[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.

                          ____________________