South Dakota radio scene
but he has more than earned his
retirement and I know that he will
relish getting to spend more time with
his wife Cheryl herself just recently
retired from an amazing 43 years with
Farm Credit Services of America and with
his sons and their wives and his six
grandchildren
Jerry congratulations on an incredible
and award-winning career
and enjoy some well-deserved rest
August
mere days after he had signed a bill
that would supposedly reduce the deficit
by 238 billion dollars President Biden
announced a student loan giveaway that
is set to cost taxpayers nearly a
trillion dollars over the next decade in
a presidency distinguished by bad
economic decisions this was a
particularly notable one
there are two main parts to the
president's scheme there's the outright
forgiveness of ten thousand dollars in
federal student debt or twenty thousand
dollars for Pell Grant recipients which
is set to cost American taxpayers
somewhere in the neighborhood of half a
trillion dollars
and then there's the president's radical
revamp of the income driven repayment
system which will bring total costs for
the president's plan to somewhere close
to a trillion dollars Mr President there
are a number of obvious problems with
the president's plan for forgiving
student debt
I say forgiving student debt but it's
more like transforming the cost of
student debt or should say transferring
the cost of student debt from the
relatively small percentage of taxpayers
in this country with student debt two
American taxpayers as a whole
it's something of a slap in the face to
Americans who chose more affordable
college options or work their way
through school to avoid taking on
student loans or whose parents scrimped
and saved to put them through college
it's also a slap in the face to members
of the military who signed up to serve
this country and earned GI Bill benefits
to help with tuition or training not to
mention
that negating this popular benefit could
drag down recruitment and retention
and of course it's deeply unfair to ask
the many Americans who worked hard to
pay off their loans or who never pursued
College in the first place to take on
the burden of student debt for
individuals who took out loans for
college or graduate school and agreed to
pay them back
and let's remember Mr President we're
asking taxpayers at Large
to foot the bill for student loan
cancellation for Americans who enjoy
greater long-term earning potential than
many of the Americans who will be
helping to shoulder the burden for their
debts the present student loan giveaway
isn't a government handout for the needy
it's a government handout that will be
disproportionately beneficial to
Americans who are better off
it's ironic coming from someone who
claims he wants to build the economy
from the bottom up and the middle out
the present student loan giveaway is
decidedly more top down
let's face it and speaking of the
economy Americans continue to struggle
with the effects of the democrat-driven
inflation crisis that has beset our
economy for most of the president's
Administration
prices are up 16 percent on average
since the president took office and
we're nowhere near getting back to the
Target inflation rate of 2 percent
and what is the president's student loan
plan almost guaranteed to do
in the words of the non-partisan
committee for a responsible federal
budget where the president's own
treasury secretary served on the board
the president's student loan giveaway
will and I quote
meaningfully boost inflation
meaningfully boost inflation
well Mr President I've talked about the
Forgiveness part of the president's plan
how unfundamentally unfair it is
but that's only half of the president's
student loan giveaway and the other half
is just as problematic because it sets
up a system in which the majority of
federal borrowers will never fully repay
their loans
the urban Institute Institute a
left-of-center think tank estimates that
just 22 percent of those with bachelor's
degrees enrolled in the president's new
income-driven repayment program
would repay their loans in full
22 percent
and many individuals would never be
required to repay a penny
and who will be footing the bill for all
those student loan dollars that aren't
repaid
well you guessed it the American
taxpayers
and needless to say the president's
income driven repayment plan will not
only fail to curtail student borrowing
it will actually encourage it if you can
reasonably expect that you won't have to
fully pay back your loans you're much
more likely to feel free
to borrow
and to borrow liberally
and of course neither the students or
the presidents I should say outright
student loan forgiveness nor his
forgiveness masquerading as income
driven repayment will do anything to
address the problem of soaring College
costs in fact the president's student
loan giveaway is likely to make the
problem worse
you only have to look at what happened
when Democrats Force through their 7 500
tax credit for Americans who purchase
electric vehicles
car manufacturers not surprisingly raise
their prices by a similar amount
similarly if colleges can expect that
the federal government will pick up a
sizable part of the tab for their
students education they're extremely
unlikely to feel any pressing need to
cut costs or to stop tuition hikes
if anything
colleges might further increase tuition
and fees
Mr president currently the outcome of
the Forgiveness portion of the
president's student loan giveaway
is unclear
the president's legal Authority for this
action is dubious
and his ability to unilaterally forgive
student loans that has been challenged
in the Supreme Court with a decision
expected within weeks
and today
the Senate looks likely to pass a
resolution that would block the
Forgiveness part of the president's
proposal
unfortunately the president is
guaranteed to veto the measure and there
are not enough Democrats in the House
and Senate to be willing to override his
veto
apparently the possibility of garnering
votes from Americans with student debt
is reason enough
for Democrats to ignore the blatantly
regressive nature of the president's
student loan giveaway
and the fact that it will almost
unquestionably worsen the problem of
rising College costs
not to mention the fact that it will
drive up inflation and balloon the
deficit
Mr President I haven't even mentioned
the third part of the president's
student loan Legacy which is the covered
era student loan repayment pause that
President Biden has extended six times
during his presidency with no reasonable
justification
bad pause which has been in place for
three years now cost taxpayers five
billion dollars per month
fortunately this pause is guaranteed to
end thanks to the fiscal responsibility
act the legislation speaker McCarthy and
President Biden agreed on to raise the
debt ceiling
but while the end of the pause is a
victory for taxpayers the savings that
will result pale in comparison to the
tremendous cost of the present student
loan giveaway
and if the Supreme Court
doesn't overturn the Forgiveness portion
of the bike of the president's student
loan giveaway
American taxpayers will be stuck
with the full nearly trillion dollar
bill
there'll be one more negative economic
Legacy from Democrats and the Biden
Administration
Mr President I yield the floor
president senator from Washington thank
you Mr President Mr President I come to
the floor to urge all of my colleagues
to vote against this Republican bill
that would undo President Biden's
student debt relief plan and rip away
relief borrowers across the country are
counting on it is hard to overstate how
badly the student debt crisis has
strained our borrowers and our families
Nationwide and this crisis has been a
drag on our whole country and our
economy it is holding people back from
starting families or starting a business
or buying a home or in many cases just
making ends meet the student debt relief
President Biden announced last fall is
life-changing for so many borrowers
under his plan tens of millions of
people who are struggling with student
debt will finally see their balances go
down and millions will have their debt
wiped out entirely before Republican
interest sued to deny borrowers this
life-changing relief putting president's
plan on pause over 26 million people
across all 50 states had already applied
for or were automatically eligible for
that relief and let's be clear this
relief is targeted to reach those who
need it the most 90 percent of the
relief will go to borrowers earning less
than 75 000 a year
that's such a big deal I've heard from
so many people across my state who were
so grateful and relieved to have a
glimmer of hope finally to see a light
at the end of the tunnel and now
Republicans want to Snuff it out they're
trying to deny relief to borrowers in
court and now here in Congress too
that's what we're voting on today to the
hard-working people in America who are
counting on the student debt relief
listen up Republicans are willing to do
anything and everything to prevent you
from living a life without crushing debt
and let's be clear this Republican bill
wouldn't only rip away relief borrowers
who qualify under the president's plan
that are counting on it this CRA that
we're going to vote on could impact the
pause on loan payments and cause major
problems for borrowers who have received
relief through the Public service loan
forgiveness and income driven repayment
program that means these Republican
efforts could create the perfect storm
for more than 260 thousand Public
Service workers who've already earned
that relief
borrowers who thought they were done
paying their loans may have to pay more
interest or additional payments think
about that you know who we're talking
about nurses and teachers and
firefighters medical researchers
seriously these are the people who keep
America going
the cold hard reality is that if
Republicans are get their way and pass
this into law people across the country
would have relief that they are have
counted on snatched away from them plans
they made will be upended less money in
their pockets and monthly payments not
just abruptly restarted but maybe even
abruptly jacked up hundreds of dollars
that is what Republicans are voting for
it is chaos and hardship for borrowers
and families across this country Mr
President I can't speak for everyone but
I came here to make people's lives
better I didn't come here to punish them
for this broken student loan system that
they got stuck with I cannot overstate
how arcane and complicated and how
broken our current student loan system
is and millions of Americans find
themselves unfairly bogged down with
massive debt so often through no fault
of their own
myself and all six brothers and sisters
of mine got through college thanks to
Federal loans and Aid to Aid programs I
know how much a difference the
president's plan for debt relief will
make for people I know president
Brighton did the right thing here for
borrowers and for our economy this is
not a handout it is a hand up that will
benefit everyone so I urge my colleagues
today to vote against this resolution
that would needlessly hurt millions of
hard-working Americans and let's work
together then to fix this broken debt
student student loan system in this
country thank you Mr President I yield
the floor
Clerk of cauldron
Ms Baldwin
foreign
president senator from California
requested we suspend the Quorum call
without objection okay Mr President I
rise in opposition to these harmful CRA
resolution that would cause tens of
millions of hard-working Americans to
see their monthly budgets get even
further squeezed making it harder to pay
their bills or afford basic necessities
our right to defend one of the largest
efforts to close the racial wealth Gap
in our nation's history
and as a debate uh student debt relief
it would be remarkably tone deaf for
this body to spend an entire debate on a
life-changing student debt forgiveness
plan without acknowledging who it is
that's at the decision-making table
and who's not
most
people consider this uh body the United
States Senate as
being deliberative
many members take pride in this being
the most deliberative body in the world
while we may be deliberative we're
clearly far from diverse or at least far
from reflecting the diversity of our
great nation
most members of this body are decades
removed from when they earned their
undergraduate degrees
and many are at least years if not years
and years removed from even having to
sit down to plan how they would pay for
their kids
college education
so before we even get into the merits of
President Biden's plan to uplift
millions of hard-working Americans I
urge my colleagues to step outside
the senate for a moment
let's step outside of the Senate
and step into the homes of working class
and middle class families across the
country
who see skyrocketing rates of tuition
and wonder if College just isn't for
people like them anymore
step into the family room
of parents praying
that scholarships might make
a college degree possible for their
children
or talk to the student who is just as
smart just as hard working as anybody
else
but because of student loans and higher
interest rates
see the door to higher education as
closed to them
we live in a nation where
the dreams of too many are determined
by their parents paycheck
and in 2023 that means working at middle
class families
with a disproportionate burden on
communities of color by the way
have to risk dangerous levels of debt
just for a chance at achieving their
American Dream
like I remember what it felt like
filling out financial aid forms and
facing the brutal reality that
when I was a looking forward to
attending the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology the cost of tuition alone
was bigger than my dad's W-2
I was only able to make it through
because of Pell Grants
scholarships
work study and yes student loans which
took years to pay off
so I know there'll be a weight of
student debts
and I also know what it's like to start
thinking ahead to prepare my own son's
college education
as it turns out President Biden's plan
is not just good for everybody I
mentioned earlier that it's part of
helping address the racial wealth Gap in
America
What statistic alone
his plan would mean almost half of
Latino borrowers would see their entire
debt forgiven
that's not just liberating that's a wise
investment for all of us
The increased relief for Pell Grants is
part of the plan would uplift
communities of color and cut into the
racial wealth Gap in America tumor
statistics that are worth noting almost
71 percent of black undergraduate
Borrowers
at 65 percent of Latino
students receive this grant
the president's plan will mean that a
generation of students would be able to
begin their careers and build a life
without the weight of student debt
holding them back
in California alone it would bring
relief to over three and a half million
eligible Borrowers
an undeniable boost to our economy and
to families throughout the state
maybe underscore something else about
this CRA it's not just about what it
threatens prospectively
if this program is overturned at this
resolution were to pass
43 million federal student loan
borrowers would have to pay back months
of payments and interest that had been
released
forcing Americans into delinquency or
Worse default
Republicans seem determined to prevent
relief to tens of millions of Americans
despite the fact
that ninety percent of the relief would
go to those earning less than 75 000 a
year
in one Fell Swoop
it would cause Unthinkable confusion and
Chaos for federal student loan borrowers
and made clear that once again
Republicans you're the American dream
as a premium at higher education
as a luxury only for the wealthiest only
for those who can afford it I refuse to
accept that fate I urge my colleagues to
see the real cost of today's CRA on
Working Families
I assure you that the real impact won't
fall on the wealthy families it will be
the Working Families in California and
across the country
whose lives will be fundamentally
altered should we fail them today
thank you Mr President I yield the floor
Mr President Jordy Witt
Mr President this is an historic day in
the annals of the United States Senate
because we are faced with a critical
vote as to whether we can pass the
bipartisan compromise
on spending
our default on our debt for the first
time in history
whether we will fail as a nation for the
first time ever
ever
to pay our bills
there's a strange Construction in the
law
where we can vote in the Senate and in
the house for spending
send it to the president who signs it
into law
go back to our states and districts and
announce in press conferences that we
have millions of dollars coming home
federal dollars back home to our states
and districts
and take credit for it and then not face
the reality that the money that we've
appropriated actually adds to our
national debt
the debt ceiling is the mortgage of the
United States which needs to be expanded
as we spend money
so we reached a point where we had a
deadline first June 1st now June 5th
of doing something in Congress to extend
the nation's mortgage
or default on that mortgage and debts
for the first time in history
there was a ferocious negotiation that
went on for weeks
it was precipitated by the threat of one
person on Capitol Hill
speaker Kevin McCarthy who said I'm
willing to risk defaulting on America's
debt
all the other leaders including the
Republican leader in the Senate and the
Democratic leaders said that is
Unthinkable we would pay a price for
that for generations to come the
reputation of the United States the
value of the United States dollar would
be in danger because of such a
careless and Reckless Act
so a negotiation was underway for the
last few weeks
an agreement was reached to speaker
McCarthy's satisfaction
and it passed the United States House of
Representatives yesterday now it's our
turn in the Senate
we've taken a look at this agreement
first let me say the premise is this
defaulting on our national debt is
unacceptable Unthinkable we cannot let
it occur
so as painful as some of the decisions
that will come from this agreement reach
they are virtually at this point
inevitable to avoid default on our debt
there's one I want to zero in on because
it means so much to everyone in this
nation
and most people don't realize that it's
been part of the debate and negotiation
in this compromise
and that is the question
of America's commitment to medical
research the National Institutes of
Health
is the preeminent medical research
institution in the world in the world
when it comes to discovering cures for
diseases
new medications
it's the National Institutes of Health
and the Food and Drug Administration
which are charged with that
responsibility and we lead the world in
research
I'm such a fan of this agency that I
could speak for a long time about what
they're doing
but suffice it to say that if you are a
member of your family
have a diagnosis from a doctor
that scares you to death one of your
first questions is Doctor is there
anything we can do is there a medicine
is there a surgery is there anything we
can do some of us have asked that
question and we pray that the answer is
yes and we pray that it leads us back to
the NIH and all the work that they put
in
so here's what we face with the budget
agreement that passed the house now
headed to the Senate we ask the experts
on the budget to tell us what's going to
happen to the budget of the National
Institutes of Health the preeminent
medical research agency in the world as
a result of speaker McCarthy's demand
that we cut spending
what will happen is this
we face this Prospect almost with
certainty
we're going to see a cut in the NIH
spending for the first time in 10 years
for 10 years we have consistently
increased research funds and they paid
off
finding that vaccine for covet as
quickly as we did was no accident it was
planned through medical research and it
saved so many thousands of lives here in
the United States and Beyond
so here we face for the first time in 10
years a cut in the budget of the
National Institutes of Health how much
of a cut at least 500 million dollars
500 million dollars
and I stepped back and I thought to
myself
you mean we're going to cut medical
research
that was speaker McCarthy's idea of
fiscal conservatism
that to me is Mindless it may have some
political goal in mind and I don't know
what it might be
but to cut that makes no sense
and let me suggest
if my colleagues want to cut wasteful
spending in federal government and there
is plenty of it
I know one place one obvious place to
start
this projected cut of 500 million
dollars happens to match almost exactly
the amount of money we waste each year
maintaining an offshore military prison
that only serves to violate our
fundamental values and undermine the
rule of law
you probably know what I'm referring to
Guantanamo
in the 21 years since Guantanamo first
opened American taxpayers have wasted
more than 7 billion dollars on that
facility 7 billion
this seven billion dollar Monument to
bureaucracy and failed policy
cost us 500 million dollars a year to
maintain now the same amount we're
cutting for medical research to maintain
Guantanamo so you say to yourself well
if it keeps us safe it's worth it
how many detainees are being held by the
United States of America today at the
Guantanamo facility
30.
30. for 500 million dollars a year
that's almost 17 million dollars per
year per prisoner
Florence Colorado has a Maximum Security
Prison for the United States of America
to maintain those prisoners in that
maximum security facility is around
thirty thousand dollars a year
when it comes to Guantanamo maintaining
a facility for 30 of these detainees is
costing us 17 million per detainee
do you know who called that a crazy idea
none other than former president Donald
Trump
now for what great purpose are American
taxpayers paying more than half a
billion dollars every year to keep
Guantanamo open
is it to keep America safe
to detain convicted terrorists and
threats to America
guess again because right now 16 of the
30 remaining detainees more than half of
them have already been approved for
release
that means we are wasting hundreds of
millions of dollars every year to detain
men who should have already been
released
what's more there are 10 other detainees
who are still awaiting trials in the
facility's dysfunctional military
Commission
how can we possibly explain to the world
let alone to our own citizens that we
have detained people for over 20 years
and never charged them with a crime
the trial against five men charged in
relation to 9 11 has not even begun more
than two decades since the attack on the
United States
and those who followed the military
commissions the closest can tell you
these trials let alone any convictions
that might come down on appeal or
nowhere in sight there's not even a plan
former Bush Administration solicitor
general Ted Olson has a special level of
expertise and interest in this issue
Ted Olson was chosen by the Bush
Administration to argue their cases
before The Supreme Court he is a
respected lawyer in Washington D.C sadly
on 9 11 2001 Ted Olson's wife died when
the plane crashed into the Pentagon she
was a passenger so he has a special
interest in this matter and a special
level of expertise
here's what he wrote about the idea of
Trials by military commissions
of detainees at Guantanamo he said they
were quote doomed from the start
he's calling for the Biden
Administration to negotiate guilty pleas
with all the 911 defendants
to State the obvious We are failing the
victims of 9 11 and their families by
continuing the Guantanamo charade
these military commissions which were
supposed to be the court of law trying
the detainees have not and are unlikely
to ever deliver Justice
in December of 2021 I chaired a hearing
in the Senate Judiciary Committee on
Guantanamo one of our Witnesses was
Colleen Kelly a nurse practitioner from
the Bronx mother of three
she testified about losing her younger
brother Bill on 9 11. he was in the
North Tower when the first plane crashed
Colleen described the pain of waiting
waiting almost 20 years after Bill's
death year after year after year for
something to happen
in March I received a letter from a
young woman named Layla Murphy she was
three years old when her Father Brian
died on 9 11. for nearly 22 years Layla
Murphy has waited for trial that has
never come in her letter to me she
pleaded with our government to bring
this process to an end by securing
guilty pleas from the defendants in the
911 cases
Layla Colleen and Ted Olsen are not
alone and calling on the Biden
Administration to finally
deliver a shred of Justice to the
victims of 9 11 and their loved ones
through guilty pleas
just last week Layla and several of the
children and grandchildren the victims
who died on 9 11 wrote to the president
here's what they said they implored him
to salvage whatever Justice can still be
had for the parents and grandparents we
lost do not let this drag on any longer
these survivors begged
the signers of that letter included
three daughters of New York firefighter
Douglas Miller
he was among the more than 340
firefighters in New York who were killed
when the tires collapsed if you've seen
the programs dedicated to these men and
women you cannot forget The Bravery that
they demonstrated that day
at the time of Mr Miller's death his
daughters were just children his
firstborn Elizabeth was seven Rachel was
six Katie was four he and his wife wife
Lori had been sweethearts since high
school
in their letter Mr Miller's daughters
and other signers expressed how hopeful
they felt last year when the 9 11
prosecution team began negotiation to
finally obtain guilty pleas from the
defendants they considered a
breakthrough that would finally bring
closure that would finally provide
answers they'd sought for more than 20
years but their hopes were crushed when
the prosecution team recently indicated
they are now going to start to open
pre-time pre-trial litigation again
that was devastating news for these
children
like Mr Miller's daughters in their
daughter in their letter they wrote the
thought of going back to endless
courtroom proceedings when more than 10
years of litigation did not lead to
trial is painful
returning to pre-trial Purgatory will
not deliver Justice to the loved ones
that lost
the people that they cared for us so
much the only way to do this is by
securing guilty pleas in the 911 cases
and let's be honest this will not be the
full measure of Justice these families
deserve sadly
sadly this is no longer possible because
these families were robbed of True
Justice when the administration at the
time decided to torture and abuse
detainees and our nation's custody and
throw them into an untested legal black
hole rather than trusting America's
time-honored system of justice
as Ted Olson wrote a few months ago and
I quote nothing will bring back the
thousands who lie whose lives were so
cruelly taken that September day but we
must face reality and bring this process
to an end the American legal system must
move on by closing the book on Military
commissions and secure guilty pleas
the Biden Administration must complete
the interagency process to review the
terms of The Plea deals without further
delay
securing guilty pleas from the detainees
have been charged with a crime will
bring us one step closer to ending this
shameful chapter of Guantanamo these men
will then serve out their sentences some
for the rest of their lives and when it
comes to the detainees who've not been
charged they should be released
that means the state department must
find countries who will take the 16 men
for the approved transfer it's not an
easy assignment but it's one that is
inevitable
the United States is a nation of laws
when we indefinitely detain people who
have never been charged with a crime and
who have been deemed safe to release we
are betraying our own basic
constitutional values
and autocrats abroad point to the
history of abuse and detention without
charge or trial to justify their own
human rights abuses if you want to stand
for Liberty in the rule of law
be honest with the American people
Guantanamo Bay is a blight on our
national conscience and it has been for
a long period of time it is time for us
to accept the reality it is not only a
waste tremendous waste to experience
dollars but it is an injustice that must
end Mr President I yield the floor
senator from New Jersey Mr President I
come to the floor today in opposition to
a cruel and misguided attack on millions
of student loan bars in New Jersey and
across the country
now I understand that some of my
colleagues are intent on overturning
President Biden's signature policies no
matter the cost or the consequence but
to overturn his Landmark student debt
relief program just to score political
points
to force borrowers to pay back their
loans with interests and stick it to the
administration
well that to me is just cruelty for the
sake of Cruelty
how else can you describe a proposal
that would strip away one of the most
important economic lifelines borrowers
have relied on
other than cruel what else can you call
a resolution that rips away benefits for
up to 43 million Americans who stand to
benefit from President Biden's relief
plan
now I remind my colleagues that the
pause on student loan repayments has
saved borrowers an average of over 233
dollars per month an amount that is
particularly crucial for our nation's
teachers nurses police officers and
firefighters who rely on the Public
service loan forgiveness program
for a moment I'd like to focus on the
impact this resolution has on them
because for these Public Service
employees
233 dollars can mean the difference
between making it to the end of the
month or not
make no mistake repealing this relief
especially hurts public sector workers
all across the country the very people
who go to work every day to care for us
protect us educate our kids and keep us
safe is this body really trying to claw
back benefits from thousands of everyday
heroes in our communities is this really
what my colleagues set out to do
for years the Public service loan
forgiveness program has enjoyed
bipartisan support because it's
essential to the promise of America
after all if you take out loans in
support of an education for a career
benefiting others then you deserve to
see your balance forgiven after 120
payments or 10 years as outlined under
the law
for many individuals the economic
challenges of covid and the reforms that
occurred as a result were the first time
that they were able to enjoy the
program's benefits this harmful proposal
erases that progress and once again
imposes the burden of debt on
hard-working teachers nurses police
officers and firefighters this proposal
is a slap in the face to them and to
their shop at The American Dream full
stop
it's a slap in the face for Public
service loan forgiveness borrowers and
for the full Universe of Americans who
stand to benefit from student loan
relief
which is why I encourage all of my
colleagues to ask themselves
is this vote
this misguided proposal the kind of
message you feel proud to send
when the history books are written about
this moment in time do you want to stand
on the side of the 43 million Americans
who have played by the rules and stand
to benefit from long overdue student
loan forgiveness or do you want to stand
on the side of those who punish
hard-working Americans for trying to get
ahead
that to me is the Stark moral decision
that is before this chamber with your
vote you can choose to support the
borrowers you represent by rejecting
this plan
or you can blind sign them rolling back
nearly eight months of Interest benefits
they've earned and deserved in no
uncertain terms this resolution
increases the Yoke of student loan debt
and sets up bars to fail that is not
something that I want to vote for and it
is not something that any member of this
chamber should want to vote for I urge
my colleagues to vote no
with that Mr President I observe the
absence of a quorum
Miss Baldwin
foreign
South Carolina thank you
um the Senate is in foreign caller I
asked the former Colony initiated
without objects thank you uh Senator
Cott will be here in a second so a group
of us are going to speak
about this budget deal
and if you believe that the number one
job of the federal government is to
defend this nation
then we have made a serious mistake
in this bill
I've heard house leaders suggest this
bill fully funds the military
for that to be true you'd have to
believe that the military is okay if you
cut their budget 42 billion dollars
below inflation
the party of Ronald Reagan would never
allow inflation
to reduce defense capabilities
this bill
the Top Line number locks in less ships
for the Navy at a time China is going to
expand dramatically
in 24 and 25 we're going to cap spending
at a level that we cannot expand the
Navy
and in the same period of time China is
going to go from 310 ships over a
10-year period to 440. less money for
the Marines less money for the Army less
ships for the Navy at a time of great
conflict not opinion this bill to help
you train defeat Putin they're going on
the offensive as I speak
and we need to send a clear message to
Putin that when it comes to your
invasion of Ukraine we're going to
support the ukrainians to ensure your
loss
if we don't do that
then we're going to snatch
defeat out of the jaws of victory
Senator cotton is
I'm going to yield to him he has a Time
problem but we're going to take some
time here to explain to you why those of
us who believe that the number one job
of the federal government to defend the
nation that that concept has been
abandoned and that we are going to
insist and fight until we find a way and
to rectify some of this harm
yield to my good friend and uh and I can
assure my friend from South Carolina
that when Senator cotton reaches the
floor I'll yield to him because he is
time constrained
what I want to say Mr President is is
what I've been saying all along this
year since the Biden budget came out
the the world is in the most dangerous
situation we've seen since World War II
and this Biden budget which is now
enshrined in this debt ceiling bill is
woefully inadequate it amounts to a cut
in defense capability it sounds like an
increase you could call it an increase
but inflation is running at seven
percent and uh so we'll have to increase
defense spending by that much simply to
keep up with what we did last year
and uh and we would have to increase by
several billions more in order to give
us
the the capability that we need
to prevent War
in the Pacific and and so I I I just
have to say
that the fact that this is being called
a victory by some people on our side of
the aisle is is absolutely enact
inaccurate uh pundits around the country
had called this budget amount inadequate
and now for some reason because it's
part of an agreement that the speaker
has made it's being applauded the
numbers don't lie and I'll tell you this
I'll say this to my my friends
we've got
three or four years
to get ready for the time when Xi
Jinping the dictator uh president for
life in communist China says he wants to
be ready for a war against the United
States a war to uh to take over the the
island of Taiwan
the decisions we make today
can be implemented if we have the
resolve to do them by
2027 but we need to make those decisions
this year we don't need to put them off
next year and we certainly don't need to
uh
to to say we're going to go with the
Biden
Cuts in Readiness and do one percent
more next year that is Hope woefully
inadequate and let me say this before
and then I yield to my friend from
from Alaska
it's easy to hide
in the in the budget and yeah one one
sentence and now yield to my friend from
from Arkansas
it's easy to hide inadequacies in a
defense
budget
people still get their Social Security
checks they still get their paychecks
when it comes home to roost for us is
when a conflict breaks out we weren't
ready for World War II
and when the flag went up and we were in
a war suddenly we we were way way behind
we were ready
under President Reagan and we had peace
under President Reagan
when we are ready
we have we had the ability to avoid
conflict and this this budget simply
does not do that and I'll be happy at
this point I'll tell you uh I will yield
the floor and let my friend from
Arkansas seek recognition
Mr President
after weeks of negotiating with an
obstinate and capricious president a
House of Representatives passed
legislation yesterday raising the debt
ceiling and establishing budget caps for
the next two years both Democrats and
Republicans compromised in these
negotiations and like every piece of
compromise legislation there are good
parts and bad parts of this bill
I want to commend speaker McCarthy for a
number of Common Sense victories this
bill improves the environmental review
process for infrastructure projects it
cuts funding for President Biden's Army
of IRS agents and saves American
taxpayers tens of billions of dollars by
clawing back unused coveted funds
now the bill doesn't go as far as I
might like it reduces domestic spending
to last year's levels which is better
than even more spending in taxes as the
Democrats opposed but I think domestic
spending could return to pre-pandemic
levels covet emergency legislation was
just that an emergency compelled by
Chinese Communist lies
shouldn't reset the federal government's
budget in perpetuity
but again I sympathize with the
speaker's constraints of a small house
majority and negotiating with the
Democratic party that seems to
prioritize welfare for grown men who
won't work over our military
and as I noted there are some victories
in this bill and it prevents the default
unfortunately this bill poses a mortal
risk to our national security by cutting
our defense budget which I cannot
support as Grave dangers gather on the
horizon
the bill supporters contend that it
raises defense spending by 3.2 percent
compared compared to last year and
that's true at face value
but inflation was six percent last year
when you get a three percent raise but
prices go up by six percent
even a small child could tell you that
your money won't go as far and your
family will have to tighten its belt
and it gets worse next year when the
defense budget will grow by only one
percent
who thinks Joe Biden will get inflation
to pre-pandemic levels
and even if he did inflation would grow
at least twice as fast as the defense
budget causing even more real cuts to
defense
worst of all this bill contains an
automatic one percent sequester based
off last year's budget
that means that domestic spending will
go up
and defense spending will go down if the
sequester kicks in let me repeat that if
the sequester takes effect Democrats
will get more welfare spending while
defense gets cut
who thinks the Democratic leader will be
dissatisfied with this result
more to the point who thinks he won't
use the threat of sequester to extort
even higher levels of welfare spending
these three provisions
a cut this year in rural dollars
a worse cut enroll dollars for 2025 and
the automatic sequester based on last
year's spending bills conspire to
threaten devastating cuts to the defense
budget at a time we can least afford it
the bipartisan National defense strategy
Commission report recommends a real
increased defense spending of between
three and five percent annually over
inflation
this bill would cut real spending by
more than five percent in two years
effectively slashing tens of billions of
dollars from defense
how bad is this defense Gap
if we continued our recent bipartisan
custom of increasing the defense budget
from President Biden's irresponsible
budget proposals we could afford four
additional forward-class aircraft
carriers
500 F-35 fighter jets
more than 91 000 Stinger missiles
or half a million Javelin anti-tank
missiles
all vital to our defense and to the
defenses of Ukraine and Taiwan
and while we surrender our lead and
erode our military Edge our enemies are
catching up
last year Russia increased its real
military spending over inflation by one
percent China increased its real
spending by over six percent and Iran
increased its real spending by over 8
percent
the United States reduced our real
spending by over three percent and this
bill as I've said would only make
matters worse
for years Washington has gotten defense
spending backwards the budget shouldn't
shape our defense needs indeed it cannot
shape our defense needs our defense
needs have to shape our budget
China doesn't become less aggressive or
Russia less revanchist or Iran less
extreme because our military has shrunk
in fact the opposite is true
they grow more ambitious and dangerous
the defense budget should rise and fall
with the dangers confronting our nation
and I do not believe those dangers are
receding who here believes the world is
safer or more stable than it was a year
ago
or two years ago
on the contrary America is in Greater
danger than in any time in my life
Iran is rushing towards a nuclear bomb
Russia has unleashed the largest
European Invasion since the Second World
War
and China is plotting the conquest of
Taiwan
our military stockpiles are depleted and
our defense Supply chains are broken or
strained
at the same time our border defenses
have effectively collapsed and cartel
members criminal aliens possibly even
terrorists are pouring into our country
we need a military to match this
perilous moment
after all protecting the Safety and
Security of our people is our first and
most fundamental responsibility
we cannot shortchange the military today
without grave risks tomorrow
the weapons we buy this year will be the
ones we Field in 2027.
the time by which China will be at its
greatest relative strength compared with
the United States and when war is most
likely
I know that holding firm on defense
priorities isn't always easy and as I
said there are parts of this bill that I
support
but I cannot support the bill because it
does not adequately fund our military
given the threats we face
supporters of the bill contend that the
situation isn't as bad as I make it out
to be
but their arguments don't hold up under
scrutiny
some have claimed that we could still
get more defense funding through a
supplemental bill or some other backdoor
funding mechanism
but these same Hollow promises were made
when Congress passed the budget Control
Act of 2011 which devastated our
military under President Obama
I ran for the senate in part to reverse
that disaster and I won't vote for a new
disaster with same promises
and as I've explained
the sequester in this bill actually
produces more domestic spending than the
Bill's core provisions
which encourages irresponsible Democrats
to trigger sequester
others have claimed that we can find
efficiencies in the Pentagon to make up
the difference
I don't disagree that there's fat to
trim in some places in our military
but no serious person think thinks that
it's enough to make up for tens of
billions of dollars in cuts
moreover this claim assumes the Biden
Administration
will put our Readiness ahead of social
engineering
Color Me skeptical on that one when they
start looking for efficiencies
still other supporters have Shrugged and
deployed the commonly used but rarely
persuasive argument that the bill may be
bad but you know there's no alternative
and it's too late anyway
but it was and it remains our job to
craft an alternative
we hear a lot that things that add votes
to these big bills get in
and things that subtract votes don't
again we know from recent experience
with the last two National Defense
authorization Acts
that a higher Defense number gets nearly
400 votes in the house and more than 80
votes in the Senate the first thing the
first thing
that should have been settled in these
negotiations was a larger defense budget
Democrats have no argument against that
recent history it's indisputable
that increases to Joe Biden's defense
budgets Garner large bipartisan
majorities in the house in the Senate
so why wasn't it the first thing settled
I don't know
but the result is that a congress with a
republican house and a Democratic Senate
has now produced defense budget worse in
real terms than either defense budget
produced by unified Democratic Congress
I cannot vote for that curious result
if it takes a short-term increase in the
debt ceiling to go back to the drawing
board so be it
before we vote I would also ask all my
fellow Senators a simple question
do you feel more safe or less safe than
you did a year ago
if you feel more safe by all means vote
to slash our defense budget but if not
and in your heart of hearts you know you
don't
join me in demanding that we do what it
takes to protect our nation
I yield the floor
senator from South Carolina I just want
to compliment Senator cotton for
reminding us what the the job in
Congress is to defend the nation and the
odd outcome here is at a time of growing
conflict we're reducing the Navy there
are 296 ships in the Navy
today under this budget by 2025 there'll
be 286. if we continue with the Biden
budget there'll be 290. the Chinese Navy
today is 340 by 2025 they'll have 400 by
2030 they'll have 440. this budget locks
in a smaller U.S Navy at a time the
Chinese Navy is growing dramatically
there's not a penny in this budget
to help beat Putin the Navy is smaller
the Army is smaller the Marine Corps is
smaller this is not a threat based
budget this is a budget of political
compromise where people have lost sight
of what the country needs we need Safety
and Security to my house colleagues
I can't believe he did this
to the speaker I know you got a tough
job
I like you
but the party of Ronald Reagan is dying
don't tell me
that a defense budget that's 42 billion
dollars below inflation fully funds the
military
don't tell me that we can confront and
challenge China everybody in this body
is patting themselves on the back that
we see China as the most existential
threat to America you are right
we did the chips act we're doing things
to help our economy combat China at the
moment of decision when it came to the
military this budget is a win for China
please don't go home and say this is
fully funded because it is not please
stop talking about confronting China
when you're disbounding the American
Navy
how does this end
sir Cotton's right we'll be here to
Tuesday
until I get commitments that we're going
to rectify
some of these problems
the ranking member of the Appropriations
Committee Susan Collins has been
steadfastly in the camp of fiscal
responsibility
and National Security this deal has
taken the Appropriations Committee out
of the game
the CR
which kicks in Cuts defense and
increases non-defense making it really
hard for me to believe that we're
actually going to do our Appropriations
job so what I want to do I want a
commitment from the leaders of this body
that we're not pulling the plug on
Ukraine
there's not a penny in this bill for
future efforts to help Ukraine defeat
Russia and they're going to gain on the
battlefield in the coming days
and it's just not about Ukraine
I want a commitment that we'll have a
supplemental to make us better able to
deal with China
I want a commitment that we're not going
to weaken our position in the Mideast
there's a report out today that Iran is
planning to attack our troops in Syria
to drive us out
we're expending weapons that need to be
replenished
our military is weakening by the day
this budget that we're about to pass
makes every problem worse
I want to end the war in Ukraine by
defeating Putin
if you don't he keeps going and we're
going to have a conflict between NATO
and Russia and our troops will be
involved and if you don't send a clear
signal now
China will see this as an opportunity to
LEAP into Taiwan
so to the members of this body we're
staying here as long as it takes to get
some commitment that we're going to
reverse this debacle
sooner rather than later with that I'll
yield to my good friend from Alaska Mr
President senator from Alaska Mr
President remarks before the vote
without objection
Mr President I think my colleagues are
making the really important point
of
the National Security implications of
the bill that we're looking at voting on
and I uh agree with what my colleagues
have already said
speaker McCarthy had a difficult job I
think there's a lot in this debt
agreement that's important that's
positive
but the one thing we are not doing here
and by the way Mr President it's the
most important thing we do as U.S
senators is have a strategy for the
National Defense of our nation during an
incredibly dangerous time
globally we're not doing that
we need a strategy already my good
friend from South Carolina mentioned
some ideas I'm going to touch on those
but Mr President let's just reiterate
you sit on the armed services committee
many of us do we get witness after
witness including the chairman of the
Joint Chiefs the Secretary of Defense
saying this is the most dangerous time
since any period in history since World
War II that's the consensus not a lot of
people would disagree with that
authoritarian dictators with immense
appetite for conquests are on the March
and yet what does this budget agreement
do
it cuts defense spending
significantly as already mentioned now
some people will say well look at the
Top Line as we've never had a higher Top
Line 800 plus billion dollars Mr
President as you know the actual real
measure
of how serious we are as a country
isn't the Top Line because of inflation
over the years it's hard to compare the
real measure of how serious we are in
terms of what we're putting towards
defense the number one priority
of the U.S Congress should be in my view
is what percentage
of our national wealth we're dedicating
to defense
in this budget will take us in the next
two years
with the cut this year
inflation adjusted cut of four to five
percent
and a nominal increase next year of one
percent which would be about a five to
six percent cut it will take us below
the three percent
of GDP number for defense for the first
time since 1999. during the peace
dividend era of the Clinton
Administration so we will we will be
below three percent of GDP
you look at different periods of
American History the Korean War were
about almost 15 percent Vietnam
eight percent Cold War Reagan build up
almost six percent Iraq Afghanistan war
on terror four and a half percent we're
gonna be going below three percent
hasn't happened since 1999 and before
that it's almost never happened
in the history of the country at least
in the 20th century
and Mr President here's the most
important point in 1999
the threats to our nation weren't nearly
as dramatic and serious as they are
today and nobody disagrees with that
so what this budget does it just accepts
the Biden defense budget which is
Senator Graham has already mentioned
shrinks the Army shrinks the Navy
shrinks the Marine Corps that's what it
does
lesser ships not more ships
smaller number of soldiers and Marines
not more
so accepting the Biden defense budget is
actually something new during the by
demonstration what do I mean by that Mr
President
as Senator cotton mentioned
the last two previous Biden budgets came
in in anemic numbers and in a bipartisan
way
strong bipartisan way by the way
Democrats and Republicans significantly
plused up those budget numbers
last year 45 billion dollar increase to
the weak Biden Budget on the armed
services committee that every single
Senator on the committee voted for
except one
about as bipartisan you as you can get
the year before it was a 25 billion
dollar plus up
and Mr President as many people know we
were already discussing
in a bipartisan way on the armed
services committee another significant
plus up
to this Biden budget
so Democrats and Republicans knew it was
weak and not sufficient
to meet the challenges of today
but what happened the music stopped
and now all of a sudden we're accepting
the Biden budget I know Democrat
Senators who think that is wrong
they think that is wrong
so
one Amendment I'm going to offer as
we're debating this Mr President is to
do something very simple
it's to look at the Biden pentagon's
priority list their unfunded priority
list that this President and his
secretary of defense put forward it's 18
billion dollars
which the armed services Committee in a
bipartisan way was already getting ready
to agree to move forward and fund
and I'm going to ask my colleagues let's
fund it
at a minimum let's fund it
We're Not Gonna
bust out of the top line of this
agreement we'll just take that 18.4
billion and move it from the 80 billion
dollar
IRS account
and put it to the Pentagon
pretty simple
should be a hundred to zero
do we want more Navy ships
more Marines or more IRS agents
during this very dangerous time
I think the answer is pretty clear
I think the American people know the
answer
so Mr President
Senator cotton already mentioned this
idea the speakers talked about we need
more efficiencies in the Pentagon I
couldn't agree more
by the way the Navy leadership right now
um
we need a lot more efficiencies out of
that place you have a Navy secretary
who's more focused on getting his
climate plan out before his shipbuilding
plan
the priorities in the department of Navy
right now are remarkably misaligned with
real world
challenges and what are those real world
challenges Mr President is I think you
were there we had a brief from some of
our top intelligence agency officials
and they came out
it was a classified briefing but I asked
him if this number was classified they
told me no
they came out and said the real Chinese
budget in terms of military is probably
close to about 700 billion dollars
that's a big budget and as Senator
cotton mentioned they are increasing in
real terms six seven eight percent
cranking out ships cranking out fifth
generation aircraft
and we're going to cut the budget
this year and dramatically cut it next
year and go under three percent of GDP
at one of the most dangerous times
since the end of World War II
as Senator cotton also mentioned the
National Defense Commission
that the Congress
authorized a number of years ago to look
at the serious
National Security threats facing our
country came back to the armed services
committee two years ago and said what we
need to do
to address these serious
National Security challenges from China
from Russia from Iran
is have three to five percent real GDP
or real growth on the defense budget
that was broadly accepted by Democrats
and Republicans as a matter of fact I
think one of the members of that
National Security Commission is now the
deputy secretary of defense
in the Biden Administration
but we're not even close
we're going backwards
in Senator Graham's point about a
supplemental
to get leader Schumer
the president to say we are going to
have a supplemental
for deterring authoritarian aggression
is going to be critical
and I would say Mr President the vast
majority of my colleagues here Democrat
and Republicans
would support that we need a serious
robust defense budget
to deter War
if the young men and women who volunteer
serving our military are asked to go
fight a war we need a strong budget so
that they can come home Victorious not
coming home
in body bags
this is deadly serious business
we're not putting enough attention to it
it's one of the number one things in the
U.S Constitution
that we need to provide for the common
defense to raise and support an army
provide and maintain a Navy that's our
job
and Mr President we're not doing it
with this budget
this Rush budget
we need to get serious and hopefully in
the next few days we can do that as we
debate this agreement I yield the floor
Mr President senator from South Dakota
thank you Mr President I would ask
unanimous consent that I'd be recognized
to speak for up to 10 minutes
without objection thank you Mr President
my colleagues today have all had the
same concern and that is is that while
we recognize the need to address the
debt limit that our country is now up
against
we also recognize that the defense of
our country is a critical and necessary
part of our responsibility as well
the concern that many of us have is that
the proposal right now
in order to raise the debt limit
is that part of it has a series of
conditions with regards to what happens
to the dollars that it takes to actually
defend our country for the next two
years
we want to be able to raise the debt
limit we recognize that
but we also have to address the need for
the defense of our country and why
should as a part of the negotiation why
should we be required to look at a
reduction a reduction in the amount of
dollars necessary
for our young men and women to be able
to defend our country and yet within the
provisions of this bill
there is a reduction of up to one
percent of the existing budget
if we don't do an Appropriations process
and yet
in order to do the Appropriations
process we have to have 12 separate
bills the 12 separate bills all have to
be passed now
the United States Senate is not known
for necessarily doing anything on time
and yet here we come up to the end of
the fiscal year in October
and we haven't seen appropriation bills
in the floor yet
what we need to be able to do rather
than to have a one percent reduction in
defense is have an agreement that we
will at least allow the appropriation
bills to come from the Appropriations
Committee come to the floor of the
Senate so that we can address them up or
down with the appropriate amendments on
them but to have a full discussion and
to do it in a timely fashion
so
let's number one let's address the debt
limit but let's not penalize our ability
to defend our country or perhaps more
appropriately to say let's not
limit the ability of our young men and
women in uniform to defend our country
my colleagues have done a great job of
explaining what happens here if we don't
do our job correctly with regard to this
particular bill
number one if we go to a continuing
resolution
our defense budget goes down but number
two
under the provisions of this bill the
non-defense portions of this budget
could actually go up
and so there's an incentive and unfair
incentive built into this to spend more
on domestic programs
and to spend less to defend our country
which is our primary responsibility how
do we fix it at this late stage of the
game number one
there are supplementals that are
absolutely necessary we have aggressive
authoritarians throughout the world that
are right now looking to see whether or
not we are prepared to support our
allies and those individuals who are on
the front lines specifically in Ukraine
specifically looking as well in the
South Pacific and and looking at Taiwan
and doing our best to turn Taiwan into a
porcupine making it much less of a
possibility that China will invade
Taiwan
but the other piece of this along with
that is that we have to do an
Appropriations process where we actually
get a chance to look at the defense Bill
and our other Appropriations bills in a
timely fashion so that we do not have a
continuing resolution in which the
defense of our country loses ground
making it making it more vulnerable or
our our country more vulnerable and a
more challenging job for the young men
and women who wear the uniform of this
country with that I just want to say
thank you to my colleagues who have laid
out some great numbers for all of us and
who clearly have laid out a path forward
a commitment by leadership that the
Appropriations process be completed in a
timely fashion and that there is a
recognition that supplemental funding
will be necessary to confront aggressive
authoritarians throughout the world and
with that excuse me Mr President with
that I yield the floor
note the absence
thank you Mr President I think Senator
uh should be recognized for five minutes
without objection uh and I will yield my
time
our next speaker is the ranking member
of the Appropriations Committee and I
just want to let one thing before she
speaks the Navy chief of Naval
operations said we need 373 ships manned
150 unmanned platforms to deal with the
threats we face around the world
we have 296 today under this
budget deal we go to 290 286 by 2025
what does it take to get to 373 the CNO
of the Navy said to get 373 ships you
got to spend five percent above
inflation for a sustained period of time
this bill is 2 percent below inflation
so we're undercutting the ability of the
Navy to build the ships we need to
defend America without recognize Senator
Collins senator for me Mr Speaker Mr
Speaker Mr President
Mr President shortly the Senate will
consider the debt ceiling package that
passed the house last night by a strong
vote
I commend the speaker for his hard work
and his negotiations to prevent what
would be a disastrous default
with catastrophic consequences for our
economy for people who rely on important
government programs for America's
standing in the world
nevertheless Mr President there are two
issues in this package
that are very problematic first as you
have heard from my colleagues is the
completely inadequate Top Line number
for our National Defense
second is a harmful provision that would
go into effect if any one of the 12
Appropriations bills
has not been signed into law it would
trigger an automatic
MedEx
indiscriminate across the board Cod in
our already inadequate defense budget
and in the domestic discretionary
automatically
if in fact all 12 Appropriations bills
have not been passed
now let me address
both of those issues and offer to my
colleagues what I believe are solutions
first
the inadequacy of the defense budget as
my colleagues have very well described
the defense budget submitted by
President Biden and included in this as
the Top Line in this package
is insufficient to the task of fully
implementing the national defense
strategy at a time when we Face serious
and growing threats around the world
as my friend and colleague from South
Carolina and Alaska and others have have
already described
this budget request would actually
shrink the size of our Navy we would end
up with the fleet of
291 chips that is six ships fewer than
today's Fleet of
297 ships and it is further
further away from the chief of Naval
operations requirement which is informed
by scenarios involving China for example
meanwhile what is China doing China has
the largest Navy in the world now and it
is growing to 400 ships in the next two
years the story is very similar if you
look at the Air Force tactical aircraft
so we have a real problem let me give
you another example
it's an example that all of us can
relate to
who fill our cars with gas or seek to
heed our homes
this bunch of requests falls woefully
short
in funding the fuel costs of our
military the government accountability
office says that dod's fuel costs are
likely to be 20
higher than the amount of money that is
included in the president's budget Mr
President I asked the chairman
of The Joint Chiefs of Staff general
milley what the result would be and he
says it very clearly it would translate
into 20 percent fewer flying hours and
steaming days which would harm our
military's training and Readiness so
that's a very concrete area where the
president's budget is clearly not going
to be adequate
second
Mr President is the harmful provision
with the automatic one percent cut
across the board well think about this
if you are the secretary of defense
let's say the Department of Defense
Appropriations bill is signed into law
before the start of the fiscal year in
October as I hope that it will be and
I'm working hard doesn't matter
let's say the ledge branch
Appropriations Bill isn't signed into
law by January 1st of next year and
Order goes out that has to be
implemented by April 30th which would
cut every account across the board by
one percent how does that make sense
think how harmful that would be how in
the world is the military going to enter
into contracts if it doesn't know what
its budget is going to be despite the
fact that its Appropriations bill has
been signed into law but because of this
threat hanging over the department
so what do we do
I don't want to see our country default
for the first time in history I do
believe that would have catastrophic
consequences but we need to fix these
problems well the first problem of an
inadequate defense budget could be
addressed and remedied by having an
emergency
defense supplemental
that is what we need to do that is what
I would ask the administration and my
colleagues on the other side of the
aisle to commit to because we know that
this budget is not adequate to the
global threats that we Face we know that
it does nothing to deter Russian
aggression in Ukraine we know that it's
not adequate to the challenge that we
Face from China
an emergency
supplemental must be coming our way to
remedy the first problem
what should we do about the second
problem the threat of this one percent
indiscriminate MedEx cut across the
board we need to pass each and every one
of the 12 Appropriations bills on time
before the start of the fiscal year and
in order to do that
I am working very hard with the chair of
the committee Senator Senator Murray but
we need a commitment from the Senate
Majority Leader that he will provide us
with floor time
we will do our utmost to get every
single one of the 12 Appropriations
bills marked up and reported out of the
Appropriations Committee but then
I am asking the Senate leader majority
leader to commit to Bringing each of
those bills to the senate floor either
singly
or individually or as many buses as we
used to do where we would pair a couple
of the bills together
but it's essential and I would implore
the Democratic leader to provide the
commitment that he will bring in each of
the Appropriations bills to the senate
floor so that we can avoid the threat of
this indiscriminate
across the board cut so Mr President
I believe that that
is the path forward for us an emergency
defense supplemental to make up for the
woefully inadequate budget
that has been submitted by this
Administration for the Department of
Defense for our national security
and second to prevent the one percent
cut from ever being triggered a
commitment that all of the
Appropriations bills will be brought on
time to the senate floor
then it seems to me we can proceed with
this package and avoid a catastrophic
default for our country thank you Mr
President
as a center for South Carolina thank you
I want to Echo what Senator Collins just
suggested how do you uh begin to turn
this debacle around you admit you got a
problem it's pretty hard to quit
drinking if you don't Mitch you got a
drinking problem
so what she's suggesting is that we
acknowledge the obvious that this bill
on the defense side is inadequate to the
threats we face
that a bill that funds the Pentagon
below inflation at a time of great
threat is not fully funding
uh that she is trying to get us to wake
up to the reality that if we don't speak
about defeating Putin now then the
ukrainians are on the offense
will be undercut
I'll never let this happen again
as long as I'm here
to let people negotiate
behind closed doors
and not tell me what they're doing on
the fence I blame myself
for not being more involved and more
active
because in my wildest dreams I never
believed that the Republican Party
would take the Biden budget
that they've attacked for a year and
celebrate it as fully funding
I know who I'm dealing with now
here's what Reagan told the Russians
trust but verify
I will never ever trust again
because she got an R behind your name
that you're going to be the party of
Ronald Reagan you have to prove that to
me
so as we go forward
the game will change
why is she asking this to be done if we
don't commit to an early Appropriations
process
it gets worse for the defense department
the people who wrote this bill I would
not let you buy me a car
the provisions
of sequestration for lack of a better
word the continuing resolution if we
don't do our legislative business
increases non-defense spending decreases
defense spending I thought we were
Republicans
who came up with that great idea
the top line is inadequate the CR
is a devastating
and what bothers me the most
is that we would put the department
Department of Defense in this position
we're playing with the men and women's
lives in the military their ability to
defend themselves as some chess game in
Washington
well this is Checkers at best
the fact that you would punish the
military
because we can't do our job as
politicians
is a Purdy sad moment for me
but people in this body on my side of
the aisle
have drafted a bill that would punish
the military
even more if we fail to do our basic job
that cannot be the way of the future
so I will insist
or we'll be here to Tuesday
and I'll make a amendment to avoid
default for 90 days
every how many days it takes to get this
right I don't want us to fall on the
debt but we're not leaving town
until we find a way
to stop some of this madness
so you're not going to be able to blame
me for default because I'm ready to
raise the debt ceiling right now for 90
days no strings attached to give us a
chance to stop this insane approach to
National Security
I'm supposed to talk to president of uh
Ukraine this afternoon
I'd like to be able to tell him
something
oh by the way you've done a hell of a
job with the money we've given you
not one soldier has died
the weapons used by Ukraine has punished
the Russians military they're weakened
and bloodied they're about to take back
territory he's wondering well what does
this mean for the future
I want to try to be able to tell him
I've got an insurance Assurance from
this body we're not going to leave you
hanging it is in our interest to beat
Putin
I don't like War any more than anybody
else
but if Putin gets away with invading
Ukraine
there goes Taiwan and if you don't get
that you just don't you're just out of
touch they have a chance to evict Russia
from Ukrainian territory they need more
military help not American soldiers
if Putin loses it's a deterrence for
China
if Putin doesn't lose he'll keep
grabbing territory until we have a war
between Russia and NATO this is a big
big big deal Iran is coming up with a
plan apparently to drive us out of the
Mideast
I mean that just came out today
China is building a senator Colin said
they're going from 340 ships to 440
ships by 2030.
we're going from 296 to 290.
that can't be the response to China
you cannot say with a straight face
that this military budget
is a counter to Chinese aggression
that it adequately allows us to defeat
Putin
you cannot say with a straight face
that this budget represents the threats
America faces
a military budget should be based on
threats
not political deals
to avoid default
nobody wants to the fault we're not
going to default
but I'm tired of having the fault
hanging over my head
as a reason
to neuter the military at a time we need
it the most to the American public you
would suffer if we defaulted
I get it
if this budget is the end of the
discussion and we don't fix it
your sons and daughters are going to
have more war not less
you're going to send a signal to all the
bad guys that were all talk
and what you will be doing is putting
the world on a course
of sustained conflict
rather than deterrence
the last time people did this
was in the 30s
they wanted to believe that Hitler
wasn't serious about killing all the
Jews they only wanted some land
that he really didn't want to take over
the world
he wrote a book and nobody believed him
the Iranian Ayatollah speaks every day
I will destroy the state of Israel
that we're infidels and he's going to
drive us out of the region China openly
confronts our planes 400 feet yesterday
they're testing us every day
bottom line folks
we're not leaving
until we get a path to fix this problem
Susan Collins my good friend from
Senator Collins from Maine gave us that
path
if you want to go home
fix it
I yield
under the previous order the joint
resolution is considered red a third
time the question occurs on passage of
the joint resolution
there's been a request for the A's and
nays is there a sufficient second there
appears to be the Asian Nays
are ordered and the clerk will call the
roll
Miss Baldwin Mr barrasso Mr Bennett Mrs
Blackburn Mr Blumenthal Mr Booker Mr
Bozeman Mr Braun
this is Britt
Mr Brown
Mr bud
Ms Cantwell
this is capito
Mr Cardin
Mr carper
to Casey
to Cassidy
Ms Collins
Mr Coons
Mr cornyn
Miss Cortez masto
Mr cotton
Mr Kramer
Mr crapo
Mr Cruz
Mr daines
Miss Duckworth
Mr Durbin
Ms Ernst
Mrs Feinstein
Mr fetterman
Mrs Fisher
Mrs gillibrand
Mr Graham
Mr Grassley
Mr Haggerty
Miss Hassan
Mr Hawley
Mr Heinrich
MS MR Hickenlooper
Miss hirono
Mr Hoven
Mrs Hyde Smith
Mr Johnson
Mr Kane
Mr Kelly
Mr Kennedy
Mr King
this Klobuchar
Mr Langford
Mr Lee
Mr Lujan
MS lemus
Mr manchin
Mr Markey
Mr Marshall
Mr McConnell
Mr Menendez
Mr Merkley
Mr Moran
Mr Mullen
MS murkowski
Mr Murphy
Mrs Murray
Mr rossov
Mr Padilla
Mr Paul
Mr Peters
Mr Reed
Mr Ricketts
Mr Rish
Mr Romney
Ms Rosen
Mr rounds
Mr Rubio
Mr Sanders
Mr Schatz
Mr Schmidt
I got you
Mr Schumer
Mr Scott of Florida
Mr Scott of South Carolina
Mr Shaheen
Miss Cinema
Miss Smith
the stabenow
Mr Sullivan
Mr tester
Mr thune
Mr Tillis
Mr tuberville
Mr Van Hollen
Mr Vance
Mr Warner
Mr Warnock
Ms Warren
Mr Welch
Mr Whitehouse
Mr wicker
Mr Wyden
Mr Young
Senators voting in the affirmative
Braun Collins cornyn Cruz Graham Hagerty
Lee Paul Cinema Sullivan and Vance
Senators voting in the negative Hassan
King Murphy Murray Schatz Schumer
stabenow and White House
Mr Durbin no
Mr crapo I
Mr Cassidy I
absolutely
Mr Grassley I
Mr Merkley no
Mr Romney I
Mr Kane no
Mr Casey
no
Mr Schmidt I
Mr Tillis I
Mrs Blackburn I
Mr barasso I
Mr Kennedy I
MS ernstein
extra young eye
Mr Jane's eye
Mr Peters no
it's Fisher eye
Mr Lujan no
Mr Wyden no
foreign
no
Mr wicker I
Mrs Hyde Smith I
Mr Rubio I
Mr tester I
Mrs Brit I
Mr Blumenthal no
Mr Kelly no
Ms murkowski I
Mr manchin aye Mr Heinrich
no
Mr Brown no
Mr McConnell I
Miss Duckworth no
Miss Baldwin no
Mr tuberville I
Mrs capito I
Mr bizman I
Mr fetterman
no
Mr Marshall I
Mr Holly I
foreign
Mr cotton I
Miss Cortez masto
no
Mr Welch no
Mr Reed
no
Mrs Feinstein no
Mr Thun I
Mr Rish I
Mrs Shaheen
no
Mr Cardin no
Mr Kramer I
Mr Coons no
Mr Hickenlooper no
Mr Van Hollen no
Mr Rick it's I
foreign
foreign
no
Mr Assaf no
Mr Warnock
no
Mr Mullen
I
Miss Cantwell
no
Mr Booker no
Mr Scott of South Carolina I
Mr rounds I
Mr Carper Mr Carper no
Mr Moran Mr Moran
I
Miss cleavagear Miss Klobuchar no
Mr Menendez Mr Menendez no mislamas Miss
Lamas I
Mr Marky Mr Marky no
Mr Scott let's just go out of Florida I
Sanders Mr Sanders no
Mr Padilla Mr Padilla
no
Mr roano Mr Rono
no
Miss Rosen Miss Rosen
no
Mr Hoven Mr Hoven
aye
Mr Langford Mr Langford I
Miss Smith Miss Smith
no
on this vote the yeas are 52 the Nays
are 46 and the joint resolution is
passed
Mr President the majority leader I moved
to proceed to calendar 84 H.R 3746
the clerk will report
motion to proceed to counter number 84
H.R 3746 an act to provide for a
responsible increase to the debt ceiling
I note the absence of a quorum the clerk
will call the roll
Baldwin
foreign
Mr President
senator from Texas Mr President are we
in a quorum call we are I'd ask consent
that the Quorum call be dispenseful
without objection
Mr President as we all know by now
yesterday evening the house passed a
bipartisan bill
to lift the debt limit and begin the
process of reigning in our nation's
unchecked spending habit
from the time the U.S reached the debt
ceiling in January
it was clear that a compromised bill
would be the only way to avoid a
full-blown economic crisis which is what
would happen if we were not to raise the
debt ceiling
with the democrat-led Senate and a
republican-led house and a democrat in
the White House bipartisanship was and
is
a necessity
now Republicans for our part were clear
that any increase in the debt ceiling
must come
with spending reforms
otherwise it would be like you maxing
out your credit card
and then asking to raise the the credit
limit so you could borrow more money
without having an adult conversation
about how are you going to pay the money
back
now
in the real world that is what would
happen you'd have to have that
conversation or where there would be no
increase in your credit card limit but
only in Washington
only in the nation's capital
would it be even argued that you could
raise the debt limit without talking
about spending reforms
and what's happened is our national debt
is balloon now
to more than 31.4 trillion dollars
that is a number that I doubt that
anybody here in the chamber could tell
us how many zeros
follow that 31.4
and the American people are clearly
unhappy with what they see is happening
here when it comes to out of control
spending
a recent poll found that 60 percent of
adults
think that government spends too much
and they're right
they're frustrated by the unnecessary
and wasteful spending and they're eager
for Congress to do the reasonable
rational thing
which is to begin to get our financial
house in order
that's precisely
what Republicans demanded throughout
this process necessary fiscal reforms as
part of the debt ceiling negotiation
but instead of
stepping up
doing his job
acting responsibly
President Biden took a very different
approach
he said
I refuse to negotiate
this is a president of the United States
with 31.4 trillion dollars in debt
he says I refuse to negotiate
he went on to say that only a clean debt
ceiling increase
was an option and he refused to engage
in negotiations altogether
it's helpful to remember that it was in
January where we actually hit
the debt ceiling
and what's happened since then is the
treasury secretary has engaged in what's
euphemistically called Extraordinary
Measures
in order to pay the bill
pay the bills as the money comes in
through tax revenue
but now she's told us that the X date
which presumably is the default date
after Extraordinary Measures are
exhausted it would be June the 5th
that's Monday
that's Monday
so the president's known since January
that this day would come he's refused to
negotiate
and he's led us into this scenario where
unless Congress acts by June the 5th
we will breach the debt limit
and begin
to default on paying our bills as a
nation
now I don't have to remind anybody that
inflation as a result of some of the
profligate spending habits of the
previous Congress particularly our on
our Democratic for inside they were
happy to spend roughly 2.3 trillion
dollars last year on Strictly Party Line
spending votes
but you put enough gasoline on the fire
and inflation
is going to
spiral out of control that's exactly
what has happened
as a consequence
two things have happened one is that
hard-working American families have
found their standard of living reduced
because they simply can't afford to keep
up with the increase in costs as a
result of inflation the second thing
that happened is that in order to
try to deal with this hidden tax
the Federal Reserves had to raise
interest rates
which has slowed down the economy even
more
why in the world would President Biden
as a responsible
public official refused to negotiate
when he knows that the anxiety
associated with
hitting this x date on Monday
is causing even more uncertainty
even more trepidation
even more anxiety over exactly what the
future is going to look like why would
he
why would he risk that
so President Biden stuck to his no
negotiations no reforms position for
literally months
even though it was painfully obvious
that a bipartisan deal was the only way
to avoid a further economic crisis
I want to pause for a moment to commend
the Speaker of the House speaker
McCarthy for his leadership throughout
this process
without a negotiating partner he did
everything in his power
and within the power of the House of
Representatives to move this process
forward
he stood strong behind the need for
fiscal reforms
and led the house in passing the limit
save grow and grow Act
he lured President Biden to the
negotiating table and he successfully
moved a compromise Bill through the
house
but I think the back story about
speaker McCarthy's leadership is that
President Biden didn't dream in a
million years
after the difficult race for speaker
that we saw in January as Speaker
McCarthy would be able to unify
Republicans in the House of
Representatives and actually pass a bill
that raised the debt ceiling that's what
the limits save grow Act
was
and I think President Biden was shocked
that he was able to get that done
and I congratulate him for it changed
the whole dynamics of this negotiation
but now the house has acted the ball is
on in our court
this chamber will soon vote on the
McCarthy Biden agreement
and now is the time for the Senate to do
its job
our job is not simply to accept
or to rubber stamp
what the house passed
that's never been the case
we weren't a party to the agreement
why should we be bound by the strict
terms of that agreement
the Senate has not had a say in the
process so far and it's led to Serious
frustration on both sides of the aisle
this bill didn't go through regular
order in other words it didn't go
through a committee members didn't have
the opportunity to weigh in or shape the
legislation
at that level or even the final text
given the time constraints wholly
created
by President Biden's delay and refusal
to negotiate
this rushed process
was completely unavoidable
we didn't have to get on the precipice
of a default in order to act if
President Biden had done his job and
responsibly engaged in the negotiations
that he finally did engage in at an
earlier Point months
earlier
so the president dragged his feet for
several months leaving the narrowest
possible window to reach a deal and
avoid a further crisis
this is not how this should have played
out
but that doesn't mean that our hands are
tied behind our backs here in the Senate
the Senate's not required as I said the
rubber stamp the house built
we have the opportunity to amend this
legislation and make it better
I share the concerns expressed by the
ranking member of the Senate
Appropriations Committee the senator for
Maine
senator from South Carolina Senator
Graham Senator Sullivan the senator from
Alaska that the and Senator cotton I
believe is also spoken on that publicly
that the defense number in this
agreement is simply inadequate
and it's completely unacceptable to
leave in the hands of Senator Schumer
the majority leader whether or not
we actually pass Appropriations bills
this year
because if we don't under the terms of
the McCarthy Biden agreement
then we go back into a sequestration
with the one percent cut across the
board
now that may not sound like a lot
but our country is facing more National
Security threats
than we ever have before
whether it's the challenge in Europe
with
Russia's unjustified invasion of Ukraine
whether it's a
the aspirations of the Ayatollah in Iran
to build nuclear weapons whether it's
Kim Jong-un
in North Korea
or Vladimir Putin
or president XI
it's easy to see that the threats are
not diminishing they are getting
more and more serious which means
that a sequestration of the defense
department spending by automatic
operation of law is unacceptable
so Senators on both sides want
amendments members want to make changes
to try to improve the bill
and as I said the Senate should not be
cut out of the process due to President
Biden's foot dragging
we still have time before the January
the fifth deadline and the Senate could
move through the amendment process
fairly quickly we could do it today
we have ample time to vote on amendments
and send an amended version back to the
house for final Passage
and I might add there's no reason for
the majority leader to block Amendment
votes Senators deserve an opportunity to
vote on amendments and I hope the
Majority Leader will not stand in the
way of those Senators on both sides of
the aisle
who want to offer amendments and then
receive up or down votes
this bill does include some very
positive developments beginning to rein
in our nation's spending habits
but it's not a magic pill to cure the
federal government's chronic financial
troubles
America's 31.4 trillion dollar debt
developed over the course of decades
so it's unreasonable to expect we're
going to turn that around
with the passage of one bill but we can
start
and we should start
and we know the pandemic accelerated
these problems we spent a lot of money
necessarily on a bipartisan basis to try
to deal with the Public Health crisis
and The Economic Consequences of the
pandemic
but then as I said
at President Biden's request for our
Democratic colleagues abused the rules
of the Senate to go on two partisan
spending sprees first came the 1.9
trillion dollar American Rescue plan
followed by the 700 billion dollar
so-called inflation reduction Act
that's 2.6 trillion dollars more which
gets us up to the
31.4 trillion today
but then they use that money to do
everything from
fund a super-sized IRS
the taxpayer provided subsidies for rich
people to buy electric vehicles
so I'm glad that the speaker was
successful in addition to beginning the
long process of beginning to
bend the curve when it comes to the
Reckless spinning I'm glad the speaker
was able to agree with the White House
to claw back some of that money
including 27 billion dollars in unspent
coveted funds and a rip and to redirect
a reported 20 billion dollars in IRS
funding to other priorities
the Congressional budget office
estimates this bill will reduce federal
spending by 1.5 trillion dollars over
the next decade
which is a strong start
to fight
in the fight to write America's
Financial ship
so as I said this bill is the beginning
of that fight it's not the end and I
know
many of us including this Senator would
like for us to be able to do more
but the fact of the matter is one Bill
cannot erase it Decades of financial
troubles
we need to build on the progress made in
this legislation
in the months and years to come
and of course the best way to do that is
at election time
because it matters who wins elections if
it matters who's in the majority it
matters who controls a body of Congress
in the White House
but the next big battle will be in the
Senate and House Appropriations
committees
as we know every year the Committees are
charged with writing 12 separate bills
to fund the various components of the
federal government
the process of drafting those bills is
designed to involve public hearings
committee votes and rigorous debate it
gives every member of the Appropriations
Committee opportunities to shape the
individual spending bills
and address America's spending habits
and once it's voted out of committee
then all 100 Senators should have that
opportunity to shape and improve the
legislation
once these bills are completed they're
supposed to pass both Chambers and be
signed into law by September the 30th
every year
but that didn't happen in 2021 or 2022
the Democratic Center majority leader
refused to allow us to pass a single
appropriation Bill last year forcing us
into the ugly process of considering and
passing an Omnibus appropriation bill
that's not the way this is supposed to
be done
Congress cannot continue to operate like
this with bloated budgets last minute
spending bills backroom negotiations
that is no way to gain the Public's
trust or to run the federal government
we need to return to a transparent
and regular process where every elected
member of Congress has the opportunity
to participate in budgeting and deciding
what the appropriate expenditure of
taxpayer dollars should be
so we've known this date was coming
since January
President Biden put us in this
difficult situation by wasting valuable
time
and he has pushed us to the brink of
default
now thanks to his delayed tactics the
Senate's preparing to vote on the bill
that no member of this body had a hand
in writing
given the time crunch this truncated
process
was a necessary evil but it cannot be
the norm
we need to return to the processes that
were designed to promote smart
and responsible spending
hearings committee votes and public
debate are absolutely critical
for today Senators deserve the
opportunity to mend this bill
and as I said to make it better if they
can
but all of our colleagues have a right
to have a say in this process and I urge
the majority leader to allow that
process to go forward
with the up or down Amendment votes
Mr President I yield the floor
I note the absence of a quorum the clerk
will call the roll Miss Baldwin
Mr President
senator from Kansas Mr President thank
you Quorum Paul we are Mr President I
ask unanimous consent that that Quorum
call be lifted without objection
Mr President I want to spend a few
minutes here on the senate floor
discussing the debt ceiling agreement
reached between the Republican majority
in the house and the Biden White House
the fiscal responsibility Act
the bill that uh presumably we will be
further debating uh perhaps amending and
voting on yet today or tomorrow
I fully recognize that governing in a
divided government
is a challenging
amount of work
the American people have given us that
circumstance
this circumstance requires negotiation
finding common ground
otherwise we can do nothing
unfortunately President Biden for way
too long he refused to negotiate with
House Republicans refused for months to
negotiate with House Republicans
I suppose in an effort to intimidate
Republicans and pass an unaltered debt
ceiling increase
this would have opened the door for more
democratic majority spending
in fact spending even more money
with perhaps no certainly fewer strings
attached
fortunately that tactic did not work and
the House Republicans acted to pass
their own debt limit legislation
without a realistic plan a plan that
could pass the Congress
the Biden Administration finally
conceded and negotiated with House
Republicans to create a deal the deal
that's before us now
my view
defaulting on the national debt would
send a message that we are a nation that
cannot be trusted to pay our bills
the default would be highly dangerous to
our national security
and to our currency
and to our economy
China
and other countries those countries that
are on the fence
in today's world they're watching
we're watching how the American
government operates
they want to diminish our role
in the world
China would love
for our standing in the world to be
damaged due to default
for the United States in its economy to
be in chaos
it is vital to our economy and our
national security that we do not default
and we preserve the U.S dollar
as the primary currency the reserve
currency
not the Yen or any other country's
currency
the implications of what happens here
today in regard to default
has a consequence Upon Our National
well-being vis-a-vis the rest of the
world and most importantly
determines the relationship we have with
other countries and the role that China
is able to further play in the world
order
China
and these countries that are on the
fence are watching
it's time it's vital to our economy and
National Security that we do not default
and we preserve that dollar
the fiscal responsibility act isn't the
legislation
that I personally would introduce
it does not sufficiently cap long-term
discretionary spending it continues to
to tie our defense budget to spending
less than the rate of inflation
and it fails to address reforms needed
to mandatory programs
but it does accomplish key conservative
priorities that will benefit America
and help put our nation on a better path
toward fiscal responsibility
Reckless spending
in addition to the debt ceiling issue
Reckless spending can be the also the
demise of our country's well-being
and endless deficit spending will
eliminate the American dream for many
Americans
and the American dream is seen by the
rest of the world
as a fiscal conservative the federal
government must spend less must grow its
spending less rapidly
must set limits on our appetite
and must stop wasteful spending
our nation has had a spending problem
for the last several decades
probably even longer than that it used
to be that everyone understood that
deficit spending was a damaging thing to
the economy
Franklin Delano Roosevelt perhaps the
first progressive president understood
that the World War II
had to be paid for
it was a given that we paid our bills
with nearly current Revenue
it seems over time that many
particularly in my view
in the Democratic party decided that
that deficit spending was not that much
of a problem
then I worry that too often Republicans
want to look the other way as well
we accelerated that spending during
coven
perhaps with the uncertainty of what
covid meant to us
government spended spending Rose rapidly
and we spent too much money
but Congress was slow even as covid
began returned to the rearview mirror
we were too slow to turn off that
coveted spending spigot
coupled with Reckless tax and spending
sprees driven by the Biden
Administration out of control spending
has led
to record high inflation
inflation is a like a tax on every
American and is damaging to the poorest
Among Us
here in Congress we talk about spending
in terms of millions and billions
sometimes even trillions
but folks back home in Kansas talk about
spending in dollars and cents
and for every day Americans those
dollars add up
make it harder to buy the groceries to
pay the rent or to put gas in their
vehicles
we see it
every day in our family and I hear about
it from everyday kansans all the time
reducing inflation requires reductions
to spending
it is the cause of inflation is when
we spend more than we have to spend and
we borrow money pumping more
federal spending government spending
into the economy
however we need to fulfill the most
important responsibility to the federal
government and that is to protect and
defend our nation and to keep our
promises
to those who served in the military that
defends us
my colleagues and I on the senate
committee on Veterans Affairs have
consistently said we would provide the
VA with the funding it needs to provide
care
and services to the men and women who've
served our nation
I've heard it said many times here in
the Senate and elsewhere that it's too
easy for us to go to war
and never easy enough for us to pay for
the bills for those who sacrificed so
much during war
the debt ceiling deal delivers on our
commitment to support veterans
the deal also secures the full funding
of the toxic exposed veterans that was
authorized by the just recently passed
packed Act
in regard to government waste this
legislation will slow the rate of
spending and recruit unspent funding
starting with covid funds to the tune of
billions of dollars
the pandemic
is basically behind us and there is no
reason for us to keep spending under the
rubric under the title of covet relief
funding
additionally this legislation will cut
significant funding to divided
administration's plan
to hire thousands of additional IRS
agents
I'm an appropriator
and I've long been an advocate for what
we around here call regular order what
folks back home would just call doing
your job
I've been an advocate for us passing the
way this process is supposed to work is
we have a budget that outlines how much
money we can spend what the revenues are
to pay for it and then we divide that
money that we're going to spend in
discretionary spending up among 12 bills
that the Appropriations Committee and
ultimately the Senate and the house and
the president then have something to say
about
I've been an advocate for passing those
separate 12 bills
we haven't done that very well many
times
for far too long we've relied on
continuing resolutions
and massive Omnibus packages to fund our
government
those Omnibus packages allow for a small
group of members of Congress to make
major decisions for the rest of us
it adds to the uncertainty of what's in
a bill when it's such a massive piece of
legislation and it creates rightly so
cynicism among my constituents about
what's in there and did you read the
bill
these measures the way we do it we the
way we have done it in the past
are not good government and they lead to
the ease of additional spending it
becomes too easy to add something to
such a massive bill
this legislation
would encourage Congress to do its job
by passing 12 separate appropriation
bills
or face automatic caps on spending
I hope the outcome
of whatever this whatever happens on
this piece of legislation
I hope the outcome with the leadership
of the Appropriations Committee that we
have today means that we're going to do
12 separate bills each with the scrutiny
of an appropriation subcommittee and the
opportunity for amendments by all
Senators on the senate floor
working to spend less will help stop
this runaway inflation but this
legislation goes a step further by
stimulating the economy and protecting
Americans from new taxes
unleashing American energy is a key to
reducing Energy prices stimulating our
economy and strengthening our national
security
the permitting reforms included in this
bill will help get energy projects
approved more quickly
rather than being bogged down
in a set of bureaucratic regulations
things that should take months or a few
years
hopefully will take
will will be the case and not take years
or decades
raising the debt limit is not something
I or any of my colleagues should take
lightly why have a debt ceiling if it's
just automatically increased every time
it's met
don't we wish that would work in our
credit card bills that we receive
we have a limit on what we can spend
because
sometimes people and always government
needs to be told no
we are seeing firsthand the consequence
for spending outside our means
and there will continue to be more
consequences
but no deal is not a solution either
this is really The Clash of a bad
outcome of a default and a bad outcome
of more spending
more inflation and a greater challenge
to our our country and its economy
No Deal
is not a solution it doesn't and and
defaulting
I can't see any way that that is helpful
to kansans or Americans
American people elected divided
government so what we work in every day
here
Democrats hold the White House in the
Senate the House Republicans deserve
credit for negotiating a deal with a
reluctant president
and passing an agreement with reasonable
caps on federal spending
this bill represents progress
and is that proverbial step in the right
direction
cannot continue to borrow money we don't
have and settle future generations with
the consequences
the debate cannot end here however with
this vote
however the outcome of this legislation
Congress
we should never have to wait for
a crisis an economic crisis the debt
ceiling to take fiscally responsible
measures it should be part of a way of
life here
those responsible measures need to
become the norm for every member of
Congress and for this and every other
president
without a serious long-term plan and
subsequent action to reduce spending
we'll be back in this position way too
soon and will jeopardize the American
dream
it threatens our children and our
grandchildren's futures
as well as our nation's ability to
defend itself against Global threats
I always tell myself that my
responsibility as a citizen of this
country not as a senator necessarily but
just as a citizen is to do what we can
do to make sure that the American dream
is Alive and Well the Liberties and
freedoms that we enjoy As Americans
through the sacrifice and service of
many
and the wisdom of the founding fathers
in the Constitution the United States
our job is to make certain those
Liberties and Freedoms
are protected
for people will never meet
and if the American dream is alive and
well
for people today and their children and
grandchildren
America still stands as a beacon for
others around the world
and there are others who in other
countries who are trying to live the
American dream they're envious of what
we have
but it's fragile and it can go away
it's our responsibility
to make sure that's not the case
we can't let this happen
we have to confront our threats head on
and yeah it's easy to
take a side and
defend that side and advocate for that
side it's what we do here
there are times in which it's necessary
for us for the well-being not of us as
individuals or us as elected officials
but for the well-being of the country
to find a way a path forward
and in today's environment in today's
world it requires bipartisan
cooperation
and bipartisan agreement is a blueprint
to develop a more fiscally responsible
legislative agenda
we'll debate this bill we'll potentially
and perhaps hopefully amend this bill
but our work is cut out for us
the American people
deserve
us to make the decisions that protect us
from our adversaries
keep the American dream alive
and make certain that
our children and grandchildren those
we've never met have a brighter future
the issue before us is one of those that
has a consequence in all those arenas
I'll work with my colleagues today as we
move forward on this legislation
to make sure that the outcome is
something that
advances a cause that's important to me
and to the people I represent
Mr President I yield the floor
Mr President senator from Oklahoma
Mr President uh years ago
like
15 maybe 18 years ago
I was speaking in a town in Oklahoma
and my daughter wanted to go with me
which was great
so we took off
I had reserved a hotel
and so we get there we're going to just
stay overnight and I'm speaking
somewhere the next morning
we arrive at the hotel late that evening
and when I get there and check in
I knew initially we're in trouble
you have that feel when you pull up to
the hotel and you think this may not
work
pull up
check in and but there's no one at the
desk
and then it just gets harder as we get
to our room it's dark lots of light
bulbs that are out in the passageway get
to our room to be able to check in and
actually when I shut the door and the
two of us come in I shut the door behind
us and the crack underneath the door was
so large I could physically see the
patio and the balcony everything else
outside
and it was so loud because it was right
next to the highway I thought we're in
trouble this is just not going to work
so we ended up packing everything up and
just going to search and find another
place and thinking there's no way we'll
both be able to sleep now why do I tell
you that silly story
well
when we were traveling and heading there
we we anticipated one thing and then we
got there and went through the details
it ended up being different
I have to tell you
this past weekend when I read through
the 99 pages
of the debt ceiling bill
I would read through a section of it and
I would get to the end of that section
and be surprised at the except for at
the tail end of each section
it's not what I expected when I read
through the document page after page
I have to tell you we are a nation
that leads the world
we're the world's largest economy
we're to be responsible in how we handle
our budgeting in the process
we're to get it right because we're the
United States of America
and I've been concerned for quite a
while on the trajectory of our spending
and have challenged us as a nation
to be able to change the trajectory of
our spending because we've got to start
working back to balance we can't get to
balance in a year
it's going to take a long time to get
there but we've got to get started in
this process
and my frustration has been is sometimes
we seem to start and then we stop again
and then we start and then we stop again
the several years that I've been here in
the United States Congress I voted for
some debt ceiling increases because they
changed the trajectory
and a voted against some because they
were status quo where they didn't
I had higher expectations for this one
now initially when it came out it was a
this is going to save two trillion
dollars
and then it slowly got downgraded too
it's going to save a trillion and a half
dollars and then when we read the fight
and print and everyone's talking about
how much is going to save
I get to the fine print and find out
actually it increases spending 3.3
percent next year and the year after
that it increases spending one percent
again it actually doesn't decrease
spending at all
it increases spending both this year and
next year but then it has the promise of
the next eight years after that that it
will only grow one percent a year after
that every single year except
that's not an agreement this Congress
can make
this Congress can only vote on things
for this particular session of Congress
we can't commit the next Congress
to actions of this Congress each
Congress stands on its own and everyone
knows that it sounds good to say it's
going to save these trillions of dollars
in the next eight years
except each Congress will actually vote
on a budget for the next eight years and
there's no commitment from future
congresses by this one to do that
in fact I've been here long enough to be
able to see agreements be made for what
a future Congress will do
that didn't actually happen
and so the 1.5 trillion dollars in
savings is only a decrease of the
increase
of how much we were quote unquote
planning to spend but actually hadn't
budgeted because
as many people may know there's not a
budget set for the next year what we
were going to spend so CBO just assumed
we were going to increase at least by
inflation in any amount less than
inflation is suddenly savings when there
was no budget that was actually set
so my first big surprise was it actually
doesn't reduce spending it actually
increases spending
the next big surprise comes when I start
looking at how even some of the
quote-unquote savings are actually
managed
there's a supplemental piece that's in
this or a piece that's set aside where
it takes the what they call rescissions
and I get into budget garbage that is
tough for us to all be able to process
but there's about 22 billion dollars
that's taken out of items that were
coveted spending that's not going to be
spent and pulls it over into the
Department of Commerce and leaves it
there in the Department of Commerce
amount and says we'll decide later how
to spend it now I asked the obvious
question isn't this supposed to go to
deficit reduction and the answer came
back well
a few billion went to deficit reduction
but 22 billion actually went over into
the department of commerce's budget and
is being parked there and they'll have
other opportunities to be able to spend
those dollars in the future
well that's not really a savings on the
rescission
there's permitting reform in this which
I'm grateful for quite frankly there's
bipartisan support for permitting reform
in many areas because we can't get
lithium and Cobalt we can't move solar
and wind power because of Permitting
just like we can't move natural gas and
hydrogen in CO2 because of Permitting
issues we've got to do major reforms in
those areas to be able to make sure that
we can actually produce more energy for
the future of our country
so when I saw the permitting issues and
I thought good we need to get started on
some of these permitting issues except
when I read through it
there seems to be a lot of exceptions to
it
for instance there's a two-year
commitment to say if you're doing the
more strict environmental impact
statement you've got to get it done in
two years
well unless the administration declares
it complex and then they've got a lot
more time in fact an infinite amount of
time it limits you to 150 Pages for an
environmental impact statement which is
good that actually brings the paper down
unless
the administration declares it complex
and then it's a whole lot more it limits
the number of pages even unless it's the
appendix if the administration declares
actually these are to go in the appendix
then there is actually no cap no limit
for that
It also says that
in this time period piece that if you
get to two years from the environmental
impact statement if they don't achieve
that I ask The Logical question if an
Administration an agency doesn't get it
done in two years what happens the
answer is
well you have to sue the federal
government in that agency
to make them do it and then it has to go
through the court system which is this
body knows will take two or three years
and then if the court finds in their
favor then the court can then declare
that the agency has another 90 days to
be able to get it resolved unless
it's considered complex
and then they have unlimited time
so the permitting piece as I read
through it I thought why are there all
these exceptions that are out there that
give it an out to every P every single
portion of it there's a section of the
bill that talks about what's called
administrative paygo that's a rule
that's existed in some administrations
before well they will say if you're
going to add a cost to America through
an administrative action you've got to
look somewhere else and decrease the
cost Because by the Constitution only
this Congress can actually increase
spending that's not something the
Administration has the Constitutional
authority to do
so that's a reasonable rule
so it puts in this administrative pay go
to say if spending is going to increase
based on their regulation has to
decrease somewhere else that sounds
great until I get to the very end of it
and it literally says
unless
the director of the officer management
and budget considers the additional
spending necessary
no restrictions
if it's considered necessary then they
have an unlimited amount that they can
do and even that restriction actually
goes away on January the 1st
20 days before President Biden's term
ends so it's not even all the way
through the last three weeks that even
that restriction goes away
and I can't figure out why suddenly it
gives like three weeks of
home base
without a restriction like that and why
if we're going to put a restriction in
there why it would end in two years
anyway if it's a good idea it should be
a good idea for every president not just
for this one
and why there would be suddenly an out
clause in it
there's a one percent sequester that's
across the board if Appropriations are
not done now I have to tell you I've
worked with Senator Maggie Hassan on the
other side of the aisle to resolve a way
that we can end government shutdowns and
actually do Appropriations
we should do all 12 appropriation bills
the the senator who's the chairwoman of
Appropriations here on the floor right
now she and I have had this conversation
she's committed to doing all 12
appropriation bills so am I we need to
bring regular order and actually go
through the process we don't all agree
on everything here in the body welcome
to America 320 American 320 million
Americans don't agree on everything okay
well let's talk it all out
let's have the debate let's have the
vote and go from there we haven't had
that ability in years now
so Senator Maggie Hassan and I have a
bill dealing with ending government
shutdowns and pushing us towards doing
the 12 appropriation bills that is not a
bipartisan Bill quite frankly it's a
non-partisan bill I don't find anyone
here that doesn't want to actually give
respect to regular order
so we're trying to find a logical way to
be able to do it but the way this bill
sets up the sequestration
to push us towards those 12
appropriation bills
says that if appropriation bills are not
done by April the 1st of next year
there's a one percent across the board
cut
that will happen in the current Year's
spending in the last five months of the
year that's a pretty big spending except
it really only hits defense
because the way it's set up is
non-defense will actually go up and
defense will actually be cut by one
percent from last year's amount
what in the world why would it be
structured that way number one why do we
set up a sequestration piece at all as
an incentive
number two why would it be designed to
shape where it hits defense but not
non-defense in the way that it's
actually set up and number three when
there were other options like Cinder
Hassan and I our proposal to deal with
Indian government shutdowns and to get
to actual Appropriations why wouldn't we
do something like that that's
non-partisan that's simple and
straightforward to be able to do
the student loan suspension there's been
much publicity on the right about well
this ends the student loan suspensions
accepted ends it on July the 30th when
President Biden already says he's ending
it on August the 30th in fact CBO looked
at it and said this doesn't save any
money at all because it was already
going away
it doesn't really change anything it
literally moves it forward a month but
doesn't change
a thing
and then there's a work requirement
process which I have to say I'm a big
believer in work requirements not
everybody here in this body is on that I
think work is dignity I think work
encourages families and it brings
dignity to a family and an individual
unlike anything else that a family can
bring I think it's great for kids to
grow up in a community where the adults
around them work and they set that
example and they build on that there's
just a unique dignity in work quite
frankly some of that just comes from
what I've seen and some of that comes
from my faith
because when I look at even scripture
there was work in the garden before the
fall work is not a consequence of the
Fall work is a gift from God that it
gives us purpose and meaning and helps
us set the next example so anything we
can do as a culture to encourage a
culture of work I think it's beneficial
to people and families no I understand
full well though those they're disabled
those that have kids they're situations
where that can't be done completely
respect that
but in this particular Bill the
incentives for work requirements has a
little caveat stuck in the back of it
that says all of this applies to these
states and they can't take all these
waivers where they pull away work
requirements they can't do those things
unless
secretary Becerra
the Secretary of HHS
declares that that State's doing good
work to try anyway
no restrictions on it it just says
solely secretary Becerra if he decides
that it gets waived
so as I look at the bill I see a lot of
good intentions in the bill
but I see a whole lot of exceptions
and I see a whole lot of ability for the
administration to waive that wave that
wave that wave that
that undercuts the purpose of the bill
quite frankly as a congress I wish that
we could sit down across the aisle
and we could have dialogue to say what
is congress's responsibility
what are the policies that are wise
policies in not hand authority to the
White House Republican or Democrat and
say what's just good policy that we need
to put in place
and do those things
one day we'll get back to that but that
day wasn't today
and that's frustrating for me
so I'm going to oppose this bill today
but it wants to be able to keep working
because we still got work to do
Mr President is one side note as well
I know Congress is focused on this today
rightfully so the American people expect
us to get this resolved
but can I just tell you a little bit of
heartbeat issue for me it's June the
first
and that may not mean a lot of things to
a lot of people
but for those of us from Oklahoma
today is the 102nd anniversary of the
worst race massacre in American history
it happened in Tulsa Oklahoma
May the 31st overnight
to June the first
102 years ago today
Greenwood
was a smoking heap of rubble
after an all-night violence and Massacre
on hundreds of black Americans in North
Tulsa
sustain on our nation to stain on our
state and 102 years later
I hope we still pause and remember as a
state
and we continue to learn the lessons
and continue to be able to work towards
being a more perfect union
today the Greenwood Rising museum is
open
folks are coming in and out
talking about what happened 102 years
ago Folks at the John hope Franklin
Center for reconciliation are engaging
in conversation there's Community groups
all over North Tulsa that are meeting
with people just to be able to talk
and to say what have we learned 102
years later
how can we still be better as a nation
still
we've learned a lot we've grown a lot
but it's unfinished business for us
so on June the 1st I remind us as a body
it was a massacre 102 years ago today
we shouldn't ignore this moment
to remember
how we take tragedy
to Triumph
I yield the floor
the senior senator from Washington thank
you Mr President and first of all let me
acknowledge the final comments from the
senator from Oklahoma and thank you for
making us all pause and remember that
important time and the important lessons
that we all need to move on from here
thank you very much
Mr President
like so many of my colleagues I spent
last week back home hearing from folks
in my state and everywhere I went I
heard from people who about how the
Investments that we make here in
Congress actually matter in their daily
lives how the funding that we provide
from here helps students at Lake
Washington Institute of Technology in
Kirkland pursue their dreams and get a
higher education and find a good paying
job
helps entrepreneurs in Tacoma start a
business and grow it from the ground up
helps pregnant moms who rely on the
Rainier Valley midwives Center to get
the care they need to have a healthy
pregnancy
I saw how our federal Investments make
Cutting Edge biomedical research
possible at the Allen Institute in
Seattle leading to breakthroughs that
save lives and give people more time
with their loved ones again and again I
heard about the resources that we send
back home pay off in a truly meaningful
way and it's true the Investments we
make in our country are critical they're
critical in helping our families succeed
keeping our communities safe and keeping
our nation strong secure and competitive
we aren't simply spending we are
investing we are investing in fighting
deadly fentanyl in upgrading our
crumbling infrastructure we're investing
in keeping America on The Cutting Edge
of clean energy and scientific
innovation we are investing in
rebuilding American manufacturing and
bringing industries of the future back
home here to our Shores I could go on
and on but the point is the funding
decisions we make right here in this
chamber are not just numbers on a page
they are investments in people in
families in our communities and
ultimately in our country's future
and they are also crucial to keeping our
country secure and on The Cutting Edge
as competitors like the Chinese
government work hard to outpace us
as we all know our adversaries are not
restricting their investments in their
futures
they're not and they're not teetering on
the verge of calamitous default for the
sake of partisan politics and yet
instead of listening to people back home
instead of listening to the flashing red
warning signs from our competitors House
Republicans have been insisting on
Draconian cuts and harmful changes to
the programs that are a Lifeline for
struggling families and the lifeblood of
our Global Leadership
House Republicans pushed to slash this
funding for key Federal programs is
alarming and the way they have tried to
make their Cuts is down right Reckless
we've got to be clear about what they
have done here instead of working
through the budget and Appropriations
process as we do every year to craft our
nation's budget and determine how we
spend money House Republicans just
decided they would threaten to tank our
economy and force the U.S into default
to extract partisan concessions and they
absolutely have not been shy about it we
heard from house Republican leaders and
even the leader of the Republican Party
talk openly about taking our economy and
the American people quote hostage
that is damning House Republicans
admitting to using the full faith and
credit of the United States of America
as a political weapon
needless to say that is not how this
should work negotiating is not one side
saying give me everything I wander else
negotiating is coming to the table
saying here are my concerns here are my
principles here's what I'm hearing from
families in my state where can we find
common ground
that's what people elected us to do
that's what they sent us here to do and
frankly I think that's what many of us
here want to do
I have heard from so many of my
colleagues about their desire to return
to regular order and I have been working
with Senator Collins to do that on the
Appropriations Committee
but let's get one thing straight hostage
taking is not regular order
it is just not that's not the way we
should arrive at the top lines for our
spending bills and it's time we put an
end to this dangerous brinksmanship at
the next possible Opportunity by
scrapping this debt ceiling and taking
the threat of default off the table once
and for all no other country handles its
credit like this
hostage taking is no way to have a
conversation about our nation's fiscal
future and let's be clear for House
Republicans this never was truly about
the debt anyway Republicans added
trillions to the debt under President
Trump through tax giveaways for
billionaires and giant corporations but
they refused to even talk about asking
billionaires to pay at least as much in
taxes As A Firefighter or a nurse they
won't talk about closing giant loopholes
for big oil or big Pharma they
definitely won't talk about capping tax
giveaways to the wealthy
instead House Republicans want to give
handouts to the rich and massive
corporations they want to make life
harder for struggling families by
cutting the programs that they rely on
and make competing globally harder for
our nation by capping our ability to
invest in our future
they agreed to raise the debt ceiling
three times under President Trump
without batting an eye but their tune
changed when a Democrat was in the White
House
President Biden and Congressional
Democrats have been clear from the
outset default is not an option
and should never have been a threat
because it would be catastrophic to our
nation's economy to the Financial
Security of our families and to the
stability of the global economy
so I applaud President Biden for his
laser focus on taking default off the
table and while I know the president has
pushed hard to hold the line on recent
progress and protect vulnerable people
who we need who need support and reject
the House Republicans most extreme
demands we have to be clear-eyed and
honest about how this bill fails to meet
our current moment
especially how it will limit our ability
now to make the Investments we need to
strengthen our economy and invest in
America's future
I will Vote for This legislation because
default is not an option but I do so
with deep concern and with a
determination to prevent us from ever
being in this situation again and lessen
the damage of these cuts at Ever every
possible opportunity and that can
include working with the administration
and my colleagues to consider a
supplemental but that conversation has
to consider more than just defense in
Ukraine because there are other really
important priorities like border
security disaster relief and other
non-defense items that we should not let
be shortchanged
this is absolutely not a bill I would
have written and the fact that the
choice here is between a bill that cuts
resources for American families or
trashing the nation's credit and causing
a global economic meltdown is an
indictment of House Republicans who
decided taking our nation's credit
hostage was an acceptable thing to do
understand that the programs being cut
make a real difference in people's lives
I know that firsthand
I am someone who grew up knowing what it
meant to get by on a tight tight budget
I had a big family six brothers and
sisters my dad was a World War II
veteran he ran a mom-and-pop store on
Main Street selling everyday Goods in
Bothell Washington we never had a lot
but we always got by and a lot of the
times a lot of times that was because
our government had our backs when my dad
got sick and was diagnosed with multiple
sclerosis my mom had to figure out how
to support seven kids and find a job
that would make that possible
a federal Workforce training program
helped her get a job as a bookkeeper to
keep my family afloat
me and my siblings all seven of us got
through college thanks to federal
assistance because our government
invested in Pell Grants and other
programs
my family and I had to rely on food
stamps for a brief time we didn't go
hungry because of federal investments in
nutrition
so I'll say it again
the funding decisions we make right here
in this chamber are not just numbers on
a page the policy we write and sign into
law has a direct consequence on people's
lives and every member of Congress needs
to recognize that
so rest assured I remain very focused
on keeping our Appropriations process
moving forward here in the Senate
marking up our spending bills in a
timely bipartisan way and I want to make
it clear right here on the senate floor
that I will be doing absolutely
everything I can to protect the
Investments that help those families get
by and ensure that this great country
lives up to its promise from Child Care
to housing to life-saving research and
more as chair of the Senate
Appropriations Committee I will be a
voice for Working Families in my home
state and all across the country thank
you Mr President I yield the floor
the senator from Indiana
thank you Mr President
been here about four and a half years
and come from that world where you can
never do what we do here
when you run a business
you're competing you're earning your
revenues
they're not given to you like in
government
here we just have to be smart enough not
to spend more than we take in
sadly when you look all the data's there
historically
we haven't balanced a budget
since the late 90s
over 50 years there's some things that
are just
criteria you need to take into
consideration and maybe view it as a
given our system which is built on
Enterprise
sound regulation not overbearing
taxes
that you can pay
without being a wet blanket on the
economy
over 50 years
other than
two or three years happened to coincide
in the Clinton years when we balanced
the budget we've never generated more
than 18 percent of our GDP
in Revenue through the federal
government
it's this simple when you have high
rates you flush more into the treasury
the first couple years you go from
whatever the economic growth rate was to
something a half to a percent and a half
lower
when you cut taxes
and it was getting close it wasn't quite
there
pre-covered the Trump tax cuts you're
going to deplete revenues the first
couple years but then you benefit from
an economy that's growing more robustly
we know all of that the missing link
here is anywhere else you've got the
rigor of the marketplace
when you're running something it's not
merciful if you behave there like we do
here you're on the ash heap of
Enterprises that just don't survive in
the long run
nowhere else
can you borrow now up to 30 cents on
every dollar that you spend
and expect that to be a good long-term
business plan
I'm one in the time I've been here
got along with a lot of Democrats on
passing legislation that's practical we
can still do it
but when it comes to the big agenda
items in terms of how much you spend
are you going to have the fortitude to
do a real budget
we haven't done that whenever we've had
moments of discipline with budget caps
sequestrations they seem to unravel soon
after we put them in place
again look at the numbers
we from the time we were founded to the
year 2000 had very little debt
most of that came after World War II the
greatest generation was the deepest in
debt we had ever been historically as a
country they were Savers they were
investors they were hard workers they
paid it off and built the interstate
highway system the most Capital
intensive thing we've ever done as a
country
when you morph into being consumers and
Spenders that's what Greece did that's
what Italy did that's what Spain did
that's what Portugal was doing
until they had to get back on the wagon
otherwise the second largest economy in
the world was going to be in trouble
they put basic discipline into their
system they spend more through the
federal government there than we do
but they pay for it generally they're
not borrowing it from future Generations
we've got to find a way as Democrats and
Republicans to take the priorities that
are important to this country
and I haven't mentioned so far the real
drivers of our structural deficits
that's Social Security
that is Medicare that is Medicaid
all programs that we want to be there
but we want them to be solvent
until we get the backbone
the political discipline
we're going to keep skirting
the rigor that it takes to make this
thing work long term and we're gonna you
can expect more of the same what you're
seeing here today is no different it's
just punctuated with a little more drama
than normal
we know we've got debt ceilings we
didn't have that we'd probably even plow
further into debt
but the numbers always win in the long
run
we were running trillion dollar deficits
both sides of the aisle generating them
from the bush years
we had covet come along we politically
enterprised I think through two years
not recognizing what the real capability
of our economy would be and we're in a
pickle
I'm going to do a little math quiz here
I did it with a bunch of reporters
three months ago I said what is one
percent of 30 trillion
Mr President would you venture to make a
guess on that
so
one percent of 30 trillion
is 300 billion
after 30 seconds of Silence one reporter
offered 300 million I said you're off by
a power of a thousand that's how
abstract these numbers become
but they become real over time
when you take interest rates that have
gone up four to five percent
now that you know what one percent of 50
trillion is try five percent
that's 1.5 trillion
that's what we're going to be pricing in
to our debt
that we're incurring the only blueprint
out there has been from the Biden
Administration puts us 20 trillion
further in debt in just 10 years
and all this is going to do is knock it
back to just 18 trillion more
that is shameful for future Generations
this institution needs to be healthy and
it needs to live within its means like
households do like local and state
governments do
like all businesses do try talking to
your Banker running a 30 loss want them
to lend you the money they would laugh
you out of the office before you got
into the details of really what you need
it's a bad business plan I could go on
about that but it's been happening
for now over two decades both sides of
the aisle the deal is generally made by
some on our side of the aisle that hold
defense sacrosanct don't want to budge
at all the other side views domestic
spending more importantly
but we generally work out this same deal
which you know what the net result is
we're deeper in debt
I did take Finance 101 I spent 37 years
running a business with full competition
the rigor of it was on a school board
was on ways and means in our state
government
it can be done
we've got the printing press in the
basement
that's the FED when they take all this
fiscal stimulus that we did
put it on their balance sheet that's how
you print money
bad business plan for future Generations
I'm here
going to introduce an amendment
called the no default Amendment we
should not be flirting with this year
after year when we know it's going to
happen anyway and until we put real
reforms into the system expect the same
the next time we hit
the debt ceiling
when the treasury says you're entering
into Extraordinary Measures
that's when the clock starts
my Amendment if you can't get a real
deal done with reforms addressing the
things I've talked about
we're going to start pairing back this
place
and it's going to be across the board
defense
and domestic spending every 30 days or
one percent cut
if you are so thick-headed that you
can't get it done then another 30 days
you do it again
that would put some rigor into the
process but if we're not honest
with the public and really address the
programs that are dearest to most
Americans
Social Security
Medicare Medicaid quit doing mandatory
spending on things that aren't important
we're going to run this place into the
ditch
and I fear for what my kids and
grandkids are going to have to deal with
and I think all Americans should be
worried about that this would be at
least the start of putting a little bit
of discipline into an undisciplined
system
thank you Mr President
I
the senator from Kentucky
asking Adam's consent that the following
interns from my office be granted four
privileges until June 30th 2023 Maddie
Jackson Joseph thoburn madelina
wassinger Brett logsdon and Mary Kate
Barbie without objection
our national debt now stands at about 32
trillion dollars
how did we get here whose fault is it
Republicans Democrats
well the answer is yes both parties are
at fault for different reasons
Republicans come to this floor and we'll
come to this floor today saying we need
unlimited military spending and
Democrats will come to this floor and
say we need unlimited welfare spending
and guess what happens they compromise
people say Washington doesn't compromise
they compromise all of the time that's
what this debt deal debt deal that's
before us is is compromise but the
compromise is always to spend more money
how do we know that the debt deal that's
been crafted by Biden and McCarthy
is an unlimited increase in the debt
ceiling see historically when we raise
the debt ceiling it would be a hundred
billion dollars or 200 billion dollars
or God forbid a trillion dollars it was
a dollar amount this debt ceiling will
go up till January 2025.
how many dollars will be borrowed as
many as they can possibly shovel out the
door it will be how much money can you
shovel out the door until January 2025
that's how much we will spend is there a
dollar amount no how much can you shovel
it out and how fast can you shovel it
out
there will be no restraint from this
debt deal there is a pretense there is a
playing around the edges as if oh there
might be a cut here or there might be a
cut there there are no Cuts why
two-thirds of your spending is
entitlement spending
the on budget entitlement spending is
Medicare Medicaid food stamps and other
programs they are called mandatory and
no one ever looks at them they go on in
perpetuity this is what drives the
deficit who took them off the table how
come there's no discussion of this
actually Republicans took them off the
table because they fear being criticized
by the Democrats it's being used in the
presidential campaign let's not talk
about the entitlements but that's
two-thirds of what gets spent every year
so if you don't talk about the
entitlements if you don't talk about
mandatory spending you're frankly not a
serious person and you will not make a
serious dent in this problem
so we've taken off the table all
mandatory spending no discussion of it
does this mean they're in good shape
that Medicare and Social Security and
all these programs are in good shape
heck no they're not in good shape
they're all running out of money they're
headed towards bankruptcy is anybody
brave enough to reform them no not a
damn thing's going to be done for any of
them but when you take them off the
table take all the entitlements spending
off the table and do nothing about it
now we're down to one third of the
budget so now you're going to try to do
budgetary reform while excluding
two-thirds of the spending on one-third
but it's worse than that the one-third
they call discretionary spending it's
about 1.6 trillion dollars half of
that's military so they took that off
the table
so mandatory spending entitlements is
going up five percent under this deal
because that's what it's been doing for
for years and years it's going up at
five percent military is going up at
three percent so what are we left for
what are we left looking at we're
looking at one-sixth of the budget
somewhere between 15 and 20 percent a
small sliver of the budget it's called
non-military discretionary and they
think we're going to do some kind of
fiscal reform on that small sliver of
government well guess what you can't do
it you can eliminate all of the
non-military discretionary money leave
the mandatory in place leave the
military in place increase them
eliminate all this other chunk of money
and you still never balance a budget see
there was a time
when there was a conservative movement
the conservative movement had a voice in
Washington there's still some voice but
not much but there was a time when
people on the conservative side of this
said well in order to be a thoughtful
rational realistic strong response to
the budget deficit you would have to
balance your budget in five years in
fact we voted on a constitutional
amendment in this body and every
Republican voted for it but it said you
had to balance five years why five years
Well because most of the plans that
lasted longer than that most of the
plans it balanced in like years nine and
ten were basically somebody fudging the
numbers and hoping something good would
happen in year 9 or 10 but the only
years they actually had any power over
the first year or two there weren't very
many cuts and they always had
unrealistic expectations in year 10. so
what have I done I've said let's look at
balancing this in five years what would
it take so about five or six years ago I
began introducing something called the
Penny Plan and what would it do it would
cut one penny out of every dollar
it actually would balance actually the
first year I did I didn't even cut one
percent I froze spending for five years
and the balance the budget would have
balanced but the trick is or not the
trick the truth is that you have to cut
all spending or freeze all spending you
can't just freeze a sliver of the
spending so people have talked about oh
there's a one percent trigger on the non
on the discretionary spending that's 16
billion dollars they're going to add
four trillion dollars in debt over the
next two years and they say but by golly
we might save 16 billion which even that
is not going to happen because the
trigger isn't real doesn't have muscle
and will be evaded
but the thing is is that if we were to
balance the budget over five years what
would happen is there now needs to be
about a five percent cut of all the
spending each year for five years and
then the budget would balance you say
well isn't it just a number what would
that mean to real people why do I care
whether the budget is balanced well go
to the grocery store go to buy gas go to
buy anything go to pay your rent look at
your cost of living and look at what
inflation is doing to you who does
inflation hurt the worst those on fixed
income and those are the working class
because they don't have extra Expendable
income most of their income goes towards
things that they have to purchase each
month but where does inflation come from
a senator from Indiana described it
accurately we run a debt this place
spends money we don't have and where's
the deficit made up for we sell that
debt to the Federal Reserve the Federal
Reserve buys it he's like wow this is a
great system we spend money we don't
have we prep print up these things
called treasury bills the Federal
Reserve comes over and then buys them
wow we can just do anything we want we
have the printing press but when they
create new money and that new money
enters into circulation that is
inflation inflation is an increase in
the money supply and when you increase
the money supply you chase the same
amount of goods you're going to chase
the prices right up and that's where
inflation comes from so the debt is not
just a number the debt is about the
value of your paycheck it's about how
far your paycheck goes so right now
we're in a bit of a spiral we've had
nine percent inflation it's a little
lower now but we've had as high as nine
percent I think the cost of living
increase for Social Security went up
nine to match that but you'll actually
find people who say you know even with
the nine percent increase I still can't
buy everything I need I'm actually still
being squeezed
but it's a bait and switch especially
because your government isn't honest
with you if your government wanted to be
honest with you and they say we're going
to be everything to everyone we're going
to give you stuff
and it's funny because we have this
comparison sometimes with Sweden and
people say and many Democrats will say
we want to be Sweden we want to be
Sweden and we're going to give you
everything around the big government
that coddles you from from Cradle to
grave but you know how they do it in
Sweden with a balanced budget and I'm
not advocating we become Sweden but they
balance our annual budget every year you
know how they got they have all that
free stuff to give everybody how they
have a safety net that includes
everything including college free health
care everything they tax everybody
enormous amount of tax over here the
Baton switches they'll say we're just
going to tax the rich people it's easy
just tax the rich people they don't do
that in Sweden though in Sweden they tax
everybody it's a 60 income tax beginning
at sixty thousand dollars a year
so everybody pays the middle class pays
so if we wanted to be honest and we're
going to say we're going to give you
this massive safety net you don't have
to work everybody can have a basic
income you do all of this
we would be honest or we should be
honest and say it would take massive
taxes instead there's a dishonesty but
the dishonesty is on both sides of the
aisle the Democrats say welfare is free
and the safety Net's free and Social
Security is free and all these things
are free what do Republicans say the
military-industrial complex is free you
can have all the weapons you want you
can give hundreds of billions of dollars
of weapons to Ukraine and it won't cost
anything because we'll just print it up
see there were times in our history when
you went through a war and the
devastation of war in World War II that
people actually suffered and you could
see the suffering and people felt like
they had to pay something
but now we just put it on the tab
but there is a point at which the tab
gets so large that there can be
something precipitous happen
the question has always been is this a
gradual problem where we'll just have to
deal with a little inflation five ten
percent here or is there a point at
which there's a calamity
if you look at the stock market for the
last 100 years some people will point to
like seven different days in which like
80 90 of the downturn occurred in seven
days in the last century
is there a possibility of Calamity when
we're so destructive to our dollar when
we're so destructive to good sense
I think the American people want more
from us recent polls have said 60
percent of Americans say don't raise the
debt ceiling without significant reform
43 Republicans 44 of us actually said we
want significant reforms before we raise
the debt ceiling but then the devil's in
the details the devil's in concluding
what is significant and what is not
significant so what will end up
happening my prediction here is almost
every Democrat will vote vote to raise
the debt ceiling and about half of the
Republicans will vote it'll be a 75-25
vote and in the end the debt ceiling
will go up people say that's good we
didn't have a Calamity we didn't the
stock market didn't crash because we
didn't pay our debt but you might want
to ask yourself is this really a
contrived controversy is there really a
reason in which we would ever default is
there a reason why we wouldn't make our
interest payment
we bring in five trillion dollars and
our interest payments 500 billion
so that would be like you make a hundred
thousand dollars and your mortgage
payments ten thousand dollars if you
made a hundred thousand dollars a year
and your mortgage payment was at ten
thousand dollars is there any chance you
would ever default is there any reason
you wouldn't cut your other expenditures
to prioritize your interest so you don't
get kicked out of your house that's what
every American family would do but we
don't do it up here so we threatened
default we scare the markets and say oh
no we'll default if the debt ceiling
doesn't come up no we would default only
if we refuse to cut spending so we spend
a trillion dollars more than comes in
every year that's the problem
if we simply said we're going to pay the
500 billion dollars 10 percent of our
revenue for next year we're going to pay
the interest no matter what and guess
what we'll tell the marketplace we're
never going to default we are we are
never going to fall we will always do
that that would be great the market
would go gangbusters and say we no
longer have to worry about those
knuckleheads they've finally decided
they're going to pay their interest and
they always will then what would happen
well we wouldn't have enough money for
everything so then we we should look at
where we could save money
the problem has always been this
Republicans pointed Democrats and say we
don't like your programs let's cut your
programs Democrats look at Republicans
and say no no don't cut our programs cut
yours everybody's don't cut mine cut
yours that's why I've taken the approach
and continue to take the approach we
should cut everything across the board
in the past there were always like
conservatives say let's get rid of
public television let's get rid of
Sesame Street and Big Bird and they'd
get so much grief over it it's like why
do that you're not balancing the budget
over big bird take one percent of big
birds budget take one percent of
everybody's budget and what would that
what would that bring about it would
bring about more conservation of the
dollar it would bring about more
restraint and more reform
I'll end with this
people say where would you cut I would
say everywhere but I can give you on the
tip of my hand ridiculous stuff that
should have a hundred percent cut but is
never cut and goes on and on in the
early 1970s William proxmeyer a
conservative Democrat pointed out that
the National Science Foundation was
spending fifty thousand dollars to study
what makes people fall in love
now that's a better I think topic for
Cosmopolitan magazine than it is for a
government study
nowadays it's gone up we spent a million
dollars having young people take selfies
of themselves while smiling
and then looking at it later in the day
to see if looking at pictures of
yourself smiling makes you a happier
person that costs you a million bucks we
spent a million and a half studying The
Mating called the Panamanian frog
to see if the mating call of the country
frogs was different than the city frogs
we spent nearly a million dollars
studying the Japanese quail to see if
they're more sexually promiscuous when
they're on cocaine
I think we could have just pulled the
audience on that one
this is the kind of ridiculous stuff but
does it get better I complain about this
every year and all the time and
everybody shakes their head and says no
way why are we doing that the National
Science Foundation we increase their
budget 50 last year people said oh we
have to compete with China so let's give
the National Science Foundation more
money we we for almost increase their
budget by 50 percent the people are
studying why you go on dates why you're
happy why the male frogs you know what
their mating call is this is the
craziness but it never gets better
because we always spend more money so my
Amendment would do this my Amendment
would reduce the spending in real terms
we'd actually spend less money next year
than last year it'd be a five percent
reduction in money and you'd spend less
each year and over five years you'd
balance your budget and then would be on
course to balance people say why not who
can do this half of Europe does it
Sweden balances their budget Germany
balances their budget
over half of the countries of Europe run
an annual balanced budget
our profligacy and our spending is
catching up to us I say we act now and I
recommend a yes vote on my Amendment
thank you Mr President
the senator from West Virginia thank you
Mr President appreciate that I rise
today to discuss the importance of both
the permitting sections and the
provision to expedite the completion of
the Mountain Valley pipeline that are
included in the fiscal responsibility
Act I want to commend speaker McCarthy
and House Republicans for negotiating a
legislation that makes
responsible reductions in government
spending while avoiding a government
default
including in this legislation are key
elements of the Builder act a permitting
reform proposal which was championed by
Congressman Garrett Graves and by house
natural resources chairman Bruce
Westerman the bill represents a positive
first step in improving the permitting
projects for all kinds of projects by
amending the National Environmental
Policy Act for the first time since 1982
we will help projects of all types
whether we're talking about a row a
bridge a transmission line a renewable
energy project a pipeline or a port
simply put a project shouldn't take
longer to permit than it takes to build
and that should be true regardless of
what type of project is under
consideration
this legislation will impose statutory
deadlines on completion of environmental
impact statements and environmental
assessments
it will streamline the review process
with threshold language that tells
agencies when various levels of review
are necessary and it allows agencies to
share categorical exclusions for similar
projects because multiple agencies
should not have to do the same work
twice makes sense
by placing the One Federal decision
policy into the NEPA statute this
legislation will allow project sponsors
to work with a single lead Federal
agency most of most of those listing
probably thought that was was happening
anyway and no all these different
agencies were were giving all individual
opinions if you want to build things in
this country we should not force project
sponsors to bounce back and forth from
one agency to the next often facing
litigation at every step it's just
simply common sense to allow project
sponsors to work with one lead agency
now more work is needed Beyond this bill
to fix our broken process for permitting
projects
reforms to the judicial review process
timelier fish and wildlife services
reviews and improvements to the Clean
Water Act are all very important
I introduced the restart act last month
with a number of my epw Republican
colleagues to address those issues and I
will continue to work in a bipartisan
way to see additional reforms into law
today's legislation is a positive step
on permitting reform and again I want to
thank Congressman Graves and chairman
Westerman for their efforts to get us to
this point
the Mountain Valley pipeline it is a
prime example of an important project
that has faced senseless delays mostly
As a result of litigation filed by
anti-natural gas activists at the U.S
court of appeals for the fourth circuit
this project has undergone numerous
numerous environmental reviews and
received approvals from multiple federal
agencies both under the Trump and the
Biden Administrations
these include actions from the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission
better known as ferc the U.S forest
Service the Bureau of Land Management
the U.S fish and wildlife service the
U.S Corps of Engineers the West Virginia
Department of Environmental Protection
and the Virginia Department of
Environmental Quality these are agencies
that have already approved this
construction of this pipeline given the
multiple actions by federal and state
environmental agencies approving this
project assertions that this project has
not gone through adequate environmental
review are just plain wrong
both the Trump and Biden Administration
have expressed support for this project
Secretary of Energy Jennifer Grant
grenholm recently sent a letter to ferc
endorsing the project
so the Mountain Valley pipeline is 95
percent complete and would be finished
today if it weren't for the rulings by
the fourth circuit that have stayed or
vacated multiple approvals granted by
federal and state environmental
regulators
the fourth circuit has acted nine times
with respect to the Mountain Valley
pipeline in eight of those nine
occasions the court is either stayed or
vacated in approval from a federal or a
state agency
only once did the court uphold an
approval for this project and that was
when the court upheld water quality
certifications from the state of
Virginia under Section 401 of the Clean
Water Act
but within days of that opinion
the same fourth circuit panel vacated
similar 401 Water Quality certifications
from the state of West Virginia
because certification from both States
is necessary to allow the Army Corps of
Engineers to issue a required 404 permit
for the Mountain Valley pipeline
vacating certification from one state
has had the effect of continuing to
prevent the project from moving forward
we've become all too familiar with the
fourth circuit's blocking of key
projects
the same panel that has rejected nearly
all of the state and federal approvals
for the Mountain Valley pipeline brought
before it took similar actions to vacate
state and federal approvals for the now
canceled Atlantic Coast pipeline
project sponsors for the Atlantic coast
pipeline appealed one of the fourth
circuits four adverse opinions all the
way to the Supreme Court
the Supreme Court reversed the fourth
circuit in a 7-2 opinion that was
written by Justice Thomas and joined not
only by Republican appointed judges but
also by justices Ginsburg and Breyer
despite winning at the Supreme Court the
Atlantic coast pipeline was canceled
amid the threat of continuing
legislation legis litigation and
permitting challenges
activists are using the same Playbook at
the fourth circuit to try to stop the
Mountain Valley pipeline
this is a pipeline that will result in
40 million dollars in tax revenue and
150 million in royalty payments in West
Virginia annually once it is completed
the project will open markets to West
Virginia's net natural gas providing
good paying jobs not just in my state
but enhancing our nation's energy
security and our own National Security
given the Project's benefits and given
approvals from state and federal
Regulators across multiple
administrations from both parties I do
not believe that a handful of judges
should have the finals say
this legislation will ratify approvals
issued under the Biden Administration
from the U.S forest Service the Bureau
of Land Management and the Fish and
Wildlife service along with approval
from the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission these documents will be
insulated from judicial review to
prevent further delays
Additionally the bill requires the Army
Corps of Engineers to issue necessary
project permits including that 404
permit I talked about earlier within 21
days
both Virginia and West Virginia
environmental Regulators have issued
necessary certifications for this permit
but the fourth circuit has further has
delayed further permitting action by
vacating West Virginia's certification
this legislation makes it crystal clear
that Congress expects the Mountain
Valley pipeline to be completed
consistent with the previously approved
environmental documents
I've consistently fought for common
sense reforms so that we can actually
ensure that we can build here in America
including key projects such as the
Mountain Valley pipeline
so it is my hope that permitting reforms
both the provisions that are in this
bill and those that we should consider
in the future will allow projects to be
approved and constructed in an efficient
manner that does not require
Congressional intervention it also
should be pointed out and emphasized
this does not mean that any
environmental regulation that is put
forward is ever shortchanged or
overlooked that's not the point here
so
on occasions when the process fails
projects of significant Regional and
national interests we have the authority
and the responsibility as elected
representatives to step in and ensure a
project is allowed to proceed
with that Mr President I thank you and I
yield the floor
foreign
foreign
foreign
foreign
thank you
Mr President
yeah the senator for Maryland uh thank
you Mr President
I Rise to express my disappointment in
the recent United States Supreme Court
decision to curtail the Clean Water Act
the principal law governing pollution
control and water qualities of our
nation's waterways
the narrow interpretation Now supported
by the highest court will remove Clean
Water Act protection for the majority of
wetlands in the United States
let me just repeat that
Wetlands we all know how important that
is to water quality
in America
we know that Wetlands act as a sponge
for runoff it traps pollution to
otherwise would end up in our waterways
and it's critically important to our
habitat
this narrow interpretation
will remove protection for a majority of
wetlands in the United States
at a time of rightly intense attention
to avoiding the default crisis this
attack on clean water protection must
not Escape notice
this past weekend we honored the
sacrifices of our military service
members often these celebrations of the
lies and Legacies of our fallen soldiers
and their loved ones take place outside
in community green spaces
our Parks need clean water
the second versus EPA decision is
detrimental to national parks where
two-thirds of the park waters are
already impaired with much of this
pollution linked to out-of-park Upstream
activities
under the second decision issued on May
25th of this year
a slim majority the court led by Justice
Alito and correctly concluded that the
Clean Water Act extends only to Wetlands
that have a continuous surface
connection with Waters of the United
States
this result does not mean the court
unanimously endorsed this new test
in fact this decision was to put it
mildly complicated
Justice Thomas filed a concurring
opinion on which Justice Gorsuch joined
Justice Kagan filed an opinion
concurring in the judgment on which
justices sotomayir and Jackson joined
Justice Kavanaugh filed an opinion
concurring in the Judgment in which
justices Sotomayor Kagan and Jackson
joined
put another way four members of the
Supreme Court
justices sotomayir Kagan Kavanaugh and
brown Jackson agreed that the Clean
Water Act does not apply to the wetlands
of the sack of the Sacred property but
they disagreed with the majority
reasoning
in an opinion joined by three justices
Justice Kavanaugh contended that by
narrowing the acts coverage of wetlands
to only adjoining Wetlands the Court new
test released some long regulated
adjacent Wetlands no longer covered by
the Clean Water Act with significant
repercussions for the water quality and
flood controls throughout the United
States
Justice Kavanaugh specifically noted
that the health of the Chesapeake Bay
would be at risk under the Court's new
test
our national treasure the largest
estuarian in the country was one of two
examples given along with efforts to
control flooding along the Mississippi
River
in its opinion the majority claims that
Clean Water Act repeatedly uses Waters
in context that confirm that the term
refers to bodies of Open Water
despite this convenient fallacy the
Waters of the bay are by no means
limited to open Waters in fact the
Chesapeake Bay receives half of its
water from a network of 110 000 streams
and 1.7 million Acres of wetland most of
which are non-hab navigable tributaries
and non-title wetlands that drain to
those tributaries
the watersheds roughly 1.5 million Acres
of wetlands are critical to restoring
the Chesapeake Bay in its tributaries
across Six States in the District of
Columbia
wetlands are essential to water quality
they trap pollutants
they're running off farmlands Suburban
parking lots and city streets before
they can reach the hundred and eleven
thousand miles of local streams creeks
and rivers that empty into the bay
entering the Atlantic hurricane season
it's worth noting that Wetlands also
protect Coastal and flood-prone
communities by absorbing Storm surges
and flood waters like sponges
Wetlands also mitigate slow onset
climate change effects like sea level
rise and sunny day flooding that
threatens lies businesses and properties
in Waterfront cities like Annapolis
Maryland Pennsylvania Virginia have
state regulations that could offer
backstop coverage for Wetlands that are
adjacent to but not adjoining the bay
and has covered tributaries EPA can no
longer protect
but we should not be abrogating this
shared responsibility
just to our states
Nationwide more than 111 million Acres
of wetlands in the ecosystem Services
they provide are estimated to face the
essential threat from the loss of
Federal Protection
Justice Kagan also wrote a brief opinion
on her own joined by justices Sotomayor
and Jackson in which she criticized what
she characterized as the Court's
appointment of itself as the national
decision maker on environmental policy
in her view which I share Congress
deliberately drafted the Clean Water Act
with a broad reach to address a problem
of Crisis proportion although the
majority disagrees with that decision
she wrote it cannot rewrite congress's
plain instructions because they go
further than the court would like
but this is precisely what the majority
did here she concluded just as it did
last year when it curtailed the epa's
authority to regulate greenhouse gas
emissions from power plants
second is the latest an alarming series
of Rollings to undercut the agency's
mission to protect human health and the
environment
this one happens to hit especially close
to the statutory home of the Chesapeake
Bay program partnership
for now to assert jurisdiction over an
adjacent Wetlands under the Clean Water
Act
a party must establish first that the
adjacent body of water constitutes
Waters of the U.S
Rel relatively permanent body of water
connected to traditional Interstate
navigable Waters and second that the
wetlands has a continuous surface
connection with that water making it
difficult to determine whether the water
ends and the water Wetlands begins
this arbitrary new definition strikes at
the heart of the Chesapeake Bay program
science-based decision making
moreover as Justice Kavanaugh notes the
Court's new test is sufficiently novel
and vague that it will create precisely
the type of regulatory uncertainty that
the majority roundly criticized
the decision muddies the waters for a
clear workable Waters of the U.S
definition after years of uncertainty
the role of the final revised definition
of waters of the United States ruled the
EPA and U.S Army Corps announced in
December established a clear and
reasonable definition
the common sense approach by the ePay
must now be defend recognizes that
pollution Upstream can have Downstream
impacts so we must protect the system to
safeguard Downstream communities in our
environment
the role this opinion invites opponents
to challenge also maintain long-standing
Clean Water Act permanent exemptions for
routine farming and ranching activities
basically comply to what we thought the
rule was before The Supreme Court
decisions almost a decade ago
in addition to the indirect costs of
regulatory uncertainty the loss of Clean
Water protections will have significant
economic consequences for outdoor
recreation which supports 788 billion
dollars in consumer spending
and more than 5 million jobs in the
United States annually
Wetlands do not just provide habitat for
wildlife and trout and Fisheries
that enhance outdoor recreational
opportunities
they also clean water for Farmers that
drive our economy through the production
of food
in order to protect our resources in our
new real reality we must enforce the
federal authorities left that protect
clean water support States strengthening
their own laws and regulations and take
action to restore protections
in addition clean water infrastructure
grants
programs such as the Clean Water State
revolving fund and the non-regulatory
coastal habitat restoration programs
like the coastal program offer resources
to support States tribes and ngos
restoring wetlands in their own best
interests
water pollution has never respected
political boundaries
our constituents all rely on clean water
for drinking swimming fishing irrigation
and more
I urge my colleagues to consider the
seriousness of this setback and let us
work together to mitigate the damage of
this decision
with that Mr President I would suggest
the absence of a quorum
the clerk will now call the rule
Miss Baldwin
foreign
Mr President
senator from Virginia Mr President I
Rise to speak about are we in a quorum
call
yes might I ask that it be suspended
without objection thank you Mr President
I Rise to speak about a provision of the
debt ceiling deal that I will later
today offer an amendment so that we can
remove it it's the provision dealing
with the Mountain Valley pipeline
I appreciate the hard bipartisan work
that's been done to put together a deal
and the deal has things I like and
things that I don't like and that's the
nature of any deal that struck between
houses of Congress controlled by
different parties
and it would have been my intention to
be a supporter of the deal despite its
imperfections however
a provision was added to the deal to
green light
a pipeline project that goes through two
states West Virginia and my Commonwealth
of Virginia
it was struck without any consultation
with either of the Virginia senators
it's a highly controversial project in
Virginia that directly impacts families
whose land will be taken
for the pipeline project and I stand to
speak on their behalf about the reasons
that I will seek to remove the Mountain
Valley pipeline provision
from the bill when we vote on it later
tonight
it would be one thing if you could build
pipelines in midair
but you can't
to build a pipeline you have to take
people's land
sometimes the land you take might be
public land National Park or National
Forest
but in any pipeline project of size in
the Mountain Valley pipeline is about
330 miles long you have to take a lot of
land from private landowners most of
whom don't want to give up their land
that means that when you do a pipeline
project and you approve it and you give
a private company the right to take
people's land you ought to do it
carefully after significant deliberation
and so since the 1930s there has been a
pipeline permitting process
that has required for an interstate
pipeline
first a determination by the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission that there
is a need for the pipeline the gas
pipeline and then once that
determination is made a separate
determination has to be made about what
is the best route for the pipeline
and once those determinations are made
you're able to take private land to
build the pipeline even though those
landowners will never benefit at all
from having a pipeline cross their
property
then Additionally the permitting process
isn't just about building but it's about
holding the developer to strict
standards so that when they build the
pipeline they minimally disturb the land
they minimally affect species they
minimally affect creeks and streams and
River Crossings
the Mountain Valley pipeline is proposed
to go about 110 miles through the
poorest part of my state Appalachia
in the Appalachian region of Virginia a
lot of people don't have very much for
many of them their land is what they
have and for many of them that land has
been in their family for Generations
they are entitled to a fair process that
would look about the need for the
pipeline and what is the best route and
then would insist that the pipeline be
built to a high standard to maximally
protect their property
Congress has made a decision that this
is not to be decided by Congress
pipeline routing pipeline need is not to
be determined by Congress instead you
put it in administrative agencies why do
you do that it's because a they have
expertise and B
it's less likely to be abused if you
were to let Congress do pipeline deals
it would be pretty easy for somebody to
look at a map and say well this County
never voted for you why don't we run it
through that County and take their land
instead we remove it from Congress so
that professionals can undertake the
right analysis and review
in this
bipartisan debt ceiling deal there's a
provision to green light one project in
the United States the Mountain Valley
pipeline to green light it and to say
that there will be no more
administrative process
to determine whether it had been fully
permitted and no more ability for the
courts to review the administrative
agency decisions
I strongly object to that I don't have
an objection to the pipeline itself I've
been asked again and again and again and
I said this is not for Congress to
decide in fact it would be wrong for
Congress to do this you should have an
administrative process you should go
through it a pipeline proponent should
have to meet the standard get over the
hurdles and when they do then okay then
they should be able to take land and
build a pipeline but only then we
shouldn't shorten it and give one
project a green light
this is ultimately about Virginians who
care about their land they they
don't want to give up their land for
this pipeline because they don't think
they'll benefit by it sometimes a county
will take someone's land to build a road
and even if you're not happy about that
at least there's a road you can have an
ambulance get to your house on or your
kid can go out and catch a school bus on
but a pipeline project of this kind
that's transmitting gas from one part of
the country to the other
people can't hook into it to get
low-cost natural gas many of the
communities in Virginia that this
pipeline route would cross don't even
have Natural Gas Distribution to their
communities it might have some effect
upon Global gas prices but that won't
affect somebody who doesn't have gas
service to their home
and so my Virginians just want to be
sure that if this pipeline is built it
has met the requisite standards of the
review agencies both state and federal
and it has withstood any Court
challenges
this is a pipeline project that's been
underway for a while
and I know the proponents of this
provision will say oh look it's just
been going on too long
but one of the reasons it's been been
going on for a while is because the
company was slip shot in a lot of its
operations and construction particularly
early in the life of this project I do
believe that the company has better
management now but the project has been
cited for dozens and dozens of Clean
Water Act violations other construction
problems that have led to mudslides on
people's property and that is why my
Virginia constituents are so Desiring
that let's do this the right way or
let's not do it at all
the provision in this bill not only
frustrates these Virginia landowners who
want to make sure that if their land is
going to be taken it's done in a fair
way after deliberate consideration but
it also does something that I believe is
unwarranted and really historical in the
wrong way
it is a rebuke of the fourth Circuit of
the United States court of appeals which
is headquartered enriched in my hometown
which has been the court that has heard
cases about the Mountain Valley pipeline
challenges to agency decisions in the
previous administration where the court
said hey look the agency didn't do what
they were supposed to do go back and do
it right this time when landowners feel
like they're being abused they have a
right to go to court and present their
case and the fourth circuit and the
district courts within it have said
you've shown your case the company
didn't do it right the agency did didn't
do it right go back and do it right
that's made the company upset
for 18 years I tried cases in the fourth
circuit and I won some and I lost some
and when I lost I wasn't happy but if I
lost I would tell my client we can
appeal and we would appeal to the fourth
circuit and sometimes I would win my
appeal and sometimes I would lose my
appeal
but when we lost I wasn't happy but we
would try to get the United States
Supreme Court to take the case up never
once did I tell a client after a loss
what we need to do is go to Congress and
take this case away from the fourth
circuit and put it in a court that's
more likely to be favorable
I would never have thought to do that no
one gets that deal no individual gets
that deal no civil rights plaintiff gets
that deal no criminal defendant gets
that deal no small business gets that
deal most people would be embarrassed to
ask for that I lost I'm unhappy why
don't I get Congress to rewrite the
rules of federal jurisdiction and take
this case away from the court that's
made me unhappy and put it in another
court and yet that is what this bill
will do it will end further
administrative review it will end
judicial review of any permit and it
will say only this if someone wants to
challenge what Congress is doing here
saying it's unlawful or unconstitutional
or an overreach they have to file that
challenge in the D.C Circuit Court of
Appeals they cannot file it in the
fourth circuit where this project
is being considered
both to protect these landowners who
have a right
to a full and deliberate consideration
if they're going to have to give up
their land and to protect the Integrity
of both our court system and this body I
strongly oppose this provision I will
move later in the day to bring up my
Amendment and I would encourage my
colleagues to support me in it and with
that Mr President I yield the floor
the chair recognizes the senator from
West Virginia are we in a quorum call no
no
Mr President I Rise to speak in favor of
the MVP they call to Mountain Valley
pipeline I call it the most valuable
pipeline that we have to offer energy to
the people of America
and it's been under undertow for a long
time
I brought some
some illustrations of what we're going
through because my good friend from
Virginia the senator from Virginia who
just spoke and we respectfully disagree
on this
this is something we've worked on for an
awful long time and first of all I want
to make sure everybody understands you
cannot
get permission to move forward on a
pipeline transmission line anything that
you want in this country unless there's
a market for it
you've got to show that there's a person
or a group or a market that this product
whether it's electricity on transmission
lines or gas in the pipelines or
whatever there has to be a market it
can't go from here to there and then try
to build a market so there has to be a
need
there has to be a need if there's going
to be a need in the market then it says
proceeding and then it goes through the
process
this has started over eight years ago
going through that process I don't think
there's another
permit that's ever been scrutinized a
request for a permit than this then this
Mountain Valley pipeline or we'll call
it the MVP
ferc has approved MPP three times not
one time three times
basically over eight years of review
started with the Obama Administration
went through the Trump Administration
now into the Biden Administration
and was desperate for the fuel today as
we are let's look at the people that
basically where the need is this this
pipeline's 42 inch it takes the
Marcellus shell first of all it goes
down into an area that's basically
well we could
excuse me
um
oh boy
don't know what happened
into an area
that basically is deprived of Natural
Resources themselves
let me tell you some of the areas that
we're going to be able to serve in a
direct and indirect way our military
bases in North Carolina South Carolina
who's in desperate need there was
another pipeline coming out of the same
shell of of gas called the Atlantic
coast pipeline that went on for years
went on for years
and was finally scrubbed because the
price got so exorbitant that there's no
way to continue and they could not get
through the litigation that went on for
years after about six or seven billion
dollars Dominion Energy basically pulled
the plug on it they couldn't do it so
when they tell you that all everything's
fine or they did all this wherever there
were problems they're sent back if
someone doesn't like this or that it's
sent back they've gone through it three
times now when Fert goes through it it's
pretty arduous
process it's looked into everything and
then if the Court's basically say well
look at this and then they do that and
they correct that and send it back they
find something else wouldn't you think
they would see it all the first time if
they saw any problems whatsoever that
needed corrected so
as I said it's been thoroughly debted
eight years by the Obama and Trump by an
Administration
eight NEPA reviews anybody that's gone
through any review with NEPA knows how
difficult that can be eight times NEPA
has reviewed this
six environmental impact
the environmental impact studies can
take anywhere from one to three four
years
six times it went back for that
you know it's just so when anyone thinks
that this has not been scrutinized and
has not basically gone through every
agency that it was required to go
through and had any every review
possibly that could be done done
would be mistaken if you see just the
the outline of thing three rounds of
Permitting was approved by ferc
they approved all of them
still wasn't good enough
still wasn't good enough went to the
courts back it came went to the courts
back again
so Forest Service Bureau of Land
Management fish and wildlife they all
did it three times
so everybody had a real good look at
this one
now we have a situation to where
if you look at uh
winter storm Elliott December 2022
the Carolinas had the highest natural
gas price in the country 50 to 60
dollars per million btu
50 to 60 dollars
normally in the Appalachian Basin that's
anywhere from 250 to maybe six dollars
it's where it stays but because they did
not have the product the demand was so
high the people are getting gals you
tell me an average family or
hard-working family that can afford 50
or 60 dollars per million btu it's 10
times the normal in the region
so is there a need absolutely there's a
need
is there basically a need for pricing
that stabilizes and helps people get
through tough times and basically take
care of their family in their home and
also the job that they work at
absolutely
so you have that Duke Energy well
Duke Energy says the MVP will save
4.5 million customers three billion
dollars over 25 years Duke Energy is a
very large
power company within North Carolina
and they're saying that we don't have
that product we need this product
they were counting on the Atlantic coast
pipeline to give them the product that
didn't happen now they're counting on
MVP
who gets gouge
everybody talks about big business and
the companies and this and that 4.5
million customers
that's who's going to pay the price
now when you talk about the price let's
talk about this
this line when they started on this
pipeline
there was
approximate cost of 3.5
a billion dollars to build it we're over
6.6 billion dollars now
who do you think is going to pay that
price
it's going to be paid by the customers
who need the product they're paying
we're paying 50 to 60
dollars per million btu and they should
be paying four to six dollars and that
range there
and I guarantee you the savings is going
to be tremendously supportive of their
families
so as we've talked we've had a lot going
on here a lot of different conversation
there's a new Summit View Business Park
in Franklin County in Southwest Virginia
it's struggling to attract businesses to
that Park that would create
opportunities and jobs for the
hard-working people in Southwest
Virginia just like all of West Virginia
that they cannot attract and not be able
to furnish the energy that the plant
that that Park needs to attract the
different industries that would like to
come
so for economic development just having
a job taking care of your family living
in beautiful Southwest Virginia
they don't have that opportunity now
North Carolina Cumberland County and
Fayette have lost out on one billion
dollars in investment because the
businesses cannot afford the high price
of gas
and we have an abundance of it in West
Virginia and Pennsylvania coming out of
the eastern part of Ohio
willing to share it and put it in the
market to keep the prices where they
should be affordable
so
the review process as we said has been
incredible incredible incredibly
thorough and rigorous eight nippa
reviews six environmental impact
statements
two environmental assessments three
rounds of review by the same federal
agencies ferc fish and wildlife forest
service and BLM and that's a mighty lift
in itself been before the court numerous
times nine times to be exact nine times
before the courts when does it stop
when does it stop
the cost is ballooned as I've said
doubled in price
and here we are now you would think
we're just trying to get this line
started it's going to be 303 miles but
guess what
283 miles are already built it's already
laid in the ground now they said there's
been violations because there's
sedimentation or and they didn't go back
and reseed they weren't allowed to
because of the Court actions prohibited
them from getting back on the property
it's it's a catch-22. they could not
reclaim what they wanted to reclaim
because they were taken to court stopped
and they never brought to you know
to a task again for not reclaiming
if we pass this piece of legislation
within six months this line will be in
production we only have 20 miles to go
that'll put 2 500 people to work 2500
people to work
uh
about 40 to 50 million dollars annually
coming to the states of West Virginia
and some to Virginia as it passes
through
and there's about
two to 250 anywhere from 200 to 250
million dollars that'll go to
individuals who own their gas rights
that are being sold and put into the
line that's every year
that's a tremendous support for the
poorest parts of our country
the poorest parts of our country the
people finally are able to sell what
they own the resources and help
stabilize the prices that will help all
all people in the states that are
affected
1.2 billion dollars in additional
investment to complete the project
we have tried everything humanly
possible we really have I just couldn't
believe that we couldn't get this after
what happened to the previous lines I've
ever tried to build to bring product to
the marketplace
so there's all different people who are
upset I understand that
my good friend from Virginia my Senator
friend who we were co-governors together
and our families are very close this
doesn't affect our relationship it
doesn't affect our friendship it doesn't
affect basically us fighting for many of
the same causes
but it brings a healthy discussion
are we going to move forward in this
country are we going to have permit
reform are we going to be able to build
the necessary transmission that it takes
I'm talking about power lines we have
the same if anything it takes longer for
a power line pipelines everything's
being stopped now it's not that they're
protesting the
pipe itself
as they're protesting basically the
product and the price the gas
now there's a transition going on in
energy throughout the country
a transition throughout the world to a
certain extent but we still cannot run
our country without the gas without the
oil without the coal that we need for
dispatchable that means 24 7.
just gas and coal itself is over 60
percent of the energy that we use and
this system here and right we are in
this beautiful Capital this is the pjm
system they call it this is basically
what distributes all the power
and it's basically all of the above it's
wind it's solar it's coal it's gas it's
everything that gives the reliability
that when you turn that switch on you're
going to have lights
when you turn the heat on you're going
to be warm when you turn this air
conditioner on you're going to have
comfort if you want to cook your food
you're going to be able to do it that's
what we're able to do in America
and as that transition there will be a
transition into new technologies that
will replace an awful lot of what we're
talking about
but we're a long way away from that and
to deprive people that need this for
their livelihood
to deprive them and make them pay 10
times more for a product that is
abundant it'd be different if the good
Lord didn't give us the resources
but it's a shame and a sin that we don't
use the resources we have to help all
humankind that's what we're talking
about
and if you look at the process we've
just gone through and where we are right
now what we embark on this evening
probably be here most of the night I
would assume going through the
Amendments everybody deserves to have
their say I agree
but we've come down to the reality and
we've been here long enough
understanding that
this piece of legislation that we have
before us has to pass
the Mountain Valley pipeline is in that
piece of legislation it still has some
review processes we're not asking for
that we're asking that basically the
things that have been done multiple
times proceeds on
proceeds on
that's all we're asking for but with
that when you think about three four
months ago we start talking seriously
about the debt ceiling we've got to
address the debt ceiling that's our
responsibility to address and make sure
the full faith and credit of this
country and the value of us having the
reserve currency of the world is stable
it's stable
if we pass an amendment or any Amendment
this amendment my dear friend is going
to introduce or any Amendment we will
default
it's as simple as that we will default
now it'd be different if this had not
gone through eight years of scrutiny
Court nine times been looked at anyway
in every way shape and form that'd be a
different thing no one's ever seen
anything we're trying to slide something
through that's not the case here no one
can accuse that of happening so we're in
a process right now of trying to move
forward in this country to get the
energy that we need that we have
it was unbelievable to me when the
people were thinking sometime well maybe
we'll have Iran produce more oil maybe
we'll have Venezuela produce more
we have it in our backyard and we can't
produce it ourselves we want someone
else to do the work that we won't do for
ourselves
that's ridiculous you can't lead that
way you can't have the rest of the world
looking at you as the superpower Of The
World Won't Do for yourself because you
don't like something
we found ways through Innovation not
elimination to do it better and we can
help the rest of the world and we can
help the world global climate as it is
if we work together
but I can assure you what we have right
today before us is a product that's
going to help an awful lot of people 4.5
million just in one state that depends
on this product to give them some relief
from the highest prices
probably about the highest prices in the
country except for the Northeast
so I would say there's so much at risk
right now if we move forward and would
pass this amendment that would go on
this bill that would have to go back to
the house
with us not defaulting we cannot take
that risk I would ask all my colleagues
all of my colleagues on both sides of
now consider what we're doing consider
basically the value that this product
brings consider also the review of this
product has gone through
and I think you'll find it more than
adequate more than comforting that
basically we have a product is going to
do an awful lot of good for America an
awful lot of good for humankind in the
states and also this will backfill and
help us also at our ports where we're
sending LNG to our allies around the
world there's so many benefits
from 2 billion cubic feet a day 2
billion
2 billion cubic feet a day that'll go
into this line helping America be energy
independent so I encourage all of my
colleagues to go vote respectfully
against
the amendment that will be offered to
strip this out of the bill
thank you Mr President I yield the floor
foreign
foreign
foreign
you know
people
foreign
foreign
from South Carolina thank you uh
I've been informed that shortly
the majority leader will come to the
floor and announce
his commitment
and the body's commitment
to do a supplemental
to make sure that the Damage Done by
this bill is at least partially
corrected
this bill
puts our military behind the eight ball
there's not one penny in this bill for
Ukrainian assistance as I speak tonight
Ukraine's engaged in a fight for its
life they're going on the offensive I
have High Hopes in the coming days or
weeks they will liberate part of their
territory occupied by Russia the
assistance we have provided in a
bipartisan fashion and our European
allies has made all the difference in
the world we were told
after the invasion key would fall in
four days 600 and something Days Later
they're still fighting the Russian army
has been weakened and bloodied because
of the weapons we have provided I
appreciate the bipartisan support to
make sure we win a war in Ukraine
without one American Soldier being
involved if we can defeat Putin and
Ukraine that means China will hopefully
take notice and Putin will be stopped
because if you don't stop him in Ukraine
he's going to keep going and will be in
a war between NATO and Russia so I want
to appreciate all the hard work of the
staff to make a statement to the people
who are facing threats from China
from Russia from Iran that we have not
abandoned you
there is not a dime in this bill
to deal with the threats I think we Face
from China consistent with the Threat
Level there's money in this bill but not
enough
so I'm hoping that those who are
watching this in Ukraine understand that
Senator Schumer and McConnell are going
to say in a moment we have not abandoned
you
we're going to keep helping you as you
struggle to liberate your country from
the war criminal Putin uh what do you
believe we should be helping you train
or not I do
people in this body on both sides of the
aisle in the Senate understand that
Putin's invasion is a defining moment of
the 21st century that if he gets away
with this there goes Taiwan and the
world will begin to crumble the world
order we've created since World War II
would be jeopardized
war crimes on an industrial scale but
Putin cannot be forgiven
are forgotten
to the brave men and women of Ukraine
help is on the way to the people
standing up to China living in its
shadow in Taiwan help is on the way to
the American Military who is underfunded
because of this bill help is on the way
for three days
I and some others have been screaming to
eye Heaven that what the house did
was wrong
it's right to want to control spending
and there are some good things in this
bill but it was wrong
to give a defense number inconsistent
with the threats we face
I do believe that we're on track to
write some of those wrongs
to my colleagues
I am not the perfect as the enemy of the
good I vote for my share of bipartisan
bills and get crap for it like most of
you but as long as I'm here
I'm going to speak
about the need of the federal government
to get the defense
budget right budgets are based on
threats not political deals
and if you think the world is safer
you've missed a lot
so hopefully in a few minutes
there will be an announcement that puts
us on a course correction to undo some
of the damage and there will be a clear
signal from both the leader and the
minority
leader Senator McConnell
that help is on the way to those who
live
in the shadow of an
totalitarian governments and those are
on the battlefield to my American
citizen friends
I wish there were no war anywhere
I wish China wasn't the way they are I
wish the Ayatollah didn't want a nuclear
weapon and would use it if he could I
wish that Putin would not have invaded
Ukraine I wish that the world was
different than it is
but if you want peace and you want
stability
it comes at a high price
the good news for us is not one American
Soldier has died
evicting Russia from Ukraine
the ukrainians have fought like tigers
it's in our national security interest
to provide them the weapons and the
technology to keep this fight up
their win is our win
so I look forward to hearing the
statement that I think is forthcoming it
does not fix this bill totally
but it begins to march in the right
direction
to my colleagues
thank you for listening thank you for
working with me and others
victory for Ukraine
I yield the floor
notice the absence of a quorum clerk
will call the roll Miss Baldwin
you know
isn't it the majority leader I ask
unanimous consent that the Quorum be
dispensed with without objection I ask
unanimous consent that the following's
joint statement between Senator
McConnell and maybe printed in the
record
for that objection
I know Mr President I know of no further
debate on the motion to proceed
is there forever debate
if not the question is on adoption of
the motion
all in favor say aye aye
those opposed no
the eyes appear to have it the eyes do
have it the motion is agreed to with our
core report
calendar number 84 H.R 3746 an act to
provide for a responsible increase to
the debt ceiling
Mr President
I ask unanimous consent that the only
amendments in order be the following to
H.R 3746 Paul 107 Braun 91 Marshall 110
Sullivan 125 Hawley 93 Kennedy 104
cotton 106. Bud 134 Lee 98 Kane 101
Kennedy 102.
that at 7 30 PM if any of these
Amendments have been offered the Senate
vote on the amendments in the order
listed with 60 affirmative votes
required for adoption with the exception
of the liamend the Kennedy amendment
number 102 and the Kane amendment that
there be two minutes for debate equally
divided prior to each vote and with six
minutes equally divided prior to each of
the votes on the Kennedy amendments
following disposition of the above
amendments the bills be considered read
the bill be considered read a third time
in the Senate vote on passage of the
bill
has amended if amended with 60
affirmative votes required for passage
all without intervening action or debate
is there objection
without objection so ordered Mr
President I ask unanimous consent that
all votes after the first be 10-minute
votes in length
without objection
I am pleased so pleased to announce that
both sides have just locked in an
agreement that enables the Senate to
pass legislation tonight avoiding
default
for the information of my colleagues
this is what will happen on the floor in
a few minutes the Senate will begin
holding votes on 11 amendments 10 from
the Republican side and one from the
Democratic side
to finish our work tonight after the
first amendment we are limiting each
vote to 10 minutes
so I asked my colleagues to stay in
their seats or near the floor during the
votes
let's keep this process moving quickly
after we finish voting on the Amendments
we are immediately considering final
passage and by passing this bill we will
avoid default tonight
America can breathe a sigh of relief
sigh of relief because in this process
we are avoiding default
from the start
avoiding default has been our North Star
the consequences of default would be
catastrophic
it would almost certainly cause another
recession it would be a nightmare for
our economy and millions of American
families it would take years years to
recover from
but for all the ups and downs and twists
and turns it took to get here
it is so good for this country that both
parties have come together at last
to avoid
default
I thank my colleagues on both sides of
the aisle for their cooperation let's
finish the job and send this very
important bipartisan Bill to the
president's desk tonight
I yield the floor and note the absence
of a quorum
the clerk will call the roll
it's Baldwin
hello
foreign
ER from Kentucky I ask unanimous consent
to vitiate the Quorum column without
objection
Mr President I call up amendment to
number 107 and ask that it be reported
by number clerk will report by number
the senator from Kentucky Mr Paul
proposes an amendment numbered 107.
the Biden McCarthy debt deal will do
nothing to avert the looming debt crisis
a debt deal that creates No Limits to
the debt accumulation over two years is
not fiscally responsible and should be
rejected my Amendment replaces the
spending caps with caps that balance the
budget in five years and limits the
extension of debt to 500 billion dollars
and I urge you yes Folk
the senator from Rhode Island
respect to my colleague I strongly urge
a no vote this amendment would create
catastrophic damage throughout the
federal economy with spending cuts as
much as 37 percent by 2028 putting
Federal programs like Medicare Medicaid
border security and transportation into
extremely difficult circumstances this
is not the America that Americans expect
and we should not allow this vote to
pass
thank you
is there a sufficient second
there appears to be the clerk will call
the roll
it's Baldwin Mr barrasso
Mr Bennett Mrs Blackburn Mr Blumenthal
Mr Booker Mr Bozeman Mr Braun
this is Brett
Mr Brown
Mr bud
Ms Cantwell
Mrs capuchow
Mr Cardin Mr carper
Mr Casey
Mr Cassidy Miss Collins Mr Coons
Mr cornyn Ms Cortez masto
Mr cotton
Mr Kramer
Mr crapo
Mr Cruz Mr Danes Miss Duckworth
Mr Durbin Miss Ernst
Mrs Feinstein Mr fetterman Mrs Fisher
Mrs gillibrand Mr Graham Mr Grassley Mr
Haggerty
Miss Hassan Mr Hawley
Mr Heinrich Mr Hickenlooper Mr Rono Mr
Hoven
this is Hyde Smith
Mr Johnson Mr Kane Mr Kelly
Mr Kennedy
Mr King
Miss Klobuchar
Mr Langford Mr Lee Mr Lujan
islamas
Mr manchin Mr Markey
Mr Marshall Mr McConnell Mr Menendez
Mr Markley
Mr Moran Mr Mullen MS murkowski
Mr Murphy Mrs Murray
Mr ossoff Mr Padilla Mr Paul Mr Peters
Mr Reed Mr Ricketts
Mr Resh
Mr Romney
Miss Rosen Mr rounds Mr Rubio
Mr Sanders Mr Schatz Mr Schmidt
Mr Schumer
Mr Scott of Florida
Mr Scott of South Carolina
Mrs Shaheen
the cinema
Mrs Smith miss stabenow Mr Mr Sullivan
Mr tester Mr thin Mr Tillis Mr
tuberville Mr Van Hollen Mr Vance
Mr Warner Mr Warnock who's Warren Mr
Welch
Mr Whitehouse Mr wicker Mr Wyden
Mr Young
foreign
Senators voting in the affirmative
Braun
crapo Danes
Ernst Paul tuberville Senators voting in
the negative Collins Kramer Durbin
Graham Grassley Hickenlooper Kane King
Merkley ostov Padilla Ricketts rounds
shots Schumer
Scott of Florida Shakin Cinema Smith
White House
wicker
Mr Wyden Mr Wyden no
Mr Bud Mr bud no
Mr tester Mr tester no
foreign
Mr Schmidt Mr Schmidt
I
Mr Kearns Mr Kearns no
Ms Lamas Miss Lamas
aye Mr Vance Mr Vance
no
Mr Cardin Mr Cardin no Mr barrasso Mr
barrasso
aye Mrs Fisher Mrs Fisher
I
Mr Murphy Mr Murphy
no
Romney Mr Romney no
Miss Hassan Miss Hassan no
Mr cornyn Mr cornyn I
Mrs Captain Joe Mrs capucho no
Mr Rono Mr Rono
no
Mr fetterman Mr fetterman no Mr Booker
Mr Booker no
Mr Brown Mr Brown no
Ms murkowski Miss murkowski no
Mr Carper Mr carper
no vice president
small win this ball win
no Mr Menendez Mr Menendez no Mr Casey
Mr Casey no
Ms Cantwell Miss count well
no
Mr Bozeman Mr Bozeman no
Mr cotton Mr cotton no
Mr Markey Mr Marky
no
Mr Moran
Mr Moran no
Mr Johnson Mr Johnson
aye Ms Cortez masto Miss Cortez masto
no Mr Reed Mr Reed no
Mr Sullivan Mr Sullivan
no
this is Jill Iran Mrs gillibran no
Mrs Murray Mrs Murray
no
Mr Warner Mr Warner no
Mr Heinrich Mr Heinrich no
Mr Lujan Mr Lujan no
Mr Peters Mr Peters no Mr Langford Mr
Langford I
Mr Hoven Mr Hoven no
Miss Duckworth Miss Duckworth no
this is Hyde Smith Mrs Hyde Smith I
Mr Lee Mr Lee I
Mrs Brett Mrs Britt I
Mr manchin Mr mansion
no
Miss Rosen Miss Rosen
no
Mr Welch Mr Welch
no
Mr Cassidy Mr Cassidy no
Mr Kennedy Mr Kennedy no
Mr Marshall Mr Marshall I
Mr Mullen Mr Mullen I
Kelly Mr Kelly no
foreign
Mr Bennett Mr Bennett no miss Warren
miss Warren no
Mr Young Mr Young
no
this is Blackburn Mrs Blackburn I
foreign
Mr McConnell
no
Mr Holly Mr Hawley
no
Mr Bloom at uh Mr Bloom and uh
no
it was clever charm it's Klobuchar no oh
foreign
South Carolina no
Mr Van Hollen Mr Van Hollen no
foreign
Mr Sanders Mr Sanders
no
on this vote the A's are 21 the Nays are
75 under the previous order requiring 60
votes for the adoption of this amendment
the amendment is not agreed to
president
the Senate will be in order
Mr President the Senate is not in order
the Senate will be in order Mr President
the majority leader thank you Mr
President about an hour ago I entered a
statement into the record and I'd like
to read it so the members can hear it
I want to also dispel rumors and
reassure our friends across the world
about the Senate's commitment and
ability to respond to emerging threats
and needs
this debt ceiling deal does nothing to
limit the Senate's ability to
appropriate emergency
supplemental funds to ensure our
military capabilities are sufficient to
deter China Russia and our other
adversaries and respond to ongoing and
growing National Security threats
including Russia's evil ongoing war of
aggression against Ukraine
our competition ongoing with China and
its growing threat to Taiwan Iranian
threats to American interests and those
of our partners in the Middle East or
any other emerging security crisis nor
does this this debt ceiling limit the
Senate's ability to appropriate
emergency Supple supplemental funds to
respond to various National issues such
as disaster relief combating the
fentanyl crisis or other issues of
national importance
I know a strong bipartisan majority of
senators stands ready to receive and
process emergency funding requests from
the administration the Senate is not
about to ignore our national needs
nor abandon our friends and allies who
face urgent threats from America's most
dangerous adversaries I yield the floor
no
Mr President
I want to remind members we were
indulgent in the first vote that's over
we're doing 10-minute votes please stay
in your seats so we can finish this bill
in a reasonable hour
duly noted
Mr President
the senator from Indiana
I call out my amendment number 91 and
ask that to be reported by number
the clerk will report the amendment by
number the senator from Indiana Mr Braum
proposes an amendment numbered 91.
this should be there are now two minutes
of debate equally divided it should be
the easiest vote of the night
this is to take default off the table
in future endeavors like this this
simply says that when we get notice
that Extraordinary Measures are going to
be incorporated that happened in January
I believe of this year
X date is this Monday
that if we do not do a bill that either
raises the amount
changes the date ideally with reforms
that on the X date after we've had five
to six months to do it we have one
percent cuts across the board on
discretionary spending it's the no
default act we should not be risking
default this would be simple gives us
plenty of time puts a little incentive
if you reach the X state that you're
going to be encouraged to do it by then
if not it would happen again in 30 days
I ask your support let's not default
when we engage the same dynamic in the
future Mr President senator from
Washington Mr President I rise in
opposition to the Senator's Amendment
which would lead to more Reckless
brinkmanship more arbitrary cuts by
permanently rescinding one percent of
discretionary Appropriations every 30
days during a debt ceiling crisis this
makes no sense rewarding brinksmanship
by slashing funding that our families
and our communities and our troops
depend on is an absolutely dangerous way
to govern members on both sides of the
aisle have come to the floor to air
legitimate grievances about this process
and the outcome of this debt limit deal
nobody likes the position we are in
today nobody passing this amendment
would prove we have learned nothing we
do not need to create new opportunities
for hostage taking and cuts that would
seriously undermine our economy our
families our future and our Global
Leadership we just need to do our job
right now we have to pass this bill to
avoid a catastrophic default I will be
voting no I urge my colleagues to do the
same
all time is expired the questions on the
amendment
ask for the A's and nays is there a fish
in second
there appears to be the clerk will call
the role Ms Baldwin
Mr barasso
Mr Bennett
Mrs Blackburn
Mr Blumenthal
Mr Booker
Mr Bozeman
Mr Braun
Mrs Britt
Mr Brown
Mr bud
Ms Cantwell
Mrs capito
Mr Cardin
Mr carper
Mr Casey
Mr Cassidy
Ms Collins
Mr Coons
I did thank you
Mr cornyn
Miss Cortez masto
Mr cotton
thank you
Mr cotton Mr Kramer
Mr crapo
Mr Cruz
Mr Danes
Miss Duckworth
Mr Durbin
Ms Ernst
I'm sorry
thanks
Mrs Feinstein Mr fetterman
Mrs Fisher
Mrs gillibrand
Mr Graham Mr Grassley
Mr Hagerty
Miss Hassan
Mr Hawley
thanks
Mr Heinrich
Mr Hickenlooper
Miss hirono
Mr Hoven
Mrs Hyde Smith
Mr Johnson
Mr Kane
Mr Kelly
Mr Kennedy Mr King
Miss Klobuchar Mr Lankford
Mr Lee
Mr Lujan
Miss Lomas
Mr mansion
Mr Marky
see you
Mr Marshall
Mr McConnell Mr Menendez Mr Merkley
Mr Moran
who
no I did not he okay
Mr Mullen
Miss murkowski
Mr Murphy Mrs Murray Mr Assaf
Mr Padilla Mr Paul Mr Peters
Mr Reed
Mr Ricketts
Mr Rish
Mr Romney
Miss Rosen
Mr rounds Mr Rubio Mr Sanders Mr Schatz
Mr Schmidt Mr Mr Schumer
Mr Scott of Florida Mr Scott of South
Carolina
Mrs Shaheen
Ms Cinema
Miss Smith Miss stabenow
Mr Sullivan Mr tester
Mr thune
Mr Tillis Mr tuberville Mr Van Hollen
Mr Vance
Mr Warner
Mr Warnock miss Warren Mr Welch
Mr Whitehouse
Mr wicker
Mr Wyden Mr Young
foreign ERS voting in the affirmative
barrasso Blackburn Braun Brit Bud cornyn
crapo Danes
Ernst Fisher Grassley Hawley Hyde Smith
Johnson Kennedy Lankford Lee Marshall
Moran Mullen Paul Rish Rubio
Schmidt Scott of Florida Scott of South
Carolina Sullivan tuberville and Vance
Senators voting in the negative Baldwin
Bennett Blumenthal Booker Bozeman Brown
Cantwell capito Cardin Carper Casey
Collins Coons Cortez masto Kramer
Duckworth Durbin gillibrand Graham
Hassan Heinrich
Corona Hoven Kane Kelly King Klobuchar
Lujan Mansion McConnell Menendez Merkley
Murphy Murray Assaf
Padilla Peters Reed Ricketts Romney
Rosen rounds Sanders shots Schumer
Shaheen Cinema Smith stabenow tester
Tillis Van Hollen Warner Warnock Warren
Welch White House wicker Wyden and Young
you've only gone
Mr Hickenlooper no Miss lummus
I
I have you I had
Mr Cassidy no
Mr cotton eye
Mr thune I
Miss murkowski no
Mr Bozeman
I
thank you
Mr Hoven
I
imagine Mr Kramer I
where
Mr fetterman
no
Mr Marky no
on this vote there are 35 years 62 Nays
under the previous order requiring 60
votes for the adoption of this amendment
the amendment is not agreed to
this majority that was 12 minutes we're
getting down to 10. everyone should be
here
call the call to vote
Madam president senator from Kansas is
recognized and the Senate is not in
order will you please keep your comments
quiet
I call it my amendment number 110 and
ask that it be reported by number
without objection
I Rise and support a marshall Amendment
one one zero to put an end Senator will
suspend clerk will report senator from
Kansas Mr Marshall proposes an amendment
numbered one one zero
Senator is recognized
Madam president I rise in support of
Marshall Amendment 110 to put an end to
the culture of lawlessness at our
Southern border embraced by our
president I cannot in good conscience
support this debt limit deal and settle
my grandchildren with this four trillion
dollars in additional debt this bill
misses the mark and perhaps what's more
frustrating is that it does not give a
single Cent to securing our border zero
dollars to addressing the greatest
greatest most immediate national
security threat to our nation
this past weekend alone the border
patrol made over 13 000 apprehensions
there are over four thousand godaways
and they seize 118 pounds of meth 14
pounds of Fentanyl and apprehended six
sex offenders and five gang members
we have a crisis unfolding at our
Southern border and it's happening right
now in plain sight it's impacting every
Community across the country
I will not sit here foreign commandees
and pray about it we need action today
senator's time is expired I'm proud to
introduce our Amendment today
I hope you will vote Yes and support it
thank you madam president senator from
Illinois we had a hearing this week in
the Judiciary Committee we had a grower
from South Carolina at the gas guest of
Senator Graham he professes to be the
second largest peach grower in America I
asked him Point Blank if you had
e-verify on your form today what would
happen to you and The Growers who need
workers he said we'd be out of business
tomorrow that's what your Amendment does
it imposes e-verify on farmers in Kansas
and Illinois and all across the United
States we're not ready for this you're
going to put them out of business and
secondly it strips away all the
protections of unaccompanied children at
the border we do not want kids in cages
anymore at the border please vote
against this amendment
questions on the amendment
is there a sufficient second
there is a sufficient second clerk will
call the rule Ms Baldwin
Mr barasso
Mr Bennett
this is Blackburn
Mr
Mr Blumenthal
Mr Booker
Mr Bozeman
Mr Braun
Mrs Brett
Mr Brown
Mr bud
Ms Cantwell
this is capital
the Cardin
Mr carper
Mr Casey
Mr Cassidy
Miss Collins
Mr Coons
Mr cornyn
Miss Cortez masto
Mr cotton
Mr Kramer
Mr crapo
Mr Cruz
Mr Danes
Miss Duckworth
Mr Durbin
Miss Ernst
Mrs Feinstein
Mr fetterman
Mrs Fisher
this is gillibram
Mr Graham
Mr Grassley
Mr Haggerty Miss Hassan
Mr Hawley
Mr Heinrich
Mr Hickenlooper
Mr Rono
Mr Hoven
Mrs Hyde Smith
Mr Johnson
Mr Kane
Mr Kelly
Mr Kennedy Mr King
Miss Klobuchar
Mr Langford
Mr Lee
Mr Lujan
Miss Lamas
Mr manchin
Mr Markey
Mr Marshall
Mr McConnell
Mr Menendez
Mr Merkley
Mr Moran
Mr Mullen
MS murkowski
Mr Murphy
Mrs Murray
Mr ossov
Mr Padilla
Mr Paul
Mr Peters
Mr Reed
Mr Ricketts Mr rich
Mr Romney
Miss Rosen
Mr rounds
to Rubio
here now
Mr Sanders
Mr Schatz
Mr Schmidt
Mr Schumer
Mr Scott of Florida Mr Scott of South
Carolina
Mrs Shaheen
Miss Cinema
Miss Smith
Miss stabenow
me
Mr Sullivan
Mr Chester
Mr Dune
Mr Tillis
Mr tuberville
Mr Van Hollen
Mr Vance
Mr Warner
Mr Warnock Ms Warren
Mr Welch
Mr Whitehouse
Mr wicker
Mr Wyden Mr Young
Senators voting in the affirmative
verraso Blackburn Bozeman Braun Brit Bud
capito Collins cornyn Kramer crapo
Gaines Ernst Fisher Graham Grassley
hollyman Hyde Smith Johnson Kennedy
Lankford Lee lummus Marshall McConnell
Moran Mullen murkowski Ricketts Rich
Romney rounds Rubio Schmidt Scott of
Florida tuberville wicker young Senators
voting in the negative
Baldwin Bennett Blumenthal Booker Brown
Cantwell Cardin Carper Casey Coons
Cortez masto Duckworth Durbin fetterman
gillibran Hassan Heinrich Hickenlooper
hirono Kane Kelly King Klobuchar Lujan
Mansion Marky Merkley Murphy Murray
Assaf Padilla Hall heaters Reed Rosen
Sanders shots Schumer Shaheen Cinema
Smith stabenow Van Hollen Warner Warnock
Warren Welch White House Wyden
Mr Sullivan Mr Sullivan
aye Mr Scott Mr Scott of South Carolina
aye Mr cotton Mr cotton
aye Mr Chester Mr Chester
no
Mr Menendez Mr Menendez now
Mr Cassidy Mr Cassidy
I
Mr Tillis Mr Tillis
I
Mr Thun Mr Boone 18 seconds over 10
minutes
I
Mr Vance Mr Vance
I
on this vote the azer 46 the Nays are 51
under the previous order requiring 60
votes for the adoption of this amendment
the amendment is not agreed to Madam
president
majority leaders 10 minutes 40 seconds
we got 40 seconds to go and we can get
it all at 10.
senator from Alaska's recognized Madam
president I call it my amendment number
125 an asset it be reported by number
click report
Madam president Mr Sullivan proposes in
Amendment numbered 125. Madam president
the fiscal responsibility act
unfortunately does not meet the moment
in terms of defending our nation
the chairman of the Joint Chiefs and
others have said we are now in the most
dangerous period since any time since
World War II and yet this bill Cuts
defense spending and inflation adjusted
terms by approximately three percent
this year and five percent next year by
endorsing the president's defense budget
this bill shrinks the Navy shrinks the
Army and shrinks the Marine Corps next
year will take us below three percent of
GDP spending
for the first time in 25 years my
Amendment does what the armed services
committee and this chamber have done and
brought in a broad bipartisan manner
over the past two years it's
significantly pluses up the inadequate
defense budget submitted by the
president
my Amendment fully funds the Biden
pentagon's unfunded priorities by 18
billion dollars the Senator's time is
expired and it raises Madam president
ice unanimous request for 30 seconds
more is there an objection
and for fy25
it raises the defense Top Line by 5 to
Simply keep Pace with inflation these
increases are offset by rescinding the
additional amounts from the president's
80 billion dollar plus up of the IRS so
my colleagues the choice is clear more
Navy ships soldiers and Marines to
protect America or more IRS agents to
harass Americans I urge a yes vote on
this important Amendment senator's time
is expensive Madam president Senators
Morgan is recognized I oppose the
gentleman's Amendment and Senate
Democrats will keep this chamber on time
there are three important reasons to a
vote against this amendment first it
would be an even bigger Republican
handout to wealthy tax Chiefs nearly 200
billion dollars second at a time when
Congress is supposed to be debating
fiscal responsibility this amendment
double counts billions and billions of
dollars by increasing the deficit with
more spending on defense contractors and
bigger handouts to wealthy tax cheats
finally this Senate should focus on
better service to taxpayers improved
information technology and ending the
Free Ride once and for all for wealthy
tax cheats I urge colleagues to oppose
the amendment
questions on the amendment
is there a sufficient second
there appears to be clerk will call the
role Miss Baldwin
it's Brasso
Mr Bennett
Mrs Blackburn
Mr Blumenthal
Mr Booker
Mr Bozeman
Mr Braun
Mrs Britt
Mr Brown
Mr bud
Miss Cantwell
Mrs capito
Mr Cardin
Mr carper
Mr Casey
thank you
Mr Cassidy
Miss Collins
Mr kins
Mr cornyn
Ms Cortez masto
Mr cotton
Mr Kramer
Mr crapo
Mr Cruz
Mr Danes
Ms Duckworth Mr Durbin
Ms Ernst
Mrs Feinstein Mr fetterman
Mrs Fisher
this is Jilla brand
Mr Graham Mr Grassley
Mr Haggerty Miss Hassan
Mr Hawley
Mr Heinrich
Mr Hickenlooper
picture
Mr Braun did you want about anything
I got you
Miss hirono
Mr Hoven
Mrs Hyde Smith
Mr Johnson
Mr Kane
Mr Kelly
Mr Kennedy Mr King
Miss Klobuchar Mr Langford
Mr Lee
Mr Lujan
MS lummus
Mr mansion
Mr Markey
Mr Marshall
Mr McConnell Mr Menendez Mr Merkley
Mr Moran
Mr Mullen
thank you
yep Miss murkowski
Mr Murphy
Mrs Murray
Mr Assaf
Mr Padilla
Mr Paul Mr Peters
Mr Reed
Mr Ricketts
Mr risch Mr Romney
Miss Rosen
Mr rounds Mr rubia Mr Sanders
Mr Schatz Mr Schmidt
Mr Schumer Mr Scott of Florida Mr Scott
of South Carolina
Mr Shaheen
Miss Cinema Miss Smith
Miss stabenow
Mr Sullivan Mr tester Mr thune Mr Tillis
Mr tuberville
Mr Van Hollen
Mr Vance
Mr Warner
Mr Warnock Ms Warren
Mr Welch
Mr Whitehouse
Mr wicker
Mr Wyden Mr Young
Senators voting in the affirmative
barrasso Blackburn Bozeman Braun Brit
Bud capito Cassidy Collins cornyn cotton
Kramer crapo
Danes Ernst Fisher Graham Grassley Holly
Smith Johnson Kennedy Lankford Lee
lummus Marshall McConnell Moran Mullen
murkowski Paul Ricketts Rich Romney
rounds Rubio Schmidt Scott of Florida
Cinema Sullivan thune Tillis tuberville
wicker and Young
Senators voting in the negative
Baldwin Bennett Blumenthal Booker Brown
Cantwell Cardin Carper Casey Cortez
masto Duckworth Durbin fetterman
gillibrand Hassan Heinrich
Hickenlooper hirono Kane Kelly King
Klobuchar Lujan Mansion Marky Menendez
Merkley Murphy Murray Assaf Padilla
Peters Reed shots Schumer Shaheen Smith
stabenow tester Van Hollen Warner
Warnock Warren Welch White House and
Wyden
Mr Scott of South Carolina I
Mr Sanders no
Miss Rose and I
Mr Vance I
Mr kins
no
on this vote the A's are 49 the Nays are
48.
trillions of them the Senate is not in
order
on this vote the yeas are 49 the Naser
48 under the previous order requiring 60
votes for the adoption of this amendment
the amendment is not agreed to
40 seconds
[Applause]
let's keep going
Madam president Senator Missouri is
recognized Madam president in the last
20 years in the state of Missouri oh I'm
sorry I call it my amendment number 93
and I asked to be reported by number
start with that clerk will report
senator from Missouri Mr Hawley proposes
an amendment number 93.
Madam president in the last 20 years in
the state of Missouri we have lost 60
000 jobs to the People's Republic of
China that number Nationwide is almost 4
million our trade deficit with China as
we stand here tonight is at near record
levels and every dollar of that deficit
represents blue-collar jobs destroyed
industry shuttered manufacturing
capacity withering away I'd submit to
you that it is the most important
deficit that we face and we can talk
about budget reforms and we can talk
about savings here and there but until
we do the work of bringing back
productive capacity to this nation and
good paying blue-collar jobs you can
raise a family on we will not put our
economy on the basis that we need
to address the economic challenges that
we face so my Amendment does something
very simple it imposes across-the-board
tariffs on China for every year in which
we have a trade deficit until that
deficit is zero bring back jobs to this
country first time is expired
senator from Ohio and president I rise
in opposition to the amendment is my
colleagues no I take a back seat to no
one when it comes to standing up to
China Lindsey Graham and I have been
fighting to close the trade deficit for
decades I went to Junior High at Johnny
Appleseed Junior High in Mansfield Ohio
with the Sons and Daughters of
machinists and iue members and steel
workers and Auto Workers and carpenters
and Millwrights in plumbers and
pipefitters and Operating Engineers by
the time I was 10 years later most of
these jobs were gone and so much of
industrial America all over the country
has been lost because of bad trade
policy with China but you know Madam
president the People's Republic of China
would love for us to pass this amendment
because if it passes the United States
of America will default they will be
rejoicing in Beijing
stand up to China vote no in this
amendment
questions on the amendment
is there a sufficient second
there appears to be a clerk will call
the rule Miss Baldwin
Mr barasso
Mr Bennett
Mrs Blackburn
Mr Blumenthal
Mr Booker
Mr Bozeman
Mr Braun
this is Brett
Mr Brown
Mr bud
Ms Cantwell
Mrs capito
Mr Cardin
Mr carper
Mr Casey
Mr Cassidy
Miss Collins
Mr Coons
Mr cornyn
Miss Cortez masto
Mr cotton
Mr Kramer
Mr crapo Mr Cruz Mr Danes
Miss Duckworth
Mr Durbin
Miss Ernst
this is Feinstein Mr fetterman
Mrs Fisher
Mrs gillibram
Mr Graham Mr Grassley
Mr Haggerty Miss Hassan
Mr Hawley
Mr Heinrich
Mr Hickenlooper
Mr Rono
Mr hoeven
Mrs Hyde Smith
Mr Johnson
Mr Kane
Mr Kelly
Mr Kennedy Mr King
Miss Klobuchar
Mr Langford
Mr Lee Mr Lujan Miss Lamas
Mr mansion
Mr Marky
Mr Marshall
Mr McConnell Mr Menendez
Mr Merkley Mr Moran
Dr Mullen
MS markowski
Mr Murphy
Mrs Murray
Mr ossoff
Mr Padilla
Mr Paul
was it Twinkie
Mr Peters
Mr Reed
I can't even remember Mr Ricketts
Mr resch
Mr Romney
Miss Rosen
Mr rounds Mr Rubio Mr Sanders
Mr Schatz Mr Schmidt Mr Schumer
Mr Scott of Florida Mr Scott of South
Carolina Mrs Shaheen
Miss cinnamon
Ms Smith
Miss stabenow
Mr Sullivan Mr tester Mr thune Mr Tillis
Mr tuberville Mr Van Hollen
Mr Vance
Mr Warner
Mr Warnock
well I mean I'm not looking forward to 7
A.M Ms Warren
well that's true I will be out
Mr Welch
Mr Whitehouse
Mr wicker
Mr Wyden
Mr Young
Senators voting in the affirmative
Blackburn Braun Brit Graham Hawley Hyde
Smith Lomas Marshall Mullen Ricketts
Rubio Schmidt Scott of Florida
tubberville Vance
Senators voting in the negative Baldwin
barrasso Bennett Blumenthal Booker
Bozeman brown bud Cantwell capito Cardin
Carper Casey Collins Coons cornyn Cortez
masto cotton Kramer crapo Gaines
Duckworth Durbin Ernst vetterman
gillibrand Grassley Hassan Heinrich
Hickenlooper hirono Homan Johnson Kane
Kelly Kennedy King Klobuchar Lankford
Lee Lujan Mansion Marky McConnell
Merkley Moran Murphy Murray Assaf
Padilla Paul Peters Reed Romney Rosen
rounds Sanders shots Schumer Shaheen
Cinema Smith stabenow Sullivan tester
Moon Tillis Warner Warnock Warner Welch
White House wicker Young
Mrs Fisher
no
Mr Rish
I
Mr Van Hollen
no
Mr Wyden no Mr Cassidy no
Mr Scott of South Carolina I
Ms murkowski MS murkowski
no
Mr Cruz
Mr Cruz
no
Mr Menendez Mr Menendez
no
on this vote the A's are 17 the Nays are
81.
under the previous order requiring 60
votes for the adoption of this amendment
the amendment is not agreed to
we're slipping a little 11 minutes let's
stay in our seats
senator from Louisiana is recognized
Madam president
Madam president I called up my amendment
number 104 and ask that it be reported
by number
click report the amendment by number
senator from Louisiana Mr Kennedy
proposes an amendment numbered 104.
Madam president
the Senate will be noticed that there
are six minutes equally divided for this
amendment under the previous agreement
Madam president senator from Louisiana
the American people
are the most generous people in the
world
in our country if you are hungry
we will feed you if you are homeless we
will try to to house you
if you're sick we'll pay for your doctor
and I'm very proud of that and I know
you are too
could we have order Madam president
the Senate is not in order please take
your conversations to the cloakroom
however Madam president
those who can work should work
those who can work should work a person
without a job
is not healthy
not happy
and not free
and history has demonstrated that the
best social program is a job
the best social program is a job
free enterprise Has Lifted more people
out of poverty
than all the social programs
put together
so while we should continue to be
generous
to to our neighbors
As Americans
we also need to repeat and repeat often
those who can't work should work
my Amendment would make the food stamp
work requirement and this bill permanent
it would remove the sunset
thank you madam president
and you're from Michigan that's right
thank you madam president first of all
the great news is we have a robust
economy growing more small businesses
opening the lowest unemployment rate in
a generation and we all want people to
be able to work let me speak to the
reality of what is in this bill first of
all we have had work requirements for
people who are single adults with no
dependents no dependence since the 90s
if you don't work if you're not in
school the most you can qualify for is
three months worth of snap within three
years that's current law
six dollars a day is what we're talking
about this bill extends that out in
terms of the age of the number of people
required to be in school or in work was
certainly important exemptions for our
seniors for our veterans and our
homeless and it's in place of 2030. so
here's my question how do you tell your
constituents that you're willing to
default create a catastrophic default
now
that will raise their unemployment
cost us jobs raise interest rates and so
on because you want to change something
that's going to be in place till
2030 2030 we've got plenty of time to
revisit it at that point this is a
bipartisan agreement I would just
suggest it's very irresponsible for us
to change something here that we know
the house is gone we're going to go into
default we make a change and say it's
because we wanted something to be
extended Beyond
2030. I would suggest we give this a
chance evaluated I would suggest we vote
no
Is there further debate yes Madam
president the Senate has one minute 11
seconds remaining
Madam president I think we all know
the June 5 deadline is a fiction
it is
we know that
we know that the treasury secretary
can take special measures
to extend the deadline
until the middle of June when tax
revenues will come in I understand
the need to go ahead and act but we all
know that
let me say it again Madam president
those who can work should work
those who can work should work
and that's all my Amendment does
this matter is there further debate
not the question is on the amendment is
it
is there sufficient second
appears to be clerical color role Miss
Baldwin
Mr Brasso
Mr Bennett
Mrs Blackburn
Mr Blumenthal
Mr Booker
Mr bezman
Mr Braun
Mrs Britt
Mr Brown
Mr bud
Miss Cantwell
Mrs capito
Mr Cardin
Mr carper
Mr Casey
Mr Cassidy
Miss Collins
Mr Coons
about sense
Mr cornyn
launch
ES
Miss Cortez masto
ISE
Mr cotton
Mr Kramer
Mr crapo
Mr Cruz
Mr Danes
Miss Duckworth Mr Durbin
Missouri
Mrs Feinstein Mr fetterman Mrs Fisher
Mrs gillibrand
Mr Graham Mr Grassley
Mr Haggerty Miss Hassan
Mr Hawley Mr Heinrich
Mr Hickenlooper
MS hirono
Mr Hogan
Mrs Hyde Smith
Mr Johnson
Mr Kane
Mr Kelly
Mr Kennedy Mr King
Miss Klobuchar Mr Langford
Mr Lee
Mr Lujan
MS lummus
Mr Mansion Mr Markey Mr Marshall
Mr McConnell
Mr Menendez Mr Merkley
Mr Moran
Mr Mullen
MS murkowski
Mr Murphy Mrs Murray
Mr Assaf
Mr Padilla Mr Paul Mr Peters
Mr Reed Mr Ricketts
Mr risch
Mr Romney
Miss Rosen
Mr rounds
Mr ribio Mr Sanders
Mr shots
Mr Schmidt
Mr Schumer
Mr Scott of Florida Mr Scott of South
Carolina
Mrs Shane
Ma
Miss Smith Miss stabenow
Mr Sullivan Mr tester Mr thune Mr Tillis
Mr tuberville
Mr Van Hollen
Mr Vance
Mr Warner
Mr Warnock
Ms Warren Mr Welch
Mr Whitehouse
Mr wicker
Mr Wyden Mr Young
Senators voting in the affirmative
barrasso Blackburn Bozeman Braun Brit
Bud capito
Cassidy Collins
cotton creamer crapo Danes Ernst Fisher
Graham Grassley Holly
Smith Johnson Kennedy Lankford lummus
Marshall McConnell Moran Mullen Paul
Rish
Romney rounds Rubio Schmidt Scott of
Florida Scott of South Carolina
Sullivan thune Tillis tuberville Vance
wicker and Young
Senators voting in the negative
Baldwin Bennett Blumenthal Booker Brown
Cantwell Cardin Carper Casey Coons
Cortez masto Duckworth Durbin fetterman
gillibrand Hassan Heinrich Hickenlooper
hirono Kane Kelly King Klobuchar Luhan
Mansion Marky Menendez Merkley
Murphy Murray Assaf Padilla Peters Reed
Ricketts Rosen Sanders shots Schumer
Shaheen Cinema Smith stabenow tester Van
Hollen Warner Warnock Warren Welch White
House and Wyden
Ms murkowski I
Mr Lee I
Mr cornyn
I
10.5
on this vote the yeas are 46 the Nays
are 51. under the previous order
requiring 60 votes for the adoption of
this amendment the amendment is not
agreed to
ten and a half minutes we're getting a
little better than last time let's get
it down to 10. stay here
we're all have we're all getting to know
each other nicely
the senator from Arkansas has recognized
if we could
the center from Arkansas is recognized
Madam president I call up my Amendment
106 and ask that it be reported by
number
the clerk will report
the senator from Arkansas Mr cotton
proposes an amendment number 106.
colleagues this bill has budget caps for
domestic and defense spending I don't
like the defense number in this year I
like it even less next year that's why
I'm opposing it but it also has a much
worse provision
it has a one percent automatic reduction
that is based on last year's Omnibus not
the caps on this bill
let me restate that last year's Omnibus
not this bill
so if we go to a continuing resolution
on October 1 which we almost always do
domestic spending will go up by 61
billion dollars while defense goes down
by 27 billion
not the caps in this bill if the
sequester of one percent kicks in
domestic spending will go up by 61
billion
and defense will go down by 37 billion
progressives will get more welfare for
grown men who refuse to work while
defense is slashed think about the
incentives this gives to the Democratic
leader when it comes to Appropriations
bills I asked for a simple change in
this amendment
the
caps should or the sequester should be
based on the Caps that you're about to
agree to not last year's
spending Bill hey yo the floor
senator from Washington is President I
rise in opposition to the Senator's
Amendment our defense spending is
critical but so are our investments to
combat fentanyl rebuild American
manufacturing especially for things like
chips improve access to child care Early
Learning and a lot more we cannot
shortchange our investments in families
and our country's future and the
underlying bill will already Force
painful Cuts this amendment would make
it so the consequences of failing to
pass are Appropriations bills Falls
heavily on our non-defense programs and
that will hurt our families across the
country let me be clear we will not let
that happen none of us want to end up in
a situation where we have a CR in the
first place that is exactly why I am
committed to making sure we write the
strongest 12 funding bills possible and
get them passed in a timely way this
amendment would set us back even further
and Target the programs that are a
Lifeline for working people in this
country tree I urge my colleagues to
vote no
the question is on the amendment
is there a sufficient second
there appears to be a sufficient second
the clerk will call the roll Ms Baldwin
Mr barasso
Mr Bennett
Mrs Blackburn
Mr Blumenthal
Mr Booker
Mr Bozeman
Mr Braun
Mrs Britt
Mr Brown
Mr Brown Mr Bud Ms Cantwell
Mrs capito
Mr Cardin
Mr Carper Mr Casey
Mr Cassidy
Miss Collins
Mr Coons
Miss
Mr cornyn
Miss Cortez Mastel
Mr cotton
Mr Kramer
Mr crapo Mr Cruz
Mr Danes
Ms Duckworth
Mr Durbin
Ms Ernst
Mrs Feinstein
Mr fetterman Mrs Fisher
Mrs gillibran
Mr Graham Mr Grassley
Mr Haggerty Miss Hassan
Mr Hawley Mr Heinrich
Mr Hickenlooper MS hirono
Mr Hoven
Mrs Hyde Smith
Mr Johnson
Mr Kane
Mr Kelly
Mr Kennedy Mr King
Miss Klobuchar
Mr Langford
Mr Lee Mr Lujan
Ms Lamas
Mr mansion
Mr Marky
Mr Marshall
Mr McConnell Mr Menendez
Mr Merkley
Mr Moran
Mr Mullen
MS murkowski MR Murphy
Mrs Murray
Mr ossoff
Mr Padilla
Mr Paul Mr Peters
Mr Reed
Mr Ricketts
Mr resch
Mr Romney
Miss Rose and Mr rounds
Mr Rubio Mr Sanders
Mr Schatz
Mr Schmidt Mr Schumer
Mr Scott of Florida Mr Scott of South
Carolina
Mr Shaheen
Miss Cinema
Miss Smith
Miss stabenow
Mr Sullivan Mr tester
Mr thune Mr Tillis
Mr tauberville
Mr Van Hollen
Mr Vance Mr Warner
Mr Warnock
Ms Warren Mr Welch Mr Whitehouse
Mr wicker
Mr Wyden Mr Young
Good Records
Senators voting in the affirmative
Brasso Blackburn Bozeman Braun Brit Bud
capito Cassidy Collins cornyn cotton
crapo Cruz Danes
Ernst Fisher Graham Grassley Hoven Hyde
Smith Johnson Kennedy Lankford Lee
McConnell Mullen murkowski Paul Ricketts
Romney rounds Rubio Schmidt Scott of
Florida Sullivan thune Tillis Vance and
wicker
Mr Young Mr Young I Mr Marshall Mr
Marshall
aye Mr Hawley Mr Hawley I
Ms lummus Miss lummus I
Mr Kramer Mr Kramer
aye Mr Rich Mr rich I
Senators voting in the negative
Baldwin Bennett Blumenthal Booker
Cantwell Cardin Carper Casey Coons
Cortez masto Duckworth Durbin Feinstein
fetterman gillibran Hassan Heinrich
Hickenlooper hirono Kane Kelly King
Lujan Mansion Marky Merkley Murphy
Murray ossoff Peters Reed Rosen Sanders
Schumer Shaheen Cinema Smith stabenow
tester Van Hollen Warner Warnock Warren
Welch White House and Wyden
Mr Moran Mr Moran I Mr shots Mr shots no
Mr tuberville Mr tuberville I
Mr Scott Mr Scott of South Carolina I
Mr Brown Mr Brown no
Mr Menendez Mr Menendez no
Mr Padilla Mr Padilla no
Miss Klobuchar Miss Klobuchar no
on this vote the azer 48 the Naser 51
under the previous order requiring 60
votes for the adoption of this amendment
the amendment is not agreed to
together
[Music]
who seeks recognition
senator from North Carolina is
recognized
Senate is not an order
Madam president I asked to call up
Senate Amendment 134 and ask that it be
reported by number the clerk will report
by number senator from North Carolina Mr
Bud proposes amendment number 134
Madam president asked the Senate be in
order
the Senate is not in order please take
your conversations to the cloakroom
thank you madam president on March 13th
of 2020 the federal government declared
a National Emergency
reconcerting the covid-19 pandemic more
than three years later on May 11 2023
that declaration ended and yet to this
day billions of coveted dollars
throughout the federal government remain
unspent so let's be clear each and every
one of those dollars came from a
hard-working taxpayer from a working
family's budget that's why my Amendment
would rescind an additional 17 billion
dollars of unspent coveted money if we
really want the fiscal responsibility
act to live up to its name the least we
can do is to rescind the taxpayer
dollars that remain to fight a pandemic
that everyone knows is over every
taxpayer dollar is sacred and should be
treated that way I yield the floor
Morgan is recognized I rise in
opposition
and Madam president the bipartisan
package
importantly negotiated between speaker
McCarthy and President Biden in fact
make specific rescissions to unused
covid funds while protecting important
funding for programs that are still
necessary to support our communities
this amendment colleagues goes beyond
the McCarthy Biden agreement this
amendment would take an ax to nearly all
of the funding in The Recovery Act and
several other coveted bills even if the
communities are still depending or
planning on using that money blue States
or red States
pass this amendment and your risk
default I strongly urge a vote against
this amendment
the question is on the amendment
the senator has five seconds I asked for
the years of Nations
is there a sufficient second
there appears to be clerk would call the
rule Ms Baldwin
Mr Brasso
Mr Bennett
Mrs Blackburn
Mr Blumenthal
Mr Booker
Mr Bozeman Mrs Mr Braun Mrs Britt
Mr Brown
I got you
thank you
Mr bud
Ms Cantwell
Mrs capito
Mr Cardin Mr carper
Mr Casey
Mr Cassidy
Miss Collins Mr Coons
Mr cornyn
Miss Cortez masto
Mr cotton Mr Kramer
Mr crapo
Mr Cruz Mr Danes
Miss Duckworth
Mr Durbin
Miss Ernst
Mrs Feinstein
Mr fetterman Mrs Fisher
Mrs gillibrand
Mr Graham Mr Grassley
Mr Haggerty Miss Hassan
Mr Hawley Mr Heinrich
Mr Hickenlooper
Miss hirono
Mr Hoven
Mrs Hyde Smith
Mr Johnson
Mr Kane
Mr Kelly
Mr Kennedy
Mr King
Miss Klobuchar
Mr Langford
Mr Lee
Mr Lujan
MS lummus
extra Mansion Mr Markey
thank you
Mr Marshall
Mr McConnell Mr Menendez Mr Merkley
Mr Moran
Mr Mullen
MS murkowski
Mr Murphy
Mrs Murray
strassov
Mr Padilla
Mr Paul
Mr Peters
Mr Reed
Mr Ricketts
Mr Rish
Mr Romney
Miss Rosen
Mr rounds
Mr Rubio
Mr Sanders
Mr Schatz
Mr Schumer
oops Mr Schmidt Mr Scott of Florida Mr
Scott of South Carolina
thank you
Mrs Shaheen
Cinema
Ms Smith
stabenow
Mr Sullivan
Mr Chester Mr Boone
Mr Tillis
Mr tuberville
Mr Van Hollen
Mr Vance
Mr Warner
Mr Warnock
miss Warren
Mr Welch Mr Whitehouse
Mr wicker Mr Wyden Mr Young
Senators voting in the affirmative
barrasso Blackburn Bozeman Braun Brit
Bud capito Collins cornyn cotton Kramer
crapo Cruz Danes
Ernst Fisher Graham Grassley Holly
Smith Johnson Kennedy Lankford
lummus Marshall McConnell Moran Mullen
Paul Ricketts Rich Romney rounds Rubio
Schmidt Scott of Florida
Sullivan thune Tillis tuberville Vance
wicker and Young
Mr Padilla
Mr Lee I
Mr Cassidy eye
Senators voting in the negative
Baldwin Bennett Blumenthal Booker Brown
Cantwell Cardin Harper Casey Coons
Cortez masto Duckworth Durbin Feinstein
betterman gillibrand Hassan Heinrich
Hickenlooper corono Kane Kelly King
I forgot
Lujan Mansion Marky Menendez Merkley
murkowski Murphy Murray Assaf Padilla
Peters Reed Rosen Sanders shots Schumer
Shaheen Cinema Smith stabenow tester Van
Hollen Warner Warnock Warren Welch White
House and Wyden
Mr Scott of South Carolina I
Miss Klobuchar no
on this vote the A's are 47 the Nays are
52 under the previous order requiring
six
60 votes for the adoption of this
amendment the amendment is not agreed to
Madam president
or 9 20. let's Beat It
Madam president senator from Utah Madam
president I call my amendment number 98
and ask that it be reported by number
clerk will report by number the senator
from Utah Mr Lee proposes an amendment
numbered 98.
Madam president this amendment is simple
it strikes section 265 of this bill
section 263 creates a regulatory Pago
measure
but section 265 nullifies that by giving
outright complete discretion to the
director of OMB who by the way uh just
announced day before yesterday from the
White House that she would use this
effectively to nullify the regulatory
pay-as-you-go measure please support my
amendment I yield the rest of my time to
the senator from Louisiana Madam
president you're from Louisiana Madam
president it's late and I will be candid
to my colleagues I say
that not a single one of you is a dummy
not a single one of your mother's raised
a fool
and if she did it was one of your
siblings
we all know
that a pay goal requirement for a
regulation that can be waived by the
proponent of the regulation is
meaningless
this amendment will provide that the pay
goal requirements
you're here
Madam president senator from Michigan's
recognized Madam president the Lee
amendment is an unnecessary roadblock to
this bipartisan deal and interfere with
the delivery of essential government
services in times of need if adopted
this amendment would prevent agencies
from exercising discretion and acting
quickly in times of need such as during
a national emergency or natural disaster
the government must be able to provide
essential services to the public and
it's important to promote offsets and
save taxpayer dollars we understand that
but we must also ensure that the
American people receive the services
they need and protect our economy and
that's why we must vote to quickly pass
this bipartisan bill without amendment
to avoid a catastrophic default I urge
my colleagues to vote no on the Lee
Amendment
question is on the amendment
is there a sufficient second there
appears to be clerk will call the rule
Ms Baldwin
Mr barasso
Mr Bennett
Mrs Blackburn
Mr Blumenthal
Mr Booker
Mr Bozeman
Mr Braun
Mr Mrs Brett
Mr Brown
Mr bud
Ms Cantwell
Mrs capito
Mr Cardin
Mr carper
Mr Casey
Mr Cassidy
Miss Collins
Mr Coons
Mr cornyn Miss Cortez masto
Mr cotton
Mr Kramer
Mr crapo
Mr Cruz
Mr Danes
Miss Duckworth
Mr Durbin
Ms Ernst Mrs Feinstein
Mr fetterman Mrs Fisher
Mrs gillibran
Mr Graham
Mr Grassley
Mr Haggerty
Miss Hassan
Mr Hawley
Mr Heinrich
Mr Hickenlooper Mr Rono
Mr Hoven
Mrs Hart Smith
Mr Johnson
Mr Kane
Mr Kelly
Mr Kennedy Mr King
Miss Klobuchar
Mr Langford
Mr Lee Mr Lujan
Ms Lamas
Mr mansion
Mr Marky
Mr Marshall
Mr McConnell Mr Menendez
Mr Merkley
Mr Moran
Mr Mullen
MS murkowski
Mr Murphy
Mrs Murray
Mr ossoff
Mr Padilla Mr Paul
Mr Peters
Mr Reed
Mr Ricketts
Mr resch
Mr Romney
Miss Rosen
Mr rounds Mr Rubio Mr Sanders Mr Schatz
Mr Schmidt
Mr Schumer Mr Scott of Florida
Mr Scott of South Carolina
Mrs Shaheen
Miss Cinema
Miss Smith
Miss stabenow
Mr Sullivan
Mr tester Mr thune
Mr Tillis Mr toberville
Mr Van Hollen
Mr Vance
Mr Warner
Mr Warnock
Ms Warren
Mr Welch
Mr Whitehouse
Mr wicker
Mr White and Mr Young
Senators voting and the affirmative
barrasso Blackburn Bozeman Britt Bud
capito Cassidy Collins cornyn cotton
Kramer crapo Cruz Danes Ernst Fisher
Graham Grassley Hoven heightsmith
Johnson Kennedy Lankford Lee lummus
Marshall McConnell Moran Mullen
murkowski
Ricketts Rish
Romney rounds Rubio Schmidt Scott of
Florida Sullivan thune Tillis tuberville
wicker and Young
Mr Paul Mr Paul I Senators voting in the
negative
Baldwin Bennett Blumenthal Booker Brown
Cantwell Cardin Carper Casey Coons
Cortez masto Duckworth Durbin Feinstein
fetterman gillibran Hassan Heinrich
Hickenlooper hirono Kane Kelly King
Klobuchar Lujan Mansion Marky Merkley
Murphy Murray ossoff Padilla Peters Reed
Rosen Sanders shots
Schumer Shaheen Cinema Smith stabenow
tester Van Hollen Warner Warnock Warren
Welch White House and Wyden
Mr Braun Mr Braun I
Mr Menendez Mr Menendez no
foreign
South Carolina
aye
Mr Vance Mr Vance I
Mr Hawley Mr Hawley I
the azer 48 the Nays are 51 the
amendment is not agreed to
senator from Virginia is recognized
I'm at 101 and asked it be reported by
number
clerk will report by number senator from
Virginia Mr Kane proposes amendment
number 101. I ask unanimous consent that
there be four minutes equally divided
prior to the vote on my amendment is
there senator's capital and Mansion each
controlling one minute in opposition
without objection so ordered
Madam president I Rise to offer an
amendment that would do something the
Senate is not in order the senator will
hold please will Senators please take
their uh conversations to the cloakroom
I Rise to an offer an amendment to strip
a single provision out of this bill the
provision green lighting the Mountain
Valley pipeline I offer my Amendment for
three reasons first this provision that
would put congress's thumb on a
permitting scale is completely unrelated
to the debt ceiling and should not be
included in this bill
second
the Senate is not in order please take
your conversations to the cloakroom
second I object on behalf of Virginia
landowners if you could build a pipeline
in Middle that's one thing but the only
way to build it is to use eminent domain
to take people's land
Virginians don't want to have their land
taken for a pipeline unless there is a
thorough process where they have all the
rights accorded to them by law
administrative agency and judicial
review cutting off those rights is
disrespectful to these landowners who in
this part of the state sometimes lands
all they have and it's been in their
family for Generations finally this bill
would strip jurisdiction of a case away
from the fourth circuit in the middle of
the case that's unprecedented and
historic I used to try cases all the
time in this circuit I lost them and I
would appeal them
but I wouldn't try to get
Congress to strip jurisdiction away from
the court because I was unhappy no
everyday person gets this deal no
criminal defendant gets this deal no
small business gets this deal
nobody gets this deal and we shouldn't
give it to some company just because
they're powerful and they have influence
in Congress for these reasons I asked
for a yes vote on my Amendment
Madam president
senator from West Virginia's record yes
Madam president I rise in opposition to
the gentleman's Amendment this Mountain
Valley pipeline is an important
infrastructure it has been vetted
numerous times it has permitting all
permits that are from the Virginia
Department of Environmental Quality the
fish and wildlife the Bureau of Land
Management these are all permits through
both administrations both Biden and
Trump administrations that have already
been offered they are in a Judicial hell
hole right now where they can't get out
this is absolutely essential to the
Eastern Seaboard it is jobs and tax
revenues in the state of West Virginia
and I think this is an opportunity for
us to cut through this red tape and move
forward with a very essential
infrastructure package I'm president
senator from West Virginia Madam
president I also rise in opposition
eight years eight years three
administrations this project has been
under review eight times NEPA eight
times between NEPA reviews three times
through every and every uh agency this
has been reviewed more than anything in
the United States of America the people
in this eastern Southeastern part of the
country especially in the Carolinas are
paying sometimes 10 times more for gas
because of the shortages during severe
weather this is critical for the people
of this country if you believe in energy
security if you believe in energy
Independence and you believe that we
should be the superpower of the world
this helps us do that it puts more
product in the market than anything that
we have available this will be up and
running in six months six months already
293 miles already built we only have 20
more miles to go to finish it
it's time to finish this project please
vote no on this amendment by my friend
respectfully disagree with thank you
is there a sufficient segment there
appears to be a clerical color rule Ms
Baldwin
cotton eye
Mr Brasso
Mr Bennett
this is Blackburn
Mr Blumenthal
I did I did sorry
Mr Booker
Mr Bozeman
Mr Braun
Mrs Britt
Mr Brown
Mr bud
Ms Cantwell
Mrs capito
Cardin
Mr carper
Mr Casey
Cassidy
Miss Collins
Mr Coons
Mr cornyn
Miss Cortez masto
Mr cotton Mr Kramer
Mr crapo
Mr Cruz
Mr Danes
it's Duckworth
Mr Durbin
desserts
Mrs Feinstein
Mr fetterman
Miss Fisher
Mrs gillibrand
Mr Graham Mr Grassley
Mr Haggerty Miss Hassan
Mr Hawley
Mr Heinrich
Mr Hickenlooper
Miss hirono
Mr Hoven
Mrs Hyde Smith
Mr Johnson
Mr Kane Mr Kelly
Mr Kennedy
Mr King
Miss Klobuchar
Mr Langford
Mr Lee Mr Lujan
MS lummus
Mr mansion
Mr Markey
Mr Marshall
Mr McConnell Mr Menendez
Mr Merkley
Mr Moran
Mr Mullen
Miss murkowski
Mr Murphy
Mrs Murray
Mr Assaf
Mr Padilla
Mr Paul Mr Peters
Mr Reed
Mr Ricketts
Mr Rish
Mr Romney
Miss Rosen
Mr rounds
Mr rubia Mr Sanders
Mr Schatz
Mr Schumer
Mr Schmidt Mr Scott of Florida
Mr Scott of South Carolina
Mrs Shaheen
Miss sedima
Miss Smith
Mr Sullivan
Mr tester Mr thune
Mr Tillis
Mr tupperville
Mr Van Hollen
Mr Vance
Mr Warner
Mr Warnock
Ms Warren
Mr Welch
Mr Whitehouse
Mr wicker
Mr Wyden
Mr Young
Senators voting in the affirmative
Cardin cotton Graham Heinrich Johnson
Kane Lee Marshall Menendez Merkley Paul
Sanders Van Hollen Warner and Warren
Senators voting in the negative Baldwin
barrasso Bennett Blackburn Brit Brown
capito Casey Cassidy Collins cornyn
Kramer crapo Danes Durbin
Ernst Feinstein fetterman Fisher
gillibrand Grassley Hassan Hickenlooper
Hoven hydsmith Kelly King Langford
Mansion McConnell Moran Mullen murkowski
Murray Assaf Ricketts Rich Romney rounds
Rubio shots Schmidt Schumer Scott of
Florida Scott of South Carolina
Shaheen Cinema
stabenow Sullivan tester thune Tillis
Warnock and wicker
Muslim is no Mr Booker
I Mr Peters
no Mr Reed
no Miss hirono
I miss Duckworth
I'm Mr Marky
I Mr Lujan
I
Mr Blumenthal
I
Mr Welch I
Mr White House
I
Mr Murphy I
Mr Braun
no Mr Wyden
I
Miss Smith I miss Cantwell
I miss Klobuchar I
Mr Bozeman no
Mr tuberville I
Mr Kennedy no
Mr Hawley
no
Mr Vance no
Mr Cruz no
Mr cotton
no
Mr bud no
Mr Graham
no
Mr Johnson no
Mr Marshall no
Mr tuberville
no
Mr Young no
idea
you're in right
Mr Carper I
Miss Baldwin
I
yep
but now I gotta Chad bless it
I'm nobody
Miss Rose and I
Mr Warnock
I
this Cortez masto
I
let's go Mr Coons no
Mr Padilla
no
Mrs gillibrand
I
these are 16
2. on this vote the A's are 30 the Nays
are 69 the amendment is not agreed to
senator from Louisiana is recognized
Madam president can we have order
Senate is not in order
Madam president I call up my amendment
number
102 and ask that it be reported by
number then the clerk will report by
number senator from Louisiana Mr Kennedy
proposes an amendment numbered 102.
and on this amendment there is six
minutes equally divided
Madam president senator from Louisiana
is recognized
thank you madam president
Madam president this is the
last Amendment of the evening
I have three minutes
I can read a room
and I can count votes
this amendment would require states to
use the most
up-to-date unemployment data
for waivers
of food stamp work requirements
thank you
Madam president Senate senator from
Michigan is recognizing Madam president
I will be equally brief the good news is
it's already required by law this is a
total duplication states must already
provide up-to-date employment data in
order to measure if they hit a 10
unemployment rate in order to get a
state waiver this is unnecessary please
do not risk a default of our country on
language that is already in the law
would you would you accept a Voice vote
would my friend accept a Voice vote
Madam president senator from Louisiana
is recognized
I will accept the voicemail thank you
[Applause]
the question is on the amendment all
those in favor say aye
opposed say nay
the amendment is not agreed to
under the previous
president
first
I want to thank everybody for
cooperating I think we got the most
votes in the least time
second and more importantly we're about
to vote on something so important to the
country and so many of us on both sides
of the aisle will know that if we do
this we will not default that is very
very important uh thank you for your
cooperation the next vote is Tuesday at
5 pm
30. 5 30. excuse me
under the previous order the bill is
considered red a third time the question
occurs on the passage of H.R 3746
there is is there a sufficient second
there is a sufficient second clerk will
call the rule Ms Baldwin
Mr barasso
Mr Bennett
Mrs Blackburn
foreign
Mr Bozeman Mr Brown Mrs Brett
Mr Brown Mr Bud Ms Cantwell Mrs capito
Mr Cardin Mr Carper Mr Casey Mr Cassidy
is Collins Mr Coons
Mr cornyn Miss Cortez masto
Mr cotton Mr Kramer
the crepeo Mr Cruz Mr Danes Ms Duckworth
foreign
Mr Cruz Mr Danes Miss Duckworth Mr
Durbin Ms Ernst Mrs Feinstein
Mr fetterman
Mrs Fisher
Mrs gillibran Mr Graham Mr Grassley Mr
Haggerty Miss Hass and Mr Hawley Mr
Heinrich
Mr Hickenlooper Mr Rono Mr Hoven Mrs
Hyde Smith
Mr Johnson Mr Kane Mr Kelly Mr Kennedy
Mr King
Miss Klobuchar
Mr Langford Mr Lee Mr Lujan
Miss Lamas
Mr mansion
Mr Marshall Mr McConnell Mr Menendez Mr
Merkley Mr Moran
Mr Mullen
Mrs murkowski
Mr Murphy Mrs Murray Mr ossoff Mr
Padilla Mr Paul Mr Peters Mr Reed Mr
Ricketts Mr Rish
Mr Romney Miss Rosen
Mr Romney Miss Rose and Mr rounds Mr
Rubio Mr Sanders Mr Schatz Mr Schmidt Mr
Schumer Mr Scott of Florida Mr Scott of
South Carolina Mrs Shaheen Cinema Ms
Smith miss stabenow Mr Sullivan Mr
tester Mr thin Mr Tillis Mr tuberville
Mr Van Hollen Mr Vance Mr Warner Mr
Warnock Ms Warren Mr Welch Mr Whitehouse
Mr wicker
Mr Wyden Mr Young
Senators voting in the affirmative
Baldwin Bennett Blumenthal Booker
Bozeman Brown Cantwell capito Cardin
Carper Casey Collins Coons cornyn Cortez
masto Kramer Duckworth Durbin Ernst
Feinstein gillibrand Grassley Hassan
Heinrich Hickenlooper hirono Hoven Kane
Kelly King Klobuchar Lujan Mansion
McConnell Menendez Mullen murkowski
Murphy Murray Assaf Padilla Peters Reed
Romney Rosen rounds shots Schumer
Shaheen Cinema Smith stabenow tester
thune Tillis Van Hollen Warner Warnock
Welch White House Wyden Young
Mr Moran
I
Senators voting in the negative
Blackburn Brawn Bud cotton crapo Cruise
Danes fetterman Fisher Graham Hawley
Hyde Smith Johnson Kennedy Lankford Lee
Markey Marshall Merkley Paul Ricketts
Rich Rubio Sanders Schmidt Scott of
Florida Scott of South Carolina Sullivan
tuberville Vance Warren wicker
Mr morasso Mr barasso no
Mr Lamas Mr Lamas no
this is Brett Mrs Brett no
Mr Cassidy Mr Cassidy no yes