James Lankford

Mr. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, I move to proceed to Calendar No. 280, S.J. Res. 91.

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, I would love to introduce the Senate to a couple that I know: husband, wife. Both work for the Federal Government--young couple, expecting their first child. This week, they will miss a paycheck--both of them. You tell me how many people, in their early days of marriage, both spouses could miss a paycheck while they are preparing for their first child. But that is the reality that is being faced by that couple and, I am sure, a lot of other folks that stepped up to serve their Nation, serving in a Federal Agency, but because of a government shutdown, they are not going to get paid. I would love to introduce this body to a single mom that just, a couple of weeks ago, got the invitation to go to the FAA Academy and to become an air traffic controller--very difficult to get into that school--but has been accepted, is in the process, has quit her job, has canceled her lease and, as a single mom, is taking the risk to be able to step out in a new, great career. But right in the process of stepping out to do that new, great career, there is a government shutdown, and now she has no idea what is about to happen. She has quit her job already. She has canceled her lease already. She was preparing to move to get to the academy. Now what does she do? For all the folks out there that say this government shutdown is no big deal--or, as my Democratic colleagues in the House have said, some families are going to have to suffer to give us leverage--here are the families that are actually suffering to give my Democratic colleagues leverage so they can discuss healthcare. But let me not just talk about the healthcare they want to discuss. Their focus seems to be on a COVID-era subsidy that they created for the Affordable Care Act to try to make it more affordable--because here is the problem in my State. In my State--in Oklahoma--the Affordable Care Act, the cost for it has increased 200 percent in 6 years, while commercial insurance has increased 29 percent in those same 6 years. So the ``Affordable'' Care Act is only affordable if there is just one subsidy on top of another, on top of another, on top of another, because the structure of the Affordable Care Act is not affordable. It is only affordable if there is more and more and more tax dollars sent to insurance companies to try to cover more and more and more. My Democratic colleagues say: We are going to keep the government closed until we even get more money on that, and we don't want to discuss anything. Well, here is the problem. We have a 200-percent increase for one area, a 29-percent increase in the other, and they say just keep dumping more money into it. We actually know, and my Democratic colleagues have told me privately: We know there is a lot of fraud, that there is money being sent to insurance companies that they are then covering people that actually don't even know they have coverage, just because it is cheap for the insurance company. Everybody knows that exists in it, but they don't want to discuss that; they just want to add more money into it. We have people making a quarter million dollars a year that are getting subsidies with these additional subsidies they created several years ago. And we have said: ``What in the world'' that people making a quarter million dollars a year are getting these subsidies. We also know, the way that my Democratic colleagues created these subsidies, that it went around the Hyde Amendment, which has been very clear: Federal tax dollars do not go to pay for abortions. But they created this very creative system of tax credits so that they could send money to insurance companies to pay for elective abortions. They are asking every Republican now to jump on board and to be able to vote for that. Listen, there are big issues with this. My Democratic colleagues say: Well, just fund more healthcare; just take care of it. We know there is fraud. We know there are people making half a million. We know there is abortion funding going. We know all these aspects. So, no, we are not just going to dump more money into it. We have said something pretty straightforward: Let's keep the government open, at its current status quo, and let's keep debating all these issues. But why should next week's SNAP recipients no longer get SNAP benefits because there is a fight over all these healthcare issues on this that we have very strong actual policy issues with? Why are they cutting off SNAP benefits? Why are they telling this young couple with an infant child on the way: No, neither of you are going to get paid. Why is that happening? So here is what we have done. I have proposed a bill that I put out last session. It was very straightforward. This bill just says we will never have another government shutdown--never. Every time we get to another moment like this, automatic funding kicks in. But here is the kicker: Members of Congress are in session 7 days a week, and we can't do anything but appropriations. We have to do appropriations, and we have to be here 7 days a week, House and Senate, until we actually get this solved. Now, that seems like a pretty reasonable thing. My Democratic colleagues have been bemoaning the House is not in session. If you would have voted for my bill last session, we would all be here right now negotiating this out. I had 57 votes on that last session--57. We were three votes short of never ever having a government shutdown again--never. So I am going to bring it again and to say: Let's end the potential of government shutdowns ever, and let's actually stay here and debate the issues and to be able to work things out like grownups. In the meantime, until we can get that done and until we can get my Democratic colleagues to agree, my colleague Ron Johnson has brought forward a very simple proposal: Let's pay the people who are working, like this young couple that I mentioned. They are still working, both of them. Let's pay them while they are working, while we continue to be able to negotiate this out. If you won't, at least, open the government--as we have the last 13 times when we got to this moment--and just have a continuing resolution, at least, pay the people who are working. This is a baby step and an offer to our Democratic colleagues to say: Let's at least do the minimum on this to not punish those folks. There are folks, today, that are on the road, working for the Federal Government, that are in critical positions, that they are not being paid and they are actually putting their expenses on their credit card, not knowing if they are going to get the chance to pay that off. It is not right. So let's take the steps. My recommendation is, long-term, let's never have a shutdown ever again. Let's fix the process. We were three votes short last session. Let's actually fix that permanently. Let's get us back open again. But at a minimum, let's at least, while we are arguing, pay Federal workers that are still at the task. That should be the easiest threshold to be able to step over. Me and my colleagues are on the floor today because we want to get a chance to be able to offer this to our Democratic colleagues and say: We are going to reach an olive branch out to you; let's get started on some things. I yield the floor to my colleagues.

Mr. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, I rise today to honor the retirement announcement of Joe Castiglione or ``Joe C'' as Sooner fans like to call him. Under his watch, Oklahoma has won 26 national championships and 117 conference championships in a span of 27 years. Roughly 58 percent of OU's national championships were won under his impeccable leadership. Originally a native of Fort Lauderdale, FL, Joe attended college at the University of Maryland, graduating in 1979. After serving in previous roles at Rice, Georgetown, and the University of Missouri, in July 1998, he was hired as director of the OU Athletics Department. In the 27 years that followed, he went on to completely transform the athletics program. From Joe's strategic coaching hires like Bob Stoops, K.J. Kindler, and Lon Kruger, to unprecedented fundraising and facilities construction, Joe created and sustained a culture of excellence at OU Athletics. The athletic department raised $109 million in the 2021-2022 year, $79 million in 2022-2023, and $110 million in 2023-2024. The Gaylord Family-Oklahoma Memorial Stadium underwent a $160 million renovation prior to the 2016 season, and new facilities like the Griffin Family Performance Center and Love's Field, the new softball stadium, have been built. Joe's calm and steady response to the Covid-19 pandemic is emblematic of his vision for the athletics department. During the fear and uncertainty of the pandemic, Joe was intent that OU Athletics would overcome and persevere through the difficulty. More recently, Joe has helped navigate the changing landscape of college athletics, which include the transfer portal and name, image, and likeness, NIL. In 2024, Joe oversaw the Sooners' move from the Big 12 to the Southeastern Conference, SEC. Additionally, in the 2024-25 academic year alone, the women's gymnastics team shared the SEC regular season title and won its seventh national title; softball captured the regular season SEC title; men's gymnastics won the Pacific Sports Federation Championship; and men's and women's track were in the top 15 of the NCAA Outdoor Championships. With immense success on the field, it would have been easy to push academics to the side, but Joe has always maintained that the student-athletes come first. He helped ensure that student-athletes maintained a strong academic focus. The student- athlete GPA for the last 27 consecutive semesters has remained a 3.0 and above. In 2018, Joe was named Co-National Athletic Director of the Year. A 2017 Sports Illustrated survey named him the best athletics director in the country. He has also been the recipient of the LEAD1 Association Pearl Award of Excellence, the John L. Toner Award from the National Football Foundation, and has been inducted into the Oklahoma Sports Hall of Fame. He is also the only person in history to have served on the College Football Playoff Committee and the NCAA Division I Men's Basketball and Baseball Committees. His wife Kristen has supported his endeavors for 30 years. Retirement will give both of them the chance to spend a bit more time together in the years ahead. They have two sons Joseph Jr. and Jonathan. In his nearly three decades at OU, Joe C's vision for Sooner magic created the gold standard of athletics at OU today. Since Joe will not be officially retiring until 2028, this is not the final goodbye, but an opportunity to thank Joe for his decades of service and dedication to a program that owes him so much. Joe, thank you for your leadership.

Mr. LANKFORD

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

Mr. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, today is October 7, 2025. It has been 731 days--2 years--that the war has been raging in Israel. On October 7, 2023, Hamas terrorists stormed through a fence line separating Gaza and Israel, and early that morning, they brutally slaughtered over 1,200 people--men, women, children, moms and dads, grandparents. There were 4,000-plus people injured, and there were 251 people taken hostage. Forty-eight still remain today, 2 years later. It is hard to process what it is like for those hostages--living in tunnels, stored underground, moved from place to place. Who knows what has happened to them. Two years--for 2 years, Israel has said one simple thing: This war ends when Hamas, that terrorist organization, is not in charge of Gaza--because, clearly, they cannot be trusted--and when our hostages come home. For 2 years this war has raged unnecessarily because a terrorist organization is determined to drive Jews out of Israel--for 2 years. I have been in Israel a couple of times during the war. I have been able to visit with senior leadership there to be able to get a status update, but I also took the opportunity to drive south, right along to the Gaza border, to visit the kibbutzim that are now empty, which were previously full of families and children. I was there in the springtime last year and saw the flowers popping up just organically, on their own, in an empty kibbutz, and I realized the horror of what happened that day. I visited the Nova music festival--just a big, open field with trees around it. You can look across the horizon and see Gaza. The Nova music festival site of that field was just a gathering place for literally an all-night set of concerts that were running early into the next morning. People were just there enjoying the music, until terrorists came onto that field and started killing as many people as they could, raping as many women as they could, tormenting as many people as they could, and grabbing folks and taking them back into Gaza as hostages. Elkana was one of those men. He was a husband. He was a dad of a young son. He was actually taken hostage back to Gaza from the Nova music festival while he was literally trying to help the wounded. But he remains a hostage still today, one of those 48. President Trump has laid out a 21-point plan and has presented it between the folks in Gaza and Hamas and Israel to leadership all along the Arab world and has made a very simple statement: We have to find a way to be able to end the fighting, and when the fighting ends, Hamas cannot be in leadership in Gaza. Not only do they not have the trust of Israel; they don't have the trust of anyone in the region. They have to go. The hostages have to be released. There will have to be restoration in Gaza in the days ahead that should be led by the Arab communities around them. But there has to be a different path, and there has to be a recognition that Israel has a right to exist. In the last 2 years, we have seen not only Hamas attacking Israel, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad attacking Israel, Hezbollah attacking Israel, the Houthis attacking Israel, and then missiles and rockets being fired and drones being fired from Iran; and all the while, we hear some protesters in the streets of America, out on college campuses, chanting ``from the river to the sea,'' literally in support of some of those terrorists who are trying to kill as many Jews and drive the Jews out of Israel. So on this day, October 7, I want to remind this body and Americans that we continue to stand by Israel. We continue to be able to stand by their right to not only exist but to be able to thrive and to live in peace. That is their right as a nation. As we have faced terrorism and the threats of terrorism that come to us, we as a nation have pushed back against terrorism around the world and said: We will live in freedom and in peace. Regardless of their opinions of us, we have the right to be able to live in freedom and in peace, and we stand with Israel's right to be able to do the same, to be able to live in freedom and in peace. Now, we all grieve for innocent civilians that are living in Gaza right now, as Hamas literally uses them as a shield to protect their terrorist ambitions. No one wants to see civilians killed. But leave no doubt, Hamas cannot exist, as an organization and an entity. And the folks in Hezbollah should hear clearly, and the Houthis should hear clearly: If you stand with Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, you are a threat to the security of the entire world and the region. You cannot continue to function as a terrorist organization and think that Israel will look away or that America will look away. We will not and cannot and will not. So I encourage this body to pause and realize what is happening on the other side of the world right now and what has been raging for 2 years today; and for those hostages that are still being held today, that we would remember and we would continue to be able to stand against anti-Semitism and with the nation of Israel.

Mr. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, as you know, the CISA reauthorization is also included in the clean CR that we are also trying to be able to pass, this continuing resolution. On behalf of Chairman Paul, he has asked me to be able to come and object, so I object.

Mr. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, I know of no further debate on the nomination.

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

Mr. LANKFORD

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

Mr. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. LANKFORD. Madam President, I know of no further debate.

Mr. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, this week, I filed a bill, as I do multiple different weeks. I don't come every week to be able to talk about the bills that I file, but I want to be able to talk about this a little bit and some context that comes into it. I also don't come to this floor very often and read an entire bill to this body, but I want to do that today. It is not long. It is literally just half a page. But it reaffirms something that I think should be pretty simple for all of us but for some reason has become controversial in the past few decades. Here is the whole bill. It says: None of the funds made available under this Act may be provided to any public institution of higher education that denies to a religious student organization any right, benefit, or privilege that is otherwise afforded to other student organizations at the institution (including full access to the facilities of the institution and official recognition of the organization by the institution) because of the religious beliefs, practices, speech, leadership standards, or standards of conduct of the religious student organization. Now, this should be pretty simple for us as Americans. We should treat religious organizations on a college campus the same as every other organization. The university shouldn't be able to reach into some organizations and say ``Because you are religious, we need to tone you down'' or ``Because you are religious, we need to pick your leadership for you because we want to pick your leadership.'' I will tell you, most Americans would say ``No one does that anyway''--except they did. Under the Biden administration, this became an issue, where multiple different colleges and universities would reach into different religious organizations on campus and would deny them access to be able to be on campus and use campus facilities at all or they would say: We don't like the way you pick your leadership. You need to have a broader perspective of leadership from multiple different perspectives of the campus. It can't just be your particular faith in your religious organization. It became the most bizarre set of ideas that came out of the Department of Education to say a Jewish organization had to pick non- Jewish leaders to be the leadership of their organization or non- Christians had to also be selected as leaders of their Christian organization on campus. We are like, what in the world? What happened to the basic right of association and affiliation that is a constitutionally protected right? That never happened to nonreligious organizations; it seemed to only happen to religious organizations. So while we have common agreement on this as Americans and while that rule is now not being applied under the Trump administration, I raise a very simple bill to say: Why can't we, as all Americans, agree that religious organizations on college campuses should be treated exactly the same as every other organization on any college campus? That should be basic. So I bring a very simple bill to be able to resolve that one big issue and to say let's make this once and for all just a policy that we have as Americans. Now, I bring this up because it needs to be addressed, but I also bring this up because next week, there is a significant event that is going to happen all around the country--quite frankly, all around the world--that some people won't even notice but, quite frankly, is Earth- shattering. Thirty-five years ago, a group of students gathered around a flagpole early in the morning to be able to pray for their school. It was in 1990. It ended up being about 46,000 total students in 4 different States, including my State of Oklahoma, that just kind of gathered. The word kind of spread organically that one Wednesday morning in September, students--high school and middle school students--would just go and do one day publicly what they do privately other days; that is, pray for their teachers, pray for their faculty at school, pray for each other, pray for their parents, and pray for the Nation. So in September of 1990, around 46,000--we don't know the exact number--students in 4 different States just quietly gathered to pray. Now, that may not seem like a big deal, but in 1990, there was a great debate that was still spinning on this issue. In fact, that year, that September day, at at least one of those gatherings, the sheriff's department came out and arrested the students for praying--praying--on their school campus before class started. The result of that was that the next September, a million students showed up to pray--a million, documented. From almost every State in America, teenagers showed up at their high school or their middle school campus just to be able to pray. They didn't have teachers with them; they didn't have youth pastors with them--just students. They gathered at their pole. It was a simple thing called See You at the Pole--just that simple. They would encourage each other just to be able to show up that one day in September to be able to pray publicly for their parents, for their Nation, for their campus, and for what was going on in their community. It became the largest student prayer movement that we know of in the history of the Nation. Year after year in September, one Wednesday, students from around the Nation would gather. It was about 3 years later that it started spreading globally, to where literally students from around the world were just going to their flagpole, and they would just gather to be able to pray. Now, people have said over the years: Why a flagpole? Well, it is because every school has a flagpole, and so it became just a common cry. It kind of seems like ``See you at the principal's office'' doesn't ring as true. But it was just like, what does every single campus have? Every single campus has a flagpole. So that simple statement, ``See you at the pole,'' became really a challenge to say ``See you at a spot where we can pray.'' There is a lot going on in the country right now--a lot. There is a lot of anger, there is a lot of frustration, and there are a lot of questions about what happens next. For 35 years, students have gone to their flagpole and have prayed for the Nation. My simple request of them again this year is to do it again. This Nation could use some prayer. This Nation could use a generation rising up to be able to say: No one is going to stop us from praying. It is the most simple request that we have--to not go to government but to go to God and say: We need your help. We need your intervention. I am always proud of a group of students at a high school football game that finish the game or that start the game just taking a knee to be able to pray for each other, pray for safety, and then go out and hit each other as hard as they possibly can on the football field. But it is always fun for me to be able to watch the sportsmanship that begins with two teams that gather together to pray, and it is almost always just one player on each of the teams that drops that idea and says: We should do this. Our team should do this. It is not led by the coaches. It is not led by the teachers. It is led by students that just say: Let's ask God to help us in this. I am always impressed when I am on high school and junior high campuses as I walk around the campus during lunch, and I see everyone kind of gathering for lunch and all the conversation happening, and I will see a couple students over in the corner, as they sit down at their lunch, to be able to just bow their heads for just a simple moment to be able to thank God for their food. I am always impressed when I hear about groups of students that get together on a regular basis just to be able to have Bible study together, just to be able to pray for each other. They face a lot of pressure. They face a lot of challenges in this day and age. It is resetting and centering when they actually stop to say: Let's pray about that. I am tremendously impressed that for 35 years--now a second generation of students are gathering at their flagpoles the fourth Wednesday of September to be able to just pray for each other, pray for their teachers, pray for their school, and this time, an earnest plea to God to help our Nation. I am proud of students of faith and how they gather to be able to say: These days are dark, but we believe in a God who gives light, and we will choose to be a light on our own campus and do what we can to be able to serve each other and to be able to serve our schools. Those are the role models that we need in a new generation. Those are the folks that we look forward to seeing what they do in the days ahead. As fun as it is to me, students that are gathering this year are the children of the first generation that gathered 35 years ago to start a movement to be able to pray. Thirty-five years ago, I was a youth minister. I was a part of that first See You at the Pole in 1990. I was in leadership, helping organize students in getting the word out, to be able to say ``What can we do''--what can we do--``to serve each other and the Nation?'' The obvious answer began with ``Let's pray.'' See You at the Pole was born. It wasn't my idea. It was a group of students' idea. I just got to help fan the flame. Students of this Nation need the encouragement of this body to be able to say ``well done'' and set a fresh new example; be the next generation of leaders; be the people who will rise up and do what is right; be the role models that are desperately needed; be individuals who will actually not only have a faith but live your faith--all the principles of the faith. We can certainly use individuals in our Nation right now who are living the most basic principles of loving God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength and loving your neighbor as yourself. To the students of this Nation, I would encourage them to ``see you at the pole'' next Wednesday morning. This coming Wednesday morning, September 24, you can be assured I am going to be parked across the street from a campus watching a group of students pray for a Nation that needs help. I will join them and say, ``God help us. We need your help.'' I will see you at the pole.

Mr. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, this week, I filed a bill, as I do multiple different weeks. I don't come every week to be able to talk about the bills that I file, but I want to be able to talk about this a little bit and some context that comes into it. I also don't come to this floor very often and read an entire bill to this body, but I want to do that today. It is not long. It is literally just half a page. But it reaffirms something that I think should be pretty simple for all of us but for some reason has become controversial in the past few decades. Here is the whole bill. It says: None of the funds made available under this Act may be provided to any public institution of higher education that denies to a religious student organization any right, benefit, or privilege that is otherwise afforded to other student organizations at the institution (including full access to the facilities of the institution and official recognition of the organization by the institution) because of the religious beliefs, practices, speech, leadership standards, or standards of conduct of the religious student organization. Now, this should be pretty simple for us as Americans. We should treat religious organizations on a college campus the same as every other organization. The university shouldn't be able to reach into some organizations and say ``Because you are religious, we need to tone you down'' or ``Because you are religious, we need to pick your leadership for you because we want to pick your leadership.'' I will tell you, most Americans would say ``No one does that anyway''--except they did. Under the Biden administration, this became an issue, where multiple different colleges and universities would reach into different religious organizations on campus and would deny them access to be able to be on campus and use campus facilities at all or they would say: We don't like the way you pick your leadership. You need to have a broader perspective of leadership from multiple different perspectives of the campus. It can't just be your particular faith in your religious organization. It became the most bizarre set of ideas that came out of the Department of Education to say a Jewish organization had to pick non- Jewish leaders to be the leadership of their organization or non- Christians had to also be selected as leaders of their Christian organization on campus. We are like, what in the world? What happened to the basic right of association and affiliation that is a constitutionally protected right? That never happened to nonreligious organizations; it seemed to only happen to religious organizations. So while we have common agreement on this as Americans and while that rule is now not being applied under the Trump administration, I raise a very simple bill to say: Why can't we, as all Americans, agree that religious organizations on college campuses should be treated exactly the same as every other organization on any college campus? That should be basic. So I bring a very simple bill to be able to resolve that one big issue and to say let's make this once and for all just a policy that we have as Americans. Now, I bring this up because it needs to be addressed, but I also bring this up because next week, there is a significant event that is going to happen all around the country--quite frankly, all around the world--that some people won't even notice but, quite frankly, is Earth- shattering. Thirty-five years ago, a group of students gathered around a flagpole early in the morning to be able to pray for their school. It was in 1990. It ended up being about 46,000 total students in 4 different States, including my State of Oklahoma, that just kind of gathered. The word kind of spread organically that one Wednesday morning in September, students--high school and middle school students--would just go and do one day publicly what they do privately other days; that is, pray for their teachers, pray for their faculty at school, pray for each other, pray for their parents, and pray for the Nation. So in September of 1990, around 46,000--we don't know the exact number--students in 4 different States just quietly gathered to pray. Now, that may not seem like a big deal, but in 1990, there was a great debate that was still spinning on this issue. In fact, that year, that September day, at at least one of those gatherings, the sheriff's department came out and arrested the students for praying--praying--on their school campus before class started. The result of that was that the next September, a million students showed up to pray--a million, documented. From almost every State in America, teenagers showed up at their high school or their middle school campus just to be able to pray. They didn't have teachers with them; they didn't have youth pastors with them--just students. They gathered at their pole. It was a simple thing called See You at the Pole--just that simple. They would encourage each other just to be able to show up that one day in September to be able to pray publicly for their parents, for their Nation, for their campus, and for what was going on in their community. It became the largest student prayer movement that we know of in the history of the Nation. Year after year in September, one Wednesday, students from around the Nation would gather. It was about 3 years later that it started spreading globally, to where literally students from around the world were just going to their flagpole, and they would just gather to be able to pray. Now, people have said over the years: Why a flagpole? Well, it is because every school has a flagpole, and so it became just a common cry. It kind of seems like ``See you at the principal's office'' doesn't ring as true. But it was just like, what does every single campus have? Every single campus has a flagpole. So that simple statement, ``See you at the pole,'' became really a challenge to say ``See you at a spot where we can pray.'' There is a lot going on in the country right now--a lot. There is a lot of anger, there is a lot of frustration, and there are a lot of questions about what happens next. For 35 years, students have gone to their flagpole and have prayed for the Nation. My simple request of them again this year is to do it again. This Nation could use some prayer. This Nation could use a generation rising up to be able to say: No one is going to stop us from praying. It is the most simple request that we have--to not go to government but to go to God and say: We need your help. We need your intervention. I am always proud of a group of students at a high school football game that finish the game or that start the game just taking a knee to be able to pray for each other, pray for safety, and then go out and hit each other as hard as they possibly can on the football field. But it is always fun for me to be able to watch the sportsmanship that begins with two teams that gather together to pray, and it is almost always just one player on each of the teams that drops that idea and says: We should do this. Our team should do this. It is not led by the coaches. It is not led by the teachers. It is led by students that just say: Let's ask God to help us in this. I am always impressed when I am on high school and junior high campuses as I walk around the campus during lunch, and I see everyone kind of gathering for lunch and all the conversation happening, and I will see a couple students over in the corner, as they sit down at their lunch, to be able to just bow their heads for just a simple moment to be able to thank God for their food. I am always impressed when I hear about groups of students that get together on a regular basis just to be able to have Bible study together, just to be able to pray for each other. They face a lot of pressure. They face a lot of challenges in this day and age. It is resetting and centering when they actually stop to say: Let's pray about that. I am tremendously impressed that for 35 years--now a second generation of students are gathering at their flagpoles the fourth Wednesday of September to be able to just pray for each other, pray for their teachers, pray for their school, and this time, an earnest plea to God to help our Nation. I am proud of students of faith and how they gather to be able to say: These days are dark, but we believe in a God who gives light, and we will choose to be a light on our own campus and do what we can to be able to serve each other and to be able to serve our schools. Those are the role models that we need in a new generation. Those are the folks that we look forward to seeing what they do in the days ahead. As fun as it is to me, students that are gathering this year are the children of the first generation that gathered 35 years ago to start a movement to be able to pray. Thirty-five years ago, I was a youth minister. I was a part of that first See You at the Pole in 1990. I was in leadership, helping organize students in getting the word out, to be able to say ``What can we do''--what can we do--``to serve each other and the Nation?'' The obvious answer began with ``Let's pray.'' See You at the Pole was born. It wasn't my idea. It was a group of students' idea. I just got to help fan the flame. Students of this Nation need the encouragement of this body to be able to say ``well done'' and set a fresh new example; be the next generation of leaders; be the people who will rise up and do what is right; be the role models that are desperately needed; be individuals who will actually not only have a faith but live your faith--all the principles of the faith. We can certainly use individuals in our Nation right now who are living the most basic principles of loving God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength and loving your neighbor as yourself. To the students of this Nation, I would encourage them to ``see you at the pole'' next Wednesday morning. This coming Wednesday morning, September 24, you can be assured I am going to be parked across the street from a campus watching a group of students pray for a Nation that needs help. I will join them and say, ``God help us. We need your help.'' I will see you at the pole.

Mr. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, I ask consent for myself and Senator Schatz to speak for up to 6 minutes, equally divided time.

Mr. LANKFORD. I would ask for Senator Schatz and I to speak for up to 10 minutes of time, equally divided.

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, the Senate is stuck. We have had an enormous number of nominations that have tried to be able to work through this body. Quite frankly, it is the same number that we have every time when it is the first term for a new President to be able to work its way through the body. But this time is different. And it is not just accidentally different; it has been intentionally different. I understand my Democratic colleagues have problems politically with President Trump. I get that. Respectfully, we have differences of opinion on that. But this time it has been different. Every single nominee has been blocked. Every single nominee has required a vote for a motion to proceed, 2 hours of debate, and another vote. The current status where we are right now to just do the nominees who are backlogged, where we currently sit right now, will take about 900 hours of floor time to be able to just do those. That doesn't include the ones who are coming next for the next nominations. We are stuck. If every single one of them requires this kind of time, the Senate is no longer functioning. So what we had proposed was a pretty straightforward proposal; that is, that we actually can move nominees in small batches--let's say 15--once they come out of committee. So they have had vetting in committee; they had had a hearing in committee; they have passed out of committee; they are now coming to the floor. In the past, those individuals were then passed by what is called en bloc or by voice vote or unanimous consent. It is very common to be en bloc. In fact, during President Biden's time, there were 277 nominees who moved en bloc. Do you know why? Because Republicans allowed them to be able to move en bloc. Do you know what is interesting? During President Trump's first term, more than 500 nominees moved en bloc. Do you know why? Because Democrats allowed them to move en bloc because this was normal to be able to do. But now we are in a new political age where nothing seems to be normal. So we proposed a very simple thing; that this would be helpful to do in what is called a standing rule. It would take 60 votes to be able to move this, and we would have a standing rule to say here is how this could be done. Up to 15 out of a committee would come to the floor en bloc. We would have a single vote to be able to pass those 15, very similar to how it has been done in the past. It is just structured that way. This was an idea that percolated around for a while and then began to grow. Then we had multiple of our Democratic Senators who came on board and said that that is a reasonable proposal. In fact, it is similar to something that we proposed a couple of years ago for several Members. So after a while of discussion, more and more Democrats came on board. And now we have a supermajority of Members of this body right now to be able to vote on it today who are willing to say let's vote on it. We have a supermajority. We have plenty of folks who are willing to be able to step up and say that is a reasonable thing to be able to do. The problem is, it takes consent to actually bring it to the floor. It is just a simple issue of do we have the ability to be able to vote on this today? If we don't, we are stuck. Now, it only takes 60. We definitely have 60 votes in this body today to be able to pass it. What we don't have is consent to be able to actually bring it. We have been asked: Well, what if we just did it next week? The challenge is this body has just broken down trust. So we are not confident there is not going to be a next week and a next week and a next week. In the meantime, we are still not moving nominees. We are still stuck. So we have asked a very simple thing: Let's move this idea today, where we know we have 60 of our colleagues ready to be able to pass it today, in regular order in the process. We are just asking one thing; that is, consent to be able to do it. I am planning to bring that request for consent in just a moment, but I would like to be able to yield time to my colleague Senator Schatz from Hawaii to be able to speak on this same issue because he has also worked very hard on rules and trying to be able to make this Senate work. So, with that, I yield the floor.

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, I want to bring a unanimous consent request, but I would say I represent--every single Republican is in agreement to this. Every single Republican was ready today to be able to move on what was an agreed-upon bipartisan agreement--not by all; understanding that. But, again, we have a supermajority of Members of this body that are being blocked by a small group of the minority party saying they don't want to allow consent to vote on it--just to vote on it. So we are stuck. So, as if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of the Lankford resolution, S. Res. 384, which is at the desk. I further ask that there be up to 30 minutes of debate on the resolution, equally divided between the two leaders or their designees; further, that following the use or yielding back of that time, the Senate vote on an amendment from Senator Merkley, if offered, and following disposition of the Merkley amendment, the Senate vote on the resolution, as amended, if amended, with no further intervening action or debate, with 60 affirmative votes required for adoption of the resolution.

Mr. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, I want to tell you a story about Tina Pierce. Tina grew up on a farm in Idaho. She was the first in her family to earn a college degree. After earning her degree in accounting, she served in the U.S. Marines. She was deployed in Kuwait as the comptroller for the contingency Operation Desert Thunder. She earned her MBA from Colorado State University. She graduated at the top of her class. She then became a CPA, a certified public accountant. She has been married 26 years. She has four children. Her husband also served in the U.S. Marine Corps as a colonel. Why do I bring her up? Well, here is why. President Trump nominated Tina Pierce to be the Chief Financial Officer for the Department of Energy. She went through the process with the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, where she was voted out in May of this year 13 to 7--pretty strong bipartisan vote. She passed out of the committee and then has sat waiting. What is interesting for this is the Chief Financial Officer for the Department of Energy has actually never had a vote in the Senate on the floor of the Senate. It has always been a position that, in the past, went through committee, was approved in committee, and then passed on the Senate floor either by unanimous consent, a voice vote, or what is called en bloc, grouped together with other nominees and passed all in a group. This is not the Secretary of Defense; this is not the Secretary of Energy or the Secretary of State. This is the CFO for the Department of Energy. It is one of those 1,200 positions that the Senate must confirm but, historically, has always been confirmed in a very fast-track process after they passed out of committee. Especially when they pass out 13 to 7 out of a committee, everyone knows they are going to pass. You see, that is the way it used to be--but not anymore. My Democratic colleagues have determined that Tina Pierce should be filibustered. So this marine, married to a marine, mom, highly qualified, graduated top of her class has to sit at home and wait as Democrats block every single nominee on the floor. So she waits since May of this year to see if the Senate can open up enough time to have a vote. Well, that is not the only one. Jonathan Morrison was President Trump's nominee to be the Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Jonathan was the first in his family to go to college. He graduated from the University of Pittsburgh in 2001, went on to law school at Notre Dame. He also got a master of laws degree in international business law from University College London. Over his career, he has worked with automobiles. He has also served as Chief Counsel at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. He is supremely qualified to be able to lead this part of the administration. He came out of the committee in a vote of 16 to 12, but he also just sits and waits because there is not enough time. In every administration, there are lots of nominees. There is 1,200 nominees. And everyone knows there are so many nominees, so you pick and choose which nominees you actually want to be able to debate. That is normal in every single administration. They all have to go through the committee process, but when it comes to the floor, you don't dedicate all the floor time to different, what are called, sub-Cabinet officials. Those get fought out in committee, and then they come to the Senate floor and either pass en bloc or they pass by voice vote or unanimous consent. Or if they are highly controversial individuals, maybe we will have a floor vote on them. It has been 200 days of this administration. Let me give you some examples of this. What is called a cloture vote, a demand to be able to go through this full, long process--under Bill Clinton, there was zero of those--zero. Were there controversial nominees? Sure, there were. But they worked through the process on that. Under G.W. Bush, zero cloture votes that were required in the Senate. There were nine under President Obama, but then under the first President Trump administration--38, all of a sudden. You know what we did as Republicans? We pushed back. And there were 71 under President Biden. It was kind of a tit for tat. Now our Democratic colleagues have determined this is not going to be tit for tat anymore. We are just going to shut the whole place down. Now under President Trump, 134. What does this really mean? This really means that we are not moving anyone across the floor unless they actually have 3 hours of floor time. That is a vote on a motion to proceed. That is 2 hours of debate time here on the floor for that person and then another vote after that. It takes a total of 3 hours to be able to do that whole process-- 3 hours for every single person, when you have got 1,200 people. You would think during that time--that is, the 2 hours of debate time--we would have massive amounts of debate because if these are highly controversial nominees, of course, there is going to be debate on this floor to be able to discuss all these highly controversial people. Well, let's talk about that. For these sub-Cabinet officials that are there--there has been 109 of them--all of them have been filibustered through the process to say they demanded. The average Democratic debate time for these 109 people has been 2 minutes--actually, technically, 2 minutes 12 seconds. So 2 hours of time that they have demanded to debate these highly controversial people, and they have allocated 2 minutes 12 seconds, on average. Well, interestingly enough, 81 of those 109 Democrats actually did zero debate on the floor. This was just about shutting the Senate floor down. That is all it was. This was about attacking President Trump, not acknowledging the fact that he won the election and that he should be able to actually go through the process to be able to have his staff like every other President has had. Interestingly enough, I have had folks that have said to me: How do you actually fix this? How does this get better? Well, the first way this gets better is, typically, in the past, Republicans and Democrats would sit down together and would say: This is intolerable; we can't actually get to other bills. You see, right now, to be able to do the 3 hours that it takes to be able to move it just with the nominees that we have in the backlog right now--not counting the 700 more nominees that are still coming in the days ahead--it would take 900 hours the rest of this year to actually move those through across the floor--900 hours. Well, if you look at the rest of the year, the Senate would have to be actively voting and in process 80 hours a week every single week, only on nominations. That would mean we would not do the National Defense Authorization; we would not do the 12 appropriations bills; we would not do a farm bill, we would not do an FAA reauthorization; we would not do a new tax policy. We wouldn't do anything else except nominees 80 hours a week. If we did that, we could get caught up on the backlog. But oh, wait. We have to keep doing that the next year and the next just to be able to maintain this. So when I say this is intolerable and it has never been done in the past, that is what it means. The Senate has to do legislation as well as nominations. This is a situation that my Democratic colleagues have broken the Senate structure. We have got to figure out a way to be able to fix this that works for Republican or Democrat Presidents in the future. Regardless of party, the President has got to be able to move their nominees. And this should not be an issue that once they have gone through committee and been resolved, that they literally can't get to the floor, or that people wait for months and months and months to be able to get a vote on the floor because there is so little time and we are so backed up. So here is a simple idea: Just like has been done in the past, move folks in groups just like it happened in the past. You go to the first Trump administration, there were the 22 separate votes that were taken en bloc, groups of folks that have all been passed out of committee. Under the Biden administration, that happened 17 times where Republicans allowed Democrats to be able to lump these individuals together to be able to pass them together. Under this administration, so far, zero. None. Under the first Trump administration, 559 of the 1,200-plus people all went through that process. Under Biden administration, 277. This is Republicans and Democrats alike. Now it is zero because my Democratic colleagues, I assume, have just determined they are going to be the resistance. But what they are setting up is a process where in the future, as soon as there is a Democrat President, this is going to be the same thing because Republicans are just going to go tit for tat on that. That is not right for the country; it is not right for then; it is not right for now. Very simply, we have got to get back to legislating, which means we have got to allow the President to be able to have his nominees go through the process. We have a constitutional responsibility to advise and consent. Let's do that in the committee process. Let's bring those to the floor in a debate. Let's actually pass or not pass those individuals, whatever this body may determine. But let's, at least, get an up or down vote on every single one of these individuals to be able to get this part of our responsibility checked off. Because this week, we are also trying to work on the National Defense Authorization. That is an essential piece of legislation we have got to get done. By the 30 of this month, we are supposed to have 12 appropriations bills done. We can't get on appropriations bills, can't work on the National Defense Authorization, the time that it needs, while we are backed up with hundreds of nominees and my Democratic colleagues are blocking, literally, a mom and a marine who is a highly qualified CPA to say they can't be the CFO. Please. This is all about trying to attack Trump, but what they are doing is actually stopping the country from getting its business done. So let's get this fixed. That is my request. My colleagues are coming to the floor in the next hour. We are all going to make our case. This is so important that we actually get resolved--not some time--right now, get this resolved. I yield the floor to my colleagues who will continue to be able to make the case. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, I want to compliment my colleague from Alabama Senator Britt. I can't begin to tell you how hard she has worked through the August time period. There is this sense of we are just trying to be able to ram this solution through the Senate. She spent hours on the phone talking to different Democratic Senators--as I did, as multiple other members of our group did--to try to be able to find a pathway to be able to resolve this because that has always been the way it has been resolved. Eventually, it just gets to a point that you talk to each other enough, you figure out a way to be able to work it out; you work it out; and you figure out how to be able to do that. We reached an impasse the first days of August. Typically, before we actually have a gap to be able to be back home in August, we will pass dozens on what is called an en bloc vote. That didn't happen this time. We couldn't find that pathway to be able to actually get there. So in frustration, Senator Britt, myself, Senator Budd, Senator Cornyn, Senator Schmitt, Senator Johnson all spent lots of time over August trying to be able to figure out how do we weave out of this, and the idea became: There is a Democratic proposal that is out there that was brought to the Rules Committee in 2023. It was never voted on in the Rules Committee when Democrats actually ran and chaired the Rules Committee. But it was brought to the Rules Committee to say: Let's see if we can figure out how to be able to do this in a better way, and that was to be able to put in the rules to do en bloc voting, to be able to say: If they have come out of committee, they passed out of committee, we know they are going to get passed on the floor. Instead of holding up sub-Cabinet individuals--we are not talking about the Cabinet level--these sub-Cabinet individuals, put them all together in a group and be able to pass them. We agreed the least partisan way to be able to do this, that is fair to both Republicans and Democrats, is to be able to literally take a Democrat proposal in 2023 and say: Let's finish that out. Let's actually bring that and to be able to bring it for a vote. The response we got back, overwhelmingly, from our Democratic colleagues was: Yes, we still believe that is a good idea. Let's start it when the next President comes in place. So in other words, we want to block every single one of President Trump's nominees, but we want to make sure this doesn't happen to us. It will. So we have got to be able to fix this now. Interestingly enough, many of my Democratic colleagues that I have spoken to over the past several weeks about this, when I brought up this proposal to say: This is a way to fix it that we think is the best solution for the Senate long-term, they have quietly over the phone said: Yes, we need to get this fixed. We just don't want to be the people to actually fix it. You fix it for the Senate. We think it is better long term to be able to find a rule that works in a nonpartisan way that resolves it for everybody. We understand full well there will be a Democrat President and Democrat Senate in the future; that they will do en bloc voting like this. Fine. That is the way we did for a century. We didn't have to have a rule to be able to do that. We just came to agreement and did it. So let's get back to actually operating because we do have serious issues to argue over. We have got lots of arguments about budget. We have $37 trillion in debt. We need to spend more time arguing about that and less time arguing about who the CFO for the Energy Department is going to be when they have already passed out of committee in a large bipartisan vote. So let's have the argument over the hard issues, and let's move the nominees that we know are going to get moved across the floor in a way that makes sense to everybody, regardless of party. I have multiple other colleagues that are coming to the floor here in just a moment. We want to be able to make the argument to the American people. I have to tell you, I have lots of phone calls that have come to my office that say: Why can't the President actually move his nominees? Why is this? This seems to be different. And people may not know all the numbers and the details, but they feel it and go: Why does it feel like he is being treated differently? Well, it is because President Trump is being treated differently by not having a single voice vote, not a single unanimous consent, and not a single time to be grouped together into groups that we know are going to pass. That has not ever happened in this Senate. And I have had multiple colleagues say: And we are going to keep blocking every single one. Do you know what? Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. We are trying to figure out how to be able to get back to our functioning again and to be able to actually operate. So I have multiple colleagues that will come to this floor, and we will keep making the argument to say: Let's get the nomination process fixed because we have got to get back to legislating more. I yield the floor.

Mr. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, when my girls were little--and they are not little anymore; they are adults now. When they were little, I can remember, at times, I would be working from the house, in our little office space in the house, and one of the girls would crawl up in my lap. She would look at me while I would be working on the computer, and she would say the same thing every time: What'cha doin'? Every time. What'cha doin'? I think about that when I think about the last 7 months here in the Senate. I have folks at home who will look at the U.S. Senate and say: What have you been doing for a while? ``What'cha doin'?'' What has been good is to have been able to answer the question a lot. This has been the most productive beginning point for a new President in the first 7 months of the Senate in decades. Let me just walk through just a little bit of what we have been doing. We began this year by passing the Laken Riley Act, which requires ICE to start arresting illegal migrants who have committed crimes. Amazingly enough, that wasn't a requirement before. We fixed that. We passed and made law the TAKE IT DOWN Act. This is about the revenge porn that we are seeing that has affected so many young lives. They are posting their images and sometimes using AI to destroy the lives of people they either hate, used to date, or whatever it may be. We now passed that and made that Federal law to be able to protect the youngest generation from that kind of vulnerability. We passed the HALT Fentanyl Act, permanently classifying fentanyl- related substances as schedule I drugs. Amazingly, we had to do that year after year. It was always a challenge. We started dealing with fentanyl in the serious manner that it needed to be dealt with. We passed that and made that law. We passed the GENIUS Act, which puts the United States on the forefront of digital currency. This is not cryptocurrency. This is dealing with stablecoins, which is similar to a traveler's check only in digital form, to say, dollar for dollar, this creates new competition for credit cards and online shopping. It creates a way to do this to be able to put the United States and American currency in the lead in the digital world while still protecting physical currency and guaranteeing that physical American currency continues to exist. Just those alone would be significant to get out when beginning a session, but we are not close to being done. The Senate has held more than 440 votes just this year so far. That is more than most years of the Senate, in total, in the last 30 years that we have done just in the first 6 months. That is more votes in the beginning of any session since the Reagan administration. We began with 10 straight weeks--day after day after day--of just pounding away to get stuff done. We have worked on nominations, and this body is still working on confirmations even right now. We have confirmed, so far, 119 of President Trump's nominees. To compare that to this same spot 8 years ago in the first term of the first Trump Presidency, they had 56 who were done at this point. We have now done 119. We have done twice as many confirmations now as what we did under the first Trump administration, but we still have quite a few to go. This has been, though, doing this the easy way or the hard way for the past 7 months. You see, confirmations typically are done by voice vote here in the U.S. Senate because we have work to do on legislative work as well. Unlike the House, we do personnel, and we do policy. We have to switch back and forth between the two often, but every time we are working on the personnel side--the confirmation side--every single nomination takes about 3 hours to file on them and to go through the whole period. There is also a day of waiting for those. But those are typically done just for the high-profile nominees. They are not typically done for every nominee. There are about 1,200 people who have to be confirmed. So, typically, things are done by voice vote. Under President George W. Bush, 90 percent of his nominees were actually done by voice vote in the Senate. Under President Obama, 90 percent of those were done by voice vote. Under the first President Trump term, 67 percent of his nominees were done by voice vote. So far, in this Senate, zero--zero for every single nominee, even if it were the protocol officer for the State Department or a legislative affairs person in an Agency or the deputy secretary assistant of something-- literally those who no American other than their families know who they are. They had to go through the full 3-hour process and the intervening day to slow this down. That has not happened to any President ever in the history of the country--ever. No President has ever faced this kind of obstruction ever for their nominees. We have still done 119 of those by staying and working at night and by staying and working on weekends. We will continue to do this the hard way or the easy way. Quite frankly, President Trump should have the same respect as every other President in American history. He should be able to get his staff, so we will continue on this process as we already have. We will just keep moving through the process because what we are doing is trying to get the work done for the U.S. Senate. We have taken on some issues that haven't been taken on in a long time. We did a rescissions package. That has not been done in 35 years. We not only talked about it, but we passed it, and we made it law. We as a body examined some areas, and we said: This seems like wasteful spending to me; we shouldn't do it. We literally voted, took it out, and saved the American taxpayers $9 billion from this year's budget. That has not happened in 35 years to be able to do that. How did we do that? Well, we identified some areas of waste in foreign aid and said: Do we really need to have this as a top priority? We took away the funding that was used last year to create environmentally friendly reproductive health education for children in foreign countries. We took away the funding for Iraqi Sesame Street and for the Melanesian Youth Climate Corps. We took away the funding that created the grant for vegan food in Zambia. We took away the funding for the pride festival in southern Africa. We took away the funding for social media mentorships in Serbia and Belarus. We took away the funding for gender diversity for the Mexican street lighting industry. We took away $1 billion of funding from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. When many people said, oh, gosh, this is going to lead to the end of NPR and PBS--and it absolutely is not because, with NPR, 90 percent of it is funded by corporate and private funding already. This was the last 10 percent. Literally, this was something that was attempted to be done in 1983 under the Reagan administration to say: Why do we have federally taxpayer-paid journalists? Why don't we have that in the free market? If it made sense in 1983, it certainly makes sense now. In 1983, there were about four channels. Now, there are thousands. So what Reagan couldn't get done, we just got done. That is a pretty productive Senate, but we are not close to being done with the things that have already been accomplished just in the last 7 months.

Mr. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, in the past month, my great folks in Oklahoma have started learning a new term around here that is an old term, actually, but it is a term we use all the time, ``vote-arama.'' I have to tell you, it makes me sleepy just to say the word because vote-arama is a part of the 1974 Budget Act that allows for unlimited debate on an issue of certain types of budget process, rescissions, that we did yesterday, and then trying to be able to go back even farther to be able to deal with a reconciliation. I want to spend just a couple of minutes talking about it because so many folks that I talk to have no perspective on this. It is good to be able to get some context. The 1974 Budget Act set out 12 different appropriations bills that are done. That is how our budget is actually done. That is how we actually spend. When the House and the Senate and the President sign that, those 12 bills are now law so they have to be done; that has to be spent. But if the President were to say: I don't want to spend this amount; I don't think that it is necessary, it is the law so it has to be done. But the President can actually send back over to Congress a rescissions and say: I would like permission to turn this part off, and, literally, make a new law to be able to say we are not going to spend this. That is what has happened here in the last 24 hours. The President sent over, about 40 days ago, a rescissions for $9 billion and said: I don't think this needs to be spent. I will talk a little bit about the context of that in a moment, but it was on foreign aid, and it was on National Public Radio and PBS. It was $1 billion for PBS and National Public Radio, and it was $8 billion for foreign aid. He sent it over and said: I don't think this needs to be spent. What has been interesting is to be able to see the national conversation on this on social media as if this cuts off all foreign aid everywhere. I have to tell you, I have some of my good friends at home who would be fine with all foreign aid being cut off, but that is not what happened. What happened was actually going through and examining what foreign aid do we want to keep and what foreign aid do we think is wasteful, that we shouldn't keep in it. So what actually happened? Let me set some context on this first. There are things like PEPFAR, which I have been very supportive of. For the last couple of decades, the United States has made one of the biggest impacts in the world on slowing down the spread of AIDS worldwide. The work that has been done in Africa, through PEPFAR, on AIDS, on tuberculosis, and on malaria has literally saved millions of lives and has dramatically slowed down that virus movement. The innovation that not only affects Americans who suffer with those but also affects the entire world and the movement of that disease has led us to actually engage in areas like Ebola and other areas to be able to go and fight them and make sure that diseases that are happening there that are highly communicable don't spread to us or to other parts of the world. All of us who have experienced COVID know full well that it is better to be able to attack it early than it is to be able to fight it later. PEPFAR has been that entity that has done that. This bill that we just walked through in the rescission didn't affect that aid at all. We said: No. We are going to continue to be able to do that. Programs like Food for Peace and the McGovern-Dole Program that actually feed the hungry around the world--some of my farmers and ranchers in Oklahoma even and some of the mills that are there actually take some of the food that is grown there--it is literally packaged in the Midwest, and it is shipped all over the world to feed hungry folks--that is still in place. That has not changed. I know a lot of folks on social media say: Oh, my gosh. This is cutting off all food aid everywhere else. No, that is actually not what happened. We have worked through our foreign aid programs to counter the Chinese Communist Party's influence around the world, but that wouldn't affect it. In fact, that was specifically isolated out to say: No, we are going to continue to do that because we have got to push back against the communism that has spread across the world. What about combating anti-Semitism, human trafficking, and religious persecution? No, no. We protected all of those and made sure those were not affected. Polio eradication efforts around the world, especially for children, is protected. We didn't make any change to that. All of that foreign aid is still going out. Again, I have folks at home who say that is somebody else's problem, but the vast majority of Americans and Oklahomans say: Hey, we need to make sure that we are engaging in humanitarian needs in the places where we can as we are also fighting our debt and deficit. But what are some of the areas we actually did cut? Because we actually did eliminate $8 billion. Let me give you a couple of examples of that. We actually did a 25-percent reduction in the resettlement fund that is run through the State Department. Now, why would we cut 25 percent of the resettlement fund? Well, 18 months ago, the United States was facing 2.5 million people a year illegally crossing our border, and there was work across all of government that the Biden administration was doing to try to manage these people in very mass numbers. Well, guess what. We have fewer than 200 now a day even attempting to cross our southern border. So there is not a need for this massive resettlement fund anymore because the borders are under control, so this fund was cut 25 percent. Now, we are still involved in some resettlement efforts in other places for refugees around the world, and we are still involved in disaster aid, but we don't need near as large a fund for this because there is not near the problem that there used to be because our border is more secure. The Office of Management and Budget literally went through the State Department, line by line, and identified all of these different line items and said: What did we spend our money on in this account last year? This went to humanitarian aid. But then they also identified different areas that the State Department took for some of these funds and said they spent it on these areas. For instance, the State Department spent $2.5 million to teach children how to make environmentally friendly reproductive health decisions. Well, we cut that, and I think most Americans would say: What in the world are we doing with that? They spent $3 million creating an Iraqi version of ``Sesame Street'' to be able to use in Iraq. They spent $4.5 million on the Melanesian Youth Climate Corps. They spent a ton of money on a pride parade, with the U.S. taxpayer sponsoring a pride parade in Southern Africa. There was money that was spent to promote vegan food in Zambia. There was money spent for social media mentorships in Serbia and Belarus. There was $18 million spent to improve gender diversity in the Mexican street lighting industry. Do you know what? We cut that. What we saved was aid for polio, for AIDS, for food. What we cut was money for gender diversity improvements for the Mexican street lighting industry. So, yes, we did cut some funds back, but it was very intentional to go back and identify the areas that most folks at home would scratch their heads and say: Tell me again why we spent our tax dollars on that. Tell me again why I worked overtime to pay for my family to be able to make more money and pay more taxes so that my money would go to be able to teach children how to make environmentally friendly reproductive health decisions overseas. That is what we went after, and I am grateful that we actually didn't just talk about doing something; we did it. Not only did we do that on the State Department's side, but we engaged in something that a lot of people have talked about for a long time: NPR and PBS. Now, I have got nothing against ``Sesame Street.'' I have got nothing against the ``Antiques Roadshow.'' I have got nothing against NPR programs. If people want to be able to listen to that, well, that is fine. They are in America, and they can have the opportunity to be able to listen to it. This has been interesting just to be able to hear their conversation about it because the conversation has been that we shut the whole program down, that NPR is closing down tomorrow. Well, that is just not true. Let me tell you what we actually did with this rescission. We gave about a year and a half of time to NPR and to PBS to find some additional funding because, with NPR, 90 percent of their funding right now--90 percent of their funding--comes from private sources. The Federal taxpayer just pays 10 percent of it. That 10 percent for PBS and for NPR equals $1 billion. It is a big number, but it is just 10 percent of the funding. They provide sponsorships. I asked the question: How does every other television station and every other radio station seem to operate and find enough sponsors to be able to cover them but that somehow, magically, NPR will not be able to cover the last 10 percent of their costs? That is absurd. Of course, they will be able to do that. I have smiled and jokingly said to folks: If MSNBC can find enough sponsors to cover it, NPR can as well. Listen, they will be able to find enough sponsors, and they have got time to be able to actually do that. We didn't cut them off tomorrow. We gave them about 18 months of time and said: You need to start finding some other sponsorships to be able to get ready for that because some people really like PBS. That is great. They will still be out there. I grew up in a time period like some folks in this room grew up in. I was the remote control when I was growing up, OK? We would sit on the couch, and Mom would say to me: Go up to the TV and turn the dial, because I was the remote control in our family because we had four stations. We had ABC, NBC, CBS, and PBS. Those are the four stations that we had. We established that as a nation we need to be able to get emergency information out because that was the best way to communicate because we had four stations in America. That was it. Well, that is not true anymore. There are thousands of stations that are available over the air for free, and there are streaming platforms galore if you want to be able to spend a hundred bucks a month for each of them. We have got lots of things on our cell phones and have access to it. There are lots of different options now that are very different. I think some people don't realize that, in 1983, Ronald Reagan proposed taking the funds away from PBS and from NPR, saying it was not needed-- in 1983--because we had enough options, much less now, when thinking about all of the options we have. It has been fascinating for people to be able to say: If we don't have PBS, people will not know how to respond in an emergency. They desperately need that for an emergency. I have to tell you, I live in a rural State, the great State of Oklahoma. We have, occasionally, a few storms that roll through Oklahoma. I actually don't know a person who says: Oh, my gosh. It looks stormy. I think I will turn on NPR. I actually don't know that person. They pull out their cell phones, and they look and see what is going on, on the radar or they track through unlimited numbers of great options for meteorologists in our State, and that is true all over the country. Again, I don't belittle what they are doing--people can choose to be able to listen--but to say the only way a television station or a radio station is going to function in America is if taxpayers pay for it means you ignore the thousands of other options that are out there. So, no, we are not cutting them off except for the funding and saying: Hey, decades ago, this might have been an appropriate use of funds, but when we have $2 trillion in overspending, maybe we should start looking for billions of dollars to be able to reduce our spending. We are not just talking about it; we actually did it and said: OK. Let's start finding strategic ways to be able to do this. So, in the last 24 hours, the House and the Senate agreed, and we are reducing our total spending by $9 billion in very strategic ways. Now, that is the rescission package. That is one vote-arama for our long night last night.

Mr. LANKFORD

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, I do rise to be able to speak in opposition to this motion to recommit. It would kill the entire bill. I understand that is the intent of it, and I can appreciate that. The Senator from Virginia is my friend, and the list that he listed off of faith-based organizations I strongly support, and so does he. This particular section that is being reduced is being reduced about 25 percent of the total amount. So I can speak with great confidence. This is not cutting off all those faith-based entities. What this is doing is adjusting for the dramatic shift that has happened on our southern border. Much of the refugee work that has been done has been assisting refugees moving through Central and South America and Mexico into the United States. A year and a half ago, we had a quarter million people a month that were illegally crossing our border, asking for asylum at our border. Now we have, many days, less than 200 even attempt. The need has dramatically dropped from what it was 18 months ago. This adjusts that account by 25 percent. It does not eliminate faith-based organizations. There are great needs around the world, and I am incredibly grateful to the faith-based organizations that do remarkable work that partner with our government.

Mr. LANKFORD

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