[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 152 (Wednesday, September 20, 2023)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4609-S4619]
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 senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

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

  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.
       Murray motion to suspend rule XVI for the consideration of 
     Schumer (for Murray-Collins) amendment No. 1092 (listed 
     above) to the bill.
       Schumer motion to commit the bill to the Committee on 
     Appropriations, with instructions, Schumer amendment No. 
     1230, to change the effective date.


                   RECOGNITION OF THE MAJORITY LEADER

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader is recognized.


                           ORDER OF BUSINESS

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time 
until 12:15 p.m. be for debate only. At 12:15 p.m., we have a vote on 
the cloture motion on moving forward on the minibus.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                               H.R. 4366

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, today, Senators from both sides of the 
aisle will have a chance to affirm that bipartisanship still rules the 
day in the Senate appropriations process.
  In a few hours, we will hold a cloture vote on the suspension of rule 
XVI, to override the stall tactics of one Member who objected last week 
to waiving rule XVI. It is yet another reminder that, in both Houses, a 
small group of hard-right Republicans is dead set on grinding the gears 
of government to a halt. For MAGA Republicans, it is as if chaos is a 
virtue and cooperation a crime, but I do not believe that this is the 
view of most Members in this Chamber, Democrats or Republicans.
  The appropriations process has been a true bipartisan success story 
to date. Our colleagues on the other side have asked for regular order, 
and we have worked with them to ensure we have done just that, just as 
we did on the NDAA bill. Our colleagues on the other side have asked 
for amendments, and we have worked with them to consider amendments.
  We worked side by side with our Republican colleagues in the 
Appropriations Committee to bring these three bills to the floor: 
MILCON-VA, Agriculture, and Transportation-HUD. It has taken a lot of 
hard work. We have had plenty of disagreements, as both sides normally 
do, but we have worked through them. It is a reminder that,

[[Page S4610]]

even in divided times, it is the hard work--hard work--of achieving 
bipartisanship that produced results.
  Today, we have a chance to make sure all the good work of the 
appropriators is not wasted. Whether the Republicans give us cloture or 
not, we on this side of the aisle are going to do our best to ensure 
that the minibus gets done. We have come very far, and there is no good 
reason to turn back.


                           Government Funding

  Now, Mr. President, on the CR, every day we get closer to September 
30, one truth becomes clearer and clearer: There is no scenario for 
avoiding a government shutdown without bipartisanship.
  A government shutdown would be a terrible and unnecessary outcome for 
our country. Millions of Americans who count on government services 
would have their lives disrupted. It could impact the pay of our 
servicemembers, who so bravely serve us. Air traffic controllers and 
TSA employees would have to work without pay. FEMA's Disaster Relief 
Fund--needed by so many--could dry up.
  A shutdown would be disastrous. A shutdown would be unnecessary. Make 
no mistake, a shutdown is certainly avoidable. Yet, with each passing 
day, House Republicans seem less interested in avoiding a shutdown and 
more interested in catering to the hard, hard, unreasonable, adamant, 
and stubborn hard right.
  A few days ago, House Republicans released what they claimed was a 
deal for a CR--a slapdash, reckless, and cruel bill that everyone knew 
had no chance--no chance--of passing in the Senate. It would have cut 8 
percent to virtually all nondefense spending. It would have cut 
investments to the Social Security Administration. It would have meant 
cuts to law enforcement, to NIH funding for cancer research, to 
nutrition assistance, to protections for clean water, for small 
business loans, even for the people protecting the border. Still, it 
wasn't extreme enough for the hard right.
  House Republicans rejected their own extremist bill, and by rejecting 
it, that is a dead giveaway they are not serious about avoiding a 
shutdown. They seem more interested in just finding the lowest common 
denominator--finding something, anything, that can appease the hard 
right no matter how extreme, no matter how unrealistic, no matter how 
cruel, and no matter how unseriously this would be taken by the country 
and by this body. This is not a serious way to solve the crisis.
  Look, I sympathize with the Speaker. I know his task isn't easy, as 
he has a lot of very, very difficult Members to deal with. But we all 
have--including the Speaker--a responsibility to the American people. 
Real lives would be disrupted in a shutdown.
  The answer to avoiding a shutdown is right in front of Speaker 
McCarthy, and he knows it: bipartisanship. Speaker McCarthy says he 
wants to avoid a shutdown. He says nobody wins in a shutdown. Well 
then, he should reach across the aisle to find an agreement that 
actually has the votes to pass both Chambers. That is the only way--the 
only way--this crisis gets resolved.
  When Members of your own side operate in bad faith, when has 
appeasement ever worked? If he gives in to them now, they will want 
something more tomorrow and the next day and the next day. Some of them 
have stated boldly that they want a shutdown. The Speaker has an 
obligation not to let those people who want a shutdown have their way.
  Chasing the lowest common denominator won't ever solve the Speaker's 
problems. The hard right will just keep demanding more extreme things. 
It is the pattern we have seen play out all year long, and that 
approach will only lead to one outcome: a MAGA government shutdown. 
This has been the problem with MAGA extremism from the start. It is not 
serious about governing. It hates governing. ``Chaos'' is the only word 
in their playbook.
  We have Members of the hard right who openly say--bragging--they want 
a shutdown. Well, it doesn't have to be this way, and it shouldn't be 
this way. Those few who want a shutdown should not control the House. 
Speaker McCarthy doesn't have to pretend like a MAGA bill is the only 
option. Again, there are real people who will be hurt if the government 
is shut down. They like to see us work together so their lives don't 
get disrupted.
  Today is September 20. House Republicans have less than 10 days to 
figure this out. If Republican leadership chooses to work with 
Democrats, we can avoid a shutdown very quickly, but if they continue 
to appease the MAGA hard right, we all know exactly how this is going 
to end.
  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.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. 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.


                           Prescription Drugs

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, next week, America's world-leading 
medical innovation sector will face their first deadline in the Biden 
administration's push for prescription drug socialism.
  Under Washington Democrats' so-called Inflation Reduction Act, the 
companies behind certain major treatments for seniors, for everything 
from arthritis to diabetes, to cancer, will have to choose, by the end 
of next week, whether to enter into a so-called ``negotiation program'' 
run by Federal bureaucrats, pay an excessive fine, or take their drugs 
off the market.
  Well, the devil is in the details. Unsurprisingly, Democrats intend 
for this ``negotiation'' to be anything but. It turns out, the IRA 
empowers the Biden administration to reject any counteroffer during the 
process and, thus, arbitrarily set the maximum price to whatever number 
the bureaucrats choose.
  Now, the Biden administration claims that this policy will save 
consumers money and lead to cheaper treatments, but this couldn't be 
further from the truth. In reality, this so-called ``negotiation'' with 
unelected bureaucrats will ensure that fewer lifesaving treatments make 
it to the markets in the first place.
  I was very proud to have worked alongside then-Vice President Biden 
on his Cancer Moonshot Initiative and the 21st Century Cures Act back 
in 2016. Unfortunately, by one estimate, the Biden administration's own 
price-fixing scheme would destroy nearly nine times as much funding for 
cancer research as that legislation, back in 2016, provided by 
eliminating incentives for drug companies to invest in R&D. Already, 
several companies announced last year that they were discontinuing 
research into treatments for cancer and other diseases due to concerns 
about the impact of Washington Democrats' regulations.
  The Biden administration wants to dry up the world's most prolific 
pipeline of lifesaving cures. The American people deserve better than 
prescription drug socialism.


                                Ukraine

  Mr. President, now, on another matter, yesterday, President Biden 
told the world we would support Ukraine's fight ``as long as it 
takes.'' Unfortunately, for all of his lofty rhetoric about Ukraine, 
the President's actual approach to Russia's escalation--his passive, 
indecisive leadership--has risked prolonging the war and jeopardizing 
public support for our efforts. In some cases, his open fretting about 
escalation and ``World War Three'' has contributed to the hesitation of 
allies like Germany.
  Like most Republicans, I have been clear-eyed about the threat of 
Russian aggression since long before Putin's so-called ``little green 
men'' seized Ukrainian territory back in 2014, long before the last 
Democratic President mocked realism about Russia to score points in a 
political debate. And I have urged the administrations of both parties 
to take steps to help Ukraine deter Russian aggression before it 
escalated--like the previous administration's decision to send the 
lethal weapons that President Obama had found too provocative.
  When President Biden took office, he focused on lowering tensions 
with Moscow with giveaways like the 5-year extension of the New START 
Treaty, rather than shipping lethal weapons to Ukraine to help shore up 
their defenses. As Vladimir Putin massed forces on Ukraine's border 
over the

[[Page S4611]]

winter of 2021, I urged the President to move quickly to provide 
critical military capabilities like Stingers and Javelins and to build 
the logistical infrastructure needed to support Ukraine should Russia 
escalate. Ah, but President Biden delayed. He dithered for months 
before approving shipments of advanced air defense systems or medium-
range rocket systems like HIMARS. And he anguished for over a year 
about authorizing F-16s and Abrams tanks.
  Eventually, under duress from both parties in Congress, the Biden 
administration provided each of these capabilities, but the President's 
hesitation kept our allies, who follow American decisions very closely, 
from unlocking similar capabilities of their own sooner.
  At every step of the way, President Biden's decisions on support for 
Ukraine have been slow, his actions have been tentative, and his 
caution has been debilitating. Unfortunately, the President's public 
messaging has been similarly insufficient. He has an obligation to 
speak to all Americans, but most of his messaging about lofty and 
abstract principles seems tailored to Washington think tanks.
  President Biden and his administration need to explain to the Nation 
in practical terms that our Nation has a fundamental interest in 
Ukrainian victory and European security, that our support for Ukraine 
isn't distracting from competition with China but contributing 
materially to it, that Europe has turned a corner on collective defense 
and burden sharing and is actually contributing more to Ukraine than 
the United States, that U.S. assistance is subject to rigorous 
oversight and accountability protections, that most of the security 
assistance is actually being invested in America's own--our own--
defense industrial base, and that pulling the plug would be far more 
ruinous than our disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan.
  I sometimes get the sense that I speak more about Ukraine matters 
than the President does. Well, I hope his administration will use this 
evening's classified Senate briefing to begin making his case more 
forcefully.
  I am encouraged by reports that the United States may finally provide 
ATACMS, a capability that could have made an impact on the battlefield 
sooner. And I hope we will learn why this decision, like those 
preceding it, has taken so long.
  Tomorrow, I will join colleagues in welcoming President Zelenskyy to 
the Capitol, and I will continue to make the case myself for sustained 
support of the Ukrainian cause--not out of charity but out of primary 
focus on America's interests. But until President Biden takes on his 
responsibility to actually lead the case publicly here at home, his 
administration's timid leadership will continue to speak volumes, both 
at home and abroad.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority whip.


                        Prescription Drug Costs

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, most Americans agree that the cost of 
prescription drugs is too high. Most Americans agree that President 
Biden has done the right thing by reducing the monthly cost of insulin 
to $35 so that millions of people facing diabetes can afford their 
medication. Most Americans agree that it is almost impossible to 
explain why American drug companies sell the same drugs in Canada for a 
fraction of the cost they charge American consumers. Most Americans 
agree that the pharmaceutical companies should be able to take 
advantage of basic research by Agencies like the National Institutes of 
Health but, when it comes to their profit-making, they ought to be 
reasonable with the American taxpayers, who started them down the road 
to a successful product.

  Most Americans also agree that the No. 1 driver in the cost of health 
insurance premiums is the cost of prescription drugs. BlueCross 
BlueShield of Chicago has told me as much. It stands to reason.
  That is why it is very difficult to understand the statement just 
made by the Republican leader in the Senate, who is suggesting that the 
idea of negotiating with the pharmaceutical companies so that Medicare, 
for example, doesn't pay the highest price for drugs isn't a reasonable 
thing.
  What I heard from the Republican leader was this was prescription 
drug socialism--socialism--that we would go to the private sector and 
say: Lifesaving drugs should be affordable. You are entitled to a 
profit, but you are not entitled to rip off taxpayers or consumers 
across America.
  That seems like a reasonable approach. In fact, it seems so 
reasonable that someone suggested we do that for our veterans years 
ago. The Veterans' Administration has been negotiating prescription 
drug pricing for years.
  What the Senator from Kentucky refers to as ``unelected bureaucrats'' 
are the officials of the Veterans' Administration who, on behalf of the 
veterans and their families, sit down at a table and negotiate a 
reasonable cost so that veterans will always have those drugs available 
to them and the government will pay not the highest price but a 
reasonable price for the product.
  That has been going on for decades, and I don't recall any 
Republican--or Democrat, for that matter--who stood before the Senate 
or the House and said: That is a bad idea. The Veterans' Administration 
ought to pay a much higher price for drugs, and taxpayers ought to foot 
the difference.
  The reason you don't hear that is it doesn't make sense. We should be 
able to negotiate reasonable pricing for pharmaceutical drugs in 
Medicare, just as we do in the Veterans' Administration. That is what 
President Biden has suggested.
  If you took a look at the top 10 drugs that the Medicare system is 
buying across America, not surprisingly, these drugs, which have 
tongue-twister names, are familiar to most Americans. Why?
  The pharmaceutical companies have put so many ads on television for 
the drug Xarelto that we can not only pronounce it but we can spell it. 
And Xarelto, of course, is a drug that appeals to many people but 
certainly to senior citizens.
  Now, for the record, there are only two nations in the world that 
allow television advertising of pharmaceutical drugs: the United States 
and New Zealand, of all places. So why do the pharmaceutical companies 
spend more money on television advertising and marketing than they do 
on research to find new drugs and cures? Well, they do that because 
they make money at it.
  They are trying to reach American consumers--in this case, senior 
citizens--and convince them, the next time they go for a doctor's 
appointment, to ask for one of these drugs.
  Now, the doctor may decide to counsel the person that that drug is 
not appropriate for the challenges of the medical situation they face. 
He may say there is a generic that is much cheaper, and he may try to 
talk them out of the idea. But, after some time, the doctors usually 
give in to the patients. They have a limited amount of time to debate 
with them, and they have got to move on to another patient. And so the 
high-priced prescription drug advertised on television is then sold to 
the senior citizen. And as a result, the taxpayers, through Medicare, 
pay for a large portion of that high-priced drug. That is an 
unfortunate system, but it is very profitable for the pharmaceutical 
companies.
  So to call this socialism is to ignore the obvious. We want Americans 
to have access to affordable, effective drugs, whether they are buying 
them as private citizens or through programs like Medicare and 
Medicaid. What the President has said is: I should take my authority as 
President, given to me by Congress with a measure that received only 
Democratic votes, and negotiate drug prices down to an affordable 
level--for the government and for individuals.
  Some may call that ``prescription drug socialism.'' I call it common 
sense. We should protect American consumers from high-priced 
prescription drugs. Why the Republican leader takes the opposite 
position is his business, but I think most Americans believe it is a 
reasonable approach.


             Unanimous Consent Request--Executive Calendar

  Mr. President, on a separate issue, I rise today to discuss the 
critical role that U.S. attorneys play in keeping America and our 
communities safe. Unfortunately, this is not the first time I have come 
to the floor to request unanimous consent to take up and confirm U.S. 
attorney nominations.

  Across the United States, men and women are chosen to head U.S. 
Attorney Offices through the Department of

[[Page S4612]]

Justice. It is a major responsibility. I have seen many U.S. attorneys 
in my lifetime and my time in the Senate, and I know them to be 
carefully screened before they reach this level. They go through 
background checks--extensive background checks--to make certain there 
are no questions about their background before they are appointed to 
this position. They then go through the Judiciary Committee of the 
Senate, which I chair, carefully screened by both Democrats and 
Republicans. Then they are voted on in the committee and sent to the 
floor here for approval.
  Unfortunately, we have run into an obstacle. Last year, we went 
through an exercise twice when a Republican Senate colleague refused to 
allow the Senate to confirm nearly 12 Justice Department nominees by 
voice vote, which is the typical approach used under Presidents of both 
political parties. Thankfully, the Senator involved in that particular 
issue lifted his objections in time for these 12 to be appointed to 
U.S. attorney posts across the United States.
  We were able to get the U.S. attorneys and marshals confirmed and in 
place so they could go to work. And, thank goodness, we did.
  Unfortunately, here we stand again today, finding ourselves in a 
position where a single Senator objects to the timely confirmation of 
U.S. attorney nominees.
  In short, one Senator--one Senator--is making it more difficult for 
us to put women and men in the position of U.S. attorney for the 
prosecution of violent criminals, tracking down fugitives, and 
protecting Americans from gang violence, cyber crime, terrorism, 
narcotics, and fraud.
  It is an awesome job to be U.S. attorney because of the possibilities 
of all of the vulnerabilities of American citizens.
  Remember when extreme voices were crying out ``defund the police''? 
We knew better as Americans. Sure, reform is appropriate, but we need 
the police, just as we need prosecutors--criminal prosecutors. Now, we 
have one Senator who has decided to stop this effort at criminal 
prosecution by these new U.S. attorneys.
  It is worth taking a moment to think about what U.S. attorneys do. 
The position of U.S. attorney is nearly as old as the Nation. It was 
created as part of the Judiciary Act of 1789, which was passed by the 
first Congress and signed into law by President George Washington.
  U.S. attorneys are empowered to prosecute all Federal criminal 
offenses; and we have recognized, since the founding of America, that 
they are an integral part of our justice system.
  U.S. attorneys play a critical role in enforcing the law, promoting 
public safety, protecting our communities. Blocking the confirmations 
of U.S. attorneys threatens public safety and puts many Americans and 
their families, including the most vulnerable among us, at greater 
risk.
  Why would we knowingly want to put our families that we represent in 
States across America at greater risk by holding up the employment of 
U.S. attorneys?
  Now, we have heard a lot of tough talk about law and order from a lot 
of Senators. But when it comes to law and order, we shouldn't allow one 
Senator to prevent us from confirming well-qualified law enforcement 
nominations today.
  This Senator has vowed to ``grind the Department of Justice to a 
halt.''
  Let me repeat that.
  This Senator has vowed to ``grind the Department of Justice to a 
halt.''
  And all of this because of why? He is upset that special counsel Jack 
Smith has indicted the former President of the United States on 
multiple felonies. This is a protest, a political protest, for an 
action taken by a special counsel. But he is doing it at the expense of 
families all across America.
  Let me repeat that.
  A Member of this body is undermining our government's efforts to 
prosecute violent crimes, terrorism, and crimes against children 
because he does not like it that one of his political allies is being 
held accountable for his actions. He is doing so despite the fact that 
these are exceptional--exceptional--nominees for U.S. attorneys, and 
there is no principled basis to delay their confirmation.
  Let me describe some of these U.S. attorneys who are being held up by 
this one Republican Senator.
  Todd Gee, nominated to be U.S. attorney for the Southern District of 
Mississippi, is dedicated to the rule of law and longtime career in 
public service. A native of Vicksburg, MS, Mr. Gee attended George 
Washington University and Tulane Law School. He spent several years as 
an assistant U.S. attorney right here in the District of Columbia. He 
prosecuted homicides, carjackings, and gun crimes. In one case, he was 
the lead prosecutor in securing the convictions for seven members of a 
deadly street gang that had been indicted for multiple murders. Since 
2018, Mr. Gee has served as Deputy Chief of the Public Integrity 
Section at the Department of Justice. He is a dedicated public servant 
with significant experience as a Federal prosecutor. He is the person 
for the job of U.S. attorney in Mississippi.
  Don't take it from me, take it from both Mississippi Senators, both 
Republicans, who approved his nomination. And yet he is being held up.
  Tara McGrath, nominated to be U.S. attorney for the Southern District 
of California, devoted her legal career to keeping America safe. Ms. 
McGrath attended Boston College and the University of Michigan Law 
School before beginning her career as Deputy Staff Judge Advocate with 
the U.S. Marine Corps. She was honorably discharged after 6 years of 
service in the Marine Corps and then began serving as Federal 
prosecutor in the Southern District of California.
  During her time with the U.S. Attorney's Office, she received awards 
for her work on crime prevention and prisoner re-entry and handled drug 
importation, human trafficking cases, and gang prosecutions.
  Notably, Ms. McGrath led the investigation of a large-scale 
racketeering and drug-trafficking operation run by the Mexican cartels 
in San Diego County that resulted in 51 indictments against 40 
defendants.
  How many times have we heard Members from the other side of the aisle 
talk about the scourge of fentanyl in the United States, the narcotics 
that are killing too many Americans every single day? What is going to 
stop that? A lot of different things. But one thing that has to be part 
of the equation is a criminal prosecutor who knows how to bring them to 
court and hold them responsible for the deadly narcotics and deaths 
across America.
  Why in the world would we stop Ms. McGrath from becoming a U.S. 
attorney in California, where she has a proven record of doing just 
that? By holding up her nomination for no specific reason, we are 
jeopardizing the safety of so many people who innocently expect us to 
do our duty.
  These are individuals--the ones she has prosecuted--responsible for 
drive-by shootings, child abduction attempts, meth distribution. Thanks 
to Ms. McGrath, they are off the streets.
  She recently returned to her military roots, served as a lawyer for 
the Marine Corps in Okinawa in Japan since 2019. She has represented 
America admirably. She will be an outstanding U.S. attorney.
  A third U.S. attorney nominee who is being held up by this Senator is 
Rebecca Lutzko. This one is interesting. She was nominated to be U.S. 
attorney for the Northern District of Ohio, the home State of the 
Senator who is holding up her nomination.
  She is a longtime Federal prosecutor. She attended Boston University 
and Georgetown University Law before clerking on the U.S. Court of 
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

  After 7 years in private practice, Ms. Lutzko joined the U.S. 
Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Ohio, handled cases 
involving prescription drug trafficking, gun crimes, and corruption. 
She eventually became Appellate Chief of the office's Criminal 
Division.
  For nearly a decade, Ms. Lutzko was the lead counsel in prosecuting 
an online pill-mill organization that illegally distributed well over 4 
million pain pills to customers in all 50 States. She secured 
convictions on all 12 defendants in the case, and the organization was 
forced to surrender $4 million to the U.S. Government in criminal 
proceeds.
  She has served her office with distinction. She would be an 
outstanding U.S. attorney.

[[Page S4613]]

  April Perry, nominated to be U.S. attorney for the Northern District 
of Illinois, has significant experience in the private sector and as a 
Federal prosecutor.
  She attended Northwestern University and the Northwestern Law School 
and then clerked on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Then she 
served as Federal prosecutor in the Northern District of Illinois for 
over a decade, where she handled narcotics, gang violence, public 
corruption, and fraud cases. Notably, Ms. Perry specialized in child 
exploitation prosecutions and spent 6 years in the office as Project 
Safe Childhood Coordinator.
  As an assistant U.S. attorney, she investigated a former police 
officer who was convicted of raping a person he had arrested, and she 
secured the conviction of a former priest who was accused of sexually 
abusing more than 20 children.
  Ms. Perry has since served as Chief Ethics Officer for the Cook 
County State's Attorney's Office and is currently working as the GE 
Healthcare a senior counsel for Global Investigations and Fraud and 
Abuse Prevention.
  She has the qualification and leadership abilities to serve as U.S. 
attorney with distinction.
  The interesting thing about all of these nominees that are being held 
up by one Senator from the other side of the aisle is the extraordinary 
records they have already written in their lives as criminal 
prosecutors. That is why Senators from both political parties in the 
U.S. Senate have said they are entitled to a promotion and entitled to 
an opportunity to lead these U.S. attorney's offices.
  By keeping these posts vacant, by refusing to give us a vote in the 
Senate on their nominations, we are jeopardizing the efforts of U.S. 
attorney's offices to control narcotics and crime.
  These men and women are on the frontline of keeping us safe in 
America. To hold up their nominations without any specific complaint 
about any one of these nominees is just unacceptable.
  We have a responsibility here to keep America safe. We can't keep 
them safe by using a political reason to hold up the nominations of 
these well-qualified people. If you are truly for law and order, if you 
are truly for law enforcement, if you want the prosecutors across 
America to keep us safe, then, for goodness' sake, lift the hold on 
these nominations.
  Mr. President, I am prepared to make a unanimous consent request at 
this point.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to 
executive session to consider the following nominations en bloc: 
Calendar No. 129, No. 266, No. 314, and No. 315; that the nominations 
be confirmed en bloc; that the motions to reconsider be considered made 
and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate; that no 
further motions be in order to any of the nominations; that the 
President be immediately notified of the Senate's action and the Senate 
then resume legislative session.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. VANCE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.
  The Senator from Illinois knows well, I cannot and will not give 
consent to the confirmation of new officials at the Department of 
Justice.
  My objection is not specific to the qualifications or the particular 
individuals that have been nominated. My objection is, instead, to the 
fact that we live in an era where the Department of Justice is used for 
politics as much as justice. And that is unacceptable.
  The DOJ is, and always has been, defined by its most consequential 
investigations and prosecutions. This DOJ is thus defined by its 
selective prosecution of the leader of the opposition--the man running 
against Joe Biden to become President of the United States. Of course, 
I am speaking of Donald Trump.
  Now, this unprecedented double standard selectively prosecuting 
Donald Trump, leaving the President and his family completely 
untouched, is a reason why the Department of Justice's public 
confidence has completely collapsed.
  A recent NBC News survey showed that 35 percent of the American 
people approve of the Department of Justice, which is a radical decline 
from where it was just a couple of years ago.
  It is the constitutional duty of this body to provide advice and 
consent to high-level DOJ nominees. My real fear here--I don't want to 
be here, I don't want to be objecting to these nominees--but what I 
like much less is the fact these nominees will be used by the Attorney 
General for politics over justice.
  My colleague might say--and he might say this to Senator Tuberville, 
who has a similar hold on Department of Justice nominees--that this is 
extraordinary, that what we are doing as Republicans in objecting to 
the unanimous consent of these nominations is extraordinary. And I 
agree it is extraordinary. But what is more extraordinary is this 
moment in time where the leader of the opposition is being prosecuted 
by the President of the United States, and the Department of Justice 
again and again and again is using its powers to go after people from 
pro-life activists to members of the community who are just exercising 
their rights.
  I would love to live in a country where the Department of Justice 
does not engage in selective prosecution. I would very much like if the 
Department of Justice focused on the work of law enforcement instead of 
politics. Until it does, I will object to these nominations.
  I will object to giving unanimous consent. For these reasons, I 
object.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, my colleague says he is holding up these 
critical law enforcement positions because former President Trump is 
being treated unfairly. He promises to grind the Department of Justice 
to a halt in loyalty to his political ally.
  President Biden has continually demonstrated his respect for the 
Justice Department's independence. He has never interfered in any 
investigation into himself or his family. In contrast, President Trump 
treated the Justice Department as his personal law firm for 4 years, 
and he continues to undermine the rule of law by repeatedly threatening 
and making baseless accusations against judges, prosecutors, grand 
jurors, and witnesses.
  Former President Trump has been indicted four separate times--once, 
of course, a State indictment in Georgia. As the criminal charges 
mount, President Trump is becoming even more reckless in threatening 
judges, prosecutors, jurors, and witnesses. That is what inappropriate 
interference in our judicial system looks like.
  Instead of directing his concerns there, the Senator from Ohio is 
attacking law enforcement officers who want to keep our families and 
communities safe. In fact, one of the nominations that he is holding 
up, in argument that the Department of Justice has become a political 
tool, is a nomination which he notified the Judiciary Committee he 
supports--from his home State of Ohio. If this person is a political 
tool, why did he support this person for this nomination? He is holding 
him up today for political reasons.
  Despite the tough talk from the Senator of Ohio about crime in 
America and all the references I have to put up regularly with the 
other party making references to crime in the city of Chicago, I can't 
think of a better way to fight crime and protect communities than by 
confirming all these qualified nominees, especially one for the 
Northern District of Illinois.
  While the Senator from Ohio stands in the Senate talking about crime 
in my home State and other places, Ms. Perry could be leading Chicago's 
Firearms Trafficking Strike Force in cracking down on the illicit flow 
of illegal guns from other States into Chicago.
  The Chicago Police Department recovered more than 10,000 guns every 
year from criminal investigations for the last 2 years--10,000 guns 
taken off the streets. Ms. Perry could be helping to coordinate these 
efforts with ATF and other law enforcement agencies.
  Instead, thanks to my colleague's political position, our law 
enforcement agencies and U.S. attorneys are missing key officials who 
would otherwise be leading these efforts.
  If you are for law and order, if you are for safety in the streets, 
if you want to reduce gun violence, how in the world can you 
rationalize stopping the nominations of U.S. attorneys, the

[[Page S4614]]

lead criminal prosecutors of the U.S. Department of Justice?
  I would like to give them the help and leadership they need, but the 
Senator from Ohio blocks it. These offices and the safety of the public 
they serve should not be subject to politics. These are highly 
qualified nominees who deserve to be swiftly confirmed. Until we do so, 
our law enforcement agencies in Ohio, Illinois, Mississippi, and 
California are going to be limited on how they can fight crime.
  I really am saddened that this has become the new standard for Senate 
Republicans. One Senate Republican has stopped 300 military promotions 
for 6 months or longer. Deserving men and women, many of whom risked 
their life for our country and have served us so well, are being 
punished because of a political item on the agenda. As important as it 
may be, you have chosen the wrong targets to take your political 
revenge.
  The same thing is true when it comes to these nominees. For goodness' 
sake, give the Department of Justice the tools it needs to stop the 
spread of fentanyl and narcotics in the United States, to stop and slow 
down violent crime in the United States, to do something to protect 
children from being trafficked. To stop these nominations is to turn a 
blind eye to the reality that faces crime in our country. I can't 
explain it. I won't even try to.
  I just beg the Senator from Ohio to think twice. Grinding the U.S. 
Department of Justice to a halt, as you have promised, is nothing to be 
proud of. We will not be safer as a nation; we will not be better off 
in terms of the safety of our children; and this political strategy is, 
unfortunately, ill-intended and is going to have a result which is 
going to hurt a lot of innocent people.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ossoff). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                    Federal Aviation Administration

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, on Monday, the Democrat leader came down to 
the floor to discuss the continuing resolution the House proposed, and 
he criticized it for, among other things, making ``no attempt to 
reauthorize the FAA.''

       Making ``no attempt to reauthorize the FAA.''

  Well, apparently it slipped the Democrat leader's mind that the 
Senate is currently making no attempt to reauthorize the FAA either. 
That is right. It has been 97 days since the Democrat chair of the 
Commerce Committee halted consideration of the Federal Aviation 
Administration reauthorization at the beginning of the scheduled markup 
because the Democrat leader objected to a bipartisan amendment that 
Senator Sinema and I planned to offer--an amendment to improve aviation 
safety by implementing a structured, rigorous training program for 
prospective airline pilots.
  Current training requirements for airline pilots require 1,500 hours 
of flight time, primarily in the cockpit, although military pilots and 
those with a bachelor's or associate's degree in aviation can receive 
credit for some of those hours.
  I recognize the value of cockpit experience and see time in real 
aircraft as an essential part of training airline pilots, but those 
1,500 hours alone are not always the ideal preparation for flying 
commercial jets or training truly well-rounded pilots.
  For starters, the majority of the 1,500 hours are generally completed 
in small, single-engine aircraft, which have very little relevance to 
regional or large jetliners in terms of flight characteristics and 
instrumentation. Little to none of the currently required flight hours, 
which aspiring airline pilots must seek out and complete on their own, 
are accumulated in the type of aircraft these pilots will be flying 
should they get a job with an airline. In fact, current rules would 
theoretically allow some of those hours to be completed in a hot air 
balloon--not exactly preparation for flying a 787 across the ocean.
  To address these deficiencies and to better prepare pilots for 
airline jobs, 7 years ago, the Air Carrier Training Aviation Rulemaking 
Committee--a body of industry, labor, and safety representatives who 
meet regularly under the auspices of the FAA's Office of Aviation 
Safety--developed and recommended the implementation of an Enhanced 
Qualification Program that would create a structured pathway for pilots 
to obtain intensive training.
  That is exactly--exactly--the type of program our amendment would 
create. Following the recommendations of the Air Carrier Training 
Aviation Rulemaking Committee, our amendment would implement a 2-month 
Enhanced Qualification Program, designed and audited by the FAA and 
administered by air carriers, that would give aspiring airline pilots 
intensive training both in the classroom and in simulators with 
experienced air carrier pilots and other experts. Individuals who 
successfully completed the program would be given a 250-hour credit 
toward their restricted airline transport pilot license, similar to the 
credits currently given for undergraduate work in aviation.
  The Enhanced Qualification Program in our amendment would 
significantly improve pilot training and passenger safety. As I said, 
intensive training in the kind of air carrier environment where 
prospective airline pilots will be flying is something that is largely 
missing from current training. Getting the chance to work closely with 
seasoned pilots would help turn out highly qualified pilots who are 
better prepared for flying commercial jets.
  In addition, our program's use of simulator training, whose proven 
value has resulted in its extensive use by our military, would give 
prospective airline pilots exposure to the cockpits of the jets they 
would be flying and, crucially, allow them to experience what it is 
like to handle challenging and dangerous situations in those cockpits.
  For obvious reasons, standard flight training hours don't involve 
deliberately flying into perilous weather conditions or dealing with 
things like fires or engine failure, but simulator training offers 
prospective airline pilots a chance to deal with all those situations 
and more and deal with them again and again until their response to 
these situations is fine-tuned.
  You don't have to take my word for it. A bipartisan group of former 
FAA Administrators and former presidents of the Air Line Pilots 
Association recently sent a letter to the chairs and vice chairs of the 
relevant House and Senate committees wholeheartedly endorsing the kind 
of simulator training our amendment would provide. Let me just read a 
little bit from that letter, and I am quoting here:

       [F]acilitating the adoption of new technologies that 
     enhance safety should be a bedrock principle for government 
     and industry alike. . . . Since the tragic crash of Colgan 
     Air Flight 3407 almost 15 years ago, there have been 
     significant advances in technology that are incorporated into 
     a pilot's training upon an airline hiring them, but these 
     technologies have not improved the 1,500-hour path to 
     becoming an airline pilot. Modern, state-of-the-art airline 
     flight simulators accurately recreate the experience of 
     flight operations in a fully immersive experience, forcing 
     pilots to encounter aircraft malfunctions, including rare 
     events like rapid decompressions, emergency descents, high-
     speed rejected takeoffs, dual engine failures, severe icing 
     conditions, flight control malfunctions and full stalls, all 
     without placing any lives in danger.

  He goes on:

       Simulators also present the opportunity to incorporate 
     actual accident and incident scenarios into training. . . . 
     Like training for an athletic endeavor, a high volume of 
     repetitions of high-quality exercises improves performance 
     and ``muscle memory.'' Requiring the repeated practice of the 
     prevention of and recovery from myriad real-world accident 
     scenarios in full-motion flight simulators will make better 
     pilots.

  Again, that comes from former FAA Administrators and presidents of 
the American Air Line Pilots Association.
  So, as I said, that is the message that was sent to the relevant 
chairs and vice chairs by a bipartisan group of former FAA 
Administrators and Air Line Pilots Association presidents, a letter 
that clearly demonstrates the value of the kind of program that Senator 
Sinema's and my amendment would establish for improving pilot training 
and passenger safety--precisely what we are talking about here with 
respect to our amendment.
  I suspect that if put to a vote in the Commerce Committee or on the 
Senate

[[Page S4615]]

floor, for that matter, there is a good chance our amendment would 
pass, which is presumably why the Democrat leader is blocking any 
chance for a vote. It is less clear why the leader is opposed to the 
substance of our legislation. Does he really think that we can't 
improve upon the 1,500 hours of training largely undertaken in a 
single-engine prop plane? That is the way it is today. As I said 
before, that is not exactly the ideal preparation for flying a 
commercial jet.
  A program that better prepares prospective airline pilots for the 
planes they will be flying seems really to me like a no-brainer. But 
regardless--regardless--the Democrat leader has every right to oppose 
our amendment. What is inappropriate is not his opposition but the fact 
that he is using his position as majority leader to block committee 
debate on this amendment, which has had the practical effect of 
blocking the entire bill.
  The Commerce Committee and the Senate as a whole are set up for 
debate and amendment. That is what we do here, and we take votes here. 
If you don't want to take hard votes, don't run for the U.S. Senate. 
This place is not set up with the intention of having a single 
individual determine legislative outcomes.
  When I was chair of the Senate Commerce Committee--and I chaired that 
committee for 4 years--bipartisan debate and amendment were the order 
of the day. That is how we did things, and it helped produce a lot of 
strong pieces of legislation, including, I might add, the longest 
reauthorization of the FAA since 1982.
  The last time we did an FAA reauthorization, I chaired the committee, 
and we brought a bill to the floor that enjoyed broad bipartisan 
support, which is what we ought to be doing with the legislation this 
time around. And if the Democrat leader would loosen his hold and stop 
trying to engineer the legislative outcome that he wants, we would get 
another bipartisan FAA reauthorization bill out of the committee and 
onto the Senate floor.
  As the leader correctly indicated, the FAA reauthorization is--is--an 
important piece of legislation. So I encourage him to allow it to 
proceed through the committee and come to the floor of the U.S. Senate 
for a vote.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Fetterman). The Senator from Kentucky.


                                Ukraine

  Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I rise to put the leadership of the House, 
the Senate, and the President of the United States on notice. I will 
not consent to any expedited passage of any spending bill that provides 
any more American aid to Ukraine.
  It is as if no one has noticed that we have no extra money to send to 
Ukraine. Our deficit this year will exceed $1.5 trillion. Borrowing 
money from China to send it to Ukraine makes no sense. It is not as if 
we have some sort of rainy day fund sitting around with trillions of 
dollars, a pot of money, and we are just going to send it to Ukraine. 
We are going to borrow it. When we borrow it and create new money to 
pay for that borrowing, we create the inflation that is plaguing our 
economy.
  Since the beginning of Russia's war on Ukraine, the American 
taxpayers have provided Ukraine with $113 billion. Over the 583 days of 
war, between February 24, 2022, and the end of the month, that averages 
$6.8 billion per month or $223 million per day. There are a lot of 
things that we need to fix in our country before we borrow money to try 
to perpetuate a war in another country.
  When will the aid requests end?
  When will the war end?
  Can someone explain what victory in Ukraine looks like?
  President Biden certainly can't. His administration has failed to 
articulate a clear strategy or objective in this war, and Ukraine's 
long-awaited counteroffensive has failed to make meaningful gains in 
the East. With no clear end in sight, it looks increasingly like 
Ukraine will be yet another endless quagmire funded by the American 
taxpayer.
  That is why public support for the war is waning. A CNN poll from 
August shows that a majority of Americans now oppose Congress 
authorizing additional funding to Ukraine. Now, there are those in the 
Senate who would refuse to listen to these voices, voices coming from a 
war-weary nation, and who would hold the Federal Government hostage by 
inserting $24 billion more for Ukraine. They are talking about saying 
the only way government stays open--the only way we avoid a shutdown--
is by shoveling more American taxpayer dollars to Ukraine. They are 
going to link keeping the government open with more money to Ukraine, 
and I am here to say that I am not going to agree to it, and I will not 
let them shut down the government simply because they want to send more 
of your hard-earned tax dollars to Ukraine. Either the American people 
fund an endless war in Ukraine or the ``uni-party'' threatens to shut 
down the government.
  This is a clear dereliction of duty, and I will not stand for it. 
Colleagues, as representatives of the American people, you should not 
stand for it either. The bill that comes before us should be about 
funding our government, not somebody else's government. I will not give 
consent to a bill that includes funding for Ukraine in keeping our 
government open.
  As elected officials, we have an obligation to pursue a foreign 
policy that advances the security and prosperity of our country. 
Funneling billions of dollars that have to be borrowed into the meat 
grinder of eastern Ukraine does neither. The longer this conflict 
continues, the greater the risk that miscalculation or purposeful 
escalation draws the United States into direct conflict with Russia. 
Russia's military may have a bloody nose, but Moscow still maintains 
the largest nuclear arsenal in the world. Let's not pretend that the 
U.S. involvement in this war comes without risks.
  If that is not bad enough, we lack effective oversight mechanisms to 
ensure that the hard-earned American tax dollars don't fall prey to 
waste, fraud, and abuse. For over a year now, I have been asking for a 
special inspector general to make sure they are not stealing our money. 
We have had one in Afghanistan, and his team of economists and 
technicians have overseen and found billions of dollars' worth of waste 
that they have saved. We need the same thing in Ukraine, a special 
inspector general to make sure they are not stealing our money.
  When that has come before a vote in the Senate, the majority party 
here says: No, we just want to spend the money. We don't care. Some 
Republicans have gone along with this as well, and they have voted 
against an inspector general. It is a terrible abuse of our spending 
authority to spend money overseas in a war and not make sure that they 
are not stealing it.
  So in addition to the colossal cost of the war, we end up paying a 
corruption tax. Ukraine is one of the most corrupt countries on the 
planet--maybe second only to Russia. Corruption runs deep through 
Ukraine, and there is plenty of evidence that it has run rampant since 
Russia's invasion.
  As President Zelenskyy landed in New York earlier this week, we 
learned that corruption concerns in Ukraine's Ministry of Defense 
resulted in the firing of six Deputy Defense Ministers. This comes 2 
weeks after the firing of Defense Minister Oleksii Reznikov, who was 
removed after it was discovered that the Ministry of Defense had 
mishandled military contracts.

  Last month, Zelenskyy fired all 24 regional military recruitment 
chiefs because they were ``involved in illegal activities, including 
enrichment.''
  Last October, we learned that U.S. shipments of grenade launchers, 
machineguns, rifles, bulletproof vests, and thousands of rounds of 
ammunition were ending up in the hands of criminal gangs and weapons 
traffickers posing as humanitarian organizations. And what did the 
Senate do? They voted against a special inspector general to make sure 
they are not stealing our money.
  What are we doing? Is this fair to the American people?
  Millions of Americans are struggling each day to make ends meet. 
Millions of Americans are struggling to provide for their families and 
put food on the table.
  Can we honestly look our constituents in the eye and tell them that 
this is a good investment of their dollars?
  Some say the war in Ukraine is a fight to save democracy, but those 
who

[[Page S4616]]

say that need to be honest with themselves. Ukraine is far from a 
shining example of democracy. And while the strain of war can make for 
questionable government actions, we have to live with them when the war 
is over.
  For all the platitudes about America supporting democracy and making 
the world safe for democracy--the Woodrow Wilson advocates among us--
the biggest recipient of American welfare, Ukraine, canceled its next 
Presidential election. You are telling me we are sending $100 billion 
to a country that is not going to have elections? We are going to send 
$100 billion to a country that now has, what, a President for life?
  They say: Well, we could, but it is difficult.
  Does anybody remember the American Civil War, where 600,000 people 
died and yet we didn't miss an election?
  They canceled the Presidential election. We should cancel our aid as 
a response.
  This is not the only concerning development in Ukraine. Despite 
Zelenskyy's charm offensive this week, his actions also deserve 
scrutiny. Citing national security concerns, Zelenskyy has banned 
Orthodox churches oriented toward the Russian Orthodox Church and has 
ordered Ukrainian law enforcement to raid churches and arrest priests.
  He has banned the political opposition. How do you have a democracy 
if you are not going to have elections and you ban the opposition? He 
suspended 11 political parties, including the Opposition Platform--For 
Life, the second largest party in Ukraine's Parliament and the one 
which held 44 seats.
  He has attacked free speech by banning opposition media and 
increasing his government's regulatory power over journalists. It 
hardly sounds democratic to me.
  Earlier this year, he signed into law a bill that allows Ukraine's 
state broadcasting council to regulate all media in Ukraine. The 
council can impose mandatory orders, fines, restrict content from 
search engines, and even outright suspend media outlets without a court 
decision. It hardly sounds very democratic to me.
  If these actions sound like the actions of an authoritarian regime, 
if you suspect these do sound like an authoritarian regime, you are 
right.
  This past July, a Swiss intelligence report observed ``authoritarian 
traits'' in Zelenskyy, as he tries to push the mayor of Kyiv, Vitali 
Klitschko, out of contention for Ukraine's 2024 Presidential elections. 
Citing martial law, Zelenskyy stated that those elections will not take 
place.
  Martial law, no elections, banning opposition parties, this is where 
your $100 billion has gone, and they are not done.
  We don't have the money. The money is being borrowed. We borrow the 
money from China to send it to Ukraine.
  In 2021, Zelenskyy fired multiple government officials, including his 
Prime Minister, for investigating a Ukraine oligarch who just happened 
to be a key backer of Zelenskyy's Presidential campaign. The United 
States placed sanctions on this oligarch for his involvement in 
significant corruption, and earlier this month, he was finally 
arrested. Clearly, Ukraine and the regime are not paragons of 
democracy.
  But this is not just about what Ukraine is or is not with respect to 
government. This is about American interests in our national security. 
Every day this war continues is another spin of the roulette wheel with 
another chance of it stopping on Armageddon, and we are paying for the 
privilege.
  We cannot continue with business as usual. We cannot continue to put 
the needs of other countries above our own. We cannot save Ukraine by 
dooming the U.S. economy, and we certainly cannot save Ukraine by 
fighting a war with Russia.
  As we go further and further into debt, we become weaker. It is not 
just that this is not helping our national security; the very threat to 
our national security is our debt. The more we send money overseas, the 
more we deplete our munitions, the worse things get.
  No matter how sympathetic we are to the Ukrainian people, we must put 
the American people first; and to that end, I encourage my colleagues 
to oppose any effort to hold the Federal Government hostage for Ukraine 
funding.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.


                           Government Funding

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, by my watch, today is September 20. The 
fiscal year for the U.S. Senate and for the U.S. Government ends in 10 
days. Congress, which is required to fund the government by passing 
appropriations bills, has not passed a single appropriations bill 10 
days before the end of the fiscal year.
  The obvious point is that, unless Congress acts to fund the 
government in the next 10 days, the government will be without funds, 
and large portions of the Federal Government will shut down; 
notwithstanding the fact that some people think maybe that is a good 
idea and that we are spending too much money here, so let's just shut 
it down. Well, tell that to the members of the U.S. military and their 
families. Tell that to the men and women who serve bravely as members 
of the Border Patrol and of the Customs and Border Protection, who are 
responsible for processing the goods that enter into our country from 
our trading partners who create millions of jobs. Tell that to 
Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE. Tell them that they will 
have to work and not get paid. Programs that support our seniors, 
veterans, children, and some of the most vulnerable Americans will be 
paralyzed, and a range of services from passport processing to opioid 
treatment will be delayed. Good luck if you want to take a vacation and 
need your passport renewed.
  Well, as may be obvious from my statements, I am not a fan of 
government shutdowns. I have noticed from my experience that when that 
happens, the same problems that caused you to shut down the government 
are still there staring you in the face when the government reopens, 
and it creates a lot of collateral damage and a lot of collateral 
expense. It doesn't actually save money; it actually costs more money 
because of the disruption. And shutdowns harm innocent people and 
create needless uncertainty for our economy.
  I don't need to tell Members of the Senate that our economy is in a 
precarious position right now. Inflation is at a 40-year high--or it 
has been at a 40-year high--and the Federal Reserve continues to raise 
interest rates in order to try to deal with inflation. One of the 
largest autoworker unions in the country, the UAW, is currently on 
strike; and we don't know how long that strike will last or how far it 
will spread. So notwithstanding the fact that President Biden likes to 
talk about the virtues of Bidenomics, I think if you ask most people 
whether they are feeling good about the economy and their personal and 
family prospects, they will tell you they are a little nervous--and 
with good reason.
  I mentioned that shutdowns are not a useful tool nor do they provide 
leverage for negotiations. I know, here in the Senate, we are always 
looking for leverage to try to persuade people to do what we want or to 
vote for the things we like or to vote against the things we don't 
like. Leverage is part of the way we operate. But shutting down the 
government does not provide leverage, certainly not to the people who, 
ultimately, contribute to that shutdown. But, sadly, that seems to be 
the direction we are heading in.
  It has been pretty clear for a long time now that the Senate majority 
leader--the only person who can actually bring bills to the floor and 
schedule them for a vote--is trying to play the old Washington blame 
game: It is not my fault. It is somebody else's fault. In this case, he 
wants to put the blame solely on the shoulders of the House of 
Representatives and the Republicans who have a thin majority there.
  Before the August recess even ended, Senator Schumer began pointing 
the finger at House Republicans, referring to their desire to secure 
spending cuts--the horror of trying to save money, of trying to reduce 
the debt and annual deficits. Our debt-to-GDP ratio is 100 percent. We 
have been writing checks here in Washington that somebody is, 
ultimately, going to have to cover, and it probably won't be us. It 
will probably be our children and grandchildren. So I applaud the House

[[Page S4617]]

of Representatives for trying to find ways to save money.
  But the Senator from New York, the majority leader, called those--the 
angling for spending cuts--political games. Over the past few weeks, he 
has continued to try to sell this narrative to the press. 
Unfortunately, he has found some traction. Some of the press is saying: 
Oh, it is all the Republicans in the House. He even called the process 
here in the Senate the ``gold standard.'' The ``gold standard.'' We are 
in big trouble. If the way that the majority leader has handled this 
appropriations process is the gold standard, we are in big trouble. He 
has even gone so far as to call it a MAGA shutdown.
  Well, Senator Schumer is in a very powerful position as the majority 
leader, but that power comes with responsibilities, which he has 
completely abdicated. The majority leader sets the schedule in the 
Senate, as I mentioned. He determines which bills come to the floor, 
whether they will receive a vote, and how many amendments will be 
considered. That is a lot of power in one person, and that is the 
benefit of being the majority leader--being able to set the schedule, 
to schedule votes, and decide who gets to vote on amendments and the 
like. It also comes with responsibility--and I don't mean just a 
responsibility to the Senate; I mean a responsibility to the American 
people and to the institutions that work for them, like the Senate, 
like the House.
  So the Senate can only take up and pass legislation when Senator 
Schumer is on board, and when it comes to funding the government, it is 
obvious he is clearly not on board.
  I see the chairwoman of the Senate Appropriations Committee on the 
floor. I want to just, once again, commend her and the ranking member, 
Senator Collins, and all 14 of the Senate Appropriations Committee 
members for doing their job and doing it on a timely basis.
  I think all of us sort of hoped maybe this would be the beginning of 
a crack in the broken system and that maybe we could get the Senate to 
work again as it is supposed to. Well, it was a great plan. As I said, 
they did their part. The committee passed all of its 12 appropriations 
bills by the end of the summer--or, actually, by the end of July--
marking the first time that has happened in 5 years. Each bill passed 
with bipartisan support--some of them unanimously. That is impressive, 
and I know that Senator Murray and Senator Collins worked hard to 
achieve that.
  But the committee's productivity was no accident. The chair and the 
vice chair of the committee promised a return to the regular way we 
have been appropriating money for time immemorial, consistent with the 
rules of the Senate. They followed through on their promise. They used 
the power that they have as the Appropriations Committee, and they also 
embraced their responsibilities. I applaud them for it. They gave the 
majority leader exactly--exactly--what he needed in order to restore 
the Senate appropriations process to its normal function, according to 
the rules. But you can't do that by not passing a single appropriations 
bill in the U.S. Senate 10 days before the end of the fiscal year.
  Despite the fact that the Appropriations Committee began passing 
funding bills on June 22, the majority leader did not even attempt to 
put the first funding bill on the floor until mid-September. I think it 
was 18 days before the end of the fiscal year. Now it is 10 days, and 
we still haven't voted on a single bill. He could have tinkered with 
the Senate's 2-week recess for the Fourth of July. He could have said: 
Well, instead of 5 weeks for an August break or a summer break, let's 
make it 4 weeks, because this is important. We need to get our work 
done. But he did none of those things. He could have adjusted the 
priorities as the majority leader.
  All we have been doing here--it is not like we have been voting on 
legislation. All we have been doing is doing nominations. When you are 
doing nominations, it is not that they are unimportant, but you are not 
using that time--which is coin of the realm here in the Senate, which 
is floor time--in order to pass legislation.
  Well, it is pretty obvious--it should be obvious--to everybody that 
the majority leader has decided to run out the clock. He has 
orchestrated this crisis here in the U.S. Senate. I say ``crisis'' 
because of the disruption that it will cause, the unnecessary 
disruption this shutdown will cause, if it occurs, but he allowed 
months to pass without making any effort--any effort--to move 
appropriations bills.
  So the majority leader can criticize our colleagues across the 
Capitol as much as he wants. He does it a lot. He tries to shift the 
blame from himself to them. Again, this is a world-class sport here in 
Washington, DC. It is called the blame game. Years ago, someone said, 
``Well, whoever has got the best narrative wins in Washington, because 
the press will go along with it, and they will ignore the real or, at 
least, the whole story,'' which is the complicity of the majority 
leader in creating the circumstances that we find ourselves in now.
  We find ourselves with an impossible task given this heel-dragging by 
the majority leader. We cannot get these appropriations bills passed 
through the Senate. We cannot get a bill that the House will agree to. 
We cannot get a Presidential signature before the deadline. It is 
impossible, and the majority leader knows that. He created the problem. 
He orchestrated it. This was intentional.
  So the Senate is rushing to pass some appropriations bills, this so-
called minibus, but there is no scenario--none at all--in which the 
Senate will pass all 12 appropriations bills before September 30. There 
is just not enough time. Again, I am confident that this truncated 
timeline was no accident. It was all part of the majority leader's 
plan.
  Now, you might ask me: Why in the world would he do something like 
that?
  Well, when he basically undermines the work of the Appropriations 
Committee on a bipartisan basis, when he doesn't give all 100 Members 
of the Senate an opportunity to participate in the process by offering 
amendments, debating those amendments, and getting votes on those, it 
actually increases his power and influence. We saw that last December 
when, basically, three or four people negotiated an omnibus 
appropriations bill. And he likes that because it enhances his power, 
but we should not be asked to like it, because that means we are unable 
to do our job on behalf of the constituents we represent--in my case, 
30 million Texans.
  Over the last few months, back when the debt ceiling vote occurred, 
it sounded like Senator Schumer was on board with what Chairman Murray 
and Ranking Member Collins were trying to do. He applauded the 
bipartisan work of the Appropriations Committee and talked about the 
importance of working together in good faith. But here is another 
lesson I have learned here in Washington: Don't just listen to what 
people say. Watch what they do.
  When given the opportunity to restore the Senate appropriations 
process to its customary function and put individual bills on the floor 
in a timely manner, he took a pass. He let months go by without even 
attempting to put a funding bill on the floor.
  I know, after the minibus came to the floor, there has been an 
attempt to try to get this thing going, and we are still working on 
that. But this is all entirely predictable if you wait until the last 
minute to try to do the work you should have done months ago.
  We are just months away from a potential government shutdown, 
something that I am hopeful we can avoid. But, of course, what is the 
majority leader's tune? Not my fault.
  He called the process here in the Senate the ``gold standard.'' If 
this is the gold standard, we are in big trouble.
  The majority leader bears responsibility for the Senate's failure to 
pass a single appropriations bill so far. The Appropriations Committee 
gave Senator Schumer exactly what he needed in order to do his job on a 
timely basis. The fact that Senator Schumer fumbled the ball is no 
one's fault but his own. This is not a ``MAGA shutdown.'' This is a 
Schumer shutdown. He ignored his own commitment to return to regular 
order.
  I wasn't privy to the conversations the majority leader had with the 
chair and the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, but, 
based on what they did, my impression is that they held the hope that, 
somehow, we would have an orderly and timely process. I know that is 
what they want.

[[Page S4618]]

That is what I want. But Senator Schumer made sure that was not 
possible. And, ultimately, he will carry much of the blame if the 
government shuts down next Saturday.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Smith). The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, so ordered.


                               H.R. 4366

  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, last week, an overwhelming 91 Senators 
voted to begin debate on the bipartisan appropriations package--a 
package of bills that each passed the Appropriations Committee 
unanimously. But then a few Senators decided to object to a run-of-the-
mill procedural request, threatening to derail our months of hard work, 
halt our return to regular order, and prevent the full Senate from 
having a chance to debate and offer amendments and vote on our 
appropriations bills.
  The senior Senator from Maine and I have been working hard to make 
sure we have a robust amendment process with amendments from Democrats 
and Republicans. And so many Senators have been working with us in good 
faith so we can debate their ideas for how to make these bills 
stronger. That is how this process should work.
  But in the wake of continued obstructions from a very small handful 
of Senators, we can't get started discussing those amendments without 
this vote on a motion to waive rule XVI.
  So I hope all of our colleagues who voted to move forward last week 
will join us for cloture and for this motion so we can avoid an omnibus 
and keep our bipartisan process on track, because that is really what 
this vote is. It is a vote to keep us on track, and that should be a 
really simple choice.
  Do you want to continue our return to regular order and move forward 
with the appropriations bills that we have all spent months putting 
together in an open, bipartisan way, or do you want to halt the 
Senate's appropriations bills and essentially set up another massive 
12-bill omnibus at the end of the year?
  I have heard the complaints from a very small handful of Members who 
are trying to derail this process, but I have not heard any--any--
realistic alternatives from them for us to pass the Senate's funding 
priorities in a more open and bipartisan process than what the senior 
Senator from Maine and I have worked so hard to provide.
  We held nearly 50 hearings in the committee. We televised those 
markups for the first time ever so people back home can follow along--
complete with debate and amendments--and see what we are doing here. We 
were transparent. Our doors have been open the whole time--in fact, 
they still are--for Members who have ideas on how to make these bills 
stronger.
  The vice chair and I went through great pains to give every single 
Senator the chance to weigh in on them. And I am pleased to say a lot 
of our colleagues took that opportunity. You shared your thoughts, your 
ideas. You shared the needs, the concerns of your families back home--
all of which helped to make all these bills stronger.
  That is why, even though the Appropriations Committee has everyone, 
from strong liberals to staunch conservatives, all 12 of our funding 
bills passed with overwhelming bipartisan support. In fact, every bill 
in the package before us passed the committee unanimously.
  That is a very different process from where we ended up in the past 
few years and from what we will end up with again if we can't keep 
these bills moving forward.
  To everyone who wishes these bills came to the floor even sooner--and 
I think we all understand how it feels to wish things moved faster 
around here--I hope you will vote with us today to prevent any further 
delays that will derail this process and would lead us, then, of 
course, to an omnibus. After all, wishing the Senate was faster is no 
reason to slow us down now.
  And to those saying the bills spend too much money, these bills are 
written to the bipartisan deal that was struck by the President and 
Speaker McCarthy that we all voted on just a few months ago. These 
aren't the bills I would have written. They enact cuts across so many 
of the programs that I care deeply about. But that was the deal that 
the President and the Speaker shook hands on. If you don't like them, 
vote no on the bill.
  I have heard from so many colleagues, including in speeches given 
right here on the Senate floor, about how they hate getting jammed at 
the end of the year with a 12-bill omnibus, about how we have got to 
return to regular order. And I have worked really hard with the senior 
Senator from Maine, with all of our chairs and ranking members on the 
Appropriations Committee, all of our committee members on both sides of 
the aisle, and every Member of this body who has come to my door to get 
us moving in that direction, to keep up our return to regular order.
  I think we can get there. And I think moving forward with this 
package will show the American people we are serious about getting 
there. But it depends on this vote because if, after all the work we 
have done over the last months to make sure every Senator can have 
their voice heard, moving all 12 appropriations bills through our 
committee in an open, bipartisan way and having 91 Senators vote to 
move forward with this package--if after all of that--we let a handful 
of Senators toss out months of hard work to move us closer to regular 
order, abandon an overwhelming bipartisan effort to do something as 
basic as funding our government, and cause chaos that puts us all on a 
collision course for another omnibus, well, frankly, I think that sends 
a very bleak message for the future of this body and whether we will 
ever be able to truly break through the pattern of dysfunction and 
partnership that we all hate.
  We have got to get back to regular order. We have got to get back to 
bipartisanship. We have to get back to helping people in solving 
problems, just like we all came here to do.
  This vote is our chance to break that pattern, to avoid another 
omnibus, and to make sure the Senate and all of its Senators and all 
the people we represent have their voices heard and concerns addressed 
in our Nation's funding bills.
  So I urge my colleagues who joined me in putting this bill together, 
all of my colleagues who voted with me last week to get started with 
debate and amendments, to join me in pushing back against a small 
handful of Senators who are objecting to moving forward and who want to 
stop us dead in our tracks.
  I hope everyone votes for cloture, votes for the motion to suspend 
rule XVI, and keep us on track.
  I ask unanimous consent to begin the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, so ordered.


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before 
the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
  The senior assistant 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.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that 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

[[Page S4619]]

the fiscal year ending September 30, 2024, and for other purposes, as 
printed in the Congressional Record on September 14, 2023, shall be 
brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker) 
is necessarily absent.
  Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski) and the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. 
Scott).
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 49, nays 48, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 233 Leg.]

                                YEAS--49

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coons
     Cortez Masto
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Fetterman
     Gillibrand
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Hickenlooper
     Hirono
     Kaine
     Kelly
     King
     Klobuchar
     Lujan
     Manchin
     Markey
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Murphy
     Murray
     Ossoff
     Padilla
     Peters
     Reed
     Rosen
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Shaheen
     Sinema
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warnock
     Warren
     Welch
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--48

     Barrasso
     Blackburn
     Boozman
     Braun
     Britt
     Budd
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagerty
     Hawley
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Lankford
     Lee
     Lummis
     Marshall
     McConnell
     Moran
     Mullin
     Paul
     Ricketts
     Risch
     Romney
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Schmitt
     Schumer
     Scott (FL)
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Tuberville
     Vance
     Wicker
     Young

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Booker
     Murkowski
     Scott (SC)
  (Mr. HICKENLOOPER assumed the Chair.)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. (Ms. Cortez Masto). On this vote, the yeas are 
49, the nays are 48.
  Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is not agreed to.
  The motion was rejected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.


                          Motion to Reconsider

  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I enter a motion to reconsider.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion is entered.

                          ____________________