[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 176 (Wednesday, October 25, 2023)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5163-S5171]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          LEGISLATIVE SESSION

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
resume legislative session.
  The Senator from Ohio.


                Amendment No. 1210 to Amendment No. 1092

  Mr. VANCE. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 1210, and ask 
that it be reported by number.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Ohio [Mr. Vance] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1210 to amendment No. 1092.

  The amendment is as follows:

    (Purpose: To prohibit funds appropriated for the Department of 
 Transportation for fiscal year 2024 from being used to enforce a mask 
               mandate in response to the COVID-19 virus)

       At the appropriate place in title I of division C, insert 
     the following:
       Sec. ___.  None of the funds appropriated or made available 
     by this division for the Department of Transportation for 
     fiscal year 2024 may be used to enforce a mask mandate in 
     response to the COVID-19 virus.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 2 minutes equally divided on this 
amendment.
  Mr. VANCE. Mr. President, we are, unfortunately, in a world where 
COVID will be with us for the rest of our lives. That is not a good 
thing. It is not a thing to celebrate, but it is a thing to accept.
  What we do not have to accept and what we do not have to make part of 
our lives is the never-ending cycle of public health panic that greets 
the rise of a respiratory virus that there is very little we can do to 
stop or control. What we do not have to accept is airline passengers 
fighting amongst each other and fighting with flight attendants because 
the flight attendants are asked to enforce a mask mandate. What we do 
not have to accept is that we respond to a public health problem with 
panic and with fear.
  We know, of course, that the era of mask mandates caused a lot of 
problems. It caused problems for our kids. It caused developmental 
delays for school children. It caused a lot of rancor and a lot of 
division within our common American family.
  If people want to wear masks, of course, they should be able to. But 
if people don't want to wear masks on airplanes, on transit, they 
should have that option as well, and that is all that my amendment 
does. It is narrowly scoped. It applies for the next 11 months, and it 
applies to transportation cases. And I think it is reasonable to not 
ask the American people to reenter the era of mask mandates. My 
amendment does that, and I ask that my colleagues support it.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, just to point out, this amendment only 
applies to surface transportation, Amtrak and passenger rail in 
particular. I think it is counterproductive. I understand the point 
that the Senator from Ohio is making. But the problem right now--look, 
I don't think President Biden or the head of Amtrak or Secretary 
Buttigieg or anyone else is, at all, planning to implement any kind of 
mask mandate in the foreseeable future.
  But he said something that I agree with, which is that COVID is going 
to be with us for the foreseeable future and there will be new 
variants. And if it looks the same, it looks same. But if

[[Page S5164]]

it is, say, 10 times as virulent, 100 times as deadly and airborne, 
then I do think public health officials should be able to consult with 
Agencies to try to figure out what measures ought to work.
  And for those reasons, I oppose this amendment.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 1210

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  Mr. VANCE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Fetterman) and the Senator from California (Mr. Padilla) are 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from South Carolina (Mr. Scott).
  The result was announced--yeas 59, nays 38, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 266 Leg.]

                                YEAS--59

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

                                NAYS--38

     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Butler
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coons
     Cortez Masto
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Gillibrand
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Hickenlooper
     Hirono
     King
     Lujan
     Markey
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Murphy
     Murray
     Ossoff
     Peters
     Reed
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warnock
     Warren
     Welch
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Fetterman
     Padilla
     Scott (SC)
  The amendment (No. 1210) was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Cortez Masto). The majority leader.


                           Order of Business

  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that at 2:15 
p.m., the Senate vote on the Rubio No. 1237 and Kennedy No. 1354 
amendments, and that at 5:45 p.m., the Senate vote on Lankford 
amendment No. 1232, with all previous provisions remaining in effect.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                            American Energy

  Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, I come to the floor today to talk 
about the need for more American energy. Joe Biden's policies are 
destructive to our Nation, and that is because he continues to put 
liberal priorities first and America last.
  Last week, the Biden administration agreed to ease oil sanctions on 
Nicolas Maduro's brutal socialist regime in Venezuela. Let's be clear. 
I want to be clear about what is going on here. Venezuela gets to 
produce more oil. President Biden is putting Venezuelan oil production 
ahead of American oil production. He is prioritizing Venezuelan energy 
workers over Wyoming and American energy workers.
  Our energy workers at home are rightly asking: When is Joe Biden 
going to ease the sanctions that he has put on American energy 
production?
  Because, since day one, American oil, American natural gas, American 
coal producers have been in the President's crosshairs. He refused to 
change course, even when gas prices skyrocketed.
  Well, Biden certainly has never encouraged more American production 
like he has around the world in Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, and even 
Russia at one point. Instead, Joe Biden has raided the Strategic 
Petroleum Reserve, and he did it to deflect blame for high energy costs 
at the gas pump. That was in the runup to the midterm elections. So he 
used our energy stockpile emergency supply for his own political gain. 
And it is disgraceful.
  America's energy reserve is now 45 percent lower than it was when Joe 
Biden entered office, much lower than it was when he was Vice 
President. Our emergency supply is actually at a 40-year low in terms 
of the energy supply we need for emergencies.
  With the Hamas terrorists' attack against Israel, there is more 
uncertainty in global oil production, and our own stockpiles here at 
home are dangerously low. And this could be the time when we need it 
the most.
  So, last week, the administration came to the conclusion: Well, maybe 
we ought to try to fill it up again. So he has announced the purchase 
of 6 million barrels of oil to help replenish our emergency supply. Six 
million barrels is a drop in the bucket compared to the 290 million 
barrels that the President has already drained. The President's 
administration plan is too little, too late, and it comes at too high 
of a price. President Biden is offering 79 cents a barrel for these 6 
million barrels of oil to help start to replenish the emergency 
reserve. Well, the price of oil now is $90 a barrel.
  So Joe Biden is going, once again, on bended knee to dictators, 
begging them to produce more oil and sell it to the United States. 
Maybe he believes this begging will lower oil prices and increase his 
abysmal approval ratings. But turning to dictators is not a way to 
govern, and it is not a way to focus on America's national interests.
  Joe Biden continues to turn his back on America's workers, on 
American families; and, once again, he is putting liberal politics 
first and American energy workers and the American public last.
  Maduro isn't Joe Biden's first date with a dictator. Oh, no. He has 
been coddling dictators, and he is making it a habit. He tried to 
placate Vladimir Putin by choosing not to impose sanctions on Russia's 
Nord Stream 2 Pipeline to Germany, and what the President got in return 
for his appeasement was more Russian aggression and Russia attacking 
Ukraine.
  While the President was draining our strategic emergency oil 
reserves, he was looking for ways that the Ayatollah in Iran could sell 
more oil. It is astonishing. He foolishly refused to enforce maximum 
pressure sanctions against Iranian oil, and this refusal allowed Iran 
to line its pockets with $80 billion from selling oil exports.
  I wonder what they could have used that money for. Well, let's look.
  The President continues to kiss up to Iran. He cut a deal to send $6 
billion in sanctioned funds to Iran. In return, Iran was able to expand 
its support and financing of terrorist groups like Hamas.
  Today, the world is witnessing the devastation and the violence 
inflicted by Iranian-backed-and-funded terrorism. Hamas's unprovoked 
attack against Israel killed thousands of civilians, including 
children, with at least 33 Americans dead, more missing.
  President Biden has not learned from his mistakes because he 
continues to repeat the mistakes over and over again. This appeasement 
by Joe Biden will not work. It didn't work with Russia. It didn't work 
with Iran. It is not going to work with Venezuela. But President Biden 
refused to do what we know will work--will work here at home--and that 
is, unleash American energy.
  The President's administration has used every trick in the book to 
smother American production of oil, gas, and coal. It has had an 
extreme negative impact on families all across America and on our 
Nation's economy.
  Look, before the COVID pandemic, the Energy Information 
Administration, they forecasted that here in America, we would produce 
about 14 million barrels every day this year--14 million barrels of oil 
a day. Through June of this year, due to Joe Biden's attacks on 
American production, production is running way, way behind

[[Page S5165]]

what was anticipated and what we need as a nation. As a result, we are 
turning to countries for the 1.4 million barrels a day that we need 
additional.
  We are way behind, and it is not just energy. This President 
continues to outsource not just our supply of oil and gas but our 
mineral supply--critical minerals that we need here in the United 
States. The Democrats' reckless tax-and-spending bill just accelerates 
that.
  Last week, I issued a report proving how the Democrats' reckless tax-
and-spending bill moves the United States away from energy independence 
to energy and mineral dependence. An energy transition dependent on 
China, Russia, Iran, Venezuela, the tyrants and the terrorists there is 
not what our Nation needs, but it is what Joe Biden has brought upon 
us. Yep, it is what he caused.

  America should never have to beg for energy, for minerals from 
anybody, let alone from dictators. Our energy policy should enrich 
American people. The American economy should be strengthened by it. 
Instead, Joe Biden's policies, dictated by the liberal left, are 
enriching our enemies.
  America's energy policy must always put affordable, reliable American 
energy first. We must put America first. We must unleash American 
energy. That is the solution to help build our economy, build our 
country.
  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. CAPITO. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                                 Israel

  Mrs. CAPITO. Madam President, we were here last week when I addressed 
the floor on this very issue that I want to talk about again because it 
is so absolutely critical to the world's security and our security, 
because violence is continuing to rage in Israel. We continue to hear 
the horrific and heartbreaking stories of Hamas's vicious attack on 
innocent Israeli civilians and families, and our own American citizens 
remain unaccounted for and are being held hostage by Hamas in the wake 
of their unjustifiable terrorist attack on the nation of Israel.
  In this Chamber and in this country, our support for Israel and their 
right to defend themselves must be unwavering. We must stand with our 
ally and friend as they continue to withstand barbaric attacks from 
terrorist militant groups and threats from all directions.
  There is absolutely no question that now is the time for American 
leadership. Our response needs to be united, and our response needs to 
meet the urgency of a moment just like this. As a world power, the 
United States of America has both the responsibility and the 
wherewithal to support our allies, especially as they come under attack 
by nefarious adversaries. It becomes vitally important that our Nation 
recognize this, that the American public hear the stories from those in 
Israel, and that we understand the brutal, inhumane, and devastating 
tactics that Hamas is deploying on the residents of the Jewish state.
  Last week, I had the opportunity to speak with two American families 
who have members who are being held hostage in Gaza by the terrorist 
organization Hamas. These stories are gut-wrenching--one, a 3-year-old 
child; the other, a married couple--and bring to light what is truly 
happening in Israel right now. Elderly families were ripped from their 
homes, children taken from their parents, family members executed in 
front of their loved ones.
  I am a mother myself and a grandmother, and I know everyone in this 
Chamber and everybody listening has members of their own family and 
loved ones they care about so deeply. So can we really imagine what 
that feels like? This is the reality that the Israeli people are facing 
every day.
  These attacks need to be condemned and denounced in the strongest 
possible terms, and they have been, and it makes it all the more 
imperative that the United States provide the support it needs to stop 
and root out the evil Hamas.
  It is impossible--impossible--to understate--or to overstate, even--
the outside role that Iran has played in these past 18 days since the 
initial attack. We know--we know--that Iran is financially supporting 
Hamas. We know in the strongest terms that Iran has helped reinforce 
Hamas's military strengths and capabilities and training. We know that 
Iran is backing Hezbollah, to the north in Lebanon, who stands at the 
ready to open a second front of this war along the Israel-Lebanon 
border.
  We know that the Iranian-backed militias are responsible for the 
recent attacks on U.S. personnel stationed in the Middle East, and we 
know that Iran harbors deep resentment and hatred for our own United 
States and our ally Israel. Make no mistake, Iran is an evil empire, 
and they must be held accountable for these attacks as well. Sanctions 
need to be imposed and enforced on this regime and all others that are 
complicit in the illicit Iranian oil trade, which funds terror and 
aggression in the Middle East.
  The unmistakable anti-American hatred from Iran and its allies 
creates greater questions regarding our own national security. It 
highlights the importance of our investments in our own homeland 
security and national defense. We are at a very difficult juncture 
right now, and the security of America and the defense of our allies 
should remain our first priority.
  In addition to the terrorist attacks in Israel, there is a large-
scale ground war in Europe perpetrated by Russia, the likes of which we 
have not seen since World War II. China continues to increase their 
posture and presence toward Taiwan. And our southern border is totally 
porous. It remains under siege.
  And 2.48 million immigrants came across our border in fiscal year 
2023, a new record--a new record. Just last month, we set another new 
record: over 269,000 encounters at the southern border and then not to 
mention that 169 of these encounters were people on our terror 
watchlist, which is more than the last 6 fiscal years all tied 
together.
  So what does that tell you? We are not sheltered from terrorism. We 
can't think that what we see going on in the Middle East can't come 
here. We know it has been on our shores before, and there is no reason 
it can't come back unless we do something where we make intentional 
investments.
  So now is the time to make those investments into our national 
security across the board. Support for Israel, Ukraine, the Indo-
Pacific, and our southern border is paramount and will serve to 
directly invest back into our own country and our own defense.
  America's place on the world stage requires a level of leadership and 
accountability that we must accept with authority--we are the 
superpower--while we must always prioritize the needs of our own 
country first and then the support of our allies.
  The good news is that when we are supporting the defense of our 
allies, we are also investing in deterrence and also supporting our own 
security and deterrence.
  I am supportive of providing supplemental funding towards our defense 
capabilities--our southern border, Israel, Ukraine, and Indo-Pacific 
allies--because it is in the best interest of our country, our 
citizens, our neighbors, but I say in the strongest terms, I mentioned 
the southern border, but this must be front and center of any kind of 
supplemental that comes forward.
  The Senate will have its say on the supplemental. The President has 
put his proposal before us. I would venture to say that will 
drastically change. The buckets may not change so much, but certainly 
the areas of influence will, and we will have a bill that creates and 
reflects our own thoughts, what we think. We need to craft a response 
to the attacks on Israel and other national security emergencies of 
this time.
  I believe the Biden administration has been defined by its shakiness. 
The Senate needs to be defined by its strength and make certain that 
our country is ready and able to act.
  There is no doubt that the United States is currently being tested by 
our adversaries, but we must make certain that we don't respond with 
weakness. By working together--and I think we will and can--I am 
confident in our ability to lead.

[[Page S5166]]

  We must meet this moment, as our Nation has done in times of trial 
before. That is what will define this body, and we will move our 
country forward.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mrs. FISCHER. Madam President, 18 days ago, terror shook the Middle 
East. Eighteen days ago, Hamas tore children from their parents and 
tore mothers, fathers, brothers, and sisters from their families. 
Eighteen days ago, terrorism swept across Israel, destroying everything 
in its path.
  We all know this. We have heard about these attacks repeatedly with 
every news cycle. Even as we continue reading articles, hearing 
analyses, and seeing new information, let us not forget the reality of 
these terror attacks, the seriousness of such a massive loss of human 
life.
  Hamas killed over 1,400 people, over 1,400 innocent civilians, in its 
attacks this month. Death touched thousands of friends and family 
members, and its aftereffects are still rippling across Israel and 
across the world.
  Let us resist our modern impulse to leave this tragedy behind in 
favor of the next headline, the next crisis. Let us allow the abuse, 
the torture, and the murder of Israelis and Americans alike to strike a 
fresh sense of grief and anger in our hearts every time we hear about 
them. That grief and anger must drive us to respond to the horror of 
terrorism.
  Israel is responding, yes, but the response to terrorism should not 
be bound by Israel's national borders because terrorism itself is not 
bound by national borders.
  Hamas killed American citizens in its attack on innocent people 
across Israel. Terrorists are still holding American citizens hostage 
in Gaza. Hamas has American blood on its hands.
  One American, Hayim Katsman, hid in a closet with his neighbor as 
Hamas militants rained gunfire on an Israeli village. A neighbor told 
CNN that Katsman covered him with his body and saved his life by 
absorbing the bullets.
  American Deborah Matias and her husband sacrificed themselves for 
their 16-year-old son, acting as human shields against Hamas's fire.
  Two American brothers, Igal and Amit Wachs, died together, both 
trying to save those around them. Amit, who volunteered as head of the 
village's self-defense unit, ran outside to help his neighbors at the 
beginning of the attack. In the process, he was killed. Igal was killed 
as he searched for a weapon to defend himself and his family.
  These are real people--real Americans--whose lives were extinguished 
far too early by the terror in Israel.
  It is critical that we see the return of every American stranded in 
Israel or held hostage in Gaza. Every American must be accounted for 
and safely brought home.
  Following the coldblooded slaughter of both Americans and Israelis, 
the United States must stand firmly with Israel. We must send a clear 
message to Hamas, to Hezbollah, and to their state sponsor, Iran: We 
will not equivocate in our support for Israel. We will stand with them 
and provide the assistance they need as they make difficult decisions 
to defend their sovereign nation.

  Congress and the administration must work together to gather all of 
our diplomatic and economic strength against Iran. We must work 
together to aid Israel, whether through economic support, lethal aid, 
or increased intelligence sharing.
  We know Israel will need more defensive capabilities, including Tamir 
interceptors for its Iron Dome air defense system, the backbone of its 
missile defense architecture. I support the Department of Defense's 
current plans to send our two Iron Dome batteries to Israel to bolster 
their security.
  My colleagues and I introduced a bill to reallocate aid funding to 
Israel's Iron Dome that could have ended up in Hamas's pocket. This 
legislation would be an important first step in defending Israel 
against future attacks.
  We know Israel will need more offensive capabilities, including 
precision-guided munitions to hit specific ground targets. We know 
Israel will need our intelligence on the Middle East so it can 
eliminate the Hamas threat completely. And we know standing with Israel 
against terror will buttress and fortify our own national defense and 
our own national security. Our support for Israel will help it triumph 
over terrorism, and our support for Israel will help us show strength 
and deter our adversaries. By protecting Israeli interests, we will 
promote American interests as well.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Rosen). The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. BUDD. Madam President, the world is still reeling from Hamas's 
brutal massacre of more than 1,400 Israelis and 33 Americans on October 
7. Israel is completely justified in their response to the worst attack 
on their nation since the Yom Kippur War 50 years ago.
  Israel's ultimate goal is and it rightly should be the destruction of 
Hamas. The United States must stand shoulder to shoulder with Israel 
and support this goal with lethal aid and intelligence support. In the 
coming weeks, Congress will consider the President's request for 
emergency national security funding that is aimed at doing just that.
  Beyond debating the specifics of how much or what type of aid we 
send, I believe now is the time to rethink U.S. policy when it comes to 
the Hamas government and Gaza.
  Beginning with their founding charter, the ideology of Hamas is 
motivated by anti-Semitism and genocidal--that is right, genocidal--
intentions towards the Jewish people. In fact, the Hebrew word 
``hamas'' means ``violence.''
  Since Hamas took power in the Gaza Strip in 2006, they have continued 
this violence and terrorism against Israel and their allies. Hamas 
employs murder, rape, torture, and unspeakable brutality against the 
Jewish people. Hamas even fires rockets indiscriminately towards 
Israeli civilians, many of which misfire and land, killing people in 
their own Gaza, innocent Palestinians.
  Make no mistake, the only word to describe Hamas is ``evil,'' and 
when they commit atrocities like those of October 7, we must not look 
away.
  One aspect of the October 7 attack that continues to this day is the 
plight of the more than 200 innocent people currently being held 
hostage in Gaza, including several Americans, including some from my 
own State of North Carolina.
  Last week, I met with some of these families here in Washington. They 
told me stories about their loved ones and gave me their photos. These 
families--their fear and their heartache are something that no American 
should ever have to face.
  Part of the President's funding package is so-called humanitarian aid 
in Gaza. Given that Gaza is governed by Hamas, I simply don't believe 
it is right to give a dime of taxpayer money to the very terrorists who 
are holding Americans hostage.
  When this funding package comes to the floor, I plan to offer several 
amendments to hold all humanitarian aid to Gaza until each and every 
American hostage is home and is safe. And we should go further. U.S. 
and other foreign humanitarian aid should no longer be used as a crutch 
for Hamas to hold on to power.
  The United States shouldn't be giving any money to Gaza until Hamas 
is no longer the de facto government. For the sake of innocent 
Israelis, innocent Palestinians, and for the future of peace in the 
Middle East, we must stop propping up such an evil regime with U.S. 
aid. It is my hope that the upcoming spending package includes more 
than just money, but that it demonstrates the strength and wisdom that 
this moment requires.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. HOEVEN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
allowed to speak for up to 5 minutes, followed by Senator Graham for up 
to 5 minutes, prior to the scheduled rollcall votes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HOEVEN. Madam President, as elected Members of Congress, our most 
important obligation is the safety and security of all Americans. 
Events here at our southern border and across the globe are putting at 
risk the safety and security of Americans today.
  We are appalled by the terrorist attacks Hamas committed against 
Israel. Those attacks did great harm to the

[[Page S5167]]

people of Israel and also to American citizens, some of whom are still 
being held hostage.
  We support Israel's efforts to secure the release of all of the 
hostages held by Hamas.
  That means we also expect the Government of Qatar to do more to bring 
those hostages safely out of Gaza. I say that because the Government of 
Qatar hosts the leadership of Hamas. That is where the leadership of 
Hamas is. I find it remarkable that they are living in Qatar rather 
than in Gaza. It says a lot; doesn't it? But because they are there, 
the Government of Qatar is in a position to do a lot more and be 
helpful in getting these hostages released.
  We continue to stand--and we will continue to stand--with Israel as 
it prepares to remove Hamas from power in Gaza, and that is something 
they must do for their own safety and really for the safety of many 
other countries, as well, because Hamas is a terrorist organization 
dedicated to terror. That means killing indiscriminately, and that is 
exactly what they have been doing and what they are doing.
  We know that this will require the Israeli people to make enormous 
sacrifices, but that these sacrifices will ultimately bring security to 
Israel and to the region. More broadly, we know that many Americans, 
including members of our military, our diplomats, and many civilians in 
the Middle East, are threatened by violence instigated by Iran.
  We owe it to these Americans to provide the protection they need and 
to deter further violence from Iran. So we must set aside fruitless 
negotiations with the terror regime in Tehran, increase sanctions, and 
demonstrate that we will respond forcefully to Iranian-backed violence 
against our people and our interests.
  The threats that Americans face are not confined to the Middle East. 
Our porous southern border opens the door to threats that can emerge 
here at home--threats from terrorists--and we need to address that. 
Instability in the Middle East and other parts of the world make 
securing our southern border even more urgent.
  We must identify who is attempting to enter the United States and 
stop those who are entering our country illegally. A secure border 
helps us identify potential threats before they get inside the United 
States.
  Just last week, Customs and Border Protection confirmed that the 
United States experienced the highest ever monthly encounters at the 
southern border, nearly 270,000--270,000--in 1 month. And with nearly 
2.5 million crossings, fiscal year 2023 has now seen the highest ever 
annual toll of encounters at the southern border, almost 2.5 million. 
And, to make matters worse, in fiscal year 2023, a record number of 
individuals from the terror watchlist--from the terror watchlist--
attempted to cross into the United States.
  Think about that--from the terror watchlist. DHS admits that this is 
a growing threat. Its most recent ``Homeland Threat Assessment'' found 
that the Department is seeing annual increases of individuals on the 
terror watchlist attempting to illegally cross into the United States. 
Specifically, the report found that ``as part of the overall increase 
in migration, we have also encountered a growing number of individuals 
in the Terrorist Screening Data Set (TSDS), also known as the 
`watchlist.''' Hamas and other violent extremists certainly are aware 
of this vulnerability.
  We know what the solutions are. The Biden administration won't 
enforce them. Everyone knows what the solutions are: Enforce the 
``Remain in Mexico'' policy, enforce the ``safe third country'' 
agreements--we know they work. The last administration proved it. We 
know they work. But the Biden administration will not enforce them, and 
they need to. Border security is national security--and finish building 
the border wall.
  As we consider proposals to aid our allies, we must not forget to 
also secure our own border. Border security is national security. 
Meaningful border security provisions should be included as part of our 
efforts to make Americans safer and more secure.
  As we stand with Israel--and we must stand with Israel--we must also 
secure our southern border.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President, I think Senator Hoeven is absolutely 
right. If we don't secure our border, it would be a big mistake.
  I just returned from Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt with a 10-
person--5 and 5--Senate delegation. So the Senate is working. I am glad 
we have a Speaker of the House. But we had five Republicans and five 
Democrats, and here is the takeaway.
  This is happening in Israel now because Iran fears reconciliation 
between Saudi Arabia and Israel. Building on the Abraham Accords that 
President Trump was able to achieve, President Biden has been working 
to try to get Saudi Arabia and Israel to have diplomatic ties and to 
recognize each other to end the Arab-Israeli conflict. That is a 
nightmare for Iran. For the region to come together, look forward; go 
to the light, not the darkness.
  Here is what we have to decide as a country. Let's not let Iran win 
here.
  To our Arab allies, to our friends in Turkey, this barbaric attack on 
Israel by Hamas is beyond what happened in the Holocaust. I have seen 
the photos. It is so vicious. It is so lacking any humanity.
  Does it have a purpose? Yes. They filmed it so Israel had to go in.
  The Ayatollah wants Israel to have to take action, hoping the world 
will turn on Israel, call for a cease-fire, and let time pass so that 
the moment to reconcile between Saudi Arabia and Israel passes. It is 
putting pressure on our allies in Jordan, in Egypt, and in Turkey by 
saying some pretty provocative things to our Arab allies, to our 
Turkish friends.
  This attack by Hamas against Israel has to be dealt with by the 
destruction of Hamas. If you are in the region and you are expecting 
Israel not to go on the ground, that is not going to happen. You cannot 
destroy Hamas from the air. They are going in on the ground, and they 
are going to destroy Hamas to the best they can.
  The goal then is to have a Palestinian plan that would give hope to 
the Palestinians who lost all hope and to continue the reconciliation 
process. As long as Hamas exists, there is no hope for peace.
  It was mentioned in Turkey that Hamas is a liberator group. Hamas 
could care less about the Palestinian people. They want to destroy the 
Jewish people. If you don't believe me, listen to what they say. They 
are not trying to achieve a better life for the Palestinian people. 
They are trying to kill all the Jews. That is their charter, their 
religious nonsense.
  To expect Israel not to go in is unrealistic. They are going to go 
in, and they are going to have our full support. The goal is to destroy 
Hamas without destroying the chance for peace.
  I see an opportunity here, once Hamas has been dismantled, to bring 
the region together to get the Palestinian people a better life. The 
Iranian Ayatollah is the great Satan--not Israel, not the United 
States. He is a religious Nazi. He wants to purify Islam in his own 
image. He wants to destroy the Jewish State and come after us. It is a 
religious theocracy that can't be compromised with.
  Here is what I would say we need to do today. Let the Iranians know 
if there is a second front opened by Hezbollah against Israel--which 
could be devastating--that we will be going to Iran to fix the problem. 
If one American soldier is killed by Shiite militia attacks against our 
forces in Syria and Iraq, we are going to blame the Ayatollah.
  I appreciate moving the military force forward--two carrier battle 
groups--and moving assets into the region. I do not want a war, but I 
am tired of living this way.
  The Ayatollah needs to know that a second front means three fronts--
that we are coming after you. We are going to destroy your ability to 
fund terrorism.
  Ninety-three percent of all the money Hamas receives comes from Iran. 
All of their money comes from their oil industry. They are incredibly 
exposed to being knocked out of business.
  To the Members of the Senate here, we need to tell Iran clearly what 
happens: If you escalate against America, you escalate against Israel, 
you will be in the crosshairs of American military response. It is your 
choice to make.
  If you want a war with America, you will lose it. If you continue to 
try to

[[Page S5168]]

throw gasoline on a fire, you are going to regret it. Anything short of 
a military response being real to the Ayatollah will lead to more 
bloodshed. So if you want a smaller war, well, let Iran know: You are 
going to be in a bigger war if you attack Israel or kill an American.
  If we don't do that, we are making a huge mistake. I am trying to 
stand behind the Biden administration. I want to help them reconcile 
Saudi Arabia and Israel. I appreciate what they have done with the 
military force posture moving forward, but it needs to be clear to the 
Iranians: Escalation means an attack on you. And if they believe that, 
I think we can stop this thing from getting bigger. If they don't 
believe it, we are going to wake up with a real big war on our hands 
beyond what we have today.
  I have never been more worried about the situation of the world than 
I am right now. But here is what I am confident of: The Israelis will 
fight. They may get killed, but they are going down fighting. There 
will not be a second Holocaust. The Israeli people, through their IDF, 
will fight anybody who tries to destroy the Jewish people. That is 
Hamas. They want to kill all the Jews. I can't believe this is being 
said in 2023. To the world: To get to our friends in Israel, you have 
to come through us. If you want to destroy all the Jews, you have to 
come through America. And good luck with that.
  I want peace between the Arabs and the Israelis. I want a better life 
for the Iranian people. I want a better life for the Palestinian 
people. But you cannot have a better life when the forces of darkness 
are in control.
  Destroy Hamas once and for all. Create a better life for the 
Palestinian people. Reconcile the Arab-Israeli conflict, and move 
forward.
  God bless our friends in Israel.


                Amendment No. 1237 to Amendment No. 1092

  Madam President, I call up Senator Rubio's amendment and ask that it 
be reported by number.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Graham], for Mr. 
     Rubio, proposes an amendment numbered 1237 to amendment No. 
     1092.

  The amendment is as follows:

  (Purpose: To prohibit the use of funds to implement the final rule 
  regarding energy efficient standards for certain subsidized housing)

        At the appropriate place in title II of division C, insert 
     the following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used by the Department of Housing and Urban Development to 
     impose updated minimum energy efficiency standards for new 
     housing financed by the Department as part of carrying out 
     the notice entitled ``Adoption of Energy Efficiency Standards 
     for New Construction of HUD- and USDA-Financed Housing'' (88 
     Fed. Reg. 31773 (May 18, 2023)).

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are now up to 2 minutes of debate 
equally divided.
  The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, I wish to speak against this 
amendment. It would hurt low-income families and saddle them with 
higher energy costs.
  The updates that HUD has proposed are estimated to generate cost 
savings of almost 35 percent over current standards and to reduce 
carbon dioxide emissions by an estimated 2.2 million tons.
  That will amount to savings of $74 million a year or a total of $1 
billion to $1\1/2\ billion over 30 years. Now, that is real money that 
households, particularly in northern climates like New Hampshire, can 
use for other needs and millions of tons of carbon dioxide that are 
kept out of the atmosphere.
  The fact is the current standards are outdated; and by law, HUD and 
USDA are supposed to update their standards within 1 year of industry 
revisions.
  This amendment would prevent them from doing that. It will raise 
costs. And as Rob Portman and I worked since 2011, energy efficiency is 
the fastest, cheapest way to deal with our energy needs. We need to 
vote down this amendment. It is no good.


            Vote on Amendment No. 1237 to Amendment No. 1092

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on agreeing to 
amendment No. 1237.
  Mr. PAUL. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mr. Padilla) 
is necessarily absent.
  Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from South Carolina (Mr. Scott).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Baldwin). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote or change their vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 47, nays 51, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 267 Leg.]

                                YEAS--47

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

                                NAYS--51

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

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Padilla
     Scott (SC)
       
  The amendment (No. 1237) was rejected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The junior Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that there be 
up to 6 minutes of debate, equally divided, prior to the scheduled 
rollcall vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                Amendment No. 1354 to Amendment No. 1092

  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I call up my amendment No. 1354, and I 
ask that it be reported by number.
  The clerk will report by number.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Kennedy] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1354 to amendment No. 1092.

  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To prohibit the availability of funds for the Secretary of 
  Veterans Affairs to report certain information to the Department of 
   Justice for use by the National Instant Criminal Background Check 
                                System)

        At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. ___. PROHIBITION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR SECRETARY 
                   OF VETERANS AFFAIRS TO REPORT CERTAIN 
                   INFORMATION REGARDING VETERANS.

       None of the funds made available by this Act may be used by 
     the Secretary of Veterans Affairs under section 5502 of title 
     38, United States Code, in any case arising out of the 
     administration by the Secretary of laws and benefits under 
     such title, to report a person who is deemed mentally 
     incapacitated, mentally incompetent, or to be experiencing an 
     extended loss of consciousness as a person who has been 
     adjudicated as a mental defective under subsection (d)(4) or 
     (g)(4) of section 922 of title 18, United States Code, 
     without the order or finding of a judge, magistrate, or other 
     judicial authority of competent jurisdiction that such person 
     is a danger to himself or herself or others.

  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, before I explain my amendment, I would 
like to yield 30 seconds to my good friend Senator Tester.
  Mr. TESTER. Madam President, I want to thank the Senator from 
Louisiana.
  I rise in support of the Kennedy amendment and in support of the 
Second Amendment rights of veterans in Montana and across this country.
  It is not right that a DC bureaucrat at the VA could take away 
veterans' legal rights to their firearms simply because they need 
assistance in managing their finances.
  A Montana veteran and mental health advocate told me that the VA's 
longstanding policy to threaten veterans' constitutional rights, who 
ask

[[Page S5169]]

for help in managing their affairs, has been a barrier to veterans 
receiving help for years. It is time to end it so veterans can reach 
out for the financial help they need and the mental help they need.
  I agree and don't believe someone who has served this country and who 
needs a fiduciary should have to hire a lawyer and go back to court to 
get their Second Amendment rights back.
  I yield to Senator Kennedy.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, there are 16 million veterans in our 
country. Sometimes some of them need help with managing their financial 
affairs. When they do, they go to the Veterans Health Administration, 
and the Veterans Health Administration appoints a fiduciary to help 
that veteran manage his or her financial affairs.
  But, under current VA policy, if a veteran who defended this country 
has to go to the VA and ask for help with managing his or her financial 
affairs, the VA automatically reports that veteran to the FBI's 
National Instant Criminal Background Check System--we call it NICS--and 
that veteran loses his firearm. He loses his firearm automatically--no 
due process, no questions asked. This decision is not being made by a 
judge; it is being made by a bureaucrat.
  All our amendment would do would be to say that the VA, just because 
you have asked for help with your money, cannot automatically take away 
your firearm or report you to NICS unless a judge has ruled that that 
veteran is a danger to himself or to others.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The junior Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. MURPHY. Madam President, I thought one of the few things that we 
agreed on with firearms was that people with serious mental illness--
people who are judged to be mentally incompetent--shouldn't be able to 
buy guns. That is what we are talking about here today.
  We are not talking about people who just can't balance their 
checkbooks. We are not talking about people who just need some 
assistance with their financial affairs. The standard that the VA uses 
is the standard of mental incompetence. These are veterans who have 
been judged to be mentally incapacitated. And let me put a finer point 
on it. One-third of the veterans we are talking about in this category 
are diagnosed schizophrenics, and this amendment allows for every 
single one of them to have their gun rights restored.
  Some of the most mentally ill people in this Nation--people to whom 
we owe a duty of care; people who are, frankly, more prone to suicide 
than the general population--are now going to be able to get their 
hands on a weapon to kill themselves or others if we pass this. This is 
a death sentence for scores of deeply mentally ill veterans.
  What it does not do is set up some process by which to have a court 
judge whether or not they should own a gun. In fact, there is no 
current cause of action for that to occur. We didn't have to be at this 
point where our only choice is to restore gun rights even to actively 
suicidal veterans. We made an offer to sit down and try to work out a 
compromise--a better appeals process, a mechanism for these veterans to 
go to court--but that did not happen. That offer was not accepted.
  So, instead, we are voting on an amendment that gives gun rights back 
to every single seriously mentally ill veteran who has been judged to 
be mentally incompetent, even those who are actively suicidal. That is 
a death sentence--a death sentence--for thousands of seniors, for 
thousands of veterans all across this country if this becomes law. This 
is a terrible idea, and we should defeat it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The junior Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, with all the respect I can muster, what 
my colleague said is inaccurate.
  Now, I understand this is America; people can believe what they want. 
There are people who wish we didn't have the Second Amendment. I get 
that, but we do. And I agree with Senator Murphy. We both agree on 
this. Chris believes that love is the answer, and I do, too, but I own 
a handgun just in case. That is my right, and every veteran has that 
right. We shouldn't take away a person's gun without a judge--not a 
bureaucrat at the VA--ruling that person to be mentally incompetent.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 1354

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mr. Padilla) 
is necessarily absent.
  Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from South Carolina (Mr. Scott).-
  The result was announced--yeas 53, nays 45, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 268 Leg.]

                                YEAS--53

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

                                NAYS--45

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

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Padilla
     Scott (SC)
       
  The amendment (No. 1354) was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Murphy). The Senator from Illinois.


             Unanimous Consent Request--Executive Calendar

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise to discuss an urgent need: the 
confirmation of two pending U.S. attorney nominees.
  U.S. attorneys across the United States represent the Department of 
Justice. They are the leaders we turn to locally to deal with problems 
beyond local law enforcement's control--problems and challenges from 
Federal law. Whether we are fighting fentanyl epidemics or we are 
fighting those who would undermine this country--many who would cheat 
and steal at the expense of others--we count on professional 
prosecutors to make those decisions.
  We go through a process here where a President will name a potential 
U.S. attorney. That is not the end of the story. The attorney's name is 
then submitted to the Senate Judiciary Committee, which I chair, and 
then it goes through a rigorous bipartisan process and investigation of 
each one of these nominees. Until they clear both sides of the table--
Democrats and Republicans--the nominees don't move. Once having been 
cleared, they are then put up for approval before the Senate Judiciary 
Committee.
  Traditionally, that was virtually the end of the story. The name 
would hit the calendar. The calendar name would be called and approved, 
and the person would move into action.
  Under the previous President, Donald Trump, there was a lot of 
controversy--political controversy associated with all sorts of issues. 
So you have to wonder: Out of the 85 U.S. attorney nominees proposed by 
President Donald Trump, how many of them ran into an obstacle or were 
stopped on the Senate floor by Democrats for political reasons? The 
answer: none, not one.
  Despite all the controversy of the Trump administration, the feeling 
was that it was only fair to these men and women, asking to serve our 
Nation as representatives in the Department of Justice, to give them 
that chance if they cleared the bipartisan background process. They 
did. We gave our approval. They served across the Nation.

[[Page S5170]]

  But, unfortunately, we have come into a new era. U.S. attorneys--law 
enforcement officers who lead our Nation to prosecute violent criminals 
and protect our communities from gun traffickers, gun violence, 
terrorism, and so many other things--are still central to our system of 
justice.
  I have emphasized that the U.S. Attorneys Offices in the Northern 
District of Ohio--that would be Cleveland--and the Northern District of 
Illinois--that would be Chicago--undertake important investigations and 
prosecutions that keep our communities safe.
  The State of Ohio, like many others, suffers from the scourge of 
fentanyl trafficking. We know about this deadly narcotic. It is a 
killer. It is fourth in the Nation for drug overdose deaths. The U.S. 
attorney for the Northern District of Ohio oversees the area's response 
to fatal overdoses from fentanyl through the U.S. Attorney's Heroin and 
Opioid Task Force. I would guess many Ohioans would want to know why 
that task force is waiting for Senate-confirmed leadership.
  In my home State of Illinois, over the last 2 years, the Chicago 
Police Department has recovered more than 10,000 firearms--10,000 a 
year--from various criminal investigations. The U.S. attorney for the 
Northern District of Illinois is responsible for coordinating the 
efforts with all the law enforcement agencies in the Chicago Firearms 
Trafficking Strike Force.
  My constituents can't understand why one Senator from another State 
is blocking the confirmation of one U.S. attorney candidate in 
Illinois, April Perry, who has been found to be highly qualified, not 
only by the White House but by a bipartisan investigative committee of 
the Senate Judiciary Committee.
  April Perry is well-qualified for this job. She would like to be on 
the job and should have been weeks ago, making it safer to live in my 
State.
  Another point I made before is the irony that the Senator who is 
blocking these two nominees is considering this a ``tough on crime'' 
position. Tough on crime when you refuse to put a person in the role of 
prosecutor who is supposed to put these criminals behind bars?
  When he ran for the Senate, my colleague from Ohio pledged to ``fight 
the criminals--not the cops.'' That is his quote. He argued that 
Americans will not be safe if ``politicians keep attacking police 
officers instead of violent criminals.''
  I just have to tell him his strategy of stopping two leading U.S. 
attorneys, one in his State and in the State of Illinois, is the best 
news the criminals have had in a long time.
  The same man who pledged to fight the cops now proudly brags that he 
wants to ``grind the Department of Justice to a halt.'' I am not making 
that up, and he has not denied it. He said his goal is to ``grind the 
U.S. Department of Justice to a halt.''

  Listen to this headline from a recent article in Newsmax:

       Sen. Vance to Newsmax: Blocking DOJ Nominees Makes AG's Job 
     Harder.

  We want to make the Attorney General's job harder when it comes to 
prosecuting drug criminals? Is that what this is all about?
  I said it before, and I will say it again: Senator Vance needs to 
read a resolution he proposed in this body earlier this year and take 
his own advice. He should give law enforcement officers the support and 
resources they need, rather than trying to score political points by 
making their jobs harder.
  Unlike me, Senator Vance doesn't need to worry about sounding like a 
broken record. Each time I come to the floor to ask for unanimous 
consent, he offers a different explanation for why he is blocking the 
confirmation of these highly qualified nominees. First, he claimed he 
was punishing the Justice Department for what he falsely called 
``unprecedented political prosecution'' of former President Trump. As I 
have pointed out, this is a weak excuse for hamstringing law 
enforcement, considering the former President has now been indicted 4 
separate times on 91 different counts and continues to threaten judges, 
prosecutors, jurors, and witnesses.
  Senator Vance also previously stated here on the Senate floor--and I 
quote; it is in the Congressional Record:

       My objection is not specific to the qualifications or the 
     particular individuals that have been nominated.

  He said he wanted to make it clear that it is in reference to both 
Ms. Lutzko in Ohio and Ms. Perry in Illinois.
  In response, I offered the junior Senator from Ohio the opportunity 
to keep his promise to support law enforcement by allowing us to 
schedule confirmation votes on these pending U.S. attorneys--exactly 
what he said he wanted on the Record in the Senate. He looked me in the 
eye and agreed with me. He released his objection to Ms. Lutzko and Ms. 
Perry under the condition that we hold rollcall votes on them, which I 
agreed to.
  Seemingly overnight, he decided that he does object to even holding 
confirmation votes on these nominees. He then claimed that ``expecting 
us to vote on cloture . . . is not too much to ask.'' I was surprised 
to hear that. It was a new wrinkle in his argument, considering that, 
just last month, the junior Senator from Ohio was on the Senate floor 
attempting to force the Senate to skip a cloture vote on one of his 
bills.
  I look forward to hearing what his new argument may be today. If he 
is trying to punish those who are in the process of prosecuting the 
former President of the United States, what is his retribution when it 
comes to the State of Georgia? We now have so many counts naming the 
former President for wrongdoing, and we have four people who have been 
accused who have pled guilty so far in this process. Does he have a 
special agenda now when it comes to the State of Georgia to determine 
whether or not there is going to be some retribution to grind to halt 
the system of justice in that State?
  We have reached the point where it is hard to explain why Senator 
Tuberville of Alabama is stopping military promotions of deserving 
women and men who have risked their lives in service to America, and 
another Republican Senator is stopping ambassadorial positions being 
filled, and now this Senator has decided we have enough criminal 
prosecutors in America to take care of crime; we don't need more.
  We certainly need these two--and many more--doing a professional job.
  So I ask unanimous consent that, at a time to be determined by the 
majority leader in consultation with the Republican leader, the Senate 
proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations: 
Calendar Nos. 314 and 315; that there be 2 minutes of debate, equally 
divided in usual form, on each nomination; that upon the use or 
yielding back time, the Senate proceed to vote, without intervening 
action or debate, on the nominations in the order listed; that the 
motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with 
no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order; 
that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and 
the Senate resume legislative session.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. VANCE. Reserving the right to object, with respect to my 
colleague from Illinois, I heard a number of arguments that I somehow 
changed my tune. What I would say is I haven't changed my tune. The 
Senator from Illinois keeps making different arguments, and I keep 
needing to respond to each one of them.
  But to restate my fundamental problem here, I will note that one of 
the consistent criticisms of my hold on Department of Justice nominees 
is that this is unprecedented; that when Donald Trump was President, we 
let these nominees sail through, and now I am holding up these 
nominations to the Department of Justice. I would counter that what is 
unprecedented is not the hold policy but the Department of Justice 
attempting to throw its political opponents in jail.
  Now, much is made about the political prosecution of Donald Trump. I 
think that is unjustified, and it is, frankly, scary in the world's 
greatest democracy to have the political opposition leader prosecuted 
by the sitting President. That is pretty weird, not something that 
happens a whole lot in the United States of America--and thank God for 
that.
  But you don't even need to make it about the current President. You 
can

[[Page S5171]]

run down any number of everyday conservatives, people who have been 
prosecuted, investigated, harassed by this Department of Justice. It 
should be enforcing the law. It should leave the politics to this 
Chamber and to the electoral process.
  I will continue to object so long as the Department of Justice 
conducts its business in a highly politicized way. If Merrick Garland 
or anyone else is listening, please get back to the business of 
enforcing the law, get out of politics, and then and only then will I 
release my hold policy.
  Because of that, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
  The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, last week in my home area of Chicago, a 6-
year-old Palestinian boy answered the door and was stabbed over and 
over again until he died and then the assailant went into another room 
and tried to kill his mother. The question is, Is this a hate crime 
because of his Palestinian origin? Does it deserve an investigation? 
Does it sound, in America, like this is the sort of thing we want an 
answer to? Whom would we turn to for that investigation? The U.S. 
Attorney's Office in the Northern District of Illinois.
  But the Senator from Ohio--because of his hurt feelings over the 
indictment of former President Trump by many others--has decided to 
say, in my region of the country, we will have no U.S. attorney; we 
will leave the position vacant, not because the person isn't qualified 
to take it over but because he is hurt and believes he wants to protest 
over the idea of holding a former President accountable.
  Obviously, in his mind, former Presidents are above the law--not in 
my mind and not in any democracy. I don't know if former President 
Trump is guilty of any charges. We have a system of laws and law 
enforcement to reach that conclusion. But in the meantime, whether it 
is a hate crime in a suburb of Chicago or drug crimes that are claiming 
lives every single night in every single neighborhood in our Nation, 
how can we stand here in good conscience and say we want to grind the 
Department of Justice to a halt?
  That is exactly what he said over and over again: grind the 
Department of Justice to a halt. To prove what? To prove what about 
this Nation? We deserve the opportunity to be protected by the Agencies 
of government we have appointed, and the men and women who are willing 
to sacrifice their time, their skills to serve that purpose and keep us 
safe deserve better treatment than what is happening on the Senate 
floor.
  I wish I could say this is a unique experience. It has become a 
pattern: a House of Representatives which goes for 21, 22 days trying 
to find a leader on the Republican side of the aisle; military 
appointments, hundreds of them, men and women, qualified, serving in 
the military, risking their lives, whose nominations are being held up 
on the Senate floor by one Republican Senator; the idea that we are 
holding back the possibility of appointing Ambassadors in parts of the 
world where war is imminent and underway and could drag the United 
States into conflict if we are not careful.
  To take that position that we want to stop government, whether it is 
in the Department of Defense and their promotion policy, whether it is 
in the Department of State and the representatives around the world, or 
whether it is in the Department of Justice, is shameful.
  This is not public service. This is a political errand. I wish it 
would come to an end soon, and I wish the Senator, who is new to this 
body, would think twice about whether this is how he wants to write his 
record in the U.S. Senate.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.

                          ____________________