Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to honor the memory of the late William T. ``Bill'' Maughlin, Jr., who left an indelible mark on Baltimore City and the great State of Maryland through his lifelong dedication and service.

Beginning his distinguished 30-year career as an employee of the Maryland Messenger, now Need It Now Courier of Maryland, Mr. Maughlin, affectionately known as ``Chef Bill,'' was constantly evolving in the ways he positively impacted the city and its residents. He then became a fundraiser for the Maryland Committee for Children, which advocated for improved childcare, and later transitioned to a food services manager and events planner for the Maryland Zoo in Baltimore.

Mr. Maughlin remained focused on the growth and joy of his community, establishing several ventures with his partner Kevin Brown throughout the years. Together, they created many prominent Baltimore businesses, providing a second home and community meeting place for many. They cemented themselves as Baltimore business staples, notably including Nirvana, the city's first ``cafetorium'' at 1727 N. Charles St., where they hosted a performance by legendary actress and singer Eartha Kitt in 1993.

In 2006, Mr. Maughlin's passion for community and art coalesced in the founding of the Station North Arts Cafe--SNAC--Gallery. At the suggestion of then-Maryland Institute College of Art President Fred Lazarus IV, it expanded in 2013 with the creation of Nancy by SNAC, a beloved local watering hole. Chef Bill's creative culinary pursuits, including an all-day breakfast menu featuring dishes like pulled pork barbecue and cornbread waffles, were a testament to his innovative spirit, his love for food, and his desire to nourish his community.

I offer my heartfelt gratitude to Mr. Maughlin's family for his service. His life will forever be remembered by his passionate leadership and mentorship of the Baltimore City community. His legacy is etched in the hearts of those he touched, and he will be deeply missed.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, with regards to the motion to waive the point of order against the FISA section 702 provision in the conference report, I share the sponsor's concerns on the potential expiration of section 702 authorities, which are critical to foreign intelligence collection efforts and protecting the homeland. However, I am also deeply concerned that Section 7902 of the NDAA extends section 702 authorities without much-needed reforms to better protect the civil liberties of Americans.

Despite the fact that surveillance under this section is supposed to be limited to certain foreign nationals abroad, a FISA Court opinion released in July 2023 stated that the FBI conducted approximately 40,000-50,000 warrantless ``back door'' search queries of section 702 communications data targeting U.S. persons per quarter in 2022. I support the FBI's initiative to voluntarily adopt stricter internal compliance rules to address this problem, but the administration and Congress must work together to do more to balance the need for intelligence collection and the protection of civil rights.

Due to the FISA Court's certification process, the administration has acknowledged that, even in the absence of a formal 4-month extension, the government is able to conduct surveillance authorized under section 702 until April 11, 2024. I also understand that a formal extension of FISA authorities through April 2024, would effectively reset the clock and allow the administration to obtain a fresh certification from the FISA Court, thereby effectively extending the authority for an additional 12 months beyond the 4-month extension. That would only further delay our opportunity to review the program and propose necessary reforms. For the record, I would have supported an alternative that extended the formal authorization through April 2024, so long as it would have prevented the administration from obtaining a fresh certification to extend the program for another year after that. That alternative is not, however, before the Senate. The bottom line is that I agree that the section 702 program is necessary for our national security, but I also think it needs to be reviewed and reformed.

We should not short-circuit the robust, bipartisan discussions in Congress on how to reform this authority with a lengthy extension. I am voting against this motion to waive the point of order so we can pair the extension of section 702 surveillance programs with a serious and targeted reform effort that maintains critical national security capabilities in a manner consistent with constitutionally protected rights.

Madam President, I rise today to honor John Noel, a man who has been instrumental in preserving Maryland's historical sites at the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park for over two decades. Throughout his tenure, he has established a reputation as a dedicated leader and guardian of Maryland's treasured landscapes.

Since assuming the role of deputy superintendent in 2014, Mr. Noel has been vital to the C&O Canal's mission. He has ensured that the Park's over 5 million annual visitors experience a page of history as they walk through its grounds. Mr. Noel's charge at the C&O Canal-- overseeing the Park's maintenance, operations, and educational programming--has touched the lives of many. His work, in collaboration with his team, spans the Park's impressive 184.5-mile stretch.

Mr. Noel's leadership in preserving the history of the C&O Canal is truly commendable. For nearly 100 years, the canal was a lifeline for communities along the Potomac River, transporting coal, lumber, and agricultural products to market. His journey at the National Park Service has had a profound impact, shaping not only the terrain of the park but also the hearts of all who had the pleasure of working alongside him.

Mr. Noel's footprints along the C&O Canal and his impact will continue to be remembered by all and serve as a source of strength. Maryland's historical sites will continue to be honored and preserved because of Mr. Noel's leadership, and I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating him and wishing him a well-earned, enjoyable, and fulfilling retirement.

Mr. President, November 19, 2023, marks the World Day of Remembrance for Road Traffic Victims, WDoR, commemorating the millions of people killed and injured by the devastating cost of car crashes. On this day, communities across the Nation and globe gather to call for action against the roadway safety crisis, recognizing that these are not isolated incidents but rather widespread problems with known solutions. This day also serves as a powerful reminder of the critical work of emergency responders in saving lives and as a moment to stand in solidarity to recognize how road traffic deaths and injuries deeply impact our community. Now is the time to take decisive action. By investing in proven, tangible measures and enacting legislation, we can prevent further loss of life. Our Nation must invest in advanced technology and the redesign of our roadways to spare more families the tragedy of losing a loved one.

Like other issues that are uniquely American, the U.S. failure to protect all road users, especially pedestrians and cyclists, makes us stand out among developed nations. According to the World Health Organization, the United States ranks 47th out of 54 in traffic fatality rate among high-income nations. In 2021, there were 42,915 deaths due to roadway crashes in the U.S., the highest figure since 2005. This highlights the lack of progress that has been made in addressing these preventable losses.

As we solemnly observe this day, we are reminded of the profound message behind this year's poignant theme: Safe Streets for All. Since its inception in 1995 and its subsequent adoption by the United Nations for global observance on November 15, 2005, the WDoR has become a catalyst for change across continents. It is a day that compels us to reflect on the heartbreaking losses experienced by families worldwide due to unsafe road conditions.

Our call to action is clear and urgent: We must not only remember but also advocate for immediate change. This means demanding from our leaders a steadfast commitment to invest in and reimagine our infrastructure. By fostering the creation of safer vehicles, redesigning our roadways, and ensuring walkable and bike-friendly communities, especially for those communities that have been persistently marginalized, we can transform our streets into corridors of safety rather than peril.

In honoring the lives tragically cut short by traffic accidents, we confront the profound loss of family members, partners, and cherished friends, alongside the burdens of caring for those left with permanent disabilities. Yet it is in our collective commitment to act that we find the truest form of remembrance, ensuring such tragedies become rare exceptions. Rejecting complacency, we honor the victims by embracing our shared duty to prevent further needless interruptions of life stories on our roads. As a community, both local and global, we are called to forge a path toward safer streets, decisively acting to protect every life and using the memories of those we have lost as a catalyst for real and enduring change.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, at this moment of danger and peril around the world, we, the United States of America, must support our friends and democracies that are under attack from brutal adversaries. That means supporting Israel's right to defend itself in the aftermath of the brutal Hamas attacks of October 7.

It also means ensuring that the people of Ukraine can defend themselves against Putin's rank aggression. Make no mistake about it, this proposal on the floor today is tantamount to saying the Ukrainian people should surrender to Vladimir Putin. It is waving the white flag. If we don't support Ukraine, not only will the Ukrainians lose, democracy will lose around the world. And I have to say that Ronald Reagan would be rolling in his grave today to see the Republican Party abandoning Ukraine in the fight for democracy and freedom.

You know, most of us gathered recently in the Old Senate Chamber with President Zelenskyy, and he was very clear that the Ukrainians will fight on to defend their democracy and their sovereignty, but if the United States doesn't stand by the people of Ukraine, Putin will have the upper hand.

So for goodness' sake, our Ukrainian friends are spilling blood; they are giving lives. The very least we can do is step up and continue to provide military assistance so that they can defend themselves.

And this is not only about Ukraine; it is about making sure that our allies--our NATO allies--understand that the United States will continue to stand up against aggression. If the United States walks away, the NATO alliance will begin to collapse.

It also sends a terrible signal to others around the world--other autocrats--who are watching very carefully what the United States and our allies do with respect to Ukraine. I have heard my colleagues say it is only speculation as to what our allies in the Indo-Pacific would think if we walked away.

Well, let me tell you. They have told us very clearly. Leaders in Japan and South Korea, friends in Taiwan are watching closely what the United States does with respect to Ukraine, just as President Xi is keeping one eye on Taiwan as he keeps the other eye on what is happening in Ukraine.

Now, President Biden is scheduled to meet with President Xi tomorrow in San Francisco at the APEC conference. And I can tell my colleagues don't pretend on the Senate floor or otherwise that you are going to be really tough on China; that you are going to support Taiwan if you cut loose and run when it comes to Ukraine because they are intricately connected. Just ask the people in Taiwan, ask the people in the Indo- Pacific region.

Finally, I keep hearing my Republican colleagues talk about their so- called pay-for, as if the $14 billion dollar cut to the IRS pays for the $14 billion in support for Israel. This debate has been going on for a couple of weeks so it can't be that our colleagues aren't paying attention to what both the IRS and the Congressional Budget Office have said. They have said, far from paying for it, it will actually increase

the deficit. That was the testimony of all the witnesses, Democrats and Republicans, in the Budget Committee last week. Why would it increase the deficit? Because you are taking away funds that the IRS is using to go after very wealthy tax deadbeats, people who are not paying the taxes that are already due and owing.

You are saying to the IRS: We are going to deny you the funds to go after those very wealthy deadbeats. And because you can't collect the revenue from those tax deadbeats, the United States deficit is going to go up, not down. So that doesn't pay for it. Don't call it a pay-for. That is simply a fraud. It is not true.

And what is really astounding--I have heard my colleagues use the word ``leverage'' a couple of times. It is a new cynicism to use our efforts to support Israel to provide what amounts to a don't-have-to- pay-your-taxes message to very wealthy Americans. It is like nobody ever seems to miss an opportunity to give another tax break to very wealthy folks on the Republican side. In this case, it is not a tax break; it is actually just requiring that people pay the taxes already due and owing. So stop calling it a pay-for.

Let's stand up for Ukraine and democracy in Ukraine; yes, let's continue to support Israel's right to defend itself; and let's stand up as the United States of America to ensure that we send a message to our allies around the world that are with them and our adversaries around the world that we will stand by our friends.

With that, I yield to the Senator from Colorado, Senator Bennet.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, at this moment of danger and peril around the world, we, the United States, must support our friends and democracies that are under attack from brutal adversaries. That means ensuring that Israel has the right to defend itself in the aftermath of the brutal October 7 attack of Hamas. It also means ensuring that the people of Ukraine can defend themselves against Putin's rank aggression.

This proposal on the floor today is tantamount to surrendering to Putin's aggression. This is waving the white flag.

All of us were gathered in the Old Senate Chamber--most of us-- recently when President Zelenskyy addressed the U.S. Senate. President Zelenskyy was very clear that the Ukrainians would continue to fight on no matter what. But he was equally clear that without the support of the United States and our allies, Putin has the upper hand, and it becomes a matter of time.

As we speak here, the Ukrainians are shedding blood. They are giving their lives. For God's sake, the least we could do is continue to provide them with the military and other assistance they need to fight off aggression, and time is of the essence in Ukraine.

And as my colleagues have said, this is not only about defending democracy and sovereignty in Ukraine; it is about the credibility of the NATO alliance and our other European partners who have come together to say to Putin: We stand together against your aggression.

The United States takes a walk, it sends a terrible signal not just to Ukraine but to all our NATO partners with whom we also say we have shared security interest. They see the United States walk away, it undermines the credibility of the entire alliance, not just with respect to Ukraine but with respect to any further aggression by Putin or others.

And it is not just about the NATO alliance. As my colleagues have said, this is also about other autocrats around the world who are watching very closely what happens in Ukraine, including what happens with respect to U.S. support in Ukraine.

President Xi is watching very closely as he keeps one eye on Taiwan. So make no mistake about it, you can't get out here on the Senate floor and say you want to help protect Taiwan, say that you want to be tough on China when you are weak on Ukraine because what happens in Ukraine has a direct bearing on what happens to Taiwan and a direct bearing on Xi's aggression in the Indo-Pacific region. You can't have it both ways. That has been very clear from our allies in East Asia.

Talk to the leaders of Japan. Talk to the leaders in the Republic of Korea. Talk to other leaders in the Indo-Pacific. They say, if the United States walks on assistance to Ukraine, that our credibility will be totally undermined with respect to our allies in the Indo-Pacific region and that President Xi will have the upper hand there. So let's not pretend we are tough on China when you are weak on Ukraine.

Finally, as the chair of Appropriations pointed out, embedded in this proposal is also what appears to be a very cynical effort to actually use the claim of supporting Israel in order to secure relief for very rich taxpayers in the United States. This cuts funding from the IRS that the IRS will use to enforce current law against very wealthy Americans who are not paying the taxes that are already due and owing.

So under the cover of this bill, our Republican friends apparently want to help out very wealthy taxpayers who aren't paying their fair share, which is why the Congressional Budget Office has said that even when you cut the moneys to the IRS, it is going to actually increase the deficit.

The provision that the House had to cut funding for the IRS, which I guess they thought they were going to fool people that it was going to cover the cost of helping Israel--it doesn't do that. It actually adds to the deficit. Why? Because the IRS will not be able to enforce current tax law against very wealthy Americans who refuse to pay their fair share.

I know Republicans are always looking for a way to give the very wealthy and the very rich a free ride, but this takes cynicism to a new level. So I propose that we come back to the Senate floor with a proposal that does the right thing to support and defend Israel and its attacks from Hamas but also does the right thing for Ukraine, for the credibility of the NATO alliance, for the credibility of our alliances in the Indo-Pacific, for the people of Taiwan, and makes sure that this isn't used as a cover to give very wealthy people here in the United States a free ride on the taxes that already are due and owing.

So, with that, I yield the floor to the Senator from New Hampshire.

Mr. President, I commend the Senate for its passage of our bipartisan resolution, S. Res. 437, condemning anti-Semitism, including any anti-Semitic acts committed on university or college campuses. No one deserves to feel unsafe in their community or school or threatened because of their religion or ethnicity. On October 16, the FBI released their annual statistics on hate crimes, which stated that anti-Semitic hate crimes rose 25 percent from 2021 to 2022 and accounted for over half of all reported religiously based hate crimes. The onset of war between Israel and Hamas has further exacerbated these anti-Semitic threats and incidents targeting Jewish Americans and Jewish organizations here in the United States. As a member of the Senate Bipartisan Task Force for Combating Antisemitism, I have an enduring and ongoing commitment to confront anti-Semitism wherever it rears its ugly head and to ensure we take all steps necessary to protect the Jewish community.

As we consider the best ways to counter anti-Semitism, it is important that we consult a range of definitions and tools to understand this problem. The White House's National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism notes several of these tools, including the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance--IHRA--definition of anti-Semitism, as well as the Nexus Document and other efforts. Moreover, as Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism Ambassador Deborah Lipstadt made crystal clear during her confirmation hearing, ``Criticism of Israeli policy is not antisemitism.'' Unfortunately, there are some who are attempting to politically weaponize anti-Semitism by equating criticism of Israeli Government actions with anti-Semitism. These politically motivated charges only weaken good faith efforts to confront the very real danger of anti-Semitism. That is why our bipartisan resolution is so important during these troubling times; it sends a clear, united message that anti-Semitism cannot be tolerated and the fight against it should not become politicized.

The Senator from Missouri is absolutely right about the horror of the Hamas terrorist attacks on Israel.

I was at the Kfar Aza kibbutz at the end of June. That was the site of one of the massacres--50 people gunned down, killed: dads, moms, kids. We have to condemn the horror of the Hamas attack in the strongest of terms. And we will, as a body, make sure that we stand by our ally and partner Israel as it prosecutes its fight against Hamas. Not only does Israel have the right to defend itself, it has an obligation and duty to its people to defend itself.

I am confident that in the coming days, the U.S. Senate will provide more than just words of support--those are very important, and I want to applaud the President of the United States for what he has been doing--but also tangible support.

This resolution is not about condemning Hamas's attacks on Israel.

What this resolution does is condemn certain speech around the country.

Now, let me just say to my colleague from Missouri: I stand with anybody and second to none when it comes to condemning anti-Semitism, whether in words or in actions. And I have stood up throughout my time in public service to do exactly that. If the Senator from Missouri wants to bring to the floor of the Senate a resolution condemning anti- Semitism, a resolution that points out what we just saw from the most recent FBI statistics about the rise in anti-Semitism, I will join with him in that effort. But what this resolution does is attempts to smear students, many of whom engaged in anti-Semitic remarks but many who did not.

My view is that when you come to the Senate floor to pass such a resolution and you are talking about freedom of speech, it is very important not to paint a broad brush and condemn everybody engaging in speech.

This is what this resolution does. It is an attempt to say, even to those who had legitimate--legitimate--statements to make about war and peace, to smear them all as making anti-Semitic remarks.

I would also say to my colleague that there have been a lot of other anti-Semitic remarks around the country, from radio show hosts to others. And if we want to make it a practice of regularly coming to condemn remarks--hateful remarks--whether anti-Semitic or racist or anti-gay or whatever it may be, then the U.S. Senate is going to have to think long and hard about doing exactly that.

I heard you mention violence. Most of these protests--as repugnant as some of them were in terms of the words--were not violent. The one terrible violent hate crime we have seen in the United States since Hamas's awful attack was the 6-year-old Palestinian-American Muslim boy in Chicago stabbed 27 times.

You mentioned here, ``Whereas Columbia University was forced to close its campus to the public after an Israeli student was violently assaulted,'' I ask whether my colleague from Missouri wants to also include in the resolution violent acts. They were hate crimes. The police have said these were hate crimes. He was attacked because he was a Muslim. I don't see any condemnation of that in this resolution. Nothing.

So I would stand with my colleagues in standing up to hateful rhetoric, condemning anti-Semitism. But what this resolution does--what this resolution does--is not that.

I would be happy to yield.

I am not suggesting to my colleague that any particular statement that he took out from these protests was a legitimate statement. No. No. But what you are doing here--what you are doing here--is smearing all of the students who engage in these protests--yes, you are--and that is wrong.

I would just invite you, again, to join with me--if we are going to get in this practice--and I don't suggest it; this is one of the reasons I am here--of when there are terrible, hateful remarks made against any group, whether they be Blacks or other minority groups, the U.S. Senate maybe will weigh in, but--

--on this issue--

There are student groups that may have legitimate concerns, for example, about--just a minute--legitimate concerns about the loss of innocent civilian life in Gaza.

No. No. No.

But what you are doing is saying--you are questioning--based on certain remarks made by some students, you are questioning them all.

I object.

Mr. President, if I may, I have to----

I have got another meeting, but I object.

Mr. President, I rise today in memory of the late David Harrington for his lifetime of service and contributions to Prince George's County and the great State of Maryland.

Mr. Harrington's distinguished 16-year career in public service began as mayor of the Town of Bladensburg. After 7 years as mayor, Mr. Harrington went on to serve as county councilmember for 6 years and as State senator for 3. Following his tenure as an elected official, Mr. Harrington kept his focus on the growth and success of his community, assuming the role of president and CEO of the Prince George's Chamber of Commerce, where he cemented himself as the chamber's most impactful leader. Under Mr. Harrington's leadership, the organization increased its membership to 600, and revenue grew by 20 percent; he helped spearhead 6 consecutive years of job growth in the county.

Mr. Harrington's legacy and commitment to fostering a better community is further embodied by the Prince George's Junior Achievement Finance Park located in Landover, MD. Mr. Harrington was pivotal in helping to establish the facility, which provides local youth access to financial literacy and other educational programs, nurturing their future financial and academic success. Mr. Harrington's efforts are beyond worthy of recognition through the dedication of the Prince George's Junior Achievement Finance Park's Auditorium in his name.

I offer my heartfelt gratitude to Mr. Harrington's family for his service. Mr. Harrington was passionate leader, mentor, and advocate. Mr. Harrington was not only a revered public servant, but also a dear friend. My thoughts are with Mr. Harrington's family, and may the memory and name of Mr. David Harrington be remembered daily through his dedication and the lasting impression he has made on the lives of others.

Mr. President, I rise today to spotlight the courageous spirit of Dylan Cronkhite, a 15-year-old in dire need of a kidney transplant. Dylan's journey began at just 19 months old when his mother, Leslie Cronkhite, rushed him to the hospital, sensing that something was gravely wrong. There, they received the devastating news that Dylan required a lifesaving operation to receive a kidney transplant.

Dylan's life was saved by the selfless act of his uncle, who became a living kidney donor. But today, Dylan confronts another formidable challenge as his transplanted kidney faces failure, like most young transplant recipients, compromising his health.

Living donors play a pivotal role in saving lives, offering a glimmer of hope to those desperately in need of an organ donation. Nevertheless, I remain hopeful that there are individuals who are willing and able to step up for the greater good, just as Dylan's family has. I commend the remarkable efforts of individuals like Philip Piety and his congregation in Silver Spring. Their initiative to organize an organ donation forum is an honorable step towards raising awareness about the dire need for organ donors. Encouraging people to select organ donor status on their driver's licenses can make a substantial difference in the lives of those like Dylan, who are fervently seeking a second chance at life.

Dylan's story serves as an urgent reminder that there are actionable ways we can support one another through even the most challenging times. Today, I ask my colleagues to assist in raising awareness of the importance of organ donation so we can ensure that more individuals like Dylan receive the lifesaving organ transplants they so desperately need.

Mr. President, I rise today in tribute to the late Thomas Hugh Seymour for his service to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and the Office of Congressional Workplace Rights.

Mr. Seymour's illustrious career spanned two decades as the OCWR Fire Protection Engineer and Safety and Health consulting expert. His journey was marked by the highest levels of dedication, expertise, and passion for workplace safety, and his work has helped to save lives. Prior to his role at OCWR, Mr. Seymour had a distinguished career at OSHA, where he ascended to the position of Deputy Director for the Directorate of Safety Standards Programs. During his tenure at OSHA, Mr. Seymour played an instrumental role in shaping and drafting critical safety standards that have since become integral to safeguarding workplaces nationwide. He was an advocate for safer working conditions and a guardian of fire safety. This year, Mr. Seymour received a posthumous Safety Advocate Award from the Office of Congressional Workplace Rights and National Safety Council.

I offer my heartfelt gratitude to Mr. Seymour's family for his service and also recognize all the distinguished recipients of the Office of Congressional Workplace Rights' 2023 Safety Recognition Awards. May their dedication continue to guide us as we strive to create workplaces that are safe and accessible.

Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a dedicated public servant and champion of our agricultural community, Jeremy Criss. With over 30 years of unwavering service to Montgomery County, Mr. Criss has proven himself to be an indispensable asset not only to his community but also to the State of Maryland as a tireless advocate for our farmers.

What sets Mr. Criss apart is not just his deep understanding of what our farmers do but, more importantly, why they do it. He has always recognized that agriculture is not just an occupation; it is a way of life, a vital pillar of our society. As the director of agricultural services for Montgomery County, MD, Mr. Criss's commitment to the betterment of our society through agriculture has been nothing short of exceptional.

Under Mr. Criss's leadership, the Montgomery County Office of Agriculture has been a beacon of support for farmers, offering invaluable resources and guidance, allowing our agricultural community not only to survive but also to thrive. Mr. Criss's personal commitment to the cause of agriculture is evident to anyone who knows him. He has not only been a director but also a friend and mentor to many in our farming community, offering guidance and a listening ear during both good times and challenging ones. His kindness and unwavering support have made him a beloved figure among our farmers and greater community, and his absence will be keenly felt.

I commend Mr. Criss for the invaluable contributions he has made to our agricultural community. His legacy is one of dedication, passion, and a deep love for the land and the people who work it. Montgomery County, the State of Maryland, and our farmers are stronger today because of Mr. Criss, and I congratulate him and wish him a well- earned, enjoyable, and fulfilling retirement.

Mr. President, I concur with many of my colleagues that spending on defense is important to meet our national security needs and support our allies like Ukraine. My State of Maryland plays an important role in bolstering national defense, advancing critical research, and supporting our military, and I strongly support the work of our bases.

However, it is clear to me that we as a country are not spending our money wisely. The defense budget has grown considerably and, despite its size, has not passed an independent audit. Admiral Mike Mullin, the former Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said in reference to defense spending that ``with the increasing defense budget, which is almost double, it hasn't forced us to make the hard trades. It hasn't forced us to prioritize.''

While I do not believe that across-the-board cuts are ever the best way to reduce spending, I voted in favor of the Sanders amendment to send a message that we need to put our defense dollars to much better use and make the hard choices necessary to right-size our defense spending.

Madam President, with regards to Rounds amendment No. 813 to S. 2226, the FY24 National Defense Authorization Act, I share the sponsor's national security concerns, especially in reference to the purchase of agricultural lands by companies affiliated with the People's Republic of China, and appreciate the sponsor's effort to improve review of these sales. However, I am also deeply concerned by issues that have been raised with respect to civil liberties and want to ensure that no one is discriminated against or viewed as a national security threat simply because of where they were born.

As written, the language seems to equate individuals from the specified countries as synonymous with their governments. Under this provision, if an individual with a valid visa, who has no connection to one of the governments listed, seeks to buy agricultural property above a certain threshold, the U.S. Government would deny them the ability to proceed with the purchase simply because of their national origin. While the national security concerns this amendment seeks to address are real, we must not discriminate on individuals based on national origin, race, or ethnicity.

I voted in favor of my colleagues' amendment in order to continue the conversation on this important issue, but will not support any final provision that does not resolve these civil liberties concerns.