[Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 9 (Wednesday, January 17, 2024)]
[Senate]
[Pages S125-S130]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          LEGISLATIVE SESSION

                                 F_____
                                 

  AMENDING THE PERMANENT ELECTRONIC DUCK STAMP ACT OF 2013--Motion to 
                            Proceed--Resumed

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to H.R. 2872, 
which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       Motion to proceed to Calendar No. 243, H.R. 2872, a bill to 
     amend the Permanent Electronic Duck Stamp Act of 2013 to 
     allow the Secretary of the Interior to issue electronic 
     stamps under such Act, and for other purposes.


                   Recognition of the Minority Leader

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Republican leader is 
recognized.


                            Border Security

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, over the weekend, President Biden once 
again refused to describe the situation at the southern border as a 
crisis. Apparently, according to the Commander in Chief, 10,000 illegal 
border crossings in a day--and the busiest month and year on record at 
the border--is, somehow, not a crisis.
  Needless to say, I am glad that Senator Lankford and our colleagues 
working on meaningful border security policy don't share that view. I 
am glad that we may soon be able to address an urgent crisis with 
urgent action.
  Negotiators are making headway toward the most significant border 
enhancements in almost 30 years. They are getting closer to delivering 
serious, lasting solutions to the unprecedented humanitarian and 
national security catastrophe that has unfolded on President Biden's 
watch. That is certainly good news.
  Of course, our colleagues' work is also the linchpin of our broader 
efforts to address the national security challenges we face around the 
world, from Russian aggression in Europe to Iran-backed terror in 
Israel and the Middle East, to competition with China.


                                 China

  Mr. President, an increasingly aggressive China represents the 
greatest strategic challenge of the century, and recent events in the 
Indo-Pacific remind us exactly what is at stake. The PRC is an 
expansionist, revisionist, and repressive power all at the same time. 
It wants to impose its will on its neighbors, regardless of their views 
or values, just like it does at home.
  Just consider the free, fair, and hotly contested elections that took 
place in Taiwan this past Saturday. The people of Taiwan have resisted 
Beijing's blatant efforts to interfere in their politics, and the PRC 
is clearly unhappy with the outcome of the election, which saw the DPP 
maintain its hold on the Presidency.
  But it wasn't just the results of Taiwan's elections that the PRC 
views as a threat. It is also the basic process

[[Page S126]]

itself. The idea of self-determination--of citizens actually getting a 
choice--terrifies the leaders in Beijing.
  Of course, it is impossible to watch Taiwan's defiant self-expression 
without thinking how fragile this autonomy can be. Just remember how 
swiftly the PRC has acted to snuff out forces of democracy in Hong 
Kong.
  Right now, my old friend Jimmy Lai, prolific publisher and a proud 
Hongkonger, is on trial. He is facing the possibility of life in prison 
simply for committing the crime of journalism, of seeking to publish 
the truth at variance with the party's definition of it.
  See, the Chinese Communist Party doesn't just fear its own people. It 
fears the pursuit of truth. And, on both counts, Beijing finds common 
cause with fellow authoritarians in Moscow, Tehran, and Pyongyang. 
These regimes, and the would-be imperialists who lead them, understand 
that their most precious currency isn't truth or legitimacy, but 
control and fear.
  The PRC subjects its citizens to extensive surveillance, censorship, 
and repression. And in the case of ethnic minorities like the Uighurs, 
Beijing has employed detention, sterilization, and outright genocide.
  Beijing fears difference. It fears dissent, and not just at home. The 
PRC's interference in Taiwan's democracy is emblematic of the shadow of 
intimidation Beijing hopes to cast further across that region.
  The PRC is building a military with the capacity to bend Beijing's 
neighbors to its will. It is putting U.S. allies like the Philippines 
directly in its crosshairs. It is aiming to impose direct, prohibitive 
cost on the United States, and it isn't pinching pennies to achieve 
those aims.
  For more than two decades, its investments in new military equipment 
and capabilities have grown by an average of 10 percent per year. So it 
has become quite fashionable in Washington to talk about how we are not 
taking competition with China seriously enough.
  But the resource this competition demands most urgently is not a 
stern lecture from a climate diplomat. What America and our allies need 
most in the race to outcompete our top strategic adversary and systemic 
rival is hard power.
  At its essence, winning the competition means credibly deterring 
Beijing's worst impulses, which, for us, means investing in American 
strength. Outcompeting the PRC will require greater investment in our 
military capabilities and in our industrial capacity to produce them.
  The West cannot be caught unprepared for this challenge. We cannot 
afford to neglect the lessons of history.
  The Senate has opportunities ahead to demonstrate that we understand 
what is at stake. We will have chances to take hard power investments 
seriously. We need to be ready to take them.


                           Electric Vehicles

  Mr. President, now on a related matter, the Biden administration is 
continuing to wage war on the affordable and reliable American energy 
that makes America competitive. The administration's climate policy 
isn't just weakening American workers and businesses; it is actually 
making China's economy stronger.
  President Biden's EPA recently issued new emissions standards that, 
as several of my Republican colleagues pointed out last year, ``are so 
stringent they effectively mandate automakers to produce electric 
vehicles, even if Americans do not want them.''
  The move is shockingly out of step with the needs of American 
consumers, the capacity of American industry, and our Nation's 
strategic interest. The whimsical desire for universal electric 
vehicles caters to the preferences of wealthy coastal liberals, but 
working families simply aren't buying it. The average EV on the market 
costs over $16,000 more than the average gas-powered car. As one 
automaker recently put it, the Biden administration has been ``far too 
focused on . . . the well-heeled one-to-two percenters . . . forgetting 
about the people where a car is not a luxury--it's a necessity.''
  Sure enough, a $16,000 premium is more than most sensible Americans 
are willing to pay. Electric vehicles account for less than 8 percent 
of new vehicle sales in the United States. Less than 8 percent of 
Americans shopping for a new car are buying an EV. That, however, 
hasn't stopped the Biden administration from powering ahead for an 
absurd goal for electric vehicles to make up two-thirds of the car 
sales by 2032.
  American businesses are not buying this nonsense either. In fact, 
auto dealers in Kentucky and across the Nation recently sounded alarm 
bells in a letter to the President. Here is what they said:

       This attempted electric vehicle mandate is unrealistic 
     based on current and forecasted customer demand. Already, 
     electric vehicles are stacking up on our lots.

  And just earlier this month, Hertz announced plans to sell off a 
third of its electric vehicle rental fleet due to sparse demand and 
heavy repair costs.
  Meanwhile, State utilities are becoming concerned that a massive 
uptick of EV use could overload power grids that are already on the 
edge of blackouts.
  Talk about a lose-lose proposition. But there is one party that 
stands to benefit from Washington Democrats' climate scheme, and that 
is the Chinese Communist Party. As I mentioned before, China controls 
nearly 70 percent of the supply chain for the batteries required to 
manufacture EVs. A Chinese automaker just became the world's top seller 
of electric cars.
  And thanks to Washington Democrats' so-called Inflation Reduction 
Act, leased cars from China qualify for a major tax credit. This means 
hard-working Americans like the Kentuckians I represent are directly 
subsidizing California millionaires and the CCP all at the same time.
  So it is one thing for the Biden administration's outgoing climate 
czar to spend his time begging China to voluntarily engage in 
unenforceable green diplomacy, but it is quite another for Washington 
Democrats to forcibly create a pipeline that pumps working Americans' 
tax dollars into the pockets of our biggest strategic adversary.
  It is time for President Biden to choose between the American people 
and a leftwing dream that communist China can't wait for us to realize.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                   Recognition of the Majority Leader

  The majority leader is recognized.


                         Continuing Resolution

  Mr. SCHUMER. Now, Mr. President, last night the Senate took an 
important step toward passing a temporary extension of government 
funding and avoiding an unnecessary government shutdown. We had a 
strong bipartisan vote last night with 68 Members in favor of moving 
forward with the CR, and that number would have been higher were it not 
for weather delays. It is a clear signal that majorities of both 
parties in the Senate want to pass this funding extension as quickly as 
we can.
  If both sides continue working in good faith, we can have the CR 
passed by tomorrow. If both sides continue working in good faith, we 
can avoid a shutdown without last minute drama or needless anxiety for 
so many Americans.
  There is every reason in the world to make this an easy, 
uncomplicated, and drama-free process. I urge my colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle to do just that, work in good faith. We are willing 
to cooperate, as always, with the other side to keep this process 
moving, but Republican Members need to be realistic and practical about 
how much time we have left before the shutdown deadline.
  What the Senate cannot do right now is mimic the chaos in the House, 
where a vocal minority of hard-right rabble-rousers want to bully their 
way into making a shutdown happen. Amazingly, the hard right thinks 
preventing a shutdown is somehow a ``surrender,'' as the House Freedom 
Caucus suggested a few days ago.
  Only in the bizarre world of the hard right is it a surrender to keep 
the government open. Only in the twisted logic of MAGA extremism is it 
a disaster to extend funding so that VA offices remain open, food 
inspectors remain on the job, nutrition funding remains in place. All 
of these programs

[[Page S127]]

would be at risk if the government shuts down on Friday. But to the 
hard right, a shutdown is precisely the point. They want to create pain 
and chaos for the American people in order to bully their way into 
getting what they want.
  But by now, many Republicans--even in the House--are exhausted by the 
hard right's bully tactics. The Republican majority can't get anything 
done over in the House because the hard right keeps sabotaging things 
on the floor--even their own appropriations bills. The hard right and 
the House Republican leadership's all-too-often willingness to go along 
with them is perhaps the biggest reason why this Republican majority is 
one of the least impressive, least productive, and least competent in 
modern history.
  But for all their bullying and bluster, all their attempts at 
intimidation, the hard right's efforts are going to end in failure. If 
the majority of Senators and Representatives continue working in good 
faith--Democrat and Republican--we are going to keep the government 
open. We are going to continue on the appropriations process.
  So I urge my colleagues, once again, let's work together. Let's work 
together to pass a CR quickly so we avoid a shutdown with time to 
spare.


                          Supplemental Funding

  Mr. President, now on the supplemental, today I will join with 
congressional leaders from both sides of the aisle in both Houses to 
meet at the White House with President Biden and discuss the importance 
of passing the national security supplemental.
  I expect the meeting with President Biden will reinforce something I 
have been saying all along: It is a matter of the highest national 
urgency that both parties keep working together to pass the 
supplemental. The vast majority of Members on both sides know we must 
do something on Ukraine. The eyes of history are upon this Chamber. We 
made a lot of good progress over the past 2 weeks, and I remain hopeful 
that things are headed in the right direction.
  Reaching an agreement on the supplemental, of course, is very 
complex. Republicans have demanded that border provisions be included 
in exchange for Ukraine. Everyone knew that was never going to be easy.
  Nevertheless, President Biden has made clear that he is willing to 
work with Republicans on border security. But as everyone knows, 
including Republican leadership, this has to be bipartisan.
  The hard right--typical of them in the House--have insisted on 
passing a highly partisan bill, H.R. 2, word for word. That is not 
bipartisanship. Any agreement on an issue as complex and contentious as 
the border is going to have to have support from both sides of the 
aisle.
  The work is not done on the supplemental, but I remain very hopeful 
that negotiations continue heading in the right direction.
  Democrats are trying very hard to keep this process going, and I want 
to acknowledge the efforts of my Senate colleagues who have been at 
this for weeks. Passing the supplemental is one of the hardest things 
that the Senate has done in a very long time, but we must do everything 
in our power to finish the job. At stake is the security of our 
country, the survival of our friends in Ukraine, the safety of our 
friends in Israel, and nothing less--nothing less--than the future of 
Western democracy.
  We cannot come up short in this pivotal moment. We must stay the 
course until the job is done.


                        Bipartisan Tax Agreement

  Mr. President, on the bipartisan tax agreement, yesterday Senate 
Finance Chairman Wyden and House Ways and Means Chair Smith announced a 
bipartisan, bicameral tax agreement with important wins for working 
families and for Main Street businesses. I am proud to support this 
bipartisan tax agreement because it will provide much needed relief for 
low-income families and keep American businesses competitive against 
the Chinese Communist Party.
  The child tax credit alone will benefit as many as 60 million 
children in low-income households and lift nearly half a million kids 
out of poverty--half a million kids out of poverty. That is a really 
significant achievement, and it is a credit to Chairman Wyden and all 
the negotiators.
  Now, most Democrats, myself certainly included, wanted to restore 
full refundability to the child tax credit. This framework does go a 
good part of the way toward restoring full refundability. The best part 
is the biggest tax credits under this expanded CTC will go to low-
income families, helping them afford basic necessities like groceries, 
diapers, baby formula, clothing, toiletries, and so much more.
  Second, I am really happy that this framework expands the low-income 
tax credit or LIHTC. I made it clear to the negotiators from the 
beginning that any agreement must include provisions to support 
affordable housing or I couldn't support it.
  I want to thank Senator Cantwell for all the work she did to make 
sure that strong affordable housing provisions were included in the 
bill. She is a very influential member of the Finance Committee, and 
she and I have worked on low-income tax credit issues for a while.
  Right now, housing is one of the biggest problems in our country. 
States like mine and yours, Mr. President, particularly, struggle with 
increasing the supply for affordable loans. The housing shortage 
affects everyone everywhere--urban, suburban, and rural areas. 
Thankfully, this tax package will support the construction of up to 
200,000 new affordable homes by bolstering LIHTC allocations and 
providing greater financing flexibility for affordable housing 
construction.
  In an era of divided government, when you have a House Republican 
majority constantly trying to put housing funding on the chopping 
block, the LIHTC is the best tool available to increase the supply of 
affordable housing. So I am proud of the expansion we secured in the 
agreement.
  Of course, like everything nowadays, moving forward with this 
agreement will take continued cooperation from both sides in both 
Chambers. I hope my Republican colleagues will work with us in good 
faith because this could improve the lives of millions of working 
families and help Main Street businesses grow in today's economy.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Durbin pertaining to the introduction of S. 3597 
are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. DURBIN. I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The 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 ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                            Border Security

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, over the weekend, a reporter asked 
President Biden if the situation at our southern border is a crisis.
  ``No,'' the President said. ``No.''
  Well, I would express surprise, but, unfortunately, failing to 
recognize crises is pretty much par for the course for President 
Biden--see also his inflation crisis or his withdrawal from 
Afghanistan.
  But the President's answer is still notable for the complete 
disconnection it shows from the reality at our southern border, and it 
demonstrates why it has become absolutely necessary for Congress to 
step in; because the situation at our southern border is, in fact, a 
crisis--a logistical crisis, a humanitarian crisis, and a national 
security crisis.
  For the President's edification, I will just run through the numbers. 
We have had three recordbreaking years of illegal immigration at our 
southern border on President Biden's watch. Fiscal year 2021 saw a 
recordbreaking 1,734,686 migrant encounters at our southern border. 
Then fiscal year 2022 broke that record, and then fiscal year 2023 
broke the 2022 record. If fiscal year 2024 continues on its current 
trajectory, we will end up breaking the record yet again.

[[Page S128]]

  December reportedly saw a staggering 302,000 migrant encounters at 
our southern border--the highest monthly number ever recorded--and I 
cannot emphasize enough just how large of a number that is. As my 
colleague from Pennsylvania said of September's border number, it is 
like having the city of Pittsburgh show up at the border in just 1 
month.
  American cities--blue cities now as well as border cities--are 
staggering under the influx of migrants. Major cities like Chicago and 
New York are running up big bills and have begged for more Federal 
money, and that is just to deal with a fraction of the number of 
migrants we saw cross the border in December alone.
  But more than a logistical crisis--and, of course, a humanitarian 
crisis since migrants are exposed to significant dangers on their 
journeys to the border--this is a national security crisis. Our country 
cannot be secure while we have hundreds of thousands of individuals 
illegally flooding across our southern border every single month. The 
volume alone smooths the way for terrorists, criminals, and other 
dangerous individuals to enter our country--and there are dangerous 
individuals trying to enter our country.
  In the first 2 months of fiscal year 2024, 30 individuals on the 
Terrorist Watchlist were apprehended attempting to cross our southern 
border; in other words, roughly, one every other day. Fiscal year 2023 
saw 169 individuals on the Terrorist Watchlist apprehended at our 
southern border--a sharp increase over fiscal year 2022, which was 
itself a sharp increase over fiscal year 2021. That is a dangerous 
trajectory.
  Of course, these numbers only refer to individuals the Border Patrol 
actually apprehended. Since October 1 alone, there have been more than 
83,000 known ``got-aways.'' Those are individuals the Border Patrol saw 
but was unable to apprehend. And there is no telling how many unknown 
``got-aways'' there have been over that same period. How many of those 
individuals were terrorists, criminals, or other dangerous individuals?
  Well, the fact of the matter is, we have no way of knowing. What we 
do know is that dangerous people are trying to make their way into our 
country across our southern border, and there is no question that the 
chaos at our southern border is smoothing the way for them.
  President Biden bears a lot of responsibility for the 3 years of 
chaos we have seen at our southern border. From the day that he took 
office, when he rescinded the declaration of a national emergency at 
our southern border, President Biden made it clear that border security 
was at the bottom of his priority list. And over the 3 years since, he 
has turned our southern border into a magnet for illegal migration--
from repealing the border policies of his predecessor to misusing our 
asylum and parole systems, which are now providing temporary amnesty to 
hundreds of thousands of individuals who are here illegally.
  As his answer to the reporter over the weekend once again made clear, 
he still does not understand the magnitude of the resulting crisis. In 
fact, he doesn't understand that it is a crisis at all.
  So it is time for Congress to step in. After months of delay, 
Democrats have finally come to the table, and I am encouraged by the 
ongoing talks. I am hopeful that, in the coming days, we will see final 
agreement on real border security legislation--not cosmetic fixes or 
superficial tweaks but real reforms that will allow us to stem the flow 
at our southern border.
  Senator Lankford deserves a ton of credit for staying at the 
negotiating table to hammer home the reality of the situation to 
Democrats and to craft long-term changes to our border policies that 
will decrease the flow to the border and remove individuals already 
within the country. I have to say, I am grateful for his hard work.
  Three years of chaos is long enough. We owe it--we owe it--to the 
American people to get this crisis under control today.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I and Senator 
Brown, the Senator from Ohio, be allowed to finish our remarks before 
the planned recess.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                           Government Funding

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, for the third time--third time--since late 
September, Congress is rushing to avert a government shutdown.
  We have an annual appropriations process for the fiscal year, which 
ends at the end of September each year. But, for some reason, we find 
ourselves in a position where, frankly, we reflect embarrassingly the 
dysfunction here in Washington, DC, because of the way we deal with 
keeping the lights on and keeping the government up and running.

  The Senate and the House both have failed to send a single regular 
appropriations bill to the President's desk. Just before the start of 
this fiscal year, we passed a stopgap bill to fund the government 
through mid-November. When that deadline rolled around, we punted again 
and set two separate deadlines. The first is this Friday, and the 
second is just 2 weeks after that.
  Today, Congress is on track to kick the can down the road once again. 
The Senate is preparing to vote on a continuing resolution that will 
push these deadlines even further. The first will arrive on March 1, 
and the second will come on March 8. We can only wonder what is going 
to happen between now and March 1 and March 8 that will prevent us from 
another can kicked down the road.
  None of this is inevitable. This is a result of planned dysfunction. 
It is embarrassing to find ourselves in this situation once again. This 
is not complicated. It is not physics. We are talking about the most 
basic duty of funding the government for a full year. This is one of 
the most fundamental responsibilities of Congress, but obviously it is 
not a priority for the majority leader, whose job it is to schedule 
votes in the Senate. In other words, none of us--not the Presiding 
Officer, not me, none of the 99 Senators--other than the majority 
leader can actually schedule something for a vote on the floor.
  I know I must sound a little bit like a broken record, but it is 
important for everybody to remember that this roller coaster of last-
minute stopgap funding bills is not inevitable. Congress has all year 
to plan and prepare for the end of the fiscal year. It is not a 
deadline that comes out of nowhere; it arrives like clockwork on 
September 30.
  Despite the long runway, the Senate has failed to pass a single 
funding bill before the deadline. That wasn't because the individual 
bills were not available, it wasn't because they were divisive or 
ultrapartisan, and it certainly wasn't because of lack of time. The 
Senate Appropriations Committee passed all 12 regular appropriations 
bills in June and July--last June and last July. Each bill passed the 
committee with strong bipartisan support, and more than half of them 
passed unanimously. I think that would shock a lot of people who think 
Congress is polarized and irretrievably broken, that actually the 
Appropriations Committee could pass bipartisan appropriations bills and 
more than half of them unanimously.
  So what is the deal? Well, the deal is the majority leader could have 
put the bills on the floor immediately. We could have been voting on 
funding bills last June. Instead, days, weeks, and months crept by 
without even an inch of progress. It was mid-September before Senator 
Schumer even attempted to put the first appropriations bill on the 
floor. We are now 3\1/2\ months into the fiscal year, and none of the 
12 appropriations bills have been signed into law--not one.
  Congress has developed a dangerous, dangerous habit of circumventing 
the normal processes for funding the government, and it is not without 
cost or consequences. It has been common to blow through the deadlines 
and rely on short-term funding bills to keep the lights on. I know of 
no business, large

[[Page S129]]

or small, in the United States that could operate like this because you 
can't plan. All of your time is absorbed and energy absorbed in these 
efforts to keep the government from shutting down, and all of it is 
avoidable.
  Now, there is no doubt that stopgap bills are better than government 
shutdowns, but it is not a good solution, especially for critical 
missions like national defense.
  Here is the price the Nation pays for the failure to do our business 
on time. Short-term funding bills do avoid the most immediate 
consequences of a shutdown. They ensure that our troops are paid on 
time and that short-term operations can continue. But they have a 
decidedly negative impact on a full range of long-term projects, from 
recruitment to modernization.
  During a continuing resolution, the Department of Defense can't even 
start some of the programs we authorized in the National Defense 
Authorization Act, which we passed in December. Our Nation's top 
military leaders have repeatedly emphasized the importance of full-year 
government funding bills. They have told us over and over again that 
reliable funding is a key to planning and preparing for the future.
  I remember maybe about a year ago now having lunch--a bipartisan 
group of Senators--in the Senate Dining Room with Secretary Bob Gates.
  Secretary Gates, a former Secretary of Defense, served, I want to 
say, under eight Presidents, and he is wise in the ways of Washington, 
DC, although he hadn't been back to Capitol Hill for some time before 
we had lunch.
  I asked him for his suggestions and recommendations for how we can 
ensure the safety and security of the United States by making sure that 
our military was second to none and making sure that we maintain 
maximum deterrence so that wars wouldn't break out because people 
experienced or sensed a lack of will or preparation. He said the single 
most important thing--piece of advice he could give us is no more 
continuing resolutions. No more continuing resolutions--the single most 
important thing. What we have been doing time and time and time again 
is continuing resolutions--exactly the wrong thing when it comes to our 
national security and our standing in the world and our ability to 
deter aggressors in a very, very dangerous environment.
  In short, timely, full-year appropriations support our long-term 
goals. You can't plan for a few weeks at a time. Long, full-year 
appropriations bills support our troops, boost our military readiness, 
restore credible deterrence, and maintain our ability to compete with 
our most formidable adversaries.

  By continuing to move from one stopgap bill to another, we are 
shooting ourselves in the foot. We are weakening our own defense as 
China's military strength continues to grow and as we see more and more 
aggression on the part of Iran in the Middle East through various 
proxies like Hamas. We see Kim Jong Un in North Korea say he wants 
nothing to do with South Korea and has basically declared a state of 
war against South Korea. In Asia proper, China continues to threaten to 
attack Taiwan, creating a potentially catastrophic set of 
circumstances.
  We need credible deterrence, and that credible deterrence comes with 
a first-class military, second to none, and an understanding that 
America is absolutely committed first and foremost to our national 
security.
  Given the threats we face in the world today, from the Middle East to 
Europe and the Indo-Pacific, it is absolutely critical that Congress 
take defense funding seriously. It cannot be the last item on our to-do 
list; it should be priority No. 1. There are a lot of things Congress 
does that are not priorities, but national defense is our No. 1 
priority--should be. Reliable funding for our defense is vital to our 
security. It should come before votes on nominees and virtually every 
other task on the Senate's agenda.
  Well, watching this play out once again is like watching another bad 
movie. The characters miss the obvious warning signs, make bad 
decisions, and repeatedly stumble into danger. Throughout this movie, 
you can't help but think that no one is foolish enough to land in this 
situation or certainly to do so voluntarily, but, sadly, that is how I 
feel, looking at the majority leader's decisionmaking when it comes to 
funding the government and particularly national security.
  At the end of September, Congress kicked the can to November. In 
November, we punted to January and February. Now Congress is on track 
to push the deadline once again, teeing us up for another fiscal 
cliff--actually, not just one but two of them--in March.
  With each stopgap bill, we are sending the message that we are really 
not serious about our national security because we are weakening our 
defense, crippling our readiness, and hurting our long-term security.
  Here in the Senate, the stakes are much higher than in this bad 
movie. We don't have the freedom to make poor decisions just to put on 
a show. So the bottom line is this: Congress has a duty to pass full-
year, on-time appropriations bills. This is the absolute bare minimum 
when it comes to governing. It is time to get serious about debating, 
amending, and passing those regular appropriations bills.
  I don't know what it is going to take to convince the majority leader 
that this is important, which is the reason I keep coming to the floor 
and talking about it. Hopefully somebody, somewhere, will be paying 
attention.
  Congress failed to get the job done before the first deadline. We 
failed to get it done before the second deadline. We failed to get it 
done before the third deadline. We simply cannot, in good conscience, 
delay this process any further. There is far too much at stake.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                         Remembering Pam Rosado

  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, this is not the speech I really ever wanted 
to give. I appreciate being recognized to give it.
  I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Pam Rosado, a longtime 
member of my staff, dedicated public servant, and advocate, whom we 
lost last week.
  I have known Pam from the community in her work as an advocate for 
unions and for social service agencies, and especially for people 
individually. And then she joined our office more than 4 years ago. I 
will get to that.
  She embodied the true meaning of service. She spent her life fighting 
for others. She understood and supported the whole idea of dignity of 
work. She bettered our State. She bettered our country. She touched so 
many lives along the way.
  She joined our staff in the beginning of 2019--almost 5 years ago--as 
a constituent advocate on our casework team.
  We don't think about it enough around here, but the foundation of our 
work in these jobs--the foundation of our work--is individual service 
to individual people. We look at, you know, taxes and Medicare and 
Social Security and foreign policy and Ukraine. All of those things 
obviously are important. It is what we are elected to do. But, 
fundamentally, these jobs are about helping individual people when they 
have an issue--whether it is Social Security, whether it is Medicare, 
whether it is a passport, whether it is a tragedy in somebody's life--
and we cut through redtape and do that.
  Nobody, nobody represented that service--and I have a lot of people 
in my office who represent that service, and a lot of people, on their 
first day, they understand the importance of individual service. We 
just interviewed someone who joined our staff this week. I interviewed 
her several weeks ago, and what made me want to hire her is she said 
the most important thing in these jobs is helping people one at a time, 
individually. We forget that in this job far too often.
  Pam joined our office about 5 years ago. Not long afterward, we were 
taking on a record caseload as Ohioans dealt with the effects of the 
pandemic. Too many workers were reaching out. So many people were 
reaching out to our office for assistance. The world was an uncertain 
place.

[[Page S130]]

  Pam was a rock for Ohioans. She was a rock for other staff persons 
because she had already had a life of service and, especially, was a 
mentor to young people in the office. And she was a source of hope. She 
made things happen.
  We have calculated this. She worked on 1,331 cases in those 5 years. 
She was a relentless advocate, known for quick responses in care and 
handling. And for every case, she provided a space for Ohioans to be 
heard and showed unwavering kindness.
  In letters people sent us and descriptions people gave of Pam during 
the time and since her death, the word ``kindness'' comes back over and 
over and over again. Humility is the foundation of virtue, and I would 
say kindness is too. And Pam understood that. She didn't bring that to 
our office; she had lived her life that way.
  Ohioans were lucky to have Pam on their side. We were lucky to have 
her on our team. For some Ohioans, she resolved disputes with the 
Veterans Administration or the U.S. Postal Service. For others, she 
helped secure a federally compliant driver's license. One Ohioan shared 
that, because of Pam, he was able to return to his union job as a 
driver for UPS. And those jobs, because they have an effective union--
something Pam understood--those jobs have good pay, good benefits, good 
retirement--again, because of an effective union at the bargaining 
table. Pam understood all of that, but this was a gentleman who needed 
a little bit of help to return to that job.
  In the numerous notes she received, they thanked her for her 
dedication and determination in seeing her cases through. They wrote in 
for different reasons. Every letter shared heartfelt gratitude and warm 
wishes. In reading those letters, it is clear the impact that Pam had. 
Again, ``kindness''--we heard that word over and over.
  ``After receiving help from Pam,'' one Ohioan wrote in--I mean, 
people, after they get help, most of them don't think about writing in 
because we are the government, even though we are individual people in 
the government, and the caseworkers are doing what they do. But people 
don't think to write in. But an unusually high, an inordinate number of 
people wrote in to thank Pam Rosado.
  This one Ohioan wrote:

       There is tremendous value in being able to speak with a 
     kind and understanding person after hours on the internet.

  Then he wrote:

       You are exceptional, Ms. Rosado.

  My staff and I couldn't agree more. She was exceptional. She cared 
deeply for the people in her life, strangers whom she met through our 
office--or never met, only online or on the phone or a few coming in. 
But she cared deeply for the people in her life.
  She was closest to her family, her friends, her colleagues, and, of 
course, every Ohioan who reached out. And action always accompanied 
that care. She wanted to help everyone have a better day, a better 
life. That makes a difference for so many Ohioans and so many of our 
colleagues.
  To my staff--to the person, I believe--Pam was more than a coworker. 
She was a friend. She believed in her colleagues. She lifted them up. 
She knew our job was to help people individually, including coworkers.
  Her joy, her spirit were infectious. She lit up every room she walked 
into. This past November, in a meeting that we did with all members of 
the staff, she greeted everyone with excitement as she reconnected with 
colleagues.
  We have offices all over the State: Cleveland and Columbus and 
Cincinnati and Lorain. So they don't all see each other all the time.
  And she met new members of our team. Whenever a staffwide email went 
out announcing a departure or a new hire--we have had members, people 
on our staff--it seems to be happening a good bit--who are called up to 
serve in the military or they are National Guard people, or whenever 
somebody leaves for a better job or retires or whatever it is, she was 
the first to respond with heartfelt congratulations, words of 
encouragement, and--several people told me--a smiley face emoji. She 
made every member of this office feel appreciated and welcomed, and 
that warmth touched each of us.
  In the Cleveland office where she worked, her laugh filled the halls 
as she spoke with constituents and colleagues. When you heard her, you 
couldn't help but smile and laugh too. She made a difference for every 
member of our staff and for so many Ohioans. Our office is a better 
place because of Pam. Ohio is better because of her.
  It wasn't just in our office. Throughout Pam's entire life, she 
served others and fought for others.
  She served the community in a number of ways. She served on nonprofit 
boards. She was an active member of her church and community, and she 
was a mentor to aspiring advocates and policymakers.
  Before joining our office--and this was the first time, I believe, 
years ago; I believe it was the first time I met Pam--she was the 
political director of the Service Employees International Union, a 
union that typically represents people who are not the highest income 
workers. They are people who, because they have a union, make a living 
wage and have the kind of benefits that unions bring. She was their 
political director.
  She advocated for the United Labor Agency. She organized and taught 
classes to future union leaders about the history of the labor 
movement. Something, my God--I know that some people in this body don't 
think we should teach history, and many don't even think of the history 
of the labor movement. She understood that if you know the history of 
the labor movement, you know the history of the middle class, you know 
the history of the dignity of work. She taught about the fight for good 
jobs, good benefits, and what their union card means.
  She dedicated a decade of her career to leading outreach for Policy 
Matters Ohio. She made sure their efforts were grounded in what workers 
needed and reached as many Ohioans as possible.
  Her colleagues at Policy Matters recognize Pam's integral role in 
making the think tank and the labor movement what they are today. They 
recall Pam's ability to make things happen, whether it was planning a 
last-minute event or helping to secure an Ohioan's deserved interim 
benefits.
  That ability made her an indispensable member of our team. Frankly, 
it made her an indispensable member of any team that she interacted 
with or was a part of.
  Her legacy will be upheld by her friends, her family, and every 
member of our staff. We honor her memory. We grieve for her mother and 
her family. We will honor it by continuing her public service, her 
activism, her advocacy, and the work we believe in and she believed in, 
as we fight for Ohioans with her tenacity and dedication.
  Today, our thoughts are with Pam's family, her friends, those who 
knew and loved Pam, my staff, all who had the privilege of working 
alongside her, and all who had the privilege of benefitting from her 
work. And that was a huge number of people in a State of 12 million.
  This office will be forever grateful for our time with Pam. We will 
miss her every day. I am grateful for my years of time with Pam, on and 
off, in her different roles, and we were thrilled to have her as a 
member of our staff.
  May she rest in peace.

                          ____________________