[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.
____________________