[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 176 (Wednesday, October 25, 2023)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5172-S5177]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




     MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, VETERANS AFFAIRS AND RELATED AGENCIES 
                  APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2024--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.


                               Farm Bill

  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about rural 
communities like my hometown of Clare, MI. It was a great place to grow 
up. My dad and my grandpa ran the local Oldsmobile dealership on Main 
Street, and my mom was director of nursing at the local hospital, and 
my relatives were dairy farmers.
  And I saw how hard they worked every single day, rarely taking a day 
off. In fact, on Thanksgiving or Christmas, they were not there most of 
the time. They had to run back and milk the cows. So I so appreciated 
how hard they worked. I had many jobs growing up, but my first real job 
was at the local Dairy Phil, where I learned the art of filling a cone 
with soft-serve ice cream.
  It wasn't a big town. It still isn't. But there was a real sense of 
community there. People shopped at local businesses, attended local 
events, cheered for the local high school sports teams, and rallied 
around local families when they needed help.
  Places like Clare still exist, of course. In fact, in August, I was 
there to celebrate the Dairy Phil's 70th anniversary. But small towns 
and rural communities have seen a lot of changes over the years, and 
not all of them have been good. When I graduated from high school in 
1968, about 1 in 4 people lived in rural communities. Today, only 1 in 
7 call rural America home. There are fewer people and a lot fewer 
farms.
  Among other things, trade wars started by the Trump administration 
helped fuel this consolidation, causing dramatic drops in crop prices 
and billions in ad hoc inequitable Federal trade assistance payments. 
As people have left and as our economy has changed, many smalltown Main 
Streets have a lot more empty storefronts. Other towns have lost their 
schools, and more than 190 rural hospitals have closed since 2005.
  Our small towns and rural communities are under a lot of pressure, 
and that is something that we all should care about. These communities 
are important. They are a crucial part of the fabric of our Nation. And 
I am so proud of the investments we have made over the last few years 
to strengthen that fabric.
  We invested in healthcare and rural hospitals during the pandemic. In 
the American Rescue Plan, we invested in telehealth to bring healthcare 
providers to people where they were when they needed healthcare. In 
fact, telehealth visits by people in rural areas skyrocketed from 9,000 
visits in 2019 to more than 830,000 visits in 2020. We invested in 
keeping critical rural hospitals open, like where my mom worked as a 
nurse.
  We also know that healthcare above the neck is as important as 
healthcare below the neck. Farmers and ranchers have always been a 
stoic group, more likely to tough it out than to talk about it. That 
can make anxiety and depression and other mental health issues worse. 
In fact, farming is one of the occupations with the highest risk of 
suicide today.
  We took big steps towards getting folks the help they needed by 
investing in our bipartisan certified community behavioral health 
clinics. I so appreciate the Presiding Officer's support in that.
  There are now more than 500 of these clinics operating across the 
country, many of them in rural communities. It is the largest 
investment in behavioral healthcare in our Nation's history.
  Our rural communities have also been pummeled by the climate that is 
changing right before their eyes. Last year, our country saw 18 
separate billion-dollar disasters--18--costing 474 Americans their 
lives and over $175 billion in damages. This year, we have already seen 
24 separate billion-dollar disasters so far. But it doesn't take a 
billion-dollar disaster to destroy a family farm. Think about the 
cherry farmer who loses an entire crop when warm weather causes the 
trees to bloom early only to be wiped out in a cold snap a few weeks 
later. Or a wheat farmer whose hard work is leveled when a violent 
summer storm pummels her fields with hail. Or a family who

[[Page S5173]]

have to slaughter their entire population of turkeys when their farm is 
struck by avian flu.
  Farming has always been a tough way to make a living. With the 
climate crisis, it is getting even tougher. That is why it is so 
important that we invested almost $20 billion in new funding for 
voluntary conservation programs to support our farmers and ranchers as 
they work to mitigate their risks from violent, unpredictable weather 
events and as they lead in our country's efforts to tackle the climate 
crisis.
  During the COVID-19 pandemic, we also learned how important high-
speed internet is. All of a sudden, the lack of good internet 
connection meant our kids couldn't make it to class--maybe they would 
sit in the parking lot of a fast-food restaurant to try to get Wi-Fi. 
And folks couldn't see a doctor.
  It proved the point that I have been making for years that high-speed 
internet is infrastructure. And I am so proud we came together in a 
bipartisan way to address this.
  In our bipartisan infrastructure law, we invested $65 billion to help 
ensure that all Americans, whether they live in a big city or 30 miles 
from the closest highway--have access to high-speed internet.
  We also remember how hard it was to get basic food staples when 
supply chains broke down during the pandemic. It was even harder in 
small towns and rural communities. That is why we invested in 
strengthening food supply chains that build connections between local 
farmers, communities, and businesses.
  Small and regional processing operations also bring jobs back into 
the community instead of shipping them off to large, consolidated 
centers hundreds of miles away.
  Our food systems should be at the heart of our communities. This is 
about how we get local products from local farmers and producers onto 
local tables.
  It is also important to note that when we invest in rural America, we 
are not just investing in the families who live there--which is 
important to do, of course--but we are investing in all of us because 
each and every one of us depends on our farmers and local communities.
  Why am I saying all this? First of all, we have multiple needs in 
small towns and rural communities. We have spent the last 2\1/2\ 
years--and I want to thank the Biden administration for investing in so 
many ways to support our small towns and rural communities. They need 
it. They need our support.
  But right now, we have the opportunity and responsibility to come 
together to build on those investments, those things that relate to 
quality of life and economic opportunity. And that is called the farm 
bill. The farm bill is our next opportunity to truly revitalize rural 
America.
  I am committed to passing a strong, bipartisan farm bill as soon as 
possible. This is actually the sixth one that I have been involved in. 
It is the sixth farm bill that is coming to Congress and the third one 
that I have been leading.
  You know, our committee is unique. We don't just sit at a raised dais 
facing witnesses. Instead, we sit around a table, much like families do 
after a long day of work, and we face each other.
  That is part of our bipartisan tradition. To get a farm bill done, it 
needs to be bipartisan. It must pull together the broad coalition of 
support that has been the cornerstone of this process for decades. 
Since Ranking Member Boozman and I started working on a bipartisan farm 
bill in April of 2022, the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, 
and Forestry and its subcommittees have held more than 20 hearings. 
There has also been countless farm bill listening sessions around the 
country.
  I appreciate so much the community input and the bipartisan work of 
our committee Members. The success of a farm bill is always based on 
finding bipartisan solutions to the problems we need to address and 
bipartisan ways to address funding priorities. In this farm bill, that 
means protecting our critically needed conservation funding for our 
farmers, and it means keeping nutrition funding in the nutrition title 
for our families.
  Having said that, I have committed to finding ways to bring 
additional resources to meet other needs in the farm bill that are so 
important to producers.
  I am very grateful that Leader Schumer is committed to find several 
billion dollars in additional resources through bipartisan offsets 
outside the farm bill to help us achieve that goal.
  I have to tell you, it is almost unheard of, because I remember not 
that long ago when the Senate leadership was telling us to cut--cut--
$23 billion from the farm bill. So I am grateful for this unified 
commitment to get this done.
  There are a lot of people counting on us to get this done. More than 
21 million Americans depend on the food and agriculture industry for 
their jobs.
  In Michigan, that is one out of four people that are in agriculture 
and the food industry. Another 4.6 million Americans work in the 
growing biobased manufacturing industry that I think is so exciting.
  But the farm bill isn't just about jobs. It isn't just about our 
economy. The farm bill has three goals in my mind: We want to keep 
farmers farming; we want to keep families fed; and we want to keep 
rural communities strong and build on the investments that we have done 
in the last 2\1/2\ years.
  The farm bill is the foundation of the farm safety net. During our 
oversight hearings this year, every single group representing farmers 
told us that protecting and strengthening crop insurance was their No. 
1 priority. They asked for more options to make it more affordable, and 
I support that.
  Crop insurance covers over 130 different crops, large and small, and 
it is continuing to expand to more crops and regions.
  Coming from Michigan where we grow more than 300 different crops, I 
am proud that I have been known as the specialty crop champion. During 
my time in the Senate, I have led efforts to expand crop insurance 
protection, especially for my State's fruit and vegetable growers. I am 
continuing to work on ways to expand crop insurance for specialty crops 
and other farmers.
  Time and time again, from small producers in Michigan to national 
groups like the American Farm Bureau, we all hear from farmers across 
the country that we must protect and enhance crop insurance. I agree. 
It is the number one risk management tool for farmers.
  It can be tailored and evolve to meet the individual needs of 
farmers. Most importantly, farmers will see the benefits of any changes 
that we make to crop insurance immediately. Any changes we make to 
reference prices in the commodity title, for instance, will not have 
any impact until the fall of 2025, at the earliest. This is why I am 
currently exploring a proposal that would make crop insurance premiums 
more affordable on area-based crop insurance plans. No mandates--just 
new options to support our producers.
  The Agricultural Risk Coverage and Price Loss Coverage programs are 
very important to many of our farmers as well, and we built a solid 
base in improving those programs in the 2018 Farm Bill.
  There is good news here. In 2022, farmers recorded the highest farm 
income in history, and 2023 is projected to be the seventh highest in 
the last 21 years.
  But we know that farmers have also experienced a lot of challenges 
and that not everyone has benefited from the recent high prices.
  We know input costs have been rising. And though the costs of diesel 
fuel and fertilizer are declining, we need to ensure farmers have 
effective tools to address their costs so they can keep farming.
  Fortunately, USDA is using its authority to help farmers long-term by 
supporting the development of lower cost, American-made fertilizer and 
implementing innovative fertilizer technologies. This will create more 
jobs, provide more choices for farmers, and make us less reliant on 
foreign supplies of fertilizer.
  In many ways, the farm bill already helps farmers address higher 
input costs.
  The dairy safety net is structured around the difference between the 
cost of feed and the price of milk. Crop insurance can also expand and 
adjust to provide similar policies for a broader group of farmers.
  There is other good news. In the 2018 farm bill, we were able to 
improve the PLC program by including what was

[[Page S5174]]

called an escalator--an escalator provision that is projected to 
increase reference prices for most commodities--there are 20 
commodities in that commodity title--and most will see a 10 to 15 
percent increase by this 2025 crop year under existing law without any 
changes. So because of this escalator, we are going to see reference 
prices for many commodities increase by 10 percent to 15 percent by 
2025.
  I can't claim any credit for this provision. It was a bipartisan idea 
championed by the former House Republican chairman, Mike Conway, of 
Texas.
  But I know it is important to find other ways to include ARC and PLC 
for the 22 crops that benefit from this program as well. As we do so, I 
believe it is important to find the best ways to help all of our 
farmers, both beginning farmers who are crucial for our future as well 
as medium- and large-established operations.
  But we can't lose sight of the fact that the farm safety net extends 
far beyond title I, the commodity title, and title XI, the crop 
insurance title. The ``farm'' does not need to be put back into the 
farm bill; it is on every page. The farm safety net is support for 
research. It is access to affordable credit and loans. It is specialty 
crop block grants and dairy and sugar programs and disaster assistance 
and trade. It is protecting the health of our livestock, and it is 
voluntary conservation programs.
  I strongly believe--and I know I have colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle who agree--that conservation programs are a vital part of risk 
management for our farmers today. As I said earlier, you don't need to 
explain to a farmer what the climate crisis is. They see it in their 
orchards and their pastures and their fields every day. Farmers want to 
make their operations more resilient in the face of the climate crisis. 
They want to build healthier soil by keeping carbon in the ground. That 
is why we are seeing record demand for popular voluntary conservation 
programs that we have passed, and the good news is we now have more 
funding to meet their needs.
  The farm safety net is also about building markets, and we have 
received some great news on that front. This week, Secretary Vilsack 
announced $2.3 billion in investments from the Commodity Credit 
Corporation to invest in trade promotion, markets. That is what our 
farmers are saying are the top two things: crop insurance and markets. 
They want to be able to trade. So Secretary Vilsack has announced $2.3 
billion to invest in trade promotion and important in-kind 
international food assistance. It is so critical. This will support 
American farmers and help people in need around the world.
  I very much appreciate Secretary Vilsack's responding to my request, 
the request I sent with Senator Boozman. I very much appreciate that he 
responded and said yes to what Senator Boozman and I had asked. 
Secretary Vilsack's continued commitment to meet the needs of our 
agricultural community, as well as his partnership with us to get a 
bipartisan farm bill done, is so important.
  This new CCC funding doubles the amount available for trade promotion 
for the next 5 years. We never see that, and we are able to do that 
now. It also creates an opportunity to spread the money out more evenly 
over 10 years. This would allow us to grow permanent baseline funding 
for trade promotion programs in this farm bill and in every subsequent 
farm bill--something that has not happened since 2006.
  Our farmers are looking to sell their products across the ocean, but 
they are also looking to sell their products across the country, across 
the State, and across the street. When our growers can get their apples 
on lunch trays at the local elementary school or sell tomatoes to their 
neighbors at the Saturday morning farmers' market, that puts money in 
their pockets and keeps our local economy going.
  Farm bill trade promotion programs, international food assistance, 
bioeconomy programs, local foods programs--all of these increase market 
opportunities for our Nation's farmers to be successful. And we all 
want farmers to be successful, not just those who are already doing 
well but those who are new or who are struggling. That is why I am 
laser-focused on ensuring that the farm bill includes targeted support 
for beginning farmers, for our organic farmers, and for our BIPOC 
farmers and urban growers.
  While the farm bill is the backbone of the farm safety net, its 
nutrition programs are the backbone of the family safety net. So we 
want to make sure that we keep farmers farming, but we want to make 
sure that we keep families fed as well. I believe that no parent should 
have to worry about whether or not their child is going to be able to 
eat, and no American senior should have to go hungry because their food 
budget simply won't stretch far enough. It would be unconscionable to 
further cut the modest assistance of $6 a day that helps millions of 
Americans put food on the table and make ends meet.

  I also reject the premise that we must choose between supporting 
farmers and supporting families. The needs of farmers and families are 
interconnected. Farmers benefit when families can afford to buy the 
food they produce, and the economy benefits as well. In fact, every 
dollar in SNAP--every dollar in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance 
Program--generates $1.50 in economic activity. Someone is buying food. 
They are going to the grocery store. It is the farmers, the 
transportation; it is the grocery store. It is one of the quickest ways 
to create economic opportunity.
  Just like the farm safety net, these nutrition programs expand during 
times of need and contract during times of plenty. We have already seen 
participation in SNAP decline as the country continues to recover from 
the COVID-19 pandemic--just like the program is designed to do.
  Nutrition assistance is also much more than SNAP. It is what we call 
Double Up Food Bucks, which started in Michigan, with the idea of being 
able to support families in going to the local farmers' market and 
buying fresh fruits and vegetables that are more expensive by giving 
double the value of their SNAP dollar. This has been so successful that 
we are now expanding it to grocery stores, and it is widely successful 
across the country.
  This is also about the wonderful work of our local food banks. It is 
getting fresh local foods to children in school. It is ensuring that 
those same children aren't going hungry in the summer or when school 
isn't in session.
  I am extremely proud that, in December, Senator Boozman and I led the 
successful effort to establish the first permanent investment in child 
nutrition in over a decade, which will provide summer meals to 29 
million children--29 million children--every summer, and it is 
providing support for farmers' markets, which strengthen connections 
between growers and the communities they feed.
  So our goal: Keep farmers farming; keep families fed; and then, 
finally, keep rural communities strong.
  A strong farm safety net and a strong family safety net build strong 
small towns. Every American, no matter where they live, deserves a 
great quality of life and the chance to be successful. That is why we 
have put money into high-speed internet. That is why we have supported 
rural hospitals. That is why we have supported telehealth. That is why, 
in the last 2\1/2\ years, we have invested in rural communities.
  The truth is, we need strong small towns. We need thriving rural 
communities. We need young folks to go off to college and want to come 
home, work on the farm, start a small business, and raise their 
families in the communities where they grew up. We need small towns to 
have strong schools and quality healthcare, high-speed internet, and 
vibrant Main Streets. We need the Dairy Phil in Clare, where I worked, 
to teach young people the art of creating the perfect soft-serve ice 
cream cone and so many other life lessons. We need them to do that for 
another 70 years.
  Getting the farm bill done won't be easy--it never is--but I am 
committed to doing so. Unfortunately, it looks like this is going to 
take a little longer than I would like, but it would be irresponsible 
to allow vital programs and the farm safety net to lapse and revert to 
Depression-era policy in January. We cannot allow that to happen. And, 
given the chaos in the House, I know we will need an extension.
  But let's be clear: It would be equally irresponsible to take our 
focus off of a 5-year farm bill that provides stability

[[Page S5175]]

and certainty for our farmers and communities. I am laser-focused on 
delivering a bipartisan farm bill that keeps farmers farming, families 
fed, and rural communities strong and on getting it done in the coming 
months. It is critical that we give rural America and agriculture the 
certainty of a 5-year farm bill.
  The unifying principle behind the farm bill is that it is a safety 
net for farmers and families. When crops fail or when disaster strikes, 
the farm safety net steps in to provide stability and security. When a 
pandemic hits or the economy takes a turn for the worse, it is the 
family safety net that steps in. The farm bill is designed to--and it 
must--support both.
  Senator Boozman and I have a strong working relationship, and we have 
already accomplished so much together. I know that we can come together 
with colleagues on both sides of the aisle and agree on a bipartisan 
farm bill that addresses the important needs of agriculture and rural 
America. Together, and with the bedrock support of the broad farm bill 
coalition, everyone, from farmers to climate to nutrition advocates--we 
can get this done. Communities, farmers, and families are counting on 
us.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Cortez Masto). The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SANDERS. 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

  Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I wanted to take a few minutes to share 
my thoughts regarding the horrific situation in Israel and Gaza.
  On October 7, Hamas terrorists waged a barbarous attack against 
Israel, killing over 1,400 innocent men, women, and children. Young 
people at a music festival were machine-gunned down in cold blood, 
babies and older people were brutally murdered, and over 200 Israeli 
and Americans are being held as hostages.
  Some people describe the October 7 attack on Israel as equivalent to 
the 9/11 terrorist attack against the United States. That is wrong. 
Israel is a small country with under 10 million people. On a per capita 
basis, the 1,400 Israelis killed by Hamas would be the equivalent of 
over 40,000 Americans killed if Israel had the same size population as 
we do--40,000. On 9/11, as everybody recalls, we lost 3,000 people.
  Let us be clear. Israel suffered a major attack and has, as do all 
other countries under similar circumstances, the absolute right to 
defend itself. But having the right to defend your country against a 
terrorist attack and a terrorist organization like Hamas does not mean 
having the right to violate international law and wage indiscriminate 
warfare against innocent men, women, and children in Gaza.
  The people of Israel have gone through a horrific and traumatic 
shock. It is understandable that they are furious and want to strike 
back forcefully. Revenge, however, is not a useful policy. Killing 
innocent Palestinian women and children in Gaza will not bring back to 
life the innocent Israeli women and children who have been killed. It 
will only make a terrible situation even worse and more intractable.
  Let us be clear. The Palestinian people today are experiencing 
nothing less than a humanitarian disaster. Thousands are already dead, 
including many children--perhaps thousands of children--and far more 
have been wounded. Hundreds of thousands have been forced out of their 
homes. These people--deeply impoverished before this war began--now 
lack food, water, fuel, shelter, medicine, and other basic necessities.
  Unbelievably, more than 400,000 Palestinians driven from their homes 
are now sheltering in densely crowded, U.N.-run schools--400,000 people 
in U.N.-run schools. Dozens of medical facilities have been damaged and 
made inoperable, and 35 United Nations aid workers have been killed. 
The aid trickling into Gaza is just a fraction--a small amount--of what 
is needed. In a few days, hospitals will run out of fuel, and 
ventilators and incubators will shut off.
  This is a desperate, desperate humanitarian crisis.
  I echo Secretary Blinken's call for the immediate release of all 
hostages and for a humanitarian pause by all parties. A pause is 
essential for the protection of civilians, as required by the laws of 
war, as well as for the provision of robust supplies of food, water, 
and medical aid to address the growing humanitarian catastrophe. I know 
that Senator Merkley and others are working hard to gain support here 
in the Senate for that position, and I agree with it.
  Israel suffered a terrible attack, but the response must be carefully 
thought through and be carried out in line with international law.
  When the United States was attacked on 9/11, we allowed anger and 
rage to drive our response. This resulted in making grave mistakes in 
terms of wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, which cost us thousands of 
members of the U.S. military and, in fact, the lives of hundreds of 
thousands of innocent people in those countries.
  Israel has a right to defend itself and go after Hamas, but innocent 
Palestinians also have a right to life, security, and peace.
  Please remember that the last election held in Gaza was in 2006, when 
a majority of people in Gaza today were not yet born or could not vote. 
Even then, back in 2006, a minority voted for Hamas. Hamas is an 
authoritarian organization that does not necessarily represent a broad 
swath of the Palestinian people, and we must not conflate all 
Palestinians with this terrorist organization.
  Further and of much concern to me and, I think, many others, Israel 
is apparently contemplating an invasion and occupation of Gaza. I have 
very serious concerns about what this could mean in terms of the long-
term security of Israel, the well-being of the Palestinian residents of 
Gaza--half of whom are children--and the hope that peace, security, and 
justice will at some point come to that region.
  In Congress, we will soon be voting and debating a package which 
includes billions of dollars to Israel above and beyond the $3.8 
billion in military aid the United States sends there every year. The 
American people have a right to know if that money will be used to 
defend Israel or whether it will be used for an invasion and 
occupation.

  Israel's proposed invasion will likely bring difficult, street-by-
street fighting against entrenched Hamas fighters in a dense urban 
environment still populated by many civilians. Hamas will continue to 
use human shields and its extensive tunnel network and will likely 
resort to insurgent tactics.
  As two experts on the subject recently wrote, ``The battle will not 
end when Israel has reoccupied the territory. There is no Palestinian 
entity that Israel trusts to govern Gaza in Hamas's stead. As a result, 
a military victory could mean Israel has to administer the territory 
for the foreseeable future. Israeli officials, in other words, will 
have to govern an immiserated people who see them as their enemy and 
who may wage a guerrilla war.''
  I have serious concerns about what this invasion and potential 
occupation of Gaza will mean, both in terms of the long-term security 
of Israel and the well-being of the Palestinian residents of Gaza.
  In Congress, as we consider a package including billions of dollars 
for Israel that could fund this invasion and occupation, we clearly 
need much more information about Israel's long-term plans and goals, as 
well as the U.S. Government's assessment of those prospects.
  These are some--some--of the questions that need to be answered:
  How many innocent men, women, and children will be killed or wounded 
if Israel engages in an invasion and an occupation?
  How many Israeli soldiers will be killed or wounded in an operation 
of that kind?
  How will many hundreds of thousands of civilians receive the food, 
water, fuel, and medical care they need in the midst of what could be 
extremely heavy urban warfare in a very densely populated area?
  How long will it take to establish military control of Gaza, and what 
level of insurgent activity is anticipated from that point? In other 
words,

[[Page S5176]]

controlling Gaza is not the end of that process.
  How will the success of the operation be measured?
  Are there alternative approaches to a ground invasion that would be 
effective in ensuring Israel's long-term security?
  What will this operation mean for the hostages still being held in 
Gaza?
  What political force will administer Gaza after an Israeli operation?
  Will the hundreds of thousands of Palestinians who have been driven 
from their homes--they have been pushed out of their homes now, no 
place to go--will they be guaranteed safe return to their homes?
  Importantly, what impact will the invasion and occupation of Gaza 
have on the international community's support for Israel? How will the 
whole world feel about a powerful nation occupying a very impoverished 
part of the world?
  How will the international community address the ongoing needs in 
Gaza and the rest of Palestine when the shooting and bombs stop?
  What political process will follow this conflict, and what is the 
desired end-state in Gaza?
  These are some of the questions that have to be asked. As Congress 
considers the administration's emergency funding request, we need 
answers to these questions.
  This is, tragically, the fifth conflict between Israel and Hamas in 
15 years--fifth war in 15 years. Clearly, a terrorist organization like 
Hamas cannot be the answer to the very serious problems facing the 
people of Gaza.
  Just a few months ago, thousands of people defied Hamas's 
authoritarian rule to protest on the streets of Gaza. They stood up, 
with great courage, against Hamas's authoritarian rule. Their voices 
are silenced now, but there can be no long-term solution to this 
ongoing crisis without a serious effort to address Palestinian demands 
for peace, legitimate political representation, and a vibrant economy.
  I would just mention one fact, and that is, before this war, some 75 
percent of the young people were unemployed. So you have, aside from 
everything else, an economic disaster in Gaza.
  In my view, the United States must take a leading role in charting 
out a future that respects the lives of Palestinians and Israelis 
alike. We can start by answering the questions laid out above, and I 
very much look forward to receiving from the administration a briefing, 
in a classified setting, if necessary, in order for Members of Congress 
to understand what an occupation and invasion will look like.
  We are living in a horrifically difficult moment in the Middle East, 
and I can understand the outrage that many people in Israel feel in 
terms of the attack that killed 1,400 of their people, but now is the 
time, in Israel and in the United States, for us to not allow revenge 
and rage to dictate our policy but to really think this issue through.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.


                          Government Shutdowns

  Mr. LANKFORD. Madam President, we have the opportunity to take a 
really big step today that the entire country would pause and go: 
Finally. We have the opportunity to end government shutdowns forever. 
We will say: That is off the table. We, as a nation, don't do 
government shutdowns.
  Government shutdowns haven't always been in our system as a nation. 
They really started in the 1980s, and we have had this repetitive cycle 
of government shutdowns over and over and over again.
  The American people and folks in my State in Oklahoma say: How do we 
make this stop?
  Well, this is how we make it stop. Senator Hassan and I sat down 5 
years ago and just said: Everyone wants to stop it, but we have never 
figured out a way that is a totally nonpartisan way. Let's figure this 
out. What is a nonpartisan way to end government shutdowns?
  So we sat down and worked on some language to try to figure out how 
to be able to do this. We took input from Members all over this 
conference on both sides of the aisle. We actually sat down years ago 
with the Trump administration and worked with their Office of 
Management and Budget and then have since sat down with the Biden 
administration, with their Office of Management and Budget, to make 
sure the process would actually work; that it would actually be 
effective because we weren't interested in having a messaging bill; we 
were interested in actually ending government shutdowns--that it would 
work.
  The idea is really very simple. If Congress gets to the end of the 
fiscal year and the appropriations work is not done by the end of the 
year, we stay in session 7 days a week. We can't move to any bill other 
than appropriations until we actually finish appropriations.
  If I can just make it just this simple: If we don't finish our 
classwork, we have to stay after class. That is all it is. In the 
meantime, the government continues to run at the previous year's 
levels. That way, Federal workers are held harmless. The American 
people are held harmless. The pressure is on the people it should be 
on: us.
  Now, I have heard from some folks that this won't work because the 
House is crazy, and they won't care about staying here 7 days a week 
because they are crazy. Well, I would respectfully say that House 
Members, though definitely crazy at times, still love their families, 
still have responsibilities back in their home district. They also want 
to be able to get back home. They are not going to stay here 7 days a 
week forever.
  We do have other bills to be able to pass--the National Defense 
Authorization and thousands of other things that we still have to do. 
So the thought that we would be in continual CRs, both here, House and 
Senate, 7 days a week and never leave and that we would never do other 
bills is just not realistic.
  I have also heard that if we take away the threat of a government 
shutdown, we would lose the pressure point to be able to do 
appropriations. Well, again, respectfully, I disagree. I don't think 
Federal law enforcement and Border Patrol agents, air traffic 
controllers, HUD staff, and millions of other Federal workers and their 
families are leverage. They are not leverage to be able to get 
appropriations work done. They are families. They are families who just 
want to serve their neighbors and be able to get a paycheck for it.
  Right now--right now--there are thousands of marines, sailors, and 
airmen who are currently in the Mediterranean on high alert.
  They should not have to make contingency plans for their family not 
to get a paycheck at the end of this month. Right now, in Fort Sill, 
OK, there are soldiers who are packing equipment to leave and head to 
the Middle East right now. They should not have to look at their loved 
ones before they leave and say: In case checks don't get deposited at 
the end of next month, here is what to do. They should be able to go 
serve.
  So as simple as I can say it, we shouldn't say to them: Maybe we 
won't have a shutdown or probably we won't have a shutdown. We should 
say: Definitely, we are not going to have a shutdown. Thank you for 
serving our country.
  That is what we should do. The hardest thing in this body to change 
is status quo. It is the hardest thing to change. Today, we have an 
opportunity to change the status quo and to begin the process of ending 
government shutdowns forever.
  I encourage my colleagues to join Senator Hassan and I and so many 
other folks from both sides of the aisle to say: Let's take a step 
forward, and let's actually do our business.


                Amendment No. 1232 to Amendment No. 1092

  (Purpose: To provide for a period of continuing appropriations in the 
event of a lapse in appropriations under the normal appropriations 
process, and establish procedures and consequences in the event of a 
failure to enact appropriations.)
  Mr. LANKFORD. Madam President, I would like to call up my amendment, 
amendment No. 1232, and ask that it be reported by number.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report by number.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Lankford] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1232 to amendment No. 1092.

  (The amendment is printed in the Record of September 18, 2023, under 
``Text of Amendments.'')

[[Page S5177]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, this amendment would create an 
automatic CR, which would make it way harder for Congress to actually 
get its job done and fund our government. It would allow Members, 
particularly those who are fine with obstructing, to ignore their 
responsibility to fund our government and deliver for the communities 
that they represent; it will hurt Agencies and programs people count on 
by freezing funding levels; it will weaken our ability to deliver 
funding for Ukraine and Israel, for childcare and so much else; it will 
allow critical laws to lapse and potentially create chaos on this 
floor.
  Let's be clear. No one wants to avoid a shutdown more than I do. But 
the way that we avoid a shutdown is by Members of Congress sitting down 
and working together to prevent one, responsibly, by funding our 
government, not by abdicating Congress's responsibility to control the 
powers of the purse and avoiding the hard work of compromise by putting 
funding on perpetual autopilot.
  But I am afraid that is exactly what this amendment would do, and it 
would create a new, unproven fast-track process, allowing six Senators 
to completely ignore our committee process, completely ignore regular 
order, and take over the floor and force the Senate to consider 
appropriations vehicles of any and all sizes with little or no scrutiny 
or input.
  We need to get our jobs done. We need to pass our appropriations 
bills. That is what we are working on, not set ourselves on a path to 
endlessly kick the can down the road. I strongly urge my colleagues to 
vote no on this amendment.
  I yield the floor.


            Vote on Amendment No. 1232 to Amendment No. 1092

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on agreeing to 
amendment No. 1232.
  Mr. LANKFORD. 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 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 56, nays 42, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 269 Leg.]

                                YEAS--56

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

                                NAYS--42

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

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Padilla
     Scott (SC)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ossoff). On this vote, the yeas are 56, 
the nays are 42.
  Under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this 
amendment, the amendment is not agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 1232) was rejected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.

                          ____________________