taxpayers. >> okay so let me follow-up. how are you determining when it is necessary to downsize office space? so, our team is that a portfolio wide review and national portfolio review to figure out which buildings we should keep and which buildings we should dispose of. i think this huge first step. we announced last week already 23 of those are going to be put up through the disposal process. just as 23 buildings is a reduction of 3.5 million square feet of space. and potential in cost avoidance again since i've been talking about the the value when we sell it, of over a billion dollars. we are eager to work with you all to get this done. >> ordinary american small businesses and corporate america cannot afford to pay for space they barely use let alone help the federal government pay for its unused space. so how quickly is gsa going to

push agencies to consolidate office space based on the study you just mentioned? quickly you're working with agencies all the time as they ie rethinking how much space they need. that's an important thing the team does every date of the end we don't force them to make a decision they have to decide based on their mission how much space they need we try to get of alternatives. one of things we are seeing nowadays and people are in office they want to work differently there's collaboration space, there are reading rooms other configurations rather than individual offices that make more sense. >> thank you i will more question i want to squeeze in. dc-based federal employees including yourself juicer teleworker majority of the time, from a lower cost errs in the country should they continue to receive the additional 32-point locality pay increase for the d.c. area? >> issue of locality pay is

something our hr department things about all of the time. to make sure taxpayers are in the value and people are getting. >> , should taxpayers save teleworking employees are paid a wage that corresponds with her actual vision of work? >> answer question os for opm. they are better suited school answer that. >> thank you, mr. chairman i think we need to pursue these issues that event brought forth and see what congress can do to force these agencies to downsize and save taxpayers money provides absolutely well that is the mission statement of this committee and look forward to work with you doctor fox on that. the chair recognized a gentleman from virginia mr. conley for five minutes in. >> and get mr. chairman it's great to hear us carnahan you do not force agencies. so you act as sort of the procurer of space whether rented

or purchased on behalf of federal agencies, is that correct? >> that is correct because federal agencies are tantamount to big your client. >> yesterday we collaborate with him closely. >> you try to make happy clients presumably progressed to work on that very hard too. >> would it be fair to say the fbi is not a happy client right now? >> we will see how happy or unhappy they are but yes i have received letters from the director that indicate he is unsatisfied progress stipulate you have an unhappy client right now. let's probe why? provisions are made to creditorr that have been established. in july of this year is that correct? >> guests. >> what happened was you change the weighting of those criteria

which i will editorialize certainly seem to favor one party over another but you change the waiting is that correct? >> it that's a pretty simple you change the waiting that existed previously to something different in july. >> we did. >> and at that time you replaced a career civil servant who is overseeing the expert panel of three with a political appointee this deena albert, is that correct? >> we replace someone at the top real estate professional at the agency because the sun editorialize she is a political appointee she was is that correct? >> that it is for. >> as she sought gsa? what she is no longer. >> right after she did the overturn of the panel of expert witnesses that unanimously chose a different sites the one in springfield, virginia she left the agencies that correct she is deputy mayor.

>> it out she is she left the agency is my question? >> that's correct. so in this process did gsa diminish the weighting of proximity and fbi category from 35 to 25%? >> i do not have all the summers in front of me. quickly stipulate the answer is yes. and by the way you change the name. to make it may be less favorable to the fbi from fbi admissions out as a category two proximity. that same time diminish the weighting of transportation category for 25 to 20%? >> i don't have the said they never fruit limits stipulate the answer is yes. did gsa increase the weighting of equity in cost categories from 25% to 40%? >> so your question is? >> two categories costs and

equity. next big change even with the weighted change that clearly favored one party over another, the three panel of experts to from gsa one from fbi unanimously nonetheless chose a different site is that not correct? >> that is correct. >> your appointee this nina albert who is no longer with the agency parachuted in, she unilaterally overturned and redirected the evaluation of the new weighted criteria the three expert panel had reviewed and evaluated, is that correct? >> so i'd like to clarify one thing you use the word overturn perverts it looks like she overturned it to me. i read the report a lot of

personal pronouns in there by the way i, i, i. it seems irrespective of the judgment with the change to the criteria that clearly favored one site over another. none the less it was unanimously selected because of her i will say in my opinion it's arbitrary overturned their findings. you end up picking one side over the other. that raises serious questions about the process. the end of your testimony today you have a full throated reaffirmation of your faith in that decision and the individual making that decision i would say to you, i think he really risk damaging the credibility of the agency that's a lack of political interference in decision-making. i think there's a lot at risk.

mr. chairman we are going to be asked for an inspector general report hope you can join me in that effort. to look at this process and how it could be so contaminated and skew the ultimate decision. >> i yield back progressive judgment yields back let me say i share his concerns about the way gsa chose the new fbi headquarters site. the decision and buckets hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer dollars in economic impact for the surrounding community get gsa altered the original selection criteria to reduce the weight given to the site's ability to enhance fbi's mission effectiveness. the decision-making process itself was altered. gsa installed a political appointee who overruled the decision of career officials recent charge of making the selection. she then promptly left the agency. this does not seem right spirits now clear to me why the major changes were made in the 11th hour. i invite the gentleman from virginia and anyone else on the

committee with concerns about the process to join me in following up was a quest of the gsa inspector general to review gsa actions in this matter. >> mr. chairman i will gladly join with you and sending such a request. i also want to add to the point you made if i may end up making this decision ironically the spring full site is already owned by the federal government would not cost any procurement money. rebuilt site is owned by metro as you pointed out and will have to be purchased by the government. >> thank you. very good looking for to working with you give more knowledge of this issue than anyone. i think this'll be a good bipartisan issue for the committee for the chair recognizes mr. jordan for five minutes regretful directory wrong but he said he did not agree the process followed and slept to the site in maryland? was i asked my general counsel to look into all of the concerns

that were raised in directories letter they found most to be without merit. >> is rev concerns about fairness and transparency in the process and fair to adhere to its own site selection plan he did not just a there probably said unify your own rules just as not true? >> our general counsel 70 found all the rules progress i agree we followed all the rules were. >> entertain a strong as well as that you remarkably undermine tainted this decision must reverse these wrong as well? >> there a lot of people who are interested in where the psychos. we ran the most fair. >> i don't want to either place i don't think we should be rewarding the fbi the same app episode pro life catholics are extremes the same that retail against whistleblowers assumes it censored americans we have seen domain perspective what happened. we have at whistleblower testimony in front of congress telling but how they been retaliated against my other

censored americans the fifth circuit has told us that i don't want to either place frankly for goes anywhere should be huntsville the balkans of land all because of space and all kinds of operational am concerned about the process. how long did miss albert how the position she could overrule the three-person panel? coalition the position? >> miss albert was head of public building service for gs issues in that position for i think two years. what song she been gsa? >> i believe she started in july i'm sorry 2021. >> okay she was there couple of years but she recently left? questioner. >> correct the question left before the decision was made public is that correct? correct. so you say it senator kaine is wrong in his assessment director ray is wrong in his assessment as well? >> weight ran a fair and transparent progress congressman that was my directive to our team we did that in the extreme. every document that we have used

to make any of these decisions is available online. i would encourage you to look at those big cracks maybe i am wrong did a three person panel look at all this and made a decision. then that was overruled by miss albert had been gsa for all of two years. then she left after she overruled she left before he made the decision public is that how played out? >> i want to focus on a term you're using and that's overruled. normal process for gsa would make site selection is to have a panel that makes some recommendations for they look at a lot of things and they recommend. but then we'd then have the senior real estate professionals the agency make it ultimate decision. in fact some time those decisions are different the interesting thing. >> how often they been different? >> the most interesting in this case regrets how may times as it happened the panel suggest one thing recommends one thing and one individual in this position comes and overrules how often does that happen?

what summits are the most relevant time progress i asked how often happens questioner socket backed on the number of there's a very relevant. >> is a rare, often, all the time? >> what's in this particular project it happened because in 2014 when all of the sites were looked at originally there was a panel it down selected dozens of sites to three. all three were in maryland. >> okay. >> a site selection authority over that the equivalent of miss albert decided that was not right picked to it maryland and one in virginia, the site in springfield so in this project there is history quick to still begs the question and ask and ig cheap had happened twice in the same project how often does it happen anywhere else that's an important answer for us to have when we are evaluating how you did this particularly elated with the chairman just said

there's going to be iced in the ranking member agrees there's going to be inspector general investigation all this. we can't wait to know that answer. it's a pretty important fact if you say it it's only happened twice it happened on the same issue the fbi headquarters many of us on this side do not want to go to maryland or virginia frankly in light of what the fbi has been up to regarding the american people. that's pretty important i greet the chairman inspector general investigation is exactly what is needed to get to the bottom of this and if we find out this hardly ever happens but happened twice with the fbi headquarters, holy cow that tells us something in and of itself. my time is expired. >> thank you gentlemen for the chair now recognizes ranking member for five minutes per. >> thank you, mr. chairman. we have seen some very strange indeed bizarre bedfellows

jumping in together and this because it got people start out saying they wanted to dismantle the fbi brick by brick and destroy the agency. our distinguished colleague mr. jordan seem so made a career try to disassemble the fbi. he was the fbi headquarters in huntsville, alabama apparently and then we have got disappointed applicants from virginia who are trying to attack the whole administrative process by which they entered into it in the first place back in 2014 as ms. carnahan just explained. why don't we try to get back to the law here what the administrative process really is for the administrative process came up with a very clear result that the green belt sites that was chosen but the site selection authority has the lowest overall cost to taxpayers number one. number two the greenbelt site is the most transit accessible site

due to short walking distance of the metro and commuter rail. it offers the greatest opportunity for the government investment to positively affect the washington region through sustainable and equitable development and so on. there are five criteria set forth the site selection authority chose the green belt t site. now, my friend mr. jordan and mr. conley pounced on the deliberations of the panel so what we need to look at what is the relationship between the panel and the site selection authority? if i understand you correctly administrator, back in 2014 the panel then unanimously advanced three sites all of which were in maryland. at the site selection authority overruled the panel and their language of course assignment overruling there is not a decision in the first place is just a recommendation to site se selection authority said thank you for your advice i'm going to

add one more candidate from virginia which is the springfield site on them are going to advance that to have all three looked at. then the panel comes back and says well we happen to like the springfield site but the site selection authority which is charged with your decision-making power of this exclusively and everybody agrees as with the processes says to know the greenbelt site is the one that conforms to the five criteria. now we've got to have some way of making these decisions otherwise the congress of the united states is going to be involved in every occasion in which you are making a decision about where to place the federal agency or department. how often does this process take place with a panel and a site selection authority? is that a rare occasion or does it happen frequently? >> thanks for that expedition

congressman. most site selections are not at this great of interest frankly too. >> it is a headquarters. >> for a headquarters like this, this is a very normal process there is a panel of some type that makes recommendations and ultimate decider is a site selection. >> and sometimes the site selection authority agrees with the panel. sometimes it disagrees with it. it disagreed when springfield, virginia was put into the competition in the site selection authority disagrees that again when it decided greenbelt was the way to go. but what about this idea there's some kind of conflict of interest? in the site selection authority because he site selection authority work for an agency that serves virginia, maryland and washington d.c. are there some kind of conflict

of interest because he site selection authority has a career in government and became the deputy mayor not of greenbelt, maryland but of the district of columbia. do you see a conflict of interest there? >> no, sir we fully vetted her relationship when she joined gsa and subsequent to the fbi director bringing up concerns we had legal counsel look through that again. and found no conflict these as you said or public entities with no financial interest in any way picasso to apologize to you this hearing should really be about how we can serve the taxpayers of america that is been derailed for a whole coalition of partisan political parochial purposes today but in any event you're doing a good job thank you for sticking with the administrative process and with the rule of law such as it is i yelled back up across i have to defend my friend mr. conley

acting in a bipartisan way that a partisan way for the chair now recognizes gentlemen from alabama mr. palmer for five minutes per. >> thank you, mr. chairman. some of the questions that i have about the whole situation with federal properties has to do with workforce which you really don't have any control over. the low productivity we are now seeing in the federal work force because the failure of seven employees to actually report to the office. my friend and chairman mr. cromer pointed out they got 17 of 24 headquarter billets were less than 25% occupied. what i want is for people to come back to work if we don't need them willing to reduce the workforce. i people are not going to come to work we need to reduce the workforce. one way or another we need to

consolidate some of these holdings determine what we really need and adjust our portfolio of the balance of you give any thought to that? or even repurpose in >> that the moment. >> yes, sir. this is exactly what we are working on i mentioned we have a national portfolio review that has been done. and last week we announced that we want to dispose of 23 properties just as a down payment to start on this it's a reduction of 3.5 million square feet of space which is a lot for the cost avoidance of over a billion dollars per. >> or other opportunities to you could convert those facilities for other uses and we did that with the old post office. i think we're losing a $6 million in maintenance costs maintaining basically an empty building and then this committee approved a contract for the trump organization to convert to a hotel.

we turn that around by $9 million a year to a plus 3 million per year in revenue. are we looking at opportunities for conversion in that regard? >> are some conversions like that there are other examples in washington with the hotel monaco which is another one we called in and out lease of where we have a long-term lease with someone to run a property progression of the hotel monaco triple tow measures are great successors probably others hotels that can be used for other businesses at each address something so personal i hate to dish it this issue of telework interest me and it affects work on your house in a collaborative effort you just do not get what telework. in march of 22 until march of 23 you were working out of missouri 121 days. 46.5% of the workdays in a calendar year you traveled 34 days and i think that is fine.

this another 64 days that you did not appear in person in your office. that 71% of the calendar workdays. do you not need to be in your office? >> thanks for that question. look it has leaned into telework for 20 years through multiple administrations for. >> i understand that but not like now progress result we have seen over this pretty last 10 years to build to shrink our footprint, our real estate by 43% for. >> that is not the question. i understand and this is why set this up i'm going to ask you about something that's out of your purview. when you talk about shrinking the footprint that is not address the issue of are you getting the job done and has productivity increased or gone down? and madam, productivity in the overall workforce united states is at levels lower than what

we've seen in 40 something years. i think we've got a couple problems here. one of which you are trying to address. i'm very appreciative notwithstanding the fbi building which i am all in for moving to huntsville. but this whole issue of a dispersed workforce then you add to that a time we are $33.6 trillion in debt we are paying locality for people who are not here. you spend 121 days of your calendar working days in missouri. it is just so frustrating to me for us to do some things at a pretty good like investing our portfolio properties. but to see our productivity go

down and continue to spend money we just cannot afford to spend anymore money. >> drivetime to respond? we actually -- mckay care a lot about productivity it's a thing we track close and i will tell you in the last three years alone our business volume is gone up 38%. last 10 years is gone up 82%. we also track customer satisfaction scores of the same as if you would see in a private sector it's on a scale of one to five hour customer satisfaction score during that period scum from 3.0 to 3.9%. so i pay a lot of attention to these things below it to make sure were given good value to the american people we are delivering on our mission. that is what i commit to use the american people. >> mr. chairman i began this by acknowledging she does not have

control over the workforce issues. iger about a farm we understood when the bees leave the hive they are not making honey. the gsa may be doing great work, working remotely. i do not think that's true across the entire federal work force and you can't do anything about it. all you can do is dispense and i yield back to work as a judge would yield back it recognizes gentlemen. >> thank you think in the ranking member for calling us together on this. administrator carnahan it's good to see you. he said the very least you have a tough job. and a job often times goes without a lot of thanks so i went to at least on behalf of this member of the committee thank you for the way you have proceeded in leading the gsa and for your willingness to be very transparent and open before this committee and other committees about a lot of things we are all interested in but do not always

understand. i had hoped that we would spend most of the day talking about consolidation of federal properties. the disposal of federal properties and the occupation rates or the lack there of and what kind of cost savings could be gleaned from the american taxpayer. i am particularly interested like to get at another time a detailed orientation about the disposal of lease space and rent space and it will save $60 billion over the next 10 years. it's very, very important. i want to come back the costs in just a moment to make another point. mr. chairman i do want to say something that's come up a couple of times about relocation. i like to ask unanimous consent gsa 40 page decision document be entered into the record of this

committee and this hearing. i would ask also unanimous consent support letter and the reasons for strong support across the country particularly by the national urban league also be entered into the record without objection. >> without objection on both items so ordered. >> thank you a couple of things madam administrator i want to go back to something that was mentioned earlier that i think bears repeating and that is the virginia location was never part of the original plan for relocation. this has gone on for 15 years with house and senate committees working in tandem democrats and republicans to address the overwhelming need to replace the fbi headquarters and to establish a level playing ground with a competitive bidding process which we have and to make sure we find a way to protect and support the men and

women that are working there. many of you may not know there is been a net around the fbi building for a while because of falling debris. there is an employee there just a week or so back that had the ceiling and parts of it fall on their desk while they were working. it's not a digitally friendly building with its conversion to do and be what has to be to compete and guard against threats that take place in this country. and without this new emphasis a new opportunity we risk the chance we could fall further behind this is mind-boggling to me. i would think of nothing else we have to make sure this particular agency is empowered to do it has to do. if you are quick things about the selection madam administrator greenbelt maryland is the most accessible of all the locations is that correct?

websites what was found by the site selection authority right on a metro line and a transit line. the site in springfield was half a mile. >> greenbelt has the greatest scheduled surgery is that correct? >> that is correct it does not require relocating existing tenants for. >> greenbelt offers the greatest opportunity for the governments investment to positively impact the greater washington d.c. area both on the maryland site and the virginia site is that correct? >> yes, sir brevets greenbelt has the lowest overall cost to taxpayers the total project to build the building at some point estimate to be 26 million that is gone up over time but in comparison to the springfield virginia site it is significantly dwarfed in cost savings is that correct? >> is it correct the senate set aside over $30 million for this

project money is already there through appropriations? >> there is some money that is already been appropriated because i think it's student 75 but we will need accurate. and is it true the aggregate savings by having this building built and located where you have in your committee has decided save a $1 billion to the american taxpayers is that correct? what sent not sure over that number comes from we did determine to lowest cost for taxpayers. let's all share with you and the committee how that number was derived. it was significant cost. it's really conservative about making sure we are spending taxpayers dollars efficiently and effectively. fifteen years of trying to make our decision if our law enforcement agency the fbi is outdated in terms of its capability because of limitations of its current

space, it just seems to be the best thing here is to find a way to take advantage of what has been a very, very, very transparent process. everybody looks at it. not ever went happy with the bed at some point time we cannot please everybody. i want to thank you madam administrator. this was not meant to me it's important for the record at least we all understand how we got to where we are. i hope the chairman will indeed bring you back again for some other questions for. >> the chair now it recognizes from wisconsin. >> thank you pre-gsa office of evaluation scientists spending taxpayer money conducting a study to determine the effectiveness of training on federal workforces. first of all to know about how much let's want to cost? >> i do not. >> could you comment on what

you're trying to determine their what your metrics are, what the goal of this is? >> are not filler the study you are happy to learn more and circle back i assume it's just general dia but i do not know specifically. >> okay. i will try again may be cancer this went academic found dia antibias training to be expensive with no gain. why is a federal government spend taxpayer dollars on a new evaluation to prove the trainings or any different than the federal relying on already available research question request again congress went on i apologize i'm not promote the study i am happy to circle back with you and your team about it. >> can you comment give you one final question. what is the purpose of rigorous di training in the federal workforce? what is the purpose of it? >> i could speak for myself.

the american taxpayers and all of americans deserve a government that represents them. government is better when it represents all the people and so understanding that in making sure we are reflecting that in our values is important. as to the study were talking about i will tell you i'm not sure with the scope of it is. i will definitely into it. >> i will switch to telework here. occupancy rates of federal office buildings are very low. seventeen -- 24 major agencies are less than 25% occupied. why are tax payers footing the bill to maintain and millions of square feet of office space when a less than a quarter of its being used in many cases? >> congressman i agree with you would need to figure out how to optimize and shrink the federal real estate footprint the gao report also said the biggest

obstacle to gsa being able to do that is access to the federal buildings fund. that is the fund all of the rent payments that agencies pay to the government goes into but it has been diverted off in the last 12 years a billion dollars a year to spend on other things. so what we are asking for from this committee and from congress is to fix that make sure the funds that are paid for rent are used on the public buildings not for other things. >> wells of the using it for? >> that is a question for fsg g committee they allocated otherwise within that appropriations subcommittee. >> i will ask you to expand a little on that when you say some of the major agency headquarters only 25% is used do you have any idea how long it's been going on? >> i do have occupancy rate

numbers historic occupancy numbers but what i can say is all agencies right now are thinking through how much space they need in thinking about how we can potentially consolidate. gsa has a history of doing that ourselves of the last 10 years we have moved out of two different spaces in the washington area one expensive lease in arlington and other federally owned building in the district consolidated everyone into our headquarters building that saved $300 million for taxpayers straight up and shrunk our footprint by 43% so we know how to do this. what we need is the flexibility and the certainty of funding to be able to get it done. >> i guess most federal workers in the general schedule in addition 33% for having to work here in this has to be incredibly expensive. because of that have you ever considered moving some of these agencies to place where they would not get this? >> again i don't decide what

agency missions are to decide where they need people i can speak about gsa 75% of our workforces outside of washington and 75% of our assets are outside of washington. that is what we deal with every day. so our teams are scattered around the country and frankly that's good for the american people and good for delivering the kind of service folks respected. >> you encourage other agencies to maybe take advantage of this particularly as we are shuffling around or put employees with all this empty space you feel it would be better? i'm not sure how far away from washington d.c. to get the additional bulk but would it be better 40 or 50 miles into maryland or virginia? >> i will have to check on that again we are not the one who set the rates. i do not know if the schedules look like. but the notion folks need to go over there missions are that is what we have done it gsa i

assume that's what other agencies are focused on as well request yes my good friend congressman's inky was doing that interior before he had to leave okay thanks. front chairman i want to point out the mere fact someone is to ask why or the purpose of training is, is the very reason we do more of it. and until we get to a place of parity in equity for people who look like me black and brown people in this country, we should continue to invest in diversity equity and inclusion training in this country. so mr. chairman under president by the administrator, hands leadership general service administration or gsa is providing essential services of maintaining the federal government's properties procuring goods and services and acquiring it systems on its behalf and admittedly as we see today this is no small feat.

administrator, i want to commend you on your transformative leadership at gsa brain the federal government into the 21st century and effectively managing millions of square feet of federal property and hundreds of thousands of vehicles owned and operated by the government. i was pleased to hear about the work initiative in which gsa is preparing for the future federal work as a gsa groundbreaking plans to censor the climate crisis by transitioning to a fully electric federal fleet pivoting to climate conscious construction materials. also excited about gsa effort to strengthen, support and sustain women and minorities owned businesses through president biden's whole of government approach based in equity. the equity initiatives are supporting majority minority communities across the country including an ohio 11th

congressional district. in 2022 gsa released its equity action plan administrator carnahan i understand you establish a position in your advisor to the administrator for equity. for which i hope loggia. so what additional ways is gsa censoring equity in the totality of its work? >> thank you for that question. as i have set equity is important to us it is reflective of the american people. we want to have a government that reflects our people that makes the government better and serves of the people better. one is things we focus on recently is recruitment we have focused on hbcus as a prime source of talents that we could bring into the government but we are also very focused on small disadvantaged owned businesses. we are really proud of the amount of our procurement we do with the small businesses it makes a difference in

communities. we all want to support that it is a way we can give good value to the american taxpayers and also support communities. the vital thing you want to mention it's called the neighbor program that really is about how we work with communities to make sure things like building siding are good for the communities. it's a great example recently in harrisburg, pennsylvania new courthouse was going up. we worked closely with the community to figure out what part of town made sense for them for economic developer persist up with that courthouse because they knew it would be an anchor in the neighborhood and drive economic development. we think of equity as a center of a lot of what we do. equity and procurement but we are talking about small businesses equity inciting only her tongue but will report federal assets. >> thank you. additionally something a particular focus on is making sure diverse vendors and businesses get a shot opportunity for historically have been contracted to large

productively white corporations. so administrator, how is equitable opportunities for small and disadvantaged businesses and investors can you give us some specifics on that? >> our small business spend number is the highest it has ever been. our total spend at gsa was about 20 billion somewhere in the 40% range with small businesses. we take this very, very seriously because we know we can get basically a double win good value for taxpayers and having economic benefit for those communities we want to support should be. >> thank you again. i do not need to remind you administer gsa oversee $75 billion in annual contracts to businesses and vendors across the united states. it is critical this funding be awarded in an equitable way recognize the importance and worth of black and brown businesses, underserved

communities and women-owned initiatives. when our small businesses are underserved and underserved committees thrive we all succeed thank you again for the amazing work that you have been doing thank you again for coming before this committee and with that i yield back. krista chert now recognizes from missouri for five minutes for. >> greetings. being a missouri and i am sure you are aware of the former company out of kansas city. i work as a consultant for them and others for 20 years. saw it really a revolution happen after covid of employees being able to work from home the concern for the private sector was the productivity would decline. remarkably it did not actually improved i was encouraged to hear you about that you keep an

account of the productivity from some of these agencies. i wanted to hear from you if you could elaborate on what systems or methodologies and software you might be using to actually account for the productivity? >> thank you for the question. we are just focus on gsa would weather productivity numbers for. >> just your agency specifically? >> yes i know oh indian others will be looking for those numbers and gathering them from other agencies breeds gsa as i said lean into our work for 20 years through multiple administrations. we have been very intentional about making sure we see the results of that. both reducing our footprint, saving money but also better business volume is a said business volume is gone up 82% in the last 10 years 37% in the last three years which is the most remote the agency has ever been and our customer satisfaction has got up.

so for us those of the metrics that really matter only pay close attention too. >> thank you. so your own office that you occupy your office space for gsa given the remote work you are now implementing are there plans to reduce the footprint of gsa office space? >> yes we are thinking about all the time and talking to other agencies about how we can either share a space, move out of that space and if someone else in that space so there's lots of conversations going on. one of the other things to note in the short term is we are using an entire wing of our building for the presidential transition which gsa's task to do every year sometimes very expensive if you rent space for that but we decided we could use our own space and convert that and be able to save a lot of money in that way because the building was not fully occupied. we are being very thoughtful about this and as i said have a

history of consolidating our own both here in the washington area we got out of an expensive lease and got out of another building to consolidate and save $30 million. we want to do more of this. >> at a question about some of the biden rules that have been implemented in the impact that you might be experiencing. one of them was to require project labor agreements going forward. how has it impacted your decision-making process? how has it impacted the cost for some of the construction? and finally do you have a waiver process and how you go about that? >> obviously we are all in returning to make sure there are good american domestic jobs, union jobs whenever we can. using the government's buying power to reflect that. in some places that is easier than others.

but in all places you can make sure there are certain contractors drink right by their workers. we do have teams that think about this, ask about this and there are -- if it is unavailable then there are waiver processes. but as a first choice we want to use that. >> you come from rural missouri. your family come some rural missouri you are aware there are some pockets that will just not have that presence is good to hear there are waiver opportunities. my other question has to do with the electric vehicle mandates. and again being from rural missouri my question has to do with what is the increase cost for the agencies that are now converting to electric vehicles? does it average over 10,000 per vehicle is that a safe estimate? >> i can get all this numbers

for you about the what the cost art but the thing to that is important to note you mentioned the worst mandate that's not how we are thinking of it it's really mission driven. so for agencies that have use case were electric vehicle could make sense for them we are helping them get those we are not forcing these on any agencies the agencies are deciding that they want to do it and we are helping them to do it a good cost for. >> and within rural america you will provide waivers for places where there are no ev stations or doesn't make sense? >> again the agency decides with the mission needs are. then they come to us we get vehicles at the best price we are not telling them who in their agency needs what kind of vehicle they are making those decisions care helping them by. let's think of the german symes expired the chair now recognizes leave for pennsylvania for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chair for this country is riddled with division and inequity that are entrenched

in our policies, laws and institutions. these entrenched disparities leave so many of us out out of the conversation come out of opportunity and out of the room where our communities are decided. before my republican colleagues get triggered by the equity what your mind that this is about many of the things they claim to support the power of local voices the inclusion of rural communities and the well-being of people in their districts as well as mine. members of underserved communities and many of whom have endorsed generations of discrimination and disinvestment still confront significant barriers to realizing the full promise of america. black and brown people envision lgbt cute white people they are people and others are so often forgotten or intentionally left behind for the federal government has a responsibility and a duty to make every effort to remove these barriers. they must take a whole of government approach to do so.

administrator, i want to ask a few questions about some of the initiatives gsa is focusing on to advance equity. how does gsa good neighbor program support local community goals, economic recovery and environmental justice? >> thanks for that question. i'm really proud of the good neighbor program it is something you would expect the federal government to do this all the time but historically it has not always happen. and so it really is about intentionality. figuring out how we can be positive drivers in communities for this long history federal government taking this whether it's in transportation access or are highways going through neighborhoods. but we know the part we play is citing decisions that impact communities and where they can make urban planning decisions

can transform neighborhoods that's what we do. one area in particular we are focused on is in the tribal land. we have money and infrastructure law to invest in border crossings of the northern and southern border but some goes to tribal lands. so to make sure but also get good value for taxpayers. >> thank you so much. expanded this program significantly in 2022 correct? >> yes we. >> how also it's ensuring is contrary to the prosperity environmental justice of local communities? >> as i mentioned we are very serious about citing decisions you make i mentioned earlier today in harrisburg, pennsylvania for example your home state there's a new courthouse that was put up. it was in collaboration with that community. the area of town is decided on

it was an area that had not been always invested in. that's going to be an economic anchor and that part of a community for that is how we can make a big difference we use our power buying things but also placing assets to help committees grow. >> thank you pre-gsa's conducting the first of its kind evaluation to assess the effectiveness of equity efforts across american rescue programs administered assist provide any insight so far and how it will finally be used to improve other programs? >> is a reference earlier to that evaluation just not familiar with it but i will find out if i can circle back too. >> thank you and i appreciate that. may the problems facing marginalized underserved communities in technology design and delivery. this means those who most need government services will have the most difficulty accessing them. gsa has indicate improving to better serve our communities how they're implementing this part

house and making a difference for constituents in districts like mine? >> thank you for that question. this is a thing that's very important. government does not get to choose its customers. it is our job to serve everyone. which means not only do we need to focus on security and privacy and ease of access, but also accessibility to ensure we get that rates. that shared services other government agencies can do this relatively easily we have helped pave the way it's called the u.s. web design system essentially if you think about it like a website for the government and give it like a hardware so that is all the bits and pieces you would need to create a website. that's the kind of thing or trying to focus on what comes a shared services gives better service to everybody payback sankyo cannot over emphasize how critical it is gsa all federal

agencies continue to advance and everything they do administrator i just want to thank you for your testimony i look forward to seeing your agency's work implements to elevate underserved committees bring us closer equal opportunity that we all deserve a yield back. >> recognize for five minutes for. >> thank you manchester chairman. as you know government property designate a surplus to be sold to local and state governments given the fact the wording significantly increased over the last past few years the amount of surplus sold increase the same rate? >> 's site mentioned congressman just last week 23 progress we went up from the disposal list that's a cost savings of a billion dollars and a reduction 3.5 million square feet. >> i get that now. i guess my point is we are talking trillions in the debt that we have up or are we missing areas that could be

utilized for surplus disposal? >> there's a huge opportunity at this moment to get out of leases to save a lot of money and get out the unneeded buildings also saving billions of dollars. but as i said before the reason this is slow and it's not just me saying it. it's what the gao said in their report it's lack of access to the federal buildings fund. again it that is the fun rental fund rentpayments go into it agy rent goes to the owner of the building to lease or go straight maintaining its own. every year for the past 12 years we have had more than a billion dollars used for other things. that's the choice made by the appropriations committee. as a result we have backlog.

we are unable to move people into new space. the one secret think we can do, the secret bullet to fix it is jeff's urgency around the fun we fundwill absolutely be able to accelerates these disposals and save more money. >> in a priority aspects want to make sure have this right, at the state, the local or business once this property who get that or is it based on price? >> are various effectors there is sort of a rank order and they get the first shot of that. and eventually if ngos goes on sleep public market. as i mentioned those properties were planning to dispose of live interest in local government. former courthouses could have new municipal halls.

that's what makes sense here. it's useful in the communities where they are sitting. if they don't have people in it they're not being useful there. >> could they also be looked at from different groups? how do veterans plan these? >> certainly if the va needs some of these buildings we could talk to them about reusing that would not be a disposal w transfer after different agency. >> thank you. the gsa the technology made in america office require agencies to seek waivers. what percentage of federal acquisitions are american-made? quick associate here today i don't know that number but i'll ask my team to find out and circle back with you sir. >> okay how many are allowing have been granted are the bite administration? >> same answer i do not have that as a seat here but we can find it.

>> what trend does it look like? find more american-made products or less? >> very high priority for the president to use our federal buying power to support american jobs. just know it is a priority. >> you talked about for example electric. i have arizona and i have yuma. they cannot have electric vehicles because it gets too hot it doesn't work. does that play into your decision as well? >> as i mentioned to congressman, we do not make the ultimate decision about what that mission needs are. that will depend on location. that will depend on what the job is what they need it for. we just help people buy things at good prices.

but that makes any sense for them. >> they would go through the department of defense, the department of defense would come to you is that the lead go? >> we do some with the department of defense definitely with the civilian agencies. so yes they would decide they would say makes sense for us -- we need a vehicle that looks like x. gsa can help us get one of these at a good price? >> you adeptly supersede with al electric cars you could supersede that? >> again it's the agency that decides what they need and they come to us and say we need a conventional fueled vehicle we need an electric vehicle. and then we procure that. >> had to get away from the department of defense, right? >> i'm not sure about that. >> executor just a quick

question. i know you said you're trying to get contracts to disadvantage people. would that include how you determined disadvantage is that racial economic, was disadvantage? >> i'm sure you are familiar with the aa classifications and other things. the government as a whole has definitions about different categories and businesses. >> the guy was a person of color inherited obviously a wildly high price of business and i was told they're getting benefits because of their ancestry is that possible is that going on out there? >> i'm sorry but please. >> i am not sure what you are referring to. i know sba sets up a lot of the rules around businesses.

>> a gentleman yields at the chair recognizes mr. goldman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. once again here we are days away from a government shutdown, the world is a burning and we are here to talk about office space. office space. meanwhile republicans cannot pass her own unilateral appropriation bills. they refuse to work with democrats. they refuse to abide by the top line appropriation numbers that they themselves negotiated, agreed too and passed in june.

democracy in the middle east ukraine, israel and the independent palestinians into gaza desperately need our help yet republicans are holding the aid hostage with their political gimmicks and games and here we are talking about office space. now in fairness, this is a welcome break from the pathetic and desperate impeachment inquiry. it appears as if the chairman has at least acknowledged that the first and only public impeachment hearing was such a blast he doesn't want to do it in public anymore because god forbid the american people would once again see what a sham it is. but that hasn't stopped my colleagues on the other side of the aisle from issuing subpoenas for closed-door depositions, that way they can continue to cherry pick testimony that misleads and gas lights the american people.

over the past couple of weeks since october 7th i've met with numerous families of hostages who are searching for any information about their loved ones held in captivity. one i met with i visited in august. he described how he took his gun to go fight the terrorists while his wife and three children hid in their safe room. he was shot in the leg and he could not move. in the meantime his wife and children were taken hostage by hamas. here are the three children who've been held in captivity for 39 days age ten, age eight and age for. inside a neighboring home belonging to american israelis, hamas terrorists murdered him in

front of two of three children ages ten and six who she placed in a closet to hide and ultimately to save their lives. he was outside with his 3-year-old daughter abigail when he was shot and killed right in front of his baby girl. this is abigail. abigail somehow got away and ran to the home where she was also kidnapped with his wife and three children, and they all remain in captivity, at least we hope. i've had the opportunity to meet a couple of times over the last couple of weeks with elizabeth, his aunt and her great aunt. she is absolutely devastated with grief, fear and worry about her little niece, abigail. she barely sleeps, has difficulty eating and is frequently overcome with grief that she cannot even get out of bed. so, what did the committee

republicans do last week? they did not reach out to her to see how congress could be of assistance to her as she grieves and waits for information about abigail. instead, the majorities subpoenaed her, that's right, the chairman used the awesome power and authority of the united states congress to target her as part of the fishing expedition against hunter biden allegedly. we know our colleagues across the aisle are desperate to find actual evidence of wrongdoing to justify their failed impeachment inquiry but even under the desperate circumstances, i am still shocked and disappointed that you have targeted someone grieving from the horrific attacks of october 7th for your impeachment investigation. at the subpoena is beneath the

congress of the united states and i ask you here and now will you agree to immediately withdraw until a later date when she's not in such emotional distress and can properly focus on this matter and i yield to you. >> we have spoken with her attorney and asked what would be best for her schedule. as you know we are trying to get as many of these completed before the end of the year as possible, but they gave us a date in mid-to-late january and we said that would be fine so we are catering to her schedule and will continue the impeachment inquiry. as you know there is overwhelming evidence that the american people are concerned as to what the biden family did to receive millions of dollars from our enemies around the world. and we will continue to provide answers just as we have done

over the past six months. >> will the cherry and yield? >> you said as you know. i do not know that nor do i agree with it. >> i think the chairman. i am somewhat fascinated with my colleague on the other side of the aisle talking about evidence that doesn't exist. they made up evidence to impeach, didn't, the words are hollow at this moment. i want to ask you some more questions about administrator, the transaction regarding the new fbi headquarters. it seems the fbi director said ms. albert unilaterally changed the criteria in the last minute in a way that would benefit

greenbelt. is that true? is he a liar? somebody is lying. i'm going to read what he said here. albert unilaterally changed the criteria at the last minute in a way that benefits greenbelt with. >> i think there may be some confusion. >> when was the criteria changed? to go back a little bit in 2022 in december with that budget bill -- >> but she wasn't working on it then. was she a member of the panel? >> she was the head of the public building service. but she wasn't one of the conferees as maybe you would call them or the three individuals and one from fbi that we are working on the site selection. >> that panel doesn't meet until

july 2023. in december of 2022, congress directed them to have consultations with both delegations in maryland and virginia to consider the site selection process and then make a selection. >> nothing changed until the actual site selection nothing changed in the criteria? let me just keep going with our timeline. we had those consultations in march of 2023. the panel and the rest of the team was looking at the criteria for some of those things to be weighted and changed and that is what happened so that was announced and by the way coordinated with the fbi. >> so it didn't change from jul. i don't mean to cut you short i have a limited amount of time. in july 2023 until the decision was made. nothing changed. >> no sir.

>> so then christopher is lying because it says the change in the criteria at the last minute and i'm thinking the last minute seems a little bit closer than last july. ms. albert left a gsa in october, right? >> that's correct. >> the decision was announced this month. so in previous testimony, you said you had turned to her and i know you don't like the term that mr. jordan used where she changed i don't remember what term but where she disagreed, overturned the unanimous ruling of the committee. you said she was the real estate expert. that's why you -- >> the top real estate professional. >> do you know where she holds a real estate license? do you know if she has a real estate license? i know her career has been spent. >> does she have a broker's license, has she ever stood for

the exam or sold a house? >> i know she's made a site selection some very significant exciting decisions. she's got a resume here serving in the army. she was in the 141st signal battalion of the first armored division in germany. that's awesome. we appreciate her service. that doesn't mean she's a real estate expert yet because she has these positions it doesn't mean she has an idea. she's got an engineering background and all that stuff but you said this is site selection of real estate. do you find it odd at all that the site that she selected is not the most optimal is the smallest buildable area like the presence of wetland and the greatest distance between other

fbi stakeholders. when the original bidding was taking place back in 2014, there were dozens of potential sites surrounding the washington metro area. it was reduced. >> i get it. >> each of those three was agreed by the fbi and everyone else to meet their basic mission needs which include -- >> what about the three members of the panel that unanimously decided another location? did you just reject whatever their findings were? apparently you reject them. >> the site selection process -- >> we are going to go to the process. a corrupt process is still a process just because they have a process and by the way because you ran it by your attorneys. i don't want you to be offended but maybe you should be. we don't see that is meaningful because they work for you if you've got an independent review

maybe we would see that as somewhat meaningful but all these people work for you, so you are all doing the same thing. you are all scratching each other's backs to make sure you are covering each other's rear end. of the american people are sick of that. i yield the balance. >> the chair recognizes mr. crockett from texas. >> i come in this committee and just when i think i can to be shocked anymore i get shocked to the next level. i listen to dan i was with him and israel in august. i listen to him tell real stories of real issues that are taking place in the world right now, issues that we've been charged with the responsibility of being the adult in the room and trying to solve. as i listen to him i thought i was going to deal with what we were supposed to be talking

about. and then of course i get a colleague from the other side of the aisle who could hear of the pain and suffering as he was telling the story, and the only thing that he heard because it seemingly happens in this chamber that there is a level of callousness and lack of humanity a lot of times we say the words but then the actions don't line up with caring about the american people so after hearing the story the only thing that my colleague heard was about made up evidence as it relates to the former president the twice impeached indicted count former president who is currently sitting in a trial and found liable of sexual assault. the only thing that he heard was this bit about made up evidence.

he says the democrats didn't have the right to do what they do when they impeached the president. i disagree. and it looks like at least four grand juries feel like they've got some evidence that is made up as well or maybe once the convictions come down which there will be a conviction and some territory i say that with all confidence as someone practicing law for 17 years i'm sure they will say that it was made up. i'm sure that they don't believe what has come out and pled guilty as it relates to the charges in georgia and i'm sure they think that's made up just like they said a january 6th was made up after they ran for their lives and i'm sure they believe the convictions that came out of january 6 those were made up. but let me tell you what is not made up as they live in their fairytale world. what's not made up is the government has a looming shutdown in three days and they

decided to drag you in and talk about the job that you're not doing. and before i go into it i do appreciate the work that you do especially as a girl that grew up in st. louis missouri and fondly remembers the better days when your father was the governor. so i will tell you what is not made up and what is real life. number one, i want to re- censored us on what it is our job is. it's nothing to do with telework last time i checked is that true? >> i don't know how the american people are going to get this right when the members of congress can't figure out what your job is. so that's not your job. but you deal with a lot of real estate so i want to zone in on that because i don't have much time left. for those who don't understand there's government leases and most commercial leases go for more than a year. usually more than two years. usually a commercial lease is a

very long-term lease, correct? >> and the price usually goes down the longer the term. >> typically assigned a longer lease. but none of us saw covid-19 happening. and while we are censored on talking about telework it is important that we zone and on something that you've said over and over and people are ignoring you. you said what makes it difficult for you to do your job is a lack of certainty. and this government shutdown, the second one this year that we are running up on and we are kicking the can down the road because we are going to run up on another one in january, it looks like to now, january and february if they can get this past. can you please explain why a lack of certainty has a negative

impact on what you do for the american people? >> it is a long-term thing when you're buying a house or piece of property. you don't just do that overnight. you have to plan your finances to make sure that it works. and it comes to the federal government. we have to have particularly maintaining buildings and we have to have a plan. the biggest commercial portfolio in the country. they are all in a different state of need, and we need to be able to have plans to address those things. the only way you do that is with some certainty and not having clarity about how much it is going to be and kicking the can down the road. it doesn't make the cost go down the. it makes the cost go up so we have seen that happen over and over because of the lack of funding and the federal building fund. >> to be clear i remember when we had the first government shutdown and leases for our

property as well i had to call my property manager grand essay because the federal government can't get their stuff together i'm not going to be able to pay my bills and i hope you don't kick me out. that's not any way we should be governing and talking about the fact we should be fiscally responsible because it is the opposite. thank you for your dedication to the country. i appreciate your time. >> would the gentlelady yields? the chair recognizes ms. luna. take your five minutes. >> thank you very much for being here. congress has been broken and the fact we are passing the omnibus mcr that don't address the issue and a lot to do our jobs.

out of curiosity, how do you justify spending $1 billion on furnishing office spaces that are not being used? we are seeing right now that future generations, me being a new mother with a new child, we are being tasked to answer for this reckless spending and frankly i think that when you have a facility that is not being used in the way that it should be, why should we continue to give you funding for that? >> i've heard reference to the whole furniture and buying things for empty space. >> mainly the policy but yes. >> i'm not exactly sure what furniture was being bought. the government didn't shut down during the pandemic. courthouses were operating. federal facilities and prisons were operating. embassies were operating. >> one of the biggest issue was we had is our constituent services were not being handled appropriately because we couldn't reach out to the actual

agencies because they were not in the office. as a modern i'm showing up for work so why should bureaucrats not be held to the same account? do you think you should be getting paid? >> people were working throughout the pandemic. >> there's also no accountability. congress members were not able to have their services handled accurately because the agencies were not in person and we couldn't get a hold of those people. but going back to the unnecessary spending when you have facilities if you are advocating for telework, what is the need to actually have a budget to furnish the facilities? don't you think that that is wasteful spending?

how do we actually do that? do you think the government should have budgets to the facility as people are coming to use the facility? like if you are paying to use a home you didn't occupy do you think it would be a waste of money? >> what i'm eager to work with the committee on is how we can dispose the properties we don't need and optimize the footprint and keep what we do need. >> i completely agree and hope that we can work with you on that. my colleague representative brought forward an amendment to the bill that would essentially kill any funding for the fbi headquarters building. i think one of the biggest and craziest excuses i heard for the meeting at the facility even though i think right now the fbi is being weaponize is that they had enough problem but i would like to share that here in congress we also have a problem in our house and so i think that that is probably what's good for the goose isn't good for the gander and they surely don't

need one. going back to what you are saying do you think the fbi needs the facility? >> i've had a tour of the fbi building and congresswoman i will tell you it is on par. there are nets that prevent people from being hit by the concrete on the sidewalk outside and staff inside of the building that are at risk because the building is crumbling. so i do think the fbi needs a new headquarters. >> but do you think it needs to be in washington? do you think that we can do the downsize altogether and may be telework? it seems the rest of the government wants to phone in. i guess i would say congress directed us to pick between three sites we are just doing what we were told to do in making that site selection. >> thank you. i appreciate you did essay you want to work with us on the

wasteful spending. hopefully we can fix the furniture issue and get people back to work but i yield the rest of my time. >> so concerned about budgets. utter and complete chaos. the one thing they want to talk about today is the fbi building. i wonder who's e-mailed them to talk about the fbi building. could that be that of donald trump is telling them to talk about the building because he's so mad at the department of justice? it's so transparent and i don't know if you notice we have a war in afghanistan and israel and

foreign aid because the speaker decided to politicize but they want to talk about furniture. that is definitely on the american people's mind, like gas stoves and ceiling fans in the committee. the chairman mentioned to something. he said that the biden administration can't have it both ways. i agree with that which is why i am happy to yield to some of my time today because i think you owe it to the american people to explain why you've gone on fox news and told people that while the president was out of office alone with his brother and in the way they were evading taxes it has come out in the public you also do business with your brother with potential loans into since you framed that and manipulated fact that the joe biden did something wrong when he wasn't in office i would like to know if you would like to use some of my time. >> i would love it.

>> you retweeted that story. false. i've never loaned my brother one penny. my father who is a dentist have some farmland. he died, and my brother couldn't afford he wanted to sell it but keep it in the family, so i bought it from my brother. the story that you tweeted also said i had a shale company. that is bowl. you can come to munro county and look at all the land that is titled in that llc. i think that the problem is the white house tried to get cnn to write that story. they went around and investigated all this bull that he is trying to tell people. the only people that said it was a shale company because it was an llc. you are so financially illiterate that you think because something says llc that

it is a shale company. this company that i financially disclosed has properties. it manages over a thousand acres of land for hunting purposes. it owns different properties. one of the largest land owners n my home area i went to the bank and borrowed money and bought that land. i didn't get wires from romania, china. my family doesn't get wires. never loaned my brother money. don't have an llc. but you and goldman, who is mr. trust fund, continue to -- >> reclaiming my time. >> i'm not going to give the time back. we can stop the clock. you continue to, you look like a smurf you are just going around all this stuff -- >> mr. chairman if we are not on

time [inaudible] there's a different rule for the president? wide did they believe what you're saying, why, you go on fox news and we don't know if that's what you're doing or not. we don't have any idea. we are supposed to take your word for it. >> you've already been proven a liar. >> who's proven me a liar, you? >> go to my hometown. there's a camera crew there today, a research crew today. >> it seems that i've gotten under your skin. i think the american people have lots of questions. perhaps you should sit for the deposition. >> i would be happy. i would sit with hunter biden and we can go over llc. >> i will make sure the ranking

member -- >> can i make a point of order that we should return to regular order. the ranking member makes a good point. i reclaim my time. i will wrap it up quickly. all i'm saying, mr. chairman is you may have done nothing wrong. >> but you tweeted that i did. >> reclaiming my time, there is a story out there we believe everything in the media like when you go on fox news and everyone says it's true with innuendos and maybe the biden family, all this nonsense. the chair now recognizes [inaudible] >> thank you administrator. i have questions for you.

climate crisis is a huge issue for my residence and constituents back home. i grew up in a neighborhood where that amount of pollution was normal. we are not seeing passes, new hottest month on record even the past summer, so the horrifying truth is the cost of climate crisis is only getting worse no matter how much my colleagues try to ignore it. administrator. with the greenhouse gas emissions i think by almost 60% compared to 2008 levels. can you talk about that and what steps you took in reaching that goal? >> thank you for that question. the good news is today there's so many more technologies and inefficiencies we can put into our buildings that have a huge impact. i talk about it as a triple win.

it's creating jobs in america. it's reducing cost because we are making buildings more efficient which means lower energy cost and lower cost to taxpayers and we are helping the climate. so that is the sort of magic moment that we are living in right now. we hold property for a long time. >> are we the largest property owners in the united states? >> yes. it's a little bit different than you think. your thinking do i put solar on the roof and my windows because what would the payback be? we hold buildings for a long time so it makes sense to make use of the investments and it has an impact to reduce greenhouse gases but also saving money. we know this makes sense for everything you've talked about, but for my residence it's always been about public health and the planet we live in. also tell us if this is fiscally prudent.

this is saving money but a lot of my colleagues wanted to ignore the fact that this is actually increasing the cost across every corner of the district when we don't address this issue. can you talk a little bit more about again to address what we are spending what i know from reading and knowing what you've all been able to do they've saved money for americans. >> we are saving money all the time. a little story about a building in oklahoma city it's a federal building that was put up after the last one was destroyed so it was a relatively new courthouse but we did a deep energy retrofit. when we did it reduced consumption by 40%. we put solar on the roof and that meant the whole building could be run by solar. we put batteries in and that meant the grid, the oklahoma electric could actually tap into that battery resource so we cut the costs by half and made it

more resilient. that's what being a good neighbor is all about in the federal facilities. >> according to an analysis i read the climate centers is the electrification could to save the federal government about 6 billion over the next 15 years past an additional 4.6 it would cost to purchase those vehicles, so it is important. briefly what are some of the other ways of combating the climate crisis you didn't talk about? i love the oklahoma model but anything else you might be doing? >> we were investing about $2 billion. a to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions, we receive some money in the inflation reduction act for what's called low carbon building materials. the united states government with large are some of the biggest buyers of building

material. so in the chain of production that has a huge impact. things like it seems mundane but it turns out to be a good deal. concrete, asphalt, steel. if you can reduce the production of that it has a huge impact on reducing greenhouse gases and of the greatest thing i know i'm using a lot of your time in the concrete manufacturing facility outside of kansas city to make this announcement they are embedding carbon and concrete. 30% reduction straight up of greenhouse gases. and guess what, no extra cost. so the stuff makes sense and that's what's so exciting about it. >> my colleagues need to hear that. failing to act is more expensive but even the cost american jobs. thank you so much.

i yield. >> without objection the representative from maryland is waived on for the purpose of questioning the witness at today's hearing. thank you mr. chairman. i appreciate the opportunity. madame administrator i apologize for getting here so late. we had a hearing next door but i do want to come back because it turned out that apparently the site selection for the fbi headquarters became an issue and wanted to have the chance to ask a few questions. there's been quite a bit of public discussion about it. part of it is around the fbi director sending a letter that raised questions about the selection process at the 11th hour and also essentially accused of a public servant of being engaged in a conflict of interest. i wanted to get your thoughts on that and your reaction to it.

>> thanks. we've talked about that quite a bit today. and i'm proud of the work that our team did on that. it was inevitable that someone was going to be disappointed between two states that were working very hard to land this facility. what i have said from the beginning is what was most important to me we have a fair and transparent process for making the decision that everyone can see how it was made, the rationale behind it and to decide on their own whether you think it was a legitimate decision we put hundreds of documents online including the site selection authorities final decision and i encourage everyone to take a look at it it's a 40 page document. it followed the process. and i'm fully confident that in the decision we made and now it's our job to build a facility that is worthy of the fbi.

>> what is your view on that, do you believe there was a conflict of interest or did the agency take steps to make sure that was not the case? >> there was no conflict of interest. we understood. we made sure to fully event the appropriateness of her being participating in the fbi selection and site selections at that time. so, two years ago. fully vetted. number one. number two, after receiving a letter from the director, i went back in my general counsel's office and said i want you to look into these concerns that have been raised and make sure we do the right thing and follow the process that always well. my general counsel returned and said none of these have merit. you should be fully confident the process was followed into andthere's no conflict of inter.

>> now that the site selection has been made what are the next steps to make sure that this moves forward expeditiously? >> congress has been very clear with us they want to make a slight selection and do this expeditiously so the next step for us will be developing a perspective. >> how long do you think that will take? >> i can't say for sure. there was some language i think 180 days and one of the bills. that is a very, very robust timeline that i'm not sure is realistic given the size and scope but know that we are very focused on moving forward. >> robusta sounds good to me. i want to ask you this as well. is there information you need from either the fbi the department of justice or both to move forward with of the prospective stage? >> thank you for that question because we are not going to build a building without the support and interest of the fbi at heart. their mission this is what this

is all about so they needed to describe what that is for the facility going forward. we need to be collaborating. >> when will that get on track? >> very soon. i'm hopeful they are speaking even now. there've been objections raised and suggested but my hope is that this prospective stage will move forward whether it's got to be on a separate track or not but it needs to move forward expeditiously. they need to get out of the building they are currently in and in part because in some ways it's falling down and i think the delay adds to the cause but i would like to hear your thoughts on that. >> as a general matter it does have a lot to cost. this particular project has been discussed you probably know better than i do but i think 15 years. so there is a need for the fbi to have a new facility to be

able to really deliver the security and the work they do for the american people. we have that very clear in our focus. >> the expectation is you will be able to work with the department of justice frankly immediately i guess and beginning that process? >> i'm hopeful but this isn't a thing i'm involved in but the project teams. i appreciate the opportunity and yield back. >> mr. sessions. >> welcome. i know you've been here. thank you very much. administrator, it was built by 18f and you joined in february of 2016. in october, 2016, the gsa issued

a report describing how 18f did not follow a number of rules and procedures including those related to procurement and security. then in march, 2023, when you are the gsa administrator, the gsa issued another report describing how login .gov misled. customers regarding the services that provided. you are a part of 18f between 2016 and 2020 in a senior role. in the march 2023 report, the commissioner of the federal acquisition service that include 18f and the broad stated the failure to perform oversight is

rooted in its historic culture that considered oversight burdensome. we held hearings on a bipartisan basis and in fact i had an amendment that was accepted last week on the floor to defund 18f. you've spoken today about the success related to the project of the gsa. can you go back and tell us about your viewpoint about 18f as it relates to this oig report in relationship to the history of holding the hearing that was bipartisan condemnation of 18f and the relevance to misleading the government including the irs about the viability and the visibility of those people who

came in through login .gov? >> thanks for the question, congressman. i want to bifurcated a little bit if that's okay with you. so just to give a little bit of history it's a technology team inside of a group called technology transformation services. that has hundreds of people in it and they are doing great work. >> it was started by president obama as an experiment, is that correct? >> i wasn't there at the very beginning, but i do know that after the healthcare .gov mass we can all call it that. i think president obama at that time understands the policy doesn't get it done and at the delivery today needs to be technology so there were lots more technologies brought into the government at the time. i joined i think in january,

what did you say, 15th. >> you joined in february 2016 is what i've been provided. >> that may be right. i was there for a year during the obama administration and several years of the trump administration as well and i focused on state and local government primarily because that is my background. what i found is that too often you are reinventing the wheel all over again. >> it would be considered if it were not in government a complete fraud that operated outside of the scope of its own laws and responsibilities. can you go to that point or are you talking about working around of the issue rather than going

to the issue? i want to know about the way they operated, about the way they misled and lied to the government about what their performance would be, what they could be counted on including biometric data and up to and including taking over $10 million to operate this fraudulent operation. i want to know what you think about that. >> my job is to make the government work better for the american people and to save money doing it. thank you very much. >> mr. chairman, this is something that this is why we've held this hearing and why on a bipartisan basis there was complete agreement that we should defund only moving forward basis. i want to thank the gentleman for being here today. the gentleman yields back into the chair recognizes mr. timmons from south carolina.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. the last three years the committee essentially noticed it were to make the government more efficient and effective and transparent for the american people the committee held dozens of hearings. we made 202 recommendations but one particular recommendation with tens of billions of dollars recommendation 136 states they shall submit the cost savings of its recommendations as we work to implement all the recommendations my colleagues and i introduced hr 7331 the improving government american taxpayers act which was signed into law at the end of last year. our bill codify the recommendation and now does submit a report annually on the estimated cost savings on its recommendations. that is my intro to their most recent report. they discussed the performance

in carrying out the federal assets of 2016. this was passed to help reduce the cost of the properties to address the challenges and disposing of unneeded federal property and in doing so established to reduce the federal government inventory of federal civilian real property and in the 2023 report said that they faced numerous setbacks in the first two rounds resulting in almost a two-year delay in selling any other properties approved for disposal in the first round. what is troubling is the annual report it's not developed a process to fully leverage the lessons learned from the implementation of the federal assets transfer act. administrator, it took over two years to dispose of the ten of the 12th that identified in the first round. what were the proceeds from this round compared to estimates? >> i'm going to need to circle back on that.

i can talk generally on the work that we do together but i don't have those specific numbers in front of me. the idea that we can save money by consolidating i couldn't agree with you more. i think that we are in this unique moment we could get out at least the space that is expensive and cut that dramatically. 45% of the leases are up for renewal in the next five years. that means we ought to be able to move people out of that and into space. >> the answer to my question is it totaled 100 million but the estimate was 419 million. we can follow up on that answer go back. what process did the gsa implemented to bring additional efficiencies to the process? may be you don't have that

offhand. i know that the team has taken learnings from that. i don't know all of those as we sit here but i will circle back to the team. we are in violent agreement on the need to shrink the real estate assets. whatever we can do to help you with of the inefficiencies. the percentages is very concerning. i would ask you to learn from the last round. that's not the only way we dispose the buildings. around the country we planned to dispose of to stop the process of disposal.

how do you assess what properties are going to be underutilized or unneeded to help streamline that so we are not re-signing leases you may want to get out of. what can we do to help? >> i talked about this today. there's a thing called a federal building fund. it was established by congress back in the 70s and the idea the leases were paid out of that. it uses the fund to maintain that. it's been siphoned off every year for the past 12 years which means we have deferred maintenance and things we cannot do so the number one thing we can do to speed up this process is to have predictability in our federal building fund we are not asking for more money but the money that is supposed to be

there for federal buildings. the chair recognizes mr. turner from kansas. >> thank you mr. chairman and thank you for being here. i grew up in a small town in southeast kansas. i've long been aware of you and your families impressive legacy. i was just in topeka last week. the pandemic is long over. kansans across my state return to in person work nearly three years ago. to make matters worse the administration continues to sign leases to the office buildings. my constituents wait to hear back from agencies ranging from

tax returns to veterans benefits. not only has it been proven to be bad for productivity but multiple studies since 2020 showed the remote employees have relatively higher rates of depression and anxiety. the work policies do not serve their employees and or a broad deal for taxpayers. it's past time for federal government to join the hard-working americans in the country and returned to work in person. you have somewhere around 12,000 employees. what percentage of your employees are in a person as supposed to work from home? what we found as we can increase productivity and save money by reducing our real estate but it depends on the job so some jobs

require people to come in every day through a building manager. if you are a project manager you need to be on the project jobsite to make sure things are getting done. if you are in acquisition person you might be vetted to the team the army or wherever you are helping. so we have lots of different job classifications. so there are some that are also fully remote. what we found is that they can get more talent and spread them all over the country so it's really depends on the job. >> what are the numbers on that? >> most people are required to come to the office at least some but there are at least 40% that are fully remote. as i've said we've been doing this for 20 years. >> what percentage of employers are full-time in person? >> it's somewhere over 40% are

remote, fully remote that would leave the rest. >> i'm wondering what percentage are fully in person? i will have to get you the numbers are and how many are on site in an office of gsa every day. i fully understand the client but my contention is when you have backlogs for the constituent to get information from their government paying for office space to show up to work every day they got to be showing up to do their job. do you have a comment on what i mentioned because i think that like a lot of folks, when the pandemic first happened we thought we have all these new tools that were quickly developed so folks can work from

home. it's not good for our mental health. as far as my constituents are concerned if we are paying for office space for folks to show up they ought to show up. do you have a comment on that? >> i can't speak to what other agencies are doing but how this worked at the gsa we've increased the last three years. we have customer satisfaction scores that continue to be steady or go up over that time. for our mission i am held of the work that our team has done and we will continue to be very

intentional about how we use our telework policies to get the most productivity out of the team. >> i look forward to getting those. >> that concludes our questions. now i will yield to the ranking member for her closing statement. >> thank you mr. chairman once again ms. callahan for appearing for the second time. it is essential that we highlighted the need to fund the federal government, which includes critical funding for the gsa. the funding will lapse and many of the services provided to the constituents and to this nation.

many will lose nutrition supplements through with including more than 11,000 people in the district of columbia alone. more active duty service members will have to go without pay including another 11,000 people in the district of columbia. let's make sure to do our job and adequately fund this government. thank you and i yield back. >> i want to conclude by again thanking you for being here.

that is what the purpose is to investigate waste, fraud, abuse and mismanagement in the federal government. we are going to spend nearly $2 trillion more than we take in and tax revenue. that is not sustainable. that is the root of a lot of our problems that my friends on the other side of the aisle referenced with respect to the challenges getting to 218 votes in a spending bill. what we want to do on the committee is find ways to save. and there's an obvious way to save money in the federal government. we have too much office space. now with the biden administration to push for work, we have even more office space. yet even the mayor of

washington, d.c. supports our efforts to get people back to work to improve productivity but again that's not a prayer ready for the biden administration but a priority for the committee to get back to the american taxpayers and we want to work with your office to try to come up with ways to save substantial sums of money and it would be to utilize some of this empty office space building that has had such a detrimental effect on downtown retailers and small businesses. many minority owned businesses e. the joint resolution does not pass. mr. schumer: thank you, mr. president. we've reached an agreement here, which i'll get to in a second. i want to say a brief word about the vote that just happened. i'm very glad that this cra was

defeated. there are millions of students, poor, working class, some middle class, almost none wealthy, who would -- who benefit from what the president has done. for very poor people, they don't have to pay student loans. for most of the rest, who are working class and middle class, they pay about half of what they did. it really is a change to help our young people. it's a good thing. it's a good thing. and i want to say that i am very glad that this chamber had the good sense to defeat it, because i don't understand my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who believe we can cut taxes for the very wealthy and decrease the deficit, but not help students with the big loan burdens on their shoulders. that's how it is. but president biden has been careful about doing this. i believe it will be improved in

the courts and now the 5.9 students who -- have befd for this. this is -- benefited from this. this will allow kids able to go to college and not have huge amounts of student debt. the good news is -- and this is good news in many of our opinions that we have an agreement. so i ask unanimous consent that the cloture motion with respect to the motion to proceed to calendar 248, h.r. 6363 be withdrawn and the motion to proceed be agreed to. further, that the only amendment in order to h.r. 6363 be the paul amendment numbered 1366, 15 minutes of debate, upon use or yielding back of the time that the senate vote on the amendment, upon disposition of

the amendment there be up to 30 minutes of debate equally divided, upon yielding back of time, the senate vote on passage of the bill, as amended if amended with 60 affirmative votes required for passage without further intervening action or debate and with two minutes of debate equally divided prior to each vote. i ask unanimous consent that following the disposition of h.r. 6363, the chair lay before the senate the message with respect to h.r. 2670, the national defense authorization act, which was received from the house. that the leader or his designee then be recognized to make a compound motion under rule 28 rchlts. that -- authorize the presiding officer to appoint conferees with the ratio being 13-12. if the compound motion is agreed to, it be in order for the following are senators or designees to offer motions to instruct which are at the desk,

klobuchar, rubio blackburn, lankford, cramer, moran, hagerty, braun, and mansion manchin shall and that reed, shaheen, kaine, king, warren, peters, manchin, duckworth, rosen, and kelly; and republican be fischer, rounds, ernst sullivan, cramer, scott, tuberville, mullin, budd, and schmitt. scott of florida, not scott of south carolina. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. a senator: mr. president . the presiding officer: under the previous order, the motion to proceed is agreed to, the clerk will report the bill. the clerk: calendar number 248, h.r. 6363, appear act making further continuing appropriations for fiscal year

2023 and for other -- 2024. mr. paul: spending money lead to the bankruptcy of our great nation. my amendment in order to stave off this outcome with cut 1% of the budgetary spending and help to put us on the path toward fiscal responsibility. in june of this year, the national debt surpassed $32 trillion, and then in september, the national debt surpassed $33 trillion. you heard that right, it took congress 90 days to add a trillion dollars in debt. unless we change course, the debt will consume us. america's future as a nation is not threatened from without but from within. our mounting debt will ultimately force a day of reckoning. the congressional budget office predicts that we will add an average of $2 trillion in debt every year for the next decade.

using congressional budget office projections, the u.s. government will add over $5 billion to get -- debt -- will add over $5 billion to its debt pile every single day for the next ten years, we borrower over $176,000 everyone hour, we borrow $50,000 every second. it's only a matter of time before the world wakes up and refuses to buy our debt. this reckless level of borrowing and spending is patently unsustainable. the ever-increasing heights of our debt mean a weak economy, high inflation, in other words today's spending threatens tomorrow's prosperity. according to william mcbride of the tax foundation, outside of the pandemic years, this year's federal deficit is the highest in u.s. history.

mcbride conditions, figures from the congressional budget office for fiscal year 2023 indicate that the federal deficit grew by about $2 trillion. he also states that while tax revenue has increased 28% since pre-pandemic year of 2019, spending has increased 46%, and the deficit has more than doubled, annual deficits are headed toward even $3 trillion a year if we don't wake up and do something about it. mcbride concludes in continues a perilous course. now would be a good time for the political leaders to present a coherent plan to deal with the debt problem before it becomes an urgent crisis. that's why i'm here on the floor today. americans are starved for a form of fiscal sanity, americans understand better than the elites that time is running out, americans will pay dealer for

congress's ability to say no to every line item and pin pinstrie lob -- luis, we will -- lobbists, and we will find that parents cannot afford to leave their parents' home because they cannot afford it. we can take the first step towards a brighter future today, my amendment will make across-the-board reductions, additionally, the amendment would cut $30 billion from the biden administration's attempt to sick the irs on american taxpayers to squeeze even more money out of those who have earned their hard-earned dollars. all told, my amendment would save taxpayers $50 billion which is only about 1% of all budgetary spending. it's a small and modest

reduction in spending but it's a step in the right direction. this is not the first time i offered an amendment to save the taxpayers' money. throughout my time in the senate i have offered balanced budgets and plans that would shave mere pennies from every budgetary program to restore our fiscal health, and every time these proposals rejected by the senate. the result of failing to act then is that today we now vote in the shadow of a mountain of debt. it's time that we rise up, rise up and tell you -- tell your members of congress that enough is enough. it is time to take a stand while the restoration of american prosperity is still within our grasp. by the time this continuing resolution expires, the people who will ask for your vote next year will add another trillion dollars to the vote. it's time to make a stand. i call up amendment amendment 1.

the clerk: the senator from kentucky, mr. paul, proposes amendment number 1366. mrs. murray: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: madam president, there is a lot we need to get done. as soon as we prevent a shutdown by passing this continuing resolution, we need to come together in a bipartisan way to keep working on things like the comprehensive supplemental funding package for ukraine and israel, for humanitarian assistance and more. and, of course, we've got to pass our full-year spending bills that live up to the agreement this congress passed in a bipartisan way and meets the needs of our communities. these are real issues that we need to take seriously and move on quickly, and then there's this amendment, which let's be honest, which is just not serious, but would be absolutely devastating. this amendment would slash huge swaths of discretionary spending by a -- by a whopping and

arbitrary 15%, not to mention the cut to the irs of $30 billion. we are talking across-the-board cuts with no rhyme or reason that would devastate our he's families -- our families, economy, competitive edge and national security. that is not a solution. it is not serious. it is a gift to our adversaries who want us to fall behind and it's a slap in the face to families across the country who are counting on the critical investments congress makes in their communities. i urge all of my colleagues to join me in voting against it. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor. mr. paul: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from kentucky. mr. paul: i yield back my time and call for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll.

vote: the clerk: ms. baldwin. mr. barrasso. mr. bennet. mrs. blackburn. mr. blumenthal. mr. booker. mr. boozman. mr. braun. mrs. britt. mr. brown. mr. budd. ms. butler. ms. cantwell. mrs. capito. mr. cardin. mr. carper. mr. casey. mr. cassidy.

ms. collins. mr. coons. the clerk: mr. cornyn. ms. cortez masto. mr. cotton. mr. cramer. mr. crapo. mr. cruz. mr. daines. ms. duckworth. mr. durbin.

the clerk: ms. ernst. mr. fetterman. mrs. fischer. mrs. gillibrand. mr. graham. the clerk: mr. grassley. mr. hagerty. ms. hassan.

mr. hawley. mr. heinrich. mr. hickenlooper. ms. hirono. mr. hoeven. mrs. hyde-smith. mr. johnson. mr. kaine.

the clerk: mr. kelly mr. kennedy mr. king. ms. klobuchar. mr. lankford. mr. lee. mr. lujan. ms. lummis. mr. manchin. mr. markey. mr. marshall.

mr. mcconnell. mr. menendez. mr. merkley. mr. moran. mr. mullin. ms. murkowski. mr. murphy. mrs. murray. mr. ossoff. mr. padilla. mr. paul. mr. peters.

mr. reed. mr. ricketts. mr. risch. mr. romney. ms. rosen. mr. rounds. mr. rubio. mr. sanders.

mr. schatz. mr. schmitt. mr. schumer. mr. scott of florida. mr. scott of south carolina. mrs. shaheen. ms. sinema. ms. smith. ms. stabenow.

mr. sullivan. mr. tester. mr. thune. mr. tillis. mr. tuberville. mr. van hollen. mr. vance. mr. warner. mr. warnock. ms. warren. mr. welch. mr. whitehouse.

mr. wicker. mr. wyden. mr. young. the clerk: senators voting in the affirmative --

blackburn, braun, cotton. cramer, fisher, hagerty, lummis, paul, ricketts, schmitt, thune, tuberville. senators voting in the negative -- brown, butler, cantwell, carper, collins, duckworth, durbin, fetterman, graham, hassan, hickenlooper, hyde-smith, kaine, king, klobuchar, manchin, merkley, murkowski, murray, ossoff, padilla, reed, romney, shaheen, smith, van hollen, whitehouse, wicker. mr. grassley, aye. mr. cardin, no.

ms. baldwin, no. mr. scott of florida, aye. mr. budd, aye.

the clerk: mr. lujan, no. the clerk: ms. cortez masto, no. mr. daines, aye.

the clerk: ms. warren, no. mr. rounds, no.

the clerk: mr. lankford, aye. mr. rubio, aye. mrs. britt, aye.

the clerk: mr. tester, no.

the clerk: mr. heinrich, no. mrs. gillibrand, no.

mr. welch, no. the clerk: ms. rozen, --

ms. rosen, no. mr. boozman, no. mr. tillis, no. vote: the clerk: mr. barrasso, aye. mr. mullin, aye.

mr. peters, no. the clerk: mrs. capito, no. mr. johnson, aye. mr. wyden, no.

mr. cassidy, aye. mr. schatz, no. mr. young, no.

the clerk: mr. lee, aye. mr. warner, no. mr. schumer, no.

mr. kennedy, aye. mr. hawley, aye.

the clerk: mr. crapo, aye. ms. hirono, no.

the clerk: mr. kelly, no.

the clerk: mr. murphy, no. mr. booker, no.

mr. moran, no.

the clerk: ms. sinema, no. ms. stabenow, no. mr. sanders, no.

the clerk: mr. bennet, no. the clerk: mr. menendez, no.

the clerk: miss ernst, aye. the clerk: mr. vance, no. the clerk: mr. marshall, aye.

mr. coons, no.

the clerk: mr. cruz, aye.

the clerk: mr. markey, no. vote:

the clerk: mr. sullivan, aye.

the clerk: mr. blumenthal, no. mr. warnock, no.

mr. casey, no.

the clerk: mr. mcconnell, no. mr. hoeven, aye.

the presiding officer: the yeas are 32, the nays are 65, the amendment is not agreed to. there will now up to 30 minutes of debate equally divided. mr. schumer: madam president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. schumer: madam president, can we have order, please. the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. mr. schumer: madam president, i have good news for the american people. this friday night there will be no government shutdown. thank you.

because of bipartisan cooperation, we are keeping the government open without any poison pills or harmful cuts to vital programs, a great outcome for the american people. can we have order, please? i am pleased that speaker johnson realized he needed democratic votes to avoid a shutdown. if the speaker is willing to work with democrats and resist the siren song of the hard right in the house, then we can avoid shutdowns in the future and finish the work of funding the government. today's c.r. is a good first step and a very good oh,men for the -- omen for the future. i hope we see more brap down the line -- bipartisanship down the line. i have stressed that we need bipartisanship if we want to finish the appropriation process. i hope the speaker will continue

the bipartisan approach. now, keeping the government open is a good outcome, but we have a lot more to do after thanksgiving. we must pass president biden's emergency supplemental, with emergency to israel and ukraine and funds for the indo-pacific. we will keep working leader mcconnell on a way forward. i know that both sides genuinely care about providing aid to israel and ukraine and helping innocent civilians in gaza. so i hope we can come to an agreement even if neither side gets everything they insist on. we will also complete our work on the national defense authorization act before the end of the year. an hour i thank my colleagues for voting to keep the government open. i thank leader mcconnell, chair murray, vice chair collins, and all of the

appropriators. again, no government shutdown, no cuts to vital programs, no poison pills. this is a great outcome for the american people. now, my colleagues, after this vote on the c.r., we have one more vote to go to conference on the ndaa. i urge everyone to stay here so we can finish the next vote quickly and then do the third vote without further delay. i yield the floor to the wonderful chair of the appropriations committee who did so much to get us here. mrs. murray: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: thank you, madam president. i will vote for this bill to avoid a senseless shutdown, although i do not care for this idea of two funding deadlines and double the shutdown risk. but the big picture i am focused on now is what happens next because avoiding a shutdown is so far from mission accomplished.

we have a lot of work to do after the dust settles and before the next shutdown deadline comes up. now is not the time to pat ourselves on the backs, it is time to roll up sleeves and address urgent global challenges and critical priorities here at home. our leadership is on the line and with it the security of our allies and our nation. we cannot do half of our job here. we need a supplemental that fully addresses the challenges in ukraine, israel, humanitarian aid, and the indo-pacific. and enough with pitting american families against america's global leadership. we've got to tackle the child care crisis and other domestic priorities just as we address our urgent national security priorities. we are the united states of america. we can and must do both. on that note, let me say this, failing to fully fund wic for the first time is not an acceptable outcome to me under

any circumstances. turning to the year ahead, if we don't want to be right back here in a few weeks facing a one-two punch shutdown threat, we need all of us to get serious about one-year full spending bills. so i have an important message for speaker johnson and the house republicans, we can only get these spending bills done if we are all on the same page when it comes to the top line numbers. the good news is that's already a settled matter because we actually passed bipartisan top lines in the debt limit deal that house republicans and the president negotiated, a deal that speaker johnson voted for along with so many members on both sides of the aisle in both chambers. so let's be clear. the negotiating's already happening, house republicans just need to stick to their word and what they helped pass into law. i'm glad to see the speaker abandon tying cuts and policies

to this c.r., we will need to do to the bills if we're able to conference them. if we can't get back to those top lines that this congress has already agreed to, we are not going to get anywhere. it is that time many. we have to work together .we have to keep our work. we have to compromise and that means listening to the other side, making some tough decisions, leaving out partisan nonstarters, and writing a bill that can pass into law. that is going to make a difference for people we represent at theevment is exactly -- that we represent at home. that is how vice chair collins and i have been able to craft 12 bipartisan spending bills. let's get to work and end the threat of a government shutdown and get the full-year funding our nation needs signed into lieu law. -- signed into law. i yield back all the time.

the presiding officer: without objection, all time is yielded back. under the previous order, the bill is considered read a third time. the question occurs on passage of the bill. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote: the clerk: ms. baldwin. mr. barrasso. mr. bennet. mrs. blackburn. mr. blumenthal. mr. booker. mr. boozman. mr. braun.

the clerk: mrs. britt. mr. brown. mr. budd. ms. butler.

the clerk: ms. cantwell. mrs. capito. mr. cardin. mr. carper.

mr. casey. mr. cassidy. ms. collins. mr. coons. mr. cornyn. ms. cortez masto. mr. cotton. mr. cramer. mr. crapo. mr. cruz. mr. daines. ms. duckworth. mr. durbin. ms. ernst. mr. fetterman. mrs. fischer. mrs. gillibrand. mr. graham. mr. grassley.

the clerk: mr. hagerty. ms. hassan. mr. hawley. mr. heinrich. mr. hickenlooper. ms. hirono. mr. hoeven. mrs. hyde-smith. mr. johnson. mr. kaine. mr. kelly. mr. kennedy. mr. king. ms. klobuchar.

mr. lankford. mr. lee. mr. lujan. ms. lummis. mr. manchin. mr. markey. mr. marshall. mr. mcconnell. mr. menendez. mr. merkley. mr. moran. mr. mullin. ms. murkowski.

mr. murphy. mrs. murray. mr. ossoff. mr. padilla. mr. paul. mr. peters. mr. reed. mr. ricketts. mr. risch. mr. romney. ms. rosen. mr. rounds. mr. rubio. mr. sanders. mr. schatz. mr. schmitt. mr. schumer. mr. scott of florida. mr. scott of south carolina. mrs. shaheen. ms. sinema. ms. smith. ms. stabenow. mr. sullivan. mr. tester. mr. thune. mr. tillis. mr. tuberville.

mr. van hollen. mr. vance. mr. warner. mr. warnock. ms. warren. mr. welch. mr. whitehouse. mr. wicker. mr. wyden. mr. young.

the clerk: senators voting in the affirmative -- baldwin, barrasso, blumenthal, britt, brown, butler, cantwell, capito, cardin, carper, casey, cassidy, coons, cortez masto, daines, duckworth, durbin, ernst, fetterman, fisher, gillibrand, graham, grassley, hassan, hawley, heinrich, hickenlooper, hirono, hoeven, johnson, kaine, kelly, kennedy, king, lankford, lujan, lummis, manchin, markey, marshall, mcconnell, merkley, murphy, murray, ossoff, padilla, peters, reed, ricketts, romney, rosen,

rounds, rubio, sanders, schatz, schumer, shaheen, sinema, smith, stabenow, sullivan, tester, thune, tillis, van hollen, warner, warren, whitehouse, wicker, and young. mr. boozman, aye. mr. welch, aye. mr. cramer, aye. mr. moran, aye. mrs. hyde-smith, aye. senators voting in the negative -- braun, lee, mullin, paul, schmitt, scott of florida, and tuberville. mrs. blackburn, no.

mr. warnock, aye. mr. mullin, aye. mr. hagerty, aye. mr. mullin, aye. mr. budd, aye. mr. vance, no.

the clerk: mr. cotton, aye. ms. klobuchar, aye. the clerk: ms. murkowski, aye.

ms. collins, aye. the clerk: mr. menendez, aye. mr. wyden, aye.

the clerk: mr. risch, no.

mr. crapo, no. mr. cruz, aye. mr. booker, aye. vote:

the presiding officer: mr. bennet the clerk: mr. bennet, no.

the presiding officer: on this vote, the yeas are 87, the nays are 11. the 60-vote threshold having been achieved, the bill is passed. under the previous order, the clerk lays before the senate the following message from the house of representatives. the clerk: resolved that the house disagreed to the amendment of the senate to the bill h.r. 2670 entitled an act to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2024 for military activities of the department of defense and so forth and for other purposes and ask a conference with the senate on the disagreeing votes of the two houses thereon. mr. reed:mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. reed: i ask that we

authorize con forees. i know of no further debate and ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there further debate? the yeas and nays have been requested. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. there is. the clerk will call the roll. the clerk: ms. baldwin. mr. barrasso. mr. bennet. mrs. blackburn. mr. blumenthal.

mr. booker. mr. boozman. mr. braun. mrs. britt. mr. brown. mr. budd. ms. butler. ms. cantwell. mrs. capito. mr. cardin. mr. carper. mr. casey. mr. cassidy. ms. collins. mr. coons.

mr. cornyn. ms. cortez masto. mr. cotton. mr. cramer. mr. crapo. mr. cruz. mr. daines. ms. duckworth. mr. durbin. ms. ernst. mr. fetterman. mrs. fischer. mrs. gillibrand. mr. graham. mr. grassley. mr. hagerty. ms. hassan. mr. hawley. mr. heinrich. mr. hickenlooper.

ms. hirono. mr. hoeven. mrs. hyde-smith. mr. johnson. mr. kaine. mr. kelly. mr. kennedy. mr. king. ms. klobuchar. mr. lankford. mr. lee. mr. lujan. ms. lummis. mr. manchin. mr. markey.

mr. marshall. mr. mcconnell. mr. menendez. mr. merkley. mr. moran. mr. mullin. ms. murkowski. mr. murphy. mrs. murray. mr. ossoff. mr. padilla. mr. paul. mr. peters. mr. reed. mr. ricketts. mr. risch. mr. romney. ms. rosen. mr. rounds. mr. rubio. mr. sanders. mr. schatz. mr. schmitt. mr. schumer. mr. scott of florida. mr. scott of south carolina. mrs. shaheen.

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

senators voting in the affirmative -- baldwin, barrasso, bennet, blackburn, blumenthal, boozman, braun, britt, brown, budd, butler, cantwell, capito, cardin, carper, casey, cassidy, collins, coons, cortez-masto, cotton, cramer, crapo, daines, duckworth, durbin, ernst, featherman, fischer, gillibrand,

grassley, hagerty, hassan, hawley, heinrich, hickenlooper, hirono, hyde-smith, johnson, kaine, kelly, kennedy, king, klobuchar, lankford, lee, lujan, lummis, manchin, marshall, mcconnell, menendez, moran, mullin, murphy, murray, ossoff, padilla, peters, reed, ricketts, risch, romney, rosen, rounds, rubio, schatz, smith, schumer, scott of florida, shaheen, sinema, smith, stabenow, sullivan, tester, thune, till, tuberville -- tillis, tuberville, warner, warnock, with whitehouse, wicker and young. mr. van hollen, aye. senators voting in the negative, booker, markey, merkley, paul,

sanders, warren, welch and wyden. the clerk: ms. murkowski, aye. mr. cruz, aye.

mr. graham, aye. vote:

the clerk: mr. hoeven, aye.

the clerk: mr. vance, aye.

the presiding officer: own this

vote the yeas are 90, the nays are 8. the motion is agreed to. mr. reed: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. reed on behalf of senator klobuchar, i call up the conferees. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator -- mr. reed: i ask that further reading be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reed: i know of no further debate. the presiding officer: is there any further debate. if not, the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. all opposed, say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. the senator from mississippi. mr. wicker: on behalf of mr. rubio, i call up his motion to instruct the conferees. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from mississippi, mr. wicker, for mre

managers -- mr. wicker: i ask that further reading be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. wicker: i know of no further debate on the motion. the presiding officer: is there any further debate? if not, then the question is on the motion. all may never say aye. those opposed, no. the noes appear to have it. the noes do have it. the motion is not agreed to. mr. reed: mr. president prooch the senator from rhode island. mr. reed: on behalf of mr. hickenlooper, i call up his motion to instruct the conferees. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from rhode island, mr. reed, for mr. -- mr. reed: i ask that further reading be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reed: i know of no further debate on the motion, mr. president. the presiding officer: is there any further debate. if not, then the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. those opposed, no.

the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion agreed to. mr. wicker: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from mississippi. mr. wicker: on behalf of senator blackburn, i call up her motion to instruct the conferees. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the senator from -- the clerk: the -- mr. wicker: i ask that the reading be dispensed with. i know of no further debate. the presiding officer: is there any further debate on this item? if not, the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. all opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. wicker: the senator from -- i call up his motion to instruct the conferees. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from mississippi moves that the managers on the part of the senate -- mr. wicker: i ask that further

reading be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. wicker: i know of no further debate. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. all opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. a senator: i call up my motion to instruct the conferees. the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from wyoming, ms. lummis -- ms. lummis: i ask that further reading be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. lummis: i know of no further debate on the motion. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. all opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. wicker: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from mississippi. mr. wicker: "behalf of senator cramer, i call up his motion to instruct the conferees. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from mississippi, mr. wicker, for

mr. cramer moves that the managers -- mr. wicker: mr. president, i ask that further read being dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. wicker: i know of no further debate on the motion. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. all opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. wicker: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from mississippi. mr. wicker: "behalf of senator moran, i call up his motion to instruct the conferees. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from mississippi mr. wicker for mr. moran moves that the managers on the part -- mr. wicker: i ask that further reading be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. wicker: i know of no further debate on the motion. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. all opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. wicker: mr. president, on behalf of senator ernst i call up her motion to instruct the conferees. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from mississippi, mr. wicker for ms. ernst moves that the managers on the part of the

senate -- mr. wicker: mr. president, i ask that further reading be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. wicker: i know of no further debate on the motion. the presiding officer: is there any further debate? if not, the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. all opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. wicker: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from mississippi. mr. wicker: on behalf of senator hagerty, i call up his motion to instruct the conferees. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from mississippi, mr. wicker for mr. hagerty moves that the managers -- mr. wicker: i ask that further reading be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. wicker: i know of no further debate on the motion. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. all opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. wicker: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from mississippi. mr. wicker: on behalf of senator braun, i call up his motion to instruct the conferees. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from mississippi, mr. wicker, for

mr. braun moves that the managers on the part of -- mr. wicker: mr. president, i ask that further reading be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. wicker: i know of no further debate on the motion. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. all opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. reed: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. reed: on behalf of senator manchin, i call up his motion to instruct the conferees. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from rhode island, mr. reed, for mr. manchin moves that the managers -- mr. reed: i ask that further reading be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reed: i know of no further debate on the motion, mr. president. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. all opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. under the previous order, the chair appoints the following as conferees on the part of the

senate. the clerk: senators reed, shaheen, gillibrand, blumenthal, hirono, kaine, king, warren, peters, manchin, duckworth, rosen, kelly, wicker, fisher, cotton, rounds, ernst, sullivan, scott of florida, tuberville, mullin, budd, schmitt. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. a senator: mr. president, shortly i will ask unanimous consent for passage of the armenian protection act of 2023. section 907 of the freedom support act of 1992 was straightforward. mr. peters: it kept azerbaijan from receiving military

assistance from the united states. in the wake of 9/11, we granted the president the authority to waive the statute and in order to protect american interest, and as a result we began sending military aid to azerbaijan. but we attached a very important condition. the azerbaijani government could not engage in offensive attacks or undermine the peace process with armenia. their recent actions in far car -- nor car have failed in meeting this straightforward standard. not only did they blockade the quarter ten month, creating significant hardships, they also violently attacked innocent armenians and forced the dissolution of the government on september 28. the armenian protection act of 2k0 23 is simple. it would hold azerbaijan accountable for these actions. as a result of azerbaijan's failure to meet the terms of our agreement with them, it would

prevent the united states from sending military aid for a period of two years. after that time, the president could once again decide what best serves the american interests in that region. the administration already has the authority to cut off the support but as this conflict has unfolded, they have not taken public action. we must send a strong message and show our partners around the world that america will enforce the conditions that we attach to military aid. if we do not take action when countries willfully ignore the terms of our agreements with them, our agreements will become effectively meaningless and toothless. i urge my colleagues to join me in holding azerbaijan accountable for their actions, enforce our agreements with them and stand with the armenian people in the face of unprovoked aggression. i urge my colleagues to support the armenian protection act of

2023. and i ask unanimous consent that the committee on foreign relations be discharged from further consideration of s. 3,000 and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. 3000, a bill to repeal freedom support act, section 907 waiver authority and so forth. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection, the committee is discharged and the senate will proceed. mr. peters: i ask unanimous consent that the peters substitute amendment at the desk be agreed to. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. peters: i ask that the bill as amended be considered read a third time. the presiding officer: also without objection. mr. peters: i know of for further debate on the bill as amended. the presiding officer: is there any further debate? if not, all in favor say aye. all opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the bill as amended is passed. mr. peters: i ask unanimous

consent that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from georgia. mr. ossoff: mr. president, when hamas gunmen stormed into towns in kibbutz imin southern israel and massacred over a thousand israeli civilians killing families, raping women, abducting babies, torturing and beheading jews in the very state that was established after the holocaust to be their sanctuary. the overwhelming majority of americans were and still are united in our grief, outrage, and solidarity with the israeli

people. for jews, these events call to mind the nazi death squads who hunted and massacred our relatives across eastern europe 80 years ago. the slaughter of jews at such scale and with such cruelty reopened deep jewish wounds suffered throughout our history. salt in those wounds was the minimization and even celebration of this massacre by a few, including a few in the united states who attempted to excuse such atrocities as a righteous cup up pans -- comeuppance for israeli policies or the inevitable consequence of israel's existence. that moment required moral clarity, no matter one's

objections to israeli policy or one's perspective on history. there is no justification and can be no apology for a deliberate massacre and torture and abduction of civilians. there is no excuse. there is no context historical or political that mitigates the crime. it is clear that under such circumstances, israel has an obligation to protect its citizens and a right to do so with force. and this, too, requires moral clarity. no government could be expected to tolerate such an attack. and such a threat without taking decisive action to defend itself and to bring the perpetrators to justice. mr. president, now five weeks since the october 7 massacre, israel's military response was substantially armed by the united states directly impacts

the lives of millions of people, the future of the middle east, and america's national security. and it is therefore a necessary subject of scrutiny by the u.s. senate. and so, mr. president, the senate must acknowledge that conditions for civilians in gaza are catastrophic and that this unfolding humanitarian catastrophe is both an immense tragedy and a threat to our national security. hamas embeds its military capabilities within gaza's civilian infrastructure. it 450euds -- hides behind and beneath gaza's civilian population. but the depraved tactics of hamas do not relieve israeli leaders of their obligations to protect innocent life. nor should they harden our

hearts against the innocent people who live under their rule. in five weeks relentless air strikes and the continuous use of massive munitions in dense urban areas have killed thousands of civilians and seriously wounded many thousands more, including many children. in a territory half the size of dekalb county, georgia, tens of thousands of homes have been destroyed or damaged beyond use and more than one and a half million people have been displaced. clean water, food, and medicine are scarce, and the continued obstruction of aid necessary for sanitation and health care will worsen suffering, disease, and death. small children are wasting from malnutrition and falling ill in overcrowded shelters and

makeshift camps. imagine the desperation of families with young children just trying to survive. and this, too, mr. president, requires moral clarity. the extent of civilian death and suffering in gaza is unnecessary. it is a moral failure. and it should be unacceptable to the united states. there is no doubt that to defeat the threat posed by hamas force is required and with the use of force no matter how judicious, facing an enmay hiding behind civilians, there will be civilian casualties. but restraint and the acceptance of some military risk out of concern for innocent life are demonstrations of strength, even and especially when confronting a brutal enemy like hamas. concern for the innocent,

especially when fighting an enemy unbound by any morality demonstrates the values for which the u.s. should stand and which israel proclaims, the same values meant to be the bedrock of our alliance. mr. president, an unmitigated humanitarian disaster in gaza is not just a moral failure. it undermines american national security. it heightens the risk that the war might spread and draw american forces further into combat. it sows the sides of hate and dims the prospects for a long-term, sustainable peace between israelis and palestinians. it gives fodder to terrorists who would strike americans and our allies abroad and at home. it damages the credibility of the united states and our allies as champions of a future defined by humanitarian values, the same

values at stake in ukraine, where russia would push dictatorship into europe you, and in asia, where china threatens the future of human freedom. if in six months gaza is rubble, with tens of thousands of civilians dead and millions of desperate refugees with no viable plan to govern its ruins, that would be a disaster not just for all those killed and wounded and emiss rated, but also for israel, for the region, and for the united states. mr. president, the united states has stood with israel since october 7 and still does. the president powerfully condemned hamas atrocities. he flew to israel while israel was under fire. he rushed supplies to the idf and sent powerful military assets to deter iran and its proxies. americans are working around the

clock to secure the release of hundreds of hostages. nevertheless, requests by the united states that the israeli leadership conduct a more tarpghted campaign -- a more targeted campaign, that they permit and provide safe passage for aid essential to the sus nance of innocent life, that they clearly define objectives and prevent extra judicial killings by extremists in the west bank, that they present a plan for gaza's future governance have mostly been ignored. mr. president, i fervently want israel to succeed, both in defeating the threat posed by hamas and as a historic effort to secure a safe homeland for jews. but i do not accept that the total deprivation of millions of innocent civilians is necessary

for israel to secure its objectives or in the national interest of the united states. and where the united states is committing arms, funds, and support to those efforts, we must guard our principles and our interests. so, mr. president, i urge israel's political leaders to act with wisdom, to listen to israel's greatest friend and ally, the united states. and mr. president, just as i pray for the freedom of hostages taken so cruelly from their families, as a pro-israel jewish american i urge mercy for the innocent civilians in gaza. and i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the chair would like to clarify for the information of the senator, that senator cramer is named as a conferee on h.r. 2670. mr. schumer: mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. schumer: i move to proceed to executive session to consider calendar 354. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. all opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to.

the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, the judiciary, jeffrey m. bryan of minnesota to be united states district judge for the district of minnesota. mr. schumer: i send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of executive calendar number 354, jeffrey m. bryan of minnesota to be united states district judge for the district of minnesota, signed by 17 senators as follows. mr. schumer: i ask consent the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: i move to proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all those in favor say aye. opposed nay. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. schumer: i move to proceed to executive session to consider calendar 308. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion.

all those in favor say aye. all opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, the judiciary, margaret m. garnett of new york to be united states district judge for the southern district of new york. mr. schumer: i send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of executive calendar number 308, margaret m. garnett of new york to be united states district judge for the southern district of new york, signed by 17 senators as follows. if. mr. schumer: i ask consent the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: i move to proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all those in favor say aye. all opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to.

mr. schumer: i move to proceed to executive session to consider calendar number 117. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all those in favor say aye. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, department of labor, jose javier rodriguez of florida to be an assistant secretary. mr. schumer: i send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of executive calendar number 117, jose javier rodriguez of florida to be an assistant secretary of labor, signed by 17 senators as follows. mr. schumer: i ask consent the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum calls for the cloture motions filed today, november 16, be waived. the presiding officer: without

objection. mr. schumer: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate consider the following nomination, calendar 212, roger f. nyhus, to be ambassador to barbados, the federation of st. kits and nevis, the commonwealth of dominica, gren ade, st. vincent and gren deans, that the -- that the senate vote without intervening action or debate, that the president be immediately notified of the senate's action. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. the clerk will report. the clerk: nomination, department of state, roger f. nyhus of washington to be ambassador extraordinary and plenipotentiary of the united states of america to barbados. the presiding officer: the question is on the nomination. all in favor will say aye.

opposed nay. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the nosm nation is confirmed. mr. schumer: i ask that the senate proceed to legislative session and be in a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar 117 s. 106. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 117 s. 106, a bill to amend title 38 united states code and so forth and for other purposes. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding? without objection. mr. schumer: i further ask the committee be -- i further ask that the committee-reported substitute amendment be withdrawn and the baldwin substitute amendment at the desk be considered and greadz to, the considered read a third time and patchessed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no

intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar 191 s. 1510. the presiding officer: the clerks will report. the clerk: calendar number 191 s. 1510, a bill to amend provisions relating to the office of the inspector general, so forth and for other purposes. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding? without objection. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent that the braun substitute amendment at the desk be considered and agreed to, the bill as amended be considered read a third time and patchessed and the mentions to reand passed and -- and passed. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the en bloc consideration of the following senate resolutions, s. res. 468, s. res. 469, s. res. 470, s. res. 471. the presiding officer: without objection. we'll proceed to the resolutions en bloc. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent the resolutions be

agreed to, the preambles be agreed to and the mentions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, all en bloc. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: mr. president, i have eight requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority leader and minority leaders. -- yesterday's session. excuse me. the presiding officer: duly noted. mr. schumer: i don't know if they'll be meeting in today's session. finally, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today it adjourn to convene for pro forma sessions only with no business being conducted on the following dates and times and following each session the senate adjourn until the next pro form paye session, friday, november 17, 7:30:00 a.m., tuesday, november 21, 10:00 a.m., friday, november 24, 11:00 a.m., further that when the senate adjourns on friday, november 24, it stand adjourned until 3:00 p.m. monday, novembe. following the prayer and pledge,

the journal of proceedings be approved to date, morning hour deemed expired, the time for the two leaders reserved for use later in the day and morning business closed. following the conclusion of morning business, the senate proceed to executive session to resiewrm consideration of the bryan nomination. further, that the clowrms cloture moaftions ripen at -- moachtions ripen at 5:30 p.m. on monday november 27. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: if there is no further business to come before the senate i ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order, following the remarks of my many republican colleagues. the presiding officer: without objection. the senator from alaska. mr. sullivan: mr. president, i'm honored to be here again with senators graham, ernst, and young. we were down on the floor two weeks ago and at that time we promised military members and their families that we had their back, that we would keep coming down to the senate floor to try

to move forward their nominations and confirmations that have been stalled. by the way, ever that -- after that session, five hours, we tried to move forward, nominees who have nothing to do with the policy dispute at issue here. i think we're all in agreement on that. we received hundreds of text messages, e-mails from military families saying thank you for having our back. somebody has our back. somebody is speaking out for us. so we've told them we're going to do that and we're moving into thanksgiving. my colleagues and i will keep our word. we keep our word to our military. now, mr. president, during that time in the last two weeks, we have all worked hard together, senator tuberville is here, senator lee on the floor, we're all working hard to resolve this. we have ideas, senator graham will talk more about litigation, about switching the holds from the innocent members of the military to the civilians who are making the policy. that's the appropriate, to

fighting this abortion policy of the biden administration dod and the ndaa. we're still working on that. i want to extend that to my colleagues. but the backlog grows. right now, when the armed services reports out the next batch of military officers, it will be 450, one, two, three and four-star generals. 450. this is a huge readiness challenge and huge morale challenge while our troops are literally in combat, literally under fire. somebody is being held in the middle east in terms of their promotions are in combat. right now. the world is a very dangerous place. now, mr. president, very quickly, you know, my democrat colleagues, biden administration, they seem to take a certain delight in what's happening here. i don't take a delight in this at all. don't relish this at all. i like working with my

republican colleagues. i wish we could resolve this. i'm on the floor here more out of sadness and frustration than anger. i really do wish with my colleague senator tuberville we can find a way forward on this fast to turn to the even bigger readiness problem, and that's the biden administration's lack of seriousness when it comes to the department of defense. cutting the budgets every year, the current budget shrinks army, navy, air force, marine corps, the civilian woke focus of this administration. they're not serious on our national defense and military. we need to get through that. senator tuberville and i made the majority leader bring forward the members of the joint chiefs of staff. so on the other side of the aisle there wasn't a lot of seriousness of moving people either. i hope we can resolve this issue and focus on the bigger

readiness issue. there is no doubt these blanket holds are creating readiness officers, not just flag officers, but colonels and lieutenant concerns who are being stuck. this is impacting the entire military. i have letters from the military officers association of america, the veterans of foreign wars and the american legion. this represents millions of americans all requesting that these blanket holds be lifted. i'd like to submit them for the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sullivan: finally, mr. president, tonight we're going to bring up some more members. i hope my colleagues don't object, but -- and when -- when they're going to talk, i'm sure they're going to talk about the biden policy, which we all disagree with. the four senators on the floor, were on the floor two weeks ago. we have a lot in common, but big

things are strongly pro-life and strongly pro military. we're veterans. we served. we know what sacrifice means, and we want to make sure we are protecting our military members and their families. that is a core principle certainly of republicans that we need do that. what i'm hopeful for hearing from my colleagues on the floor also questions about that we didn't hear from last week, senator -- my colleague from alabama said many times that if you bring up nominees one by one, he'd be fine with it on september 6. he said i'm not holding up nominees from being approved, they can bring them to the floor one at a time and i won't block them. that's what we're doing. by the way, mr. president, this is regular order. we did research. there's been two times in the last half century where there was a recorded vote on a

brigadier general twice. we're doing more than regular order here by moving these individually. and, finally, this is the most important question. i think we all think is imperative and it needs to be answered for our military members. why punish patriotic military members over a policy dispute they have nothing to do with and can't fix? why punish people who have seriously sacrifice the -- sacrificed for america, more than anyone else on the floor here certainly, over a policy dispute they have nothing to do with. why punish their families and the war heroes supporting these families you will hear about tonight who served their country so faithfully when they have nothing to do with the dispute on the floor? why punish some of the most experienced combat people, when they have nothing to do with this dispute.

so, mr. president, i was home veterans day in alaska. my state has more veterans per capita than any other state in the country. very patriotic citizens. the events i went to, young alaskans, old alaskans, really honor our veterans. whenever i'm at a ceremony and i'm speaking, i call out vietnam vets for special recognition because what happened to them should never happen again to any military members. what happened to them? there were huge policy disputes over the vietnam war at the pending level, but -- pentagon level, but people took it out on the troops. they punished the troops over a policy dispute these troops had nothing to do with. they were serving honorably. americans said we'll never do that again. well, guess what. it's happening again. troops are being punished, families are being punished over something they have nothing to

do with. so my hope tonight, mr. president, is we get my colleague to lift the blanket hold and not object these individual nominations, but it is also important to understand what a blanket hold is. who are the heroes, who is being punished? how have they served their countries and sacrificed? we're going to hear a little bit about that, i hope. i think that americans who are watching will be proud when they hear about these great patriots when they listen. it might make you sad or frustrated or angry that we are not keeping faith with these faithful patriots. i'm now going to turn the floor to my colleague, senator ernst. ms. ernst: mr. president. the presiding officer. senator from iowa. ms. ernst: thank you, mr. president, i am privileged to be on the floor this evening in what in the military we would call a joint operation.

soing this evening i'm joining -- so this evening i'm joining my marine colleagues, senator sullivan of alaska and senator young of indiana, and my air force colleague from the great state of south carolina. i of course served 23 years between the united states army reserve and the iowa army national guard, deploying once for iraqi freedom from 2003 to 2004 where i was the company commander of 150 soldiers that ran convoys from kuwait to iraq supporting our warriors to the north. we are joined in the chair this evening by another veteran, a senator from michigan in the chair, mr. president, naval reservist. so he we truly are a joint operation under the color of purple. so thank you so much. i'm going to throw down just a

little bit of how we got into the situation and a little bit more about who i am because i am pro military, obviously, but i am also pro-life as well. i served in the iowa state senate and during the time that i served in the state senate, i was a pro-life leader. i was the go-to gal for our pro-life issues in the iowa state senate, participating and leading in legislation to advance life as well as participating in marchs for life in the great state of iowa. coming into the united states senate then i became a member of the pro-life caucus. i have led on a number of efforts when it comes to life, predominately though one that our pro-life community has appreciated is the effort to defund planned parenthood, and

redirect the eligible providers of women's health care, such as community health centers. in february of 2023, we saw president biden unveil his abortion travel agency plans. okay. what does this mean? it means that president biden decided that he would send young women, whether they were family members, whether they were servicemembers, he would allow them to travel, he would send them to other states to receive abortions. that being supported by taxpayer dollars. we feel this is wrong. it goes against the hyde amendment. that's where president biden put us. secretary lloyd austin implemented that plan in february, again, of 2023, and in march of 2023, then i led -- i led on the effort to overturn

this policy. i introduced and led the legislation to reverse the dod's travel abortion policy. it was twice voted on in the armed services committee during the national defense authorization act process. twice voted on, twice defeated in the committee. now, that's in the united states senate. so, again, i am pro-military and i am pro-life. i also do not relish the fact that i am standing on the floor this evening as we try and bring these nominations forward, but i understand the national security risks that are out there and the detriment to readiness as we continue to hold over 450 of the finest men and women that have served their nation honorably

under the flag of our nation and our uniform. so i will go through one by one. i have a binder full of -- of nominees and i do hope that our colleague from alabama will allow us to bring them up one by one for a voice vote. i have many biographies, fabulous men and women. with that, i will yield to my colleague from south carolina. mr. graham: thank you, and thank you for your service and to everybody that served. next week's thanksgiving. we're all going to go home here in a little bit and enjoy our families, god willing, we make it home safe, i mean that for everybody, coach and everybody. there will be a lot of family who won't be home with their families because they'll be in some place doing things very difficult, risking their lives

and this is why i'm here tonight. how do you right wrongs? you don't create another wrong. i want to right the wrong of having abortion paid for by public taxpayer dollars from the defense coffers, i think not only violates the hyde amendment, it's just bad policy. count me in, coach. i'm with you on that, mike. you say it's illegal. i tend to agree with you. go to court. one way you're right or wrong in america if you think the law has been broken, you actually bring a lawsuit, and i think we found a way talking to jay, to bring a lawsuit challenging the defense policy of president biden using taxpayer dollars to pay for transportation costs from dod to perform abortions. i think that is in violation of the hyde amendment. the good news i think there is standing to bring the lawsuit.

generally standing in america when you have a legal dispute, you go to court. the dod has a memo that it doesn't violate the hyde amendment. i think they're wrong, but this is not a court of law and there is a court of law to seek that remedy. another remedy it is to try to find a compromise between the house version and the senate version of the ndaa. the house strips the policy, the senate, because they're controlled by democrats, add the policy and we will work out some way to reconcile that through the legislative process. that's one way to fix this problem. what we've chosen to do, and every senator has a lot of power. that's what makes the senate different than the house. i served in both bodies. with power comes responsibility. the wrong we're creating here is to put our military at risk at a time of great need. if you do not believe these

holds are having an effects on the military, i don't question your sincerity, i question your judgment. if you ask anybody out in the field right now, there's one flag officer for the whole continent of africa. this is like a car wreck on i-95. it keeps backing up. last time we were talking, there were 300, we're up to 450. this is affecting the ability of the nation to defend itself. i will not tolerate being told something i snow wrong. the policy is wrong but holding these officers who had nothing to do with this is wrong. they deserve better. they have done nothing to get us here in this spot. we've got a political difference between the department of defense and the senate and the house and the courtrooms are

available to resolve this and i would ask my good friend from alabama, and i don't doubt your sincerity, but if this continues, this is one of the worst self-inflicted wounds i have seen in 20 years. we pulled out of afghanistan, that was a self-inflicted wound. we had a chance to deter russia and we chose not to by having free invasion sanctions, that was a self-inflicted wound done by the biden administration many we have a broken border, that's self-inflicted. we will challenge all of those self-inflicted wounds and it will be -- and with republicans it will be easy. what is hard is to challenge people of your own party at times. when it comes to the military, i lay the party label down because i have seen what it takes to defend this nation up close and personal. it means you miss birthdays, you

miss graduations, you miss babies born, and you lose your life. that's what it means to serve. and all the people, the 450 people, if you've got an individual problem with one of these folks, i'll support your right to object and we'll hear your side of the story. i don't believe all 450 people are woke. so here's what i would say about the 450 people. they have dedicated their adult lives to serving this country. they have given every ounce that they could give to get to where they're at to be promoted. do you know how hard it is to become a sergeant major in the enlisted corps? it's 1% of the enlisted force. do you know how hard it is to

become a general officer because you're cosm peating with some of the best -- competing with some of the best people on the planet. for every one that gets promoted, there's ten that could be promoted or would do great in positions -- positions of responsibility. we're taking the military and throwing it in the ditch in terms of command structure. there are people filling jobs today that are waiting to go to their next assignment and they can't get there because they can't get promoted. they're paying two house payments, not one. their children don't know what school they're going to go to. they deserve better than this. and this is my promise. i will work with senator tuberville and lee and anybody else and everybody else to find a solution that's acceptable to them to get us back on track to talk about the issues i just

discussed. but i promise you this. this will be the last holiday this happens. if it takes me to vote to break loose these folks, i will. i'm not going to talk about me being pro-life. just look at what i've done. to my pro-life friends, you're not advancing this cause. you're hurting this cause if the average american believes that the reason these people are getting blocked from promotion is because of policy choice they didn't make. it is not fair to have people in uniform who have to follow their civilian leadership when the fundamental precepts of american democracy is civilian control of the military. they have no choice. don't punish them because in our

system the civilians make the decisions. let's punish the civilians who make these choices. there are plenty of people we can hold and should hold. there are plenty of things we can do to fight to right this wrong. we can go to court. we can insist on change through the ndaa process. but this is not righting the wrong. this is creating another wrong. this is putting our nation at risk and i would just say this. i've been here for 20 years now. i've never seen the world on fire like this. the only reason an american soldier hasn't been killed in iraq and syria because of drone attacks by shiite militia controlled by iran is because they had a dud. been lucky as hell and what's going on in israel, that could spread like wildfire.

we could be in a shooting war with iran tomorrow. so we need our best team on the field and the best players we have are being blocked from serving. this needs to come to an end for the national security of this nation. thank you. mr. young: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from indiana. mr. young: mr. president, we're back here on the floor again of the united states senate. it's early in the morning. why are we down here? we're down here to keep faith with those officers in the military, members of their family, and those that will follow them, that when they spend -- when members of our military spend their entire professional lives building up experiences, leadership experiences, experiences in battle, obtaining multiple

degrees, making countless sacrifices back home, that their careers won't be interrupted by politics that they've got nothing at all to do with. let me go through five areas. first, areas of agreement with my good friend, and he is my good friend, senator tuberville. i sit right next to him. and got a lot of respect for senator tuberville. he and i share agreement on pro-life principles. we're both in every respect. our policies, our convictions, our public statements, our past history, strongly pro-life. i don't think anyone questions that. we also believe that the president's actions as it relates to these policies, the ones that he and i find

objectionable to transport our servicemembers out of state to obtain abortions using taxpayer moneys is patently illegal. we think it should be challenged. second point, we do have disagreements so let me indicate they're tactical disagreements, not grounded in principle. tactical disagreements that we're trying to find alternatives to. the reason i don't think this current approach is even constructive is because as many of my colleagues have already stated. it punishes those brave servicemembers who didn't develop the policy and can't change it. and that, therefore, breeds a lot of frustration and even

cynicism about our elected officials. fourth, it's a dangerous time, something i underscored last time when i was down here to talk about this. a time of war. the united states blessedly is not involved in that war actively. we don't have boots on the ground but we've been actively resourcing our friends and partners. it's a dangerous and precarious time for our friends. god forbid if some sort of escalation occurs. we don't want to get pulled into that. we need our best team on the field. and the last point i really want to emphasize tonight is this is personal to me. this is personal to this united states senator. i proudly represent the people of indiana and this institution, but i have a history serving in

other areas, serving with other individuals. i proudly graduated from the united states naval academy in 1995 and this evening i will be calling to the floor on the executive calendar the names of seven individuals who have been nominated for the rank of rear admiral lower half. they were classmates of mine. our class is really proud of these individuals. i think there's broad acknowledgment that they have earned this opportunity to lead at the highest level in the best military that ever was. and i want to do my part to give them that opportunity and i'm asking senator tuberville to do his part. a motto of the class of 1995, not self but country.

so i'm asking maybe an exception can be made for my classmates here, these seven individuals, these seven patriots of whom i'm quite proud. so, mr. president, with that in mind, i call to the floor executive calendar number 105 captain kurtis a. mole to the grade of rear admiral. captain mole enlisted in the navy in 1988, becoming a crypt logic technician and attending the prestigious defense language institute, dli in monterey. captain mole went to attend -- went on to attend the naval academy earning his commission in 1995 as a surface warfare officer. after his redesignation as a crypt logic warfare officer in 2000, he went on to in many

positions including the senior cryptologist for the uss kitty hawk strike group, commander of the u.s. 7th fleet, information warfare commander for uss ronald reagan strike group and commanding officer of nsa-css hawaii. captain mole has deployed multiple times to the arabian gulf and western pacific, an amazing career. and we can confirm this nomination by voice vote right now. and therefore i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to executive session for the consideration of the following nomination, captain kurtis a. mole to be rear admiral, lower half, in the united states navy under executive calendar number 1 05 that the senate vote on the

nomination, without intervening action or debate, that if confirmed the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the president be immediately notified of the senate's action. executive calendar 104. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. lee: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. lee: mr. president, reserving the right to object. i have nothing but warm feelings and respect and gratitude for the noble service that my colleagues from alaska and iowa and south carolina and indiana have demonstrated their loyalty to their country serving in their respective branches of the

u.s. military. i have nothing but respect for the service that they've dedicated to the united states as united states senators. i've nothing but respect for the brave men and women who have for two and a half centuries donned the uniform in defense of their fellow beings so that they might live in comfort, in peace while they offer up their last full measure of their devotion day after day. i've nothing but respect for what they're trying to do in the sense that i know that they want the military to be all that it needs to be in order to protect the american people. i certainly do share the concern that they express to the extent that we ever put our armed services personnel in jeopardy because of political disputes, that's not ideal. we don't ever want to sacrifice

military readiness because of a political battle. and it is because of that, not in spite of it, that i'm here tonight. now, i want to be clear. the particular strategy deployed here is not mine. it's that of a dear friend and colleague who is here with me tonight. it's not my strategy. it is his. and it's because it's his that i'm here to defend him in that, notwithstanding the fact that it's not the particular tactic that i would have chosen. he's chosen a tactic that is legitimate and he has every right to deploy under the rules of the senate, rules that go back nearly two and a half centuries in order to protect the individual rights of each senator. these have deep meaning under our constitutional system. and the united states senate we operate differently than they do in the house. first of all, we have this role. we are in the words of our minority leader, we're in the

personnel business in addition to being in the business of passing legislation and being in the personnel business means that we've got to review people as they come up for senate confirmation. we're also different in that every state is represented equally. in fact, the only change that you cannot constitutionally make to the constitution by means of a constitutional amendment is that principle. you cannot amend the constitution to alter the principle of equal representation among the states. and it's that very principle that's reflected in the senate rules and always has been. why? well, because it's important to make sure that every state does have full representation. one isn't represented more than another. so the people of alabama have elected my friend and colleague, the senior senator from alabama, to represent them. that's why he has these rights. that's why they're important to

defend. so notwithstanding the fact that any of us might have chosen a different tactic, a different strategy to go about this, this is his right and it's a right that i will defend til my last breath for the simple reason that it is his right to do it and he is right to do it. let me explain what i mean by that. the reason we're even here having this discussion is because we have some individuals who serve in the pentagon and the department of defense who lost sight of which branch of government in which they serve. we wants them to be able, ready, willing at a moment's notice to do everything they need to do in order to defend this great nation, and to that end, their job is to serve in an executive

capacity, not legislative capacity. these are not mere ac stractons -- abstractions. niece are fundamental, bedrock principles of our system of government. with two independent provisions make this clear. article 1, section 1, clause 1, the very first operative provision of the entire constitution. it says that all legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a congress of the united states, which shall consist of a senate and a house of representatives. article 1 section 7 of the constitution makes this point doubly clear, that you cannot, may not, will not, must not ever pass a law, clang a law that is a federal law in our system unless you have a few things happen. you've got to have passage in the howches and passage in the senate -- in the house and in the senate, it doesn't matter which order, just the same legislative text. that text must be transmitted to the president, or presented as we call it, for signature, veto,

or acquiescence. then it becomes law. if the president vetos it, it's -- returned to our respective chambers and will not become law unless two-thirds of the members of both houses overturn that veto. we've had in place since 1984 a set of laws, laws that have been amended in 1996, then again in 2003, that today are codified at 10 usc section 1093. those laws make clear that we cannot use the department of defense funds or department of defense facilities or property for abortions. you cannot do that. you cannot do that in the absence of rape, incense or where the life of the mother is in jeopardy, unless the abortion happens. this in turn reflects a very simple and very long lasting

truth among the american people, which is the american people come at the abortion issue from a wide variety of perspectives. there are some who believe that life begins at conception and that anything from that moment forward cannot be justified. others believe that until the baby is actually born and takes its first breath, the baby has no legally cog nizable protectable rights. some take that even further, i find it difficult to accept, that some feel that way, but some really do. even though americans find themselves at very different positions along this ideological spectrum, specifically related to the issue of abortion, there's one point that unites americans overwhelmingly, i mean to the tune of three out of four, something in the range of about 75% of americans agree on

one thing when it comes to abortion, you should not, must not ever use federal taxpayer funds for abortion. why? well, pro-life americans i think find this explanation obvious, they don't like abortion anyway so they don't want government funding it. but it appears about half of the people who are not pro-life, who believe in some policies that recognize somebody ought to have the ability to get an abortion, about half of them believe that we still shouldn't use federal funds to that that -- to do that, because a lots of americans are uncomfortable with that, and with good reason. these policies have been around for a really long time, and with good reason. even though references, beliefs, public opinions have changed from time to time, this one remained overwhelmingly against

the use of public funds. it was surprising and alarming to my friend, senator tuberville, when about a year ago he started hearing rumors, rumors to the effect that the pentagon would begin using federal funds to facilitate abortions. at the did, as any faithful member of the senate armed services committee would, he met with secretary of defense lloyd austin. he said i don't know whether these rumors are true. if they are, i find them alarming. this if they're true, i'll have no choice as a members of the armed services committee to make sure that there are consequences to you if you take this lawless act. he had good reason to point this out. the only reason for that policy, the only fathomable reason is to circumvent the plain purpose, intent, effect of 10 usc 109. that's the only reason it's there. they've written it ever so

craftily to have a colorable argument, i think one that flies in the face of the stated purpose, intent, effect of this federal statute, 10 usc 1093. so that they could argue, well, we're not using it to pieffer the abortion -- to perform the abortion, but just to fly people to get the abortion, then to pay for three weeks of paid leave time for anyone who wants to get the abortion and to pay their travel, roonl room and board, everything else around the abortion. but because we're not paying for the abortion itself, we're in the clear. now, senator tuberville recognized something very important, that the sole purpose of this policy would be to circumvent federal law and to make it difficult to impossible to challenge in a court of law. i'll get to that in a moment.

he did something right then and there, something that, whether you agree with the tactic or not, you got to find ited a mirable, he's taken the bull by the horns. he utilized the resources at his disposal, as any division i champion football coach would do. he did it. he said okay, if you do this, that's fine. i suppose -- well, no the fine, but it's your prokingtive to do that, but if you do, i'm going to exercise my prerogatives as a senator, which are such that i can require you to take the long way, the long road, the long and more difficult path instead of the shorter path that we nearly always use when confirming flag officer military personnel, that is generals and admirals, as well as political appointees within the department of defense.

now, let's understand about a hold. it's not an inexorable block. it's not damning these people to senate confirmation hell. doesn't have that power. that's above his pay grade, all of ours. what he's doing is saying there's the fast path and the slow path. we always use the fast path, but that requires the acquiescence, agreement, unanimous consent of all 100 of us. if you don't do that, senator tuberville will make you take the slow path. secretary austin is a decorated war hero. he's been around for a long time. he knows the senate. he knows the pentagon well. he knew the risks. he chose to play chicken. he chose to look a united states senator in the eye and say thank you, i'll take that under advisement, and in a cowardly moment he decided to give

himself power that does not belong to him, because the constitution of the united states doesn't give it to him, because you can't legislate from the e-ring of the pentagon. no matter how strongly he feels, no matter how compelling his urge to facilitate the performance of abortion, using federal funds, contrary to public opinion and federal law, he does not have that power. and shame on him. it is to his everlasting shame that he would give himself that power. then have the audacity to blame senator tuberville for the slowdown that he knowingly, willfully, shamefully created. now we get back to this point that's impacting military readiness, that's creating inconvenience for the flag officers who have been nominated. we're hearing now that it's even

affecting people at a level below the flag officers. now, that's curious, because senator tuberville never imposed holds, none of these holds have applied with regard to anybody below the flag officer level -- general, admiral, one star, two star, three star, four star, or political appointee dod-wide. they haven't. i don't know where that comes from. perhaps they're saying it has a spillover effect downstream. maybe. if that's the case, i hope they'll be clear in making that argument. otherwise, that's just false, not true. in any event, he's not stopping them. he's not stopping one of them. he's saying you just have to take the slow path. so let's be clear here. there are exactly two ways, mr. president, two ways that

regardless of senator tuberville's holds, whether he ever budges an inch, we can take care of this. approach one could happen tonight. i guess it's technically morning, it's 12:56 or so a.m. we'll say this morning. right now, president biden, if you're watching tv, pay attention, i'm going to give you a real easy recipe to follow. you can do this even at 1:00 a.m. president biden, if you're not awake, you should be watching this, because this is compelling television. if your a -- if you're staffing president biden, wake him up. he will really enjoy this. i think he will enjoy it a lot. much easier to do than riding a bike, and you're not going to fall over doing it. all you have to do is suspend your godless, lawless abortion

travel policy. just suspend it right now. if this is affecting military readiness, so be it. end it. end it tonight. you've got a duty to do that. lloyd austin, you can do it too. suspend your abortion travel policy. now, look, i know you guys feel really passionately about abortion. i know that for whatever reason you've lost your freervegging minds -- your freaking minds, ever since that fateful day in june of 2022 when the supreme court of the united states ended the issue of abortion. it ended that. because, well, it turns out the constitution doesn't say anything about abortion. by saying nothing about abortion, it leaves the issue of abortion to elected lawmakers. not to nine lawyers dressed in robes. most of the time that means it leaves the issue of abortion to

state lawmakers, not federal, because most of the time it's not our role anyway. i know president biden and secretary austin, you've been really upset about that. why? for a long time the supreme court of the united states on this issue so important to you, why, i will never understand, but i understand that you're mad because the supreme court for that long period of time was acting as your super legislature, willing to do your bidding and that of your party, your infanticidal ambitions were facilitated by the super legislature across the street. the only problem, they didn't have the authority to do that. none. it cannot be found. when they abandoned it, the day they abandoned it, president biden announced all sorts of ambitious, whole-of-government approaches to effectively nullify a ruling of the supreme

court of the united states, a ruling of the supreme court of the consensus that it legally, constitutionally unimpeachable. from that moment forward, you declared your only little jihad on the dobbs ruling and the supreme court. you've been trying to delegitimize justice alito, justice thomas, justice barrett, chief justice roberts, justice kavanaugh, justice gorsuch. you've threatened through your party and appointment of this simmie commission you created tu created to pack the united states supreme court. not to mention that you stood on this senate floor and said correctly it was a bone helpedded idea when fdr threatened to do it in 1937 and boneheaded today. you've been doing that. meanwhile, you try to do everything you can to make the lives of those justices hell. you have completely ignored 18

usc section 1507, a law violated again and fen and again outside the homes of the six supreme court justices who had the courage, who had the appropriate temperament to recognize that abortion is not made theirs anywhere in the constitution. you've ignored the fact that people come to your homes to protest, come to the homes of these justices to protest against them, disturbing them on vacation with their families, ignoring that people are showing up to homes of these justices, not just to disturb their peace, but to send a signal unmistakably over and over again that says, we know where you sleep. we know where your children lay their heads at night. and yet, president biden, you do nothing to enforce that.

your attorney general has instructed federal law enforcement personnel effectively to stand down, ignore these violations. shame on you president biden. so, look, i get that. all that's in your little empire. you're the head of article 2. you're the head of the executive branch. if you don't want to enforce the law, we can't make you lake we can't make you en -- make you enforce the border as eight million immigrants have come across the border with fentanyl, we can't make you enforce the law because are you the head of the executive branch, the head of the executive branch enforces the law or is supposed to. we can't make you do that. but you know what we can do? we can defend our own prerogative to defend the law. sure, once it's made, you can decide whether to enforce it. you cannot make the law. you cannot rewrite the law.

and shame on you for -- president biden for blaming this man, this man who is just trying to stand up for the law and for the unborn. you're blaming him for our supposed lack of military readiness. i can't believe anybody buys this crap. i really can't, let alone anyone from the same party as senator tuberville. we've all been elected on pro-life stances. i understand, not everyone is going to share the same strategy. not every one of us would choose is the same approach. i didn't. but you're blaming the wrong guy. there's an empty chair here, two of them in fact. two empty chairs occupied by two executive branch individuals, secretary lloyd austin and president joe biden, who could end this tonight, but they

refuse to. that's avenue number one. avenue number two, we can do as senator tuberville told secretary austin with we would do from the very outset. that is, we could confirm them the slow way. we went 40 consecutive days and night, kind of biblical, without a single vote in august, we're about to go ten or 11 days and nights without a single vote. we've gone days even when -- when we're in session where we're one or two votes at the most or sometimes none. there are ways in which you can tee these people up. you know the rules, senator schumer. you know how to call these up and tee these up for a vote. and yet we're down here tonight, all of us republicans, and we talk military readiness.

why on earth are we not aiming our remarks at president biden or at secretary austin. why are not not directing them at senator schumer? they all have the ability to end this. with senator schumer it would take longer and more of an investment on our time, sure. why are we not directing our airos at them? why -- arrows at them? why are they directed at senator tuberville. as to my friend, distinguished colleague, the senior senator from south carolina, that this ought to be resolved in court. courts of law are where we argue legal disputes that most nearly all legal disputes should be argued there. that is wrong. it's dead wrong. the fact is, mr. president, as any lawyer, any member of the bar, as any officer of the court knows, most legal disputes never

make it to court. there are a lot of reasons for this. some of them involve the expense of litigation, some of them involve jurs prudential standards -- jurist standards that don't always permit a legal challenge to be brought. among other things, you have to have an article 3 challenge that's capable of being redressed by a court of competent jurisdiction. many cases -- many disputes arise in a context in which it would be difficult, if not impossible, to find someone with article 3 standing, who is even allowed to challenge these things in federal court. if respectfully submit that it's like a needle in a haystack on a distant planet. it's like -- it really, really difficult case in which to imagine, even fathom someone with article 3 standing who

could do it. senator graham referred to some legal experts, legal scholars who i respect and admire. i looked at their written work product and it's excellent. they acknowledged it's not at all clear you could find anyone with standing. this is exactly the kind of case that needs to be argued, that needs to be settled not in the courts of law because it can't, but it needs to be, it must be resolved here, here in the branch of government that is charged with making the law. and that is also charged with overseeing the branches of government that execute implement and enforce the law. the executive branch. that's our job. this is where it has to be done. if you want to give the farm away and say, we're going to leave it alone, that's fine. but let's not kid ourselves. no court is coming to the rescue. it's not going to work. you're not going to find anyone

standing, and even if you find someone who is standing, they have crafted this so deliberately and maliciously, so carefully as to make it nearly impossible for anyone who even could establish standing, which they can't, to succeed on the merits. because at the end of the day, they'll look at them and say, gosh, shucks, we didn't do that. we didn't perform any abortions, all we did was show the people to the state or flew the people to the state where they're going to get the abortion and then we paid for their hotel, room, board, lodging, gave them three weeks per diem in order to do that. no, we didn't do any of that. so by a rigid textual analysis, which would prevail in a court of law, you would lose, even if you found somebody with article 3 standing, which you can't.

you're not going to find that. what remedy is there? if we're going to allow the laws that our branch of government has made, if we're going to allow that law or the law in general to be an -- this isn't getting fixed in a court of law. we've got the remedy here and whether you agree with senator tuberville's original decision to do it this way or not, don't spit on me and tell me it's raining. don't walk in here and tell me that there's another solution. don't walk in here and tell me that courts of law are where all legal disputes have to be resolved when you don't -- you know darn well a lot of them can't and this one sure as heck won't be. it saddens me deeply that this many brave men and women have

been delayed. it troubles me deeply to consider the -- the many families whose lives have been disrupted by this. but i respectfully submit with all the passion i'm capable of communicating at 1:10 in the morning that -- at a bare minimum, you're wrong to just blame him. i don't you should be blaming him at all. secretary austin and president biden, you set in motion a sequence of events that you knew darn well would culminate in this very thing. you knew darn well you would use this opportunity as demagoguery. that's not cool. mr. president, i object. a senator: mr. president .

the presiding officer: the senator from indiana. mr. young: i do hope the president of the united states and secretary austin heat the entreaties of my esteemed colleague representing the state of utah. i call to the floor 105, captain thomas j. dick innson, the grade of rear admiral. he was also a classmate of mine at the united states naval academy, commissioned in 1995 and became a surface warfare officer. he's held numerous positions with -- most with a high level of expertise, as a weapons officer, combat systems officer above the uss sullivan, and commanding officer on the u.s.

barry, completed a nine-month missile defense deployment in the eastern mediterranean sea and recognized for his cruise, high levels of sustained readiness. he is currently serving as the commander of the naval surface warfare system and naval undersea warfare center in an acting capacity until his promotion is proved. we can -- processed. we can confirm this nomination by voice vote tonight, right now, and therefore, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to executive session for the consideration of the following nomination, captain thomas j. dickinson to be here admiral lower half in the united states navy under executive calendar 105, that the senate vote on the nomination without intervening action or debate, if firmed of confirmed, -- if confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the president be immediately notified of the senate's action. the presiding officer: is there

objection? mr. lee: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. lee: mr. president, reserving the right to object. we live in a great country. it is a country that has thrived precisely because we sought since the moment of our founding to live under the rule of law. that when we make a law, we do our best to follow it. i know it doesn't always work that smoothly and you know, that the process of making law and enforcing law and interpreting the law can be messy. people have strong opinions about what the law ought to be, how it ought to be enforced, what the law means. but, you know, we've been at our best when we accept the fundamental premise that

although the task may be difficult and although people might reach different conclusions regarding what the law should be, how the law ought to be enforced and how it ought to be interpreted, that there is a right answer. we might not all agree on what the right answer is, but if we agree that there is a right answer, it is our obligation to find and it -- it and defend it. once we found it, we're going to be better off. one of the things that differentiate our form of government than that of our mother country is the twin set of structural protections in the constitution that separate and divide power. our founding fathers understood that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men

and women everywhere as soon as they get a little authority, a little power that they will begin to exercise what we call unrighteous dominion, they have a tendency to abuse their power and a tendency to become tyrants, petty or grand. to that end, we under -- they understood something about human nature. they understood what madison described in federalist 51, that if men were angels, we would have no need of government, and if we had access to angels to governor us, we wouldn't -- govern us, we wouldn't need rules and constraints around government power. we are not angels and angels are not to be found around us, certainly not in the e-ring of the pentagon, not in the whitehouse, they are not angels and neer are we, the founding

fathers found a way to sub divide power. in short, they separated out power along two axis, establishing the two fundamental structural protections that have helped foster the development of the greatest civilization that the world has ever known. the first of these structural protections operates on a vertical axis, we call that federalism. it says that most power in our system of government doesn't belong in washington, d.c., it doesn't belong at the national level, it belongs at state and local level where most of the power is reserved. it says that only a few powers designated as federal, as national by the constitution will be lodged within the federal government. among those powers are just a few basic national authorities, the power to regulate trade or commerce between the states with foreign nations and with the indian tribes. the power to come up with a

uniform system of weights and measures, a uniform system of immigration and nationality laws. the power to develop courts inferior to the supreme court of the united states, a system of bankruptcy laws and bankruptcy courts, the power to declare war, to establish an army and a navy and to regulate the militia, what we would today call the national guard. and there's my favorite power too often referred to the power to grant letters of mark and reprisal, mark in this context is spelled marque. a letter of marque and reprisal is basically a hall pass, issued by congress that allows the person possessing it to engaged in state sponsored acts of piracy on the high seas. in short, you've got to be a pirate. each of these powers are

relatively minor. all of them together are still relatively minor compared to the bulk of the power reserved to state and local governments around the country. to the extent that we've respected those limits, those distinctions between state and federal power, we've benefited materially as a country. tragically over the last 86 years, we've deviated from that and that's caused problems. it spilled over and helped erode not just the vertical protection we call federalism but also the horizontal protection we call separation of powers and i'll turn to that now. the principle of separation of powers within the federal government. the founding fathers set up three distinct branches. one branch, the legislative branch headed by congress consisting of a house and senate that would make the laws, subdivided between those two branches, these two chambers of

the legislative branch because they knew that it would be more difficult to abuse the power if you split it up more so they did. another branch, the executive branch headed by an elected president whose job it is to enforce the laws or at least supposed to be. the third branch headed by the supreme court and including such interior courts as -- inferior courts might choose to ordain and establish from time to time whose job is to interpret the laws. between these three power, let's face it these are not really equal branches. they are coordinate branches but they're not equal in their power. by far, mr. president, the most dangerous branch is the branch that we inhabit and is the branch in which we serve and which we find ourselves this fine evening because the power to make law is the most dangerous power in government. and it is for that very reason, mr. president, the founding fathers wouldn't entrust that to

anyone other than the branch of government most accountable to the people at the most regular intervals because it is dangerous. the other two branches if you think about it are really exercise powers that are derivative of hours in one -- of ours in one way or the other. the law that the executive enforgses must first -- enforces must first be passed by us. the laws that the judicial branch interprets must first be passed by us. that's why it's so important, mr. president, that we safeguard this, that we make sure that no one else from outside the legislative branch of government seizes that power. why? because they're not accountable to the people at the most regular intervals. you can fire every member of the house of representatives every two years. their voters have the chance to do that, all of them, every two years. from the speaker of the house to the most junior member they can all be fired by their

constituents every two years. a third of us in this chamber can be fired every two years. my constituents opted not to do that last year. they had the chance and they decided to keep me for another six years and i'm grateful for that. but we're all accountable. that same accountability does not apply in the executive branch. sure as heck doesn't apply in the judicial branch. it's one of many reasons why you can't legislate from the e-ring of the pentagon. you cannot make a new law. you cannot change existing law from the executive branch. now, i know, i know, i know we've gotten lazy. we've gotten lazy because since april 12, 1937, a day which should live in infamy in american history but a day that's seldom even mentioned, much less studied, in grade school, intermediate school, high school, college, even most

law schools is the day the supreme court messed it all up, really leading to the erosion of both the vertical protection we call federalism and the horizontal protection we call separation of powers. april 12, 1937. that was the day when the supreme court of the united states by a vote of 5-4 in a case called national labor relations board versus the steel company reinterpreted one provision, clause three, the commerce clause to mean something different, something different than it ever meant ever. it had always meant prior to that time that congress had the power to regulate a couple of things. number one, interstate commercial transactions. a person in virginia wants to sell to person b living in maryland, that interstate commercial transaction can't adequately be covered by the laws of either virginia or maryland so federal law has the ability to cover it. interstate commercial transactions. secondly, channels or --

interstate air wears, waterways, and so forth. because there again the laws of no state are sufficient to cover that interstate event, something carrying something else or someone else across interstate lines. prior to that time, that's all the commerce clause meant. on april 12, 1937 the supreme court amended the constitution, amended it without going through the article 5 amendment process, a process that's deliberately difficult. why? because that's the whole darn point of having a constitution, to make it difficult to change. some of our laws must not be easy to change. so the supreme court amended the constitution, arrogating them the power that was not theirs, to include any power carried out interstate, not part of interstate commercial transaction, on channel or instrumentality of interstate commerce, in the aggregate had a substantial effect on interstate commerce. what does that mean?

it's all league lease so congress can regulate anything it wants. if it can dream it, it can regulate it as long as he uses the right words. the supreme court has validated only two laws. once involving provisions ever the gun free school zones act in 1995 decision called the united states versus lopez and another case involving a few provisions of the violence against women act in the year 2000 in a case called united states versus morrison. there was a third case that arguably makes the list but ultimately gets cust of that -- cuts from that list. the supreme court decided in 2012 concluding that the obamacare individual mandate was in fact in violation of an -- in excess of congress' commerce clause authority but then went on to rewrite the same statute not once but twice in order to save it from an otherwise inevitable finding of unconstitutionality so that one

doesn't count. so because since then, pretty much everything has been part of our legislative prerogative. congress has choked on its own power. members of congress couldn't handle that much power. members of congress didn't want to go through all the work of all that power. so members of congress started delegating out the law make power to other branches of government. we've gotten lazy and sloppy. it's a detriment to the american people who find themself subject to regulations that cost the american economy between two and $3 trillion a year to comply with. those compliance costs are borne not by big wealthy blue chip corporations or some guy you imagine wearing a double breasted suit. no they're born by -- borne by americans. they pay it with diminished wages, unemployment and underemployment. these things are not free, you see. you mess with federalism, you destroy federal separation of

powers. incidentally, you know how this decision was arrived at? well, associate justice owen roberts panicked. he got scared because president franklin d. roosevelt threatened to pack the supreme court of the united states with as many as 15 justices, justice owen roberts looking outside the case, looking beyond the mark decided to rewrite the constitution rather than run the risk of court-packing. shameful really but it led to where we are now. i keep in my office, mr. president, two stacks of documents behind my desk. one stack is short. it's a few inches tall. consists of the laws passed by congress during the previous year. usually, you know, a few hundred to a few thousand pages. long, stands about that high. the other stack of documents during any given year will come to a mass of a 13-foot tall

stack. i keep them in three aji sent -- adjacent bookcases, very small print, thin pages. la as -- the current year's federal register. our current federal register by the end of this year will reach about a hundred thousand pages. these pages contain law, new law, law that if not complied with can land you in prison, can get you fined, get you banned from this or that federal program. it can deprive you of life, lickety, property. just the same as any law passed by congress. only it's not a law passed by congress. it's reminiscent, mr. president, of federalist number 62 in which james madison rather eerily and with great impreptions warned it will be little to avail to the american people that laws will be written by men of their own choosing if the laws be so sol loom news, if they can't be read or understood by the american people, if they can't know from

one day to the next what the law is today and what it will be tomorrow. those words still echo in our ears today whether we see not only those laws so volume news and ever changing and complex that we can't read and understand the law, know what it means and says from one day to the next, they're not even written by men or women of our own choosing. that's why it matters that this document written back in 1787 still matters. we've all sworn an oath to uphold it and whether it means is you can't legislate from the e-ring of the pentagon. you can't make a law. you can't change an existing federal law from the executive branch of government. unless you are the president of the united states and your sole role in law making is signing, vetoing or acquiescing to, a law dually passed by the house and senate. you can't make a law. you can't change a law. not from the e-ring of the pentagon, not from the oval office, not from any quarter of any part of this town or this

great land or this entire world outside of this claim better and the chamber just down the hall from -- chamber and the chamber just down the hall from us. that's why it matters. yea, this is about life and also about the military. we swore an oath to that constitution. we swore an oath that we'll make the law. we'll not delegate that law to somebody else. we're not going to let somebody else make the law, especially a law that is destructive of life, liberty and property because that is ultimately the sole purpose of government, to protect life, liberty, and property. quite ironically the bigger, more out of control, the more unrestrained, the more unaccountable any government becomes. did is inevitably the consequence of that government that it becomes destructive of life, liberty, and property. that's how we got to where he are -- where we are here. we're a branch of government not entitled to make the law and has made law to facilitate the taking of unborn human life.

my colleagues who are here tonight whom i love and respect are blaming the wrong culprit. it is not tommy tuberville. it is joe biden, lloyd austin and chuck schumer. let's keep that blame where it belong. let's not fool ourselves into thinking that this can be remedied in court. it can't. it won't. we all know that if we're going to stand up for the unborn who cannot speak for themselves, we're going to have to do it. if we're going to prevent somebody else from making law when it's not their prerogative, it has to be us. mr. president, i object. the presiding officer: the objection is heard. mr. young: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from indiana. mr. young: mr. president, there

are now tens, tens of americans watching us on c-span 2, captivated i know by the presentation this evening. i think they're perhaps divided. some may look upon these proceedings and think what a functional united states senate. every joyce must be heard -- every voice must be heard. every perspective must be delivered. every phrase must be uttered. others will say perhaps it's disfunction. perhaps there's an effort to obfuscate. i don't know what they'll conclude. but i do know that i intend to continue reading through these brave patriots class of 1995, u.s. naval academy graduates, who have been nominated to the grade of rear admiral lower half, and we are very proud of them. i hope they can be confirmed

later this evening. so i will be proceeding and reading each of their biographies fused together, indeed, in a string, without any intervening parliamentary requests, which might be seized upon for c-span viewership. navy captain neil cap rowrvegy -- koprowski, to the grade of rear admiral. he served in the u.s. navy since receiving his commission in 1995. did i say it? 1995. he has held numerous operational assignments, including commanding officer post to the uss san antonio and kearsarge. he currently serves as commander for u.s. naval forces korea and u.s. navy region korea, a

posting that handles the highly competitive regional challenges we face today. captain koprowski received many awards, including the legion of merit, meritorious service medal and captain lincoln m.reifsteck to the grade of mere admiral. the captain served his country since graduating from the naval academy in 1995. did i mention we were classmates? he held numerous assignments, including commanding officer of the uss hampton, division chief of the nuclear operations division for the joint staff, and come dor of -- commodore of submarine development squadron 5. cattan reeves tech is the -- rei fsteck is the chief of naval operations. captain frank a. rhodes iv has

been serving in the navy since 1995. graduated from the naval academy, we were classmates. served in numerous positions, including commanding officer of strike fighter squadron 81 in the air wing commander of carrier air wing 3. captain rhodes has been serving the office of chief of naval operations over four years, where he has been the carrier strike aircraft and weapons branch head in the executive assistant to the chief of naval operations. then captain forrest o. young, also nominated to the grade of rear admiral. captain young served in the navy almost 30 years. graduate for the naval academy, we were of course classmates, and he thereafter became an accomplished fighter piement. he held commands -- fighter pilot. he was commander of strike fighter squadron 105, and time

as instructor at navy top gun. captain young most recently served as director of aviation officer career management and distribution division, navy personnel command. captain craig t. mattingly, also nominated to the grade of rear admiral. over his 28-year career, he led squadrons on deployment supporting ucomm, africomm and commander of multiple task groups. his major command tour was as commander of patrol and reconnaissance wing 11. during his tenure as commodore he supported global initiatives to include the inaugural indopacom deployments of the tritan unmanned earl system and -- aerial system as well as

the p-3 surveillance radar system. mattingly's most recent assignment was serving as senior military adviser to the secretary ever the navy. he accumulated more than 3900 flight hours in the p-3 orion and served on teams that have received various awards and recognition. he too was a classmate of mine, class of 1995 and i'm most hopeful each of these individuals can ultimately be confirmed as my good friend and respected colleague, with whom i share deep pro-life convictions, senator tuberville, contemplates a more constructive policy. we have visited in that record. he -- in that regard. he is working hard towards that end. i know he wants to accomplish that. having offered that thought, i'm going to yield to senator ernst of iowa.

ms. ernst: thank you to my colleague from indiana. the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. ms. ernst: thank you, mr. president. i will proceed to go through the biographies certificate men and women who rightfully deserve to be promoted, to be moved into their next position of authority, and i am going to start, mr. president, by continuing with major general heidi j. hoyle, executive calendar 48, for the grade of lieutenant general and deputy chief of staff for the united states army. i would like to highlight major general heidi j. hoyle, who is currently the director of operations for office of the deputy chief of staff for logistics. upon her graduation from virginia in 2004, she was assigned as instructor in the department of systems engineering at west point. she served as the 242nd ordnance

battalion officer with deployment to afghanistan in support of operation enduring freedom. in 2010, she was selected for command of the special troops battalion of the third sustainment brigade in fort stuart, georgia. there she deployed in support of the iraq war. she has distinguished her career having been awarded the legion of merit. folks, not just once, not twice, but three times. she has been awarded the bronze star medal not once, but twice. this is an extraordinary woman. i will point out that i have served, i enjoyed my service very much, i appreciated my time

in service, but i also have a daughter who is serving now, and my daughter to major general heidi j. hoyle, general hoyle, i hope my daughter is following in your footsteps. my daughter is assigned to the third sustainment brigade -- brigade in fort stuart, georgia. to my major general heidi j. hoyle, i bring you up this evening. i will not be asking for a live u.c. this evening, because we know it will be objected to and filibustered. i think you deserve better than that, general hoyle. you have given your entire adult life in service to our nation, under extremely difficult circumstances, and you have been awarded again the legion of merit three times and the bronze

star medal twice. i'm proud to be a staunch advocate of the united states army community and once again standing up for valueiant -- valiant individuals who answered the selfless call to serve. as more of our servicemembers are under attack by iran-backed proxies, we must fight for our united states army community and get them in the fight. that's why i raise voice for major general heidi j. hoyle and her promotion to lieutenant general, because she cannot do it herself. next i am going to move on to colonel terence g. taylor. mr. president, i rise today to talk about a few officers within executive calendar 82, which contained colonel taylor to one-star general.

colonel terence g. taylor, who is currently the commander of the 380th air ex expeditionary wing. colonel taylor is responsible for the wing's armed overwatch mission, encompassing intelligence, surveillance, andd reconnaissance and command and control reporting center assets. colonel taylor is also responsible for theater security cooperation and agile combat employment, dynamic force employment missions in direct support of the united states air force's central and the united states central command priorities. colonel taylor earned his commission through the reserve officer training corps program at the university of virginia in 1997. colonel taylor's prior assignments include serving in the department of state's bureau of counter terrorism, where he was responsible for directing political and operational

responses to international terrorism and implementing america's global counterterrorism policies in coordination with numerous government departments and agencies. colonel taylor has numerous degrees, including a master of arts in strategic studies at the air war college and a master of arts in national security and strategic studies at the american military university. this is why i am stepping forward tonight and not asking for a voice vote, but sharing the biography of the admirable service of colonel terence g. taylor and his promotion to bringinga dear general, because -- brigadier general. he is a political and cannot lobby members of congress. while he has no voice, while

heidi hoyle had no voice, i am giving them voice tonight. mr. president, i am moving on to another admirable individual being denied her promotion this evening. again, i am directing my ire at president joe biden and secretary lloyd austin for the policy they have put in place for the abortion travel agency plant. it is hor sk. it is horrific. our ire goes to them. but what we see is maybe the plan to reverse that is holding some of these individuals who rightly deserve to be promoted hostage. the individual i am addressing right now is colonel sara e.

dudley, and she is an officer within executive calendar 94, which contains a list of army officers selected for the grade of brigadier general. again, a one star. specifically, colonel sara e. dudley is a vital part of special operations command. colonel dudley is a proud west point graduate who took and embodied the skill sets and leadership tools she learned there to be a lifelong learner, a lifelong participant in our united states military. she earned a harvard mba and yale university fellowship through the war college. she has honorably served her country as a war fighter during operating iraqi freedom, which, had served. she also served during operation enduring freedom.

and most recently during her third deployment overseas in support of the combined joint forces land component command during operation inherent resolve. she a decorated war fighter, distinguished with honor, having been awarded for meritorious achievement several times throughout her career. i firmly believe colonel dudley's qualifications, record, and character have earned her this promotion. again, i am giving voice to her because she has no voice. mr. president, the next person i will address is for rear admiral lower half jeremy b. williams. he is an officer within executive calendar 102, which contains a list of navy officers selected for the grade of rear admiral. i will highlight the rear admiral, he is admirable, but

the rear admiral lower half jeremy b. williams, he is the deputy director for special onrations and counterterrorism -- special operations and counterterrorism of the joint staff. he is a native of las vegas, nevada, and after graduating from the united states naval academy in 1993 with a degree in aerospace engineering, he immediately reported to seal training and graduated in january of 1994. he has had two tours as assistant platoon commander, joint commission observer commander, assistant operation officer, troop commander, seal team operations officer and executive officer. later he became a squadron commanding officer and served as deputy major commander and then

as commodore, he served on the joint task force iraq for operation inherent resolve. a distinguished graduate of the united states naval war college, rear admiral williams holds a masters in national security and strategic studies. he was furs selected -- further selected by the chief of naval operations as the navy military fellow. he served on the council of foreign relations. as a 23-year combat veteran and retired colonel of our united states army and ardent supporter of our special operations community, i am proud to stand up for this valiant officer whose answered the selfless calls to service. if believe his qualifications record and character make him

exceptionally eligible for this promotion. he has no voice on the floor of the united states senate. that's why i'm giving him a voice. the next individual is brigadier general justin r. hoffman. mr. president, i'm rising to talk about a few officers within executive calendar 110, which contains a list of air force officers who have been selected for the grade of major general. that is a two-car general. -- two-star general. i would like to begin with justin r. hoffman who is the special assistant to the commander air force spebl operations command. -- special operations command. this is part of the united states special operations command. he was born in austin, texas, and earned his commission from the united states air force

academy in 1995. he spent most of his career in special operations aviation assignments deploying extensively. he is a command-rated pilot having flown more than 5,500 hours of which more than 1800 are combat hours. he has flown the mc-138 and j models which plans low-visibility infiltration and ex filtration of expecial operation forces, -- special operation forces primarily flown at night and politically sensitive or hostile territories. he also has flown the u-28-adraco, which is part of the special operation command.

while commanding this aircraft, brigadier general hoffman supported humanitarian operations, search and rescue missions and special operations missions. i would also like to note that brigadier general hoffman dedicated a portion of his career to this esteemed body here in congress, having served as the director of legitimate affairs for -- legislative affairs for u.s. special operations command. it is because of officers like this that i am proud to be a staunch advocate of because right now folks, the world is on fire, and we need more special operations command officers in the fight, not out of the fight. this is why i give voice tonight to brigadier general justin r. hoffman and his promotion to major general. now, you can see, as i am moving

through biographies of these incredible men and women who are being denied their promotion on this very night by individual vote on the floor of the senate, you can see that they have storied legacy and their contributions to these great united states of america. it is without having these men and women and those that came before them in our great united states of america that we would not have life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness. those things cannot be achieved without the men and women that protect our country and its values. next, mr. president, i would like to continue with executiver 110, a list of air force officers selected for the grade of major general. i would like to highlight brigadier general rebecca

j.sonkiss who is a deputy commander of the forces who execute worldwide deployments and assignment to unified combatant commanders. the deputy commander to approximately 20,800 active duty reserve, air national guard and civilian professionals within this special operations community. this this is no slacker, folks. brigadier general sonkiss has had an incredible career, starting with her acceptance and subsequent graduation from the united states air force academy in 1994. she commanded the 15th airlift squadron through two deployments, the vice commander of the 455th wing in

afghanistan, and commanded the airlift wing at joint base lewis mccord and the airlift -- she is a command pilot with more than 4400 hours, including 13, 13,077 combat hours in remotely pieltd aircraft, including the ec-130 come pass call which disrupts company calls and the rq-1 predator which is capable of offensive air support against enemy targets. she has distinguished her career having been awarded the defense superior service medal, leej end of merit -- deny r -- and i'm pd to stand up for thighs valiant individuals who have answered the selfless call to serve.

and as more of our servicemembers are under attack by iran-back the proxies, we must fight for our special operations community and once again get them into the fight. that's why i am giving voice this evening to brigadier general rebecca sonkiss and her promotion to major general. again, i'm going to say these biographies are incredible. they are incredible, but that's why many people here on the floor, those that might be in opposition for the individual votes tonight on the floor, they don't want these read. they don't want these biographies read because we are putting the human element out there and showing the united states of america the valiant -- the valiant service of these men and women. again, every one of these

individuals has given their entire adult life in service to our great united states of america. our great united states of america. we would not have the country we have if we didn't have men and women that were willing to sacrifice everything -- everything for this country. mr. president, next one, major general claude k. tudor, who has been selected for the grade of major general. brigadier general tudor is currently the director of operations in the j-3 for the united states africom. he provides oversight and direction for all operation

divisions, including working with partners to counter transnational threats and malign actors strengthening security forces and responding to crises in order to advance u.s. national interest and promote regional security, stability and prosperity. brigadier general tudor was commissioned through the rotc university and spent the majority of his career in special operations, ground combat assignments deploying extensively. prior he served as the commander for the combined special operations joint task force lavant and chief of staff of headquarters pacific air forces. he has several degrees, including a masters in business management from troy state university, a masters in strategic intelligence from the joint military intelligence college and a masters in

strategic studies from the united states army war college. he has distinguished his career having been award the defense superior service medal, two legion of merits and named the control combat officer of the year not once, not twice, three times. we need officers like brigadier general claude k.tudor jr. to stay in the fight and i am giving him voice on the floor of the senate this evening. actually at 2 in the morning. mr. president, again i am rising today to highlight the career of major general david a. harris jr., us air force who is executive calendar 186. he has been selected for promotion to lieutenant general, that is a three-star general,

and to be the deputy chief of staff for air force futures at headquarters u.s. air force. major general harris is currently the deputy commander of the ninth air force, air force central, and deputy combined forces of the u.s. central command in southwest asia. he -- he is responsible for the command and control of air operations in a 21-nation area of responsibility covering central and southwest asia. he graduated from rotc and received his commission from the university of alabama in 1993. he is a master navigator with more than 2500 nighing -- flying

hours, having flown in allied force, iraqi freedom, combined tasks force horn of africa and has a bachelor of from the school of advanced military studies, a masters from the national war college and a national war fellow at syracuse university. he has commanded the squadron group and wing level. he has served as the vice superintendent of the u.s. air force academy, the deputy director of operation for joint special operations command and the director of strategic program plans and requirements for air force special operations command. prior to the current position, major general harris was the director of integration and innovation and deputy chief of staff for strategy integration

and requirements at headquarters u.s. air force. it is officers like this that i am proud to be a staunch advocate of in the air force community because, again, with the world on fire, we need more air force command officers in the fight out in of the fight. it's why i'm giving major general david a. harris jr. tonight a voice because he cannot do so on the floor of the senate. mr. president, now i would like to continue by highlighting major general david m.hodne. he is executive calendar 190, and he is selected for the grade of lieutenant general. major general david m.hodne, is currently assigned as special assistant to the director of the army staff with the office of the chief of staff of the army. hodne attend the united states

military academy at west point, graduating in 1919 with a bachelor of science degree in aerospace engineering, he later earned a masters of art in military studies in unconventional warfare from the american military university. hodne commanded the united states army infantry school and served as the commanding general of the fourth infantry division assuming command on august 19, 2021, and relinquishing it to david a. doyle on june 13, 2023. he was awarded the legion of merit three times. the bronze star medal not once, not twice, not three times, ladies and gentlemen, but four

times. and a purple heart which means he was injured in the line of duty. again i'm proud to be a staunch advocate of the united states army community and once again am standing up for valiant individuals who have answered the selfless call to serve. that gentleman again was major general david m. hodne for the promotion to lieutenant general. next, mr. president, i rise today to talk about major general karl h. gingrich, executive calendar number 224 who is being selected for the grade of lieutenant general to be deputy chief of staff of the united states army. major general karl h. gingrich became the director of program analysis and evaluation in the office of the deputy chief of staff at u.s. army headquarters.

as the director of program analysis and evaluation, he is responsible for developing the program objective memorandum which allocates resources in line with broader dod guidance. prior to his current assignment, major general gingrich served as the director of capability and resource integration at u.s. cyber com which included building the joint cyber war fighting architecture which covers everything from data management to command and control at cyber com. major general beginning river's operational experience include tours supporting operation enduring freedom. major general gingrich holds multiple graduate degrees from the university of louisville, air university, and the national defense university. so this evening again we will not be voting on major general karl h. gingrich, but he has earned this promotion and i do

hope that we can resolve this very soon. next, mr. president, i rise to talk about major general john b. richardson iv, executive calendar 233 who has been nominated to be lieutenant general and commanding general of the first united states army. john b. richardson iv was born this baltimore, maryland. he attended the united states military academy at west point and graduated in 1991. in fact, he was the fifth member of his family to attend west point exemplifying a commitment to service. major general richardson was commissioned as an armor officer in 1991 from west point. he is a proud armored calvaryman. his first assignment was with the first armor division serving as a tank platoon leader with fourth battalion 66th armored regiment in freedberg, germany.

he served in iraq as the squadron operations officer in the second armored calvary regiment and again a year later he deployed as the aide-de-camp to the commanding general of multinational security transition command. i am so proud of general richardson and i am glad to be able to stand on the floor of the united states senate tonight and voice his qualifications. again major general john b. richardson iv and his promotion to lieutenant general and commanding general of first united states army. now, next, mr. president, i am going to rise on behalf of major general michael g. koscheski -- let me start over. this is a tough one, folks. koscheski. koscheski. okay. so this general has a tough

name. he's also got a tough job. we hope we can get him into that tough job. so i apologize, general. i owe you a beer. okay. executive calendar 239. he is being nominated to be deputy commander, air combat command. major general michael g. koscheski -- i think i got it right that time -- he is the commander of 15th air force, shaw air force base, south carolina. 15th air force organizes, trains and equips its headquarters to prepare for and execute expeditionary tankings. so the general received his commission from the united states air force academy in 1992. that's the same year i received my commission as well, only from iowa state university. he served as an f-15e instructor pilot, a weapons officer, and flight examiner. he is a command pilot with more

than 2800 flying hours. he has flown more than 650 combat hours over syria, iraq, and afghanistan. he is a decorated officer with awards to include the defense superior service medal, the legion of merit with two oak leaf cluster defense meritorious service medal and the air force achievement medal. again i am proud to be a staunch advocate of the air combat command community. we need officers like this in the fight, not out of the fight. and that's why i am giving voice to them this evening. next we move on to lieutenant general donna d. shipton rising to talk about lieutenant general donna d. shipton, executive calendar 240 for the grade of lieutenant general and commander of the air force life cycle

management center with the air force material command. lieutenant general shipton received her commission in 1991 as a distinguished graduate of the air force reserve officer training corps upon graduating from clemson university. she also has a long list of graduate degrees, including a master's in national security strategy from the national war college, a master's in space systems at the air force institute of technology, and a master of arts in organizational management from george washington university. she's currently the military deputy with the office of assistant secretary of the air force for acquisition, technology, and logistics. prior to her current position, lieutenant general shipton was the deputy director for the national reconnaissance office, nro, where she assisted the director in managing the strategic and tactical

operations of the nro. i truly believe we must stand up for the security and protection of our nation and i am proud to recognize this deserving officer who earned this promotion and highlight her selfless call to service. that's why i am voicing my support this evening for lieutenant general donna d. shipton and her promotion to lieutenant general and commander, air force life cycle management center, air force material command. next i am rising, mr. president, to talk about an officer with an executive calendar 243, major general with him j. hartman -- william j. hartman. he's been nominated to be lieutenant general and deputy commander of u.s. cyber command. major general william j. hartman is currently commander, cyber national commission force, a

native of mobile, alabama, major general hartman is a distinguished military graduate of the university of south alabama where he received his commission through the reserve officers training corps as an infantry officer. major general hartman served in multiple positions as an infantry military intelligence, and cyberspace operations officer with assignments in the united states, italy, germany, the republic of korea, iraq, afghanistan, and turkey. major general hartman has commanded a company bah dallion brigade and special mission unit and served as the senior intelligence officer at the battalion and the regimental level for the 75th ranger regiment. he is a bad mamajamma and multiple tours as a socom joint

task force j-2. he is a decorated officer with awards to include the legion of merit with oakleaf cluster, the bronze star medal with oakleaf clusters, the meritorious service medal with oakleaf clusters, the joint commendation medal, army commennization medal with oakleaf cluster and the army achievement medal with oak oakleaf clusters. it's officers like this that i'm very proud to represent on the floor of the united states senate. we need more folks operating within cyber command because we know that the world is on fire. we are in a new era, cyber absolutely needs more officers like this in the fight, not out of the fight. again this gentleman hailing from the great state of alabama. major general william j. hartman and his promotion to lieutenant

general. next we have lieutenant general john s. kolasheski, oh, my goodness. okay, i owe a lot of beers tonight. executive calendar -- it's an army thing, air force thing. you got it. okay. executive calendar 244 who is being nominated to be lieutenant general and deputy commanding general of u.s. army army europe-africa. the lieutenant general was commissioned as an armor officer and holds a bachelor of science in management from buckknell university and a graduate's degree in engineering management from the university of central florida. lieutenant general kolasheski has had a variety of command and staff assignments to include deputy chief of staff of u.s. army forces command at fort liberty. commandant of the united states army armor school, deputy

commanding general for the first infantry division. the deputy chief of staff of strategic communications for nato, and that's just to name a few. he's a decorated officer with awards to include the gshtd service med -- distinguished service medal, defense superior service medal, legion -- oh gosh gosh. get this, senator sullivan. legion of merit with five oakleaf clusters, heroes, and a bronze star medal with three oakleaf clusters. it is officers like this that i am proud to be a staunch advocate of because the army community needs them. we need more army command officers in the fight, not out of the fight. this is why i am standing up tonight in support of lieutenant general john s. kolasheski and

his promotion to deputy command general of the united states army, europe-africa. next we have colonel jack j. stumme. so, mr. president, i'm rising to talk about jack j. stumme. he is a colonel under executive calendar 284 for the grade of brigadier general. colonel jack j. stumme is serving with united states europe-africa as a command chaplain. colonel stumme has given years of service to our military and to his faith serving as command chaplain for united states africom, the 18th airborne corps and staff chaplain for the office of the chief of chaplains. firmly believe that colonel stumme's qualifications, record, and character make him exceptionally eligible for this

appointment and i speak with experience here. our chaplains truly do god's work for the men and women that serve. that's why i am providing a voice this evening for chaplain stumme and his promotion to brigadier general. next i rise in support of colonel matthew s. allen. matthew s. allen is an air force officer within executive calendar 336, and he has been selected for the grade of brigadier general. i would like to highlight colonel matthew s. allen who many of us know because he works directly with member, of congress. -- members of congress. colonel allen is the director of the office of legislative

affairs for u.s. special operations command. the position dedicated to maintaining the good relationship between united states special operations command and congress. and you will notice that a number of these biographies that i read earlier this morning, they were those that serve within special operations command and joint special operations command. he is the direct link on all legislative issues that deal with special operations resources, authorities, and oversight, collaborating directly with the house of representatives and us here in the senate to ensure full authorization of special operation command's budget. colonel allen grew up in a military anytime with -- family. he graduated from fairfax,

virginia, received his commission from the united states air force academy, and was selected as special tactics officer following graduation. prior to his current assignment, colonel allen was the commander of the 24th special operations wing, where he prepared special tactics forces to conduct special operations against threats to the homeland and to protect u.s. interests abroad. colonel allen has been privileged to command at the squadron group and wing levels and led joint operations for special operations task forces throughout the middle east, the european theater and the indo-pacific region. he served in operations enduring freedom, iraqi freedom, and inherent resolve, and was the recipient of the air force's 2006 leadership award. he has spent his career in special operations, the air

staff joint operational assignments as well as numerous combat and contingency deployments. i personally know colonel allen. he is an incredible officer within the special operations community. he definitely is an officer we need in the fight. i thank you and salute you, colonel allen, and i do hope that we are able to move you on very soon to your well deserved appointment to the grade of brigadier general. next, mr. president, i rise to highlight the career of major general sean m. farrell, united states air force, who is executive calendar 339. major general farrell has been selected for the grade of lieutenant general and has been appointed to the position of deputy commander of u.s. special operations command. major general farrell is currently the deputy commanding

general of joint special operations command. in this role, he oversees the study of special operations requirements and techniques, ensuring joint interoperability and equipment standardization. in addition, he prepares assigned, attached and augmented forces to conduct special operations to protect the homeland and u.s. interests abroad. he was commissioned through the reserve officer training corps at florida state university. he has a bachelor of science, a master of science from wright state university and master of science in national resource strategy from the national defense university. he is a command pilot with over 3500 flight hours in the ac-130-h specter -- that's bad. ac-130-w stinger, and the spooky, we all know spooky, dan,

right? and the c-130-e hercules combat and has flown combat missions in bosnia and afghanistan. he commanded the squadron group and wing levels, having commanded the 16th special operations squadron, the 27th special operations group, and the first special operations wing. he has distinguished his career having been air warded the defense -- awarded the legion of merit and distinguished flying cross with valor device. for acts of heroism above what is normally he pecked while engaged in -- normally expected while engaged in direct combat with exposure to enemy hostilities and personal rink. it is officers like this i am proud to be a staunch advocate of within our special operations community. we need more special operations command officers in the fight, not out of the fight.

and that's why i stand tonight to give voice to major general sean m. farrell on his promotion and assumption of position at u.s. special operations command. next, mr. president, i rise in support of brigadier general lawrence g. ferguson. he is executive calendar 384, which contains a list of army officers who have been selected for the grade of major general. brigadier general lawrence g. ferguson is commanding general of first special forces command airborne. brigadier general ferguson is a graduate of the u.s. air force academy who cross commissioned into the united states army. he attended the army ranger school, then served with the 101st airborne screaming eagles

division. he earned a master's degree in american history from mississippi college and was army war college fellow at duke university sanford school of public poll system he served with the seventh special forces group and has commanded at all levels, from captain through colonel and served throughout latin america and the middle east. he has served in operation enduring freedom, iraqi freedom and inherent resolve, in the army's special missions unit. his experience has included more recently deputy commander of operations, 82nd airborne division, chief of staff u.s. army special operations command, commanding officer 10th special forces group airborne, and chief of staff first special forces command airborne, and

this evening again, giving voice to those who cannot on the floor of the united states senate. brigadier general lawrence g. ferguson on his promotion to major general. next, mr. president, i rise to talk about another officer within executive calendar 384, and this officer has been selected for the grade of major general. this is brigadier general steven marks, currently the deputy commanding general for first special forces command airborne. are we seeing a pattern here? okay. brigadier general marks was raised in columbia, missouri, state to my south, and earned his commission from the university of missouri rotc in 1982. he served as a variety of -- in a variety of tactical

assignments in the airborne field artillery regiment and special operations unit. he's a graduates of the u.s. naval war college and has a master's in defense analysis from the naval postgraduate school in monterey, california. brigadier general marks commanded in afghanistan at every rank from captain to lieutenant colonel and serving most recently as commander of special operations task force northeast. he commanded the united states army garrison in italy before returning to joint special operations command as the director of j-5. he is a decorated officer with awards to include the defense superior service medal, the legion of merit, the bronze star medal, and the meritorious servicemember. again -- service medal. it's officers like this i am proud to stand for on the floor of the united states senate.

i am a staunch advocate of those within our special operations community. we need more of these men and women in the fight, not out of the fight, and that's why i stand tonight for brigadier general steven m. marks and his promotion to major general. folks, that does conclude the nominees that i had for this evening. i want too reemphasize that it is the bad policy of the biden administration that we are in opposition to. all of us here, i know all of us, are adamant supporters of life. we stand for life, but we also stand for other innocents, the innocent men and women serving in uniform today, continue to serve, without advancement in their career fields while their

families are hanging in the balance. my colleague mentioned earlier, my colleague from utah, mentioned earlier we have so many executive orders, we see the executive branch running away, taking additional authorities, i'm paraphrasing. it's because congress has gotten lazy and sloppy. those were two of his words, lazy and sloppy. members of congress didn't want to do the work. but aren't we getting lazy and sloppy when we hold hostage innocent people? i understand that we have the opportunity to do these holds, but sometimes we have to work very hard to overcome adversity, just as these men and women have. so, let's find a way, let's

lobby other members here within this body, because that's our job to do so, not hold these members hostage to ever-changing demands. now, we would have asked for individual voice votes tonight, because that's what has been asked for in the past, but unfortunately has not been honored. again, i stand for life. i will be an ardent supporter of life, around i will continue combating that, but i will not do it at the expense of these individuals. i will work with other members to find a way to overturn this egregious policy, which president biden and secretary lloyd austin have put into place. so, let's find a way to overturn the policy and advance these men and women. with that, i yield to the

senator from alaska. mr. sullivan: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. mr. sullivan: thank you, mr. president. i want to begin by thanking senator ernst, my good colleague, joint operations here, giving voice to these great americans. look, if you're watching, i know it's almost 2:30 in the morning, you're watching, you're an american citizen, you got to be proud. i am so proud. these are great americans. these are the best we have. they're heroes. their -- their families are heroic. a core principle as republicans, that distinguishes us, in my view, from the other side is our serious focus on national security, readiness, a strong military, and yes, taking care of our military and their families. that's what we stand for. it just makes me proud to listen

to who we have up for confirmation, one, two, three, four star generals. we need them. senator graham said we're coming on to the holidays. it's true. i had a two -- two thanksgivings where i was deployed overseas. it's not easy. you're missing your family. you're out there protecting your country. you don't think many people are even thinking of you, when the rest of the country is celebrating and you're doing your duty. what we said two weeks ago is we will have your back. you're a military member being held up right now, we will have your back. that's what we're doing. like i said, mr. president, i don't relish this.

i didn't relish it two weeks ago. kind of down here more in sadness and frustration than anger. but i also come from a state that's incredibly patriotic, alaska. more veterans per capita than any state in the country, and they expect this of their senators. stand up for our men and women in useful, and don't -- in uniform, and don't punish the military for something they have nothing to do with. every one of those people senator ernst talked about, who we were going to try and confirm tonight, have nothing to do with the dispute. we all are in agreement, every senator on the floor right now is in agreement. i've been working with senator tuberville for months together to try to reverse this policy of the biden administration. i agree 100% it violates the hyde amendment, violates the rule of law.

i want to keep working with senator tuberville and others on ways to reverse that. what we can't do, what we shouldn't do, but what's happening right now, we're punishing those who have nothing to do to with it. and why punish patriotic military members over a dispute that they have no ability to fix and they didn't cause. go after the civilians. let's do it. i'm taking them hostage in terms of holding them. they have the power, but why punish these war heroes who have served our country so faithfully? why single out the americans -- there's all kind of federal workers, but there's very few who sign a blank check with their life. that's all the people senator ernst read.

they signed a blank check with their life saying, all right, i'm going to give less than -- less than 1% of our nation's great population does this. less than 1%. nobody's -- nobody's told me. i mean senator lee had a lot to say tonight, i agreed with 99% of it in terms of his talk about the constitution and who has the ability to make laws. i couldn't agree more. but no one's come out and said, but here's why we're going to punish those people that senator ernst just read about. i don't think we should be doing that. i think we should be giving them a voice and that's what we've been trying to do. so, as i mentioned, mr. president, one of my goals tonight and i mentioned in my remarks was to bring up these

nominees one by one, try to get them cleared as senator tuberville mentioned, but it was -- it was -- he had mentioned that he was fine with a while ago. by the way, this is regular order. we did some research. there's only been two brigadier generals confirmed by a recorded vote in the last half century. okay. twice. -- twice that's happened in the last century. so the regular order you do by voice vote en bloc. but what we offered is we'll do it by voice vote individually, every one, we'll be down here, 450. senator ernst and i would stay here all weekend and do that. it's clear from my colleagues that that's not going to happen. if i were blocking all of these military heroes, i wouldn't want their bios read on the floor,

but we're going to do that. because here's the other thing about this. there's a lot of e-mails and texts and a lot of people are tweeting about this. but guess who can't like go out and hold a press conference on this. the military members. it's not their job. so -- and then it finally -- then finally, mr. president, one other issue then i'm going to talk about the people we were going to bring up is that we have to think about this issue -- a strategic risk to the force. we have 450 officers, one, two, three, and four-star generals, and, yes, i know a little bit about the military having served for 30 years. the system is kind of stymied

and so even -- even the ranks below 1, 2, and 3 star are starting to kind of get blocked. so i'm not saying that senator tuberville has a hold on those, but it's impacting those ranks as well. and where i'm very nervous, because i talked to a lot of my peers in the military, is that, you know, you work 30 years, you do deployments, you sacrifice, big sacrifice for your families. these great men and women have options and at a certain point they have to move up or get out if we lose a generation of the best, most combat military ready

officers over this, especially during this very dangerous time, that is going to be viewed as a huge strategic national security mistake. so, mr. president, what i want to do is similar to senator ernst's focus is bring to the floor and to the attention of the american people the people that we were going to try to get confirmed tonight. i know they're going to be objected to so, like senator ernst, i'm going to talk about them because, again, i think the american people need to know this. the american people should take pride in these people because they're great patriots. and, remember, less than 1% joined the military -- i don't even know what percentage get to flag officer rank, general officer, admiral, but it's the best. not just the best in america,

it's the best in the world, and we need them. we need them. and this dispute that is happening right now, and, again, i fully agree the biden administration launched this. we are fighting it. but need these people confirmed. let's go after the confirmations of the civilians who actually are in charge of the policy. we have that option too. so, mr. president, one of the first nominees i was going to bring forward was on executive calendar number 95, that is colonel robert wheeler. he is being promoted to brigadier general of the united states marine corps. he's a colonel right now. 28 years, command the fifth marine regiment.

i used to be in that regiment. that's the most storied infantry regiment in the marine corps. he's been deployed seven times to iraq and afghanistan. imagine that family's sacrifice. he received a silver star for bravery, gentlelady ant ri -- gallantry while serving in the second battalion fourth marines, fifth marine regiment. i will read that. not many silver star recipients in america. here's one right now who could be confirmed, brigadier general. he's earned it. and he's no woke military member. he's a warrior. here's the citation. silver star. it's one of the highest awards for combat valor that we have. the president of the united states of america takes pleasure

in presenting the sill var star to captain robert s. wheeler, united states marine corps while serving as commanding officer weapons company, second battalion, fourth marines, first marine division, first marine expeditionary force, in support of iraqi freedom from 6 to 10 april 2004. he led elements of weapons company against an enemy force attempting to isolate and descrie a squad-sized element of echo company, another unit. that's the column moved -- as the column moved east, they were ambushed by enemy forces, despite the barrage of intense enemy fire, he led the unit relieving the embattled squad,

saving the lives of other marines. that's what this is. and then he led the destruction of the besieging enemies. he killed the bad guys. on april 7, he led the company on a mission as they moved northeast along route apple, they encountered heavy grenade and weapons fire. during the ensuing three-hour firefight. think about that, america, we've been on the floor for three hours, these guys were in an intense firefight for three hours. he repeatedly exposed himself to enemy fire to direct his unit's counter attack, personally leading squads as they assaulted enemy firing positions. his courage and leadership were further displayed during operation bug hunt, heavily engaged by enemy forces over a four-hour period. four hours, combat. ken wheeler continued to

fearlessly lead marines as they destroyed the enemy. by his bold leadership, wise judgment and complete dedication to duty, he reflected great credit upon himself and upheld the highest tradition of the marine corps and the united states naval service. mr. president, i ask that this silver star citation be submitted for the record. it doesn't mention here, mr. president, but you know what else he received during that firefight -- two fire fights? a -- a purple heart. so he was wounded in action by the enemy. and then later, several months later he received the marine corps commendation medal for heroic achievement, quickly gaining fire superiority and suppressing the enemy, those

days by -- though days by a blast from a mortar round, he led his team to capture all fiefer insurgents -- all five insurgents. that's another combat medal he won. we're going to bring him up for promotion today, brigadier general, complete american war jorge, but -- complete american war hero, but unfortunately colonel wheeler's promotion to brigadier general is not happening. and if he gets promoted to brigadier general, he won't have any able to -- ability to fix it. punished for war jorge, punished for an issue he has nothing to do with.

okay. mr. president, it was executive calendar number 93, this was to have brigadier general ronald ragin, yes, that's how you pronounce it. it's not spelled that way, to be a major general -- major general. he's in the u.s. army. like senator ernst, who's an expret on special operation -- expert on special operation forces, this general is an expert in special operation forces, serving as commanding general for the 21st general theater command. his command assignments, troop commander, 11th armored calvary regiment, 225th support battalion, battalion commander, group support

battalion, third special forces group airborne, squadron commander support, delta force. okay you're not supposed to say that, i think, are you? delta force the most elite special operations force not supposed to be talked about. delta force commander. this guy is unbelievable, this record. so an expert in special operations forces, a delta force commander, brigade commander, numerous deployments to afghanistan and iraq, airborne, seventh special forces group, u.s. special operations command, and trying to move him from one star to two-star general. an american jorge. who, by the -- american her

yoarks who has nothing to do -- who has nothing to do with the dispute. he is not being promoted over something he has nothing to do with. that's a great american hero right now. let's look at another one we were going to bring up. another united states army brigadier general to move to the grade of major general, that's two star. this is general lance g. curtis. again, another airborne platoon -- served at all levels of command 82nd airborne, 101st airborne, numerous deployments, executive office of of -- battalion commander of

the, third infantry at fort sue wart, georgia and camp leatherneck in afghanistan, commander first special forces command, united states special operations command, and the executive officer to the commander of office personnel, and deputy director of headquarters in the united states army, g-4. so, again, mr. president, think about this. this is decades of service, decades. these are great patriots and they're being punished over an issue they have nothing to do with and can't fix. a senator: will the gentleman yield for a question? mr. sullivan: no. this is really important for me to make sure the american people hear about these warriors.

so i'm prioritizing. no, i won't. mr. president, the next hero that we're trying to confirm is brigadier general michelle donahue to be major general ever the united states army. 26 years of service, currently michelle donahue is a brigadier general. she has served in the first infantry division in the u.s. army special operations command. her combat tours include deployments to jordan with the 528 special operations support battalion, deployment to iraq, a deployment in support of operation iraqi freedom, a deployment to afghanistan in 2014 as the squadron commander for the regimental support squadron. major general donahue has served as a special assistant to the

37th chief of staff of the army and to the 18th chairman of the joint chiefs. operational command, command at the highest levels with the chief of staff of the army in terms of being a specialist assistant there. trying to get promoted from brigadier general to major general. that's a two star general. and it's being blocked and is being blocked over something that she has nothing to do with. so again we need these warriors. we need these warriors on the field. speaking of warriors, this is another nominee who has made the grade of major general. that's a two star general. and as brigadier general thomas harrell. he served as director of the defense health network and the

commander of the 59th medical wing. now this is also really important. you don't hear about this element of our military that much. the leaders who lead the medical units, so important. brigadier general harrell has commanded the squad drown level, dod office and air force medical center. previously served as commander of the air force medical readiness agency, defense health headquarters, deputy director of medical operations of the air force, deputy director of medical services in the entire u.s. air force and the subunified alaskan command surgeon general at joint base al man door in alaska. really important job in my state. mr. president, also received an air medal for valor. let me read that.

brigadier general thomas w. harrell contributed to national security objectives by flying missions in supports of operation iraqi freedom. these flights were accomplished in the face of enemy threats to include small arms fire, antiaircraft artillery and surface-to-air missiles. think about that. that is a medical officer taking incoming enemy fire to go save lives. that is a hero. his superior ability in the presence of perilous, dangerous conditions was manifested in the performance of medical observers in addition to addressing the inflight health needs of the crew and combatants culminating in the safe and timely delivery of cargo and combat troops. a war hero right there. had we moved to get that

brigadier general promoted to major general tonight, it looks like it probably was not going to happen. mr. president, we were also looking at brigadier general jeannine righter, number 06. general part of the air force medical agency units and chief of the air force nurse corps. okay, again these are really, really important jobs that we need and again this is somebody in a very competitive world has moved all the way up the ranks from one to two star general. she has been involved in the execution of medical readiness programs, expeditionary medical

capabilities and the direct support and implementation of policy plans and programs for health care operations of the air force medical service to more than 44,000 u.s. air force personnel at 76 military treatment facilities. that's unbelievable. brigadier general ryder has commanded the flight squadron and group level and both deployed in garrison environments. prior to her most recent assignment, brigadier general ryder was the commander 59th medical wing, market director, san antonio health systems, joint base san antonio, lackland, texas. very deserving of promotion and can't be promoted over something she has nothing to do with, nothing. and if she got promoted, she

wouldn't be involved in fixing it either. now, mr. president, you know when we came down here two weeks ago, it kind of struck me because we were just frying to do these -- 450 officers right now and we're standing with them. we're standing with them. we're pro-life senators standing with them. i think we've emphasized that enough but we'll emphasize it again. but one of the things that struck me two weeks ago was how many one and two and three star admirals with very significant deployment experience, particularly on submarines, are now being blocked. as anyone who knows about our challenges in the indo-pacific theater, xi jingping was visiting america. haven't gotten a read out of president's meeting but i'm worried they're weak on them, weak on the military. again, what i want to do with my colleagues here on the floor is

actually get through this issue and turn to the bigger readiness problem which is the weakness of the biden administration. but where we don't have weakness is submarines. we need more submarines but we have the best commanders in the world. xi jingping is scared to death of america's subfleet, scared to death. they know if they try to invade taiwan and we have subs in the taiwan strait, we'll take out their whole invasion force. but we need good commanders. two weeks ago there were six sub commanders who were objected to, six. as i mentioned then, i guarantee you the chinese communist party military apparatus is going, i can't believe our luck. the thing we're so frightened of. and you can't produce a sub commander overnight. it takes 30, 40 years. so we have some navy officers here. this is on calendar number 234, vice admiral jeffrey hughes.

he's a two star admiral to be vice admiral. his naval career is unbelievable. 34 years. served as a detachment officer in charge, headed tours of helicopter antisubmarine squadron where he deployed on the uss carr, uss john hancock, supporting strike group deployments with the uss america, an aircraft carrier, and the uss john fcht kennedy, another aircraft carrier. he's a pilot who hunts subs. as an m8-60 he low pilot, he was named the pilot of the year and was corecipient of the commanding officer elseman award calendar number 1993. best of his class. he served as executive officer

and commanding -- 14th commanding officer of the fighting vipers. he was the helicopter maritime strike wing commander, u.s. atlantic fleet, recipient of the marine corps leadership award. this is a great navy aviator leader. as a flag officer admiral hughes served as commander, navy recruiting command, commander expeditionary strike group 2 and most recently deputy chief of naval personnel, commander, navy personnel commander. incredible navy leader. we need more navy officers confirmed. he's being blocked over an issue he has nothing to do with. we'd like to move him on regular order tonight, regular order would be an individual vote. we're ready to take it. unfortunately it's going to be blocked. so that's not good for our national security. as i mentioned, the biden

administration's budget right now shrinks the navy. that's horrible. but we at least need to get ■ou great navy officers on the ships in the command. the next one, mr. president, we are looking at was brigadier general to be major general in the u.s. air force, brigadier general by the name of curtis r. bass. he was on executive calendar number 110. and again, boy, look at this guy's resume. unbelievable. senior executive officer of the 22nd air force chief of staff, commander of eac joinchts surveillance target attack, radar system, combat flying squadron at auldeid. our military members in the middle east right now are taking fire. they're in combat. some of the officers who are being blocked -- i've talked to

some in the middle east whose promotions are being blocked or taking fire from the enemy. what? you don't think they're bitter right now? i know they're bitter. they're taking fire from the enemy, one star generals, colonels. i know this. i've talked to them. and they're being blocked over something they have nothing to do with. risking their lives. right now. right now. that's a fact. so he's another one. air force aviation intel systems, one of the best who currently recently served as deputy commander of the air force, air force base nevada. tremendous operator, being