[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 180 (Wednesday, November 1, 2023)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5269-S5284]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
LEGISLATIVE SESSION
______
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, VETERANS AFFAIRS, AND RELATED AGENCIES
APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2024--Resumed
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the Senate will
resume consideration of H.R. 4366, which the clerk will report.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (H.R. 4366) making appropriations for military
construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and related
agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2024, and
for other purposes.
Pending:
Schumer (for Murray-Collins) amendment No. 1092, in the
nature of a substitute.
RECOGNITION OF THE MAJORITY LEADER
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Welch). The majority leader is recognized.
Military Appointments
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, so last night, I filed cloture on
President Biden's nominees to serve as Chief of Naval Operations and
Chief of Staff to the Air Force, the remaining vacancies on the Joint
Chiefs of Staff which we said we would fill. We will move on these
critical military appointments soon here on the floor.
I also filed on the nomination of Lieutenant General Mahoney to be
second in command of the U.S. Marine Corps. His appointment has become
urgent because this weekend the Commandant of the Marines, Gen. Eric
Smith, was unexpectedly hospitalized after a serious medical emergency.
Now, normally, Lieutenant General Mahoney would have been able to
immediately step in to temporarily serve as Commandant. But,
unfortunately, because of the blanket holds of just one Senator,
Senator Tuberville, that cannot happen. The situation at the Marine
Corps is precisely the kind of avoidable emergency that Senator
Tuberville has provoked through his reckless holds. Lieutenant General
Mahoney is one of more than 300 nominees Senator Tuberville is
currently blocking. So while the Senate will proceed quickly to vote on
Lieutenant General Mahoney's nomination, these holds cannot and must
not continue.
Yesterday, my colleague Senator Reed, the chairman of the Armed
Services Committee, introduced a resolution that will allow the Senate
to quickly confirm the nominations that are currently being blocked by
the Senator from Alabama. The resolution will be referred to the Rules
Committee; and when the time comes, I will bring it to the floor of the
Senate for consideration.
We must--we absolutely must--ensure that our military is fully
staffed and fully equipped to defend the American people, and it begins
by confirming these vital nominations that are currently on hold. Every
day that Senator Tuberville continues his blanket holds, our military
preparedness is degraded. Our military families--most of whom have
served decades in the Armed Forces--suffer. Our military appointments
risk being further ensnared in partisan politics. These nominees must
be confirmed, and both parties should work together to make sure we
fulfill our obligation to America's servicemembers.
Government Funding
Mr. President, now on the minibus, for the information of Senators,
today we will pass the first of three bipartisan appropriations bills:
Agriculture, MILCON-VA, and T-HUD.
When these bills pass, they will be the only--I underscore--the only
bipartisan appropriations bills that have passed either Chamber. These
bills will make a huge difference for America's farmers, for our
infrastructure, for housing on our military bases, and for veterans.
Bipartisanship isn't easy. On the contrary, it is very difficult. But
here in the Senate, we are making sure
[[Page S5270]]
that the appropriations process is succeeding. I want to thank the good
work of Chair Murray, Vice Chair Collins, and all the appropriators.
Passing these appropriations bills today is not just terrific news for
the country, but an affirmation of what I have said since the start of
the year: The only way to get things done in a divided government is
bipartisanship.
The House is going through a futile exercise in passing partisan
appropriations bills that have no input or support from Democrats. They
are going nowhere. The House ought to learn its lesson. The Speaker
ought to understand that the 30 hard-right people should not be
dictating what the entire House or the entire country does. Those bills
are filled with poison pills. They break the agreement and cut below
the agreement that we made when we wanted to avoid the debt from being
not fulfilled, and they are nowhere.
On the other hand, the Senate has bipartisan bills. And that is the
real difference here. Sooner or later, the House and the new Speaker
will learn the lesson: If you don't do it bipartisan, it ain't getting
done. The Senate has been a strong model for how bipartisanship can
work, even amidst the deep disagreement, and I thank my colleagues on
both sides for their work on these bills.
Artificial Intelligence
Mr. President, now, we continue on our AI Insight Forums. Today, as
leaders gather in London for the first AI summit, the Senate will hold
our third and fourth bipartisan AI Insight Forums. This morning will be
focused on the intersection of AI in the workforce. We will hear from a
balanced group of leaders in labor, tech, civil rights, and business
about both the opportunities and risks that AI presents to the American
worker and to our economy.
People are worried. Many people worry, Will I still have my job as AI
kicks in? We want to make sure that we have guardrails that protect
workers, not make the mistake that was done with globalization, where
so many were thrown out of work through no fault of their own.
And then this afternoon, we will discuss AI's use in high-impact
areas like finance, healthcare, law enforcement. We will focus
especially on the potential bias in AI technologies in these high-
impact areas and how Congress can create guardrails to protect our
civil rights in the age of AI.
The Senate is continuing to be all hands on deck when it comes to
trying to pass AI legislation. Yesterday our bipartisan AI gang--
Senators Rounds, Heinrich, Young, and I--had a great meeting with
President Biden at the White House on AI. So we are making good
progress, but we still have more to learn about AI as we work to
develop bipartisan legislation. And the world is paying attention.
There is a forum in London today where the Vice President will attend.
And, inevitably, they will be looking. The whole world will be looking
to the Senate to see whether and what kind of legislation we can pass.
We will work hard to get the best possible bipartisan legislation done.
Government Funding
Mr. President, about the supplemental, on Monday, Speaker Johnson and
House Republicans released a totally unserious and woefully inadequate
package that omitted aid to Ukraine, omitted humanitarian assistance to
Gaza, had no funding for the Indo-Pacific, and made funding for Israel
conditional on hard-right, never-going-to-pass proposals. What a joke.
Yesterday afternoon, President Biden issued a veto threat on the GOP
proposal, and it is no wonder why: It needlessly politicizes aid to
Israel. It balloons the Federal deficit. Here the House is talking
about we need to pay for, to reduce the deficit, and they put in a
provision that actually increases the deficit. Why? Because they don't
want their superrich, megawealthy friends to be audited by the IRS like
every other citizen is.
As we know, when Trump was President, he almost exempted them from
auditing. Someone making $40,000 a year had a greater chance of being
audited than someone making $4 million a year.
It is amazing that the main focus as the world is in crisis--in the
Middle East, in Ukraine, in the Indo-Pacific--our House Republicans are
spending more time trying to further reduce taxes of those who don't
pay much tax at all. So I am so glad that President Biden issued a
strong veto message. I would urge every House Republican, every House
Democrat, every Senate Member to read the President's veto message. It
is strong and well thought out. He talks about it politicizing aid to
Israel, it ballooning the Federal deficit, and it failing to address
the national security threats America faces around the globe--
particularly our need to help Ukraine, provide humanitarian aid to
Gaza, and help in the Indo-Pacific.
So the House GOP proposal is not going anywhere. It is dead before it
even is voted on. The Speaker should start over--this time without
terrible, partisan poison pills; this time sitting down with Democrats
and working this issue through.
Israel has suffered the worst terrorist attack in its history. It
needs help. But House Republicans are asking a price for helping them
by cutting off funding that holds rich tax cheats accountable. That
ain't happening, House. It ain't happening.
Now, Speaker Johnson says that this supposed pay is needed because of
his concern about the national debt; but as I mentioned, every
independent estimate shows this partisan bill raises the deficit by
billions of dollars. So, what hypocrisy. It is not responsible. It is
reckless. It is utterly baffling--baffling--that at a moment that
demands maximum bipartisanship, when the country is in crisis and our
friends in Israel and Ukraine are in crisis, that the House GOP is,
instead, trying to pick an egregiously partisan fight over wealthy tax
cheats.
Years back, both parties would have come together for the good of the
country and the good of security in the world when crises like these
happen. But the House GOP--continuing the kind of recklessness, the
kind of inability to get their act together--continues to do these
kinds of things.
Their proposal is simply not a serious one. And, worse, it still
wastes precious time at a moment when we need to help Israel, Ukraine,
and send humanitarian aid to Gaza ASAP.
All friends of Israel should loudly and clearly say that any move to
make the United States-Israel relationship a partisan one, as the House
is doing, is a move that hurts Israel. That is what they do,
unfortunately: harming our partnership with Israel by politicizing
their aid package. I urge Speaker Johnson: Quickly change course,
Speaker Johnson, because this stunningly unserious proposal is not
going to be the answer. It is not going anywhere. As I said: It is dead
almost before it is born.
Oil Industry Mergers
Mr. President, the FTC letter that we sent this morning--and I think
people should pay attention to this because this is a very serious
issue. Last month, America's two largest oil companies, ExxonMobil and
Chevron, announced two of the largest oil acquisitions of the 21st
century--in fact, some of the largest mergers in the history--in the
whole history--of the United States. And where are these mergers
occurring? In the heavily concentrated oil industry where the consumer
has almost no say whatsoever.
These deals have all the hallmarks of harmful, anticompetitive
effect. And if they are allowed to happen, Americans could see the
consequences through higher prices at the pump. People are complaining,
justifiably, that gas prices are too high, and these mergers inevitably
will make the price even higher.
So today, I am leading a group of 22 Senators calling on the Federal
Trade Commission to use the full powers of the FTC to investigate these
mergers. In our letter, we say that if any antitrust laws may be
violated, the FTC should step in and oppose the mergers.
We broke up Standard Oil's illegal monopoly in 1911. We are quickly
getting back to that place. The FTC should also investigate whether it
is time to break up today's anticompetitive oil conglomerates. When
America's largest oil companies can just buy some of their largest
competitors--here we have Exxon, the biggest oil company in America,
buying the largest oil driller in the Permian Basin, which is the
biggest U.S. oil field--it is outrageous. When the largest companies
can control the lion's share of the supply chain, when they are able to
act
[[Page S5271]]
with little accountability, the result is a raw deal for American
consumers, American workers, and the American economy.
And this isn't speculation. We have seen this happen before. In the
1990s, there were over 2,600 mergers across the petroleum industry. The
number of major oil companies was cut in half.
I will never forget the day. This was a Democratic President.
President Clinton, unfortunately, allowed the merger between Exxon and
Mobil--two of the biggest oil companies. I opposed it at the time. The
result of these mergers and lax accountability was market manipulation,
an unstable supply, and, ultimately, price hikes for Americans.
Well, why repeat that mistake? We cannot allow it.
With ExxonMobil's merger with Pioneer and Chevron's merger with Hess,
we are seeing history repeat itself. More consolidation and less
competition may be good for the shareholders and the big oil company
execs, but it ain't good for America, and it certainly ain't good for
the consumer, who will inevitably pay more for gas, oil, and so many
other things.
There is something deeply wrong about seeing the largest oil and gas
companies in the world manipulate their way to higher profits as
Americans are struggling at the pump. Last year alone, the world's five
largest oil companies saw record profits--$219 billion--more than
double the profits of 2021.
And where did the profits go? Did they translate to lower prices for
Americans? Did the companies invest in worker productivity or in
finding new, clean energy sources? No. The soaring profits fueled
soaring stock buybacks. Americans, meanwhile, saw higher prices every
time they filled up the tank.
And one other point about these mergers: At one point, the big oil
companies said: Hmm, we understand that the world is moving in a
direction of clean energy. We are going to move that way, too.
These mergers show they are not. They are not. They are simply
investing in the old carbon resources that we know, in the long run,
will do such damage to our world and our world economy. Yet they are
just moving headlong in that direction--short-term gain, long-term
loss.
Mergers will accelerate these disturbing trends of high gas prices
and less competition. So we are calling on the FTC to look into the
announcements made by ExxonMobil and Chevron and step in if necessary.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Recognition of the Minority Leader
The Republican leader is recognized.
Supplemental Funding
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I have spoken frequently about the
clear links between the biggest national security challenges facing our
country and about what we need to do to address them, but let's not
lose sight of a few overarching points.
America's adversaries don't ease up when we lose our resolve. In
fact, they press their advantage. How many of our colleagues would
disagree that withdrawing from Afghanistan caused America's friends and
foes to question the credibility of our commitments?
How many would disagree that failing to respond decisively to
hundreds of terrorist attacks against U.S. forces in Syria and Iraq has
weakened our deterrence against Iran?
How many Senators would disagree that the Biden administration
shouldn't have withheld lethal assistance to Ukraine in the summer of
2021 or that they should have shipped lethal weapons more quickly as
Russia's preparations became glaringly obvious that fall and winter?
How many would disagree that the President's caution and hesitation
to provide critical weapons--like HIMARS, Patriots, tanks, and ATACMs--
has prolonged the conflict in Ukraine?
Over and over again, history has taught us that the costs of
disengaging from the world are far higher than the costs of engaging.
And just as the threats we face aren't isolated, neither are the
benefits of investing in American leadership.
So here is the plain truth: The overwhelming majority of the
resources approved by the Senate as security assistance for Ukraine
has, in fact, gone directly--directly--to American manufacturers,
supporting American jobs, expanding the American industrial base, and
producing new weapons for America's military, with almost $70 billion
in investments spread across at least 38 different States. The
production of artillery rounds alone has distributed multiple billions
into facilities from Arkansas to Virginia and Texas to Ohio--all to
improve our ability to equip the United States and our allies for the
growing challenges we face.
These investments are not just replacing what is being used to
destroy Russia's military strength; they are expanding production
capacity to meet the soaring demand from allies. NATO countries have
invested $90 billion in capabilities produced here in America since
last February, and they are helping equip U.S. forces for our own long-
term competition with China.
Take the Patriot interceptor. This air defense system is arguably the
most in-demand weapon in the United States' arsenal. It has saved
thousands of American and allied lives. It is deployed across Europe,
the Middle East, and the Indo-Pacific. It is produced in Tucson, AZ,
with components coming from all over our country; and the supplemental
resources we are working on could expand production capacity by nearly
20 percent.
Or take the 155-millimeter round. It is relevant in nearly every
conflict imaginable. More than 75 percent of our investments marked for
this munition has gone toward capacity expansion. Today, U.S.
manufacturers are able to produce double what they could before our
response to the Russian aggression last year. With the further
investment of so-called Ukraine spending, American production would
reach 1 million rounds per year.
The notion that this money is distracting from America's other
security priorities is nonsense. Anyone making this claim doesn't
understand how critical production lines work. The truth is the
investments we have made in expanding production capacity to respond to
Putin's escalation are helping American manufacturers produce more of
the weapons Israel and Taiwan need.
I have spoken at length about America's clear national security
interest in helping Ukraine demolish Russian military strength and in a
secure and peaceful Europe. I have spelled out the glaring and
immediate threats we face from Iran-backed terror and of the importance
of supporting our closest ally in the Middle East. I have emphasized
the gravity of strategic competition with China and the urgency of the
threat facing our friends out in the Indo-Pacific.
But, as foolish as it is to deny the clear link between America's
adversaries and the threats we face, it is every bit as dangerous to
pretend that, as a global superpower, our Nation cannot or should not
face each of them down. We have the means to lead the free world and
ensure our own security. In the face of coordinated aggression from our
adversaries, we have the clearest possible objective: We win. They
lose.
Border Security
Now, Mr. President, on a related matter, as I mentioned last week,
illegal crossings at our southern border are setting alltime records.
In just 3 years, under the Biden administration, the CBP has recorded 6
million border encounters--6 million. And yet, in the face of these
astonishing statistics, the Secretary of Homeland Security continues to
say: ``Our approach to managing the border . . . is working.''
The White House Press Secretary has reiterated this insanity, saying:
It's not like someone walks over [the border]. . . . That's
not how it works.
Well, of course, we know that is exactly--exactly--how it works. The
Border Patrol has been tracking 1,000 known ``got-aways'' per day--
1,000 ``got-aways'' per day.
The facts on the ground send a clear message: The Biden
administration's handling of the border crisis is a complete and utter
failure.
[[Page S5272]]
Yesterday, Senator Cruz and Senator Barrasso both shared an encounter
they witnessed on the border, over the weekend, of a 10-year-old girl
and a man claiming to be her father. They described the terror on the
girl's face as the man attempted to use the Biden administration's
family unit loophole to cut the line at the border. As Senator Cruz put
it, ``the cartels are renting children to grown men.''
The crisis that has unfolded on President Biden's watch is inhumane
and dangerous. Fiscal year 2022 was the deadliest year on record at the
southern border, and fiscal year 2023 set an alltime record for terror
watchlist encounters. We are watching a humanitarian crisis that has
become a glaring national security vulnerability.
The solution is pretty clear. The solution isn't billions of dollars
to make it easier and faster to process illegal immigrants or ``money
for a welcome wagon,'' as Senator Barrasso put it yesterday. The
solution is a clear and commonsense policy that forces the Biden
administration to enforce the law and treat the border with the legal
consequences that it demands.
So I am grateful to my Republican colleagues who are working hard on
a policy proposal to deliver actual border security and drawing on
ideas put forward by Senator Lankford, Senator Cruz, Senator Grassley,
and others.
Washington Democrats have proved that their border security approach
is simply not working. President Biden's border supplemental request is
just more of the same. It is time to wake up and embrace policy changes
that will keep Americans safe.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, we recently learned that fiscal year 2023
set a new record for the number of illegal immigrants apprehended at
the southern border--the third recordbreaking year of illegal
immigration under the Biden administration.
First, fiscal year 2021 set an alltime record. Then, fiscal year 2022
broke that record. And, now, fiscal 2023 has broken that record. In
other words, we have had 3 straight years of the Biden border crisis
getting worse and worse and worse.
Since the President took office, more than 6.2 million individuals
have been caught attempting to illegally cross our southern border--6.2
million. If every one of those individuals lived in one city, it would
be the second largest in the country.
I don't need to tell anyone that the kind of unchecked illegal
immigration we are experiencing represents a serious security threat.
The Department of Homeland Security recently noted in its 2024 threat
assessment:
Terrorists and criminal actors may exploit the elevated
flow [of migration] and increasingly complex security
environment to enter the United States.
And by all indications, bad actors are, in fact, taking advantage of
the chaos at the border to try and enter the United States. During
fiscal year 2023 alone, 169 individuals on the Terrorist Watchlist were
caught attempting to illegally cross our southern border--169 on the
Terrorist Watchlist. Those are the ones they apprehended. That is more
than in the previous 6 years combined.
The head of the Border Patrol recently said that his Agency is
arresting an average of more than 47 people per day who have ``serious
criminal histories''--more than 47 people per day with serious criminal
histories. Those are just the individuals who are being caught.
Since January 2021, when President Biden took office, there have been
more than 1.7 million known ``got-aways.'' Those are individuals the
Border Patrol saw but was unable to apprehend. We can only imagine the
number of unknown ``got-aways'' who have sneaked into the country.
How many of those individuals have ``serious criminal histories'' or
hail from hostile countries? We just don't know, but we can be pretty
confident that among those ``got-aways'' are dangerous individuals who
should not be entering our country.
This is a serious issue, and we need a serious course correction from
this administration.
Vice President Harris, who is in charge of overseeing border policies
for this administration, recently told ``60 Minutes'' that ``we need a
safe, orderly, and humane border policy.'' This has been the purported
goal of the Biden administration for almost 3 years now, but the
administration has been failing on all three counts.
The current crisis we are experiencing is a predictable result of the
Biden administration's decisions. Before the President took office, his
team was warned of the possibility of a migrant surge. Yet the moment
the President took office, he set about dismantling the immigration
policies of his predecessor and weakening our border's security, and
the result has been, as I said, 3 successive years of recordbreaking
illegal immigration.
While the Biden administration has finally started to, at least
halfheartedly, acknowledge our Nation's border crisis and put in place
policies attempting to encourage legal migration and penalize illegal
border crossings, the changes are insufficient--far too little, far too
late--or, as one columnist recently put it in the Washington Post,
``The Biden administration's various efforts have amounted to Band-Aids
on a massive, open wound.''
The President's recent supplemental funding request has not left me
hopeful that the administration is suddenly going to become more
effective. Potentially billions of dollars in reimbursement for blue
States struggling to house illegal immigrants won't do a single thing
to solve the crisis we are facing at the border.
While the President's proposal does include some funding that would
actually go toward security, funding alone is simply not enough. We
need meaningful policy changes that will, for starters, end the rampant
abuse of our asylum system and sweeping parole designations.
Senators Graham, Lankford, and Cotton, among several others, are
working hard to craft a set of changes to our asylum and parole
policies that would stem the flow at our southern border. These changes
would address obvious flaws in President Biden's immigration policies
and make tangible progress toward getting our border crisis under
control.
Recent events have underscored the importance of national security,
and a porous southern border is a huge--huge--vulnerability when it
comes to our national security. We need to use every tool we can to
secure the border and keep terrorists and criminals out of the United
States.
Senate Republicans are committed to putting policies in place at the
border that keep Americans safe, and I hope that, in the days and weeks
to come, Senate Democrats will join us to make securing our border a
priority.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hickenlooper). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Israel
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, the situation in Gaza today is a
disaster. Congress must take action. The administration must take
action. The world must take action.
Today, 3 weeks after Hamas's barbaric attack against civilians in
Israel, which began this war, many hundreds of thousands of innocent
men, women, and children in Gaza are on the brink. Over the past 3
weeks, it is estimated that some 8,000 people in Gaza have been killed
in bombings, including more than 3,000 children, and far more have been
wounded.
More than a million people in Gaza have been displaced from their
homes, and some 670,000 are sheltering in U.N. installations, where
they are down to 1 liter of water per person per day. They lack
sufficient food, water, medical supplies, or fuel. The hospitals and
medical facilities there are in nightmarish conditions, with hundreds
of
[[Page S5273]]
babies in incubators and patients on life support at risk of death
should the generators that sustain them run out of fuel. Corridors are
lined with injured and displaced people, and overwhelmed doctors must
turn patients away or operate without anesthesia or antibiotics.
The humanitarian crisis is dire and getting worse by the minute.
There must be a humanitarian pause now so that sufficient supplies--
food, water, medicine, fuel--can reach the people of Gaza. If not,
thousands more will die needlessly. We cannot allow that to happen. A
stop to the bombing is critical to save innocent lives and secure the
safe return of hostages.
Let us never forget the lives of all children--all people--are
sacred, whether they are Palestinian children, Israeli children, or
American children, and we must do everything we can to protect them.
But if we are going to make any real progress in addressing this never-
ending conflict between Israel and Hamas--there have been five wars in
the last 15 years--we need to understand somewhat as to how we got to
where we are today. If peace is to come to that troubled region and if
the Palestinian people are ever going to be able to enjoy lives of
security and dignity, there must be a vision of where we go in the
future.
So, let us be clear, the living conditions in Gaza before October 7
were horrific and inhumane, and that is before Hamas ignited the latest
war. Before this conflict, in Gaza, nearly 80 percent of people there
lived in poverty, and two-thirds were reliant on humanitarian
assistance. Almost half the population and over 70 percent of young
people were unemployed in Gaza. What kind of life could they look
forward to? Electricity there was intermittent, with 11- to 12-hour
blackouts every day. Water and sanitation systems were inadequate, and
there were constant shortages of all basic necessities.
Gaza was mostly cut off from the world, with Israel and Egypt
severely limiting the number of people and types of goods that could go
in or out. In fact, many observers described Gaza as ``an open-air
prison''--and all of that is before October 7.
If we are serious about bringing freedom and dignity to the
Palestinian people, that is a situation that can never be allowed to be
returned to. The Palestinian people are entitled to much more than
that.
In Gaza, Hamas, an authoritarian terrorist organization, ruled by
force, stockpiling arms and war materiel, taxing the desperately poor
population, and stealing resources to build tunnels and rockets. Make
no mistake about it, Hamas is a terrorist organization bent on the
destruction of Israel, and long before this horrific attack, they had
killed countless innocent people, including Americans. They advance a
fundamentalist ideology which treats women as inferior, second-class
citizens and which threatens to kill people who are gay.
Hamas is an authoritarian nightmare, repressing dissent and stealing
from Gazans not just many materials of life but the dream of a better
future. And that was the situation before October 7.
And what was going on in Israel before Hamas's terrorist attack? What
was going on there? That country had the most rightwing government in
its history, a Cabinet that included outright racist Ministers who
consistently dehumanized the Palestinian population. Benjamin
Netanyahu, the Prime Minister, was under indictment for a litany of
corruption charges, and many believe that Israel's intelligence--or
lack of intelligence--on October 7 had everything to do with his
government's preoccupation with his political problems.
Before the war, this rightwing Israeli Government had systematically
undermined the prospects of peace. Netanyahu and his extreme partners
in the Cabinet had worked to marginalize Palestinian voices committed
to peace, pursued settlement policies designed to foreclose the
possibility of a two-state solution, stymied economic development in
Palestinian areas, and passed laws that entrenched systemic inequality
between Jewish and Palestinian citizens of Israel.
This last year saw record Israeli settlement growth in the West Bank,
where more than 700,000 Israelis now live in areas the United Nations
and United States agree are occupied territories. Despite that, the
Israeli Government authorized thousands of new homes for settlers and
opened up new areas to construction, while bulldozing thousands of
Palestinian homes and schools and further restricting Palestinian
movement.
Legal experts agree, these policies constituted nothing less than
illegal annexation. All of these policies and more greatly increased
tension in the West Bank. Before October 7, 179 Palestinians had been
killed in 2023--179 Palestinians in the West Bank--which made it the
deadliest year in two decades. Since October 7, 121 more Palestinians
have been killed in the West Bank, including some by settlers.
These tensions were part of why so much of the IDF, the Israel
Defense Forces, was deployed in the West Bank rather than the border
with Gaza.
And then came October 7 and Hamas's atrocities that began this latest
and horrific war. The Hamas attack was unspeakable. Over 1,300 innocent
men, women, and children in Israel were killed; over 200 Israelis and
Americans taken hostage, including young children and grandparents.
Young people were gunned down in cold blood at a music festival, babies
and older people brutally murdered in their homes.
And let's remember that Hamas did not primarily target the military--
no. They intentionally targeted civilians. Their goal was to kill
civilians. Their attack was designed to provoke a response, and in that
they succeeded.
Many Israelis are now understandably furious, and they want to strike
back forcefully. I think we can all understand that. But rage and
revenge do not make useful policy. And here in the United States, after
the attack on 9/11 in this country, we acted with rage and revenge, and
I think many people now understand that that was a horrific mistake.
Killing innocent Palestinian women and children in Gaza will not
bring back to life the innocent Israeli women and children who have
been killed by Hamas. Like any other country, Israel has the right to
defend itself and destroy Hamas terrorism, but it does not have the
right to kill thousands of innocent men, women, and children in Gaza.
Israel does not have the right to endanger the lives of millions of
Palestinians--half of whom are children--by shutting off water, food,
fuel, and electricity. That type of action against a helpless and
impoverished population is morally unacceptable and in violation of
international law.
Israel does not have the right to bomb an entire neighborhood to
target one Hamas leader or installation, but that is what the Israeli
Government is doing. One need only look at the satellite imagery and
photography of Gaza to see that this is not a carefully calibrated
campaign. These are not surgical strikes.
Yesterday, Israel struck the densely populated Jabalia refugee camp
and killed a Hamas commander, but they also killed some 50 other people
and injured hundreds more, although the exact toll is not yet known.
That was actually the fourth airstrike on that community. An October 9
airstrike killed 60, an October 19 airstrike killed 18, and an October
22 airstrike killed 30, according to outside researchers.
UNRWA reported yesterday that their head of security--that is the
United Nations Relief Agency--their head of security was killed, along
with his wife and eight children. In total, 67 United Nations Relief
Agency workers have been killed, and 44 United Nations facilities have
been damaged since October 7.
The current Israeli strategy must end. Israel must begin the process
of restoring water and electrical services to areas where they are
still operable. The international community must also rush generators
and solar capacity to Gazan medical facilities to address acute needs
and reduce Israeli fears of diversion to Hamas.
Israel will not stop going after Hamas, but it must do it in a very,
very different way, and additional pauses will be needed.
Let me conclude by saying that Israel must also begin the process of
laying out a political strategy. It cannot bomb its way to a solution.
Such a strategy must include as minimum first steps a clear promise
that Palestinians displaced in the fighting will
[[Page S5274]]
have the absolute right to safely return to their homes; a commitment
to broader peace talks to advance a two-state solution in the wake of
this war; an abandonment of Israeli efforts to carve up and annex the
West Bank; and a commitment to work with the Palestinian Authority to
build genuine governing capacity.
The United States must make it clear that these are the conditions of
our solidarity. Just as we want justice for the Israelis murdered by
Hamas, we also want justice for the Palestinian people, and that is not
going to happen with Hamas. Palestinians need a state of their own,
contiguous, with the freedom of movement and access that can sustain a
vibrant economy.
This will be a long and difficult road. It will take concerted U.S.
and international support and a doubling down of our political
commitment to a two-state solution. But the first step right now must
be to stop the bombing and bring in as much humanitarian aid as
possible.
I think Secretary Blinken said it well when he said:
Providing immediate aid and protection for Palestinian
civilians in the conflict is a necessary foundation for
finding partners in Gaza who have a different vision for the
future than Hamas--and who are willing to help make it real.
This is a dreadful situation. It is part of a very, very long-term
conflict between Israel and its neighbors. But the immediate crisis is
to save lives, to stop the bombing, to bring forth a humanitarian
pause, and then to go forward to bring peace and stability to the
region.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
S.J. Res 42
Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, I rise today about a resolution to make it
harder for students--all students--to have access to school meals. I am
referring to S.J. Res. 42. We deal with a lot of complex issues here
every day. This is not a complex issue.
First, the Federal policy: the USDA memo clarifying that State
agencies and programs participating in Federal school meal programs are
required to abide by our Nation's anti-discrimination laws. This means
that they cannot deny access to kids on the basis of their gender
identity or sexual orientation. In other words, schools may not deny
lunch to LGBTQ+ kids.
Now, this isn't some strange, new interpretation of the law that USDA
came up with and announced out of the blue; this is the USDA
implementing anti-discrimination laws that apply across government, in
line with the Supreme Court's reading. This is what the Republicans
attempted to overturn with S.J. Res. 42.
Of course, S.J. Res. 42 was never really just about school lunches.
The goal was to send a message to LGBTQ+ kids that they are not
welcome, to send a message that it is OK to discriminate against these
kids because of who they are. I want to be very clear. That is wrong.
We proudly stand with LGBTQ+ kids.
Your rights matter. You are welcome at school.
The USDA guidance will help kids. It will also reduce discrimination
and bring Agency guidance in line with Supreme Court precedent.
The USDA policy will also ensure that hungry kids get the food they
need to grow and to do well in school. According to census data, LGBTQ+
individuals are almost twice as likely to live in a household that
experiences food insecurity, and trans individuals are almost three
times more likely not to have enough food to eat, as compared to
cisgender individuals.
The last thing our kids need is adults behaving like classroom
bullies and trying to justify taking away their lunches. I am glad the
Senate rejected this resolution.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Amendment No. 1241
Mr. CRAMER. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 1241 and ask
that it be reported by number, as I intend to withdraw the amendment
shortly due to majority party mischief.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report by number.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Cramer], for himself and
Mr. Manchin, proposes an amendment numbered 1241 to amendment
No. 1092.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To prohibit the use of funds to finalize, implement,
administer, or enforce the proposed rule of the Federal Highway
Administration relating to greenhouse gas emissions performance
measures)
In title I of division C, insert after section 127 the
following:
Sec. 128. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to finalize, implement, administer, or enforce the
proposed rulemaking entitled ``National Performance
Management Measures; Assessing Performance of the National
Highway System, Greenhouse Gas Emissions Measure'' (87 Fed.
Reg. 42401 (July 15, 2022)) or a successor regulation.
Mr. CRAMER. Mr. President, the Senate has been preaching regular
order for some time, and I have been cheering them on. I have been a
strong advocate for regular order because we need a process that
engages all of the Members of this body. But one has to ask why my
bipartisan, germane amendment is deemed a ``poison pill'' and now needs
60 votes to pass. Well, I know the answer. It is simple. Because it was
going to pass. That is why. That is why suddenly it is a ``poison
pill.'' Senate Democrats would rather provide the Biden administration
cover by taking a show vote designed to fail than follow real regular
order. The will of the Senate should prevail here, but they are not
going to let it.
This appropriation limitation amendment would prevent the U.S.
Department of Transportation from finalizing their illegal rule
requiring States to measure CO2 tailpipe emissions and then
set declining targets for individual States on their roadways.
Congress has not provided any authority for the Department of
Transportation to dictate CO2 performance requirements. They
can't do what they don't have the authority to do. And even if we had,
it is not a workable solution. It may be hard for bureaucrats in
Washington, DC, to imagine this, but you cannot tell States like North
Dakota and Montana that to reduce tailpipe emissions is easy. Just
build a subway. Build a subway or dedicate bus lanes on your gravel
roads. That is why a majority of the States in this country have
submitted comments expressing their concern and opposing--outright
opposing--this rule.
When the Environment and Public Works Committee negotiated the last
highway bill, we expressly left this authority out. We made the
decision to not give this authority to the Department of
Transportation.
I would note that that bill moved out of committee unanimously and
then became the cornerstone of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs
Act. Ironically, the Biden administration created the ``poison pill''
that this amendment is meant to address.
I am not interested in show votes, so I am going to withdraw the
amendment.
The administration should scrap this rule, but if they finalize it, I
will be back. I will be back with a CRA resolution, and then Senate
Democrats can't force a 60-vote majority on that one, and I will lead
an amicus brief pointing to the major questions doctrine, which the
Department of Transportation clearly violates with their rule.
With that, I yield.
Amendment No. 1241 Withdrawn
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is withdrawn.
The amendment (No. 1241) was withdrawn.
Mr. CRAMER. 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. PAUL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be up to
4 minutes of debate equally divided on Senate amendments Nos. 1217 and
1347.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 1217
Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 1217 and ask that
it be reported by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report by number.
[[Page S5275]]
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. Paul] proposes an amendment
numbered 1217 to amendment No. 1092.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To require a full audit of the Board of Governors of the
Federal Reserve System and the Federal reserve banks by the Comptroller
General of the United States)
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. _____. AUDIT REFORM AND TRANSPARENCY FOR THE BOARD OF
GOVERNORS OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM.
(a) In General.--Notwithstanding section 714 of title 31,
United States Code, or any other provision of law, the
Comptroller General of the United States shall complete an
audit of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
and the Federal reserve banks under subsection (b) of that
section not later than 12 months after the date of enactment
of this Act.
(b) Report.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 90 days after the date on
which the audit required pursuant to subsection (a) is
completed, the Comptroller General of the United States--
(A) shall submit to Congress a report on the audit; and
(B) shall make the report described in subparagraph (A)
available to the Speaker of the House, the majority and
minority leaders of the House of Representatives, the
majority and minority leaders of the Senate, the Chair and
Ranking Member of the committee and each subcommittee of
jurisdiction in the House of Representatives and the Senate,
and any other Member of Congress who requests the report.
(2) Contents.--The report required under paragraph (1)
shall include a detailed description of the findings and
conclusion of the Comptroller General of the United States
with respect to the audit that is the subject of the report,
together with such recommendations for legislative or
administrative action as the Comptroller General of the
United States may determine to be appropriate.
(c) Repeal of Certain Limitations.--Subsection (b) of
section 714 of title 31, United States Code, is amended by
striking the second sentence.
(d) Technical and Conforming Amendments.--
(1) In general.--Section 714 of title 31, United States
Code, is amended--
(A) in subsection (d)(3), by striking ``or (f)'' each place
the term appears;
(B) in subsection (e), by striking ``the third undesignated
paragraph of section 13'' and inserting ``section 13(3)'';
and
(C) by striking subsection (f).
(2) Federal reserve act.--Subsection (s) (relating to
``Federal Reserve Transparency and Release of Information'')
of section 11 of the Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 248) is
amended--
(A) in paragraph (4)(A), by striking ``has the same meaning
as in section 714(f)(1)(A) of title 31, United States Code''
and inserting ``means a program or facility, including any
special purpose vehicle or other entity established by or on
behalf of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve
System or a Federal reserve bank, authorized by the Board of
Governors under section 13(3), that is not subject to audit
under section 714(e) of title 31, United States Code'';
(B) in paragraph (6), by striking ``or in section
714(f)(3)(C) of title 31, United States Code, the information
described in paragraph (1) and information concerning the
transactions described in section 714(f) of such title,'' and
inserting ``the information described in paragraph (1)''; and
(C) in paragraph (7), by striking ``and section 13(3)(C),
section 714(f)(3)(C) of title 31, United States Code, and''
and inserting ``, section 13(3)(C), and''.
Mr. PAUL. The Federal Reserve effectively controls the economy but
without scrutiny. No other institution has so much unchecked power.
The Fed demonstrated its unlimited authority during the pandemic. The
Fed printed money, purchased government-backed securities, and doled
out massive amounts of money to favorite industries. The result added
almost $5 trillion to the Fed's balance sheet, the largest in our
history.
When Dodd-Frank ordered a limited, one-time audit of Fed actions, the
Government Accountability Office uncovered that during the financial
crisis, the Fed doled out over $16 trillion to domestic and foreign
banks. This kind of inflationary bailout should not be kept secret from
the public.
While the Fed's easy money policies make the rich richer, the side
effect is high inflation. As Milton Friedman famously explained,
``Inflation is taxation without legislation.''
Congress cannot control the Fed's actions, but Fed actions can cost
Americans dearly. Just ask any parent who has to feed his or her family
during historically high inflation rates.
My amendment would require a full audit of the Fed within 1 year. It
is time for the Federal Reserve to operate in a manner that is
transparent and accountable to the taxpayers. I ask for a ``yes'' vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in opposition to the
Paul amendment.
Members of both parties have always agreed an independent--underscore
independent--central bank is critical to a functioning economy.
Congress put in place restrictions to shield the Fed's monetary policy
from political influence. This longstanding restriction ensures that
the Fed isn't subject to the whims of Congress, to the partisanship, to
the nihilism--if I could use another word--of, too often, people in
this body.
Whether it is threatening a default or a government shutdown, all too
common because of dysfunction and chaos in the House of
Representatives--whether it is threatening a default or government
shutdown, we have already seen how partisanship so negatively impacts
people's pocketbooks in the broader economy. We don't need it here too.
This amendment would make the Fed less effective. It would open it up
to all kinds of nefarious political pressure. Congress already requires
that the Fed undergo regular review of their operations, of their
programs, of their balance sheet, of their financial statements. These
are some of the ways Congress holds the Fed accountable while avoiding
dangerous political interference.
This amendment is irrelevant to what we are voting on today. It is
yet another impediment to keeping our government open. It shouldn't be
partisan. It shouldn't be political. Those antics should stay out of
this debate.
I urge my colleagues to vote no on the Paul amendment.
I yield the floor.
Vote on Amendment No. 1217
Mr. PAUL. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
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. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from Utah (Mr. Lee), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Scott), and
the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis).
The result was announced--yeas 46, nays 51, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 280 Leg.]
YEAS--46
Baldwin
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
Lummis
Marshall
McConnell
Moran
Mullin
Murkowski
Paul
Risch
Rubio
Sanders
Schmitt
Scott (FL)
Sinema
Sullivan
Thune
Tuberville
Vance
Wicker
Young
NAYS--51
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
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Peters
Reed
Ricketts
Romney
Rosen
Rounds
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Smith
Stabenow
Tester
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Welch
Whitehouse
Wyden
NOT VOTING--3
Lee
Scott (SC)
Tillis
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 46, the nays are
51.
Under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this
amendment, the amendment is not agreed to.
The amendment (No. 1217) was rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Order of Procedure
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, for the information of the Senate,
starting at 2:30 p.m. today, the following amendments are expected to
be called up and made pending: Cruz No. 1249 and Lee No. 1121. Upon
disposition of the amendments, the Senate will vote on
[[Page S5276]]
adoption of the substitute amendment No. 1092, as amended, and on
passage of H.R. 4366, as amended; further, that upon disposition of
H.R. 4366, the Senate will vote on passage of H.R. 662, as amended, and
that all previous provisions of the order from October 24 remain in
effect.
So for the information of all Senators, there will be four rollcall
votes beginning at 2:30 p.m. today.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
Amendment No. 1347 to Amendment No. 1092
(Purpose: To reduce the amounts appropriated in divisions B and C and
to rescind amounts appropriated to the Internal Revenue Service.)
Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 1347 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 Kentucky [Mr. Paul] proposes an amendment
numbered 1347 to amendment No. 1092.
(The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of
Amendments.'')
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be up
to 4 minutes of debate, equally divided.
The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, the national debt just recently surpassed
$33 trillion. That is $280,000 per household. Unless we change course,
the debt only increases.
CBO predicts trillion-dollar deficits as far as the eye can see. We
borrow over $176,000,000 every hour, $3,000,000 is borrowed every
minute, and $50,000 every second. It is out of control.
Net interest payments are anticipated to double, from $475 billion to
a trillion dollars by fiscal year 2028. Interest will be the largest
item of expenditure for the Federal Government.
Americans could pay dearly for Congress's inability to say no to the
welfare and warfare state. It could mean confiscatory tax rates, high
inflation, and a weak economy. But it doesn't have to be this way.
My amendment begins the path toward fiscal health by saving the
taxpayers $30 billion. My amendment also cuts $25 billion that the
Biden administration wants to use to sic the IRS on taxpayers to
squeeze them for even more money. That is a reduction of $55 billion
for what the government is on track to spend.
I urge a ``yes'' vote on my amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, we have a bipartisan package before us.
This amendment that is being offered would slash funding supported
unanimously in our committee in the Ag and T-HUD bills--kicking women
and kids off of WIC or gutting funding for our farmers and agricultural
research, making our food supplies less safe; laying off air traffic
controllers, leading to flight delays and cancellations; booting people
from their homes as housing assistance would be cut off; eliminating
resources for communities to invest in important local infrastructure
needs and a lot more. This would be catastrophic.
The bills we are considering today have been carefully drafted. They
are written to the spending levels that were set by the debt ceiling
agreement that the House Republicans and the President agreed on.
Congress passed it in July, so I urge my colleagues to vote no.
VOTE ON AMENDMENT NO. 1347
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
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 senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from Utah (Mr. Lee), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Scott), and
the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis).
Further, if present and voting: the Senator from North Carolina (Mr.
Tillis) would have voted ``nay.''
The result was announced--yeas 23, nays 74, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 281 Leg.]
YEAS--23
Barrasso
Blackburn
Braun
Budd
Cornyn
Cotton
Crapo
Cruz
Grassley
Hawley
Johnson
Kennedy
Lummis
Mullin
Paul
Ricketts
Risch
Rubio
Schmitt
Scott (FL)
Sullivan
Tuberville
Vance
NAYS--74
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Boozman
Britt
Brown
Butler
Cantwell
Capito
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Cassidy
Collins
Coons
Cortez Masto
Cramer
Daines
Duckworth
Durbin
Ernst
Fetterman
Fischer
Gillibrand
Graham
Hagerty
Hassan
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Kaine
Kelly
King
Klobuchar
Lankford
Lujan
Manchin
Markey
Marshall
McConnell
Menendez
Merkley
Moran
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Peters
Reed
Romney
Rosen
Rounds
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Tester
Thune
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Welch
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden
Young
NOT VOTING--3
Lee
Scott (SC)
Tillis
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Cortez Masto). On this vote, the yeas are
23, the nays are 74.
Under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this
amendment, the amendment is not agreed to.
The amendment (No. 1347) was rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
Supplemental Funding
Mrs. CAPITO. Madam President, I rise today to address this Chamber at
an increasingly important moment in our Nation's history, to discuss
the national security issues that we are currently facing and the ways
in which the U.S. Senate can address them.
On the floor, over the past several weeks, I have repeatedly called
for American leadership in support of our allies abroad and in support
of the many challenges that we face here at home. Again, today, I renew
that call for American leadership and continue to stress the urgency
created by the trials at hand: from the vicious, horrific attacks on
our allies in Israel by Hamas to Putin's aggression we see in Europe;
from North Korea's brazen nuclear posturing to Iranian militias
attacking our men and women overseas in uniform; and, of course, the
increasing tensions that we see in the Indo-Pacific, where China
continues to threaten stability and to pursue the largest military
buildup since World War II.
We are currently living in times and are tasked in making decisions
that will greatly shape the world in which we and the young people here
today will be living in. Our Nation is being tested. Our resolve is
being tested. And a country as powerful as ours needs to show strength,
clarity, and control that only the United States of America can
generate.
This is something I have addressed repeatedly with my constituents
across West Virginia and something that I am confident they understand
and agree with. The Mountain State is incredibly patriotic. We are very
proud Americans. Pride in our country and a steadfast belief in the
ideals and values that we stand for are invaluable, both now and in our
future. I agree with my fellow patriotic West Virginians that this is
the greatest country on Earth and that the title requires us to make
critical investments in both our own national security and in the
security of our allies, before it is too late.
It is imperative that Americans across this country recognize this
and that we come together as our adversaries attempt to turn us against
one another.
I am appreciative of the Biden administration for proposing a
supplemental appropriations package that addresses key areas of concern
that I have talked to, but those key areas of concern that we see
across our country and the world. That being said, the administration's
supplemental request needs to be recognized for what it is--a request.
The Senate must and will have a say in how this is formulated. The
Biden administration has not shown the strength it needs to during
these challenging times.
We need to unabashedly stand with Israel. We need to responsibly
support
[[Page S5277]]
Ukraine as they further deteriorate Putin's military. They are getting
back land that they lost. They are regaining it. We need to strengthen
our allies and our own defense capabilities in the Indo-Pacific. And we
may need to make strong changes to policies that have allowed our
southern border to remain in chaos for years now. Any response from the
Senate must reflect these four categories because they are directly
tied to what is in the best interest of our country and our national
security.
Yesterday, I participated in a Senate Appropriations hearing to
examine President Biden's request. This was an important step. It
allowed us to grow consensus as we move toward a supplemental that will
be crafted by the Senate. I firmly believe that this was one of our
most important Appropriations Committee hearings, and I congratulate
the chair and the vice chair. This hearing highlighted how investments
into the defense of Israel and Ukraine go a long way to strengthening
our own defense capabilities and how the lack of deterrence and
enforcement at our southern border is creating elevated threats to our
national security.
This further underscores the importance of responsible relief efforts
that need to be included in a response from the Senate. It is critical
that a Senate-crafted supplemental address all four areas that I have
mentioned and that we provide the tools needed for our allies to win
and to strengthen our own defense capabilities, at the same time, in
the process.
Israel is currently under attack by Hamas and Hezbollah and
terrorists who are supported by America's most evil adversaries.
American lives have been lost, and far too many innocent families have
been left without a home and without their loved ones.
Ukraine is facing an unjust and unprovoked ground war, the likes of
which we have not seen in generations--nor did we think we would see in
this generation. Putin's aggression creates dangers all around the
globe. The Ukrainian military is decimating Russia's military strength
without putting one American troop in harm's way.
Additionally, funding toward Ukraine goes straight into replenishing
our own stockpiles with new and more advanced weapons. These are
weapons that are made in the U.S.A., for the U.S.A., some of which are
made in my home State of West Virginia.
Our Indo-Pacific allies remain on heightened alert. I saw this
directly when I visited the region last summer. It is irresponsible to
neglect the tie between the attacks on Israel, the war in Ukraine, and
the security of Taiwan and the increasing aggression from China--and on
our southern border, which remains in chaos.
President Biden's policies have led to record after record of illegal
crossings, with an alarming amount of encounters with individuals on
our own country's Terrorist Watch List. I saw where Secretary Mayorkas
testified yesterday that 600,000 ``got-aways''--we don't even count
them in the over 2 million who were apprehended. This is 600,000 people
who are believed to have entered our country without any interdiction
at all. We don't know who these people are.
We do not just need funding for a border wall; we need substantial
changes in policy, as I said earlier, that will strengthen our security
and protect our homeland, which has been left under siege for far too
long.
It is important that Congress and the American public recognize the
importance of support across those four categories. The investments
will support our own defense industrial base. It will increase the
security of the United States. We will support our allies in their time
of need, and, most importantly, we will keep U.S. servicemembers from
fighting in these battles. Each of these categories is in the direct
and best interest of the United States and the security of our homeland
and the security of our allies.
There is no doubt that now is the time to act. If we fail to meet our
obligations in any of the four areas, we weaken the overall impact of
all of them. I am confident in the ability of this Chamber to craft a
supplemental that meets the growing and urgent national security needs
of our country and our world.
The time for American leadership is now.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
Israel
Mrs. FISCHER. Madam President, we have heard story after story this
past month about Hamas's brutal ground attacks on Israel. Hamas
militants murdered Israelis and Americans alike as they stormed places,
from border towns to music festivals. Hamas didn't just attack from the
ground; they continue to rain rockets on Israel. These rockets have
destroyed people's homes, ruptured their livelihoods, and taken their
lives.
Throughout this conflict, Israel's Iron Dome defense system has
played a crucial role. The Iron Dome acts as a shield, detecting
rockets and firing missiles to intercept them before they hit the
ground.
The United States has stood by Israel--our closest ally in the Middle
East--since the country's inception. We have always pledged our support
in times of crisis. So it is critical that my colleagues and I on the
Senate Appropriations Committee work together to ensure that Israel
receives the defensive and offensive capabilities that it has requested
from the United States. That includes replenishing the Iron Dome system
so that Israel is able to protect its people from rocket attacks by
terrorist groups. It includes replenishing Israel's David's Sling
system and investing in the development of the Iron Beam system. These
defensive systems set Israel up for an effective response to the havoc
that Hamas and Hezbollah continue to wreak.
We must provide Israel with the time and resources its government
needs to eliminate those threats. But as we consider the aid we will
provide to Israel, we also need to consider the question, how do we
better position the United States to support our allies as well as
bolster our own defense systems amid the escalating global threats?
A few days after the heinous attacks on Israel, a bipartisan,
bicameral congressional commission released its report on the strategic
posture of the United States. This report, based on the consensus of
respected national security experts from across the political spectrum,
concluded that the United States will be woefully underprepared for the
threats we are facing.
Our two peer nuclear adversaries, Russia and China, have dramatically
expanded their nuclear forces over the decades. They continue to
develop novel nuclear weapons and delivery systems. Meanwhile, the
United States is barely keeping up with modernizing our nuclear forces.
The report emphasized the need to grow our nuclear and conventional
forces and, above all else, to expand our production capability,
including our workforce, supply chain, and infrastructure.
As Senators, we regularly receive briefings and intelligence reports
that clearly outline the threats we face from actors like Russia and
China. I have often said that if the American people had access to more
of this information themselves, they would better understand the nature
and the severity of the threats we face. Investment in national
security would move to the top of their priority list.
These events--the release of a disquieting defense report and the
assault against our ally Israel--should serve as a wake-up call for the
United States of America. We must expand our production capacity to
meet the needs of our country. If we don't expand our production
capacity, we also won't be able to support our allies and our partners
or supply them with the lethal aid they desperately need.
Building out our capacity so we can meet future threats--that is
going to take time, and it is going to take resources. But we can start
now, and we can start by making targeted investments in munitions
production.
The administration's supplemental request includes $25 billion just
to replenish our own weapons stockpiles and expand the critical
munition production capacity--initiatives that, frankly, should have
already begun. Including this funding in the supplemental will be a
step in the right direction.
The supplemental request must bring together our goals of
strengthening our own military readiness, supporting our troops in
Europe and the Middle East, and providing our allies and our partners
with lethal aid. I look forward to
[[Page S5278]]
working with my colleagues to ensure that the supplemental includes
these priorities.
We have been asleep to changes in the global threat environment for
too long, and now is the time to wake up.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Supplemental Funding
Mr. HOEVEN. Madam President, yesterday, the Senate Appropriations
Committee heard from the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of
State about the administration's request for supplemental
appropriations. We heard about a wide range of threats to the national
security and the national interests of the American people.
Now, I believe that we need to support Israel, our staunch ally. We
see the Israelis fighting for their very existence. They need our help,
and they need it now. I believe this includes not only military
assistance but also standing against Iran. Various attacks have been
launched at U.S. forces across the Middle East since October 7, and
they have been launched at the behest of Iran--we know that--and we
must make it clear to Iran that there are consequences for attacking
U.S. forces.
In addition to support for Israel, I also recognize that we need to
support Ukraine. We know from history that tyrants like Putin do not
stop. They must be stopped. And as we support Ukraine, we need a
strategy for victory to end this war, not to have a continued
stalemate. Ukraine does not want the war to drag on, and neither do we.
So I will continue to press the Defense Department, as I did yesterday
with the Secretary of Defense, to ensure that we are on a path to win,
that Ukraine is on a path to win and end the conflict, not to have an
ongoing war.
So we need to support Israel, and we need to support Ukraine. But, at
the same time, enhancing our national security means we also need to
secure the homeland, and that means securing our southern border.
Border security is national security--I will repeat that: Border
security is national security. But this administration, the Biden
administration, does not have a plan in place to secure the border.
They are doing just the opposite. We have an open border--an open
border at a time when we are concerned about attacks from terrorists.
Last month, we had a record 270,000 illegal encounters at the
southern border. Last year, we had 2.5 million illegal encounters--also
a record. That includes 169 individuals who are on the Terrorist
Watchlist. I am sure our adversaries are very much aware of this
vulnerability.
The supplemental calls for funding to support ``border security.''
This administration's definition of ``border security'' is processing
migrants who illegally come across the southern border and then
providing them with housing, transportation, and other services once
they enter the United States. That will only encourage more illegal
immigration when we should be making every effort to get the border
under control.
The keys to securing the border and stopping the illegal crossings at
our southern border are simple, and we know what they are. The
solutions are there, but the administration won't apply them. And we
know--we are not guessing at this--because the last administration put
these in place, and they worked. They are reinstating the Migrant
Protection Protocols, meaning the ``Remain in Mexico'' policy, and
enforcing the safe third country agreements. They work. We know they
work. We have seen them work. The Biden administration has those tools,
but they won't use them. They won't enforce the law. As a result, we
have an open border, with 270,000 illegal encounters last month, 2.5
million last year, and 169 people encountered who are on the Terrorist
Watchlist.
How many came across who are on the Terrorist Watchlist whom we don't
know about--the ``got-aways''--at a time when we are worried about the
possibility of there being a terrorist attack in our country? What is
going on?
We need to also recontinue the construction of the border wall so
that the CBP can truly control this border. It is way past time to get
this done. These are the things that, I think, must be included as we
consider this funding. We need to secure our border as well. If we are
talking national security, we have to recognize that border security is
a vital part of national security, and that must be part of what we
include as we consider this funding. Again, I emphasize that border
security is national security.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Rosen). The Senator from Alaska.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, we just heard from the Senator of
North Dakota talking about the imperative of ensuring that our borders
are secure, particularly at the southern border.
We had an opportunity yesterday in the Senate Appropriations
Committee to hear from Secretary Austin and Secretary Blinken about the
administration's supplemental funding request. If there were one common
thread there that was underscored over and over, it was the dire need--
the immediate need--of support for our allies, our allies who are
locked, really, in two existential wars that threaten both their
sovereignties and their people. So the support for Israel and the
support for Ukraine, in my view, is one that I shared with the two
Secretaries: that they are inextricably linked and our support for both
must be inextricably linked.
We have all watched with horror as Hamas has unleashed this terrorist
attack on civilians, killing more than 1,400 Israelites and taking at
least 240 Israelites hostage; then in Ukraine, with Russia's brutal
invasion of Ukraine homeland killing over 70,000 Ukrainians in just a
hellbent mission to reclaim their old Soviet territory.
It is times like this when I think we look to the role that the
United States should be playing. We are not--no, we are not--the police
force for the world. We are not there to fight the wars for others. But
when the world is watching democracy face direct assaults from
terrorists and from authoritarian regimes, this is the time that the
United States must be leading from the front. We have a responsibility
to our allies, and we have a responsibility to the world at large,
whether that is providing humanitarian aid, promoting stability, or
lending support through the most powerful military in the world.
This is the United States. These are responsibilities that, I think,
are significant, and, again, others from around the world look to us
for that leadership.
Now, there are some who would suggest that we have supported Ukraine
enough; that we should move and direct our attention only to our own
borders; that the situation in Israel is such that we should focus
exclusively there. As we heard yesterday in the Appropriations hearing,
we do not have the luxury of dealing with one crisis at a time. That
would certainly make things easier, but we do not have that.
So to those who would suggest that we must abandon our allies in
their most desperate hour, I would remind them that this defense
spending comes right back to the United States through our own defense
industrial base, providing an opportunity to refresh outdated war-
readiness items, making the United States stronger in return as well as
providing jobs to Americans. So this is not just about providing aid to
others outside our borders. This is also helping to strengthen us.
There was a comment that I had read: The United States can lead
through the power of example; but in order to be most effective, we
need the example of our power.
It is that industrial base that we know we have work to do there.
Then, to those who say we need to be looking at home--again, as the
Senator from North Dakota mentioned--we do. We must pay attention to
those who are coming across our border illegally, those who would
threaten us from within. We cannot ever, ever lose sight of that
obligation and the responsibility; but I think it is important to
recognize that this supplemental request does include support for our
Department of Homeland Security to strengthen our border. It also
provides over $1 billion toward combating fentanyl--just the
devastating drug that has taken the lives of far, far, far too many
Americans. So that also must be part of this.
What we are talking about with this supplemental is, effectively,
four legs of a chair. Think about what makes
[[Page S5279]]
that chair that you are sitting in stable. You have got four pillars
here. One essential imperative: We must be there to support our friends
in Israel. We must be there. An imperative is to continue our support
for Ukraine. We must address our southern border--an absolute
imperative. Then that fourth underpinning that provides for that
greater stability is the threat from the Indo-Pacific.
So I think we know that, within the contours of this package that the
President has sent to us, there is room to move things around; there is
room to subtract or add. But I think it is these four fundamental
pillars here that are so inextricably linked that we cannot lose sight
of what it means and what our role here in the United States is.
The violence that we see may be across the globe, but the eyes of the
world are squarely on us. Our enemies are probing. They are waiting for
our response. They want to see what the United States is capable of.
Can they only do one thing at a time? Can they only do one thing? And,
if they can only do one thing, who are they going to choose? Are they
going to be there for their allies in words only or, when things get
hot over here, are they going to walk away over there? We have seen how
that failure in Afghanistan has reverberated around the world and what
it has meant to our friends and allies.
I would suggest that this supplemental package is measured, and it is
necessary as a strategic response. I will tell you, our opponents are
praying that we fail to take this up--as, again, that balance. So we
will and we should discuss and debate the contours within, but I would
hope that we would stand together and unite on a package that is good,
that is solid, and that is stable for our country and for our friends
and allies.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. WICKER. Madam President, let me say that I associate myself with
the remarks that were just made by the previous two speakers--the
senior Senator from the State of North Dakota and the distinguished
Senator from Alaska.
I rise today to follow on with the importance of national defense
and, in that regard, to speak specifically about the historic
Australia, United Kingdom, United States agreement known as AUKUS.
This pact, AUKUS, builds upon a bond forged during the First World
War between the United States and Australia and made unshakable in the
second. That bond remains strong today as we face the greatest
challenge of our lifetime--the Chinese Communist Party.
The Senator from Alaska just spoke about the importance of building
our defenses in the Indo-Pacific, and that is exactly what the AUKUS
agreement is designed to address.
Our military leadership has made the stakes clear. The Secretary of
the Air Force, Frank Kendall, recently said:
The intelligence couldn't be clearer. . . . China is
preparing for a war and specifically for a war with the
United States.
Now is the time for free nations across the Pacific to prepare for
this sobering possibility. The AUKUS deal will help prevent that war
from happening. Indeed, the AUKUS agreement is vital, but there is more
work to do beyond that. We have yet to take the actions necessary to
ensure that our industrial base can support both the United States and
Australia.
The basic fact is this: Our defense industrial base is not where it
needs to be. Workforce shortages, a shrinking base of contractors, and
insufficient resources have damaged our military readiness. Year after
year, we have deferred maintenance on our surface ships, even as these
ships are spending more days deployed and the fleet continues to
shrink. Our capabilities are stalling as we hurtle toward a window of
maximum danger with the Chinese Communist Party.
The story for our submarines is no better. We are not prepared to
fulfill our Navy's submarine construction and maintenance needs, let
alone fulfill the prospective commitments in the critical AUKUS
agreement.
Our Navy's requirement is to have 66 attack submarines at 80 percent
readiness. We currently have 49 attack submarines at 67 percent
readiness. Let me say that again. We need 66 attack submarines. We have
only 49. They need to be at 80 percent readiness. They are only at 67
percent.
We should be building two attack submarines per year, but we are
really building 1.2 attack submarines per year. The demands of the
AUKUS agreement would push this requirement higher to above 2.3 attack
submarines per year. We should do that, but we can't meet that
challenge right now. To meet this challenge, our defense industry will
need to handle more demand than ever before.
To handle this demand, our defense industry will need to reverse its
current trajectory. Since the so-called peace dividend of the 1990s, we
have closed two nuclear submarine repair yards and one construction
yard. COVID-19 took a sledgehammer to an already declining workforce,
and our government is expecting that same inexperienced workforce to
meet deadlines not just on our Virginia-class submarines but also the
critically important, nuclear-armed Columbia-class.
Our submarine fleet, just like our surface fleet, is still living off
the Reagan-era defense buildup. Many vessels are in a deteriorating
state and will soon need to be retired, but replacements are not
waiting in the wings. The remaining ships will face longer deployments
and fewer opportunities for maintenance. This is not a blueprint for
American command of the seas, nor does it put us in a position to
provide our Australian friends the submarines which they need.
These cascading problems create what some have called a debt spiral
of submarine construction and readiness. This spiral keeps us from
hitting our shipbuilding targets. Moreover, today's threats mean the
current targets are actually too small. China's navy is now the world's
largest navy. Russia is increasing its nuclear submarine activity in
the Atlantic. Keeping up with these challenges means raising our
shipbuilding goals in the first place, then expanding our industrial
capacity to meet them.
According to our Acting Chief of Naval Operations, Virginia-class
construction needs to nearly double. This is the man whom we have put
in charge and confirmed to let us know about the readiness of our Navy.
I am grateful for past congressional and executive branch efforts to
fund this work; otherwise, we would construct fewer than one Virginia-
class submarine each year. But even those funding increases have not
matched our need. At the current rate, we will be at least nine
submarines short by 2030.
Our defense policy cannot continue to hinge upon a hope and a prayer.
To make good on AUKUS and stand by our friends in Australia, the
administration and Congress need to make the investments necessary to
improve submarine construction.
Our first step is clear. We must enact into law the nearly $3.4
billion in submarine funding, including in the defense supplemental
Congress is considering. We need every bit of this funding increased
and more.
These funds will be spread throughout our industrial base in the
United States--inside the United States, employing American workers. It
will modernize our shipyards, accelerate maintenance on our existing
submarine fleet, and put capital investments in place for future
submarine components to be built in our country. They will put
Americans to work, showing that economic development and national
security go hand in hand.
This additional funding is a welcome first step, but we must do more
to show our allies and the U.S. industry and our adversaries that we
can meet the obligations of the AUKUS agreement without putting our own
submarine fleet in jeopardy. We should sustain investments in our
shipbuilders, public shipyards, and the nearly 16,000 suppliers across
the Nation, many of them--most of them--small businesses around the
Nation. This industry network supports American undersea supremacy and
prevents conflicts on the seas, but it needs more long-term investment
to stay afloat.
We already have some sense of what this investment should look like.
I want to emphasize this. The Biden administration commissioned the
``Submarine Industrial Base 2025'' study to examine the best way to
execute
[[Page S5280]]
AUKUS. From what I understand, the study will document what we already
know: We need significant additional funding to fulfill Australia's
needs alongside those of our fleet. But here is the problem: We
commissioned the study. Inexplicably, the Biden administration has yet
to let Congress actually see the specifics of the study--not Members of
the Democratic leadership, not Members of the Republican leadership.
Until the elected Members of the U.S. Senate and the House see this
study, Congress cannot make its strongest argument for submarine
investment.
I led a letter, signed by a bipartisan group of defense leaders,
asking the administration to send us the study without delay. This was
a bipartisan letter. Friends from both sides of the aisle joined me on
that. We are an equal part of the government. We have authorized this
study, and, for heaven's sake, the elected Senators and Representatives
of the people need to see this.
If the President desires the same success for the AUKUS deal that
many of us in Congress desire--and I believe he does, given the funding
request included in the supplemental--then the administration ought to
release the study promptly. They ought to release the study to us
today.
This study is just one element of strengthening AUKUS. Of course, the
most crucial element is increasing overall American sea power. For
years, I have cast a vision for restoring American maritime supremacy,
following President Reagan's own defense buildup. Again, this is not
something that sprung from the brow of Senator Wicker. These are
requirements given to us by the top military Navy and Marine
leadership, in particular, across the Nation. AUKUS ought to be part of
that buildup.
This vision will require historic investment to ensure we have the
necessary shipbuilding capacity. It is not an easy task, but history
suggests it would underwrite and protect American security for decades.
It will also include strengthening the U.S.-Australian alliance
throughout the 21st century. This alliance is symbolized by Australian
Prime Minister Albanese's travel to Washington last week. I was honored
to meet with him and his team several times during that visit.
The bond between our two nations is deep and abiding. It stood the
test of World War II, and it will continue to stand as we confront the
challenge of Xi Jinping's communist Chinese fleet.
I can think of no action more emblematic of our bond than the AUKUS
agreement, which, again, I fully support. I know the Australians do.
They told me last week. They show this also by committing $3 billion to
our industrial base. The best way to honor our special relationship
would be to back AUKUS with funds of our own. Australia's economy is a
tenth the size of ours, and the United States should commit a
proportional investment. The current plan doesn't get us there.
We have never pursued a defense technology partnership at this scale
and level of sophistication, but we have moments in our history to draw
upon that inform our path forward. Since its invention in the American
midcentury, our nuclear Navy has been second to none because we have
never accepted anything less.
Our adversaries knew this. When Admiral Rickover, the founding father
of our nuclear Navy, traveled to discuss nuclear submarines with Soviet
Premier Nikita Khrushchev and his aides, Admiral Rickover boasted:
Although the United States is a democracy, it can act fast.
. . . Can't Russia act as fast as the United States?
The answer was that Russia could not act as fast as we could. The
strength of our free enterprise system, the clarity of our mission set
by our Federal leaders, and our collective appreciation of the Soviet
threat gave us a focus, a singular focus, and it allowed the American
system to unleash our arsenal of democracy, and we prevented war with
the Soviet Union by maintaining our naval supremacy. We need to unleash
that arsenal again.
In the words of Admiral Rickover, ``We shall let nothing deter us
from building a nuclear Navy in the shortest possible time.''
Once more, we cannot let anything deter our skilled shipbuilders from
cutting the steel and constructing the fleet that will safeguard
America for a generation to come.
We have submarines to build. Let's get to work.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic whip.
Unanimous Consent Request--Executive Calendar
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I rise to discuss the Senate's urgent
need to confirm nominations of Rebecca Lutzko to be U.S. attorney for
the Northern District of Ohio and April Perry to serve as U.S. attorney
for the Northern District of Illinois.
On five previous occasions, I have come to the floor of the Senate to
request unanimous consent to move these nominees forward. Each time,
the junior Senator from Ohio has objected. He campaigned for the
Senate, claiming he would be tough on crime, but now that he is here,
he proudly brags that he wants to ``grind the Department of Justice to
a halt.''
These communities desperately need these nominees in place. There are
85 U.S. attorneys across the United States. Under President Donald
Trump, we approved all 85 without a record rollcall--voice vote. It was
the understanding that we would voice--we would debate the issue of an
attorney general. When it came to the U.S. attorneys in individual
cities and States, it was too important for us to slow these down with
additional procedural requirements on the floor. And so we do
background checks on these U.S. attorney nominees on a bipartisan
basis. And once they clear, we add them to the calendar. That is when
the junior Senator from Ohio stepped in and decided he would try to
stop the process.
How important is the U.S Attorney's Office for the Northern District
of Ohio that he is holding up? The entire Nation has been impacted by
the opioid epidemic, but Ohio has been especially hard-hit.
In recent years, fentanyl has been involved in 80 percent of
unintentional drug overdose deaths within the State of Ohio. Last year,
Federal law enforcement officials and local partners in Ohio seized
over 87,000 fentanyl-laced tablets in a span of less than 4 months. And
over the course of 1 year, from April 2022 to April 2023, more than
5,000 Ohioans lost their lives to drug overdoses--5,000. Let that sink
in.
On average, every day, 14 Ohio families lose a loved one to drugs.
How important is it to have a U.S. attorney in Ohio--and in Illinois--
working on this drug crisis that claims so many lives every single day?
Can we really make an excuse that we have some political petulance at
work on the floor of the Senate that stops us from putting a prosecutor
in place to stop this drug trafficking?
The U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Ohio plays a
significant role in holding drug traffickers accountable. Last month,
the office secured a 320-month sentence for a Toledo-based man who was
a local drug distributor for the Sinaloa Cartel and had helped traffic
fentanyl, heroin, cocaine, and methamphetamine into the State of Ohio.
In addition, Federal prosecutors found this defendant engaged in sex
trafficking and secured a 140-month sentence after he was convicted.
Notably, the U.S. Attorney's Office coordinated this with both the
Toledo Metro Drug Task Force and the Toledo Human Trafficking and Child
Exploitation Task Force. That is what an efficient U.S. Attorney's
Office does to keep the people of Ohio and Illinois safe.
Why in the world would any Senator stand up and object to a U.S.
attorney prosecutor who is working to stop this drug trafficking across
his State?
Well, the Senator from Ohio explained it. He is upset, Madam
President. He is upset that the U.S. Department of Justice, through a
special counsel, would actually consider indicting the former President
of the United States. And because he is upset--and he calls it
weaponization--he is going to make sure that, in his own State, there
is not a Federal prosecutor doing the job that should be done to stop
the sale of narcotics and, in my State of Illinois, the same thing.
This is unprecedented. It has not happened in the history of the
Senate. You can be upset, petulant, worried, hate it that a friend of
yours in politics has been indicted, but to hold that against the
people of Ohio and the families who are dying on such a regular
[[Page S5281]]
basis from these narcotics--that is shortsighted. That does not really
reach the level that we, as Senators, should aspire to.
So, Madam President, I make the following request: I ask unanimous
consent that at a time to be determined by the majority leader, with
the Republican leader's consultation, the Senate proceed to executive
session to consider the following nominations: Calendar Nos. 314 and
315; that there be 2 minutes for debate, equally divided in the usual
form, on each nomination; that following the use or yielding back of
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 then resume
legislative session.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. VANCE. Madam President, reserving the right to object, the
Senator from Illinois has made two comments that I would like to
respond to.
First of all, I think it takes a special amount of gall to be from
Joe Biden's political party and to complain about the fentanyl crisis
that is ravaging not just Ohio but the entire country, because it is
Joe Biden's border policies that have invited this fentanyl into our
country at record levels. I heard a briefing from the Department of
Homeland Security and Customs and Border Protection today that
confirmed that very fact.
Second of all, the Senator said something I actually agree with: that
this whole policy that I have implemented on Department of Justice
nominees is unprecedented. He mentions that we have in the past in this
body, before I got here, approved a number of Department of Justice
nominees through unanimous consent.
What the Senator from Illinois doesn't mention is that, in that time,
when these nominations sailed through unanimous consent, the Department
of Justice was not trying to throw the political rival of the President
of the United States in prison.
I object to this because we are living in a banana republic where the
President is using his Department of Justice to go after his chief
political rival, the person he will appear on the ballot with in about
a year.
If the Department of Justice will use these nominations for law
instead of politics, I am happy to end this whole policy. But so long
as the Department of Justice uses its nominations and uses its
personnel to go after its political opponents--from the President of
the United States on down--I will object. And, because of that, Madam
President, I do object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, so, on average, every day, 14 Ohio
families lose a loved one to drugs.
The explanation: We want to send a message to the Department of
Justice. We want to keep the U.S. attorney off the job who would try to
attack this narcotics epidemic.
It just doesn't make sense. How can you explain to the people of Ohio
and Illinois that you are trying to get some way to make it even on
political grounds at their expense? For goodness' sake, for the sake of
families in your own home State, give these U.S. attorneys a chance to
fight to make life safer for these families.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Amendment No. 1249 to Amendment No. 1092
Mr. CRUZ. Madam President, I call up my amendment No. 1249 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 Texas [Mr. Cruz], for himself and Mr.
Cornyn, proposes an amendment numbered 1249 to amendment No.
1092.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To ensure that United States diplomats and officials of the
U.S. Section of the International Boundary and Water Commission are
able to advance efforts seeking compliance by the United Mexican States
with the 1944 Treaty on Utilization of Waters of the Colorado and
Tijuana Rivers and of the Rio Grande)
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. __. ADVANCING EFFORTS SEEKING COMPLIANCE BY MEXICO WITH
TREATY ON UTILIZATION OF WATERS OF THE COLORADO
AND TIJUANA RIVERS AND OF THE RIO GRANDE.
The Secretary of State shall use the voice, vote,
diplomatic capital, and resources of the United States to
ensure that United States diplomats and officials of the U.S.
Section of the International Boundary and Water Commission
are able to advance efforts seeking compliance by the United
Mexican States with the Treaty on Utilization of Waters of
the Colorado and Tijuana Rivers and of the Rio Grande, signed
at Washington February 3, 1944, and to establish
understandings to provide predictable and reliable future
deliveries of water by the United Mexican States.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be up
to 2 minutes of debate, equally divided.
Mr. CRUZ. Madam President, this is an amendment that should be a
simple and bipartisan, commonsense amendment.
Under a treaty in 1944, Mexico is obliged to provide 350,000 acre-
feet of water per year to the Rio Grande Valley. Farmers in the Rio
Grande Valley are facing drought right now, and Mexico has been slow in
meeting its treaty commitments. This amendment simply instructs the
water negotiators to press Mexico to meet its treaty agreements and
provide the water that is owed.
I would note that the language of this amendment was worked out in a
bipartisan manner and was cleared by both Democrats and Republicans on
the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. This language was also worked
out directly with the negotiators of the International Boundary and
Water Commission. It is designed not to negatively impact any other
State but to instruct States to urge Mexico to meet its treaty
commitments so that farmers who need water can get the water they need.
I urge Members on both sides of the aisle to support the amendment.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. We yield back our time.
Vote on Amendment No. 1249
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
Mr. CRUZ. 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. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from Utah (Mr. Lee), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Scott), and
the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis).
Further, if present and voting: the Senator from North Carolina (Mr.
Tillis) would have voted ``yea.''
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 52, nays 45, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 282 Leg.]
YEAS--52
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
Kaine
Kennedy
King
Lankford
Lummis
Manchin
Marshall
McConnell
Moran
Mullin
Murkowski
Ossoff
Paul
Ricketts
Risch
Romney
Rounds
Rubio
Schmitt
Scott (FL)
Sinema
Sullivan
Tester
Thune
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
Kelly
Klobuchar
Lujan
Markey
Menendez
Merkley
Murphy
Murray
Padilla
Peters
Reed
Rosen
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Smith
Stabenow
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Welch
Whitehouse
Wyden
NOT VOTING--3
Lee
Scott (SC)
Tillis
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 52, the nays are
45.
[[Page S5282]]
Under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this
amendment, the amendment is not agreed to.
The amendment (No. 1249) was rejected.
=========================== NOTE ===========================
On page S5282, November 1, 2023, in the first column, the
following language appears: The amendment (No. 1292) was rejected.
The online Record has been corrected to read: The amendment (No.
1249) was rejected.
========================= END NOTE =========================
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The junior Senator from Kentucky.
Amendment No. 1121 to Amendment No. 1092.
(Purpose: To require congressional review of certain agency
rulemaking)
Mr. PAUL. Madam President, I call up my amendment, No. 1121, and ask
that it be reported by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. Paul], for Mr. Lee, proposes
an amendment numbered 1121 to amendment No. 1092.
(The amendment is printed in the Record of September 12, 2023, under
``Text of Amendments.'')
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be up
to 2 minutes of debate equally divided.
The junior Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. PAUL. Madam President, our Declaration of Independence asserts
that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the
governed. While voters may elect Members of Congress, Americans are
increasingly governed by bureaucrats they do not know, will never meet,
and cannot hold accountable.
In 2022, the Biden administration imposed $117.1 billion in
regulatory costs on the American people. Unelected, unknown, and
unaccountable bureaucrats should not unilaterally develop the most
significant public policies that impose costly burdens on American
families and businesses.
To restore republican accountability to our government, Senator Lee
and I propose that we adopt as an amendment a bill that I have
introduced for several years called the REINS Act. The REINS Act would
require Congress to affirmatively approve every new major rule proposed
by the executive branch before it is permitted to become effective.
By passing the REINS Act, the American people, through their elected
officials, will reclaim the ability to prevent unnecessary government
interference in everyday life.
I ask for a ``yes'' vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The junior Senator from Michigan.
Mr. PETERS. Madam President, this amendment would prevent Federal
Agencies from effectively serving the American people. It would weaken
the government's ability to enact key health and safety standards. It
would endanger a range of public protections for the environment,
American workers, and people with disabilities. It would stifle
innovation for emerging technologies, such as self-driving cars,
artificial intelligence, and other tools that will help carry our
country forward.
I urge my colleagues to join me in voting no on this amendment.
Vote on Amendment No. 1121
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on agreeing to
amendment No. 1121.
Mrs. FISCHER. 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. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from Utah (Mr. Lee), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Scott), and
the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis).
Further, if present and voting: the Senator from North Carolina (Mr.
Tillis) would have voted ``nay'' and the Senator from Utah (Mr. Lee)
would have voted ``yea.''
The result was announced--yeas 46, nays 51, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 283 Leg.]
YEAS--46
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
Lummis
Marshall
McConnell
Moran
Mullin
Murkowski
Paul
Ricketts
Risch
Romney
Rounds
Rubio
Schmitt
Scott (FL)
Sullivan
Thune
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
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Peters
Reed
Rosen
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Tester
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Welch
Whitehouse
Wyden
NOT VOTING--3
Lee
Scott (SC)
Tillis
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Butler). On this vote, the yeas are 46,
the nays are 51.
Under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this
amendment, the amendment is not agreed to.
The amendment (No. 1121) was rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 60-
affirmative vote threshold for the adoption of the substitute
amendment, No. 1092, as amended, be withdrawn.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SCHUMER. I know of no further debate on the substitute amendment.
Vote on Amendment No. 1092
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is
on agreeing to the amendment, No. 1092, as amended.
The amendment (No. 1092) in the nature of a substitute, as amended,
was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I am proud to say that today the Senate
becomes the first Chamber in Congress to pass bipartisan, responsible
appropriations bills: MILCON-VA, Agriculture, and Transportation-HUD.
These bipartisan bills deliver big wins for America's farmers, for our
infrastructure, for housing, and for our military bases and veterans
and more. And passing these bills affirms what I have said all year
long: The only way--the only way--to get things done in divided
government is bipartisanship.
I hope the Senate's success today shows Speaker Johnson and House
Republicans that bipartisanship is the way to go. The American people
won't support futile exercise of passing partisan, extremist
legislation that has no chance of becoming law, which is what the House
is doing right now. Their appropriations bills, A, are loaded with
poison pills that they know are not going to be accepted in this
Chamber or by Democrats in their Chamber, and they make cuts in the
budget that go against the agreement we made during the debt ceiling.
I told Speaker Johnson last week that if we can figure out how to
work on appropriations together, we can get good things done for the
country, which is what both sides, I am proud to say, in the Senate
want to do. I urged Speaker Johnson not to repeat the mistakes of
Speaker McCarthy's team, who pushed party-line funding bills that went
way below the agreement from June, without input from Democrats. Only--
only--bipartisan appropriation bills will be able to fully fund the
government.
I want to recognize my colleague. Chair Patty Murray has done
excellent work in her first year as chair of the Appropriations
Committee. She has been outstanding. I also wish to thank Vice Chair
Susan Collins for her terrific work, as well as all the appropriators
on both sides of the aisle.
Pursuing bipartisanship isn't always easy. Most of the time, it is
difficult--more difficult now than ever. But if you stick with it, we
can do it. And we have stuck with it, and we have done it. Thanks to
both sides, we are reaching a good outcome for the country.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I want to thank everyone who has worked
with me and the senior Senator from Maine to get our bipartisan
spending package here.
Over the last few days, we have had a truly robust amendment process
and considered 40 amendments, and this vote is now our chance to get
Congress back on track so that we can fund our
[[Page S5283]]
government in a bipartisan way, avoid another massive, end-of-the-year
omnibus, and address pressing issues like aid to our allies, disaster
relief, childcare prices, and more.
By passing this bill today, we can send a crucial message to the
American people and the world that, yes, Democrats and Republicans can
work together; and, yes, the United States is still strong and still
responsive to the challenges before us.
So I urge everyone who wants to avoid another year-end omnibus,
everyone who has worked with us to put this package together, to vote
with us to pass it. Let's get the job done.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, the Senate is about to cast its vote--a
key vote--on passage of the first package of fiscal year 2024
appropriations bills. They include the Military Construction-VA bill,
the Agriculture and FDA legislation, and the Transportation and Housing
and Urban Development appropriations.
I want to thank everyone involved for their cooperation for getting
us to the point of passing this significant package.
First, let me thank Chair Murray for her strong, persistent, and
dedicated leadership.
The support of Leaders McConnell and Thune and Leader Schumer were
also absolutely essential.
I want to express my thanks to our hard-working staff, led by Betsy
McDonnell and Evan Schatz.
We have a great Republican team on the Appropriations Committee. And
I want to thank all of them for working with their Democratic
counterparts to bring about truly bipartisan bills. Particularly, I
want to thank on the Agriculture Subcommittee, the chairman, Senator
Heinrich, and the ranking member, Senator Hoeven.
I want to thank my Military Construction and Veterans Affairs
Committee, Senator Murray, for playing a double role there, as well as
Senator Boozman.
And on the Transportation-HUD Subcommittee--a subcommittee I chaired
for many years and was ranking member on--I want to thank Senator
Schatz and Senator Hyde-Smith. They all worked incredibly hard.
After working for weeks with our colleagues, we considered 40
amendments to these three bills. All three of these bills passed the
Appropriations Committee unanimously this past summer. And I appreciate
the hard work of every single one of our members.
Giving Senators a voice in funding decisions through a robust
committee and floor process was an early goal that Chair Murray and I
established. It guided our process as the committee approved all 12 of
the appropriations bills by the end of July for the first time in 5
years. It also has guided our process on the Senate floor. Well, it was
certainly not easy and certainly took far longer than either the chair
or I would have liked. The amendment process allowed for Senators of
both parties to fully debate these bills and be heard.
I look forward to working with Chair Murray and her colleagues to
build on this progress by continuing to process our committee-approved
appropriations bills on the Senate floor.
I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for this important
legislative package that honors and serves our Nation's veterans,
supports our farmers, ranchers, and rural communities, and improves
transportation infrastructure and housing opportunities all across our
great country.
I urge a yea vote on the bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will read the title of the bill for
the third time.
The amendments were ordered to be engrossed and the bill to be read a
third time.
The bill was read the third time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the
question is, Shall the bill, as amended, pass?
Mrs. MURRAY. 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. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from Utah (Mr. Lee), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Scott), and
the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis).
Further, if present and voting: the Senator from North Carolina (Mr.
Tillis) would have voted ``yea'' and the Senator from Utah (Mr. Lee)
would have voted ``nay.''
The result was announced--yeas 82, nays 15, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 284 Leg.]
YEAS--82
Baldwin
Bennet
Blackburn
Blumenthal
Booker
Boozman
Britt
Brown
Butler
Cantwell
Capito
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Cassidy
Collins
Coons
Cornyn
Cortez Masto
Cotton
Cramer
Daines
Duckworth
Durbin
Fetterman
Fischer
Gillibrand
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hassan
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Kaine
Kelly
Kennedy
King
Klobuchar
Lankford
Lujan
Manchin
Markey
Marshall
McConnell
Menendez
Merkley
Moran
Mullin
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Peters
Reed
Romney
Rosen
Rounds
Rubio
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Sullivan
Tester
Thune
Van Hollen
Vance
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Welch
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden
Young
NAYS--15
Barrasso
Braun
Budd
Crapo
Cruz
Ernst
Hawley
Johnson
Lummis
Paul
Ricketts
Risch
Schmitt
Scott (FL)
Tuberville
NOT VOTING--3
Lee
Scott (SC)
Tillis
The bill (H.R. 4366), as amended, was passed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kaine). The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, what we have just done is really
important, and I want to thank everyone who helped us get here: my vice
chair, the senior Senator from Maine; our subcommittee leaders, the
Senators from Arkansas, New Mexico, North Dakota, Hawaii, and
Mississippi; and all of our colleagues--all of our colleagues--who
worked hard to craft and strengthen these bills. I want to thank Senate
leadership and, of course, all of our tireless staff who have met every
challenge this process has thrown at us.
Today, months of hard work paid off. We just passed a strong
bipartisan spending package--the only bipartisan spending bills in
Congress, by the way--and we did it with an 82-to-15 vote.
So let us be crystal clear about what that means. Unlike the funding
measures we have seen pushed through the House, these are serious and
reasonable bipartisan bills that can actually be signed into law.
They are the product of months of hard work, careful negotiation, and
thoughtful input from Members on both sides of the aisle.
They stick to the spending levels that House Republicans and
President Biden signed and negotiated and that we all passed into law
this past spring.
And despite the tough funding constraints, these bills move our
country forward, not back, with important investments to keep our
promise to our Nation's veterans, to get Americans where they need to
go safely, to increase our housing supply, address the homelessness
crisis, support our farmers, our ranchers, and keep American families
healthy and safe and more.
What we have done here--finding common ground to produce reasonable,
bipartisan bills--is not just a template; it is the only way to get our
jobs done in a divided government. There is a clear lesson from the
last few months here in Congress, and it is that we must work together,
not retreat to extreme partisan corners.
So let us be clear to my colleagues. We have a lot more work to do.
Our mission here isn't just to send a message or pass a bill through
the Senate. We have to work to get these bills signed into law. And I
don't just mean these investments but crucial funding in all of our
bipartisan appropriations bills.
While we may need another CR before our work is done, we absolutely
have to remember: Long-term CRs are no way to govern, and they
certainly
[[Page S5284]]
are no way to lead. When we operate under long-term CRs, our Agencies
are stuck in neutral. They cannot plan for the future. They have to
delay initiatives and investments. They are far less equipped to meet
the pressing challenges we face. Governing by CRs hurts families who
need a government that works reliably, seriously stunts our economy and
American innovation, and dangerously impedes our national security.
I think we all know that our competitors across the world are not
putting their budgets on autopilot. They are doing everything they can
to get ahead, and they are hoping that we fall behind into the chaos of
partisan infighting. We cannot let that happen. We need to pass full-
year funding with the investments we need to keep the United States
strong and safe and competitive--especially in a moment that truly
calls for American leadership.
There is no question we have got our work cut out for us, but today,
we have shown a clear roadmap for how we can get our work done. So I am
talking with my vice chair about the next set of bills we will work to
move in the Senate and continuing work to move a comprehensive,
bipartisan supplemental funding package.
We need to start conferencing our appropriations bills. That will
require House Republicans to get serious about governing, to get back
to the spending agreement that they negotiated and work with us to
finalize these bipartisan bills. It is critical that happens.
We do not have time to waste. The clock is ticking. The American
people are tired of watching Congress wait until the last second before
kicking the can down the road. Our constituents do not want to see
chaos. They do not want to see shutdowns or threats, and they don't
want to see our country's future limited by CRs. They do want to see
their elected officials roll up their sleeves, sit down at the table,
and do the hard work of governing to help people and solve problems.
That is what we have done today. So let's get to it, and let's get our
work done.
I yield the floor.
____________________