Social Security Fairness Act of 2023

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, last week, I spoke about some of President Trump's nominees to unleash American energy dominance. Today, I would like to highlight another issue and some of his great picks to help lead his agenda.

For one thing, I am very excited about his partnership with my fellow Texan, Elon Musk, who will help lead the newly created Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE.

We have reached a point as a nation where it is almost a cliche to say our spending has become out of control. We all know that, but doing anything about it seems to be elusive, to say the least. It is a problem that we are all aware of but is one that many are afraid to make the hard decisions to do anything about.

Our Nation's debt has skyrocketed to more than $36 trillion. That is a number that none of us can possibly conceive of in terms of the magnitude of that debt. What we do know is we are now spending more money for interest on the national debt than we are on the defense of our Nation--something that is unsustainable. But what is lesser known is that 61 percent of the Federal

budget is mandatory spending, which means it is on autopilot, and we rarely go back and revisit it to make sure that this spending program, this mandatory spending program, is still a priority. There is no cap on it, no cost-of-living index, nothing of the nature to control the costs, so they tend to grow at 5, 6, 7, 8 percent a year. Well, this is no longer acceptable, if it ever was, because it is not sustainable. We have to do something about it, and I think we have a generational opportunity to do just that come January.

But if you look at the other piece of the pie, only 26 percent of our budget is discretionary. We fight over continuing resolutions and appropriations bills here in the Senate, which represent 26 percent of the money that the Federal Government spends, and act sometimes like, well, we need to balance the budget, but in dealing with 26 percent of the spending, that is obviously a fool's errand.

The other 13 percent is interest on the national debt. Just think about the trillion dollars a year that we spend on interest on the national debt. If we did not have a $36 trillion debt, if we didn't have to pay that interest, what good could be done with that trillion dollars a year? We have almost reached the point where our interest payments, of course, as I said, have actually eclipsed defense spending, and that is obviously never a good place to be.

Where we spend what we spend is almost as important as how much we spend. Let me say that again. Where we spend what we spend is almost as important as how much we spend. I have never been one to believe that it is just a matter, in terms of judging our national security, that we need to spend X amount of dollars, because that doesn't really tell you much about how those dollars are spent.

One of the things I am hoping the new administration can do, being disruptors, opposing the status quo, is that we can see some real changes at the Pentagon and in terms of equipping our warfighters with the most modern, most effective weapons and weapons systems that they need in order to restore deterrence.

I think it is obvious--and I think the selection is a referendum on this--that we need to take a look in the mirror and look at our pocketbook and have a reckoning. For this reason, I am excited to work with Elon Musk and his cochairman, Vivek Ramaswamy, who is a founding member of the DOGE Caucus, here in the Senate. Now, I don't imagine that they are going to be able to unilaterally cut out the waste and inefficiency in the Federal Government because obviously they are not part of the legislature, but I do believe they can highlight ways that we can cut waste and inefficiency. Whether it is the President through Executive order or whether it is the Congress through Congressional Review Acts or through other legislation, we can join them in cutting our spending and making the tax dollar that is spent here be spent more efficiently in accordance with our priorities as a nation. So I look forward to working with both of them and our House colleagues on the DOGE Caucus--first to identify the low-hanging fruit.

Now, there have already been some good ideas that we have seen floated. For example, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget recently found that simply reversing every one of President Biden's Executive orders could save taxpayers up to $1.4 trillion.

You know, it is a sad day when we who are supposed to have the purse strings have relinquished to the Executive the ability to basically obligate the Nation to spend $1.4 trillion through Executive orders. There is something terribly out of whack about that. We are the ones who should control the purse strings of the Nation and be the ones accountable to the voters for how we spend that money, but that has gotten terribly out of whack, as I said.

For the most part, these Executive actions are things that folks on this side of the Chamber agree we should reverse. For example, simply preventing the implementation of President Biden's rule limiting vehicle carbon emissions--effectively an electric vehicle mandate-- would save $150 billion. I have never understood the wisdom of low- and middle-income taxpayers subsidizing wealthy people to buy expensive cars, which is what the mandate provides.

While there is incredible innovation in the healthcare space, blocking the Biden administration rule to allow Medicare to cover GLP-1 obesity drugs would save $40 billion. Now, I, for one, think that is a fascinating topic and one we need to explore more in depth, but I do oppose the President's doing this unilaterally before Congress has had a chance to do our due diligence to see ``Does this save money? What is the impact on the public health?'' rather than President Biden, with the swipe of his pen, spending $40 billion.

Then there is the so-called Thrifty Food Plan update that increased SNAP benefits. We have been debating the farm bill, which is about 80 percent of nutrition benefits and very little benefit to our farmers, but President Biden again, with a swipe of his pen, obligated us to spend another $180 billion.

It is a little ironic, to say the least, that we spend billions of dollars on food stamps and nutrition programs that could be used to buy who knows what and then turn around and spend billions of dollars more on obesity drugs to help Americans who are overweight. There is something strange about that juxtaposition.

But another simple but effective way of eliminating waste would be to eliminate COVID-era work policies for employees in Federal Agencies. My friend and our colleague Senator Ernst of Iowa has pointed out that taxpayers continue to pick up the tab for the upkeep of Federal buildings that are, by and large, empty.

The Government Accountability Office conducted a study that found that 75 percent or more of the office space for DC headquarters of Federal Agencies is not even being used--75 percent.

At the same time, the people who rely on these Agencies for services--the public--are often faced with extended wait times due to Federal employees working remotely. I hear it on a daily basis from my constituents, as I am sure many others in this Chamber have as well.

Veterans are calling the Veterans' Administration, and they are waiting for callbacks. Taxpayers are trying to file their tax returns correctly, and they face long wait times at the IRS.

In the meantime, an internal review of the Department of Health and Human Services found that as many as 30 percent of the employees of that huge Agency ``did not appear to be working'' on ``any given day'' during the pandemic and thereafter.

Now the pandemic is over, but those same working arrangements seem to have carried the day and seem to have continued without a thought to what it means in terms of efficiently providing the services that these government Agencies and these employees are supposed to provide.

The Office of Personnel Management has found that now that the pandemic is over, only one in three Federal employees is fully back in the office. If we required Federal employees to come into the office 5 days a week, as we should, there would likely be a number of voluntary terminations. This is something I think we should welcome. If Federal employees don't want to show up for work, then American taxpayers should not have to pay them.

Of course, there is an obvious first step that we should take here in the Senate, and that is to pass the budget come January which provides the reconciliation instructions we need in order to do more work that needs to be done.

Given the fact that Republicans now have the majority in the House and the Senate and the White House, it is not an opportunity we should squander. We must not squander it.

When Democrats had this opportunity, they used it to pass the so- called Inflation Reduction Act, which, as I pointed out time and time again, did not actually reduce inflation. It went to a 40-year high and is still high.

Now, set aside the ridiculous notion that you can reduce inflation by massive spending--something Milton Friedman, I am sure, is spinning in his grave at that concept--Democrats also set a new precedent by working around the longstanding prohibition on making policy changes in a budget resolution, the so-called Byrd rule or law, which says that you have to get 60 votes to make policy changes, and you can only do budgetary matters through

budget reconciliation using a majority vote in the U.S. Senate. But this is now a precedent of the Senate that we have at our disposal when it is time for us to pass the budget resolution. I am hopeful we can use this vehicle as an opportunity to reform some of our mandatory spending outside of Social Security and Medicare.

I have always been a proponent of reevaluating the money we spend. This is something that every family in America, every business in America, has to do on a regular basis. We don't do it here, and we need to start, especially with this looming debt and this unsustainable amount of money that we are spending on interest on that debt, when we could and should be spending it on other programs or returning those resources back to the American people in terms of lower taxes.

I look forward to working with the DOGE committee and all of our efforts to identify and eliminate areas of government waste, rein in reckless and wasteful spending, and improve the lives of Texans and all Americans in the process.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I rise to congratulate all of my colleagues for passing a piece of legislation that is going to make the whole country happy and a beautiful place.

The Senate passed a bill that I sponsored with my friend Senator Capito to name a 2,700-acre parcel of land in the Monongahela National Forest after Mrs. Patsye Crites.

I want to thank my colleagues here in the Senate for agreeing to this bill, as well as express my support for the completing of a land sale to put this land in the hands of the Forest Service and preserve it for the public in perpetuity.

Earlier this year, the Forest Service reached an agreement with John Crites and his family to purchase this spectacular land along the Blackwater River, which we call the Blackwater Canyon.

This is what we call Lindy Point, and it is unbelievable. And the foliage just bursts alive, like a kaleidoscope of colors. It is just gorgeous.

It is one of the most beautiful pieces of property, I think, anywhere in the country. Of course, I am a little personal on that. You can see, just one glimpse behind me, within an already popular area, hikers and outdoorsmen from across the country. And down in the valley, there is Blackwater River, which has great fishing, as far as trout fishing. We enjoy that very much.

The purchase agreement for this property will be a huge win for the Mountain State and the Nation by ensuring that people are able to enjoy more of wild and wonderful West Virginia, as well as support our booming tourism economy.

Let me take a moment to describe how this agreement and the naming came together.

This land was privately owned by John Crites and his family and his wonderful wife of 54 years, Patsye. The entire Crites family have been incredible stewards of this land, and I can think of no better way to honor their work than to name the track after Patsye, who truly loved the outdoors and this remarkable canyon, in particular.

Unfortunately, Patsye passed away in 2018. But she was an incredible--an incredible--West Virginian and represents some of the best qualities in our Mountain State of the great people we have and what they have to offer.

Patsye and John were leaders in responsible forestry and hardwood production in our State for more than 50 years--unbelievable contributions to the State of West Virginia. Her business acumen, however, never came along with a hard heart. Everyone who ever met Patsye or knew Patsye knew her as gentle, warm, and an extraordinary loving person.

Senator Capito and I, the Forest Service, and the local community all agree that this parcel should be named the Patsye Crites Forest.

I cannot think of a more fitting tribute to this exemplary West Virginian.

Once again, I want to thank my colleagues for agreeing to pass this bill, and I urge the House to follow our lead.

I want to especially thank the Crites family--John and his children and his grandchildren--for making sure that generations to come will be able to visit the Patsye Crites Forest and enjoy it just as she did.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to enter into a colloquy with my friend, Senator Cruz from Texas.

Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of the 476,000 West Virginians who rely on Social Security benefits. Majorities of our seniors in every State rely on Social Security benefits, and we know that we are in trouble.

The Senate is considering the Social Security Fairness Act, which would repeal the windfall elimination provision and government pension offset from the Social Security benefit calculation, providing relief for many public employees who have been adversely impacted.

Now, make no mistake: We have a problem. We all agree. The status quo is unfair, and it penalizes millions of hard-working Americans--whether it is teachers, firefighters, police officers, among others. But we also have an obligation to honor our promises to ensure that Social Security is going to be there for the people who have paid into it and have earned it and also for those generations who come afterward.

We can fix this problem without blowing a hole in the Social Security trust fund. This is a $200 billion pricetag, and we can fix that without having any--any--effect on our budget; but it is just unbelievable that no one seems really concerned about what we have in the debt we are facing.

One of my first meetings here and hearings I had gone to--and this was in early 2011--was for the Armed Services Committee.

I asked Admiral Mike Mullen--I said: Chairman Mullen--the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff--what is the greatest threat facing America?

And I am thinking I am going to hear about the military powers from around the world. He never hesitated one second.

He said: The debt of the Nation will bring us down first.

The debt of our nations has brought down every--every--major society in history, and that is exactly what we are on track to do.

We have a fiscal crisis in this country right now, and no one is talking about it. On either side of the aisle, we are not talking about it. In fiscal year 2013, our Federal spending was less than $3.5 trillion. In fiscal year 2023--10 years later--it is $6.1 trillion. That is a 75-percent increase. No one can withstand that. Last year's total revenues were $4.4 trillion, which left us with a deficit of $1.7 trillion--the largest deficit in U.S. history since the pandemic.

We have been spending more than we bring in every year for the last 22 years, and the debt that has resulted from it is absolutely crippling. Most Americans couldn't even last 22 paychecks, let alone 22 years of spending more than they have brought in. Years of fiscal irresponsibility have brought us to the crisis we are in today, which is more than $36 trillion of national debt. That breaks down to $104,000 for every man, woman, and child in this great country of ours--a $104,000 liability on every human citizen in the United States of America.

It is terrifying to think that at the end of the fiscal year, we are going to spend more on paying just the interest--just the interest--on our debt than we do to defend our country. This is the crisis we are facing, and we are going into this blindly.

It passed overwhelmingly, with cloture, 72 votes. It is unbelievable that no one is even thinking about what we can do and how we can do it better. There is a problem, and we can fix the problem.

The government makes tough choices. I don't need to tell you all that. But, however, as matters stand, we are now choosing to ignore the fiscal crisis again. If this thing hits the wall, that means it increases 6 months. It advances the insolvency of Social Security 6 more months.

We are trying to figure out how we can save Social Security, and we are not doing a thing for the people and fixing the problem we have that is within our means to do so.

Our amendment would replace the WEP-GPO with a proportional benefit formula, ensuring the public workers receive their appropriate benefits, which we recognize has been denied. We recognize that.

The Social Security trust fund is currently projected to become insolvent in 2033--2033, less than 10 years. We lead the country with the highest percentage of our population receiving Social Security benefits. There are a tremendous amount of people in Texas depending on it the same as my State of West Virginia. We need to make sure retirees are receiving their fair share, and we cannot do it at the expense of all beneficiaries and future generations.

I urge my colleagues to listen to my colleague here, my friend, the Senator from Texas, and how he has come

about putting this together, working together, knowing that it is something that can be done. It is a heck of a fix. We would hope that you would all support this amendment and be able to basically make a responsible--fiscally responsible--fix to a very serious problem that we have: keeping the solvency of Social Security for generations to come and taking care of the generation that now is basically depending upon it.

With that, I yield the floor to my friend.

Would the Senator yield?

Let me just say that I think what happened is we have a bill that is hard to vote against. It really is. And I understand why there were 73 Senators who voted for it.

Senator Cruz has had this and worked diligently for many years on this, to fix the WEP. The bottom line is, it never came to committee here. It came out of the House and came right to the floor.

Now, whether they thought it was a feel-good vote or whatever, the only thing I am saying is, it is not a responsible position for us to take with the debt that we are carrying now and complicating it by adding more and more on.

We all talk about the fiscal responsibilities. Every one of us have fiscal responsibilities in our home--every one of our family members, every one of our constituents. We seem to have no constraint here whatsoever. And we saw that $200 billion pricetag on this.

Is there a better way? You can be against something if you don't have a better way of fixing it. We basically have posed this piece of legislation because we can fix the inequities done.

That can be done and taking care of the people who got left behind and got shortchanged. We identify it. The bottom line is, we have a fix for it. Let us fix it.

If you wanted to fix it and have a good bill, you should have put it in committee. If it is not, it is going to be done next year with a commitment from the majority party. Let it be fixed, but don't throw another $180 billion on top of it as debt--it is just irresponsible-- and then tell your grandparents or your aunts and uncles who are depending on that Social Security check, like almost 500,000 West Virginians, that, you know, sorry, in 2032 now--maybe almost 6 months to a year earlier--you are going to have a 20-percent cut in your Social Security payment.

So if they are getting a thousand dollars a month, they are going to get $800 in the next check. Why did it happen? How come? How can you let this happen?

We can fix that. We really can. All we are asking for is a consideration of this body to fix it and fix it right, take care of the inequities, take care of the people who have been shortchanged, but also take care of the people who are depending on this Social Security to be solvent.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Smith for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, I listened to this debate and heard so many things that are simply misunderstandings or maybe just intentionally telling things that aren't true.

When I was growing up, my mom used to ask me: ``Is it going to take an act of Congress for you to clean your room?'' She would say it all the time. ``Is it going to take an act of Congress for you to clean your room?'' I didn't know what she meant because I thought my room was pretty clean.

What she meant is: Is it going to take the Earth, wind, stars, and mountains all moving in order for you to act?

Mr. Speaker, this has been 40 years of treating people differently, discriminating against a certain set of workers.

These are police officers, teachers, firefighters, and other public servants. Mr. Speaker, I worked side by side with these folks. They are not people who are overpaid. They are not people who are underworked.

Think about the crime issue, the defund the police issue, the safety of our communities. Police officers are integral to our State. They are integral to our Nation. We need to treat them fairly, respectfully. That means not treating them differently and discriminating against them and their benefits.

Teachers are the ones who train the next generation. Firefighters-- who are you going to call when your house is on fire? These are the very people whose benefits we are cutting.

Mr. Speaker, I have heard people sit here and say the solvency of this Social Security trust fund is going to move forward 6 months with this bill. Mr. Speaker, the solvency has been delayed years because you have stolen from these people. Do you not understand math? This number right here--the Congressional Budget Office, $195 billion--do you know what that number is? That is the number that you are going to be stealing from these same public servants over the next 10 years if you don't fix this.

Mr. Speaker, we can sit here and talk about all of these numbers and math. Here is the reality. Probably somewhere between $600 billion and $700 billion in Social Security benefits from police officers, teachers, firefighters, and other public servants has been stolen. If we don't pass this, the Congressional Budget Office says we are going to steal another $995 billion.

An interesting nugget that was in the Congressional Budget Office's evaluation is they also said if we actually pass this law, we are going to save money on social welfare programs because we are going to lift people out of poverty. They will no longer be dependent upon our social welfare programs.

Mr. Speaker, we can't keep doing this. I heard people talking about penalizing people and taxes and all of that stuff. Let me tell you what is happening. There is a group of people right now that effectively is paying a higher tax than anyone else. That is what is happening. It is the reason why the Social Security trust fund is going to remain solvent for years longer. It is unfair. It is unjust.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to say it again. This is a community of people who cannot afford this. This is a community of people who are some of the hardest working folks in our community, and they have been stolen from for 40 years.

Mr. Speaker, very simply, here is the scenario. Let's say that Chairman Smith and I were both security guards. We were paid the same amount of money over the same period of time. After 20 years, I say that I am out. I go back and help raise a family. Chairman Smith goes on to become a sheriff's deputy. He does it for 10 years.

When we retire on the same exact date, my Social Security benefits may be $1,500 to $1,800 more. Why? We paid the same amount for same period of time into the Social Security trust fund.

Mr. Speaker, look, there are folks who have tried to throw up other legislation and say that these other alternatives are the right way to go. There is one bill in this Congress that has a majority of Republicans and a majority of Democrats. I don't know the number right now. I know that, recently, it was the most cosponsored bill in all of Congress. With over 12,000 bills introduced, it was the most cosponsored bill.

Mr. Speaker, do you know what? We didn't go through the regular committee process. I do want to thank Chairman Smith for working with us. Do you know what we did? We had a hearing in Louisiana. We had a hearing in Washington, D.C. We negotiated for months, trying to get there. We couldn't.

Mr. Speaker, there is one package that has the support of the majority of Republicans and the majority of Democrats that will fix this once and for all. How in the world are we trying to beat up on the bill that is the most cosponsored bill in Congress?

My friend, Mr. Larson, was talking about the divisiveness, the polarization. My gosh, we have finally come together on something.

Mr. Speaker, let's pass this bill. Let's show America that we can do what is right and what is just. Let's make sure this bill gets through the Senate and to the President's desk and that it doesn't take another 40 years to do what is right.

Mr. Speaker, this bill has been amazing. I will say it again. At one point it has been the most cosponsored bill in Congress, 330 cosponsors. This bill has a majority of the majority.

There is one Social Security fix bill that has a majority of the majority as cosponsors. There is one bill that has the Speaker of the House as a cosponsor that fixes this. There is one bill that has the majority leader of the House as a cosponsor that fixes this. There is one bill that will truly solve this problem after 40 years of stealing from police officers, from teachers, from firefighters, and others, and it is H.R. 82.

Now, Mr. Speaker, at home a lot of people are probably confused, and, quite frankly, a lot of Members of Congress are probably confused.

Why are there two different bills that we are voting on today?

I will be very clear: One bill, H.R. 82, actually fixes the problem. I appreciate the efforts of my friend from Texas working to try to solve this. The bill doesn't do it.

Let me just give you one little story, one little anecdote, to make it clear.

Today, Mr. Speaker, if you have a police officer killed in the line of duty, that widow, that spouse, gets zero in spousal benefits in Social Security. If we pass the other bill that was introduced that was suddenly thrown up and put on the agenda, if we pass that legislation, that spouse will continue to get nothing. The widow of a police officer killed in the line of duty, the spousal benefits will still be zero.

According to all of the groups that are out there supporting this legislation that are identified on this poster here, the other bill, H.R. 5342, would actually benefit 1 million and result in cuts to 14 million retirees.

Let me say it another way. You vote ``yes'' on H.R. 5342, you are voting to cut Social Security benefits. If you want to go home and explain that, have at it. There is one bill that solves the problem.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, Congresswoman Spanberger, for being a great partner. I thank Logan De La Barre-Hays, Shaun, Ben, Mark, and Maggie Ayrea, and the staff folks for being so helpful. While the chairman and I were unable to get to an agreement, a consensus on this, I thank Chairman Smith for his tireless efforts to fix this.

Lastly, Mr. Speaker, I want to say it one more time. There is one bill--one bill--that has the support of police officers, teachers, firefighters, and all the other retirees. I urge support for H.R. 82.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record letters of support from the Federal-Postal Coalition, the Fraternal Order of Police, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, the National Association of Police Organizations, the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, NARFE, the International Association of Fire Fighters, and the American Federation of Government Employees.

Federal-Postal Coalition,

November 12, 2024.

Dear Representative: As Chair of the Federal-Postal

Coalition, an organization of over thirty labor unions and

management associations representing the interests of current

and retired federal and postal employees, I urge you to vote

in favor of H.R. 82, the Social Security Fairness Act, when

it is brought up on suspension.

As you are aware, the Social Security Fairness Act would

repeal the Government Pension Offset (GPO) and Windfall

Elimination Provision (WEP). These policies from the 1970s

unfairly target the earned Social Security benefits of our

nation's public servants, including a substantial portion of

our country's federal retirees.

GPO and WEP reduce the hard-earned retirement benefits from

public sector employees at the federal, state and local

levels whose work is not covered by Social Security. GPO

targets and reduces spousal and survival Social Security

benefits, which disproportionately impacts widows and

widowers. Currently, widow's benefits are reduced by $2 for

every $3 earned if the widow is eligible for a pension based

on a public sector job that was not covered by Social

Security. WEP can result in a monthly Social Security benefit

as much as $512 1ess than under the regular benefit formula,

drastically reducing the amount of fixed income for a retiree

to live on.

Repeal of these provisions is long overdue. Social Security

is a critical source of income for our nation's retirees, but

we have allowed needless discrimination against retired

public servants for far too long. These individuals paid

Social Security taxes in connection with covered work (e.g.,

in the private sector), earning their Social Security

benefits. Yet because they chose careers in public service

and earned a pension through that service, their earned

Social Security benefits are significantly reduced--or even

eliminated. These penalties discourage public service and

hamper the retirement security of those with long careers

benefiting this nation.

Now it is time for the House to take action to address

these longstanding inequities and vote yes on H.R. 82.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Katie Maddocks,

Federal-Postal Coalition Chair.

Mr. Speaker, all of these groups are supporting this bill and urging a ``no'' vote on the other bill, H.R. 5342.

Madam President, I am going to make some comments in regard to the energy policy for the United States. But, first, I would like to make a couple of comments, starting with commenting in regard to my good friend and colleague from West Virginia Senator Manchin.

Senator Manchin is the current chair of the Energy Committee, and I am on that Energy Committee. And I am going to reference two pieces of legislation--two bills--which just passed the Senate. I am going to start by thanking him as chairman of the Energy Committee because, without his help--and he supported both of these bills--but without his help and agreeing to bring them to the committee to get them passed through the committee so that they could be on the floor here and we could pass them on the floor, which we just said, it wouldn't have happened.

So, Mr. Chairman--Chairman Manchin--thank you, once again, for your support.

And I would further note for the record that Senator Manchin and I actually were Governors together for--I don't know--two terms, at least--6 years. That sounds right. We crossed over 6 years, and we worked together. And Joe developed a reputation as somebody who would work with anybody--and did--and he was always cheerful about it and fun to work with and was really good at bringing people together from both sides of the aisle.

He certainly developed that reputation as Governor and brought it to the Senate. He and I worked together here for 14 years on a whole number of things, including, in 2013, passing S. 1, which was the Keystone XL Pipeline. And that is just one example.

I know that he is leaving the Senate at the end of this year. And all of us will very much miss both Joe and Gayle. They are just incredibly good people. I know there are a lot of folks who have and will continue to say a lot of nice things about the Manchins, all well-deserved, about his acumen at passing legislation, working across the aisle--all of those things and more. I just want to make sure that the Record reflects that he is a great guy.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it.

North Dakota Trust Lands Completion Acts

Madam President, the two bills that I want to reference that we just passed are the North Dakota Trust Lands Completion Act and then, also, the Theodore Roosevelt Presidential Library Act, and just a few brief comments on each.

The North Dakota Trust Lands Completion Act, actually, will help my home State better develop its land and minerals to support education and also to provide Tribal nations--we have five reservations in North Dakota. But it will also help provide those Tribal nations greater ownership over the lands within their reservation boundaries.

Senator Cramer, my colleague from North Dakota, joined me in introducing this important legislation, and, also, Kelly Armstrong, who is actually the current Governor, on the House side, worked on it as well.

Currently, North Dakota holds more than 130,000 acres of minerals and over 31,000 surface acres that are located within Tribal reservations. They are not developed because they are located--they are State-owned, but they are within the boundaries of the reservation. So they are not being developed.

So this bill is absolutely a win-win by helping our State generate revenue for education and other priorities, while allowing the Tribes to regain the fragmented lands and minerals located within their boundaries, because we are trading. We are trading land for outside the reservation for ownership within the reservation, which is going to help development both on the reservation and off. So it truly is a win- win. It is a win for the Tribes and a win for our State as well.

And it is supported by the State of North Dakota, by the Tribal nations, all of the Tribes within our State, and all of the western counties and the grazing associations that are involved in our State.

We have multiple use throughout the Federal lands and the other lands--private lands, Federal lands, BLM lands, national grasslands-- but this is a great example of how we all worked together and accomplished a win-win.

So I want to thank my cosponsor on the bill, Ben Ray Lujan, the Senator from New Mexico--or as we like to affectionately call him, ``Ray-Ban''--and, also, Richard Blumenthal, Peter Welch, and Senator John Cornyn, who were helpful today in getting this completed.

Theodore Roosevelt Presidential Library Act

Madam President, the other bill is the Theodore Roosevelt Presidential Library Act. Teddy Roosevelt first traveled to the Dakota Territory in 1838 to hunt bison. It is bison, by the way. Some people say ``bi-son''; but it is ``bi-zon,'' and it is our national mammal--at least that is how we say it. Anyway, he went there to hunt bison and returned in 1884 while mourning the passing of both his wife and his mother.

President Roosevelt called the Dakota Territory home for 3 years while he enjoyed the vast beauty that the Badlands have to offer. As President Roosevelt proudly claimed, he would not have ascended to the Presidency had it not been for his formative years in North Dakota.

Fittingly, the Theodore Roosevelt Presidential Library will be located adjacent to another important national treasure named in his honor--and that is the purpose here. The Theodore Roosevelt National Park is in North Dakota, and now his library will be as well. I think we have already exceeded more than $250 million--already over a quarter billion dollars--being raised for this library. We have broken ground, and we had a beam-laying ceremony. It is going to be just unbelievable, just unbelievable.

This S. 4129 will help support the construction of this important initiative to honor our Nation's 26th President and ensure that future generations of Americans can access the rich history and enduring impact of President Theodore Roosevelt.

Again, I want to thank my bipartisan colead on the legislation, Senator Blumenthal, along with cosponsors Senator Cramer, Senator Heinrich, and Senator Mitt Romney.

Clean Coal

Madam President, I would like to turn to some remarks regarding our national energy policy, specifically clean coal.

If you saw President-elect Trump's interview recently, he talked about clean coal and the amazing technology that we are bringing to bear to utilize this baseload power source that is so vitally, vitally important to our Nation, not just in terms of energy independence but, really, energy dominance for our country. During his press

conference, I was pleased to hear President Trump highlight our shared commitment to restore America's energy dominance and that clean coal is going to be a vitally important part of it. He emphasized that, and I appreciate it very much.

He talked about how it is reliable, affordable, and incredibly abundant--an energy source that is going to be available for many, many, many years. North Dakota alone has over 700 years of coal supply, and our coal-fired electric industry works to ensure that homes and businesses have access to affordable and reliable power on a 24-hours- a-day, 7-days-a-week basis--baseload. Regardless of weather conditions--on the hottest day, on the coldest day, whether the wind is blowing or whether it is not; whether the Sun is out or whether it is not--24/7, that baseload is available and is incredibly important for our grid. That is what provides grid stability for intermittent sources of energy. The fact remains that our Nation needs more energy, not only more electricity but more baseload electricity, as I say, so that it is available 24/7 and so that our grid can operate in a reliable fashion.

North Dakota is fortunate to have the most advanced--and this is where the clean-coal technology really comes in. North Dakota really is in a position and is leading the way on this. We are fortunate to have the most advanced coal-fired power plants in the world while also leading the way in reducing emissions like SOX, NOX, and mercury--so, SO2, nitrogen oxides, and mercury. We are reducing those emissions. We have led the way on that.

To meet this growing demand for more energy, we have been working to crack the code on carbon capture, utilization, and storage, or CCUS, and enable the next generation of clean, coal-fired electric power. We have worked over the past 15 years to put the legal, tax, and regulatory environment in place to establish North Dakota's leadership in advancing carbon capture.

North Dakota became the first State to be granted regulatory primacy for class VI wells to ensure CO2 is safely and securely stored below the surface. We recently secured a multihundred-million- dollar demonstration grant from the Department of Energy to advance Project Tundra, which will enable the coal-fired Milton R. Young power plant to capture and store 4 million metric tons of CO2 per year.

At the same time, we have worked hard to put into operation the largest coal-powered carbon capture energy project in the world. Basin's Dakota Gasification synfuels plant is currently in operation and will capture up to 2.25 million metric tons of CO2 per year. Let me repeat that: 2.25 million metric tons of CO2 per year--the largest in the world.

I look forward to working with President Trump to take the handcuffs off of our energy producers and empower them to develop the latest, greatest technologies to produce more energy with better environmental stewardship.

This really is about unleashing our Nation's vast coal reserves and one of our country's most important strategic assets. By leveraging technology and unlocking clean coal's full potential, we will be able to increase the supply of affordable, reliable electricity and bring down the prices for American families and businesses that are struggling with the impact of inflation.

North Dakota is leading the way in clean coal technologies, and this will be an important part of our efforts, in working with the Trump administration, to make America not only energy secure but energy dominant.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, last week, Joe Biden commuted the sentences of nearly 1,500 convicted criminals, including drug dealers, fraudsters, and corrupt public officials. These are not sympathetic figures. These are individuals who stole from the poor and poisoned the sick. They tore families apart and menaced communities. They were sent to jail. They belong in jail.

With this action, Joe Biden didn't just reward 1,500 criminals; he robbed hundreds of thousands of victims of the closure and justice they deserve. The cruelty of these commutations is only matched by the shameless incompetence of the administration that issued them. This administration admitted--it admitted--that Joe Biden didn't individually review these cases or, for that matter, did anyone else individually review the cases. Yet he nullified the verdict of thousands of jurors and judges anyway. He also disrespected the countless man-hours that Federal law enforcement and prosecutors dedicated to solving these cases.

The whole purpose of the Presidential pardon power is to correct individual and limited failures of the criminal justice system. It is in the nature of the power in government itself. We are a legislature. We make generally applicable prospective laws for everyone. Can those laws, in certain cases, yield unjust outcomes? Yes, of course. That is the nature of the legislative power, and the reason an Executive has the pardon power, is to mitigate that injustice in specific, particular cases. It is not to make generally applicable pardons in a broad set of parameters, as White House officials have caused here--certainly not to blindly free hundreds of duly convicted criminals.

These blanket commutations demonstrate a gross contempt for our legal system and its traditions. To put President Biden's actions in context, he issued more commutations in a single day than Donald Trump, George Bush, and Bill Clinton issued in their entire Presidencies--combined.

Let's just talk about a few of the beneficiaries of Joe Biden's jailbreak: Jacqueline Mills stole $3 million that was intended for hungry Arkansas kids and low-income families.

Dr. Meera Sachdeva defrauded Medicare by diluting chemotherapy drugs and reusing old needles on cancer patients. At least one patient--at least one--contracted HIV as a result.

Fraudster Paul Burks ran a nearly $1 billion Ponzi scheme that robbed 900,000 investors of their money.

Drug dealer Wendy Hechtman and her husband manufactured and distributed superdeadly carfentanil, unleashing an epidemic of drug overdoses in Omaha.

Another drug dealer, Daniel Fillerup, killed a 31-year-old relapsing addict by selling her fentanyl, which is 50 times stronger than the heroin she thought she was buying.

Shaquan Hemingway trafficked heroin, fentanyl, cocaine, methamphetamine, and guns for the vicious Jalisco New Generation Cartel.

Joe Biden even commuted the sentence of a serial killer, Virginia Gray, who is known as the ``Black Widow'' for murdering two husbands and a boyfriend and collecting insurance money.

Perhaps the President would have reconsidered this decision if he knew anything about Ms. Gray, but he didn't because, yet again, he and White House officials did not review individual cases on the merits. They didn't pick up the case file. They didn't talk to victims or families.

Then there is the parade of corrupt public officials, the worst of whom is Michael Conahan, the so-called ``cash for kids'' judge who accepted kickbacks in exchange for his role in sending more than 2,300 children to private detention centers, including an 8-year-old. Again, a judge in Pennsylvania sentenced more than 2,300 children to private juvenile detention centers in return for cash kickbacks. One man he sent to jail later killed himself. He was just 23 years old. His mother said that she is shocked and hurt by Joe Biden's commutation. Yet again, the President did not review the case individually.

President Biden also commuted the sentence of an Ohio commissioner who took $450,000 in bribes. He even commuted the sentence of Rita Crundwell, a city comptroller from Illinois who embezzled $54 million. Crundwell was responsible for not only the biggest city embezzlement scandal in the history of Illinois, she was responsible for the biggest municipal embezzlement scandal in the history of America up to that time.

Now, I understand that we have disagreements about criminal justice, and the Democrats don't always share my view on these things, but for years, we have heard lectures about the rule of law and how Joe Biden and Democrats are the defenders of democracy. Yet Joe Biden is the one commuting the sentences of the very public officials who most threaten the public trust in our democracy.

The American people also know that Joe Biden issued these commutations for a simple reason: It helps cover up the corrupt pardon that he issued to his corrupt son to protect his family.

I think we should condemn all of these pardons and certainly condemn the President for not individually reviewing the merits of the cases. But again, I understand my Democratic colleagues don't agree with that, so I only offer a resolution to condemn one pardon--simply one--maybe the worst of them all, the commutation of Michael Conahan, the ``cash for kids'' judge who took cash kickbacks and bribes to sentence more than 2,300 kids to private detention centers--the judge who put American children in jail for money. Surely, the Senate can condemn this single act of corrupt clemency.

Therefore, notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 935, which is at the desk; further, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to; that 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.

I heard a lot of very troubling cases from the Senator from Illinois. And it is true, I generally think Presidents have given out improvidential pardons over time, and I am not going to defend many of those cases of pardons. For instance, I am not going to defend Jimmy Carter pardoning draft dodgers indiscriminately, mostly rich and privileged kids who didn't do their duty, when poor kids from places like Yell County, AR, or south Little Rock were doing their duty in Vietnam like my father was.

But we are not here to talk about Vietnam draft dodgers or who President Trump pardoned or who he might pardon. There is a resolution pending on the floor that specifically condemns Michael Conahan, the ``cash for kids'' judge, who took cash kickbacks to sentence children to private juvenile detention centers.

Some words about this judge:

I do feel strongly that President Biden got it absolutely

wrong and created a lot of panic.

Some children took their lives because of this.

Frankly, I thought the sentence the judge got was too

light.

He deserved to be behind bars, not walking as a free man.

Strong words. Not my words. Those are the words of Pennsylvania's Democratic Governor Josh Shapiro who, again, called Joe Biden's clemency decision absolutely wrong.

The senior Senator from Minnesota joined Governor Shapiro and said that she, too, disagreed with the President's decision. She said that she ``did not like that one.''

Even the chairman of the West Virginia Democratic Party publicly condemned President Biden's commutations and specifically singled out the commutation of Judge Conahan, the ``cash for kids'' judge.

This resolution is not partisan. It is not sweeping. It is common sense. It is about a single egregious case that happened because of egregiously bad judgment.

The President and his aides set broad parameters. Apparently, those parameters kicked back 1,500 cases, and they didn't even have the time and the decency to say: Now, let's look at these cases and see if each one of these people deserves a pardon.

Maybe if one was an elderly, nonviolent offender who had redeemed himself, whose victims had forgiven him--I could understand clemency in that case, not the ``cash for kids'' judge.

It is only 1,500 cases. They have thousands of lawyers running around the Department of Justice. Could they not individually look at these cases? I guess not. It is just another example of how Democrats have spent 8 years of accusing Donald Trump of doing this, that, or the other dastardly thing when, in reality, they are doing much worse.

We heard the Senator from Illinois talking about a pardon for political loyalists. Who could be more of a political loyalist than a President's own son? And that is what Joe Biden did. His first big post-election pardon--pardon his son, not just for specific crimes to which he had pleaded guilty or for which he had been convicted, gun crimes and tax crimes, but for all crimes--all crimes--that he committed or may have committed for 11 years. That is almost twice the length of a similar pardon President Ford gave to President Nixon, which I think, although condemned at the time, most people would now view as an act of political courage.

I don't think anyone in retrospect is going to think that Joe Biden pardoning his son for every crime he might have committed against the

United States for 11 years is ever going to be seen as an act of political courage or if he does the same thing for his brother or any other members of his family before noon on January 20.

Starting next year, I really won't have time for crocodile tears about President Trump's pardon decisions if the Senate can't bring itself today to condemn one--just one--single egregious case of abuse of the pardon power: the ``cash for kids'' judge who sentenced 2,300 children to private detention centers in return for cash kickbacks.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, this morning, thanks to Republicans, we are less than 48 hours away from a Christmas shutdown. Unfortunately, it seems Republicans are in shambles over in the House. But as they try to piece things together, they should remember one thing: The only way to get things done is through bipartisanship--the only way.

Let me repeat: The only way to get things done is through bipartisanship.

Tribute to Sergeant at Arms General Karen Gibson

Now, on the Sergeant at Arms, today, it fills me with immense gratitude to pay tribute and say thank you to the Senate Sergeant at Arms, General Karen Gibson, sitting right here.

None of us, no matter what we do, could get through the day without the individual responsible for maintaining order, enforcing security, and keeping everyone in the Senate safe. That is what the Sergeant at Arms does.

General Gibson took on this role in March of 2021, in the painful aftermath of the January 6 insurrection. By no means did she need to take this job. It was the Senate that needed her. We needed her three decades of leadership as an Army intelligence officer. We needed her steady hand and ability to change how organizations function. And, to this day, I thank God she answered my phone call.

General Gibson helped us get through those difficult months after January 6. She was a breath of fresh air, a boost in morale, a jolt of much needed confidence. She transformed how the Sergeant at Arms operates for the better.

Under General Gibson's watch, her team revitalized how the Senate approaches security and safety, from top to bottom. She increased how we share intelligence, communications, and planning with the rest of the Federal Government and State and local partners. She transformed the way the Senate handles moments of crisis. There is now a single Senate Operations Center that stands watch at all times and alerts us to potential threats or disruptions in realtime.

She was a godsend for other Senate staff across the Capitol Complex, introducing new emergency preparedness applications, new trainings, and new protocols staff could adopt to keep their offices safe and prepared.

Finally, she revolutionized how the Senate approaches cyber security, conducting the most comprehensive cyber security assessment ever. And every step of the way, she had a first-rate team by her side to help execute her vision.

And one other thing--a bit intangible--the morale of our Capitol Police Force has dramatically improved after the horrible day of January 6, and much of that goes to what General Gibson did. She made them feel needed and confident and loved and well-trained and prepared. And I can tell just from speaking to so many Capitol Police officers how much they appreciate her tenure and her candor.

So I am forever grateful to General Gibson for her four terms as our Sergeant at Arms. The Senate today is far more secure and far more prepared than the day she entered the role. My congratulations to her on a job well done, and the Senate thanks her--all of us, Democrat and Republican--for many years of service.

Tribute to Ann Berry

Madam President, on Ann Berry, I also want to say thank you to our wonderful Secretary of the Senate, Ann

Berry. Of the many talented and exceptional Senate officers I had the privilege of nominating as majority leader, Ann is one of the very best.

The job of Secretary of the Senate is one of the utmost important and indispensable jobs here in the Senate. In fact, just days after the Senate achieved its first quorum in 1789, one of its top priorities was to elect the very first Secretary of the Senate. Back then, the Senate's responsibilities were merely a fraction of what they are today. There is virtually nothing that happens in the Senate these days--legislatively, financially, administratively--that doesn't cross the Secretary's desk. So to hold such an extraordinary position that brings life to the Senate, you need an extraordinary human being who brings life to the job.

Where is she? She is probably just so busy doing her job; she is not here.

But, anyway, that is Ann Berry, to a tee.

From the moment Ann was sworn in, she has carried out her responsibilities as Secretary with unparalleled excellence and supreme professionalism. And she did it while making history as the first ever Black woman to serve as Secretary of the Senate.

Of course, Ann's success as Secretary came as little surprise to anyone who knows her background. She is a veteran of some of the most revered Senators to pass through this Chamber, the likes of Senators Leahy, Edwards, Carper, Jones, and my mentor Senator Moynihan.

For the last nearly 4 years, Ann has been one of the most invaluable members of the entire Senate operation. She made our days easier, our operations smoother, and made the Senate work better for the American people. And that is perhaps the highest testament to a public servant.

So, Ann, on behalf of a grateful Senate, a grateful Democratic caucus, and a grateful majority leader, we say congratulations. Thank you. Job well done.

Tribute to Dan Yoken

Madam President, now to Dan Yoken, whom I will so dearly miss.

Is he here somewhere? Where is Dan?

Dan Yoken.

Socrates said:

The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance.

If that is true--and I think Socrates was onto something--then this is going to be a particularly difficult good-bye for me to get through, because, today, it fills me with immense gratitude but also deep sadness to bid farewell and thank you to one of the most knowledgeable and trusted members of my team, Dan Yoken.

Officially, Dan has served as my Director of Rapid Response the entire time I have served in leadership, but in truth, he is far more than that. He is, in a word, the brain--the knowledge base--of our messaging and research operation. He is the truthkeeper, the facts sleuth, the go-to person when our team needs something figured out right away.

But what sets Dan apart is that he also sees the big picture. He is not just looking at the little details. Anyone who excels at these things, by necessity, must possess a love of details--and Dan certainly does--but what makes him so effective is how fluidly, how effortlessly, how naturally he connects the details to the main thrust of what our team tries to do every day and to the larger picture of where we are headed as a caucus and as a country.

Dan is also a craftsman. There is no speech, no press release, no tweet, no video that doesn't pass through his careful touch.

A native of Nevada, Dan came to the Senate and earned his stripes as a young press assistant for the former leader, Harry Reid, whom we miss every day. Every single day, it was Dan's job to wake up early, read all of the news, and then brief Senator Reid personally on what was going on that day. If Senator Reid had a question, it was Dan's job to answer. If it was a specific detail he wanted, it was Dan's job to remember it.

For most people right out of school, that would pretty much be a baptism by fire, but for Dan, it was early confirmation that he belonged here in the Senate. In no time, he became Leader Reid's deputy communications director and then joined my team as the research director of the DPCC. And when I became leader, there was never a moment of doubt that I wanted Dan to come with me.

Running our messaging operation is not easy. It is a round-the-clock, 7-day-a-week commitment. I call him at all hours to ask him about this or that. It is stressful, ever-changing, thankless--and on top of that, they have to deal with me. It is not so easy sometimes, but every day, my team succeeds, and I succeed because Dan has always been there as a steady and stabilizing force. His knowledge of the Senate--its history, its Members, its operation--gives our work shape and form. All of this is possible because, deep down, Dan loves this institution and loves this great democracy.

Of course, anyone who knows Dan understands he loves many other good things as well. Just ask him, for example, about the Las Vegas Golden Knights and that time they came to the White House to celebrate their championship or ask him about the last Roots concert he went to or ask him about poker night or about the next time he is planning to organize a ``Schumerland'' outing to Audi Field. Ask him, certainly, about his wonderful family--about his beautiful, redheaded 2-year-old; his wife and his partner for so many years as well; and then ask him about their dog Daisy, who is a regular here in the Senate every Friday.

Ask him about any of these things, and you will see Dan for who he is--someone who leads a rich life, someone who has a gifted mind, and someone who is loyal, kind, and thoughtful to all those he comes across. Having him on my team for so long has been a blessing to our office, to the Senate, to the country.

So, Dan, wherever you are--he is probably working as well--thank you, thank you, thank you. You know how much we will miss you. You know how much we love you. You know how much you will always be part of our Schumer family, and we can't wait to see what the future holds in store for you.

I yield the floor to the Republican leader.

Recognition of the Minority Leader

Thank you, Senator Cassidy.

I thank Senator Cassidy and his incredible staff for the work that they have done with the Cleveland Connection. And I just appreciate so much, as I leave the Senate, the work that Senator Cassidy and I have done on a host of bills. And I would say the same about my work with Senator Collins. I have been at this bill for a long time. She has been at this bill for now more than two decades.

And I know from our pension bill, I know from the child tax credit, I know from the PACT Act, I know from a whole lot of issues that this stuff takes time. But 21 years is ridiculous. And we need to move forward on this. And I so appreciate that she kept this alive.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that following my remarks, Senator Schumer be permitted to speak for 2 minutes prior to the scheduled vote.

And I will be brief.

Social Security, we know, is a bedrock of our middle class. It is retirement security that Americans pay into and earn over a lifetime. You pay in for 40 quarters. You pay in for, essentially, 10 years. You have earned it. It should be there when you retire.

These restrictions right now, though, prevent some 3 million Americans--nearly 250,000 people in my State alone, many of whom are law enforcement, first responders, teachers, schoolbus drivers, school cafeteria workers, public servants--it means that many will not get their full Social Security benefit.

It makes no sense. These workers serve the public. They protect our communities. They teach our kids. They pay into Social Security just like everyone else.

When we did a hearing a few months ago at a fire station in Columbus, I met Barbara Ward. She drives a special needs bus for Fairland Local Schools in, I believe, Lawrence County, on the Ohio River. She drives 200 miles a day. She has done this for 40 years. She is in her seventies. Her mom was the first female busdriver hired in that district. Her husband served our country in the Navy Seabees, building our naval bases, and paying into Social Security with every paycheck.

After he passed away 10 years ago, Barb started receiving his Social Security survivors benefits, until Barb retired with her school pension, when her Social Security benefit dropped from $2,100 a month to 500 a month.

Again, he earned this. This wasn't charity. This wasn't a giveaway. He earned that Social Security benefit, and she should have it.

At our hearing, she said: It is just not fair. My husband worked for that. We worked for that.

They earned that Social Security. They paid into it.

Over and over, these Americans, like that busdriver, have watched corporations get tax cuts and Wall Street gets bailouts. All these workers are asking for is what they have earned.

It is an issue that has a huge impact on a worker's life. But it doesn't get enough attention in Washington.

Again, I thank Senator Collins for keeping this alive for so long.

The people it affects aren't powerful corporate interests. They are cops. They are sheriff's deputies. They are firefighters. They are teachers. They work at parks. They work at libraries. They pick up our trash, and they plow our roads. They make our lives livable and better.

We must finally get this done. The House passed it with 327 votes. They don't agree on much in the House, period. But Members of both parties came together and agreed. I believe every single Ohio Member of Congress voted for this. We need to restore those workers' Social Security.

Yesterday, in front of about 50 of my colleagues, I gave what some called my last speech on the Senate floor. I ended it by saying it would not be the last time you heard from me.

Of course, it wouldn't. I am back today fighting for the dignity of work. It is the way I began my career in the Senate. It is what I will continue to do, whether in the Senate or not. Whether it is restoring workers' Social Security or saving workers' pensions or fighting for overtime pay, for supporting unions, so much of what I fought for in the Senate has one thing in common: It is about hard work paying off. It is about what workers earn. It is about honoring the dignity of work.

If you love this country, you fight for the people who make it work. I urge all my colleagues on both sides to join us. Restore the Social Security that people who protect us and serve us have earned over a lifetime of work.

Senator Schumer.

Madam President, I have enjoyed watching Senator Fetterman and Senator Casey and working together in the mentoring and seeing how productive that has been for them in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

Marcus Aurelius said:

Humility is the foundation of all virtue.

Humility is the foundation of all virtue.

Humility is not a common trait in this body, perhaps, but humility infuses the work of Bob Casey every single day. I have worked with his staff. My office, in fact--we have worked with his staff perhaps--not perhaps--more than any other office, and I feel that, you know, what he brings to this is that uncommon humility and uncommon kindness in his personal relationships with his friends in the back row here, an uncommon kindness to the people of Pennsylvania, and an uncommon kindness with his own staff--I love watching that: little test, little staff turnover--the kind of energy that they bring and the kind of kindness they bring.

One of the things that really brought that home to me, in listening to Bob's talk a minute ago, was he concentrated on constituent service. Bob Casey understands that to do this job--the real building blocks of this job--you help people individually. There are tens of thousands of people he has helped in his offices in, I guess, Philly and Pittsburgh, and I don't know where else--whatever all these inferior cities are-- inferior to Ohio--in Pennsylvania.

(Laughter.)

But what he has brought to his offices in reaching out to people-- those really are the building blocks of public service. He has been a public servant extraordinaire in the way he does his work, in the way he does his job. As I said, he brings to it that uncommon kindness, that uncommon humility, and it infuses his work in constituent services. It infuses his work in fighting for economic justice.

He didn't talk that much in his speech about what he has done with children and poor children. I saw three of his daughters and Terese downstairs before the speech, and I got a chance to talk to them. I have watched them grow up over these years. Terese was already grown up. I have watched his daughters grow up over these 18 years.

(Laughter.)

And there is just this kind of energy and commitment to service to people that I have seen in them, which has been a delight to watch.

But he didn't talk all that much about what he has done for children. Nobody in the body has focused their work on children as much as Bob Casey. It is the child tax credit, for sure, but it is so many things-- from disabled kids; from giving kids from, you know, Erie to Sharon, to Philly, to Bucks County--giving them more opportunity in life than they otherwise would have had.

Also, one of the things that--when I think about Bob Casey, I think of him standing up for the little guy. I have heard him talk about his trips to the grocery store and how some people in this body blame inflation on government spending, which, of course, doesn't hold economic water. But Bob has really focused on helping me come to discuss inflation.

Connie and I go to church. When we go to church on Sunday, we often stop at a nearby grocery store, and you talk to people at the checkout line or at the meat counter or just walking down the aisles, talking about how much things cost. Bob had this understanding. He called it shrinkflation. What he kind of taught me to say is, When you go to the grocery store and you are paying higher prices, you are paying them because of private, executive compensation and bonuses. You are paying for those higher prices by stock buybacks and exorbitant profits. And Bob understood that and always fought for the little guy.

I so appreciate the friendship, first of all. I appreciate the gentleness of spirit and his uncommon empathy and understanding. He always understood, in part, because he goes home and listens. He doesn't go home and make a lot of speeches. He goes home and listens to people and understands their concerns. He brought them here. He made such a difference for Pennsylvanians. He made such a difference for Ohioans and for the people in the other 48 States too.

I will be eternally grateful to Bob Casey for that friendship, for the humility that he has shown toward his job and toward the world around him, and just for being a really, really good man.

(Applause.)

Madam President, we all have State and local governments that have control over their own judicial systems. For example, in my State of Maryland, we have the Maryland Court of Appeals. We have the lower courts in the State of Maryland. Then, of course, we have the Federal court system.

What I am talking about today has nothing to do with the Federal court system. What I am talking about today has to do with judges appointed to the District of Columbia, and because of current law, this Congress oversees those judicial actions.

I think we would all agree that, if we were here in the U.S. Senate blocking decisions, nominations made for judges back in our States or our local jurisdictions, that would be a kind of bizarre thing to do. So I want to make it clear that today we are not talking about the Supreme Court of the United States or the U.S. courts of appeals or Federal district court judges. We are talking about the local judges for the people of the District of Columbia, and in that local court system, they have a commission that determines who the nominees are. But the President then nominates the local judges because of the statutes governing the District of Columbia within the U.S. Congress.

I have heard on the floor of the Senate, many times, legitimate concerns expressed about crime in the District of Columbia and a backlogged court system in the District of Columbia. And yet some, until today--and I hope today will be different--have blocked consideration or votes on the judges for the people of the District of Columbia. Because of that, Washington, DC's court system has been plagued by vacancies for years. They currently have 11 vacancies--9 on the superior court that handles civil, criminal, and small claims cases; and 2 on the court of appeals. And because of these vacancies, fewer judges are having to take on significantly more case, leading to long delays. In some cases, these proceedings take years.

Judges in the civil division are handling things like landlord and tenant disputes, medical malpractice, and discrimination, and they are handling double the casework that they used to, an average of 473 cases a year.

Without the appointment of a new judge--in other words, if we don't allow the appointment of a new judge here--there will be only one judge handling all of the criminal domestic violence misdemeanors--30 to 60 cases per day. I want to say that again. Unless we take this action, you are going to have only one judge overseeing criminal domestic violence misdemeanors--30 to 60 cases a day--with longer waits for litigants and significant delays in resolving domestic violence cases.

Judges are double- and triple-booking trial dates. One hundred to 200 cases every year are delayed in the court of appeals. Again, not the U.S. court of appeals. I want to make it clear: This is the District of Columbia system and their court of appeals.

The judges before us today are all nonpartisan. In fact, two of them were previously nominated by President Trump. It gives you an idea how long they have been waiting. They are not interpreting Federal law. They are overseeing local criminal and civil cases, just like judges in our State and local courts, as I said.

So I just want to be really clear for our colleagues who are going to delay these judges. They are going to make it even more difficult for the people of DC to deal with criminal justice issues and with their civil litigation.

I really hope, given the fact that we are not talking about Federal judges, we will be able to proceed with these nominations and support them.

With that, Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that, as if in executive session, the Senate proceed to the consideration of the following nomination: Kenechukwu Onyemacchi Okocha, to be an associate judge of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia; that the Senate vote on the nomination without intervening action or debate; that if confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate; that any statements related to the nomination be printed in the Record; and that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Madam President, would it be in order if I ask what the basis of the objection is, given the fact that these are nonpartisan judges for the District of Columbia? Would that question be in order if I were to yield to the gentleman?

I am just wondering if my colleague from Kansas would like to explain the basis for objecting to a judge--this particular judge--in the DC court system.

I gather not, OK.

I ask that it be in order to make the same request with respect to Calendar No. 767, Sherri Malloy Beatty-Arthur, to be an associate judge for the Superior Court of the District of Columbia.

Madam President, I ask that it be in order to make the same request with respect to Calendar No. 768, Erin Camille Johnston, to be an associate judge of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia.

Madam President, I ask that it be made in order to make the same request with respect to Calendar No. 769, Ray D. McKenzie, to be an associate judge of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia.

Madam President, I ask that it be made in order to make the same request with respect to Calendar No. 770, Rahkel Bouchet, to be an associate judge of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia.

Madam President, I ask that it be made in order to make the same request with respect to Calendar No. 771, John Cuong Truong, to be an associate judge of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia.

Madam President, I ask that it be made in order to make the same request with respect to Calendar No. 838, James Graham Lake, to be an associate judge of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia.

Madam President, I ask that it be made in order to make the same request with respect to Calendar No. 839, Nicholas George Miranda, to be an associate judge of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia

Madam President, I ask that it be made in order to make the same request with respect to Calendar No. 774, Carmen G. Iguina Gonzalez, to be an associate judge of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals.

Madam President, I am going to try one more time. I ask that it be made in order to make the same request with respect to Calendar No. 775, Joseph Russell Palmore to be an associate judge of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals.

Madam President, I would just say that based on what I said in my earlier remarks, I have not heard and the body has not heard of any good reason to be blocking these judges for the District of Columbia, have not heard one substantive objection to any of these individuals, have not heard any other rationale for why we are not going to act on these judges right away.

As I indicated, the result of inaction in blocking these judges is just to back up the entire court system of the District of Columbia-- criminal cases, civil cases. It makes no sense.

If someone was looking out on the Senate right now, they would see this as one of the many examples of complete dysfunction because of the kind of obstruction based on who knows what rationale for doing the right thing for the District of Columbia.

This is just one reason why many of us support statehood for the people of the District of Columbia. They shouldn't have to have the U.S. Senate sign off on their judicial nominations, just as we don't sign off on judicial nominations for State courts, whether it be the State of Wisconsin or my State of Maryland. We don't sign off on nominations for local courts in our States, but we do have that power for now and responsibility for now in the U.S. Senate, and this is just an example of total failure to live up to our responsibility to make sure there is a functioning court system in the District of Columbia.

So it is another bad day as we come to the close of this Congress, another unnecessary obstruction that just makes it more difficult for people to get justice in civil cases or in criminal cases and for people to be held accountable in criminal cases, including, as I mentioned, the many domestic violence cases.

I yield the floor.