[Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 180 (Thursday, December 5, 2024)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6832-S6839]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
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 legislative 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. 846, Keli Marie Neary, of
Pennsylvania, to be United
[[Page S6833]]
States District Judge for the Middle District of
Pennsylvania.
Charles E. Schumer, Richard J. Durbin, Tammy Duckworth,
Ben Ray Lujan, Patty Murray, Alex Padilla, Peter Welch,
Jeff Merkley, Richard Blumenthal, Amy Klobuchar,
Christopher A. Coons, Debbie Stabenow, Robert P. Casey,
Jr., Elizabeth Warren, Margaret Wood Hassan, Jack Reed,
Tim Kaine.
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 Keli Marie Neary, of Pennsylvania, to be United States
District Judge for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, shall be
brought to a close?
The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker),
the Senator from California (Mr. Padilla), and the Senator from Arizona
(Ms. Sinema) are necessarily absent.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from Texas (Mr. Cornyn), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), the
Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio), and the Senator from Ohio (Mr.
Vance).
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 48, nays 45, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 316 Ex.]
YEAS--48
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Brown
Butler
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coons
Cortez Masto
Duckworth
Durbin
Fetterman
Gillibrand
Hassan
Heinrich
Helmy
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Kaine
Kelly
King
Klobuchar
Lujan
Manchin
Markey
Merkley
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Peters
Reed
Rosen
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Smith
Stabenow
Tester
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Welch
Whitehouse
Wyden
NAYS--45
Barrasso
Blackburn
Boozman
Braun
Britt
Budd
Capito
Cassidy
Collins
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Ernst
Fischer
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hawley
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Johnson
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
Lummis
Marshall
McConnell
Mullin
Murkowski
Paul
Ricketts
Risch
Romney
Rounds
Schmitt
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Tuberville
Wicker
Young
NOT VOTING--7
Booker
Cornyn
Moran
Padilla
Rubio
Sinema
Vance
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 48, the nays are
45.
The motion was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Butler). The nomination is pending.
The Senator from Mississippi.
Tribute to Michelle Barlow Richardson
Mr. WICKER. Madam President, it is fitting that a daughter of
Mississippi is presiding at this poignant moment for me and for my
entire staff.
I come to the floor today with a forced smile and a bittersweet
message, a bit of official news I have not been eager to report, and
that news is that Michelle Barlow Richardson, who sits at my side at
this very moment and who has stood by my side for a quarter century, my
chief of staff, will soon depart Capitol Hill. This closes a 25-year
chapter of service to my office, to the U.S. Senate and House of
Representatives, to the State of Mississippi, and to the citizens of
the United States.
Anyone who knows Michelle has found out very quickly that Michelle is
a Mississippi State Bulldog. She graduated from Mississippi State
University in 1997 and then moved up east to Washington, DC, to begin
work at my office. And she got right to work, beginning where many
staffers do, as a legislative correspondent and then as an executive
assistant. She set my schedule. She began to guide proposals into law,
which is what we do here. Michelle would go on to higher rungs up the
ladder, but she never lost her appreciation for every role on the team.
And many members of the team join us in this Chamber at this moment. To
this day, no task is too small for Michelle. She has not hesitated to
climb into the trenches again and again.
Michelle is fiercely loyal. Her relationship to Mississippi State
University is a prime example of this trait. When the MSU community
sings their school's anthem at an event, they all sing, ``Loyal friends
we'll always be.'' Quite fitting. We even lost Michelle to Starkville
briefly in 1999. At that point--only a couple of years out of college--
she was given the very important job of fundraising for a project that
ended up generating over $4 million to endow a scholarship. That fund
is helping students in Mississippi to this very day.
But luckily, in 2001, we got her back. As I reflect on the 23 years
that have passed since then, I am filled with gratitude for Michelle.
And I am beaming with pride over all the good work she has
accomplished.
In Washington, DC--as you so poignantly know, Madam President--change
is constant: a different Congress every 2 years, new leadership
opportunities, Senators come and go, changing committee assignments.
During these transitions, Michelle has been a steadfast presence,
guiding my staff and me through numerous changes over the years.
A big change came in 2007, not long after Michelle had been promoted
to be my chief of staff. Our office picked up and moved to this end of
the Capitol when I was selected to fill the seat vacated by U.S.
Senator Trent Lott. The success of that transition is due, in no small
part, to Michelle's deep institutional knowledge, broad networks, and
natural leadership skills.
The next year, to the extent permitted by the law and the rules, she
helped lead my first statewide election campaign. She expanded a
campaign and fundraising organization that she had developed in the
First Congressional District, and she applied it to all of our great
State of Mississippi.
Of course, when you get elected, you have to govern. And over here on
the Senate side, Michelle once again rose to the challenge of a larger
role in governing. She scaled up the size of ``Team Wicker'' from 18
people to 45 teammates across 5 offices.
Over the years, she also established a network of Senate chiefs of
staff. In fact, it is known throughout Capitol Hill that Michelle
Barlow Richardson has become the ``dean'' of the Senate chiefs of
staff. That is what we are losing tomorrow when she moves to another
capacity. Michelle has built a community where collaboration,
information, and mutual support can flow.
Then, in 2016, we had another transition. I was elected to chair of
the National Republican Senatorial Committee, and, as usual, Michelle
was right there to help. Under her leadership, the office adjusted to
new responsibilities and certainly new schedules.
A few years after that, I took up the gavel on the Senate Commerce
Committee. Michelle helped build a team of policy experts who would
craft smart legislation on the vast portfolio of the Commerce
Committee--everything from the seabed to the stars.
President Ronald Reagan once said that ``personnel is policy.'' Well,
Michelle and the personnel she has cultivated have gone on to produce
substantive and savvy policy. She has been pivotal to work that has
brought billions of dollars in new jobs and new investments to
Mississippi. Through years of legislative efforts, Michelle has been
making connections, educating stakeholders, and holding our strong
legislative principles--and holding our feet to the fire. Through every
negotiation and late night, she has been motivating our staff.
In scaling up the staff from the House team to the much larger Senate
team, over the years, Michelle has led literally hundreds of able staff
members.
Her leadership left an incredible legacy. Michelle was good at
identifying talent. She has challenged staffers to accomplish goals
they did not know they were capable of reaching. She has embraced the
burden of making tough decisions. She has delivered tough but
constructive feedback directly and concisely, without ever making it
personal. And a massive cloud of witnesses can testify to her
influence. Many former Wicker staffers are now serving in leadership
roles around the country. I am the one privileged to give this floor
speech, but I know many could give speeches--and perhaps will give
speeches--of their own, telling the stories of Michelle's influence in
their lives.
[[Page S6834]]
Those who know Michelle Barlow Richardson know her for her strong
devotion and friendship. That is especially true for my wife Gayle and
me. Michelle's title has been chief of staff, but she has been so much
more. She has been by our side in public service and in private moments
and moments of joy and moments of pain.
Words are inadequate, and these remarks, in particular, are
inadequate. We will miss Michelle's enthusiasm for all things
Mississippi. We will miss the presence she--and occasionally her
children--have brought to the office. We will even miss the Mississippi
State University maroon and cowbell. But loyal friends we will
certainly always be. We will remain grateful for her friendship, and we
wish her, this public servant and American patriot, the very best.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Nominations
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam President, if there is one thing we have
learned from last month's election, it is that President Trump has a
clear mandate from the American people to get this country back on
track, and one of the things that Tennesseans talk to me most about is
the need to restore law and order all across this country.
I am so encouraged by President Trump's nominees who are going to
take the lead in reforming our Federal law enforcement Agencies, and,
today, I want to touch on two of those who are reforming law
enforcement Agencies.
I will tell the Presiding Officer, next week, I am going to come and
talk about the nominees for our military and national security. I want
to talk about the qualifications of Pete Hegseth, who is going to be a
great Secretary of Defense; but, today, we are going to talk about Kash
Patel at the FBI and Pam Bondi at the Justice Department.
Now, these two Agencies--I think everybody agrees--are in desperate
need of a course correction. Under the Biden-Harris administration,
they have repeatedly undermined the rule of law with a two-tiered
justice system. Its rules are simple: If you break the law and you are
a Democrat, then you are off the hook--that is the way they have
operated--but if you are a conservative or you dissent from the left's
radical agenda, the government will end up targeting you for your
beliefs.
What we know is that, under Mr. Patel and Ms. Bondi, this abuse of
power will come to an end, and few people are better qualified to get
this job done and enforce the rule of law than Ms. Bondi and Mr. Patel.
As a former prosecutor for the Justice Department--and, by the way,
he worked under Democrats and Republicans--Mr. Patel led the successful
prosecutions of criminals that were tied to terrorist organizations
like al-Qaida and ISIS.
On the House Intel Committee, he worked with Congressman Devin Nunes,
the chair of that committee, to expose the FBI and the Justice
Department's abuses during Russiagate, or the Russia hoax, as it became
known.
In the first Trump administration, he served as the Deputy Director
of National Intelligence. He served at the Security Council and the
Defense Department as Chief of Staff.
This is a varied background. It is a credible background for the job
in front of him of restoring law and order in our cities across this
country, in countering terror threats, and in ending human trafficking,
and that is the job of the FBI.
I will say this on the human trafficking: I am especially encouraged
by his support for releasing the Jeffrey Epstein flight logs and black
book. We know the abuse spanned decades from Mr. Epstein, and it harmed
many vulnerable young girls, and we know a large network of high-
profile, high-dollar predators participated in this horrific abuse on a
global level. So, by releasing the flight logs, we can start to break
apart the sex trafficking rings and ensure that the predators are put
in jail where they belong. This effort will go a long way in restoring
public confidence in the FBI and in ending the left's two-tiered
justice system. On this front, he will work closely with Pam Bondi, who
is President Trump's excellent choice for Attorney General.
Earlier this week, I had my official meeting with Ms. Bondi, whom I
have known and worked with for over the past decade. Our meeting only
reaffirmed my conviction that she will be fearless in rooting out
corruption, taking on the deep state, and restoring the Justice
Department to its core mission: enforcing equal justice under the law.
To be certain, her accomplishments speak for themselves. With more
than 18 years of experience as a prosecutor, she became the first woman
to serve as the attorney general of Florida in 2011. While there, she
worked to protect the most vulnerable among us by taking on drug
dealers and human traffickers.
During the first Trump administration, she also worked to end our
Nation's drug epidemic as a member of the Opioid and Drug Abuse
Commission. This experience will be invaluable to her as she leads this
top law enforcement Agency.
Kash Patel and Pam Bondi are just two of Trump's incredible picks,
but they are representative of the talent, experience, and
determination shown by his Cabinet selections and nominees. As we head
into the new year, I will look forward to supporting them and ensuring
that they can get to work as soon as possible for the American people.
Kids Online Safety Act
Madam President, although we have a busy end of year ahead of us,
there is at least one thing Congress must do before the end of the
year, and that is to pass the very bipartisan Kids Online Safety Act.
Back in July, this Chamber passed KOSA by an overwhelming bipartisan
majority. The vote was 91 to 3. The reason is very simple: Lawmakers on
both sides of the aisle recognize that Big Tech must be held
accountable for putting our children's safety at risk. They have put
profit ahead of our children's safety, and they want to continue to do
that.
KOSA puts the priority on safety by providing parents and kids with
tools, safeguards, and the transparency that they need to protect
against online harms. Among its provisions, the legislation would
create a duty of care for online platforms to prevent and mitigate
specific dangers to minors, including the promotion of suicide, eating
disorders, substance abuse, and sexual exploitation.
Since KOSA's passage in the Senate, more and more evidence has
emerged showing that this legislation is desperately needed. In
October, for example, reports emerged showing that Chinese-owned
TikTok purposefully developed algorithms to keep children scrolling as
long as they could. Of course, the more time a child spends on the
platform the more data TikTok can collect, then the more valuable that
platform becomes.
While this happens, TikTok executives privately acknowledge that such
addiction does lead to mental health issues, including a loss of memory
and cognition. But do you know what? They don't care. When your child
is online, they are the profit. They are a profit center for these
platforms.
Now, other platforms, from Facebook to Instagram, have also developed
addictive algorithms that expose children to unthinkable harms,
including sexual abuse and lethal drugs. But, again, these platforms
don't care. They do not give a ripping flip about your child.
This tragedy has got to come to an end, but for months, KOSA has been
held up in the House because of blatant falsehoods that are being
pushed by Big Tech lobbyists. We know who they are, and we know what
they are saying. Let me just read some of these falsehoods to you.
They say that KOSA would censor free speech, and it will not. KOSA is
a product design bill. It is not a contact bill.
There are some out there who say: Well, it is going to give all of
this authority to the FTC. It does not. It does not increase the
authority of the FTC. It is important to note that there is no new
rulemaking power for the FTC in KOSA or any ability to create rules
about content. So they are lying. The lobbyists and some of these House
staffers who are listening to these lobbyists are spreading falsehoods.
It should come to a stop. Our children deserve better.
We know that what KOSA will do is put in place tools for parents,
and, of course, Big Tech is out here spreading
[[Page S6835]]
lies and having their lobbyists spread lies because they want to evade
accountability on this. I have even heard this: I have heard of
staffers in the House and lobbyists bragging that they have been able
to kill KOSA, that they are going to keep this profit center going,
that they have been able to kill this bill. It is absolutely disgusting
that they would agree with Big Tech and put that number--that dollar
figure--on our kids' heads.
Do you know, when we were doing the hearings on this, what did we
hear from kid after kid who came in? They came in wearing a T-shirt,
``270,'' saying: I am worth more than $270. That is the value that some
of these platforms have assigned to the amount of time a child spends
on their platform. That is the profit they make.
You know, if you listen to some of these staffers and some of these
lobbyists, you would think, my goodness, if we don't need to have some
kind of protections in the virtual space, why do we have laws in the
physical space to protect kids? Minors can't enter into a contract.
Minors can't go buy alcohol and tobacco. If you have got a store that
sells liquor and you sell to a kid, they will come, put the chains on
your store, and close you down. It is the same thing with alcohol and
the same thing with pornography.
The Presiding Officer and I are parents. I am a grandparent. We see
what is happening to these precious children, and they are being
subjected to drugs, to alcohol; they are being subjected to
pornography; they are being subjected to sexual exploitation, and it is
done 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days of the year, and yet Big
Tech--they don't care. They do not care about protecting your children.
So the only thing we are left to surmise is, if they don't protect them
in the virtual space, they are, for sure, not going to support
protecting them in the physical space. I would surmise that people who
are against KOSA would do away with all of these laws that protect
children.
Society has decided our precious children are worth the fight, that
they are worth the protection. And it is disgusting--disgusting--when
you hear these Big Tech platforms say there is a value to keeping that
child scrolling, that there is a value to holding their eyes online--
and when you hear it repeated by people in our Chambers--staffers--it
is sickening.
This is not a political game. Protecting our children is something
that we in the Senate have agreed to do on a bipartisan basis. This
bill has been stuck in the House since July. We know why it has been
stuck, and we know that falsehoods are being spread. This is a bill
that deserves a vote on the House floor because what we do know is
this: By an overwhelming bipartisan majority, Members of the U.S. House
of Representatives support this bill. It is time for those who are
standing in the way of passing this bill to put aside--to put aside--
their objections and to allow protections for our children to take
place in the virtual space.
Since 1998, there has not been any additional protection placed in
the virtual space. Why is that? It is because Big Tech sees our kids as
a product. They make a lot of money--a whole lot of money--when those
kids are scrolling. It is killing our kids. Just as in the physical
world we put in place laws to protect them, they deserve the same
protections in that virtual space.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant executive clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Helmy). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Corporate Transparency Act
Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, for over a year, I have worked to get
rid of a rule that is driving every one of my small businesses in
Oklahoma absolutely crazy. A lot of Americans have no idea what the
beneficial ownership rule is, but if you own a small business in
America, you definitely know.
To set the context for this, next week, we are supposed to take up
the national defense authorization. In 2021, a small, little section
was stuck in at the end in the large national defense authorization
that was called the corporate transparency beneficial ownership act.
That little bill was supposed to root out money laundering and fraud.
What it has become has been a nightmare for every business owner in my
State.
If you are a business owner that has a business that is a small
business--let's say less than 20 employees, less than $5 million in
total revenue in a year--you now have to fill out this enormous set of
forms and turn them in to the Federal Government to show your ownership
structure to the Federal Government so they can track it.
I will tell you, there are quite a few business owners that don't own
one business; they may own two or three businesses or they may own
several LLCs if they are a builder or they are a property developer, if
they do all kinds of property construction for small businesses and
building for others. They will own several LLCs, and now they have a
stack of forms they have to fill out. They have to fill out forms now
that talk about their name, their birth date, their address, an ID
number, and all of it. They want to know all the reporting for their
legal address, their address, the jurisdiction of their information.
They want to know all the senior officers of the reporting company.
They want to know someone who has the authority over the appointment or
the removal of those senior officers. This is my favorite: They want to
know substantial influencers over the decisions in the company. No one
even knows what that means. Who is your substantial influence in your
small business?
All those things all have to be compiled by business owners that
literally do their own books, that do their own purchasing, that do
their own payroll. They have plenty of other things to do other than
the requirement to fill out forms.
Now, it wouldn't be such a big deal if it was just a form that
dropped into their box, but it is a form dropped into their box, and it
had this little note attached to it: If you don't fill this out or you
fill it out wrong, it is a $10,000 fine and up to 2 years in prison for
not filling this form out--2 years in prison for not filling out this
form outlining who influences you in your decisions in your small
business.
When this was stuck into the national defense authorization in 2021,
it was supposed to root out fraud and waste, but it has grown through
regulations and is now poured out with a deadline that is literally a
couple of weeks away.
I have fought for a year. Senator Tuberville has a bill to be able to
end this entirely. We got no traction on that. We couldn't even get a
vote in this Senate to be able to stop this nightmare. So I brought a
second bill to say let's just delay it so it is not happening this
year, and we have worked for months to be able to get that delay in,
and we have not been able to get a vote on that in this Senate.
While small businesses all over my State are furious about this, we
have tried to just say: Somebody needs to show some common sense and to
stop asking these questions. Thankfully, in the last 72 hours, a
Federal judge has stepped in and has halted this nationwide, has
prevented the Biden administration from actually implementing this rule
that they created. In fact, this judge called this regulation quasi-
Orwellian, also determined this--saying the ``government is unable to
provide the court with any tenable theory that [this regulation] falls
within Congress's power. [It] appears likely unconstitutional.'' I
absolutely agree.
I am grateful this judge has stepped in to be able to stop its
implementation, but I am going to still ask this Senate to do the same
thing we have asked all year; that is, to stop it entirely.
We should not be asking these questions of every small business in
America. That is not our job, to ask every small business owner in
America: Turn in who are the influencers on your decisionmaking or we
will put you in prison for 2 years.
What in the world?
So I am grateful for the stop, but we also will not stop until we
actually pull this entire thing out and say this is not our job. We
have plenty of things that are our job that we are not doing. For
[[Page S6836]]
instance, next week--the national defense authorization, passed on a
bipartisan basis through committee months ago, has yet to come to the
Senate floor. It is time for it to be able to come, long past overdue.
This sets our military strategy and what we are going to do for our
vets and for the members of Active-Duty Reserves and National Guard.
This should have been done a long time ago.
Those are the things we should already be doing. Going to business
owners and telling them ``Tell us who your influencers are'' are things
we should not be doing.
Department of Government Efficiency
Mr. President, I left a meeting just now dealing with the newly named
Department of Government Efficiency, where Members of the House and
Senate gathered around Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswarmy and asked
questions of each other: What can we do to make government more
efficient?
This shouldn't be a partisan organization. In fact, there are
Democrats that have joined us in this conversation. I find no one in my
great State of Oklahoma who says: You know what I really want from my
government? I want them to be inefficient. I want them to waste my
money. I want my government to spend money on things that really don't
matter for the country.
Every person that I meet in my State--Republican, Democrat, or
Independent--all say the same thing: The government should do its job
and not somebody else's job. When you spend my money, spend it wisely.
We all know we need roads. We all know we need national defense. We
all know we need border security. There are key things we all need to
do. But there are some things that continue to be able to pop up where
money is being spent that there is great frustration in my State and a
great number of people that say: Why are we spending money on that?
We spent money 2 years ago, as a Federal tax dollar, and the people
in my State of Oklahoma had to spend their hard-earned tax money on
paying for drag shows in Ecuador. We have money that was spent on
writing the book about humans, chimpanzees, and climate change in
Sierra Leone. We spent some of our hard-earned tax dollars on doing a
study about seatbelts and helmet usage in Ghana.
The folks in Oklahoma asked a very simple question. We want the pot
holes fixed. We want efficient government. We want education taken care
of. We want good schools. Why are we spending our dollars--that are
limited dollars--on doing a helmet study in Ghana? Why aren't we doing
that in the United States? Why aren't we taking care of us?
It is not that we are selfish; it is just that we all know we are $36
trillion in debt. Every single year, I put out a book called ``Federal
Fumbles.'' Every year, I bring it to this body. Every year, we talk
about inefficiency and waste in government.
I am grateful that there is a bipartisan conversation finally started
that is spreading among this body and the House body and now the new
incoming executive branch saying: Let's find areas of efficiency where
we can be better at this.
The basic goal is this: Let's have a prosperous Nation that actually
has economic growth and an efficient government that matches the
efficiency of you our Nation. That shouldn't be an irrational goal.
That should be something we could all agree on. Quite frankly, it is
just Oklahomans saying: Don't waste my money. Spend it in the way you
are supposed to spend it, and let me keep the dollars that I have
earned. And when my tax dollars go away, don't make me be embarrassed
how they are used.
That shouldn't be irrational. I am going to continue to press on
this.
Five years ago, we passed a bill called the Taxpayers Right-to-Know
Act. I worked with the Biden administration for the last several years.
It has created something called the Federal Program Inventory. As crazy
as it sounds, for the first time ever, we are actually building a list
of all the Federal programs we have in the Federal Government. Many
people don't know that we literally have so many programs that we don't
know how many programs we have in the Federal Government. Just try to
do an internet search and ask a simple question of AI: How many
programs do we have in the Federal Government? It will give you an
estimate because there is no master list of all the programs in the
Federal Government.
So I passed a law called the Taxpayers Right-to-Know Act requiring
Agencies to do something crazy: Make a list of all the programs that
you do. Where is our money being spent? And that list is in the process
of being built right now that will give us the ability to see where we
have duplication in government. It will give the ability from one
Agency to look at another Agency and say: I didn't realize we did the
same thing.
That is happening all over our government right now.
Again, that is straightforward. But it gives us an opportunity to
say: Make a list, prioritize the list, and then draw a line and say
these things are not our priorities; these things are. And when you are
$36 trillion in debt, we should be talking about doing our priorities
and not doing the things that are not a priority. This is what we
should do in this body and to be able to have this kind of
conversation.
So, for me, it is simple. Let's do the things that we should do.
Let's don't do the things we shouldn't do because there are plenty of
things that still need to get done.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Fetterman). The Senator from
Massachusetts.
Social Security Fairness Act
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, I am actually joined here today with my
Massachusetts staff, who is joining with my Washington staff, and they
are in the Gallery today. The subject I am about to talk to is very
near and dear to their hearts. It is near the top of the list of all
the issues they think go to fundamental unfairness in our society,
because right now, an entire generation of teachers and firefighters
and postal workers and police officers and public servants of all
stripes are being denied the Social Security benefits which they
earned.
In 1983, the so-called windfall elimination provision slashed
retirement benefits in the name of austerity. I was a Member of the
House of Representatives in the U.S. Congress in 1983. I voted against
the windfall elimination provision. I voted against Republicans. I
voted against many Democrats who all were willing to slash the benefits
of those hard-working teachers, firefighters, police officers, across
the board--and have lost it for four decades--because I knew that I was
voting for public servants and voting for their families.
I have been fighting for repeal of the windfall elimination provision
as well as the government pension offset ever since, and I stand here
today because we have an opportunity to finally see this repeal through
to conclusion.
Senator Brown and Senator Collins' Social Security Fairness Act would
repeal the windfall elimination provision and the government offset
provision. I am proud to cosponsor that bill, alongside 60 of my
colleagues from both parties, and 60 is the number you need to pass a
bill on the floor of the U.S. Senate. We can restore Social Security
benefits for millions of workers now, and we should do it now.
Three million--unbelievable--three million public servants and their
families around the country, including 130,000 in Massachusetts and
their families, are counting on us to get them their earned benefits.
They have already done the work, but a 1983 law denies them that check
in the mail.
No one else in the country was targeted in that bill--just those
public servants, those people who work for each and every one of us
every single day.
A retired public school teacher in Chicopee, MA, wrote to me and
explained that she had dutifully paid into Social Security for decades,
earning her right to Social Security and a secure retirement. But late
in her career, she answered the call to public service and dedicated
her time to educating students in Massachusetts. That is the kind of
action we should value and we should reward. Instead, she was
blindsided 10 years later to learn that because of her public service
and the modest public pension she accrued, her Social Security benefits
would be cut by $580 a month, which otherwise would be there on her
kitchen table for
[[Page S6837]]
herself, for her family. Now, instead of a secure and dignified
retirement, she has to worry about affording rent and medication and
groceries.
If, instead of teaching, she had earned a private pension, she had
worked in any other sector of the American economy or she was wealthy
enough to live off of her investments, her Social Security would be
safe. The only category is these people who were the public servants.
They are the ones who got targeted in 1983.
Another constituent from Tyngsboro, MA, wrote me to say that after
her father passed away, her mother, a retired school employee, lost
over $1,000 a month in Social Security. Now, in addition to mourning
her husband, she also struggles to pay bills and meet her basic needs.
There are 3 million more stories of injustice and indignity just like
this.
We know the Federal Government can be in the business of allowing
windfalls. Major corporations hiking up prices on the American people
while paying effectively no Federal taxes--that is a windfall. Private
equity cronies making millions off the backs of workers while laying
them off and gutting their pensions--that is a windfall. But make no
mistake, allowing a third grade teacher, a town firefighter, and a
mailman to receive their hard-earned retirement benefits is not a
windfall.
Repealing these draconian policies is a matter of justice and dignity
for millions of public servants. These workers served their communities
and delivered for us every single day. In every city and town across
the country--Massachusetts, the President's home State of
Pennsylvania--State after State, the story is the same, and now it is
time for us to deliver for them.
After four decades of fighting and organizing alongside unions and
workers and retirees, Congress must repeal these policies once and for
all. The Senate may be short on time, but public servants have waited
long enough.
In the time remaining this year, we must deliver for those 3 million
families in our country. They earned this benefit. We have to finally
meet the obligation which has been accrued by the American people to
those 3 million workers.
So let's vote to pass the Social Security Fairness Act. Bring home
this win for public servants, their families, and our communities.
No matter where you live in America, when you see that firefighter on
the fire engine, when you see that police officer rushing to protect a
family, when you call the teacher to ask ``How is my child doing?''--
every time you make one of those calls, every time you see one of those
people, just know that they are denied--they are denied the benefit
which they have earned. They are denied it by an act of the U.S.
Congress in 1983.
Why them? Why were they singled out? Why wasn't it billionaires? Why
wasn't it private equity? Well, the votes were there, and,
unfortunately, too many Democrats voted for it as well.
It is time for us to rectify that historic injustice. It is time for
us to provide fundamental fairness for each and every one of those
families. This is the time; this is the place; we are the people who
must get this done. It goes right to the heart of who we are as a
people. If you believe in government, then you must believe in
everything that teachers and firefighters and police and everyone else
who is in our cities and towns provide for us every single day. And we
must have that vote on the Senate floor. We must pass this legislation.
We must finally give back to these families what they have earned by
their service to us.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Sudan
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to discuss
the terrible ongoing humanitarian situation in Sudan, and the
atrocities that are being perpetrated against innocent civilians there
every day and to discuss measures that the United States and the U.S.
Senate can take to help end the suffering.
Since that brutal conflict erupted in April 2023, a staggering 11.8
million people have been displaced within Sudan or fled to neighboring
countries. More than half the population--over 25 million people--face
acute food insecurity, including 13 million children. And 1.5 million
of them are at risk of or facing famine.
While the total casualty numbers have been difficult to determine, a
new study from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine's
Sudan Research Group estimates that more than 60,000 people died in the
Khartoum region alone between April 2023 and June of 2024. That study
found that 26,000 people have died as a result of violence. But it also
highlighted another awful reality, that starvation and disease are
increasingly becoming the leading causes of death reported across
Sudan.
In a hearing in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in May of this
year, U.S. Special Envoy to Sudan Tom Perriello suggested that the
total death toll could be as high as 150,000 people.
Given the scope and scale of this human suffering, the United States
and the international community should be doing everything in our power
to end the carnage and end the suffering in Sudan. Toward that end, I
want to commend America's Special Envoy to Sudan Tom Perriello for his
tireless shuttle diplomacy and his ongoing efforts to seek and
negotiate an agreement to end the conflict that is fueling this crisis.
But he can't do it alone. And his job is made much more difficult when
other parts of the U.S. Government fail to effectively use our leverage
to support his efforts.
One thing we should not be doing is shipping advanced American
weapons to any country that is fueling the misery and suffering and
killing in Sudan, and yet that is what the Biden administration is
proposing to do. They are proposing to send weapons to the United Arab
Emirates at a time that the UAE is reportedly supplying weapons to a
vile and murderous militia group in Sudan, a group called the Rapid
Support Forces, or the RSF for short.
So I am here on the floor today urging my colleagues to prevent the
sale of American weapons to the UAE until and unless the Biden
administration provides us--the Senate, the Congress--with credible
assurances that the UAE will not, in turn, supply additional weapons to
the Rapid Support Forces in Sudan.
So let me step back for a moment to put all of this in context. About
3\1/2\ years ago in May of 2021, I traveled to Khartoum, the capital of
Sudan, with my colleague Senator Coons. At the time, Sudan was
experiencing a difficult transition to democracy after a popular
revolution in 2019 succeeded in ousting the brutal regime of the
dictator Omar Bashir. It wasn't easy, but there was hope for a brighter
future.
Then the Sudanese Armed Forces--or the SAF--and the Rapid Support
Forces--the RSF--who had backed the popular protests in 2019 and who
had helped oust the dictator Bashir usurped the newly formed civilian-
led government in 2021 and then proceeded to violently suppress mass
protests.
Following pressure, both from the people of Sudan but also from the
international community, to restore the civilian government and merge
their forces, instead, a long-simmering rivalry between the SAF and the
RSF erupted in April 2023, and Sudan descended into chaos and civil
war.
Now, there is plenty of blame to go around, but one of the many
drivers of the collapse of the fragile democracy was the refusal of the
Rapid Support Forces, that militia group, to come under the umbrella of
the Sudanese Armed Forces.
And the RSF has an especially sinister lineage. They have their roots
in the Janjaweed militias that former dictator Bashir used to brutally
crush rebellious tribes in the western Darfur region in the early
2000s. I think many who followed those terrible days remember that the
United States determined that those mass killings constituted genocide.
The current leader of the RSF goes by the name Hemedti. He is a
former Janjaweed militia leader who was complicit in those atrocities
in Darfur, and he hasn't changed.
In the current conflict, the United States has charged the RSF with
committing ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity.
Reputable human rights organizations and news outlets have also
reported widespread acts of sexual violence, including rape, by the
RSF.
[[Page S6838]]
As our Ambassador to the United Nations Linda Thomas-Greenfield noted
in March of this year:
Children are starving . . . wasting, [and] dying. Far from
their homes and their communities, millions of refugees are
praying in over-crowded camps.
People in Darfur . . . wake up not to the call of prayer,
but to the sound of gunfire, of shelling, of cries for help.
And the situation has not improved since then. Famine has taken hold
in Darfur, and the RSF's siege of Al-Fashir city in Darfur has only
exacerbated the already terrible humanitarian situation there.
So it should be clear that providing weapons to the RSF is tantamount
to aiding and abetting ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity,
and yet that is what the UAE is reportedly doing.
Now, I should make it very clear that the UAE denies that it is
arming the RSF. They say they are not doing it. Indeed, when I traveled
to the UAE in July of this year, Emirati officials told me they were
not sending weapons to the RSF. And yet numerous credible reports and
sources indicate just the opposite. They reveal that the UAE is, in
fact, supplying the murderous RSF militia with weapons that they use to
commit atrocities.
In January, a U.N. panel of experts documented what they described as
``credible'' allegations that the UAE was violating the Darfur arms
embargo, which was the embargo put in place in 2005 to stop the
genocide at that time.
Their findings have been corroborated by credible human rights
organizations and by an independent investigation by the New York
Times, which found that the UAE smuggled weapons to the RSF under the
guise of humanitarian aid. The front page story of the New York Times--
and I have it here, Mr. President--is entitled ``How a U.S. Ally Uses
Aid as a Cover in War.''
And they go on to point out that the UAE is expanding a covert
campaign to back a winner in Sudan's civil war, and they point out that
the UAE was smuggling in weapons and deploying drones.
Beyond the New York Times independent investigation, the Sudan
Conflict Observatory group--which is a group funded by the State
Department--also tracked 32 Emirati flights between June 2023 and May
2024 going into Sudan, and they concluded--again, this is a group
funded by the U.S. Department of State. They concluded with ``near
certainty'' that they constituted weapons transfers from the UAE to the
RSF.
Now, the Biden administration has also acknowledged that the UAE has
been supporting the RSF, although you have to read carefully between
the lines to determine that.
Again, our Ambassador to the United Nations, Ambassador Thomas-
Greenfield, said:
We are aware that both sides are receiving weapons and
other support to fuel their efforts to destroy Sudan, and
yes, we have engaged with the parties on that, including with
our colleagues from the UAE.''
So the question is this: If the Biden administration acknowledges
that the UAE is arming the RSF against our demands and our interests
and that they are lying about it, why are we, the United States, not
doing more to stop it?
I understand that we have a very important bilateral relationship
with the UAE. They are an important security partner in the Middle
East. Major American companies, like Microsoft, are talking about
collaborating on building data centers for advanced AI in the UAE with
companies like G42. They may also be cooperating with us on other
important American priorities. But that is not a good reason to approve
this sale of advanced weapons to the UAE at a time that the UAE is
reportedly aiding and abetting ethnic cleansing and crimes against
humanity in Sudan.
That is why I have filed what is known as a joint resolution of
disapproval--known by its shorthand, JRD--on the Biden administration's
request to sell offensive weapons, including weapons worth $1.2 billion
to the United Arab Emirates. In the House of Representatives,
Congresswoman Sara Jacobs has filed a similar resolution, and both of
us have introduced additional legislation on this issue.
And I would submit that, if any Senator is serious about ending the
suffering in Sudan, we should not be sending weapons to any country--in
this case, the UAE--that is arming those engaged in ethnic cleansing
there.
A lot of Senators have talked about the need to focus on ending the
humanitarian disaster in Sudan, and they are absolutely right to do so.
Many of us have been addressing this and talking about it for a very
long time. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee had an important
hearing on this matter in May of this year.
But, colleagues, you don't end the horrific suffering in Sudan by
sending weapons to a country that is fueling the conflict in Sudan.
That is why I am asking the Biden administration to provide us--the
Senate, the Congress--with assurances that they have received credible
commitments that the UAE will not send weapons to the murderous RSF in
Sudan.
And I would submit that, given the fact that the UAE denies that they
are engaged in such actions, they should be able to provide assurances
that the Biden administration deems credible. And if President Biden
believes that those assurances are credible, he should so inform the
U.S. Senate as we consider their request for this arms sale.
As Representative Jacobs and I indicated in our letter to President
Biden that we sent a short time ago, if we receive those assurances, we
will, of course, take them into account as to how we decide to proceed
on the joint resolution of disapproval. I say that because our goal is
not to prevent the sale of arms to the UAE. The objective is to ensure
that the UAE is not fueling the very crisis and conflict in Sudan that
we, the United States, are seeking to end.
Indeed, in September of this year, President Biden said:
The United States will not abandon our commitment to the
people of Sudan, who deserve freedom, peace, and justice. We
call on all parties to this conflict to end the violence and
refrain from fueling it, for the future of Sudan and for all
Sudanese people.
I will say that again: and to all people who are fueling it.
The Biden administration has rightly put pressure on the RSF by
sanctioning several high-level commanders for their atrocities, but it
has yet to use the full leverage at its disposal to hold their primary
external backer, the UAE, accountable. Indeed, just days after the New
York Times story about their independent investigation of UAE arms
sales to Sudan broke, the President finalized a major defense
partnership with the UAE. And now, as we see, the administration is
pushing for a billion dollars-plus arms sale to the Emirati Government.
The title of an op-ed in the Washington Post not that long ago put it
bluntly, and I just quote the title of that editorial: ``Biden needs to
pressure the UAE to help end Sudan's civil war.''
That is exactly right. And that is what we are calling on the Biden
administration to do. I support a mutually beneficial bilateral
relationship with the United Arab Emirates, and I am certainly not
seeking to permanently end arms sales to that country. But a
partnership with the United States needs to account for U.S. interests
and values and priorities, and we need to make sure that foreign
governments that benefit from a security relationship with the United
States understand the importance that we hold on those important
issues.
The bottom line is that the United States should not be sending
weapons to the UAE so long as it is aiding and abetting a group that is
one of the primary drivers of the humanitarian disaster in Sudan, the
RSF. And the RSF has committed atrocities and crimes. That is why the
United States should pause offensive arms transfers to the UAE unless
and until the Biden administration can provide the U.S. Congress with
assurances that the UAE is not providing and will no longer provide
materiel support that aids and abets the killing spree of the RSF.
I hope that the Senate will come together on this important question,
and I hope the President and the Biden administration will agree that
securing those assurances from the UAE is essential to our goal of
achieving peace and stability in Sudan, just as the President indicated
we should be doing.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
[[Page S6839]]
____________________