Floor Statements

Madam President, I would like to offer my deepest sympathies to the family of Kelly M. Roseberry and Noah Ryan Roseberry, who tragically passed away on October 28, 2023.

Born and raised in a military family, Kelly touched countless lives with her bright, infectious personality and appreciation for service and sacrifice. After earning her doctorate of physical therapy, Kelly underwent training at Quantico Officers Candidate School, Landstuhl Hospital in Germany, and Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, where she specialized in care for injured servicemembers, often providing care within 24 hours of their lifechanging injuries.

Kelly then worked for 7 years as a physical therapist and amputee specialist at Walter Reed Army Medical Center and Walter Reed National Medical Center. She accompanied a countless number of people through devastating injury and helped them to walk, run, and pick up their children again. Kelly devoted her life to helping those who needed it most. We need more people like Kelly. I know that her memory will live on in the colleagues she worked alongside, the patients whose lives she changed, and in people she has never met that are inspired by her selfless years of service.

Kelly leaves behind her husband Chris, and their beautiful daughter Emma Grace. Their second child Noah Ryan passed on with Kelly.

I once again offer my sincerest sympathies to the Roseberry and McGaughey families.

Mr. President, I rise today about a resolution to make it harder for students--all students--to have access to school meals. I am referring to S.J. Res. 42. We deal with a lot of complex issues here every day. This is not a complex issue.

First, the Federal policy: the USDA memo clarifying that State agencies and programs participating in Federal school meal programs are required to abide by our Nation's anti-discrimination laws. This means that they cannot deny access to kids on the basis of their gender identity or sexual orientation. In other words, schools may not deny lunch to LGBTQ+ kids.

Now, this isn't some strange, new interpretation of the law that USDA came up with and announced out of the blue; this is the USDA implementing anti-discrimination laws that apply across government, in line with the Supreme Court's reading. This is what the Republicans attempted to overturn with S.J. Res. 42.

Of course, S.J. Res. 42 was never really just about school lunches. The goal was to send a message to LGBTQ+ kids that they are not welcome, to send a message that it is OK to discriminate against these kids because of who they are. I want to be very clear. That is wrong. We proudly stand with LGBTQ+ kids.

Your rights matter. You are welcome at school.

The USDA guidance will help kids. It will also reduce discrimination and bring Agency guidance in line with Supreme Court precedent.

The USDA policy will also ensure that hungry kids get the food they need to grow and to do well in school. According to census data, LGBTQ+ individuals are almost twice as likely to live in a household that experiences food insecurity, and trans individuals are almost three times more likely not to have enough food to eat, as compared to cisgender individuals.

The last thing our kids need is adults behaving like classroom bullies and trying to justify taking away their lunches. I am glad the Senate rejected this resolution.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I would like to offer my congratulations to Ms. Lydia Edwards as she becomes a Judge Advocate General in the Massachusetts Army National Guard. Senator Edwards has devoted her career to protecting our most vulnerable--from her time as a public interest attorney with Greater Boston Legal Services, to her service on the Boston City Council, to her current role as Massachusetts State senator, Lydia Edwards never forgets who she is fighting for. Lydia has achieved great things for people across the Commonwealth, including passing the Domestic Workers Bill of Rights, protecting Boston's affordable housing stock, creating the Restaurant Revitalization Fund, passing the CROWN Act, which bans discrimination based on hair texture or style, and reforming the budgetary process to bring participatory budgeting to the city of Boston.

Lydia is a dedicated public servant who approaches every question before

her with passion, deep intellect, and a commitment to make government work for everyone, not just those at the top. It is a reflection of Lydia's character and her commitment to our country that Lydia has chosen to serve not only in the State senate but also as a member of the Massachusetts National Guard. I congratulate Lydia on her commissioning as a Judge Advocate General officer and am grateful for her continued partnership and service.

I once again congratulate her on her commissioning and wish her the best of luck in this new chapter.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my chief of staff, Jon Donenberg, be allowed to join me on the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize an extraordinary public servant who is leaving my office for a new role.

Jon Donenberg has been one of my most trusted senior advisers since 2011, when I first ran for the U.S. Senate. After his stint advising me on policy during the 2012 campaign, I asked Jon to serve as my first legislative director in my Senate office. Jon was my LD for 6 years, then senior adviser and policy director for Warren for President, and, for the last 4 years, he has served as my chief of staff.

After nearly a dozen years of working together, I have come to know Jon pretty well. So I can say with some authority that he is one of the best policy nerds and sharpest minds on economic policy in the business.

When I arrived in the Senate, I knew more than pretty much anybody else in the world about a very specific slice of commercial law. I also spent a lot of time thinking about how middle-class families were getting crushed by an economy that didn't work for them and thinking through how to fix it. And this was a good a start. But being a Senator means doing work on a much, much broader range of issues.

Jon was the person I turned to for counsel as I developed that broader agenda, drawing on his deep expertise with policy, his facility for digging into data, and his formidable technical training. Also, importantly, Jon has good values--the longstanding belief that government is here to serve not the richest and most powerful, not those who can hire armies of lobbyists and lawyers, but here to serve the people who are trying to build a future for themselves and their families.

Jon and I were a good match, and, when I say that, I am not saying that we always saw our next moves the same way. But he has a lightning- quick mind, a staggering command of both domestic and foreign policy topics, and instincts honed by years of working in Congress, and those qualities allowed him to see around corners I didn't even know existed. He is good with numbers, and he has never been afraid to change his mind based on what the data has shown him.

Our relationship has always been energetic. Jon hasn't been afraid to tangle with me when he thought I was getting something wrong. He would tell me I was making a mistake, and I would tell him he didn't know what he was talking about. We would size each other up, and I would start lobbing fastballs at him, just like I was back in the classroom, trying to figure out if a student had done reading and was on solid ground in their arguments.

Jon, of course, has always, always done the reading. He would grab those fastballs out of the air and zing them back at me with a spin, often highlighting an aspect to the issue I had failed to consider.

Sometimes, I would try a new angle and play the devil's advocate to see if he could defend his position, back and forth, until I had--often in the space of 10 or 15 minutes--pressure-tested an argument more thoroughly than seemed possible. Now, I am not saying Jon won all of those arguments, but I would give him a 50-50 lifetime record, which is pretty respectable in my book. And I would also say this: 100 percent of the time, my thinking about an issue got deeper and sharper as a result of running my views through the gauntlet of Jon's scrutiny.

Given all of these attributes, it should come as no surprise that Jon had a very specialized skill that is rarely employed among adults outside elected office: Jon was a wiz at debate prep. He has worked with me and several other Senators during our races, helping candidates prepare for preelection debates. He put all of us through our paces, forcing us to confront the frustration--and the opportunities--of butting heads with our opponents, and doing it in 1-minute chunks. For all of us who managed to survive those debates far better than we expected, we owe Jon our thanks.

When he came to work for me, Jon brought with him years of experience in Congress. Before joining my office, Jon served as chief counsel to Senator Richard Blumenthal. Before then, he served as a health law advisor to Representative Henry Waxman on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee and the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

I asked Henry Waxman for a few words about Jon, and he had this to say:

Jon started his congressional career as a precocious young

staffer in my office working on the Affordable Care Act. He's

leaving Senator Warren's staff as a veteran chief of staff

with many distinguished legislative accomplishments. What's

been constant is the gratitude and respect he has earned from

everyone who has been lucky enough to work with him along the

way.

Jon's first experience working in Congress has a special resonance for me: Jon was a legal fellow for Senator Ted Kennedy, the senior Senator from Massachusetts who served for 47 years in the seat I now hold. I think Senator Kennedy would be pleased to know that the young man he first brought in for work in the Federal legislature ended up contributing so much to this work.

There is one more aspect of Jon's leadership that I want to make sure to highlight. He is a dedicated mentor who has trained scores of policy staffers in how to make this country work better for families who don't always have someone in government looking out for them. Year after year, I have observed as Jon invests in the staff on my team and throughout government--supporting them, teaching them, and challenging them, and always, always, always making them better at what they do.

Congress is a hard place to work in, in a lot of ways. Jon often tells me that trying to make change by working in the Senate can feel a lot like running face-first into a brick wall, over and over and over again. You have to keep standing up and sprinting back at the wall because, even though history suggests you are going to smack right into it, just like last time, the only way you will ever smash through the bricks is by taking one more run at it.

Jon is the kind of colleague who makes you want to take one more run at knocking down the wall that has never been knocked down before--the one who will help you dust yourself off and then sprint along beside him.

I have watched as these staffers who Jon has trained have transformed from eager, gifted beginners into seasoned strategists. Jon and I have stood proudly, side by side, as we have seen them leave our office and take their talents to go make change somewhere else. Jon's commitment to mentorship means that today we have more dedicated public servants doing topnotch work all around the country and doing it better because of their time learning from him.

Now Jon is the one who is taking his talents to another public service post. He is headed to the White House to serve as Deputy Director of the National Economic Council. I know Jon will bring with him to this position an abiding commitment to helping working families, as well as one of the best policy brains in the business.

One last note: Jon is a good man. He is honest. He is principled. He is generous. He is funny. He cares about people. He loves his family deeply, and he is always there for his friends. He tries to live his life every day according to deeply held moral values. I admire him.

So, Jon, I am grateful down to my toes for the years that we have worked together. I will miss having you by my side, but I know that the President, the Nation, and the world will be better off because of the challenges you will help tackle in this new role. Thank you for your work, both past and present and future. Thank you.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I want to say a very special thank-you to Senator Klobuchar for her thoughtful and passionate words about the harm that the Senator from Alabama is imposing on our military and on our Nation.

As the Senator from Minnesota said, we are here fighting to try to protect our Nation while Senator Tuberville, in the view of the former Secretaries of

Defense of both parties, is undermining our national security.

I also want to thank Senator Reed for his leadership and his steady hand in trying to persuade the Senator from Alabama that it is time to end this blockade.

This is the third time that I have come to the Senate floor to ask the Senator from Alabama to reconsider his unprecedented action of blocking hundreds of promotions earned by our men and women in uniform.

The Senate votes on nominees appointed by the President to occupy top roles in government--Cabinet Secretaries, judges, and Ambassadors. The Senate's role in approving nominations also extends to thousands of military promotions every year. If a colonel does an exceptional job and their military services promotion board decides that they are ready to be a brigadier general, the Senate must hold a vote for that promotion to go through.

In the vast majority of circumstances, this vote is a formality. Most of these promotions are considered in big batches rather than one at a time. Most of the time, there isn't even a recorded vote.

We are confident in the process, and we pass these people through. They have been thoroughly vetted, and their promotions are essential for our security.

But now, for 5 months, the Senator from Alabama has blocked all-- all--senior military nominations and promotions from moving forward without a recorded vote. That means one Senator is personally standing in the way of promotions for 273 of our top-level military leaders.

One Senator is preventing the Marine Corps from having a Commandant for the first time in 100 years.

One Senator is setting the Army on a similar course not to have a senior leader.

One Senator is blocking the confirmation of the President's top military adviser, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

One Senator is holding up pay raises for hundreds of men and women in uniform. One Senator is jeopardizing America's national security.

The Senator from Alabama has taken this dangerous step because he disagrees with a policy the Department of Defense announced after last year's abortion decision by the Supreme Court. After that decision, the Department clarified that, if a member of the armed services needs to travel to access abortion care or other kinds of reproductive healthcare that are not available where they have been stationed--for instance, because a State where they have been stationed has banned these forms of healthcare--then they can leave to do so. This is a commonsense policy that is completely legal under the Department's existing authorities, as established by Congress.

The Senator from Alabama disagrees. I think he is wrong. But, look, we all have executive branch policies that we disagree with. As I previously pointed out, as Senators, we have many tools to influence policies. We can hold hearings. We can write oversight letters. We can vote. We can pass laws.

In fact, the Senate Armed Services Committee recently voted on a bill that would get rid of the policy that the Senator from Alabama opposes. The proposal to get rid of the policy failed to get a majority. It was rejected. And if we held that vote among the full Senate, I believe it would fail here as well.

In short, the Senator from Alabama doesn't have enough support to actually pass a law to change the Department's policy. So the Senator from Alabama, instead of accepting what the majority has decided here, instead has decided to hold our senior military leaders and their families hostage as a protest against the fact that he doesn't have enough votes to change a perfectly legal policy that he just doesn't like.

Since I was here last asking for these promotions to be approved, the situation has only become worse. The Senator from Alabama's hold has left the Marine Corps without a Commandant and will soon leave the Army without its most senior leader as well. If this continues through the fall, the President will be deprived of his top military adviser.

The Senator from Alabama is decapitating the leadership of our own military. And make no mistake, the real people being punished by these holds are the military families who had expected to make a move as part of taking up a new post in service to their country.

We must address the damage this hold has inflicted on our Armed Forces, and we must do so by immediately approving every single one of the 272 leaders being held hostage by the Senator's actions, not pick up 1 or 2, not 10 or 20 whom the Senator from Alabama decides would buy him some time--every single person.

This summer is a critical time for families moving across the country or across the world to try to find new housing, to enroll their kids in new schools, and, generally, to get ready for the new school year. But, now, all of that is on hold because those families don't know where they are going to be in the fall.

The Department of Defense has shared stories of students who are disenrolled from their current school because they thought they would be somewhere else in September. But now they don't know if they can enroll in their new school because their parent doesn't know if they will be able to relocate by then.

Spouses who assumed they would be moving or even ended a job now don't know where they may live or work.

These hundreds of nominees and their families can't wait for us to figure this out when we get back from the August recess. The Senator from Alabama needs to fix this now. If the Senator from Alabama refuses to lift his hold, he will be forcing families to either pull their kids out of classes in the middle of the school year or spend the year hundreds or even thousands of miles away from their loved ones.

Over 500 Active-Duty military spouses recently delivered a petition to the Senator from Alabama urging him to release his hold and to end this uncertainty for military families. They said it was ``highly inappropriate and unpatriotic to wage a political battle by using military servicemembers as pawns.''

These Active-Duty military spouses got it right. Spouses and families support our servicemembers. If we treat them and their service with this level of profound disrespect, we will only be exacerbating our country's military recruiting challenges.

We recently held a confirmation hearing for Gen. C.Q. Brown, the President's nominee to be the next Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. As the Senator from Alabama noted, General Brown has had to move 20 times over the course of his military career. General Brown was very clear about the consequences of the holds that the Senator from Alabama has imposed. He says that ``we will lose talent.''

Our senior military leaders don't want to be a political football, but even they are starting to speak out about the impact of these holds. The Deputy Commanding General of the U.S. Army Europe and Africa called these tactics ``reprehensible, irresponsible, and dangerous.''

Our civilian leaders are deeply concerned as well. In April, I sent a letter to Defense Secretary Austin asking about the impact of holding up these military promotions. Secretary Austin wrote: ``[T]he longer that this hold persists, the greater the risk the U.S. military runs in every theater, every domain, and every service.'' General Austin went on to point out that these unprecedented and unnecessary holds are creating ``rising disquiet from our allies and partners, at a moment when our competitors and adversaries are watching.''

As I have mentioned before, there is bipartisan opposition to the Senator from Alabama's actions. Seven former Defense Secretaries, including ones who served under President Trump and President George W. Bush, sent a letter stating that leaving senior positions ``in doubt at a time of enormous geopolitical uncertainty sends the wrong message to our adversaries and could weaken our deterrence.''

The first time I came to the floor to ask the Senator from Alabama to let these promotions move forward, he was holding up 184 nominees. The second time I asked him to step aside, the number was up to 221 top- level servicemembers. Now, we have 273 leaders who have been blocked from assuming leadership positions that they have earned

and that we need them to occupy in order to keep our country safe.

The Senator from Alabama is single-handedly holding up 10 four-star commanders, 54 three-star commanders, multiple Silver Star and Purple Heart recipients, the next Commandant of the Marine Corps, the next Chief of Staff of the Army, and the next Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

We have voted on this abortion policy. The Senate Armed Services Committee has held a briefing with the Department of Defense on this issue. We have held a briefing with the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice has issued a legal opinion that DOD is well within the law. Secretary Austin has personally called the Senator from Alabama to urge him to relent.

I am hopeful that the Senator from Alabama will finally do the right thing and allow these servicemembers to carry out their responsibilities to our Nation. We owe this to the people who put their lives on the line for Active service for our country and to the families who serve by making these lives possible.

The Senator from Alabama should relent for the families, should relent for the Active-Duty members of the military, and should relent for the security of our Nation.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of the nomination of Julie Rikelman to serve as a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.

Based on a recommendation of a bipartisan advisory committee on Massachusetts judicial nominations in Massachusetts, Senator Markey and I were pleased to recommend Julie Rikelman to the President for this important role on the Federal bench. She received bipartisan support from the Senate during her cloture vote last week, and I expect the same will be true shortly, when we vote on her confirmation to the First Circuit.

Julie Rikelman is an accomplished lawyer who has significant experience in both private practice and public interest and whose career demonstrates an unwavering commitment to the rule of law.

Ms. Rikelman's commitment to the rule of law and the Constitution is informed by her personal experience fleeing religious persecution. In the late 1970s, she and her family came to the United States from Ukraine as Jewish refugees seeking equal opportunity denied to them in the former Soviet Union.

Ms. Rikelman went on to graduate from Harvard College and Harvard Law School. After law school, she clerked for Justice Dana Fabe on the Alaska Supreme Court and then Judge Morton Ira Greenberg on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

Following a 2-year stint as a Blackmun fellow at the Center for Reproductive Rights, Ms. Rikelman entered private practice--first, as an associate at Feldman & Orlansky and then as senior associate at Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP. In 2006, she joined NBC Universal as litigation counsel before being promoted to senior litigation counsel in 2008 and vice president of litigation in 2011. She has worked on issues related to securities, breach of contract, employment discrimination, intellectual property, and constitutional law matters.

In 2011, Ms. Rikelman returned to the Center for Reproductive Rights as a senior staff attorney. One year later, she was appointed U.S. litigation director, and, in that role, she argued two cases before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Ms. Rikelman's exceptional qualifications are bolstered by the support she has received from lawyers in public and private practice, from prosecutors, from defenders, from academics, and from former judges representing a range of political perspectives.

Whether appointed by Republicans or Democrats, her supporters ``share a strong belief that Ms. Rikelman is a lawyer of uncommon talent and ability, broad experience, sound and fair-minded judgment, and unquestioned integrity.'' Her former NBC Universal and Simpson Thacher Bartlett colleagues describe her as ``thoughtful'' and ``open-minded'' and observed that she ``carefully considered every argument without prejudgment and without regard to her personal views.''

There it is--fairminded, experienced, thoughtful, and exceptionally talented. These are the qualities a Federal judge should possess, and these are the qualities that Julie Rikelman has exhibited throughout her career.

In addition, her personal and professional experiences will bring important diversity to our Federal bench and underlie her respect for the rule of law.

Finally, it is important to note, now more than ever, that we have judges on the Federal bench who deeply understand reproductive rights law, and Ms. Rikelman's experience in this area makes her an exceptionally qualified nominee.

I have every confidence that Julie Rikelman will continue to uphold the rule of law and our Constitution as a First Circuit judge.

I want to thank our bipartisan advisory committee in Massachusetts for all of the work they did to identify and recommend candidates like Julie Rikelman, and I want to thank President Biden for nominating her to this position.

I urge my colleagues to support the confirmation of Julie Rikelman, a supremely qualified candidate who will bring her commitment to delivering equal justice under the law to the First Circuit Court of Appeals.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the scheduled vote commence immediately.

Mr. President, I want to say a very special thank-you to Chairman Wyden for coming here tonight to talk about the consequences of default. Our whole Nation needs to tune in and pay attention to this because this is literally about the future of our country.

Kevin McCarthy and House Republicans are holding America's economy hostage. Even worse, the Republicans are holding America's good name around the world and America's promise that we pay our debts hostage.

Instead of passing an increase in the debt ceiling, Republicans have put forward a set of incredibly damaging proposals that would hurt families around the country, proposals that are so unpopular that the only way that Republicans could possibly pass these proposals is to threaten to derail the entire economy if they don't get their way.

Now, let's be clear. Kevin McCarthy is the only one who will not take default off the table. Joe Biden has said no default. Chuck Schumer has said no default. Hakeem Jeffries has said no default. Even Mitch McConnell has said no default. But Kevin McCarthy is still driving this Nation toward default.

Now, every aspect of the House Republican proposal is deeply harmful, but I am here today to talk about three of the most wrongheaded provisions in their plan: the threat to take away health coverage for more than 21 million Americans; the threat to take away food assistance from 1 million people struggling with hunger; and the threat to take away income assistance for our poorest families.

Republicans' assault on Medicaid, SNAP, and TANF is no surprise. For years, Republicans have worked to undermine these programs which protect the most vulnerable Americans.

People enrolled in these programs are already walking a tightrope to make ends meet. Now Republicans want to use an old trick to make it even harder by trapping applicants in a maze of burdensome and unnecessary paperwork.

Republicans call these rules ``work requirements.'' I call them ``unworkable requirements.'' We need to call these proposals for what they are: a bald effort to kick people off the programs they need to survive.

The unspoken Republican mantra is: Let them get sick. Let them starve. And let them live on the streets with no hope.

Let's be clear. The Republican demands are pure politics, not a serious solution to a serious problem.

Currently, over 90 percent of people on Medicaid are either employed, in school, living with a disability or a debilitating illness, or caring for a baby or a disabled loved one. About three in four people receiving food assistance and 60 to 80 percent of parents receiving income assistance were employed within a year of being in the program. In fact, States that had expanded their Medicaid Program report not only better health outcomes and financial stability for people enrolled in the program but also higher employment numbers--that is higher, not lower, rates of employment when people can just get a little help. In fact, when the Congressional Budget Office studied the Republican Medicaid proposal, they found that it would have ``no change in employment or hours worked by Medicaid recipients.''

So let's not kid ourselves. This Republican plan is not about work. It is about weaponizing redtape to strip healthcare and other critical assistance from tens of millions of Americans.

But you don't have to take my word for it. In Arkansas, the only State that has implemented Medicaid work requirements, one in four adults who were subject to these rules lost their health coverage, despite the fact that 95 percent of all enrollees were already working or qualified for an exemption. Why? How could this happen? It happened because the reporting requirements were so burdensome, so difficult to navigate, that people--particularly, people with disabilities and people with chronic illnesses--couldn't run through the maze.

That meant that more people in Arkansas were forced to ration medication. More had to delay medical care, and more had to take on medical debt. And for the cherry on the top, there is no evidence-- none--that the Arkansas policy increased the rates of employment--which makes sense. If you are not healthy, how are you supposed to work?

Now, Republicans have been down this road before with SNAP and with TANF as well. Indeed, this is where they perfected the redtape scams. Now Republicans are demanding expansions to existing work requirements in SNAP--requirements that we already know kick people out of the program without having any impact on employment.

And after Republicans implemented strict work requirements on TANF families, program participation dropped by nearly 20 percent in just 3 years. Studies show that this redtape increased barriers to employment and led to poorer health outcomes, especially for Black and Brown families. This latest Republican proposal makes the maze of work requirements even more complex.

But, you know, there is one group that profits from making the eligibility maze more complex: private contractors. Private contractors that make their profits by kicking recipients out of the programs or otherwise trapping them in a cycle of poverty. Maximus, for example, has earned $1.7 billion in the last decade administering redtape for more than half of the States, but it has been caught shoving poor Americans into unsustainable poverty-level jobs or even totally unpaid work. And then Maximus gets paid when these workers cycle repeatedly on and off, on and off welfare.

By kicking millions of Americans off Medicaid, SNAP, and TANF, the Republican redtape scam claims to save

$120 billion. But keep in mind that the States will be the ones that will be forced to administer all of the redtape and pay the cost for that.

Congressional Republicans are ready to drive our economy off a cliff, and why? To fulfill their dream of erasing America's safety net. Kevin McCarthy is the only one who won't take default off the table.

Democrats, including President Biden, have been clear: These dangerous proposals are not going anywhere. We will not create a redtape maze that has been a complete failure every single time it has been tried.

It is long past time for Republicans to stop playing games and to raise the debt ceiling.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I want to thank the leader for his strong words about the importance of making sure we advance our military leaders when they have been approved for promotion and pay increases.

You know, most people are aware that the Senate votes on nominees who have been appointed by the President to occupy top roles in almost all parts of the Federal Government--Cabinet Secretaries, judges, Ambassadors. Less well known is the fact that the Senate must also vote to approve thousands of military promotions every year. So if a colonel has done well on the job and their service's promotion board decides they are ready to be a brigadier general, the Senate must vote to approve

this promotion before it can go through.

Now, typically, this vote is a formality. These promotions are processed in big batches rather than one at a time, and they usually happen without even taking a recorded vote. But right now, the Senator from Alabama has imposed a hold on all, every single senior military nomination and promotion. That means that one Senator is personally standing in the way of promotions for 184 of our top-level military leaders. One Senator is holding up pay raises for men and women in uniform. One Senator is blocking key senior military leaders from taking their posts. One Senator is jeopardizing America's national security.

Think for a minute about what this looks like. These holds deprive military families of the pay increases they have earned, because the nominee's new pay cannot take effect until the promotion goes through. Without formally being assigned to a change of duty, families can't make decisions right now about moving or enrolling kids in a new school for the next school year.

The Chief of Staff of the Army has said: What it really does, it affects the families and some of the kids. And they are trying to figure out where they are going to school, where they are going to move. And all those things kind of come into the readiness of the force. For families with special needs, there may be even more significant delays to access important services.

Secretary Austin has stated that this delay ``creates a ripple effect through the Force that makes us far less ready than we need to be.''

So why is one Senator--one Senator--punishing 184 dedicated men and women who actively serve in our military, all because he personally disagrees with a single policy decision from the Pentagon?

Now, look, it is no secret that I disagree with a lot of policy decisions from the Pentagon. As Senators, we have a lot of tools to shape and influence government policies--tools that we can use without putting our national defense at risk. We can pass laws. We can conduct oversight. We can meet with administration officials. We can hold hearings. Occasionally, a Senator may object to an individual nomination, usually to indicate opposition to that appointment or to insist on answers to questions from a Federal Agency. I have done this myself in the past, as have many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. But that is not what the Senator from Alabama is doing. Instead, he is blocking every single top military leader from advancing indefinitely. He snared all 184 top-level servicemembers who are currently slated for advancement, and he stopped every single one of them dead in their tracks.

Like me, the Senator from Alabama serves on the Senate Armed Services Committee. As a consequence, he has many more opportunities than most Senators to influence DOD policy. He has many more opportunities to question witnesses, many more opportunities to receive briefings, and many more opportunities to influence the annual Defense bill that Congress passes every single year to govern Pentagon operations. He has many opportunities that do not actively threaten our national security. He has not raised any individual objections to the 184 servicemembers whose promotions are now held up in the Senate, and he has not raised any objections to the process by which these men and women were vetted and nominated. No. The Senator is blocking 184 top military promotions because he disagrees with the Department of Defense policy to help servicemembers and their families access needed healthcare-- specifically, to travel to access abortion care. I disagree with the Senator on that issue, but if he wants to press for votes to reverse DOD's healthcare policies, he can do that. I will oppose him. But if I lose and if Congress changes the law, then DOD will change its policies. That is how democracy works.

Holding up the promotion of every single military nominee isn't democracy; it is extortion, and that kind of extortion has serious consequences for our national defense. These holds pose a grave threat to our national security and to our military readiness. They actively hurt our ability to respond quickly to threats around the world.

Just take a look at the list of 184 people who have already been approved for promotions. The 184 people whom the Senator from Alabama has blocked so far include nominations for the next commander of the U.S. Fifth Fleet in the Middle East, nomination for the next commander of the Seventh Fleet in the Pacific, our next military representative to NATO, and the current Director of Intelligence for U.S. Cyber Command. It includes our next Deputy Chief of Staff for Strategic Deterrence and Integration for the Air Force. It includes a top official in Birmingham's Army Reserves. And it includes the former Chief of Staff for Operation Warp Speed, a program the Senator from Alabama has repeatedly credited for saving millions of American lives.

In fact, the Senator from Alabama is singlehandedly holding up 11 three-star commanders, three recipients of Silver Stars, and three Purple Heart recipients. These are brave servicemembers who deserve better than to be stuck in an administrative hell, waiting for a single Senator to release them to the promotions and the assignments and the pay increases that their military leaders determined that they have already earned.

The Department of Defense has warned that these blanket holds are making the United States more vulnerable to threats from foreign actors like China, North Korea, and Iran. In the coming months, approximately, 80 three- and four-star generals and admirals, including the leaders of the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps, will reach the end of their current terms, and new nominees will be slotted to replace them.

In addition, if the Senator's reckless hold is not lifted and if the Senate cannot confirm a new Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the President may be without a principal military adviser. By the end of this year, we could have 650 generals and flag officers waiting for Senate confirmation.

The Senator from Alabama's response to his actions is to say that he will keep these holds in place ``until hell freezes over'' unless DOD changes its healthcare travel policy. I sincerely hope that is not true because holding hostage nearly the entire military leadership of the U.S.A. at a time when we are facing military threats around the world and our allies are literally engaged in war in Europe is dangerous; it is reckless; and it needs to stop right now.

As chair of the Senate Armed Services Subcommittee on Personnel, I care deeply about protecting our servicemembers and the integrity of our promotion system. These holds are depriving families of pay raises that they have earned. We are talking about grocery money for families. These servicemembers are being treated disrespectfully--people who should be treated with dignity and respect. And unless there is some specific problem with an individual nominee, those who have been nominated for a new rank or a new post should get the advancement that the Pentagon has already recommended for them.

No more politics. I am here today to respectfully ask my colleague from Alabama to let these promotions move forward and to find other ways to continue advocating for the policy changes that he wants to see. I am hopeful that he will set aside politics and do what is the right thing and allow these servicemembers to carry out their responsibilities to our Nation.

In a moment, I will be asking the Senate to confirm Calendar No. 90. If confirmed, this nominee would be America's military representative to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Military Committee. This Boston University graduate was the first woman to serve as president of the Naval War College. At this critical juncture of Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine, we need her leadership in NATO now more than ever.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 90; that the Senate vote on the nomination without intervening action or debate; that if confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate; that any statements related to the nomination be printed in the Record; and that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Mr. President, let's be clear what is at issue here. The Department of Defense has said if a servicemember requires reproductive healthcare for themselves or for a member of their family, care that is not available in the location where the member is currently stationed, the member can request time away from the base to travel elsewhere for treatment.

As Pentagon leaders have testified, military commanders respect the privacy of servicemembers and do not request information about the specific medical treatment or who it is for.

The Senator from Alabama doesn't like that. He is worried that a servicemember might--might--be seeking an abortion for themselves or for a family member. And he doesn't think the Department of Defense should participate in that in any way. Fine.

The Senator from Alabama can advocate for a bill to invade the medical privacy of every single servicemember. He can advocate for a bill that requires every commanding officer to do what no private employer can do, and that is to rifle through a servicemember's personal medical information. The Senator from Alabama can seek to change Federal law so that a commanding officer interrogates a servicemember with questions like: Do you need time off because you are having trouble getting pregnant? Has your wife had a miscarriage? How many weeks pregnant are you? Was your daughter raped?

These are not questions that commanding officers want to ask, nor should they be authorized or required to ask them.

Now, Senator Tuberville can push for a vote on the bill he cosponsors to ban the Department from providing paid leave or transportation to access reproductive care. Frankly, I don't think the Senator has enough support in Congress to pass any bill like that.

And I understand the Senator's frustration. Many of us have proposals to change Pentagon policies that don't have enough support in Congress to pass, but that is not an excuse to jeopardize our active military operations all around the world.

I confess, I am a little stunned by the Senator from Alabama's argument here. I had not been aware that it was a controversial view that our military needs officers in charge of the Fifth Fleet or the Seventh Fleet, our fleets in the Pacific and in the Middle East.

It is pretty alarming to hear the Senator suggest that we don't need leaders running the Army, the Navy, and the Marine Corps. Every President since World War II would probably disagree that there is no need for a chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Now, look, if the Senator from Alabama thinks that there should be fewer high-level leaders in the Armed Forces, he could advance legislation to reform our leadership structures. But blocking leaders from taking the jobs to which they have been assigned is reckless.

Not only that, these delays are felt throughout the ranks since this creates, as Secretary Austin described it, a ripple effect throughout the military. It is cruel to our servicemembers. Just because you are not going to run the Army does not mean that your promotion does not matter. As Army Chief of Staff McConville recently testified to the Senate Armed Services Committee, these delays affect both the families and some of the kids. They are trying to figure out where they are going to school, where they are going to move.

I think back to my own three brothers. All three of them served in the military. My oldest brother was career military. I cannot imagine a circumstance where he had worked, he had put his life on the line, he served in combat off and on for 6 years, and yet to be told that although the Air Force thought he was ready, had served, had been an exemplary member of the military, that he could not have his promotion, he could not have his pay increase, he could not go to his next assignment all because one Senator decided to hold it up over a different discussion about policy.

I would urge my colleague from Alabama to find another way to press for the policy changes that he wants at the Department. I heard him say that he had read the letter that I had sent to Secretary Austin asking about the impact on our military. Secretary Austin has already spoken to that, but I hope he will be responding soon to my letter.

But I hope that these words from the Senator, that he is looking forward to Secretary Austin's response, have at least opened the door, that if Secretary Austin says: This has an effect on our military readiness, that the Senator from Alabama will be prepared to lift his objection and let what are, currently, 184 members of the military go forward and the ones who need to go forward in the future.

So I hope he has left the door open for that. The Senator from Alabama and I fundamentally disagree on the issue of abortion. We disagree on Department of Defense policies. But all of us should be able to agree that a blockade of the promotion of every single senior member of our Nation's military creates unacceptable risks to our national security, and it needs to stop right now.

In a moment, I will be asking the Senate to confirm Calendar No. 94. Collectively, these 37 nominees in Calendar No. 94 have served in the Army for nearly a thousand years.

This list includes a commanding officer stationed in South Korea, the head of plans for central command, and the deputy chief of staff in the fight against ISIS. The list also includes the deputy provost marshal general for the Office of the Provost Marshal General, which is responsible for all--all--of the Army's policing functions.

There is also a graduate of Auburn University, where the Senator from Alabama was once head coach. And I am sure that this servicemember never expected that his promotion would be blocked by the Senator from Alabama.

Mr. President, I renew my request with respect to Calendar No. 94.

So, Mr. President, I have great respect for the Senator from Utah. I appreciate that he is very careful about citing law and often comes to

this body to talk about reading the actual words of a statute. And so he read to us 10 U.S.C. 1093(a), which prohibits Federal funds--and he should look back at the verb--``to perform'' abortion. It also, in section (b), prohibits using military facilities--bases, hospital rooms, clinics--to perform abortions.

Now, I appreciate that the Senator from Utah read those words because it is pretty clear from those words that DOD policy here does not violate congressional prohibitions on the Federal Government paying for abortions or permitting them to happen in Federal facilities other than the exceptions noted in the statute. All that is happening in this particular bill is clarifying that servicemembers who need to travel out of State to access any kind--and I want to underline ``any kind''-- of reproductive healthcare that is not available where they are stationed, can request time off and go get that care for themselves or a family member.

Servicemembers remain personally responsible for bearing the full medical cost for abortions that fall outside the narrow exceptions provided by law.

Now, I will say it again as clearly as I can: I oppose congressional restrictions on funding for basic medical care. I would like Congress to end those restrictions, but that hasn't happened, and I am not about to hold up every major military promotion in the United States and hold them hostage to try to force it to happen.

Any one Senator has the right to hold up every military promotion, but it is irresponsible, and it endangers our national security.

Now, the Senator from Utah suggested that somehow the Department of Defense did not already have authority to do that.

The Department of Defense clearly has the authority to carry out the policy in question. Multiple statutes have provided the Secretary of Defense with broad statutory authority to pay for the travel and transportation expenses of servicemembers and other authorized travelers. It has been in place for a long time and has been used repeatedly.

I want to make another point here, though. Limiting the authority to do that should be considered very, very carefully if we don't want to endanger the ability of the Department to respond to unexpected threats.

Again, if the Senator from Utah or the Senator from Alabama thinks that the DOD has exceeded its authority or that the authority didn't exist in the first place, then that Senator can conduct oversight or seek to change the law. The place for that debate is through the legislative and oversight process, not in blocking the promotions of every single military official in this country.

I am shocked to hear the Senator from Utah repeat the argument that somehow it doesn't matter if 184 leaders in the military are blocked from going to their next posts, are blocked from receiving their promotions, are blocked from receiving their pay increases. I would remind, with respect, both of my colleagues that we are talking about here the next commander of the Fifth Fleet in the Middle East. We are talking about the next commander of the Seventh Fleet in the Pacific. We are talking about our next military representative to NATO. We are talking about the current Director of Intelligence for U.S. Cyber Command, and on and on and on. Taking hostages like this does not promote the national security. It endangers our national security.

I just want to say that the argument that the Senator from Utah has used that somehow by providing the full range--access to the full range--of reproductive healthcare services means that the military is trying to tell women not to have babies is downright insulting. First of all, reproductive healthcare services include efforts to get pregnant. It also includes enough privacy that nobody--no commanding officer--is asking about your current circumstances on whether you are trying to get pregnant, whether it is succeeding, how much trouble you are having, what kind of services you have used, and why you want to go somewhere else to get them.

It means treating people with respect, and treating people with respect means treating them like grownups to make their own decisions. And if they can't get the services they need because they are stationed in a place where those services are not available, they don't have the choice to pick a different place to work. They go where their commanders tell them. What this policy says is that they have the right to ask their commanding officer, without additional information, for an opportunity to leave the area and go somewhere else where they can get access to the services they need. I believe that that is the way we show respect for people who have babies.

I also want to say, if the Senator from Utah and the Senator from Alabama are hard on the question of supporting people in our military, women having more babies, then, by golly, join us in the fight to put more money into pre-K and more money into DOD schools, more money into flexible spending accounts to cover childcare costs, more money into promoting new parental leave policies to provide 12 weeks of paid leave when a woman has a baby.

As the Senator from Utah has acknowledged, DOD's travel policy covers people who are doing more than having abortions. Travel policy is not a vacation. Servicemembers, under this policy, are limited to--and I will read the words--``the minimum number of days essential to receive the required care and travel'' as quickly as possible.

The message this policy sends is that the Department of Defense, unlike the Senator from Utah and unlike the Senator from Alabama, supports women in making their own healthcare decisions. This policy was based on conversations and support groups and focus groups with servicemembers. This is what servicemembers said they needed. This is the support they want.

I am much more troubled by the signal sent by Republican Senators who are holding up the Department of Defense from protecting women's healthcare.

I look forward to working with the Senator from Utah and the Senator from Alabama in order to work on more policies to support military families.

In a moment, I will be asking the Senate to confirm Calendar No. 84. If confirmed, this nominee would command the Fifth Fleet, which operates in the Middle East.

Unless the Senator from Alabama thinks that the Fifth Fleet doesn't matter, I would remind him that, last year, the Fifth Fleet prevented an Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps navy vessel from confiscating a Fifth Fleet unmanned surface vessel in the Arabian Gulf. If we want to ensure that the Islamic Revolutionary Guard doesn't take other U.S. assets in the region, we cannot possibly support leaving this command post vacant.

Mr. President, I renew my request with respect to Calendar No. 84.

Mr. President, I listen to the Senator from Utah as he works mightily to twist the language of the statute, which is entirely clear: The Federal Government cannot perform abortions. Federal money cannot be used to ``perform.'' That is the relevant verb here. Under this policy from the Department of Defense, the individual who gets an abortion or whose family member gets an abortion is responsible for all of the costs of the performance of that abortion. That part is clear.

But I am very troubled by what the Senator from Utah said about fertility treatments. He said he would be glad to remove all objections if he knew that someone were going to get a fertility treatment or fertility treatments but just not if someone were going to get an abortion. I would like to suggest, with respect, a couple of things here.

The first one is, you may want to understand the science a little bit better because one of the consequences of many fertility treatments is that it doesn't work and results in an abortion, in which case, someone who goes for fertility treatments knows that they may be signing up down the line for an abortion because, although they very much wanted to have a baby, it did not work out. This is where they find themselves medically and is the decision that they want to be able to make for themselves--a decision that the Senator from Utah wants to take away from them.

I also want to make the point about--we asked this in committee, the Senator may remember, in the Senate Armed Services Committee hearings, to the commanders to the military commanders, the commanding officers: Do they want to ask these questions? And the answer was, across the board, no, they don't want to be in the business of asking why it is that you need reproductive healthcare services and then making the careful calculation about whether or not your wife is in the middle of what appears to be a miscarriage and she needs to go somewhere where she can get treatment because she can't get it where the base is located. That is a stunningly intrusive question to ask--one that, by the way, no private employer could ask.

If the Senator from Utah and if the Senator from Alabama want to change the law and say that it should be the job of commanding officers to ask each woman who says, ``I need time to travel elsewhere for reproductive services,'' and to inquire into detail about their healthcare needs and substitute their own decisions about what is the appropriate healthcare response, they could try to promote a bill for that. I don't think the Senators are going to get the votes in the U.S. Senate.

Put it up if that is what you want to do, but you don't get to do it through the backdoor by saying, when it now turns out that servicemembers find out they need reproductive care that is not available near the bases where they have been stationed by their military command, that they cannot travel elsewhere for that care.

The Senator talks about the spirit of the law. The spirit of the law is that we respect our servicemembers and that we respect the women of the military to make their own healthcare decisions. That is what this rule from the Department of Defense is all about.

So, in a moment, I will be asking the Senate to confirm Calendar No. 49. This is a person who was the Chief of Staff for Operation Warp Speed, one of the greatest achievements of the Trump administration to rapidly develop tests and distribute lifesaving COVID vaccines. We should all be grateful for his leadership, not hold up his promotion to play political games.

I will also be asking the Senate to confirm Calendar No. 113. If confirmed, this would be the commander for the Naval Sea Systems Command, which manages 150 acquisition programs and billions of dollars in foreign military sales. This role is crucial to making sure the Navy gets the ships it needs on time and on cost, and holding it up only hurts great power competition with China.

In a moment, I will be asking the Senate to confirm Calendar No. 82. These 27 Air Force nominees have collectively served their country for over 600 years. Among the nominees is a NASA astronaut who received his master's degree from MIT and commanded NASA's third longest duration commercial crew mission.

In a moment, I will be asking the Senate to confirm Calendar No. 85. If confirmed, this nominee would command the Seventh Fleet, which operates in the Pacific and is the Navy's largest forward-deployed fleet. If our country wants to check Chinese aggression, we must ensure this post is filled with strong and capable leadership.

In a moment, I will be asking the Senate to confirm Calendar No. 47. If confirmed, this nominee would be the commanding general for the U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command and the U.S. Army Forces Strategic Command. This nominee has held air and missile defense assignments throughout the Middle East, the Indo-Pacific, and Europe. America needs someone with this kind of experience to be confirmed for this post.

In a moment, I will be asking the Senate to confirm Calendar No. 97. Collectively, these 60 nominees have served in the Navy for more than 400 years. Among these nominees is an MIT graduate who served as the commander of the USS Gerald Ford--the

first new aircraft carrier class we have built in over 40 years. He has logged 2,600 hours in 22 different aircraft. He is eager to serve his country, and he is being held up by one man in the U.S. Senate.

In a moment, I will be asking the Senate to confirm Calendar No. 46. This nominee studied at the Air War College at Maxwell Air Force Base in Alabama. He currently serves as commander of the 10th Medical Group and commands surgeons at the U.S. Air Force Academy. Leaders like her ensure the health and readiness of our military.

In a moment, I will be asking the Senate to confirm Calendar No. 83. This nominee studied at the Squadron Officer School at Maxwell Air Force Base in Alabama, as well as the Air Command and Staff College and the Air War College in Alabama. Alabama has invested a lot in her. She is now capable and ready to serve as the Chief of Staff for the Air Mobility Command at Scott Air Force Base in Illinois. She should be confirmed.

In a moment, I will be asking the Senate to confirm Calendar No. 48. If confirmed, she would serve as Deputy Chief of Staff for the Army's G-4, which is responsible for the Army's strategy policy plans and programming for logistics and sustainment. If we want to be ready to fight, we need to confirm her position.

In a moment, I will be asking the Senate to confirm Calendar No. 50. Collectively, these two women--two women--have served the Army for over 60 years. They deserve to be promoted.

In a moment, I will be asking the Senate to confirm Calendar No. 51. If confirmed, he would serve as Deputy Chief of Staff for Strategic Deterrence and Nuclear Integration for the Air Force. As we contend with Russia's reckless threats to use nuclear weapons against Ukraine and China rising as a nuclear power, we need sober and expert advice to keep Americans safe from the threat of nuclear weapons. We need to confirm him.

In a moment, I will be asking the Senate to confirm Calendar No. 52. If confirmed, this nominee would be the Military Deputy and Director for the Army Acquisition Corps. The Army is not only leading and modernizing our own forces, they are playing an essential role in making sure Ukraine has all of the munitions and weapons for victory against Russia. We cannot--cannot--allow this post to become vacant.

In a moment, I will be asking the Senate to confirm Calendar No. 86. Collectively, these 11 nominees have served over 275 years in the Air Force. Among these nominees is the commander of the 439th Airlift Wing at Westover Air Reserve Base in Massachusetts, the largest Air Reserve base in our Nation.

In a moment, I will be asking the Senate to confirm Calendar No. 87. Collectively, these two nominees have served the Air Force for over 55 years. One of the nominees currently serves as mobilization assistant to the command surgeon for Air Combat Command, which is responsible for the health of 81,000 Active-Duty and civilian personnel.

The holds imposed by the Senator from Alabama are punishing the people who make sure that those who serve are healthy enough to combat any threat to U.S. national security.

In a moment, I will be asking the Senate to confirm Calendar No. 88. Collectively, these 10 nominees have served over 280 years, with nearly 20,000 flying hours of experience. These nominees include a Special Operations forces commander, a mobilization assistant to the commander responsible for training 293,000 students a year, and another mobilization assistant to the commander of Space Operations Command.

I know how important space operations are to the Senator from Alabama. I cannot believe he is willing to jeopardize these essential missions to train and lead our forces.

In a moment, I will be asking the Senate to confirm Calendar No. 89. This nominee is currently commanding the largest Army command in the Caribbean. That promotion was particularly significant for him personally because he is from Puerto Rico. During his promotion ceremony, he said that he assumed the command ``fully aware of the dire consequences to our Nation and to our freedom if we fail to sustain a high level of readiness in a world in which security challenges are becoming more complex.'' Blocking his promotion only exacerbates those security challenges.

In a moment, I will be asking the Senate to confirm Calendar No. 91. This nominee is currently serving in Birmingham, AL, as the Chief of Staff, United States Army Reserve Deployment Support Command. This is a constituent of the Senator from Alabama who cannot receive the promotion he deserves.

In a moment, I will be asking the Senate to confirm Calendar No. 92. This nominee is currently the Director for Joint Reserve Intelligence Support Element for Europe and Eurasia for the Defense Intelligence Agency, helping to make sure Ukraine and our allies in Europe have the critical national security information they need to be victorious on the battlefield. Yet she can't receive the promotion she deserves because the Senator from Alabama is playing politics with women's healthcare.

In a moment, I will be asking the Senate to confirm Calendar No. 93. This nominee is currently the deputy commander for support for providing security assistance to Ukraine. He is doing everything he can to make sure Ukraine defeats Russia. Yet the Senator from Alabama is making sure he doesn't advance to the promotion he has clearly earned.

In a moment, I will be asking the Senate to confirm Calendar No. 95. Collectively, these eight nominees have served in the Marine Corps for over 200 years. They deserve their promotions.

In a moment, I will be asking the Senate to confirm Calendar No. 96. Collectively, these nominees have served the Navy for over 55 years. Both are currently serving in the Bureau of Medicine and Surgery, making them responsible for the health and safety of our sailors, our marines, and their families. The pandemic has already driven so many skilled healthcare professionals out of the workforce. We need to retain and promote these kinds of professionals to continue to protect the readiness of our forces.

In a moment, I will be asking the Senate to confirm Calendar No. 98. Collectively, these two nominees have served the Navy for 55 years. Both nominees are making sure the Navy has the supplies needed to be ready, including one currently serving as the Chief of Staff for Navy logistics who supports our fleet in the Pacific. A mother of three, she has fought to make sure the Navy is supporting other mothers who serve.

The Department has done the right thing to support women's rights, while the Senator from Alabama is fighting to take those rights away.

In a moment, I will be asking the Senate to confirm Calendar No. 99. These two nominees have collectively served the Navy for over 60 years. Both nominees have extensive experience managing our major weapons programs, and this promotion would place one of them in charge of aircraft carrier programs. Making sure our weapons work and enhance security is one of the most important missions, and we need to retain that experience if we want to keep our Nation safe. The Senator from Alabama's actions threaten to drive people like these nominees out of the military.

In a moment, I will be asking the Senate to confirm Calendar No. 100. This nominee is currently serving as the Director of Health and Training at the Defense Health Agency and is a recognized member of the American Board of General Dentistry. If he is confirmed, he will be the Deputy Chief of the Bureau of Medicine and Surgery. Our servicemembers deserve the best healthcare we can deliver, and promoting people like this nominee ensures that we uphold the highest standards of care.

In a moment, I will be asking the Senate to confirm Calendar No. 101. If confirmed, this nominee would be the commander of Naval Supply Systems Command, which makes sure the Navy has everything they need to serve all around the world.

The rear admiral who helped Americans understand the importance of naval power to national security put it best when he said that logistics was ``as vital to military success as daily food is to daily work.''

The Senator from Alabama's actions deprive our Navy of the leadership the Navy counts on so that they will reliably have the tools they need to succeed militarily.

In a moment, I will be asking the Senate to confirm Calendar No. 102. These 13 nominees have collectively served in the Navy for over 400 years. These nominees include multiple commanders of carrier strike groups, including one born in Springfield, MA. Another nominee is the Deputy Director of Special Operations and Counterterrorism for the Joint Staff. If confirmed, one nominee would command the Naval Surface Force, which is responsible for manning, training, and equipping the entire surface force. If my colleagues want to protect the seas and fight terrorists, they should not stand in the way of these promotions.

In a moment, I will be asking the Senate to confirm Calendar No. 103. This nominee is currently the executive assistant for the Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency. If we want to continue to make sure the United States has the best information about current and future threats, we should confirm people like this, not hold up the promotions they have already earned.

In a moment, I will be asking the Senate to confirm Calendar No. 104. These two nominees have collectively served the Navy for over 55 years. One nominee is currently serving as information warfare commander for Carrier Strike Group 5 in Yokosuka, Japan. The other is the Chief of Staff for U.S. Fleet Cyber Command and the Tenth Fleet. As we continue to see warfare expand to the information and cyber domains, we need to promote Navy captains like this.

In a moment, I will be asking the Senate to confirm Calendar No. 105. These four nominees have collectively served the Navy for over 100 years. They include a Boston University graduate managing the Navy's new frigate program and the commander of America's shipyard in Norfolk. The Senator from Alabama knows better than most how much work we need to do to reach the Navy's shipbuilding goals. Blocking the promotions of the very people working to make sure we have the ships we need to protect the global commons only endangers our national security.

In a moment, I will be asking the Senate to confirm Calendar No. 106. Collectively, these two nominees have served the Air Force for 65 years. One of the nominees earned her nursing degree at Boston College, to rise to become the chief nurse of the entire Air Force. Go get `em. The other nominee currently serves as commander for the Air Force Medical Readiness Agency, making him responsible for leading over 44,000 personnel at 76 military treatment facilities. These nominees are providing critical care and leadership to keep our forces healthy, and they should not be punished because the Senator from Alabama thinks he knows more about healthcare than medical professionals do.

In a moment, I will be asking the Senate to confirm Calendar No. 107. Currently serving as the commanding general for Marine Corps forces in Japan, he would be the Deputy Commandant for Plans, Policies, and Operations for the Marine Corps if confirmed. As we approach competition with China, we need leaders with experience in the region to be promoted, not to have their careers stopped by politics.

In a moment, I will be asking the Senate to confirm Calendar No. 110. Collectively, these 23 nominees have served over 620 years of service in the Air Force. These nominees include the Director for Strategic Capabilities on the National Security Council, which makes him the principal adviser to the President on how to avoid a nuclear war, and it includes the adviser to the National Nuclear Security Administration, protecting the safety and reliability of our nuclear stockpile. Another nominee makes sure that we provide all the air and space power necessary to promote U.S. interests in the Pacific. The current Director of Intelligence of the U.S. Cyber Command is also held up by the Senator's antics.

Let me assure the Senator from Alabama: We do not want to play nuclear football.

Look, we have been at this for almost an hour and a half now, but these nominees--these 184 nominees--have been waiting for months. Holding them up and declaring that we just don't need people in these positions is an insult to them, and it undermines the safety and security of the United States of America.

If we want to be able to recruit the very best and the very brightest our country has to offer, we need to treat those people with a little respect. That means that when we are in it on politics, we do not drag 184 of our most able leaders into the middle of it and say: Your promotion, your pay, your next duty station are all on hold until one Senator gets his way on one DOD policy.

That is an incredibly dangerous approach, and the Senator from Alabama, as much as I respect him, I believe is acting in ways that are irresponsible and put our national defense at risk. I urge him to release his holds immediately and allow these senior military officers to get the promotions they have earned.

I renew my request with respect to each Calendar number I have raised.

Mr. President, on Friday, we experienced the second largest bank failure in our Nation's history. And make no mistake, this failure was the direct result of leaders in Washington weakening financial rules.

In the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis, Congress passed the Dodd-Frank Act to protect consumers and to ensure that big banks could never again take down the economy and destroy millions of lives.

Since then, Wall Street executives who hated the whole idea of the bill spent millions to keep it from becoming law and, after it passed, spent millions more to try to weaken it.

In 2018, the big banks won. With support from both parties, President Trump signed into law a law to roll back critical parts of Dodd-Frank. Now, I fought against these changes. On the eve of the Senate vote in 2018, I warned from right here on the Senate floor that ``Washington is about to make it easier for the banks to run up risk, make it easier to put our constituents at risk, make it easier to put American families in danger, just so that the C.E.O.s of these banks can get a new corporate jet and add another floor to their new corporate headquarters.''

I wish I had been wrong, but last week, the FDIC was forced to rush in to take over two failing banks--Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank--and then take extraordinary actions to protect those banks' customers and prevent the contagion from spreading throughout the economy.

Both SVB and Signature Bank suffered from a toxic mix of poor risk management and weak supervision. If Congress and the Federal Reserve had not rolled back key provisions of Dodd-Frank, these banks would have been subject to stronger liquidity and capital requirements to help withstand financial shocks. They would have been required to conduct regular stress tests to expose their vulnerabilities and shore up their businesses. They would have had a more aggressive regulator standing at their shoulder, looking more closely at every part of the banks' business. But because those stringent requirements were taken out of Dodd-Frank, when an old-fashioned bank run hit SVB, the bank could not withstand the pressure.

Shortly after that, Signature Bank collapsed, and to fight back the risk of contagion and to protect the banking system, the Federal Government once again was called on to take extraordinary measures--the kind of measures that Dodd-Frank was originally supposed to protect us against.

These threats should never have been allowed to materialize, and now, we must prevent them from occurring

again by reversing the dangerous bank deregulation of the Trump era.

On Monday, President Biden called on Congress and regulators to reverse the Trump-era deregulation and ``strengthen the rules on banks to make it less likely that this kind of bank failure will happen again.'' The President is right, and that is why today, on the 5-year anniversary of having weakened Dodd-Frank, I am introducing legislation, along with 15 of my colleagues--including the Presiding Officer, including my colleague from Vermont--to reverse the mistakes that Congress and President Trump made 5 years ago when they rolled back a portion of Dodd-Frank.

This is what my legislation does:

First, it repeals section 401 of the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act. This will restore strong Fed oversight of some of the Nation's largest banks, which together hold trillions of dollars in assets. Stronger oversight will help protect our economy from heightened risk. It is absolutely essential that we demand stronger, not weaker, oversight of these multibillion-dollar banks.

Second, my bill repeals section 402 of the 2018 law. That section slashed the capital requirements for large, systemically significant custody banks. Big banks cannot be trusted with lower capital requirements that degrade their ability to withstand financial shock.

Finally, my bill repeals section 403, which made it easier for giant banks--those much larger than SVB--to weaken liquidity requirements by adding municipal debt to the definition of ``high-quality liquid assets,'' particularly because such debt is actually not very liquid at all.

Now, there are a lot more changes we need to make to our banking laws. There are many other provisions in the 2018 law that I oppose. But today I remain focused on exactly the weakened rules that permitted banks like SVB and Signature to load up on risks, run up their profits, pay their executives giant bonuses, and eventually blow the banks to pieces.

I recognize legislation won't fix everything. For 5 years, Jay Powell has overseen a deregulatory effort at the Federal Reserve Bank for banks like SVB. In 2021, I asked him if he could name a single--a single--regulation on banks that he thought should actually be strengthened instead of weakened, and he could not.

Preventing further crises will require a complete 180-degree turnaround from the Fed starting immediately. This bill will address the immediate issue in front of us--an explosion of risk in large financial institutions like SVB that have been inadequately supervised and regulated for the last 4 years--and it will show Americans across the country, in the wake of this disaster, that Congress is capable of acting quickly and decisively to make sure that a serious problem doesn't get worse--a lot worse.

The bank failures our Nation experienced this weekend were entirely avoidable if Congress and the Fed had done their jobs and kept strong oversight of big banks in place. Now, we must act quickly to prevent the next crisis by repealing the dangerous Trump-era provisions that made banks weaker.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I rise today in opposition to Republican efforts to nullify the Department of Labor's rule that protects retirees and affirms decades of precedent. This rule allows those investing retirees' savings the freedom to direct those funds where the retirees want them to go. It lets them protect those funds from costly risks posed by worsening environmental disasters or unsafe and unfair working conditions and seek out promising, sustainable, long-term investment opportunities.

Republicans' latest front in their wholly made up culture war is an attack on ``woke capitalism,'' and American retirees are apparently their targets. In particular, Republicans have set their sights on retirees who choose to invest their money with environmental, social, and governance--ESG--factors in mind.

Now, investors have actually been doing this for decades. The Department of Labor has repeatedly said that under the Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, known as ERISA, retirement plan managers may consider all--all--relevant economic factors when making investment decisions if it is in the best interest of the plan's participants. That includes ESG factors, like how a company treats its workers or whether the company is sufficiently protected from climate risks and whether the company respects human rights.

It turns out, investors really want to know these things. You don't need to be a financial wizard to realize that whether a company invests in its workers or is vulnerable to climate risks might be relevant to the company's long-term prospects and the potential returns on your investment.

But the Trump administration put blinders on investors when, in 2020, it finalized a rule limiting that and made it harder for retirees to invest with ESG considerations in mind. In 2022, the Biden administration Department of Labor rightfully removed these roadblocks and affirmed that retirement fiduciaries have the option to consider ESG factors when making investments on behalf of retirees.

Let's be very clear about what this rule does not do. It does not mandate anything. It does not require that fiduciaries invest or not invest in certain funds. It does not tell fiduciaries to consider or not to consider certain factors. There is nothing new here and certainly nothing extreme.

Let's be clear. By overturning the Department of Labor's rule, Republicans want to tie investors' hands and override the free market. This fight isn't about protecting and strengthening Americans' retirement security. It is not about ensuring that retirement plan fiduciaries are making sound financial investments. And it sure as heck is not about capitalism. It is politics, plain and simple.

How do I know that? Well, Republicans clearly believe that investment decisions should be made with consideration of ESG factors so long as they are ESG factors that the Republicans support. My colleague Senator Rubio has championed legislation that would prevent Federal Government employees' retirement assets from being invested in Chinese and Russian companies.

At the same time, Republicans also seem to believe that government shouldn't restrict investors' ability to put their money wherever they want. In response to the Department of Labor's very sensible guidance warning about the financial risks of investing in crypto scams, my colleague Senator Tuberville introduced a bill that would prohibit any guidance that would limit the type of investments that workers can make. He said:

The government has no business standing in the way of

retirement savers who want to make their own investment

choices.

So add up what the Republicans have already told us with the legislation they are sponsoring. Retirees should have the freedom to invest their hard-earned money in crypto scams, but they should not even be allowed to consider whether a company relies on child labor or is polluting the planet or is underpaying its workers when deciding whether or not an investment is sustainable. It just doesn't make any sense, and it is not supposed to.

There is a bigger picture here that Americans need to understand. Republicans know that President Biden will veto this resolution the minute it hits his desk. They know it won't succeed in nullifying the Department of Labor's rule. So what is the point of doing this?

Well, Republicans have been explicit that the goal of this exercise is to help their buddies in the courts. President Trump appointed judges across the country who are now engaged in a disturbing assault on the regulatory state and are hell-bent on kneecapping any effort to make markets fairer, to make workers safer, and to make the environment cleaner. This resolution is just one more attempt by Republicans to give an assist to these extremist judges and make it easier for the courts to overturn the rule and undermine the law.

Let's call this attack on the Department of Labor's rule what it really is--a wholly invented grievance to advance corporate special interests, not the interests of retirees.

Democrats need to stick together on this and reject these cynical efforts to undermine investor protection and empower extremist Republican courts.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, had there been a recorded vote, I would have voted no on the confirmation of Executive Calendar No. 1109, Candace A. Bond, of Missouri, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago.

Had there been a recorded vote, I would have voted no on the confirmation of Executive Calendar No. 1108, Shefali Razdan Duggal, of California, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the Kingdom of the Netherlands.

Had there been a recorded vote, I would have voted no on the confirmation of Executive Calendar No. 2455, Bijan Sabet, of Massachusetts, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the Czech Republic.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, this is a shameful attempt by the Republicans to keep working Americans buried under mountains of student debt.

President Biden's decision to cancel up to $20,000 of Federal student debt for as many as 43 million Americans with incomes under $125,000 a year is a historic step to delivering life-changing relief to working families and to helping rebuild America's middle class.

Senator Scott's bill is just one of the Republicans' desperate efforts to block cancelation for millions of Americans. Now, the Republicans are happy to pass out tax breaks and regulatory loopholes for billionaires and giant corporations, but they are fighting tooth and nail to keep working families from getting a penny of relief.

Evidently, Senator Scott believes that $2 trillion in Republican tax cuts that were not paid for is fine so long as those tax cuts are aimed mostly at millionaires, billionaires, and giant corporations. But a program that costs a fraction as much and for which 90 percent of its benefits go to people earning less than $75,000 a year is now somehow a moral outrage.

Today, he claims to worry about those taxpayers who he says will shoulder student loan cancelation, but where was Senator Scott, or then-Governor Scott, when Donald Trump and the congressional Republicans handed out $2 trillion in tax breaks to billionaires and giant corporations, not a penny of which was paid for? Where was he then?

Well, he endorsed the Trump administration's plan to cut taxes for corporations, and he celebrated those tax breaks for the richest among us. He wasn't worried about how taxpayers would pay that off--not a word about the fairness for all of the people who would bear that burden, so long as the benefits went mostly to the rich and powerful.

Senator Scott has basically laid it all out there for America to see, and that difference--helping billionaires or helping working families-- pretty much sums up Republican and Democratic differences across the board. If we are cutting a break for the rich and the powerful, the Republicans are on board. If we are trying to help out working people, congressional Republicans take to their fainting couches and claim to be so worried about the national debt.

Student loan cancelation is very popular in America, including with a majority of people who have no student loan debt. That is because there is scarcely a working person anywhere in America today who does not know someone who is choking on student loan debt. Yet, evidently, the Republicans in Congress live in bubbles that prevent them from meeting any of the millions of people out there who have busted their tails, who have worked multiple jobs, who have made their payments, and who still watch their debt loads continue to climb.

So let me just set the record straight here. I want to repeat an earlier point. Nearly 90 percent of relief dollars from President Biden's cancelation will go to Americans earning less than $75,000 a year, and none--none--of the help goes to people making more than $125,000 a year.

Now, actually, those numbers shouldn't be shocking. Think about who owns student loan debt. Senator Scott talked about Harvard multiple times in his speech, but it is not the wealthy people who go to Ivy League schools who end up with the student loan debt. It is middle- and working-class Americans who were born into families who couldn't afford to pay out-of-pocket. In fact, 99.7 percent of borrowers did not attend an Ivy League school. So that would mean--what?--three-tenths of 1 percent of people who went to Ivy League schools borrowed money.

By comparison--I just looked it up while the Senator was speaking--at the University of Florida, 15 percent have to borrow in order to make it through to graduation. At Florida State, 26 percent--that is one in every four people at Florida State--has to take out money in order to be in college. At Florida A&M, the numbers are even higher: 68 percent. More than two-thirds of the people who are in school have to take out money in order to make it through college. This is true across the country. At State schools, about half of all students have to borrow to make it through. At historically Black colleges and universities, the number is about 90 percent.

So let's be really clear about who exactly congressional Republicans are trying to take relief away from. It is not Ivy Leaguer doctors and lawyers. Who are the people the Senate Republicans say aren't worthy of the kind of help that billionaires and giant corporations could get in their big tax package? Who do Senate Republicans think should be squeezed harder? Who do Senate Republicans say should simply be left behind?

Well, the Senate Republicans want to leave behind the 42 percent of borrowers who do not even have a 4-year college diploma. These are folks who took out money--loans--in order to become a nurse's aide, to become a mechanic, to go to beauty school, to get a commercial driver's license to drive a truck, and, too often, the wages that they were promised never materialized.

Senate Republicans say: Let them struggle. Leave them behind.

Who gets the most help under President Biden's cancelation? Senator Scott said this is all about doctors and lawyers. Let's take a look at that.

The share of student loan borrowers who earned a cosmetology certificate is about double the share of borrowers who got professional degrees in law and medicine combined.

Senate Republicans say: Let those cosmetology certificate holders struggle. Leave them behind.

Similarly, there are more student loan borrowers who took out debt to earn a certificate for driving trucks and working on the railroad than those who did so to become dentists and optometrists.

Senate Republicans say: Let those truckdrivers and railroad workers struggle. Leave them behind.

It is not just the people who have 2-year degrees or certificates who get help under President Biden's cancelation. It is the people who don't have any degree at all. These are people who did everything our country asked them to do by graduating from high school and advancing their educations, but life happened: They got pregnant or they had to take care of a sick family member, and they had to leave before finishing their degree.

Senate Republicans say: Let them struggle. Leave them behind.

Who gets help? It is women, who hold nearly two-thirds of all outstanding student loan debt. Black women, in particular, shoulder a disproportionate amount of the student loan debt burden--Black women, who hold more debt than any other group.

Senate Republicans say: Let them struggle. Leave them behind.

Who gets help? It is Black Americans, who borrow more money to go to college, borrow more money in college, and have a harder time paying it off after college. They are the ones who will see their debt eliminated under President Biden's cancelation plan. Senate Republicans say: Let them struggle. Leave them behind.

Who gets help? It is the 50 percent of Latino borrowers with debt who will see their student loan debt completely eliminated. Senate Republicans say let them struggle. Leave them behind.

Who gets help? It is the millions of people who couldn't save for retirement, or buy their first home, or start a family because of student debt. Senate Republicans say let them struggle. Leave them behind.

We are living in a moment when the President of the United States has reached out, literally, to tens of millions of families and said: I am putting government on your side. But the congressional Republicans are determined to make this country work even better for the rich and the powerful. That is why they are trying to pass the bill that Senator Scott has advanced.

These Republicans are all for giving handouts to giant corporations and billionaires. But the minute--the minute--that our country creates a little breathing room for the millions of hard-working people whose biggest sin is they tried to get an education and they grew up in a family that just couldn't afford to pay for it, those Senate Republicans are right here on this Senate floor trying to undo it.

I want to take a minute and just look at the bigger picture to see how we got here.

We have a student debt crisis because our government stopped investing in higher education and began shifting the costs of college onto working families.

I went to a great public university that costs $50 a semester--a price I could pay for on a part-time

waitressing job. I got to become a teacher, a law professor, and a U.S. Senator because higher education opened a million doors for a kid like me. But that opportunity no longer exists in America.

Today, college costs thousands, even tens of thousands, of dollars. And instead of investing taxpayer dollars to help bring down those costs, the State governments reduced their financial support, and the Federal Government told everyone to borrow the money they needed to cover the rising costs of going to school. That has left millions of Americans drowning in student loan debt.

What is worse, families have had to navigate a broken student loan system riddled with bad actors who are trying to take advantage of and profit off keeping them in debt.

During the Trump years, Betsy DeVos, the Secretary of Education, threw in with the for-profit schools. And when students who had been cheated asked for some help, she turned her back.

I have long pushed for more accountability and more oversight to bring down the cost of college and to make higher education and training programs more accessible. I have a plan for that. In fact, I have more than one plan for that, and I welcome any Republican to join me in helping make any of these options reality.

But cancellation is the first step to fixing a broken student loan system and to delivering relief to families who have been trapped in it for far too long.

One final point: The President's plan to cancel student debt will make a huge difference for tens of millions of Americans in their day- to-day lives. But it will do so much more. Debt cancellation is about strengthening our whole economy. Better educated workers make us a wealthier nation and one with more opportunity, not just for those at the top but more opportunity for everyone.

Just consider one example. Following World War II, a grateful nation said to returning GIs that taxpayers would pick up the cost of college and technical training. More than 2 million veterans went to college or graduate school and nearly 6 million used this opportunity to pursue vocational training to become construction workers, electricians, mechanics, and other careers. Together, these men--and they were nearly all men--built America's middle class.

Taxpayer investments in post-high school education meant that millions of people were better educated, and they helped fuel an economic boom that lasted for decades and lifted this entire Nation. And it was a bargain. Every dollar that was spent on educating our veterans generated $7 to taxpayers. That is not even counting for the significant boost to productivity from a more educated population. Just think about that: a 7-to-1 payoff for investing in higher education for all our people.

President Biden saw something that he could do to help tens of millions of Americans struggling under the weight of student debt and invest in the future of our economy, so he did it. Debt cancellation was the right thing to do. That is why the majority of Americans--with or without loans--support cancellation.

I am celebrating because cancellation will provide life-changing relief for working families across this country. That is why I object to the Senate Republican's shameless attempt to deny people the relief they need.

I yield the floor.

So I am still waiting for an answer to the question: Where were these Republicans who were talking about fiscal responsibility and what is fair in terms of transferring costs, when it was the billionaires and the giant corporations who were getting a $2 trillion tax break?

Let us remember--because I was here when that happened--even the conservative economists and think tanks were saying this is going to go on the debt balance because it is not paid for.

No. At that moment, they were willing to say: But it is going to produce all kinds of wonderful benefits--which, of course, did not come to pass.

What about the example I gave, the example about the investment that we made as a country in our returning veterans; the fact that we invested so 2 million of them could get college diplomas, so that millions more could get technical degrees? What about the fact that the numbers show American taxpayers got a return on that investment of 7 to 1? This really is about who we invest in.

It seems that what Senator Scott is saying is people shouldn't go to school. If you are in a family that you can't guarantee that you are going to have some assets to back you up, if you ever have to think about the fact that you might get sick, you might fall down, you might get hurt, and you might not be able to finish, or you might not be able to turn that degree into a high-paying job, or you might graduate at a moment when the economy is in a slump, what Senator Scott seems to be saying is: Don't order off that menu. Don't go to school. Don't try to get a post-high school certificate in cosmetology. Don't try to get a certificate for truckdriving school. Don't try to get a 2-year diploma. Don't try to get a 4-year diploma. That is not going to make America a better or richer country. That is not going to be an America that is going to open opportunities.

The next time Senator Scott or any other Republican talks to me about fair, I would ask them to explain to me what is fair that the daughter of a janitor a half a century ago could go to a good 4-year college on $50 a semester? Why? Because American taxpayer invested in those public colleges and universities. And today that opportunity is not there for a single one of our kids.

When you want to talk about who has college debt, instead of talking about the three-tenths of 1 percent of Ivy League grads who have college debt, look at the 68 percent of Florida A&M grads who have college debt. That is shameful. We need to be an America that is about creating more opportunities, not closing them off for tens of millions of people.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, would the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. President, I want to ask the Senator if he believes that the 68 percent of students at Florida A&M University who have student loan debt should never have gone to college because it turns out their families couldn't afford to pay for college in Florida.

Should they just never have tried?

Mr. President, can I ask for a clarification of that answer?

So, among the 68 percent of Florida A&M students who have student loan debt--I believe I heard the Senator say he made it possible for them to afford college, and I am wondering if he could explain how they could have afforded college without taking on that whole student loan debt.

Mr. President, you know, I really do think about this transfer question, and I find myself asking: Who paid for Jeff Bezos's yacht? Is it the taxpayers who said: Now, we--America's middle class, America's working class--are actually going to have to pick up the slack. And they will be the ones who have to pay to keep the military. They are the ones who will have to pay for roads and bridges. They are the ones who will pay for investment in science. But the billionaires can get richer and richer and richer and pay little or nothing in taxes. That is a giant transfer, and yet none of our Republican colleagues seem interested in talking about that transfer and just putting a stop to the outflow from hard-working, middle-class families over to the billionaires and the giant corporations.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, had there been a recorded vote, I would have voted no on the confirmation of Executive Calendar No. 858, Jennifer H. Rearden, of New York, to be United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York.