in 2013, senator murray, who i believe is getting ready to stand up and block this bill, in 2013, she voted yes to fund our military. have we really gone that far in a decade that can democrats now are perfectly happy to take away the paychecks from the young men and women who are risking their lives to keep us safe? mr. president, you spent years in the active military. you're a proud navy veteran, you know men and women serving now in the military, and i'm confident you don't want to go home and look them in the eyes and say it was my party, the democrat party that took your paycheck away. it doesn't have to happen. everyone at home, i want you to listen to what will happen in a moment. there are two magic words. if you hear two magic words from the senator from washington, i

object. if you hear those words, understand what will have happened. it's the same thing that happened just a couple of days ago, which is democratic leadership said to our active dawty military, we don't -- duty military, we don't give a damn about you and we're going to cut off your paycheck sunday at 12:01 a.m. that doesn't have to ham. by the -- that donlts have to happen. not only is it the fault of every democrat, i'm sorry, mr. president, but there are no democrats here supporting us. you in your heart know we're right. so i'm going to invite you when we do it again, we'll do it and do it, to join us, because you know this is the right thing to do. there are more of your colleagues on the democrat side that know this is the right thing to do. some 19-year-old marine right now in the dmz facing north korean machine guns is being

told that the united states senate doesn't care enough about his or her service to pay them. that's just wrong. it's stupid. and this body used to know enough to say, hey, we got political disagreements here, but we support our troops. i guarantee you every democrat senator in this chamber goes home and tells your constituents i support the troops. you know what -- talk is cheap. if you support the troops, stand up next to us and say let's pay the troops. by the way, if you support the troops, go to your leadership and say stop this garbage. was harry reid a right wing kook? because harry reid signed off on paying the troops. and i'll tell you why today's democrat leadership believe they can get away with it.

because in 2013, we had something of a functioning media. they actually reported on what was happening. if you look up in the gallery, there are a total of zero reporters there, not one. the corrupt corporate media doesn't intend to tell the citizens of washington state or the citizens of illinois or the citizens of rhode island or the citizens of arizona, they don't intend to tell them your democrat senator is why active duty military isn't being paid. so every reporter -- yesterday, i had reporters running after me, oh, isn't this republican shutdown terrible? i said those are great talking points. have you written a single story about the fact that the reason our military is not going to be paid is because democrat leadership is objecting? no. because none of them have written that story. every one of you know what the right thing to do is. so my hope is there's a tiny,

still voice inside of some democrat senators that will stand up and go to your leadership and say, we can fight all day long on partisan issues, but we're not going to take our troops hostage. that's the right thing to do, and ef member of this body -- and every member of this body knows it. i yield the floor. mr. sullivan: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. mr. sullivan: i ask unanimous consent that the appropriations committee be discharged from further consideration of s. 2835 and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. i further ask that the bill be considered read a third time and passed, and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: is there objection? mrs. murray: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: mr. president, reserving the right to object. as i have said, i share my colleagues' concern with making

sure our servicemembers do not miss a paycheck because of a potential government shutdown. in fact, i do not want any. our federal workers to miss a paycheck, whether they are cancer researchers whose work saves our lives, or brave firefighters who risk their lives for us, and i don't want any programs families rely on to be undermined -- counseling and transition assistance for new veterans adjusting to civilian life, nutrition assistance for seven million moms and kids who need a hand up, and that includes our servicemembers' families. several years ago i worked to save a wic clinic which was going to be kicked off a navy base in my home state of washington, that hundreds of military families counted on. none of those paychecks for any of these workers, and none of those programs should shutter because of a completely unnecessary shutdown. which is why i am working around

the clock, with the majority of our colleagues, to make sure that we do pass a bipartisan c.r., which we released this week. because that is the only serious solution here. that is the only way we will make sure everyone is able to keep doing the work that the american people count on and getting that paycheck that they do deserve. so, if the senator from alaska or the senator from texas are serious about making sure our servicemembers get paid, i hope they'll get serious in a way that matters the most, and that's their votes. i hope they will work with us to keep the government open, and i hope they will reconsider their recent votes against the c.r. to fund the government in a bipartisan and timely way. let's be real. you cannot grandstand about wanting to make sure that

servicemembers get paid during a shutdown and then vote against the very bipartisan bill that prevented a shutdown. i also hope the senators will understand that our servicemembers will see the harm of a government shutdown in so many other ways -- permanent change in station moves will be significantly curtailed, meaning some of our families can be left without a place to live if they've already sold their house or broken their lease, or they could be forced to pay for two homes at once. for the army, this means approximately 2100 moves every week. if if you do not work with us to keep the entire government open, servicemembers' elective surgeries and procedures at dod medical and dental facilities would have to be postponed. by the way, an lective surgery -- elective surgery could be from removing a kidney stone to mastectomy for breast

cancer. essentially, post-and base service -- post and base services will be closed or limited. that could be child care that military families count on. not only do i want to make sure servicemembers don't miss a paycheck, i want to make sure sphrirms don't -- servicemembers don't miss out on any critical services. the senators should understand their focus and support of the military cannot end with those currently in uniform. they should remember, 47% of department of defense civilians are veterans. for that matter, one in every four employees across the entire federal government are veterans. we can't leave anyone behind. i'll say it again for my colleagues, who raise their voices here on the senate floor but have not cast their votes to prevent a shutdown -- there are a lot of programs i care about. a lot of programs we all care about that would be hurt by a shutdown.

but we are not going to solve this problem one by one, carveout by carve-out. the best solution is to stop a shutdown in the first place. that is something we can do, and i bet we could do it more quickly if the senators from alaska and texas would earnestly work with us. this isn't complicated. we've got a straightforward, bipartisan c.r. package that will avoid that shutdown, keep our military paid. so let's get our jobs done and get that passed. thank you, mr. president. i object. mr. sullivan: mr. president. the presiding officer: the objection is heard. the senator from alaska. sullivan mr. sullivan: thank. president. i'm going to try to keep this short because the issues that we're debating here are not that complicated. i agree with my colleague from washington state -- we are working around the clock. we're in our conference right now, trying to get an amendment to bolster border security that

the whole country, by the way, wants, democrats, republicans. the whole country wants that. we're working around the clock too. my colleague did misstate something. i actually voted to get on this bill. so her statement about my vote, she needs to check my vote the other day. but be that as it may, once again she says there's only one serious solution. well, mr. president, this body's done this before. the senator from washington state has done this before, on the eve of a shutdown in 2013, the senator from washington state voted for this bill. every senator voted for this bill. so, when she keeps saying let's get real, i agree, let's get real. go look at your vote from 2013. you voted for this on the eve of a shutdown. i'll remind my colleague from

washington state, in 2019, when there was a partial government shutdown, focused on the coast guard, which wasn't getting paid and the democrats blocked my bill to pay the coast guard, she actually stated, quote, it's absolutely unacceptable that our coast guard families went without their paychecks during the shutdown. we need to make sure president trump doesn't put them through this again. well, i'm going to put the senator from washington state's words back at her. it is absolutely unacceptable that coast guard and other family members went without paychecks during the shutdown. we need to make sure it doesn't happen again. so vote for our bill! every time they object, the arguments of why they're objecting to something they already agreed to ten years ago get more tangled up. we're all working to avoid a shutdown, but if it doesn't

happen let's make sure the men and women risking their lives for our country and their families know they'll get paid. that's all we're asking. all we're asking. everybody in this body ten years ago did this, including the senator from washington state. it's beyond comprehension that they're coming up with arguments now to not do this. this isn't about politics. this is about supporting our troops at the moment they really need it. and they're not doing that. i yield the floor to my colleague from texas. mr. cruz: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cruz: mr. president, at the opening of her remarks, the senator from washington said i agree with the objective of this bill, i agree with what senator sullivan and senator cruz are trying to accomplish. then she talked for a while, and then she blocked the entirety of the bill. everything in between saying i

agree with this bill and the two magic words at the end of her remarks, i object, i have to admit brought me back to officer morning cartoons and watching peanuts and the teacher going wah, wah, wah. because they were words but they didn't mean anything. this is a binary choice. at 12:01 a.m. on sunday, our soldiers -- are soldiers going to get paid, yes or no? are airmen going to get paid, yes or no? are marines? yes or no? are members of the space force going to get paid? yes or no? are cawrdzmen going to get paid? -- are coast guardsmen going to get paid? a decade ago every member of this body voted to pay them. since this began, the presiding officer, it was senator kelly, now senator murphy, i'll point out senator murphy voted yes to

pay our active duty military in 2013. yet now, the democrats are blocking those paychecks. senator from washington said, well, gosh, the democrats have a c.r. that you could have voted for. the senator from washington knows fully well that the bill drafted by democrat leadership is not going to pass the house of representatives. she knows that. the result's going to be a shutdown. what's changed from 2013 to now? from 2013 to now, the democrat leadership is perfectly willing to hold a young man or woman engineer the military to hold their paychecks hostage. something interesting is going to happen at 12:01 a.m., 35 hours from now. paychecks of every federal employee will stop. the paychecks of the stenographer who is recording my

words will stop. the paychecks of the clerks sitting down front will stop. but you know what, mr. president? there are 535 people whose paychecks will not stop. under the constitution, members of this body, senators, and members of the house, their paychecks can't stop, even during a shutdown, which means at 12:01 a.m. on sunday, every democrat senator will keep drawing their paycheck, while the people risking their lives to defend us will not. well, i'll tell you, mr. president, i have in writing instructed the senate that i will not accept a paycheck so long as our active duty military is not being paid. it is wrong. senators are paid $174,000 a year, by law. the democrat leadership who

stands up and says i object is telling a 19-year-old woman in a nuclear subright now, defending -- sub right now, defending our nation, that her paycheck doesn't matter. there's right now a mom in tennis shoes serving in the military who is discovering that her mortgage payment, she doesn't know how to pay. so i'm going to suggest to the reporters who aren't here and aren't covering this that so long as democrat leadership keeps blocking what has been bipartisan and unanimous legislation previously, that every democrat senator ought to be asked are you taking a paycheck? come 12:01 a.m. on sunday. they're the ones objecting. they're the ones stopping and every soldier needs to understand why are you not being paid? because the democrats objected. every sailor needs to understand because the democrats objected. every airmen, every marine,

coast guardsman, every member of the space force which your paycheck goes away 35 hours from now, it's because of two magic words the democratic leadership has said. let's be clear. it's not just the senator from washington. she's doing it on instruction from the democratic leadership. they can change it like that. and i can tell you this, senator sullivan and i are going to keep coming back over and over and over again because there's not a member of this body that wants to go home to your state, even a state like connecticut. you don't want to be at home looking at active duty military and saying, yup, my party took away your paycheck. that's too cynical even for this body. and so i pray that common sense comes back. i yield the floor.

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the nor from -- the senator from louisiana. mr. kennedy: senator senator sen -- senator feinstein, godspeed. i had the pleasure of serving with senator feinstein on the judiciary committee. i also served with dianne on the appropriations committee. in fact, we were served on the energy and weren't development subcommittee. dianne was the chair and i was the ranking member.

the presiding officer: senators take their conversations off the senate floor. the senator is recognized. mr. kennedy: dianne, you died with your boots on. and i think that was one of the things she most wanted to do. senator feinstein and i didn't agree on much, but she was a delight to work with. she understood politics and government, especially today. it takes a big heart and a lot of wind and a thick skin. and that's especially true today today. and there are some people in this city who didn't want dianne to finish her term.

they -- for political reasons. they tried to chew her up and they tried to spit her out. they tried to step on her. but they couldn't do it because dianne was tough as a boot. and she wanted to die with her boots on. as a member of this august body and i'm going to miss her. godspeed, senator feinstein. i'm here today, mr. president, to try to extend the national flood insurance program. it appears to me -- i hope i'm wrong and i know, mr. president, that you agree with me -- that we're headed towards a shutdown. if that happens, that means that the national flood insurance

program will come to a halt. i don't want people to worry too much. if you already have national flood insurance, the program will continue to pay claims. but as long as government is shut down, you will not be able to buy new insurance. that's important because flood insurance is a huge part of the commerce of our real estate markets in america. for most americans the purchase of a home is their biggest, single financial decision they'll ever make. and in many areas, not just coastal states but many other states, you cannot purchase a home if you have to borrow the money without flood insurance. so if we allow the national

flood insurance program to expire, it's going to shut down home sales where the institute loaning the money requires flood insurance. just going to shut it down. the real estate industry for a variety of reasons, in part because of president biden's inflation, is already having a tough time. this will make it worse. my bill will take the current flood insurance program and just extend it as is until december 31, 2023. if you -- if we don't do this -- i want to make this clear as well, mr. president -- some of

my fellow citizens may be saying with el, what's the big -- well, what's the big deal? just don't buy it from the federal government. you can't buy it from anybody else. this is a federal program, imperfect as it is, is the only game in town. so if you're ready to buy a home and close on a home and you go to the mortgage lender and say i need to borrow the money and they say you have to buy flood insurance to get the loan, the federal government is the only entity you can go to. you cannot buy for all practical purposes private flood insurance in america today. i mentioned that the nfip was imperfect. i understate it. as i said yesterday on the floor, the national flood insurance program as administered by fema is a mess. as i said yesterday, it looks

like someone knocked over a urine sample. fema made the program even worse a year or so ago with its risk rating 2.0. it went out and hired a consultant to design a new algorithm that made changes in the program without telling policyholders the basis for those changes. i've met with fema a number of times. i said, well, can i see your algorithm. they say if we showed you, we'll have to kill you, and i'm in congress. we're in litigation with fema right now. let me say it again. risk rating 2.0 made it worse than it already was. ever since i've been in the united states senate, i have been working with -- i don't know -- 20 different senators and probably 50 to a hundred

house members are involved to try to fix the flood insurance program. and it's been very difficult. we haven't been able to do it but we will continue to try. but in the meantime, the only thing worse than a bad flood insurance program is no flood insurance. because as imperfect as it may be, fema's national flood insurance program is the only game in town. and if we allow this program to expire, it is going to really, really, really hurt the american people. it's going to really, really hurt the real estate industry. it's going to really, really hurt folks out there who have saved the money and they're ready to buy a home but they can't do it because they can't purchase flood insurance.

so for that reason, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the committee on banking, housing, and urban affairs be discharged from further consideration of s. 2968. that's my bill that would just extend the current program for flood insurance, imperfect as it may be, until december 31, 2023. and i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. i further ask the bill be considered read a third time and passed, and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

the presiding officer: is there objection? a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from kentucky. mr. paul: reserving the right to object. once again we are asked to extend the flood program without any reforms to protect the taxpayers. like many federal programs, this federal program is well intentioned but it may very well be the best real life example of moral hazard. we are told that the program is funded through insurance premiums, but the premiums are plow the market -- below the market rate so the program is eternally and consistently short of money. a 2014 report by the government accountability office found that the flood program collected $17 billion less than the market would have required. for all practical purposes, the flood program is insolvent. just a few years ago the flood program owed $30 billion to the taxpayer. congress later canceled $16

billion of that debt, but the flood program has not made any progress in repaying the taxpayer. the total now stands that the flood program owes $20 billion to the taxpayers with no way of repaying that money. perhaps the greatest insult to the taxpayers, though, is the lack of true limits on this delinquent program. there are no limits on how many claims that can be filed or how much money can be received for a policyholder. so it isn't that you have a $3 million flood policy, you could have a $3 trillion policy. there are no limits. there are also no limits on how big your house can be. you can have a $10 million house, you can have a $20 million house, a $50 million house and the taxpayer subsidizes your house. rather than encourage people to leave flood prone areas, this program encourages people to stay and rebuild time and time again. in thousands of instances, the program encourages people to rebuild and rebuild and rebuild.

according to the pew charitable trust, over 150,000 properties have been rebuilt over and over again. in fact, 25% to 30% of flood program claims are made by the sole holders whose properties have flooded time and time again. over 2,000 properties have flooded more than ten times. one home in batchedlor flooded 40 times, 40 times. no one should keep rebuilding in a house that floods 40 times. but the record, if you can believe it, isn't there louisiana. it's virginia where one home flooded 41 times and received payments over $600,000, all subsidized by the taxpayer. adding insult to injury, congressional budget office found that the flood program tends to benefit the wealthy and

that 23% of the subsidized coastal properties were not even policyholders' primary residence so realize what the program is doing. it's subsidizing insurance for the rich and famous for their beach houses. there are no limits. it subsidizes people who have $10 million homes get insurance. it's true. the government forces the taxpayers to repay and rebuild the summer homes of the rich. in fact, sometimes it seems that the flood program caters directly to the wealthy. nearly 80% of the national flood insurance program policies are located in counties that rank within the top 20% of income. enough is enough. it is an insult to rob the taxpayers to give to the rich. this is why i offer an amendment that if we can come to agreement today would require that the federal program not insure your second house, not insure your

beach house. if you live there, it's your only house, it will be included. if it's your second house, your beach house, it's not going to be included. and we would set a cap on the amount. who in their right mind thinks we should be subsidizing insurance for $10 million mansions? it's crazy that anybody would think that that's what we should do. so i offer a compromise today. extend the program. let's keep the program. we'll keep the program open. we won't miss a beat but we'll set some limits on the houses. so what i'd like to start with would be a cap of $250,000. those houses below $250,000 would be subsidized, would get subsidized insurance, above $250,000, buy your own. my proposal would not allow you to use the insurance if this is your vacation home, your secondary home. so, mr. president, i ask the senator to modify his request so that paul amendment at the desk

be considered and agreed to, the bill as amended be considered read a third time and passed, and that the motion to consider be considered made and laid upon the table. mr. kennedy: mr. president. the presiding officer: does the senator so modify his request? mr. kennedy: reserving the right to modify or not modify, senator paul, as usual, makes some very good points. i agree with him wholeheartedly that the national flood insurance program is a mess. it needs to be fixed. i want to make the record clear that in louisiana my people are working people. my coast is a working coast. my people aren't wealthy millionaires who have three or four homes on the beach.

these are ordinary people who get up every day, go to work, obey the law, pay their taxes, and try to do the right thing by their kids. they can barely afford one home. it's not only the coast that we're talking about. in 2016, in the middle of my state -- again, not mansions,ious working-class people -- we had 24 inches of rainfall in a day and a half. the homes that flooded -- and many of them did -- were not anywhere near a body of water. if you get 24 inches of rain in a day and a half, your home is going to flood. i don't care if you're living on pike's peak. so this program is meant to help

those people as well. but in pointing that out, i don't want to take anything away from senator paul's excellent points. he is, however, mistaken in one critical respect. when you buy flood insurance through the federal national flood insurance program, the most you can collect on your home as a result of one flood is $250,000. it is not accurate to say that a million-dollar home can collect a million-dollar dollars in damages -- a million dollars in damages from a flood. that's just not true. if there is a a flood and you on

a million-dollar home and you own a $250,000 home and the owners of those two homes both have the sam-ave national flood insurance, the most under the policy they can collect is $250,000. so why do you want to tell a person who owns a million-dollar home that they can't insure their home? you're just telling them they can't buy flood insurance, so the flood insurance program has less money to cash flow. it makes no sense. now, senator paul is correct -- and it is one of the things we're trying to fix -- that there has been abuse in terms of some homes -- senator paul mentioned the example of louisiana, but there are other states, many others, where homes have flooded three or four times and keep getting flood

insurance. if i can say anything good about the current national flood insurance program today, i would say that fema has taken steps to try to prevent that from happening. so that if you flood a certain number of times, you have to move. and i know the senator didn't -- i don't think i'm disagreeing with him on that. i think we're in agreement. but let me tell you the second and the main reason i can't accept senator paul's change. and for me it has to do with what's right. there are probably 20 different senators -- well, there are 100 senators who care about flood insurance, but there are about 20 different senators who want to be involved in any changes made to this program. and i dare say there are 50 to 100 members of the house.

now, mr. president, as you know, when we bring a bill to the floor through unanimous consent, we don't just walk down here one day and do it. we let all of our senators, federal colleagues, our federal senators, know what we're about to do. so if they want to come down and object, they can do that. and that's what i did with my bill, which just keeps the current program and extends extt until december 31 so we'll get past the shutdown and we won't keep people from buying homes. but senator paul's changes have not been sent to all members of the senate. it's called a hotline. and i anticipate that graham will have other changes, and that's fine. the easy thing for me to do today would be to agree with one of his changes.

i'm not sure it makes that much difference because the amount of damages you can claim on a flood is $250,000, but the easiest thing for me to do today would be to agree to one of rand's changes. but that would be stabbing my colleagues in the back. because i can assure you, knowing how many of my colleagues feel about the national flood insurance program, they would want to be here today to weigh in, and it -- i just can't do that to them. even though it would allow me to get this passed. i also think, mr. president, that if we make changes to the national flood insurance program, those 50 to 100 house members that i'm talking about are likely not to -- some of them are likely not to allow the changes, and that's why they would object, too. and that's why my objective has been -- and i need to stand

behind it -- is just to take the current program and extend it to december 31. so senator that reason, i don't agree to the modification. the presiding officer: the senator does not grate to the modification. is there objection to the original request? mr. paul:. the presiding officer: the senator from ken k. mr. paul: reserve be the right to object, the process is similar to what's been described but not exactly as has been described. the bill is sent out. everybody gets a chance to object. people who choose to object can come. those also announced. the objections are announced, and we come to the floor. if the senator wanted to work together on this, this could be modified today and someone else would have to come and object, and that is' a nnounced to all 100 senators. it often works that way. but today what we have is a situation where i'm offering an amendment to tax reform taxpayer-subsidized insurance. and it's being rejected by one

senator, not by all senators. they could come appeared object to this if they want. what i'm trying to do is modify a program so the average, ordinary taxpayer does not have to pay for rich people's flood insurance for their beach houses. about half of the houses that are insured in this program that loses billions of dollars every year, that's $ed to billion in the hole -- that's $20 billion in the hole, about half the homes are worth about $500,000 or more. do you know any regular folks that have $500,000 homes on the beach? no. if you have a $500,000 home on the beach, buy your own damn insurance. the taxpayer should not have to buy your insurance. so i would ask the senator, we can do this today. there are other senators on the floor. they can come running from hither and beyond and they can object to this, but would ask the senator, let's modify the program so that rich people don't get their houses insured

by the government and subsidized by the taxpayer. we could change the limits tost 500,000. that would cut out half of the homes in the u.s., half of the rich people in our country that are getting subsidized insurance. make the limit $500,000. if we make it $500,000, the program will be half as big and it will lose half as much money. let's modify this program. so i would ask the senator to modify his proposal with my amendment, and my amendment would say, you can't use the insurance for your second home, only your primary residence, and if you have a half a million-dollar mansion on the beach, guess what? you get to buy your own insurance. that's my modification. i would ask the senator to accept the paul amendment that's at the desk. the presiding officer: does the senator agree to the modification? mr. kennedy: reserving the right to accept sore not accept -- accept or not accept, again, senator paul, i understand his points, and they're very good

ones. i would point out that his proposal -- we have about 84.7 million owner-occupied homes in the united states. let's call it 85 million homes in the united states. senator paul's amendment would exclude 52.5 million of them. $500,000 on a home is a lot of money, but i think in places like california, connecticut, and new york where we have seen cost of living different from my state, there are plenty of ordinary americans, middle-class americans who have scrimped and saved to put together the money to borrow $500,000. and i don't want to hurt them. but the second and the main reason i can't agree to senator paul's proposal, i'm just not

going to stab my fellow senators in the back. they do not know about these changes that are being proposed. they may be good changes, and i like the way senator paul is thinking. but let me say it again -- i know of at least 20 senators, some of whom are not in washington who care about flood insurance, and if i start agreeing to changes for the short-term satisfaction of getting to pass a bill, it's just not worth it to me. and i am not going to stab them in the back. they have the right to be here and participate in these changes, and they are not here because they don't know about them. so, for that reason, i do not concur in senator paul's amendment. the presiding officer: objection to the modification is heard. is is there objection to the underlying original morlings? the senator from kentucky.

mr. paul: reserving the right to object, what i'm trying to find here, is there a promise? is there some level of rich manner maybe the taxpayer will say, enough is enough. they ought to nature own way? is is there some level of rich person's mansion that maybe the average taxpayer should not have to subsidize their insurance? so we've tried half a million, the amount they have to insure. if we can't do a half a million, let's try mansions of $750,000. you'd say, well, how many are there? 25% of the national federal subsidized insurance are homes of a $750,000 a year. we're not talking about ordinary people now. we are talking about rich, rich, very rich people getting subsidized insurance from a

program that loses billions of dollars and has to be bailed out every year. we have a government with a $1.7 trillion deficit. it goes on year after year, nobody does anything, just reauthorize it. today we could make a compromise. so i offer the senator a compromise. if $500,000 is too cheap and you want to insure half a million-dollar mansions, will you at least modify it to exclude mansions of $750,000 or more? i think that's the least we can do. and i would ask unanimous consent to accept the paul motion at the desk that indicates $750,000 as the limit for the insurance. mr. kennedy: mr. president. the presiding officer: senator kennedy. mr. kennedy: reserving the right to object, i fear i'm not being clear. and i'm sorry for that, mr. president. let me say it again.

if you own a $250,000 home and you own a $750,000 home, neither one of you can buy more than $250,000 worth of insurance. because the maximum amount of insurance that you can buy through the national flood insurance program is $250,000. so what's the point? -- so what's the point of excluding someone who owns a $750,000 home? i realize it's en vogue to denigrate rich people, but they can't buy any more insurance. it would be different if someone

could buy $750,000 worth of flood insurance, who owned a $507,000 home, but they -- who owned a $7 50,000 home but they can't. it's capped at $250,000. so i have to respectfully disagree with my friend on that. and number two, i don't want to belabor this, i'm not going to stap my fellow senators in the back. the 20-plus senators with whom i've spoken to try to negotiate a new and better flood insurance program do not know about these changes. and i'd like to agree to rand's suggestions, but if i do, i'm stabbing my fellow senators in the back and it's just not worth it to me because they don't know about any of this. so for that reason, i respectfully object to senator paul's amendment. the presiding officer: the senator has objected to the modification. is there objection to the underlying request?

mr. paul: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from kentucky. mr. paul: reserving the right to object, it is certainly not my intent to denigrate rich people. i aspire to be one someday. but i don't aspire to ask for free stuff from government if i ever become a rich person. why would we subsidize the insurance of rich people ?r is there no limit, is there noaf possibility of compromise -- is there no possibility of compromise on some mansion that is too large to be in this program? what about $10 million? we've tried $250,000. that was too little. we still -- the insistence is we must insure these homes. we've tried $500,000, but the insistence is, no, everybody should get it. i don't think rich people need subsidized insurance. the program loses billions of dollars every year. we tried $750,000 but apparently

there still is this need and desire to insure rich people's beach houses. why don't we try one last time. we'll try something that i think anybody will compromise to and anybody will accept and i don't want to be the one justifying a program that gives people who have $10 million mansions insurance. why not object it and make someone on the other side support such a ridiculous policy? so my final proposal today will be to ask unanimous consent that the paul amendment at the desk would exclude $10 million mansions from government subsidized insurance. i think that's the least we can do. if we can get that compromise, we'd bring at least some sense of sanity to this crazy program. the presiding officer: is there objection to senator's request to modify. the senator from louisiana. mr. kennedy: mr. president, reserving the right to object. if i own a $10 million home -- and i assure you that i do

not -- and my neighbor's home is $250,000 -- that's its valuet in louisiana -- and we both go to an insurance agent, and they say, and we say we want to buy national flood insurance because we can't get a mortgage without it, the insurance agent is going to say okay. the neighbor whose home is worth $250,000, i can write you a policy maximum $250,000. and then they're going to turn to me with my $10 million home, which i can assure you is fictitious, and the agent is going to say i can only sell you $250,000 home. the suggestion that somebody with a $10 million home is being

insured for $10 million is just not accurate. it's just not accurate. so what good is it going to do to tell someone in a $10 million home who wants to buy $250,000 worth of flood insurance, the same amount as his neighbor, what good is it going to do to exclude him? some can beat themselves on the chest and say we stuck it to those rich people, but they're not giving any more insurance. and what it's going to mean to the program is there's going to be fewer and less premiums coming in to the program, which will make it insolvable. you can see the difficulty in trying to reach agreement on reforms. that's why i'm going to say it again. i have proposed a clean, if you

will, proposal that will just extend the current program, imperfect as it may be, until december 31. if we don't do this, it is going to really, really, really hurt. it's not going to hurt the rich folks. it's going to hurt the ordinary middle-class americans who are trying to buy a home. and the second and final reason -- or the third and final reason, frankly, if it were up to me to get this passed, because i'm really worried about it, as you can tell, i'd probably agree to rand's proposal but i'm just not going to stab my colleagues in the back. they don't know about this proposal, and i think that the 20 or so of my colleagues that i have met with about changing the flood insurance program, i know they'd like to have their say. and if i agree to rand's proposal today, because they don't know about his proposal, i would be stabbing them in the

back, and i just can't do it, mr. president. it's just not worth it to me. so for that reason, i respectfully object. the presiding officer: the senator has objected to the request to modify. is there objection to the senator's original motion. mr. paul: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from kentucky. mr. paul: reserving the right to object. let the record show from this discussion today that the senator has objected to any limits on taxpayer-subsidized flood insurance. any limits. $250,000, $500,000, $750,000, even $10 million. this is a program that loses billions of dollars every year. this is a program that can't work for the poor people because we've got so many rich people in it. half of the homes in the program cost over $500,000. so this is a problem. this is a program that loses money every year, and the senator is unwilling to accept

any limits on this. there is this argument that somehow he's defending all the democrat senators who can't come here, but he could easily have said i'm not willing to object to this because these are reasonable proposals and force the democrats to object to this. but he's taken this upon himself fo defend the status quo, to defend the inclusion of $10 million mansions in this program. so i do object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. kennedy: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. mr. kennedy: you're getting tired of me saying this, i know. this rich $10 million american that senator paul keeps talking about can't buy any more insurance than the american who owns a $250,000 home. he just can't. and i'm going to try again. i'll be back tomorrow. and like the terminator, i'll

be back. because in trying to punish the rich, when they can't buy any more insurance than the ordinary american, mr. president, like you and me -- $250,000, that's the limit for the rich american and the middle-class american. this is going to put the entire real estate industry in jeopardy, and it's also going to put a lot of ordinary middle-class americans out there who have scrimped and saved, and they got the money for the down payment and they're ready to buy a home, but they're not going to be able to buy it because they can't get flood insurance, and their mortgage lender requires it. and by the time government opens back up, i hope it's a short period of time but we don't know, those interest rates, instead of 7.5% could be 8%. and, look, i get the politics of beating up on the rich, but

the rich have nothing to do with this. this is about helping ordinary americans. but i appreciate, mr. president, your patience flinching to me -- in listening to me today. and with that, i think ifort -- i think i need to yield the floor. to whom do i yield it. the presiding officer: the senator from can simply yield the floor. mr. kennedy: senator hirono from the great state of hawaii. or senator schumer. mr. kennedy: are you seeking recognition? are you just waving, chuck? mr. schumer: wave with friendship and affection to my friend, the senator from louisiana. i was going to speak for a few minutes. is that okay? mr. kennedy: of course. i just work here. i'm not management. the presiding officer: the majority leader.

mr. schumer: mr. president, i'm going to speak on two topics. first, what's happening in my hometown of new york. and then second, what's going on over there in the house of representatives. so, mr. president, as we speak, my hometown of new york is experiencing some of the most frightening rainfall and flooding we've seen since hurricane sandy. about a month's worth of rain has inundated brooklyn in just a matter of hours, and some parts of the city have experienced up to five inches of rain. flash floods remain in effect from manhattan, for queens, for brooklyn. and we're not through the danger yet. another powerful storm is expected over the next day, and the situation remains dangerous. i'll continue closely monitoring the other worldly flooding we're seeing in new york.

a little while ago i spoke to the governor to tell her that i will do everything on the federal level to get new york the help it needs. earlier today i sent a letter to fema, and a few minutes ago spoke to the fema administrator, telling her new york needs help. fema has promised me two things. one, to deal with the immediate effects of the flood, any equipment and other types of resources they need. and second, later to provide resources new yorkers will need to rebuild and recover. and here in the senate, i will work to secure any federal assistance possible to fund relief efforts and aid those who need to rebuild from the flood damage. again, i cannot stress enough that we are not through these storms just yet. everyone, please follow emergency guidance and stay safe. now on the c.r. and the

shutdown. we stand now at the precipice of an unnecessary, reckless, and entirely republican-manufactured shutdown. in less than 48 hours funding that pays the salaries of our troops for border enforcement, for tsa operations, nutrition programs, food inspections, all, all will come to a halt. as i said for months, congress has only one option to avoid a shutdown -- bipartisanship. we needed bipartisanship yesterday. we need it today. we will need it tomorrow. it's true. yesterday, today, and tomorrow. but in the house, sadly, unlike the senate, we have not seen bipartisanship. we have only seen chaos. we've only seen paralysis. a few hours ago, speaker mccarthy held a vote on a truly radical c.r. proposal everyone knew never stood a chance of passing the senate.

and now the house republican c.r. has failed to even pass the house by an unexpectedly large and decisive margin, 34 votes. much more than most expected. the speaker has spent weeks catering to the hard right, and now he finds himself in the exact same position he's been in since the beginning. no plan forward, no closer to passing something that avoids a shutdown. the speaker needs to abandon his doomed mission of trying to please maga extremists and instead he needs to work across the aisle to keep the government open. things seem to be getting worse for the speaker rather than better, and it's time for him to try bipartisanship. here in the senate, bipartisanship is precisely what we are pursuing by working on our c.r.

just yesterday, i'm proud to say, 76 senators vote in favor of proceeding to the c.r. i salute not only chairman murray, but ranking member collins and leader mcconnell and so many others on the other side of the aisle who joined us in moving forward. we will continue working on the c.r. over the course of today and see if we can find some agreement to pass it quickly. and i note that the 76 senators vote in favor of proceeding to the c.r., even as we work through debates about final content of the bill. that's what bipartisanship means. not that we agree on everything, but the disagreements do not paralyze the process. and when the senate finishes its work, it is imperative the house move on a senate-passed

bipartisan c.r. it will be our last chance to ensuring that a shutdown is avoided. any more time the speaker spends trying to cobble together hard-right wish lists that can't even pass the house would be a grievous mistake. to speaker mccarthy, let me be clear, if you don't want our troops to go without pay, work in a bipartisan way. if you don't want to see border funding in danger, work in a bipartisan way. if you don't want to see meals cut from meals on wheels, work in a bipartisan way. at the end of the day, these maga extremists who are the ones responsible for bringing us to the brink fundamentally do not care about funding the government. some of them are actually gleeful about a shutdown. coddle the hard right is as futile as trying to nail jell-o

to a wall. the harder the speaker tries, the harder it gets. i hope he snaps out of the vice he has put himself in and stops succumbing to the extremists in the house. mr. speaker, time has almost run out. i yield the floor. mr. cornyn: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: i know there are others waiting to speak, and i will yield to them momentarily. i think it's important that the majority leader explain the entire story of where we are on the verge of a shutdown. the truth is the senate has not passed a single appropriations bill that passed out of the senate appropriations committee by bipartisan support.

some of them were passed unanimously. the first bill, i believe, that passed out of the senate appropriations committee passed out some 80 days ago. now, it may have taken until the end of july before we could get a house bill to then amend, which is a necessary procedural prerequisite, but the fact of the matter is, the majority leader, who is the only person who can schedule a vote on any of these pieces of legislation, has failed to bring any of these bills to the floor and successfully pass the united states senate. so 18 days before the end of the fiscal year, which is the shutdown, unless we pass another funding bill, the majority leader puts a so-called minibus or a combination of three appropriations bills on the floor. that was the first time the majority leader decided to

actually schedule a vote on anything. my point is that the majority leader likes to blame the house, and particularly because it's a majority -- a majority of republicans, so he acts like this is all their fault. everything's just hunky dory and bipartisan in the senate. that's false. the majority leader has contributed dramatically to this shutdown because of the senate's failure under his leadership to pass any appropriations bills whatsoever. and, yes, it's no surprise to anybody that here we are needing to find some way forward on a continuing resolution, in other words, to keep the lights on while we continue to work out other differences. i think shutdowns are a mistake. shutdowns are a mistake because they don't solve the underlying problem. they disrupt all sorts of people, and he mentioned some of the people they disrupt, including paid or military.

our own staff aren't going to get paid. people aren't -- people aren't able to get through the passport office, if they have immigration problems or if a veteran is worried about getting compensation or other benefits, they're not going to be responded to because of this government shutdowns. it completely, completely predictable and completely, completely unnecessary. so i think if you're going to talk about who contributed to where we are today, the majority leader, i say this respectfully, this is in large part a schumer shutdown because the senate hadn't done its job. this is not governing. this is not responsible. and, again, the only way we can consider legislation in the united states senate is if he schedules something on the floor. that's his prerogative as a majority leader. but people ought to be held accountable, people ought to be responsible for their own

actions, and the majority leader has simply failed to let the senate do its work even though the senate appropriations committee, which is chaired by a democrat, senator patty murray, ranking member susan collins, they did magnificent work. they did what they were supposed to do. but because the majority leader failed to bring any of these bills before the floor, we haven't passed a single appropriations bill and we're looking at a deadline of midnight saturday where the government ceases to function because of the failure to do our job here in the senate. the house has its own problems, but we ought to take care of business here first, and we haven't done that. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from hawaii. ms. hirono: mr. president, thank you for your patience. i want to reiterate my sadness

of the passing of senator feinstein. her death strikes at heart of so many of us committed to public service as she was. she stood up to powerful interest groups on behalf of her constituents and the rest of us. she was a fierce legislator fighting to ban assault weapons, defend survivors of domestic violence, with defend our nation and much more. she was also a thoughtful friend. last week she wrote me a letter expressing her happiness that the banon tree lahaina is starting to show signs of renewed life. she wrote, i hope that the beloved tree continues to recover and serve as a source of hope and a symbol of resilience for the entire community, end quote. she wrote, i too share her hope.

it's now been six weeks since the firesser to through -- tore -- first tore through the towns in lahaina as well as other maui communities. as the whole world has seen now, those fires were devastating, claiming nearly 100 lives and destroying close to 3,000 structures. most of them residences. our hearts break for all those impacted by this tragedy. within hours of those fires, though, the federal government was on the ground providing assistance and relief. in the weeks since, well over 1,000 federal personnel have traveled to maui to aid in the recovery efforts and more than $125 million in individual relief has been distributed. additionally, president biden

requested $4 billion in disaster relief funding following the fires on top of the $12 billion he had previously qtd. -- requested. as i said at the time, disaster relief has always had broad bipartisan support, and there is no reason the maui disaster should be treatedy differently. in fact, speaker mccarthy agreed when he visited lahaina less than four weeks ago, he said, and i quote, we want to get the resources to individuals that could rebuild their life. we've got to focus on the children, for the schools to get them back into the education so they don't miss out. end quote. i couldn't agree more. this funding is essential to our ongoing recovery efforts. but now speaker mccarthy refusing to stand up to the most radical faction in his caucus.

i -- is endangering these resources for maui and other communities impacted by disasters across the country, and we just heard from the majority leader what is happening in new york city even as we speak. so, again, as we speak, the senate is working to chance a bipartisan continuing resolution to keep government open, which includes $6 billion in disaster relief. while clearly not everything we need, it is a critical down payment that will allow the federal government to continue its important work on maui and in other communities impacted by disasters across the country. it will allow fema, the spa and other critical agencies to continue their disaster relief work as we work to pass a longer-term funding agreement. if radical house republicans shut down the government, that funding will be held up

indefinitely. my colleague, representative jill takuta of hawaii summed it up well in her testimony before the energy house committee. she said that the wheels of government must keep tushing to sprief -- turning to support the support and resources so they can focus on recovery and rebuilding. by forcing a government shutdowns, speaker mccarthy will abandon the people of maui. we are less than 48 hours from republicans shutting down the government and they have yet to put forward a funding bill that they can pass. it's unconscionable. while these remarks are focused on the impact of a shutdown on disaster aid, make no mistake, a republican government shutdown

will have negative cons consequs for millions of americans, not just in disaster relief, but on every aspect of our lives across the country. this is not a game. we want to know what it will take for house republicans to grow up and realize that the chaos they are sowing will have real impact on lives all across the country. meanwhile the bipartisan senate will continue to do everything we can to keep government open by passing the continuing resolution that we have on deck in the senate and secure the funding for our communities, funding that is so urgently needed. mr. president, i yield back. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: mr. president, i rise today to speak about the senate's need to swiftly confirm pending u.s. attorney nominees. two days ago i came to the floor

to request unanimous consent for the senate to take up and confirm four pending u.s. attorney nominations that were being held up by one united states senate, the junior senator from ohio, senator vance. and two days ago he said, and i quote, my position is we should have a full senate vote on each of these justice department nominees. he also said if it is so important to confirm these folks, bring them to the floor for a vote. that is what he is attempting to prevent today. for decades the senate confirmed u.s. attorney general nomineeles of both political parties by -- nominees of both political parties by voice vote or unanimous consent in the senate after being reported by the judiciary committee. before the beginning of the biden administration, the senate had not required a roll call vote in confirmation of a u.s. attorney since 1975, almost 50 years. in fact, during the trump

administration, senate democrats allowed every one of trump's u.s. attorney nominees, all 85, to move through the committee and be confirmed by a voice vote, unanimous consent. let me tell you, as a democrat in those days, i knew what i was getting with these u.s. attorneys, working with u.s. attorney jeff sessions, but i respected the tradition of the senate but now senate republicans have decided to change the rules and are blocking the confirms of these critical law enforcement officers. i faced this before. republicans have said they're going to object to u.s. attorneys, but fortunately had better thoughts on the subject as time progressed. now this year the senator from ohio has proudly announced that he will -- i want to quote him exactly here. i will hold all doj nominations. we will grind the justice

department to a grind the justice department to a halt. u.s. attorneys are too important to be used as political pawns in a national debate. they lead our nation's effort to prosecute violent criminals. don't tell me that you're for law and order but you want to stop criminal prosecutors from being appointed to the job. they lead our nation's effort to protect our communities from drug trafficking. i quoted some numbers the other day about drug trafficking and fentanyl deaths in the state of ohio, the state where one of these u.s. attorneys would be going to work, in the cleveland area. ohio ranks fourth in the nation in narcotics deaths. for the senate to respond by one senator, from ohio, stopping the appointment of a criminal prosecutor to go after these cartels and drug gangs is not explainable. so, i offered senator vance the opportunity to allow us to

schedule confirmation votes on all pentagon u.s. attorneys. i want to read exactly what he said, from the "congressional record." which, of course, is the permanent record of the senate and will be read by future generations. this is september 27, two days ago. here is what senator vance said, i'm the new guy and i recognize i'm a little naive when it comes to matters of procedures of the united states senate, but i have had a lot of jobs in my life and yesterday we passed one vote, and today we have passed zero votes. the time we have spent debating whether we should have unanimous consent over these nominations we could actually use to vote on these nominations and end this charade and call it for what it is. if we believe that these nominees must go forward, let's just have a vote on it. allow me to scrutinize it. allow my colleagues to vote them up or down. that is a totally reasonable

thing to do, to ask of this chamber, and to ask of this leadership, and because of that i object. well, i searched his challenge -- i accepted his challenge. i took his words to be heartfelt and truthful, that he wanted votes. today we had two votes on two of the u.s. attorneys, considered by the senate, exactly what the senator from ohio asked for. but there are two more on the calendar that he held up initially. he said on the floor during our debate, these weren't people he was necessarily objecting to, but somebody else in the senate might be objecting to them. i didn't know what that meant, but i wanted to give him the time to find out who that might be. it turns out there is no one else. he's the only objector. even though he said on the record in the "congressional record" all he wanted was a roll call vote on these nominees. well, he's going to get a chance to keep his word that he put in the "congressional record" and he's going to get a chance to have the vote that he asked for. only fair.

we did it for the first two, we'll do it for the others. let me repeat again, senator vance not only refused to move these nominees by voice vote as the senate has done for decades, he is now backtracking on his own words from two days ago, refusing roll calls on these nom these. this kind of obstructionism is commonplace, i'm afraid. if you take a look at this executive calendar we have here, there are pages and pages of military officers who have served this country nobly and honorably, who are asking for a simple promotion they're entitled to. they're being held up by another republican senator who doesn't want to move forward on this, holding them for six months for promotion. is this the new way of doing business under the maga regime? i hope not. rebecca lutzko was nominated to be u.s. attorney for the northern district of ohio. she's a longtime federal prosecutor who has served as

assistant u.s. attorney in the u.s. attorney's office for the northern district of ohio for nearly 18 years. as a federal prosecutor, she handles cases involves prescription drug trafficking, gun crimes, and corruption. important? you bet it is. april 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 served the northern district of illinois over a decade, where she handled narcotics, gang violence, public corruption and fraught fraud. important? you bet it is. ms. perry specialized in child exploitation prosecutions, spent six years as the office's safe childhood coordinator. are you as concerned as i am about the trafficking of children, the terrible sexual abuses taking place on the internet? do you think we ought to have the department of justice on that case? of course we should helpful one week ago senator vance was

quoted as saying my objection is not to the specific qualifications of these particular individuals that have been nominated. so here he is not complaining about any of their resumes or capacity to do the job and do it effectively. his concern, and he said it publicly so i think i'm going to accurately quote him, his concern is that the former president of the united states was indicted, and he's very concerned about a department of justice that even let that happen. for goodness sakes, things happened during the department of justice activity out of the -- under the administration of donald trump that i objected to, but i didn't stop the appointment of u.s. attorneys under trump. i didn't stop the people in law enforcement who are keeping us safe in our communities. these are imminently qualified individuals. they clearly -- clearly, i'm asking senator vance, in good faith, keep your word. what you said in the "congressional record" is a matter of record, and you should stand by your word.

for that reason, i make the following motion, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations en bloc, calendar 314 and 315, that the senate vote on the nominations en bloc without intervening action or debate, that if confirmed the motions to reconsidered be considered made and laid upon the table, and the president will be immediately notified of the senate's actions, and the senate resume legislative session. the presiding officer: is there objection? veanls vance madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. vance: madam president, reserving the right to object. let me address a few of my distinguished colleague from illinois' comments. first, while it is true that my hold policy regarding the department of justice is not focused on any particular nominee, i do think this particular nominee is particularly troublesome. let me talk about why. miss perry is a figure who served as chief ethics officer

in the cook county state attorney's office during the justy smolik hate crimes act, where a person accused people of engaging in a false hate crime, took a ton of state resources to investigate it, it turned out it was fraudulent publicity for mr. smollit. now, everyone pretty much agrees ms. fox, the state attorney at the time, engaged in pretty unethical behavior and mrs. perry effectively rubber stamped it. is this the sort of person who could be trusted to importionly administer -- impartially administer justice in the biden-garland department of justice? i don't think she is. i will vote against her, and i object to a streamlined confirmation for her. the senator from illinois is apparently hell-bent on coming before the chamber every week to litigate what i think and believe is a corrupt and

politicized department of justice. he makes much, and makes much every time we engage in this exercise, about the fact that the department of justice has never had this kind of hold policy placed on it before. i agree, this is a new and unique circumstance. what is much different about the trump administration department of justice and the merrick garland-joe biden department of justice is donald trump never tried to throw his political opponents in prison! this is crazy, banana republic stuff and i will not stand for it. i will continue to hold these nominations. i will continue to push back against the politicization of justice. what i have asked for and will continue to ask for is these nominees go through regular order. the senator knows well what everybody else knows, that as one senator i cannot prevent the confirmation of these nominees. however much i might like to. what i can do is force us to go through regular order. i ask for a vote, senator durbin. you can invoke cloture, we can

vote on cloture. we can then do a recorded vote. that is what we have done with many, many nominees. and because of the corruption of merrick garland's department of justice it's what i ask with this nominee and any in the future. because of that, madam president, i object. the presiding officer: the objection is heard. mr. durbin: madam president. it is interesting now we've got a new argument. previously, he said i have no objection to these nominees. i just don't like the process. i want a vote. i said fine, can you have a vote. now he asks for a vote on the two remaining nominees for u.s. attorney, he's finding fault with them as individuals. i hope he will take the time, and i know he's a fair person, to read the record about what miss perry did when she worked for state's attorney kim fox. it's true there was a controversial case before her offerst office and she was the chief ethics officer. she served in the office at the time that the jussie smollett

case was being investigated. but her office was limited to recommending that she recuse herself and the office seek a special prosecutor. miss perry resigned a few weeks after the prosecutors initially agreed to drop the charges. she has never been implicated. to throw her name into this situation is unfair. i'm sure the senator from ohio does not want to do that. listen to what he suggests. i'm glad senator reed is on the floor, chairman of the armed services committee. sound familiar? here we have a group of people, nominees considered throughout history in a routine, unanimous consent way, and now the senator from ohio says we're going to go one by one and have a cloture motion on each of them. we both know having been here a few years what it means. it's physically impossible, whether talking about officers in the military or u.s. attorney nominees to say we'll stack them up on the calendar and go through cloture votes.

and it's unnecessary. if we didn't single out a single u.s. attorney nominee in the trump administration that gave voice votes to all 85, it's an indication of an effort at goodwill and bipartisanship, even when we're suspicious of what the political agenda may be of that department. to hold some of these people, the u.s. attorney for his own home state in the city of cleveland, to hold this person to this kind of scrutiny that goes way beyond anything that we usually have been involved in is unfair to her and it's unfair to the process and the system. i am going to return to the floor. the senator from ohio and i are going to be pretty familiar fixtures on this floor, because if you say something in the "congressional record," as he did, all we want is a roll call, and we offer a roll call just as i did, and he denies it over and over, he has some explaining to do. if he thinks that standing up for the maga order of process

here is something the american people admire, i beg to differ with him. we understand the department of justice has an important job to do to keep us safe in our communities. for someone to say, the senator from the united states senate, to say i will hold all doj nominations. we will grind the justice department to a halt, really? that's your agenda? that's why you came to the senate? if the department of defense is ground to a halt because of promotion of officers, and to do the same thing in the did not of justice, and we're facing a government shutdown over maga members of the house of representatives, the american people have a good picture, good photograph of the future if we go down one particular path in terms of the future in politics in america. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. reed: madam president, i rise to pay tribute to our colleague, dianne feinstein, who passed away as we all know this

morning. as california's senior senator and the longest-serving woman senator ever, senator feinstein was a trailblazer. everyone has made that point. it is a true, accurate, and compelling point. representing the country's most populus state for over three decades, she occupied the national stage as well. for many people inside and outside this chamber, she became the arch type -- the archtype of senator, prepared, professional, pragmatic, and unfailingly civil. californians rewarded her hard work by voting for her by wider and wider margins, and she fought hard for things she believed in, and very often succeeded. but she never believed all -- never belittled those who took a

contrary position. her achievements are many -- the enactment of the federal assault weapons ban in 1994, the six-year review of the cia's detention and interrogation program, which prompted significant reforms in the intelligence community. she was the leader in the reauthorization of the violence against women acts. and she delivered for the people of california, enacting laws to protect public lands and national treasures, doing the hard work to bring stakeholders together to resolve phony issues and complex environmental challenges in her home state. she led our national -- led on national environmental issues, including legislation to improve the fuel economy of automobiles. i had the privilege and pleasure to get to know her. we were both members of the aspen study group. this is an organization sponsored by the aspen institute

of both right and left thoughtful national security policy people. i was very honored to be asked. dianne was a long-term member. and to listen to her insights, to listen to her analysis along with other very thoughtful people was incredibly helpful to me, particularly as a more junior member ever the senate. -- junior member of the senate. of course, her hospitality, her friendship, her decency just were so apparent there, as it was here on the floor of the united states senate. in fact, as we look back, madam president, there's a simple fact here, that dianne feinstein influenced in some way every major policy challenge that this body and this nation has faced over the years. with her voice, with her vote, with her counsel, with her

wisdom, with her unfailing commitment to people of california and the people of the united states. she literally never gave up. she never stopped serving. and she is someone that will be remembered truly as one of the greatest united states senators in the history of this country. it was a privilege to serve with her, and on this day i wish her family and all her loved ones the comfort of knowing what an extraordinary woman, what an extraordinary senator dianne feinstein was. with that, madam president, i would yield the floor.

mrs. murray: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from washington state. mrs. murray: thank you, madam president. americans across the country are watching us now as we near the brink of an entirely pointless and absolutely devastating government shutdown and

wondering how in the world did we get here. it is a great question and an infuriating one. so i want to take a few minutes to walk through exactly how we did get here because the plain truth i want the american people to recognize is it did not have to be this way. but a number of house republicans have been working from day one of this congress to hold our government hostage, push the most extreme partisan agenda imaginable, and set us on a collision course for a government shutdown. and you don't have to take my word for it. just listen to what some of them have been saying. quote, if a shutdown occurs, then so be it. quote, we should not fear a government shutdown. it's, quote, not the worst thing that could happen. and this quote, maybe what it

takes. and last week, of course, former president trump, the same guy responsible for the longest shutdown in history, called for reaction to shut down the government again. and unfortunately it sure seems like these are the sorts of people speaker mccarthy has been listening to, the most extreme fringe voices in his party when he should be listening to the overwhelming majority of people in our country who do not want a shutdown. because let's be clear, most members of congress like most americans on both sides of the aisle here in both chambers of congress do not want a government shutdown. they do want to see us working together to get our jobs done. and this is something i've heard from so many of our colleagues when i became chair of the senate appropriations committee at the beginning of this year. we need to get back to regular order. no more omnibuses. no more chaos. no more government shutdowns.

i heard it from across both parties here in the senate. and so i've been working with the senior senator from maine to deliver on just that, to make our appropriations process work better, to get our bills done and to ensure that all members do have a say in the process. we've made some concrete progress, but over and over extreme republicans in the house have put up road blocks and done everything they can to prevent congress from getting even the most basic things done. the vice chair of the appropriations committee and i held nearly 50 hearings this past spring to evaluate what resources our communities need in the year ahead. but then instead of being able to get right to work and negotiate top-line spending numbers and writing those bills as we finished those hearings this spring, we had to press pause to contend with extreme

republicans who were then holding our nation's credit hostage and threatening a devastating default if they did not get their way with unrealistic, draconian cuts to programs that this entire country relies on. it was a full blown crisis. it was created by extreme house republicans who ground congress and almost our economy to a halt. finally, after their dangerous brinksmanship caused so much unnecessary drama and delay, president biden and speaker mccarthy struck a deal on spending levels that rejected the deepest, most damaging cuts. now, it was not a deal i would have written myself, absolutely not. but a deal is a deal. the speaker and the president shook hands. we all voted on it. it was signed into law. we had an agreement. so we here in the senate could finally get to work writing our

bipartisan spending bills. and in the senate that is exactly what we did. the senior senator from maine and i said okay, let's get things back on track. let's get back to regular order. let's write serious bills that can actually be signed into law. and we agreed to work off the biden-mccarthy deal in a bipartisan way to avoid partisan poison pills and give all of our colleagues input on those bills. we held televised bipartisan markups with amendments, with debate, and for the first time in five years, we passed all 12 bills out of the committee and those bills passed overwhelmingly wp -- overwhelmingly with bipartisan support. we got a resounding 91 votes to start work on three appropriations bills that passed unanimously out of committee here on the senate floor. and as we know, a few hold youths slowed things down but i want you to know we are going to

keep working together to return to regular order so members can debate appropriation bills and offer amendments, and we can get them passed. now, compare that to the house. did they work to produce serious bipartisan appropriations bills that can be signed into law? no. they wrote extreme partisan bills, extreme that are not going anywhere. did they keep out provisions they knew would be nonstarters? absolutely not. their appropriations bills are a far-right wish list chock full of extreme policies that would undermine our response to the climate crisis, embolden bigotry against the lgbtq community, weaken commonsense gun safety regulations, and of course impose extreme abortion restrictions. i mean, the list of extreme far-right policies that were slapped on to government spending bills in the house is

astounding. if you want to get something done for your constituents, you need to get serious, and those bills are not serious. and did house republicans at least stick to the bipartisan top-lines that president biden and speaker mccarthy agreed to and we all voted on? not even in the slightest. before the ink was dry on that deal that he shook hands on, speaker mccarthy caved to demands from the far right to ignore those agreed upon spending levels and take a hatchet to programs that our families rely on. in those spending bills, house republicans want to cut 980 -- cut 80%, 14.7 billion dollars from title 1 funding our public schools rely on. it supports 90% of our nation's school districts, and that includes rescinding funding that congress provided last year that schools have worked into their budgets and are using for this

school year. they want to cut grants that keep our drinking water safe by more than half. they want to slash nearly $4 billion from lifesaving research at the nih. in the middle of a child care crisis, they want to cut head start by $750 million and eliminate funding to help our states expand preschool programs. i'm just getting started. i could go on all day with the devastating cuts house republicans have jammed into their partisan spending bills with utter disregard for that agreement that we all passed a few months ago. and more importantly for how harmful those cuts would be for folks back home. those cuts would hollow out federal programs and agencies to a point where basic government services that people expect to get done, whether it's food safety inspectors or air traffic controllers, would almost certainly break down. i don't say that all of this,

madam president, to score political points. i am laying the facts out to make them plain to the american people who i am sure are just as frustrated as i am about how pointless it would be to shut downing and how ridiculous it is that we are even at this point today. so here we are. days from a government shutdown, and it is clearly the only way that congress can keep the lights on and avoid a terrible shutdown is the bipartisan bill to continue funding and keep things open short term while we work on those full-year bills. and the house isn't even trying to put together a serious proposal to do that. here in the senate the senior senator from maine and i have a simple bipartisan bill that keeps the government funded so we can continue to work on our full-year appropriations bills. it includes absolutely essential

time sensitive reauthorizations for the faa and other agencies. and it extends urgently needed funding for disaster relief and our allies in ukraine. it is a truly reasonable bipartisan bill carefully negotiated. and we are working at this very moment with our colleagues to get this bill over to the house as soon as possible. but so far speaker mccarthy seems to be more focused on indulging a few members by writing bills with massive cartoon villain level cuts instead of listening to the american people and avoiding this shutdown. and after wasting all that time on his partisan bills which will never become law, he tried to jam through a truly extreme c.r. that would have cut agencies by 30%. 30%, as if a 30% shutdown isn't devastating to our families and

economies. they need to get real. if it would become law, that extreme proposal would have been devastating for families and for our country. whether it's the social security administration who is working to get seniors signed up to new benefits, department of education who is working to process pell grants and financial aid for students, and so many others would have had to figure out this monday to implement a 30% across-the-board cut if their bill had passed. this monday. their bill would grind basic government services to a halt. it would create chaos and almost certainly make the odds of a recession likely. as we just saw a while ago, that bill fortunately went down in the house in flames because it was not bipartisan. and it was not a serious effort to get our communities the funding they need. so the lesson here should be

obvious. partisanship is not how we get through crisis, any of them, especially in a divided government. it is not how we prevent shutdowns. we prevent shutdowns by rolling up our sleeves, doing the hard work of talking to each other, listening to each other, hammering out a bipartisan agreement to keep the lights on. and fortunately that's what we've actually done here in the senate. we have a bipartisan agreement. we are on our way to sending it to the house as soon as possible possible. good news, it's not too late for speaker mccarthy to learn his lesson and do the right thing. i hope instead of listening to the likes of former president trump or the extreme right and continuing to push a bill like he just did that failed so badly, the speaker needs to listen to all of the people who will be hurt by this shutdown, who will miss their paychecks, who will be cut off from health

care and child care and support they rely on. and then i hope he will commit to bringing up our commonsense c.r. bills to the floor as soon as possible. madam president, let us get our jobs done. let's keep the government open. and then instead of retreating back to partisan extreme, i urge speaker mccarthy to do what so many of our members on both sides of the aisle here in the senate have called for and work together with our colleagues to find common ground and produce serious proposals that will make people's lives better. politics isn't a game. sometimes you just choose to do the right thing because you know quite clearly what the right thing is to do. shutting down government is not the right thing. refusing to work in a bipartisan way and forcing us into a showdown to show smernls of the

house republican majority that you will fight democrats, that's the wrong thing. the american people don't want to see you fight the other party. they want to see you work with your colleagues across the aisle. madam president, that is what we have done in the senate with our 12 bipartisan funding bills. and the sooner we take a shutdown off the table, the sooner we can get back to work to pass those 12 bills that fund everything from cancer research to grants for our farmers to top-notch medical care for our veterans, and so much more. so, madam president, as i said so many times, let's help people and solve problems. let's work together, not against one another. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

madam president, first woman president pro tem of the united states senate. earlier this morning, we lost a giant in the senate. senator diane feinstein is one of the most amazing people ever raised the senate, whoever graced the country. she had so many amazing, wonderful qualities wrapped up

in one incredible human being. she was smart, she was strong, she was brave, she was compassionate but may be the trait that stood out most of all was her amazing integrity from integrity was a diamond. her integrity shown like a beacon across the senate and the country for all to see and hopefully emulate. diane feinstein would typically say when you asked her voting on something, let me that he this issue before taking a position. let me go home and read on it and when she came back, she believed the cost was right and vital to many issues she cared about, she not only voted for it, there is no stopping her from getting it done.

she would take on any force, any special -- quorum? the presiding officer: yes, we are. mrs. blackburn: i ask that we suspend the quorum. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. blackburn: thank you. on june 27, 2014, an e-mail was sent to an individual who works with iran's foreign ministry. the sender of that e-mail was seeking advice on whether she should attend a workshop on iran's nuclear program hosted by ben gurion university in israel. the sender wrote, and i quote, i am not interested in going, but then maybe it would be better that i go and talk rather than an israeli like emily landow who goes and disseminates disinformation. i would like to ask your opinion

too and see if you think i should accept the invitation and go. end quote. in a normal world, we would chalk this up to an academic seeking politically charged advice from a mentor. but i became concerned when i learned that this individual who wrote that e-mail, who was actively seeking guidance from individuals within the iranian foreign ministry now has a united states government top secret clearance and works within our defense department as the chief of staff for assistant secretary of defense for special operations and low intensity conflict. just to be sure we're following this, this is a u.s. citizen who wrote to someone inside

iran's foreign ministry to seek advice on going to a conference in israel and speaking at that so that they would speak instead of someone who was pro-israel. they were asking their advice. well, this individual is ms. tab -- arian tabati and that e-mail was not the last one she sent to her friend who was in iran's foreign ministry. she wrote him on july 10, 2014, to let him know that he was offering testimony to congress on the iran nuclear deal and needed some advice on how to handle it. to be sure that we're continuing to follow this, she is going to

be speaking to congress, and she is asking the advice of someone inside iran's foreign ministry on how she should handle her testimony before the u.s. congress. now some of my colleagues may have seen the article detailing these communications and the extent of iranian influence operations against the united states. it contained details about the iran expert's initiative referred to often as the iei, which was a brainchild of the rouhani administration. it tasked second-hand iranians with

pronuclear iran ideology and writing propaganda demanding compromise with tehran. this is very intentional wsm we know that they were -- we know that they were using this to push pro-iran stories. it wasn't a casual operation. the iranian foreign minister and nuclear negotiating team were involved in creating this group. creating this group. there to support pushing the nuclear complex, the nuclear buildup in iran. well, ms. tabatabai was a part of the core group of the iei, as it was referred to, that

tight-knit core group. remember, this is the iran expert's initiative. by all accounts, she was very good at her job. we know this because we've now seen e-mails between the iranian officials in charge of this propaganda mill boasting about the success of their propaganda mill, and just a few years after tabatabai made a name for herself pushing propaganda for iran, the biden administration invited her to take a seat at the table as part of robert malley's iran nuclear negotiating team. you remember robert malley. he was the lead negotiator on the 2015jcpoa, or as we commonly call it, the iran nuclear deal. and then in 2021, biden named

him the u.s. special envoy to iran. it was his job to bring the united states and iran into compliance with the failed nuclear deal. now, this is a 2023 from june of that year sent by a high-ranking russian diplomat whose job it was to help reimplement this deal. it shows the u.s. delegation at the negotiating table hammering out the details with the iranians, and that's ms. tabatabai on the end in the pink blazer. she was not a background player. she was someone who had a seat at the negotiating table. so, madam president, for almost three years now, i've come to the floor to implore president

biden and his advisors to just pay attention to the blatant information warfare against our country that is being carried out every single day by the new axis of evil, russia, china, iran, north korea. now, we've seen this take many forms. we see it with the remaining con fiewsh r fuseus -- the remaining confucius institutes in our country. they have ignored the possible influences that they pose. now we know that there is a willing participant in an iranian influence operation. he hired her. he gave her a united states government top secret security clearance and sent her to negotiate with the very

officials that once she worked for. remember, she was a part of the iran experts' initiative. this is beyond poor judgment. this is dangerous. it's also rather unthinkable. i would also remind my colleagues that earlier this year her former boss and colleague, robert malley, was placed on leave after the state department suspended his security clearance. they had reason to believe he was mishandling classified material. yesterday we learned that the pentagon is going to review tabatabai's links to tehran, but that is not sufficient. i want to know how it could be possible that the biden administration found nothing of concern when they vetted her.

that is why i have sent this letter over to the pentagon demanding answers to these questions. the american people deserve to know how in the world could someone who had worked for the iranian expert initiative, had been a part of what was called the core group, how could they possibly get a security clearance? but, you know, considering the lengths to which this administration has gone to appease iran, i imagine their response will be just as satisfying as the other that some of my colleagues and i have received in our attempts to exercise oversight over some of these foreign policy and national security issues.

the american people deserve answers. i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: mr. mcconnell: madam president. the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: congress has until tomorrow night to pass a straightforward short-term funding extension and avoid a federal government shutdown. all this week and every time we found ourselves in the situation before, i've offered my colleagues the same warning. shutting down the government doesn't help anybody

politically. it doesn't make any meaningful progress on policy, and it heaps unnecessary hardships on the american people as well as the brave men and women who keep us safe. right now i'm encouraged that many of our colleagues who share my concerns are working hard on amendments to strengthen the pending legislation and avert the disastrous effects of a shutdown. congress has an opportunity right now to pay our servicemembers, border security personnel and other essential workers. to keep important government functions running and to keep the lights on so the important discussions we're having right now about dealing with democrats' border crisis,

delivering disaster relief, supporting ukraine, and reining in reckless spending can continue. and i would urge our colleagues to take that opportunity. now on an entirely different matter. today i join my alma mater, the university of louisville in celebrating the inauguration of its new president, dr. kim scha atl. for me this was the first place in kentucky where i felt completely at home and it's somewhere i continue to find fulfillment in my personal and public life. as a young man, it's where i met the first professor who

challenged me to think for myself where i tested my talents in my first art class and where i was lucky enough to take part in u of l's congressional internship program, and that turned out a lot better than my art tissic -- artistic pursuits. it is still a part of my life, whether i'm at the football games, advocating on behalf of them, or the success of the scholars. as president schotzel steps into her new role, i hope she will have the cooperation of all those who are there. throughout the 225-year history, u-l has hosted a long list of

visionary leaders who have shaped its success. today i'm proud to welcome president schatzel to those ranks. she is a valuable addition to the u of l family. before joining the university of louisville she led a successful career in corporate america. in just two decades she rose from foreman on a ford pointo assembly -- pinto assembly line to heading up a manufacturing enterprise enterprise. she took her marketing genius to higher education as president of to tousend -- these are high

priorities for our university as well and i look forward to partnering with her to bring similar success to u of l and the broader community. the city of louisville rely on the university of slewyville -- louisville for so much. leading a major metropolitan university like u of l is a big job, but i think i speak for the entire louisville community when i say president schatzel, keep up the good work. from one card nel to another -- cardinal to another, congratulations on this momentous day.

a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. merkley: i ask unanimous consent that the privileges of the floor be extended to mike solinski, a member-my team, for -- a member of my team for the balance of the day. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. merkley: madam president, i'm standing here at the desk next to the desk of our fallen colleague, senator dianne feinstein. it seems enormously strange that instead of being able to sit here and have her next to me, her desk is covered with a black

cloth and a bowl, a crystal bowl of white roses. we come from the west coast where our states sit side by side, so perhaps it was fitting that we sat side by side here on the floor of the u.s. senate. one thing in particular that senator feinstein liked to do was share with me pictures of her dog kirby, who she absolutely loved. and she had a lot of pictures on her phone to show kirby in different moments of delight, and i must say for me this was kind of a powerful personal connection because i enjoyed her pictures-my doings, roxy and la,

who i loved dearly. as we worked on the great issues of international affairs or the big challenges of america, sometimes it's just the personal connections, simple connections in a life that can bond people to each other. very few people's lives is full as much history and consequence as senator dianne feinstein's. the first woman to serve as mayor of san francisco, the first woman to serve as the senator from california, the longest serving senator not only from california but the longest serving woman in the senate ever at just over 30 years.

in 2009 during my first year in the senate, she made a point to invite me as a freshman senator to meet her friend, the dalai lama i had had a chance to previously meet the today laila ma when i was head of the world fair's council in oregon and i had invited him to speak to the people of oregon. but this was in a different context of the connection, the foreign relations in which we were striving to elevate concerns about the treatment of the tibetan people. she was a passionate supporter of the tibetan people. she had met him 30 years before in india. she had welcomed him on his first visit to the united states as the mayor of san francisco.

she never let up on the importance of that challenge and her concerns about the mistreatment of the tibetan people. in fact, i also had the opportunity to work with her on the congressional executive commission on china which strived to shine a light on many human rights issues, but one of which certainly was defending the tibetan people's human rights and culture from the repression of the chinese government. and she was also a powerful partner as we worked together to pass the employment nondiscrimination act here on the senate floor, which we did in 2013. and then to strive to elevate the equality act, the gold standard for ending discrimination against our lgbtq community, an act that we have not yet passed on this senate floor but absolutely should.

and i hope some day we will have the votes to do that. because she just believed that nobody should face discrimination. everybody should have an equal opportunity to thrive here in the united states of america. we also served together for many years on the appropriations committee and the rules committee. she was a persistent voice in this last couple of years, time and time again calling for better pay for our federal wild land firefighters. that particular issue is so essential because the fires were facing in the west and no one raised it as often or as passionate as she did and as a result, we won that pay raise. and i know that she would be insisting if she was here today that make sure that pay raise is sustained in any continuing

resolution we might pass in the next couple days. she knew how essential that was out west that we have firefighters, wildland firefighters who can work year round and be paid decently so we are actually there on the job. i was proud to cosponsor her legislation this year, the west coast ocean protection act, to prohibit the exploration, development, and production of oil off the west coast. a mutual concern of those off the west coast that our coast and our multiple fisheries, our crabbing, our whiting, our shrimp, our salmon, our ground fish are not damaged by oil, that our shoreline is not damaged by oil. essential she felt that we preserve the health of our oceans against the potential

damage from drilling off the coast. in fact, she was a strong voice in this broader conversation about climate change. she understood climate chaos and how the changing temperatures are affecting us in so many different ways. at one point when we were serving on the appropriations committee together, i had a simple amendment that supported our international obligation to help fund the international or the intergovernmental panel on climate change, and we had a deal between legislators on both sides of the aisle that we'd simply hold a voice vote because legislators across the aisle felt it should be passed but they knew anything that related to climate was so controversial and they didn't want to bring that controversy into the discussion about honoring a treaty obligation. so the agreement was to pass it by voice vote and when i proposed the amendment, senator

dianne feinstein spoke up. i hadn't filled her in on the background. and she said, this issue is about climate. it's so important. we should hold a recorded vote. i probably went a little bit pale because i wasn't sure as a recorded vote that we could honor -- vote to honor our international agreement, but fortunately and just by a single vote, we did. it worked out but it just shows her commitment to having a public discussion, public votes, public accountability to take on this incredibly significant challenge that we have faced with the changing climate. senator feinstein helped open the doors of the senate to so many other women legislators. she took weapons off the street.

she believed torture was un-american and unacceptable and those who are responsible must be held accountable. she raised vehicle emission standards and protected so many of california and america's beautiful outdoor spaces for future generations, including the interest she had in protecting lake tahoe. yesterday senator feinstein who did so much to open this government to so many cast her final vote in the u.s. senate. it was a vote to keep this government open, keep the american government serving the american people. she lived an exceptional live, a life dedicated to public service. she has left behind an enormous

public legacy, a legacy of tenacity, a legacy and willingness to build bridges across the aisle to solve problems. i hope that many of us can just hope to do as well. my thoughts are with her daughter, katherine, and her granddaughter, eileen. it was an honor and privilege to serve with senator dianne feinstein here in the u.s. senate. thank you. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. the clerk: ms. baldwin. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. ms. lummis: madam president, i ask to vitiate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. lummis: thank you, madam president. madam president, i'm honored to have had my first term in the united states senate coincide with dianne feinstein's time here in this senate. when i learned this morning that she had passed away, the longest serving woman in the united states senate, two words came to my mind. patience and kindness. the bible says that love is

patient and kind. senator feinstein -- and i disagreed on policy much of the time but never regarding patience and kindness. dianne feinstein was unfailingly kind. she was particularly kind to other women senators. she was the first to invite other women senators to dinner, to lead our gatherings, and to focus our attention on things that are good for all americans without regard to political ideology. as someone who arrived in the senate the same week as january 6, that day set the tone for many of my first months in the u.s. senate. but that day never set the tone for my relationship with senator

dianne feinstein. my conversations with her from beginning to end were unfailingly cordial and kind. particularly poignant were my observations of the relationship it senator fine -- between senator feinstein and her colleague from california senator alex padilla. the conversation, i enjoyed with senator feinstein and senator padilla displayed his admiration and respect for his senior senate colleague based on a year's long working relationship going back to his internship for her and his importance to her is on display on the beautiful artwork she created for him. that was a beautiful california

duo. i know that senator padilla will do her honor in becoming california's senior senator. so i conclude with positive memories of dianne feinstein. senator, colleague, and hopefully for both of us, friend. and that's a lovely way to set the tone for political pop -- for political opposites going forward. if patience and kindness is what love is, then that is also what senator dianne feinstein is. senator dianne feinstein is love. i salute her service and i yield i salute her service and i yield

>> madam president. >> majority leader. >> madam president, first woman president pro tem of the united states senate, early this morning, we lost a giant in the senate. senator dianne feinstein was one of the most amazing people ever grace the senate the senate and country. wrapped up in one incredible human being. she was smart. she was strong. she was brave. but maybe the trait that stood out most of all was her amazing integrity. her integrity was a diamond. her integrity fee still -- show

like a beacon across the senate and the country for all to see. let me study this issue. believe in the cause of the vote was right. vital to many issues she cared about. she not only voted for it. there was no stopping her getting it done. she would take on any force. she would wear those opponents down.

she wanted she wanted she wanted she made the country a better place. i can see this happening to her in california. a relentless often mean-spirited and chauvinistic foe. they used vitriol against her. but they did not scare her, they did not stop her. and they failed against her. like most of her opponents. they failed against her. most of all our integrity. i was privileged to carry the bill in the house and after she had pass it in the senate. her strength and her integrity

strengthened all of us who were fighting that uphill fight. as we went through that bill, it became clear to me, dianne feinstein is not like the others she is in a class of her own. of course it was not just the assault weapons ban she fought for, her accomplishments also included championing the violence against women act, protecting oversight authority to u.s. torture, fighting for climate justice, fighting for marriage equality, fighting for reproductive justice. the list goes on and on. as chair of the intelligence committee, diane fought for what was right even if it was hard. and difficult and took months and years to dig in and find out what actually went wrong. she never stopped. she took on the cia and asserted

congresses oversight authority during the investigation into the united states use of torture through all of her accomplishments, this one and all the others, she always displayed the quintessential great and strength. none of these ever rattled her. i remember a few years back when a particularly nasty senator try to put senator feinstein down in a condescending many would say chauvinistic way. she reacted not defensively, but with strength and poise and integrity and within three minutes she put this colleague in her place, in his place. and by the end of it, everyone in the room and both sides of the aisle were smiling. that was diane, to a t. powerful, prepared, unflappable. she had to be. whenever she did something she was often the first to do it.

she was elected as the first woman president to the san francisco board of supervisors. the first woman to serve as mayor of san francisco. the first woman to serve as u.s. senator to california. the first woman to chair the senate rules and intelligence committees. the first woman member of the senate judiciary committee and the list goes on and on and on and on. our nation will be forever thankful to senator feinstein for the accomplishments she fought for. i, too, am personally indebted to diane. not just a colleague which of course i am in so many ways is a collie, but as a friend and a father of two daughters. diane's work extended far beyond the senate floor. as she gave a voice, a platform and a leader to women throughout the country for decades. diane did not just push down doors that were closed. she held them open for

generations of women after her to follow. she gave a voice a platform a model for women across the country who aspire to roles and leadership. in public service. he want to leave their own mark on the world. he want to make this country a better place for others. today, there are 25 women serving in this chamber and every one of them will admit that they stand on diane's shoulders. so, diane's impact extended far beyond the senate floor and far beyond politics itself so, today , we grieve, we look at that desk and we know what we have lost. but we also give thanks.

thanks to someone so verified, so brave, so graceful a presence served in this chamber someone like that chamber served for so many years. in closing, let me just say this the sign of a leader is someone who dedicates the whole of their spirit for a cause greater than themselves. the sign of a hero is someone who fights for others, who endures for others no matter the cost, no matter the odds and the sign of a friend is someone who stands by your side to fight the good fight on the good days and on the bad. dianne feinstein was all of this and more. a friend, a hero for so many, a leader who changed the nation -- sorry, a leader who changed the nature of the senate and to changed the fabric of the nation

america for the better. as the nation mourns this tremendous loss for comfort in knowing how many mountains diane moved, how many life she impacted, how many glass ceiling she shattered along the way, america, america is a better place because of senator dianne feinstein. today i join with my colleagues good morning our beloved friend and colleague. i yield the floor. >> referring to each other as a friend from whatever state it is honestly, frequently, that is not true. but we were actual friends of dick and diane. elaine served on a corporate board with dick for a number of years. when they were in town together

i remember that diane gave us a small depiction. i looked at it this morning. it was still on the wall and remembered our dear colleague as a truly remarkable individual as the majority leader has pointed out. she was an incredibly effective person at every level and she was all of those levels on the way to the senate. those of us who were fortunate to call diane our colleague would say we served alongside the longest-serving female center in american history.

diane was a trailblazer in her beloved home state of california and our entire nation are better for hair service. over the past three decades, being sensitive and consequential work and said of the intelligence committee and judiciary committee her name became synonymous with advocates for women and issues of order infrastructure to encounter drug efforts. of course the first woman to lead the hometown board of supervisors and then govern as mayor making history and making a difference long before she came to the senate. as much as this institution and the american people remember diane's devoted public service, as i indicated earlier, we will

also remember and cherish the friendship of 30 years we were fortunate to share with diane and dick. so, today i know that the entire senate family is gathered around senator feinstein's loyal staff, our thoughts and prayers are with diane's daughter catherine, granddaughter, the entire feinstein family and with all who mourn our dear colleague and friend. >> go to the senator pro tem president. like to acknowledge diane'smr daughter catherine with speaker pelosi in the gallery. >> mr. president. >> president pro tem. >> mr. president, yesterday the senior senator from california came onto the floor through those doors to do her job.

she voted. she voted to make sure that our country would continue to move forward passed in the -- in thes with bipartisan support. i'm talking about a bill called the preventing a government shutdown act. following passage -- i wrote an article in "the wall street journal" and i just want to read the first two paragraphs of that column published on september 22, 2019. if a legislature in my state, my home state of wisconsin fails to pass next year's appropriations bills, we don't shut government agencies down, we fund them at the previous year's appropriations levels. doesn't that make sense? that commonsense approach should apply in washington, but it doesn't. by the time i arrived in 2011,

congress's appropriations process was completely broken. it still is. the u.s. -- this is as of september 2019, the u.s. has since had three government shutdowns, passed 32 continuing resolution to avoid shutdowns, raised the debt ceiling nine times, four years ago, and increased the debt 8.5 trfdz. so here -- $8.5 trillion. here we are a couple of days before the end of the fiscal year, four years later, our debt, by the way has more than doubled. it stands at $33 trillion now, and we're facing a shutdown. isn't this ridiculous? there's no reason for this. again, back -- back in june of

2019, i tasked up my committee members and said, okay, i want to pass a bill that will end all government shutdowns forever. take it off the table. now, there have been a thumb of bills -- a number of bills designed to do that offered in both chambers, both in the house and senate. i had three members of the committee -- four members of the committee have their own bills. the bill i selected to debate, mark up, and pass was one offered by senator james lankford and maggie hassan. i chose that bill because -- the one bill actually increased spending, one bill decreased spending, but the hassan-lankford bill dl what we did in wisconsin, you don't shut the government down, you spend at last year's level until

congress can get its act together and appropriate the funds. so that bill that i chose that we passed, by the way, on a bipartisan basis. i believe every democrat senator on the committee voted for it. senator hassan and senator lankford did a good job of coming together in a bipartisan fashion. they put some disciplines in there. but what it does, is just creates rolling 14-day c.r.'s with those disciplines, members can't travel back on the government dime. you only have a 24-hour shutdown, i believe. there were other disciplines there to start to act. if you don't get it done in 14 days, you have another 14 day c.r. until we complete the can proiptions process -- appropriations process. i think the reason most members

say we don't want to shut down the government is we realize it is an inefficient process and it hurts people. it hurts people. so why haven't we passed this in the last four years? why haven't some of these other preventing government shutdowns acts passed in the past? why not? it's ridiculous we haven't done it yet. the result, by the way, has been what this chart demonstrates. again, i already mentioned we're $33 trillion in debt. it's very important to recognize how out-of-control spending is here in washington, d.c. when we were debating the omnibus as of last year, i asked my republican colleagues, anybody know how much the federal government is going to spend this year? i didn't get any answers. maybe somebody knew but didn't volunteer an answer. i went out and asked the

washington press corps, the folks that are supposed to be reporting on this to our constituents, to the american public. anybody know how much the federal government spent last year? i think i got a couple of answers. it was over a trillion dollars. well, that's true in terms of discretionary spending. less than 30% of the budget. by the way, i granted them immediate absence liewtion. i wouldn't expect you to know how much the federal government spends in total because we never talk about it. think of it. the federal government is the largest financial entity in the world and in december of 2022, the people who should have known this had no idea what in total the federal government spent. well, the answer was about $6.2 trillion. let me put that in context. that's what this chart shows. i know the numbers are pretty small so i'll describe them. this column is fiscal 2019 year spending. this is the fiscal year before

the pandemic and the pandemic recession. this column is this fiscal year, f.y.2023's estimate spending. we don't have hard figures yet but we have a pretty good idea what we'll be spending. just four years ago in fiscal year 2019, total federal government spending was $4.446 trillion, $4.4 trillion. let me put that in perspective. in 2002, it was the first time we passed the rube conspending over $2 trillion in total. 17 years later, took us 17 years later to more than double that to $4.4 trillion. this fiscal year that we're closing out in a couple of days we'll spent over $6.3 trillion. we're spending $1.9 trillion more this year than we spent just four years ago.

this is completely out of control. by the way, if you put us at a baseline based on just population growth and inflation, in other words take out the massive out-of-control spending during the pandemic and put us on a reasonable baseline, last year we spent a little more than $5 trillion. but in the debt ceiling deal which, by the way, didn't raise the debt ceiling by a given amount, house conservatives basically gave the speaker to negotiate $1.5 trillion, we've done one of these washington games of just suspending the debt ceiling, that will probably result in the debt ceiling increase of about $4 trillion which will accommodate this massive, massive deficit spending. so again just to repeat, four years ago, $4.4 trillion.

four years later $6.3, almost $6.4 trillion. a deficit of over -- that's an increase of more than $1.9 trillion. the deficit this year will be somewhere between $1.7 trillion and $2 trillion. we need to get this under control. but i want to make an important point here. as dysfunctional as washington, d.c. is and it is grotesquely dysfunctional -- i come from the private sector -- this would not happen in the private sector. you wouldn't take 72%, 73% of what you spend in your private sector budget and say that's on automatic pilot. we're only going to look at 27% of the budget and try and control that. that's basically what we're doing here with discretionary spending this year. 27%. we'll focus on that and ignore 73% and let it grow out of

control. but again, this is a well honed process. it's dysfunctional but the process is in place and it's a well honed process to mortgage our children's future. and we're witnessing that process. this is my 13th year. i think every year at least a shutdown has been threatened as we're threatening this one. again, disquieting people, worrying people because if a shutdown does occur, people will be hurt. we could avoid it. but this well honed process is playing out as it has ever since i arrived here. it's basically you don't do appropriation bills, not the house, not the senate. you might start the charade like we did this year start passing them in this chamber in september, a few weeks before the fiscal year.

obviously you don't have enough time to pass all of them. so then you threaten a government shutdown. you predict calamity. then you load on to a continuing resolution, spending that may or may not be controversial. it's not where you increase spending, it's not where you put supplemental spending 679 but that's what we -- spending. but that's what we do. it becomes controversial and all of a sudden you're threatening shutdown. now, the proposal on the table right now in the senate is let's do a c.r. with some controversial spending and we'll have that c.r. end the day before thanksgiving recess. put a little pressure on our members just in case we can get our act together, come up with a couple of massive mini buses or one massive omnibus to drop on everybody's desk and if they want to go home for recess, you better pass that thing. now, my desk is probably won't be able to get that done in time.

so we'll end up with another c.r. this one will probably be scheduled to expire on -- i don't know. pick a date. my guess would be december 23, december 24. same process. that's what happened last year. and then we get again dropped on our desk about a 2,000-plus-page bill. nobody has time to read it other than the people who wrote it. and you get the obvious choice, vote yes or no. the problem with that in addition to just the grotesque dysfunction of it is the individual appropriation bills do not get the scrutiny that they deserve. if you bring up every appropriation bill, 12 -- you've got to start somewhere around may. bring up each individual appropriation bill. now you can actually scrutinize it. the public can see it. we can offer amendments. it's not a panacea. i'm not going to say it's going to completely stop this runaway spending train but it will be some constraint.

it will restore some function to this very dysfunctional place. so again, what i've been pushing for for four years and it's one of the reasons i withheld my consent on the minibus and i appreciate the fact that the chairman and ranking member of the appropriations committee are willing to work with me and offer me amendment on a minibus to try and get a vote and maybe pass the preventing government shutdown act. other people are objecting. we haven't got that vote yet. so here we are a couple of days before a shutdown and we need to do something. the house is having obviously a difficult time coming up with a solution. the senate may pass something that really has no chance of passing in the house. we have to be honest about that. so again, in order to prevent a government shutdown, what we ought to do is do something that people agree on.

rather than try and use this moment to jam something through that people don't all agree with, let's try and pass something people agree with, which is a bill that will prevent a government shutdown. now, i've chosen a 14-day clean c.r. because that's pretty much the structure of the preventing the government shutdown act, rolling 14-day c.r.'s, giving both chambers the time to act to start passing these bills with a little more scrutiny than what minibuses or an omnibus would afford. it's very commonsense approach. it's something we all ought to agree on. it would prevent a shutdown. it would prevent pain to real people. and all we have to do is agree to do what we all say we want to do to avoid what we all say we want to avoid, a government

shutdown. so, madam president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of my bill which is at the desk. i further ask that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: is there objection? mrs. murray: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: madam president, reserving the right to object. we can't be back here in this same situation in two weeks. we need a c.r. that gives us the actual time to get through our bipartisan spending bills. believe me, i would love to say we can get them done in two weeks but we know that's not realistic because even the three that passed unanimously out of my committee have run into delays, as the senator from wisconsin knows all too well. and just as importantly, this bill does nothing to reauthorize time-sensitive programs. it does not reauthorize faa

which means chaos for our air travel. it doesn't reauthorize our community health centers and other critical primary care programs which means that patients in our underserved areas will lose access to health care programs they need. and it doesn't protect our wildland firefighters from a drastic pay cut. it doesn't extend disaster relief funding or ukraine aid. madam president, we have before this body a carefully negotiated bipartisan c.r. that does include all of those absolutely essential policies. that has already garnered more than enough support to pass here in the senate and that i am confident will pass the house as soon as speaker mccarthy actually puts it to a vote. that is where our attention needs to be, not on a slapdash bill that puts us back here in two weeks and completely leaves air travel and health care, firefighters, so much more in

the lurch. i object. the presiding officer: the objection is heard. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. the clerk: ms. baldwin.

quorum call:

quorum call:

the senior senator from maine. >> i praise to express sadness today and to honor my friend and her colleague senator dianne feinstein. she was a pioneer and a strong and dignified leader. diane was the longest-serving woman in the senate's history and had a career marked by many firsts. the first woman to serve as mayor of san francisco, first woman senator to represent

california, first woman to serve as the chair of the senate intelligence committee and the first woman to observe -- to serve on the senate judiciary committee. dianne was such a strong presence in the senate. she was a determined and tenacious advocate. many of us worked closely with her on the intelligence committee where she was such an excellent chair woman. she was always there, respectful, informed and strong. we worked together on the appropriations committee as well, where she chaired the energy and water subcommittee. many of us were her allies on the violence against women act and their respect for marriage

act. the senate and the country have lost a model senator. elegant, graceful, kind, compassionate, strong, informed, intelligent. mr. president, i have also lost a deer friend. i put up this watercolor painting that dianne did and gave me so many years ago. it has hung in my office ever since and it will have a place of honor there, always. every time i would pass by i would look at it and think about how talented dianne was in so

many different areas. i treasure this painting. when i became engaged 11 years ago, it was dianne who sponsored a reception for me and my now husband tom in her home in washington. my story is similar to that of the republican leader. i was also reminded when i heard senator murray talk about dianne's generosity. at one point she broke brought a seersucker suit for every woman who was serving in the senate so that we could all participate in seersucker tuesday. that was dianne. she paid attention to the smallest details, to the largest

issues that affected not only our country but the world. most of all dianne was such a role model for girls and women. she was a role model for us who came to the senate after she began her storied tenure here. i will miss dianne. my heart goes out to her family and may she rest in peace. thank you mr. president. >> mr. president today we mourn the death of the trailblazer my colleague and friend senator dianne feinstein. i've been privileged to have known dianne throughout her entire career in this chamber

and my entire time as well. she was my friend and seat made on the senate judiciary committee for over 20 years. when you are that close to someone politically day in and day out, week in, week out you pick up on the things that mean the most to her. certainly her family was the highest priority to her overall things but her life experience created what we know is the legacy of dianne. how many times she told the story of serving on the parole board for the state of california. cases that she rememberedpr in detail lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. murray: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it recess until 12:00 noon on saturday, september 30o following the prayer and pledge, the the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day and morning business be closed. upon the conclusion of morning business, the senate resume

consideration of h.r. 3935. the presiding officer: without objection. so ordered. mrs. murray: madam president, if there is to further business to come before the senate, a i ask that it stand in recess under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands in recess until noon tomorrow o tomorrow. recess: