program, which I fought to expand 
along with so many of my colleagues last year.
  Of course, it means increased funding for women veterans' care. Women 
are the fastest growing demographic of our veterans.
  I am also especially pleased to say this bill includes funding to 
expand the childcare pilot program that I helped establish because, as 
I always remind my colleagues, we have a childcare crisis in this 
country, which is why I worked to include funding to expand childcare 
sites at our VA facilities so lack of childcare doesn't keep our 
veterans from getting the care they need.
  In addition to the VA funding in here, let's not forget that last 
year we actually passed the largest expansion of VA care in decades by 
passing the bipartisan PACT Act, and earlier this year, Congress worked 
to live up to that expansion by passing more than $20 billion in 
funding for the Toxic Exposures Fund, as part of the Fiscal 
Responsibility Act. This is already making a difference for veterans 
who were exposed to burn pits and other toxins.
  Another crucial investment in this bill is the funding increase for 
VA infrastructure because we cannot let veterans' healthcare be 
undermined by the challenges related to VA's aging medical facilities 
or, for that matter, jeopardized by botched rollouts like we saw with 
the electronic health record modernization program. I was glad to see 
that the VA did put a pause on the rollout of the EHR earlier this 
year--something I had been pushing them to do--and we made sure that 
pause was reflected in our funding bill because I was raising the alarm 
from day one about how the botched EHR rollout was hurting Washington 
State veterans. It is a challenging situation now with EHR. We can't 
just flip on a switch and fix it, much as I wish we could.
  But I am watching closely to make sure we see changes that provide 
real results for our veterans and our VA providers because, at the end 
of the day, these investments are not just about programs and 
contracts; this is about our promise to get our veterans the benefits 
they earned and need to stay healthy--prescriptions, mental health 
care, cancer screenings, and so much more--and to make sure every woman 
and man who serves our country in uniform gets the support and the 
training and the equipment they need to be at their best.
  Before I wrap up, I also want to say a little bit more about some of 
the items in this bill I fought hard for that are especially important 
in my State.
  When it comes to military construction, there are several projects 
that I worked very hard to get funding for, like new barracks and a 
parachute rigging facility at Joint Base Lewis-McChord; bulk storage 
tanks at the fuel supply in Point Manchester; updated electrical 
infrastructure at the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard to help prevent 
unexpected power outages; and funding to advance other projects across 
my home State, like equipment, maintenance, and platoon training 
facilities.
  When it comes to support for our veterans and our VA facilities, I 
pushed to make sure this bill includes funding to help the American 
Lake VA Medical Center upgrade its facilities and provide quality care 
and funding for the Tahoma National Cemetery and its work to ensure we 
honor the veterans we have lost.
  It is worth noting that while those are some of the projects I am 
most excited about in my State, we made sure that all Senators on both 
sides of the aisle could weigh in on this bill, and I know many other 
Members worked very hard to support similar projects and get funding 
that is important to their States.
  So I urge my colleagues to come to the floor and talk about some of 
the projects you have in this bill and why this funding is so important 
to your families back home. I also invite them to talk to me and the 
Senator from Maine about amendments and ideas for how we can make these 
bills better. Our staffs are working around the clock, and so are we.
  We do want to set up a managers' package. We do want to set up votes 
on amendments. We want to get this funding package passed in the Senate 
and passed into law because--let's be clear--this is a bill that can 
actually be passed into law, and that is because of all of the hard 
work and careful consideration and, in many cases, compromise that went 
into producing this bipartisan bill.
  This is a responsible bill that we wrote together, Democrats and 
Republicans. How? By listening to our communities and listening to each 
other so we can help people solve problems. That is how this process 
should work. That is what we were all sent here to do.
  So let's work together and show the American people that Congress can 
do its job, that it can actually give our communities the resources 
they need in a timely and responsible way and help people and solve 
problems.

[[Page S4507]]

  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. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


            Bipartisan Primary Care and Health Workforce Act

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, let me begin by thanking Senator Marshall 
of Kansas for his very hard work on the bill that we have introduced 
today after being on the floor with me this afternoon to briefly 
discuss it. And I also want to thank his staff and my staff for putting 
in an enormous amount of time on this bill over the last several 
months.
  Most Americans understand that our healthcare system is broken. We 
are spending nearly $13,000 a year per capita on healthcare. That is an 
astronomical sum of money, almost twice as much as most other 
countries. And yet despite all of that spending, some 85 million 
Americans are uninsured or underinsured. And there are estimates out 
there, believe it or not, that some 60,000 Americans die each year 
because they do not receive the healthcare they need when they need it. 
And our life expectancy as a nation is actually in decline, despite all 
of that spending.
  Frankly, as broken as our general healthcare system is, our primary 
healthcare system is in even worse shape. As everyone knows, I don't 
think there is any debate on this, we face a major shortage of doctors, 
nurses, mental health professionals, and dentists. And those shortages 
will only grow as a result of the COVID burnout that many providers 
experience and the aging of our healthcare workforce.
  According to the most recent estimates that I have seen, over the 
next decade, our country faces a shortage of over 120,000 doctors, 
including a huge number of primary care physicians. The nursing 
shortage may be worse. Over the next 2 years alone, it is estimated 
that we will need more than 200,000 nurses. And despite the very 
serious mental health crisis we face, we are facing a massive shortage 
of mental health providers--psychiatrists, psychologists, social 
workers, et cetera.
  Now, that is not the point that Bernie Sanders is making or Senator 
Marshall has made. This is a point of view of virtually every major 
medical organization in the country.
  And on this matter, let me quote from a recent Washington Post op-ed 
by Elizabeth Rosenthal, a contributing editor at Kaiser Family 
Foundation Health News. This is what she writes--and I hope our 
colleagues hear this:

       American physicians have been abandoning traditional 
     primary care practice--internal and family medicine--in large 
     numbers. Those who remain are working fewer hours. And fewer 
     medical students are choosing a field that once attracted 
     some of the best and brightest because of its diagnostic 
     challenges and the emotional gratification of deep 
     relationships with patients. The percentage of US doctors in 
     adult primary care has been declining for years and is now 
     about 25%--a tipping point beyond which many Americans won't 
     able to find a family doctor at all.

  She writes:

       Already, more than 100 million Americans don't have usual 
     access to a primary care doctor--a number that has nearly 
     doubled since 2014.

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
the full article.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                       [From the Washington Post]

 The Shrinking Number of Primary-Care Physicians Is Reaching a Tipping 
                                 Point

                        (By Elisabeth Rosenthal)

       I've been receiving an escalating stream of panicked emails 
     from people telling me their longtime physician was retiring, 
     was no longer taking their insurance or had gone concierge 
     and would no longer see them unless they ponied up a hefty 
     annual fee. They said they couldn't find another primary-care 
     doctor who could take them on or who offered a new-patient 
     appointment sooner than months away.
       Their individual stories reflect a larger reality: American 
     physicians have been abandoning traditional primary-care 
     practice--internal and family medicine--in large numbers. 
     Those who remain are working fewer hours. And fewer medical 
     students are choosing a field that once attracted some of the 
     best and brightest because of its diagnostic challenges and 
     the emotional gratification of deep relationships with 
     patients.
       The percentage of U.S. doctors in adult primary care has 
     been declining for years and is now about 25 percent--a 
     tipping point beyond which many Americans won't be able to 
     find a family doctor at all.
       Already, more than 100 million Americans don't have usual 
     access to primary care, a number that has nearly doubled 
     since 2014. The fact that so many of us no longer regularly 
     see a familiar doctor we trust is likely one reason our 
     coronavirus vaccination rates were low compared with those in 
     other countries.
       Another telling statistic: In 1980, 62 percent of doctor's 
     visits for adults over 65 were for primary care and 38 
     percent were for specialists, according to Michael L. 
     Barnett, a health systems researcher and primary-care doctor 
     in the Harvard Medical School system. By 2013, that ratio had 
     exactly flipped and has likely ``only gotten worse,'' he 
     said, noting sadly, ``We have a specialty-driven system. 
     Primary care is seen as a thankless, undesirable backwater.'' 
     That's ``tragic,'' in his word--studies show that a strong 
     foundation of primary care yields better health outcomes 
     overall, greater equity in health-care access and lower per 
     capita health costs.
       One explanation for the disappearing primary-care doctor is 
     financial. The payment structure in the U.S. health system 
     has long rewarded surgeries and procedures while 
     shortchanging the diagnostic, prescriptive and preventive 
     work that is the province of primary care. Furthermore, the 
     traditionally independent doctors in this field have almost 
     no power to negotiate sustainable payments with the mammoth 
     insurers in the U.S. market.
       Faced with this situation, many independent primary-care 
     doctors have sold their practices to health systems or 
     commercial management chains (some private-equity-owned) so 
     that, today, three-quarters of doctors are now employees of 
     those outfits.
       One of them was Bob Morrow, who practiced for decades in 
     the Bronx. For a typical visit, he was most recently paid 
     about $80 if the patient had Medicare, with its fixed-fee 
     schedule. Commercial insurers paid significantly less. He 
     just wasn't making enough to pay the bills, which included 
     salaries of three employees, including a nurse practitioner. 
     ``I tried not to pay too much attention to money for four or 
     five years--to keep my eye on my patients and not the bottom 
     line,'' he said by phone from his former office, as workers 
     carted away old charts for shredding.
       He finally gave up and sold his practice last year to a 
     company that took over scheduling, billing and negotiations 
     with insurers. It agreed to pay him a salary and to provide 
     support staff as well as supplies and equipment.
       The outcome: Calls to his office were routed to a call 
     center overseas, and patients with questions or complaining 
     of symptoms were often directed to a nearby urgent care 
     center owned by the company--which is typically more 
     expensive than an office visit. His office staff was replaced 
     by a skeleton crew that didn't include a nurse or skilled 
     worker to take blood pressure or handle requests for 
     prescription refills. He was booked with patients every eight 
     to 10 minutes.
       He discovered that the company was calling some patients 
     and recommending expensive tests--such as vascular studies or 
     an abdominal ultrasound--that he did not believe they needed.
       He retired in January. ``I couldn't stand it,'' he said. 
     ``It wasn't how I was taught to practice.''
       Of course, not every practice sale ends with such unhappy 
     results, and some work out well.
       But the dispirited feeling that drives doctors away from 
     primary care has to do with far more than money. It's the 
     lack of respect for non-specialists. It's the rising pressure 
     to see and bill more patients: Employed doctors often 
     coordinate the care of as many as 2,000 people, many of whom 
     have multiple problems.
       And it's the lack of assistance. Profitable centers such as 
     orthopedic and gastroenterology clinics usually have a 
     phalanx of support staff. Primary-care clinics run close to 
     the bone.
       ``You are squeezed from all sides,'' said Barnett.
       Many ventures are rushing in to fill the primary-care gap. 
     There had been hope that nurse practitioners and physician 
     assistants might help fill some holes, but data shows that 
     they, too, increasingly favor specialty practice. Meanwhile, 
     urgent care clinics are popping up like mushrooms. So are 
     primary care chains such as One Medical, now owned by Amazon. 
     (Jeff Bezos, Amazon's founder, owns The Post.) Dollar 
     General, Walmart, Target, CVS and Walgreens have opened 
     ``retail clinics'' in their stores.
       Rapid-fire visits with a rotating cast of doctors, nurses 
     or physician assistants might be fine for a sprained ankle or 
     strep throat. But they will not replace a physician who tells 
     you to get preventive tests and keeps tabs on your blood 
     pressure and cholesterol. The doctor who knows your health 
     history--and has the time to figure out whether the pain in 
     your shoulder is from your basketball game, an aneurysm or a 
     clogged artery in your heart.
       Some relatively simple solutions are available, if we care 
     enough about supporting this

[[Page S4508]]

     foundational part of a good medical system. Hospitals and 
     commercial groups could invest some of the money they earn by 
     replacing hips and knees to support primary-care staffing; 
     giving these doctors and patients more face time with each 
     other will be good for their customers' health and loyalty if 
     not (always) the bottom line.
       Reimbursement for primary-care visits could be increased to 
     reflect their value--perhaps by enacting a national primary-
     care fee schedule, so these doctors won't have to butt heads 
     with insurers. And policymakers could consider forgiving the 
     medical school debt of doctors who chose primary care as a 
     profession.
       They deserve support that allows them to do what they were 
     trained to do: diagnosing, treating and getting to know their 
     patients.
       The United States already ranks last among wealthy 
     countries in health outcomes. The average life span in 
     America is decreasing, even as it increases in many other 
     countries. If we fail to address the primary-care shortage, 
     our country's health will be even worse for it.

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, now, what this article points out is 
certainly not news to the people in America. In Vermont and all over 
this country, our people often have to wait months in order to get an 
appointment with a doctor; and in some cases, they have to travel very 
long distances to get the healthcare they need.
  And let us be clear: There is no debate upon this. Some people think 
we don't have to act on it now; let's do it next year, next year, 
following year. Wrong. The crisis is only going to get worse, and every 
day we delay it, it becomes even worse.
  Now, why is this happening? Well, there are a lot of reasons why. One 
of the reasons is that it turns out that the United States--despite all 
of our spending on healthcare--spends about half of what other nations 
do on primary healthcare. We spend approximately 7 percent; most of the 
country spends at least twice as much.
  And the absurdity of that situation is that everybody knows that ``an 
ounce of prevention is worth more than a pound of cure.'' And if there 
is anything that Senator Marshall and I are talking about, that is 
exactly what we are talking about. You spend money--we are spending 
money to save money. Keeping people healthy saves money. In other 
words, common sense tells us that if we can prevent disease, do a 
better job keeping our young people healthy, if people can access the 
medical care when they need it not when they are just very, very sick--
if we can do those things, we can keep them out of the hospital. And 
hospital costs are just extremely, extremely high.
  Common sense also tells us that it is literally insane that millions 
of Americans with nonemergency healthcare needs get their primary care 
in a hospital emergency room, which, in some cases, is 10 times more 
than the care provided them in a community health center.
  Let me just give one other example of the irrationalities of our 
current system. In my own small State of Vermont, last year, our major 
hospitals spent $125 million in 1 year on traveling nurses because we 
don't have enough local nurses to support the needs of the hospital and 
many other facilities in Vermont. Meanwhile, young people want to 
become nurses. They are applying to nursing school, but the nursing 
schools don't have the faculty to educate them.
  I recently talked to a Senator who told me that, in her State, some 
1,100 young people were applying for a space in nursing school; the 
school could only provide 80 openings.
  So we have a nursing crisis. We are not addressing it. Hospitals are 
spending three, four times as much money on traveling nurses as they 
are on homegrown nurses because we are not educating our young people 
at nursing school. This may make sense to somebody; it does not make 
great sense to me.
  The legislation that Senator Marshall and I have introduced today 
does not solve, by any means, all of the healthcare crises we face. But 
if this legislation is passed, it will not only save us substantial 
sums of money, not only provide a medical home for millions more 
Americans, not only significantly increase the number of doctors and 
nurses that we desperately need, but it will go a long way toward 
transforming primary healthcare in America--something that is so long 
overdue.
  With that, I want to turn the floor over to Senator Marshall.
  And I would say this, that Senator Marshall has a unique perspective 
on this. Not only is he a Senator from a rural State, he is also a 
practicing physician and has interesting insight into the crises in 
healthcare that many of us don't.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. MARSHALL. Thank you so much for sharing this moment with us. You 
know, one of my mentors here on the Hill has a saying that some 
Senators come here to make a point and others come to make a 
difference. The first time Senator Sanders and I sat down together, he 
said: Roger, do you want to make a difference?
  We have worked so hard on this issue together, developing rapport, 
confidence in each other, in our staff--they have all done an 
incredible job--as we try to get through this riddle from healthcare 
challenges throughout this great Nation.
  I think as both of us travel back to our home States of Vermont and 
Kansas, what we found is that not everybody has meaningful, affordable 
access to primary care. So we went out and tried to find the best 
actors, what is the best outcome, who is making a dent? And I think we 
both discovered that our community health centers were doing a great 
job. They had taken many pilot programs, and they were improving them.
  I am not sure what Senator Sanders would talk about some of his, but 
what I saw was this meeting patients where they are a concept, 
integrating all the different elements of primary care--not just your 
blood pressure, not just your Accu-Chek, but also your mental health. 
Dental needs, as well, are just a few more things we are seeing being 
integrated into the community health centers--nutrition coaching, 
something that has seldom been done in clinics before. So I think we 
saw these community health centers as doing a great job. And we asked 
each other: How can we improve upon that?
  And Senator Sanders and I agreed on this lofty goal that we could get 
more Americans into these clinics, and that was a great solution for 
primary care. So for the past 3 months, we have had a very thoughtful 
approach to this problem. And even before then, our committees had 
multiple hearings with different folks as they tried to address the 
problem as well. And then we had multiple Zooms and meetings with folks 
back home: How do we solve this primary care problem and, again, this 
mental health epidemic slapping us in the face every time we go back?
  And, certainly, I think most of our committee would agree that the 
community health centers are a great solution, but they need to be 
bolstered and need to continue that mission across this great Nation.
  So I am proud of the work that we have done on the community health 
centers in this legislation--again, thoughtful legislation. And our 
goal is to make sure it doesn't cost American taxpayers any more.
  Again, Senator Sanders and I both said many times this country is 
spending plenty of money on healthcare, but maybe we need to refocus a 
little bit more of it to primary care. That is what we have done with 
this legislation, again, with a thoughtful approach. And our goal, 
again, is to make sure it is all paid for and it doesn't cost the 
American taxpayer any more.
  I think the other big issue that we found in common with folks back 
home is a nursing shortage and a primary care doctor shortage. If there 
is one thing that this bill would do, it would turn around the nursing 
crisis in a matter of just 3 years.
  My own wife is a community college graduate nurse. Ninety percent of 
the nurses in our hospitals in Kansas, especially the rural hospitals, 
are 2-year community college graduates. So what we have done with this 
legislation is bolster more money for nursing programs. And the other 
program, like Senator Sanders said, the other challenge, is colleges 
cannot afford the faculty, the nursing faculty. So we have some money 
to help bolster that program up as well.
  We have young men and women standing in line for incredible jobs in 
healthcare, but we don't have the faculty to bring them in. So we help 
with scholarships. We help with the faculty. That alone will change the 
dynamics across America if we have more nurses who are just the glue to 
this healthcare

[[Page S4509]]

system. And then the next challenge of the attack here is just a 
shortage of primary care doctors in so many ways as well.
  So the legislation addresses that. It is great steps forward. I have 
been very proud, again, to work with Senator Sanders and his team, 
finding common ground. And I think we made incredible strides.
  Senator Sanders and I have talked many times about our community 
health centers. I might just ask him about the successes that you are 
seeing in your community health centers and what your vision going 
forward looks like.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, this is an issue I have worked on since I 
have been in Congress. And one of the results of that--working with 
others--is that, in my State of Vermont, I think--I think--we are 
leading the Nation in terms of the number of people per capita who 
participate in the community health center program.
  Senator Marshall, my understanding is that in Vermont, one out of 
three Vermonters get their primary healthcare or dental care at a 
community health center. And one of the things that I love about 
community health centers is that they really are community health 
centers. In Vermont, they are not just for low-income people, as 
important as that is. They are for everybody in the community. We used 
to have a Supreme Court Justice of the United States of America who 
vacationed in Vermont. Guess where he went? To a community health 
center.
  My understanding is, the Governor of the State of Vermont gets his 
primary healthcare at a community health center, and that is what I 
love about them.
  And as you well know and as you mentioned, what they do is not only 
provide primary healthcare, many of them provide dental care, which is 
a huge issue. Many of them provide mental health counseling, which, as 
you indicated, we have a major crisis in. And they also provide lower 
cost prescription drugs.
  What they say is that, regardless of your income, if you have 
Medicare, come on in; if you have Medicaid, come on in; if you have 
private insurance, fine; if you have no health insurance, we will work 
on a sliding scale.
  By expanding these community health centers all over America, we are 
going to provide millions of people the opportunity to get the 
healthcare they need. That is what exists in Vermont right now, and we 
want to see that expanded all over the country.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. MARSHALL. Senator Sanders and I discussed this vision of what 
primary care looks like in the future, making sure we are meeting 
patients where they are.
  Some of our community health centers back home are bringing in the 
food bank; they are bringing in the WIC Programs, social services, 
basic mammography. We lose track of the patients when we have to say: 
Come back in a month for your mammogram. Instead, it is a great thing 
to say: Let's get it done today.
  One of the biggest underserved areas of medicine is dental. I know 
that one of Senator Sanders' visions, specifically, in this legislation 
is to address the dental crisis. As an obstetrician myself, the only 
known cause of preterm labor is poor dental health, caries, cavities, 
whatever you want to call it. There are lots of links to having 
cavities and poor gum health to having heart attacks as well. It is a 
way underrecognized challenge for primary care.
  I can't tell you how many times I have been called at 10 at night or 
2 in the morning on a Saturday with one of my OB patients who is 
obviously very pregnant, but she has a cavity, and now, it turned into 
an abscess. I can't get her into a dentist. I call all my buddies. It 
is Saturday, 10 p.m., and all my buddies, the dentists, are gone.
  Share your vision on dental and how this bill impacts that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. Thank you very much for raising the issue of dental 
crisis in America. I can tell you that in Vermont, we have a crisis. We 
made progress, but we have a serious problem. The cost of dental care 
is very, very high. In the southern part of my State, Bennington 
County, if you are a poor child, you are probably on Medicaid. You 
probably can't find a dentist.
  What we have done in this bill is put $3 billion one time--just one 
time--into capital improvements for community health centers. That is 
long overdue because if you want to expand community health centers, 
they need money for their own expansion and infrastructure.
  Building a dental operatory--and that is the dental chairs and the 
good equipment that dentists need--is a very expensive proposition. So 
by putting $3 billion into capital improvements, much of which I 
suspect will be going to those dental operatories, we are going to be 
able to provide communities all over this country with the ability to 
access dental care in a way they are not doing it today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Peters). The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. MARSHALL. I want to turn this discussion to what our vision is 
for these primary care community health centers.
  I think we all realize we have an obesity epidemic in this country, 
too, and a type 2 diabetic epidemic in this country that we need to 
address on the front end.
  I am so happy to see some of my community health centers coming in 
and doing nutrition classes. They are doing cooking classes. I think so 
many folks of our current generation maybe learned how to do some 
cooking, but fast foods were a little bit too easy. It is that out-of-
the-box thinking you get with different programs. I call it coaching. 
We need to be coaching folks up and teaching them but also give them 
the opportunities. So whether we are on the Ag Committee and working on 
food programs, we try to bring all these pieces together in the program 
as well.

  I know Senator Sanders is also certainly committed to helping us 
address this. He has been a leader on this issue, trying to take care 
of folks with diabetes as well.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. Senator Marshall raised this issue from almost the first 
time we sat down and seriously discussed it. If we are going to talk 
about prevention, we have to talk about obesity, among other things, 
because we are looking at a major--you tell me if I am wrong, Doctor--
we are looking at a major diabetic epidemic in this country that will 
not only cost massive amounts of suffering, but it is also going to be 
a very expensive healthcare bill. Certainly, one of many of the 
contributing factors is obesity. What Senator Marshall has talked about 
from the very beginning is we have to do a better job in nutrition 
education. Community health centers are very well-situated to be able 
to do that.
  At Senator Marshall's insistence--and I was delighted to work with 
him--we have language in here that will make it easier for community 
health centers to work on nutrition programs in a variety of ways with 
their clients.
  Mr. MARSHALL. I might close with a couple of thoughts. Again, we came 
in with the lofty expectations that we could make a difference in 
primary care for people across the Nation. I think our bill 
accomplishes just that.
  Again, I can't thank the staff enough for their support through this. 
Senator Sanders and I spent most of the August recess--and our staff 
spent every moment of every hour of every day on this August recess--
working on this legislation. I think it is a good product. I think 
there is always opportunity for improvement. We are welcome to those 
ideas.
  I appreciate the Senator using traditional Hyde protections at the 
appropriate places, so we maintained that, which is important to many 
folks, including to myself. I think we addressed primary care issues. I 
think we have a plan to increase the nursing workforce. Again, in 3 
years' time, we can turn that problem around and long-term address some 
of the primary care issues. Addressing dental, as well, I think will be 
a huge improvement.
  At the end of the day, you cannot overestimate how much money this 
will save in programs like Medicare and Medicaid and the health 
insurance back home and help drive the cost of healthcare down for 
people. I am glad

[[Page S4510]]

to see us try to emphasize maybe some better ways to spend the American 
taxpayer moneys.
  But most importantly to me, the physician, is just this is the right 
thing to do. This is absolutely the right thing to do. It is a chance 
to improve the health of Americans. I am just proud to stand here 
beside Senator Sanders and introduce this legislation. Thank you.
  Mr. SANDERS. Let me thank Senator Marshall and his staff so much for 
their hard work and say, as he just said, we think there are other 
ideas that can improve it. We are open to new ideas. We hope to be 
marking up and intend to be marking up this bill next Thursday. We look 
forward to talking to all of the members on the Health, Education, 
Labor, and Pension Committee for doing what is really important.
  Senator Marshall started his remarks off by saying, I think, exactly 
the right thing. We can come here and all give great speeches. We can 
all talk about how next year, we are going to get to something or, 5 
years from now, we will get to something.
  Everybody in America--in Vermont, Kansas, and all over this country--
understands we have a primary healthcare crisis. This is the greatest 
country on Earth. We spend more money on healthcare than any other 
country. It is not asking too much that when you get sick, you are able 
to find a doctor, that you are able to find a dentist. It is not asking 
too much that when you are in a hospital, there are enough nurses 
there, that our young people who want to become nurses are able to get 
that education so they go out and get really good jobs. That is not too 
much. That is all we are doing in this legislation. We are looking at 
the real world as it exists.
  Senator Marshall is a physician and understands that world quite 
well. We are looking at that world saying: You know what, let's not 
wait 5 years from now. We have a crisis today. Let's deal with it. I 
yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. 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 Ohio.


                    United Auto Workers Negotiations

  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I hope my colleagues will join me, as I 
know the Senator from Michigan, the Presiding Officer, does, in 
standing in solidarity with thousands of UAW workers in Ohio and 
Michigan and around the country who demand that automakers--a simple 
demand really--respect the work they do to make these companies 
successful. There is still time, the rest of the day and, really, 
beyond this, for the Big Three to avert a strike, which we know is 
always a last resort for workers.
  My wife is the daughter of a utility worker in Ashtabula, in the far 
northeast corner of the State. She, first of all, credits her dad's 
union card with saving her life. She was 16 years old and had an asthma 
attack, I believe at school, and was picked up in an ambulance and 
taken to the Cleveland Clinic and spent more than a week there--
something she could not afford without her dad's union card and her 
dad's healthcare benefits from the utility workers union and from that 
company.
  She also said that, twice during her growing up, the union struck 
because their backs were against the wall; they thought they had no 
choice. She acknowledges that the workers never really recover the lost 
wages from a strike.
  These UAW members in Michigan and Ohio, in Toledo, in Cincinnati, in 
Dayton, and all over our State and in other States, they want to be on 
the job. They don't want to strike. They don't want to be on the picket 
line. But when companies refuse to recognize the work they do, workers 
are backed into a corner.
  It is why union cards matter. A union card means workers can stand 
together for fair pay and benefits, for better working conditions, for 
safer workplaces, for control over their schedules, for a voice in 
their company, and a voice in their community--because, to be clear, 
autoworkers surely are the engines behind these companies' success. GM, 
Ford, and Stellantis--people around the country know Stellantis as the 
old Chrysler--the Big Three wouldn't be making a dime, of course, in 
profits without the workers who actually make their cars and trucks.
  Remember, autoworkers--this is the most important thing. Autoworkers 
stood up and made sacrifices a decade ago, especially at GM and 
Chrysler--Stellantis--because those companies were in trouble. And 
taxpayers stood up, and government stood, finally, on the side of those 
companies, and the workers made sacrifices to help the American auto 
industry when times were tough.
  Who remembers the depths of the recession? UAW workers stood behind 
the Big Three when a whole lot of politicians in this town wanted to 
abandon these companies. Now that times are good, all that workers are 
asking for is their fair share.
  Let's be clear, times now are very, very good for these companies and 
very, very, very good for these CEOs. We know auto executives--I don't 
know how many. But I know auto executives in all three companies--many, 
many of them--make more than a million dollars a year. Some of them 
make tens of millions of dollars a year.
  Together GM, Ford, and Stellantis brought in $21 billion--that is 
with a ``b,'' a thousand million--$21 billion in profits the first half 
of the year alone.
  Think about that. These companies were struggling a decade ago. They 
were in real trouble. They were losing money. They were in trouble 
during the recession. Workers gave them major kinds of givebacks, gave 
them major kinds of concessions. They took less money for themselves 
and set up a three-tiered rate structure that hurt workers, but they 
had to do it to save these companies. They agreed to do that.
  But, now, times are really, really good for these companies. Again, 
GM, Ford, and Stellantis together brought in $21 billion of profits 
just in the first half of 2023, but they don't want to share those 
profits with these workers.
  And who makes these profits possible? Again, the history: These 
companies were in trouble. The government helped them. Workers gave up 
a lot. Workers sacrificed. Workers gave back money they shouldn't have 
had to give back because they wanted to save the companies. Now, the 
companies are doing well. Now, the executives are doing very, very well 
with $21 billion in profits, and the company is not willing to 
appreciably share in those profits.
  The CEO of GM makes 362 times what its median worker makes. With 
Ford, it is only a modest 281 times that. Think of that. The GM CEO--a 
company that, when struggling, was saved because of worker 
concessions--is making 362 times what the median--not the lowest paid 
worker but the median--worker of that company makes. So, frankly, I 
hesitate to call names, and I am really not. I don't want to hear 
whining from companies that they can't afford to pay workers what they 
are worth. And that goes for all workers, all autoworkers making all 
kinds of vehicles--cars and trucks and SUVs.
  I know what the future is. I know these companies. These companies 
plan to be overwhelmingly making batteries, making electric vehicles. 
That is their decision, to be sure. But I don't want those--because 
some politicians whine about, ``Well, we don't want electric 
vehicles''--these are the companies' decisions, the companies' plans, 
the companies' futures. But I don't want those jobs--those politicians 
that whine, if they get their way, they are going to see these electric 
vehicles made in Japan and China and Taiwan and overseas.
  We went through that already. We know what my hometown of Mansfield, 
OH, looked like. I know what Dayton, OH, looked like. I know what 
Hamtramck and cities in the Presiding Officer's State looked like. I 
know what happens to those counties, those workers. And do you know 
what? I know what happens to those cities, those communities.
  I grew up in Mansfield, OH, a town of 50,000. I went to Johnny 
Appleseed Junior High School. That was really its name--Johnny 
Appleseed Pioneers. And I went to school with sons and daughters of 
autoworkers at GM, rubberworkers at Mansfield Tire, electrical IUE 
members at Westinghouse--there were several thousand at one

[[Page S4511]]

point--machinists at Tappan Stove, and the sons of daughters of 
pipefitters and plumbers and electricians and bricklayers, millwrights, 
insulators, and laborers and--I am forgetting others--and operating 
engineers.
  And do you know what? Within 10 or 20 years, most of those jobs were 
gone. They were gone because companies, always looking for lower wages, 
wanted to go to non-union States.
  First, they went to Alabama. That wasn't good enough. So then they 
jammed, and I mean ``jammed''--sorry to say it this way--by buying off 
a whole lot of politicians--they jammed these trade agreements, like 
NAFTA, through the Congress, and then it got worse.
  It wasn't just the companies going to Alabama, Mississippi, 
Louisiana, Georgia, South Carolina, and Tennessee. Then they weren't 
greedy enough; they wanted even cheaper labor. Then they went to China 
and Mexico. That means that in my community of 50,000, where I grew up, 
you just don't see the prosperity there that you did when I went to 
school with those kids.
  So, as I said, we have heard a lot of politicians blaming electrical 
vehicles for the dispute, as if, somehow, corporations wanting to 
squeeze their workers was a new development.
  I will make it clear. I don't care what kind of car Americans drive. 
My wife and I drove Chevy Cruzes for a while, and they were made in 
Lordstown, OH, by GM, about an hour and a half from our home. Now, we 
each drive a Jeep Cherokee, made about 2 hours from our home, in the 
other direction, in Toledo. So people can drive what they are going to 
drive. I always hope, and I know the Presiding Officer thinks the same 
way, that people buy union-made cars made in the United States. But I 
see what happens when both parties--both parties--frankly, 
unfortunately, it wasn't a partisan thing. My party was almost as 
guilty as Republicans on this--the push for NAFTA--which sent thousands 
of jobs overseas.
  We fought them. When politicians said, ``Let these companies die; 
they are not worth saving; foreign automakers can do this better,'' we 
fought them every step of the way.
  Now, today, for anyone who doubts that autoworkers in Ohio are the 
future of this industry, for anyone who wants to give up on these 
plants or force workers to settle for less, we will fight the way I 
fought NAFTA my first year in Congress, the way I fought permanent 
normal trade relations, the giveaway to the Chinese--not Chinese 
workers, but giveaway to Chinese Communist Party officials and corrupt 
leaders--a different kind of corruption from American leaders who sold 
them short, but nonetheless.
  We know this industry is changing. Forty years ago, when Jeep rolled 
out the Jeep Cherokee--Chrysler now--most people had never heard of an 
SUV. Now they dominate the market. Twenty-three years ago, hybrids came 
along. Whatever the auto industry looks like in 20 years, in 50 years, 
in 100 years--I am not an auto expert. I don't know what they are going 
to look like 20 or 50 or 100 years from now, but I do know this: Ohio 
autoworkers, American innovation will be leading it, if we let them, if 
we reward these workers and don't let companies searching for cheap 
labor and going to anti-union States, moving overseas--as long as we 
don't let them run the show.

  I was in Lordstown a couple of weeks ago. That is where the Chevy 
Cruze plant was, near Youngstown. I was at UAW Local 1112. I have been 
to that union, I don't know, 50 times in my life, with my friend Dave 
Green, a UAW superstar who came up through that plant. There were two 
locals at that plant. I don't remember if he came from 1112 or the 
other one. These are the workers now at the new Ultium cell battery 
plant. Many of them worked for the Cruze plant before GM closed it. 
There are reminders everywhere of what bad trade deals did to the 
Mahoning Valley.
  But, do you know what? GM was paying. This was a joint venture. This 
was GM and a Korean company called LG. This was a joint venture, 50-50. 
Those workers at this Ultium plant were making $16 an hour. And I said 
to GM: Well, how can you do this?
  They voted for a union, by the way, the UAW there, just recently, by 
a 90-plus percent vote.
  I said to GM: How can you pay them $16 an hour when you have the 
national UAW contract? It is much more generous than that and 
negotiated, earned together.
  They said: Well, we can't do anything because this is a jointly owned 
plant, and we are just half of it.
  Well, they are General Motors. Of course, they can do something about 
it, and, of course, they need to do something about it.
  Well, we were able--I hate to say it. We were able--partly by shining 
a light on General Motors and what they had done and what their history 
is--we were able to get a $4- to $5-an-hour raise working with Dave 
Green of UAW Local 1112 and getting thousands of dollars in stock 
buybacks for those workers that had been there a year or more.
  These workers are, again, at the forefront of their industry, and 
they are not getting paid like it. America should continue to lead the 
global auto industry, but the Big Three can't do it without their 
workers. There is still time for this to happen, for these autoworkers 
and auto companies to agree to a fair contract. There is still time for 
these great American companies to do the right thing.
  It means something we probably don't do enough of here. It means 
listening to their workers. It means foregoing strike-busting tactics, 
like we saw the last time, when UAW workers were forced to picket. In 
2019, GM cut off striking workers' health insurance, a bad-faith tactic 
that not only hurts their most vulnerable asset, their workers, but it 
hurts their families and really hurts their communities.
  I was at Local 14 in Toledo, talking to one worker. Here is what 
happens when an auto company uses its prowess and its power and its 
anti-union fervor, when they do that and take away healthcare. There 
was one worker whose healthcare was cut off at the Local 14 in Toledo, 
at the Chrysler plant. His 4-year-old daughter Chesney needed surgery, 
but she couldn't get it because GM canceled the family's health 
insurance.
  They are workers who had a contract. They paid in. They were 
picketing because they didn't think over these 10 years GM and Chrysler 
and Ford lived up to their side of the bargain.
  I have a bill with Senator Casey, who sits next to me, to make sure 
it doesn't happen again, the Striking Workers Healthcare Protection 
Act. We shouldn't need that. We shouldn't need for companies to be 
strong-armed or forced by government to honor the dignity of work. That 
shouldn't be necessary when these iconic companies have done so well, 
paid good dividends, and rewarded their executives with compensation 
nobody would have dreamed up a generation ago. We shouldn't have to do 
that. But until these companies understand, ``You should respect the 
dignity of work,'' if they don't, then maybe it is time that government 
says: OK, we are going to have a Striking Workers Healthcare Protection 
Act. It is time to do the right thing, to bargain in good faith, and to 
agree to a contract that indeed honors the dignity of work.
  I yield the floor.


                    Confirmation of Michael C. Casey

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I want to thank my good friend the Senator 
from Oklahoma, who is also a member of the Intelligence Committee, a 
subject of which I am going to speak to, and I appreciate the courtesy 
of allowing me to go first.
  Today, Mr. President, I rise to say a few words about someone who has 
been an essential part of the Senate community for many, many years.
  I am proud to note that earlier this week--as a matter of fact, on 
Tuesday evening--with the support from the Senator from Oklahoma, the 
Senate unanimously confirmed the nomination of Mike Casey to serve as 
Director of the National Counterintelligence and Security Center. We 
know, at a time when the United States is facing tremendous foreign 
intelligence and security threats, it is important to have a Senate-
confirmed leader as the head of the NCSC, which is charged with 
protecting against insider threats, supply chain risks, and other 
counterintelligence issues.

[[Page S4512]]

  The truth is, the position has been vacant since the end of the last 
administration. So, as chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I am 
glad that we will finally now have a Senate-confirmed leader in place 
to lead the efforts to protect against foreign threats, to protect U.S. 
critical infrastructure, to advance the counterintelligence and 
security mission, and--maybe most importantly--to be on constant call 
of the Senate Intelligence staff to make sure that efforts to reform 
security clearances is at the top of the agenda.
  But while I recognize that this is a great step for our country and 
our national security, it is a real loss to me personally, to members 
on both sides of the aisle on the Intelligence Committee, and to our 
staff, because we are losing Mike Casey, who has been the staff 
director for the last 8 years. And while he doesn't look Medicare-
eligible, the truth is, he has been working up here for 28 years, 
starting in the House of Representatives and, eventually, joining the 
staff of the House Armed Services Committee before Senator Feinstein 
brought him over to the upper Chamber as staff director for the Senate 
Intel Committee in 2016.
  I have worked extraordinarily closely with Mike over my years as a 
member of the committee but particularly when I bumped up to the 
position of vice chair. I think a lot about our kind of bonding and, in 
many ways, I think of the committee's bonding when, under the able 
leadership of then-chairman Richard Burr, the committee took on the 
responsibility of the investigation into the outside interference of 
the 2016 national elections. Our staff and, at that point, the majority 
committee's staff worked so seamlessly together.
  While we got a lot of grief from folks all across the political 
spectrum--and a lot of this was due to Mike Casey--one of the things 
that I was most proud of was, as a variety of people came before the 
committee to testify on what could have been, otherwise, a totally 
partisan matter as it was in the House of Representatives, witness 
after witness said they didn't know, as they were being questioned, 
whether they were being questioned by majority or minority staff. A lot 
of that was due to Mike Casey's leadership.
  The truth, as well, is that Mike--I had to push him at times. You 
know, he used to think that the job of the Intelligence Committee was 
basically just to do oversight on the 17, 18, 19--depending on the 
week--number of IC Agencies that we oversee. He didn't realize that, 
actually, the IC's responsibility--and I know sometimes the Presiding 
Officer and I have had clashes--was literally everything that touched 
technology in our country.
  Again, Mike, while sometimes reluctant, has stepped up to that task. 
And I am proud of the fact that it was our committee that initially 
worked on the CHIPS bill and that it was our committee that first 
pointed out some of the challenges with 5G and Huawei as well as some 
of the more recent work.
  One of the ways we were able to do that--and we have got a lot of the 
committee staff behind us--is because, literally, Mike Casey knew 
everyone in the IC and the DOD. He knew where they were. He knew where 
the bodies were buried, both literally and figuratively, and could make 
sure that, as we tried to go off into other directions, that basic core 
function of oversight was never, never undermined. Again, he did this 
always--after a little nudging--in a bipartisan way.
  I am extraordinarily proud of that and proud of the service that he 
has provided in educating me on a lot of issues that I was not that 
familiar with as I came on to the committee and in keeping our Intel 
Committee staff together. That bipartisan nature has continued under 
his leadership in our workings with Vice Chair Rubio and his team as 
well.
  So, while we say goodbye to Mike, we also wish him well as he embarks 
on his critical new role. As Director of the National 
Counterintelligence and Security Center, Mike will face many of the 
same challenges we have wrestled with on the Intelligence Committee.
  As we all know, the truth is that national security is no longer 
simply about who has got the most tanks and guns and ships and planes. 
It really is about who is going to lead in artificial intelligence, 
quantum computing, 5G, cyber security, synthetic biology. All of these 
are areas in which Mike, in his new job, will also have to point out 
threats, both external and internal, to America's leadership.
  He will--as I mentioned, he is committed--respond to our staff member 
John Rosenwasser at any moment, day or night, 7 days a week, 24 hours a 
day, to make sure that we finally finish security clearance reform and 
make sure, in terms of insider threats, that we don't see repeats of 
what has happened, unfortunately, too many times. So while Mike Casey 
might be leaving our staff, it is safe to say he will not be leaving my 
speed dial.
  We will miss you, Mike.
  Most importantly, I give him these final words of advice: Don't screw 
it up.
  I yield the floor to my good friend, the Senator from Oklahoma.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, I do appreciate the leadership on the 
Intelligence Committee and for the leadership that has been there.
  I would concur. You have a spot to be able to lead and a task to be 
able to be done. You have studied this, so that must mean you know it. 
We look forward to your leadership in the days ahead. I appreciate that 
very much.


                             National Debt

  Mr. President, I do want to speak on a very different subject as 
well, and it is a subject that we are all going to face in the days 
ahead. It is this wonderful issue of a government shutdown.
  We seem to forget, at times in this body, the issues that press 
around us, but the one that seems to get slipped under the rug most of 
the time is that of national debt: where we are and how we are going to 
try to address this in the days ahead. The conversation comes up--it 
seems to be on a regular basis now--about are we going to have a 
government shutdown; and the conversation of a government shutdown ends 
up being a very small portion of the very large debt that we face.
  The challenge is, how do we actually address that based on its size? 
Well, let me just give you a little bit of context as to what I am 
talking about.
  We are, right now, preparing, within days, to cross into $33 trillion 
in total Federal debt--$33 trillion. To give some context of that 
acceleration of Federal debt and what is happening during this time 
period, from the time of Andrew Jackson--who was the last President who 
was President when we had no debt at all. From the time of Andrew 
Jackson until Ronald Reagan, our Nation accumulated $1 trillion in 
total debt. From Andrew Jackson to Reagan, there was $1 trillion in 
total debt. From Reagan to the present, now we are $33 trillion in 
total debt. We are in a rapid acceleration of debt that has not slowed.
  To give you again the picture of where things have gone just in the 
last several years, if you go back 20 years ago to 2003, our total 
spending was just over $2 trillion. If you go back to 2013, which was 
10 years ago, our total spending was less than $3.5 trillion. Our 
spending this year will be right at $6.5 trillion. So in the past 20 
years, our spending has increased from just over $2 trillion to $6.5 
trillion.
  To give you the acceleration in spending just in the last few years, 
if I were to go back to 2018--before COVID, the 2018 time period--our 
total spending was just over $4 trillion. This year's estimated 
spending is just under $6.5 trillion. That is $2.5 trillion of 
accelerated spending just from 2018 until now. Again, to set this in 
context, the revenue that is coming into the Federal Treasury this year 
is estimated at $4.8 trillion--$4.8 trillion. We are spending an 
estimated $6.4 trillion.
  Now, I know these are a lot of numbers, but let me give you one just 
as a takeaway. We have almost $1.5 trillion of deficit--that is, 
overspending--just this year. By some estimates, depending on what 
happens in the next few weeks, it could be almost $2 trillion in total 
overspending just this year.
  To put this in context, with the record revenue that is coming in 
this year at about $4.8 trillion, if we were spending the same this 
year as we did in 2018, which is a short 5 years ago--if we were 
spending the same this year as we were in 2018, prior to COVID, we 
would have a $700 billion surplus this year rather than an almost $2 
trillion deficit this year. Because of the record amount of revenue 
coming in this year compared to what our spending was 5

[[Page S4513]]

years ago, we would have been in surplus this year; but we are not, and 
it is $1.5 trillion over that.
  We have a very serious issue. We should have very hard conversations 
about our revenue, about our spending, about the direction in which we 
are actually heading, and about how we get out of a $33 trillion debt. 
This is not going to take 1 year or 2 years.
  There are folks I have talked to recently even who have talked about 
the time in the early nineties--when we were at a balance of around 
$100 billion--of the work that was done by the Bush administration and 
the Clinton administration--two administrations in a row--to be able to 
get us back to a balance. Two administrations in a row had to work on 
that. But here is the frightening thing: Our overspending this year is 
more than the total spending during the Clinton administration--just 
our overspending this year. This is not going to be a simple process to 
be able to come out of. This is not even going to be two 
administrations in a row making agreements to be able to get back to 
balance. This is going to take decades. My concern is that many here 
are not willing to start the first year of decades of work to be able 
to get us out. So we have work to do on this.
  Myself and Senator Maggie Hassan, a Democrat from New Hampshire, sat 
down several years ago and started having a conversation about how do 
we end government shutdowns and actually get into a real dialogue about 
how do we actually deal with debt and deficit issues. From those 
productive conversations, she and I created a piece of legislation that 
is designed just to prevent government shutdowns. All of the 
conversation right now among the media seems to be about if a 
government shutdown is coming at the end of this year. We should not 
have one at the end of this month, at the end of the fiscal year. We 
should continue to be able to keep going, but we should also have a 
debate of what direction we are going to go.
  So Senator Hassan and I came up with a very simple proposal. It is 
not a partisan proposal. It is a completely nonpartisan proposal. It is 
a simple proposal, quite frankly, that is equivalent to two things I 
had growing up. One was, if you don't finish your homework at school, 
you have to actually stay after class to be able to finish it. If you 
don't finish all of your work that you had to get done there, stay 
after class; keep finishing it; and when you are done, you can leave. 
The second one was, when my older brother and I would get into an 
argument--which, of course, as brothers, we never did get into an 
argument--but in that rare moment we got into an argument, my mom would 
put the two of us in a room and say: You guys settle this, and when you 
are done, you can come out.
  We slammed those two ideas together into one simple proposal on how 
to end government shutdowns. If we get to the end of the fiscal year 
and the appropriations work is not done, like it is this year, we stay 
in session 7 days a week, and the only bills that can actually come up, 
that actually can be called up during that time period, are 
appropriations bills. The second part of it is, there is no travel for 
anyone, so we couldn't fly home and fly back. No official or campaign 
funds could be used to be able to travel.
  So we are in session 7 days a week. The only bills that are allowed 
to be brought up are appropriations bills. There is no travel.
  The next part of it is simple. There is what is called a continuing 
resolution to maintain the government to be open so that the American 
people and Federal workers are held harmless. It puts the pressure on 
this room, not on Federal workers who are working for FAA, not on 
people who are working for the Housing Administration, not on our 
Border Patrol. Those individuals don't get a vote on this. They should 
not feel the pressure of a government shutdown.
  We can keep the system moving while we still have our arguments to be 
able to resolve those things.
  Why is this so important? A couple of reasons. One is, we are the 
United States of America. We should actually have an organized system 
because the rest of the world watches us to try to figure out how to do 
government. When we look dysfunctional, the rest of the world says: How 
are we going to figure this out if even the Americans can't figure this 
out? We, as Americans, lose track of that at times, but the rest of the 
world is watching us.
  We should have our arguments. We are a representative republic. Every 
single voice counts, and we don't all agree. Great. Bring it. That 
demonstrates us at our best. But let's actually resolve those issues 
rather than having government shutdowns and chaos ensuing, because we 
need to set a better example for the world.
  The second issue is much closer to home. We need to stop having 
government shutdowns because the American people are calling Federal 
Agencies and expecting someone to answer the phone, expecting to get 
help with passports or permits or whatever process it may be that they 
have to interact with the Federal Government. They need to be able to 
get somebody to answer the phone to be able to resolve that. This puts 
the American people struggling to be able to just get basic answers.
  The third is the Federal workforce. We have millions of people who 
work in the Federal family. They work all over the country. When there 
is a government shutdown, there are two sets of things that actually 
occur. If you are a contractor, you are just out. Those contractors may 
be doing janitorial services in one of our buildings or they may be 
supplying food services to someone. They are just out. They don't get 
repaid; they just lose money, period.
  Those who are actually on the Federal payroll--they don't get their 
check during that time period. They have this crazy, weird, essential, 
nonessential, some people laid off, some people not, but everyone is in 
chaos in that process.
  For those folks who are in the Federal family, even though they may 
be declared essential or nonessential, do you know what--their car 
payments still come in, their mortgage still comes in, they still have 
to put food on the table, but they are not getting a check during the 
time of a government shutdown. So those individuals who live paycheck 
to paycheck, like many Americans do, suddenly have a gap--not by fault 
of their own but because this body couldn't resolve what we were going 
to do on the budgeting issues.
  The fourth issue I have already partially mentioned, and that is the 
contractors. Let me just give you an example of what this means. Our 
southern border right now has the worst border crisis that we have ever 
faced as a nation. To give you a perspective on it, in the last few 
days, we have had up to 9,000 people illegally crossing our border a 
day--a day in the last few days. We have one border crossing area just 
in Tucson where they had 2,000 people who crossed in a day. Those folks 
are being cut loose and released into the country. It is chaos along 
our border.
  Our Border Patrol and CBP and all those folks who are in law 
enforcement are doing their best to be able to help watch for safety 
and security of Americans while literally thousands of people are being 
cut loose into the country. They depend on some folks who are 
contractors in that area to help sometimes with transportation, with 
processing, with food, with medical care--all those things. Those 
contractors are very important to be able to help our Border Patrol in 
the chaos of what is actually happening. When there is a government 
shutdown, those contractors aren't going to be there, and the chaotic 
border we have now will be even more chaotic at that moment. That 
should not happen because we can't resolve our differences here. We 
need the national security on that.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, would the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. LANKFORD. I would yield to Senator Cornyn.
  Mr. CORNYN. I just want to ask the Senator from Oklahoma--9,000 a 
day. I had to get out my calculator to figure out what that means. Are 
you talking about 3 million, 3.285 million----
  Mr. LANKFORD. That is possible.
  Mr. CORNYN.--a year----
  Mr. LANKFORD. That is possible.
  Mr. CORNYN.--if the current rate----
  Mr. LANKFORD. If the current rate sustains, yes.
  Yielding back my time for Senator Cornyn and for others as well, 2 
weeks ago, our Nation crossed a threshold that most people just missed. 
We have just over 6 million people who have illegally crossed our 
southern border in

[[Page S4514]]

less than 3 years under the Biden administration--just over 6 million 
people. That 6 million number is the same as both terms of the Obama 
administration and the Trump administration combined. The Biden 
administration has allowed more people to illegally cross our border in 
less than 3 years than the previous 12 years along our border.
  Border Patrol needs help right now. They don't need a government 
shutdown; they need help coming alongside them.
  So what Senator Hassan and I have done is proposed a very simple 
proposal. Let's stop government shutdowns. Let's end those. Let's not 
have the drama and the countdown clocks on 24-hour cable news TV. Let's 
have the arguments we need to have. Let's talk through the 
appropriations that need to be done. That is work we are required to 
do. But let's hold the Federal workers harmless in the process, and 
let's hold Federal contractors harmless in the process so we can settle 
the issues and do real planning.
  This ending-government-shutdowns bill is very straightforward. We 
just want to prevent government shutdowns. We just want to be able to 
stop the chaos and actually show the American people that this body can 
have the arguments, resolve our differences, and move forward.
  This is something we should be bringing to a vote. This is something 
that has wide bipartisan support. Let's resolve this piece while we 
still have more to be done.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Schatz). The senior Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, here we are, 16 days before the end of the 
fiscal year, and the Senate has finally begun--we are not finishing; we 
are just beginning--taking up the annual appropriations process.
  Just to remind everybody, there are 12 individual appropriations 
bills. There is no time for us to finish this process before the end of 
the fiscal year, which is actually part of the majority leader's plan. 
He never intended to have a normal process by which the appropriations 
bills would be considered because what we call the regular order around 
here means you take them up one at a time, all 12. It is a transparent, 
open process where the American people can see it, where every 
Senator--all 100 Senators--gets to participate in crafting those bills. 
If they believe the spending needs to be cut in a certain area, they 
can offer an amendment to do that. If we need different priorities in 
the spending bills, well, you can do that by offering an amendment and 
getting it passed.
  Earlier today, the Senate voted 91 to 7 to begin debating this 
legislation that funds military construction projects and supports 
America's veterans. This bill is important because it bolsters our 
military readiness by investing in new and existing facilities at our 
military bases around the world. That includes, in Texas, places like 
Fort Bliss, Joint Base San Antonio-Lackland, and Fort Cavazos. It also 
helps us fulfill the promise we made to America's veterans by investing 
in mental health care, telehealth, housing, and other critical 
services.
  Today, Texas is the proud home of 1\1/2\ million veterans, and this 
is one important way we keep our commitment and honor their service and 
the many sacrifices they have made for our country.
  This legislation passed the Appropriations Committee earlier this 
summer with unanimous support. Every Democrat, every Republican voted 
for it--all 28 members. But this is just 1 of 12 funding bills the 
committee passed this summer with strong bipartisan support.
  Earlier this week, the majority leader, the Senator from New York, 
spoke about the Senate appropriations process thus far, and he referred 
to it as ``the gold standard in good governance.'' When I read that, I 
nearly fell out of my chair. He calls this process, which is doomed to 
failure because of his refusal to bring these bills to the floor on a 
timely basis, the gold standard of good governance.
  Given the fact that we are 16 days from a government shutdown unless 
the House and the Senate can agree on a continuing resolution, I would 
say this is far from the ``gold standard.'' As a matter of fact, I 
think you could say we have sunk about as far as we can.
  But it is important to remember that this funding deadline didn't 
surprise us. It didn't pop up out of nowhere. It arrives every year on 
September 30. So the majority leader had plenty of time to plan, 
prepare, and to carve out time to pass all 12 appropriations bills, 
just like the rules contemplate. But here we are, September 14, 16 days 
ahead of the funding deadline, and the Senate has not passed a single 
funding bill for the government.
  If the majority leader's gold standard comment had been in reference 
to the committee process, I would have agreed with him. The 
Appropriations Committee did their job. Senator Murray, the chair of 
the Appropriations Committee, Senator Collins, the ranking member, and 
all 28 Senators on a bipartisan basis did their job on a timely basis--
the first time they have done that in 5 years. But the committee's 
productivity was no accident. The chair and vice chair of the 
committee, Senator Murray and Senator Collins, promised to return to 
regular order, and that is exactly what they delivered.
  Our colleagues on the Appropriations Committee worked across the 
aisle, which is the way you are supposed to work around here, to pass 
all of these bills by the end of July. They put the Senate in a strong 
position to debate, vote, amend, and then finally pass appropriations 
bills before the end of this month. So the committee process certainly 
was the gold standard of good governance, but that outstanding product 
has been squandered. You might even say this whole process was designed 
to fail because the majority leader refused to bring those bills to the 
floor on a timely basis.
  Let's look at the MILCON-VA--Military Construction-VA--funding bill 
as an example. This legislation was approved by the committee on June 
22, more than 2\1/2\ months ago. The majority leader, the Senator from 
New York, could have brought this legislation to the floor anytime 
between then, June 22, and now. He could have said, well, this is 
important work, so we maybe need to shorten the Senate's 2-week recess 
for the Fourth of July so we can get our work done, or he could have 
scheduled a vote during the July 4th period instead of working on 
nominations.
  He could have canceled or--my preference would have been--delayed the 
5-week August recess. If we had to cut that back to 4 weeks, do you 
think anybody would have suffered? Well, it would have given us an 
extra week to actually get our work done. But that didn't happen.
  He could have adjusted the Senate work schedule in any number of ways 
and would have gotten cooperation from the minority leader, Senator 
McConnell, because we all understand--or at least most of us 
understand--the importance of getting our work done on a timely basis. 
But, as we know, none of that happened.
  Days, weeks, months have passed as the Senate did nothing--nothing--
to advance any of the 12 bipartisan appropriations bills. And I want to 
be just crystal clear: It didn't have to be that way.
  Again, this end-of-the-fiscal-year deadline is not a surprise to any 
of us. It is not as if the appropriations bills weren't ready on time--
they were--or that the Senate has been preoccupied with other 
priorities. The majority leader is the only person who can set the 
agenda of the Senate. He is the only one who could call up these bills 
and schedule a vote, but he has done nothing but squandered the 
opportunity.
  I know that many of our colleagues are frustrated that the Senate has 
not obtained consent to consider two additional funding bills as part 
of a so-called minibus, bundling three bills together, but that is the 
rule. Rule XVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate requires a unanimous 
consent vote before you can bundle those individual appropriations 
bills together. But the majority leader knew that. He knew what the 
Senate rules were, and all along he was taking the risk that one 
Senator--maybe a handful of Senators--would want to consider the bills 
one at a time, which is the normal process. It is just not normal to do 
it starting 16 days before the end of the fiscal year.
  Well, while the majority leader has preached the virtues of regular 
order,

[[Page S4515]]

he has refused to actually engage in a process where we can be 
successful. As a matter of fact, he knows, by delaying the 
appropriations bills to this point, that we will not be successful 
because he has undermined it; he has sabotaged it.
  Now, you might ask: Why would the majority leader do that? Well, two 
reasons. One is when you do a continuing resolution, it actually 
maximizes the power of the leadership because they are the ones that 
actually negotiate it, and then rank-and-file Members get to vote up or 
down. But the other reason he did it was because he wants to point to 
the House and claim that somehow they are trying to shut down the 
government.
  Now, admittedly, the House is having their challenges, but Speaker 
McCarthy has pulled a rabbit out of the hat more than once this year, 
and I am hoping he can do so again. But if we do have a shutdown 
because the House and the Senate can't agree, it will be a Schumer 
shutdown--a Schumer shutdown.
  Well, Members on both sides of the aisle want an opportunity to 
participate in the process. They want an opportunity to shape this 
legislation, even at this late hour, to do as much as we can in the 
truncated time that the majority leader has allowed us. So I urge the 
leader to let the Senate vote on this underlying bill, the MILCON-VA 
bill. It is important. We shouldn't act like it is a throwaway or 
inconsequential. We ought to do our work, even under the impossible 
timeframe that the majority leader has given us.
  I think it is dangerous when Congress circumvents the normal process 
when it comes to funding the government. It is no secret that our debt 
is about 100 percent of our GDP. We are going to spend more money just 
paying interest to bondholders on our debt that is at some point more 
than we spend on national defense. Interest rates are high, we know, 
because the Federal Reserve is fighting inflation caused by too much 
reckless spending, but, as a result, we are also paying more money to 
our creditors to finance our national debt. And I think that is another 
symptom of the broken system by which we fund the government.
  It has become all too common for short-term funding bills and large 
spending packages to be negotiated by a handful of leaders and rushed 
through both Chambers before the clock runs out. There is a growing 
sense of frustration among Members of this body on both sides of the 
aisle and a strong appetite to return to a normal, regular, 
transparent, participatory process, one that will give us at least a 
chance to try to get our fiscal house in better shape. But we have no 
chance to do that when, in essence, the majority leader creates an 
emergency situation, claims that he is the gold standard, and tries to 
blame the House and say they want a shutdown.
  Well, I am not for a shutdown. I agree with the Senator from 
Oklahoma. The same problems that cause you to shut down the government 
are always there staring you in the face when you reopen. So we need to 
do our work. We need to solve those problems and avoid a shutdown, but 
it is really hard to do when the majority leader of the U.S. Senate, 
the only one who can schedule votes on the floor and the agenda of the 
Senate, sabotages the process.
  The majority leader has purposely wasted more than 80 days that could 
have been spent debating funding bills and left the Senate with only 
two options: shut down the government or kick the can down the road 
with a continuing resolution. Of course, that is just a temporary 
measure, and then, when that expires, we have to deal with the 
consequences of that by figuring out, OK, how do we continue to fund 
the government at some appropriate level.
  He knows we can't move 12 appropriations bills through the Senate and 
the House in the next 16 days, so this exercise will certainly end with 
another spending bill that is crafted at the last minute and jammed 
through both Houses. If this is the gold standard for anything, it is a 
gold standard for political theater. This is drama scripted by the 
majority leader. He is trying to put on a show or, I would say, a 
pretense of regular order in the Senate so he won't get the blame if 
the government shuts down; he can blame his political opponents in the 
House.
  Well, suffice it to say, I am disappointed we find ourselves where we 
do, especially in light of the hard work done by our colleagues on the 
Appropriations Committee. They have done their job, but the majority 
leader has blown that up.
  This is not an accident. This is by design. If the government shuts 
down at the end of the month, the majority leader won't be able to 
escape the blame for what will be a Schumer shutdown. Despite the 
political theater and the Kabuki dance, he will have to own that 
shutdown because he will have been the primary author of it.
  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. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Booker). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The majority leader.

                          ____________________