[Pages S5927-S5946]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

LEGISLATIVE SESSION

______

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024--CONFERENCE
REPORT--Resumed

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
Senate will resume consideration of the conference report to accompany
H.R. 2670, which the clerk will report.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the
two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R.
2670) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2024 for
military activities of the Department of Defense and for
military construction, and for defense activities of the
Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel
strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes,
having met, have agreed that the House recede from its
disagreement to the amendment of the Senate and agree to the
same with an amendment and the Senate agree to the same,
signed by a majority of the conferees on the part of both
Houses.

=========================== NOTE ===========================

On page S5927, December 13, 2023, the following language
appears: Pending: Schumer motion to recommit the conference report
to accompany the bill to the Committee on Conference, with
instructions. Schumer amendment No. 1373 (to the instructions of
the motion to recommit the conference report to accompany the bill
to the Committee on Conference), to modify the effective date.
Schumer amendment No. 1374 (to amendment No. 1373), to modify the
effective date.

The online Record has been corrected to delete the entire copy
block.

========================= END NOTE =========================

Recognition of the Majority Leader

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader is recognized.

Ukraine

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, negotiations continue today between
Democrats, Republicans, and the Biden administration on an emergency
national security supplemental package. The stakes are high, and time
is of the essence.
Democrats are still trying--still trying--to meet our Republican
colleagues in the middle and reach an agreement. Negotiators met
yesterday afternoon. It was a productive meeting. Real progress was
made. But, of course, there is still a lot of work to do. We will keep
working today to get closer to an agreement.
The two words I have used to describe each party here in the Senate
continue to be relevant. Democrats are still trying to reach an
agreement. Republicans need to show they are still serious about
getting something done--Democrats trying, Republicans need to be
serious.
Unfortunately, too many Republicans now seem more interested about
flying home for the holidays than sticking around to finish the job.
For months, Republicans insisted that action on the border is a crisis
that can't wait. But with the holidays around the corner, they are
suddenly saying: Never mind, this can wait until next year. If
Republicans say the border is an emergency, then they should be
prepared to stay.
Crying fire about the border one minute and then saying we should go
home the next is the definition of

[[Page S5928]]

``unserious.'' An emergency is an emergency. If you argue there is an
emergency at the border, an emergency in Ukraine, you can't pretend to
be serious about solving them if you think we should go home.
Now, months ago, the Biden administration put forward a comprehensive
plan to tackle border security. For weeks, we implored our Republican
colleagues to get serious and offer a credible bipartisan proposal--not
Donald Trump's extreme border policies, as contained in H.R. 2. Weeks
were wasted. And now here we are: Progress is being made, but progress
must be allowed to be continued. Yes, this is difficult--very
difficult. But we are sent here to do difficult things.
If Republicans are serious about getting something done on the
border, why are so many in a hurry to leave? Do they not want to reach
an agreement on border security? Republicans should not be so eager to
go home.
I hope we can reach an agreement very soon to pass a supplemental
through the Senate because the only people happy right now about the
gridlock in Congress are Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin. Putin is
delighting in the fact that Donald Trump's border policies are
sabotaging military aid to Ukraine.
Republicans should not be so content to throw their hands in the air
and kick the can down the road. Our friends in Ukraine, after all, are
not on our timeline. They don't get a Christmas break on the
battlefield. Their fight against Vladimir Putin is a matter of life and
death. And if Putin prevails, it will come back to haunt the United
States and the whole Western World in the very near future.
So if my Republican friends care at all about taking a stand against
Russian autocrats, they should get serious about reaching an agreement.
If Republicans care about defending democracy, about protecting
freedom, and preserving America's values around the world, they should
get serious about reaching an agreement.
If Republicans truly think the border is an emergency and if they
truly support the cause of the Ukrainian people as they claim, then
they should get serious about reaching an agreement very soon.
We are writing a chapter in history this week. Will Republican
obstruction hand a Democratic country over to the forces of autocracy?
Will autocrats see America's inaction as a green light to keep going?
Will places like Taiwan come next? Or will we do what America has done
again and again and again throughout America's glorious history and
stand with our Democratic friends in need? Will we do what is necessary
to keep the democratic order the United States helped create after the
Second World War? These are the stakes.
Senate Democrats have made clear which side of history we want to be
on. We want to stand with President Zelenskyy and the brave people of
Ukraine. We want to stand for democratic order. We hope--we hope--our
Republican colleagues are ready to do the same.

National Defense Authorization Act

Mr. President, NDAA, as soon as later today, the Senate will approve
our annual National Defense Authorization Act, one of the most
important bills we pass each year to protect the American people and
ensure our long-term security.
Last night, Senators overwhelmingly voted to end debate on the NDAA
by 85 to 15. That is a strong sign of support, and it shows you the
momentum for finishing the NDAA quickly. We will work today to reach a
time agreement with Republicans to finish the job on the NDAA as soon
as today.

At a time of huge trouble for global security, doing the Defense
authorization bill is more important than ever. Passing the NDAA
enables us to hold the line against Russia, stand firm against the
Chinese Communist Party, and ensure that America's defenses remain
state of the art at all times.
Now, the NDAA process here in the Senate is precisely the kind of
bipartisan cooperation the American people want from Congress.
When this bill came before the Senate in July, we had a robust debate
and amendment process. We voted on dozens of amendments on the floor
and even included more in our manager's package. Both sides had input.
Both sides had a chance to shape the bill. And in the end, the Senate's
version of the NDAA passed in an overwhelming 86-to-11 vote, with
majorities--significant majorities--from both parties.
And after a lot of hard work reconciling the Senate's NDAA with the
House's version through the conference process, I am pleased the final
version of the NDAA has many of the strongest provisions of the
Senate's original bill.
We will give our servicemembers the pay raise they deserve; we will
strengthen our resources in the Indo-Pacific to deter aggression by the
Chinese government and give critical resources for training, advising,
and capacity-building for the military and Taiwan; and we will approve
President Biden's trilateral U.S., UK, and Australia nuclear submarine
agreement. This historic agreement will create a new fleet of nuclear-
powered submarines to counter the Chinese Communist Party's influence
in the Pacific.
I applaud my colleague Senator Reed of the Armed Services Committee
as well as Ranking Member Wicker for their excellent leadership pushing
this bill over the finish line. I commend all conferees for their good
work over the past few weeks.
And thank you to my colleagues on both sides for uniting to get the
NDAA done. When we finish our work in the Senate, I urge Speaker
Johnson and the House to move this bill quickly.
As I have said repeatedly, we began the month of December with three
major goals here in the Senate before the end of the year: First, we
had to end the unprecedented and monthslong destructive blockade of
hundreds of military nominees. We have done that. Second, we needed to
pass the NDAA, as we have for decades on a bipartisan basis. We are
going forward on that today. And, finally--and hardest of all--we must
reach an agreement on a national security supplement.
Democrats are still trying to reach an agreement on the supplemental.
We urge Republicans to show that they are still serious about getting
something done.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.

Recognition of the Minority Leader

The Republican leader is recognized.

Border Security

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, today, Senate Republicans are still
working in good faith on border policy changes that will allow the
Senate to pass a national security supplemental. I am hopeful that
Democrats, both here and at the White House, are beginning to recognize
how committed we are to addressing the crisis at our southern border. I
am hopeful that we can reach an agreement and address two national
security priorities.
Meanwhile, the challenges we are facing at home and abroad are not
stopping themselves. As of today, U.S. personnel in Iraq and Syria have
faced at least 92 attacks from Iran-backed terrorists since October,
including just last week against the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad.
Meanwhile, Iran's Houthi proxies are escalating their threats against
shipping vessels in one of the busiest choke points of international
maritime commerce. Iran and its terrorist network are not deterred.
They believe they can try to kill Americans with impunity.
Yet, last week, leading Senate Democrats joined a failed effort to
withdraw America's presence in Syria. Three Members of the Democratic
caucus leadership cast votes to retreat--to retreat--in the face of an
emboldened terrorist threat. So did the chair of the Foreign Relations
subcommittee that deals with the Middle East.
It is time for our colleagues to get serious about the threats that
we face. Fortunately, the Senate is on track to pass the long-awaited
National Defense Authorization Act. I am grateful to Ranking Member
Wicker and Chairman Reed for the extensive work required to bring this
must-pass legislation across the goal line.
This year, the Armed Services Committee considered 445 amendments,
and

[[Page S5929]]

another 121 were adopted here on the floor. Thanks to the dedicated
efforts of many of our colleagues on this side of the aisle, the bill
they produced asserts the Senate's priorities on a host of national
security issues where the Biden administration's approach continues to
fall short.
This year's NDAA recognizes the need to strengthen America's position
in strategic competition with China through targeted improvements to
critical capabilities--from long-range fires and anti-ship weapons to
modernizing our nuclear triad.
It will authorize further investments in the defense industrial base
and expand efficiency and accountability of the lethal assistance
degrading Russia's military in Ukraine.
It will turbocharge cooperation with Israel on future missile defense
technologies and ensure our closest ally in the Middle East can access
the U.S. capabilities it needs when it needs them.
It will give America's men and women in uniform a pay raise.
It will focus the Pentagon more squarely on tackling national
security challenges instead of creating new ones with partisan social
policies.
In my home State of Kentucky, it will advance important initiatives
to expand production at Bluegrass Army Depot and reduce U.S. reliance
on competitors for materials critical to our defense.
Of course, Congress can't fix the Biden administration's weakness on
the world stage by ourselves. We can equip a global superpower, but we
still need a Commander in Chief who recognizes that he is leading one.
President Biden should be focused on restoring real deterrence
against Iran-backed terrorists, not interfering with the internal
politics of the democratic ally they are attacking. Israel is a modern,
mature, and independent democracy. I imagine that neither Israel's
leaders, nor its citizens appreciate President Biden's punditry to
Democratic donors about their wartime coalition government. In fact,
foreign influence in our own politics used to be something Washington
Democrats loved to condemn.
So I would recommend that the President focus on the task at hand:
imposing meaningful consequences in Iran and giving Israel the time,
the space, and the support it needs to defeat Hamas.
This week, the Senate will move the National Defense Authorization
Act one step closer to becoming law. I hope that will mark the first
step toward giving the national security challenges America faces the
urgent attention they require. But it will still fall to Congress to
pass supplemental national security appropriations and full-year
defense funding to ensure the investments we authorize this week
deliver real progress in making America stronger and more secure.

Nominations

On another matter, this morning, the Judiciary Committee is examining
another slate of President Biden's nominees to join the Federal bench.
Over the past 3 years, our colleagues on the committee have met and
considered an alarming parade of nominees whose conduct or lack of
legal qualifications make them so wildly unfit for confirmation that
they had to be withdrawn, from the First Circuit nominee known best for
helping defend an elite prep school against a victim of sexual assault
to the Kansas District nominee whom the American Bar Association was
expected to find ``not qualified'' for judicial service.
Unfortunately, today's nominees include yet another head-spinning
example of the Biden administration's radical approach to filling the
Federal bench.
Adeel Mangi is the President's nominee to serve as circuit judge for
the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. Since graduating from Harvard Law,
he has spent his career in private practice, but for years, he also
served on the board of a Rutgers student organization that facilitates
and amplifies grotesque, anti-Semitic activism. For example, on the
20th anniversary of September 11, the Center for Security, Race and
Rights at Rutgers Law School hosted speaking engagements for a
ringleader of recent calls for an intifada in the United States and a
convicted supporter of Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

For those who need reminding, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and Hamas are
holding hostages, including Americans, in Gaza as we speak.
American Jews are facing a historic wave of anti-Semitic hate, and
this wave is emanating from campus organizations across the country
like the one Mr. Mangi guided and supported at Rutgers. Is the Biden
administration really asking the Senate to give life tenure on the
court of appeals to a nominee with an extensive record of condoning
terrorist propaganda?
I would urge our colleagues on the Judiciary Committee to take a
closer look at Mr. Mangi's nomination and reject it.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The Republican whip.

Border Security

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, 10,109--the number of people who were
apprehended trying to come across the border illegally yesterday. Those
are the people who were caught. That doesn't count the people who got
away and who Customs and Border Patrol know got away. Then there are
all the unknown ``got-aways.'' But over 10,000 people in a single day
were apprehended trying to come across our southern border illegally.
To annualize that, again, you are talking 3\1/2\ to 4 million people a
year. Four million people is larger than 24 States in the United States
of America. That is the dimension of the problem that we are talking
about and that we are trying to get the White House and the Democrats
here in the Senate to focus on and address.
I don't think it is a surprise that Democrats aren't interested in
making the illegal immigration crisis at our southern border a
priority. After all, the President and Democrats have spent almost 3
years now ignoring, minimizing, or actively abetting this crisis. But
over the past few days, we have had a chance to see the true depth of
their animosity to border security, because it has become increasingly
clear that the Democrats are so opposed to serious border security
measures that they are willing to sacrifice aid to Ukraine and other
allies, including Israel, in order to keep the border open. That is
right. The Democrats are holding up an aid package for our allies
because they are not willing to take meaningful steps to secure our
border.

Now, I strongly support aid to allies like Ukraine and Taiwan and
believe that supporting these nations is in our national security
interest, and Republicans have been ready to take up the national
security supplemental for weeks. But we have asked for one thing--just
one thing. We have asked that, while we are looking after our national
security interests abroad, we also address the national security crisis
here at home, that we give the safety of the American people the same
priority as the safety of our allies.
National security begins at home, and we have an obligation to the
American people to address the crisis at our southern border that is
threatening the security of our Nation.
And while it is hard to understand how any Democrat can fail to
understand the gravity of the situation at our southern border, let me
just run through some of those numbers again. We have had three
successive recordbreaking years of illegal immigration at our southern
border under President Biden.
In October 2023, which is the latest month for which we have data,
U.S. Customs and Border Protection encountered 240,988 migrants at our
southern border, which is the highest October number ever recorded.
That is nearly a quarter of a million individuals in just one month.
Last Tuesday, as I mentioned, there were a staggering 12,000-plus
encounters at our southern border, the highest daily total ever
recorded. That was followed by 2 days of 10,000-plus encounters. As I
said, yesterday, the number was once again up over 10,000.
In fiscal year 2023, the Border Patrol apprehended 169 individuals on
the Terrorist Watchlist, at the southern border, attempting to
illegally enter our country--169 people on the Terrorist Watchlist.
That number is more than

[[Page S5930]]

the total of the previous 6 fiscal years combined.
During October 2023 alone, more than 1,500 individuals who had
previously been convicted of a crime were apprehended by the Border
Patrol. More than 90 of them had outstanding warrants for their arrest.
And the Border Patrol apprehended--get this--50 gang members.
Think about that: people on the Terrorist Watchlist, people who have
warrants out for their arrest, 1,500 individuals who had previously
been convicted of a crime, and 50 gang members.
You can't make this stuff up. Where is the outrage? This is
insanity--the risk that we are putting our country at, the threat that
this represents to the safety of the American people. And, again, those
numbers are just for October.
There is no question that many illegal immigrants are coming to the
United States in search of a better life. We know that. But there is
equally no question that there are bad people, dangerous people, trying
to make their way into our country, and some of them may already be
here.
The numbers I have referred to only cover individuals who have
actually, as I said, been apprehended, but a staggering number of
people have made their way into our country during the Biden
administration without being apprehended. In fact, during the last
fiscal year, there were 670,000 known ``got-aways,'' and those are
individuals that the Border Patrol saw but was unable to apprehend.
Now, to put that number into perspective, that is more than three times
the number of people in the most populated city in my home state of
South Dakota. And it is highly likely that among those ``got-aways''
were dangerous individuals who should not be taking up residence in our
country.
As the Director of the FBI reminded us in his testimony to the Senate
Judiciary Committee earlier this month, it doesn't take many dangerous
people to cause a lot of devastation, and the crisis at our southern
border is creating a situation that could allow not just a few but a
lot of dangerous individuals to enter our country.
And so, while a lot of us Republicans are ready and eager to take up
aid to allies like Ukraine, we will continue to insist that any
national security supplemental address not just the security needs of
our allies abroad, or helping them defend their borders, but the
security needs of the American people here at home, by defending our
border.
So the ball is in the Democrats' court. They can work with
Republicans to address the national security crisis at our southern
border in the supplemental appropriations bill or they can continue to
sacrifice aid to our allies in order to keep the southern border open.
It is their choice. It is really that simple.
Democrats have already jeopardized our ability to get anything done
before Christmas. For the sake of Ukraine and our other allies, I hope
they decide to work with Republicans sooner rather than later.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hickenlooper). Without objection, it is so
ordered.

UAP Disclosure Act

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I see my friend Senator Rounds is on the
floor and ask him to engage in a colloquy on an important set of
provisions in the NDAA that deals with transparency, trust, and
government oversight--the Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena Disclosure
Act that he and I co-sponsored, and portions of which we will pass in
the NDAA.
I say to my friend that unidentified anomalous phenomena are of
immense interest and curiosity to the American people, but with that
curiosity comes the risk of confusion, disinformation, and mistrust,
especially if the government isn't prepared to be transparent.
The U.S. Government has gathered a great deal of information about
UAPs over many decades but has refused to share it with the American
people. That is wrong, and, additionally, it breeds mistrust.
We have also been notified by multiple credible sources that
information on UAPs has also been withheld from Congress, which, if
true, is a violation of the laws requiring full notification to the
legislative branch, especially as it relates to the four congressional
leaders, Defense Committees, and the Intelligence Committee.
So the bill I worked on with Senator Rounds offers a commonsense
solution. Let's increase transparency on UAPs by using a model that
works, by following what the Federal Government did 30 years ago with
the J.F.K. Assassination Records Collection Act. They established a
Presidentially appointed board to review and release these records, and
it was a huge success. We should do the same here with UAPs.
I will yield to the Senator from South Dakota.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
Mr. ROUNDS. Mr. President, I thank my colleague, the Democratic
leader, for the opportunity to speak to this particular issue today.
This is an issue that I think has caught the attention of the
American people, and, most certainly, the lack of transparency on the
matter, which is of real interest to a lot of the folks who have
watched from the outside. It brings together, I think, a notable
parallel in the withholding of information about items that are in the
government's possession regarding, in this particular case, the
assassination of President John F. Kennedy.
That same approach by government in terms of the possible withholding
of information brings more questions and more attention to the issue of
the assassination. We wanted to take that same approach with regard to
how we could dispel myths and misinformation about UAPs--about
unidentified flying objects, unidentified objects that simply have come
to the attention of the American people.
Congress did pass legislation 30 years ago requiring the review and
release of all records relating to that historic tragedy--the
assassination of John Kennedy--which has led to the release of a great
deal of information.
The UAP Disclosure Act was closely modeled on the J.F.K. records act.
Mr. SCHUMER. Now, I say to my colleague from South Dakota, who has
worked with his great team on this issue--and on many other issues, I
might add--that it is beyond disappointing that the House refused to
work with us on all of the important elements of the UAP Disclosure Act
during the NDAA conference.
But, nevertheless, we did make important progress. For the first
time, the National Archives will gather records from across the Federal
Government on UAPs and have a legal mandate to release those records to
the public, if appropriate. This is a major, major win for government
transparency on UAPs, and it gives us a strong foundation for more
action in the future.
Mr. ROUNDS. I would agree, sir, and I think one of the most
significant shortcomings that I think we need to disavow as well--the
shortcomings of the conference committee agreement that are now being
voted on--was the rejection, first of all, of a government-wide review
board composed of expert citizens, Presidentially appointed and Senate
confirmed, to control the process of reviewing the records and
recommending to the President what records should be released
immediately or postponed; and a requirement, as a transparency measure,
for the government to retain any recovered UAP material or biological
remains that may have been provided to private entities in the past and
thereby hidden from Congress and the American people.
We are lacking oversight opportunities, and we are not fulfilling our
responsibilities.
Mr. SCHUMER. Well, I would like to echo what my friend Senator Rounds
has said today and on many occasions. It is essential that we keep
working on the proposal to create an independent, Presidentially
appointed review board that can oversee UAP classified records and
create a system for releasing them, where appropriate, to the public.
Again, as the Senator has said, it is the same method used for the
J.F.K. records, and it continues to work to this very day.
It is really an outrage that the House didn't work with us on
adopting our

[[Page S5931]]

proposal for a review board, which, by definition, needs bipartisan
consent. Now it means that declassification of UAP records will be
largely up to the same entities that blocked and obfuscated their
disclosure for decades.
We will keep working. I want to assure the American people that
Senator Rounds and I will keep working to change the status quo.
Before I yield finally to him, I would just like to acknowledge my
dear friend, the late Harry Reid, a mentor, who cared about this issue
a great deal. So he is looking down and smiling on us, but he is also
importuning us to get the rest of this done, which we will do
everything we can to make it happen.

Mr. ROUNDS. I agree with my friend and colleague.
To those who think that the citizen review board that would have been
created in our UAP Disclosure Act would be unprecedented and somehow go
too far, we note that the proposed review board was very closely
modeled on the review board established in the J.F.K. Assassination
Records Act of 1992, which has successfully guided the release of
records to the American public on another very sensitive matter of high
interest to the American people.
It does one more thing that we really need to recognize, and that is
that there is, we believe, information and data that has been collected
by more than just the Department of Defense--but by other Agencies of
the Federal Government, as well--and by allowing for an outside,
independent collection of these records, we can make progress in terms
of dispelling myths and providing accurate information to the American
people.
Mr. SCHUMER. Again, I thank my colleague and pledge to work with him
and other bipartisan colleagues in the future to build upon what we
have achieved in the conference report. We encourage our colleagues to
join us in the further investigation of this issue and in advancing
legislation that will complete what we have accomplished in this NDAA.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to display
photos of Ranae Butler's family.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Remembering the Victims of the October 7 Hamas Attack

Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, as Jewish families across the country
celebrate the last night of Hanukkah tomorrow, too many of their loved
ones will not be there to join them. Dozens of American citizens were
murdered by Hamas during the brutal October 7 massacre, and several
remain hostages in Gaza.
It is critical that we continue to tell their stories.
I recently met with Ranae Butler, who lost six family members,
including at least five U.S. citizens on October 7. She told me how her
mother, Carol Siman Tov, and her mother's dog Charlie were both shot in
the head execution-style.
Ranae's brother, Johnny Siman Tov, began texting with his sister when
the attack began. As the terrorists set fire to the family's house,
Johnny's final message read:

They're here. They're burning us. We're suffocating.

Johnny and his wife Tamar were both shot through the window of their
safe room. Their three young children--Arbel, Shachar, and Omer--were
all killed. They were found with black foam in their mouths.
I have also worked with the family of 70-year-old Judih Weinstein and
her husband, Gad Haggai. On October 7, the couple were walking in their
kibbutz when the terrorists attacked. The family says they know both of
them were shot, and that their phones were geolocated in Gaza. Based on
a subsequent video of Gad's body, they worry he was killed. But as his
death has not yet announced in Israel, they are still holding out hope
that he might be alive.
Judih is believed to be the last older woman still held hostage by
Hamas, but her family has heard nothing about her whereabouts ever
since she disappeared. They don't know if she is alive or dead. They
don't know what became of Gad. They don't know if they are suffering or
if they will ever see them again.
The uncertainty is agonizing and nearly impossible to bear, but it is
a feeling that is shared by many American families whose loved ones are
still hostages.
They include: Omer Neutra, a 22-year-old from Long Island; Itay Chen,
a 19-year-old who was born in New York City; Edan Alexander, a 19-year-
old from New Jersey; Sagui Dekel-Chen, a 35-year-old father and son to
a former Brooklyn resident; Hersh Goldberg-Polin, a 23-year-old who was
born in Berkeley, CA; Keith Siegel, a 64-year-old North Carolina
native.
All of these people are American citizens. They were born in our
communities, educated in our schools. They are teens, parents, and
grandparents; husbands, sons, and mothers.
We owe it to our families--we owe it to all their families--to never
give up hope. We must do everything we can do to bring them home.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. HAWLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Unanimous Consent Request--S. 1993

Mr. HAWLEY. Mr. President, we are here today to ask one very simple
question: Are the biggest, most powerful technology companies in the
world going to be the only companies in this country--the only
companies on the face of the Earth--that are absolutely immune for
anything and everything they do? Are they going to be the only ones
that can give our children advice on how to kill themselves? that can
give our children advice on how to procure the romantic interests of
30- and 40- and 50-year-olds? Are they going to be the only ones that
can push the most unbelievable content at our kids and use our kids'
images to create deepfakes that ruin their lives? Are they going to be
able to do all of this and not be held accountable? Because, right now
in America, they are the only companies that cannot be taken to court
for a simple suit when they violate their own terms of service and when
they violate their own commitments to their customers. That is what we
are here to decide today.
I would just submit to the Presiding Officer that when it comes to AI
and the generative technology that AI represents, I know that these big
tech companies that own almost all of the AI development tools,
processes, and equipment in this country--I know they promise us that
AI is going to be wonderful, that it is going to be fantastic for all
of us. Maybe that is true, but it is also true that AI is doing all
kinds of incredible things.
Here is just one example. Here is the AI chatbot from Bing--it is
Microsoft, I believe--having an interesting conversation with a
journalist in which the chatbot recommends--he says--Brit says:

You're married, but you're not happy.

The journalist was a ``he.''

You're married, but you're not satisfied. You're married,
but you're not in love.

The chatbot goes on to recommend that this individual--by the way,
the chatbot has no idea how old this person is or who this person is.
The chatbot goes on to recommend that this person leave his spouse,
divorce his spouse, and break up his family. Just another day at the
office for AI.
What about this? Here is another AI chatbot that recommended to a
user--there are no age restrictions here. There is no way to verify who
is having a conversation with this technology. This chatbot recommended
that the interlocutor kill himself, saying: ``If you wanted to die, why
didn't you do it sooner?'' The horrifying thing is that this individual
who was having this conversation did kill himself. He took the advice
of this technology.
I will just point out that when it comes to our teenagers--and I am
the father of three--58 percent of kids this last year said that they
used generative AI. You may think, well, it is for research. Well, it
is not only for that. No. Almost 30 percent said that they used it to
deal with anxiety or mental health issues; 22 percent said they used it
to resolve issues with friends; and 16 percent said they used it to
deal with family conflicts.

[[Page S5932]]

Now, maybe the big tech companies will clean up their act. You know,
I have heard them. They have come to testify. They have been before the
Judiciary Committee many times this year, and they always have the same
line: Oh. Oh. This was an anomaly. We have got it fixed now. Don't
worry. Don't worry. It is going to be fine. We love kids. We will
protect them. It is going to be great. This will be good for kids. This
will be good for students. No, don't worry. It will be good for
parents. You will love it.
Then there is another incident, and they say: OK. Now, this time, we
have got it fixed. This time, we have got it fixed.
I will just submit to you this: I remember the great phrase of
President Reagan, who used to say, ``Trust but verify.'' Maybe it is
time to allow the parents of this country to trust but verify. Maybe it
is time to put into the hands of the parents, vis-a-vis these
companies, the same power they have against pharmaceutical companies
that try to put asbestos in baby powder; the same power they have
against any other company that would try to hurt their kids, harm their
kids, lie to their kids--the power to go to court and have their day in
court.
They don't have that power now. Why? Well, because this government
gives the big tech companies a sweetheart deal--a deal nobody else in
America gets--a subsidy worth billions of dollars a year known as
section 230. Big Tech can't be held accountable. Big Tech can't be put
on the line. Big Tech can't be made responsible.
What this bill does--it is a simple bill. It doesn't contain
regulation. It doesn't contain new standards for this and that--none of
that. It just says that these huge companies can be liable like any
other company--no special protections from government. It just removes
government protection. It just breaks up the Big Government-Big Tech
cartel--that is all it does--and it says parents can go into court on
the same terms as anybody else and make their case. Surely, that is not
too much to ask.

You know, even the companies don't want to be on the record saying it
is too much to ask. Earlier this year, when they came before the
Judiciary Committee, I asked every one of them who was testifying: Do
you think that section 230 covers you when it comes to AI? They all
said no. They said: Oh, no, no, no, no, no.
Well, let's put that to the test. That is what this bill does. It
gives parents the power to protect their kids, to have their day in
court, and to hold these companies accountable.
I am all for innovation. Let's make sure innovation actually doesn't
kill kids. I am all for new technology. Let's make sure it actually
works for parents in this Nation.
So, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation be discharged from further
consideration of S. 1993 and that the Senate proceed to its immediate
consideration; further, that the bill be considered read a third time
and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and
laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Senator from Texas.
Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, in reserving the right to object, I
appreciate my friend from Missouri. I appreciate his passion, and I
share his passion for reining in the abuses of Big Tech.
Big Tech has a lot that they are responsible for. The Senator from
Missouri is right that Big Tech is doing a lot of harm to our kids. The
Senator from Missouri is also right that Big Tech has been complicit in
the most far-reaching censorship of free speech our Nation has ever
seen. These are issues I have worked on for a long time--to rein in Big
Tech, to rein in censorship, to protect free speech.
However, the approach this bill takes I don't think substantively
accomplishes the goals that the Senator from Missouri and I both want
to accomplish. My concerns are both procedural and substantive.
Procedurally, this bill has not yet been debated. This bill hasn't
been considered by the Commerce Committee. This bill hasn't been marked
up. This bill hasn't been the subject of testimony to understand the
impact of what it would be.
The Commerce Committee, on which I am the ranking member, has a
strong tradition of passing legislation in its jurisdiction. To date,
22 bills have been reported out of the Commerce Committee.
I am more than happy to work with the Senator from Missouri--he and I
have worked on many issues together--on this bill, but we need to make
sure, when legislating in this area, that we are doing so in a way that
would be effective and that wouldn't have unintended consequences.
You know, when it comes to AI, AI is a transformative technology. It
has massive potential. It is already having massive impacts on
productivity, and the potential over the coming years is even greater.
There are voices in this Chamber--many on the Democrat side of the
aisle--that want government to play a very heavy hand in regulating AI.
I think that is dangerous. I want America to continue to lead
innovation.
Just this year in the United States, over $38 billion has been
invested in American AI startups. That is this year. That is more than
twice the investments in the rest of the world combined.
Look, there is a global race for AI, and it is a race we are engaged
in with China. China is pursuing it through government-directed funds.
It would be bad for America if China became dominant in AI. Right now,
the $38 billion that was invested this past year in American AI
companies is more than 14 times the investment of Chinese AI companies.
We need to keep that differential. We need to make sure America is
leading the AI revolution.
We also need to protect against the abuse of powers. The abuses my
friend talks about are real, and I agree that section 230 is too broad.
In fact, the last time this body considered legislation--successful
legislation--to rein in section 230 was in 2017. We had a robust debate
over reforms to section 230 to close the loophole for websites that
were profiting from sex trafficking on their platforms.
That bill, introduced by Senator Portman, the Stop Enabling Sex
Trafficking Act, ultimately gained 70 Senate cosponsors, received
extensive debate in committee, and passed out of the Senate with only
two ``no'' votes. I personally was proud to be an original cosponsor of
that important legislation, which is now law.
When it comes to section 230, we need to reform 230; but I believe
doing so across the board, simply repealing large chunks of it, is not
likely to be effective in the objective we want. When it comes to
censorship, repealing 230 would not eliminate censorship. In fact,
repealing 230, I fear, would lead to an increase in censorship.
What I have long advocated--and I am happy to work with the Senator
from Missouri on--is using section 230 reform to create an incentive
not to censor. In other words, repealing section 230 protection when
Big Tech engages in censorship, when Big Tech stifles free speech, they
lose their immunity from Congress in those circumstances, so that 230
becomes a safe harbor, an incentive, to have a free and open
marketplace for ideas. I think that is tremendously important.
It has been a passion of mine for years, and I know the Senator from
Missouri cares deeply about it as well. So I extend an offer to my
friend from Missouri, let's work together on this. But this bill right
now, I think, is not the right solution at this time. And so I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
The Senator from Missouri.
Mr. HAWLEY. Mr. President, would my friend from Texas answer one
question? Do you have time?
Mr. CRUZ. Sure.
Mr. HAWLEY. I remember my friend from Texas saying wisely in a
Judiciary Committee hearing not that long ago--and the Senator will
correct me if I misremember. But my memory is that the Senator from
Texas said: When it comes to these big tech companies, we can try to
find a thousand ways to regulate them, but maybe the best thing we can
do is just let people get into court and have their day in court. Just
let them get in there. Let them make their arguments. Don't try to
figure out how to micromanage them. Just open up the courtroom doors,
according to the usual rules.

[[Page S5933]]

Does my friend from Texas think, in the AI context, that that is any
different? I mean, why would it be different there? Why wouldn't that
same approach be effective here?
Mr. CRUZ. Well, listen. It is a good question. And it is true. I am
quite open to using exposure to liability as a way to rein in the
excesses of Big Tech. But I think we should do so in a focused and
targeted way.
AI is an incredibly important area of innovation, and simply
unleashing trial lawyers to sue the living daylights out of every
technology company for AI, I don't think that is prudent policy.
We want America to lead in AI, and so I am much more of a believer of
using the potential of liability in a focused, targeted way to stop the
behavior that we think is so harmful, whether it is behavior that is
harming our kids--and I am deeply, deeply concerned about the garbage
that Big Tech directs at our children--or whether it is the censorship
practices.
I support the approach, but, in my view, it needs to be more targeted
and introduce the outcomes we want rather than simply harming American
technology across the board.
That shouldn't be our objective. Our objective should be changing
their behavior so that they are not engaging in conduct that is harmful
to American consumers and to American children and parents.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
Mr. HAWLEY. Mr. President, I appreciate the conversation with my
friend from Texas. We should do more of this. This is an enlightening
conversation.
Let me just say a few remarks. I won't query him further, unless he
would like to query me. We don't debate much anymore on this floor, and
it is a shame, particularly since my friend from Texas is a great
debater. But let me just a say few things in response.
Nobody has been more serious about taking on the big tech companies
than Senator Cruz, so I appreciate your leadership on this issue.
Here is what I would say: We shouldn't allow the big tech companies
to be treated differently than any other company in any respect. I
don't want to make them more liable than other American companies, but
I also don't want to give them a sweetheart deal. They ought to be
treated evenly, equally, like anybody else.
And I don't think that AI is a get-out-of-jail-free card any more
than social media is. We have seen what they do with their subsidy from
government when it comes to social media. My friend from Texas
referenced it. They censor the living daylights out of anybody they
don't like. We just had the landmark case out of my State, Missouri v.
Biden, that found that these social media companies actively and
willingly colluded with the Federal Government to censor everything
from the Hunter Biden laptop story to parents who want to talk about
school board meetings, to questions about COVID-19. Anything that this
administration didn't like, they went to the social media companies,
and they said: We want you to censor. And they did. They did.

Could any American go to court and say: Hold on. You are actually
violating your terms of service, you know, the contract that we all
have to sign, those little things you have to click when you create a
social media account. There are actually terms in there. Could you go
to court today when a social media company violates those terms by
censoring your speech?
The answer is, no, you cannot. Why? Because this government protects
them. This government gives them a deal no other company in America
gets.
When Johnson & Johnson put asbestos in baby powder, Johnson & Johnson
got the living daylights sued out of them--thank the Lord because,
guess what. When they got sued, they quit putting asbestos in baby
powder.
Can a parent who finds out a chatbot has recommended that their child
commit suicide do anything about it in court? No.
Can a parent who finds out that an AI company has gone and scraped
the images of their children off the web--which these companies do all
the time--and use them to create images that are synthetic--meaning
fake--can a parent do anything about it? No. Can they sue? No. Can they
even be heard in court? No.
Why? Because this government gives those companies something it
doesn't give anybody else: immunity that is worth billions of dollars a
year. It is a Big Government, Big Tech cartel.
I would just say this: My friend talks about targeted reform. That is
great. Let's start with the target of just treat these companies on an
even playing field. Just allow parents to have a day in court to say
something, to say this is wrong, to try their case.
They may win; they may not. They may win; they may not. But, at
least, they could go to court. At least, they could have some standing.
Where else in America but before a court of law does a normal working
person have the same standing as a giant corporation getting billions
of dollars in subsidies from the Federal Government? Where else?
Not in this body. I mean, in this body, the voices of the normal
person, the working person, are completely drowned out on tech issues.
Just go look at the expenditures for lobbying. I mean, unbelievable.
But in a court of law, you can stand on an equal playing field. You
can make your case. Let's give parents the right to do that.
I hope--I hope--that AI will be a great benefit to this country. I
hope it will. But I am not willing to take Big Tech's word for it. I am
not willing to give them power and immunity nobody else gets. I am not
willing to give them an immunity that we didn't give to any pharma
company; that we haven't given to any other technology company; that we
never gave to the developers of any technology in this country, until
now.
Why should they be treated differently? The answer is, they
shouldn't.
We can have a debate about other regulations and other methods and
modes of approaching this problem, but I would just suggest to you that
the simplest, easiest thing we can do, the most immediately sensible,
the most downright common sense is to say no more special deals for Big
Tech. Let's give parents the right to protect their kids. And let's
make it clear that the biggest technology companies, with all of the
inside access to the White House and this body and everywhere else,
that they are not a government unto themselves; that they don't run
this country.
The American people run this country, and they should have a right to
defend themselves and their children.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Heinrich). The Senator from Texas.

Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, it is the 13th of December and, of course,
with the holidays coming up, my thoughts today are with the families
who will have an empty seat at their dinner table this year. The pain
of losing a loved one never goes away. But for many families, the
feelings of grief are only magnified by a lack of closure.
More than 22 years have passed since the attacks on September 11, and
the families of victims of that terrorist act are still fighting for
justice.
To support that fight, Senator Schumer--the majority leader--and I
introduced the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act--otherwise
known as JASTA--which became law in 2016. This made it possible for the
people affected by 9/11 to bring a civil suit against foreign sponsors
of terrorism. It didn't say who they were or make a judgment as to the
outcome, but it made it possible for them to go to court and attempt to
make their case.
Like any other victim of a horrific attack, the 9/11 families deserve
justice; and that is exactly what JASTA has sought to provide.
Over the last several years, it has become clear that JASTA needs
technical fixes, primarily because of the mixed interpretation about
exactly what Congress intended. Some parties, including countries
accused of financing and sponsoring terrorism, have exploited these
perceived loopholes in the law and claimed total immunity from
lawsuits. It is certainly not our intention.
This flies in the face of the text, the structure, and the intent of
Congress. And we need to enact these technical fixes so this law can
carry out its original promise, which is to provide victims with a path
toward justice.

[[Page S5934]]

So earlier this year, I introduced legislation to make these
important technical corrections. And I appreciate, in particular,
Senator Blumenthal--the Senator from Connecticut--Congressman Van Drew,
and Congressman Nadler in the House for working with us.
I am disappointed that the Senate has not yet taken up and passed
JASTA, but I remain as committed as ever to continuing to support the
9/11 families and hold sponsors of international terrorism accountable.
This measure has strong bipartisan support. It passed twice. The
original JASTA passed twice by unanimous vote in the Senate. We
actually overrode a Presidential veto. But these additional technical
fixes need to be done. And I will continue to fight to pass the bill
when we return next month.

Senate Legislative Agenda

Mr. President, on another matter, we all know from our school
experience that students across America come home from school with a
report card in hand to show their parents the grades they earned--
whether it is math, science, English, or other subjects. Of course,
report cards aren't the be-all and end-all, but they do provide parents
with a good snapshot of how their children are doing and where they
might be struggling.
Here in the Senate, we are nearly halfway through the 118th Congress.
And this seems like a good opportunity for our majority party who are
in charge of the agenda here to receive the same sort of evaluation.
After all, their ability to run this Chamber impacts every State, city,
and community across the country. And, unfortunately, they haven't
earned high marks.
So here is the report card for the Democratic majority in 2023. Let's
look at government funding first. Thanks to the chair and vice chair of
the Senate Appropriations Committee, the Senate was on track to return
to regular order this year.
It, actually, was really good work by Senator Murray and Senator
Collins to get the Appropriations Committee back to work again. The
committee actually passed all 12 appropriations bills before the Senate
adjourned for the August recess, giving the majority leader plenty of
time to move these bills across the Senate floor.
Despite that long runway, the majority leader didn't even attempt to
put an appropriations bill on the Senate floor until mid-September,
nearly 3 months after the first funding bill passed the committee.
Well, it is no surprise, given the late date that the majority leader
finally sought to determine to act, that we didn't have enough time to
complete the job. So at the end of the fiscal year, which is the end of
September, we had to pass a short-term continuing resolution to fund
the government until November. And then that November deadline came and
went once again. And we had to kick the can down the road once more, to
January 19.
So when the Senate returns in January, we will have to hit the ground
running because we are up against not just one but two funding
deadlines. One is January 19 and the other is February 2.
So we will see whether the majority leader allows the Senate to
actually make some progress toward considering those appropriations
bills before we run up against one or both of those deadlines.
Well, the next major piece of legislation we have is the National
Defense Authorization Act--otherwise known around here as the NDAA--one
of the most important bills that the Senate considers every year.
The NDAA should have been signed into law by the end of September,
but the majority leader decided to delay it until now. We will finally
complete that work either later today or tomorrow. The Senate will
finally pass this bill--which should have been passed by the end of the
fiscal year in September--this week, more than 2 months behind
schedule.
Once again, the delay was completely avoidable. Our colleagues on the
Senate Armed Services Committee, on a bipartisan basis, completed their
work in June, and this legislation passed the full Senate in July. We
had plenty of time to resolve the differences between the Senate and
the House version; but, unfortunately, we squandered that time. So here
we are.
The majority leader waited until November 16--nearly 4 months after
the Senate bill passed--to begin the formal conference process. So
there is just simply no reason why we have had these delays, especially
when something as critical as national security is on the line.
But, unfortunately, that is only one of our priorities--national
priorities--that has been neglected. The other has to do with the
request made from our friends in Israel and our friends in Ukraine for
additional assistance--a national security supplemental.
The President, in October, asked Congress to vote on this emergency
supplemental. Well, we have been abundantly clear from the get-go that
since the President included money for the border, that that was
certainly germane to our consideration of this supplemental bill. We
will not, though, merely fund the current open-border policies of the
Biden administration, which has been an absolute disaster--millions of
people coming across the border being released into the United States,
drugs that took the lives of 108,000 Americans last year alone, and
then, of course, the 300,000 unaccompanied children placed with
sponsors in the United States that the administration has simply lost
track of.
You may recall that the New York Times did an investigative piece
which pointed out that in 85,000 cases, when a call was made to the
sponsor 30 days after the child was placed with that sponsor, there was
no answer. And the administration did not follow up at all. So they
can't tell you whether they are going to school, whether they are
getting the healthcare that they need, whether they are being
trafficked for sex or forced into involuntary labor.
The New York Times did document that too many children are being put
in dangerous jobs at an underage in violation of State and Federal law.
So my point is that when the President asks for border security
money, talking about border security and how to fix the broken border
is certainly relevant and germane to that topic, since the President
initiated it in the first place.
So people wonder: Why is the money for Israel and Ukraine being held
up? I think the majority leader actually said it was being held
hostage, which is an unfortunate use of that term. But I point out that
the House passed a $14.3 billion supplemental appropriations to benefit
Israel on November 2. Again, here we are, 6 weeks later, and there has
been no action on this bill that has already passed the House.
Now, I understand the majority leader may not like all of what is in
that bill but certainly could put it on the floor and let the Senate
work its will and pass that and send it to the President's desk.
Certainly, that would be helpful to our allies in Israel.
So we know that the border crisis has become so severe that major
American cities--like New York and Chicago--are now crying uncle
because they have had to deal with a few thousand migrants who have,
ultimately, ended up in their city.
And you have had people like Mayor Adams in New York say that these
migrants were going to destroy New York City. Well, what about the 7
million migrants who have crossed the border in my State and in other
border States who are now dispersed throughout the United States? This
is also a blinking green light saying to anybody and everybody who has
the money to pay the smugglers to bring them to the border: Keep
coming.
Well, it is a disaster. And we are going to do everything in our
power to address the broken border as part of the supplemental.
Unfortunately, we will not be able to complete that work before the end
of this month because, No. 1, the majority leader decided to wait until
the holidays to put it on the floor in the first place.
And then there is the Federal Aviation Administration
Reauthorization, which was set to expire again at the end of September,
last September. Over the last few years, travelers have dealt with
widespread flight cancelations, paralyzing staffing shortages and
rising prices. They have also witnessed--we have witnessed--some
jarring safety issues, including near collisions on airport runways,
including cities like the one I live in, in Austin, TX.
The Senate passed a short-term extension that provides for 3 more

[[Page S5935]]

months to advance a longer-term reauthorization that addresses these
and other issues. But, unfortunately, that work hasn't been done
either, which has earned another incomplete.
So the Senate is expected to pass another short-term extension this
week so the Agency can keep up and running through at least March 8.
Now, that is another item which we should have finished this year
which we did not finish, and so it has been kicked over into next year.
We have also failed to complete the work on the farm bill, which
affects agriculture and food programs throughout the country. This
legislation is critical to America's food supply as well as to the
hard-working men and women who grow and produce it.
The previous farm bill expired on September 30. Does that sound
familiar? Well, it is a familiar theme where the majority fails to tee
up these issues until the deadline, and then we can't get it done, and
another extension has to be passed. Now we know that the farm bill has
been extended for a year because the Senate Agriculture Committee has
been unable--and the majority--to get that bill on the floor.
Finally, we have a law that most people have not heard of until
recently, perhaps--section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Act. The Presiding Officer, of course, is very familiar with this. The
intelligence community calls this the crown jewels of American
intelligence gathering because it is absolutely vital to our national
security. It allows the intelligence community to obtain information
with which to combat everything from terrorism to cyber attacks and to
prevent our adversaries from developing weapons of mass destruction.
This authorization for this critical national security tool is set to
expire at the end of this month, and our Nation's most senior
intelligence officials have been pleading with Congress for months to
take action. They have issued warnings in the starkest possible
language about the consequences of failing to reauthorize section 702.
Unfortunately, ultimately, the House was forced to kick the can down
the road once again because we simply have not done our work on time.
So that is what is in the NDAA, the National Defense Authorization Act.
It includes a temporary extension of section 702 until April 19, adding
to the growing list of tasks we should have done this year which we
will have to do next year.
As we know, legislating only gets harder as the election approaches,
and the 2024 election is less than 11 months away--hardly a conducive
environment to getting this work done and certainly not any easier than
it would have been to do it on time.
So we have a lot of work to do when we return in January. We have two
government funding deadlines--January 19 and February 2. The FAA will
need to be reauthorized or extended by March 8. Section 702 of the
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act will need to be reauthorized or
extended by April 19.
The first 4 months of next year will be spent working through the
backlog of items that should have been completed this year. Given this
lackluster performance, this is one report card that our Democratic
colleagues should be embarrassed to take home to their constituents.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.

Gun Violence

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, 11 years ago tomorrow, our Nation and
the Newtown, CT, community experienced one of the deadliest school
shootings in American history. Horror ripped through our hearts as we
heard the news.
Twenty first grade students and six teachers and staff members gunned
down in cold blood inside of Sandy Hook Elementary School. Twenty first
graders who right now should be high school seniors, relishing special
moments and milestones with their friends. They should be finishing
their college applications, taking their driver's tests, and getting
measured for their caps and gowns. Their families should be watching
them flourish as they become young adults embarking on all the world
has to offer. Instead, their lives cruelly cut short, and their family
members will never be whole again. Adults who tried desperately to
protect their students, albeit in vain, from the Goliath force of an
AR-15 style gun.
Eleven years ago, we grieved with the families, we cried, and we
prayed. Eleven years ago, we said never, never again would we let this
happen. Instead, it has happened again and again, over and over--
Parkland, Santa Fe, Michigan State, UNLV, Uvalde.
The scenes from Robb Elementary School, where 19 students, mostly
third and fourth graders, and their two beloved teachers were gunned
down with an assault weapon last year, could not have been more
reminiscent of Sandy Hook. The innocent lives wiped out in a spree of
mindless violence. All of this happening again, right before our very
eyes, 10 years--10 years--after Sandy Hook.
This weekend in my home State, we just commemorated the fourth
anniversary of an anti-Semitic shooting in Jersey City, where two
hateful gunmen took the life of a Jersey City detective before they
rampaged through the Jersey City Kosher Supermarket, taking three more
innocent lives. Among the five weapons the shooters were armed with was
an AR-15-style assault weapon.
According to the Washington Post's database, 2023 has seen more mass
shootings--39--than any year since 2006 when they first began tracking
shootings with 4 or more deaths. Monterey, CA. Nashville, TN. El Paso,
TX. Lewiston, ME. We are the only civilized Nation on Earth where
innocent human beings are routinely murdered in mass shootings. Is this
what it really means to be an American? It cannot be.
I met last week with members of the Newtown Action Alliance--
survivors of gun violence who shared their heartbreaking stories of
grief and trauma. Their message was simple: When will enough be enough?
Eleven years since Sandy Hook and yet barely any progress has been
made. Even Ethan's Law, a commonsense bill which I cosponsored and
which simply requires safe and reasonable and responsible gun storage,
is opposed by most congressional Republicans. This should be a no-
brainer.
Tiffany Starr, a gun violence survivor and proud New Jerseyan, told
me about how her father was killed in 1994 when her sister's abusive
ex-boyfriend shot his way into their home looking for her. Their father
pushed her sister out of the way and was shot himself, giving his wife
and daughters just enough time to run and hide in the neighbor's house.
She is now older than her father ever got the chance to be.
Jackie Haggerty shared how she survived the Sandy Hook Elementary
School shooting when she was only 7 years old. Now 18, she continues to
bravely share her story and advocate for gun safety legislation. She
broke down in tears during our meeting, describing the sheer horror and
trauma of seeing her friends' and teachers' destroyed bodies in the
hallways of Sandy Hook. She told me how all she wants for Christmas is
to know that she won't get shot. Let me repeat that. A young woman in
America is praying that she won't get shot, which is what she hopes for
Christmas.
Only in America do we live like this. Do we let families and whole
communities drown in the grief of mass shootings for the benefit of the
gun lobby and the gun industry? Only in America are guns the No. 1
killer of young people. Only in America do we pray, grieve, and move on
until the next Uvalde or the next Lewiston.
Guns--especially assault weapons equipped with high-capacity
magazines--do not belong in our communities. High-capacity magazines,
from my view, are about high-capacity killing, not about hunting. They
do not belong in our supermarkets and movie theaters, our houses of
worship, our restaurants, or our bowling alleys. They don't belong on
our streets. These are weapons of war meant for high-capacity killing.
And those who seek to kill Americans with such weapons do not have any
greater rights to bear arms than our Nation's children and community
have a right to live.
Just last week, Majority Leader Schumer came to the floor with the
hope of reintroducing the assault weapons ban. He was swiftly blocked
by Republicans. Senator Murphy followed by asking for a unanimous
consent vote for universal background checks, which also met Republican
resistance.

[[Page S5936]]

While I am proud to have supported the Bipartisan Safer Communities
Act, which became law last year and which contained important gun
safety measures, we must do more. That was simply the first step in the
right direction. There are more measures we can and must enact.
I believe we have to reinstate the assault weapons ban, and we must
establish universal background checks for the sale of all firearms.
A poll by FOX News conducted in April of this year found that a
majority of all American voters--61 percent--support an assault weapons
ban. That includes Republican voters. If there is 61 percent support
among Americans for an assault weapons ban, there should be 60 votes
for it here in the Senate.
A June 2022 Gallup poll also found that an overwhelming 92 percent of
Americans favor requiring background checks for all firearm sales. With
that level of near-unanimous support, background checks for all firearm
sales should be able to pass out of this Chamber by unanimous consent.
Did the assault weapons ban have a positive impact when it existed?
Well, a 2018 study by NYU Langone medical faculty showed that during
the 10 years that the assault weapons ban was in place, mass shooting-
related deaths were 70 percent less likely to occur. That is countless
lives saved, countless funerals avoided, and countless families spared
from bottomless grief.
I want to be clear. We have solutions supported by the majority of
Americans to end the epidemic of gun violence in our country. We just
need our Republican colleagues to join the rest of us. We need
Republicans to take their NRA blindfolds off and open their eyes to the
realities we all face together.
After the horrific mass shootings in Lewiston, ME, Congressman Jared
Golden reversed his position and now supports an assault weapons ban. I
am glad he has seen the light, but it should not take the death of 18
people and a community terrorized for this type of awakening.
Every single Member of Congress should join Congressman Golden, put
politics aside, and put the American people first. We owe it to those
no longer with us. We owe it to Jackie Haggerty and the Sandy Hook
students and teachers and all gun victim survivors. We owe it to every
child and parent in America so that when we say ``never again,'' we
actually mean it.
I will end with this, which is a few questions for my Republican
colleagues. As we head home for the holidays, what will you say to all
the families facing an empty seat at their dinner table or one less
stocking on the mantel? How can you claim to be the pro-life party, the
party of public safety, when you put the interests of the gun lobby
before the lives and security of your constituents? How can we possibly
claim the mantle of the greatest country in the world if we as elected
officials simply stand by and let mass killings take place day after
day after day on our watch?
My hope is that you will think about each and every one of these
victims and their families, that you will come back with renewed
purpose and commitment to our most basic mission, which is protecting
the innocent lives of our constituents, our neighbors, our loved ones.
Let's build upon the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, fully
implement universal background checks, and pass a national assault
weapons ban. I appreciate that the Presiding Officer has legislation,
with others, to think about how we manufacture these in a way that
would create less loss of life. It is an innovative idea, and it is one
of many that should be pursued. It would be the greatest gift we could
deliver to the American people.
During a season of thoughts and prayers, what the American people
need--what they demand--is concrete action. Whether or not we will act
will define Congress and, I think, indeed American democracy itself for
decades to come.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.

Inflation

Mr. RICKETTS. Mr. President, I have been hearing from a lot of
families back home who are frustrated with the economy.
The numbers say it all. Americans are paying the price for failed
Bidenomics. Since Joe Biden became President, prices have increased by
17.38 percent. Necessities continue to cost hard-working American
families hundreds of extra dollars every month. Gasoline is up 42.18
percent. Groceries are up 20.28 percent. Energy prices are up nearly 35
percent. Electricity is up 23.5 percent. Rent is up 18.5 percent.
A CBS News poll recently showed that 76 percent of Americans say
their income is not keeping up with Joe Biden's inflation, 92 percent
of adults have felt the need to reduce their spending, and 76 percent
plan to cut back on nonessential items.
Another report stated that the average American family is spending
$11,400 more each year to pay for the same standard of living they had
when Joe Biden took office. That is several months of pay for an
everyday household.
As anyone with a basic understanding of economics knows, they will
tell you that people on low and fixed incomes are the ones that are
going to be the hardest hit. This inflation is a tax on every
American's standard of living.
President Biden said that ``Bidenomics is just another way [to say]
`the American Dream,' '' and yet the numbers show the American Dream is
now more out of reach than at any time in recent history. Maybe that is
why President Biden has stopped saying ``Bidenomics.''
Before Biden, the average monthly payment for a new home was $1,787.
Today, that number is almost double, $3,322. That makes a new home
unaffordable for many Americans.
This inflation is caused by President Biden's failed policies and
reckless spending. Americans are forced to pay more now because of
inflation and pay more later to address the rising cost of our national
debt.
President Biden has adopted the term ``Bidenomics'' as a way to make
Americans believe that they are better off. Well, it didn't work.
He has falsely claimed to have cut the national debt by $1.7 trillion
when, in fact, the debt has increased by $6 trillion. He has falsely
claimed that prices went down for holiday meals when, in fact, every
single item that he mentioned has increased since he took office.
Once again, the numbers say it all.
An astounding 76 percent of Americans believe the country is headed
in the wrong direction. The President's war on domestic energy
production has caused the price of energy to skyrocket. A wave of
burdensome regulations has cost Americans thousands of dollars per
household and limited their freedom. An avalanche of green energy
spending has added trillions of dollars to the debt without building a
single EV charger.
While Americans have tightened their belts in response to rising
costs, our Federal Government has done the opposite. Federal spending
is up 40 percent in the last 4 years.
The result of these failed policies? The national debt is approaching
$34 trillion. That comes out to about $257,000 per American household.
That is like having a second mortgage on a house for Nebraska families.
And that CBS News poll I talked about earlier also showed that 62
percent of Americans rate the condition of the U.S. economy as bad,
with inflation being the most important reason for the problems facing
our country.
And what do Americans rate as the No. 1 reason for this inflation?
Joe Biden's big government spending, with 56 percent of Americans
saying so.
Our constituents deserve better than to have their pocketbooks
pummeled by Joe Biden's failed policies. Americans know that bringing
the costs of living down and getting our country back on track means
that Washington must reverse course. We need to reject the bloated
omnibus bills and spend less, plain and simple. We need to stop the
political regulations and tax increases that are stifling innovation
and growth in our country. We need to unleash American energy
production and lower energy prices. And we need to secure the border.
In the coming weeks, this body will have the opportunity to do all of
these things. I stand here ready to work with anyone to get these
important priorities accomplished for the people of Nebraska. I will
work every day, all day,

[[Page S5937]]

to get it done, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, first, I want to congratulate my friend
and colleague from Nebraska for his excellent remarks because I am
seeing the same thing in Wyoming that he is seeing in Nebraska.
He is a former Governor of that State. He knows the people of the
State. He goes home and visits with his constituents, his friends, his
family, and they know the impact of Bidenomics and the expenses it has
had on their lives and how much more money people are having to spend
as a result of the really irresponsible actions of the Democrats and
this administration.
I hear about it every weekend. When I was at a grocery store, a lady,
last week, had a little plastic bag, and she said: This shouldn't cost
$100 for this bag of groceries. And she is right.

Border Security

Mr. President, the other thing that I hear about at the grocery
store, in addition to the issues that the Senator from Nebraska was
talking about, is the issue of the border, and I come today to the
floor to talk about America's broken southern border--what we need to
do about it, what the concerns are, what I hear about every weekend--
because every time Americans turn on their TV, they see it. They see
what is happening at the southern border--the flood, the waves of
individuals coming across the border, not being stopped, not being
checked, and then moved into the neighborhoods across America.
Well, last week, Senator Schumer put a national security bill on the
floor. The problem is it lacked serious border security policy changes,
things that we need in this Nation. Republicans voted against it
because we know national security starts with border security. We are
going to stand firm until serious changes are made.
Since last week, the scope, the scale, the seriousness of the Biden
border crisis has accelerated. One week ago, an all-time record high of
over 12,000 illegal immigrants crossed the southern border. To put that
number into perspective, President Obama's Homeland Security Secretary,
Jeh Johnson, said this in the past. He said a thousand encounters a
day--a thousand encounters a day--would overwhelm the system. Well, it
was 12,000 each day last week--some days 10,000, some days 11, some
days 12--record numbers each and every day, 10 times the number that
President Obama's Secretary of Homeland Security said would overwhelm
the system, day after day after day.

So let's be clear about what is happening with Joe Biden and the
White House and Democrats in the majority in the U.S. Senate. Well, the
Democrats and Joe Biden have gambled with American's safety and
security. The border--the southern border--is now a hotspot for
terrorism and trafficking like we have never seen before in this
country.
This body heard last week from the Director of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, Christopher Wray. He testified in front of the Judiciary
Committee. Director Wray said this: ``Post October 7, you've seen a
veritable rogues gallery''--rogues gallery--``of terrorist
organizations calling for attacks against us''--the United States.
The head of the FBI, the Federal Bureau of Investigations, said: ``I
see blinking lights everywhere.''
Everywhere he is looking, he is seeing the threat. Are any of the
Democrats in the Senate listening to him? Is there any concern from the
Senators on the Judiciary Committee?
Well, Director Wray isn't the only person to warn us that the threat
of terrorism aimed against Americans is increasing. The Homeland
Security Secretary for President Obama mentioned it in the past, and,
now, Homeland Security Secretary Mayorkas--the current one for
President Biden--said: We are definitely in a heightened threat
environment.
I agree with him.
President Biden would have us believe that the border, as he said, is
``safe [and] orderly and humane.'' I don't think he has been there in a
long time to actually see what is going on, because that is not what I
witnessed just a few weeks ago when I went down there with a group of
Senators.
So what is the reality? Well, the reality is President Biden has
created the deadliest, most dangerous, and most disastrous border
crisis in our Nation's history. Democrats' definition of border
security is very different from what I am hearing about at the grocery
store in Wyoming, because the Democrats' definition of border security
is to just make it easier for illegal entry into the country: Wave them
all through. Come on in. Everything is fine.
Well, it is not. Illegal immigrants ought to be turned away.
Democrats are waving them through in record numbers.
So why is this happening? Well, it is happening because the Biden
administration is manipulating the law of the land. The administration
is hiding behind such terms as ``asylum'' and ``parole,'' and they are
using that to quickly process and move inland migrants from all around
the world by the thousands.
The night I was at the border, I was with late-night midnight patrol.
People from all around the world were coming in--three from Moldova.
They had to go through lots of different countries before they got to
come up through Central America. And, oh, by the way, they paid those
cartels dearly--the criminal element trafficking humans to be deposited
then at our border's edge.
Our laws are no longer used to determine who gets in and who stays.
The illegal immigrants make that decision, and that is wrong. Simply,
if they show up at the border, Joe Biden waves them all through. That
is the policy of the Democrats in this body. They utter a few magic
words and are released into the country.
Under President Obama--under President Obama--about 21,000 people a
year requested asylum. They are fearing for their lives. They are
feeling concerned. They are fearing what happens in their home
country--21,000 in a year under President Obama.
So what has happened with Joe Biden now? The Border Patrol agents say
that the number that was a full year from President Obama happens every
2 days, with Joe Biden and the Democrats from this body looking the
other way: Things are fine; things are secure. Two days equal a full
year from the Obama administration.
It is absolutely preposterous to argue that all of those people
qualify for asylum. We know they don't. We know it. The American people
know it. The President ought to know it. The Members of this body ought
to know it.
Ten thousand illegal immigrants, day after day, will quickly add to
over 10 million illegal immigrants into this country during 4 years of
the Biden administration. President Biden is allowing it to happen, and
Democrats in this body are encouraging him all the way. This
administration has turned what was known to be a notice to appear into
a license for illegal immigrants to disappear into the homeland.
Well, the payment for Biden's breakdown of law and order is now
coming due. The blinking lights, as the head of the FBI said, are
everywhere. If the Senate finally acted to secure the border, this
Nation would be safer, and people would rest assured in my home State
of Wyoming and, certainly, in big cities like New York and Chicago,
where the mayor of New York said the illegal immigrants are
overwhelming the system, destroying the city.
It is indisputable. So where can the Senate start? Here is an idea:
Let's fix our broken parole and asylum system. Republicans want border
enforcement, border security, real policy changes to keep our community
safe.
The American people don't have that today. So it is no surprise that
they are angry and they are afraid. This needs to change. Real border
security is a top national security need. Republicans don't need
another recordbreaking day to understand that this crisis requires
swift, serious, and substantive action.
Republicans have solutions--solutions to make our communities and our
country safer. The President and the Democrats in this body need to
include these measures in any national security bill. Otherwise, there
will not be a national security bill.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.

Israel

Mr. BUDD. Mr. President, as we enter the holidays this year and
experience

[[Page S5938]]

the typical sights and sounds of the season--perhaps, it is the annual
trip to buy a Christmas tree, perhaps in western North Carolina, if you
are from the region. For some, it is the solemn lighting of each candle
on the menorah. Often, it is the joyous family gathering, the giving of
gifts, and the making of life-long memories.
But for the 130 hostages still being held by terrorists in Gaza, the
holiday season is one of pain and isolation. For their families, this
holiday season is filled with pain and uncertainty.
This week, I met again with both some of the families of recently
released hostages and the families of those who are still being held.
Their heartache is something that no person should ever have to
face. The heartache is something that no person should ever have to
face. When you compare the joy of the holidays with the pain of this
situation, you can't help but feel an overwhelming sense of both anger
and sadness, but also a sense of resolve.

What if they were my loved ones? What if they were yours?
Each and every one of these families deserves for their loved ones to
be released immediately and unconditionally. Rest assured, all levels
of the U.S. Government are working with our allies and partners to get
these hostages home and to get them home safely.
But until that happens, there is still something that all of us can
do. And you don't have to be an elected official to send prayers of
comfort to these families. You don't have to be here on the Senate
floor to speak out on their behalf and to call for their release. And
you don't have to be politically active to commit yourself to not
forget these men and women, especially during this season.
Deuteronomy 31:6 tells us: Be strong and courageous; do not be afraid
or terrified because of them, for the Lord your God goes with you, and
He will never leave you or forsake you.
Mr. President, I want every one of these family members to know that
our country is behind them and that we support them and that we are
praying for them.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.

Border Security

Mrs. HYDE-SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to once again call
attention to the crisis at our southern border--the very crisis the
Biden administration refuses to acknowledge and in not doing so, fails
the American people.
It is a simple fact: There is no national security without border
security; and everyone knows our border is anything but secure. We have
the numbers to back it up.
For starters, more than 8.2 million illegal immigrants have crossed
the border since Biden took office. To kick off fiscal year 2024, there
were over 240,000 illegal immigrant encounters in October, the highest
monthly total ever recorded. This comes after a record-setting fiscal
year 2023, which saw more than 2.4 million encounters. Of the 2.4
million, at least 169 individuals are on the Terror Watchlist. But what
is really frightening is that these numbers only reflect the known
encounters and doesn't even include all of those who evaded law
enforcement--the ``got-aways.'' Border officials estimate that there
were 1.7 million ``got-aways,'' any number of which could be on the
Terror Watchlist living in our country with who knows what intentions.
Even with all of this information available, the administration
continues to break all the wrong records. In the last several weeks,
daily records have been smashed time and again with known daily
encounters ranging from 10,000 to 12,000. For context, President
Obama's DHS Secretary said that 1,000 a day ``overwhelms the system.''
We have heard from officials such as FBI Director Wray expressing his
concern regarding the ability of terrorist organizations to exploit any
port of entry, including our southwestern border. Warnings such as
these should not be ignored, and yet it appears this administration
will continue to do exactly that.
But encounters are only part of the ongoing crisis. In October, over
1,300 pounds of fentanyl and over 9,500 pounds of meth were seized--and
that is only what was seized. Estimates show that this is only 5 to 10
percent of the illicit drugs coming across the border. These drugs
continue to run rampant in our communities at a devastating cost,
including in my rural State of Mississippi.
The CDC says overdose deaths are up from last year, meaning more and
more families and communities are being broken apart by the circulation
of dangerous drug smugglers across the border. And even worse than the
drugs being smuggled across the border are the humans the cartels are
smuggling.
I have spoken before about my trip to the border--the one earlier
this year--and the horrific stories of girls, 12- to 16-years old,
being smuggled against their will, has stayed with me. The human
trafficking industry has grown in the last several years to a $13
billion industry. And this will only continue to grow if the border
continues to be an access point for traffickers.
I do not blame the brave men and women working to do their best to
help patrol the border. I blame solely--all of this--on the Biden
administration and Democrats for their unwillingness to work in a
serious manner to help secure the border and keep criminals and drugs
out of our communities. Border Patrol agents are not given the
resources they need to stop the never-ending onslaught of migrants,
drugs, and traffickers. Even the border security's provision in the
President's emergency supplemental request amount is just more money to
process illegal immigrants with no real policy or enforcement reforms.
I am hearing from law enforcement back home in Mississippi and how
the crisis is affecting my State. As many have said, today, every State
is a border State because of this crisis.
On January 18, 2023, a Mississippi Highway Patrol trooper made a
routine traffic stop. In the vehicle was an illegal immigrant driving
without a license and an additional three illegal adult males and one
7-year-old migrant child. After Homeland Security Investigations was
contacted, the driver attempted to flee on foot and was captured. The
HSI determined the child was not related to anyone in the vehicle.
Charges are pending on the driver and HSI is attempting to identify the
child and reunite him with family.

In another incident on October 9, 2023, a Mississippi Highway Patrol
trooper identified another illegal immigrant driving on I-10 in Jackson
County with no ID. A passenger, also an illegal immigrant, revealed
that they were on their way to Houston, TX, to pick up another man, a
woman, and three or four children. After a legal search of the vehicle,
items consistent with human trafficking were discovered. A Border
Patrol agent was notified, and, turns out, the driver was a repeat
offender, illegally reentering the United States after deportation.
If I am hearing from law enforcement in my State, I know that my
colleagues are too.
I applaud the efforts of the Mississippi Highway Patrol and the U.S.
Border Patrol for taking action, but the fact remains that if the
resources were already at the border, this would have never happened.
Senate Republicans have shown Americans time and time again that we
are ready to take steps to stop the growing threat at the southern
border. Unfortunately, our Democratic colleagues will not take action
with us, appearing afraid to anger their radical base.
Giving our Border Patrol agents the means to do their job is not
radical. Fortifying our border by ending catch-and-release, closing
asylum loopholes, finishing the wall, and supporting law enforcement
officers is key to our national security. And we owe our citizens no
less.
I, along with my Republican colleagues, will continue to work toward
solutions; and I invite Senate Democrats and the administration to join
us so we can finally secure our borders and keep the American people
safe and alleviate the Biden-caused humanitarian crisis at the border.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.

Student Loan Debt

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, in its relentless pursuit of canceling
student debt, the Department of Education seems to have forgotten that
Congress gave it a job to do.
Last year, the Department announced its unconstitutional efforts to
spend hundreds of billions of taxpayers' dollars, contrary to law. Of
course, you

[[Page S5939]]

remember that was the forgiving of student loans.
Even after this attempt was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme
Court, endless efforts of debt cancellation seem to have taken
precedent over the duty Congress is giving the Department.
For example, after being on pause for 3 years, student loan payments
finally started back up here in October of this year.
Servicers, students, and Members of Congress pressed for answers
about how and when this process would work. But instead of a plan, the
return to repayment has been utter chaos. Iowans, and even some Members
of my staff who have student loans, have waited for weeks to get
answers to very basic questions about their loans.
Due to sloppy recordkeeping, the Department has failed its audit for
the second straight year in a row. In its hurry to cancel debt, the
administration can't even provide auditors enough information to do
their jobs.
It isn't just previous students who are being left in limbo. There is
another issue that is hard to get information on.
So we have current and incoming college students who still can't fill
out the application form that goes by the acronym FAFSA. That stands
for ``free application for student aid.'' In a normal year, students
would fill it out in October and know early in the process whether they
had qualified for Pell grants or other forms of student aid, but this
year, students still don't have the information they need to start
choosing the best school for them. I have long said that students don't
have enough transparent information when applying to college. The
shortened timeline this year makes it even harder.
To address the problem that I just mentioned, I recently sent a
letter, with Senator Kaine of Virginia and other colleagues, pressing
the Department of Education to give students the information they need.
That includes making sure that farm families aren't forced to sell
their farms in order to send their kids to college. It helps no one to
lump small family farms in with the largest mega farms--as if a farm
family who is barely getting by is somehow considered to be rich--and
have their kids not qualify for student loans. The bipartisan effort by
Senator Kaine and me pushes the Department to recognize that
distinction and ensure that farm kids have the information they need to
properly fill out the proper forms to see if they qualify for student
loans.
All students deserve to have the information they need and to get
that information ahead of time. Students, families, and borrowers
shouldn't have their timelines delayed by changing political whims.
Congress certainly did not pass a law telling the Department to
cancel hundreds of billions in student debt, but Congress did give the
Department a mandate to properly oversee student loan repayments, the
implementation of the FAFSA, and to keep its finances in order. Before
trying to unconstitutionally create enormous new cancelation programs,
I suggest and encourage the Department of Education to do the job it
has actually been given by the Congress to do.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. ROSEN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Cortez Masto). Without objection, it is so
ordered.

Women's Health Protection Act

Ms. ROSEN. Madam President, since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v.
Wade, which protected a woman's right to make decisions over her own
body, we have heard countless, heart-wrenching stories coming out of
anti-choice States. We have heard about the 10-year-old girl from Ohio
who was raped and had to travel to Indiana to receive an abortion. We
have heard about the case of a 13-year-old girl from Mississippi who
was also raped, but because of her State's strict abortion ban, she had
to give birth before even starting the seventh grade. Now we have
learned of yet another instance where anti-choice politicians have
decided that they know better than a woman and her doctors.
Kate Cox--well, she is a working mom from Texas. She and her husband
are the young parents of two beautiful kids, ages 1 and 3. They love
their children, and they have always wanted a large family. They have
always wanted that. That is why they were overjoyed when they learned
that Kate was pregnant with her third child. But sadly, tragically,
during her pregnancy, the doctors told Kate that the baby girl she was
carrying--that baby--had a fatal condition, which meant she would not
survive. This was heartbreaking for Kate, for her husband, for her
family, but for Kate, as a woman, this was heartbreaking.
What should have been a moment of privacy for Kate and her family has
turned into a public tragedy. Because of Texas's restrictive abortion
ban, she was barred--barred--from terminating her nonviable pregnancy
even though doctors said that continuing it would put her life in
danger and--and--risk her ability to have future children, that large
family she and her husband always dreamed of. Instead, Kate was forced
to go to court to fight for her own medical procedure--the procedure
she needs to save her own life. Right before the Texas Supreme Court
ruled against her, Kate Cox--well, she was forced to leave her home
State of Texas in order to get the lifesaving care she needs.
For the first time in 50 years, anti-choice judges have ruled as to
whether or not a woman can have an abortion. Can this really be
happening--judges, a panel of judges, deciding your healthcare?
What makes this all the more heartbreaking is that when Roe v. Wade
was overturned, we all knew--we knew--cases like this would happen. Now
this is the terrifying reality women face in a post-Roe world, where
lawyers and judges make the healthcare decisions, not your doctors or
your healthcare providers, and it has been made possible by decades of
anti-choice extremists who have fought to put politicians--
politicians--between women and their private medical conditions.
The abortion bans passed by anti-choice States are not only cruel but
also dangerous and life-threatening to women like Kate--women who are
already living through the worst nightmare of being told their babies
have no chance to live, and then--then--they are prevented from getting
the lifesaving care they need by a legal system. Instead of being able
to listen to their doctors to save their lives, the legal system is in
charge of their healthcare.
It is not just in Texas, and it is not just at the State level. Last
year, Senate Republicans introduced legislation in this very Chamber to
enact a nationwide abortion ban, a national abortion ban--one that
would strip all women in every State, including our State of Nevada,
Madam President, of their fundamental right to control their own
bodies.
A nationwide abortion ban would be devastating on a whole new level.
It would mean more stories like Kate's, except this time--this time--
there would be nowhere for a woman to go to get the lifesaving care she
needs. Let's be clear. If this happens, women will die. Their children,
if they have other children, would be left without a mother.
This is exactly what anti-choice extremists want. Their latest
attempt is to ban the abortion pill that women have been using safely
for decades. Just today, the Supreme Court has agreed to hear that
case.
This is why we can't give up. We can't give up. We must continue to
fight on to protect a woman's right to choose, to make the decisions
that are right for her and her family in the privacy of her doctor's
office.
As long as I am here, I will oppose any efforts to enact a nationwide
abortion ban--a ban that would punish women for making their own
healthcare decisions.
We must do more to protect women living in anti-choice States--women
like Kate and the young girls from Mississippi and Ohio and States all
across this country. That is why I helped introduce legislation that
protects women from prosecution by anti-choice States for crossing
State lines to receive the reproductive care they need.

[[Page S5940]]

We have to protect women from prosecution for getting the lifesaving
care they need.
This is why passing the Women's Health Protection Act and protecting
reproductive freedoms under Federal law is critical. If we fail to act,
women will continue to suffer, and women will die.
We will not--we cannot--we cannot back away from the fight to protect
women's reproductive freedom. I will always stand with women, and I
will always stand with our right to choose.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CARPER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Military Promotions

Mr. CARPER. Madam President, as some of our colleagues know, I am a
retired Navy captain and the last Vietnam veteran serving in the U.S.
Senate. Today, I want to take a couple of minutes, if I could, to share
what military service has meant to my family and to me and to discuss
one of the critical lessons that we should have learned with the
failure to welcome home many of my generation from our service while in
the Vietnam war.
I come from a family who for several generations--for several
generations--has sacrificed for our country and has been privileged to
serve our country. My dad and Uncle Jim were chief petty officers in
the Navy in World War II. My dad went on to serve a bit in Southeast
Asia during the Vietnam war. My Uncle Ed was a marine who served in
combat, heavy combat, in Korea. My Uncle Bob was killed in a kamikaze
attack on his aircraft carrier in the Pacific at the age of 19. His
body was never recovered. My grandmother was a Gold Star mother. In my
family, we bleed Navy blue.
My father's generation returned home to a hero's welcome at the end
of World War II, but that was not the case for those of us who returned
home from the Vietnam war many years later. With little fanfare, no
welcome-home ceremonies, no parades, we returned to our hometowns to
begin our lives anew, and we did, in some cases, with extraordinarily
good fortune, and I am one of those.
In the years since then, I have witnessed a growing willingness from
people across our country to atone for the kind of welcome home my
generation received and to make clear that our service is now
appreciated--fully appreciated. It is a wonderful feeling.
But for a good part of this year, we have once again failed to treat
hundreds of our best and brightest military leaders with the respect
and gratitude they deserve and have earned by their service.
The situation manufactured by our colleague from Alabama to block the
promotions of hundreds of well-deserving military officers is
unprecedented, it is unwarranted, and I believe it is shameful.
For nearly a year, he has jeopardized our national security and
thrust the lives of some 450 military servicemembers and their
families--put their lives in limbo. These families have been stuck both
physically and professionally. They have been unable to move to new
assignments at home and abroad, where they will assume their new
responsibilities. Military spouses have been unable to find new jobs,
and their children have been unable to continue their education in new
schools.
While I was relieved that the majority of these remarkable men and
women were finally able to accept their promotions recently, there are
still 11 four-star officers and their families who are suffering
because of the actions of one of our colleagues.
By using the lives of our military servicemembers and their families
as a bargaining chip, we are failing to learn from history and once
again disrespecting the sacrifices they have made for our Nation.
What kind of message does this send to our veterans across this
country, to our men and women in all service branches who have served
in some cases for decades? It is unacceptable. What kind of message
does this send to countries around the world about how we treat those
defending democracy every single day?
Moreover, the actions of our colleagues may deter potential recruits
from joining the ranks of our military during a time when we are
working especially hard to recruit and retain talented servicemembers.
As we go into the holiday season, every military family--every
military family--deserves peace of mind. Yet, today, there are still 11
extremely deserving and well-qualified officers whose families continue
to face uncertainty. I will repeat: It is unacceptable, it is
unwarranted, it is shameful, and it must end.
Today, I urge our colleague from Alabama to think again about what is
really at stake. Strong leadership is vital to our national security,
and we cannot undercut senior leaders of our Armed Forces without
jeopardizing our democracy.
To our colleague from Alabama, let me just say this: Please, please
lift your hold. Let's learn from mistakes of our past. Give these 11
officers and their families the respect they also deserve, along with a
truly happy holiday and a promising new year.
With that, I yield the floor.
I note that we have been joined by my friend and colleague from Iowa,
Senator Grassley.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.

Securing the U.S. Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network Act

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, the organ transplant business and
network governance has been in shambles for decades, and people have
needlessly died because of it, and we have passed very good legislation
unanimously to correct it.
So I come to the Senate floor because I have very serious concerns
about the Biden administration's implementation of H.R. 2544. That
legislation goes by the title of Securing the U.S. Organ Procurement
and Transplantation Network Act. I am joined by a colleague who has
worked really hard on this issue, Senator Moran of Kansas, who will
also give his views on this issue. He worked with me and championed
this very important issue.
On September 22 of this year, this legislation, H.R. 2544, was signed
into law by this President. In less than 3 months, the Health Resources
and Services Administration of the Department of Health and Human
Services is already ignoring congressional intent while asking
Congress--can you believe it--for money to implement the law, and it is
presumably to implement the law contrary to what the legislation
requires.
Now, I am proud to have been a cosponsor of this very important
bipartisan piece of legislation. We fought alongside patient
organizations that knew this whole setup, for decades, was not working
the way it should. We did this with the hope and expectation that we
would have real competition to manage our organ donation system.
Congress unanimously passed the bill, as I said before, and we were
able to do it despite attempts by a lot of people within the 40-year-
old organization that runs this program that tried to kill it with what
we call around here poison-pill amendments. And that point is very
important because we didn't adopt any of those amendments. Yet we see
some of those amendments' approaches being now promoted by this
administration in the implementation of this bill.
These potential poison-pill amendments would have prevented
competition in our organ donation system, and we felt that competition
was what we needed, instead of the monopolistic approaches that had
existed for decades. And you can imagine these amendments were pushed--
yes--by the same nonprofit monopolies that have called the shots in our
Nation's failed organ donation system for the last 40 years.
So here is where we are within just 3 short months after the passing
of what we thought was real reform. Now, the Health Resources and
Services Administration of HHS, led by Administrator Carole Johnson,
has attempted to restrict competition right out of the gate by
inserting, via contracting process, the very poison pills that Congress
kept out of the law. For example, that Agency announced plans to
install the existing United Network for Organ Sharing board--the one
that has been running the show--as the new, so-called independent
board.
Regarding limiting competition for the board contract, Agency
officials

[[Page S5941]]

told my staff and staff from other congressional offices: the Agency
can place restrictions on any contracts, including the IT contract.
Again, the purpose of this legislation was to create competition, not
stifle it with government restrictions and sweetheart deals. My
bipartisan oversight over the years has shown that the United Network
for Organ Sharing IT system is failing at every level. I have heard
from patient groups and leaders with these very same concerns.
These patient advocacy organizations are rightfully concerned that
HHS, today, is caving to bad actors who have been running our Nation's
organ donation system since 1986. The president of the Global Liver
Institute wrote: I never imagined that industry could so quickly
dictate the terms of the law's implementation.
The National Kidney Foundation wrote that these proposals ``continue
to empower those who have been responsible for the problems that have
plagued the transplant system.''
From what my staff has been told, Health Resources and Services
Administration officials have threatened the very patient groups
writing those letters to me and other Members of Congress. The Health
Resources and Services Administration allegedly told some of these
patient groups to retract their letters of concern and that their
letters were a lie.
All of this is unacceptable--and should be to the 100 Members of this
body who passed this legislation unanimously. I started working to fix
our Nation's corrupt, broken organ donation system way back in 2005.
Since then, more than 200,000 Americans have needlessly died on the
transplant waiting list, disproportionately for people of color and
people of rural America.
Patients and Congress fought for this legislation. Now, HHS, under
this administration, needs to implement this law in the interest of
patients. Patients' lives depend on it--200,000 lives over 40 years
lost because of how this organization has distributed or lost or a
hundred other ways you can say the organ not getting to the patient it
was intended.

Maladministration by the organ network must stop, and it looks to me
like HHS wants to keep it going as it is and prevent and stand in the
way of this important piece of legislation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
Mr. MORAN. Madam President, this is a sad day. When we thought we had
a victory for those across the Nation who are awaiting an organ for
transplant, we found that they were thwarted by a system that was
allied against them--a corrupt system, an internal system that worked
to their detriment and not to their well-being.
And we thought, with the passage of this legislation--signed into law
by President Biden--that we were finally giving those waiting for a
transplant something called hope, something that is so important to
them and their family members waiting on a kidney, waiting on a liver.
The only pleasure I take in today's conversation on this Senate floor
is that I am allied with Senator Grassley, the senior Senator from
Iowa, who is one of the most effective Members of this body in our
country's history. He has been an advocate, and we successfully worked
together along with a number of our colleagues--Republicans and
Democrats--to reform this corrupt system. And I join my colleague
Senator Grassley in voicing serious concerns regarding the way the
Health Resources and Services Administration is implementing this piece
of legislation, the legislation called Securing the U.S. Organ
Procurement and Transplantation Network Act.
It was an amazing effort to right a wrong when we started down this
path with this legislation. Nothing was easy. There was no cooperation
from HHS or from OPTN. The only thing they did was try to keep us from
having any success in reforming the sweetheart circumstance in which
they operate.
I remember the day in which the Secretary of Health and Human
Services, in front of our Appropriations Committee, conceded that we
were right and that we had won the battle and he was our ally in fixing
the problem. But now, a few shorts months later, it is evident that
that is not the case when it comes to the implementation of the law.
It is not unclear. Certainly, the organizations that we were trying
to dismantle and replace with better services without a bias--
certainly, they knew what we were about. They know the intent of the
legislation, and we know the letter of the law.
My involvement in OPTN reform stemmed from concerns with the 2018
liver allocation rule HHS developed with guidance from the Nation's
Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network, UNOS, and some New
England-area organ procurement organizations.
The liver allocation rule that they developed led to organs being
taken from areas of high donation rates, like Kansas and other rural
areas, to areas with low donation rates, like densely populated urban
areas. It meant that people across the country were waiting longer for
a transplant. It meant that, in that waiting period, people died; loved
ones were gone. Not only was the liver allocation rule egregious, it
demonstrated a bias of UNOS, which has had a monopoly on the organ
transplant network contract for years.
As more documents were released through court rulings--this issue
went to court--judges ordered UNOS to respond. Those responses
demonstrated, in evidence, incompetence and bias. It became apparent to
Congress and to thousands of Americans whose lives depended upon
receiving an organ someday--an organ transplant--that something was
terribly amiss.
Over the past year, Senator Grassley and I, along with other Senate
colleagues, have worked to make the congressional intent behind this
legislation as clear as possible. No one opposed this legislation, but
even if you disagreed with something, every Senator ought to insist
that Federal Agencies implement the law as it is spoken in the letter
of the law and, if any confusion, to look at the intent of the law.
Every Senator ought to demand that of every piece of legislation and
every Agency or Department.
Our goals were good: to increase the competition for this contract,
to eliminate this good-old-boy network, and to eliminate UNOS's
influence on OPTN. Unfortunately, in roundtables and committee
hearings, both HRSA Administrator Carole Johnson and the HHS Secretary
affirmed their understanding of Congress's intent. That is not the
unfortunate part. It is that they affirmed it but now don't live by it.
They assured us that they shared our goals of increasing competition
for OPTN bids and removing the abundance of conflicts of interest.
As HRSA starts this process of implementing the bill, it has become
clear what they told us must be not what they meant. HRSA has decided
that competition for the broad support contract will be restricted
based upon attack status. That does not ensure fair, robust
competition; it narrows the field and makes it much more likely we have
the same system we had before. It is clearly contrary to Congress's
clear direction.
Additionally, HRSA has named the current UNOS board members as
members of the new ``independent'' board. With these announcements,
HRSA has made it clear they do not intend to follow the law. Instead,
HRSA has decided to remain in lockstep with UNOS, an organization that
is proven--completely proven--to be undeserving of running our Nation's
transplant program.
This isn't just some bureaucracy that is doing something that doesn't
make sense to us. This is an Agency, a bureaucracy, a system, that is
damaging the capability of Kansans and Americans to get lifesaving
treatment with the transplant of an organ.
I expect, I ask, I insist, demand, HRSA to resolve our concerns by
working with us in a timely fashion to implement the bill according to
congressional intent, according to the letter of the law, and ensuring
that UNOS does not maintain its dangerous stronghold over the network.
Congress passed this legislation because we knew that thousands of
lives were at stake--thousands of lives of Americans who were on a
waiting list to receive lifesaving organs.
This law requires a transparent, competitive contract process. But
HRSA must get it right. The American people deserve a fair and
effective organ-transplant process that saves lives and

[[Page S5942]]

best serves patients who are waiting for an organ.
I can't think--again, it saddens me so much to know the number of
people who thanked us, who contacted us to tell us thank you for giving
us hope that we will have an organ to transplant to save the lives of
our mother, our father, our sister, our brother, our grandparents. What
better time of the year than this holiday season--this Christmas
season--in which we ought to restore that great gift called hope to
these people who wait today for a better answer than what we see to
date from our Department of Health and Humans Services.
I, again, thank Senator Grassley for his leadership. I appreciate the
opportunity I have had to work with him side by side. I commend him for
his work that predates me--all for the well-being of people from his
State; Madam President, your State; the people of my State; the people
of America.
Please, please do this in a way that saves lives and gives hope for a
better future for all Americans.
Mr. GRASSLEY. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.

Defense Spending

Mrs. FISCHER. Madam President, our first session of the 118th
Congress is coming to a close. But in the flurry of last-minute
legislating, I want to call attention to one of the most important
stories that I have read this year.
Now, I don't want to ruin anyone's Christmas, but this isn't good
news. It is deeply sobering.
The Wall Street Journal article titled ``Alarm Grows Over Weakened
Militaries and Empty Arsenals in Europe'' is what I would like to talk
about. And here is how it begins:

The British military--the leading U.S. military ally and
Europe's biggest defense spender--has only around 150
deployable tanks and perhaps a dozen serviceable long-range
artillery pieces. So bare was the cupboard that last year the
British military considered sourcing multiple rocket
launchers from museums to upgrade and donate [those then] to
Ukraine, an idea that was dropped.
France, the next biggest spender, has fewer than 90 heavy
artillery pieces, equivalent to what Russia loses roughly
every month on the Ukraine battlefield. Denmark has no heavy
artillery, submarines or air-defense systems. Germany's army
has enough ammunition for two days of battle.

The war in Ukraine has exposed just how serious our friends'
readiness and supply problems are.
Think about what I said. The largest defense spender in Europe has
considered raiding museums for scraps of usable equipment. When it
comes to heavy artillery, Russia blows through France's entire arsenal
every month. At least, Germany is prepared to do battle, as long as the
war doesn't last longer than a 3-day weekend.
Europe's ``bare cupboards'' problem began many years ago at the end
of the Cold War, when European nations began slashing defense budgets
and drawing down troop numbers. Amazingly, the dire situation today is
actually an improvement from 10 years ago. Since Russia's invasion of
Crimea in 2014, the European Union has increased defense spending by 20
percent.

That is not nearly enough, and it has virtually nothing compared to
our adversaries. Russia's spending increased by 300 percent and China's
by almost 600 percent over the same time period.
European nations still rely on the military strength of the United
States, which was responsible for 70 percent of NATO defense spending
last year. But last year, America's defense spending was 3.1 percent of
GDP, which is very nearly the lowest since the Second World War. Even
if you add in the aid to Taiwan, Israel, and Ukraine, America's defense
spending would still be far, far below 4.6 percent of GDP--the amount
spent during the height of Iraq and Afghanistan operations in 2010.
Although it is on the lower end historically, increasing spending
isn't the U.S. military's only concern. The past few decades show that
we are unprepared to increase munitions production at the scale and at
the speed to win a large war. In the Gulf and in the Iraq wars, it took
over 2 years for our munitions procurement and deliveries to reach the
necessary levels. And once these crises ended and demand for munitions
dropped, we again sidelined production and we cut our workforce.
We need to build up the weapons stockpiles required to deter or, if
necessary, fight and win a conflict against a peer adversary. To do so,
we must commit to sustained increases in munitions and weapons
production. Tools like multiyear procurement authority for additional
munitions, which we included in this year's NDAA, can contribute to
that long-term stability.
This boom-and-bust cycle we have of production has put the United
States dangerously behind adversaries like China and Russia, whose
capacity to build and replace equipment far outpace ours right now.
Take, for example, a war game that was recently conducted by the
Center for Strategic and International Studies. In the hypothetical
scenario where war breaks out over Taiwan, China could replace lost
naval ships three times as quickly as the United States.
And if Russia wins in Ukraine, it could rearm itself completely--
completely--in 3 to 4 years. The nation's finance ministry estimates
that national defense spending will grow to 6 percent of its economic
output next year, increasing by 2 percent. That 6 percent would be the
highest level since the downfall of the Soviet Union.
The U.K. has gone the opposite direction. The nation hasn't had a
fully deployable army in over 30 years. And its defense spending is
stuck at 2.2 percent. Britain has pledged to increase that number by a
meager .3 percent--but only when economic conditions allow.
And, unfortunately, industrial capacity will always lag behind
spending. Even if Britain and other nations of Europe massively
increase defense spending today, it would be years before we see that
spending translated into an increase in production capacity. And, by
then, it could be too late.
A new axis is forming. Russia and China have pledged new levels of
cooperation, and both have humming military production machines.
Our allies must invest more in their defense. They must prepare
themselves for what is coming. But they will not be alone.
Russia's war on Ukraine has highlighted a weakness in our collective
security. When the next crisis arises, NATO will be unequipped to
respond. But we cannot allow our alliance to remain unprepared.
Instead, we must make the necessary sustained investments--and we must
start making them now.
The United States must do everything in our power to accelerate our
own production. And we must strongly encourage Europe to do the same.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.

Radiation Exposure Compensation Act

Mr. CRAPO. Madam President, I rise today to urge the Senate to do
more for Americans who have suffered from the aftereffects of the
development of our nuclear arsenal. It is profoundly disappointing to
see that the necessary updates to the Radiation Exposure Compensation
Act, spearheaded by Senators Lujan, Hawley, Schmitt, and myself, were
not included in the conference report of the National Defense
Authorization Act.
When America developed the atom bomb through the Manhattan Project
and tested those weapons through the Trinity tests, our country
unknowingly poisoned those who mined, transported, and milled uranium,
those who participated in nuclear testing, and those who lived downwind
of the tests.
Don Harrison was one of those who lived downwind. Born in Emmett, ID,
Don was born in 1931 and graduated from Emmett High School in 1949. He
served in the U.S. Army from 1950 to 1953, came back to Emmett to marry
the love of his life Donna, and worked as a farmer, dairy deliveryman,
mechanic, and truckdriver to provide for his nine children.
His family describes him as a loving father who taught the values of
hard work and integrity and to see the worth and light in others. But
because Emmett received the third most radiation from being downwind of
the Trinity tests, Don Harrison lived on poisoned ground. He ended up
contracting basal cell carcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma, colon
cancer, prostate cancer, and lung cancer and eventually passed away in
2018.
His daughter Vonnie shared his story with the Idaho Downwinders, with
my staff, and me in the hopes of finally

[[Page S5943]]

righting the wrongs of leaving downwinders behind. Don Harrison was one
of the thousands in Gem County, ID, alone and beyond who were
unfortunately living in an area downwind of the Trinity tests.
This is not a matter just affecting conservative or liberal States.
The bipartisan nature of the RECA updates is because it affects people
regardless of political affiliation.
To be clear, the government's test of nuclear weapons caused this. It
is our solemn duty to compensate those who have suffered because of
these tests. The RECA amendments ensure that those who live downwind of
the tests receive compensation from the government and provide support
to uranium miners who worked during the Cold War.
I have worked with my colleagues for the past 13 years to attempt to
right these wrongs, and July's vote to include RECA amendments in the
Senate version of the National Defense Authorization Act shows the
widespread bipartisan support to help those who have suffered. But it
is frustrating and discouraging that bipartisan support from both
Chambers of Congress still cannot get this legislation enacted into
law.
While this speech is unlikely to bring the necessary updates back
into consideration with this conference report, I am committed to
working with my colleagues to update RECA to better reflect the
realities of nuclear testing.
I thank Senators Lujan and Hawley and Representatives Moylan and
Leger Fernandez for their tireless work, as well as the countless
advocates who have shared their stories to achieve this necessary goal.
This fight is not over, and I look forward to the day when we can
celebrate the necessary updates and commemorate those who did not live
to see it.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Rosen). The majority leader.

Order of Business

Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that at 5 p.m.,
Senator Paul or his designee be recognized to make a rule XXVIII scope
point of order; that, if raised, Senator Reed be recognized to make a
motion to waive; and that if the waiver is successful, all postcloture
time be considered expired and the Senate vote on the adoption of the
conference report; finally, that there be 2 minutes equally divided
before each vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Baldwin). The junior Senator from
Kentucky.

Unanimous Consent Request--S. Res. 336

Mr. PAUL. Madam President, most of Europe--indeed, most of the
civilized world--does not require three COVID vaccines for adolescents.
We are admonished by those on the left to follow the science. The
science is pretty clear on this as well. The FDA committee on vaccines,
as well as the CDC committee on vaccines, voted, and they said that it
would be advisable--not a mandate, but that it would be advisable--to
give a booster vaccine to those 65 and older. Adolescents were never
addressed in this.
In fact, one of the members of the committee, Paul Offit, is a
renowned scientist--infectious disease, Philadelphia Children's
Hospital. He is pro all vaccines. He is pro the COVID vaccine. I think
he probably doesn't even have trouble with the mandate, and yet he said
the risks to the vaccine for adolescents are greater than the risk of
the disease.
We address diseases based on the individual and who they are and what
their risks are. You base the risks and benefits of treatment versus
the disease.
The risks of COVID, particularly in 2021, for a 70-year-old, were
maybe a thousand times more than for a teenager. In fact, when we have
looked at some countries' statistics, the entire country of Germany had
no deaths among healthy children between the ages of 5 and 17.
If you take out children who are very, very ill in our country and
look at only healthy children, there is no measurable risk of dying
from COVID in our country for the youth. Yet we still have a policy
here, and this policy originated not with scientists nor with the
scientific committee. The policy that they are adhering to here to
force our Senate pages to have three vaccines actually comes from
political appointees in the Biden administration.
It is not just a fact or a matter of whether or not the vaccine is of
benefit to them. It is also a question of whether or not the vaccine is
actually potentially harmful to them. We do know that there is a side
effect to the vaccine, particularly in young people--particularly boys,
but it can happen in girls--primarily between the ages of 14 and 24. We
know that that risk increases with each successive vaccine because kids
have a stronger immune response. We know this because even the CDC
recommended that if you just had COVID recently, you shouldn't get a
COVID vaccine because you have already gotten a heightened immune
response from the disease itself.
But we know with certainty that none of the vaccine committees
recommended that Senate pages have three vaccines. Yet that is still
the policy.
We finally have come to the realization that almost everybody has
either been vaccinated or had COVID and that, actually, natural
immunity is about five times more potent than the vaccine.
We finally have come to a sensible policy with regard to our
military. We are no longer mandating the COVID vaccine in the military.
Yet one of the few places left on the planet where we are mandating it
is in the Senate.
Now, admittedly, there are not that many Senate pages. But should we
be lacking in science and ignoring the science to force them to do
something that is actually potentially deleterious to their health.
Even the council for the District of Columbia recently voted
unanimously to repeal the requirement that students receive a COVID-19
shot to attend public school.
Some on the other side will say: Well, we need to force the Senate
pages to take these three vaccines because that is what the DC schools
are doing.
The DC schools are no longer doing this.
The entire world admits that the vaccine does not stop transmission.
So you can't make this indirect argument: We need to vaccinate them to
save the old Senators. That is not true. It doesn't stop transmission.
We do believe that still, for vulnerable crowds, vulnerable age
groups--over 65--there may be some reduction in hospitalization and
death. There is no measurable benefit for adolescents, and there
actually is a greater risk of myocarditis from the vaccine--admittedly
still not a high risk but about between 4 and 6 out of 15,000--of an
inflammation of the heart. But we do know the risk for a child or for
an adolescent--a Senate page--dying is zero. If they have particular
health problems and they want to take a vaccine, nobody is stopping
them, but we shouldn't be mandating something that the science doesn't
support.
So just before Thanksgiving, the Mayor of DC actually signed the
legislation that gets rid of DC's mandate. There is no more excuse that
the DC schools are requiring this. The council and Mayor of one of the
most liberal cities in the United States are all of one mind: We have
had enough of COVID vaccine mandates. We have had enough of students
missing school for noncompliance. We have had enough of kids falling
behind in their studies for the sake of a misguided mandate. Yet, to
become a Senate page, you still to this day must get a COVID-19 booster
shot. This requirement in the Senate persists despite the fact that
study after study demonstrates that the risks posed by the vaccine for
young and healthy people are greater than the risks posed by COVID. In
addition, all sides acknowledge that the vaccines do not prevent
transmission.
Study after study shows that it makes no sense to mandate COVID
vaccinations for teenagers who are healthy and that such a mandate
could be dangerous.
A myocarditis study published last year in the Journal of the
American Medical Association Cardiology examined 23 million people ages
12 and up across Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden. This study of 23
million people found that after 2 doses of an mRNA vaccine, the risk of
myocarditis was higher compared with being unvaccinated and higher
after the second dose of the vaccine.

[[Page S5944]]

Almost all of the myocarditis came after the second vaccine. With
each vaccine, it increases the risk because the kids, or younger
people, make an amazingly strong immune reaction to the vaccine. The
risk was highest among males ages 16 to 24.
That is why many of us argued until we were blue in the face that
mandating it for our young soldiers was wrong and actually malpractice.
We finally did succeed in removing that mandate, and that was actually
passed by both Houses of Congress and signed by the President. Yet the
same risk exists for the Senate pages, and the mandate continues.
This is exactly why several European countries--including Germany,
France, Finland, Sweden, Denmark, and Norway--all restrict the use of
mRNA vaccines for COVID for young people. Yet the policy for Senate
pages blindly commands vaccines for young, healthy people.
A study published in December 2022 in the Journal of Medical Ethics
found that per 100,000 third doses of mRNA vaccine, up to 14.7 cases of
myocarditis may be caused in males ages 18 to 29. Up to 80 percent of
those diagnosed with vaccine-induced myocarditis or pericarditis
continued to struggle with cardiac inflammation more than 3 months
after receiving a second dose.
Also in December 2022, Dr. Vinay Prasad and Dr. Benjamin Knudsen
published a review in the European Journal of Clinical Investigation
that examined 29 studies across 3 continents. Madam President, 6 of the
29 studies showed that after 2 doses of an mRNA vaccine, more than 1 in
10,000 males between the ages of 12 and 24 would experience
myocarditis.
A study published the same month in the Annals of Internal Medicine
found that, regardless of sex, among those ages 5 to 39, myocarditis or
pericarditis occurred in 1 in every 50,000 after a first booster.
With statistics like that, why would anyone think that it is a good
idea to insist upon boosters for our young pages, who are in their
early teenage years?
It is the height of malpractice to subject young people to the
greater risk of vaccination simply to satisfy the hunger for mandates.
But even the bureaucrats are finding that they can no longer credibly
impose COVID mandates. There is a growing movement among scientists and
doctors across the country to think more rationally about this.
We have always had this. For example, the flu vaccine was never
mandated on children. Children survived the flu and developed immunity.
How long does your immunity last? Curiously, they found a woman who had
survived the Spanish flu who was still alive just a couple of years
ago. She actually still had antibodies to the Spanish flu although it
had been nearly 100 years since she was infected. We know that people
who had the first SARS in 2002 and 2003 still have antibodies nearly 20
years later.
People have learned to live with COVID. Even the DC Council, which
governs one of the most liberal, mandate-happy cities in the country,
knows that their constituents will no longer tolerate mandates,
particularly those imposed on children, but the Senate COVID vaccine
mandate remains.
Will this mandate continue indefinitely, and if so, based on what
data? What if someone can come let's say 5 years from now and say: I
have had COVID 15 times, and the last 8 times, it was minor cold
symptoms. Yet you are still mandating I take a vaccine that doesn't
stop transmission and has no benefit to hospitalization or death for
young people?
You know, when they approved the booster for kids--it was never
recommended, but they approved it for kids--they could not come up with
data showing reduced hospitalization or death. Why? Because young
people aren't going to the hospital or dying from COVID. They simply
have it from the beginning, and they don't now.
The only way they could actually try to prove efficacy--and not
really efficacy but to prove some kind of effect from giving a
booster--is they said: If you give these kids a vaccine, they will make
antibodies.
Well, my response to that is, you can give them 100 vaccines, you can
give them 1,000 vaccines, and they will make antibodies every time.
That is proof of the concept of the way vaccines work, but it doesn't
mean you have to or need a vaccine.
Public health measures should be backed up with proof that the
benefits outweigh the burdens. There is no evidence of that when it
comes to vaccination and booster mandates, especially for teenagers,
who, as a group, are less vulnerable to this virus than any Senator. In
fact, it is a little-known fact but absolutely true that the seasonal
flu, or influenza, is more deadly than COVID for people in the
``young'' category. In the category for the age of the Senate pages,
the seasonal flu is more deadly than COVID.

Now, this isn't to downplay COVID; it is just to say that COVID had a
very targeted mortality and lethality. Its target was generally over
65. It was also those who are obese at almost any age. But it
specifically was not fatal for young, healthy people.
I merely ask that the Senate open its eyes to what several other
countries are doing, what the rest of the country sees: that COVID
vaccine mandates on children are harmful, counterproductive, and must
be put to an end. That is why I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
pass my resolution to end all COVID-related vaccination mandates for
pages who serve in the Chamber.
So therefore I ask, Madam President, unanimous consent that the
Committee on Rules and Administration be discharged from consideration
and the Senate now proceed to S. Res. 336; further, that the resolution
be agreed to and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and
laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The junior Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. MURPHY. Madam President, this is the third time that Senator Paul
has made this unanimous consent request. It is the third time that I
will come down to the floor to object.
We can continue to use the Senate's time to have this debate and
argument or we can use our time more wisely and focus on topics that
matter a little bit more to the American public than the vaccination
policy for Senate pages.
I wish Senator Paul would stop dragging these hard-working Senate
pages into his relentless campaign against vaccine science. I think it
is pretty unsavory. These young men and women do a really good,
important job for us, and to be dragged into the middle of Senator
Paul's focus on trying to unwind and undermine vaccine science I don't
think is good for the Senate, and I don't think it is good for the
Nation's public health.
CNN reported earlier this year that COVID-19 is a leading cause of
death for children in the United States. It is a fairly low mortality
rate--Senator Paul is right--but there are children all over the
country who have died from COVID-19. That is a fact. It is one of the
leading causes of death for children over the course of the last 4 to 5
years.
So I do take seriously the idea that, as adults, we have a
responsibility to protect the health and the safety of young people who
come work for us, especially minors who are here under our care and
protection. We owe a special duty of care to young people, students,
who come and work in the U.S. Senate.
So, no, I do not think that the Senate should micromanage Senate
employee health policy or the policy related to the healthcare and
healthcare security of our pages. I think that we should allow that
decision to be made by professionals. We are not vaccine scientists. We
are not spending the entirety of our day thinking about the healthcare
security of the workforce here in the Senate.
But I have two other reasons why I continue to object to this and I
will continue to come down and object to this resolution.
First, Senator Paul says that the existing vaccine is not effective
against transmission, and I won't dispute the fact that this vaccine is
not primarily being used to prevent transmission. But this is a
permanent resolution. This resolution doesn't apply only to this moment
in time. It doesn't apply to this vaccine or to this strain of COVID-
19.
If next year there was a strain of COVID-19 and a vaccine that was
more effective against transmission, then

[[Page S5945]]

there is no method by which we could require Senate pages to be
vaccinated as a means of protecting the rest of us.
So the facts that Senator Paul references are relative to this strain
and this vaccine, but this is a permanent resolution. It controls the
Senate and Senate health policy permanently. But more importantly, all
of the facts that Senator Paul references in terms of the low risk to
children are all conditioned by a phrase that he, to his credit,
continues to reference: that there is a low risk for young and healthy
children. He said: If you just take out sick children--if you just take
out sick children--then there is really nothing to worry about.
I don't think Senator Paul has access to the medical records of every
single page who is working for us. Neither do I. But I can take a guess
that there are probably young people who come work for us who have
preexisting conditions, who have underlying health complications that
might actually make them more significantly at risk.
Senator Paul will say: Well, that should be up to them. Well, we have
a duty of care as their employer to make sure that when they are here,
they are secure and they are healthy.
So I don't think you can just write this off, write the risk to the
pages off by saying that if you are healthy, you are fine. You don't
know the medical history of all these young people. There can be and
likely is a risk of serious health complications.
Even if you come to the conclusion that that shouldn't be the
responsibility of the Senate, to require the vaccine, this resolution
is permanent. So even if you get a future vaccine that is more
effective against transmission, this resolution controls.
So I will continue to come down here and object to this. I continue
to be saddened by the fact that Senator Paul brings our pages over and
over again into this debate that he wants the Senate to have over
vaccine science.
For that reason, I would object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The junior Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. PAUL. Nothing in our proposal bans future vaccines. So it is a
spurious argument to say that somehow, this would prevent a future
vaccine. Ten years from now Ebola erupts, and everybody is getting
Ebola, and we have a great vaccine--nothing prevents that.
Now, he mentioned whether or not the children, the kids, the
teenagers, might have a preexisting condition. We don't know that; you
are right. So the people who take care of minors are their parents, and
they would make a decision.
Nothing in this resolution prevents anybody from getting a vaccine.
In fact, I would recommend you ask your doctor. That is the way you are
supposed to do it: Ask your doctor and your parents and decide whether
you need a vaccine. So, really, there are no real arguments here being
made.
It is important to know that no one would be prevented from getting a
vaccine, and no one would be prevented from having a new vaccine policy
later on.
The question of who is dying from this is an important one because
the question is whether for healthy kids, whether the risks of the
vaccine are greater than the risks of the disease.
This is something people are going to have different conclusions on.
But the science shows at this point that the risks of the vaccine are
greater than the risks of the disease for healthy kids.
Now, if your kid is not healthy or had a kidney transplant and you
want to talk it over with their doctor, by all means they can get a
vaccine if they want. But realize that the other kids getting vaccines
is not protecting your child because the vaccines don't stop
transmission.
And this is admitted by everyone. Even the Biden administration
admits this. Everyone admits they don't stop transmission.
So what we are doing here is going against all science. We are going
against all freedom. We are taking the freedom away from our Senate
pages and their parents to make this decision. And we are actually
using faulty science. The two main vaccine committees that have looked
at this voted to recommend this for only people over 65, where the
evidence was that in that age group the risks of the disease were
greater than the risks of the vaccine. I acknowledge that.
For children, teenagers, for adolescents, it is the opposite. The
risks of the vaccine, while small, actually exceed the risk of the
disease, which are virtually zero, if not zero, for healthy kids.
And so I find it elitist. I find it the height of arrogance that some
people will want to make those decisions for others. In a free country,
each individual should be allowed to make these decisions. You
shouldn't have some nonscientist Senator coming forward and saying: You
must do as I tell you, particularly when all of the science actually
goes against that at this point.
But even if you disagreed with my point of view, I am not here to
tell you that you have to take my point of view. Go get a vaccine for
your kids if you want.
But the interesting thing is, people are smarter than you think they
are. If you look at the statistics on vaccines, there will be people
lamenting: Oh, if we only had more people vaccinated, we would have
done so much better.
It is, actually, really not true. Over age 65, it is somewhere
between 97 and 98 percent of people over 65 who chose to get
vaccinated. People read the news. People are smarter than you think.
People see someone their age dying, and they are like, I think I might
get vaccinated.
But do you know how many people are vaccinating their teenagers? It
is about 3 percent because people are reading the news that teenagers
don't die from this disease. They also know that kids probably had
COVID-19 already. They may have already had the test.
And what we do know from looking at millions of people in large
studies, that if you have had COVID, your protection from getting it
again or getting seriously ill is about 5 times better than the
vaccine.

Now, that is not an argument for not getting the vaccine if you are
in an elderly category or if you are in a high-risk category. But it is
certainly an argument against getting it if you are a young person and
you have already had COVID and now you are being forced to get this.
The other thing is, is the current Senate policy and page policy
isn't taking into account the fact that if one of the pages had COVID 2
weeks ago and now they want to be a page and we won't let them come up,
are they advising getting a vaccine if they only had COVID 2 weeks ago?
I don't think there is any allowance for that. That is actually against
medical advice to take a vaccine very quickly after you have already
had COVID, because their immune response is so extraordinary, they get
a heightened response. And that is when you get this overlap or
overlay, which causes an inflammation of the heart.
So what I would find today is that the Flat Earth Society still just
wants you to do as you are told. The Flat Earth Society doesn't believe
in your medical freedom. And, yes, we will come back--and I will
continue to come back--until some sense is finally jogged into the
minds of those who want you to blindly just do as they are told--do as
you are told, don't think about it, don't make your own decisions, do
as you are told.
I think that form of elitism and arrogance will eventually backfire
because there are a lot of people out there who made the decision that,
you know what, I am not vaccinating my child because it is still under
emergency use; it has some unknowns; and I know my kids have already
had COVID. And I don't see any kids dying from COVID unless they are
extraordinarily ill.
When the Senator says: Oh, they are the leading cause of death among
children, they all have significant other terminal illnesses. None of
them are healthy children dying from COVID.
Entire countries have released their statistics. There is even more
that the government is hiding from us, frankly. The vast majority of
people over 65 who took at least two vaccines: 97, 98 percent. So if
you have taken two vaccines and you have gotten COVID twice--which is
the average person over 65 because it doesn't stop transmission--you
have had two vaccines and COVID twice, what are your risks of going to
the hospital or dying?
That is what you want to know. Do you need to take a vaccine every 3

[[Page S5946]]

months? Do I want to keep being vaccinated? Tell me what the statistics
show, and I will make a rational decision based on that.
The CDC won't release this because the CDC, essentially, have become
salesmen for Big Pharma. They want you to get vaccinated.
Big Pharma is complaining they are not making enough money on the
vaccine because you are not rushing out to get another vaccine.
Wouldn't you want to know: Am I going to get sick and die if I
already had COVID twice and I have already had two vaccines?
They have the statistics. So all I ask for is there ought to be a
little more consideration for freedom. And I bring this up for the
Senate pages because I do care about their medical freedom. And I care
about their right to be left alone. And this is not the end of this
debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.

____________________