Brian Schatz

Mr. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination: Calendar No. 316, Tobin John Bradley, of California, a Career Member of the Senior Foreign Service, Class of Minister-Counselor, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the Republic of Guatemala; that the Senate vote on the nomination without intervening action or debate; that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action; and that the Senate resume legislative session.

Mr. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding the upcoming adjournment of the Senate, the President of the Senate, the President pro tempore, and the majority and minority leaders be authorized to make appointments to Commissions, committees, Boards, conferences, or interparliamentary conferences authorized by law, by concurrent action of the two Houses, or by order of the Senate.

Mr. SCHATZ. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn to then convene for pro forma sessions only, with no business being conducted, on the following dates and times and that following each pro forma session, the Senate adjourn until the next pro forma session: Friday, December 22, at 8 a.m.; Tuesday, December 26, at 9 a.m.; Friday, December 29, at 10:30 a.m.; Tuesday, January 2, at 11:45 a.m.; and that the second session of the 118th Congress convene on Wednesday, January 3, at 12 noon for a pro forma session only, with no business conducted, and that following the pro forma session, the Senate adjourn and convene for pro forma session only, with no business being conducted, on Friday, January 5, at 10 a.m.; further, that when the Senate adjourns on Friday, January 5, it stand adjourned until 3 p.m., Monday, January 8; that on Monday, following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and morning business be closed; that upon the conclusion of morning business, the Senate proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the Kazen nomination; further, that notwithstanding rule XXII, the cloture vote on the Kazen nomination be at 5:30 p.m. on Monday, January 8, with all provisions of the previous order remaining in effect and with all remaining clotures ripening in the order filed.

Mr. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations en bloc: Calendar Nos. 400, 401, 402, 403, 404, and 414; that the Senate vote on the nominations en bloc without intervening action or debate; that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action; and that the Senate resume legislative session.

Mr. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. Madam President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order.

Mr. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, a couple of hours ago, Republicans voted down the motion to even begin debating the national security supplemental appropriations bill. They claim to support Israel and Ukraine, but, when it came time to act, they voted no. But let's be clear about one thing: Every part of this bill is essential for America's national security. We have two wars raging and a number of other threats brewing around the world, and this funding for our allies and our partners could not be more urgent. It is the difference between having the weapons to fight terrorists and authoritarians or not, having food and water for civilians caught in conflicts or not, having the defense systems to deter China from meddling in Taiwan or not. Our friends are counting on us to help them, and our adversaries are counting on us being too divided to do even the most basic task. America remains the indispensable Nation. It is the leader of the free world. It is the Nation that other countries, big and small, look to in good times and in bad, and it is a responsibility that we have never shirked away from. And now is not the time to start. Now is not the time to turn our backs on Israel, on innocent Palestinians in Gaza, on Ukraine, on Taiwan, or on any of our other allies and partners around the world. We are fighting an increasingly linked global fascist movement, and it is directly tied to our security interests. So we ought to act like it and pass this supplemental to keep our adversaries and competitors from redrawing the world as they wish, at the point of a gun. So let's start with Israel. There has been a lot of talk on both sides of the aisle about the merits of conditioning aid, as if it is a novel or unusual concept, except that it is not. The idea that having requirements under Federal law for any Federal appropriations, that that is somehow amounting to abandoning our ally or a break from the norms is belied by history. Whenever we approve Federal spending, whether it is for HUD for public housing or the Federal Highway Administration for repairs or the Department of the Interior for parks, we require detailed plans on exactly how the money will be used, and we expect to receive some sort of reporting on it afterward. It is also standard practice for our own Defense Department and aid to other allies, which we routinely scrutinize. So it should be no different for Israel and the IDF or Ukraine--and in a hot war, no less. There are millions of innocent lives caught in the crossfire, and we have every reason to make sure that Israel is using the weapons that we provide, funded by our own taxpayer dollars, in a manner that is consistent with international humanitarian laws and American values. That is taking every step possible to minimize civilian casualties. In many ways, the debate around conditioning aid is emblematic of the wider one around Israel and Palestine, which has become so hostile and so binary that people aren't even open to hearing the other side. It is near impossible to have a dialogue when all people are interested in is throwing rhetorical barbs and attacking the other side. If you condemn Hamas's unspeakable brutality on October 7 and hold it accountable for the death and bloodshed on that day and in the days since, then you are supposedly excusing the conditions under the blockade or you are accused of turning a blind eye to settler violence before and since October 7. If you question the manner in which Israel is waging war and the carnage and suffering the war has wrought on innocent lives, including children and babies, you are suddenly not sufficiently pro-Israel. If you call out the fact that anti-Semitism is on the rise here in the United States and around the world, that it is one of the oldest sicknesses and a scourge that must be addressed, then somehow you are indifferent to Islamophobia or the suffering of Palestinians. No, I know anti-Muslim and anti-Arab hatred are alive and well, too, and believe that they must be rooted out with equal force. And my heart breaks for the countless innocent lives being lost in Gaza daily. All of these things are true at the same time. They are in tension with each other, yes, but not in contradiction. There is an awfully messy and deeply, deeply contested history underpinning this conflict. So to strip away all that context and flatten all these complexities into a 15-second TikTok is a disservice to the Palestinian and Israeli causes alike. There are no simple and straightforward paths to peace here, but if we can't engage without first holding purity tests, if we can't acknowledge two things to be true at the same time, if we can't recognize each other's humanity, then we are not going to be able to build a just and lasting peace in the region. Almost everybody believes Hamas is terrible and should be eliminated. They want the hostages who were cruelly abducted and have spent 2 agonizing months in captivity to be immediately released. They are appalled by reports of Hamas's sexual violence against women and the drugging of hostages. And they believe Israel has a legitimate right and responsibility to go after the bad guys. The question is how. People are increasingly and understandably alarmed at the scale of human suffering and the high rate of civilian casualties in Gaza. It is our job, as Israel's closest ally, to convey that truth and to make clear that mass suffering actively undermines the possibility of a future peace. A whole new generation will be radicalized watching scores of loved ones die and entire neighborhoods leveled. That is in no one's interest. So our responsibility in the current moment is twofold: to provide Israel with military aid, which I have consistently supported and I will continue to support, but it is equally important to provide moral clarity and strategic counsel when actions cross a line. We do both of these things because we care. We also have an obligation to look at the future because, whether it is 10 months from now or 10 years from now, these two peoples need a way to live in relative peace and stability side by side--if not as friends, then as neighbors. Palestinians, like Israelis, deserve a legitimate, representative, and democratically elected government, and the only viable path to achieving that is through a two-state solution. It is the only way to guarantee a safe home for the Jewish people in Israel, and it is the only way to ensure Palestinians have a secure state of their own. A solution that does not recognize the humanity of both Israelis and Palestinians is not just, and a solution that does not give both peoples the condition to prosper without fear of violence will not last. Let's talk about the other part of this supplemental--Ukraine, which is, unfortunately, also all too familiar with battles over sovereignty and coexistence. Ukrainians have spent almost 2 years fighting against Putin for their very survival. And, make no mistake, Russia's failure to capture Ukraine so far is in no small part due to America's support and our leading role in rallying the world to stand up to Putin's aggression. We know that President Zelenskyy knows that and, crucially, Putin knows that. In fact, not long ago, he crowed that Ukraine wouldn't last a week--wouldn't last a week--without help from the West. So the consequences of failure to support Ukraine are not theoretical. They are dire, and they are dangerous. Ukraine, as we speak, is running out of bullets and other munitions. Already, our shipments have been diminishing in scope and frequency, as existing aid runs low, and it will be completely exhausted in a matter of weeks or months. Heading into the winter, the lack of additional assistance is likely to prove catastrophic. But some of my Republican colleagues here are willing to undermine the free world. I don't say this lightly. I like a lot of them. But they are willing to undermine the free world and let Putin win because they want hard-line immigration and border policy. Democrats have demonstrated a willingness to stretch here. Democrats--and I was texting some of the Republican colleagues with whom I work very closely, and I said: Look, we are already two-thirds of the way. We can't go all the way to your position. We cannot enact a bipartisan bill if it is a partisan bill. But the idea that, if we don't concede on a wholly unrelated matter, then Putin wins in a land war in Europe? Are we really doing this? And I want to just say one thing to my friends in the media--and God bless them. God bless the fourth estate for all they do, but I am also entitled to offer a constructive criticism: Stop pretending this is normal. (Ms. HASSAN assumed the Chair.) Stop pretending it is acceptable to take a major foreign policy issue--this is a land war in Europe. Vladimir Putin just decided to try to take a country by force. And what they say is: Well, we don't support that. We support Ukraine, but we see that we have leverage. By the way, this is not a rhetorical flourish of mine. Senator Cornyn said this 2 days ago. This is not a negotiation, is what he said. This is the price you have to pay. This is the price you Democrats have to pay. What are we doing here? This is a foreign policy supplemental. We are supposed to be for these things. I could have woken up one morning and said: You know what, if we don't enact my climate policies--which I feel urgently passionate about--then I am a ``no'' on Ukraine because I know I have leverage and they need every vote. The reason I won't do that is I am not bananas. I am a responsible legislator, and I know that is not the way you do things. The idea--I have never seen this before. I have only been here 11 years. I am sure there is some historical precedent for it, but not recently have we tied a foreign policy objective to an unrelated domestic policy objective. What they will say is: Look, it is all security. Oh, come on. I understand the passion there is on the border. I understand the problem there is on the border. But it is not a foreign policy question, and the idea that we are going to let Ukraine get taken--Kyiv will be in Russian control because we couldn't make a border deal? We haven't been able to make a border deal for--well, since I have been here for sure and then 5 years prior to that. That stuff is hard. You don't take literally the most difficult issue that I can think of in the Congress to forge a bipartisan consensus and say: If we don't get it, then, I am sorry, Kyiv is just going to fall. That is no way to run a railroad. That is no way to be the indispensable Nation. You walk into any global convening--and I remember--I am looking at the Presiding Officer. I am sure the Presiding Officer has had this experience. You are a Governor, and everybody wants to know what you think, but when you are a Senator, you are not sure if people are going to be as interested in what you think. When you travel abroad, even when I was an appointed freshman Senator, people are hanging on your every word--not as a head of state but just as a representative of the U.S. Government. We remain the indispensable Nation. Everyone wants to know what we are going to do. Everyone wants to know what we think. They want to know what we are funding. They want to know what our priorities are. So we cannot forfeit that global leadership because we are fighting about something else. Now, again, Democrats have demonstrated by their negotiations, by all of our public pronouncement, that we are willing to stretch a little bit on this because it is that important. But it would be a hell of a thing for us to allow Vladimir Putin to win because we are too busy in a partisan battle about something totally unrelated. I yield the floor.

Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, reserving the right to object. We are in a global fight against fascism and authoritarianism. We are seeing it in Putin's war in Ukraine, and we are seeing it with Hamas and the unspeakable horrors it committed on and since October 7. And we are seeing it with Xi Jinping's explicit desire to take Taiwan by force. These people do not hide their true intentions. They telegraph them to the whole world; and, worse, they are willing to do whatever it takes. Nothing is off limits to them. And that is the seriousness of the global threat of an increasingly coordinated fascist movement. And so to address one of these problems but not the other, to somehow judge one threat to be greater than the other, to say we are going to fund Israel but not Ukraine, is wrong. It is wrong morally because evil is evil, no matter where it occurs. And it is wrong strategically because we have a direct national security interest wherever fascism rears its ugly head. Take off your Ukraine lapel pins. Take back everything you said to President Zelenskyy. We were in the House when he addressed us. Everyone was anxious to shake his hand and express support. We put it into our Twitter bios. We put on the little lapel pin. We had him in the Old Senate Chamber on a bipartisan basis. Everybody is for Ukraine--unless it is hard. Everybody is for Ukraine--unless I can't get something unrelated on domestic policy. Everybody is for Ukraine when it is popular, when it is the thing that just happened. But the moment Donald J. Trump wants to defund this war, a lot of people go: Oh, my God, maybe I am not so enthusiastic about this. If you are for something, vote for the thing. There are a million other jobs out there where you can be for something and never be put to the test. I have an opinion. I am a guy at a bar. I am a person at a bus stop. It is Sunday night dinner. I have an opinion. But in this job, the way to determine whether or not you are for something is not what you said before the vote, but it is how you voted. And if you are for Ukraine, you have to vote to help Ukraine to defend itself in a land war in Europe. There is a land war in Europe. Vladimir Putin is trying to take Ukraine by force, and he might just do it if we abandon them. So, if you are for Ukraine, vote for Ukraine. I would now like to yield to the senior Senator from New Hampshire, Senator Shaheen.

Mr. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. Madam President, I have eight requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority Leaders. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate: committee on agriculture, nutrition, and forestry The Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, December 6, 2023, at 12:30 p.m., to conduct a business meeting.

Mr. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. I ask unanimous consent that the resolutions be agreed to, the preambles be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon table, all en bloc.

Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 445 and the Senate proceed to the en bloc consideration of the following Senate resolutions: S. Res. 445, S. Res. 487, S. Res. 488, S. Res. 489, and S. Res. 490.

Mr. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate consider the following nomination: Calendar No. 206, Dante Quintin Allen, of California, to be Commissioner of the Rehabilitation Services Administration, Department of Education; that the Senate vote on the nomination without intervening action or debate; that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table; and that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action; and that the Senate resume legislative session.

Mr. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 10 a.m. on Thursday, December 7; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and morning business be closed; that upon conclusion of morning business, the Senate resume consideration of the motion to proceed to Calendar No. 30, H.R. 815; further, that if Senator Paul makes a motion to discharge S.J. Res. 51 from the Committee on Foreign Relations, that the Senate vote on the motion at 11:30 a.m.; further, that the cloture motion filed during yesterday's session ripen at 1:45 p.m.

Mr. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session and the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations be discharged from further consideration of PN802, Jamie Fly to be a Member of the International Broadcasting Advisory Board, and the Senate proceed to the consideration of the following nominations: PN802 and Calendar Nos. 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, and 164, and vote without intervening action or debate, en bloc; that, if confirmed, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Mr. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of S. 3250 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Cornyn amendment at the desk be considered and agreed to; that 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. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. Madam President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order.

Mr. SCHATZ

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

Mr. SCHATZ

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

Mr. SCHATZ. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that we start the vote now.

Mr. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. Madam President, before I begin my prepared remarks, I just want to acknowledge Leader Schumer for his extraordinary, personal, compelling, and essential remarks on the rise of anti- Semitism across the country and across the planet. It was needed; it was accurate; and it touched me. So thank you, Mr. Leader.

Mr. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, in reserving the right to object--and I will be pretty quick here--I have rarely seen such a cynical piece of legislation on the Senate floor. I have rarely seen it. The point that Chris Van Hollen and Chris Murphy made, I think, is the first point, which is, when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. So whenever there is an opportunity to legislate-- even in the foreign policy space, even when we are in a global fight against fascism--the first thing that comes to the mind of many people on the other side of the aisle is, How can we make life easier for the wealthiest among us? Like it has literally got nothing to do with Israel aid or Ukraine aid or Indo Asia-Pacific security matters. Just, whenever you get a chance, throw in an opportunity to enrich the wealthiest among us who are already not paying their fair share of taxes. So that is the frame, right? This is where we start, which is, I have got an idea: We should cut taxes again. I have got an idea: Let's gut the IRS so that they don't have the ability to audit these billionaires, many of whom don't pay taxes in the first place. So that is how you should understand this from the jump. The second thing you should understand is, we really are in a global fight against fascism and authoritarianism. And if there is one thing that I think the last 2 or 3 years--frankly, the last 7 years--has taught us is: Believe what the authoritarians say they want to do. Believe Hamas when they say they want to wipe Israel off the map and that they are not done. Believe Putin when he says that the biggest mistake that the Soviet Union ever made was perestroika and glasnost and all of that. Believe him when he says that after he takes Ukraine, he will turn his eye to the Baltics. Believe all of these people. They do exactly what they have been saying they would do. And here we are hoping--hoping against hope--that maybe they don't mean it; that maybe their ambitions aren't so murderous. They do it every time. And the idea that we would separate these two fights even though these people are aligned--these Fascists are aligned, this authoritarian movement is increasingly aligning itself perhaps because of the internet, perhaps because of globalization--but, whatever it is, there is an actual global Fascist, authoritarian movement, and they are on the march. And the idea that we would fund Israel's security needs and leave Ukraine behind because--what?--Ukraine is in Europe? because Donald Trump doesn't like Ukraine aid? because it is getting hard? because it is getting tiring? because it is getting expensive? Listen to those arguments. My God. This man wants to take Europe and has a plan to do so. As Senator Bennet said--and this is a key point--God bless these Ukrainian fighters. They are the ones fighting and dying. They are the ones spilling blood to keep Europe peaceful, to establish that nobody can change the boundaries of a country using violence only. God bless them for doing this. God bless them for their sacrifice, for their ingenuity, for, frankly, exceeding everybody's reasonable expectations. God bless them for their sacrifice. All they need from us are resources. We are the wealthiest country in the history of humankind, and we are saying: It is a little too long. We haven't won yet. Trump doesn't like it. This is kind of getting expensive. What a bunch of terrible arguments in the scheme of things. What a bunch of terrible arguments. When we look back 20, 30, 50 years from now at this debate, no one is going to ask whether this was emergency spending or in a supplemental or in the regular appropriations process or in a CR or in a CR and omnibus. They are just going to ask: Did we stand with the free world like Americans always do? So this has gotten me a little angry. This has gotten me a little frustrated because I just thought--I really did think--and I am not naive--but I really did think that on an issue like this, we could put our partisanship aside; we could put our fealty to either our current President or to the former President aside and just say: Look, this is good for the free world; we are just going to do it together. I now, with the Presiding Officer's permission, through the Chair, defer to the President pro tempore.

Mr. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, this is a personal attack on a public servant, and it should be rejected. To be clear, Ann Carlson is legally authorized to serve as the Acting Administrator of NHTSA under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act. But what this amendment would do is set an alarming precedent in the Senate that, if you have a political or policy disagreement with a particular administration policy, you can take the public servant who is in charge of implementing it and take their salary hostage. And if the issue is that she hasn't been confirmed by the Senate, let's remember that in the last administration we had two different Acting Administrators working for months without being Senate confirmed, and it is no surprise that the ranking member of the Commerce Committee didn't object to them because he agreed with their policy. It is fine for you to disagree with fuel efficiency incentives. It is fine for you to never want to move on from the internal combustion engine and to oppose the electric vehicle revolution. That is fine. What is not OK is the U.S. Senate coming in and defunding a position of an Administrator with whom you disagree. And I want you all to think about this, Republicans. I want you all to think about this, Democrats. There will be times, as Claire McCaskill used to say, that ``the door swings both ways in Washington.'' So let's think very carefully about whether we want to set a precedent where the U.S. Senate defunds public servants with whom we disagree. This amendment should be rejected. Vote on Amendment No. 1296