[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 150 (Monday, September 18, 2023)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4543-S4550]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
LEGISLATIVE SESSION
______
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, VETERANS AFFAIRS, AND RELATED AGENCIES
APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2024--Resumed
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
Senate will resume consideration of H.R. 4366, which the clerk will
report.
The bill 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.
Pending:
Schumer (for Murray/Collins) amendment No. 1092, in the
nature of a substitute.
Murray amendment No. 1205 (to amendment No. 1092), to
change the effective date.
Schumer motion to commit the bill to the Committee on
Appropriations, with instructions, Schumer amendment No.
1207, to change the effective date.
Recognition of the Majority Leader
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Democratic leader is
recognized.
H.R. 4366
Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, the lesson of the past few years has
been that bipartisanship is key to getting things done in the Senate,
even in these divided times.
A few months ago, bipartisan majorities in both Chambers passed an
agreement on appropriations top lines for the fiscal year 2024 and
avoided a catastrophic default, which would have been so damaging to
America.
Since then, Senate appropriators, led by Chair Patty Murray and Vice
Chair Susan Collins, have drafted legislation honoring this bipartisan
agreement. It took months of work and a lot of compromise, but all 12
appropriations bills have made it through the committee, all of them
bipartisan and many with unanimous support. Nobody got everything they
wanted, but disagreements did not stymie progress.
So, again, bipartisanship is getting things done. That has been
proven over and over again in recent years. But the reverse is also
true. When a small band of Senators chooses partisanship over
progress--when they mimic the chaos of the House Freedom Caucus--it
threatens the good work of this Chamber.
That is what happened last Thursday, when one Senator's objections
prevented us from moving forward with the appropriations process. One
Member, mimicking the House Freedom Caucus, has derailed the Senate and
prevented us from considering amendments, including Republican
amendments.
It is a reminder that in both Chambers a small band of hard-right
Republicans are dead set on grinding down the gears of government. For
these MAGA Republicans, it is as if gridlock is a virtue and
cooperation a crime.
I ask this small group of Senate Republicans: What happened to
wanting to do appropriation bills regular order?
We said we would allow amendments. We have put a minibus on the floor
with the cooperation and guidance of Senate Republican appropriators.
These stunts of this very small band
[[Page S4544]]
only serve to undermine regular order in the first place and fly in the
face of what our Republican colleagues asked us to do.
That is the danger of MAGA extremism. It is incapable of governing.
It only produces chaos. It is so bad that, last week, MAGA extremists
in the House prevented even a defense bill--even a defense bill--from
moving forward. It is a scary pattern we are seeing emerge with some on
the hard right: extremism at all costs, even at the cost of our
national defense. I urge my Republican colleagues to resist and reject
these hard-line attempts to derail the Senate's work.
A great majority of Senators from both parties want to see us move
forward. In the coming days, I will work with my colleagues on getting
the appropriations process back on track so we can finish processing
these appropriation bills and get us one step closer to funding the
government, because we all know, if the government shuts down, it will
hurt millions and millions and millions of Americans who did nothing at
all.
Continuing Resolution
Madam President, on the CR, September 30 is only 12 days away. If
bipartisanship is allowed to work, we can avoid a government shutdown
before then. Sadly, things in the House are not off to a good start.
Last night, House GOP Members released what they called a deal for a CR
but in reality reads like a hard-right screed. Instead of working with
Democrats to keep government open, House Republicans want to cut
virtually all nondefense spending by a devastating 8 percent--8
percent--8 percent cuts to law enforcement, cancer research, and other
critical priorities. Not one penny is dedicated to the President's
disaster relief request, despite the anguish in so many States. No
health extenders are included, no attempt to reauthorize the FAA.
And with no Ukraine funding, the proposal is an insult to Ukraine and
a gift to Putin. I cannot think of a worse welcome for President
Zelenskyy, who visits us this week, than this House proposal, which
ignores Ukraine entirely.
Last night's proposal in the House can be boiled down to two words:
slapdash, reckless--slapdash because it is not a serious proposal for
avoiding a shutdown and reckless because, if passed, it would cause
immense harm to so many priorities that help the American people.
Again, this Freedom Caucus wish list is not a serious proposal for
avoiding a government shutdown and, if passed, would never have enough
votes to make it through the Senate.
To his credit, the Speaker knows a shutdown would be a terrible
outcome. When I spoke with him in late July, we had a very encouraging
conversation about the need for bipartisanship to avoid a shutdown. We
both recognized that a bipartisan CR would be the way forward. Two
months later, a bipartisan CR is still the only answer for avoiding a
government shutdown.
I urge Speaker McCarthy, as well as reasonable House Republicans, to
resist the 30 or so extremists within their ranks who seem dead set on
provoking a crisis. The House Freedom Caucus cannot be allowed to bully
the rest of the House into submission, as hard as they might try.
Time is short to finish the job. If both sides embrace
bipartisanship, a shutdown will be avoided. If the hard right is given
a license to run the show, a shutdown is almost inevitable. It is that
simple.
United Auto Workers Strike
Madam President, now, on the UAW strike, today, the United Auto
Workers enters its fourth day on strike for better wages, health
benefits, and safer working conditions.
America wouldn't be what it is today without strong unions like the
UAW. The UAW helped build and strengthen the middle class, and, for
decades, the UAW has been a leader in the fight for workers' rights and
fair labor standards. So it is no surprise that the UAW is once again
leading the way with this historic strike on the big three car
companies.
The UAW's demands to these companies are simple: better pay, better
benefits, better working conditions. Surely, that is not too much to
ask of these car companies, which brought in record profits over the
last few years. The workers helped create those profits. They are
largely the reason there are such profits, and now, they deserve to get
some of the benefits.
I stand in solidarity with my brothers and sisters at the UAW, and I
urge the big three car companies to bargain in good faith to quickly
reach a new contract that is fair and equitable for workers.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Recognition of the Minority Leader
The Republican leader is recognized.
Iran
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, today, five American hostages are on
their way home from unjust detention in Iran. Unfortunately, the deal
that secured their release may very well be the latest example of
President Biden rewarding and incentivizing Tehran's bad behavior. For
the past 2\1/2\ years, the administration's weakness and desperation
have emboldened--emboldened--a massive state sponsor of terror and
would-be nuclear arm aggressor.
Take the $6 billion the United States has reportedly just released to
the Iranian regime. Administration officials have insisted that this
money is subject to strict oversight and may only be used for
humanitarian purposes.
Iran's President, on the other hand, understands that money is
fungible. He said:
Humanitarian means whatever the Iranian people needs . . .
and the needs of the Iranian people will be decided and
determined by the Iranian government.
Well, we know quite well that the Iranian people's needs and the
Iranian regime's priorities rarely overlap. For example, protesters
continue to take to the streets across Iran to denounce the regime 1
year after the so-called morality police killed a young woman for not
wearing her head scarf correctly. Brave Iranians are taking greater and
greater risks to speak up for freedom from the brutality of a corrupt,
theocratic regime.
Meanwhile, as the regime meets these protests at home with force, its
focus abroad remains on exporting repression, terror, and economic
interference throughout the region and beyond.
Tehran continues to accelerate its enrichment of weapons-grade
uranium and stonewall international inspectors seeking the truth about
Iran's weaponization work. Just last week, the regime barred several
U.N. inspectors from conducting scheduled oversight across the country.
The regime is racing to ramp up production of the weaponized drones
it uses against Arab and Israeli civilians to supply Russian violence
in Ukraine.
Iran-backed militia continue to threaten U.S. servicemembers in Iraq
and Syria. Tehran continues to funnel resources to terrorist proxies--
like Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza--that attack Israel. And
the regime has even plotted to kill U.S. officials and dissidents here
on American soil.
And last week, the IRGC seized two more tanker ships in the Arabian
Gulf and detained their civilian crews, part of a longer campaign to
threaten freedom of navigation and the entire global economy. This
growing threat has led the U.S. military to deploy 3,000 additional
marines to the Red Sea and prepare to put U.S. personnel on commercial
vessels to try to deter Iranian aggression.
By every measure, Iran poses a greater threat to its neighbors and to
the United States than it did 2\1/2\ years ago. The Biden
administration's record of appeasement and squandered leverage has left
Americans less secure.
The urgent question now is when the President will decide to change
course because, so far, his administration's obsession with reviving a
flawed nuclear deal actually suggests otherwise.
Border Security
Madam President, on another matter, on the Biden administration's
watch, America's southern border has
[[Page S4545]]
descended into humanitarian disaster. And across the country,
Democrats' open border policies have turned every State into a border
State.
The fentanyl trafficked across the southern border has become the
leading cause of death among Americans 18 to 45. Of the 2,135 overdose
deaths in my home State last year, fentanyl was the most prevalent drug
involved. And nationwide, synthetic opioids contributed to about 75,000
of the nearly 110,000 overdose deaths.
The painful ripple effects of Washington Democrats' failure to
address the border crisis extend even further. In major cities all
across the country, the flow of illegal migrants is testing the
patience of even the most liberal mayors.
The number of arrivals in New York City is now close to 10,000 a
month, and Mayor Adams has said that the city's response will cost $12
billion over the next 3 years if the flow continues at the same rate.
Being a sanctuary city is starting to come at a price.
Meanwhile, the Biden administration has continued to sit on resources
that were already paid for during the previous administration. The Army
Corps of Engineers is paying $160,000 per month to store more than
20,000 unused border wall panels that have already been paid for by the
taxpayers.
But instead of finally starting to enforce our immigration laws, the
Biden administration apparently wants to respond by gutting the Agency
tasked with doing so, Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
The junior Senator from Tennessee, Senator Hagerty, wrote recently
about how the administration's supplemental funding proposal included a
provision to redirect ICE funding toward paying for community-based
residential facilities, airplane tickets, and hotel rooms.
As our colleague put it:
This would effectively convert ICE from a law enforcement
agency into a U.S. travel agency for illegal aliens.
So Washington Democrats' neglect has shattered American border
security. Now, they want to make life even harder for men and women
working harder to clean up this mess. The American people need
security, not another attack on law enforcement.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader.
Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, in a moment, Senator Murray will move
to suspend rule XVI and file cloture on that motion. This is an effort
to move forward on the minibus and keep the appropriations process on
track here in the Senate.
It is unfortunate that one Member who does not represent the views of
most Senators prevented us from moving forward last week, but I believe
a majority of Senators want to keep moving forward.
Our Republican colleagues have asked for regular order, and we have
worked with them to let that happen. It was with the cooperation and
guidance of Republican appropriators that we brought these three
appropriations bills to the floor, and we have said we will allow
amendments.
In short, we are doing what our Republican colleagues have properly
asked for--pursuing regular order. So I hope Senators from both sides
will vote to allow the appropriations process to continue.
A deep debt of gratitude and thank you for the hard work to Chair
Murray, Vice Chair Collins, and appropriators on both sides of the
aisle.
Withdraw Motion to Commit
Madam President, I withdraw my motion to commit H.R. 4366 to the
Appropriations Committee.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has that right.
The motion is withdrawn.
The Senator from Washington.
Motion to Suspend
Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, having notified the Senate under rule V
of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I move to suspend rule XVI for
consideration of amendment No. 1092 to H.R. 4366.
Cloture Motion
Madam President, I send a cloture motion to the desk.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The cloture motion having been
presented under rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the
motion.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to
suspend the rules under rule V of the Standing Rules of the
Senate with respect to substitute amendment No. 1092 to
Calendar No. 198, H.R. 4366, a bill 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, as printed in the Congressional
Record on September 14, 2023.
Patty Murray, Susan M. Collins, Tammy Baldwin, Robert P.
Casey, Jr., Sherrod Brown, Margaret Wood Hassan, Ron
Wyden, Jack Reed, Amy Klobuchar, Catherine Cortez
Masto, Tom Carper, Martin Heinrich, Gary C. Peters,
Christopher Murphy, Brian Schatz, Cory A. Booker,
Charles E. Schumer.
Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the
mandatory quorum call for the cloture motion filed today, Monday,
September 18, be waived.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Motion to Commit with Amendment No. 1230
Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I move to commit the bill, H.R. 4366,
to the Appropriations Committee with instructions to report back
forthwith with an amendment.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will read the amendment.
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 1230.
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 9 days after
the date of enactment of this Act.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The President pro tempore.
Mrs. MURRAY. For the information of all Senators, last week, an
overwhelming 91 Senators voted to begin debate on the bipartisan
appropriations package. This is a package of bills which--each one of
them passed the Appropriations Committee unanimously.
We have been working very hard in a bipartisan effort and in good
faith to set up a very robust process for amendments and for debate.
Unfortunately, a few Senators decided to object to us last week, and
now we are moving forward.
I would say a lot of Senators have come to me and others and spoken
on the floor about how much they hate doing a gigantic omnibus at the
end of the year. We have been working really hard on this package to
make sure we don't get stuck doing that once again. So if everyone is
serious about wanting to show that this place can actually work, well,
now is the time to come together to make sure we can do that.
We cannot let a few Senators toss out months of hard work to move us
closer to regular order and abandon an overwhelmingly bipartisan effort
to do something as basic as funding our government and then put us on a
collision course for another huge omnibus. That is why we are filing
for a necessary procedural vote today that we will vote on later this
week that will keep this bipartisan process on track.
Madam President, I would inform Senators that as we wait for this
vote to ripen, we are continuing to work through a list of amendments
and a package of amendments that we can approve as soon as we can get
the necessary votes to get back on the bill.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The senior Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, what you just witnessed here is, we
hope, a new day in the U.S. Senate. You see, we have the responsibility
of appropriating the money for the Federal Government. We do it in 12
different bills. The total cost to the taxpayers for the resources for
the government come to the neighborhood of $1 trillion, so it is a big
undertaking.
For 5 years, we failed to pass those 12 bills individually. We passed
them in a group known as an omnibus. It is usually done either at the
end of the fiscal year, which ends September 30, or a few weeks or
months thereafter.
So this year, we decided in the Senate to try to do it differently,
do it better. What we have done through the
[[Page S4546]]
Appropriations Committee, which I serve on, is to take up each
individual bill of the 12 bills. We are trying to pass them on a
bipartisan basis because this body is divided, 51 Democrats and 49
Republicans.
We picked two of the best legislators in the Senate to accomplish
this--Senator Patty Murray, who just spoke, from the State of
Washington, a Democrat, and Senator Susan Collins, a Republican, from
Maine. The two of them did miracle work in the committee; they got all
12 bills individually passed.
We are in the process of trying to consider three of those bills at a
time--three of those bills now. That is what we were embarking on last
week. In order for us to take up these bills, we needed to suspend the
rules of the Senate because of the procedure that we face. When we
tried to do that, one Senator, a Republican Senator from Wisconsin,
objected. Because of his objection and the nature of the Senate, we
were back to the starting point, and it led to what we saw today.
Senator Schumer, the Democratic leader, and Senator Murray, the
President pro tempore and chairman of the Senate Appropriations
Committee, have asked for permission to take up those three bills
and to amend them and debate them and pass them. In order to do that,
we have to suspend the rules of the Senate. It is not an easy thing.
Usually we do it by saying, ``Do I have unanimous consent to suspend
the rules?'' and it happens. This time, when we said, ``Do we have
unanimous consent?'' that one Senator objected. He has his own reasons.
He can explain them. But it meant we had to come back here today and
start to suspend the rules. It takes a two-thirds vote, 67 votes, in
the Senate.
So, you see, this isn't an easy Chamber in which to get things done,
but I think we are on the right track. It is a bipartisan undertaking,
and we are considering each of the bills and subjecting them to
amendments--just the way it used to be for many years, for many
decades. I think that is better.
Contrast that with what is going on in the House of Representatives.
At this point, they can't pass any bills. They couldn't pass any
appropriations bills, and now they are considering a bill for short-
term spending for our government. Speaker McCarthy said he will call
for a vote this week. I don't know if it will pass or not. There is
quite a feud going on over there.
We are following an orderly, bipartisan process to have a closer look
at each of the spending bills for the Senate and for taxpayers in this
country. I think this is the right way to do it. I hope the Republican
leadership in the House of Representatives can get their act together.
We will find out this week.
That is not the reason I came to the floor, but I wanted to make sure
that we made a point of what Senator Murray said. This is a historic,
bipartisan undertaking. I think the American people more than anything
want us to get along and work together and solve some problems, and
this will be a step in that direction.
So that is what we just went through.
Ukraine
Madam President, each year, the United Nations in New York has a
General Assembly meeting. Countries come with their leaders from all
around the world.
Many people--myself included--watch ``60 Minutes'' on Sunday. Last
night on ``60 Minutes,'' Volodymyr Zelenskyy, the President of Ukraine,
talked about what he is facing with this Russian invasion by Putin and
what it has meant to his country. He said that he is coming to New York
to make a presentation to the United Nations.
I think it is important that he does this. I want him to remind the
American people, who, through the NATO alliance, have been steadfastly
in support of the Ukrainian people, what is at stake.
Vladimir Putin said he wants to restore Russia's so-called ``lost
glory.'' That is the twisted rationale behind his disastrous invasion
of Ukraine, one that has led to nearly half a million Ukrainians and
Russians being killed or wounded simply for Putin's bloodthirsty
ambition.
Putin will not be traveling much outside Russia. If you wonder why,
it is because the International Criminal Court, when it looked at the
activity of the Russian invaders in Ukraine, ended up issuing an arrest
warrant, branding Vladimir Putin a war criminal.
Why would they call him a war criminal? Because they killed innocent
civilians certainly but equally because they had a mass abduction of
Ukrainian children into Russia--something that has hardly ever happened
in history, but Putin has done it.
So they issued an arrest warrant for Putin over the war crimes. It is
the first time in history for a leader of one of the permanent members
of the U.N. Security Council to be so charged. It is no surprise when
you see what he has done and what he threatens to do. Putin has
isolated Russia. He has arrested Russians for political dissent. He has
quashed the freedom of the press. He is destroying the Russian economy.
Despite these clearly tragic outcomes, he is doubling down even
further in a move my Delaware colleague, Senator Coons, aptly called
the ``devil's deal.'' You see, international sanctions, global
isolation, and a determined Ukrainian military have left Putin
scrambling for military supplies and weapons. He first turned to help
from one of the world's worst rogue nations. You might have heard
Senator McConnell talk about Iran earlier. That is right--while the
Iranian Government was beating, murdering, and repressing mass
protesters who were demanding basic freedoms, Putin was there, hat in
hand, pleading for military weapons.
Just last week--what classic photographs these are. He turned and
asked for help from Kim Jong Un, the leader of North Korea. It is hard
to imagine a more deadly duo than these two.
While the Iranian Government was doing these things, he is pleading
for weapons; and now he has met with North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un,
further request for weapons. His effort to restore Russian glory has,
instead, resulted in pleading for help from two global despots and
fostered NATO enlargement along Russia's border. That is the thing that
we have got to keep in mind that has been achieved by this war. There
is more unity in the NATO alliance than anytime in its history. In
fact, for the first time in recent history, we have expanded NATO to
include Sweden and Finland.
It has been my good fortune to attend the Munich security council in
Germany this spring and to meet, again, the President of Finland,
President Niinisto.
This morning's New York Times has an article, which I commend to you.
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have it printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Finnish Leader Warns Europe About Russia
(By Steven Erlanger)
Helsinki, Finland--The president of Finland, Sauli
Niinisto, is the person considered most responsible for
bringing his country into the NATO alliance--and Sweden, too,
which is awaiting ratification--following the Russian
invasion of Ukraine. President Biden has consulted him about
Russia and its president, Vladimir V. Putin, whom Mr.
Niinisto has met numerous times.
In a long interview in his light-filled modernist residence
in Helsinki, Mr. Niinisto warned European leaders and
citizens not to become complacent over the risks of
escalation in Russia's war against Ukraine.
The war in Ukraine will last a long time, he said, and wars
can take unexpected paths, even toward the use of nuclear
weapons.
The invasion, Mr. Niinisto said, was ``a wake-up call'' for
Europe and NATO.
``Well, it was ringing loudly in February 2022,'' he said.
``But do you hear it anymore? That clearly? That might be a
good question--whether all Europeans realize that this is a
European issue.''
Mr. Niinisto, 75, is nearing the end of his 12 years as the
Finnish president. In the interview, he was philosophical,
but troubled, too. Finland has much experience--and an 830-
mile border--with its imperialist neighbor, Russia.
Recalling Finland's numerous wars with Moscow, including
the 1939 Winter War and World War II, when the Finns fought
off the Soviets but had to cede some territory, Mr. Niinisto
said European countries that let down their defenses after
the collapse of the Soviet Union made a grave mistake.
Here are a few highlights from the interview:
He warned about the risks of Russian escalation and even
nuclear war.
Speaking about debris from what appeared to be a Russian
drone landing recently in Romania, which is a member of NATO,
Mr.
[[Page S4547]]
Niinisto cautioned: ``We're in a very sensitive situation.
Even small things can change matters a great deal and
unfortunately for the worse. That is the risk of such large-
scale warfare.'' He added, ``The risk that nuclear weapons
could be used is tremendous.''
Given those risks, he urged critics without political
responsibilities to understand the hesitation of leaders to
accelerate the war.
His warnings, he said, were partly a response to those who
criticize the policies of Mr. Biden and Chancellor Olaf
Scholz of Germany as too cautious in supplying Ukraine with
sophisticated, long-range missiles and drones that could
easily hit Russian-occupied Crimea and Russia.
``There's a difference between those who have
responsibility and those who don't,'' he said. ``Also, in
Finland, we hear voices that America should do that or that.
And I just wanted to point out that if there's escalation to
a big war, that's world war, so then the nuclear risk becomes
clearly bigger.'' He urged everyone ``to understand the
position of those who have responsibility.''
Some countries shrank their militaries after the collapse
of the Soviet Union. Finland did not.
He urged Europeans to heed Finland's example.
Unlike Sweden, a close neighbor in all fields, including
defense, Finland still has conscription for males, and also
allows women to enlist. Those who finish conscription remain
in the reserves, as they do in Israel, for decades, and take
part in military training and exercises at least twice a
year--now more often--in conjunction with other public
services, such as the police and the fire brigades.
And Finland, schooled in self-reliance, maintains large
artillery forces, still makes its own shells and ammunition,
and even bought advanced F-35 fighter jets before Russia's
invasion of Ukraine.
After the Cold War, Mr. Niinisto said, ``we Europeans
learned to live an always improving life.''
``Decade after decade,'' he said, ``it strengthened the
feeling that it's a bit old-fashioned even to talk about
defense forces or defending because that's not possible in a
modern world. Now there's a huge wake-up. Fortunately, in
Finland, our position remained totally different.''
He has few illusions about Russia and Mr. Putin.
In their meetings before the invasion in February 2022, Mr.
Niinisto said, Mr. Putin was focused, aggressive and well-
informed, even obsessive, about Russian culture. He said he
decided to test Mr. Putin by asking him about Mikhail
Lermontov's poem on the death of Pushkin, Russia's greatest
poet. Mr. Putin spoke for more than half an hour. ``He knew
everything about that--for him it's Russia, Russia overall,''
Mr. Niinisto said.
Russia ruled Finland for more than a century, until, in the
chaos of Lenin's takeover, Finland declared independence in
1917. The wars with Russia since then are seared ``in our
backbone,'' Mr. Niinisto said. Russian history goes in waves,
he said, citing ``a centuries-old Finnish saying that `the
Cossack takes anything that is loose,' '' that is not tied
down. (Finns used to use ``Cossack'' as shorthand for
``Russians,'' he said.) But it is a reminder that free
countries must keep their defenses up and their goods safely
stored.
He and Mr. Biden talked often about Russia.
The two presidents spoke about Russian intentions in
Ukraine before Mr. Niinisto met Mr. Putin in Moscow in
October 2021, continuing their conversations at the Glasgow
climate summit the next month and afterward, as Russian
troops were building up on the border with Ukraine. They
spoke again in January, and Mr. Biden asked Mr. Niinisto to
urge Mr. Putin not to invade. Russia invaded the next month.
After the invasion, Mr. Niinisto was among the first
European leaders to meet Mr. Biden in the White House, on
March 4, where he put forth the possibility of Finland
joining NATO. After the Russian invasion, he said, ``it
became very obvious that we had no other alternative than
giving up our military nonalignment.''
Mr. Biden was supportive from the start, Mr Niinisto said.
Russia isn't going anywhere.
Mr. Niinisto said he does not know how long the war will
last, or how it will end, or ``what life will be like when we
again have paece.''
But even when the conflict ends, Russia will remain.
``There's also a big European interest to the make sure that
Russia is not returning back to warfare after peace in
Ukraine'' without insisting that the Russians ``have to be
blown out,'' he said carefully. But he emphasized that trust
would be needed to ensure that ``a new war is not waiting
behind the door.''
There is always life after war, he said, and there is
nothing more valuable for people than peace.
``Without peace, you have nothing, so I'm sure that
ordinary Russians share these feelings,'' Mr. Niinisto said.
``It's a basic human feeling.''
There must be a way to maintain a relationship with Russia,
he said. ``I don't mean any great friendship'' Mr. Niinisto
said, ``but the capability to tolerate, even understand each
other a bit.''
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, the September 18 New York Times, the
Finnish leader, President Niinisto--now serving his second term--made
an historic decision to ask for membership in NATO. He is a wonderful
man; he is on a second term and is extremely popular in his country.
And he asked to join the NATO alliance so that it could stand up
against Putin.
He reminds us in this article that Finland has a great experience
with its neighbor Russia and an 830-mile border with the Russian
leadership.
He recalls ``Finland's numerous wars with Moscow, including the 1939
Winter War and World War II, when the Finns fought off the Soviets but
had to cede some territory, Mr. Niinisto said European countries that
let down their defenses after the collapse of the Soviet Union made a
grave mistake.''
And so he has asked to join the alliance.
I was at a meeting with President Niinisto, and he said he picked up
the phone one day and called Vladimir Putin in Moscow. It is hard to
imagine, isn't it? But he said: I told him, point-blank, I am joining
the NATO alliance.
Putin said: You don't have to. I am not going to invade your country.
He said: I can't trust you anymore after what you have done to
Ukraine.
That is a message that Zelenskyy was delivering last night on ``60
Minutes.'' I want to make clear on the floor: Putin is not going to
stop his ambition to acquire other countries, and there are many that
are in fragile, dangerous situations.
I am blessed to represent the State of Illinois and city of Chicago,
as the Presiding Officer does. And there are some wonderful groups of
people who have come to the State and our city that have made us what
we are today. Among them are the Polish people. They say that Chicago
is the second largest Polish city in the world, next to Warsaw. It is
probably true. They are great folks, and I am honored to represent
them. They know what the Soviet occupation through the Warsaw Pact
meant to Poland, and they understand the danger if Putin is successful
in Ukraine. The neighbors to Poland feel the same way--the Baltic
nations of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. I have a special connection
there. My mother was born in Lithuania. I have been there many times,
and I greatly admire the people of all the Baltic states. But they are
small countries; they couldn't stand a chance of fighting off Vladimir
Putin if he decided to invade them.
The point made by Niinisto--the point made by the NATO alliance, the
point that President Biden is making and, I might add, many Republican
leaders, like Senator McConnell, is that it is in our best interest to
stop Putin now in Ukraine because he has ambitions that reach far
beyond the borders of that country.
The United States is not sending troops. We are sending military
equipment, artillery, ammunition; and we are giving advice to the
Ukrainians so that they can win this battle. This battle is not just
for Ukrainian sovereignty; it is for our own protection in the years to
come.
This week in Washington, we will be visited by President Zelenskyy of
Ukraine. He will go to New York first to address the United Nations
General Assembly. I think he is going to come through with a clear
message to global leaders, to NATO, to Congress, and to the American
people: Quite simply, Ukraine is fighting with the lives of its own
people against a nuclear state--Russia--that threatens the world. If
Ukraine falls, Putin will certainly go farther--to Poland, to the
Baltic states--and trigger an even wider war. Putin cannot be changed,
but he can be stopped in Ukraine. The Ukrainian people are showing
extraordinary courage and determination.
I agree with President Zelenskyy. We must continue our support for
these brave people fighting for their country and against Russian
tyranny that threatens the world.
We can start by passing the Biden administration's most recent
funding request. I am going to do my part in the Senate to make sure we
get that done, and I call on my colleagues to do the same.
I would say to President Zelenskyy: Your message was delivered on
``60 Minutes.'' You are looking for allies who will stand up against
the aggression of the war criminal Vladimir Putin. The United States
and NATO will be those allies.
Madam President, I yield the floor.
[[Page S4548]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
H.R. 4366
Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, the end of the fiscal year is just 12
days away, and the Senate has not yet voted on a single one of the 12
appropriations bills that have passed on a bipartisan basis out of the
Appropriations Committee.
The majority leader, who controls the agenda of the Senate and the
timing at which we consider matters, has had all year to plan and
prepare for the September 30 deadline. But here we are, less than 2
weeks before a shutdown, with no clear path to funding the government.
At the start of last week, this Chamber was preparing to take up a
three-bill minibus. In other words, having not started to vote on any
single bill, the majority leader put a bill on the floor that combines
3 of those 12 appropriations bills. This is something the Senate has
done before; but to be clear, this is not a feature of the regular
order of things. Following the regular order involves taking up and
passing each appropriation bill one at a time.
Had the majority leader taken this process seriously, he would have
had time to do that. The Appropriations Committee passed the first
funding bills on June 22, which is nearly 3 months ago. The Senate
could have been processing those funding bills at any point over the
summer. We could have followed the regular order and debated, amended,
and passed all 12 bills ahead of the September 30 deadline. Sadly, that
didn't happen, which is now why we find ourselves in this situation. It
didn't have to be this way; but, apparently, the majority leader
Senator Schumer, the Senator from New York, wanted it this way.
Diverging from regular order to take up a minibus requires unanimous
consent because it is in violation of rule XVI of the Standing Rules of
the Senate. And we know there are objections to waiving the provisions
of rule XVI, hence we are where we are today.
In politics, we sometimes talk about the art of the possible. We take
stock of different Members' positions, time constraints, procedural
hurdles, and determine what is possible, what is feasible. Now, plan A
should have been to follow the regular order and pass these bills one
at a time through regular order, as I said, consistent with the
Standing Rules of the Senate. But since that ship has sailed, we now
have to figure out what plan B is.
Like many of my colleagues, I want the Senate to work the way the
rules provide for. And finding ourselves in the predicament we are in,
which is entirely predictable, I think the best course of action is to
move forward with all three of these bills.
Each of these bills passed the Appropriations Committee unanimously.
They are products of a thorough bipartisan committee process, and they
are ready for a thorough bipartisan floor process. Unfortunately, we
know that with only 12 days to go, how this movie will end. Ultimately,
there are two choices. One is we pass a continuing resolution to give
the House and the Senate more time to work on the underlying
appropriation bills, or we will end up in a government shutdown. It
didn't have to be this way.
But if it is not possible to move forward on all three of those bills
contained in the minibus, which it currently is not possible, we need
to move forward with the Military Construction-VA funding bill. There
is no objection to doing that, and we are wasting valuable time by not
processing that appropriation bill.
But with just 12 days before the end of the fiscal year, I know we
are all anxiously watching the calendar because our country is
barreling toward a shutdown, and the American people are confounded by
the fact that the United States Senate has not even yet--even with all
this time--has not even yet started to vote on any funding bills.
Again, this is not inevitable. We didn't have to deal with it this
way. Senator Schumer could have put the first appropriations bill on
the floor in June, July, August; but here we are on September 18 trying
to map out the process for the first funding bill.
There is bipartisan bewilderment at why we have landed here. After
all, the Appropriations Committee put us in the strongest possible
position to advance these funding bills on a timely basis.
Senator Murray and Senator Collins--the chairman and ranking member
of the Senate Appropriations Committee--promised to return to regular
order, and that is exactly what they delivered. What they didn't figure
on is that their principal obstacle would prove to be the majority
leader of the Senate who sabotaged their bipartisan regular order
effort by not bringing these bills to the floor on a timely basis.
As I said, all of the appropriations process happened in June and
July, and there is no reason why it should have taken this long for the
majority leader to start mapping out the floor process. This is no way
to run a railroad, much less the U.S. Senate; and I am frustrated we
find ourselves just 12 days before a government shutdown.
So I hope we will be able to find a path to process appropriation
bills. But if that is not possible, we need to do what we can while we
can. One bill is better than nothing, which seems to be Senator
Schumer's preferred outcome--nothing. So if there is a shutdown, which
I hope there is not, it doesn't serve the interests of the American
people or either of the political parties--the House or the Senate. But
if there is, then it has to be called a Schumer shutdown.
22nd Anniversary of the September 11, 2001, Attacks
Madam President, on another matter, last week marked the 22nd
anniversary of the terrible terrorist attacks against the United States
of America on September 11, 2001. The 9/11 attacks are one of those
events that we will always remember where we were and what we were
doing--just like I remember when I was 11 years old, when John F.
Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas, TX.
Even though more than two decades have passed since 9/11, the pain
our Nation endured on that day is still fresh in the minds of many
Americans and, certainly, all of us who were old enough to remember it.
We remember the images that covered the front pages of the newspaper
and the scenes we saw depicted on our television sets. We remember the
bravery of the firefighters who ran into the buildings and the Good
Samaritans who put their lives on the line to save others.
But most of all, we remember the people who lost their lives that
day--the 2,977 innocent lives, the thousands more who were injured, and
the countless people whose lives were changed in an instant.
As a country, we came together and vowed to never forget the events
of September 11 and ensure that those responsible would be brought to
justice. As part of that commitment, Senator Schumer and I introduced
legislation called the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, or
JASTA, which became law in 2016. It amended the Federal law so that
foreign sponsors of terrorist attacks could be held accountable. What
this meant, in practical terms, was that the people impacted the most,
who lost families, loved ones, property, or businesses, could bring a
civil suit against the foreign nation that sponsored and financed
terrorist attacks on our soil on that day. This includes the parents
who lost their children, wives who lost their husbands. This
legislation provided a path forward for families who lost everything so
they could have their day in court. This law made clear that any
country, any person, or entity that finances terrorists for attacks on
American soil could be expected to be hauled into a U.S. court to face
justice.
There was a sigh of relief from the victims of 9/11, but over the
last several years, it has become clear that the law needs technical
fixes. Some defendants, including countries accused of financing and
sponsoring terrorism, have exploited perceived loopholes in the law to
claim total immunity from lawsuits, which was not our intention. This
flies in the face of the text, the structure, and the intent of this
law, and prevents the 9/11 families and survivors from pursuing
justice.
Earlier this year, Senator Menendez, the chairman of the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee, and I introduced new legislation to make
important technical corrections to JASTA. Actually, I think the law
doesn't need a correction, but it does deserve a clarification, where a
court listening to an argument made by a country, perhaps,
[[Page S4549]]
that financed these terrorist attacks, says: Well, it doesn't include
some categories of recovery for damages. Our bill simply clarifies who
can sue and who can be sued to ensure JASTA operates the way we
originally intended it to back in 2016.
So when Congress debated JASTA several years ago, folks were divided
into two distinct camps. In one camp were the supporters of the bill.
This included the 9/11 families, obviously, whose lives were forever
changed because of the attacks on our country. They wanted foreign
nations and entities to be held liable if they aided and abetted
terrorists, and I was proud to stand shoulder to shoulder with them and
help move this legislation through the Senate. The majority of our
colleagues in Congress--Democrats and Republicans--fell into that one
camp. We wanted to see justice for the 9/11 families.
In another camp--let's call it camp 2--were opponents of this law.
This included the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, which did not want to be
held accountable for any role it might have played in spreading
terrorism or financing these attacks on American soil. It launched an
extensive lobbying campaign and promoted bogus narratives in an attempt
to defeat or weaken support for JASTA. Sadly, camp 2 included some
members of the Obama administration, which parroted a lot of the Saudi
talking points and tried to stop the bill from becoming law. As a
matter of fact, President Obama vetoed JASTA, but this legislation had
such overwhelming support, it gave way to the only veto override of the
Obama administration.
Several years have passed, and the camps haven't changed, but the
occupant of the White House has. President Biden still hasn't taken a
public position on fixing JASTA, but his administration seems to be
leaning toward camp 2, siding with the Saudis over the 9/11 families.
High-ranking Biden officials have dusted off the Saudi talking points
that we once heard from the Obama administration. One of the arguments
I have heard against this bill is that we do not enact laws that affect
pending litigation. But that simply is not true. Every statute that
amends the United States Code alters current litigation unless we state
that it is only prospective in application.
JASTA was enacted while there was an appeal pending in the Second
Circuit relating to the ability of the 9/11 plaintiffs to sue them
under the tort exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. JASTA
itself is the example of Congress viewing errors in judicial
interpretation and stepping in to fix them. It is the law we passed,
and we need to see that our intent--congressional intent--is actually
enforced by the courts. Nobody complained that we were doing this then,
and every Member of this body who was serving in 2016 voted for JASTA.
It passed twice, 100 to 0.
JASTA maintains strong bipartisan support today. My bill with Senator
Menendez to make technical corrections has that same strong bipartisan
support. President Biden and his administration need to make a
decision, is he in camp 1 or camp 2--a foreign government that is
accused of helping carry out the deadliest attack on American soil or
the thousands of Americans and families who lost everything on 9/11? It
is embarrassing that this is even a question because the correct choice
is so obvious.
Earlier this month, the families of the 9/11 victims sent a letter
urging Congress to pass this legislation to, as they wrote, ``fulfill
Congress' promise to the American People.'' That letter had more than
4,000 signatures.
I want to thank two women, in particular, who have been fierce
advocates of this legislation: Terry Strada and Angela Mistrulli. They
both lost loved ones on 9/11, and they have made it their mission in
life to ensure that victims of terrorism can finally have their day in
court. I know they will not stop fighting until they get justice, and
it has been an honor to stand alongside them and hold sponsors of
terrorism accountable.
I am disappointed that the Senate was not able to pass this bill
ahead of the anniversary of September 11, but that doesn't mean the
urgency has gone away.
The majority leader, despite our differences on other things like the
appropriations process--the majority leader was my partner on JASTA
several years ago, and he is an original cosponsor of the legislation
that I am talking about today that would make these critical technical
fixes. I know he is committed to passing this legislation, and I hope
he will put this bill on the floor soon so we can deliver on the
promise Congress made to the 9/11 families and to the American people.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Hirono). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
76th Anniversary of the United States Air Force
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam President, before I begin my remarks today, I
want to mention that it is the 76th anniversary of the U.S. Air Force.
On behalf of all Tennesseans, I want to recognize the brave men and
women who are serving at Arnold Air Force Base, our Air National Guard
members, and the Air Force veterans who call Tennessee home. We thank
them for their service.
Artificial Intelligence Forum
Madam President, last week, the majority leader hosted a forum on
artificial intelligence. That meeting really complemented the hearings
that we have been having on this issue and, indeed, two hearings--one
in the Commerce Committee and one in the Judiciary Committee--that we
held last week. It is vital that we develop an understanding of what it
is going to take to put the guardrails in place for AI. We are going to
need to continue regular discussions between policymakers and the
industry.
We have seen this model work in our favor. In 2019 and 2020, I led
the Judiciary Committee's Tech Task Force. This brought experts to the
table so that we on the Judiciary Committee could sit down with them,
talk with them, learn more about how their technology worked and the
dangers that it may pose. We did this with several of our emerging
technology sectors. These discussions really yielded great results, and
the body became more engaged on technology issues.
But we must stay focused and remember that AI raises the same
concerns that plague other technological innovations. I was
disappointed with how little the executives who participated in last
week's forum had to say about data privacy because, in our committee
hearings and with those witnesses, they have engaged on that issue.
They have talked about how we need to have that Federal privacy law
before we move forward with quantum computing, before we have more
utilization of blockchain, and, of course, before we move forward with
AI.
We have to remember, when you are online, when you are on an open-
source platform--you and your data--you are the product. It is
virtually impossible to talk about new technology without also talking
about how to protect a customer's data. I like to call that the
``virtual you.'' How do you protect yourself and your information
online?
For an entire decade, I have called for comprehensive data privacy
legislation. I brought it up again in last week's Commerce hearing.
Many of my colleagues agreed: This is something we cannot continue to
ignore. So I would ask them to stay focused on that.
We heard the same thing from our witnesses. You cannot ignore online
privacy. You are going to have to deal with this issue.
Artificial intelligence is the most powerful technological innovation
we have seen since the inception of the internet, and it is already
taking over many of the digital systems that we use every single day.
Those systems depend on enormous amounts of data to function. If we
don't protect our data online and reinject control over how these
systems exploit our data, we are going to lose the ability to do so.
Think about this because AI systems have to be trained. They are
trained on your data.
Let's take, for instance, what happens with an entertainer. Let's say
you are a singer-songwriter out of Tennessee. Let's say that you have
written
[[Page S4550]]
a hit. Let's say that an AI system, such as Jukebox, which is there on
GPT--let's say you are going to train that system to sound like one of
our Nashville hit makers. Then that means you are going to use their
name, their image, their likeness, and their voice. It is a concept
called voice cloning, and it is something we should be paying attention
to.
Is there good that can come through artificial intelligence? Of
course, there is. Think about what can happen as you are using it for
predictive diagnoses in medicine, as you are using it for predictive
disease analysis in medicine. Think about how you can use it for remote
surgeries. There are good uses--the same thing for logistics, the same
thing for manufacturing--all of which we see in our State. But there is
also harm that can come for entertainers, for singers, for songwriters,
for authors, for publishers. We need to realize that there can be good,
but there also can be harm.
We also know that regimes that are hostile to the United States are
doing everything that they can right this minute to exploit that
technology, another of the adverse uses of artificial intelligence.
Here is an example. China has long used social media platforms like
TikTok to push propaganda in the United States. Now, the Chinese
Communist Party--the dear old CCP--they are at it again, using
generative models to make these campaigns even more convincing. And it
is not just those of us in Congress who see this. Microsoft recently
released a report showing us exactly how the Chinese Communist Party is
doing it.
We also know that authoritarian regimes will use AI to enhance their
surveillance capabilities. The CCP, again, is already doing this. They
are using it to surveil the Uighurs, tracking them. They are doing the
same with the Tibetans and the Mongolians.
Then you look at Iran. They are using this to track and follow and
use facial recognition to identify women, making certain that they are
properly dressed and wearing that hijab in public. If they are willing
to weaponize it against their own people--think about it. They have
weaponized this technology. They are tracking and following and
monitoring and surveilling individuals in their daily lives. If they
are doing it to them, of course, they are going to do it to us.
Before we lead on AI, the United States must be technologically
superior, but even the tech execs who came to Capitol Hill last week
admit that there is a role for Congress to play in addressing privacy,
national security, and other concerns. U.S. regulations must not hurt
the ability of U.S. companies to dominate, but the lack of any
governing standards can be just as damaging.
For example, because the United States doesn't have a data privacy
law, we have fallen behind our counterparts in the European Union on AI
regulation. Back in February, Commissioner Vestager described for me,
in a meeting that we had, how the GDPR has allowed the EU to move
forward on AI.
The difficulty of installing guardrails while still encouraging
freedom and innovation is not unique to AI. We have done this in the
past, and we are going to need to do it again so that we retain that
superiority in artificial intelligence and quantum computing.
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. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________