Tom Cotton

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. I know of no further debate on the nominee.

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, it is 2:20 on Saturday afternoon, not a usual time for the Senate to be in business, especially leading into the August State work period when Senators are home meeting with their constituents, hearing their concerns, sharing news about what was worked on. So you can say it is unusual, for sure, that we are here. I want to take a brief trip down memory lane to explain why we are here for the benefit of Senators, especially Senators who haven't been here until recently, and for the benefit of our friends who are visiting in the Gallery. We are here for one reason. We are here because of the actions of one man: Chuck Schumer, the Democratic leader. We are here voting, as you have probably seen and wondered about, on a series of nominees. These are not household names. For some of you, you may not even have known the job existed. No offense. I am sure it is important to them and their parents. But for over 200 years, these kind of nominees didn't get a vote on a procedural question and then 2 hours of debate and then another vote on confirmation; they were voice-voted or they were adopted by what is called unanimous consent of the Senate--for over 200 years. You can see the evidence here in front of me on this chart. This is the percentage of civilian nominees who have been confirmed by voice vote or by unanimous consent going back to George Bush 41 and to the day of President Trump's second term, through about the first 6 months of the administration. George Bush 41: 98 percent. Bill Clinton. Some people thought Bill Clinton's Presidency started at a more polarized time of politics. Nope. Ninety-eight percent for Bill Clinton as well. George W. Bush, Bush 43: Well, it is a 5X increase in the number of record votes we needed but still 90 percent. I would note that Senator Schumer was elected in 1998. So he showed up here about 2 years before George W. Bush did. Obama--despite the treatment of George W. Bush by the Democratic Senators--stayed steady, 90 percent. Ninety percent of all of Barack Obama's nominees through his first 6 months were confirmed by voice vote or unanimous consent. Look at this huge drop here--from 90 percent with Barack Obama to not even two-thirds for Donald Trump in his first term. And yes, it does decline by another 8 percent to Joe Biden. As is often said, what goes around comes around. The shoe will be on the other foot, and you might not like how it feels. But look now at the unprecedented break from the customs of the Senate under these Senate Democrats and Chuck Schumer: from 57 percent to zero--zero--not a single one. Not a single nominee of Donald Trump's has been confirmed by voice vote or by unanimous consent in the first 6-plus months of his administration--a totally unprecedented blockade. And we are not talking about the Secretary of Defense or the Secretary of the Treasury. Again, we are talking about jobs like the Chief Counsel for Advocacy at the SBA. I would bet most of you didn't even know that job existed. They do important work, but does the Senate really need to spend 2 hours and two votes on it? I would suggest not, based on historical customs. So when did this all start? Did it happen when TV cameras got in the Senate and Senators could come down here and perform for the TV camera? No. In fact, there are ample examples and precedent of highly controversial nominations not even requiring a 60-vote threshold. Think about Clarence Thomas, maybe the best example--Clarence Thomas in 1991: The most consequential nomination we consider, a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court of the United States. One of the most, if not the most, controversial nominees in history because of the lies and calumnies that Democratic Senators made against him, I would add-- he was confirmed on a record vote of 52 to 48. Now, you may say: Well, how did he get confirmed? He didn't have 60 votes. And that is because, as late as 1991, it was considered unprecedented for a Senator to require what we call a cloture motion--a motion to end debate at a 60-vote threshold on a nominee--on any nominee, to include a Supreme Court Justice. Think about some of the Senators who were here in 1991 who could have, on their own accord, irrespective of the wishes of another 99 Senators, demanded that Clarence Thomas get 60 votes before he be confirmed: Teddy Kennedy, Robert Byrd, Joe Biden, John Kerry--lions of the Democratic Senate. Not a single one of them came down here and said: I want to demand a 60-vote threshold for Clarence Thomas. Maybe there were conversations about it, but maybe people like Teddy Kennedy and Robert Byrd said: We don't do that. That is not the way things are done here--until 1999 when Chuck Schumer shows up, and he and other liberals in the Senate and a bunch of liberal law professors begin circulating the idea: No, we should require 60-vote thresholds for nominees. And then, a couple of years into the Bush administration, they began to demand it, most notably on nominees to the court of appeals for the DC Circuit and, most notably of all those, on Miguel Estrada, a young Latino lawyer that they were afraid George Bush was going to later elevate to be the first Latino on the Supreme Court. They took unprecedented actions. And that, led by Chuck Schumer, is what brought us to this moment today. That is one reason why this says 90 percent and not 98 percent. By 2013, Harry Reid, then-majority leader of the Senate, voted to change the rules of the Senate and said there will no longer be 60-vote thresholds on any office other than the Supreme Court. He did it right there at that desk. Mitch McConnell stood at that desk, then the Republican leader, and said: What goes around comes around. The shoe may be on the other foot, and it may be sooner than you might think. And sure enough, 4 years later, in 2017, Republicans used the Harry Reid precedent and extended it to the Supreme Court. So now Supreme Court nominees, as was the case throughout history, only require a simple majority vote. And then the Democrats engaged in the dilatory practices that they are using now, which is why this number was at 65, to demand 30 hours of debate. And I say ``30 hours of debate'' in air quotes because nobody comes down here in those times and debates the nominee pending on the floor. They talk about climate change or they recognize someone celebrating their 100th birthday back home, but nobody comes down here and has a serious debate on the merits of a nominee. So, in 2019, Republicans used the Harry Reid precedent again to cut time for debate for most offices in the sub-Cabinet--not for courts of appeal, not for Cabinet members, not for the Supreme Court--from 30 hours to 2 hours. And that is why we spend 2 hours in between each one of these votes. But Democrats, having lost again last year in the White House and the Senate, have brought us to this point: zero nominees confirmed by voice vote or by unanimous consent, an unprecedented blockade, all traced back to Chuck Schumer's decision when he got into the Senate to break the norms, the practices, the traditions of the U.S. Senate. Well, this is not going to stand for much longer. It is up to our Democratic friends to decide how they would like to proceed. Do they want to follow Chuck Schumer off the cliff? Because, if so, we will be happy to use the Harry Reid precedent again. We will eliminate 2 hours of debate time. We will eliminate motions to go in and out of executive session. We will eliminate cloture motions entirely for nominees that currently take 2 hours of debate. For today, maybe we will make a motion to adjourn. And when the House returns and votes on that motion, then Donald Trump can appoint this backlog of more than 150 nominees in a recess appointment. It is the Democrats' choice. They have a third choice. They could return to historical precedent. They could agree to voice vote today in the next few minutes--more than 150 nominees at this point, most of whom came out of our committee on a bipartisan basis, many of whom are nominated to offices that have literally never had a recorded vote on the floor of the U.S. Senate. The question is up to the Democrats. Do you want to do this the easy way or do you want to do it the hard way? Because Republicans are prepared to finish what Chuck Schumer started 22 years ago, and what it will do is return the U.S. Senate to those practices, customs, and traditions that prevailed here from the 18th century to 2003 for both parties, for Presidents of both parties. I think our Republic was just fine from the 19th century--I am sorry--the 18th century to 2003. But one way or another, I promise you, this is going to stop. I yield the floor.

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, well, here we go again. Hamas is on the verge of defeat, so it has cranked up the propaganda machine once again. Now Hamas wants the world to believe that Israel has undertaken a campaign of deliberate starvation of the Gazan population, and as usual, Hamas can count on an international media and political chorus to fight their battles for them and try to bully Israel into submission. So I would like to set the record straight. First, let me observe that no decent person wants to see innocent children caught in the crosshairs of war and suffering and hunger and malnutrition. Israel agrees, of course. That is why, since Hamas started this war with its brutal atrocities, Israel has helped bring into Gaza approximately 96,000 trucks containing nearly 1.5 million tons of food, 46,000 tons of medical supplies, 60,000 tons of water, and around 170,000 tons of shelter equipment. Put simply, children in Gaza aren't going hungry because of lack of supplies from Israel; they are suffering because Hamas uses food and humanitarian aid as a weapon to stay in power. Now, you may see these easels next to me and believe I am about to show you heart-wrenching images of malnourished kids. That is what some more gullible Senators have done lately--and I am afraid to say, gullible might be a charitable way to describe their motives--much like the New York Times buying hook, line, and sinker the images of Gazan children afflicted with terrible diseases but passed off as malnourished. But, no, I have other images to show; namely, the immense volume of food that is being ruthlessly withheld from the children of Gaza. Pallets and pallets of United Nations aid are just waiting to be distributed to the children of Gaza. Some of these contain canned goods such as chickpeas, white beans, green peas, and carrots. But these supplies, at this very moment, are sitting and baking in the hot sun instead of feeding hungry kids. While the situation is shocking, it is not at all surprising. After all, Hamas's infiltration of U.N. aid mechanisms is well-documented. Time and again, we have seen Hamas terrorists divert aid shipments to themselves or loot delivery trucks, only to resell the supplies on the black market at outrageous prices. Last year, this terrorist-infiltrated aid system managed by the U.N. and others allowed Hamas to rake in more than half a billion dollars in profit--profits that fund Hamas's campaign of terror against Israel and its own people. How critical is this systematic theft to Hamas's grip on power? Well, one of Hamas's chief demands in recent cease-fire negotiations has been the dismantling of the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, a new charity created specifically to end Hamas's stranglehold on aid and supplies. The foundation has even offered to distribute U.N. aid for free, despite the risk to its own people. And much of this aid, which is sitting in the sun and partly taxpayer funded, is already inside Gaza; it simply needs to be picked up and distributed. But the offer has fallen on deaf ears because Hamas uses humanitarian aid as a tool to fund, facilitate, and fight its war against innocent children, against Israel, against the civilized world. And Hamas's cheerleaders, apologists, and dupes in Europe, in America, and, sadly, here in the U.S. Senate once again turn a blind eye to Hamas's crimes, blaming, instead, Israel and the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation. They demand that Israel agree to a cease-fire that preserves and rewards Hamas while also delivering even more humanitarian aid to Gaza for Hamas to steal and exploit. They expect Israel to feed the very people who attacked, raped, and murdered innocent Israeli men, women, and children on October 7 and--I would remind everyone--not a few American victims as well. Once again, Israel is facing demands placed on no other nation in the world. I don't recall from my history lessons, for instance, the United States providing humanitarian aid to Germany and Japan in World War II. On the contrary, the Allies imposed naval blockades that led to widespread shortages in those enemy nations. When, in the annals of history, has the victim of an unprovoked war of aggression ever been held responsible for the nutrition of the aggressor? Put simply, Israel doesn't have any responsibility to send a single loaf of bread to Gaza. I wonder why so many Senators, pundits, podcasters, and European politicians impose this unique standard on the Jewish nation. Why could it be? But despite all that, despite the brutal slaughter of nearly 1,200 Israelis on October 7, despite Hamas's continued repression of its own people, Israel is still delivering aid to Gaza while Hamas rips it from the hands of hungry children. Once again we see very simply and very clearly in this war who is on the side of justice and who is on the side of evil. And I would ask anyone who places these singular demands on Israel: Whose side do you want to be on? And if you truly care about the children of Gaza, as I do, as Israelis do, as any decent person surely does, I would encourage you to support President Trump's statement of moral clarity and strength from earlier this morning: The fastest way to end the Humanitarian Crises in Gaza is for Hamas to SURRENDER AND RELEASE THE HOSTAGES. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, today, I urge my Senate colleagues to confirm Joe Kent as the Director of the National Counterterrorism Center. Mr. Kent has 20 years of military service and 11 combat deployments during the War on Terror, as well as experience as a Green Beret and a CIA officer. Mr. Kent has dedicated his career to fighting terrorism and to keeping Americans safe. For Joe, this mission is both patriotic and, sadly, personal, as his first wife Shannon was tragically killed while serving in Syria in 2019. America remains grateful for and honored by her selfless, valiant service to our Nation, and we continue to hold Joe and their children in our prayers for their loss. Mr. Kent understands the grave threat that terrorism poses to the security and safety of Americans. He has committed to returning the National Counterterrorism Center to its statutory mission of integrating threat intelligence from foreign terrorist organizations and to getting out of purely domestic activities. These are among the reasons I call on my colleagues to support his nomination. Finally, in addition to Mr. Kent, I would like to emphasize the urgency with which the Senate ought to confirm nominees to all intelligence and national security-related positions. Getting these nominees through the confirmation pipeline is essential to our national security and crucial to increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of our intelligence Agencies. Again, I am pleased to offer my support for Mr. Kent's nomination, and I call on my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the previously scheduled rollcall vote begin immediately.

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, today, I encourage my Senate colleagues to confirm Mr. Aaron Lukas as the next Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence. Mr. Lukas's long career serving our Nation as a CIA officer makes him well suited for this important position. He has more than 20 years of intelligence experience, which includes working as a CIA Station Chief and joint duty rotations at the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the National Security Council. With Mr. Lukas's knowledge, experience, and know-how, he has the right background to assist Director Gabbard with eliminating bureaucratic bloat and returning our intelligence community to its core mission of aggressively stealing the secrets of our adversaries. I am grateful to Mr. Lukas for his decades of service, and I would like to thank him and his family for being willing to answer the call of our country to serve once again. For all these reasons, I again encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting Mr. Lukas's nomination to be the Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence. I yield the floor.

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. I yield the floor.

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, today, I speak to urge my colleagues to confirm John Eisenberg as the next Assistant Attorney General for the National Security Division at the Department of Justice. With more than two decades of government service, there is no question that Mr. Eisenberg has the experience, the know-how, and the qualifications needed to fulfill the duties and responsibilities of this important position. In addition to his wide-ranging and impressive resume, I should note that Mr. Eisenberg also worked at the Department of Justice when the National Security Division was created in the first place. In fact, he was part of the very team that envisioned the Division's role in using our law to help protect our Nation against national security threats. So I believe Mr. Eisenberg will bring an invaluable breadth of experience and depth of knowledge to this role that would advance America's national security. Mr. Eisenberg is a family man, a patriot, and an exemplary American. I commend President Trump for nominating him to the position of Assistant Attorney General for the National Security Division. I thank Mr. Eisenberg for his willingness to answer the call to serve once again. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of his confirmation.

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I know of no further debate on the nominee.

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum calls with respect to the Stephens and Barrack nominations be waived.

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, today, I urge my colleagues to confirm Warren Stephens to be our next U.S. Ambassador to the United Kingdom. President Trump could not have chosen a more qualified or well-suited person to lead the special relationship between our two nations. Warren Stephens is a family man, a businessman, a philanthropist, and a patriot who is a pillar of his community and his family-owned financial firm, Stephens Inc. Founded on a handshake by his father Jack and his uncle Witt, Warren become president and CEO of Stephens when he was only 29 years old. In the four decades since, Warren has built a global presence for Stephens, including in London, where he has spent a considerable amount of time. Warren's signature style of cordial, interpersonal, and dedicated leadership won him friends across America and the Atlantic, and, of course, in our home State of Arkansas. For many years, Warren and his wife Harriet have also served our Arkansas community with their time, talents, and generosity. They led a major, multiyear fundraising campaign that transformed the Arkansas Arts Center into the Arkansas Museum of Fine Arts. Because of their tireless efforts and dynamic vision, the museum is now a place for neighbors, friends, and families to gather, learn, and enjoy amazing works of art. Warren is also an active advocate for young generations of American students and athletes. Warren generously supports numerous universities and schools, including his alma mater, Washington and Lee, and the Episcopal Collegiate School in Little Rock. Additionally, he is the chairman and founder of the Jackson T. Stephens Cup, which showcases collegiate golfers from NCAA Division I schools, historically Black colleges and universities, and the U.S. service academies on the Nation's preeminent golf courses. I have had the privilege to know Warren and his family for a long time, and I can tell you that Warren has always wanted to serve his country. After decades of serving others in our Arkansas community, Warren now has answered the call to serve our country as the next U.S. Ambassador to the United Kingdom. He is the right person to lead our strong, special relationship with the United Kingdom. I am pleased to support his nomination, and I urge all of my colleagues to confirm Warren so he can get to work on this critical job.

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, today, I urge my Senate colleagues to confirm Gov. Mike Huckabee's nomination to be the next U.S. Ambassador to Israel. I have had the privilege of knowing Mike, his wife Janet, and his children John Mark, David, and Sarah, for many years. Mike's exemplary character, steadfast faith, and lifetime of servant leadership make him the right choice to represent the President in Israel, particularly at this critical moment. A friend, patriot, and fellow Arkansan, Mike graduated from Ouachita Baptist University with a degree in religion before attending Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. As minister at Immanuel Baptist Church in Pine Bluff and, later, pastor at Beech Street Baptist Church in Texarkana, Mike led congregations toward Christ-centered lives of faith, service, and charity. Throughout his time in ministry and, later, as president of the Arkansas Baptist State Convention, Mike encouraged others to grow in their faith by dedicating himself to spreading the good news of the Gospel to all. For some unknown and largely inexplicable reason, Mike left the pulpit and entered politics. Mysterious are the ways of the Lord indeed. As Governor of Arkansas for more than a decade, Mike led the Natural State toward a stronger, more prosperous future by building coalitions and gathering support from both sides of the aisle. Governor Huckabee cut taxes, created jobs, improved infrastructure, reformed education, and improved healthcare for all Arkansans. Mike was a solution- oriented, pragmatic leader who left a lasting legacy for generations of Arkansans and their families. Word on the street is he even played some small part in inspiring our current Governor into public service. Now as the U.S. Ambassador to Israel, Mike will lead and strengthen our important diplomatic relationship with Israel with courage and conviction. Upon selecting Mike for this critical role, President Trump said: Mike will work tirelessly to bring peace in the Middle East. I couldn't agree more. Mike has been a lifelong friend of Israel's and an ardent supporter and defender of Israel's right to exist. In 1973, Mike made his first trip to Israel as a recent high school graduate. The experience of visiting the Biblical sites at the center of history had such a profound impact on 17-year-old Mike Huckabee that he would go on to lead tens of thousands of people on similarly life- changing visits. Over the course of approximately 100 trips since 1981, Mike developed deep friendships with the people of Israel--Jewish, Muslim, and Christian alike. Mike spent his career leading fellow Christians on journeys of faith, Arkansans toward a brighter future, and pilgrims on voyages of discovery. I am confident that he will lead the United States' relationship with Israel on a path toward peace and prosperity for both of our peoples. I urge my Senate colleagues to support his nomination and approve his nomination swiftly. I yield the floor.

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, reserving the right to object because I do object to this effort and will object to future efforts to change the TikTok law. Let's remember how we got here. TikTok is a Chinese communist spy app and a tool of Chinese communist propaganda. That is why Congress passed an overwhelmingly bipartisan law mandating that TikTok's parent company sell it if TikTok is to continue operating in America. Why did Congress pass this law? Because TikTok is not just another social media platform. TikTok addicts our kids, harvests their data, exposes them to pedophiles, and promotes harmful and manipulative content, including vile, anti-Semitic videos. TikTok also silences, censors, and suppresses content that exposes communist China for what it really is--a monstrous tyranny. The truth about China's genocide against the Tibet and Uighur people, the massacre at Tiananmen Square, the crackdown on Hong Kong, the origins of COVID, and more are all disappeared behind the veil of TikTok's algorithm. What TikTok doesn't say is only part of the problem. What it does say is deadly. The Chinese version of TikTok tells kids to study hard, eat their vegetables, and revere their dictator, Xi Jinping. But the American version of TikTok exposes our kids to videos that glamorize and glorify violence, obscenity, eating disorders, drug use, and even suicide. TikTok's lethal algorithm has, without question, cost the lives of too many Americans. That is why TikTok is so dangerous, and that is why Congress insisted that TikTok cut ties entirely with communist China. President Trump is trying to implement the law that Congress passed, and many American businesses and investors are, apparently, interested in buying TikTok. I applaud patriotic Americans who want to buy this app and cut all ties with the Chinese communists. But reports have surfaced that some businesses and investors want a bad deal that would violate the law by letting communist China continue to influence the TikTok algorithm. Even worse, these potential buyers may ask Congress to somehow indemnify them for violating the law or immunize them for TikTok's past crimes against and injuries to the American people, especially young Americans. Let me say bluntly to any American who wants to invest in some half- ass TikTok deal: Congress will never protect you from going into business with communist China. So American businesses and investors who want to dip their beaks in the golden TikTok fountain should think twice before giving their money and their good name to Chinese communists. If the TikTok deal maintains any operational relationship with China, you will be stuck with the consequences. Caveat emptor. So I do oppose this effort to change the law, and I will oppose, in the future, other efforts to change the law that Congress already passed. Let's allow President Trump to negotiate and see if communist China is willing to make a deal. If not, then the law is the law. Now I will yield to my colleague from Nebraska.

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Colleagues, there are a lot of problems in the world: male pattern baldness, lactose intolerance, flat feet. There is a time and place to address those problems, but it is not tonight, and it is not on this bill. Just like it is not the time and place to address Signal either. I know the Democrats are angry about how the Trump administration talked about killing terrorists in Yemen. I think we should be angry about how the Biden administration refused to kill terrorists in Yemen. That is especially true since Avril Haines and other Biden administration officials used Signal to discuss sensitive matters. So I suggest we simply commend the President for taking long-overdue action while we keep our eyes tonight on the problems we can solve by cutting taxes, securing our border, unleashing American energy, and rebuilding our military. That is what it will take to keep America safe and prosperous, not debating extraneous issues better left for another time. I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment and to pass this budget.

Mr. COTTON. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be up to 20 minutes of debate under the control of Senator Paul for debate only.

Mr. COTTON. Yes.

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, here we go again. In just a little over 24 hours, Federal funding will run out, and the government will shut down. Let me state for the record that my Republican colleagues and I are ready to get on with matters and ready to fund the government for the rest of this year. We all know that the faster we move it over the finish line, the faster our Federal Government can get to work on behalf of the American people and implement the agenda that the American people elected us to get done. But after our Democratic friends had a nice long lunch on Capitol Hill yesterday, Senator Schumer took the floor to announce that their caucus would not support funding the government because, as he put it, ``Republicans chose a partisan path.'' But here is what Senator Schumer is really saying: Democrats would rather shut down the government than pass the funding bill just to shift blame to Republicans for our current funding predicament. Democrats are going to shut down the government to protect the government. In the next 24 hours, even, Democrats are planning to use the very same filibuster they have opposed and tried to abolish to shut down the government. In the last administration, former Vice President Kamala Harris said that Joe Biden and the Democrats are ``kinda done with those archaic Senate rules.'' But here they are using those archaic Senate rules to shut down the government. There is nothing that could explain such a drastic change of heart among my Democratic colleagues other than rank hypocrisy. Democrats are quick to criticize Republican efforts to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse in our bureaucracies on behalf of hard-working American taxpayers. Yet in the same breath, Democrats are fighting to withhold the paychecks of air traffic controllers, our troops, Federal custodial staff. They can't be serious. The level of hypocrisy displayed by the minority leader and my Democratic colleagues is appalling to the office they hold and the constituents they serve. A government shutdown, of course, doesn't just affect the Federal workforce. For instance, food inspectors will be forced to stop their work, interrupting our food supply chains. It is as if the Democrats are trying to finish Joe Biden's job of driving up prices in the grocery store. Let me remind everyone of why we are on the verge of a government shutdown. Just a few months ago, Senator Schumer and my Democratic colleagues held the majority here. During that time, Republicans joined with Democrats to vote 11 out of 12 government funding bills from committee--11 out of 12. Six of them were unanimous. The other five passed with overwhelming bipartisan support. That would seem to be a great accomplishment in a too-often-divided Washington--11 out of 12 bills, 6 unanimous, 5 with overwhelming bipartisan support. But even though we had all those spending bills ready to go last summer on a bipartisan basis, then-Majority Leader Schumer failed to bring a single bill to the floor from August to the end of last year. Not a single bill. Even though--let me say it again--11 out of 12 passed out of committee; six were unanimous; and the other five were overwhelmingly bipartisan. Not a single one. Senator Schumer had 224 days to bring those bills to the floor for a vote--224 days. What did we do, instead? He chose to prioritize election-year stunts trying to distract voters from Joe Biden's disastrous border crisis. He had a vote on mandating government-funded fertility treatments for biological men--more important than funding the government. We also confirmed a whole host of unqualified Biden nominees you have never heard of for jobs you didn't know existed, not to mention a whole host of unqualified judges in States with two Democrat Senators who couldn't have gotten confirmed for the first 4 years and were only jammed through in a lameduck session, when we also could have been passing those spending bills to fund the government so we wouldn't be in this position. Senator Schumer claims to care about the livelihoods of Federal workers, but as leader, he seemed more preoccupied with putting on a big political show. Yet here is Senator Schumer claiming that Republican partisanship is the reason for shutting down the government. Spare me. It continued this year. Since Republicans took over, he blocked negotiations that would have made this funding bill a bipartisan effort from the start. Senator Collins, the chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee and Tom Cole, chair of the House Appropriations Committee, made multiple, multiple offers to their Democratic counterparts to negotiate on a bipartisan basis government funding bills, just like we did last summer. But, no. Senator Schumer blocked it time and time again until just a few days ago. Yet now, supposedly, the clock has run out. He wants another 30 days--another 30 days--when he had 224 days last year to do this, when we had over 60 days this year to negotiate on a bipartisan basis. The time for those negotiations has regrettably passed. It is time to finish last year's business and move on to this year's business. Democrats have one last chance to join Republicans and support a simple yearlong funding bill. Republicans encourage our Democratic colleagues to join this effort to keep the government funded for the American people we all serve. Shutting our government down, as many of my Democratic colleagues are apparently considering, is not just some political stunt. There are real and consequential national security risks if they choose to go through with this reckless scheme. A government shutdown will disrupt military training and could force us to cancel planned exercises with our allies and partners. These are the very same alliances Democrats claim to care so much about supporting and preserving. Furthermore, a shutdown would disrupt ongoing work to modernize our nuclear forces, which is already behind schedule. Any further delay would make this bad situation even worse. And the potential Schumer shutdown will hurt military preparedness by slowing recruiting, create uncertainty in our defense supply chains, and impact our ability to produce badly needed munitions. This is not the message of strength we want to send to the allies we stand beside and the enemies we stand against. To my Democratic colleagues who still believe that shutting down the government is the principled choice that you need to--again, it is hard for me to explain their position--shut down the government to protect the government, let me ask you, simply: What does voting no accomplish? Six months ago, Senator Schumer said: If the government shuts down, it will be average Americans who suffer most. That was Senator Schumer. What has happened in the last 6 months? Nothing, as far as I could tell, except who the American people elected to lead the government. So if this Schumer shutdown stunt is just a threat to get Republicans to agree to a fake short-term extension that brings us right back to where we are now, again, what is the point? The Democrats' hypocritical arguments reveal, once again, they are not serious about putting their duty to the American people above partnership, pettiness and pride. I invite them all to justify the Schumer shutdown to the parents who must postpone a trip to a national park with their children after months of saving and planning; or to explain your reasoning for the Schumer shutdown to the veteran who has already taken a day off work to sign up for healthcare at his regional benefits office only to find it closed; or to defend the Schumer shutdown to the Federal employee who puts all of her groceries on a credit card to make sure there is enough money left at the end of the month to cover her rent. My friends, we have two choices before us, and they are quite simple: either keep the government open and working for the people or shut it down. To do what exactly? I don't know. I think we can all agree that the American people deserve better than a government that is a day late and a couple billion dollars short. So I encourage my Democratic colleagues to vote with us to simply fund the government. Let's not have a Schumer shutdown. I yield the floor.

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I have six requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority Leaders. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate: committee on banking, housing, and urban affairs The Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs is authorized to meet in executive session during the session of the Senate on Thursday, March 13, 2025, to consider legislation. committee on environment and public works The Committe on Environment and Public Works is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, March 13, 2025, at 1:45 p.m., to conduct a business meeting. committee on finance The Committee on Finance is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, March 13, 2025, at 4:15 p.m., to consider a nomination. committee on foreign relations The Committee on Foreign Relations is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, March 13, 2025, at 10:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing on nominations. committee on health, education, labor and pensions The Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, March 13, 2025, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing on nominations. committee on the judiciary The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, March 13, 2025, at 9:15 a.m., to conduct an executive business meeting.