Floor Statements

Madam President, I rise today in strong support of Senator Murray's Child Care Stabilization Act.

We know how much of a lifeline this program has been for families, for childcare providers, and our economy since it was established in 2021. Thanks to this program, 220,000 childcare providers stayed afloat. Up to 10 million kids' childcare slots were saved, and the unemployment rate for moms with kids under age 6 empowered moms to return to work at rates we have not seen.

The need for high-quality childcare is one of those issues I hear about all over Minnesota, from the Iron Range up north to our farming towns in Southern Minnesota, from urban areas in the Twin Cities to suburbs across the metro. It doesn't matter how qualified you are or how badly you may want a job, if there is no one to watch your kids, you can't go to work. Too often, people are in this situation because there are simply no childcare options.

I think about Pam and her husband, who live in Cottage Grove, MN. They both work full time and rely on daycare centers to look after their two little kids. They are paying more than $2,800 a month for childcare, meaning Pam's husband's whole paycheck goes toward paying those costs.

Pam told me:

We may soon join the increasing ranks of parents forced to

leave the workforce because they have no other option.

Another Minnesotan, Erin, is a new mom, who a year after having her baby still can't find an open childcare spot. She sent email after email to local providers, but all she got in response was an overwhelming number of ``no infant openings.'' Many of these providers told Erin that they wouldn't have openings for years. When she finally found an opening, she could hardly afford it.

Then there is Amelia, who lives in Richfield--a southern suburb in the Twin Cities--and pays over $15,000 a year for each of her two kids. Her family is facing the same dilemma as so many others:

We can't pay our mortgage if I stay home, but we barely

take anything home after paying to send our twins to

preschool.

Pam, Erin, and Amelia, who live in different parts of our State--and they have way different jobs--and the 51 percent of Americans who also live in childcare deserts deserve better. They deserve high-quality childcare that is in their budgets and that actually has open spots for kids.

The good news? We have been making progress in my State. Here are a few examples.

In Redwood Falls, a brandnew childcare center will provide the area with more than 70 new childcare slots with a combination of funding, private and public.

The town of Morris--a college town near South Dakota--started a program that I visited. They have six childcare pods. They are apartments that could be converted to senior housing if they want, but it allows small providers--who maybe have six to eight kids--to have a place that is safe for the kids. They share a parking lot and the like. That facility in a smaller town serves more than 80 kids.

Just a few weeks ago, I was in new facilities in Perham, MN, at the Children's Corner. Those were two companies--one is food manufacturing, with about 700 employees, the other a healthcare company. They combined and paid for the expansion of the existing private childcare nonprofit facility, doubled the number of childcare slots, and got some promised to their kids out of those companies but a whole lot more for everyone else.

Fiscal year 2023 congressionally directed spending also made it possible for the Hallie Q. Brown-Martin Luther King Service Center in St. Paul to build additional daycare facilities.

We are making huge steps in the right direction, including coming out of our State legislature in the last year, but Congress needs to pick up this momentum to do right by people like Pam and Erin and Amelia and pass the Child Care Stabilization Act.

For far too many parents, the lack of available, affordable childcare is a barrier to finding a job. I thank Senator Murray for this incredibly important legislation. While we work to strengthen our childcare workforce--it has got to be a piece of this in a big way--and build facilities where families need them the most, we need to ensure that our childcare centers have the funding they need to provide affordable, high-quality care.

I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, I rise in support of President Biden's nominee to be the next U.S. district court judge for the District of Minnesota, and that is Jeff Bryan.

I want to thank my colleague Tina Smith. The two of us convened a judicial selection committee in our own State with very outstanding people who helped recommend some names to the White House. I would also like to thank Senators Durbin and Graham for helping to move Judge Bryan's nomination through the Judiciary Committee--on which the Presiding Officer serves--on a bipartisan basis and to thank Leader Schumer for making time for the Senate to consider his nomination.

Judge Bryan is a dedicated public servant with a distinguished career spanning over 16 years serving the people of Minnesota, including as a State court judge and as a former Federal prosecutor.

Through his devotion to justice and the rule of law, he has earned the respect and support of judges, attorneys, and law enforcement officials across the political spectrum. This is why he received a strong vote in the Judiciary Committee and why I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will support his confirmation.

Judge Bryan was born in an Army hospital in Fort Bragg. His mom was an English teacher, and his dad was a captain with the 82nd Airborne who instilled in Judge Bryan an appreciation for public service. His father's service in the Army brought their family to Fort Bliss, near El Paso, TX, where Judge Bryan grew up.

After graduating summa cum laude from the University of Texas, Judge Bryan went back home to El Paso and worked as a substitute teacher. He then headed to Yale for law school. As a law student, he served as a student supervisor in the parents and children clinic and was president of the Yale Law Christian Fellowship.

He also met the love of his life, a Minnesotan--we knew we would get to Minnesota at some point in the story. He met the love of his life, a Minnesotan, at law school. Ultimately, he traded the Texas heat for the Minnesota winters, and he and Liz settled down in St. Paul.

If confirmed, Judge Bryan will be the first Latino Federal judge in Minnesota. He is active in the Minnesota Hispanic Bar Association, tutoring students, and has served on the board of Twin Cities Habitat for Humanity. For 20 years, even before he had kids of his own, he taught Sunday school at his church.

He clerked for Judge Paul Magnuson, who was a judge appointed by President Reagan, and spent several years in private practice. He spent 6 years as an assistant U.S. attorney, where he prosecuted violent gangs and large-scale drug organizations. He prosecuted over 350 criminals and directed what was, at the time, the largest meth investigation and cocaine investigation ever conducted in the District of Minnesota. He played a key role in dismantling a cocaine trafficking network that spanned from McAllen, TX, to St. Cloud, MN. He won the Department of Justice ``case of the year'' award for his work on that case. Additionally, he led a meth investigation that resulted in the recovery of more than 9,600 grams of meth, as well as convictions of more than 60 defendants.

So I don't think it is a surprise that we have heard from former law enforcement officials at the local, State, and Federal levels who praised him, of course, for his work and devotion to justice but, also, particularly for his work ethic and his dedication as a prosecutor.

He was hired as a prosecutor by Erica MacDonald, who was appointed by President Trump to serve as a U.S. attorney for Minnesota. She said that Judge Bryan was a ``no-nonsense Federal prosecutor'' and is an ``outstanding'' nominee ``for judicial appointment.''

Judge Bryan left the U.S. Attorney's Office in 2013 and was appointed to serve on the Ramsey County District Court in St. Paul. There, he presided over more than 8,000 cases, including violent felony criminal cases, and was only reversed in 4 cases.

In 2019, he was appointed to serve as a judge on the Minnesota Court of Appeals. He has sat on over 500 cases as an appellate judge and has authored nearly 200 opinions and has only been reversed in 2 cases.

Judge Bryan has, understandably, earned endorsements from some of the most esteemed jurists in our State, including four senior U.S. district court judges who were appointed by Presidents of both parties. Among them is the man he clerked for, Judge Paul Magnuson, who described Judge Bryan as a person of ``exceptional character'' and offered his highest recommendation.

In addition, nearly 40 State judges, appointed by Governors of both parties, enthusiastically support this nomination. They praised Judge Bryan as a ``prepared, fair-minded, and hard-working judge'' and said that he has a ``determined focus on explaining and applying the law in an unbiased manner.''

For those same reasons, the ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary rated Judge Bryan as ``well qualified'' to serve as a district court judge, the highest rating that the committee awards.

I know that Jeff Bryan will make an outstanding Federal district court judge for the District of Minnesota. I urge my colleagues to support his confirmation.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, today I rise to honor and pay tribute to Herbert ``Bertie'' Bowman who passed away on October 25, 2023, at the age of 92 after a remarkable life and over six decades of service to the U.S. Senate.

As has been noted by my colleague Senator Cardin, Bertie was the embodiment of the American Dream. Bertie began his Capitol Hill career by sweeping steps of the Capitol after running away from his South Carolina home, where his family members were sharecroppers, following a chance encounter with then-Senator Burnet Maybank in a Summerton, SC, general store. Senator Maybank invited Bertie--then only 13 years old-- to come see him in Washington sometime, and that is just what he did.

A week later, Bertie hopped on a train bound for Union Station and ended up in the Senator's office. The Senator gave him his first job-- to sweep the Capitol steps for $2 a week--and from there, he went on to build a reputation on Capitol Hill as someone who could do it all. According to his memoir, Bertie's mother gave him the best career advice anyone could ask for. She said, ``Be patient and do what you're supposed to do.''

Over his many decades in the Senate, one job led to another, and Bertie eventually got a clerical position with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1966. He left the Senate in 1990 to run

his own chauffeur service, but he returned to the Foreign Relations Committee a decade later as hearing coordinator--a job he held until his nineties.

Through it all, Bertie exhibited the decency and courtesy that led him to befriend all those who knew him.

I want to honor Bertie Bowman for his lifelong dedication and service to this institution and to our democracy and to thank him for setting the example of civility to which we all should aspire.

Mr. President, I rise today, alongside my colleagues, including Senator Coons and Senator Murray, to implore my colleagues to hold firm in their support of Ukraine.

I have sat here for the last hour and listened to these speeches and listened

to some of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle--which, I know, does not reflect all of them--and this is what I came away with: the focus on ``Oh, you just want to go backward,'' the analogies to talking about past decisions in Munich and Vietnam. We all are students of history. I am focused on now. I am focused on what is happening now.

Like my colleagues here, I have strongly condemned the massacre, the terrorist attack by Hamas--and the democracy of Israel. We stand with Israel and the right to defend, but we also stand with the idea that we should continue to provide humanitarian relief in Gaza and around the world.

I think one of the ironies of the statement of our colleague from Ohio--and some of our other colleagues--was that he failed to mention that, actually, Israel has come out this week also supporting the humanitarian aid. So that is one thing that I think needs to get corrected.

The second, as we look at where we are now, he mentioned Vladimir Putin, called him ``a bad guy.'' Those were his words, ``a bad guy.'' I think it is a lot more than that. This is a tyrant. This is a ruler who has committed war crimes, who has downed passenger planes, who has invaded a democracy. Let's get the facts straight about Vladimir Putin.

The other thing is that, now, to not see this as connected is just plain wrong. What kind of drones was Russia using? Iranian drones. Who took the meeting with some of their senior officials from Russia? Who went there? Hamas. Hamas went to Russia after this terrorist attack.

When we stand for democracies in one place, we stand for democracies in other places.

Our colleague from Ohio referred to some of the President's requests as a ``hodgepodge''--a ``hodgepodge.'' I was thinking of that word and what is in this request and this budget: protection of a nuclear plant, the largest nuclear plant not just in Ukraine but in Europe. When his predecessor, Senator Portman, and I were in Ukraine, when we met with President Zelenskyy--where we actually talked about the strong support and the strong Ukrainian community in Ohio and in Minnesota--when we met with him, a major focus of ours was the nuclear plant because we didn't know how long the Ukrainians were able to hold the line to protect that plant from not just contamination in Ukraine but contamination all over Europe. That is what is in what our colleague has called a ``hodgepodge'' of a budget.

What else? Supporting NATO. I was just with the leader of Estonia--a small country, yes, but they have given over 1 percent of their military budget--of the budget of their country--to Ukraine.

Are we just going to turn away on NATO because we think it is a ``hodgepodge'' to support our allies in countries like Great Britain, our allies in countries like France and Germany and Estonia and Latvia and Lithuania and Georgia and, yes, Ukraine? We are just going to say it is a ``hodgepodge''?

What else is in that ``hodgepodge''? Well, what else is in the ``hodgepodge'' are things like air defense, things like munitions, things like small arms. That is what we are talking about here when we talk about the help that we give to Ukraine.

Then I looked at some of the percentages, as I sat here, of other small nations that have given much more than the United States, where it is something like 0.3 percent--right? These countries are at over 1 percent in the help that they have given Ukraine. They have taken in 4 million--count that, 4 million--refugees in Europe. So when we help Ukraine, we are not doing it alone, colleagues. We are standing with our allies. We are standing with our best trading partners. We are standing with the world for democracy.

This is not in a vacuum. This is, as the President once said, a big effing deal.

What about Vladimir Putin? Senator Bennet got at this. He is failing. He tried to capture Kyiv, but he failed. He tried to wipe Ukraine off the map, but he failed. He tried to break the Ukrainian spirit, but he has made it stronger. He tried to break NATO, but NATO has grown.

Ukraine has persevered against all odds. To abandon our partners now would be a dereliction of our duty to defend a democracy and an embarrassment to this Nation, and, yes, it would create a much bigger national security risk not just for our allies but for our country.

I have had the privilege of visiting Ukraine not just with Senator Portman but on another visit, as well, with a number of our Republican colleagues. Each time, I was struck by the strength of the people who put their lives on the line: the ballerina who has to don camo and go to the frontline, the cafe owner donating food to people in need, the deejay at the national call center using her platform to find missing loved ones.

We must not forget President Zelenskyy's words in September:

There is not a soul in Ukraine that does not feel gratitude

to you, America.

That is what we have to remember. They are watching in Ukraine. The democracies are watching. And, as Leader McConnell has said, ``think of it as an axis of evil: China, Russia, and Iran.''

This is not just a test for Ukraine. It is a test for the United States and for the free world, and the path toward greater security for all of us is simple: Help Ukraine win the war.

I yield the floor.

The Senator from Oregon is with us today to speak.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I rise today to implore my colleagues to pass a national security supplemental in line with what Senator Shaheen, the great Senator from New Hampshire, just outlined: yes, to stand up to the Hamas terrorists but also to stand up for an open and free Indo-Pacific, to stand up for humanitarian aid, and to stand up to Vladimir Putin and his barbaric invasion of our ally Ukraine.

That is what I am going to focus on today because I have seen many of our colleagues on both side of the aisle standing proudly with President Zelenskyy. The rhetoric of standing up for democracy has to be matched by what happens in this bill. Just as Putin has shown his true colors--intentionally bombing apartment buildings, capturing cities, and slaughtering innocents, abducting Ukrainian children--the Ukrainian people have shown theirs in bright blue and yellow against all odds.

Since the invasion last February, Ukraine has reclaimed 50 percent of the territory that Russia unlawfully seized from them.

As the Ukrainians advance, Putin--what has happened? He tried to capture Kyiv, but he failed. He tried to wipe Ukraine off the map, but he failed. He tried to drive a wedge between the United States and our allies, but he failed. He tried to topple the Ukrainian Government, but he failed.

Putin tried to break the Ukrainian spirit, but he has made it stronger. He tried to break NATO, but NATO added member states.

Our Ukrainian allies have persevered against all odds. When Putin tried to weaponize winter, Ukraine kept the lights on. When he tried to stop them from producing and selling grain, Ukraine found a way forward.

In his visit to Washington, DC, in September, President Zelenskyy made it clear: Ukraine as we know it depends on the support of its allies--not just the United States but countries in Europe, countries like South Korea, countries like Japan. To abandon our allies now would be a dereliction of duty.

We will not abandon our allies. As Americans, we believe in government based on the principles of democracy and decency at home and abroad. After World War II, we made it clear that big countries can't invade little countries. Our fight is not only a fight for Ukraine; it is a fight for protecting democracy across the globe.

As President Zelenskyy said at the U.N. earlier this year, if we allow Ukraine to be carved up, is the independence of any nation secure?

We know what Putin has done--bombed hospitals, schools, apartment buildings; continues to weaponize food and energy. We cannot let our Ukrainian allies succumb because the United States just decided, eh, we said we were going to do this before, but now, we don't think so. That is not standing up for democracy. As my colleagues have so well pointed out, other tyrants in the world are watching. They are watching to see if we keep our covenants. They are watching to see if we keep our word.

We know what is happening in Ukraine--ballerinas putting on camo and going to the frontlines; exhausted workers at the biggest nuclear powerplant in Europe trying to protect not only Ukraine but all of Europe from a nuclear disaster; the cellist playing melodies in the bombed-out remnants of a town square to remind people that despite Vladimir Putin's worst efforts, culture and humanity are there in Ukraine and are not going away--as we saw the head of the museum in Odesa remind us this week--despite the bombing.

As President Zelenskyy has said, ``There is not a soul in Ukraine that does not feel gratitude to you, America.''

When Rob Portman and I visited Kyiv this last August, what did we hear a year ago? We heard ``Thank you for the HIMARS'' on a bag of takeout food to the U.S. Embassy. We heard that was a name they were naming their kids--``Himar.'' They know what we have done. They need us now.

As Congress continues to negotiate the budget, we must find a way forward on Ukraine. As Senator McConnell reaffirmed, ``Think of it as an axis of evil: China, Russia and Iran. So this is not just a test for Ukraine,'' I say to my colleagues who are focused on national security. ``It is a test for the United States and for the free world''--yes, an opportunity to secure our own borders but also an opportunity to secure the borders of our allies' democracies.

Remember the three words that Zelenskyy uttered on that first day when everyone had counted him out? He went to the street corner--just a few people around him--when everyone thought Russia was just going to take them out, and he said three words: ``We are here.''

``We are here.''

That is what we have to do right now in this Chamber. We cannot send the message ``We are not here'' or ``We were there before, but we are not here right now.'' We are here.

I yield the floor, and I turn it over to my colleague from the great State of Delaware.

Mr. President, today I rise to honor and pay tribute to Senate Historian Betty Koed who is retiring this week after 25 years of service to the U.S. Senate. Betty is only the third person--and the first woman--to hold the position of Senate Historian, and our entire institution has benefited from her knowledge and expertise.

Betty has seen it all. She not only knows what is behind every door in this building, she also knows the stories behind so many important decisions that have been made in this Chamber over the years. She has been an invaluable resource who has dedicated her career to safeguarding the history that surrounds us and ensuring that it endures for generations to come. She has spent the past 25 years preserving, protecting, and promoting the history of the Senate and its Members, turning the records on our institution into stories for all Americans to experience both here at the Capitol and online.

Betty also provided critical support last Congress when I joined with former Senator Roy Blunt to pass a bipartisan resolution to dedicate the first two rooms in the Senate wing of the Capitol to women in recognition of former Senators Margaret Chase Smith of Maine and Barbara Mikulski of Maryland.

To commemorate her decades of esteemed service, this week, my colleagues and I joined together to unanimously pass a resolution led by Leader Schumer and Leader McConnell to designate Betty as the first ever Historian Emerita of the U.S. Senate. I thank her for her dedication and service to this institution and to our democracy, and I wish her all the best in her retirement.

Mr. President, I rise to celebrate the incredible life and legacy of Granite Falls, MN, mayor David ``Smig'' Smiglewski. A lifelong resident of Granite Falls, Dave loved his neighbors and gave so much to his city that he became known as ``Mr. Granite Falls.'' During his entire 44-year career in public service, which began with an appointment to the city council at age 26, Dave always made time for his neighbors and would stay late after city council meetings to share his vast knowledge of the region's history and tell stories about Granite Falls.

I had the pleasure of visiting Mayor Smiglewsi and other local leaders in Granite Falls earlier this year. We had productive discussions about our shared vision for bringing broadband to rural Minnesota, investing in Granite Falls' public schools, and strengthening the city's economy. What I remember most fondly from my visit, however, happened after our meeting, when Dave opened up the historic Andrew J. Volstead House and gave me a tour.

Dave always looked out for the people of Granite Falls, but he loved his family most of all. He and Cindy, his wife of 40 years, raised three children and had three grandchildren who kept them busy with sporting events, music concerts, and dance recitals. Throughout his decades of public service, Dave cherished his time with his family and made every effort to be with them.

That was Dave: a beloved mayor, a local historian, and, most of all, a loving husband, father, and grandfather. Today, my heart is with all those who knew and loved Smig.

Mr. President, I first saw Dianne--and I see people like the Speaker Emerita and so many of her friends and family that knew her long before Senator Padilla--but 1992, the Year of the Woman, the national convention--my first national convention, a young lawyer-- and there she was on the stage with Senator Boxer in that groundbreaking year.

When I think of Dianne, as I have heard from my colleagues, I think about the dignity she brought to this place; about how she would dig into every single issue, the independent thought, the trailblazing.

She came into politics as a mayor and in the most tragic of circumstances. She was a city council member. There was an assassination, and there she is thrust on the national stage. As Senator Padilla talked about, she always put California first.

I remember, at one point when we were debating and speaking out on a national election and someone said something about another candidate having been the mayor of a tough town. I remember Dianne saying: You don't know what a tough town is until you are mayor of San Francisco.

The way she would dig into the issues was probably my most memorable moment. She invited me to stay overnight at her house after an event; and I got up early in the morning and she called me, summoned me into her room. She was sitting straight up with these big fuzzy slippers on, on a Saturday morning, reading a 200-page bill, the Patent Reform Act, and she started quizzing me--we were both on the Judiciary Committee at the time, the only women on the Judiciary Committee--on the details about the bill. That was Dianne. She did her homework.

She came into politics at a time when there weren't many women leaders. The way she achieved her goals

and passed bills and did what she wants was not because she was just-- they were just going to accept her as she was at that moment in time. It was the hard work. It was the relationships. It was the leaderships.

When I heard about the seersucker suit, I had the same experience. I am brandnew in the Senate. I don't have much resources. And Dianne calls to get my measurements. That actually happened. And she got me one of those suits as well.

When I talk to young women about them getting involved in politics these days, a lot of them shy away from it. We still aren't where we are supposed to be with the numbers. One of the reasons they give is the attacks; they can't handle the negativity. When I think of Dianne, she just kept her head high. I literally think of her posture. She kept her head high. She walked through every storm. Things would fall on the side, but she had a mission and her mission would be whatever was her responsibility of that day. Whether it was the Patent Reform Act, whether it was getting her groundbreaking report done on torture, whether it was the work she did in leading the historic legislation on the assault weapons ban, she kept her head up high and she led. That was her instinct. No matter what happened in this place, no matter what clothes changed, no matter who changed, she always led. And we will miss her today.

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

Mr. President, I rise with many of my colleagues today to mark a new era for patients in this country.

Last year, we decided that enough is enough, and we put an end to the sweetheart deal that let drug companies charge seniors on Medicare whatever they wanted for some of the most common lifesaving and life- improving prescription meds on the market. Now the Big Pharma companies are trying to stop this legislation with absurd lawsuits.

I will talk about that effort in a moment, but for now, let me say unequivocally that allowing Medicare to negotiate lower prices is a victory for seniors, a victory for taxpayers, a victory for patients and their families, and a victory for America.

Mr. President, thank you for your work on this as the Senator from Vermont. When you were the House Member for Vermont, you led this bill in the House, and I led it in the Senate. We worked together to allow for negotiation on drugs. Finally, this bill has been passed into law as part of larger legislation.

A number of our colleagues, including Senator Wyden of Oregon, have long been leaders on this issue.

I think we all know this progress could not have come soon enough. We know that Americans pay the highest prices in the world for the same brand name prescription drugs. In fact, prescription drug prices in the United States are more than 250 percent higher than drug prices in other industrialized countries. Not only are prices sky high, we have all watched them get higher.

As Senator Wyden has worked on it; as you, Mr. President, have worked on this; as Senator Schumer has worked on this, we have continued to battle, sadly, the other side when it comes to putting our provision into law that allows Medicare to negotiate better prices. Finally, we did it on our own. We did it on our own but not really. We did it with the seniors of this country, with AARP at our side, with so many advocacy groups.

Taxpayers should not have to foot the bill to have the money go into higher profits for companies that already are making much more than the average company on the stock exchange.

Not only are we seeing high prices, but it literally makes it unaffordable for some patients. What good are treatments and cures if they go unused because they are unaffordable? The average price of the 25 brand name medications that Medicare spends the most on, 25 top blockbusters, has tripled on average, tripled since the drug hit the U.S. market.

Think about it. We all believe in competition. We believe in capitalism. Well, if you allow for real competition and generics to get on and you don't mess around and play around with the patent system and change this little thing so you get a longer patent and you don't put into law a sweetheart deal that says Medicare can't negotiate any prices for 50 million seniors--which, by the way, affects everyone else because when that, the biggest negotiating group in the country, is locked out from the table, when they are locked out of the room, it hurts everyone else as well.

This change alone, when the administration just put the first 10 drugs on the negotiating table, 900--900--we have so many people involved and who will be affected by this that we will save over $300 billion. That is a big, big deal.

Not only are prices sky high, we know that the numbers only grow more shocking as you learn about the people behind them and about the profit margins of the big drug companies.

I am thinking of Kerry and his wife, who live in Cloquet, MN. Both take Jardiance. This prescription drug costs them $750 each for just 1 month's supply, and that is on top of the cost of their other meds.

I know of a 71-year-old Medicare beneficiary from Oak Grove, MN, who also relies on Jardiance to control a heart issue. Last year, the drug cost her about $530 for a 90-day supply, roughly a sixth of her take- home pay from her job at a senior care residence.

Another Minnesotan, a 67-year-old Medicare beneficiary from Glenville, paid roughly $750 total for a 90-day supply of Jardiance and Januvia and stopped taking the drugs altogether due to the cost.

Then there is another patient from Rochester, MN, southern Minnesota, who was diagnosed with a rare form of blood cancer. She was relieved to find that she would be able to take an oral medication instead of invasive chemotherapy treatments, but it was going to cost $680 per month, nearly half of her monthly Social Security check. Her daughter applied for grants and figured out a way to make ends meet, but it just shouldn't be that hard.

Those are just a few of the many Minnesotans who have had to tighten their belts to satisfy Big Pharma's greed. You will hear the stories from Oregon. You will hear the stories from every State in the country. In fact, Big Pharma makes almost, as I said, three times the average profit margin of other industries on the S&P 500 exchange, three times larger profit on average of other industries on the S&P stock market. Yet nearly 30 percent of Americans say they haven't taken their medications as prescribed due to costs. That is unacceptable.

The Presiding Officer, over in the House, and I led these bills to get rid of that sweetheart deal. And, yes, we got this in through the Inflation Reduction Act, got it signed into law.

A couple of years ago, Medicare announced the first 10 drugs selected for price negotiation, including, as I mentioned, Jardiance, which treats heart failure and diabetes; Januvia, another prescription for diabetes; Enbrel, for rheumatoid arthritis and psoriasis treatment; and Xarelto and Eliquis, medications to prevent blood clots. Taken together, those two--Xarelto and Eliquis, to prevent blood clots--are taken by 5 million Medicare beneficiaries.

I want to correct one statistic I used. It is up to 9 million Americans with Medicare Part D who take the drugs that were selected, and they have spent--I said 300--they have spent $3.4 billion in out- of-pocket costs. Up to 9 million Americans with Medicare Part D take those 10 drugs, paying an average of between $121 and $5,200 a month out-of-pocket. And $5,200 a month--how much is that per year? The pages can do the math. That is $60,000 on average per year.

What does this mean for a senior on a fixed income? That relief is finally coming.

For years, we toiled on this legislation, as the Presiding Officer and Senator Wyden know, but it was Joe Biden who finally got it over the finish line and signed it into law, giving Medicare the power to negotiate with drug companies to help bring the price of medications in the United States down.

The law also, as we all know, has other provisions--$35 out-of-pocket monthly cap on insulin. This new policy has lowered the cost of daily living for over 1.5 million Americans already.

We now have drug companies that have voluntarily, for non-seniors, capped it. I predicted this would happen--several of us did--because it is kind of hard to say: Well, seniors get $35, but a 15-year-old has to pay $100 a month. So you are starting to see that change. That law also provides free recommended vaccines, like the shingles or pneumonia shots. That is going to help the average Minnesota senior save 100 bucks. Then, of course, the legislation puts a $2,000 cap on out-of- pocket spending for Medicare beneficiaries starting in 2025.

What happened? Lawsuits. Johnson & Johnson--let's name them--Johnson & Johnson has sued. I thought when we passed it, signed into law by the President of United States--anyone who knows ``Schoolhouse Rock!'' knows you have both Houses, a bill signed by the President, it is law. What do these guy do? They go out, and they sue in court, like: Oh, we made a sweetheart deal 20 years ago, and we want it back, so we are going to sue. They hired tons of lawyers.

Johnson & Johnson, Merck, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Novartis, as well as the industry trade group, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, better known as PhRMA--they have all sued.

We know that this effort is patently absurd. Government Agencies negotiating on drug prices isn't novel or unprecedented. The VA has done it for years.

End story: We persisted after nearly $400 million was spent on lobbying in Congress. After every Member of Congress had three lobbyists assigned to them, we still passed this bill.

We still passed this bill. So big surprise, they have gone to court. But we will win there, too. Their legal argument is somewhat absurd, that somehow this is a taking, when in fact it is their choice to participate in capitalism and provide these drugs and be part of a competition. It is not a taking if they don't want to sell drugs to 50 million Americans. I guess that is up to them.

These first 10 drugs are just the beginning. We must go then to the next 15, the next 15, the next 20. That is how the law works and, at the same time, take on these patent cases that Senator Grassley and I have done, Senator Cornyn, Senator Blumenthal, others in Judiciary are leaving those to take on the sham petitions, take on the product hopping, and take on all the bad stuff that keeps competitors off the market.

But in the end, this should be a celebration. This has finally begun, and they are not going to end the celebration for 50 million seniors with all their lawyers, no matter how many they hire, and no matter how many they bring to the courthouse.

With that, I yield to my wonderful colleagues.

Mr. President, I rise to recognize the 70th wedding anniversary of Dick and Dobie Hunegs of Saint Louis Park, MN. Dick and Dobie met at a picnic in North Commons Park in North Minneapolis as teenagers. That moment in the park marked the beginning of a partnership that would bring about three loving kids, nine admiring grandchildren, three wonderful great-granddaughters, and a world forever enriched by their devotion to community engagement and service to others.

Dick and Dobie were married on August 30, 1953, at Beth El Synagogue, Dobie's childhood congregation, on what they both remember as ``one of the hottest days of the year.'' Fortunately, what they lacked in air conditioning, they made up for in pure joy. In their early years of marriage, Dick, who had been an ROTC officer at the University of Minnesota, was called up for service first at Fort Bliss in El Paso, TX, and then at Fort MacArthur in Los Angeles, CA. Upon the conclusion of Dick's service, Dick and Dobie kissed the sweltering summers goodbye and made their return to the familiar cozy winters of Minnesota.

Both of them had successful careers. Dobie was a dental hygienist at a time when few women worked outside of the home, and Dick was a plaintiff's attorney who fought like hell to get railroad workers the safety equipment and compensation they deserved. They had so much to be proud of professionally, but their true pride and joy was their three kids, Carolyn, Craig, and Steve. According to Steve, growing up as a Hunegs meant growing up raised by ``the original Saint Louis Park power couple.'' Dobie knew just about everyone in town because she cleaned their teeth, and anyone who didn't cross paths with Dobie as their dental hygienist likely had Dick as their football or hockey coach.

Carolyn, Craig, and Steve all found success in their adult lives. Carolyn was an active volunteer for the Blake School and continues to support Jewish organizations in Minnesota. To this day, the family knows that if they call Carolyn for help, she will come running. Craig helped bring now-classics like ``ER,'' ``The West Wing,'' and ``Friends'' to the masses as a television executive at Warner Brothers. Steve is the executive director of the Jewish Community Relations Council of Minnesota and the Dakotas, where he has distinguished himself as an outstanding advocate for our State's Jewish community. All three of them raised their own families, and Dick and Dobie couldn't be more proud.

I have known Dick and Dobie since I was in law school. We should all be so lucky to find the kind of partnership and love that they found in each other. I congratulate them on their 70 years of marriage and wish them nothing but joy and happiness as they embark on their next adventures.

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

Mr. President, I will be joined shortly by Senator Moran, who is the ranking Republican on the Veterans' Committee, and Senator Blumenthal, who has always been such a strong leader on many issues related to veterans. We are here to talk about an amendment that is before the Senate this week on the National Defense Authorization Act. This is our moment. This is our moment.

I came to the floor last night and spoke on this, and I am here again. And I am here not just on behalf of all the cosponsors of this important amendment, which includes Senator Lindsey Graham, who is the lead Republican on the amendment as well as, of course, the ranking Republican, the highest Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee; Senator Coons; Senator Moran; Senator Blumenthal; Senator Murkowski; Senator Shaheen; Senator Wicker, who I note is the ranking Republican on the Armed Services Committee; Senator Durbin, the chair of the Judiciary Committee; Senator Tillis; and Senator Mullin.

Of course, this bill is supported by many, many other Senators--in fact, the majority of the U.S. Senate, which sounds to me like when you have the numbers, you should be able to have a vote, and that is what I am asking for today.

I am pushing this because this is our moment. We have had 2 years to show the world whether or not we are going to stand with those who stood with us. For 2 years, we have worked on this bill. Our colleagues have had plenty of time to look at it. They have had input. It was introduced last year.

But you know who else is watching? Our military is watching. Every single one of the Senators in this Chamber have been approached by a member of our military, whether it is on Veterans Day, whether it is on Memorial Day, whether it is just walking down the street. Those who served in Afghanistan have come to us and said: Hey, I wouldn't be here today if this guy hadn't stood with me on the battlefield or if this interpreter hadn't helped me out or if this guy had not put his family on the line to gather intelligence.

And they have all asked us the same thing, and that is to not leave these courageous Afghans, who stood with our military, in limbo. We did not leave the Hmong and the Vietnamese who came over to our country. After that withdrawal and evacuation, we did not leave them in limbo. They were given a legal status, which allowed them to work, which allowed them to pursue citizenship at some point. I know because I have the biggest population of Hmong, next to California, in my State.

What do they do now, generations later? They are police officers. They are firefighters. They are teachers. They are elected officials. They are pillars of our communities.

That is what we do. That is what we did when so many Cubans came over to this country. We didn't just leave them in limbo. We included them in the fabric of life of our country, and we are the richer for it.

But this, these Afghans--so many of them vouched for by the top leaders in our military--they took bullets for us, literally, and we must stand by them.

The decision we make right now of whether we live up to the covenant we made to our Afghan allies is going to reverberate militarily and diplomatically for longer than any of us will serve in this body because the next time we are in a conflict and we ask people to serve and to put themselves at risk and put their families at risk, do you think they are not going to hear that 80,000 people are in complete limbo if we don't do something about this?

This bill strengthens our national security. And I will give you a long list of generals in a moment, very famous leaders in our military who support this bill. It does right by our Afghans who worked alongside our troops. And it shows the world that when the United States of America makes a promise, when we make a covenant, that we keep it.

Nearly 80,000 Afghans who sought refuge in our country after that evacuation are in limbo. They are in our country. Let me repeat this. They are here now. So we can choose to have some order here and have a vetting process, which is why so many of my more conservative colleagues are supporting this bill, are on this bill--because right now that process isn't in place. So this will allow us to vet people and then create some order so that

they have a provisional status in this country and they don't worry that they are going to be sent back to live under the rule of the Taliban, which certainly so many of them would be killed. Among them were brave translators, humanitarian workers, courageous members of the Afghan military who stood shoulder to shoulder with our troops.

We were right to help these people come to the United States. And now it falls on us to uphold the covenant we made to them and help provide them with the stability and the security they need to rebuild their lives here. We may have disagreements--of course we do; our country does on Afghanistan--but those need to be put aside right now to talk about what we are going to do about the covenant that we made to these people.

The bipartisan Afghan Adjustment Act creates a more thorough system, as I noted, for our Afghan allies to apply for permanent legal status. It requires that applicants go through vetting that is just as vigorous as the vetting they would have gone through if they came to the United States as a refugee, a standard that eight former Trump and George W. Bush administration national security officials have called the gold standard of vetting. Remember, there is no vetting right now. This is the way you get the vetting. Senator Graham and I worked closely with Senator Moran and others in this Chamber and the Department of Defense to make sure that the bill's vetting provisions met that gold standard.

In addition, our legislation updates a Special Immigrant Visa Program, also known as SIV, to include groups that should never have been excluded from the program in the first place, including members of the Female Tactical Team of Afghanistan, who had our troops' backs as they pursued missions hunting down ISIS combatants on unforgiving terrain and freeing prisoners from the grips of the Taliban.

The entire purpose of the Special Immigration Visa Program is to provide permanent residency to those who have supported the United States abroad. And it is clear to anyone that looks at this that these brave women should qualify.

The Afghan Adjustment Act is supported by a bipartisan group of Senators, as I just noted--11 cosponsors with many others that have pledged their support. Many others. And it has earned the backing of more than 60 organizations, including the Veterans of Foreign Wars-- that is the VFW--and the American Legion.

This bill is a top priority for these two leading veterans groups. They have contacted, literally, every Senator about the importance of passing this bill. And I hope people will listen.

Who else is this supported by? Some of our Nation's most revered military leaders, including Admirals Mike Mullen, William McRaven, James Stavridis, and Generals Richard Myers of the Air Force, Joseph Dunford from the Marine Corps, and Stan McChrystal from the Army.

We can decide that the thoughts of these military leaders aren't important to us. We can decide they don't know what they are doing. I think it is kind of the opposite, that maybe we should be listening to them when they tell us this must happen.

Here are some of the stories:

Mahnaz, a commander of the Afghan National Army's Female Tactical Platoon, who worked closely with our military to facilitate conversations between our soldiers and the Afghan women they crossed paths with in the field.

Ahmad, a pilot whose helicopter was shot down, not once, but twice. Ahmad is in legal limbo. Speaking of his work with our troops, he said:

In the face of danger, we were united, we were relentless,

we were resilient.

Another pilot who wants his name not known because he is in fear of what will happen to his family who are still back in Afghanistan, he spent 10 years helping American soldiers identify Taliban positions in the mountains of Afghanistan. He said his job was to ``capture the bad guys like al-Qaida and Taliban.''

Or there is Nangialy, an Afghan interpreter who put his life on the line to support our troops. Why? To use his words:

Same goal, same target, and same achievement.

A helicopter fighter pilot who also asked that his name not be revealed, who worked with our troops to combat the Taliban in remote areas of Afghanistan for 8 years--8 years--all the while thinking there was a covenant that he was going to be able to come to this country and people were going to protect him if needed. He survived being shot in the face by flying bullets.

There is the story of Reggie, another Afghan interpreter. Remember, being an interpreter in Afghanistan wasn't a desk job. You weren't sitting in a conference room whispering to your boss what the words were of someone whose language you don't understand. This meant working shoulder to shoulder with our troops while they were on foreign soil. Where the troops went, the interpreter went. If the troops got ambushed by bullets, the interpreter got ambushed by bullets. If the troops got bombed, the interpreter got bombed. That is a risk Reggie took every day.

On August 8, 2012, Reggie was working on patrol with a group of servicemembers including Army CPT Florent Groberg. Suddenly, a suicide bomber approached. Groberg acted fast and protected other members of his unit by shoving the bomber aside. But the vest still detonated, leaving Groberg and Reggie bloody and fighting for every breath. The explosion left Reggie with 23 pieces of shrapnel lodged in his own body. But even still, he used the energy he had to go to Groberg's aid and help him stop the bleeding.

To this day, as a result of the attack, Reggie has problems with his left ear and can't control some of his body. That is what he sacrificed for our troops. That is the depth of his covenant.

Reggie and Captain Groberg survived that attack, but, tragically, several men did not. One of the men we lost that day was U.S. Air Force Maj. Walter David Gray. He left behind his kids and his wife Heather. In August 2021, 9 years after the attack, Heather learned from an NPR reporter that Reggie was being targeted by the Taliban in Afghanistan. She wrote about that experience in an essay for the Dallas Morning News. These are her words:

Turmoil is a good way to describe the emotions I felt when

I listened to the radio interview. It was Reggie in

Afghanistan . . . describing his service as a linguist to our

military and the danger his family was in if they didn't get

out.

She went on:

Reggie served with my husband, Maj. Walter David Gray, in

the Air Force and was with him when David and three others

were killed by suicide bombers in the Kunar Province on

August 8, 2012. After listening, I called my friend Captain

Florent Groberg who . . . confirmed that the man we were

hearing on the radio was indeed ``our guy.''

With that confirmation, my family spun into action, working

with others, both stateside and in Afghanistan, to get

Reggie, his wife, and their four young children through the

gauntlet outside [the] airport and onto a military plane.

It would be nearly November before Reggie's family was resettled in Ft. Worth where the brother lives.

Heather's story continues. She wrote:

My family traveled 4 hours to Ft. Worth to meet them . . .

As we worked alongside each other assembling furniture,

Reggie showed me scars from the battle that killed my

husband. As he recounted stories of the many battles in which

he fought alongside our servicemembers, a car backfired

outside and he instinctively lowered to the floor . . . A few

weeks later, I brought my current husband and kids up to

spend Thanksgiving with Reggie's family. Despite the language

barrier and our different religions and cultures, we

celebrated as one big family, because that is what we are.

Reggie is among the Afghan allies who need Congress to pass the Afghan Adjustment Act.

She added this:

Every time we see Reggie, he reminds my children that their

father died a hero.

This story of these Afghans has too many heroes to even keep track of, and it is our job now to stand to their level, to simply pass this amendment so they are put out of legal limbo--an amendment that is cosponsored with conservative Republican Senators; an amendment cosponsored by the lead Republican on the Veterans Committee, on the Armed Services Committee, and on the Committee on the Judiciary.

I know my colleague Senator Moran is here and is ready to speak soon. I welcome him here. I also saw Senator Blumenthal. I have more words when they have completed their remarks, including the important letters we have

seen from the leading veterans groups, the leading military generals-- some of whose names I have read--including the support that we have gotten from those that served in Afghanistan in our own military.

I thank Senator Moran and his leadership on the PACT Act and so many other bills for being here.

Thank you very much to Senator Coons for his strong words and for focusing on what matters here, which is the people of our own country, the military and those who support them, who believe that this situation is simply untenable, that these Afghans who have stood with us risk, at any moment, being deported--not right now because of an order that President Biden has in place.

But that is not the only problem about uncertainty. The problem is they can't go on with their lives as has happened with past evacuees-- after Cuba, I noted; after Vietnam. They are part of the fabric of life in the United States of America now.

So let's hear what some of these security experts have to say. I am going to read a portion of a letter that a group of them sent to congressional leadership.

They said this. These aren't my words. This is theirs:

The bipartisan Afghan Adjustment Act honors our nation's

commitment to its wartime allies by providing a path to

permanent status for Afghan evacuees. It also ensures that

these evacuees are properly and scrupulously vetted prior to

considering them for such status.

The status quo leaves tens of thousands of evacuees in

legal limbo while failing to put to rest security concerns

raised in the Office of Inspector General reports.

So we can just pretend that report doesn't exist. We can just do nothing. How can that be the answer?

(Mr. HICKENLOOPER assumed the Chair.)

How can the answer be to just put our heads in the sand while they put their lives at risk for us in the sands of Afghanistan? That is why we have to vote on this amendment.

They go on to say--the security experts who worked for a number of Republican and Democratic Presidents: ``No action is not an option--we urge you to pass the Afghan Adjustment Act.''

I want to repeat that last point: ``No action is not an option.''

Here is another letter of support from the former Ambassadors to Afghanistan. Eight former U.S. Ambassadors--think about this: They actually served in Afghanistan, and a number of us--probably nearly everyone in this Chamber who was around during that time, which is many of us, has visited with these Ambassadors during one President or another. These Ambassadors served under Presidents George W. Bush, Barack Obama, Donald Trump, and Joe Biden. Each has an intimate understanding of the stakes for getting this right.

They wrote together:

We are a group of retired Ambassadors, all of whom served

as Chief of Mission at the U.S. Embassy in Afghanistan, who

have dedicated our professional lives to furthering America's

interests in the world. We are writing today because we are

convinced that

the Afghan Adjustment Act furthers those interests. The need

is urgent and time is short. . . . Without the Afghan

Adjustment Act, the task of American diplomacy will be much

more difficult. . . . [I]n the future our allies will be less

likely to support the U.S. missions if they see that our

Afghan partners are abandoned. In diplomacy, our words will

have lost meaning. . . . We urge you to pass the Afghan

Adjustment Act without delay.

I have spoken a lot about the Afghan stories today, as have my colleagues--Senator Coons, Senator Blumenthal, and Senator Moran-- because this is all personal for those of us who meet with our military and hear the stories of those who saved their lives and who put their lives on the line. But this is also about U.S. interests abroad and the bigger story of our national security, about keeping our covenants when we make promises, about expecting other people in other lands in future conflicts to be willing to put themselves and their families at risk to stand with our soldiers. Who is going to want to do that again if they hear that we made promises over decades, and then, when those brave people came to our country, we left them in legal limbo?

You heard the sad, tragic story out of Virginia a few weeks ago where an Afghan who had served as an interpreter, who was working two jobs-- in legal limbo--was murdered as a Lyft driver in the middle of the night. Those are the stories.

If people see that brinksmanship in Congress outweighs the promises we made overseas, how can we lead?

Finally, I want to share some words from a group of more than three dozen of our Nation's most esteemed military leaders, including Gen. Joseph Dunford, U.S. Marine Corps; Admiral Mike Mullen, U.S. Navy; Gen. Richard Myers, U.S. Air Force; Admiral Jim Stavridis, U.S. Navy; GEN Peter Chiarelli, U.S. Army; GEN Stan McChrystal, U.S. Army; GEN David McKiernan, U.S. Army; Admiral William McRaven, U.S. Navy; GEN Austin Miller, U.S. Army; GEN John Nicholson, Jr., U.S. Army; GEN M. David Rodriguez, U.S. Army; GEN Curtis Scaparrotti, U.S. Army; GEN Raymond A. Thomas III, U.S. Army; GEN Joseph Votel, U.S. Army; and Gen. Mark Welsh, U.S. Air Force.

I read the complete list last night, and I will do it again because that gives you a sense of the kind of people I think we should be listening to. Maybe it is worth my colleagues'--a minute of their time to sit back and look at the people who are supporting this bill who lead our military or have led our military. They have been resolute in their support for the Afghan Adjustment Act, and the letter they sent to congressional leadership makes that clear.

In their words--these are their words, not mine:

If Congress fails to enact the [Afghan Adjustment Act], the

United States will be less secure.

Let's read that again.

If Congress fails to enact the [Afghan Adjustment Act] the

United States will be less secure.

My colleague Senator Moran outlined why. It is about the fact that there is no vetting in place, and this puts the vetting in place. Most importantly, it is about the fact that to keep our Nation's leadership and to be true to our covenant, we have to be true to our word.

Finally, we have the stories of people who, if allowed to flourish in this country, will go on to do great things. So it is on us.

This is what else they wrote:

Potential allies will remember what happens now with our

Afghan allies. If we claim to support the troops and want to

enable their success in wartime, we must keep our commitments

today. The [Afghan Adjustment Act] will go a long way.

Additionally, without the fixes--

These are their words--

applied by the Afghan Adjustment Act, our immigration system

will be less capable, not more capable, of properly

processing and vetting applicants. The enhancements that the

Afghan Adjustment Act adds to the security screening process

of those who were evacuated are of critical importance to our

national security.

Mr. President, this is a harrowing warning from our military's top brass.

Without the Afghan Adjustment Act, our soldiers will face new obstacles in finding allies on the battlefield, because in the past, we kept our covenants. We kept them. We kept them no matter if the Congress was Democratic or Republican or the President was Democrat or Republican. We kept our commitments.

All I am asking is that we have a vote--along with my colleagues--on this amendment. And I will repeat: the leading Republicans on Judiciary, Armed Services, and the Veterans' Committee--Senator Moran, who is here today--are cosponsors of this amendment and are asking for a vote. We have Senator Durbin, the chair of the Judiciary Committee, asking for a vote. We have dozens and dozens of Senators who want to get this done. We need this vote. We have Republicans, Democrats, military and veterans groups, national security leaders, retired U.S. Ambassadors to Afghanistan, and flag officers all on the same page. They are not debating the nuances of every little word because that bill has been out there now for 2 years.

We have strengthened it vastly in response to our colleagues. We have made changes to it, and it is ready to go, just like our Afghan allies have been ready to go because they have been here for nearly 2 years, waiting for us to keep our covenants--ones who have taken bullets to the face, ones who have lost legs. They are in our country waiting for us to keep our covenant.

Until we get this done, we are essentially asking our allies--those who took shrapnel across the body, those who took bullets to their faces--to rebuild their lives on top of a trapdoor that could fall out from under them at any second. Without the Afghan Adjustment Act, all of it--their jobs, their homes, their safety, their families--could disappear.

By including this amendment in the NDAA, we can strengthen the national security of our country by making our vetting program more thorough. You heard Senator Moran talk about that. It was a huge issue with Senator Graham, and we worked together to build the gold standard, which, as I mentioned, has been supported by leaders under every single one of the last four Presidents.

So let's put aside the politics and distraction. Let's do what is right for our national security, for our global reputation, and for Afghan allies who shed blood alongside our troops on the battlefield.

This Defense bill is about what? No. 1 and foremost, our Nation's security. So ask yourselves, those in the Gallery who have been listening for the past hour to our colleagues on both sides of the aisle who support this bill, does this amendment support our national security? Of course it does. The top ranks, those who were in charge in Afghanistan, have told us that it does.

No. 2, this bill that we are voting on this week and all the series of amendments--it should set a moral example for the world. That is what the United States did through World War I and through World War II. We set a moral example for the world. That is what this amendment does too. It sets a moral example for the world.

No. 3, we must show people everywhere that when America makes a promise, when America makes a covenant, it must be kept.

The Afghan adjustment amendment advances all those objectives.

I am asking my colleagues simply for a vote. If they want to vote against it, it is fine. They can vote against the generals and the VFW and the American Legion. They all have differences. That is fine. But why would we deny those who took bullets for us even the ability to have a vote in what should be and has been called the Nation's greatest deliberative body?

Let's be as great as we are supposed to be, which means standing by our values and showing the world that our word, that America's covenant, matters.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I follow the strong remarks from my colleague from New Hampshire.

I also note that we are joined by the Senator from Massachusetts, who has called out these delays from the very beginning, called out this what I will call a blockade. We thank Senator Reed for his leadership of this committee.

These Senators here before us work every single day to make sure our military is strong. And what is going on with the Senator from Alabama, he has placed a reckless hold--a reckless hold--on the nominations of some of our Nation's finest public servants to more than 275 general and flag officer positions.

These holds, as you have heard tonight, are preventing the Pentagon from executing smooth leadership transitions for the most critical roles in our Nation's security apparatus and leaving entire Agencies without leaders.

I should note that our colleague from Alabama has not taken issue with the quality of these 275 candidates. In fact, some of these candidates were actually nominated for other positions by the previous President and earned bipartisan support. But our colleague from Alabama, for the reasons outlined by my friend from New Hampshire, is now holding the entire military chain of command hostage.

When I was home this past weekend, when I was at festivals, when I was in parades, everyone knew someone, everyone knew someone at the Duluth Airshow that was being held up. Everyone had heard about it from their friends. Certainly, every marine I met, they knew what was going on. So if people think this is just politics as usual and one Senator can just hold up the promotions and the positions of these fine public servants, they are wrong. People have noticed.

For example, we are currently without a confirmed Commandant of the Marine Corps. Our country has not been in this position since 1911. To say it in a different way, in 112 years, we have never let this role sit vacant until today because of one single Senator and his views, which, by the way, are not consistent with the majority of the American people's views.

My colleague has also stalled the promotions of three esteemed military leaders with strong ties to my own State. If you ask me, careers of honorable service should not be met by the politics of partisan spite.

My colleague's completely unnecessary interruption of promotions that support our military's essential work comes at a time when having steady, complete teams in place couldn't be more important. Whether you look at Ukraine's existential fight against Russia or the ever-growing threat of China, it is clear that the world needs America's leadership.

I spoke about this last night at length and today when it comes to keeping our covenant with those who stood with us on the battlefield, those who stood with us in Afghanistan. And here we are again tonight, really talking about the same thing in a different way.

We can talk all we want on this floor about what goes on, but those who actually serve, they deserve the best. And this is not the time to let essential roles sit vacant. Our servicemembers and the civilians who serve our military must be able to look to their leaders for guidance and stability.

This blockade is creating uncertainty among the people whose job it is to protect our Nation and forcing less experienced leaders to act in more senior roles.

I don't want to wait around and see what the worst possible outcome of delaying these transitions could be. In fact, I don't even want to think about that. But because of my colleague's blockade, we have no choice.

To use the words of one retired admiral, ``This is not a game.'' Our country deserves better. The Senate must do better.

Every day this blockade, caused by one Senator--one Senator-- continues, it hurts our military, and it helps our enemies. We must end the blockade now.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to honor the 25th anniversary of the tragic passing of two fallen Capitol Police officers, Officer Jacob J. Chestnut, Jr., and Detective John M. Gibson, who were killed while bravely defending the Capitol on July 24, 1998.

In the afternoon of July 24, 1998, a lone gunman forced his way past a security checkpoint, fatally shot Officer Chestnut, and ran toward the offices of Majority Whip Tom DeLay. Detective Gibson, a member of Representative DeLay's protective team, told others to hide and find cover while he stood in defense until he was mortally wounded himself. Office Chestnut and Detective Gibson made the ultimate sacrifice to protect the lives of others in the Capitol that day.

Officer Jacob Joseph Chestnut, Jr., was a 20-year Air Force veteran, having served two tours in Vietnam and retired as a master sergeant. He has the distinction of being the first African-American to lie in honor at the Capitol.

Detective John Michael Gibson had served with the U.S. Capitol Police for 18 years. He left behind his wife, a 17-year-old daughter, and two sons, 14 and 15 years old. He lay in honor with Officer Chestnut in the Capitol Rotunda.

Both men were buried with full honors in Arlington National Cemetery. These men gave their lives here on the grounds of the Capitol, in defense of our democracy. In the days that followed, Representative DeLay stated that their deaths symbolized ``the sacrifices of thousands of police officers across the Nation who do their duty to serve and protect the public, sometimes under great abuse, sometimes under great disregard, and many times people take them for granted. It all comes together when an incident like this happens and we realize how much we owe to police officers all over this country.''

The men and women of the Capitol Police put their lives on the line every day, and each and every one of us who works here are indebted to their sacrifice. Today we remember Officer Jacob Chestnut and Detective John Gibson while thanking all of the officers of the U.S. Capitol Police Department.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to speak to the importance of passing the Afghan Adjustment Act as an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act, which is pending before the U.S. Senate.

This is our moment. We have been working on this for 2 years--2 years--while people who have stood with our military have been in limbo, 2 years when they don't know what their future will hold. This is their time.

This bipartisan legislation that I lead with Senator Lindsey Graham is also cosponsored by Senator Coons; Senator Moran, who is the ranking Republican on the Veterans' Affairs Committee; Senator Blumenthal; Senator Murkowski; Senator Shaheen; Senator Wicker, who is the ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee; Senator Durbin, who is the chair of the Judiciary Committee; of course, Senator Graham, who is the ranking member on the Judiciary Committee; Senator Tillis and Senator Mullin, with many others who support this bill.

Mr. President, this bill strengthens our national security. It does right by Afghans who worked alongside our troops. And from a broader national security perspective, as we look at the many purposes of the bill before us, this amendment shows the world that when the United States of America makes a promise, we keep it. We keep our covenant.

Nearly 80,000 Afghans who sought refuge in our country, who are in our country, are currently in limbo, including many who risked their own lives and their families' safety to protect our servicemembers. Among them are translators, humanitarian workers, and courageous members of the Afghan military who stood shoulder to shoulder with our troops.

We were right to help those people flee the Taliban and come to the United States, and it now falls on us to uphold the covenant we made to them and give them the stability and the security that they need to rebuild their life.

We know this has worked before. I know this. I have one of the biggest Hmong populations in the United States of America. They came after a war in really sad circumstances for our country and for them, but they have rebuilt their lives. They are now police officers in Minnesota. They are teachers. They are lawyers. They are legislators.

That is what we did after the revolution in Cuba. That is what we did. We took people and we gave them a status that allowed them to succeed in our country.

But in this case, we actually asked them to serve with our military, to put their lives at risk, to gather intelligence for our military.

Who do you think is going to want to help us in the future if we don't keep our covenant, if we don't keep our promise?

The bipartisan Afghan Adjustment Act creates a more thorough system for Afghan allies to apply for permanent legal status. It requires that applicants go through a vetting that is just as rigorous as the vetting they would have gone through if they came to the United States as refugees.

They get this. They are already here.

So one of the reasons that Senator Graham, especially, and Senator Wicker are so interested in this bill is it actually provides more security because of the vetting that will occur that otherwise would not occur. This vetting standard is a standard that eight former Trump and George W. Bush administration national security officials called the ``gold standard'' of vetting.

Senator Graham and I worked closely with Republicans, including Senator Moran, and the Department of Defense to strengthen the bill's vetting standards. That is what is before us with this amendment-- keeping our covenant and doing the vetting. Both ways you look at it, it is good for national security.

In addition, our legislation updates the Special Immigrant Visa Program to include groups that should never have been excluded from the program in the first place, including the female tactical teams of Afghanistan, who did so much to support our troops. The entire purpose of the Special Immigration Visa Program is to provide residency for those who have supported the United States abroad. It is clear to me that these brave women should qualify just as many of the men did.

The Afghan Adjustment Act is supported, as I noted, by a bipartisan group of 11 cosponsors. But get this: This bill has earned the backing of more than 60 organizations, including the Veterans of Foreign Wars, or, as we know them, the VFW, and the American Legion. This is one of their top priorities right now, as well as for some of our most revered military leaders, including Admirals Mike Mullen, William McRaven, and James Stavridis; and Generals Richard Myers of the Air Force, Joseph Dunford of the Marine Corps, and Stan McChrystal of the Army.

I think the Presiding Officer knows a few of these people, and he knows how they have served our country.

That is why, if you are not going to listen to me, listen to them. Listen to the leading veterans groups in this country that know how important it is for us to pass this bill. We must uphold our covenant.

That means bringing well-earned certainty to Afghans who are already here--an example, Nangialy, who began working alongside U.S. troops as an interpreter in 2007.

I want to be clear about what it meant for an interpreter to work alongside U.S. troops in Afghanistan. What did it mean? When the Taliban ambushed our soldiers with bullets, they ambushed their interpreters too.

They weren't just sitting in an office being interpreters and just sitting there and whispering in their books. They were out on the battlefield with our military. When the Taliban ambushed the soldiers, they ambushed the interpreters. When our troops were targeted with IEDs, the interpreters were targeted too.

That is what Nangialy risked, but he did it anyway. Why? To use his words, ``same goals, same target, and same achievement.''

Now, it wasn't just the interpreters. There is another Afghan who wants to remain anonymous because his family is still back in Afghanistan. That is the risk we are putting people in when they are in this very unclear status. He was a helicopter fighter pilot with the U.S. military. He worked with our troops to combat the Taliban in remote areas of Afghanistan for 8 years. On one mission, he was shot in the face by flying bullets. Miraculously, he survived because the bullet passed through his cheek and open mouth. He shed blood in our fight, and we should not let another day go by without keeping the covenant we made to him.

Another story: An Afghan intelligence sergeant who also wants to remain anonymous, who helped carry out several operations against the Taliban and ISIS with our military. In 2018, while working alongside a U.S. Special Forces group, he was caught in an IED explosion and lost both of his legs.

Let me repeat that.

His fight with our troops cost him both of his legs. Doesn't he deserve better than complete uncertainty and a refusal of our government to even give him a status, a provisional status, and never knowing if he is going to have to be sent back there? That is what we are doing?

Our servicemembers and veterans understand this is imperative. I know every Member in this Senate has been approached by members of our own military about this. On Veterans Day, on Memorial Day, when you are walking in a parade, they come up and they tell a story about someone who stood with them whom they got to know. Maybe that person is still somewhere in hiding in Afghanistan, but most likely, some of them are in our country, which is a good thing. But, right now, they are in our country--let me repeat. They are in our country, living in our country, but we, right now, are refusing to give them the status that we have given past people who helped us in conflicts. That is embarrassing.

Some of the most vocal advocates of the Afghan Adjustment Act have been military groups. A coalition of more than 30 military groups, including the American Legion and Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, penned a letter calling on congressional leadership to pass this bill.

They wrote this to the leaders of both Houses on both sides of the aisle:

America's veterans served with Afghans for two decades in

Afghanistan. We fought side-by-side with them, and we saw

firsthand their courage and dedication. They risked their

very lives to help us and made significant contributions to

our mission.

Again, this is 30 military groups, including the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, the American Legion, Blue Star families, Honor the Promise, the Black Veterans Project--and I could go on and on and on.

What else did they write?

They write:

We call on Congress to pass legislation that would allow

Afghan parolees who are being evacuated from Afghanistan to

have an opportunity to seek lawful permanent residence in the

United States.

Again, these are people who have this SIV status.

Then they go on:

We urge you to support the Afghan Adjustment Act as soon as

possible. We promised to stand by our allies who, often at

risk to themselves and their families, served in uniform or

publicly defended women's and democratic rights. The U.S.

government made a similar promise.

This is a letter from the 30 military groups of our country. They say:

The U.S. government made a similar promise; keeping it

assures that the American commitments will be honored.

This is 30 military organizations telling us what it was like to serve alongside our Afghan allies. Most of us in this Chamber don't know that experience. We don't know how much they owe those Afghan interpreters--those people who gathered the intelligence. We don't know. We would go on congressional trips there, but we weren't there on the battlefield; they were. So maybe, for a change, we should listen to what they have to say about what they saw. They know that many of these people are here right now, but we just can't get out of our petty politics to try to at least give them the status that they deserve.

Many of our Nation's national security experts have also called on Congress to pass the Afghan Adjustment Act, accurately pointing out that doing so is both a moral imperative and necessary for our national security.

Here is a portion of a letter that was sent to congressional leadership by the following experts: Rick ``Ozzie'' Nelson, former Director, Office of Combating Terrorism; National Security Council staff under George W. Bush. He was also a U.S. Navy helicopter pilot and Afghan veteran; Gus Coldebella, former Acting General Counsel with the Department of Homeland Security; Michael Neifach, former Principal Legal Advisor for Immigration and Customs Enforcement with the Homeland Security Council staff under George W. Bush; Elizabeth Neumann, former Assistant Secretary for Threat Prevention and Security Policy for the Department of Homeland Security and former Deputy Chief of Staff for the Department of Homeland Security; Stewart Verdery, former Assistant Secretary for Policy and Planning for the Department of Homeland Security; Ross Ashley, former Assistant Administrator for the Federal Emergency Management Association, former Virginia Air National Guardsmen and U.S. Air Force Reserves; Hans Miller, former Deputy Assistant Administrator of the Transportation Security Administration; and Lynden Melmed, former Chief Counsel of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.

What does this letter say?

This letter says this:

The rationale for the Afghan Adjustment Act is clear.

First, it follows through on our nation's commitment to its

wartime allies by providing at risk Afghans and their

families--including many that supported U.S. military and

diplomatic efforts for the past 20 years--a path to permanent

status in the United States.

Second, it sends a clear message to current and future

allies--

And this is so key and it isn't kind of the first thing you think about here--

--those that are necessary for U.S. servicemembers and

diplomats to perform their missions in pursuit of national

security--that the United States is a reliable and trusted

partner and it stands by the democratic ideals that it

professes.

This is why Senator Graham and I have worked on this bill for so many years. This is why we have the ranking Republicans on Veterans', on Judiciary, and on Armed Services supporting the bill.

When I first got to the Senate, honestly, I thought that would be enough to get this done; that that would be enough to bless this and give it the gold standard, just as all of these former Bush and Trump and Obama and current Biden officials have given it their stamp; that this is a good vetting process; that it is certainly a lot better than having people sit here in limbo after they have served our country.

Here is another letter from former Ambassadors to Afghanistan because it is not just military groups and national security experts. Eight former U.S. Ambassadors to Afghanistan called on us to pass the Afghan Adjustment Act. These experts served under Presidents George W. Bush, Barack Obama, Donald Trump, and Joe Biden, and each has an intimate understanding of the sacrifices made by our Afghan allies.

Remember, it is these diplomats, it is these military leaders who have asked these Afghans for their help. Regardless of what people think about what happened with the withdrawal--regardless of people's views on this--can't we just agree on one thing; that we should stand with the people who stood with us?

This is what the Ambassadors to Afghanistan under George W. Bush, Barack Obama, Donald Trump, and Joe Biden have said:

Without the Afghan Adjustment Act, the task of American

diplomacy will be much more difficult. If the United States

does not act to support its allies by passing the Afghan

Adjustment Act, in the future, our allies will be less likely

to support the U.S. missions if they see that our Afghan

partners are abandoned.

In diplomacy, our words will have lost meaning, and in the

unfortunate event of future conflict--

This is the Ambassadors writing, not me, Ambassadors who went to serve in Afghanistan and who took on that assignment under four different Presidents.

They are writing, if we don't do this, ``[i]n diplomacy, our words will have lost meaning, and in the unfortunate event of future conflict, what incentive would local allies have to support our troops?''

A good question.

Finally, I want to share some words from a group of more than three dozen of our Nation's most esteemed military leaders. They are retired military leaders. As I mentioned, they are Gen. Joseph F. Dunford of the U.S. Marine Corps; ADM Mike Mullen of the U.S. Navy; Gen. Richard Myers of the U.S. Air Force; ADM Jim Stavridis of the U.S. Navy; GEN Peter W. Chiarelli of the U.S. Army; GEN Stan McChrystal of the U.S. Army; GEN David McKiernan of the U.S. Army; ADM William H. McRaven of the U.S. Navy; GEN Austin S. Miller of the U.S. Army; GEN John W. Nicholson, Jr., of the U.S. Army; GEN M. David Rodriguez of the U.S. Army; GEN Curtis Scaparrotti of the U.S. Army; GEN Raymond A. Thomas III of the U.S. Army; GEN Joseph Votel of the U.S. Army; Gen. Mark Welsh of the U.S. Air Force; Lt. Gen. John A. Bradley of the U.S. Air Force; LTG Jeff Buchanan of the U.S. Army; LTG Stephen Fogarty of the U.S. Army; LTG Benjamin C. Freakley of the U.S. Army; LTG Ben Hodges of the U.S. Army; LTG John F. Mulholland, Jr., of the U.S. Army; LTG Leopoldo A. Quintas, Jr., of the U.S. Army; LTG Mark C. Schwartz of the U.S. Army; LTG John C. Thomson of the U.S. Army; LTG Francis Wiercinski of the U.S. Army; MG Edward Dorman III of the U.S. Army; Maj. Gen. Dawn Dunlap of the U.S. Air Force; MG Paul Eaton of the U.S. Army; Maj. Gen. Buck Elton of the U.S. Air Force; Maj. Gen. Walter D. Givhan of the U.S. Air Force; MG William Hix of the U.S. Army; MG James B. Linder of the U.S. Army; MG Mark MacCarley of the U.S. Army; MG Mark R. Quantock of the U.S. Army; MG Edward Reeder of the U.S. Army; MG Patrick J. Reinert of the U.S. Army; MG Jefforey Smith of the U.S. Army; MG Tammy Smith of the U.S. Army; MG James ``Boe'' Young of the U.S. Army; BG Steve Anderson of the U.S. Army; BG Norvell Coots of the U.S. Army; BG Gary M. Jones of the U.S. Army; BG Richard C. Kim of the U.S. Army; and Brig. Gen. Chad T. Manske of the U.S. Air Force.

Those are only the ones who signed the letter. So I will just ask my colleagues--and perhaps we should listen to those who have led our forces in times of war. When they say that these people stood with them and when they say that if we do nothing and just let them be in limbo-- and we know, just a few weeks ago, one of them was murdered in the State of Virginia, in the middle of the night, because he was working as a Lyft driver--is that what we are going to do? Are we just going to leave them in limbo or are we going to stand with them as the top leaders in our military have suggested?

They have been resolute in their support, not just of doing something about this, but of this bill, of this amendment. We worked with the military for years on this amendment. They have signed their names to this letter. What does the letter say specifically?

It says:

If Congress fails to enact the [Afghan Adjustment Act], the

United States will be less secure.

OK. There you go. We can just stand here and not want to deal with this because everyone wants to go home for August or we can actually vote on this amendment. That is all we are asking. We want to vote on this amendment.

They write:

If Congress fails to enact the [Afghan Adjustment Act], the

United States will be less secure. As military professionals,

it was and remains our duty to prepare for future conflicts.

We assure you that in any such conflict, potential allies

will remember what happens now with our Afghan allies. If we

claim to support the troops and want to enable their success

in wartime, we must keep our commitments today. The [Afghan

Adjustment Act]--

And this isn't me talking. This is all the top brass, the top military, who led us in times of war.

They write:

The [Afghan Adjustment Act] will go a long way.

Additionally, without the fixes applied by the [Afghan

Adjustment Act]--

This is them writing, not me--

our immigration system will be less capable, not more

capable, of properly processing and vetting applicants.

To break from their letter, that was the point I made earlier about why Senator Wicker and Senator Graham and Senator Moran were so focused on making sure that this was the gold standard of vetting in this bill.

Back to the letter:

The enhancements that the Afghan Adjustment Act adds to the

security screening process of those who were evacuated are of

critical importance to our national security.

Listening?

Even if you don't agree with me on the security of our country overall in standing with our allies, at the very least, look at that. Shouldn't we be vetting people who were evacuated? Hmm. Maybe that would be a good idea. That is what they say in this letter.

Three dozen military flag officers think that without the Afghan Adjustment Act, our Nation will be less secure. Our soldiers will face new obstacles in finding allies on the battlefield, and our immigration system will be less capable of vetting applicants. Those are plenty of good reasons to support this amendment and why we have leading Senators--both on the Democratic side and Republican side--on this critical amendment. So that is it.

We have the leading people who head the committees in this very Chamber supporting this bill. That is how much work that Senator Graham and I have done to get them on board. We have got them on this.

We have got military and veterans groups. We have national security leaders. We have retired U.S. Ambassadors to Afghanistan under four different Presidents: Obama, Trump, Biden, and George W. Bush. And we have all of the top brass retired military officers, whose names I just read off.

They are not debating which bill or which amendment because we have been working on it for 2 years. They know exactly what we should do, and it is this bill, the Afghan Adjustment Act.

All of our colleagues have had at least a year to look at this bill. So I don't want to hear that. I don't want to hear that, ``Oh, we have got to look at this more.'' Give me a break. This bill has been out there for a very, very long time. There is absolutely no reason we shouldn't have a vote.

If people want to vote against the American Legion, and the VFW, and all the top brass of the military, and all the Ambassadors who served under those Presidents, that is fine. That is their right. But we need to have a vote. That is the only way we can show that we are keeping our covenant.

Until we get this done, we are essentially asking our Afghan allies-- people who took bullets in the face, who lost limbs--to rebuild their lives on top of a trapped door that could fall out from under them at any second. Without the Afghan Adjustment Act, all of it--their jobs, their homes, their safety--could disappear.

By including the amendment in the NDAA, we can strengthen the national security of our country by making our vetting program more thorough--such a top priority of many of our colleagues--while finally doing right by our Afghan allies who sacrificed for us.

Let's put aside the politics and the distractions. There are a lot of good things in this bill. We have got a lot of votes on big things and little things so far. Where is this? Who is going to object to at least allowing this vote? They can vote against it if they want, some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, but don't deny us a vote.

By ``us,'' who am I talking about? Yeah, the Afghans who are here who sacrificed for us, the top military, the Ambassadors, the military in this country who have come up and talked to each and every one of us about this bill, American soldiers who are begging us to do something about it. That is ``us.''

The way I see it, this defense bill is about three things: one, our Nation's security; two, setting a moral example for the world; and, three, showing people everywhere that when America

makes a promise, a covenant, it will be kept. The Afghan Adjustment Act, the amendment that Senator Graham and I have put forth, advances all of these objectives.

Pass this amendment. Show the world that our word, show our own military that our word and our covenant matters.

I yield the floor.