[Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 6 (Thursday, January 11, 2024)]
[Senate]
[Pages S81-S87]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                     EXECUTIVE CALENDAR--Continued


                              South Dakota

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, as I said, it is not just football 
championships keeping South Dakota sports fans busy this time of the 
year. There is just as much excitement--sometimes even more--at a 
Friday night basketball game in towns across our State.
  Over the holidays, I was able to get around South Dakota for some of 
those games. I caught up with Coach Phillips and the Northern State 
University basketball team last week. I brought my grandkids to see the 
Sioux Falls Jefferson girls take on the O'Gorman Knights girls for some 
Friday night hoops. I went to a girls hoops matchup between the 
Faulkton Trojans and Highmore-Harrold Pirates. I got to see some of the 
Hoop City Classic at the Corn Palace in Mitchell, SD, and Saturday was 
able to see a cross-State matchup between the boys teams from

[[Page S82]]

Rapid City Central and Sioux Falls Roosevelt.

  As I travel around the State, I take every opportunity I can to stop 
in to a local game or a sporting event. I can count on catching a good 
matchup wherever I go. It is a chance to connect with people across 
South Dakota and to support South Dakota's athletes.
  This weekend, I am looking forward to being back in my hometown of 
Murdo for the Jones County Invitational Basketball Tournament. For 3 
days in January, the gym at Jones County High School is the center of 
the universe for the eight teams that are competing for the tournament 
title. For West River basketball fans, the Jones County Invitational is 
just in our DNA, and it certainly has a special place in my heart.
  The 1969 inaugural tournament was organized by my high school 
basketball coach, Jerry Applebee; and my dad Harold Thune, who was our 
school's athletic director; plus Murdo Superintendent Maurice Haugland. 
When they organized that first tournament, they weren't sure how long 
it would last. But each year, the entire community would come together 
to make it a success. And now it is the longest running tournament of 
its kind in South Dakota, which is a fitting tribute to the impact that 
my dad and Coach Applebee had in our community and on countless young 
athletes, myself included.
  I can remember sitting in the stands as a kid, dreaming about the 
opportunity to play in the big tournament one day. I remember the rush 
of adrenaline that I got coming out of the locker room to a packed 
house for those games. Nothing could compare to the thrill of winning 
the whole thing with my teammates, which is something that we were able 
to do a couple of times when I was in high school.
  The Jones County Invitational was also how I got introduced to an 
important influence in my life, and that was, at that time, Congressman 
Jim Abdnor.
  In the Friday night semifinal game in my freshman year, I had six 
attempts at the free-throw line, and I made five of them. The next day, 
we had to play again, the Saturday night game. I was at the Main Street 
department store in my hometown at the checkout counter, getting ready 
to buy something, and somebody in the line behind me tapped me on the 
shoulder. I turned around, and he says: I noticed you missed one last 
night.
  I am like: Who is this smart aleck? I made five out of six. I am a 
freshman, right? Give me a break.
  Well, he introduced himself as then-Congressman Jim Abdnor.
  Jim would go on to be a great friend and mentor, and I would 
eventually have the opportunity to work for him when he served in the 
U.S. Senate and as head of the Small Business Administration under 
President Reagan. But the Jones County Invitational is how I got 
introduced to him, and that chance meeting is what first opened the 
door that would lead me to public service.
  Sports are a part of the fabric of South Dakota's way of life. They 
are one of the places we come together and connect as a community and, 
as I said, particularly on these cold winter evenings.
  For many of us, sporting events bring back good memories of our days 
competing for our school and remind us of the important lessons that we 
learn from competitive sports--lessons that have often had an impact 
far beyond the field or the court.
  So I am looking forward to being in the bleachers once again this 
season and watching South Dakota's athletes keep our great heritage 
going.
  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. SCHATZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                              Donald Trump

  Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, I get it. I understand that people are 
tired of hearing about whatever insane thing Donald Trump just said or 
did. I get that it is emotionally exhausting; it is intellectually 
exhausting; it is certainly politically exhausting to be panicked and 
outraged all the time. And, frankly, it is not possible.
  We have now been living in this reality of Trump's unending lies and 
chaos for almost a decade, and people understandably just want to live 
their lives. They want to go to school. They want to drop their kids 
off at school. They want to make dinner. They want to maybe get some 
exercise or read a book or watch a show. They want their life to 
continue. And so you can't wake up every morning and be one of those 
people, one of those people who says: Did you see what Trump said? Did 
you see how crazy it was? Aren't you worried? You can't live life like 
that. I totally understand.
  But Trump's lawyers said something this week in a courtroom just a 
few blocks from here that is impossible to ignore, and it must cause 
alarm because it was the clearest indication that Trump and his team 
believe that he can commit any crime in the book--crimes as clear as 
day--and get away with it without any consequences whatsoever.
  When asked by a Federal judge if a President could be criminally 
prosecuted for ordering SEAL Team Six to assassinate a political rival, 
Trump's lawyer responded, ``He would have to be, and would speedily be, 
impeached and convicted before the criminal prosecution could 
proceed.''
  What does that mean as a practical matter? It means that the 
President could commit any crime--it means that the President could 
commit any crime--up to and including ordering the U.S. military to 
murder a political rival, and there would be no way to hold him 
accountable as long as 34 U.S. Senators stood ready to vote to acquit.
  Do you think 34 U.S. Senators stand ready to vote to acquit? I don't 
know, honestly. I don't know. But I can tell you that way more than 34 
U.S. Senators voted to acquit former President Trump, who was impeached 
and then tried by the U.S. Senate twice.
  So I guess what we are saying is, this time, the Senate would stand 
up because that crime would be more egregious than the other ones.
  Let's back up for a second because during the impeachment trial 3 
years ago, Trump's legal team and a majority of Senate Republicans 
argued that it was the job of the criminal justice system to deal with 
statutory crimes--crimes that are in the law books, right--not the 
Senate. They said the question before Congress was whether or not 
Trump's actions rose to the level of crimes against the country, which 
are different from statutory crimes--a novel argument. And it worked, 
right? It doesn't have be to a good argument. It doesn't have to be a 
compelling argument. It just has to work in this body because we have 
100 jurors, all politicians, and however the chips fall is however the 
chips fall.
  But their argument was explicit, which is: This is not the venue. And 
now Trump's lawyers are arguing in the other venue--I am sorry. What I 
meant was this is the venue. So what they are really saying is: Our guy 
gets to commit crimes. Our guy gets to commit crimes.
  I want everybody who is right of center--far right of center, center 
right, right in the center, I don't care. I want everyone to think 
about the consequences of accepting this argument: Any President can 
commit any crime.
  Not only that, by the way, it is not a matter of just committing a 
crime, it is a matter of commanding the U.S. military; it is a matter 
of being the most powerful individual on the planet.
  It is a matter of being the Commander in Chief and using those 
resources to assassinate a political rival. And you can't even get a 
Trump lawyer to say: Yeah, that would probably be illegal and cause him 
to go to jail.
  Their question is: Well, that would depend on how the votes fell in 
the Congress.
  I am alarmed. Trump's team is in court arguing that it is up to 
Congress; that the political system, not the justice system, should 
render judgment even on statutory crimes.
  I say this as a Senator and someone who believes deeply in the 
awesome responsibility of this institution. ``If the Senate says so'' 
is not a serious legal argument. ``If the Senate says so'' is not a 
legal argument.
  What is being contemplated here--the ordering of a murder--is a 
crime. It is a violation of the criminal code, and

[[Page S83]]

every other person in the land would be arrested and tried for it. But, 
apparently, the official view of Donald Trump's lawyers is that he, and 
he alone, should be exempt from the law.
  In the authoritarian future that he is clamoring for, he gets to do 
anything he wants, wielding unparalleled power in the Presidency and 
zero repercussions. That is not a President; that is a dictator. That 
is not equal justice under the law; that is one law for Trump and 
another for everybody else.
  Think about what they are saying and ask yourselves: Are you 
comfortable with that? Are you comfortable with a democratic President 
with those kinds of authorities? Is that the kind of country that you 
want to live in?
  To be clear, this can't be dismissed as, like, ``I don't read the 
tweets'' or ``Oh, that guy is crazy; he just says stuff'' or, ``What a 
showman.'' Right? That was always the kind of hand waving away of 
whatever Trump said or did.
  But now there are two differences. First, we now have 4 years of the 
Trump Presidency, two impeachments, and many--both statutory and 
constitutional--crimes to look straight at. The other thing is, again, 
this is not a tweet. This is not a comment in a townhall, right? What 
this is is the official position of the lawyers for the former 
President of the United States.
  Authoritarianism is no longer just a remote problem in foreign lands. 
I just joined the Foreign Relations Committee a couple of years ago, 
and one of the things that we do as members of the Foreign Relations 
Committee is we go to other countries and encourage them to adopt 
democratic reforms. We encourage them to adopt democratic reforms. And, 
now, when we have our meetings, they are encouraging us to maintain our 
democracy.
  And make no mistake, this is not some nebulous movement that is 
difficult to decipher. This is because Donald J. Trump was President 
and does not believe in American-style democracy. He doesn't. He 
doesn't believe he should be accountable. He believes he should be 
immune. And he believes that when and if he becomes President again, he 
will exact revenge, that he will be a dictator from day one, and that 
if he is held accountable for his crimes, there will be bedlam.
  Now, does that sound like a rhetorical flourish? It sure does, 
doesn't it, except that I am quoting him.
  So, again, I want everybody to be able to live a life. I don't want 
everybody to wake up every morning freaked out about whatever Donald 
Trump says. But, today, this week, it is worth marking what his lawyers 
said because it is an official position of a Presidential candidate, 
and it is a position that is antithetical to everything that we all 
believe in.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.


                           Government Funding

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, well, just like a bad movie, Congress 
finds itself within days of a government shutdown threat. Of course, 
this isn't an accident. This is a choice made by the majority leader in 
particular because, rather than take up the appropriations bills, which 
is the most basic responsibility of the government--to try to keep the 
lights on and keep the functions of government operating--the majority 
leader has decided not to process bipartisan appropriations bills 
across the Senate floor.
  And so here we are--portions of the Federal Government scheduled for 
a shutdown a week from tomorrow. This is not the first nor the second 
time we have found ourselves scrambling to avoid a shutdown in the past 
few months.
  You know, I wonder what the American people, when they watch this, 
must be thinking. They must be thinking: These folks can't run a two-
car funeral. This is the very picture of incompetence.
  But the truth is, like I said, this is a choice. This marks the third 
time since the end of September that we have just been days away from 
the funding deadline without a plan in place. I personally find this 
embarrassing. And it is unnecessary drama because funding the 
government, as I said, is one of the most basic functions of the 
Congress. Congress has all year to prepare for the end of the fiscal 
year, which was the end of September. But here we are, 3\1/2\ months 
past the funding deadline, and not a single regular appropriations bill 
has been signed into law.
  This is a sad state of affairs, but it is not a reflection on the 
work of our Senate Appropriations Committee. Under the leadership of 
Senator Murray and Senator Collins, the committee has passed all 12 
bipartisan appropriations bills in June and July. That was last summer. 
Each bill received strong bipartisan support, and more than half of 
them passed unanimously.
  Well, you might wonder, if the leading Democrat, the leading 
Republican, and the Appropriations Committee--composed of Republicans 
and Democrats--passed bipartisan bills last summer, why do we find 
ourselves days away from a potential government shutdown? The 
Appropriations Committee handed the majority leader, who manages the 
floor--he is the only one who can schedule bills for a vote--12 
bipartisan funding bills on a silver platter. They put the Senate in 
the strongest possible position to return to regular order and pass, on 
time, bipartisan appropriations bills, but that is not what happened.
  And you might wonder why--why in the world would the majority leader 
ignore the bipartisan work of the Appropriations Committee and put us 
in this posture? Well, there is an answer for that, and that is because 
this is about power. The majority leader wants the power to be able to 
shape these appropriations bills to deny rank-and-file Members an 
opportunity to participate in the process on the Appropriations 
Committee and on the floor and then present us with a fait accompli, 
saying: Vote for this; it is up or down. Either you shut down the 
government or you vote for this ominous appropriations bill--not an 
omnibus but an ominous appropriations bill.
  Well, by the end of September, it was clear that there wasn't enough 
time to pass all 12 appropriations bills before the deadline. So we had 
to go to a stopgap bill. That set a new deadline of November 17. When 
that deadline came and went, Congress had to punt one more time, this 
time setting up two funding deadlines: one January 19, just about a 
week from today; and February 2, which is, perhaps ironically, 
Groundhog Day. That brings us to today, 8 days from the first deadline, 
and no closer to passing regular appropriations bills.
  Well, more than 100 days have passed since the start of the new 
fiscal year, and the Senate has been in session 39 days. Let me say 
that again. Over 100 days have passed since the start of the current 
fiscal year, and, out of 100 days, the Senate has been in session 39 
days. That amounts to working an average of 2\1/2\ days a week.
  Again, the majority leader, Senator Schumer, the Senator from New 
York, is the only one who can schedule the Senate. Rank-and-file 
Members have no power to do that.
  But, frankly, I don't know any business in America where people can 
work roughly a third of the time and expect to receive a paycheck. And 
it is no surprise that, if you are only working a third of the time, 
you are not going to be able to get your work done.
  How have we spent that time? Well, we know that the world is on fire, 
between Ukraine, Israel, the Indo-Pacific, the border. The President 
has requested more than $100 billion in an emergency supplemental 
appropriation bill in order to fund those causes, those issues--it is 
very important--but the Senate hasn't even acted on that Presidential 
request, even though the House passed an Israel aid bill on November 2. 
It hasn't moved in the Senate. The majority leader hasn't made it a 
priority. As a matter of fact, he is waiting to bundle that, making our 
job a lot more complicated, to be honest. And so that remains undone.
  We haven't passed a long-term reauthorization of a very important law 
called section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. I 
think this is probably the most important law that nobody has heard of 
because it authorizes our intelligence community to collect necessary 
intelligence in order to keep our country safe.
  We haven't reauthorized the Federal Aviation Administration. The news 
today is full of news of near misses and accidents occurring on 
airlines, and we haven't even taken up to debate or

[[Page S84]]

vote on the Federal Aviation Administration reauthorization.
  And, as I said, we haven't taken action to address the border crisis, 
the fentanyl epidemic that killed 71,000 Americans last year alone, or 
other issues that are urgent issues.
  Instead, the majority leader has focused almost all of the Senate's 
time, such as it is, on nominations. Well, to be clear, considering 
nominees is important work, but there is no world in which nominees 
should take priority over funding the government.
  This entire saga could have been avoided if the majority leader had 
prioritized the appropriations process. It could have allowed this 
Chamber to start voting on individual funding bills over the summer as 
soon as they were approved by the Appropriations Committee. Instead, 
here we are, a week away from a partial government shutdown and 3 weeks 
away from a potential full government shutdown.
  As he said, I can't imagine any line of work in any business, large 
or small, across America where you work 2\1/2\ days a week, you blow 
through your deadlines, and you ignore your most important work. This 
is insanity and no way to run a railroad, much less the U.S. Senate.
  The majority leader had ample time and countless opportunities to 
move funding bills through regular order. Our colleagues on the 
Appropriations Committee, on a bipartisan basis, gave him a long runway 
to land thoughtful and on-time appropriations. But, regrettably, he has 
prioritized virtually everything but that most basic responsibility, 
putting us in the embarrassing and unenviable position we find 
ourselves in today. I should say that I find this embarrassing, and I 
bet other colleagues do as well. I guess the majority leader doesn't 
find it embarrassing.
  Again, this is purposeful because it maximizes his power to force 
through an end-of-the-year appropriations bill on an emergency basis 
that he basically gets to write. And, of course, it turns the rest of 
the Members of the Senate into virtual potted plants--spectators in the 
process rather than full participants.
  Well, it looks like another continuing resolution is in the future. 
We have run out of time because of this intentional planning by the 
majority leader. And so we don't really have much alternative but a 
government shutdown, other than to pass another continuing resolution--
basically, kicking the can down the road.
  Of course, the Senate is only half of the equation here. Our 
colleagues in the House are still weighing various options, and I am 
eager to see the route they choose.
  The House has its own challenges, to be sure, but we ought to be 
leading by example. We ought to be passing bipartisan appropriations 
bills and sending them to the House. Then we can work out in a 
conference committee a compromise and send them to the President to 
keep the lights on, to keep the Border Patrol paid, to keep our 
commitments to our veterans, to pay our Active-Duty military and their 
families. That is what is at risk here, and it is completely avoidable.
  Stopgap funding bills should not be the norm. They fail to provide 
government Agencies with the certainty they need to plan for the 
future. The Pentagon--the Defense Department--is the single largest 
discretionary appropriation that Congress passes every year. They can't 
plan for how to deal with the crisis in the Middle East or in the Indo-
Pacific or in Ukraine or even at the border. If you are on a continuing 
resolution, they can't plan because they don't know what the future 
holds.
  Well, the consequences of a continuing resolution or these stopgap, 
kick-the-can pieces of legislation are especially dire when it comes to 
our national defense and military readiness.
  Despite the drawbacks of a stopgap funding bill, though, it is 
obviously better than a shutdown. I am not a fan of shutdowns. Nobody 
wins in a government shutdown because when you reopen the government, 
you are still staring in the face the same problems that caused you to 
shut down the government in the first place. Shutdowns penalize 
innocent people and hurt our economy. When the government shuts down, 
critical programs are paralyzed. Government services are put on hold, 
and millions of Federal workers are left without pay. Given the 
challenges we face, a shutdown would be a terrible mistake.
  Mr. President, as is probably painfully obvious, I am extremely 
disappointed we find ourselves where we are today. Again, this is not 
an accident. This is not even negligent. This is intentional on the 
part of the majority leader. I think he bears responsibility for where 
we are today. I hope we can make some progress in the near future. But 
this is no way to run a railroad, much less the U.S. Congress or the 
business of the American people.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HEINRICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before 
the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination 
     of Executive Calendar No. 375, Erika L. McEntarfer, of the 
     District of Columbia, to be Commissioner of Labor Statistics, 
     Department of Labor, for a term of four years.
         Charles E. Schumer, Bernard Sanders, Christopher Murphy, 
           Richard J. Durbin, Tammy Baldwin, Margaret Wood Hassan, 
           Tina Smith, Alex Padilla, Gary C. Peters, Robert P. 
           Casey, Jr., Mazie K. Hirono, John W. Hickenlooper, 
           Patty Murray, Debbie Stabenow, Richard Blumenthal, 
           Elizabeth Warren, Jeanne Shaheen, Peter Welch.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the 
nomination of Erika L. McEntarfer, of the District of Columbia, to be 
Commissioner of Labor Statistics, Department of Labor, for a term of 
four years, shall be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant executive clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Washington (Ms. 
Cantwell) is necessarily absent.
  Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from North Dakota (Mr. Cramer), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), 
and the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Mullin).
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 88, nays 8, as follows:

                       [Rollcall Vote No. 6 Ex.]

                                YEAS--88

     Baldwin
     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Blackburn
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Boozman
     Braun
     Britt
     Brown
     Budd
     Butler
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Coons
     Cornyn
     Cortez Masto
     Cotton
     Daines
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Ernst
     Fetterman
     Fischer
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagerty
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Hickenlooper
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Johnson
     Kaine
     Kelly
     King
     Klobuchar
     Lankford
     Lujan
     Lummis
     Manchin
     Markey
     Marshall
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Ossoff
     Padilla
     Paul
     Peters
     Reed
     Ricketts
     Romney
     Rosen
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Scott (SC)
     Shaheen
     Sinema
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Thune
     Tillis
     Tuberville
     Van Hollen
     Vance
     Warner
     Warnock
     Warren
     Welch
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden
     Young

                                NAYS--8

     Crapo
     Cruz
     Hawley
     Kennedy
     Lee
     Risch
     Schmitt
     Scott (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Cantwell
     Cramer
     Moran
     Mullin
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. King). On this vote, the yeas are 88, the 
nays are 8.
  The motion is agreed to.
  The Senator from North Carolina.


                      Remembering Harold Lee Frank

  Mr. BUDD. Mr. President, I rise today to remember the life of Harold

[[Page S85]]

Lee Frank and to recognize his dedication to family, freedom, and 
service.
  Born in 1924 in Davidson County, NC, Harold Frank came of age during 
the Great Depression. When his country needed him, he answered the call 
to serve during the Second World War. Assigned to the U.S. Army's 90th 
Infantry Division, he landed on Utah Beach, Normandy, France, on June 
6, 1944: D-day.
  After receiving a gunshot wound to his shoulder, he was captured by 
German troops on July 8, 1944, and held as a prisoner of war by the 
Nazis. As a prisoner, his wound was treated for infection by a fellow 
American medic POW, and the bullet was eventually removed on October 
13, 1944. PFC Frank was actually allowed to keep the German bullet that 
was extracted from his shoulder.
  On July 5, 1945, he was released from prison and was found by an 
American Army unit.
  After the war, PFC Frank was awarded the Purple Heart and a Bronze 
Star. He was also knighted by the French Ambassador to the United 
States and awarded the French Medal of Honor for his courage and for 
his valor.
  Once home, he married the love of his life: Reba Mae McDaniel Frank. 
They were married for 68 years, until her passing in 2016.
  Harold continued to give back to his community as a county 
commissioner and a special deputy sheriff. He also assisted in 
organizing the Cornatzer-Dulin Volunteer Fire Department.
  Throughout his life, Harold maintained a desire to serve, and he 
traveled as a motivational speaker at numerous military and veteran 
events.
  Friend, travel companion, and fellow U.S. Army veteran Mark Hager 
wrote a book about Harold titled ``The Last of the 357th Infantry.'' He 
would later produce a documentary titled ``From BAR to POW,'' 
highlighting his experiences as a POW.
  Harold returned to Normandy for the 75th anniversary of D-day in 
2019. He visited the National World War II Memorial in Washington, DC, 
on an Honor Flight and was recognized by the Gary Sinise Foundation's 
Soaring Valor flight to visit the National World War II Museum in New 
Orleans, LA.
  Later in life, Harold would often be seen around his home in Davie 
County, my home--in Davie County, NC, visiting with friends at the 
Davie County Senior Center, Miller's Restaurant, or the Forks of the 
Yadkin and Davie County Museum.
  He was a fixture at area veterans events right up to his passing on 
New Year's Eve, December 31, 2023.
  Mr. President, please join me in a moment of silence for Mr. Harold 
Lee Frank, a man who embodied the ``greatest generation,'' and in 
recognition of a life well lived.
  (Moment of silence.)
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Peters). The Senator from Connecticut.


                                Ukraine

  Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, the weapons that we send to Ukraine aren't 
used in military parades. They don't sit in warehouses. They are used 
by the Ukrainians to fend off the brutal Russian invasion of that 
country. They are used by Ukraine to maintain that country's 
sovereignty and independence.
  At the height of the summer offensive, Russia was firing 10,000 
artillery rounds per day at Ukraine. In response, Ukraine was firing 
back 7,000 rounds per day. But by the end of last year, just a few 
weeks ago, Ukraine's stocks were so low that they were firing just 
2,000 rounds per day. Russia is still firing 10,000 rounds per day.
  I want my colleagues to step back for a moment and imagine you are in 
a duel with an opponent where, in each round, your opponent has five 
bullets for every one that you have. You are not going to survive that 
fight. That is not a fair fight. Soon, you won't even have one bullet. 
How long do you think that fight continues for you?
  Right now, ammunition levels are so low that a Ukrainian artillery 
brigade that used to fire 50 to 90 shells per day is now forced to 
ration its supplies down to 10 to 20 shells per day. That is barely 
enough for them to just defend themselves, let alone push forward or 
reclaim any additional territory.
  And it is not just ammunition that Ukraine desperately needs right 
now. It is supplies for their air defense system as well.
  For 2 years now, Russia has not had air superiority, except once, in 
the city of Mariupol, and there Russian bombs flattened the city. In 2 
months, 95 percent of the city was destroyed, and 25,000 people were 
killed. But, elsewhere in Ukraine, the casualties are much more limited 
because Russian planes were being shot down.
  So, perhaps, it is no coincidence that, just a few days ago, Russia 
launched a major missile barrage at Kyiv in what was the single largest 
attack since the start of the war.
  Why do I say that perhaps it wasn't a coincidence? Well, maybe it is 
because Russia is pushing all its chips in on a bet that Ukraine is not 
only going to run out of ammunition, but it is going to run out of air 
defense missiles.
  And with no American funding to replenish those systems, Russia would 
then be able to destroy the missile defense batteries themselves, 
finally giving them a free hand to completely decimate every single 
Ukrainian city. They will apply the Mariupol tactics--the Mariupol 
playbook--to Odessa, to Kharkiv, and to Kyiv. And millions will die, 
and Kyiv will become a Russian city.
  While this body hesitates to resupply Ukraine, Russia is putting one-
third of its entire budget for 2024 toward its war effort. Russia is 
receiving new ballistic missiles, artillery rounds, military equipment, 
and attack drones from its allies--North Korea, China, and Iran. And 
yet we are still deciding whether we, as Ukraine's primary ally, are 
going to support them in the fight to come.
  I just want to remind my colleagues what is at stake in this fight. 
We are making a decision, as we speak, right now, as to whether Ukraine 
is an independent, sovereign nation, or whether Ukraine, once again, is 
a Russian state, a Russian vassal, a Russian province; whether Kyiv is 
an independent city or whether Kyiv is a Russian city.
  Never before in our lifetime has a large, nuclear-armed nation like 
Russia invaded a neighboring country with the sole purpose of 
destruction, annihilation, and annexation. If they succeed, if Kyiv 
does become a Russian city, the post-World War II order is over. It is 
over, and no one here is really prepared to deal and live with those 
consequences.
  The rules that have governed the past 70 years and that have provided 
us with relative global stability, the rules that have protected our 
country and our economy, which relies on a stable global system--they 
will all be permanently broken. Consider the Pandora's box open.
  I wish it were hyperbole to say that the fate of the free world is at 
stake, and I wish we weren't in a position where my Republican 
colleagues, who say that they support Ukraine, weren't making funding 
for Ukraine dependent on solving one of the most vexing, most difficult 
political issues in American politics: the issue of immigration and 
border policy. But that is where we are.
  My Republican colleagues say they will let Vladimir Putin destroy and 
occupy Ukraine if we can't come to a conclusion on immigration policy 
and border policy. I wish we weren't here, but we are. And so Democrats 
are at the table trying to find a compromise that helps the Biden 
administration and future administrations better manage the situation 
at the border while also living up to our fundamental American values.
  I wish we weren't here. I wish we could just all say that we believe 
it is in the interest of the United States of America to support 
Ukraine, to make sure that they have what they need to defend 
themselves, and we are going to get that job done. And we are going to 
sit down and try to work together on the crisis of a broken immigration 
system. Tying the two together in this way threatens to become the 
biggest gift America has ever given Vladimir Putin.


                              Immigration

  And so, Mr. President, I want to focus the remaining part of my 
remarks today on what I think we can do to help the administration 
manage the border, but I also want to tell you what I think we cannot 
and should not do--the changes to immigration law that would 
fundamentally compromise our Nation's values and our moral 
underpinnings as a nation built by immigrants.

[[Page S86]]

  I think it is easy for us here in Washington to forget, when we are 
talking about asylum, that we are often talking about a life-and-death 
choice for people. We are talking about men, women, and children who 
are not safe in their home countries, who will die if they stay, who 
don't want to leave their family, their neighbors, everything that they 
know. But they are so desperate that they feel they have no choice but 
to make the often life-threatening journey to the United States of 
America.
  We are talking about people like Sandra Gutierrez. She lived in 
Honduras, and, like any parent, Sandra wanted to make sure that her 
kids were safe at the school they attended every day, but they weren't. 
They were under regular threat from armed gangs.
  So she joined together with her local parents board in her Honduran 
town and started working with other moms to try to get the violent 
gangs that were a constant presence at her kids' school away from the 
campus.
  But guess what happened to Sandra. That work made Sandra a target. 
These armed gangs stalked her. They hunted her. They threatened to kill 
her and her children if she didn't stop and if she didn't meet their 
demands. And so she did what any of us would do, what any parent would 
do. She protected her children. She left Honduras, where she would be 
hunted by these gangs, and she came to find asylum in the United States 
of America.
  It is people like Aliyah, a journalist in Cameroon, who wrote 
powerful stories exposing discrimination by the Cameroonian Government 
and sexual assaults committed by powerful people in her country. She 
reported the truth, and that made her a target. She was attacked, 
beaten, detained, and imprisoned, not by gangs but by her own 
government.
  After she escaped and fled her country--the place where she had lived 
her entire life, where she had built a reputation, a career--she found 
asylum here in the United States of America.
  It is true that many people who come to the United States seeking 
asylum do not have a story like Sandra or Aliyah. It is true that many 
immigrants seeking asylum are actually here as economic migrants. And 
so I agree that we should come together and do what we can to provide a 
fully funded and much more effective and efficient asylum system to 
determine which people showing up at our border are like Sandra and 
Aliyah, with legitimate asylum cases, where the United States of 
America is a place where they can have their life saved, versus people 
who are just trying to use the asylum system to find work.
  So I support building a better system, but I don't support proposals 
that completely shut off the ability for people to come to the United 
States to save their lives. I think it is really important that we 
understand that, when you are talking about asylum, you are talking 
about a system that works for thousands of people who are fleeing 
terror and torture. It does not work when many people are using it as 
an end route to come to the United States to work.
  But we can solve that problem, we can fix that system, while still 
allowing people, like those brave women that I talked about, to have 
the ability to come to the United States to save their lives.
  We are also talking about another topic, a topic that a lot of 
Republicans are discussing in the hallways these days, and that is 
parole. It is one of the most important tools that the administration 
has at its disposal to respond to humanitarian crises all around the 
world and to manage the flow of individuals at the border.
  Immigration parole authority has been used by every single President 
for the last 70 years to provide relief for individuals who are fleeing 
danger and persecution. Republican and Democratic Presidents have used 
this authority to protect Soviet Jews fleeing persecution, Cubans 
during the Cold War, and, most recently, Ukrainians and Afghans fleeing 
violence and unrest.
  Despite what some Republicans will have you believe, the Biden 
administration's use of parole has created more, not less, order at the 
border. The Uniting for Ukraine and Cuba, Nicaragua, Haiti, and 
Venezuela parole programs have enabled more than a quarter of a million 
people to come to the United States safely after having passed an 
extensive vetting and background check process and also obtaining 
private sponsorship, families here in the United States. They have the 
ability to work, and they are not forced to take that dangerous journey 
to the southern border. It denies smugglers and cartels the ability to 
exploit all of these people. It gives us a chance to vet those 
individuals before they show up in the United States.
  What has happened since these programs have been put into place? A 
significant drop in unlawful encounters at the southern border from 
individuals from these countries. Unlawful crossings of Venezuelans are 
down 50 percent. Unlawful crossings of Cubans, Nicaraguans, and 
Haitians are down 90 percent. This is stunning but important progress.
  In November of last year, for instance, Border Patrol encountered 
34,000 Nicaraguans on the border--a year and a half ago. This past 
November, Border Patrol encountered 4,000. Mr. President, 34,000 before 
parole; 4,000 after parole.
  No other tool at the President's disposal has been so effective in 
reducing unauthorized crossings as has parole. Limiting this ability 
will only push more people to cross in between the ports of entry, 
exacerbating the very problem that Republicans claim they want to 
solve.
  I am not saying that we shouldn't have a conversation about reforming 
this practice. I am at the table. But to completely deny the President 
the ability to use parole is to make the situation at the southwest 
border more unmanageable, not less unmanageable.
  I think we all do agree that what is happening at the southwest 
border today, the number of people who are crossing every day compared 
to the resources we have, is untenable. Democrats--we do want to give 
the administration tools to better manage the border, but we are not 
interested in taking away tools that have a proven track record of 
success.
  This work is not easy. I wish we weren't here. I wish we were passing 
immigration reform and moving funding for Ukraine, that the two hadn't 
been tied together. But I accept that this is what has been made 
necessary by Republicans to get Ukraine the funding it needs.
  I am really grateful for the progress we have been able to make. 
Senator Lankford, Senator Sinema, myself, the White House, and members 
of leadership have been working together throughout the holiday 
nonstop, every single day, trying to find a compromise that lets us 
fund Ukraine, that lets us fund Israel, that gives the President new 
tools to manage the southwest border but that also respects fundamental 
American values, that honors our tradition of immigration.
  We are not there yet, but we are close. To get to that finish line so 
that we can all join together in the effort to support Ukraine--that is 
going to mean that both Democrats and Republicans have to compromise. 
Neither side is going to get everything they want. I wish Republicans 
would choose to support Ukraine just because it is the right thing to 
do, but we are where we are. We have made a lot of progress, and, to 
me, the stakes are just far too high to give up.


                   Nomination of Erika L. McEntarfer

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I would like to say a few words on the 
nomination of Erika McEntarfer to be the Commissioner of Labor 
Statistics at the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics at the Department of 
Labor.
  President Biden nominated Ms. McEntarfer to the position on July 12, 
2023, and last October, she was reported out of the HELP Committee by a 
unanimous vote of 21-0. Ms. McEntarfer has had a long career as an 
economist at the U.S. Census Bureau, currently serving as the lead 
economist in the labor markets section of the Center for Economic 
Studies. She has worked at the Census Bureau since July 2002, with the 
exception of July 2008 through January 2010, when she was an economist 
at the Treasury Department. She also did a 1-year detail assignment at 
the Council of Economic Advisers as a senior economist from 2022-2023.
  Ms. McEntarfer has written or cowritten economic reports that cover a 
wide range of issues, from the effects of

[[Page S87]]

macroeconomics on older workers and retirements, to job displacement 
and job mobility. She focuses her own research on U.S. labor market and 
wage dynamics over the business cycle.
  Ms. McEntarfer holds a B.A. from Bard College and a Ph.D. from 
Virginia Tech.
  I have no doubt that her experience and dedication to public service 
will help her succeed as Commissioner of Labor Statistics, and I urge 
my colleagues to support her nomination.
  Mr. MURPHY. I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. HASSAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                     Vote on McEntarfer Nomination

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, The question is, 
Will the Senate advise and consent to the McEntarfer nomination?
  Ms. HASSAN. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Washington (Ms. 
Cantwell), the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Manchin), and the 
Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from North Dakota (Mr. Cramer), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), 
and the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Mullin).
  The result was announced--yeas 86, nays 8, as follows:

                       [Rollcall Vote No. 7 Ex.]

                                YEAS--86

     Baldwin
     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Blackburn
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Boozman
     Braun
     Britt
     Brown
     Budd
     Butler
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Coons
     Cornyn
     Cortez Masto
     Cotton
     Daines
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Ernst
     Fetterman
     Fischer
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagerty
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Hickenlooper
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Johnson
     Kaine
     Kelly
     King
     Klobuchar
     Lankford
     Lujan
     Lummis
     Markey
     Marshall
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Ossoff
     Padilla
     Paul
     Peters
     Reed
     Ricketts
     Romney
     Rosen
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Scott (SC)
     Shaheen
     Sinema
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Thune
     Tillis
     Tuberville
     Van Hollen
     Vance
     Warner
     Warnock
     Warren
     Welch
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden
     Young

                                NAYS--8

     Crapo
     Cruz
     Hawley
     Kennedy
     Lee
     Risch
     Schmitt
     Scott (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Cantwell
     Cramer
     Manchin
     Moran
     Mullin
     Sanders
  The nomination was confirmed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Butler). Under the previous order, the 
motion to reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table, and 
the President will be immediately notified of the Senate's action.
  The majority leader.

                          ____________________