Mike Lee

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Madam President, I move to concur in the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 2882 with further amendment No. 1722.

Mr. LEE. Madam President, when the rest of us board an airplane, we always have to show a photo ID to prove who we are, that we are who we claim to be. Not so if you are an illegal immigrant. If you are an illegal immigrant under the Biden administration, all you have to do is pull out the CBP One app. It is an app that they created. It doesn't prove who they are. It just says you can board the airplane. That is not OK, and that is not fair. In fact, just between January and September of last year, 221,000 illegal aliens entered the United States this way, and they were allowed to fly around the country without having ID. This has had tragic consequences. An example of the danger presented by this is reflected in the fact that Haitian immigrant Cory Alvarez, whose entry into the United States was facilitated by the CBP One app, raped a 15-year-old, mentally impaired girl in the United States. He has, thankfully, since been arrested for this horrific crime. It should never have had to come to this. This would stop that from happening. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and end this lawlessness.

Mr. LEE. Madam President, I call for the yeas and nays.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, yesterday at about this same time, I came to the floor, and I made three predictions. Even though not a single Member of this body had seen the full text of the thousand-page spending bill that we received just after 2:30 a.m. this morning, I predicted three things about that bill. I predicted that it would, No. 1, be full of corrupting earmarks--well, the bill has nearly 1,400 earmarks, and 138 pages of the more than thousand pages in this bill are dedicated to earmarks alone; two, that it wouldn't force Biden to secure the border--well, it doesn't; and three, that it would perpetuate massive deficits--it does. I really hate to say, ``I told you so.'' It is now Thursday, a little less than 48 hours before the funding deadline, and we received the 1,012-page bill at 2:30 in the morning. We are told that the only way we can avoid a shutdown is to vote for a thousand-page bill negotiated in secret and put forward at the last minute by the law firm of Schumer, McConnell, Johnson, and Jeffries. With a little less than 48 hours on the clock, we can be sure that there will be no time to read the text, to vet it with our staffs and our constituents, to debate the bill and offer amendments to improve the bill. Regardless of what State we come from or what party we are a part of, this is not what our constituents, our voters, sent us to Washington to do. These bills--massive legislative undertakings that bundle most of the Federal Government's funding into a single package--have become synonymous with legislative manipulation because that is precisely what they are. The firm's modus operandi involves crafting these omnibus bills behind closed doors, with only a select group of appropriators contributing to their formulation. Now, by design, the bills are unveiled to the public and to most of Congress with barely any time to spare before a potential government shutdown. This strategic timing, arranged by the firm and often arranged right before a long-scheduled recess or holiday, ensures the bill passes with minimal scrutiny and little or no meaningful opportunity for amendment or debate. It is a charade, occasionally softened by allowing a few votes here and there on a few token amendments. But make no mistake, the firm wields its enormous influence to ensure that no substantial changes are made that would threaten, as they perceive it, the sanctity of their original drafts. Members are cornered into a false dichotomy, arranged and contrived entirely by the firm: Pass the bill--unread, undebated, unamended--or face the chaos and public ire of a government shutdown. Thus, the individual voices of the people's elected lawmakers in Washington and, by extension, the will of the American people--those who elected us to come here--are diluted in a process dominated by the few at the expense of the many. This is exactly the type of dichotomy we tried to avoid when we passed a CR in November of last year. We extended the deadline into the new year. We established two separate funding deadlines into January and February specifically to avoid the dreaded Christmas omnibus, when the firm historically drops a bill just as we are planning to all leave and spend the holidays with our families. By avoiding the Christmas crunch for the first time in a very long time, that CR was intended to give us the time to properly debate, amend, and ensure that all of the people's elected lawmakers in Washington engaged in a fair and transparent process. But now, we are in the very scenario we tried so hard to avoid, with a massive bill just before a recess, just before the Easter holiday. So what happened? What happened? How are we in the exact same spot we found ourselves in just a few months ago that we worked so hard to avoid and we promised we would avoid? Today, with just over 48 hours before the government runs out of funding, this body once again throws American taxpayers and our voters under the bus, forsaking fiscal sanity. In so doing, they oppose measures that the vast majority of Americans support--measures that Republicans fought to include in this legislation, which were overwhelmingly rejected by just a handful of Members, so overwhelmingly supported by voters and overwhelmingly rejected by a narrow sliver of Members of this and the other body. Those measures would have, among other things, banned the use of funds to implement Green New Deal-related policies that have been overfunded over the last few years; blocked funds for racist DEI programs across the Department of Defense and the intelligence community Agencies; prohibited the use of funds for bureaucrats to label free speech that they happen to disagree with as ``misinformation''; measures to ensure that only the American flag may be flown at all government buildings. It contains no new funding for a border wall or any of the other core border security elements in H.R. 2, which are so badly needed at this time. Our country is under invasion with the acquiescence of the President of the United States. It contains nothing to stop Biden's invited invasion from happening right now at our southern border. Instead of securing our border, we are spending millions of taxpayer dollars on radical pet projects that exist to weaken and divide our country culturally and economically--pet projects like $1.8 million for a hospital in Rhode Island that performs abortions, including late-term abortions; $475,000 for an activist organization that has designed curriculum and materials for children ages 2 through 5 to ``introduce the kids in our classroom to a wide variety of gender expressions''; $400,000 for the largest LGBTQ advocacy organization in New Jersey-- their efforts include focusing on what they call transgender student rights, which include letting boys use girls locker rooms and play in girls athletics in high school; $676,000 for an organization that has been actively supportive of Black Lives Matter and painted a BLM mural in front of Cincinnati's city hall in 2020; $2.8 million for an institution that released what they call an ``Inclusion, Diversity, Equity and Accessibility'' charter in 2020, which stated that ``diversity, inclusion, equity, and accessibility are critical components within the fabric of the institute to excel in basic and applied research, solve complex environmental issues, and advance DRI's mission''; $500,000 for a radical activist organization that hosts training workshops on implicit bias, social inclusion and equity, decolonization, and land acknowledgement; $450,000 for a childcare initiative that is being established to provide childcare for immigrant families. So instead of securing our border, it appears we are using taxpayer money to create welfare programs for illegal immigrants who have invaded our country. That is because this whole system of government funding is designed to not benefit the vast majority of Americans. It benefits the very architects of these bills--the appropriators, the earmarks, the lobbyists, and the special interests. These entities thrive in the shadows in this process, influencing legislation in ways that serve the architects themselves, often--indeed, always--at the expense of the general public. Americans are bearing the cost of decisions made without their knowledge or their consent, manifesting in skyrocketing costs of living and a staggering national debt now exceeding $34 trillion. Not only do they not have a say in this process, those they elected to have a say in this very same process are excluded, and that is wrong. We must dismantle this corrupt process and restore once again transparency and accountability to the way we fund our government. The process behind what we expect from this insulting spending bill is a disgrace, and let history show that a few of us stood up and said no. This is not the way. What we need is a short-term CR--a continuing resolution--through April 12 to give lawmakers time to review, debate, and amend the bill. Even if by some twist of fate, even if by some gift by God, you are able to discern every single word in this bill and you digested it over the last few hours and you still love the bill, you should acknowledge that most Members--I would say all--lack that capacity and therefore deserve the opportunity, whether you love the bill or hate the bill at the end of the day, to fully review it, vet it with constituents, debate it, and, yes, offer amendments at a meaningful window of opportunity. Voting for this bill is voting in favor of massive, bloated deficits that are crippling America and making life unaffordable, corrupting earmarks, and funding Biden's border invasion. So I invite my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join in fighting for fiscal responsibility and the best interests of the American families we are supposed to represent in Washington--after all, they elected us--because we are certainly not doing that now. To that end, I offered up a solution. Again, whether you love this bill or hate it after reviewing it, which will take some time, you should still want it to be adequately vetted first. And to that end, as in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 235, H.R. 4364; I further ask that the Lee amendment at the desk be considered and agreed to, the bill as amended be considered read a third time and passed, and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. LEE. I will sit down in a moment to let my friend and colleague Joe Manchin speak. I want to point out for a moment a couple of things. My friend and colleague from the State of Washington is objecting to this measure that would allow all Members adequate time to review the bill and to vet it with constituents and debate it and discuss it and amend it on the floor. She said that we have to get a move on; the government has been on autopilot, meaning under a continuing resolution for too long. True. Absolutely true. But I find it stunning the suggestion that she is saying now that time is of the essence. Now, we didn't have the bill yesterday or the day before or the day before or the day before that when we were promised the bill. We didn't have it. We have it now. She identified the precise moment in history--the precise moment in 2024--when we can no longer move forward for another day. We have to get a move on right, right now. They are the only ones who know this. She also says it is bipartisan, bicameral; that it is a carefully negotiated agreement. That is great. That small handful of people who actually saw this bill and were involved in its final formulation, I am sure, will find that very comforting. For the rest of us who didn't see it until 2:30 a.m. this morning and the 330 million Americans out there who will have to pay for this stuff, that is not adequate notice. That is not a carefully negotiated agreement. That is collusion among the few affecting the many adversely. I find this very, very disturbing that we couldn't get the American people and their elected representatives a few more days so that they can understand what is in there. It begs the question, What are they hiding?

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes and Senator Manchin for up to 5 minutes prior to the scheduled rollcall vote.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, it is a familiar headline: ``Congress announces a deal to avoid a shutdown.'' It is currently midday on Wednesday, March 20, and, on Friday at midnight, just the day after tomorrow, the government will run out of funding for more than half of the 12 budget categories, and most of the government's funding is found within this section that will shut down, absent legislation by Congress. We are told that the only way we can avoid a shutdown is to vote for what we expect to be a monstrous spending plan, a bill written in secret by a small handful of appropriators and ultimately given the blessing of the ``Law Firm of Schumer, McConnell, Johnson & Jeffries.'' It should be noted that not one Member of this body has had the opportunity to fully review the legislative text or, in the case of nearly all Members of Congress, to see any of it. We have not seen it. We can't see it. We are not allowed to see it. We don't know much about the particular details of the bill, what will be in it and what won't be in it. But if history is any indicator, as it has been proven to be reliably in the past, there are a few things about the bill of which we can now be certain, even before laying eyes on it. It will, among other things, be full of earmarks, these special- interest giveaways handed out as sweeteners, as if to make the medicine go down. It won't force President Biden to secure the border. It will perpetuate massive deficits, approaching or possibly even exceeding $2 trillion. To add insult to injury, we can be sure that, when the text is finally released, there will be, alas, insufficient time to read, comprehend the text, air it with the public, debate the bill, and offer and consider amendments. You see, these bills--massive legislative undertakings that, in many instances, bundle all Federal spending or, in this instance, most Federal spending into one single package--have become synonymous with legislative excess and manipulation. You see, the firm's modus operandi involves drafting these omnibus bills behind closed doors, with only a select group of appropriators contributing to their formulation. By design, and not by any coincidence, these bills are unveiled to the public and most Members of Congress with barely any time to spare before a potential government shutdown. This strategic timing, which often unfolds strategically right before a long, scheduled recess, ensures that the bill passes, with minimal scrutiny and little or no opportunity for debate--any meaningful debate, certainly--or for amendments. In other words, it becomes a ``take it or leave it'' package. It is a charade, occasionally softened by allowing a few votes on just a few amendments. But make no mistake, the firm wields its influence to make sure that no substantial changes are made--certainly, nothing that could threaten the supposed sanctity of their original draft. Members are thus cornered into a false dichotomy in which their votes for the measure are extracted--extorted, if you will. We are told to pass the bill unread, not understood, undebated, or, alternatively, face the chaos and inevitable public vitriol associated with a government shutdown. Thus, the individual voices of our elected representatives--our elected lawmakers here in Congress, in both Houses, of both political parties--and, by extension, the will of the American people are diluted in a process dominated by a few at the expense of the many. It is not that these bills are bad in every circumstance. There are a lot of things that are within them that the government needs, that most--perhaps all--of this body, in some cases, would find unobjectionable. The problem is not that the bill is rotten from one end to the other. It is, instead, that it has been written by a select few, and the many are not allowed to have any say in it. And when it is brought forward without any timely, meaningful, fulsome opportunity for debate, discussion, public airing, and amendment, Congress, as a whole, becomes a rubberstamp to the firm. The will of the people is thwarted, and, ultimately, millions-- hundreds of millions--of Americans are effectively disenfranchised from the entire process. Tonight, with just a few days before the government runs out of funding in these areas covered by this bill, this body, once more, throws American taxpayers under the bus and forsakes fiscal responsibility, if, in fact, we pursue this course once again. In so doing, they oppose measures that the vast majority of Americans would support--measures like stopping an invasion happening right now at our southern border, resulting in a wave of crime, death, and destruction that we haven't seen in the past. This is, rather, entirely the result of the whole system of government funding being designed not to benefit the vast majority of Americans but, rather, to benefit the very architects of these bills: the appropriators, earmarks, lobbyists, and special interests--and, of course, all at the direction of the firm. These entities thrive in the shadows of this process, influencing legislation in ways that serve the architects themselves, often at the expense of the general public. Americans are bearing the cost of decisions made without their consent or their knowledge, manifesting in, among other things, skyrocketing costs of living and staggering national debt, now exceeding $34 trillion. It is time to dismantle this corrupt process and restore transparency and accountability to the way we fund our government. The process behind what we fully expect to be a wasteful, insulting, minibus bill is a disgrace. And let history show that a few of us stood up and said so. This is not the way. Once we get this bill, we shouldn't be forced to rush to judgment on it without debate, discussion, or amendment. We should, instead, adopt a short-term continuing resolution that would take us to April 12, to give lawmakers adequate time to review and understand the bill, to air it to the public, to offer amendments to the bill to improve it, and, finally, vote on it. That is the order in which it should occur, not the opposite. Instead, the firm would take us down yet another road of ``fire, ready, aim.'' Voting for this minibus is voting in favor of massive deficits, corrupting earmarks, and funding Joe Biden's border invasion. So I invite my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join us in fighting for fiscal responsibility, for the best interests of American families--the same families we are supposed to represent in Washington. This proposal, this short-term continuing resolution, is neither Democratic nor Republican. It is neither liberal nor conservative. This is just common sense. Give people's elected lawmakers the chance to be involved in the lawmaking process because we are certainly not doing that now. To that end, Mr. President, as if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of my bill, which is at the desk. I further ask that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, in wrapping up my remarks, I just want to say this is unfortunate. We owe it to each other and we owe it to those we represent to actually discuss and debate the merits of legislation before being forced to pass it. The fact that there is bipartisan agreement as to final numbers doesn't mean that most Senators have even seen the bill. They have not. They have kept it secret from us and from those we represent. It is simply disingenuous to suggest that this has been agreed upon long ago. We need at least a few days to do this. That is why I am asking that we extend the spending period out to April 12. That would give us time to do that. It is unfortunate we didn't get that agreement today. We will be back. Thank you.

Mr. LEE

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

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes, followed by Senator Menendez for up to 5 minutes, prior to the scheduled vote.

Mr. LEE

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

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the cloture motion with respect to the House message be withdrawn and the only motions and amendments in order to the House message to accompany H.R. 4366 be the following: Hagerty No. 1634, Crapo No. 1625, Johnson No. 1633; Budd No. 1635, Lee amendment No. 1623, Schmitt No. 1626, Scott of Florida amendment No. 1645, and Scott of Florida motion to refer; further, that the Senate vote on the above motion and amendments in the order listed with only the Budd amendment subject to 60 affirmative votes required for adoption; that upon disposition of the Scott motion to refer, the pending amendments and motion be withdrawn and the Senate vote on the motion to concur in the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 4366, as amended, if amended, with 60 affirmative votes required for adoption of the motion to concur, without further intervening action or debate, and with 2 minutes for debate equally divided prior to each vote.

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, just days ago, we saw the text of this legislation in its entirety. We saw that it contained, among other things, more than 600 pages of earmarks, totaling over 6,000 earmarks. It spends a lot of money. It is significant legislation. Whether you love it or hate it, you can't dispute the fact that the legislation does a lot of things in government; it funds a lot of things in government. There are a handful of us who tried to get votes on amendments because, after all, if this is to be put together by one committee of the Senate without other Members having the opportunity to offer up amendments and debate it and discuss it, we are neither a deliberative body, certainly not the world's greatest legislative body, but it is hard to even call us a legitimate, authentic legislative body more than a rubber stamp for the Appropriations Committee if we are not allowed to offer modifications to what the Appropriations Committee, in its infinite wisdom and glory, decides to put on the floor of the U.S. Senate. This has always been a distinguishing characteristic of this body. It is different in material respects from the House of Representatives. It is different in that each State is represented equally, allowing each State to be represented as a State, and it is also different in that it is a body where we are supposed to allow for open amendment. We have been blocked out of this. We offered up, just moments ago, eight Republican amendments. The Democrats countered by saying: We will give you votes on only four of them. Now, most of those four to which they are objecting to having any votes are themselves germane. Those that are not germane, they are willing to take up a vote at 60. Yet they are still not willing to allow us to vote on them, including vote on some things that are very significant and have enormous impact on the safety, security, and prosperity of the American people. Why? What are they so afraid of? Why are they willing to ignore 2\1/ 2\ centuries of custom, precedent, and practice? Why are they willing to disregard many more centuries of legislative tradition that goes back to long prior to the time that we were even a country? Why are they unwilling to do this? So the reason they are able to do it is because the Senate has resorted, time and time again, to this procedure known as filling the tree. The majority leader fills the tree, and it is shorthand for he is not going to allow any amendments. So what I would like to do is set that aside, to table the tree- filling amendment. To that end, Mr. President, I move to table the pending motion to refer, and I ask for the yeas and nays. Vote on Motion to Table

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, for the past few years, Americans have watched with a certain degree of dismay and even horror as the U.S. Department of Justice--an institution that has long been revered by many Americans, including myself, now a former Federal prosecutor--has been weaponized by the left to go after those whose views are deemed unacceptable and who have been deemed targets by political appointees in the Biden administration's Justice Department because they have been perceived as a threat to their own political interests. From the text messages of illicit lovers Peter Strzok and Lisa Page at the FBI to the Crossfire Hurricane scandal, to the current prosecution of Donald Trump, Americans have lost faith in the Department of Justice, and they want the political weaponization of the DOJ to stop. Unfortunately, this weaponization has only gotten worse under this administration as we have seen with the use of unnecessary force and the prosecution of peaceful protesters at abortion clinics; the investigation of Catholics based on their religious beliefs and their attendance of traditional Latin mass; and, of course, the labeling of concerned parents as domestic terrorists based solely on their decision to show up to a school board meeting and raise legitimate concerns about how their children are being taught and otherwise treated at school. My amendment would prohibit the Department of Justice from prosecuting any individual in contravention of the Justice Manual. The Justice Manual is a bible of sorts within the Department of Justice. It is the Department of Justice's rule book for Federal prosecutors. Now, Justice Manual section 9-27.260 is clear. It reads as follows: Federal prosecutors and agents may never make a decision regarding an investigation or prosecution, or select the timing of investigative steps or criminal charges, for the purpose of affecting any election, or for the purpose of giving an advantage or disadvantage to any candidate or political party. The prosecution of former President Donald Trump by the Department of Justice through special prosecutor Jack Smith would appear, at least outwardly, to violate these ``impermissible considerations''-- considerations they are not allowed to make--and is intended to give the sitting President, who is polling miserably with the American people, an unfair advantage this November. This is a clear violation of the Justice Manual, of its plain terms. That is exactly why my amendment would prohibit funding for these prosecutions based on impermissible considerations--considerations that violate the Department of Justice's own policy manual, not just for the prosecution of former President Trump but also all Americans. The American people want our Federal law enforcement to get back to its mission: keeping America safe by taking violent criminals who are destroying our cities and our communities and our families off the streets instead of focusing on destroying the Biden administration's political opponents. They expect and demand more of the Department of Justice, and we should too. Motion to Concur with Amendment No. 1623 To that end, Mr. President, I move to concur in the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 4366 with my amendment No. 1623.

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, at the end of the day, the American people understand something is terribly wrong. They understand that, when the Department of Justice is politically weaponized to prosecute again and again political opponents of this administration, including and especially the 45th President of the United States--a man who is the principal rival, the lead political opponent of the current President-- something is terribly wrong. They are violating the Justice Manual. That is not right. This amendment would fix that, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for an additional 15 seconds.

Mr. LEE. To the extent this is already law, fine. We shouldn't hesitate for a second in attaching a spending condition to this. The truth is it is not part of law; it is part of the Justice Manual. We ought to make it a condition of the spending bill. As far as this causing a shutdown, this is going to take 10 minutes. We are going to have this vote with or without opposition to it. We might as well pass it now. What I didn't hear is any refutation of the fact that the Justice Department has been weaponized against the 45th President, President Biden's lead political opponent. That is wrong. I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Madam President, I have come to the floor today to talk about some of the spending requests--known as earmarks--that are placed in this legislation. Earmarks have long been used by Members of Congress as ``sweeteners,'' as things that make the bill package go down more smoothly, more easily, than perhaps it would otherwise-- special interests give-outs, handouts to business entities, nonprofit entities, or otherwise that individual Members request, sometimes successfully. One of them involves a significant sum of $850,000--just shy of a million dollars--to a leftwing organization known for publicly calling for the granting of citizenship to illegal immigrants, persons who have entered our country, whose common characteristic that they hold in common--that unites them--is the fact that they entered the country unlawfully, in violation of our laws. This arises during a significant period of time; one in which we are experiencing the worst immigration crisis that we have ever known. And Congress wants to send $850,000 to an organization that is interested in enabling and inflaming it. Why, exactly--even if you agree with the objectives of this organization called the New Immigrant Community Empowerment organization--or NICE--even if you agree with that entity, which many Americans don't, why exactly is it that we are going to take money away from U.S. taxpayers and use that to fund this organization that actively assists in helping illegal aliens get American jobs? NICE's LinkedIn page says as follows: At NICE we envision a world where all people, regardless of immigration status, live and work with dignity and justice. And ``dignity'' and ``justice'' are nice things. They are things that the American people aspire to; and they are the very things that cause immigrants worldwide to want to come to the United States of America. For this to work, for us to continue to be a nation of immigrants, we need to be a nation that also honors our own laws and enforces them. So if you support this bill--the Schumer minibus bill--with this earmark, then you are voting, in one way or another, to fund this organization to the tune of $850,000, which, in turn, goes to help perpetuate, inflame, and extend the immigration crisis--the border security crisis. So to that end, Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to reprint the joint explanatory statement to accompany H.R. 4366, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024, that was printed in yesterday's Record with the following changes and that this amended version be considered the joint explanatory statement to accompany H.R. 4366: [T]he removal of a House CDF project that would give $850,000 to the New Immigrant Community Empowerment organization in T-HUD.

Mr. LEE. Madam President, first of all, with regard to the last unanimous consent request, it is important to remember a couple of things: First of all, we saw that the whole bill together, with the congressionally directed spending elements, for the first time in just the last 48 hours or so. So it is not as though this has been through a public process with debate back and forth. An essential element of any legislative body is that there is an opportunity to amend, to discuss, and debate. In fact, that has been taken advantage of within the last 24 hours as another measure--a measure to remove something that has been characterized online as providing a million dollars to fund BDSM sex parties. That was removed. So if that can be removed, I don't know why this one can't. In any event, to say that this cake is baked--that this legislation must be treated as now passed when it is not passed is folly. And it doesn't bode well for this institution, which has long heralded itself and held itself out to the world as the world's greatest deliberative legislative body. Let's go to another one: Georgetown University. We have got nearly $1 million also going to Georgetown University--$963,000--nearly a million--to Georgetown University for something called the Prison Justice Initiative. Now, I don't know a whole lot about exactly what this will accomplish. It may well have good elements to it. But the point is this: Georgetown University is not only one of the wealthiest universities on planet Earth, it is one of the wealthiest entities of any kind on planet Earth. Indeed, it has an endowment. Its endowment alone is valued at over $3.2 billion. And this begs the question: Why does it need to be subsidized to the tune of nearly a million dollars by U.S. taxpayers? To that end, Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to reprint the joint explanatory statement to accompany H.R. 4366, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024--it was printed in yesterday's Record with the following changes--and that this amended version be considered the joint explanatory statement to accompany H.R. 4366: [T]he removal of a House project that would provide $963,000 to Georgetown University for the Georgetown University Prison Justice Initiative, in CJS.

Mr. LEE. Madam President, here again, this is unfortunate. We have a small handful of people who have negotiated this thing behind closed doors. They have agreed to what they have agreed to. They have taken out things that they themselves have found controversial. So, apparently, it is not the hermetically sealed chamber that it is purported to be and has been purported to be just moments ago by my friend and distinguished colleague, the Senator from Washington. And yet we are told that the cake is sufficiently baked, and not for their purposes but for ours. When we want to make a change to it, when we even want to have a debate about it, we are shut down. We are told: Sorry, no dice. That cannot happen. That is unacceptable.

Mr. LEE. Madam President, there is also a measure in this legislation--a measure calling for $2.5 million to be set aside for outdoor recreation purposes--funding kayaking and slalom facilities in Franklin, NH. These sound like fun activities. They are fun activities. I mean, who doesn't like those kinds of activities? I think most of us could agree this is completely inappropriate. And it is an unnecessary use of Federal taxpayer dollars. This ought to be funded solely at the State and local level or with private funding and not here. To that end, Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to reprint the joint explanatory statement to accompany H.R. 4366, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024, that was printed in yesterday's Record with the following changes and that this amended version be considered the joint explanatory statement to accompany H.R. 4366: [T]he removal of a Senate Community Development Fund project that would provide $2,500,000 to the city of Franklin, NH for outdoor recreation, in THUD.

Mr. LEE. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I have a motion at the desk.

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, this motion calls for a full-year CR. Let me tell you what a full-year CR taking us to September 30--if we were to go to a full-year CR, one taking us to September 30, we would save $130 billion. Now, there have been comments made on the floor even this evening that are not correct, suggesting that this would take disproportionately from defense. It is just not true. Under a full-year CR, regular defense would be $1.4 billion higher relative to fiscal year 2023, while regular nondefense would be $40 billion less than fiscal year 2023. In a day and age in which we are living with a $2 trillion deficit and crippling inflation coming as a result of that, we should take this as an opportunity to achieve a win for the American people.