Floor Statements

I must point out that our support is the leading edge of worldwide support. Our NATO allies have stepped forward, and countries around the globe understand that this battle between democracy and freedom and autocracy and inhumanity must be won.

President Zelenskyy came to this very building 2 weeks ago to ask for our support. He received overwhelming bipartisan promises from Members of both the Senate and the House. Of course, I was proud to pledge my support, and I know nearly all of my Senate colleagues were also.

It is shameful that on the heels of that visit, after looking President Zelenskyy in the eye and promising to stand with him, our House colleagues decided to strip all Ukraine funding from their continuing resolution. That decision contradicts the will of the majority of Congress and the American people, and it breaks faith with the people of Ukraine, who are in a battle to preserve their nation and their lives. And their battle is our battle. Their battle against unprovoked aggression by Putin against a democratic neighbor is a battle that we must ensure they can win because he won't stop there.

We can't allow the obstinacy of a few Members of the House of Representatives to force a cruel deal on those who least deserve it-- the Ukrainian people.

As I said, this conflict matters not just to Ukraine but to our own security here at home. It is clear that if Putin succeeds in Ukraine, he will not stop. He made this clear years ago when he talked about that his mission in life, his sole, overwhelming preoccupation, was to recreate the Russian Empire--the Balkans, parts of Poland, Moldova, Georgia. He is very clear.

It is ironic in history how dictators can be so clear about what they want to do but ignored by people who should stand up to them. Hitler was very explicit in ``Mein Kampf'' on what his goal was. Yet world leaders appeased him. Will we appease Putin and cut off aid to the Ukrainians? If we do, it will be our problem.

He will seek to destabilize other countries in the region, including our NATO allies. If that happens, under article 5 of NATO, we have a legal and moral obligation to go to their aid. That means the blood that will be shed is not Ukrainian blood but the blood of our soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, guardians, and coastguardsmen. The cost of that, in my view, is priceless.

Our job in some respects is to ensure by our actions here that we continue lowering the probability that American men and women in our service will suffer and die in action. If we renege on our commitment to Ukraine, that probability will go up, not down, and we will regret it immensely.

We have seen colleagues on the other side speak out, but they have to speak out more vigorously.

Leader McConnell said recently:

With Ukraine bravely defending its sovereignty and eroding

Russia's capacity to threaten NATO, it is not the time to

ease up. . . . Helping Ukraine retake its territory means

weakening one of America's biggest strategic adversaries

without firing a shot.

Leader McConnell is right about that, and I admire his forceful and courageous support of the Ukrainian people.

Remember, also, China is watching how the democratic nations of the

world respond to Russia. In considering a potential invasion of Taiwan, President Xi is scrutinizing Putin's playbook and the international response, and he has seen things that are potentially encouraging, particularly if the international community simply gives up and allows Ukraine to fall.

The conclusion he likely will draw is that, if I engage and I am persistent enough for long enough, then the political whims in the United States and across the globe will fall behind and they will give up and I will succeed.

The credibility of the U.S. deterrent is only as strong as our actions. Our would-be partners around the world are also watching closely at what we are doing. Will we have their backs if they are attacked? We must show that we are a steadfast ally, not hamstrung by the whims of fringe politicians. Again, our adversaries would see themselves empowered as our alliances dissolve because there is no confidence or a lack of confidence in the United States.

This is especially true when we consider how the Ukrainians have proven, time and time again, that, given the right support, they are entirely capable of defeating the assaults launched against them, and there are a number of reasons for this.

First and foremost is the incredible courage and fighting skill of the Ukrainian people as well as the inspirational leadership of President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. I had the opportunity, like so many of my colleagues, to travel to Kyiv earlier this year and was deeply moved by the Ukrainians' bravery and commitment to defending their homeland.

Second is the remarkable statesmanship of President Biden. His administration has forged a unified response, leading the worldwide condemnation of Putin and providing enormous military, economic, and humanitarian support for Ukraine. I doubt if anyone in this Senate, in the weeks before the invasion of Ukraine, would have predicted that NATO would rally as it has to support the Ukrainians; that allies across the globe would dig into their stocks of munitions and transfer them to the Ukrainians; that the whole world would be, in some respects, moved by the actions of our country in standing up and inspiring others to join with us.

We also benefited from 8 years of training of Ukrainian forces, starting in 2014. In fact, I had the first opportunity to meet General Cavoli, our Supreme Allied Commander, when he was a brigadier general in Lviv training Ukrainian soldiers. That training was manifested as they repulsed the Russian assault. It was squad leaders and company commanders and young battalion commanders who had been trained by us and our allies who were able to outfight, outmaneuver, and outthink their Russian adversaries, and they continue to do that.

Finally, Putin's assault has faltered from the inept performance of his own forces. The war has exposed a poorly led and poorly trained Russian Army with corrupt leadership at every level, poor tactics and communication and inept logistics. But people learn from adversity. The Russians are learning, and they are beginning to understand the limitations of their forces. So they are putting them in trenches; they are fortifying the battlefield; they are minimizing any maneuver that they must do because that is a complicated military operation. Then they are throwing in thousands and thousands of poorly trained but still well-armed soldiers.

So we can't assume that their poor performance will last forever. That is another reason we have to continue our support and give our Ukrainian allies all the help they need.

Now, Putin assumed, I believe, that his actions, his quick assault on Kyiv, would drive a wedge within the international community; that we would dither; that we would debate; that we would do nothing. Well, he was badly mistaken. As I indicated before, with the leadership of President Biden and Secretary Blinken and others, NATO has shown a remarkable unity and resolve. And we can't overstate the scale of this importance; that countries that before were unenthusiastic, let me say, about military operations, suddenly began to provide equipment, support, training, raised their budgets, and do so to assist the people of Ukraine.

Also, something that goes unstated by so many is that our European allies are also giving tremendous aid to civilian populations that have been displaced and aid to the budget of Ukraine. If you look on a per capita basis of the GDP--I should say the basis of percentage of the GDP--we are not the most generous benefactor of Ukraine; it is the Baltic nations. So this is an unusual worldwide commitment of sacrifice, of resources, in which we are the leader, but many other nations are giving as much, if not more.

Now, Putin, I think, believes he can wait us all out. He can wait for the supplies to be exhausted by the Ukrainians. Oh, and by the way, if we take away our resources, those supplies will be quickly exhausted. But we cannot validate this viewpoint as the Ukrainians have fought too hard and suffered too much to be left alone on the battlefield, to be abandoned.

And just as the Ukrainians have learned and adapted on the battlefield, the effort to aid and equip their security forces has evolved as we have gone forward. Throughout the war, the Biden administration has calibrated our assistance to Ukraine, calibrated in a very difficult situation. We have allies that were somewhat reluctant to move weapons systems in. We have allies that are signatories to the treaty against the use of cluster munitions, which we had to take into account. We have to negotiate between multiple parties that don't have precisely the same viewpoint as we have, but yet we have been able to consistently support, train, equip, and provide the resources necessary for the Ukrainian forces to begin their counteroffensive, which they did weeks ago; to continue their fight through this winter and position them, we hope, for a decisive action as soon as possible.

We have committed tremendous amounts of security assistance, including advanced air defense systems equipment, and we remain keen that we look ahead to provide the most modern weapons systems that the Ukrainians can use. Many people forget the training that is necessary to use sophisticated weapons systems. Many people forget that the key to maneuver operations is a rather sophisticated coordination between ground forces, heavy armored forces, artillery support, air support when available. All of these things are not something that one just does naturally. It takes training. It takes repeated attempts. Fortunately, for us, the Ukrainians are so dedicated to their country that they are committing their all to use our equipment effectively.

I will also note that the supplemental funding that we have brought has allowed us to invest more money and create more jobs right here in the United States as U.S. defense industry partners ramp up production to meet Ukraine's needs and to backfill our own munitions supplies.

Indeed, what we have found is, really, a new type of warfare. We had become accustomed for decades to have complete air superiority when we fought, to have precision weapons that were so accurate that the battles we fought were weeks: Desert Storm, Iraqi Freedom, the first phase of the battlefield in Afghanistan. So we didn't think we needed a large-scale munitions production. The type of warfare we are seeing now, which very well might be the type of warfare we encounter in the future, requires an industrial base that can provide adequate ammunition, an adequate supply of equipment. We have started that process. One aspect is multiyear contracts now for munitions so that there is a demand that producers understand and will fulfill.

Now, some have said our response has been too slow and that we should have given more weaponry or better weaponry, et cetera. Well, those people who have criticized the President about their claims of slowness should be outraged at the House, which is demanding we stop it all. They should raise their voices now, strongly, emphatically, to tell the House: We must have Ukrainian aid approved, and we must do it quickly.

Throughout the war in Ukraine, President Biden has led the United States and the international community with admirable resolve. Congress must send a strong message to Putin that Americans continue to stand in solidarity with the people of Ukraine

and that we are committed to supporting them as they fight bravely to defend their homeland.

The simple truth is that their battle is our battle. If they lose, Americans lose, and the likelihood that our young men and women will be called upon to enter the fray increases dramatically. We must support our Ukrainian allies.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, after hearing oral arguments earlier today, the Supreme Court will rule on a case that will determine whether average Americans will continue to have an independent Federal watchdog to push back against the abuses of big financial institutions.

The case I am speaking of is the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau--CFPB v. Community Financial Services Association of America. It deals with an outlandish ruling of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals that would invalidate the congressionally approved funding scheme of the CFPB. If it stands, the ruling will starve the Bureau of funding and effectively prevent it from working on behalf of the American people.

But let's take a step back to remember why the CFPB was created over a decade ago.

In the runup to the great recession, lenders were aggressively marketing subprime mortgages with predatory features to borrowers they knew had no ability to repay. Reckless Wall Street firms bundled those mortgages into securities and sold them to investors, including pension funds. And weak regulators stood by as all of this unfolded.

Borrowers ultimately discovered that they could not repay their mortgages. The securities backed by these mortgages took a nosedive, causing a meltdown of the banking system and taking down the entire economy.

While Wall Street got a lifeline from the Congress and the Federal Government, millions of Americans did not. They paid with their jobs, their homes, and their savings.

The unemployment rate peaked at 10 percent; nearly 7.5 million families lost their homes; and Americans lost $20 trillion in household wealth.

At the time, people rightfully asked who was looking out for them. The truth was no one, really.

American families were ill-served by financial regulators and by the system. A half dozen Federal Agencies shared responsibility for making sure that working families didn't get ripped off, but they all failed. In many cases, they seemed to regard their primary mission as protecting the big players in the financial system. And they were hamstrung by the Bush administration, which used the appropriations process to starve Agencies, like the SEC, of the resources and personnel they needed to be effective.

So while these Agencies all had some responsibility for protecting consumers, none of them pursued it vigorously. The performance of regulators at the time put truth to the saying that ``when everyone is responsible, no one is responsible.''

This weakness in our regulatory system and structure is why Congress created the CFPB and gave it a singular mission to protect Americans from the worst kinds of financial abuses, not just for mortgages but for every single consumer financial product.

The creation of this Agency is arguably one of the most important reforms made following the financial crisis.

I recognize that Wall Street and big financial companies have always feared the CPPB. That is because the CFPB is the only financial regulatory Agency that exclusively focuses on protecting consumers against abusive practices.

But Wall Street also fears the CFPB because its funding structure insulates it from regulatory capture, aggressive lobbying, and political pressure. Wielding its power judiciously and effectively, the CFPB has delivered results for American families. In a little more than a decade, the Bureau has obtained $17.5 billion in relief for 200 million consumers.

And so, the industry has never given up on killing the CFPB. The industry hit pay dirt when an activist panel of judges on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a bizarre and potentially sweeping decision, which invalidates the CFPB's funding structure based on a distortion of the Constitution's appropriations clause. The court's reasoning is flimsy. It relies on a single concurring opinion and a series of law review articles, some of which were written by students.

(Mr. KELLY assumed the Chair.)

According to Georgetown Professor Adam Levitin, the argument about the CFPB's funding was a ``throw-away point'' in the litigation, with the parties dedicating a paltry 370 words apiece to this issue in their briefs.

Unfortunately, the results of the Fifth Circuit's decision are not academic. They are very real for the hard-working Americans whose financial well-being is now at risk. If upheld, the Fifth Circuit's ruling would call into question the validity of all the Bureau's past actions.

The work of the CFPB matters to ordinary people. It is the only Federal Agency that supervises nonbank mortgage lenders, private student lenders, credit reporting bureaus, debt collectors, international money remitters, and auto finance companies. Because there has been a CFPB for the last decade, people in Rhode Island and across the Nation have had someone who is working to make sure they will be treated fairly, that their banks and lenders will deal with them honestly, and that their interests would be protected whenever financial institutions try to take advantage of them.

That will change if the Fifth Circuit's ruling stands.

I want to particularly highlight what that means for military families because this has been an aspect of the CFPB's authority that I have been deeply committed to since the beginning. Simply put, without the CFPB, military families will be stripped of their financial protections under the Military Lending Act. The CFPB has brought 40 public enforcement actions involving harm to servicemembers and veterans, securing more than $175 million in relief.

The Agency plays a unique role in watching out for our Nation's 2 million servicemembers and their families, whether they are deployed in the United States or overseas. The CFPB protects members of the Armed Forces from exploitation at the hands of unscrupulous lenders and debt collectors, who have charged servicemembers interest rates as high as 600 percent and who have threatened to derail their careers if they do not pay up.

More than recovering money, the CFPB, through its supervisory powers and by its simple existence, acts as a deterrent. If the Supreme Court shuts it down, predatory lenders will reoffend against our troops again and again and again, with little chance of being penalized.

The Presiding Officer understands this very well because, as a naval aviator and leader of troops, like myself, who was a paratrooper, executive officer, and company commander, we saw all the shenanigans that lenders were playing, selling trucks to the young enlisted people for a great bargain--nothing down but almost a 1,000-percent interest rate. We saw them come and take those trucks later when the young soldiers, sailors, and airmen couldn't pay--time and time again.

Finally, through the Military Lending Act and the CFPB, we stood up and said: This is not fair. And in one of the great ironies, of course, if you ever went off base, all of these car dealers and other service agencies proudly had the American flag waving red, white, and blue, while they were systematically, in many cases, stealing from the men and women who protect this country.

In a letter written to Banking Committee Chairman Brown, Veterans' Affairs Committee Chairman Tester, Intelligence Committee Chairman Warner, and myself, in February, the CFPB Director said:

I am gravely concerned that this trend could impact

companies' compliance with the Military Landing Act and the

Federal consumer financial laws that protect servicemembers

and their families. The impact would be dire--effectively

stripping servicemembers and their families of legal

protections that are critical to maintaining military

readiness. . . . In the Fifth Circuit alone, which covers

Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi, this could affect 300,000

servicemembers and their families.

Mr. President, I would ask unanimous consent that a copy of the letter from the Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, the Military Officers Association of America and a dozen veterans organizations have validated the CFPB's strong track record. In their words:

All told, the CFPB has become an indispensable agency for

protecting the legal rights and financial readiness of

servicemembers, veterans, and their families. The stability

of the CFPB's funding is therefore vital to the tremendous

work it does on [their] behalf.

Finally, let me add that it is not just average Americans who will be put at risk. Responsible lenders will lose the protections of the regulatory safe harbors created by the CFPB. These rules essentially protect the industry against the risk of enforcement, so long as they play by the rules and provide standardized disclosures in plain English. Those responsible actors in our financial system, who extend credit on fair terms and deal honestly with their customers, have a lot to lose.

It all adds up to this: The Fifth Circuit's decision prioritizes the interests of predatory lenders over responsible lenders, relies on falsehoods over facts, and chooses chaos over stability. That is certainly not what any court should be doing.

I hope sincerely that the Supreme Court reverses the Fifth Circuit's dangerous decision. I hope it recognizes that this is not about expensive lawyers and trade associations and big businesses. This is about Americans, many of them wearing the uniform of our country. They deserve the sympathy and the support of the Court.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to legislative session and be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Madam President, I have one request for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. It has the approval of the Majority and Minority Leaders.

Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committee is authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate:

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 96, S. Res. 156.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee- reported substitute amendment to the resolution be agreed to; that the resolution, as amended, be agreed to; that the committee-reported amendment to the preamble be agreed to; that the preamble, as amended, be agreed to; and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 394, which was submitted earlier today.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned under the provisions of S. Res. 394 until 10 a.m. on Wednesday, October 4; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and morning business be closed; that upon the conclusion of morning business, the Senate proceed to executive session and resume consideration of the O'Brien nomination, postcloture; further, that all postcloture time be considered expired at 11:30 a.m. and that following the cloture vote on the Hurson nomination, the Senate recess until 2:15 p.m. to allow for the weekly caucus meetings; that if cloture is invoked on the Hurson nomination, all time be considered expired at 2:15 p.m.; and that if cloture is invoked on the DeClercq nomination, all time be considered expired at 5:30 p.m.; finally, that if any nominations are confirmed during Wednesday's session, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's actions.

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

Madam President, I rise to pay tribute to our colleague Dianne Feinstein, who passed away, as we all know, this morning.

As California's senior Senator and the longest serving woman Senator ever, Senator Feinstein was a trailblazer. Everyone has made that point, and it is a true, accurate, and compelling point.

In representing the country's most populous State for over three decades, she occupied the national stage as well, and for many people inside and outside this Chamber, she became the archetypal Senator: prepared, professional, pragmatic, and unfailingly civil. Californians rewarded her hard work by voting for her by wider and wider margins.

She fought hard for the things she believed in and very often succeeded, but she never bullied or belittled those who took a contrary position. Her achievements are many: the enactment of the Federal assault weapons ban in 1994, the 6-year review of the CIA's Detention and Interrogation Program, which prompted significant reforms in the intelligence community. She was the leader in the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act. She delivered for the people of California, enacting laws to protect public lands and national treasures and doing the hard work to bring stakeholders together to resolve thorny issues and complex environmental challenges in her home State. She led on national environmental issues, including legislation to improve the fuel economy of automobiles.

I had the privilege and the pleasure to get to know her. We were both members of the Aspen study group. This is an organization sponsored by the Aspen Institute of both right and left, thoughtful national security policy people. I was very honored to be asked, and Dianne was a long-term member. To listen to her insights, to listen to her analysis, along with other very thoughtful people, was incredibly helpful to me, particularly as a more junior Member of the Senate, and, of course, her hospitality, her friendship, and her decency just was so apparent there as it was here on the floor in the U.S. Senate.

In fact, as we look back, there is a very simple fact here that Dianne Feinstein influenced, in some way, every major policy challenge that this body and this Nation has faced over the last 31 years with her voice, with her vote, with her counsel, with her wisdom, with her unfailing commitment to the people of California and the people of the United States. She literally never gave up. She never stopped.

She is someone that will be remembered, truly, as one of the greatest U.S. Senators in the history of this country. It was a privilege to serve with her. On this day, I wish her family and all her loved ones the comfort of knowing what an extraordinary woman and what an extraordinary Senator Dianne Feinstein was.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the humanitarian crisis happening right now in the Nagorno-Karabakh region in South Caucasus. It is a tragedy unfolding before our eyes, with reports from the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees stating that over 65,000 ethnic Armenians fled to Armenia from Nagorno-Karabakh since September 23. I expect the number of refugees will continue to rise rapidly in the coming days. They need immediate humanitarian aid: food, water, shelter, and clothing. Sadly, this is not the first time in history that the Armenian people have faced this kind of violence, aggression, and worse.

The Nagorno-Karabakh region has a long and complicated history. Armenia and Azerbaijan were both a part of the Soviet Union. As the USSR collapsed, conflict broke out and Armenia and Azerbaijan fought a bloody war in the late 1980s and early 1990s. It left tens of thousands of people dead, millions of civilians displaced, and the legal status of Nagorno-Karabakh in flux but under the rule of a de facto Government of the Republic of Artsakh. Violence largely stopped in 1994. However, deep tensions remain.

I may be one of the few Members of this body or either Chamber of Congress who visited the region following the first Nagorno-Karabakh war. During my visit in 1997, I met with local

leaders and civilians impacted by the conflict and saw firsthand the impact of the fighting.

Today, we are witnessing a new tragic chapter for the people of this region as the Government of Azerbaijan is moving to not only control the territory but to drive out the ethnic Armenian population from the region in the process. I have serious concerns that this may not be the end; that the aggressors may once again subject this region to a campaign of ethnic cleansing and cultural genocide on the ethnic Armenians who remain in Nagorno-Karabakh or decide they have future territorial aspirations in the region.

After years of uneasy peace, the Government of Azerbaijan began a 44- day war in 2020, seizing much of the territory around Nagorno-Karabakh. This left Nagorno-Karabakh further isolated. Russian peacekeepers, under the terms of an agreement they helped broker, were supposed to secure the Lachin corridor, which is the only humanitarian supply line between Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh.

The Azeris asserted control over the corridor in December 2022, set up a military checkpoint, stopped the flow of commercial goods, food, and medicine, and ultimately prevented the flow of humanitarian aid to the region, setting the stage for the final set of hostilities that we saw on September 19 and the complete defeat and surrender of local security forces of Nagorno-Karabakh.

I say this because it is important to recognize the actions of the Azerbaijan Government were deliberate and calculated and I believe meant to achieve the outcome we are seeing today: tens of thousands of ethnic Armenians fleeing Nagorno-Karabakh for their lives.

I know the Azeris have very different feelings of the conflict and the outcome, but the United States cannot sit by and tolerate atrocities by either side in armed conflict. That cannot be the way to move forward because it does nothing to resolve differences and will never allow people and families to have any sort of reconciliation and closure after decades of conflict.

In light of Azerbaijan's renewed aggression, the U.S. Government must respond. I was relieved to see the State Department and USAID announce $11.5 million for the humanitarian response that is needed in Armenia. I fear, however, this is only a small portion of the actual need so I urge additional funds be readied to support the refugees quickly.

We need to do more. It is very clear the Azeris have not met the conditions for waiver of section 907 of the FREEDOM Support Act. Therefore, I have called for the immediate cessation of all U.S. security assistance to Azerbaijan.

My colleague Senator Whitehouse and I have pressed the State Department and the Treasury Department to use its existing authority to issue Global Magnitsky Sanctions on those responsible for the human rights abuses against the people of Nagorno-Karabakh.

Given the change in the situation on the ground, I believe that the administration needs to exert more pressure and, indeed, take a more active role in ensuring that the government of Azerbaijan understands that there are consequences for its actions and that the United States is watching.

The region is at an inflection point. After decades of conflict, I understand the skepticism of both sides grounded in centuries of mistrust, but the process for a durable peace has to begin somewhere. The governments in Baku and Yerevan must take this window seriously and avoid divisive and hateful rhetoric that only fans the flames of mistrust and conflict. Without it, I worry only future bloodshed will follow.

I will continue my longstanding support for the Armenian people from Nagorno-Karabakh, and I call on my Senate colleagues to urge the administration to do the same.

We cannot sit idly by while a nation defines the world, claims territory that is in dispute, and has a systematic policy which appears to be emerging of ethnic cleansing.

We must stand up against this, and I urge all my colleagues to urge the administration to take a strong and vigorous stand against what is, I think, deplorable, despicable conduct by the government of Azerbaijan.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I rise today joined by my colleague Senator Whitehouse to honor the life and legacy of Brother Michael Reis, a man who made it his mission in life to never, ever give up on any kid. Brother Michael found his vocation joining the De La Salle Christian Brothers in the 1970s, and I was privileged to be a product of a Christian Brothers High School.

Like the founder of his order Saint John Baptist de La Salle, Brother Michael dedicated his life to educating and lifting up children at risk of being consigned to the margins of society in life.

He began his career in New York as a math teacher but was soon drawn into the world of social work. He moved from the classroom to a residential facility for justice-involved youth. Fortunately, his journey brought him to Rhode Island, where he first worked as a chaplain at the Adult Correctional Institute.

In 1974, he cofounded Ocean Tides, a residential program that provides a challenging, safe, and healthy learning environment for young men who have experienced severe educational difficulties in regular school settings and, indeed, have had other complicated social problems.

Over the years, I have met many students who have been transformed by their experiences at Ocean Tides. I have had the privilege of hosting them in my Senate office and here at the Capitol. Their poise, leadership, and thoughtfulness gave me confidence in our shared future and also exemplified the remarkable contribution that Brother Michael made to our community and to these young men.

He literally transformed their lives, lives that were, in many cases, headed to a very difficult, dangerous, and destructive end and now are lives that are poised for success, for contributions to the community, for a vindication of his faith in all men and women.

In 1983, Brother Michael expanded his focus to support at-risk youth and their families by founding Tides Family Services, which promotes family preservation and keeping youth within their communities through individual, family, and group counseling, home visitations, educational and court advocacy, as well as the networking of social services.

With a mere startup fund of $15,000, Brother Michael built an organization that employs over 140 dedicated staff and serves 500 youths a day. And when I say ``serve,'' I mean it. I have talked to these counselors. They will literally pick up young men from their homes and drive them to school so they get there and then get them back. They will counsel them. They will encourage them. They will support them. They will give them confidence in themselves so that they can succeed.

It is a remarkable organization reflecting the spirit of Brother Michael, the dedication of Brother Michael, and his commitment to making sure that no child, as they say, is left behind.

I was proud to secure Federal resources to support the work that Tides is doing and the families it serves. Strong families are the foundation for everything else--economic security, educational attainment, civic participation, and healthy communities. These are investments that change lives and strengthen our society.

Brother Michael lived the mission of the De La Salle Christian Brothers. For over 40 years, he worked across systems, finding innovative ways to reach and support our most challenged youth and bring along partners to support this cause. His vision, tenacity, and great love of our community built two organizations that to this day are places of hope and healing for struggling youth and families. We are forever in his debt.

Brother Michael left us on Sunday, September 24, 2023, but his work lives on in the lives he changed, in the institutions he built, and most importantly, in the example he left for all of us.

With that, Mr. President, I would like to yield to my colleague from Rhode Island, Senator Whitehouse.

Madam President, I have five requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority Leaders.

Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate:

Madam President, many of us in this Chamber, on both sides of the aisle, work hard to govern responsibly, and we are deeply frustrated by those who are deliberately attempting to shut down the Federal Government.

A fringe element of extremist House Republicans has pushed Congress to the brink of another costly, wasteful shutdown. A government shutdown of any duration would harm hard-working Americans and our economy. Shutdowns cost taxpayers billions of dollars per week. They cost businesses money. They could even cause a downgrade to the Nation's credit rating, and they force an unnecessary disruption of many vital services.

Federal workers in all 50 States who perform essential work, like food inspectors, TSA agents, or park rangers, would stop getting paychecks. A Federal shutdown can halt projects and cause Federal lending to cease. Clinical trials and research at the NIH could be forced to stop. Effective programs like the Women, Infants, and Children Nutrition Program would be left in a vulnerable state.

As for national defense, a government shutdown would be extremely damaging; and in the midst of the blockade of key military promotions, it would be another Republican-inflicted wound.

A shutdown could halt our munitions production lines as it did in the 2013 shutdown. This would be very shortsighted--very shortsighted--at a time when we are focused on ramping up munitions production for Ukraine and with an eye on future needs in the Indo-Pacific.

There are several other areas where a shutdown would be harmful.

I urge my colleagues to consider the impacts of a shutdown on our military men and women, their families, and our defense civilians. Hundreds of thousands of troops could see delays in their paychecks, and many civilians could lose their contracts. If the shutdown extends, the Defense Department will have to reduce its recruiting, training, and family movement activities.

A shutdown would also include delaying needed investments in military infrastructure, including barracks and childcare centers. Dozens of new projects would not go forward.

This would prevent the Defense Department from effectively modernizing and investing in new programs. There could be no new starts in acquisition programs or military construction projects. Hundreds of new start efforts in procurement and R&D would be prohibited during a government shutdown. As such, the Department could be forced into funding legacy systems that are outdated and inefficient. That is simply congressionally mandated waste.

As Gen. C.Q. Brown, the incoming Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has said about a shutdown, ``All the money in the world cannot buy more time; time is irrecoverable, and when you are working to keep pace against well-resourced and focused competitors, time matters.'' We could easily avoid this outcome by passing a short-term patch while we continue working toward a broader funding agreement.

I commend the leaders of the Senate Appropriations Committee--Senator Murray and Senator Collins--who hammered out the bipartisan continuing resolution before us, and also the leadership on both sides of the aisle. They have successfully reported out all 12 funding bills-- Senator Collins and Senator Murray--by wide bipartisan votes so that our appropriations process is working on a bipartisan basis and working on a reasonable and responsible basis. In fact, seven of these appropriations bills were voted out unanimously. They are well-crafted and free from policy poison pills.

They fit within the bipartisan agreement among the chair, the vice chair, and the leaders on overall funding levels. More importantly, those bills meet the funding level that Speaker McCarthy demanded as the price of preventing the default of the U.S. Government just this summer.

We should pass these bills, and we could pass them but for the objections of some Republican Senators who are working in concert with the House to obstruct the appropriations process from moving forward on a bipartisan basis. Their wanton nihilism is damaging our country.

But we have before us a continuing resolution, or a CR, which, barring any dilatory tactics, should clear the Senate by a wide margin. I want to emphasize that this CR is nothing more than a patch. For a few more weeks, it keeps the government open; it keeps the aviation system operational and funded; it keeps the Flood Insurance Program authorized; it ensures that we will continue to take care of disaster victims throughout the country; and it will ensure that the Ukrainian people have the resources they need to win their fight for freedom.

This is not extravagance; it is the bare minimum. The question is, What will House Republicans do?

After creating a default crisis that brought the entire economy to the brink of disaster in June, they have accomplished virtually nothing. For months, House Republicans have only been able to pass a single funding bill. The rest of their highly partisan bills have been bottled up in committee or blocked from passing on the floor by Republicans themselves.

In the midst of their palace intrigue, House conservatives seem to be trying to one-up each other with one drastic, unpopular, and irresponsible cut after the other. It seems to be a competition over whose unworkable proposal can inflict more pain. Perhaps they mistakenly believe that their extreme ideas are popular or that they will somehow hurt the President.

But who suffers if title I education funding for low-income schools is cut by 80 percent? Who is harmed when 1.3 million low-income individuals are kicked out of the SNAP program and when food assistance for seniors and kids is cut by 14 percent? How do we address the lack of affordable housing when the HOME Investment Partnership is slashed by $1 billion? How does Ukraine win when Congress withholds critical funding?

And let me pause here to underscore the significance of funding for Ukraine.

The assistance package the President is seeking for Ukraine will provide much needed military assistance as well as aid to displaced Ukrainians whose cities and towns continue to face indiscriminate bombardment by Putin's forces.

We know, if Putin is successful in seizing Ukraine, he will not stop there. Unless the United States and the international community continue to stand with Ukraine, Putin will continue to look for opportunities to inflict violence and violate the sovereignty and security of our allies and partners around the world. And if Putin succeeds because we have failed to help, our other adversaries and competitors will be emboldened too. Indeed, if Putin succeeds, he will not stop with Ukraine. He will threaten NATO countries.

The bottom line, frankly, is the probability that American military personnel will be engaged in combat goes up. Frankly, one of our major missions should be to ensure, through our efforts, that that probability constantly goes down. We do not want to sacrifice American military personnel needlessly. Congress should send a strong message to Putin that we stand with the Ukrainians as they bravely fight for their homeland.

This is the second manufactured crisis that House Republicans have created this year. First, they threatened to default on our Nation's debt. So President Biden sat down with the Speaker and negotiated an agreement that set spending levels for this year. Now House Republicans are walking away from that agreement and threatening to shut down the government. It won't work. The American people can see this charade, and if there is a shutdown, they will know who is responsible.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, for the Committee on Armed Services I report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in the RECORDS on the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

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

I ask for the yeas and nays, please.