[Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 190 (Friday, December 20, 2024)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7297-S7302]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
GABRIELLA MILLER KIDS FIRST RESEARCH ACT 2.0
Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, in 2013, in my first year in the Senate, a
10-year-old child in Virginia, Loudoun County, named Gabriella Miller
passed away from an inoperable brain tumor.
Nothing could be worse for a family. Her parents, Ellyn and Mark, and
her brother suffered greatly in this. But as many do, in an amazing
way, in a mysterious way, in a time of suffering, they turned their
tragedy into a cause.
Shortly after I came to the Senate, Mark and Ellyn Miller came to see
me and talk to me about their daughter Gabriella.
They asked me a question: Senator, what percentage of medical
research in this country is devoted to pediatric conditions?
I thought, well, you know, pediatric--under age 18. Maybe it is 12
percent of the population. So I guessed 12 percent.
They said: Less than 1 percent.
Less than 1 percent of medical research funding in the NIH and other
Agencies was devoted to pediatric conditions. There was kind of a--I
don't know--it was a conventional wisdom of: No, we don't put research
into that, but if we can research adult conditions, we can kind of
apply it to pediatric conditions--which everyone here knows that is not
the case. Many pediatric conditions are very different than adult
conditions.
So I began to work with the Miller family on a bill to increase
research at the NIH and other Federal Agencies for pediatric
conditions, especially pediatric conditions of the kind that killed
Gabriella Miller.
The following year, in 2014, I partnered with Virginia Congressman--
and then a Republican leader in the Senate--Eric Cantor and others to
pass the Gabriella Miller Kids First Pediatric Research Program to fund
NIH research on pediatric cancer, and the 10-year bill that we passed
is up for reauthorization.
I partnered with Senator Jay Moran, my colleague from Kansas, to
reauthorize it with the support of colleagues on both sides--numerous,
numerous colleagues.
The Republican House has passed a version of this bill. The lead
sponsor on the House side is Congresswoman Jennifer Wexton, who is
retiring because she has been diagnosed with an aggressive form of
supranuclear palsy, which is an advanced form of Parkinson's disease.
My colleague Jennifer Wexton is no longer able to speak without an AI-
assisted device, but in these last few days of her time in the House,
she has made the passing of the reauthorization of the Gabriella Miller
Act her chief priority.
The reauthorization was included in the health package in the
bipartisan version of the CR bill that we negotiated with the House,
but that package was left on the cutting room floor of the CR that was
just passed in the House. Advocates of the bill, including Ellyn and
Mark Miller and others who care about pediatric research, were bitterly
disappointed.
I am going to vote for the CR when it comes over from the House, but
if I am going to have to explain to advocates that I share their
disappointment in the fact that this 10-year program, which has now
produced more than $125 million in research into pediatric cancer, is
going to be left on the floor, I have to at least make an effort here
on the floor to authorize this program going forward.
The good news is, the bill that Representative Wexton has put in the
House was authorized flat funding for another 5 years. I give credit to
my colleagues on the Senate HELP Committee because the Gabriella Miller
Act was reauthorized in the Senate for 10 years at an increasing level
of funding, beginning at the current funding level of $12.5 million a
year and escalating to $25 million over the course of 10 years.
But the time is late--no time to fool around. The bill that has
passed not only in committee but was passed in the House of
Representatives--5-year funding at its current level, $12.5 million a
year, to continue to invest in research into children's cancer and
pediatric conditions.
I respect my colleague's sincere commitment to responsible Federal
budgeting. One of my colleagues, Senator Paul--I have worked with him
to hopefully lift an objection that he had to this bill by agreeing to
work with him to make sure that there are not other overlapping
programs where we are spending money to do the same thing.
We have recently talked about other legislative initiatives that we
will work on together, but my understanding as I stand here today is,
with this commitment I have made to Senator Paul, he is dropping any
objection to including this by unanimous consent.
I think, while it is not everything I hoped and it is not everything
the Senate HELP Committee did in a bipartisan way, it would continue
this important program.
Gabriella Miller, when she was diagnosed with brain cancer at age 10,
didn't go quietly into the good night. I think that is a Dylan Thomas
line. She instead said: I am going to raise every bit of money I can
for cancer research.
[[Page S7298]]
In the last year of her life, she raised hundreds of thousands of
dollars for cancer research on her own with little bake sales and
fundraisers. The brain tumor that was in her brain was the size of a
walnut, and she created a nonprofit foundation called the Smashing
Walnuts Foundation.
The comments I make tonight and the effort I undertake with
Representative Wexton truly are to honor her and to thank her parents
for their advocacy. In particular, I want to thank her mother Ellyn
Miller, who has been a force of nature in creating this program and
keeping it going.
We need to keep it going. It is bipartisan, it is bicameral, and it
is making groundbreaking research possible. I ask my colleagues to let
it pass into law.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that as if in legislative
session, the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be
discharged from further consideration of H.R. 3391 and the Senate
proceed to its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (H.R. 3391) to extend the Gabriella Miller Kids
First Pediatric Research Program at the National Institutes
of Health, and for other purposes.
There being no objection, the committee was discharged, and the
Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
Mr. KAINE. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a
third time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The bill was ordered to a third reading and was read the third time.
Mr. KAINE. I know of no further debate on the bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate on the bill, the
bill having been read the third time, the question is, Shall the bill
pass?
The bill (H.R. 3391) was passed.
Mr. KAINE. I ask unanimous consent that the motion to reconsider be
considered made and laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. KAINE. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
Government Funding
Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, well, we have arrived. We are here at last,
another government shutdown averted. The government will remain open.
I am not sure if that is good news or bad news. People need to know,
yes, the government will stay open, and it will not be chaotic.
Congress can adjourn, which is probably a good thing when Congress
adjourns.
But the thing about government staying open is we will pass something
called a continued resolution. What does that mean? It means we are
resolved to continue, continue as we have for, really, decades.
We will continue to spend money, regardless of whether we have it or
not. We will continue to spend money at a pace such that we will
accumulate about $2 trillion in debt each year; the deficit will be
about $2 trillion.
Now, the spending is comprised of a lot of different areas. It is
about $6.8 trillion in spending, and we bring in about $4.8 trillion in
revenue.
So it is about a $2 trillion mismatch. A lot of the spending is
entitlements, probably two-thirds of the spending is entitlements, but
this body refuses to address entitlements, so as part of the continuing
spending tonight, keeping government open, all of the entitlements will
be taken off board, and there will be no reforms to entitlements, no
reduction in spending in entitlements. They will continue growing; some
will be about 5 and 6 percent per year.
Almost everybody on both sides of the aisle acknowledges that
entitlements are the problem; entitlements are driving the debt. What
we vote on, people call it a budget, or another word they call it is
``discretionary'' spending. It is about $1.7 trillion or so, about $2
trillion. Of that $2 trillion, about half is military, half is
nonmilitary.
Well, the military has been taken off the table also, primarily by
Republicans, but Democrats are complicit as well. No military spending
will be addressed; no waste in the military will be addressed; and the
Pentagon will not be audited.
They have said for decades the Pentagon needs to be audited, and the
Pentagon says: We are too big to be audited. Leave us alone. We are too
big.
Occasionally, we will find some things, $500 toilet seats or $800
hammers, things like that, but overall, we have no idea where the money
is going and neither do they. They sometimes talk about hundreds of
millions of dollars really literally missing that they have no idea.
But it is taken off the table because the powers that be say that
military is sacrosanct, cannot be looked at, and must have increased
spending. So all the entitlements are going up. That is two-thirds of
$6.8 trillion. The remaining $2 trillion is half military. It is going
up, and nobody is looking at it either.
So we have discretionary. Nonmilitary discretionary spending is part
of the budget also. And we couldn't come to an agreement, other than we
are going to be resolved to continue spending at about the pace we are.
It will be short term, and that would be bad enough because the
spending will accumulate and is accumulating about a $2 trillion
deficit. But that is not enough.
This has been a horrendous week for fiscal conservatives because we
are not going to just continue as we have been doing, continue loading
on the debt, we are also adding to it in a dramatic fashion.
This week, there will be $330 billion added on to the spending; $200
billion of it will be for Social Security. You say: Well, we should
want to help people. Why wouldn't we give people that are senior
citizens more money? Well, if we give new people more money, we have to
take it from somewhere. We are going to have to either borrow it or we
are going to have to print it, but it has to come from somewhere. Money
doesn't grow on trees.
So $200 billion increase in spending for Social Security. Where is
the money going to come from?
Now, I will offer an amendment that would pay for it. My amendment
would be to raise the age gradually of Social Security 3 months a year
for about 12 years, and that would pay for the expansion of benefits.
I think that is the only responsible way to do this. You want more
benefits for people? You can't just, you know, push the bankruptcy of
Social Security and say: Well, yeah, it will go bankrupt in about 9
years, but maybe I won't be here, or maybe I won't be alive, and maybe
it will still exist for people.
But shouldn't we care about what is going to happen to the future of
Social Security? Shouldn't we care about how this is going to be paid
for? But it will be interesting to see how the vote is. I suspect I
won't win, but we are going to have a vote on gradually raising the
age.
But here is the rub of how difficult it is and how far behind the
eight ball we have become. I proposed this solution 12 years ago, 13
years ago. When I did, it fixed two-thirds of the shortfall. If you
raise the age gradually from 67 to 70, about 2 or 3 months a year, it
wiped out most of the shortfall and fixed the problem 13 years ago. If
you do it now, it only gives us 1 more year of solvency before
bankruptcy comes.
So we have taken a problem that was eminently fixable a decade ago,
and at this point, if we were to do it and my amendment were to pass,
it would pay for the expansion, but still the system is going bankrupt
because we just keep adding stuff to it.
Most people don't realize this, but Social Security actually will
give you money no matter what your income is if you have teenage
children and one of the parents is over 65. Now, somebody thought up
this program and said: Wow, this would be good. We should help out
elderly parents that are taking care of teenagers.
You can be a billionaire and--I know people who are wealthy whose
kids drive Porsches who are getting $1,500 a month for each of their
kids because the dad is 65.
Why would we do a program that is not based on income at all? Why
would we let anybody join in that? Is that why Social Security is going
bankrupt? No. That is just an element, though, of where the money is
going.
But everything that happens in this city is based on compassion. I
feel for people, and I want to help people, but nobody does anything
based on math. Nobody really looks at this and says: Well, shouldn't we
do something to
[[Page S7299]]
make sure it is paid for? What about next decade? What is going to
happen to Social Security? Not a care. They just expand it, and it is
feel-good.
You know, the free lunch, the mantra of free lunch is good. Here is
stuff. Here is manna. We are going to give you more money. Just be
content. Take some soma. Just relax. Here is some more money.
But we are destroying the entitlement programs. Social Security is
going bankrupt, and we sped up the bankruptcy this week by adding $200
billion. That is going to be concluded tonight.
That is $200 billion in brandnew spending to a system that was
already $2 trillion short. Now, we also gave $30 billion to farmers.
That is going to be in the package tonight, too.
Now, why do the farmers say they need money? Many farmers are
actually pretty well-off and doing pretty well actually. But they say
that the tariffs during the first Trump administration hurt them so
badly that they are still having to reduce exports, and they need more
money. So we are still paying them for the tariff wars that were begun
4 years ago, and still half the people in the country are jumping up
and down and saying they want more tariffs.
What are we going to do, pay off everybody that doesn't benefit from
the tariffs? Think about it. If you put tariffs on a steel mill and you
say: Well, we are not going to let the Chinese sell any steel over
here. You have this bright, shiny steel mill and all the thousand
workers stand in front of it, and they love you because you are going
to help them with their jobs, and they are going to be more secure.
But for every person making steel, there are 80 workers working
somewhere buying steel. So what you do is you just ignore the other
half of the equation. Why? Because it is easy to see the shiny steel
factory. It is easy to see those workers.
The 80 workers that are working for other industries, car industry,
building warehouses, anybody that uses steel, fences, all these people
buying stuff are scattered through small industries, and you don't see
them.
But their economic impact at least equals but probably exceeds the
one you are trying to benefit. We do so many crazy things. So $200
billion to expand Social Security that won't be paid for and speeds up
the bankruptcy and demise of Social Security; $30 billion for farmers,
many of whom have other resources and really are not desperately in
need of this.
What happens to the borrowing--$230 billion. Well, it is not over. We
also are adding $100 billion for disaster. And you say to yourself:
Well, you know, we have got to help people in need. They have had
storms. They have had flooding. We have got to help them. Well,
shouldn't we try to root out the waste and fraud in those systems, the
people that are stealing money from these things? If you want to know
how people are stealing things and how many people are stealing things,
when we did all that COVID stuff, we stopped the economy and gave free
money to everybody.
We actually had foreign scoundrels, foreign fraudsters come in and
take tens of millions of dollars, but we also had U.S. citizens buying
Lamborghinis and Bugattis and all kind of fancy cars on their
government.
We had people signing up for the program. One of them used an ID that
had a picture of Barbie on it and got money. Many of them said: I have
500 workers, and they didn't have any workers. They didn't have a
business.
So just fraud was rampant throughout it. This happens also in the
disaster relief programs as well. People claim things they lost in
disasters that didn't exist. But let's put that aside, the waste and
fraud in the program, and say: We have to help people. We have to do
something about disasters.
Well, maybe there ought to be a decision-making process where we say:
What is more important? Ukraine or Asheville, NC?
Do we have enough money to do both? Well, we do if we borrow it. But
when we borrow it, we add to the debt. The Fed buys the debt, and you
create inflation.
It is no mystery why your goods cost more. During the last 4 years,
groceries, meat, poultry, gasoline, rent, everything has gone up on
average at least 20 percent. Now did it become more precious? Did we
all of a sudden lose a supply of things? No. The dollar became weaker;
the dollar became diluted because we had to buy all of this debt.
So it is a bait-and-switch. What we do is we expand, you know, this
week 200 billion for Social Security, hundred billion for disasters--
that is 300 billion--30 billion for farm subsidies. That is $330
billion unpaid for. But the people here are gathered. The vast majority
of them who will vote for this will go home, pat themselves on the
back, and say: I brought you stuff. Isn't that what you want me to do?
Bring you free stuff?
Well, it is not free. It has ramifications. They are destroying the
dollar. They are destroying the country, and yet it goes on because it
seems to be easy just to promise people something for nothing.
So I have a couple different solutions. To pay for the Social
Security, let's gradually raise the age 3 months each year. And what it
does is it actually pays entirely for this $200 billion expansion and
then some. It has to be done. It will be done at some point. I offered
it 13 years ago. And every year we have waited, we have gotten further
behind the eight ball. And every year we have waited, we have gotten to
the point where it is much more difficult to dig out of this hole.
As far as the shutdowns, I will admit that it is chaotic to go
through this every 3 months, every 6 months, every year. There could be
a way that we could actually say, when there is an impasse and both
parties don't agree, we agree to continue spending but not at the same
level.
See, the vote today on at least some of the budget, the part that is
not going up like this, on a small portion, we will continue at the
same level. But realize three-fourths of it is going up. We are not
keeping it steady.
So if we vote to keep it steady, does that really fix the problem?
No. If you keep it steady and even if you didn't increase spending, the
budget never balances. Why? Because you are only keeping a very small
portion of the budget steady. It is really about 16 percent. Two-
thirds, 66 percent, entitlements; the remaining third: half military,
half nonmilitary. Military is going up at 3 percent.
Oh, that is right. I forgot. Republicans have a great plan. Come
spring, the Republicans are, by simple majority, going to bust through
the military caps.
The military caps are put in place like all other caps to try to
restrain spending, and they are ignored. But in the spring, the first
reconciliation package the Republicans will pass with a simple majority
is to bust through the military caps.
Military doesn't have enough money. We spend more on our military
than the next eight countries combined, and yet it is never enough.
People say: We are going to find waste and fraud. I am all for it. I
am a big supporter of looking for waste and fraud. I am a big supporter
of getting rid of it.
Guess what. If you don't look at the entitlements, you are not a
serious person. If you don't look at the military, you are not a
serious person. The trouble will go on.
In the first Trump administration, $8 trillion were borrowed. I am a
fan of Donald Trump. I supported him. I voted for him. But we borrowed
$8 trillion. During the Biden administration, coincidentally, we
borrowed another $8 trillion. They were equally fiscally irresponsible.
Now, at least during the Trump administration, you could argue there
was COVID and the pandemic and all of that. But the reaction was too
much, and the lockdowns were not necessary. They didn't save any lives
through the lockdowns, and we spent a ton of money that we passed out
for people not to work.
But the bottom line is, when you look at all of this, we have this
enormous problem. I am all for eliminating the waste and fraud. It is
not enough. You have to look at the entitlements. You have to look at
the military.
Currently, we look at only about 16 percent of the budget. If you
eliminated all of that--it is called nonmilitary discretionary; it is
part of the budget. You eliminate all of it--which isn't going to
happen--the budget still
[[Page S7300]]
never balances. You have to look at all the spending. We are not
looking at any of the entitlement spending.
In fact, it is worse. Entitlements are driving the debt. Almost
everybody agrees with it, and we are expanding the entitlements.
Social Security--beginning in 2021, Social Security, for the first
time, pays out more than it brings in in taxes. It was the opposite for
many years; Social Security brought in more than they spent, and they
actually developed and had a reserve. For the last 3 years, Social
Security has been paying out more than comes in. In 2021, they paid out
50 billion more than came in. In 2022, they paid out 22 billion more
than came in. Last year, we paid out 40 billion more than came in.
If you had a business or even if you had a social program and you
were paying out more than you brought in, wouldn't you try to reverse
that trend? No. What we did this week is expand Social Security by $200
billion over 10 years. It is 20 billion a year. So if the debt next
year for Social Security is going to be about the same as this year, it
would be $40 billion. We added 20 billion to that. What is the math? A
50-percent increase in our debt.
So for someone who is fiscally conservative, this isn't a very good
Christmas. This is a Christmas of just doing the same old thing.
So when you hear ``CR,'' continuing resolution, realize your
government is resolved just to continue doing the same thing. They are
kicking the can down the road. The debt is going to continue to
accumulate, and they are not doing anything to fix it. So don't be
pleased with your people. Look closely. Who are my representatives, and
are they doing the right thing?
So we are going to offer a pay-for for Social Security. That will be
one of my amendments tonight. We are also going to offer something
called the Government Shutdown Protection Act. And what it will do is
it says: When there is an impasse, when Republicans and Democrats don't
agree, that the spending would continue at a reduced level. The level
we chose was enough to try to bring both sides together to actually
form an agreement; but also, we chose a number that would be enough of
a cut to actually put us on a path to balance.
So if my amendment were to pass, government wouldn't shut down from
here on out. But the spending would be at a 6-percent reduced level.
This actually balances the budget, and it is a pretty significant cut.
Most of them will say, Oh, it is too much. We can't vote for it.
But the thing is, is: Even if my cuts were to go into place, even if
my amendment were to pass, a 6-percent cut would take 5 years to get to
balance in 1 year. Not to get rid of any debt that we have accumulated,
but just to get to an annual balance.
And they are like, Oh, woe is me. We can never do it. We can't cut
people. People deserve money. People deserve stuff. We have to give
them more stuff.
Do you know that in the European Union, 16 out of 28 countries in the
European Union, who many are considered to be socialist, actually
balance their budget? I met with a socialist from Sweden. He was more
conservative than everybody across the aisle. He was more conservative
than half the Republicans up here, because they thought that actual
entitlements should be based on the economy. Their entitlements
actually go down when the economy goes down. If the economy shrinks,
their entitlements shrink. Everyone knows it is going to happen. If it
is a bad year, we get a little less.
People would go nuts here. We do the opposite. During the last 4
years, they created so much inflation that people's costs went up 20
percent. What do we do? We have to give cost-of-living adjustments to
those on Social Security, and we did; but we were short even more
money. And it made the problem even worse and sped up the bankruptcy of
Social Security.
So my amendment would say: We actually have to reduce spending. Now
some people say to conservatives--both in my party and the others--they
say, Oh, you people are unrealistic. You will never vote to raise the
debt ceiling. But even if I had my way and we got cuts significant
enough that I think the American people would accept, but most of this
body wouldn't, and we balance the budget in 5 years, we would still
accumulate debt over those 5 years. And I would vote to raise the debt
ceiling during that brief period of time as we were on the way toward
balancing our budget. But none of that is going to happen.
What we are doing this week and what both parties will be complicit
in--and I mean both parties. Every Democrat here will vote for this
bill, I assume. Every Democrat will vote to continue to be resolved to
spend money at a rate that is $2 trillion more than comes in. And half
the Republicans will join them.
There will be a minority of Republicans who will say: We are
conservative, and we shouldn't spend this much money.
But we will offer amendments tonight, and people will get to decide
where they are. And people at home will have to decide: Are we going to
live this way? How long can we live this way? What causes inflation?
Can we not have representatives who believe that balancing our budget
is the appropriate thing to do?
So the amendments I offer today are such that I think they are
necessary. I think they will help us to save Social Security from
bankruptcy, but they won't be very popular here. But I offer them in
hopes that people will see them across America and say: At least
somebody cares about the solvency of Social Security. At least somebody
has the guts to say, This is what we would do to try to save and
preserve Social Security, rather than just giving free stuff to
everybody and saying, No big deal. You can have more. You want more?
Here is more.
Somebody's got to ask: How are we going to pay for this? Someone has
to be responsible up here. And if you watch closely who votes on this
amendment, you will see who are the truly fiscally responsible people
in the Senate.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
Social Security Fairness Act
Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, today is a day to celebrate. The Senate
is moments away from keeping a promise we made to the American people
when Social Security became law.
Folks will get the benefits they earned. State and local workers in
Louisiana and other States across the country are no different than
other Americans who paid into the system. State and local government
workers deserve their full Social Security benefit.
Now with the passage of the Social Security Fairness Act, they will
get it.
This act repeals WEP, GPO--that stands for ``windfall elimination
provision'' and ``government pension offset''--and stops Social
Security from punishing public workers for the crime of serving their
communities. Nurses, teachers, firefighters, police officers, widows of
those who worked in the Social Security system will be made whole by
what we do here tonight.
I had a civics teacher in high school who always delighted in the
fact that she taught someone who went on to become a Member of
Congress, and Betty worked her whole life teaching in public schools.
And because of GPO, when her husband passed away--her husband worked at
Exxon Refinery, if I remember correctly--her Social Security benefit
was cut to a fraction because she had worked in the public sector as a
teacher.
Under this system, she would have been better in terms of Social
Security benefits if she had never worked at all.
Most of us have a Betty in their life, in their State, in their
hometown, or in their family--often a police officer or a firefighter,
a first responder who served us, and now we have the opportunity to
thank them for that service.
With a vote today, we are standing up for folks like Betty and
everyone like her across our Nation. It is a day to celebrate.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
Republic of Georgia
Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I rise tonight to make a simple but
important point on behalf of the brave, freedom-loving citizens of the
Republic of Georgia. It is time for the United States to stand
alongside the brave nation of Georgia, the citizens of which went to
the polls recently and voted to elect their own leadership.
[[Page S7301]]
It is time to impose heavy sanctions on the individuals and
institutions now trying to thwart the democratic will of the people of
the Republic of Georgia.
Now is the time to act. This is the 20th of December 2024. We don't
need to act in mid-January. We need to act now while the people of
Georgia are taking to the freezing streets in towns like Tbilisi and
elsewhere to exercise their right to protest.
Now, here is what has happened--and it is such a familiar story, Mr.
President. The Georgian people recently went to the polls, as really is
the right of all mankind according to our Declaration of Independence.
And the Georgian people rejected the Georgian Dream Party, which is
really more and more becoming an arm of Vladimir Putin's Russian
dictatorship.
The Georgian people, when they voted, rejected Bidzina Ivanishvili,
the pro-Russian oligarch behind the party. This is similar to what
other free voters have done in other countries around in that area--a
decade or so ago in the Republic of Ukraine, in the recent Romanian
elections.
It is happening also in Moldova. The people there do not wish to be
under the thumb of a reincarnation of the Soviet Union under Vladimir
Putin's dictatorship. And so they voted against the Georgian Dream
Party, but the Georgian Dream Party in charge of the election machinery
has tried to rig the election. And so the people of Georgia have risen
up in response. And the Georgian Dream government, an arm of the Putin
Russian Government, has responded in tyrannical fashion. The Georgian
Dream Party has worked to overthrow the will of the voters and has
marshalled the power of the police to crack down violently on peaceful
protest.
In a number of days, Mr. President, the Georgian Dream Party could
actually forcibly remove the democratically elected President of
Georgia from power.
Now, the Biden administration has taken baby steps, long overdue, and
I wish they would be more forceful. Our American administration has now
publicly sanctioned two individuals. The State and Treasury Departments
have sanctioned a senior ministry official and the Georgia Minister of
Internal Affairs.
Now, what do the sanctions involve? They involve blocking the
offending officials of the Georgian Dream Party from transactions in
American banks. We can do that. They have frozen any assets these
Russian puppets have owned in the United States and revoked any visas
they have for our country. And I applaud the administration for these
steps, but they could do so much more.
Of course, in response, the Georgian Dream Prime Minister Kobakhidze
announced that he would decorate these two sanctioned Russian puppets
and give them state honors in their roles for quashing the protests.
This is what is going on around the world. This is how tyrants act.
Georgian Dream has thumbed its nose, of course, at our somewhat half-
hearted measures. And so it is time, I would say, for the United States
to demonstrate more decisive and timely resolve. Half measures are the
wrong message at this point. So I call on the Biden administration to
sanction the leaders of Georgian Dream, including Bidzina Ivanishvili,
Kakha Kaladze, and Prime Minister Kobakhidze.
The Republic of Georgia is the home of freedom-loving people. They
were once under the thumb of Moscow, and they do not wish to go back.
Vladimir Putin would like to have Georgia back in its orbit, just like
they would like to have Moldova back in their orbit, just like they
even wish to have Romania and certainly Ukraine. And Vladimir Putin is
willing to rig elections to have his agents brutally repress the
peaceful protests that are going on.
Now, I admire these Georgian freedom fighters. They strongly oppose
Putin's interference; and we ought to stand with them. I call on the
State Department and the Biden administration in the last month of
office to stand tall with the freedom-loving Georgian people. We must
continue our legacy of cooperation and shared democratic values with
the Republic of Georgia.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cardin). The Senator from Oregon.
Social Security Fairness Act
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, as chairman of the Senate Finance
Committee, I want to spend a minute saying a special commendation to
Senators Brown and Casey, two exceptionally valuable members of the
Senate Finance Committee who are going to be departing the Senate at
the end of the year.
Nobody in the Senate understands the importance of Social Security
for seniors and Americans with disabilities better than Senators Brown
and Casey. They have been leading the fight for years to protect and
strengthen Social Security for current and future generations of
Americans, and they have done it for their entire careers. That
includes battling those who would want to privatize the system, those
who would raise the retirement age or advance schemes that would
otherwise cut benefits.
It strikes me as particularly fitting that one of the final votes
this body takes--and the first time the Senate votes to increase
benefits in decades--will be a vote to ensure everyday Americans
receive their earned benefits.
I was director of the Oregon Gray Panthers for almost 7 years before
coming into public life, and I long ago decided that protecting
Americans' earned benefits has been a lodestar, and Senators Casey and
Brown have followed that through their public service.
This vote is also a chance for the American people to see clearly who
is fighting for middle-class families, because what the Senate is doing
is preventing across-the-board cuts to Social Security benefits for
public servants like firefighters and nurses and busdrivers and police
officers and teachers. These are all individuals who work in crucial
professions, paying into Social Security out of every paycheck. They
went into their line of work not to strike it rich but to answer the
call to serve their communities.
As chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, I would urge all Members
of the Senate, Republicans and Democrats, to stand with Senators Brown
and Casey and all our colleagues who have been working to pass this
legislation. It is long overdue.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennet). The majority leader.
Order of Procedure
Mr. SCHUMER. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate resume
legislative session and the only remaining amendments in order to H.R.
82 be the following: Paul 3346, Paul 3352, Cruz 3360, and Crapo 3331;
that there be a 60-affirmative vote threshold for the adoption of the
amendments; that upon disposition of the Crapo amendment, Senator Lee
be recognized to make a budget point of order; that upon disposition of
the point of order, the pending amendments and motion be withdrawn,
H.R. 82 be considered read a third time, and the Senate vote on passage
of the bill with 60-affirmative votes required for passage; further,
that following the disposition of H.R. 82, the Senate proceed to the
consideration of H.R. 10545; that there be up to 30 minutes for debate
on the bill, equally divided, and that upon the use or yielding back of
time, the Senate vote on passage of the bill, with 60 affirmative votes
required for passage and with no amendments or motions in order to the
bill; further, that following the disposition of H.R. 10545, the Senate
resume executive session to consider the following nominations en bloc:
Calendar Nos. 851, 853, 854, 857; that the Senate vote on the
nominations en bloc without intervening action or debate; that the
motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and
that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action;
further, that there be up to 2 minutes for debate, equally divided,
prior to each vote, all without further intervening action or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SCHUMER. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The majority leader.
[[Page S7302]]
Government Funding
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I have very good news for my colleagues
and for the country. Democrats and Republicans have just reached an
agreement that will allow us to pass the CR tonight before the midnight
deadline.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________