veterans affairs legislation. a procedural vote set for 12:15 p.m. eastern today. further votes on the bill are possible. at 5:00 p.m. they will go into a closed door briefing on the situation in ukraine. defense secretary lloyd austin and secretary of state antony blinken will lead, and president zelenskyy's meeting tomorrow with president biden and the lawmakers. now to the senate floor live here on c-span2. aplain: let . eternal god, the fountain of all goodness, thank you that you hae us in the place you want us to e teach our lawmakers to take seriously their role in solving

the problems of our times, that they may fulfill your plans for their lives. continue to inspire them and to bless others through their work. use your sovereign wisdom to bring about good results from their decisions. lord, give our senators the courage to tell us what we need to hear so that your truth will set us free. make them willing to take judicious risks when it leads to justice and truth. we pray in your sovereign name. amen. the presiding officer: please

join me in reciting the pledge f allegiance to our flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington, d.c., september 20, 2023. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable peter welch, a senator from the stae of vermont, to perform the dutis of the chair. signed: patty murray, president pro tempore. the presiding officer: under the previous order, leadership time is reserved. morning business is closed. under the previous order, the senate will resume consideration of h.r. 4366, which the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 198,

h.r. 4366, an act making appropriations for military construction, the department of veteran affairs and related agencies for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2024, and for other purposes.

mr. schumer: mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent that the time until 12:15 be for debate only. at 12:15 we have a vote on the cloture motion on moving forward on the minibus. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: thank you.

mr. schumer: mr. president. today senators from both sides of the aisle will have a chance to affirm that bipartisanship still rules the day in the senate appropriations process. in a few hours we'll hold a cloture vote on suspension of rule 16 to override the stall tactics of one member who objected last week to waiving rule 16. it's yet another reminder that in both houses a small group of hard-right republicans are dead set to grind the gears of government to a halt. for maga republicans, it's as if chaos is a virtue and cooperation a crime. but i do not believe that this is the view of most members in this chamber, democrats or republicans. the appropriations process has been a true bipartisan success

story to date. our colleagues on the other side have asked for regular order, and we have worked with them to ensure we've done just that, just as we did on the ndaa bill. our colleagues on the other side asked for amendments and we have worked with them to consider amendments. and we have worked side by side with our republican colleagues in the appropriations committee to bring three bills to the floor -- milcon-v.a., agriculture and transportation-hud. it's taken a lot of hard work. we've had plenty of disagreements as both sides normally do, but we have worked through them. it's a reminder that even in divided times it's the hard work, hard work of achieving bipartisanship that produced results. today we have a chance to make sure that all the good work of the appropriators is not wasted, whether republicans give us cloture or not, we on this side of the aisle are going to do our best to ensure that

the minibus gets done. we have come very far. there's no good reason to turn back. now on the c.r., every day we get closer to september 30, one truth becomes clearer and clearer. there is no scenario for avoiding a government shutdown without bipartisanship. a government shutdown would be a terrible and unnecessary outcome for our country. millions of americans who count on government services would have their lives disrupted. it could impact the pay of our servicemembers who so bravely serve us. air traffic controllers and tsa employees would have to work without pay. fema's disaster relief fund needed by so many could dry up. a shutdown would be disastrous. a shutdown would be unnecessary. and make no mistake, a shutdown is certainly avoidable. and yet, with each passing day, house republicans seem

less interested in avoiding a shutdown and more interested in catering to the hard, hard, unreasonable, adamant, and stubborn hard right. a few days ago house republicans released what they claimed was a deal for a c.r., a slapdash, reckless and cruel bill that everyone knew had no chance, no chance of passing in the senate. it would have cut 8% of virtually all nondefense spending. it would have cut investments to the social security administration. it would have meant cuts to law enforcement, to nih funding for cancer research, nutrition protection, to protection for clean water, for small business loans, even for the border. even people protecting the border. and still it wasn't extreme enough for the hard right. house republicans rejected their own extremist bill, and by

rejecting it that's a dead giveaway they're not serious about avoiding a shutdown. they seem more interested in finding the lowest common denominator, finding something, anything that can appease the hard right no matter how extreme, no matter how unrealistic, no matter how cruel, and no matter how unseriously this would be taken by the country and by this body. this is not a serious way to solve the crisis. look, i sympathize with the speaker. i know his task isn't easy. he's got a lot of very, very difficult members to deal with. but we all have, including the speaker, has, we have a responsibility to the american people. real lives would be disrupted in the shutdown, and the answer for avoiding a shutdown is right in front of speaker exphargt -- mccarthy and he knows it. bipartisanship. speaker mccarthy says he wants

to avoid a shutdown. he says nobody wins in a shutdown. then he should reach across the aisle to find an agreement that has the votes to pass both chambers. that's the only way, the only way this crisis gets resolved. when members on your own side act in bad faith when has appeasement worked? if he gives into them now they'll want something the next day. some have stated balanced -- baldly they have a shutdown. the speaker has an obligation to make sure those who want a shutdown don't have their way. chasing the lowest common denominator won't solve the speaker's problems. the hard right will keep demanding more things, it's a mat -- pattern we've seenl all year long. mr. president, this has been the problem with maga extremism

from the start. it's not serious about governing. it hates governing. chaos is the only word in their playbook. we have members of the hard right who openly say, bragging they want a shutdown. well, it doesn't have to be this way, and it shouldn't be this way. those few who want a shutdown should not control the house. speaker mccarthy doesn't have to pretend like a maga bill is the only option. again, there are real people who will be hurt if government is shut down. they like to see us work together so their lives don't get disrupted. now today is september 20. house republicans have less than 10 days to figure this out. if republican leadership chooses to work with democrats, we can avoid a shutdown very quickly. but if they continue to appease the hard maga right, we all know exactly how this is going to end. i yield the floor.

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

quorum call:

quorum call:

>> mandates of covid booster vaccine for pages. the maybe for pages continues voted 83-11 to repeal the military code vaccine mandate. so why in the world would we continue a mandate on pages that we have repealed for our soldiers? is there any science to support continuing this mandate? the answer is an emphatic no. the science has been clear since the early spring of 2020. healthy children are not seriously affected by covid. in fact, several large studies show that healthy children are rarely hospitalized, and that deaths from covid in healthy children are virtually nonexistent. doctor marty mccarry of johns hopkins describes a large nationwide study in israel that found that the risk of covid death in people under 30 with two vaccines was essentially

zero. nationwide study from germany showed zero covid deaths among children over five who had no comorbidities. even the head of the w.h.o. concluded that there is no evidence right now that suggest healthy children and adolescents need boosters. and yet here we are with democrats desperately clinging to covid vaccine mandates for young people who have essentially zero risk of dying from covid. commonsense should prevail, and senate should repeal this mandate just as we did for our young soldiers. we shouldn't allow politics to infect and cloud commonsense judgment. the vaccine committees that make recommendations for vaccines actually don't recommend covid boosters are young healthy individuals. the fda's vaccines and related biological products advisory

committee voted to limit covid vaccines to adults over 65. they want it because of the risk profile of the covid vaccine to lend it to mr. mcconnell: mr. president. the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: we are. mr. mcconnell: i ask that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: next week's america's world leading medical innovation sector will face their first deadline in the biden administration's push for prescription drug socialism. under washington's so-called inflation reduction act, the companies behind certain major treatments are seniors from

everything -- with everything from arthritis to diabetes to cancer will have to choose by the end of next week whether to enter into a so-called negotiation program run by federal bureaucrats, pay an excessive fine, or take their drugs off the market. well, mr. president, the devil is in the details. unsurprisingly, democrats intend for this, quote, negotiation, end quote, to be anything but it turns out the ira empowers the biden administration to reject any counteroffer during the process and thus arbitrarily set the maximum price to whatever number the bureaucrats choose. now, the biden administration claims that this policy will save consumers money and lead to cheaper treatments, but this

couldn't be further from the truth. in reality this so-called negotiation with unelected bureaucrats will ensure that fewer lifesaving treatments make it to the markets in the first place. i was very proud to have worked alongside then vice president biden on his cancer moon shot initiative and the 21st century cures act back in 2016. unfortunately, by one estimate, the biden administration's own price-fixing scheme would destroy nearly nine times as much funding for cancer research as that legislation back in 2016 provided by eliminating incentives for drug companies to invest in r&d. several companies announced they

were discontinuing research in cancer and other diseases due to concerns about the impact of washington democrats' regulations. the biden administration wants to dry up the world's most prolific pipeline of lifesaving cures. the american people deserve better than prescription drug socialism. now on another matter. yesterday, president biden -- yesterday president biden, the world would support ukraine's, quote, fight, as long as it takes, end quote. unfortunately for all of his lofty rhetoric about ukraine, the president's actual approach to russia's escalation is passive, indecisive leadership has risked prolonging the war and public support for our

efforts in some cases. his talk about escalation to world war iii has given hesitation to allies like germany. like most republicans, i've been clear-eyed about the threat of russian aggression since long before putin's so-called little green men seized ukrainian territory back in 2014. long before the last democratic president mocked realism about russia to score points in a political debate. and i've urged the administration of both parties to take steps to help ukraine deter russian aggression before it escalated. like the previous administration's decision to send the lethal weapons that president obama had found too provocative. when president biden took office, he focused on lowering

tensions with moscow with lowering the new start treaty rather than sending lethal weapons to ukraine. as putin's forces amassed forces in 2021, i urged the president to provide critical military capability like singers and javelins and the infrastructure needed to support ukraine should russia escalate. but president biden delayed. he dithered for months before approving shipments of advanced air systems or medium-range rocket systems like himars. and he anguished officer a -- over a year about authorizing f-16's and abrams tanks. the biden administration provided each of these capabilities, but the

president's hesitation kept our allies to follow american decisions very closely from unlocking similar capabilities of their own. but every step of the way president biden's decisions on support for ukraine have been slow. his actions have been tentative and his caution has been debilitating. unfortunately the president's public messaging has been similarly insufficient. he has an obligation to speak to all americans but most of his messaging about lofty and abstract principles seems tailored for washington think tanks. president biden and his administration need to explain to the nation in practical terms that our nation has a fundamental interest in ukraine victory and european security. that our support for ukraine isn't distracting from

competition with china but contributing materially to it. that europe has turned a corner on collective defense and burden sharing and is actually contributing more to ukraine than the united states. that u.s. assistance is subject to rigorous oversight and accountability protections. that most of the security assistance is actually being invested in america's own -- our own defense industrial base. and that pulling the plug would be far more ruinous than our disastrous withdrawal from afghanistan. i sometimes get the sense that i speak more about ukraine matters than the president does. well, i hope his administration will use this evening's classified senate briefing to begin making this case more forcefully. i'm encouraged by reports that the united states may finally

provide attack yums -- and i hope we'll learn why this decision, like those preceding it has taken so long. tomorrow i will join colleagues in welcoming president zelenskyy to the capitol. i will continue to make the case myself for the sustained support for ukrainian cause not out of charity but out of primary focus on america's interest. but until president biden takes on the responsibility to actually lead the case publicly here at home, his administration's timid leadership will continue to speak volumes both at home and abroad.

the presiding officer: the majority whip. mr. durbin: mr. president, most americans agree that the cost of prescription drugs is too high. most americans agree that president biden has done the right thing by reducing the monthly cost of insulin to $35 so that millions of people facing diabetes can afford their medication. most americans agree that it is almost impossible to explain why american drug companies sell the same drugs in canada for a fraction of the cost they charge american consumers. most americans agree that the

pharmaceutical companies should be able to take advantage of basic research i by agencies like the national institutes of health, but when it comes to profit making, they need to be reasonable to the taxpayers who helped them make a successful product. most americans also agree that the number one driver in the cost of health insurance premiums is the cost of prescription drugs, bluecross blueshield of chicago has told me as much and it stands to reason. that's why it's very difficult to understand the statement just made by the republican leader in the senate who is suggesting that the idea of negotiating with the pharmaceutical companies so that medicare, for example, doesn't pay the highest price for drugs is a reasonable thing. what i heard from the republican leader was this was prescription drug socialism -- socialism.

that we would go to the private sector and say lifesaving drugs should be affordable, you're entitled to a profit, but you're not entitled to rip off taxpayers or consumers across america. that seems like a reasonable approach. in fact, it seems to reasonable someone suggested we do that for our veterans years ago. the veterans administration has been negotiating prescription drug pricing for years. what the senator from kentucky refers to as unelected bureaucrats are the officials of the veterans administration who on behalf of the veterans and their families sit down at a table and negotiate a reasonable cost so that the veterans will always have those drugs available to them and the government will pay not the highest price but a reasonable price for the product. that's been going on for decades, and i don't recall any republican or democrat, for that matter, who stood before the senate or the house and said,

it's a bad idea. veterans administration ought to pay a higher price for drugs and taxpayers ought to foot the difference. the reason you don't hear that is it doesn't make sense. we should be able to negotiate reasonable pricing for pharmaceutical drugs and medicare just as we do for the veterans administration. that's what president biden suggested. he took a look at the top ten drugs that medicare system is buying across america. not surprisingly these drugs, which have tongue-twister names, are familiar to most americans. why? the pharmaceutical companies that put so many ads on television for the drug xerelt everybody o, that we can spell it now. if appeals to many people, and especially to senior citizen. for the record, there are only two nations in the world that

allow television advertising of the pharmaceutical drugs, the united states and new zealand, of all things. why do the pharmaceutical companies spend more money on advertising and macting than -- marketing than they do on drug research? they do that because they make more money at it. they're trying to reach american consumers, in this case senior citizen, and convince them the next time they go for a doctor's appointment to ask for one of these drugs. now the doctor may decide to counsel the person that this is not appropriate for the challenges or medical situation they face, he may say there's a generic much cheaper and he may try to talk them out of the idea, but after some time, the doctors usually give into the patients. they have a limited amount of time to debate with them and they've got to move on to another patient. and so the high-priced

prescription dwrug advertised on -- drug advertised on television is now sold to the senior citizen and as a result the taxpayers, through medicare, pay a large portion of that high-priced drug. it's unfortunate, but it's profitable for the pharmaceutical companies. to call this oacialism is to ignore the obvious. we want americans to have access to affordable, effective drugs, whether they're buying them as private citizens or through programs like medicare or medicaid. what the president has said, i should take my authority as president, given to me by congress, with a measure that received only democratic votes and negotiate drug prices down to an affordable level for the government and for individuals. some may call that prescription drug socialism, i call it common sense. we should protect american consumers for a high -- from high-priced prescription drugs. why the republican leader take

the opposite position is his business, but i think most americans believe it is a reasonable approach. on a separate issue, i rise today to discuss the critical role that u.s. attorneys play in keeping america and our communities safe. unfortunately this is not the first time i've come to the floor to request unanimous consent to take up and confirm u.s. attorney nominations. across the united states men and women are chosen to head u.s. attorney offices through the department of justice. it is a major responsibility. i've seen many u.s. attorneys in my lifetime and in my time in the senate, and i know them to be carefully screened before they reach this level. they go through background checks, extensive background checks to make certain there are no questions about their background before they are appointed to this position. they then go through the judiciary committee of the senate, which i chair,

carefully screened by both democrats and republicans. then they are voted on in the committee and sent to the floor here for approval. unfortunately we've run into an obstacle. last year we went through an exercise twice when a republican senate colleague refused to allow the senate to confirm nearly 12 justice department nominees by voice vote, which is the typical approach used under presidents of both political parties. thankfully the senator involved in that particular issue lifted his objections in time for these 12 to be appointed to u.s. attorney posts across the united states. we were able to get the u.s. attorneys and marshals confirmed and in place so that they could go to work, and thank goodness we did it. unfortunately here we stand again today finding ourselves in a position where a single senator objects to the timely confirmation of u.s. attorney nominees. in short, one senator, one

senator is making it more difficult for us to put women and men in the position of u.s. attorney for the prosecution of violent criminals, tracking down fugitives, and protecting americans from gang violence, cyber crime, terrorism, narcotics and fraud. it's an awesome job to be u.s. attorney because of the possibilities of -- the vulnerability of american citizens. remember when extreme voices were crying out defund the police? we knew better as americans. reform is appropriate but we need the police as we need criminal prosecutors. now we have one senator who has decided to stop this effort at criminal prosecution by these new u.s. attorneys. it's worth taking a moment to think about what u.s. attorneys do. the position of u.s. attorney is nearly as old as the nation.

it was created as part of the judiciary act of 1789 which was passed by the first congress, signed into law by president george washington. u.s. attorneys are empowered to prosecute all federal criminal offenseses, and we have recognized since the founding of america that they are an integral part of our justice system. u.s. attorneys play a critical role in enforcing the law, promoting public safety, protecting our communities. blocking the confirmations of u.s. attorneys threatens public seacht and puts many americans and their families, including the most vulnerable among us, at greater risk. why would we knowingly want to put our families that we represent in states across america at greater risk by holding up the appointment of u.s. attorneys? we've heard a lot of tough talk about law and order from a lot of senators, but when it comes to law and order, we shouldn't allow one senator to prevent us

from confirming well-qualified law enforcement nominations today. this senator has vowed, and i quote, to grind the department of justice to a halt. let me repeat that. this senator has vowed to grind the department of justice to a halt. and all of this because of why? he's upset that special counsel jack smith has indicted the former president of the united states on multiple felonies. this is a protest, a political protest for an action taken by a special counsel, but he's doing it at the expense of families all across america. let me repeat. a member of this body is undermining our government's efforts to prosecute violent crime, terrorism, and crimes against children because he does not like it that one of his political allies is being held accountable for his actions. he's doing so despite the fact

that these are exceptional, exceptional nominees for u.s. attorneys, and there is simply no principled basis to delay their confirmation. let me describe some of these u.s. attorneys being held up. todd gee, nominated to be u.s. attorney for the southern district of mississippi, dedicated to the rule of law and a long-term career in public service, a native of vicksburg, mississippi, mr. gee attended george washington university and tulane law school, spent several years as assistant u.s. attorney right here in the district of columbia. he prosecuted homicides, carjackings and gun crimes. in one case he was the lead prosecutor securing the convictions for seven members of a deadly street gang who had been indicted for multiple murders. since 2018, mr. gee served as deputy chief of public integrity

section at the department of justice. he is a dedicated public servant with significant experience as a federal prosecutor. he is the person for the job as u.s. attorney in mississippi. don't take it from me. take it from both mississippi senators, both republicans who approved his nomination. and yet he's being held up. tara mcgrath nominated for the southern district of california, devoted her legal career to keeping america safe. she attended boston college and university of michigan law school before beginning her career as deputy staff judge advocate with the united states marine corps. she was honorably discharged after six years of service in the marine corps and then began serving as federal prosecutor in the southern district of california. during her time with the u.s. attorneys office she received awards for her work on crime prevention and prisoner reentry and handled drug importation,

human trafficking cases and gang prosecutions. notably ms. mcgrath led the investigation of a large-scale racketeering and drug trafficking operation run by the mexican cartels in san diego county that resulted in 51 indictments against 40 defendants. how many times, mr. president, have we heard members from the other side of the aisle talk about the scourge of fentanyl in the united states, the narcotics that are killing too many americans every single day? what's going to stop that? a lot of different things, but one thing that has to be part of the equation is a criminal prosecutor who knows how to bring them to court and to hold them responsible for the deadly narcotics and deaths across america. why in the world would we stop ms. mcgrath from becoming a u.s. attorney in california where she has a proven record of doing just that. by holding up her nomination for no specific reason, you're jeopardizing the safety of so many people who innocently

expect us to do our duty. these are individuals, the ones she has prosecuted, responsible for drive-by shootings, child abduction attempts, meth distribution. thanks to ms. mcgrath they are off the streets. she recently returned to her military roots, served as a lawyer in the marine corps in okinawa in japan. she has represented america admirably. she would be an outstanding u.s. attorney. a third u.s. attorney nominee being held up is rebecca c. lutzko. this one is interesting. she was nominated to be u.s. attorney for the northern district of ohio, the home state of the senator who is holding up her nomination. she's a longtime federal prosecutor. she attended boston university and georgetown university law before clerking on the u.s. court of appeals for the sixth circuit. after seven years in private practice, ms. lutzko joined the u.s. attorney's office for the

northern district of ohio, handled cases involving prescription drug trafficking, gun crimes and pruption. she even -- she became the appellate chief. for nearly a decade ms. lutzko was the lead counsel in prosecuting online pill mill organization that illegally distributed well over four million pain pills to customers in all 50 states. she secured convictions on all 12 defendants in the case, and the organization was forced to surrender $4 million to the u.s. government in criminal proceeds. she has served her office with distinction. she would be an outstanding u.s. attorney. april m. perry, nominated to be u.s. attorney for the northern district of illinois, significant experience in the private sector and as a federal prosecutor. she attended northwestern university and the northwestern law school and clerked on the

seventh circuit court of appeals. then she served as federal prosecutor in the northern district of illinois for over a decade where she handled narcotics, gang violence, public corruption, and fraud cases. notably, ms. perry specialized in child exploitation prosecutions, spent six years in the office's project safe childhood coordinator. as an assistant u.s. attorney, she investigated a former police officer who was convicted of raping a person he had arrested, and she secured the conviction of a former priest who was accused of sexually abusing more than 20 years -- children. she has served as chief ethics office for the cook county office, currently working as the g.e. health care, senior counsel for global investigation of fraud and abuse. she has the qualifications and leadership abilities to serve as u.s. attorney with distinction.

the interesting thing about all of these nominees that are being held up by one senator from the other side of the aisle is the extraordinary records they have already written in their lives as criminal prosecutors. that is why senators from both political parties in the united states senate have said they're entitled to a promotion and entitled to an opportunity to lead these u.s. attorney's offices. by keeping these posts vacant, by refusing to give us a vote in the senate on their nominations, we are jeopardizing the efforts of u.s. attorney's offices to control narcotics and crime. these men and women are on the front line of keeping us safe in america. to hold up their nominations without any specific complaint about any one of these nominees is just unacceptable. we have a responsibility here to keep america safe. we can't keep them safe by using a political reason to hold up the nominations of these well-qualified people. if you are truly for law and

order, if you are truly for law enforcement, if you want the prosecutors across america to keep us safe, then for goodness' sakes, lift the hold on these nominations. mr. president, i'm prepared to make a unanimous consent request at this point. i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations en bloc -- calendar number 129, number 266, number 314, and number 315. that the nominations be confirmed en bloc, the motions to reconsider be made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate, that no further motions be in order to any of the nominations, that the president be immediately notified of the senate's action, and the senate then resume legislative session. the presiding officer: is there objection? a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. vance: reserving the right to object, the senator from

illinois knows well i cannot and will not give consent to the confirmation of new officials department of justice. my objection is not specific to the qualifications or the particular individuals that have been nominated. my objection is instead to the fact that we live in an era where the department of justice is used for politics as much as justice and that's unacceptable. the doj is and has been defined by its most consequential investigations and prtionz -- prosecution. this is defined by the leader of the opposition, the man running against joe biden to be president of the united states. of course i'm speaking of donald trump. this unprecedented double standard selectively prosecuting donald trump leaving the president and his family untouched is a reason why the department of justice's public confidence has collapsed. an nbc news survey showed 35% of the american people approve the department of justice, a

radical decline. it is the constitutional duty of this body to provide advice and consent to high level doj nominees. i don't want to be here. i don't want to be objecting to these nominees. but what i like much less is the fact that these nominees will be used by the attorney general for politics over justice. my colleague might say, and he might say this to senator tuberville who has a similar hold on department of justice nominees that this is extraordinary. that what we are doing as republicans and objecting to the unanimous consent of these nominations is extraordinary. and i agree it's extraordinary. but what's more extraordinary is this moment in time where the leader of the opposition is being prosecuted by the president of the united states and the department of justice again and again is using its powers to go after people from pro-life activists to members of the community who are justs exercising their rights. mr. president, i would love to live in a country where the department of justice does not engage in selective prosecution. i would very much like if the

department of justice focused on the work of law enforcement instead of politics. until it does,ly object to these nominations, i will object to giving unanimous consent. on these, mr. president, i object. the presiding officer: the objection is heard. the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: mr. president, my colleague says he's holding up these critical law enforcement nominations because former president trump is being treated unfairly. he promises to grinds the department of justice to a halt in loyalty to his political ally. is president biden has continually demonstrated his respect for the justice department's independence, has never interfeared in any investigation into himself or his family. in contrast, president trump treated the justice department as his personal law enforcement for four -- personal law firm for four years and continues to undermine the rule of law by

continuing to threaten and make baseless -- former president trump has been indicted four separate times, once, of course, a state indictment in georgia. as the criminal charges mount, president trump has become even more reckless in threatening judges, prosecutors, jurors and witnesses. that is why inappropriate references in our judicial system -- that is what they look like. instead of directing hills concerns there, the senator from ohio is attacking law enforcement officers who want to keep our families and communities safe. in fact, one of the nominations that he is holding up in argument that the cannot of -- department of justice has become a political tool is a nomination which he notified the judiciary committee he supports in his own state of ohio. if this person is a political tool, why did he support this person for this nomination? he's holding up today for political reasons.

despite the tough talk from the senator from ohio about crime in america and all the references i have to put up regularly with the other party making references to crime in the city of chicago, i can't think of a better way to fight crime and protect communities than by confirming all of these qualified nominees, and especially one for the northern district of illinois. while the senator from ohio stands in the senate talking about crime in my home state and other places, miss perry would be leading chicago's firearms trafficking strike force, cracking down on the illicit flow of illegal guns from other states into chicago. the chicago police department recovered more than 10,000 guns every year from criminal investigations, for the last two years. 10,000 guns taken off the streets. miss perry would be helping to coordinate these efforts with atf and other law enforcement agencies. instead, thanks to my colleague's political position,

our law enforcement agencies and u.s. attorneys are missing keogh physicians -- key officialles who would otherwise be leading these efforts. if you're for law and order, if you're for safety in the streets and want to reduce gun violence, how can you rationalize stopping the nominations of u.s. attorneys, lied criminal prosecutors of u.s. department of justice? i'd like to give them the help and leadership they need. the senator from ohio blocks it. these offices and the safety of the public they serve should not be subject to politics. these are highly qualified nominees who deserve to be swiftly confirmed. until we do so, our law enforcement agencies in ohio, illinois, mississippi, and california are going to be limited in how they can fight crime. i really am saddened this has become the new standard for senate republicans. one senate republican has stopped 300 military promotions for six months or longer.

deserving men and women, many of whom risk their life for their country, have served so well, are being punished because of a political item on the agenda. as important as it may be, you've chosen the wrong targets to take your political revenge. the same thing is true when it comes to these nominees. for goodness sakes, give the department of justice the tools it needs to stop the spread of fentanyl and narcotics in the united states, to stop and slow down violent crime in the united states, to do something to protect children who are being trafficked. to stop these nominations to turn a blind eye to the reality that faces crime in our country. i can't explain it. i won't even try to. i just beg the senator from ohio, think twice. grinding the u.s. department of justice to a halt as you have promised is nothing to be proud of. we will not be safer as a nation. we will not be better off in terms of the safety of our children. and this political strategy is

unfortunately ill intended and is going to have a result which is going to hurt a lot of innocent people. i yield the floor. mr. durbin: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. the clerk: ms. baldwin.

>> host: welcome back now. texas democrat, appropriations committee member henry cuellar. congressman, you've been in congress 10 terms now, you've seen these shutdown fights before. at this point, do you see a path to avoiding a government shutdown come september 0th? -- 30th? >> guest: you know, first of all, i want to make sure that we avoid everything we can. i've seen shutdowns before. there's really some options that we need to look at. first, the speaker can either just go further right to meet the freedom caucus demands and try to pass something even to

though -- the. [inaudible] but then he'll send something to the senate that won't pass over there, and then we might be getting close to the deadline. number two, he can work with us like has been done in the past through a bipartisan c.r. and then get it done. that's number two. and number three, do nothing, be inactive about it and just wait for the senate to send that over to us. but if something comes over, then there's a question about the origination clause where spending bills should start off in the house instead of the senate. so there's three different options up there, but in the history i think people have pushed to the left, is have pushed to the right. but history has shown us that the bipartisan approach is the way to go. >> host: on those three different. pat:s, what should our viewers or look for today when the house comes in at 10 a.m. eastern? what would be a signal that would tell us which one of those paths you might be taking?

>> guest: you know, a lot of it is it just depends because we're running out of time. if he tries again, i know he's been meeting with the freedom caucus to try and go as far right as he can. then we'll see if they can put up that rule or try to get the rule up again to get it done. but, you know, keep in mind that, you know, i think we're all, understand what's happening. you know, he's trying to appease the right, but the problem is look at the history of some of the -- have they supported an a appropriations bill in the past? i think, you know, with that kind of a nuance, you will see some of the folks that have not support an appropriations bill in the past, so why negotiate with people that ultimately might not be voting for the final product? >> host: the c.r. that republicans tried and failed to move yesterday, speaker mccarthy has said he's going to try again perhaps tomorrow,

there's a lot in there. but there's a big focus in there the about border security, funding for restarting the border wall construction, restricting asylum eligibility, reinstating family detention the. just your thoughts on those provisions in this as a member of congress who, as our viewers know, lives and works on a border district? >> guest: you know, it's -- i've always said that the best approach is a bipartisan approach but actually know my colleagues on the republican side are pushing their approach of what border security should be without including democrats. and again, look, you know, there's a lot of things that they want to do that i think we can support, but there are some things that just don't work. for example, they keep saying that a border wall, which is a 14th century solution to a, you know, to a 21st century problem, they hi that's going to stop --

think that's going to stop the drugs from coming in. but if you look at most of the drugs, they're coming in through ports of entry. so we need to do more to make sure that the good products come in and the bad things don't come in. i mean, mexico is one of those neighbors that we need to understand them better. last year there was the more than 863 billion of trade between the u.s. and mexico. we're almost reaching a trillion dollars, in the next four or five years we're going to hit a trillion dollars worth of trade between the u.s. and mexico. it's complicated, we've got to get them to do more than what they've done, you know? they, the current president has been doing some things that leave some of us scratching. for example, at their independence day just a few days ago, who did they have marching there? they had russian soldiers, they had chinese soldiers, they had people from venezuela soldiers,

they had cuban soldiers. those type of messages just doesn't, you know, rub us the right way. so mexico is a neighbor. they can be complicated, but we have to engage them to help us stop the drugs and the migration issue that we're facing right now. >> host: so what is one or two provisions that you think democrats and are republicans could join together and support on border security? and are any of those in this proposed c.r.? >> guest: yeah. i mean, i've a looked at it. there's some things that we've been doing in the appropriations for 70 years. you know, they've enjoyed -- i'm the ranking member on the appropriations for homeland. there's things for adding more money for border patrol, adding more money for ports of entry, technology, drone, counter-drone technology the. but, you know, i've always said, and i've said this to both democrats and republicans, when you play football, why do we keep playing defense on the

1-yard line, called the u.s.-mexico border? why do we not extend the perimeter to their 20 the-yard line where we can play defense before they get to the border? look, let me give you an example. i have a heat map, and i'll be happy to share that with you that i showed at the appropriations. they want to talk about building a fence. they call it a wall, it's a fence. they're talking about building a fence, but in the valley of south texas, when you have a river, you cannot put the fence right in the middle of the river where the9 interactive boundary is. you can't put it on the river banks, because they'll get washed out also. so they put it a quarter, maybe a mile away from the fence. so the people that are coming in not trying to -- the. [inaudible] quote asylum speaker -- seekers, and i say that because 900 to 89% of them are going to be rejected, but they come in, they

touch the river bank, they walk half a mile or a quarter with mile to the fence, wave at the cameras and say here i am am. so a fence doesn't show them, stop them. and, in fact, the heat map that i showed most of thing activity the last couple years have been in areas where there are fences. so again, we've got to to the think about the the strategy because what we've been doing, we've been adding billions of dollars, and democrats the last couple of years when we were in the majority if under biden, we added 15% of an increase to homeland. that's about a $2.4 billion more money into homeland. so my thing is let's rethink our strategies because what we're doing right now throwing money at it is not working. >> host: congressman henry cuellar, a democrat from texas, with us million the bottom of the hour, 8:30. phone numbers, democrats, 2022-748-8000.

republicans, 2032 the-748-8001. independents, 20 the 2-748-8002. congressman, folks are are calling in, you mentioned that you hope kevin mccarthy will take sort of a middle path here when it comes to funding the government, find a way to work with democrats, get democratic votes and republican moderate votes. some questions about whether he does that, whether there will be a motion from his right flank to remove him from his speaker position. if that were to happen, all get a vote on that -- you would get a vote on that. would you vote to remove kevin mccarthy as speaker if he took the path of reaching out to democrats and doing exactly what you just proposed? >> guest: well, you know, we'll answer that question when it comes up. i'll leave it like that. i think that's what my leader, hakeem jeffries, said also. but i will tell you this, a speaker cannot operate with threats from people every single time there's a vote.

and that's what we're seeing with speaker mccarthy. every time there's a tough vote, then the far-right flank a quorum call? the presiding officer: it is. mr. thune: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. thune: mr. president, on monday the democratic leader came down to the floor to discuss the continuing r continuing resolution that the house proposed and he said they made no attempt to reauthorize the faa. making no attempt to reauthorize the faa. well, mr. president, apparently it slipped the democrat leader's mind that the democrats are making no attempt to reauthorize the faa leader. that's right. it's been 97 days since the

federal administration aviation reauthorize because the democrat leader objected to a bipartisan amendment that senator sinema and i planned to offer. an amendment to improve aviation safety by implementing a structured, rigorous training program for perspective airline pilots. now, mr. president, current training requirements for airline pilots require 1,500 hours of flight time primarily in the cockpit all those a bachelor's degree in aviation can receive credit for some of those hours. i recognize the value of cockpit experience. but to his 1500 hours a loan are not always the ideal preparation for flying commercial jets or training truly well-lownded

pilots. for starters, the majority of the 1500 hours are generally completed in small, single-engine aircraft which have very little relevance to regional or large jetliners in terms of flight characteristics and instrumentation. little to none of the currently required flight hours, which aspiring airline pilots must seek out and complete on their own are accumulated in the type of aircraft that these pilots will be flying should they get a job with an airline. in fact, current rules would theoretically allow some of those hours to be completed in a hot air balloon. not exactly preparation for flying a 787 across the ocean. now, mr. president, to address these deficiencies, and to better prepare pilots for airline jobs, seven years ago the air training aviation

rulemaking committee, a body of industry, labor, and safety representatives who meet regularly under the auspices of the aviation safety developed and recommendled the implementation of an enhance the qualification program that would create a structured pathway for pilots to obtain intensive training. that is exactly -- exactly the type of program that our amendment would create. following the recommendations of the air carrier training aviation rule making committee, our amendment would implement a two-month enhanced qualification program designed and audited by the faa and administered by air carriers that would give aspiring airline pilots intensive training both in the classroom and in simulators with experienced air carrier pilots and other experts. individuals who successfully

completed the program would be given a 250-hour credit toward their restricted transport airline license, similar to those given in undergraduate work in aviation. the enhanced qualification program in our amendment would significantly improve pilot training and passenger safety. as i said, intensive training in the kind of air carrier environment is something that is it largely missing from current training, and getting the chance to work closely with seasoned pilots would help turn out highly qualified pilots who are better prepared for flying commercial jets. in addition our program's use of simulator training whose -- was proven to give perspective airline pilots exposure to the jets they would be supplying and crucially allow them to

experience what it's like to handle challenging and dangerous situationings in those cockpits. -- situations in those cockpits. standard flight training hours don't involve flying into perilous whether conditions or dealing with things like fires or engine failure. but simulator training offers perspective airline pilots the chance to deal with all of those situations, and more, and deal with them again and again until their response to these situations is fine-tuned. and you don't have to take my word for it. a bipartisan group of former faa administrators and former presidents of the airline pilots association recently sent a letter to the chairs and vice chairs of the relevant house and senate committees wholeheartedly endorsing the kind of simulator training our amendment would provide. now, let me just read a little bit from that letter and i'm

quoting here. facilitating the adoption of new technologies that enhance safety should be a bedrock principle for government and industry alike. since the tragic crash of coming -- colgan air fly 47, there are stig can't advances -- significant advances in technology, but these technologies have not improved the 1500 path into becoming an airline pilot. modern, state of the art flight simulators accurately recreate the experience of flight operations and a fully immersive to deal with rapid decompression, emergency descent, high-speed rejected takeoffs, dual engine failures, severe icing, flight control malfunctions and full stalls all without placing any lives in

danger. simulators, it goes on, also present the present the -- present the opportunity to incorporate training for an athletic endeavor, high-quality exercises improves performance and muscle memory, requiring the repeated practice of the prevention and recovery from real-world accident scenarios in full-motion flight simulators will make better pilots. end quote. and, again, that, mr. president, comes from former faa administrators, presidents of the american airline pilots association. so, as i said, mr. president, that is the message that was sent to the relevant chairs and vice chairs by a bipartisan group of former faa administrators and airline pilots association presidents. now a letter that clearly

demonstrates the value of the kind of program that senator sinema's and my amendment would establish for improving pilot training and passenger safety, precisely what we're talking about here with respect to our amendment. now, mr. president, i suspect if put to a vote in the commerce committee or on the senate floor, for that matter, there's a good chance that our amendment would pass, which is presumably why the democrat leader is blocking any chance for a vote. it's less clear why the leader is opposed to the substance of our legislation. does he really think that we can't improve upon the 1500 hours of training largely undertaken in a single engine prop plane? that's the way it is today. as i said before, that's not exactly the ideal preparation for flying a commercial jet. a program that better perhaps

per speckive airline pilots for the planes they will be flying seems really, to me like a no-brainer, but regardless -- regardless, mr. president, the democrat leader has every right to oppose our amendment. what is inappropriate is not his opposition but the fact that he is using his position as majority leader to block committee debate on this amendment, which has had the practical effect of blocking the entire bill. the commerce committee and the senate as a whole are set up for debate and amendment. that is what we do here and we take votes here. if you want to take hard votes, don't run for the united states senate. this place is not set up with the intention of having a single individual determine legislative outcomes. now, when i chairman of the

senate commerce committee, and i chaired that committee for four years, bipartisan debate and amendment was the order of the day. that's how we did things and helped produce a lot of strong pieces of legislation, including i might add, the longest reauthorization of the faa since 1982. the last time we did an faa reauthorization, i chaired the committee. and we brought a bill to the floor that enjoyed broad bipartisan support which is what we ought to be doing with the legislation this time around, mr. president. and if the democrat leader would loosen his hold and stop trying to engineer the legislative outcome that he wants, we would get another bipartisan faa reauthorization bill out of the committee and on to the senate floor. as the leader correctly indicated, the faa reauthorization is, is an

important piece of legislation. so, mr. president, i encourage him to allow it to proceed through the committee and come to the floor of the united states senate for a vote. mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from kentucky. mr. paul: i rise to put the leadership of the house, the senate, and the president of the united states on notice. i will not consent to any expedited passage of any spending bill that provides any more american aid to ukraine. it's as if no one has noticed that we have no extra money to send to ukraine. our deficit this year will exceed $1.5 trillion. borrowing money from china to send it to ukraine makes no

sense. it's not as if we have some sort of rainy day fund sitting around, trillions of dollars of a pot of money and we're just going to send that to ukraine. we're going to borrow it. when we borrow it and create new money to pay for that borrowing, we create the inflation that is plaguing our economy. sidgesz the beginning of russia's -- since the beginning of russia's war in ukraine, the american taxpayers provided ukraine with $113 billion. over the 583 days of war, between february 24, 2022, and the end of the month, that averages $6.8 billion per month or $223 million per day. there's a lot of things that we need to fix in our country before we borrow money to try to perpetuate a war in another country. when will the aid requests end? when will the war end? can someone explain what victory in ukraine looks like?

president biden certainly can't. his administration has failed to articulate a clear strategy or objective in this war, and ukraine's long awaited counteroffensive has failed to make meaningful gains in the east. with no clear end in sight, it looks increasingly like ukraine will be yet another endless quagmire funded by the american taxpayer. that's why public support for the war is waning. a cnn poll from august shows that a majority of americans now oppose congress authorizing additional funding to ukraine. and now there are throws in the senate who would -- those in the senate who would refuse to listen to these voices, voices coming from a war-weary nation and would hold the federal government hostage by inserting $24 billion more for ukraine. they're talking about saying the only way government stays open, the only way we avoid at shutdown is by shuffling more -- shoveling more taxpayer dollars

to ukraine. they're going to link keeping the government open with more money to ukraine and i'm here to say that i am not going to agree to it and i will not let them shut down the government simply because they want to send more of your hard-earned tax dollars to ukraine. either the american people fund an endless war in ukraine or the uniparty threatens to shut down the government. this is a clear dereliction of duty and i will not stand for it. colleagues, as representatives of the american people, you should not sand for it either -- stand for it either. the bill that comes before us should be about funding our government, not somebody else's government. i will not give consent to a bill that includes funding for ukraine in keeping our government open. as elected officials, we have an obligation to pursue a foreign policy that advances the security and prosperity of our country. funneling billions of dollars that have to be borrowed into the meat grinder of eastern

ukraine doesn't either. the longer this conflict continues, the greater the risk that miscalculation or purposeful escalation draws the united states into direct conflict with russia. russia's military may have a bloody nose but moscow still maintains the largest nuclear arsenal in the world. let's not pretend that the u.s. involvement in this war comes without risks. if that's not bad enough, we lack effective oversight mechanisms to ensure that the hard-earned american tax dollars don't fall prey to waste, fraud, and abuse. for over a year now, i have been asking for a special inspector general to make sure they're not stealing our money. we've had one in afghanistan, and his team of economists and technicians have overseen and found billions of dollars worth of waste that they've saved. we need the same thing in

ukraine, a special inspector general to make sure they're not stealing our money. when that has come before a vote in the senate, the majority party in here says no, we just want to spend the money. we don't care. some republicans have gone along with this as well. and they have voted against an inspector generally. it is a terrible abuse of our spending authority to spend money overseas in a war and not make sure that they're not stealing it. so in addition to the colossal cost of the war, we end up paying a corruption tax. ukraine is one of the most corrupt countries on the planet. maybe second only to russia. corruption runs deep in ukraine and there's plenty of evidence that it has run rampant since russia's invasion. as president zelenskyy landed in new york earlier this week, we learned that corruption concerns in ukraine's ministry of defense resulted in the firing of six deputy defense ministers. this comes two weeks after the

firing of defense minister areznikov who was removed after it was discover didded that the minister of defense mishandled military contracts. last month zelenskyy fired all 24 regional recruitment chiefs because they were, quote, involved in illegal activities including enrichment. last october we learned that u.s. shipment of grenade launchers, machine guns, rifles, bulletproof vests and thousands of rounds of ammunition were ending up in the hands of criminal gangs and weapons traffickers posing as humanitarian organizations. what did the senate do? they voted against a special inspector general to make sure they're not stealing our money. what are we doing? is this fair to the american people? millions of americans are struggling each day to make ends meet. millions of americans are struggling to provide for their families and put food on the table. can we honestly look our constituents in the eye and tell

them that there is -- this is a good investment of their dollars? some say the war in ukraine is a fight to save democracy. but those who say that need to be honest with themselves. ukraine is far from a shining example of democracy. and while the strain of war can make for questionable government actions, we have to live with them when the war is over. for all the platitudes about america supporting democracy and making the world safe for democracy, the woodrow wilson advocates among us, the biggest recipient of american welfare in ukraine canceled its next presidential election. you're telling me we're sending a hundred billion dollars to a country that's not going to have elections? we're going to send a hundred billion dollars to a country that has what? a president for life? we could say -- we say it's could but it's difficult. remember the war where 600 people died yet we didn't miss an election?

they canceled the presidential election. we should cancel our aid as a response. this is not the only concerning development in ukraine. despite zelenskyy's charm this week, he deserves scrutiny. citing security concerns, zelenskyy has banned orthodox churches oriented toward the russian orthodox church and has ordered ukrainian law enforcement to raid churches and arrest priests. he's banned the political opposition. how do you have a democracy if you're not going to have elections and you ban the opposition? he suspended 11 political parties, including the opposition platform for life, the second largest party in ukraine's parliament and the one which held 44 seats. he has attacked free speech by banning opposition media and increasing his government's regulatory power over journalists, hardly sounds

democratic to me. earlier this year he signed into law a bill that allows ukraine's state broadcasting council to regulate all media in ukraine. the council can impose mandatory orders, fines, restrict content from search engines and even outright suspend media outlets without a court decision. hardly sounds very democrat to me. if you wish these actions that sound like the actions of authoritarian regime, if you suspect these do sound liken authoritarian regime, you're right. this past july a swiss intelligence report observed, quote, authoritarian traits in zelenskyy as he tries to push kashiko out of contention. citing martial law he stated those elections will not take place. martial law, no elections, banning opposition party, this

is where your hundred billion dollars has gone and they're not done. we don't have the money. the money is being borrowed. we borp row the money from china to send it to ukraine. in 2021 zelenskyy fired multiple government officials, including his prime minister for investigating a ukraine oligarch who just happened to be a key backer of zelenskyy's presidential campaign. the united states placed sanctions on this oligarch for his involvement in significant corruption and earlier this month he was finally arrested. clearly ukraine and the regime are not paragons of democracy. but this is not just about what ukraine is or is not with respect to government. this is about american interests in our national security. every day this war continues is another spin of the roulette wheel with another chance of its stopping on armageddon and we are paying for the privilege.

we cannot continue with business as usual. we cannot continue to put the needs of other countries above our own. we cannot save ukraine by dooming the u.s. economy. and we certainly cannot save ukraine by fighting a war with russia. as we go further and further into debt, we become weaker. it's not just that this is not helping our national security. the very threat to our national security is our debt. the more we send money overseas, the more we deplete our munitions, the worst things get. no matter how simp sympathetic e to the ukrainian people, we must put the american people first. to that end i encourage my colleagues to oppose any effort to hold the federal government hostage for ukraine funding. thank you, mr. president. and i yield the floor.

mr. cornyn: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: mr. president, by my watch today is september 20. the fiscal year for the united states senate and for the united states government ends in ten days. congress, which is required to fund the government by passing appropriations bills, has not passed a single appropriations bill. ten days before the end of a fiscal year. so the obvious point is that unless congress acts to fund the government in the next ten days,

the government will be without funds and large portions of the federal government will shut down. now, notwithstanding the fact that some people think maybe that's a good idea -- we're spending too much money here, so let's just shut it down. well, tell that to members of the united states military and their families. tell that to the men and women who serve bravely as members of the border patrol, customs and border protection that are responsible for processing the goods that enter into our country from our trading partners, that create millions of jobs. tell that to immigration and customs enforcement, or ice. tell them that they will have to work and not get paid.

programs that support our seniors, veterans, children, and some of the most vulnerable americans will be paralyzed, and a range of services from passport processing to opioid treatment will be delayed. good luck if you want to take a vacation and need your passport renewed. well, this may be obvious from my statements, mr. president -- i am at not a fan of government -- i am not a fan of government shutdowns. i have noticed from my experience that the same problems that caused you to shut down the government are still there staring you in the face when the government reopens. and it creates a lot of collateral damage and a lot of collateral expense. it doesn't actually save money. it actually costs more money

because of the disruption. and shutdowns harm innocent people and create needless uncertainty for our economy. i don't need to tell members of the senate that our economy is in a precarious position right now. inflation is at a 40-year high, or has been at a 40-year high. the federal reserve continues to raise interest rates in order to try to deal with inflation. but one of the largest auto working -- ought worker unions in the -- autoworker unions in the country, uaw, is currently on strike. we don't know how long that strike will last or how far it will spread. though president biden likes to talk about the virtues of bidenomics, i think if you ask most people whether they're feeling good about the economy and their personal and family

prospects, they would tell you they're a little nervous -- and with good reason. so i mention that shutdowns are not a useful tool, nor do they provide leverage for negotiations. i know here in the senate we're always looking for leverage to try to persuade people to do what we want or to vote for the things we like or to vote against the things we don't like. that's -- leverage is part of our -- the way we operate. but shutting down the government does not provide leverage, certainly not for the people who ultimately contribute to that shutdown. but, sadly, that seems to be the direction we're heading in, and it's been pretty clear for a long time now that the senate majority leader, the only person

who can actually bring bills to the floor and schedule them for a vote, that he's trying to play the old washington blame game. it's not my fault, it's somebody else's fault. in this case, he wants to put the blame solely on the shoulders of the house of representatives. and republicans who have a thin majority there h -- and republicans who have a thin majority there. before the recess even ended, senator schumer started pointing the finger at house republicans, referring to their desire to want spending cuts, the horror, trying to save money, trying to reduce the debt and annual deficits. our debt-to-gdp ratio is 100%. we've been writing checks here in washington that somebody is ultimately going to have to cover, and it probably won't be

us. it'll probably be our children and grandchildren. so i applaud the house of representatives for trying to find ways to save money. but he called that -- the senator from new york, the majority leader, called angling for spending cuts, he called those political gains. over the past few weeks he's continued to try to sell this narrative to the press and, unfortunately, he's found some traction. some of the press is saying, oh, it's all the republicans in the house. he even called the process here in the senate the gold standard. the gold standard. we're in big trouble if the way that the majority leader has handled this appropriations process is the gold standard. we're in big trouble. he's even gone so far as to call

it a maga shutdown. well, senator schumer has -- is in a very powerful position as the majority leader. but that power comes with responsibilities, which he's completely abdicated. the majority leader sets the schedule in the senate, as i mentioned. he determines which bills come to the floor and whether they will receive a vote, how many amendments will be considered. that's a lot of power in one person. and that's the benefit of being the majority leader, being able to set the schedule, schedule votes, who gets to vote on amendments and the like. but it also comes with a responsibility, and i don't mean just a responsibility to the senate. i mean a responsibility to the american people. -- and to the institutions that work for them, like the senate,

like the house. so the senate can only take up and pass legislation of senator schumer -- if senator schumer is on board. and when it comes to funding the government, it's obvious he's clearly not on board. now, i see the chairwoman of the senate appropriations committee on the floor. i want to just once again commend her and the ranking member, senator collins -- and all 14 of the senate appropriations committee members -- for doing their job and doing it on a timely basis. i think all of us sort of hoped maybe this is the beginning of a crack in the broken system and that maybe we could get the senate to work again, as it's supposed to. well, it's a great plan. as i said, they did their part. the committee passed all of its

12 appropriations bills by the end of summer -- or actually the end of july, marking the first time that's happened in five years. each bill passed with bipartisan support, some of them unanimously. that's impressive. and i know that senator murray and senator collins worked hard to achieve that. but the committee's productivity was no accident. the chair and the vice chair of the committee promised a return to the regular wait that we have been appropriating money for time in memorial, consistent with the rules of the senate. they followed through on their promise. they used the power that they have as the appropriations committee, and they also embraced their responsibilities.

and i applaud them for it. they gave the majority leader exactly, exactly what he needed in order to restore the senate appropriations process to its normal function, according to the rules. but, mr. president, you can't do that by not passing a single appropriations bill in the united states senate ten days before the end of the fiscal year. well, despite the fact that the appropriations committee began passing funding bills on june 22, the majority leader did not even attempt to put the first funding bill on the floor until mid-december. i think it was 18 days before the end of the fiscal year.

now it's ten days, and we still haven't voted on a single bill. he could have tinkered with the senate's two-week recess for the 4th of july. he could have said, well, instead of five weeks for an august break or a summer break, let's make it four weeks, because this is important. we need to get our work done. but he did none of those things. he could have adjusted the priorities. as the majority leader, all we have been doing here -- it's not like we have been voting on legislation. all we've been doing is doing nominations, and when you're doing nominations -- not that they're unimportant, but if you're not using -- but you're not using that time, which is coin of the realm here in the senate, which is time to pass

legislation. well, it's pretty obvious -- it should be obvious to everybody -- that the majority leader has decided to run out of clock. he has orchestrated this crisis here in the united states senate. i say crisis because of the disruption that it will cause, the unnecessary disruption this shutdown will cause, if it occurs. but he allowed months to pass without making any effort -- any effort -- to move appropriations bills. so the majority leader can criticize our colleagues across the capitol as much as he wants.

he does it a lot. he tries to shift the blame from himself to them. again, this is a world-class sport here in washington, d.c. it's called the blame game. and sometimes -- i heard years ago someone said, well, whoever has got the best narrative wins in washington because the press will go along with it, and they'll ignore the real, or at least the whole story, which is the complicity of the majority leader in creating the circumstances where we -- that we find ourselves in now. we find ourselves with an impossible task. given this heel-dragging by the majority leader, we cannot get these appropriations bills passed through in the senate, we

cannot get a bill that the president will agree to, we cannot get it to a presidential signature before the deadline. it is impossible, and the majority leader knows that. he created the problem. he orchestrated it. this was intentional. so the senate is rushing to pass some appropriations bills, this so-called minibus, but there's no scenario, none at all, in which the senate passes all 12 appropriations bills before september 30. there's just not enough time. again, i am confident that this truncated timeline was no accident. it was all part of the majority leader's plan. now, he might ask me, why in the world would he do something like that? well, when he basically

undermines the work of the appropriations committee on a bipartisan basis, when he doesn't give all 100 members of the senate an opportunity to participate in the process by offering amendments, debating those amendments, and getting votes on those, it actually increases his power and influence. we saw that last december where basically three or four people negotiated an omnibus appropriations bills. and he likes that. because it enhances his power. but we should not be asked to like it because that means we are unable to do our job on behalf of the constituents we represent. in my case 30 million texans. so after -- over the last few months back when the debt ceiling vote occurred, it sounded like senator schumer was on board with what chairman

murray and ranking member collins were trying to do. he applauded the bipartisan work of the appropriations committee. talked about the importance of working together in good faith. but here's another lesson i've learned here in washington. don't just listen to what people say. watch what they do. when given the opportunity to restore the senate appropriations process through his customary function and put individual bills on the floor in a timely manner, he took a pass. he let months go by without even attempting to put a funding bill on the floor. and i know after the omnibus came -- excuse me -- the mini bus came to the floor, there's been an attempt to try to get

this thing going and we're still working on that. but this is all entirely predictable if you wait until the last minute to do the work you should have done months ago. so we're just days away from a potential government shutdown, something that i'm hopeful we can avoid. but, of course, what's the majority leader's tune? not my fault. he called the process here in the senate the gold standard. if this is the gold standard, we're in big trouble. the majority leader bears responsibility for the senate's failure to pass a single appropriations bill so far. they gave senator schumer -- the appropriations committee gave senator schumer exactly what he needed in order to do his job on a timely basis. the fact that senator schumer fumbled the ball is no one's

fault but his own. this is not a maga shutdown. this is a schumer shutdown. he ignored his own commitment to return to regular order, and i wasn't privy to the conversations the majority leader had with the chair and the ranking member of the appropriations committee, but based on what they did and my impression is, they held the hope that somehow we would have an orderly and timely process. i know that's what they want. that's what i want. but senator schumer made sure that was not possible. and ultimately he will blame -- he will carry much of the blame if the government shuts down next saturday. i yield the floor. i note the absence of a quorum.

the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. the clerk: ms. baldwin. quorum call:

mrs. murray: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: thank you, madam president. madam president, last week -- the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call. mrs. murray: i ask unanimous consent -- that the quorum call be limited. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. murray: thank you. thank you, madam president. madam president, last week an overwhelming 91 senators voted to begin debate on the bipartisan appropriations package, a package of bills which each passed the appropriations committee

unanimously. but then a few senators decided to object to a run-of-the-mill procedural request threatening to derail our months of hard work, halt our return to regular order, and prevent the full senate from having a chance to debate and offer amendments and vote on our appropriations bills. the senior senator from maine and i have been working hard to make sure we have a robust amendment process with amendments from democrats and republicans. and so many senators have been working with us in good faith so we can debate their ideas for how to make these bills stronger. that's how this process should work. but in the wake of continued objectionists from a very small handful of senators, we can't get started discussing those amendments without a vote on this motion to waive rule 16. so i hope all of our colleagues who voted to move forward last week will join us for cloture

and for this motion so we can avoid an omnibus and keep our bipartisan process on track. because that's really what this vote is. it is a vote to keep us on track. and that should be a really simple choice. do you want to continue our return to regular order and move forward with the appropriations bills that we all spent months putting together in an open, bipartisan way? or do you want to halt the senate's appropriations bills and essentially set up another massive 12-bill omnibus at the end of the year? now, i've heard the complaints from a very small handful of members who are trying to derail this process, but i have not heard any, any realistic alternatives for them for us to pass the senate's funding priorities in a more open and bipartisan process than what the senior senator from maine and i have worked so hard to provide. we held nearly 50 hearings in the committee. we televised those markups for

the first time ever so people back home could follow along and we could complete with debate and amendment, see what we're doing here. we were trairmt. our doors have been -- transparent. our doors have been open the whole time, they still are for senators who have ideas on how to make these bills stronger. we went to great pains to give every single senator a chance to weigh in on them. and i am pleased to say a lot of our colleagues took that opportunity. you shared your thoughts, your ideas. you shared the needs and cers of your families back home. all of these helped to make these bills stronger. that's why even though the appropriations committee has everyone from strong liberals to staunch conservatives, all 12 of our funding bills passed with overwhelming bipartisan support. in fact, every bill in the package before us passed the committee unanimously. now, that's a very different process from what we ended up ■n the past few years. and from what we will end up

with again if we can't keep these bills moving forward. and to everyone who wishes these bills came to the floor even sooner, and i think we all understand how it feels to wish things could move faster around here, i hope you will vote with us today to prevent any further delays that will derail this process and lead us then, of course, to an omnibus. after all, wishing the senate was faster is no reason to slow us down now. and to those saying the bills spend too much money, these bills are written to the bipartisan deal that was struck by the president and speaker mccarthy that we all voted on a few months ago. these aren't the bills i would have written. many of the programs i care deeply about but that was the deal that the president and the speaker shook hands on. if you don't like them, vote no on the bill. but, madam president, i have heard from so many colleagues, including in speeches given right here on the senate floor

about how they hate getting jammed at the end of the year with a 12-bill omnibus, about how we have got to return to regular order, and i have worked really hard with the senior senator from maine, with all of our chairs and raving members on the -- ranking members on the appropriations committee, all members on both sides of the aisle and every member of this body who has come to my door to get us moving in that direction to keep up our return to regular order. now, i think we can get there, and i think moving forward with this package will show the american people we are serious about getting there. but it depends on this vote because if after all the work we've done over the last months to make sure every senator can have their voice heard, moving all 12 appropriations bills through our committee in an open, bipartisan way, and having 91 senators vote to move forward with this package, if after all of that we let a handful of senators toss out months of hard

work to move us closer to regular order, band an over-- as basic as funding our government and cause chaos that puts us all on a collision course for another omnibus, well, frankly, i think that sends a very bleak message for the future of this body and whether we will ever be able to truly break through the pattern of dysfunction and partisanship that we all hate. we've got to get back to regular order. we've got to get back to bipartisanship. we have to get back to helping people on solving problems, just like we all came here to do. this vote is our chance to break that pattern, to avoid another omnibus, and to make sure the senate and all of its senators and all the people we represent have their voices heard and concerns addressed in our nation's funding bills. so i urge my colleagues who joined me in putting this bill together, all of my colleagues who voted with me last week to get started with debate and

amendments to join us in pushing back against a small handful of senators who are objecting to moving forward and who want to stop us dead in our tracks. hope everyone votes for cloture, votes for the motion to suspend rule 16, and keeps us on track. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor. i ask consent to begin the vote. the presiding officer: without objection. the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to suspend the rules

under rule 5 of the standing rules of the senate with respect to substitute amendment numbered 1092 to calendar number 198, h.r. 4366, an act making appropriations for military construction, the department of veterans affairs, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2024 and for other purposes as printed in the congressional record on september 14, 2023, signed by 17 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is, is it the sense of the senate that on the motion to suspend rule 16 for the consideration of amendment number 1092 offered by the senator from new york, mr. schumer to h.r. 4366, an act making appropriations for military construction, the department of veterans affairs, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2024, and for other purposes shall be brought to a close. the yeas and nays are mandatory

under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. the clerk: ms. baldwin. mr. barrasso. mr. bennet. mrs. blackburn. mr. blumenthal. mr. booker. mr. boozman. mr. braun. mrs. britt. mr. brown. mr. budd. ms. cantwell. mrs. capito. mr. cardin. mr. carper. mr. casey. mr. cassidy. ms. collins. mr. coons. mr. cornyn. ms. cortez masto. mr. cotton. mr. cramer. mr. crapo. mr. cruz. mr. daines.

ms. duckworth. mr. durbin. ms. ernst. mrs. feinstein. mr. fetterman. mrs. fischer. mrs. gillibrand. mr. graham. mr. grassley. mr. hagerty. ms. hassan. mr. hawley. mr. heinrich. mr. hickenlooper. ms. hirono. mr. hoeven. mrs. hyde-smith. mr. johnson. mr. kaine. mr. kelly. mr. kennedy. mr. king. ms. klobuchar. mr. lankford. mr. lee.

mr. lujan. ms. lummis. mr. manchin. mr. markey. mr. mcconnell. mr. menendez. mr. merkley. mr. moran. mr. mullin. ms. murkowski. mr. murphy. mrs. murray. mr. ossoff. mr. padilla. mr. paul. mr. peters. mr. reed. mr. ricketts. mr. risch. mr. romney. ms. rosen. mr. rounds. mr. rubio. mr. sanders. mr. schatz.

mr. schmitt. mr. schumer. mr. scott of florida. mr. scott of south carolina. mrs. shaheen. ms. sinema. ms. smith. ms. stabenow. mr. sullivan. mr. tester. mr. thune. mr. tillis. mr. tuberville. mr. van hollen. mr. vance. mr. warner. mr. warnock. ms. warren. mr. welch. mr. whitehouse. mr. wicker. mr. wyden.

the clerk: mr. thune, no.

senators voting in the affirmative -- duckworth, kelly, lujan, murray, padilla, sinema, and smith. senators voting in the negative -- collins, crapo, ernst, grassley,

hyde-smith, marshall, and thune. mr. schmitt, no. mr. moran, no. the clerk: mr. barrasso, no.

mr. budd, no. mr. king, aye.

the clerk: mr. welch, aye. mr. hawley, no. mrs. shaheen, aye. ms. lummis, no. mr. brown, aye.

the clerk: mr. paul, no. the clerk: mr. schatz, aye.

the clerk: mr. hoeven, no.

the clerk: mr. graham, no.

the clerk: ms. cortez masto, aye. ms. hirono, aye. the clerk: mr. wyden, aye. ms. hassan, aye. mr. boozman, no. mr. cornyn, no. mr. lankford, no.

mr. ossoff, aye. mr. markey, aye. vote: the clerk: mr. merkley, aye. mrs. feinstein, aye.

the clerk: mrs. gillibrand, aye.

ms. stabenow, aye. the clerk: mr. heinrich, aye.

the clerk: mr. casey, aye. mr. kaine, aye.

the clerk: mr. warner, aye. ms. warren, aye.

the clerk: mr. braun, no. the clerk: mr. hickenlooper, aye.

the clerk: mr. sullivan, no. mr. tuberville, no.

the clerk: mr. young, no. the clerk: mr. bennet, aye. mr. carper, aye.

the clerk: mr. lee, no. mr. kennedy, no. the clerk: mr. sanders, aye. mr. fetterman, aye.

ms. cantwell, aye.

the clerk: mr. rubio, no. mr. cruz, no. mr. cardin, aye. vote:

vote: the clerk: mrs. capito, no. the clerk: mr. manchin, aye.

the clerk: mr. reed, aye.

the clerk: mr. mcconnell, no. mr. van hollen, aye. mr. blum, aye. mr. blumenthal, aye.

mr. wicker, no. mr. rounds, no. mr. mullin, no. mr. hagerty, no.

the clerk: mr. murphy, aye. mr. durbin, aye. mr. tester, aye.

the clerk: mr. whitehouse, aye. mr. menendez, aye. mr. coons, aye.

the clerk: mr. risch, no. mr. cramer, no.

the clerk: mrs. fischer, no. the clerk: mr. romney, no.

the clerk: mrs. blackburn, no.

the clerk: mrs. britt, no. the clerk: mr. cotton, no.

the clerk: ms. rosen, aye.

the clerk: mr. peters, aye.

the clerk: mr. scott of florida, no. mr. daines, no.

the clerk: mr. tillis, no.

the clerk: mr. johnson, no.

mr. ricketts, no.

the clerk: mr. vance, no. mr. cassidy, no.

the clerk: klobuchar -- ms. klo.

the clerk: mr. warnock, aye. vote:

the clerk: mr. schumer, aye.

the clerk: mr. schumer, no. the presiding officer: on this vote the yeas are 49. the nays are 48. three-fifths of the senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted in the affirmative, the motion is not agreed to. mr. schumer: i enter a motion to reconsider. the presiding officer: the motion is entered. mr. schumer: madam president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. schumer: i move to proceed to executive session to consider calendar number 282. the presiding officer: without objection. the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. those opposed no.

the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report. the clerk: nomination, the air force, general charles q. brown jr. to be general. mr. schumer: i ask -- i send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the cloture motion. the clerk: cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of executive calendar number 282, general charles q. brown jr. for reappointment as chairman of the joint chiefs of staff and appointment in the united states air force to the grade indicated while assigned to a position of importance and responsibility under title 10, us c-sections 1 a 2 and 601 to be general signed by 19 senators as follows. mr. schumer: i ask consent the

reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: i move to proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. opposed no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. schumer: i move to proceed to executive session to consider calendar number 281. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. opposed no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, army, general randy a. george to be general. mr. schumer: i send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the cloture motion. the clerk: cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the

nomination of executive calendar number 281, general randy a. george for appointment as chief of staff of the army and appointment in the united states army to the grade indicated while assigned to a position of importance and responsibility under title 10, us c-section 601 and 7033 to be general signed by 19 senators as follows. mr. schumer: i ask consent the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: i move to proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. those opposed nay. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. schumer: i move to proceed to executive session to consider calendar number 249. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. those opposed nay. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, marine corps, general eric m. smith to be general.

mr. schumer: i send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the cloture motion. the clerk: cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of executive calendar number 249, general eric m. smith for appointment as commandant of the marine corps and appointment in the united states marine corps to the grade indicated while assigned to a position of importance and responsibility under title 10, us c-section 601 and 8043 to be general signed by 19 senators as follows. mr. schumer: i ask consent the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: finally, i ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum calls for the cloture motions filed today, september 20, be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: now, madam president. the presiding officer: the

majority leader. mr. schumer: madam president, the senior senator from alabama, senator tuberville, for more than six months has continued his brazen, reckless hold of hundreds of routine, nonpolitical promotions of senior military officers. democrats have said all along that these promotions should move forward together as these nominations have for decades in the past. they should have happened a long time ago. they should have happened the way these promotions have been done in the senate, until senator tuberville arrived. they should have been done quickly and in a bipartisan way. instead, the senator from alabama decided he would take the unprecedented step of holding up these promotions for

-- because he held a political position on abortion that doesn't have the votes to pass the senate and is opposed by the commander in chief and the secretary of defense. this poorly conceived tactic has also been opposed by the senate republican leadership. leader mcconnell and senator thune have both voiced grave concerns about the path that senator tuberville has taken, and speaker mccarthy, when asked about it this week, demurred and said, i'm the speaker. house. senator tuberville's tactics have been opposed by top republicans in congress and republican candidates and denounced by military families from one end of america to the other. it has been denounced by veterans' groups. polls show that the american people strongly oppose what senator tuberville is doing, and a recent poll showed that even

58% of alabama voters believe senator tuberville should allow the promotions to go forward. simply put, besides the most extreme elements of the republican party, no one thinks this is a good idea. and in the face of that opposition, it seems that senator tuberville is becoming more and more desperate to get out of the box he has put himself in. he's desperate to shift the responsibility onto others, but i've made it clear that we will not allow anyone to shift this onto democrats. the blame -- the blame -- falls squarely on the shoulders of the senior senator from alabama. i offered to give him a vote to get the department of defense to do what he wants on abortion in the ndaa. he never, never took me up on that vote. when democrats tried to move all

the nominations, because democrats don't want to leave anyone in our military behind, senator tuberville objected. and now, in a further act of desperation, senator tuberville is seeking to use a procedural step to overcome his very own holds. yes, you heard that right. senator tuberville is seeking to undo his own holds. the man who is holding everything up is trying to obfuscate things by playing this ruse on the floor. senator tuberville is essentially trying to make simple self the gatekeeper of which officers are promoted and who sits and waits. instead of just getting out of the way and allowing the senate to approve these promotions that the officers deserve, senator tuberville is using them as pawns.

what senator tuberville is doing will set the military and the senate down a path to vote on every single military promotion. it will make every single military officer's promotion subject to the political whims of the senate and even of one senator. it will change the nature of our nonpolitical military. it will hamstring the senate and further bog down this body and make it harder to legislate. it will take time away from appropriations and make it harder to get things done to benefit the american people. the decision by the senior senator from alabama will have long-lasting repercussions that may not be apparent right away. but we may come to regret -- i believe welcome to regret them. but due to the extraordinary circumstances of senator tuberville's reckless decisions, democrats will take action. it's not the path a vast

majority of senators on either side of the aisle want to go down, but senator tuberville is forcing us 20s face his -- to face his obstruction head-on. i want to make colluder to my republican colleagues. -- i want to make clear to my republican colleagues. this cannot continue. we cannot continue down this path. it threatens the ability of the senate to get things done for the american people and it threatens the nonpolitical nature of our military servicemembers. senator tuberville's obstruction is pushing the senate down this road, and where it goes from here will depend on all of us. the senate runs on unanimous consent, and we depend on each other to ensure this institution functions smoothly. that's house we make things happen around here. if everyone objected to everything to get leverage for their pet priorities, it will grind this body to a halt. either we choose a different

direction or we continue down the road of more and more obstruction. it is my hope -- indeed, it is my prayer -- that we find a better way. our military deserves better. we cannot allow senator tuberville to set the path on a path that no senator wants to travel. we cannot allow senator tuberville to decide which of our dedicated and brave servicemembers get promoted and which get to languish, which military families are able to settle in their new posts and which must remain in limbo. we cannot, we should not allow that to be the case. so i have just filed cloture on the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, the commandant of the marine corps, and the army chief of staff. these men should have already been confirmed. they should already be serving in their new positions. the senate should not have to go

through procedural hoops just to please one brazen and misguided senator. but this is where we are. in the end, the senate will overwhelmingly vote to overcome senator tuberville's blockade of these three nominees by voting for cloture. then the senate will overwhelmingly vote to confirm them, and these three honorable men will finally be able to assume their positions, and the abortion policy that senator tuberville abhors will remain in place. senator tuberville will have accomplished nothing. but the harm he is doing to the military and their families remains, and, unfortunately, continues for hundreds of others. for the information of all senators, now that i have filed these motions, i will request consent to collapse the time and hold these votes later this afternoon. i hope senator tuberville does

not object, but if he does, senators should expect votes on friday and possibly saturday to finish consideration of these nominations. again, i will shortly move to speed up the votes on these amendments to this afternoon, and i hope the senator will not object. but if he does, we'll stay until we get them done. finally, senator tuberville's unprecedented disrespect of the men and women who lead our military has surprisingly -- unsurprisingly caused many of our colleagues to discuss the ways to change the way we process military nominations. they recognize that the senate process is being abused and that senator tuberville's reckless actions are harming hundreds of military families. once again, i wish we were not in this position. i wish my republican colleagues, who do care deeply about keeping

our military strong, were able to prevail on senator tuberville to completely change his tactics. they clearly made some progress, which forced him to veinly attempt a procedural play. but, mr. president -- madam president, this is not a sustainable path. senator tuberville's continued abuse of his privilege will continue to disrupt the lives of hundreds of our nation's finest and most dedicated military officers and their families. and while we democrats didn't choose this fight, we are ready to put an end to this sooner rather than later. now, on a different subject -- the minibus and the vote that just occurred. the outercome of this vote on the minibus is wholly disappointing and undermines months of hard work appropriators have done to move appropriation bills through the

regular order. senators murray and collins have done herculean work, as have the members of their committee. democrats have worked with leans on every step of this process. we've pursued regular order. we're willing to allow votes on amendments, and we're partnering with colleagues on the other side of the aisle to bring this minibus to the floor. senate republicans have asked us to work with them, and we have worked with them. and until now we were making progress. but now a few select republicans who seem to think their members of the house freedom caucus have thrown a wrench into the process and for no other reason than the pursuit of gridlock itself. so the outcome here is disappointing. but it is not the end of the process. i filed a motion to reconsider this vote. democrats want to reach an agreement with our republican colleagues that will pass the minibus and make up the time

lost because of senator johnson's obstruction. my democratic colleagues and i will do our very best to get the minibus done. we have come very far, and there's no good reason for us to turn back now. with that, i yield the floor to the great senate pro tempore, chair of the appropriations committee, my friend and colleague, the senior senator from the great state of washington, ms. patty murray. mrs. murray: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: thank you, madam president. i thank the majority leader. let's be clear. the flee bills in a that package are not -- the three bills in a package are not -- we drafted these bills through an open, bipartisan process. we had hearings, we had markups for the first time in years, we kept our doors open to any members with thoughts or concerns, so it is very frustrate to see this bipartisan

effort got derailed today, despite all that work and despite the overwhelming consensus last week that we wanted to all get started 0en this package. all of our colleagues and their staff, who spent long hours working on these bills in good faith, deserve better. and, more importantly, all of our constituents who sent us here to advocate for them, to work together to solve problems, deserve better. i will keep fighting to make sure we do right by our constituents and keep our regular appropriations process moving here in the senate. as my colleagues know, i don't give up easy urgency and i'm not going to give up here either. i'm going to keep pushing with everything i've got to pass the spending bills an get our communities the resources they need. but i do have to say today, madam president, i am deeply disappointed. i am no the new to politics. i am not new to tough votes or setbacks. i know that this work is never

easy, but it is really unfortunate that this overwhelming bipartisan process in this package of bills that passed unanimously has been stymied by the objections of just a few senators. that is upsetting is, and it is pretty hard to square with a lot of the talk that we hear all the time about wanting to work together, wanting to break the pattern of partisanship, wanting to help people, wanting to solve problems, to say nothing of how some of our loudest complainers talking big about their commitment for us to return to regular order, who have been railing against these omnibus bills at the end of the year, led the effort to halt our best shot in years at actually getting closer to regular order and possibly setting us on a collision course for another massive omnibus. now, madam president, while this full package may not be moving forward right now through this process, i will not be stopped -- i will not stop working to

return this process back to regular order and keep things moving. i will keep talking to colleagues about how we get all 12 of our bipartisan spending bills across the finish line here in the senate. i will keep working to see if we can get that consent agreement that will allow us to move forward on this package. and as we get closer to september 30, i am working hard to make sure we chart a bipartisan course for a c.r. and supplemental funding package so that we can avoid a devastating shutdown and leeject the cuts -- reject the cuts. and that will provide critical researses for things like disaster relief and wild land firefighters and our allies in ukraine. i came to congress to help people and solve problems. that's what gets me up every day in the morning. it's what i'm focused on in

every meeting i have, every bill i write, every vote i take. while this vote a few minutes ago took a disheartening message about the state of things, it will not be the last word because i won't let it be, and i know many of my colleagues won't either. one thing i have seen is over and over again in my time here, if you want progress, you don't leave the table. you keep working. so i'm going to stay at the table. i will keep working. right now we have to get a bipartisan c.r. and a supplemental package done. that is a priority. but, madam president, i hope and i believe through the work we do that we will show the american people there are still senators on both sides of this aisle determined to get our work done. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

to put the leadership of the house, the senate, and the president of the united states on notice. i will not consent to an expedited passage of any spending bill that provides any more american aid to ukraine.

it's as if no one has noticed that we have no extra money to send to ukraine. our deficits issue will exceed $1.5 trillion. borrowing money from china to send it to ukraine makes no sense. it's not as if we have some sort of rainy day fund sitting around, trillion of dollars a pot of money will send that ukraine. we are going to borrow it. when we borrow it and create new money to pay for that borrowing, we create the inflation that is plaguing our economy. since the beginning of russia's war on ukraine the american taxpayers provided ukraine with $113 billion. over the 583 days of war between february 24, 2022, and the end of the month, that averages $6.8 billion per month, or $223 million per day. there's a lot of things that we need to fix in our country before we borrow money to try to

perpetuate a war in another country. when will be a request in? when will the war end? can someone explain what victory in ukraine looks like? president biden certainly can't. his administration has failed to articulate a clear strategy. and ukraine's long-awaited counteroffensive has failed to make meaningful gains in the east. with no clear end in sight, looks increasingly like ukraine will be yet another endless quagmire funded by the american taxpayer. that's why public support for the war is waning. a cnn poll from august shows that a majority of americans now oppose congress authorizing additional funding to ukraine. and now there are those in this and it to listen to these voices, voices coming from a war weary nation, and who would hold the federal government hostage by inserting $24 billion more

for ukraine. they are talking about saying the only way government stays open, the only way we avoid a shutdown is by shoveling more american taxpayer dollars to ukraine. they are going to link keeping the government open with more money to ukraine, and i am here to say that i'm not going to agree to it and i will not let them shut down the government, simple because they want to send more of your hard-earned tax dollars to ukraine. under the american people funded endless war in ukraine or the unit party threatens to shut down the government. this is a clear dereliction of duty and i will not stand for it. colleagues, as representatives of the american people you should not stand for it either. the bill that comes before should be about funding our government, not somebody else's government. i will not give consent to a bill that includes funding or ukraine in keeping our government open. as elected officials we have an obligation to pursue a foreign

policy that advances the security and prosperity of our country. funneling billions of dollars that have to be borrowed into the meat grinder of eastern ukraine doesn't not either. the longer this conflict continues, the greater the risk that miscalculation or purposeful escalation draws of the united states into direct conflict with russia. russia's military may have a bloody nose, but moscow still maintains the largest nuclear arsenal in the world. let's not pretend that the u.s. involvement in this war comes without risks. if that's not bad enough, we lack effective oversight mechanisms to ensure that hard-earned american tax dollars don't fall prey to waste, fraud, and abuse. for over a year now i have been asking for a special inspector general to make sure they are not stealing our money. we have had one in afghanistan,

and his team of economists and technicians have overseen and found billions of dollars worth of waste that they had saved. we need the same thing in ukraine, a special inspector general to make sure they are not stealing our money. when that is come before a vote in the senate, the majority party in here says no, we just want to spend the money here we don't care. some republicans have gone along with this as well and they voted against the inspector general. it is a terrible abuse of our spending authority to spend money overseas in a war and not make sure that they're not stealing it. so in addition to the colossal cost of the war, we end up paying a corruption tax prep ukraine's one of the most corrupt countries on the planet. may be second to russia. corruption runs deep in ukraine and there's plenty of evidence that it has run rampant since

russians invasion. as president zelensky landed in new york earlier this week, we learned that corruption concerns in ukraine's ministry of defense resulted in the firing of six deputy defense ministers. this comes two weeks after the firing of defense minister alexi resnick off who was removed after it was discovered that the ministry of defense had mishandled military contracts. last month zelinsky fired all 24 regional military recruitment chiefs because they were quote involved in illegal activities, including enrichment. last october we learn that your shipment of grenade launchers,, machine guns, rifles, bulletproof vest and thousands of rounds of ammunition were ending up in hands of criminal gangs, and weapon traffickers posing as humanitarian organizations. and what to the senate do? they voted against a special inspector general to make sure that stealing our money. what are we doing? is a study the american people ask millions of americans are

struggling each day to make ends meet. millions of americans are struggling to provide for their families and put food on the table. and we honestly look our constituents in the eye and tell them that this is a good investment of their dollars? sounds of the war in ukraine is a fight to save democracy, but those who say that need to be honest with themselves. ukraine is far from a shining example of democracy. while the strain of war can make for questionable government actions, we have to live with them when the war is over. for all of the platitudes about america supporting democracy and making the world safe for democracy, the woodrow wilson advocates among us, the biggest recipient of american welfare, ukraine, canceled its next presidential election. you are telling me worse than $100 billion to a to a country that's not going to have elections? we're going to send $100 billion to a country that has now what a

president for life? all we could but it's difficult. does anybody remember the american civil war were 600,000 people died and yet we didn't miss an election? they have canceled the presidential election. we should cancel our aid as a response. this is not the only concerning development in ukraine, despite zelensky is charm offensive this week, his actions also deserve scrutiny. citing national security concerns, zelensky has been orthodox churches, oriented towards the russian orthodox church, and his order ukraine and law enforcement to raid churches and arrest priests here he is banned the political opposition. how do you have a democracy if not going to have elections and you ban the opposition? he suspended 11 political parties including the opposition, opposition platform for life, the second-largest party in ukraine's parliament and the one which held 44 seats.

he has attacked free speech by banning opposition media and increasing his governments regulatory power over journalists. hardly sounds democratic to me. earlier this year he signed into law a bill that allows ukraine state broadcasting council to regulate all media in ukraine. the counselor can impose mandatory orders, fines, restrict content from search engines and even outright to spin media outlets without a court decision. hardly sounds very democrat to me. if you wish these actions that sound like the actions of authoritarian regime, if you suspect of these do some like an authoritarian reason, , regime, you're right. this past july a swiss intelligence report observed quote authoritarian traits in zelensky as he tries to push -- out of