the u.s. is stronger and safer when our diplomatic corps, those individuals who support americans and u.s. foreign policy around the world, are supported by capable senate-vetted and confirmed ambassadors. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president, parliamentary inquiry. and this is i am promty because i -- this is impromptu because i wasn't aware of this until the senator from new hampshire just spoke. mr. kaine: is it the case that a senator making a live u.c. on the floor to advance a nomination can be blocked from making a live u.c. by someone who will not even agree to appear on the floor of the senate?

the presiding officer: it's a courtesy between senators. mr. kaine: i've learned something new about senate rules that i wish i did not know. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from arkansas is recognized. mr. cotton: for the record, i would object on behalf of of anyone who is not here so the question is moot. if the democrats really wanted all these nominees to go forward, maybe should talk about the president about the fact that he caved in on nord stream 2. the senator from new hampshire could have stopped any bill from going forward by insisting the president oppose nord stream 2 sanctions. now the germans are hooked on

gasoline and putin is about to invade ukraine. the best we can get are stern words. i would object on behalf of any senator who is not present, and i don't even know what i'm objecting to. the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire is recognized. mrs. shaheen: just to respond to senator cotton, and i know he shares my view about nord stream 2, but i think sadly at this point we are in a position whereby refusing to allow our diplomats to be in place, we no longer have the ability to negotiate. in fact, the gas has not started running in nord stream 2. the certification of that pipeline has been delayed. and we have a new administration in germany that we have heard a number of members of that administration express serious reservations about nord stream 2. i'm not sure that right now given the need for trans-atlantic unity, the need for us to be able to work with our european allies on whatever

russia might do on ukraine is the best time for us to send a signal that we don't really care what the administration is doing on this issue, and we don't really care what the germans say about it. all we care is making the point on nord stream 2 when what we really need to be doing is working together with our european allies because what putin wants more than anything else is to sow dissension between the united states and our european h allies, and by this action he is doing exactly that. mr. cotton: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from arkansas is recognized. mr. cotton: for eight months any senate democrat could have stepped forward and demanded the president impose nord stream 2 sanctions. for four years, for four years, we stood together and cast votes with 85 votes or 90 votes or 95 votes in defense of nord stream 2 sanctions when the democrats were discovering their

inner jack ryan when it came to russia. now that joe biden is in office and appeasing pint by not imposing sanctions on nord stream 2 suddenly the determines have gone back to old ways. the simplest way to deter russian aggression is to draw clear red lines and enforce them, something that joe biden will not doing, something that apparently the democratic senators will not force him to do. mrs. shaheen: mr. president, i just have to take real umbrage at your suggestion, senator cotton. i'm the one who vladimir putin refused a visa to get into russia because of my opposition to russia and to what putin was doing. he didn't deny you a visa to get into the country. so don't talk to me about how i've not been tough enough on russia, because that dog won't hunt. the fact is during the trump administration, he spent four

years before he would sanction nord stream 2. finally right before he left office, he put sanctions on. the only reason the western companies that were working on nord stream 2 stopped that, their work, is because of the threat of sanctions, not because trump did anything to enforce those sanctions. so there is plenty of blame to go around, and it doesn't help for you or me or anybody else to start throwing personal insults over what's going on around nord stream 2. mr. cotton: mr. president, i did not -- i did not make any personal insult. i simply observed that for four years in the trump administration we repeatedly took action on a bipartisan basis to try to stop nord stream 2. one of the reasons we didn't have a vote on amendments last week on the defense bill is because the democrats were carrying water for the biden administration, refusing to have a vote on nord stream 2. and that's consistent with the biden administration's record on

russia, which can get all chesty in its rhetoric but always appeases vladimir putin. one of the first actions he took was to give a no strings at tashed of the new -- at of tached of the new start treaty. the first priority of vladimir putin. the second was nord stream 2. we've been trying to have votes in the senate all year long and we haven't had them because the democrats want to -- won't insist on a vote because joe biden doesn't want it. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. lankford: mr. president, we have a problem in our national guard right now. this body knows full well where i've been on vaccine mandates coming down from the president. i have adamantly opposed the vaccine mandates on

private-sector employees, which i find absurd that the president is announcing to every company with 100 people or more i'm going to take over the contracts for employment of your company and no matter how long that employee has been there, how valuable they are to the company, you need to fire them if they don't follow the vaccine mandate. that is not the right of a president. he's formed chaos in our federal workers. it has formed chaos in our contractors for federal employees. let me tell you what's happening in the national guard right now. tuesday of this week, november 30, secretary of defense sent out a letter saying that by today, december 2, every person in the national guard had to be vaccinated or they would no longer be paid. now that applied to the air national guard as of today, but to the army national guard, that doesn't apply until june

30. let me run this past this body again. if you're in the air national guard and you're not vaccinated by today, you won't be paid any more. you also can't show up at drill this weekend. you can't go into any training at all as of this weekend. but if you're in the army national guard, you have until june 30 to be able to fulfill this mandate. i've been clear, i am adamantly opposed to the mandate, period. but to then make it unequal between the air national guard and the army national guard is even worse. and on top of all of that, what the administration did as of this week, they sent out information for the air national guard members, and i assume for the army national guard starting in june that this is going to be a different process. title 32 is the authority for the national guard. now, for folks that aren't

following this, for the folks in this body do, some people get confused between the reserves and the guard. they are not the same. the reserves are like active duty. the guard actually work for the governor of each state. each state has accountability for the guard members, and there's a responsibility to make sure they're trained and ready and equipped for federal service if they're called up for federal service. but when they're under what's called title 32 authority, they work for the governor of the state. if a unit is not prepared, the state is punished for their lack of preparation. so funds can be taken away from the state, but not going down to individual members of the guard. what did the pentagon do this week? the pentagon this week announced that not only are they not going to pay individual members, but they're literally reaching down into a unit, identifying members that have not received the vaccine, and they're not going to pay that person. there is no authority in law for

the pentagon to do that. in fact, that issue was debated in this body several years ago, and this body voted no on that. the pentagon does not have the authority to reach into the governor's national guard and determine who will be paid and who will not be paid in the national guard. but that's exactly what the president is trying to do and what the pentagon is trying to do. why is this a big issue? because the air national guard as of tomorrow that are not vaccinated will not be paid, and this weekend they cannot go to drill. why is that a big issue? many of the folks in the air national guard that are not vaccinated are the pilots. if we're going to talk about military readiness, i understand the differences of opinion here in the vaccine mandates, and some people have no issue with the vaccine mandates. i do. but we should all agree on military readiness.

we should all agree on following the law and not allowing the pentagon and the president to deliberately violate the law that we wrote and the president has signed, in violating title 32. last night i was on this very same floor at this very same desk asking for amendment on the ndaa. today i understand i'm not getting that amendment on the ndaa. i've taken that same amendment and i've moved it into language that we can use as a stand-alone bill. this is a very simple, straightforward, no issues, no ancillary anything on the bill. it simply says that we cannot allow the administration or the pentagon, any one of them to violate the law, to be able to reach into a national guard unit and identify vid members and nol members and not pay them. that's already the law. we're just affirming the law

that already is. the second thing is not allowing them to be able to cut off pay based on their vaccination status in the national guard when they're in title 32 status. that means they're working for the governor of that state. they've not been activated to federal duty. this is a big issue, and it's a big issue right now, because the air national guard members and many of our pilots are about to stop training right now. and in the days ahead for the army national guard, i remind this body of a number that most of us know. only 40% of our guard members are vaccinated, meaning 60% are not. are we really ready to lose that much readiness over this issue? i would hope not. so as if in legislative session, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to immediate consideration of calendar number 174, s. 3299. i further ask that the bill be

considered read a third time and passed, and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: is there objection? a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. reed: reserving my right to object, the senator from oklahoma as he always does, has very thoughtfully identified a problem that is affecting our military forces, and he's also identified the complex interplay between different aspects of the law, article 32, article 10, the authority of a governor, the authority of the secretary of defense, legislation we might have passed. this is an issue that i think bears close scrutiny, and i would like to assist in such scrutiny. but in terms of preemptively adopting a statute tonight without such scrutiny, i would be compelled to object. mr. president, with all due respect to the senator from oklahoma, i would object. the presiding officer: the objection is heard.

mr. lankford: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. lankford: i look forward to working with senator reed on this. he's been a good partner dealing with this. he is passionate about protecting our military and keeping our forces ready and i look forward to ongoing dialogue on this. i've had multiple phone calls to leadership in the pentagon and national guard. i'm not getting clear on this as i try to be an advocate for members of the air national guard. i want to make sure we provide them that opportunity to be able to serve and don't lose access to readiness, so i very much appreciate his partnership in in that. mr. president, i'd like to i ask unanimous consent to be able to speak as if in a different portion of the record. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection.

mr. lankford: mr. president, it's my understanding that in a short time we'll be voting on the continuing resolution. the continuing resolution has been passed in the house, it's been passed to the senate. this maintains our government operations for the next two months. i've been a person that expressed my frustration that we've not taken up the vast majority of the appropriation bills, even in committee. it's my understanding that even as of today, nine of the 12 appropriation bills have not even been discussed in committee and all 12 of those bills should have been done by september 30. we're now well past that now. september 30 we passed a continuing resolution that went until tomorrow. now we're passing another one that's going to go into february. as i read through it as it just came over from the house of representatives and was scanning quickly through it when they actually released the language in it this morning, i was interested to see a couple of

things that popped out to me in particular serving on the homeland security committee. serving that position in homeland security and some of the issues that we deal with on a day-to-day basis and oversight, i was fascinated to see two particular areas that popped out to me. one was dealing with unaccompanied minors. the administration earlier this year took some of the covid money that had been allocateed in march and used that covid money dealing with unaccompanied minors. we've yet to get a full accounting of how much that was, but then when the continuing resolution was passed just september 30, $2.5 billion, with a b, dollars were allocated just to deal with the surge of unaccompanied minors for this year. well, that was a few months ago now. this continuing resolution is allocating another $1.5 billion

to unaccompanied minors. so, they took, we don't know how much money on the covid money for unaccompanied minors, then if this bill passes tonight, which i assume it will at this point, it's another $4 billion just in the unaccompanied minors. let me remind you how large of a figure that is, an addition $4 billion. before we lose track of that, what jumped out at me first when i went through this was the surprising number. in the continuing resolution that just came over from the house minutes ago there is a request for an additional $ 7 billion for afghan refugees. and when you say ok, i understand, in the september 30 continuing resolution, there was $6 billion for afghan refugees over there. that is $13 billion for afghan

refugees. the best that we can tell, we have 69,000 afghan refugees that are in the process and we're allocating $13 billion for it. now, we all thought when we had the conversation here that $ 6 billion that was allocated was an enormous amount of money that was allocated. but now three months after the refugees started being able to move out of afghanistan that that debacle of a withdraw that happened, now we're talking about not $6 billion, but $13 billion. that's around $200,000 per person so far. if that was not bad enough, in the continuing resolution done september 30, because of the enormous size of this amount of money, and because of how little information is actually -- has actually come to this body, interest was a demand in it that by november 30, that was two days ago, the department of homeland security would have to

turn over a report of actually what's happening with the afghan refugees. has anyone in this body read that report from d.h.s. now on how they're handling the afghan refugees? i would go ahead and preemptively answer no, because none of us have seen the report yet. here's what we don't know, but yet this body demanded in the last c.r. to be able to get from d.h.s. we demanded to know crazy things like this: the number of lawful u.s. permanent residents that were evacuated out of afghanistan. we don't have that number yet. we don't know how many were special immigrant visa holders. we don't know how many were actually applicants for special immigrant visas. we don't know the number that had any other immigrant status. we don't know the number who actually worked for our government that was actually evacuated smg we've not been told, though we demanded to have it by november 30. we don't know the number of people that work for a partner government or any other entity that we were affiliated with, though we asked for that.

we don't know the number of people that actually came through the process, then were laird determined to be security threats to the united states and slipped through the process. we asked for that. we asked for that to come in by november 30. that's not been turned over. we asked for the number of people that were getting pa rolled, that their parole was terminated because of some other criminal activity or something else. we asked for that. that's a number they have. they've not turned that number over. we asked for even the number of interviews that had been conducted. we've yet to receive that. in fact, there has not been a single public hearing in the senate on afghan refugees. not one. so not only have we not received anything in writing, we've not even received any testimony from anyone from d.h.s. on this. listen, we gave d.h.s. $

6 billion and said we're going to allocate this money to you. we just want to know who we're allocating it to and what it's going to be used for. that doesn't seem unreasonable. not only is this body not holding d.h.s. accountable for not answering our questions, we're handing them $7 billion more tonight. does anyone else see this as an issue? i'm all for keeping the government open, but this body has a responsibility of oversight. we've pretended we're doing oversight, but we're actually not doing oversight. not a hearing, not a report, nothing. $13 billion. so, yes, i'm going to oppose the c.r. tonight. i'm not holding up the vote. i understand full well the responsibility of all 100 of us

to put ourselves on the record. but if we're going to actually say we're going to do oversight, let's actually do oversight. and it is not unreasonable when we all agree these are the facts and figures that should come from d.h.s. to just tell us what's going on with the afghan refugees, that we actually expect they're going to turn those things over. so, in the days ahead, i hope we'll actually hold a hearing and actually get the facts. i hope we'll actually demand that they turn over to us what we've required to turn over to them, and i hope we get full accounting of how they're spending $13 billion on what we understand was 69,000 people. most of which have not even been moved in and across the united states yet. $13 billion. with that, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: senator

from illinois? a senator: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senator consider the following nomination. executive calendar number 438. ms. duckworth: c.b. sullenberger the third for the rank of ambassador for his tenure as representative of the united states of america on the council of the international civil aviation organization. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. the clerk will report. the clerk: nomination, department of state, c.b. sullenburger iii of texas for the rank of ambassador as representative of the united states of america on the council of the international civil aviation organization. ms. duckworth: i ask consent that the senate vote on the nomination without intervening action or debate and if confirmed the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, all without intervening action or debate, that no further motions be in order to the nomination. that any statements related to the nomination be printed in the record, that the president be

immediately notified of the senate's action. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. the question is on the nomination. all those in favor, say aye. ms. duckworth: aye. the presiding officer: any opposed, nay. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the nomination is confirmed. ms. duckworth: i yield the floor.

mr. leahy: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: mr. president, it's my hope that soon the senate might be able to vote on a bipartisan agreement to keep the government open and funded through february 18. i know both parties are working on that agreement right now. and i wish those who are doing it good luck. i've certainly been working hard with the appropriations committee to help on that, as have others. in fact, the only thing worse than running the government under a continuing resolution, a c.r., is a government shutdown.

a shutdown only hurts the american people. we know last time we had one it wasted billions of taxpayer dollars, and with the agreement that i anticipate, i am glad that the bill will include critical funding to support afghan refugees, as we help them get velletted here in the united states. -- resettled here in the united states. these brave women and men were our allies in 20 years of war, and we have an obligation to support them. as they begin their new lives. mr. president, i'm not giving this speech as some kind of a victory lap.

we have two months into the fiscal year. we appear no closer to getting an agreement on full-year appropriations bills. now, if we vote on this -- i hope we will soon -- we're buying time to complete these negotiations, and we have to complete these negotiations. it's not a matter of whether or not we should. we have to. but in order to complete these negotiations, we have to begin them. we have to have both sides represented at the table. now, my republican colleagues to this day have not come to the table. i've been talking to many of them, and i'm hoping they will because the american people deserve better than that from their elected officials. they expect to see both democrats and republicans sitting down negotiating this. no matter how we vote in the

end, that we're working to coming to something that we will be voting on. on october 18, nearly a month and a half ago, senate democrats released a comprehensive offer in an effort to jump-start these negotiations. we wanted to let all senators of both parties, especially our republican colleagues and the republican -- and the american people know our values. since that it's been very, very quiet. we haven't heard any response. so let me tell you about our offer. i believe the offer was fair. i've talked with senators across the political spectrum. we did the provide a 5% increase for defense programs compared to last fiscal year and a 13%

increase for all other programs. i took that 5% because it's exactly the amount passed by a 25-1 vote by the senate armed services committee. it's certainly significantly higher than the 1.7% increase for defense proposed by the biden administration. and the amount is lower than the 16% the administration proposed for nondefense programs, even though i would have liked that 16%. but it's called compromise. we took from one, we gave to the other. it's compromise. it's how you get things done. nobody gets every single thing they want. even if you're chairman of the senate appropriations committee.

now, as i mentioned earlier, the 5% wasn't something i picked out of thin air. it was the exact amount contained in the fiscal year 2022 national defense authorization act, ndaa, that is before the senate this week and, again, reported by from the senate armed services committee 23 -- i think it was 24-1. but it was overwhelming. work on that bill is stalled due to republican obstructionism over a series of amendments. now, to be clear, though, none of the amendments republicans are fighting for on the ndaa would increase total spending in the bill. that's because the 5% increase has bipartisan, bicameral

support. republicans and democrats both in the house and the senate, that's the percentage they agreed to. republicans unanimously endorsed the 5% increase when the ndaa was marked up in the senate armed services committee. the 5% increase passed overwhelmingly in the house when it considered the ndaa over two months ago. mr. president, i've been here for 47 years. this is as close to consensus as we can get. unanimous and near-unanimous votes. so i have to ask, why not take yes for an answer? now, if i was a cynical person,

i would think this delay was deliberate. if i was a cynical person, i would think this delay was meant to drive us into a full-year continuing resolution. and if i was a sin qual person, i'd -- and if i was a cynical person, i would think that some of my republican colleagues have expressed this desire out loud. but for a party that claims to care about our nation's defense, i suggest they do the math. a full-year c.r. would not only reduce defense spending instead of increasing it, as my bill does, it would reduce it by $37 billion compared with the level set forth in the ndaa that they voted for unanimously, and actually it would cut defense

spending below last year's level. so stop the hyperbole. stop the rhetoric. deal with the relativity. -- deal with the reality. i have to ask those republicans advocating for a full-year c.r., is there support -- is their support for our nation's security merely political theater? i hope not because what they're asking for is is a tremendous cut in defense, not an increase. but also i look at at the nondefense area, the impact of a full-year c.r. would have on american families in all corners of this country is equally unthinkable. housing, child care, education, criticality health care system -- every one is at risk under a full-year continuing resolution. now, i can't possibly imagine

any senator from either party is going to go home and say, oh, i support huge cuts in housing, education, child care, critical health care programs. i cannot possibly believe that's an outcome the other side would endorse, but that's what they're asking for in a c.r. every week it seems i receive letters from advocacy groups and industry associations, both those that are normally associated with republican positions and those normally associated with democratic positions, and they all say the same thing. they detail the problems that would come from a full-year c.r. and ask us to do our job and enact full-year bills. among those i'd include the

national defense industrial association, the aerospace industries association, numerous veterans groups, all groups that we say we support. in fact, mr. president, i'd ask consent that a sampling of these letters be placed in the record at the end of myself remarks. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. leahy: now -- i thank the chair. let me be clear. refusing to come to the negotiating table undermines national security. it inhibits our ability to invest in american families, it impedes our capability to respond to the coronavirus, and what we now see as the emerging

variants, which, mr. president, i'm sure you hear in your state -- i hear in my state; i guarantee you the other 48 states every senator is hearing about that concern. but also there's 100 of us. we are elected to represent the whole country, 325 million americans. we elected to do our job. if we don't do it, it's irresponsible. that's the reason we're here today i can canning the can down the -- kicking the can down the road another two months. let's stand up and vote yes or no on these issues. we have a job to do. the bill we'll soon vote on, which i expect will be coming over soon from the house, gives us roughly two months to do it. and that's plenty of time. i'd ask the republican

leadership to step up and engage. i hope they'll do it in the next few weeks. i'm prepared any day -- any day, any weekend, in the evening, any morning, whenever if we can do this. otherwise we're going to be back here on february 18. the american people, no matter what party they belong to, are going to say, what are you folks doing? where is this legislation? so when the bill comes over, i urge my colleagues to vote aye on the bill. but i urge my republican colleagues to work with me and with the house to ensure that we do not have to pass another one in february. i have talked with members of the republican party and the democratic party. they will tell me privately

they're willing to work, they want to work, they want to get it done. i appreciate that. but now is the time to step up and do it. i think we can. i hope we will. and, mr. president, i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. schumer: mr. president. mr. schumer: the majority leader. mr. schumer: are we in a quorum? the presiding officer: we are. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent that be -- i ask unanimous consent that the senate resume legislative session and proceed to the immediate consideration of h.r. 6119, received from the house and at the desk, and that the only amendment be in order be marshall-lee 4868. that senator lee be recognized to speak for up to ten minutes, and that following his remarks the senate vote on the marshall amendment. that upon disposition of the marshall amendment, the bill shall be considered read a third time, and the senate vote on passage of the bill as amended, if amended with 60 affirmative votes required for passage. and that there be six minutes for debate equally divided in

the usual form prior to each vote, all without further intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: is there objection? a senator: without objection. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. schumer: mr. president, i am leased -- pleased to anoun an agreement has been reached between democrats and republicans that will allow the senate to take up and pass the continuing resolution to fund the government through february 18. with this agreement, there will be no government shutdown, and i appreciate the work of my colleagues from both sides of the aisle, including leader mcconnell, to reach this point. the good bipartisan work that produced this agreement will give appropriators in both fathers and if -- parties and in both chambers time to reach a comprehensive agreement on appropriations by february 18 of next year. i am glad that in the end cooler heads prevailed, the government will stay open, and i thank the members of this chamber for walking us back from the brink of abe a-- an avoidable, needless and costly shutdown.

and i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

senator mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. lee: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. the senate will proceed legislative session and proceed to the consideration of h.r. 6119, which the clerk will report. the clerk: h.r. 6119, an act making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2022, and for other purposes. mr. lee: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. lee: mr. president, 45 million americans -- 45 million hardworking moms and dads, neighbors, and friends are being threatened right now with losing their jobs. they're being threatened not due

to cyclical click conditions -- cyclical economic conditions, not because jobs aren't available, not because of some war or other calamity. their jobs are being threatened by their own government, a government that has chosen to tell them that if they don't comply with a presidential medical orthodoxy, they will be fired. this is unfortunate. it's most unfortunate that this power has been exercised this way. the president doesn't have that power. congress hasn't given the president that power. this is not a power that belongs in the federal government to begin with. as a result of that, 45 million americans are being threatened with their jobs. they're being forced to choose

between an unwanted medical procedure and losing their job. look, i want to be very clear. i've been vaccinated. my family has been vaccinated. i believe the development of the vaccines is something simplify a modern medical miracle. i am grateful for the vaccine. i think the vaccine is helping americans be safe from the effects of covid. it's not government's job. it's not within government's authority to tell people that they must be vaccinated and if they don't get vaccinated, they'll be fired. it's wrong. it's immoral. you don't tell someone that if they don't do exactly what you want them to do that they're going to lose their job. the american people overwhelmingly agree. in fact, according to a recent axios poll, only 14% of all americans agree with the president of the united states that if someone declines to get the jab, they should lose their job.

now, this is a huge percentage of the workforce. in many states, most states, in fact, somewhere between a quarter and a third of all workers are now being faced with the possibility of losing their job because of these vaccine mandates. this at a time when americans are struggling just to put food on the table, in part because we've got a government that's spending too much money, money it doesn't have. it's churning up money, printing it, in effect, in a way that results in rampant inflation, into way that makes limited -- in a way that makes limited paychecks go less far, less capable of buying bread to put on the table. and amidst all of this, -- and amidst all in this government-manufactured crisis, government is making it worse, threatening it not just make

that paycheck go even less far than it already does because of government, but to take it away altogether. that's not kind. that's not the neighborly way in which we like to do things. it's not moral. and it's not constitutional. look, it's tragic that this many americans have to have their jobs threatened as a result of a presidential tamper tantrum. there's nothing about it that's okay. deep down we all know that it's not okay. and, mr. president, i'll tell you there's another thing that's not okay. it's not okay that those who want to take away those jobs, those who are just fine with the president exercising this authority, fought tooth and nail to prevent the united states senate from taking the vote that we're preparing to take tonight. a simple vote, a simple vote

that simply allows us to weigh in and decide whether or not we're going to fund that part of government, that feature of our government that's going to enforce the vaccine mandate. those in this chamber who shamefully were refusing over and over again to let us even cast a vote on that simple measure threatened to shut down all of government because they didn't want to have us have a chance, as the people's elected lawmakers, to decide whether or not we should proceed with vaccine mandate enforcement. they'd rather shut down the government and make everything worse than they would stand accountable for what they're doing. fortunately, this part of the story at least has a happy ending. we're going to be able to vote on that tonight. we're going to be able to vote on whether or not we fund

vaccine mandate enforcement at the federal level. this is wonderful. this is fantastic. it should not have resulted in days and days of shutdown threats and days and days of deflection, accusing other people of wanting to shut down the government when all we wanted to do was have a vote, to give a chance to the hardworking mom or dad, soldier, sailor, airman or marine having -- strug to put food on the table. we can do better than this. we must do better than this. the american people deserve better than this. that's why i'm so glad and grateful that we'll be casting this vote tonight. but know this -- this issue is not going away. i hope with everything in me that when we cast this vote

tonight that a majority of us will do the right thing and that we'll vote the way that we know we should vote; that we'll stand with those people who may lose their jobs. 31% of the workers in my state -- in other states it's higher. 39% of the workers in west virginia stand to lose their jobs. 37% of the workers in alabama, 33% of the workers in georgia. in state after state, you see hardworking moms and dads being threatened. this, mr. president, isn't right. it's not even authority the president has. it's not authority that the congress has. we shouldn't be doing this. deep down we all know that that's right. we also know, mr. president,

that some of these problems result from the fact that when we fund the government, we made significant mistakes. as a result of the fact that we've allowed so many spending decisions to be concentrated in one vote, on one bill, such that all of government tends to be funded or none of it gets funded. sometimes the only opportunity we have to weigh in on a particular matter of public policy, one affecting 4r5 -- 45 million american workers, the only chance we have to do that is on a spending bill and we don't get that chance unless we agree that we will vote on an amendment on that. that should never result in a shutdown threat. when those threats are made, we should acknowledge who's making them. never once has any of us wanted

to shut down government. we wanted to give the american worker a chance, a chance for us to vote for them, a chance for us to stand with them. i urge, i implore my colleagues, please join me in voting to protect the american worker. don't take away the job of hardworking americans. don't fire people because they're not inclined to adhere to presidential medical orthodoxy. please support me in this amendment. thank you, mr. president. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from kansas. a senator: i call up my amendment 4868 and ask that it be reported by number. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the amendment by number. the clerk: the senator from kansas, mr. marshall, for himself and mr. lee, proposes an amendment numbered 4868.

the presiding officer: there will now be six minutes of debate equally divided. prior to the vote on amendment number 4868. mr. marshall: thank you, mr. president. this amendment is simple. it prohibits moneys from this bill to be used to fund or enforce the white house's covid vaccine mandates on the american people for the duration of the c.r. as a physician, i've always supported the vaccine, and i encourage americans to talk to their doctor about getting vaccinated and about the booster. but whether to receive the vaccine or not is a personal choice. it should not be mandated via unconstitutional executive actions that the administration acknowledged earlier this year they didn't have the authority to put in place. no precedent exists in american history for punishing private employers who don't enforce government vaccination edicts. as we all know, multiple

federal courts have put a stop to the osha mandate as well as the federal contractor and c.m.s. mandates. what's more, thank goodness the white house even delayed implementing their mandate for federal workers until after the holidays. mr. president, this is an opportunity to right a wrong, for each member in this body to right a wrong. let's give employers certainty and employees peace of mind that they will still have a job this new year. make no mistake, these vaccine mandates are not about public healthy or science. if they were, the white house would recognize that 92% of americans, 92% of americans who have already built up immunity to this virus between vaccines and natural immunity. beside me is a photo of upset union workers i met in topeka, kansas. these are the people that keep our electricity on and our houses warm in the winter.

these are hardworking americans who put their lives on the line throughout the pandemic, and tonight i'm their voice. i'm their voice, and i'm proud to be here to keep fighting for them, for their families and their right to earn a living in this greatest country in the world. tonight i ask my colleagues to join me in this fight and support our amendment and avoid an economic shutdown, avoid brownouts, further supply chain disruptions, labor shortages, higher inflation, and weakening our national security. thank you, mr. president. i yield back. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: mr. president, covid-19 has killed over 780,000 people in our country. this pandemic has a higher body count than any war we have ever fought in, and it's not over. we should be doing everything we can to stop this virus. we should be using every tool to keep america safe. we all know the damage this

virus can do to our communities and to our economy. that is why the biden administration has taken steps to urge employers to make sure their employees are fully vaccinated or test negative for covid-19 before they come to the workplace. that's a move that's widely popular with the american people. no one wants to go to work and be worried they might come home to their family with a deadly virus. even businesses support this step. the chamber of commerce is hurnlging -- urging businesses to comply with the administration's emergency temporary standard. and perhaps more importantly it's a move that will save lives. we've seen these requirements have a huge impact. in fact, many businesses with vaccination requirements have seen havings rates rise well above 90%. osha estimates that the federal standard which republicans are fighting to undermine will help protect 84 million workers prevent thousands of deaths and

over 200,000 hospitalizations from covid-19. i do not understand why after all families have been through, after all we have lost and all the hard work we've done to rebuild, would anyone want to throw that in jeopardy and throw away one of the strongest tools we have, to get people vaccinated, keep them safe and end this pandemic once and for all. it is senseless, it's reckless. i urge my colleagues to vote against it. and i yield the rest of my time to the senator from virginia. mr. kaine: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from virginia. mr. kaine: i rise to support the position of might have colleague. when you're unwilling to describe something accurately, it portrays a weakness in your position. i've heard my colleagues complain about the vaccine mandate. it's not a vaccine mandate. it is a vaccine or testing mandate. if you don't want to get a test, if you don't want to get a vaccine, don't get a vaccine. get a test so you can go to work each week without infecting your colleagues with the deadly disease.

what my colleagues are asking is that people be protected so that they can go to work with a deadly disease, infect coworkers and still get a paycheck, and still get a paycheck. if you don't want to get a vaccine, get a test. if you're unwilling to protect your coworkers, don't demand a paycheck. i urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. lee: if you don't want to get the virus, get the vaccine. but the answer to someone not agreeing with your medical advice is not to fire you, and it sure as heck isn't to have the president of the united states fine every employer in america that doesn't want to do this, whether they have religious objections or otherwise. this is wrong. we know it's wrong. we can stop this right now. please join me in opposing and taking down and refusing to fund for the duration of this continuing resolution, that part of government charged with enforcing this immoral, indefensible, unconstitutional, and illegal

mandate. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: on this vote the yeas are 48, the nays are 50. the amendment is not agreed to. the clerk will read the title of the bill for the third time. the clerk: h.r. 61119, an act making further --. the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. the clerk: making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2022, and for other purposes. the presiding officer: there will now be six minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote on passage of the bill. mr. leahy: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senate will be in order.

mr. leahy: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: mr. president, we're not in order. i'll be very brief. the presiding officer: could the senators take their conversations off the floor, please. the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: mr. president, i would note that as chairman of the appropriations committee, this bill was negotiated on a bipartisan, bicameral basis. it will keep the government open and operating through february 18. i urge every member to vote aye. we have to pass it tonight. but i warn every, and remind every senator it's not a substitute for doing our work. we have to use the next two months to negotiate, enact full-year appropriations bills. i hope my republican friends will come to the table to negotiate. democrats have made a fair offer, a strong offer, and we need a response. so i thank vice chairman shelby

for his cooperation and hard work on this bill. i look forward to working with him as i did earlier today and will continue to as we get an agreement on top line, all 12 appropriations bills by february 18. let us get to work and show the country the senate can do its work. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: all time being yielded back, the question occurs on the vote on the bill. the clerk will call the roll. the yeas and nays have been requested. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. there is a sufficient second. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

the presiding officer: on this vote, the yeas are 69, the nays are 28, and the bill is passed. mr. schumer: mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. schumer: i'm happy to let the american people know the government remains open.

(applause). mr. schumer: thank you. okay. mr. president, i have one additional request for a committee to meet during today's session of the senate. it has the approval of the majority and minority leaders. the presiding officer: duly noted. mr. schumer: mr. president, i move to proceed to executive session, to consider executive calendar 567. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all those in favor say aye. mr. schumer: aye. the presiding officer: all those opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes to do do have it. the clerk will document the nomination. clerk federal communication commission, jessica worsenners withle to be a member. mr. schumer: the send the

cloture motion to the desk. the clerk: do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of executive calendar number 567, jessica rosen worstle of account to be a member of the federal communications commission signed which 17 senators as follows. mr. schumer: the ask consents the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: i move to proceed to legislation session. the presiding officer: those opposed to aye. those opposed, no. the motion is agreed to. mr. schumer: i move to proceed to executive session to consider executive calendar number 480. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all in favor, aye. mr. schumer: aye. the presiding officer: the nos. the ayes have it. it the motion is agreed to. the clerk: nomination, national mediation board, deirdre hamilton of the district of columbia to be a member. mr. schumer: i send the cloture motion to the dervetion. the presiding officer: clerk will report. the clerk: we the undersigned

senators in accordance with the provision of rule 22 do hereby move to bring to close executive calendar number 480, deirdre hamilton of the district of columbia to be a member of the national mediation board -- mr. schumer: i ask the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. the question is on the motion. a ul in favor, say aye. mr. schumer: aye. the presiding officer: opposed, no. the ayes appeared to have it. the aye does have to it. mr. schumer: i move to proceed to exlt session to consider calendar 513. the presiding officer: question is on the motion. a ul in favor, aye. mr. schumer: aye. the presiding officer: opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk: nomination, department of homeland security, chris magnus of arizona to be commissioner of u.s. customs and border protection. mr. schumer: i send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: clerk will report. the clerk: we the undersigned senators in accordance with

provisions of rule 22 -- do hereby move to bring to close the debate of -- to be commissioner of u.s. cups option and border protection, signed by 17 senators. mr. schumer: i ask by consent the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: finally, i ask unanimous con sefnts that the -- consent that the cloture motions ripen at 5:30 monday december 6. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: i move to proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: in favor, aye. the ayes appeared to have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent the senate consider the following nominations enbloc, calendar 543, 544, that the ♪ vote on the nominations enbloc without intervening action or debate, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate, that any statements related to the

nomination be printed in the record and the president be immediately notified of the senate's action and the senate resume legislative session. the presiding officer: without objection. the question occurs on the nominations. enbloc. all in favor, aye. mr. schumer: aye. the presiding officer: opposed, no. the ayes appeared to have it. the ayes do have it. the nominations are confirmed. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today it adjourn until 3:00 p.m., monday, december 6, that following the prayer and the pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the jurm of proceedings -- the time reserved for use later in the day and morning business closed, upon the conclusion of morning business the senate proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the rosen weathersle nomination. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: there will be a roll call vote at 5:30:00 p.m. on the nomination. if no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order. the presiding officer: the motion is agreed to.

the senate will stand adjourned under the previous order, until 3:00 p.m. monday.ing officer: te senator from utah. mr. lee: mr. president, 45 million americans -- 45 million hardworking moms and dads, neighbors, and friends are being threatened right now with losing their jobs. they're losing their jobs. they areei