Congressional Record, Volume 169 Issue 159 (Friday, September 29, 2023)

[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 159 (Friday, September 29, 2023)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4808-S4824]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

LEGISLATIVE SESSION

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will now resume legislative
session.
The Senator from Alaska.

Unanimous Consent Request--S. 2835

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I am on the floor again with my
colleague from Texas, Senator Cruz, trying once again to pass our Pay
Our Military Act.
I am not going to spend a lot of time explaining what we are trying
to do here since 48 hours ago we tried to do the same thing. We are, in
our conference, right now trying to get to a compromise, working
through things to make sure we don't have a government shutdown. It may
or may not happen. It is looking more likely, though.

[[Page S4809]]

As we get closer to that moment, the idea that we would leave the men
and women who protect this country uncertain about whether they are
going to get paid even though they are still going to deploy, they are
still going to be fighting all over the world, protecting this Nation--
so we are going to leave them out hanging, right?
So all we are trying to do is the most commonsense thing you could do
if you cared one bit about the troops of the United States, and that is
to say: Hey, we know you are worried. We know you are probably
deployed. We know your wife or spouse is back home worried about
whether you are going to get paid next week. You have a dangerous
mission you are going on tonight somewhere in the world. So we are
going to take that worry away from you because we care about you.
Now, granted, my colleagues might say: Well, what about the IRS
worker? What about the Department of the Interior worker?
No offense--there is a little bit of a difference, OK. There is a
little bit of a difference. We all know it. We should know it.
So as we get closer, this is the bipartisan solution that we all need
to undertake.
Here is the thing: As I said last week, when we had the identical
situation in 2013, 10 years ago--identical: a Democrat-controlled
Senate, a Republican-controlled House, a Democrat-controlled White
House--it was looking like there was going to be a shutdown. What did
everybody unanimously agree to? Hey, let's take the troops out of this.
Let's make sure the men and women who serve in our military are not
worried. Let's unanimously pass the Pay Our Military Act.
So, 10 years ago, we did that. I wasn't here, but I applaud everybody
who did that. Simple. Identical. Identical. So what has changed? I have
no idea what has changed.
It looks like my Democratic colleague is going to come down and
object and make some gobbledygook argument about appropriations or
``Let's keep trying.'' The government is going to shut down tomorrow
evening. We are going to keep trying. But let's take one group of
Americans and say: Hey, we know you sacrifice more than anybody. We are
going to take that worry away from you. We did it 10 years ago in a
bipartisan way, so we are going to do it again.
The Presiding Officer knows. I guarantee you the Presiding Officer
agrees with this bill, as a veteran of almost 30 years, a naval
aviator. The Presiding Officer knows what it is like.
There are guys on aircraft carriers right now and women on aircraft
carriers flying F-18s, and their spouses back home are going: Hey,
honey, guess what. I don't think I am going to have money to buy
groceries next week.
That guy is getting ready to take off on some carrier in the
INDOPACOM region, and he has to worry about that? He has to worry about
that? She has to worry about that?
We can fix that right now--right now. We have done it before, and I
can't imagine my Democratic colleagues are going to come up and object
to this bill. I am starting to get mad. We don't want a government
shutdown, but we can protect certain people, for goodness' sake. If we
are not going to protect our troops and their families, I don't know
whom we should protect.
So maybe my colleagues are on the floor getting ready to say: You
know what, gee, Senator Sullivan, Senator Cruz, we relent. These are
good ideas. And you know why we know these are good ideas? Because we
all did this 10 years ago.
I have no idea why we didn't do it now.
I yield the floor and recognize my colleague from Texas.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, unless something significant changes, 35
hours from now, the Federal Government will shut down. At 12:01 a.m. on
Sunday, the paychecks will stop for every soldier, every sailor, every
airman, every marine, every member of the Space Force, and every
coastguardsman. That is not right.
The good news is, we can prevent it. We can prevent it right now. The
bill Senator Sullivan and I are trying to pass says that at 12:01 a.m.,
our Active-Duty military will be paid; that if Washington is
dysfunctional, if politicians will bicker throughout the night, that is
not their fault, and we are not going to hold them hostage to the
partisan demands of politicians.
Right now at home, there are people watching this debate on C-SPAN,
and they may be wondering: When did the Senate get this dysfunctional?
Did this institution ever operate?
Senator Sullivan pointed to a time when it at least operated a little
better than it does now.
In 2013, this identical legislation was before the Senate. There was
a Democrat majority. Harry Reid was the majority leader. This identical
legislation passed 100 to nothing, and it passed unanimously in the
House.
In 2013, Senate Democrats realized: Fine, we will have a fight, but
we are not holding our Active-Duty military hostage.
In 2013, Senator Durbin, who is sitting on the floor, voted yes to
fund our military. In 2013, Senator Whitehouse, who is sitting on the
floor, voted yes to fund our military. In 2013, Senator Murray, who I
believe is getting ready to stand up and block this bill, in 2013, she
voted yes to fund our military. Have we really gone that far in a
decade that Democrats now are perfectly happy to take away the
paychecks from the young men and women who are risking their lives to
keep us safe?
The Presiding Officer spent years in the Active-Duty military. The
Presiding Officer is a proud Navy veteran. The Presiding Officer knows
men and women who are serving right now in Active Duty, and I feel
quite confident the Presiding Officer doesn't want to go home and look
them in the eyes and say: It was my party, the Democratic Party, that
took your paycheck away.
Well, it doesn't have to happen.
Everyone at home, I want you to listen to what is going to happen in
a moment, because there are two magic words. If you hear two magic
words from the Senator from Washington--``I object''--if you hear those
words, understand what will have happened. It is the same thing that
happened just a couple of days ago, which is that Democrat leadership
said to our Active-Duty military: We don't give a damn about you, and
we are going to cut off your paycheck Sunday at 12:01 a.m.
That doesn't have to happen.
By the way, I would point out not only is it the fault of every
Democrat--and I am sorry, Mr. President--it is the fault of every
Democrat because there are no Democrats here supporting us. The
Presiding Officer, in his heart, knows we are right, so I am going to
invite the Presiding Officer, when we do this again--because we are
going to keep doing it and keep doing it. I would invite the Presiding
Officer to come join us because the Presiding Officer knows this is the
right thing to do. And there are more of your colleagues on the
Democrat side who know this is the right thing to do.

Some 19-year-old marine right now in the DMZ facing North Korean
machineguns is being told that the U.S. Senate doesn't care enough
about his or her service to pay them. That is just wrong. It is stupid.
And this body used to know enough to say: Hey, we have political
disagreements here, but we support our troops.
I guarantee you, every Democrat Senator in this Chamber goes home and
tells your constituents: I support the troops.
You know what? Talk is cheap. If you support the troops, stand up
next to us and say: Let's pay the troops.
And by the way, if you support the troops, go to your leadership and
say: Stop this garbage.
Was Harry Reid a rightwing kook? Because Harry Reid signed off on
paying the troops. And I will tell you why today's Democrat leadership
believes they can get away with it--because in 2013, we had something
of a functioning media. They actually reported on what was happening.
If you look up in the Gallery, there are a total of zero reporters
there. There is not one.
The corrupt corporate media doesn't intend to tell the citizens of
Washington State or the citizens of Illinois or the citizens of Rhode
Island or the citizens of Arizona--they don't intend to tell them: Your
Democrat Senator is why Active-Duty military isn't being paid.
So every reporter yesterday--I had reporters running after me, going:
Oh,

[[Page S4810]]

isn't this Republican shutdown terrible?
And I said: Those are great talking points. Have you written a single
story about the fact that the reason our military is not going to be
paid is because Democrat leadership is objecting?
No. Because none of them have written that story. Every one of you
knows what the right thing to do is. And so my hope is there is a tiny,
still voice inside of some Democrat Senators that will stand up and go
to your leadership and say: We can fight all day long on partisan
issues, but we are not going to take our troops hostage.
That is the right thing to do, and every Member of this body knows
it.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Committee on Appropriations be discharged from further consideration of
S. 2835 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; I
further ask that the bill be considered read a third time and passed
and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the
table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, as I have
said, I share my colleague's concern with making sure that our
servicemembers do not miss a paycheck because of a potential government
shutdown. In fact, I do not want any of our Federal workers to miss a
paycheck, whether they are cancer researchers whose work saves our
lives or brave firefighters who risk their lives for us, and I don't
want any programs families rely on to be undermined: counseling and
transition assistance for new veterans adjusting to civilian life,
nutrition assistance for 7 million moms and kids who need a hand up.
And that includes our servicemembers' families.
Several years ago, I worked to save a WIC clinic which was going to
be kicked off a Navy base in my home State of Washington that hundreds
of military families counted on. None of those paychecks for any of
these workers and none of those programs should shutter because of a
completely unnecessary shutdown, which is why I am working around the
clock with the majority of our colleagues to make sure that we do pass
a bipartisan CR, which we released this week, because that is the only
serious solution here. That is the only way that we will make sure
everyone is able to keep doing the work that the American people count
on and getting that paycheck that they do deserve.
If the Senator from Alaska or the Senator from Texas are serious
about making sure our servicemembers get paid, I hope they will get
serious in a way that matters the most, and that is their votes. I hope
they will work with us to keep the government open. And I hope they
will reconsider their recent votes against the CR to fund the
government in a bipartisan and timely way.
Let's be real. You cannot grandstand about wanting to make sure that
servicemembers get paid during a shutdown and then vote against the
very bipartisan bill that prevented a shutdown.
I also hope the Senators will understand that our servicemembers will
see the harm of a government shutdown in so many other ways. Permanent
change-in-station moves will be significantly curtailed, meaning that
some of our families could be left without a place to live if they have
already sold their house or broken their lease or they could be forced
to pay for two homes at once. For the Army alone, this means
approximately 2,100 moves every week. And if you do not work with us to
keep the entire government open, servicemembers' elective surgeries and
procedures at DOD medical and dental facilities would have to be
postponed. And, by the way, an elective surgery could be anything from
removing a kidney stone to a mastectomy for breast cancer.
Essentially, post and base services will be closed or severely
limited. That is everything from our commissary statewide to childcare
our military families count on.
So not only do I want to make sure that our servicemembers don't miss
a paycheck, I want to make sure that our servicemembers don't miss out
on any critical services they rely on every day.
The Senators should also understand that their focus and support of
the military cannot end with those who are currently in uniform. And
they should remember, 47 percent of Department of Defense civilians are
veterans. And for that matter, one in every four employees across the
entire Federal Government are veterans. We can't leave anyone behind.
So I will say it again for my colleagues who raise their voices here
on the Senate floor but have not cast their votes to prevent a
shutdown: There are a lot of programs I care about, a lot of programs
we all care about that would be hurt by a shutdown. But we are not
going to solve this problem one by one, carve-out by carve-out. The
best solution is to stop a shutdown in the first place. That is
something we can do. And I bet we could do it a lot more quickly if the
Senators from Alaska and Texas would earnestly work with us.
This isn't complicated. We have a straightforward, bipartisan CR
package that will avoid that shutdown, keep our military paid. So let's
get our jobs done and get that passed. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I am going to try to keep this short
because the issues that we are debating here are not that complicated.
I agree with my colleague from Washington State. We are working
around the clock. We are in our conference right now trying to get an
amendment to bolster border security, that the whole country, by the
way, wants--Democrats, Republicans--the whole country wants that. So we
are working around the clock too.

And my colleague did misstate something. I actually voted to get on
this bill. I voted to get on this bill. So her statement about my vote,
she needs to check my vote the other day.
But be that as it may, once again, she says there is only one serious
solution. Well, this body has done this before. The Senator from
Washington State has done this before. On the eve of a shutdown in
2013, the Senator from Washington State voted for this bill. Every
Senator voted for this bill.
So when she keeps saying, ``Let's get real,'' I agree, let's get
real. Go look at your vote from 2013. You voted for this on the eve of
a shutdown.
I will remind my colleague from Washington State, in 2019, when there
was a partial government shutdown, focused on the Coast Guard which
wasn't getting paid and the Democrats blocked my bill to pay the Coast
Guard, she actually stated:

It is absolutely unacceptable that our Coast Guard families
went without their paychecks during the shutdown. We need to
make sure President Trump doesn't put them through this
again.

Well, I am going to put the Senator from Washington State's words
back at her: It is absolutely unacceptable that Coast Guard and other
family members went without paychecks during the shutdown. We need to
make sure it doesn't happen again. So vote for our bill.
Every time they object, the arguments of why they are objecting to
something they already agreed to 10 years ago get more tangled up. We
are all working to avoid a shutdown, but if it doesn't happen, let's
make sure the men and women who are risking their lives for our country
and their families know that they are going to get paid. That is all we
are asking. That is all we are asking.
And everybody in this body 10 years ago did this, including the
Senator from Washington State. And it is just beyond comprehension that
they are coming up with arguments now to not do this.
This isn't about politics. This is about supporting our troops at the
moment they really need it. And they are not doing it.
I yield the floor to my colleague from Texas.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Murphy). The Senator from Texas.
Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, at the opening of her remarks, the Senator
from Washington said: I agree with the objective of this bill; I agree
with what Senator Sullivan and Senator Cruz are trying to accomplish.
Then she talked for a while, and then she

[[Page S4811]]

blocked the entirety of the bill. Everything in between, saying, ``I
agree with this bill,'' and the two magic words at the end of her
remarks, ``I object,'' I have to admit brought me back to Saturday
morning cartoons and watching ``Peanuts'' and the teacher going: ``Wah
wah wah wah'' because they were words, but they didn't mean anything.
This is a binary choice. At 12:01 a.m. on Sunday, are soldiers going
to get paid, yes or no? Are sailors going to get paid, yes or no? Are
airmen going to get paid, yes or no? Are marines going to get paid, yes
or no? Are members of the Space Force going to get paid, yes or no? Are
coastguardsmen going to get paid, yes or no?
A decade ago, every Member of this body voted to pay them. Since this
debate began, the Presiding Officer had been Senator Kelly and has now
been replaced by Senator Murphy from Connecticut. I would point out,
Senator Murphy voted yes to pay our Active-Duty military in 2013. And
yet now the Democrats are blocking those paychecks.
The Senator from Washington said: Well, gosh, the Democrats had a CR
that you could have voted for. The Senator from Washington knows fully
well that the bill drafted by Democrat leadership is not going to pass
the House of Representatives. She knows that. The result is going to be
a shutdown. And what has changed from 2013 to now? From to 2013 to now,
the Democrat leadership is perfectly willing to hold a young man or
woman in the military--to hold their paychecks hostage.
Well, something interesting is going to happen at 12:01 a.m., 35
hours from now. Paychecks of every Federal employee will stop. The
paychecks of the stenographer who is recording my words will stop. The
paychecks of the clerks sitting down front will stop.
But, you know what, Mr. President? There are 535 people whose
paychecks will not stop. Under the Constitution, Members of this body,
Senators and Members of the House, their paychecks can't stop even
during a shutdown, which means at 12:01 a.m. on Sunday, every Democrat
Senator will keep drawing their paycheck, while the people risking
their lives to defend us will not.
Well, I will tell you, I have in writing instructed the Senate that I
will not accept a paycheck so long as our Active-Duty military is not
being paid.
It is wrong. Senators are paid $174,000 a year, by law. The Democrat
leadership, who stands up and says, ``I object,'' is telling a 19-year-
old woman in a nuclear sub right now, defending our Nation, that her
paycheck doesn't matter anymore.
There is, right now, a mom in tennis shoes serving in the military
who is discovering that her mortgage payment--she doesn't know how to
pay.
And so I am going to suggest to the reporters who aren't here and
aren't covering this that so long as Democrat leadership keeps blocking
what has been bipartisan and unanimous legislation previously, that
every Democrat Senator ought to be asked: Are you taking a paycheck
come 12:01 a.m. on Sunday? They are the ones objecting. They are the
ones stopping. Every soldier needs to understand: Why are you not being
paid? Because the Democrat objected. Every sailor needs to understand:
Because the Democrats objected. Every airman, marine, coastguardsman,
every member of the Space Force, when your paycheck goes away 35 hours
from now, it is because of two magic words the Democrat leadership has
said. Let's be clear, it is not just the Senator from Washington. She
is doing it on instruction from the Democrat leadership. They could
change it like that.

I can tell you this. Senator Sullivan and I are going to keep coming
back over and over again because there is not a Member of this body who
wants to go home to your State--even a State like Connecticut. You
don't want to be at home looking at Active-Duty military and saying:
Yes, my party took away your paycheck. That is too cynical even for
this body. I pray that common sense comes back.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.

Remembering Dianne Feinstein

Mr. KENNEDY. Senator Feinstein, Godspeed.
I had the pleasure of serving with Senator Feinstein on the Judiciary
Committee. I also served with Dianne on the Appropriations Committee.
In fact, we served on the Energy and Water Development Subcommittee.
Dianne was the chair and I was the ranking member.
Dianne, you died with your boots on, and I think that was one of the
things she most wanted to do.
Senator Feinstein and I didn't agree on much, but she was a delight
to work with. She understood politics and government, especially today.
It takes a big heart and a lot of wind and a thick skin, and that is
especially true today.
There are some people in this city who didn't want Dianne to finish
her term for political reasons. They tried to chew her up and tried to
spit her out, and they tried to step on her. But they couldn't do it
because Dianne was tough as a boot, and she wanted to die with her
boots on, as a Member of this august body. And I am going to miss her.
Godspeed, Senator Feinstein.

Unanimous Consent Request--S. 2968

Mr. President, I am here today to try to extend the National Flood
Insurance Program. It appears to me--I hope I am wrong, and I know, Mr.
President, you agree with me--that we are headed toward a shutdown. If
that happens, that means that the National Flood Insurance Program will
come to a halt.
I don't want people to worry too much. If you already have national
flood insurance, the program will continue to pay claims. But as long
as government is shut down, you will not be able to buy new insurance.
That is important because flood insurance is a huge part of the
commerce of our real estate markets in America.
For most Americans, the purchase of a home is their biggest single
financial decision they will ever make. In many areas--not just coastal
States but many other States--you cannot purchase a home, if you have
to borrow money, without flood insurance. So if we allow the National
Flood Insurance Program to expire, it is going to shut down home sales
where the entity loaning the money requires flood insurance. It is just
going to shut it down. The real estate industry, for a variety of
reasons--in part because of President Biden's inflation--is already
having a tough time, and this will make it worse.
My bill would take the current flood insurance program and just
extend it ``as is'' until December 31, 2023. If we don't do this--I
want to make this clear, as well. Some of my fellow citizens may be
saying: What is the big deal? Just don't buy it from the Federal
Government.
You can't buy it from anybody else. The Federal program, imperfect as
it is, is the only game in town. So if you are ready to buy a home and
close on a home and you go to a mortgage lender and say, ``I need to
borrow the money,'' and they say you have to buy flood insurance to get
the loan, the Federal Government is the only entity you can go to. You
cannot buy, for all practical purposes, private flood insurance in
America today.
I mentioned that the NFIP was imperfect. I understate it. As I said
yesterday on the floor, the National Flood Insurance Program, as
administered by FEMA, is a mess. As I said yesterday, it looks like
someone knocked over a urine sample.
FEMA made the program even worse a year or so ago with its Risk
Rating 2.0. It went out and hired a consultant to design a new
algorithm that made changes in the program without telling policy
holders the basis for those changes. I met with FEMA a number of times.
I said: Can I see your algorithm? They said: If we show you, we have to
kill you--and I am in Congress. We are in litigation with FEMA right
now.
Let me say it again. Risk Rating 2.0 made it even worse than it
already was.
Ever since I have been in the U.S. Senate, I have been working with,
I don't know, 20 different Senators and probably 50 to 100 House
members who are involved to try to fix the flood insurance program, and
it has been very difficult. We haven't been able to do it, but we will
continue to try.
But in the meantime, the only thing worse than a bad flood insurance
program is no flood insurance because, as imperfect as it may be,
FEMA's National Flood Insurance Program is the only game in town. And
if we allow this program to expire, it is going to

[[Page S4812]]

really, really, really hurt the American people. It is going to really,
really hurt the real estate industry. It is going to really, really
hurt folks out there who have saved money, and they are ready to buy a
home, but they can't do it because they can't purchase flood insurance.
For that reason, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on
Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be discharged from further
consideration of S. 2968--that is my bill that would just extend the
current program for flood insurance, imperfect as it may be, until
December 31, 2023. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to
its immediate consideration. I further ask that the bill be considered
read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be
considered made and laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. PAUL. Reserving the right to object, once again, we are asked to
extend the flood program without any reforms to protect the taxpayers.
Like many Federal programs, this Federal program is well-intentioned,
but it may very well be the best real-life example of moral hazard.
We are told that the program is funded through insurance premiums,
but the premiums are below the market rate, and so the program is
eternally and consistently short of money.
A 2014 report by the Government Accountability Office found the flood
program collected $17 billion less than the market would have required.
For all practical purposes, the flood program is insolvent.
Just a few years ago, the flood program owed $30 billion to the
taxpayers. Congress later cancelled $16 billion of that debt, but the
flood program has not made any progress in repaying the taxpayers. The
total now stands that the flood program owes $20 billion to the
taxpayers with no way of repaying that money.
Perhaps the greatest insult to the taxpayers, though, is the lack of
true limits on this delinquent program. There are no limits on how many
claims can be filed or how much money can be received for a
policyholder. So it isn't that I have a $3 million flood policy. You
could have a $3 trillion policy. There are no limits. There are also no
limits on how big your house could be. You could have a $10 million
house, a $20 million house, a $50 million house, and the taxpayers
subsidize your house.
Rather than encourage people to leave flood-prone areas, this program
encourages people to stay and rebuild time and time again. In thousands
of instances, the program encourages people to rebuild and rebuild and
rebuild.
According to the Pew Charitable Trusts, over 150,000 properties have
been rebuilt over and over again. In fact, 25 to 30 percent of flood
program claims are made by the policyholders whose properties have
flooded time and time again. Over 2,000 properties have flooded more
than 10 times. One home in Batchelor, LA, flooded 40 times and received
a total of $428,000 of flood insurance payments--40 times. No one
should keep rebuilding in a house that floods 40 times. But the record,
if you can believe it, isn't Batchelor, LA. It is Virginia, where one
home flooded 41 times and received payments of over $600,000, all
subsidized by the taxpayer.
Adding insult to injury, the Congressional Budget Office found that
the flood program tends to benefit the wealthy and that 23 percent of
the subsidized coastal properties were not even policyholders' primary
residences.
Realize what this program is doing. It is subsidizing insurance for
the rich and famous for their beach houses. There are no limits. It
subsidizes people who have $10 million homes to get subsidized
government insurance. It is true. The government forces the taxpayers
to pay and rebuild the summer homes of the rich. In fact, sometimes it
seems that the flood program caters directly to the wealthy. Nearly 80
percent of the National Flood Insurance Program policies are located in
counties that rank within the top 20 percent of income.
Enough is enough. It is an insult to rob the taxpayers to give to the
rich. This is why I offer an amendment that, if we could come to an
agreement today, would require that the Federal program not insure your
second house, not insure your beach house. If you live there--it is
your only house--it will be included. If it is your second house, your
beach house, it is not going to be included.
And we would set a cap on the amount. Who in their right mind thinks
we should be subsidizing insurance for $10 million mansions? It is
crazy that anybody would think that is what we should do.
I offer a compromise today. Extend the program. Let's keep the
program. We will keep the program open. We won't miss a beat. But we
will set some limits on the houses.
So what I would like to start with would be a cap of $250,000. Those
houses below 250 would be subsidized, would get subsidized insurance.
Up to 250, you buy your own.
Also my proposal would not allow you to use the insurance if this is
your vacation home--if this is your secondary home.
So, Mr. President, I ask the Senator to modify his request so that
the Paul amendment at the desk be considered and agreed to, the bill as
amended be considered read a third time and passed, and that the motion
to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator so modify his request?
Mr. KENNEDY. Reserving the right to modify or not modify.
Senator Paul, as usual, makes some very good points. I agree with him
wholeheartedly that the National Flood Insurance Program is a mess. It
needs to be fixed.
I want to make the record clear that in Louisiana, my people are
working people. My coast is a working coast. My people aren't wealthy
millionaires who have three or four homes on the beach. These are
ordinary people who get up every day, go to work, obey the law, pay
their taxes, and try to do the right thing by their kids.
They can barely afford one home. It is not only the coast that we are
talking about. In 2016, in the middle of my State--again, not mansions,
just working-class people--we had 24 inches of rainfall in about a day
and a half.
The homes that flooded--and many of them did--were not anywhere near
a body of water. If you get 24 inches of rain in a day and a half, your
home is going to flood. I don't care if you are living on Pike's Peak.
So this program is meant to help those people as well.
But in pointing that out, I don't want to take anything away from
Senator Paul's excellent points. He is, however, mistaken in one
critical respect: When you buy flood insurance through the Federal
National Flood Insurance Program, the most you can collect on your home
as a result of one flood is $250,000. It is not accurate to say that a
million-dollar home can collect a million dollars in damages from a
flood. That is just not true. If there is a flood and you own a
million-dollar home and you own a $250,000 home and the owners of those
two homes both have national flood insurance, the most under the policy
they can collect is $250,000.
So why do you want to tell a person who owns a million-dollar home
that they can't insure their home? You are just telling them they can't
buy flood insurance, so the flood insurance program has less money to
cash flow. It makes no sense.
Now, Senator Paul is correct, and it is one of the things we are
trying to fix, that there has been abuse in terms of some homes.
Senator Paul mentioned the example of Louisiana; but there are other
States, many others, where homes have flooded three or four times, and
they keep getting flood insurance.
If I can say anything good about the current National Flood Insurance
Program today, I would say that FEMA has taken steps to try to prevent
that from happening so that if you flood a certain number of times, you
have to move. And I know the Senator didn't--I don't think I am
disagreeing with him on that. I think we are in agreement.
But let me tell you the second and main reason I can't accept Senator
Paul's change. For me, it has to do with what is right. There are
probably 20 different Senators--well, there are a hundred Senators who
care about flood insurance, but there are about 20 different Senators
who want to be involved in any changes made to this program. And I dare
say there are 50 to 100 members of the House.

[[Page S4813]]

Now, as the Presiding Officer knows, when we bring a bill to the
floor for unanimous consent, we don't just walk down here one day and
do it.
We let all of our Senators--fellow colleagues, our fellow Senators--
know what we are about to do. So if they want to come down and object,
they can do that. And that is what I did with my bill, which just keeps
the current program and extends it until December 31, so we will get
past the shutdown and we won't keep people from buying homes.
But Senator Paul's changes have not been sent to all members of the
Senate. It is called a hotline. And I anticipate that the Senator will
have other changes, and that is fine.
The easy thing for me to do today would be to agree with one of his
changes. I am not sure it makes that much difference because the amount
of damages you can claim on a flood is $250,000, but the easiest thing
for me to do today would be to agree to one of Senator Paul's changes,
but that would be stabbing my colleagues in the back.
Because I can assure you, knowing how many of my colleagues feel
about the National Flood Insurance Program, they would want to be here
today to weigh in. And I just can't do that to them, even though it
would allow me to get this passed.
I also think that if we make changes to the National Flood Insurance
Program, those 50 to 100 House members that I am talking about are
likely--some of them are likely not to allow the changes, and that is
why they would object to it. And that is why my objective has been--and
I need to stand behind it--to just take the current program and extend
it to December 31.
So for that reason, I don't agree to the modification.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has not agreed to the
modification. Is there objection to the original request?
The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, the process
is similar to what has been described but not exactly as has been
described. The bill is sent out, everybody gets a chance to object.
People who choose to object can come, that is also announced.
The objections are announced, and we come to the floor. If the
Senator wanted to work together on this, this could be modified today
and someone else would have to come to object, and that is announced to
all 100 Senators and often works that way. But, today, what we have is
a situation where I am offering an amendment to reform taxpayer-
subsidized insurance, and it is being rejected by one Senator, not by
all Senators, not in place of all Senators. They have a chance to come,
it has been announced, they can come and object to this if they wanted.
But here is the thing, what I am trying to do is modify a program so
that the average ordinary taxpayer does not have to pay for rich
people's flood insurance for their beach houses.
About half of the houses that are insured in this program that loses
billions of dollars every year, that is $20 billion in the hole, about
half the homes are worth $500,000 or more.
Do you know any regular working folk that have $500,000 homes on the
beach? No. If you have a $500,000 house on the beach, buy your own damn
insurance. The taxpayer should not have to buy your insurance.

So I would ask the Senator--we can do this today; there are other
Senators on the floor; they can come running from hither and yon, and
they can object to this--but I would ask the Senator, let's modify the
program so rich people don't get their houses insured by the government
and subsidized by the taxpayer. We can change the limits to $500,000.
That would cut out half of the homes in the United States, half of the
beach houses, half of the rich people in our country who are getting
subsidized insurance.
Make the limit $500,000. If we make it $500,000, the program will be
half as big, and it will lose half as much money. Let's modify this
program. So I would ask the Senator to modify his proposal with my
amendment, and my amendment would say: You can't use the insurance for
your second home, only your primary residence, and if you have a half-
a-million-dollar mansion on the beach, guess what? You get to buy your
own insurance. That is my modification, and I would ask the Senator to
accept the Paul amendment that is at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator agree to the modification?
Mr. KENNEDY. Reserving the right to accept or not accept. Again,
Senator Paul--I understand his points, and they are very good ones. I
would point out that his proposal--we have about 84.7 million owned or
occupied homes in the United States. Let's call it 85 million homes in
the United States.
Senator Paul's amendment would exclude 52.5 million of them. Five
hundred thousand dollars on a home is a lot of money, but I think in
places like California and Connecticut and New York, where we have seen
cost of living different from my State, there are plenty of ordinary
Americans, middle-class Americans, who have scrimped and saved to put
together the money to borrow $500,000, and I don't want to hurt them.
But the second and the main reason I can't agree to Senator Paul's
proposal: I am just not going to stab my fellow Senators in the back.
They do not know about these changes that are being proposed. They may
be good changes, and I like the way Senator Paul is thinking. But let
me say it again, I know of at least 20 Senators, some of whom are not
in Washington who care about flood insurance. And if I started agreeing
to changes for the short-term satisfaction of getting to pass a bill,
it is just not worth it to me.
And I am not going to stab them in the back. They have the right to
be here and participate in these changes, and they are not here because
they don't know about it. So for that reason, I do not concur in
Senator Paul's amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection to the modification is heard. Is
there objection to the underlying original motion?
The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. PAUL. Reserving the right to object. What I am trying to find
here, is there a compromise? Is there some level of rich person that
maybe the taxpayer could say: Enough is enough; they ought to pay their
own way? Is there some level of rich person's mansion that maybe the
average, ordinary taxpayer should not have to subsidize their
insurance?
So we have tried a half a million, which is about half the homes the
ordinary working class people in our country have to insure, why don't
we try--if we can't do a half a million, let's try mansions of
$750,000. You would say, well, how many are there? Twenty-five percent
of the national Federal subsidized insurance are homes of $750,000 a
year. We are not talking about ordinary people now, we are talking
about rich, rich, very rich people getting subsidized insurance from a
program that loses billions of dollars and has to be bailed out every
year. We have a government with a $1.7 trillion deficit. It goes on
year after year. Nobody does anything. Just reauthorize it. Today we
can make a compromise. So I offer the Senator a compromise: If $500,000
is too cheap and you want to insure half-a-million-dollar mansions,
will you, at least, modify it to exclude mansions of $750,000 or more?
I think that is the least we can do.
And I would ask unanimous consent to accept the Paul motion at the
desk that indicates $750,000 as the limit for the insurance.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object. I fear I
am not being clear, and I am sorry for that. Let me say it again. If
you own a $250,000 home and you own a $750,000 home, neither one of you
can buy more than $250,000 worth of insurance, because the maximum
amount of insurance that you can buy through the National Flood
Insurance Program is $250,000.
So what is the point of excluding someone who owns a $750,000 home? I
realize it is in vogue to denigrate rich people, but they can't buy any
more insurance. It would be different if someone could buy $750,000
worth of flood insurance who owned a $750,000 home, but they can't. It
is capped at $250,000.
So I have to respectfully disagree with my friend on that. And, No.
2--I don't want to belabor this--I am not going to stab my fellow
Senators in the back. The 20-plus Senators with whom I have spoken to
try to negotiate a new

[[Page S4814]]

and better Flood Insurance Program do not know about these changes.
And I would like to agree to Senator Paul's suggestions, but if I do,
I am stabbing my fellow Senators in the back, and it is just not worth
it to me because they don't know about any of this.
For that reason, I respectfully object to Senator Paul's amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator objected to the modification.
Is there objection to the underlying request?
The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, reserving the right to object. It is
certainly not my intention to denigrate rich people. I aspire to be one
someday. But I don't aspire to ask for free stuff from the government
if I ever become a rich person.
Why would we subsidize insurance of rich people? Is there no limit--
is there no limit--is there no possibility of compromise on some
mansion that is too large to be in this program?
What about $10 million? We have tried $250,000. That was too little.
You know, the insistence is we must insure these homes. We tried a half
million. But the insistence is, no, everybody should get it.
I don't think rich people need subsidized insurance. The program
loses billions of dollars every year. We have tried 750,000, but
apparently there still is this need and this desire to insure rich
people's beach houses.
Why don't we try one last time. We will try something that I think
anybody could compromise to and anybody would accept, and certainly I
wouldn't want to be the one justifying a program that gives people who
have $10 million mansions insurance. Why not accept it and make someone
on the other side support such a ridiculous policy?
So my final proposal today will be to ask unanimous consent that the
Paul amendment at the desk would exclude $10 million mansions from
government-subsidized insurance.
I think that is the least we can do. If we can get that compromise,
it would bring at least some sense of sanity to this crazy program.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the Senator's request to
modify?
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, if I own a
$10 million home--and I assure you I do not--and my neighbor's home is
$250,000, that is its value, which is more like it in Louisiana. And we
both go to an insurance agent, and we say: We want to buy national
flood insurance because we can't get a mortgage without it. Then the
insurance agent is going to say: OK. Neighbor whose home is worth
$250,000, I can write you a policy, maximum $250,000.
And then they are just going to turn to me with my $10 million home--
which I can assure you is fictitious--and the agent is going to say, I
can only sell you $250,000.
The suggestion that somebody with a $10 million home is being insured
for $10 million is just not accurate. It is just not accurate.
So what good is it going to do to tell someone in a $10 million home
who wants to buy $250,000 worth of flood insurance--the same amount as
his neighbor--what good is it going to do to exclude him?
Some can beat themselves on the chest and say, boy, we stuck it to
those rich people. But they are not getting any more insurance. And
what it is going to mean to the program is there is going to be fewer
and less premiums coming into the program, which will make it
insolvent.
You can see the difficulty in trying to reach agreement on the forms.
That is why I am going to say it again. And I have proposed a clean,
if you will, proposal that will just extend the current program,
imperfect as it may be, until December 31.
If we don't do this, it is going to really, really, really hurt. It
is not going to hurt the rich folks. It is going to hurt the ordinary,
middle-class Americans who are trying to buy a home.
And the second and final reason, if it were, or the third and final
reason, frankly, if it were up to me to get this passed--because I am
really worried about it, as you can tell--I would probably agree to
Rand's proposal, but I am just not going to stab my colleagues in the
back.
They don't know about this proposal, and I think that of the 20 or so
of my colleagues whom I have met with about changing the Flood
Insurance Program, I know they would like to have their say. And if I
agree to the Senator's proposal today--because they don't know about
his proposal--I would be stabbing them in the back, and I just can't do
it, Mr. President. It is just not worth it to me.
For that reason, I respectfully object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is objection to the request to modify.
Is there objection to the Senator's original motion?
The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, reserving the right to object. Let the
record show from this discussion today that the Senator has objected to
any limits on taxpayer-subsidized flood insurance, any limits: 250,000;
500,000; 750,000, even 10 million.
This is a program that loses billions of dollars every year. This is
a program that can't work for the poor people because we have got so
many rich people in it.
Half of the homes in the program cost over a half million dollars. So
this is a problem. This is a program that loses money every year, and
the Senator is unwilling to accept any limits on this.

There is this argument that somehow he is defending all the Democrat
Senators who can't come here, but he could easily have said: I am not
willing to object to this because these are reasonable proposals and
force the Democrats to object to this.
But he has taken this upon himself to defend the status quo, to
defend the inclusion of $10 million mansions in this program.
So I do object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The Senator from Louisiana.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, you are getting tired of my saying this,
I know. This rich $10 million American that Senator Paul keeps talking
about can't buy any more insurance than the American who owns the
$250,000 home. He just can't.
And I am going to try again. I will be back tomorrow, and like the
terminator, ``I'll be back.''
Because in trying to punish the rich, when they can't buy any more
insurance than the ordinary American, Mr. President, like you and me--
250,000, that is the limit for the rich American and the middle-class
American--this is going to put the entire real estate industry in
jeopardy. And it is also going to put a lot of ordinary, middle-class
Americans out there who have scrimped and saved, and they have got the
money for the downpayment, and they are ready to buy a home, but they
are not going to be able to buy it because they can't get flood
insurance, and their mortgage lender requires it.
And by the time government opens back up--I hope it is a short period
of time, but we don't know--those interest rates instead of 7.5 percent
could be 8 percent.
And look, I get the politics of beating up on the rich, but the rich
have nothing to do with this. This is about ordinary Americans.
But I appreciate, Mr. President, your patience in listening to me
today. And with that, I think I need to yield the floor, do I not, Mr.
President?
To whom should I yield it?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator can simply yield the floor.
Mr. KENNEDY. Senator Hirono from the great State of Hawaii or Senator
Schumer?
Are you seeking recognition, or are you just waving at each other?
Mr. SCHUMER. I always wave with friendship and affection to my
friend, the Senator from Louisiana.
I was going to speak for a few minutes; is that OK?
Mr. KENNEDY. Of course. I just work here. I am not management.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.

New York

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I am going to speak on two topics; first,
what is happening in my hometown of New York and then, second, what is
going on over there in the House of Representatives.
As we speak, my hometown of New York is experiencing some of the most
frightening rainfall and flooding we have seen since Hurricane Sandy.
About a month's worth of rain has inundated Brooklyn in just a matter
of

[[Page S4815]]

hours, and some parts of the city have experienced up to 5 inches of
rain. Flash floods remain in effect from Manhattan to Queens to
Brooklyn.
And we are not through the danger yet. Another powerful storm is
expected over the next day, and the situation remains dangerous.
I will continue closely monitoring the otherworldly flooding we are
seeing in New York.
A little while ago, I spoke to the Governor to tell her that I will
do everything on the Federal level to get New York the help it needs.
Earlier today, I sent a letter to FEMA and a few minutes ago spoke to
the FEMA Administrator, telling her New York needs help.
FEMA has promised me two things; one, to deal with the immediate
effects of the flood, any equipment and other types of resources they
need; and, second, later, to provide resources New Yorkers will need to
rebuild and recover.
And here in the Senate, I will work to secure any Federal assistance
possible to fund relief efforts and aid those who need to rebuild from
the flood damage.
Again, I cannot stress enough that we are not through these storms
just yet. Everyone please follow emergency guidance and stay safe.

Continuing Resolution

Mr. President, now on the CR and the shutdown, we stand now at the
precipice of an unnecessary, reckless, and entirely Republican-
manufactured shutdown.
In less than 48 hours, funding that pays the salaries of our troops
for border enforcement, for TSA operations, nutrition programs, food
inspections, all--all--will come to a halt.
As I have said for months, Congress has only one option to avoid a
shutdown, bipartisanship. We needed bipartisanship yesterday. We need
it today. We will need it tomorrow. It was true yesterday, today, and
tomorrow.
But in the House, sadly, unlike the Senate, we have not seen
bipartisanship. We have only seen chaos. We have only seen paralysis.
A few hours ago, Speaker McCarthy held a vote on a truly radical CR
proposal everyone knew never stood a chance of passing the Senate.
And now, the House Republicans' CR has failed to even pass the House
by an unexpectedly large and decisive margin, 34 votes--much more than
most expected.
The Speaker has spent weeks catering to the hard right, and now he
finds himself in the exact same position he has been in since the
beginning: no plan forward, no closer to passing something that avoids
a shutdown.
The Speaker needs to abandon his doomed mission of trying to please
MAGA extremists, and, instead, he needs to work across the aisle to
keep the government open.
Things seem to be getting worse for the Speaker rather than better,
and it is time for him to try bipartisanship.
Here in the Senate, bipartisanship is precisely what we are pursuing
by working on our CR.
Just yesterday, I am proud to say, 76 Senators voted in favor of
proceeding to the CR.
I salute not only Chairman Murray, but Ranking Member Collins, and
Leader McConnell, and the so many others on the other side of the aisle
who joined us in moving forward.
We will continue working on the CR over the course of today and see
if we can find some agreement to pass it quickly.
I note that these 76 Senators are voting in favor of proceeding to
the CR even as we work through debates about the final content of the
bill. That is what bipartisanship means--not that we agree on
everything but that disagreements do not paralyze the process.
When the Senate finishes its work, it is imperative the House move on
the Senate-passed, bipartisan CR. It will be our last chance to
ensuring that a shutdown is avoided. Any more time the Speaker spends
trying to cobble together hard-right wish lists that can't even pass
the House would be a grievous mistake.
So to Speaker McCarthy, let me be clear. If you don't want our troops
to go without pay, work in a bipartisan way. If you don't want to see
border funding endangered, work in a bipartisan way. If you don't want
to see seniors lose access to Meals on Wheels or cuts to nutrition for
women, infants, and children or holds on small business loans, work in
a bipartisan way.
At the end of the day, these MAGA extremists who are the ones
responsible for bringing us to the brink fundamentally do not care
about funding the government. Some of them are actually gleeful about a
shutdown. Coddling the hard right is as futile as trying to nail Jell-O
to a wall, and the harder the Speaker tries, the bigger mess he makes.
And that mess is going to hurt the American people the most.
I hope the Speaker snaps out of the vice grip he has put himself in
and stops succumbing to the 30 or so extremists who are running the
show in the House.
Mr. Speaker, time has almost run out.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I know there are others who are waiting to
speak, and I will yield to them momentarily, but I think it is
important that the majority leader explain the entire story of where we
find ourselves here today on the verge of a shutdown.
The truth is, the Senate has not passed a single appropriations bill
that passed out of the Senate Appropriations Committee by bipartisan
support. Some of them were passed unanimously. The first bill, I
believe, that passed out of the Senate Appropriations Committee passed
out some 80 days ago. Now, it may have taken until the end of July
before we could get a House bill to then amend, which is a necessary
procedural prerequisite, but the fact of the matter is, the majority
leader, who is the only person who can schedule a vote on any of these
pieces of legislation, has failed to bring any of these bills to the
floor and successfully passed in the U.S. Senate.
So 18 days before the end of the fiscal year, which is the shutdown
unless we pass another funding bill, the majority leader puts a so-
called minibus, or a combination of three appropriations bills, on the
floor. That was the first time the majority leader decided to actually
schedule a vote on anything.
My point is that the majority leader likes to blame the House--and
particularly because it is a majority of Republicans--so he acts like
this is all their fault. Everything is just hunky-dory and bipartisan
in the Senate. That is false. The majority leader has contributed
dramatically to this shutdown because of the Senate's failure under his
leadership to pass any appropriations bills whatsoever. And, yes, it is
no surprise to anybody that here we are needing to find some way
forward on a continuing resolution--in other words, to keep the lights
on--while we continue to work out other differences.
I think shutdowns are a mistake. Shutdowns are a mistake because they
don't solve the underlying problem. They disrupt all sorts of people,
and he mentioned some of the people they disrupt, including pay to our
military. Our own staff aren't going to get paid. People aren't going
to be able to get passports through the passport office. If they have
immigration problems, if veterans are worried about getting
compensation or other benefits, they are not going to be responded to
because of this government shutdown. Completely, completely predictable
and completely, completely unnecessary.
So I think if you are going to talk about who contributed to where we
are today, the majority leader--I say this respectfully--this is in
large part a Schumer shutdown because the Senate hasn't done its job.
This is not governing. This is not responsible. Again, the only way we
can consider legislation in the U.S. Senate is if he schedules
something on the floor. That is his prerogative as the majority leader.
But people ought to be held accountable. People ought to be
responsible for their own actions. And the majority leader has simply
failed to let the Senate do its work even though the Senate
Appropriations Committee, which is chaired by a Democrat, Senator Patty
Murray, and ranking member, Senator Susan Collins. They did magnificent
work. They did what they were supposed to do. But because the majority
leader failed to bring any of those bills to the floor, we haven't
passed a single appropriations bill, and we are looking at a deadline
of midnight Saturday,

[[Page S4816]]

where the government ceases to function because of the failure to do
our job here in the Senate.
The House has its own problems, but we ought to take care of business
here first, and we haven't done that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.

Remembering Dianne Feinstein

Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, thank you for your patience.
I want to begin today by reiterating my sadness about the passing of
our friend Senator Dianne Feinstein.
Senator Feinstein's death strikes at the heart of so many of us
committed to public service, as she was. A courageous trailblazer, she
stood up to powerful interest groups on behalf of her constituents and
the rest of us. She was a fierce legislator, fighting to ban assault
weapons, defend survivors of domestic violence, protect our Nation, and
much more. But she was also a thoughtful friend.
Just last week, she wrote me a letter expressing her happiness that
the banyan tree in Lahaina, badly burned by the wildfires, is starting
to show signs of renewed life. She wrote:

I hope that the beloved tree continues to recover and serve
as a source of hope and a symbol of resilience for the entire
community.

I, too, share her hope.

Maui Wildfires

Mr. President, it has now been 6 weeks since the fires tore through
the town of Lahaina on Maui as well as several upcountry Maui
communities. As the whole world has seen now, those fires were
devastating, claiming nearly 100 lives and destroying close to 3,000
structures, most of them residences. Our hearts break for all those
impacted by this tragedy.
Within hours of those fires, though, the Federal Government was on
the ground, providing assistance and relief. In the weeks since, well
over 1,000 Federal personnel have traveled to Maui to aid in the
recovery efforts, and more than $125 million in individual relief has
been distributed. Additionally, President Biden requested $4 billion in
disaster relief funding following the fires on top of the $12 billion
he had previously requested.
As I said at the time, disaster relief has always had broad
bipartisan support, and there is no reason the Maui disaster should be
treated any differently.
In fact, Speaker McCarthy agreed. When he visited Lahaina less than 4
weeks ago, he said:

We want to get the resources to individuals that could
rebuild their life. We've got to focus on the children for
the schools, get them back into the education so they don't
miss out.

I couldn't agree more.
This funding is essential to our ongoing recovery efforts, but now
Speaker McCarthy, in refusing to stand up to the most radical faction
in his caucus--I call them the chaos caucus--is endangering these
resources for Maui and other communities impacted by disasters across
the country. We just heard from our majority leader what is happening
in New York City even as we speak.
So, again, as we speak, the Senate is working to advance a bipartisan
continuing resolution to keep government open, which includes $6
billion in disaster relief. While clearly not everything we need, it is
a critical downpayment that will allow the Federal Government to
continue its important work on Maui and in other communities impacted
by disasters across the country. It will allow FEMA, the SBA, and the
other critical Federal Agencies to continue their disaster relief work
as we work to pass a longer term funding agreement. But if radical
House Republicans shut down the government, that funding will be held
up indefinitely.
My colleague, Representative Jill Tokuda of Hawaii, summed it up well
just yesterday in her testimony before the House Energy and Commerce
Committee. She said that the people of Maui ``have gone through enough,
the wheels of government must keep turning to provide support and
resources, so they focus on recovery and rebuilding.''
By forcing a government shutdown, Speaker McCarthy will be abandoning
the people of Maui--the very same people he vowed to help just weeks
ago when he visited Maui.
We are less than 48 hours from Republicans shutting down our
government, and they have yet to even put forward a funding bill that
they can pass. It is unconscionable.
While these remarks are focused on the impact of a shutdown on
disaster aid, make no mistake--a Republican government shutdown will
have negative consequences for millions of Americans not just in
disaster relief but on every aspect of their lives all across our
country. This is not a game. We all want to know what it is going to
take for House Republicans to grow up and realize that the chaos they
are sowing is going to have real impacts on real people's lives all
across the country.
Meanwhile, the Hawaii delegation, as well as the bipartisan Senate,
will continue doing everything we can to keep government open by
passing the continuing resolution that we have on deck in the Senate
and secure the funding for our communities--funding that is so urgently
needed.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.

Unanimous Consent Requests--Executive Calendar

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the Senate's
need to swiftly confirm any U.S. attorney nominees.
Two days ago, I came to the floor to request unanimous consent for
the Senate to take up and confirm four pending U.S. attorney
nominations that were being held up by one U.S. Senator, the junior
Senator from Ohio, Senator Vance.
Two days ago, he said:

My position is we should have a full Senate vote on each
one of these . . . Justice Department nominations.

He also said:

[I]f it's so important to confirm these folks, bring them
to the floor for a vote.

But now that is exactly what he is attempting to prevent today.
For decades, the Senate confirmed U.S. attorney nominees of both
political parties by voice vote or what is called unanimous consent in
the Senate after they had been reported by the Judiciary Committee.
Before the beginning of the Biden administration, the Senate had not
required a rollcall vote on the confirmation of a U.S. attorney since
1975--almost 50 years. In fact, during the Trump administration, Senate
Democrats allowed every one of Trump's U.S. attorney nominees--all 85--
to move through the committee and be confirmed by voice vote, unanimous
consent.
Let me tell you, as a Democrat in those days, I knew what I was
getting with these U.S. attorneys working for Jeff Sessions, former
Attorney General Jeff Sessions, and William Barr. I knew what was going
to happen, but I respected the tradition of the Senate.
Now Senate Republicans have decided to change the rules and are
blocking the confirmation of these critical law enforcement officers.
I have faced this before. Republicans had said they were going to
object to U.S. attorneys but fortunately had better thoughts on the
subject as time progressed.
Now, this year, the Senator from Ohio has proudly announced that he
will--I will quote him, in fact: ``I will hold all [DOJ] nominations. .
. . We will grind [the Justice Department] to a halt.''
Grind the Justice Department to a halt.
U.S. attorneys are too important to be used as political pawns in a
national debate. They lead our Nation's effort to prosecute violent
criminals.
Don't tell me that you are for law and order, but you want to stop
criminal prosecutors from being appointed to the job. They lead our
Nation's effort to protect our communities from drug trafficking.

I quoted some numbers the other day about drug trafficking and
fentanyl deaths in the State of Ohio, the State where one of these U.S.
attorneys would be going to work, in the Cleveland area. Ohio runs
fourth in the Nation in narcotics deaths, and for the Senate to respond
by having one Senator from Ohio stopping the appointment of a criminal
prosecutor to go after these cartels or drug gangs is not explainable.
So I offered Senator Vance the opportunity to allow us to schedule
confirmation votes on all pending U.S. attorneys. I want to read
exactly what he said from the Congressional Record,

[[Page S4817]]

which, of course, is the permanent record of the Senate and will be
read by future generations.
This was on September 27, 2 days ago. Here is what Senator Vance
said:

I am the new guy, and I recognize that I am a little naive
when it comes to matters of the procedures in the U.S.
Senate. But I have had a lot of jobs in my life; and
yesterday we passed one vote and today we have passed zero
votes. The time that we have spent debating whether we should
have unanimous consent over these nominations, we could
actually use to vote on these nominations and end this
charade and call it out for what it is. If we believe that
these nominees must go forward, let's just have a vote on it.
Allow me to scrutinize them. Allow my colleagues to vote them
up or down. That is a totally reasonable thing to ask of this
Chamber and to ask of this leadership; and because of that, I
object.

Well, I accepted his challenge. I took his words to be heartfelt and
truthful, that he wanted votes. So today we had two votes on two of the
U.S. attorneys, considered by the Senate, which is exactly what the
Senator from Ohio asked for.
But there are two more on the calendar that he held up initially. He
said on the floor during our debate that these weren't people he was
necessarily objecting to but that somebody else in the Senate might be
objecting to. I didn't know what that meant, but I wanted to give him
the time to find out who that might be. It turns out there is no one
else--he is the only objector--even though he said on the record, in
the Congressional Record, that all he wanted was a rollcall vote on
these nominees.
Well, he is going to get the chance to keep his word that he put in
the Congressional Record, and he is going to get a chance to have the
vote he asked for. It is only fair. If we did it for the first two, we
will do it for the others.
Let me repeat it again. Senator Vance did not only refuse to move
these nominees by voice vote, as the Senate has done for decades, he is
now backtracking on his own words from 2 days ago and is refusing even
to allow rollcalls on these nominees.
This kind of obstructionism is becoming commonplace, I am afraid. If
you take a look at this Executive Calendar that we have here, there are
pages and pages of military officers who have served this country nobly
and honorably who are asking for a simple promotion they are entitled
to. They are being held up by another Republican Senator who doesn't
want to move forward on this, holding them for 6 months from promotion.
Is this the new way of doing business under a MAGA regime? I hope not.
Rebecca Lutzko is nominated to be U.S. attorney for the Northern
District of Ohio. She is a longtime Federal prosecutor who has served
as assistant U.S. attorney in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the
Northern District of Ohio for nearly 18 years. As a Federal prosecutor,
she handles cases involving prescription drug trafficking, gun crimes,
and corruption. Important? You bet it is.
April Perry is nominated to be U.S. attorney for the Northern
District of Illinois. She has significant experience in the private
sector and as a Federal prosecutor. She served in the U.S. Attorney's
Office for the Northern District of Illinois for over a decade, where
she handled narcotics, gang violence, public corruption, and fraud.
Important? You bet it is. Ms. Perry specialized in child exploitation
prosecutions and spent 6 years as the office's Project Safe Childhood
coordinator.
Are you concerned, as I am, about the exploitation of children, the
trafficking of children, the terrible sexual abuse that is taking place
on the internet? Do you think we ought to have the Department of
Justice on that case? Of course we should.
One week ago, Senator Vance was quoted as saying, ``My objection is
not to the specific qualifications of these particular individuals who
have been nominated.''
So, here, he is not complaining about any of their resumes or their
capacity to do the job and do it effectively. His concern--and he said
it publicly, so I think I am going to accurately quote him--his concern
is that the former President of the United States was indicted, and he
is very concerned about a Department of Justice that would even let
that happen.
For goodness' sake, things happened in the Department of Justice's
activities during the administration of Donald Trump that I objected
to, but I didn't stop the appointments of U.S. attorneys under Trump. I
didn't stop the people in law enforcement, who are keeping us safe in
our communities.
These are ably qualified individuals. I am asking Senator Vance: In
good faith, keep your word. What you said in the Congressional Record
is a matter of record, and you should stand by your word.
For that reason, I make the following motion: I ask unanimous consent
that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following
nominations en bloc: Calendar Nos. 314 and 315; that the Senate vote on
the nominations en bloc without intervening action or debate; that if
confirmed, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon
the table and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's
action; and that the Senate resume legislative session.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Hirono). Is there objection?
The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. VANCE. Madam President, in reserving the right to object, let me
address a few of my distinguished colleague from Illinois' comments.
First of all, while it is true that my hold policy regarding the
Department of Justice is not focused on any particular nominee, I do
think this particular nominee is particularly troublesome, and let me
just talk about why.
Ms. Perry is a figure who served as the chief ethics officer in the
Cook County State's Attorney's Office during the Jussie Smollett hate
crime hoax. You may remember that from a few years ago. This is when a
person accused people of engaging in a false hate crime, took a ton of
State resources to investigate it, and it turned out the entire thing
was fraudulent and meant to gin up publicity for Mr. Smollett.
Everyone pretty much agrees that Ms. Foxx, who was the State's
attorney at the time, engaged in some pretty unethical behavior, and
Ms. Perry effectively rubberstamped it. Is she the sort of person who
could be entrusted to impartially administer justice in the Biden-
Garland Department of Justice? I don't think she is. So I will be
voting against her nomination. I also object to giving a streamlined
confirmation process for her.
Now, the Senator from Illinois is apparently hell-bent on coming
before the Chamber every single week to litigate what I think and
believe is a corrupt and politicized Department of Justice. He makes
much--and he makes much every single time we engage in this exercise--
about the fact that the Department of Justice has never had this kind
of hold policy placed on it before. I agree. This is a new and unique
circumstance.
What is much different about the Trump administration Department of
Justice and the Merrick Garland-Joe Biden Department of Justice is that
Donald Trump never tried to throw his political opponents in prison.
This is crazy, banana republic stuff, and I will not stand for it.
I will continue to hold these nominations, and I will continue to
push back against the politicization of justice.
Finally, let me just say that what I have asked for and what I will
continue to ask for is that these nominees go through regular order.
The Senator knows well what everybody else knows, which is that, as one
Senator, I cannot prevent the confirmation of these nominees however
much I might like to. What I can do is force us to go through regular
order.
I asked for a vote, Senator Durbin. You can invoke cloture. We can
vote on cloture. We can then do a recorded vote. That is what we have
done with many, many nominees, and because of the corruption of Merrick
Garland's Department of Justice, it is what I ask with this nominee and
with any in the future.
Because of that, Madam President, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, it is interesting that we have got a new
argument.
Previously, he said: I have no objection to these nominees. I just
don't like the process. I want a vote.
I said: Fine. You can have a vote.

[[Page S4818]]

Now when we ask for a vote on the two remaining nominees for U.S.
attorney, he is finding fault with those individuals.
I hope he will take the time--and I know he is a fair person--to read
the record about what Ms. Perry did when she worked for the State's
attorney, Kim Foxx. It is true there was a controversial case before
her office and that she was the chief ethics officer in the Cook County
State's Attorney's Office. She served in that office at the time the
Jussie Smollett matter was being investigated, but Ms. Perry' role as
chief ethics officer was limited to recommending that State's Attorney
Foxx recuse herself and that the office seek the appointment of a
special prosecutor.
Notably, Ms. Perry resigned from that office a few weeks after the
prosecutors initially agreed to drop the charges against Mr. Smollett.
She has never been implicated, and to throw her name into this
situation is unfair. I am sure the Senator from Ohio doesn't want to do
that.
So listen to what he suggests--and I am glad Senator Reed is on the
floor, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee.
Does it sound familiar?
We have a group of people--of nominees--who have come before us who
have been considered throughout history in a routine, unanimous consent
way, and now the Senator from Ohio says we have to go one by one and
have a cloture motion on each one of them. You and I both know, having
been here a few years, what that means. It is physically impossible,
whether we are talking about officers in the military or U.S. attorney
nominees, to say we will just stack them up on the calendar and go
through cloture votes, and it is unnecessary.
If we didn't single out a single U.S. attorney nominee in the Trump
administration but gave voice votes to all 85, it is an indication of
an effort of good will and bipartisanship even when we are suspicious
of what the political agenda may be of that Department.

To hold some of these people--the U.S. attorney for his own home
State, the city of Cleveland--to hold this person to this kind of
scrutiny that goes way beyond anything we usually have been involved in
is unfair to her, and it is unfair to the process and the system.
I am going to return to the floor. The Senator from Ohio and I are
going to be pretty familiar fixtures on this floor because if you say
something in the Congressional Record, as he did--that all he wants is
a rollcall, and we offered a rollcall, just as I did, and he denies it
over and over--he has some explaining to do.
If he thinks that standing up for the MAGA process here is something
the American people admire, I beg to differ with him.
We understand that the Department of Justice has an important job to
do to keep us safe in our communities, and for someone to say--for a
Senator from the U.S. Senate to say, ``I will hold all [DOJ]
nominations. . . . We will grind [the Justice Department] to a halt,''
really? That is your agenda? That is why you came to the Senate?
If the Department of Defense is being ground to a halt because of the
promotions of officers and to do the same thing at the Department of
Justice, and we are facing a government shutdown because of MAGA
Members of the House of Representatives, the American people have a
good picture, a good photograph, of the future if we go down one
particular path in terms of the future of politics in America.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.

Remembering Dianne Feinstein

Mr. REED. Madam President, I rise to pay tribute to our colleague
Dianne Feinstein, who passed away, as we all know, this morning.
As California's senior Senator and the longest serving woman Senator
ever, Senator Feinstein was a trailblazer. Everyone has made that
point, and it is a true, accurate, and compelling point.
In representing the country's most populous State for over three
decades, she occupied the national stage as well, and for many people
inside and outside this Chamber, she became the archetypal Senator:
prepared, professional, pragmatic, and unfailingly civil. Californians
rewarded her hard work by voting for her by wider and wider margins.
She fought hard for the things she believed in and very often
succeeded, but she never bullied or belittled those who took a contrary
position. Her achievements are many: the enactment of the Federal
assault weapons ban in 1994, the 6-year review of the CIA's Detention
and Interrogation Program, which prompted significant reforms in the
intelligence community. She was the leader in the reauthorization of
the Violence Against Women Act. She delivered for the people of
California, enacting laws to protect public lands and national
treasures and doing the hard work to bring stakeholders together to
resolve thorny issues and complex environmental challenges in her home
State. She led on national environmental issues, including legislation
to improve the fuel economy of automobiles.
I had the privilege and the pleasure to get to know her. We were both
members of the Aspen study group. This is an organization sponsored by
the Aspen Institute of both right and left, thoughtful national
security policy people. I was very honored to be asked, and Dianne was
a long-term member. To listen to her insights, to listen to her
analysis, along with other very thoughtful people, was incredibly
helpful to me, particularly as a more junior Member of the Senate, and,
of course, her hospitality, her friendship, and her decency just was so
apparent there as it was here on the floor in the U.S. Senate.
In fact, as we look back, there is a very simple fact here that
Dianne Feinstein influenced, in some way, every major policy challenge
that this body and this Nation has faced over the last 31 years with
her voice, with her vote, with her counsel, with her wisdom, with her
unfailing commitment to the people of California and the people of the
United States. She literally never gave up. She never stopped.
She is someone that will be remembered, truly, as one of the greatest
U.S. Senators in the history of this country. It was a privilege to
serve with her. On this day, I wish her family and all her loved ones
the comfort of knowing what an extraordinary woman and what an
extraordinary Senator Dianne Feinstein was.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.

H.R. 3935

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, Americans across the country are
watching us now, as we near the brink of an entirely pointless and
absolutely devastating government shutdown and wondering: How in the
world did we get here? It is a great question and an infuriating one.
So I want to take a few minutes to walk through exactly how we did
get here, because the plain truth I want the American people to
recognize is, it did not have to be this way. But a number of House
Republicans, who have been working from day one of this Congress to
hold our government hostage, pushed the most extreme partisan agenda
imaginable and set us on a collision course for a government shutdown.
You don't have to take my word for it. Just listen to what some of
them have been saying:

If a shutdown occurs, then so be it.
We should not fear a government shutdown.

It is ``not the worst thing that could happen.''
And this quote:

[M]ay be what it takes.

Last week, of course, former President Trump--the same guy
responsible for the longest shutdown in history--called for Republicans
to shut down the government again.
Unfortunately, it sure seems like these are the sorts of people
Speaker McCarthy has been listening to--the most extreme, fringed
voices in his party--when he should be listening to the overwhelming
majority of people in our country who do not want a shutdown, because,
let's be clear, most Members of Congress--like most Americans--on both
sides of the aisle here, in both Chambers of Congress, do not want a
government shutdown. They do want to see us working together to get our
jobs done.
This is something I have heard from so many of our colleagues when I
became chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee at the beginning of

[[Page S4819]]

this year: We need to get back to regular order. No more omnibuses. No
more chaos. No more government shutdowns. I heard it from across both
parties here in the Senate.
So I have been working with the senior Senator from Maine to deliver
on just that: to make our appropriations process work better, to get
our bills done, and to ensure that all Members do have a say in the
process.
We have made some concrete progress; but over and over, extreme
Republicans in the House have put up roadblocks and done everything
they can to prevent Congress from getting even the most basic things
done.
The vice chair of the Appropriations Committee and I held nearly 50
hearings this past spring to evaluate what resources our communities
need in the year ahead. But, then, instead of being able to get right
to work and negotiate top-line spending numbers and writing those bills
as we finished those hearings this spring, we had to press pause to
contend with extreme Republicans who were then holding our Nation's
credit hostage and threatening a devastating default if they did not
get their way with unrealistic, draconian cuts to programs that this
entire country relies on.
It was a full-blown crisis. It was created by extreme House
Republicans who ground Congress and almost our economy to a halt.
Finally, after their dangerous brinksmanship caused so much
unnecessary drama and delay, President Biden and Speaker McCarthy
struck a deal on spending levels that rejected the deepest, most
damaging cuts. Now, it was not a deal I would have written myself--
absolutely not--but a deal is a deal.
The Speaker and the President shook hands. We all voted on it. It was
signed into law. We had an agreement so we here in the Senate could
finally get to work writing our bipartisan spending bills.
And in the Senate, that is exactly what we did. The senior Senator
from Maine and I said: Okay, let's get things back on track. Let's get
back to regular order. Let's write serious bills that can actually be
signed into law.

We agreed to work off that Biden-McCarthy deal in a bipartisan way to
avoid partisan poison pills and give all of our colleagues input on
those bills. We held televised, bipartisan markups with amendments,
with debate. And, for the first time in 5 years, we passed all 12 bills
out of the committee, and those bills passed overwhelmingly with
bipartisan support. We then got a resounding 91 votes to start work on
three appropriations bills that passed unanimously out of committee on
the Senate floor.
As we know, a few holdouts slowed things down. But I want you to know
we are going to keep working together to return to regular order so
Members can debate appropriations bills and offer amendments, and we
can get them passed.
Now, compare that to the House. Did they work to produce serious,
bipartisan appropriations bills that can be signed into law? Nope. They
wrote extreme partisan bills--extreme--that are not going anywhere.
Did they keep out provisions that they knew would be nonstarters?
Absolutely not. Their appropriations bills are a far-right wish list
chock full of extreme policies that would undermine our response to the
climate crisis, embolden bigotry against the LGBTQ community, weaken
commonsense gun safety regulations, and, of course--of course--impose
extreme abortion restrictions.
I mean, the list of extreme far-right policies that were slapped onto
the government spending bills in the House is astounding. If you want
to get something done for your constituents, you need to get serious,
and those bills are not serious.
Did House Republicans, at least, stick to the bipartisan top lines
that President Biden and Speaker McCarthy agreed to and we all voted
on? Not even in the slightest. Before the ink was dry on that deal that
he shook hands on, Speaker McCarthy caved to demands from the far right
to ignore those agreed-upon spending levels and take a hatchet to
programs that our families rely on.
In those spending bills, House Republicans want to cut 80 percent--8-
0--80 percent, that is $14.7 billion from title I funding our public
schools rely on. It supports nearly 90 percent of our Nation's school
districts. That includes rescinding funding that Congress provided last
year that schools have worked into their budgets and are using for this
school year.
They want to cut grants that keep our drinking water safe by more
than half.
They want to slash nearly $4 billion from lifesaving research at the
NIH.
In the middle of a childcare crisis, they want to cut Head Start by
$750 million and eliminate funding to help our States expand preschool
programs.
I am just getting started. I can go on all day with the devastating
cuts House Republicans have jammed into their partisan spending bills
with utter disregard for that agreement that we all passed a few months
ago and, more importantly, for how harmful those cuts would be for
those back home.
Those cuts would hollow out Federal programs and Agencies to a point
where basic government services that people expect to get done--whether
it is food safety inspectors or air traffic controllers--would almost
certainly break down.
I don't say all of this to score political points. I am laying the
facts out to make them plain to the American people, who I am sure are
just as frustrated as I am, about how pointless it would be to shut
down and how ridiculous it is that we are even at this point today.
So here we are, days from a government shutdown, and it is clear the
only way Congress can keep the lights on and avoid a terrible shutdown
is the bipartisan bill to continue funding and keep things open short-
term while we work on those full-year bills.
The House isn't even trying to put forward a serious proposal to do
that.
Here in the Senate, the senior Senator from Maine and I have a
simple, bipartisan bill that keeps the government funded so we can
continue to work on our full-year appropriations bills. It includes
absolutely essential, time-sensitive reauthorizations for the FAA and
other Agencies, and it extends urgently needed funding for disaster
relief and our allies in Ukraine. It is a truly reasonable, bipartisan
bill carefully negotiated.
We are working at this very moment with our colleagues to get this
bill over to the House as soon as possible. But so far, Speaker
McCarthy seems to be more focused on indulging a few Members by writing
bills with massive, cartoon-villain level cuts instead of listening to
the American people and avoiding this shutdown.
After wasting all of our time on his partisan bills, which will never
become law, he tried to jam through a truly extreme CR that would have
cut agencies by 30 percent--30 percent--as if a 30-percent shutdown
isn't devastating to our families and the economy.
They need to get real. If it were to become law, that extreme
proposal would have been devastating for families and for our country.
Whether it is the Social Security Administration that is working to get
seniors signed up for new benefits; the Department of Education that is
working to process Pell Grants and financial aid for students--those
Agencies and so many others--would have had to figure out this Monday
how to implement a 30-percent, across-the-board cut if their bill had
passed. This Monday.
Their bill would grind basic government services to a halt. It would
create chaos and almost certainly make the odds of a recession likely.
As we just saw a while ago, that bill, fortunately, went down in the
House in flames because it was not bipartisan, and it was not a serious
effort to get our communities the funding they need.
So the lesson here should be obvious: Partisanship is not how we get
through crisis--any of them--especially in a divided government. It is
not how we prevent shutdowns. We prevent shutdowns by rolling up our
sleeves, doing the hard work of talking to each other, listening to
each other, and hammering out a bipartisan agreement to keep the lights
on.
Fortunately, that is what we have actually done here in the Senate.
We have a bipartisan agreement. We are on our way to sending it to the
House as soon as possible.
The good news: It is not too late for Speaker McCarthy to learn his
lesson and do the right thing. So I hope instead of listening to the
likes of former

[[Page S4820]]

President Trump or the extreme right and continuing to push a bill like
he just did that failed so badly, the Speaker needs to listen to all of
the people who will be hurt by this shutdown, who will miss their
paychecks, who will be cut off from healthcare and childcare and
support they rely on. And then I hope he will commit to bringing up our
commonsense CR bills to the floor as soon as possible.
Let us get our jobs done. Let's keep the government open. And then,
instead of retreating back to partisan extreme, I urge Speaker McCarthy
to do what so many of our Members on both sides of the aisle here in
the Senate have called for and work together with our colleagues to
find common ground and produce serious proposals that will make
people's lives better.
Politics isn't a game. Sometimes you just choose to do the right
thing because you know quite clearly what the right thing is to do.
Shutting down the government is not the right thing. Refusing to work
in a bipartisan way and forcing us into a showdown to show certain
Members of the House Republican majority that you will fight Democrats,
that is the wrong thing.
The American people don't want to see you fight the other party. They
want to see you work with your colleagues across the aisle. That is
what we have done in the Senate with our 12 bipartisan funding bills,
and the sooner we take the shutdown off the table, the sooner we can
get back to work to pass those 12 bills that fund everything from
cancer research to grants for our farmers, to top-notch medical care
for our veterans, and so much more.
So, as I have said so many times, let's help people and solve
problems. Let's work together, not against one another.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Iran

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam President, on June 27, 2014, an email was sent
to an individual who works with Iran's Foreign Ministry. The sender of
that email was seeking advice on whether she should attend a workshop
on Iran's nuclear program hosted by Ben-Gurion University in Israel.
The sender wrote:

I am not interested in going, but then I thought maybe it
would be better that I go and talk, rather than an Israeli
like Emily Landau who goes and disseminates disinformation. I
would like to ask your opinion, too, and see if you think I
should accept the invitation and go.

In a normal world, we would chalk this up to an academic seeking
politically charged advice from a mentor. But I became concerned when I
learned that this individual who wrote that email, who was actively
seeking guidance from individuals within the Iranian Foreign Ministry,
now has a U.S. Government Top Secret clearance and works within our
Defense Department as the Chief of Staff for the Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Special Operations and Low-Intensity Conflict.
Just to be sure we are following this, this is a U.S. citizen who
wrote to someone inside Iran's Foreign Ministry to seek advice on going
to a conference in Israel and speaking at that so that they would speak
instead of someone who was pro-Israel. They were asking their advice.
Well, this individual is Miss Ariane Tabatabai, and that email was
not the last one that she sent to her friend who was there in Iran's
Foreign Ministry. She also wrote him a few weeks later, on July 10,
2014, to let him know that she was offering testimony to Congress on
the Iran nuclear deal and needed some advice on how to handle it.
To be sure that we are continuing to follow this, she is going to be
speaking to Congress, and she is asking the advice of someone inside
Iran's Foreign Ministry on how she should handle her testimony before
the U.S. Congress.
Now, some of my colleagues may have seen the Semafor article
detailing these communications and the extent of Iranian influence
operations against the United States. It contained details about the
Iran Experts Initiative, referred to often as the IEI, which was a
brainchild of the Rouhani administration.
It tasked a handful of second-generation Iranians with planting pro-
nuclear Iran ideology in Western think tanks and writing propaganda
demanding compromise with Tehran.
So the IEI is a part of Iran's soft propaganda. It is very
intentional. We know that they were using this to push pro-Iran
stories. It wasn't a casual operation. The Iranian Foreign Minister and
his nuclear negotiating team were involved in creating this group--
creating this group--there to support pushing the nuclear complex, the
nuclear buildup in Iran.
Well, Miss Tabatabai was a part of the core group of the IEI, as it
was referred to--that tight-knit core group. Remember, this is the Iran
Experts Initiative. And from what we can gather, by all accounts, she
was very good at her job. We know this because we have now seen emails
between the Iranian officials in charge of this propaganda mill
boasting about the success of their propaganda mill.
And just a few years after Tabatabai made a name for herself, pushing
propaganda for Iran, the Biden administration invited her to take a
seat at the table as part of Robert Malley's Iran nuclear negotiating
team.
You remember Robert Malley. He was the lead negotiator on the 2015
JCPOA--or, as we commonly call it, the Iran nuclear deal. And then, in
2021, Biden named him the U.S. Special Envoy for Iran. It was his job
to bring the United States and Iran into compliance with the failed
nuclear deal.
Now, this is a tweet from June of that year sent by a high-ranking
Russian diplomat whose job it was to help reimplement this deal. It
shows the U.S. delegation at the negotiating table, hammering out the
details with the Iranians.
And that is Ms. Tabatabai on the end in the pink blazer. She was not
a background player. She was someone who had a seat at the negotiating
table.
For almost 3 years now, I have come to the floor to implore President
Biden and his advisers to just pay attention to the blatant information
warfare against our country that is being carried out every single day
by the new ``axis of evil''--Russia, China, Iran, North Korea.
Now, we have seen this take many forms. We see it with the remaining
Confucius Institutes that are still in our country. We see it on
TikTok. But for the most part, Biden has chosen to ignore the risk
these influence operations pose to our country.
Now, we know his administration found a willing participant in an
Iranian-influenced operation. He hired her. He gave her a U.S.
Government top-secret security clearance and sent her to negotiate with
the very officials that once she worked for.
Remember, she was a part of the Iran Experts Initiative. This is
beyond poor judgment. This is dangerous. It is also rather unthinkable.
I would also remind my colleagues that earlier this year, her former
boss and colleague, Robert Malley, was placed on leave after the State
Department suspended his security clearance. They had reason to believe
he was mishandling classified material.
Yesterday, we learned that the Pentagon is going to review
Tabatabai's links to Tehran. But that is not sufficient. I want to know
how it could be possible that the Biden administration found nothing of
concern when they vetted her.
That is why I have sent this letter over to the Pentagon demanding
answers to these questions. The American people deserve to know. How in
the world someone who had worked for the Iranian Experts Initiative had
been a part of what was called the core group--how could they possibly
get a security clearance?
But, you know, considering the links to which this administration has
gone to appease Iran, I imagine their response will be just as
satisfying as the other that some of my colleagues and I have received
in our attempts to exercise oversight over some of these foreign policy
and national security issues. The American people deserve answers.
I ask unanimous consent that my letter to the Secretary of Defense
regarding the foreign contacts of Ariane Tabatabai be printed in the
Record.

[[Page S4821]]

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

September 28, 2023.
Hon. Lloyd J. Austin III,
Secretary of Defense,
Washington, DC.
Dear Secretary Austin: I am writing to express my concern
over the actions taken by Ariane Tabatabai, the current Chief
of Staff for Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special
Operations and Low Intensity Conflict (ASD/SOLIC). Iran is an
evil, violent regime that supports terrorism and seeks to
annihilate freedom loving countries across the globe. Under
the Obama-Biden administration, your boss helped make it
easier for Iran to develop a nuclear weapon--showing regimes
across the world that the United States will reward them for
abusing human rights. Last year, the Iranian government
murdered a woman for not wearing a head scarf. There is no
other way to put it: Iran is a barbaric country.
This administration has gone to great lengths to appease
Iran--taking the Iran-backed Houthis in Yemen off the Foreign
Terrorist Organization list and ending U.S. support for Saudi
Arabia and the UAE's war against the group. And just this
month, on the anniversary of 9/11, President Biden
incentivized Iran's terrorist activities and conceded our
nation's future security as he handed over a $6 billion
payout to Iran.
Given your administration's intentional appeasement of the
Iranian regime, it is unfortunately not surprising that you
are allowing those with close ties to Iran to serve in a
senior role. It is vital to the security of our nation to
thoroughly evaluate all individuals with links to the regime
that wish to operate within the Department of Defense. It is
imperative that no one with direct affiliations to the
Iranian regime have access to sensitive information or
influence over United States foreign policy.
According to a report, on June 27, 2014, Ms. Tabatabai
consulted with an individual within Iran's Foreign Ministry
over attending a workshop regarding the Iran's nuclear
program at Ben-Gurion University in Israel. To quote Ms.
Tabatabai. ``I am not interested in going, but then I thought
maybe it would be better that I go and talk, rather than an
Israeli like Emily Landau who goes and disseminates
disinformation. I would like to ask your opinion too and see
if you think I should accept the invitation and go.'' She
also wrote to that same individual that she was to give
testimony before the U.S. Congress on the nuclear deal.
Ms. Tabatabai's relationship with Iranian government
representatives, along with her malicious comments regarding
our ally, Israel, as a representative of the U.S. Department
of Defense is undeniably unacceptable. Ms. Tabatabai's ties
to the Iranian regime are dangerous and raise questions about
potential foreign adversarial influence within the Department
of Defense. Additionally, these reports call into question
whether Ms. Tabatabai should be permitted to a security
clearance with access to classified materials.
I ask a response to the following questions no later than
October 6th, 2023:
1. What level clearance does Ms. Tabatabai currently
possess?
2. How long has she held this clearance level?
3. Was her affiliation with the Iran Experts Initiative
(IEI) discussed during the processing of her security
clearance?
4. Has the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency
(DCSA) reviewed Ms. Tabatabai's SF-86 for consistency since
the release of this information?
5. Is it a standard Department of Defense policy to clear
speaking engagements with a foreign leader prior to
finalizing the decision?
6. Does the Department of Defense plan to question Ms.
Tabatabai on if there is additional information she has
leaked to foreign governments?
7. Has Ms. Tabatabai ever been in the position to make
impacts that directly impact the country of Israel?
8. Did Ms. Tabatabai have access to classified documents
related to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action?
Sincerely,
Marsha Blackburn,
U.S. Senator.

Mrs. BLACKBURN. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Rosen). The Republican leader is
recognized.

Government Funding

Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, Congress has until tomorrow night to
pass a straight-forward short-term funding extension and avoid a
government shutdown.
All this week, and every time we have found ourselves in this
situation before, I have offered my colleagues the same warning:
Shutting down the government doesn't help anybody politically; it
doesn't make any meaningful progress on policy; and it heaps
unnecessary hardships on the American people as well as the brave men
and women who keep us safe.
Right now, I am encouraged that many of my colleagues who share our
concerns are working hard on amendments to strengthen the pending
legislation and avert the disastrous effects of a shutdown.
Congress has an opportunity right now to pay our servicemembers,
border security personnel, and other essential workers; to keep
important government functions running; and to keep the lights on so
the important discussions we are having right now about dealing with
Democrats' border crisis, delivering disaster relief, supporting
Ukraine, and reining in reckless spending can continue. And I would
urge our colleagues to take that opportunity.

University of Louisville

Madam President, now, on an entirely different matter, today, I join
my alma mater, the University of Louisville, in celebrating the
inauguration of its new president, Dr. Kim Schatzel.
As many alum will tell you, UofL is a special place. For me, it was
the first place in Kentucky where I felt completely at home. And it is
somewhere I continue to find fulfillment in my personal and public
life.
As a young man, it is where I met the first professor who challenged
me to think for myself, where I tested my talents in my first art
class, and where I was lucky enough to take part in UofL's
congressional internship program. And that turned out a lot better than
my artistic pursuits.
These days, UofL continues to be an important part of my life,
whether I am tailgating football games with friends, advocating on
behalf of the university in Washington, or observing the success of the
McConnell Center scholars.
As President Schatzel steps into her new role, I hope she will find
the immense opportunity and access afforded to myself and every UofL
student, staff, faculty, and alum who walks this campus.
Throughout its 225-year history, UofL has hosted a long list of
visionary leaders who shaped its success, and today I am proud to
welcome President Schatzel to though those ranks. Her wealth of
experience in both academics and business make her a valuable addition
to the UofL family.
Before joining the University of Louisville, she led a successful
career in corporate America. In just two decades, she rose from foreman
on a Ford Pinto assembly line to heading up a multinational
manufacturing enterprise.
She would eventually pivot to an equally impressive career in
academia, taking her marketing genius to higher education. As President
of Towson University, she bolstered graduation rates and broke records
in capital investment on campus.
These are high priorities for our university as well, and I look
forward to partnering with her to bring similar success to the UofL and
broader communities.
The city of Louisville, the Commonwealth of Kentucky, and the entire
Nation rely on the University of Louisville for its research and
innovations in medicine, engineering, agriculture, the arts, and so
much more.
Leading a major metropolitan university like UofL is a big job, but I
think I speak for the entire Louisville community when I say: President
Schatzel, keep up the great work. From one Cardinal to another, I wish
her the best of luck and congratulations this momentous day.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.

Remembering Dianne Feinstein

Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, I am standing here at the desk next to
the desk of our fallen colleague, Senator Dianne Feinstein. It seems
enormously strange that instead of being able to sit here and have her
next to me, her desk is covered with a black cloth and a crystal bowl
of white roses.
We come from the west coast where our States sit side by side, so
perhaps it was fitting that we sat side by side here on the floor of
the U.S. Senate.
One thing, in particular, that Senator Feinstein liked to do was
share with me pictures of her dog Kirby, whom she absolutely loved. And
she had a lot of pictures on her phone to show Kirby in different
moments of delight. And I must say, for me, this was kind of a
powerful, personal connection because I enjoyed showing her pictures of
my dogs, Roxy and Lila, whom I love dearly.
So even as we work on the great issues of international affairs or
the

[[Page S4822]]

big challenges of America, sometimes it is just the personal
connections, simple connections in life that can bond people to each
other.
Very few people's lives are as full of as much history and
consequence as Senator Dianne Feinstein's: the first woman to serve as
mayor of San Francisco; the first woman to serve as a Senator from
California; the longest serving Senator not only from California, the
longest serving woman in the Senate ever at just over 30 years.
In 2009, during my first year in the Senate, she made a point to
invite me as a freshman Senator to meet her friend the Dalai Lama. I
had a chance to previously meet the Dalai Lama when I was head of the
World Affairs Council in Oregon, and I had invited him to speak to the
people of Oregon. But this was in a different context of the
connection, the foreign relations, in which we were striving to elevate
concerns about the treatment of the Tibetan people. She was a
passionate supporter of Tibetan people.
She had met him 30 years before in India. She had welcomed him on his
first visit to the United States, as the mayor of San Francisco. She
never let up on the importance of that challenge and her concerns about
the mistreatment of the Tibetan people.
In fact, I also had the opportunity to work with her on the
Congressional-Executive Commission on China, which strived to shine a
light on many human rights issues, but one of which, certainly, was
defending the Tibetan people's human rights and culture from the
repression of the Chinese Government.
She was also a powerful partner as we worked together to pass the
Employment Non-Discrimination Act here on the Senate floor, which we
did in 2013, and then to strive to elevate the Equality Act, the gold
standard for ending discrimination against our LGBTQ community--an act
that we have not yet passed on this Senate floor but absolutely should.
I hope someday we will have the votes to do that.
She just believed that nobody should face discrimination, everybody
should have an equal opportunity to thrive here in the United States of
America.
We also served together for many years on the Appropriations
Committee and the Rules Committee. She was a persistent voice in this
last couple of years, time and time again, calling for better pay for
our Federal wildland firefighters. Now, that particular issue is so
essential because of the fires we are facing in the West, and no one
raised it as often or as passionately as she did. As a result, we won
that pay raise. I know that she would be insisting, if she was here
today, to make sure that pay raise is sustained in any continuing
resolution that we might pass in the next couple of days.
She knew how essential that was out West, that we have wildland
firefighters who can work year-round and be paid decently so we are
actually there on the job.
I was proud to cosponsor her legislation this year, the West Coast
Ocean Protection Act, to prohibit the exploration, development, and
production of oil off the west coast, a mutual concern of those of the
west coast that our coast and our multiple fisheries--our crabbing, our
whiting, our shrimp, our salmon, our groundfish--are not damaged by
oil, that our shoreline is not damaged by oil.
It was essential, she felt, that we preserve the health of our oceans
against the potential damage of drilling off the coast. In fact, she
was a strong voice in this modern conversation about climate change.
She understood climate chaos and how the changing temperatures are
affecting us in so many different ways.
At one point when we were serving on the Appropriations Committee
together, I had a simple amendment that supported our international
obligation to help fund an intergovernmental panel on climate change,
and we had a deal between legislators on both sides of the aisle that
we would simply hold a voice vote because legislators across the aisle
felt it should be passed. But they knew anything that related to
climate was so controversial, and they didn't want to bring that
controversy into the discussion about honoring a treaty obligation. So
the agreement was to pass it by voice vote.
When I proposed the amendment, Senator Dianne Feinstein spoke up--I
hadn't filled her in on the background--and she said: This issue is
about climate. It is so important we should hold a recorded vote.
I probably went a little bit pale because I wasn't sure that, as a
recorded vote, we could vote to honor our international agreement. But,
fortunately, and just by a single vote, we did. It worked out. But it
just shows her commitment to having a public discussion, public votes,
public accountability to take on this incredibly significant challenge
that we have faced with the changing climate.
Senator Feinstein helped open the doors of the Senate to so many
other women legislators. She took weapons off the street. She believed
torture was un-American and unacceptable, and those who are responsible
must be held accountable.
She raised vehicle emissions standards and protected so many of
California's and America's beautiful outdoor spaces for future
generations, including the interest she had in protecting Lake Tahoe.
Yesterday, Senator Feinstein, who did so much to open this government
to so many, cast her final vote in the U.S. Senate. It was a vote to
keep this government open, keep the American Government serving the
American people.
She lived an exceptional life--a life dedicated to public service.
She has left behind an enormous public legacy--a legacy of tenacity, a
legacy of and willingness to build bridges across the aisle to solve
problems. I hope that many of us can just hope to do as well.
My thoughts are with her daughter Katherine and her granddaughter
Eileen. It was an honor and privilege to serve with Senator Dianne
Feinstein here in the U.S. Senate.
Thank you.
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.
Ms. LUMMIS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. LUMMIS. Madam President, I am honored to have had my first term
in the U.S. Senate coincide with Dianne Feinstein's time here in this
Senate.
When I learned this morning that she had passed away--the longest
serving woman in the U.S. Senate--two words came to my mind: patience
and kindness. The Bible says that love is patient and kind.
Senator Feinstein and I disagreed on policy much of the time, but
never regarding patience and kindness. Dianne Feinstein was unfailingly
kind. She was particularly kind to other women Senators. She was the
first to invite other women Senators to dinner, to lead our gatherings,
and to focus our attention on things that are good for all Americans,
without regard to political ideology.
As someone who arrived in the Senate the same week as January 6, that
day set the tone for many of my first months in the U.S. Senate. But
that day never set the tone for my relationship with Senator Dianne
Feinstein. My conversations with her, from beginning to end, were
unfailingly cordial and kind.
Particularly poignant were my observations of the relationship
between Senator Feinstein and her colleague from California, Senator
Alex Padilla. The conversations I enjoyed with Senator Feinstein and
Senator Padilla displayed his admiration and respect for his senior
Senate colleague, based on a yearslong working relationship going back
to his internship for her. And his importance to her is on display in
the beautiful artwork she created for him. That was a beautiful
California duo. I know that Senator Padilla will do her honor in
becoming California's senior Senator.
So I conclude with positive memories of Dianne Feinstein--Senator,
colleague, and hopefully for both of us, friend. That is a lovely way
to set the tone for political opposites going forward.
If patience and kindness is what love is, then that is also what
Senator Dianne Feinstein is. Senator Dianne Feinstein is love. I salute
her service.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.

[[Page S4823]]

Unanimous Consent Request

Mr. JOHNSON. Madam President, I am very glad that you have taken the
chair to preside because I want to talk about something I think is kind
of near and dear to your heart. This is something that I passed in the
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee in the Senate back
in 2019, and this was passed with bipartisan support. I am talking
about a bill called the Prevent Government Shutdowns Act.
Following passage, I wrote an article in the Wall Street Journal. I
just want to read the first two paragraphs of that column, published on
September 22, 2019:

If the Legislature in my home state of Wisconsin fails to
pass the next year's appropriation bills, we don't shut
government agencies down. We fund them at the previous year's
appropriation levels. Doesn't that make sense?
That common-sense approach should apply in Washington, but
it doesn't. By the time I arrived in 2011, Congress's
appropriations process was completely broken.

It still is.

The United States has since had--

Again, this is as of September 2019.

--the United States has since had three government shutdowns,
passed 34 continuing resolutions to avoid shutdowns, raised
or suspended the debt ceiling nine times and--

Again, this was just 4 years ago.

--increased the federal debt $8.5 trillion.

So here we are, a couple days before the end of the fiscal year, 4
years later--our debt, by the way, has more than doubled; it stands at
$33 trillion now--and we are facing a shutdown.
Isn't this ridiculous? There is no reason for this.
Again, back in June of 2019, I tasked up my committee members. I
said: OK. I want to pass a bill that will end all government shutdowns
forever. Take it off the table.
Now, there have been a number of bills designed to do that offered in
both Chambers, both the House and the Senate.
I have three members of the committee--four members of the committee
have their own bills.
The bill I selected to debate, mark up, and pass was one offered by
Senators James Lankford and Maggie Hassan.
I chose that bill because--one bill actually increased spending; one
bill decreased spending. But the Hassan-Lankford bill did what we do in
Wisconsin: You don't shut an agency down; you don't shut the government
down; you just keep spending at last year's level until the legislature
can get its act together and appropriate the funds.
So that bill that I chose that we passed--by the way, on a bipartisan
basis. I believe every Democratic Senator on the committee voted for it
because Senator Hassan, Senator Lankford did a good job of coming
together in a bipartisan fashion. They put some disciplines in there.
But what it does, it just creates rolling 14-day CRs. With those
disciplines, Members can't travel back on the government dime. You only
have a 24-hour shutdown, I believe. There are other disciplines there
that put pressure on the process to get our act together and start
appropriating bills.
If you don't get it done in the first 14 days, you have another 14-
day CR, you do another 14-day CR, until we complete the appropriations
process.
Again, not an efficient way of doing things. I think the reason most
Members say that they don't want to shut down the government is we
realize it is a very inefficient process, and it hurts people. It hurts
people.
So why haven't we passed this in the last 4 years? Why haven't some
of these other preventing government shutdowns acts passed in the past?
Why not? It is ridiculous we haven't done it yet.
The result, by the way, has been what this chart demonstrates. Again,
I already mentioned we are at $33 trillion in debt. It is very
important to recognize how out of control spending is here in
Washington, DC.
When we were debating the omnibus last year, I asked my Republican
colleagues at the Senate lunch: Does anybody know how much the Federal
Government is going to spend this year?
I didn't get any answers. Maybe somebody knew, but they didn't
volunteer to answer.
I went out and asked the Washington press corps, the folks who are
supposed to be reporting on this to our constituents and to the
American public: Does anybody know how much the government spent last
year?
Well, it is over $1 trillion. Well, that is true in terms of
discretionary spending--less than 30 percent of the budget.
By the way, I granted them immediate absolution. I said: I wouldn't
expect you to know how much the Federal Government spends in total
because we never talk about it.
Think of it. The Federal Government is the largest financial entity
in the world, and, in December of 2022, the people I was asking--the
people who should have known this--had no idea what in total the
Federal Government spent. Well, the answer was about $6.2 trillion.
Let me put that in context. That is what this chart shows. The
numbers are pretty small. So I will describe them. This column is
fiscal year 2019 spending. This is the fiscal year before the pandemic
and the pandemic recession.
This column is this fiscal year, fiscal year 2023 estimated spending.
We don't have hard figures yet, but we have a pretty good idea of what
we are going to be spending.
Just 4 years ago, in just the year 2019, total Federal Government
spending was $4.446 trillion--$4.4 trillion. Let me put that in
perspective. In 2002, it was the first time we passed the Rubicon of
spending over $2 trillion in total. Seventeen years later--it took us
17 years to more than double that to $4.4 trillion.
This fiscal year that we are closing out in a couple of days, we will
spend over $6.3 trillion. We are spending $1.9 trillion more this year
than we spent just 4 years ago. This is completely out of control.
By the way, if you put us on a baseline, based on just population
growth and inflation--in other words, take out the massive out-of-
control spending during the pandemic and just put us on a reasonable
baseline--last year, we spent a little more than $5 trillion.
But in the debt ceiling deal--which, by the way, didn't raise the
debt ceiling by a given amount--but House conservatives basically gave
the Speaker to negotiate $1.5 trillion. We have done one of these
Washington games, which is suspending debt. It will probably result in
a debt ceiling of $4 trillion, which will accommodate this massive--
massive--deficit spending.
So again, just to repeat: 4 years ago, $4.4 trillion; 4 years later,
$6.3, almost $6.4 trillion. That is an increase of more than $1.9
trillion. And the deficit this year will be somewhere between $1.7 and
$2 trillion. We need to get this under control.
But I want to make an important point here. As dysfunctional as
Washington, DC, is--it is grotesquely dysfunctional. I come from the
private sector. This would not happen in the private sector. You
wouldn't take 72 or 73 percent of what you spend in your private sector
budget and say: That is on automatic pilot. We are never going to look
at that. We are only going to look at 27 percent of the budget and try
to control that. That is basically what we are doing here with
discretionary spending this year. Twenty-seven percent, we will focus
on that, and we will ignore 73 percent and let it grow out of control.
But again, this is a well-honed process. This isn't--it is
dysfunctional, but the process is in place, and it is a well-honed
process to mortgage our children's future, and we are witnessing that
process.
Again, this is my 13th year. I think every year, at least, a shutdown
has been threatened, as we are threatening this one--again, disquieting
people, worrying people, because if a shutdown does occur, people will
be hurt. We can avoid it.
But this well-honed process is playing out as it has ever since I
have arrived here. Basically, you don't do appropriation bills without
the House, without the Senate. You might start. You might start the
charade, like we did this year, and start passing them in this Chamber,
in September, a few weeks before the fiscal year. Obviously, you don't
have enough time to pass all of them. So then you threaten a government
shutdown.
You predict calamity, and then you load onto a continuing resolution
spending that may or may not be controversial. It is not where you
increase spending. It is not where you put supplemental spending. But
that is what

[[Page S4824]]

we do. So it becomes controversial, and, all of a sudden, here you are
threatening shutdown.
Now the proposal on the table right now in the Senate is: Let's do a
CR with some controversial spending, and we will have that CR end the
day before the Thanksgiving recess--a little pressure on our Members,
just in case we can get our act together to come up with a couple of
massive minibuses or just one massive omnibus to drop on everybody's
desk. And if they want to go home for recess, you had better pass that
now.
Now, my guess is we probably won't be able to get that done in time,
and so we will end up with another CR. This one will probably be
scheduled to expire--oh, I don't know, pick a date. My guess would be
December 23 and December 24--the same process. That is what happened
last year.
Then we get it, again, dropped on our desk--about a 2,000-plus page
bill. Nobody has time to read it, other than the people who wrote it.
And you get the Hobson's choice--vote yes or no. The problem with that,
in addition to just the grotesque dysfunction of it, is the individual
appropriation bills do not get the scrutiny that they deserve.

If you bring up every appropriations bill--12--you have got to start
somewhere around May. You bring up each individual appropriation bill.
Now you can actually scrutinize it. The public can see it. We can offer
amendments.
Again, it is not a panacea. I am not going to say it is going to
completely stop this runaway spending train, but it will be some
constraint. It restores some function to this very dysfunctional place.
So what I have been pushing for, for 4 years--and it is one of the
reasons I withheld my consent on the minibus. And I appreciate the fact
that the chairman and the ranking member of the Appropriations
Committee were willing to work with me and offer me an amendment on the
minibus to try and get a vote to maybe pass the Preventing Government
Shutdown Act, but other people are objecting, and we haven't got that
vote yet.
So here we are, a couple days before a shutdown, and we need to do
something. The House is having, obviously, a difficult time coming up
with a solution. The Senate may pass something that really has no
chance of passing in the House. I think we have to be honest about
that.
So, again, in order to prevent a government shutdown, what we ought
to do is do something that people agree on. You know, rather than
trying to use this moment to jam something through that people don't
all agree with, let's try and pass something people agree with, which
is a bill that will prevent a government shutdown.
Now, I chose a 14-day clean CR--because that is pretty much the
structure of the Prevent Government Shutdowns Act, rolling 14-day CRs,
giving both Chambers the time to act to start passing these bills with
a little bit more scrutiny than what minibuses or an omnibus would
afford. It is a very commonsense approach. It is something we all ought
to agree on. It would prevent a shutdown. It would prevent pain to real
people. And all we have to do is agree to do what we all say we want to
do, to avoid what we all say we want to avoid--a government shutdown.
So, Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed
to the immediate consideration of my bill, which is at the desk. I
further ask that the bill be considered read a third time and passed,
and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the
table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Hassan). Is there objection?
The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, reserving the right to object, we can't
be back here in the same situation in 2 weeks. We need a CR that gives
us the actual time to get through our bipartisan spending bills.
Believe me, I would love to say we could get this done in 2 weeks. But
we know that is not realistic, because even the three that passed
unanimously out of my committee have run into delays, as the Senator
from Wisconsin knows all too well.
And, just as importantly, this bill does nothing to reauthorize time-
sensitive programs. It does not reauthorize the FAA, which means chaos
for air travelers. It doesn't reauthorize our community health centers
and other critical primary care programs, which means patients in our
underserved areas will lose access to programs they need.
And it doesn't protect our wildland firefighters from a drastic pay
cut. It doesn't extend disaster relief funding or Ukraine's aid.
We have before this body a carefully negotiated bipartisan CR that
does include all of those absolutely essential policies, that has
already garnered more than enough support to pass here in the Senate,
and that I am confident will pass the House as soon as Speaker McCarthy
actually puts it to a vote.
That is where our attention needs to be, not on a slapdash bill that
puts us back here in 2 weeks and completely leaves air travel, health
care providers, firefighters, and so much more in a lurch.
I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mrs. MURRAY. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________