Floor Statements

Madam President, I rise today with great respect, affection, and admiration for my friend and distinguished colleague, the Senator from Louisiana. I have always appreciated his dedication to the welfare of his constituents and the prudent management of taxpayer dollars. When it comes to the National Flood Insurance Program, or NFIP, as it is known, I must voice some concerns.

The NFIP, by its very nature and its current structure and the way it has been operating, remains a perfect example of what can happen when good intentions meet imprudent policy.

We find ourselves on the precipice of what is euphemistically called a clean reauthorization. While the term ``clean'' as used here may suggest unerring direction or impurity or transparency, in this context, clean is better understood as ``unchanging'' or even ``unreflective.''

Let's be clear on the facts here. Commerce created the NFIP as a government flood insurance monopoly, one that covers privately owned properties. Yet this government-backed monopoly behemoth sits on more than $26 billion in debt owed to the U.S. Treasury.

My friend and colleague referred, a moment ago, to the ability to cover up to $30 billion of potential liabilities. They have $20 billion in debt because of the way the program has been run. There is no subtly as to why this has happened. The NFIP is offering special below-market rates for insurance in regions and for specific properties that are inherently flood-prone.

Congress is no stranger to the adage of doing the same thing over and over again and, somehow, nonetheless expecting different results. And yet we find ourselves here, yet again, ready to do battle again.

This isn't merely about economics; it is also about evenhanded fairness. The NFIP, as constructed, disproportionately benefits, in many instances, those who least need the assistance. The data speaks clearly to this. Historically--and, certainly, this was the case as of just a few years ago--the median value of an NFIP-insured home has been roughly double that of the average American home.

I have introduced several pieces of legislation trying to reform this program. I introduced several bills in the past proposing some fixes, including one that would propose a particularly meaningful simple change, and that is capping the NFIP insurance eligibility at $1 million. This isn't about penalizing success. Rather, it is a recognition that those fortunate enough to afford homes in the million- dollar-plus range are also most likely very able to secure insurance without a public subsidy and without running the NFIP program even further into debt, on top of the $20 billion that they have already racked up.

So my objection is not about negating Senator Kennedy's genuine concerns and very legitimate points about our citizens; it is about ensuring that we take steps in the right direction as stewards of taxpayer dollars.

With the utmost respect to my friend and colleague, with whom I agree on most things, the NFIP, in its current form, isn't moving us in that direction. It is a broken government subsidy program that has long been in need of some reforms to accompany any reauthorization.

When this has come up in the past--each time it comes up as we are approaching another expiration--I have offered up reforms, year after year. And year after year, I have been told: We will get to that. We will get to that. We will add some of those reforms. You are right, we need to reform the program. We will get to that but not yet.

It is as if echoing the famous words of St. Augusta who, during his conversion to Christianity, reportedly said: Lord, grant me chastity, but not yet.

The time comes when you actually have to do what needs to be done.

So I appreciate the opportunity to share those views and remain committed to working alongside my friend and colleague, Senator Kennedy, to identify and implement solutions that best serve all Americans.

There are a number of solutions. I introduced a number of pieces of legislation over the years, one of which I mentioned a moment ago. There are others. If we can adopt one or more of these reforms, we can get this done.

What I am not willing to do is agree, yet again, with another hollow promise, yet again, that at some unknown point in the future, we will reform the program, as I think everyone acknowledges needs to be done.

On that basis, Madam President, I object.

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

Madam President, I appreciate my friend and colleague's words, and, yes, I want to be very clear--under no circumstance did I suggest that this benefits only wealthy people. Quite to the contrary, my whole point was that we can reform this program so that it doesn't have $20 billion in debt at the same time that it has $30 billion in liabilities. That is not a good way to run this, because, he is right, there are a whole lot of people who are not in the wealthy, million- dollar-plus homeowner category. But for those who are, they should not be in the same position because they are not in the same position. So that is why I would be happy to work with my friend and colleague. We can get this done. This one does not have to be difficult. Sure, it takes a lot of time to put a bill on the floor and subject it to a full process.

I am not the only one with concerns about this legislation, but for my own purposes, as far as I am concerned, if we can get agreement on that, I would be happy to let your measure pass if we can incorporate that reform. We can incorporate that reform very easily, do another unanimous consent request, and if no one else objects, I am happy to let that one go with a simple reform. I already have the legislation drafted from previous Congresses. We can get this done.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, the American people are sharply divided on some issues. One of those issues is abortion. One group of people has a different idea about when human life begins and is worth protecting. It needs to be protected under law. It is difficult to reconcile the views of those who are in sharp contrast with each other given that one group thinks that human life begins earlier--much earlier--than the other group.

As difficult as it can be to reconcile those competing viewpoints where Americans are so sharply divided, there is an issue related to abortion on which Americans are overwhelmingly and refreshingly united; that is, because both sides tend to recognize that a number of Americans are uncomfortable with abortion to the extent that we are, Americans overwhelmingly agree, with a vast supermajority being in agreement, that the Federal Government should not use U.S. taxpayer funds for abortions.

To that end, Congress has passed laws providing just that. One specific law deals specifically with the U.S. Department of Defense. Codified in 10 U.S.C., section 1093, the statute, which has been on the books for decades, says that you may not use Department of Defense funding or facilities for abortions.

Well, late last year, a rumor started circulating to the effect that the U.S. Department of Defense was considering adopting policies that would fund abortion travels, specifically allowing military personnel seeking abortions in a neighboring State or in a different State than where they were living or stationed to receive 3 weeks of paid leave time and compensated travel--air travel or otherwise--lodging accommodations, a per diem, et cetera, specifically to have an abortion.

My friend and colleague, the distinguished senior Senator from the State of Alabama, Senator Tuberville, was concerned about this. In his sitting on the Armed Services Committee in the Senate, which he does, he visited with Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin and expressed his concerns about this rumored policy.

He said: You shouldn't do this. This is inconsistent with the spirit, if not also the letter, of 10 U.S.C., section 1093. If you do this, there will be consequences, including, among other things, that I, Senator Tuberville, will be forced into a position in which I will delay the confirmations of flag officer military promotions.

Regrettably, a couple of months later, Secretary Austin, in completely ignoring Federal law, in completely ignoring what Senator Tuberville had told him, proceeded with the policy anyway. By so doing, he made a decision to openly flout Federal law. The sole purpose of this policy is to try to find an all-too-cute, way-too-tricky route around what Federal law requires, flatly inconsistent with the spirit, if not also the letter, of the Federal law.

Since then, there has been debate on this on the Senate floor. Words have been exchanged. People have strong views about this approach. But make no mistake, all Senator Tuberville is doing is saying that in the past, I, along with every other Senator, typically moved Heaven and Earth to expedite the confirmation of these military promotions to allow them to occur quickly. Most of them are not controversial.

That is the norm, but these things require unanimous consent. And there is something about unanimous consent: It requires, as the name implies, actual unanimity, meaning any one Senator can raise an objection that makes expedited confirmation not possible. This doesn't stop the confirmation; all it does is require additional steps to be taken. It takes more time.

Yesterday, we had a statement--a statement that was unfortunate, a statement that brings me to the Senate floor today--a statement made by Secretary Carlos Del Toro, the Secretary of the U.S. Navy. Secretary Del Toro, with whom I have worked on other matters in the past and for whom I have had great respect, made a very unfortunate and inappropriate statement. Here is what he said:

I would have never imagined that one of our own senators

would actually be aiding and abetting communists and other

autocratic regimes around the world.

This statement, to be clear, was talking only about Senator Tuberville saying: In light of this policy, which I believe is incompatible with Federal law, I am not going to facilitate the expedited confirmation of the nominees in question.

That is all he said. Yet, for that, he was accused by the Secretary of the U.S. Navy of ``aiding and abetting communists and other autocratic regimes around the world.'' This is strange. This is unacceptable. And this body should emphatically, unambiguously reject the ad hominem attack against Senator Tuberville by Secretary Del Toro.

Look, I get it. Sometimes passions are inflamed. Sometimes people feel really strongly about things. I hope and expect Secretary Del Toro will see the error of this and retract and apologize for this statement because he has essentially accused a Member of our body, a distinguished friend to the United States, to the people of Alabama, and to me personally, of treason, of directly jeopardizing the security of the United States and putting it at risk by aiding and abetting communist and other autocratic regimes around the world.

Personal attacks against Members of Congress or other people based on policy views, policy disagreements--here, procedural, strategic disagreements--certainly violate the high standard of decorum that has long been honored and is typically held and exhibited by the leadership of the U.S. Armed Forces.

Look, there are important things to consider when you evaluate this policy, this policy designed to flout Federal law.

We have three branches of government. One branch, where we work, makes the law. The executive branch, where the Pentagon exists and the White House exists and all the executive branch Agencies exist--they are there to enforce the law. Then you have the judicial branch across the street, headed by the Supreme Court, which interprets the law when people disagree as to the law's meaning. We are the only branch that gets to make the law.

The very, very first operative provision, the first clause of the first section of the first article of the Constitution--Article I, Section 1, Clause 1--makes clear that ``all legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives.''

Article I, Section 7 makes clear--even clearer--how this works. You cannot make a Federal law without passing the same legislation through the House and through the Senate--identical language--and then submitting that to the President--presenting it, as we say--for signature, veto, or acquiescence.

If you don't follow the formula of Article I, Section 7, you have not made a Federal law. Once a Federal law is made, it cannot be changed or unmade

without going through that same process. But here, the Department of Defense seems not to have gotten the memo, and by ``the memo,'' I mean the U.S. Constitution.

This oath of office that I have right here, this is an oath of office that is a prerequisite. It is required of all those elected or appointed to civil service or uniform service, that they have to take before assuming their duties in question. Here is what it says:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and

defend the Constitution of the United States against all

enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith

and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation

freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion;

and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of

the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

That is codified in Federal law, adopted by Congress in 5 U.S.C., section 3331.

Look, by swearing to support and uphold the Constitution, as this oath requires, as is required to do under Federal statute, anyone taking this oath understands that our Constitution expressly, explicitly, unambiguously, and exclusively empowers Congress to make the laws. Only Congress has lawmaking power. Only Congress may change the law. Only Congress may repeal the law. The other branches can't do that.

Now, the outrage from Secretary Del Toro and, I would add, from some other Pentagon officials, including but not limited to Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, sort of has a tendency to make it appear as though they have written a new oath, as it were.

So when we look at this, we can imagine perhaps what they might be thinking. Whether they have gone to the trouble of rewriting it in this fashion or not, essentially what they have done is to come up with President Biden's own Pentagon-specific oath of office. It is as though they are saying: I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will make all laws that I determine are necessary and proper; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same laws that I have decided to make within the executive branch; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will legislate from the E-Ring of the Pentagon, which I am about to enter. So help me God.

That, of course, is not the real oath. That oath, of course, is an abomination, and it is an affront to this body, to the other Chamber of Congress, and to the Constitution itself. This is an oath that rejects the Constitution. It empowers unelected and unaccountable officials-- officials who have never been elected to make laws--as supreme lawmakers.

Secretary Austin and the civilian leadership of the service branches want us to believe that the sky is falling and that the falling sky has been prompted to fall by Senator Tuberville and that Senator Tuberville himself is somehow empowering communist and other autocratic regimes throughout the world, imperiling and endangering the United States. These are not just fighting words; these are words tantamount to an accusation of treason--words that are unfounded; words made with knowledge of their falsity or reckless disregard for their truthfulness; words that disregard what is actually happening here. These are not appropriate. These are way over the line.

In reality, if this is where truly aiding and abetting communist and other autocratic regimes were concerned, if that is really what we were facing, if that is really where we were and American national security was being imperiled in the manner and to the degree these people have suggested, including and especially Secretary Del Toro, we would be looking at a very different outcome here. If they really believed this--which they do not, and we know they don't believe it because if we were in that situation, there are only one, two, maybe three possible outcomes at that moment: either the Department of Defense would ideally just suspend its attempt to circumvent Federal law and end its abortion travel policy--if they suspended this right now, either indefinitely or until such time as they could change the law to do what they want to do, that is the fastest way to do that. And I have it on good authority that Senator Tuberville would release his hold immediately and that these people could move forward very, very quickly on an expedited basis.

If they want these people confirmed, that is all they have to do-- suspend that policy. I am willing to bet--I am not even a betting man, but I would bet here anyway--he would lift it. He would lift it today.

Option No. 2, possibility No. 2: Senator Schumer and the Senate Democrats--if we really were in that environment where national security were being imperiled and we were strengthening the hands of hostile regimes all over the world because of Senator Tuberville; if that is really where we were just because he was requiring the whole process rather than expedited consideration of these nominees, well, then Senator Schumer and the Senate Democrats would take the time to bring these nominees up for a vote on the floor.

You see, there are procedures by which we can bring them to the floor even with a hold. A hold is not a death knell. It is not a veto. All it says is ``I am not going to give my consent.'' Every Member of the United States has to consent to expedite consideration. They could still do it, but they are not.

So one of those two outcomes or some variation of them--that is what we would be facing. But, instead, what are we looking at? Well, just the day before yesterday, the Senate held its first vote in 40 days, and it appears very, very likely that within just an hour or two, maybe three, the Senate will be recessing for the weekend and not voting again until Monday. So we have the ability to move nominees forward. Senator Schumer and the Senate Democrats have the ability to put them on the calendar. It would just take some additional steps. It takes time. But they are not doing it. They are not budging. Why? Because they know their words aren't true. They know their spewing of invective, unfair, defamatory accusations relates to facts that they don't even believe because if they believed them, we would be in a very different procedural posture.

Look, whether you agree or not agree with Senator Tuberville's strategic decision here, whether you as a U.S. Senator or as an onlooker would have made the same decision--regardless of how you come down on that, regardless of where you are on the position of abortion or government funding for abortion, Senator Tuberville is well within his rights. These are rights that each individual Senator holds and owns uniquely, personal to them. This is consistent with his assignment on the Senate Armed Services Committee. He is doing the job the way he believes he should do his job in a manner consistent with how the voters in the great State of Alabama feel.

So we have and we respect these rules, and we have respected them for centuries. Respecting the rules and the institution requires us to respect those with whom we disagree when it comes to procedural decisions like this one. We need to respect them not just in spite of a disagreement but especially in the face of a disagreement if we are going to uphold these rules, which have lasted for centuries and helped propel this body to the status that I hope it can live up to more completely, as the world's greatest deliberative legislative body.

Yet it is interesting. To show that we really are not in this place where we would be if they took these things seriously, just yesterday, Senator Schumer, the Senate majority leader himself, commented, when asked about or in reference to his own refusal to put the confirmation of C.Q. Brown to be the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on the Senate floor for a vote--here is what he said:

This is a problem created by Republicans, and it's up to

them to solve it. . . . We're not going to shift the burden

to Democrats when this is a Republican-caused problem.

This is nuts. What he is saying here is that, yeah, in the past, we would have expected to vote on the confirmation of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. In fact, in the 12\1/2\ years I have served in this body, I think we have voted on the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff individually and not as part of some massive, en bloc confirmation package. Yet he is not even willing to move the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. It is not even that long of a process to get this person on the calendar. He is not willing even to do that. Why? Well, he told us

why--because he is having too much fun blaming Republicans for it. He holds the tools to get people confirmed. He is not willing to move them. He is not willing to budge an inch.

Look, while Americans may disagree on the legality of abortion, and they do, there has long been this overwhelming, bipartisan, supermajority understanding first and foremost among the American people at large--and there has until very lately even been that bipartisan, overwhelming, supermajority consensus among Federal elected lawmakers--that Americans are against tacitly supporting abortion with their taxpayers dollars.

The last time I read the Constitution, I noticed that, as I noted earlier, it is Congress that makes the laws, not the Department of Defense. Senator Tuberville is right to oppose this egregious policy, and he is well within his rights as a Member of the U.S. Senate to take this position. We should commend his courage and applaud his dedication to upholding his oath of office, his commitment to the Constitution, standing for those who cannot stand, let alone speak, for themselves.

Even if you don't agree with Senator Tuberville on abortion or on Federal funding for abortion or on his particular use of this particular procedural remedy, you should at least respect it. If you can't respect him and show respect for his decision, you are showing disrespect for this institution, for its rules, and for our governing documents, including the Constitution, and for the entity, the customs and traditions that have helped preserve our unique form of constitutional representative government in America.

Let this message to Secretary Austin and Secretary Del Toro be clear: If you want to make laws, run for Congress. You can't legislate from the E-Ring of the Pentagon. Until then, stand down and leave the lawmaking to the lawmakers.

Mr. President, as we wrap up our work in the National Defense Authorization Act, we need to address an issue, an issue that has been the focus of a lot of controversy. It has been the focus of a lot of heated words. Now, I understand heated words happen around here. It occurs; people feel passionate about things. But when heated words become untrue words, defamatory words, fighting words, sometimes the record needs to be corrected. This is one of those times.

Moments ago, the President of the United States--who, to put it mildly, has not had a good week--made some comments that I regard as not only insensitive, inflammatory, but also downright misleading and unfair. He has made them about and directed them toward a Member of this body, our friend and colleague, the Senator from Alabama, Senator Tuberville.

These attacks against Senator Tuberville have been relentless. Relentless all because he has chosen to take a stand, a stand against what he properly, legitimately, understandably perceives as a violation of the spirit--if not also the letter--of the law. The law in question is codified in 10 U.S.C. section 1093.

And 10 U.S.C. 1093, in a nutshell, says that the U.S. Department of Defense may not spend Department of Defense funds to perform an abortion, and it may not use a Department of Defense property, facility, to perform an abortion.

This has been in place for a long time. It has been in place for decades. This, you see, represents something of an island oasis in the debate of abortion, this idea about government funding. It is one of the last bastions of our overwhelming bipartisan agreement when it comes to abortion in America, which is to say, regardless of how people feel about abortion in general--whether they support it, whether they are against it, in what circumstances they might recognize it as something that can appropriately be legal or not--what unites them and unites them overwhelmingly along bipartisan lines is this: That, in part, because of the widespread disagreement among the American people about abortion, Federal funds shouldn't be performing abortions. They shouldn't be used to promote or conduct or perform abortions.

It is a very simple matter. This can and does unite Americans across party lines--and overwhelmingly so. And so it was with good reason in another National Defense Authorization Act--we just finished up the National Defense Authorization Act for 2024, at least the initial Senate version of it. But it was in another National Defense Authorization Act a few decades ago that, I understand, 10 U.S.C. 1093 came to be law, because the American people agreed then, as they agree now, that regardless of how people feel about abortion, we ought not to be using Federal funds, particularly in the military but also otherwise, to perform abortions.

Well, late last year, the U.S. Department of Defense started considering a measure to get around 10 U.S.C. 1093 for a method that was at once really creative and too cute by half.

When I say ``too cute by half'' not as a compliment, I, indeed, mean it as a criticism, because it cleverly attempts to step around the stated purpose, intent, spirit of 10 U.S.C. 1093. And one could not argue that you avoid the technical grip of its talents if you do what the Department of Defense started considering doing last year.

They started thinking about saying, OK, well, let's say that we will give 3 weeks of paid leave time and reimburse travel expenses to any military woman who wants to get an abortion and needs to travel interstate to do it. We will pay for their interstate travel, for their lodgings, their meals, and 3 weeks of paid leave.

It is understandable why this would cause some consternation, because the only purpose of this could be to flout, to circumvent the stated purpose and effect of 10 U.S.C. section 1093. Technically speaking, one could argue, yeah, this is not performing abortions, so you can get away with it. Sometimes in the military, it is not just about getting away with it; sometimes in the military there ought to be some concern for whether the American people have a voice in this, and the fact that their elected representatives have tried to take things like this off the table, and not let them do that.

So Senator Tuberville saw this coming. He also understood--as I think anyone rationally looking at it has the ability to understand--that the distinction between this and providing funding for the performance of an abortion is really difficult to differentiate. If you add up the value, the economic value, of the 3 weeks of paid leave and add to that interstate travel--in many cases, it is going to be interstate air travel--and lodgings, meals, per diem for that period of time, at the end of the day, performance of the abortion is going to be dwarfed by that policy. It is almost the afterthought. It is the least expensive part of all of that. And so, yeah, can you say that you have evaded the letter of the law? Yeah, I think you can make that argument, but it is too cute by half, and they are trying deliberately to flout this law while claiming that they are respecting it.

So what did Senator Tuberville do? Well, Senator Tuberville serves on the Senate Armed Services Committee. And in that capacity, he has oversight authority, oversight responsibilities over the Department of Defense. So he did what he felt was appropriate and what I think was appropriate, and he decided to sit down with the Secretary of Defense and just talk it out with him, rather than relying on the rumor mill to either confirm or dispel what might be happening. He articulated his concerns.

He said: Look, if you were to do this, it is just a poke in the eye. You are doing it because you can get away with it for the time being. So don't do it. And if you still do it, there will be consequences. And then he spelled out what those consequences would be.

You see, in the Senate, when we confirm people, particularly when we confirm people who are up for consideration for a military promotion, there is a custom and practice that we don't require the full procedures to be followed--the full procedures, which takes some time.

And so Senators, typically, agree to expedite that process so that these military promotions can be considered as a group, en bloc, and on a really fast-tracked basis. It is, nonetheless, a senatorial courtesy; it is something that we choose to do. It is our choice, and it is the choice of each Senator individually. Any one Senator can decide for him or herself when, whether, to what extent to allow that person and where to withhold it.

And so what Senator Tuberville told Secretary Lloyd Austin, the Secretary of Defense, was simple: If you do this, I will not any longer be able to justify giving expedited treatment to military promotions for flag officers--you know, admirals and generals. I won't do that, so don't do it, because you will be flouting the law. You will be flouting the law in a way that may take a significant amount of time, whether through litigation--if it follows that course--or through legislation. Probably be able to run out the clock through the end of this administration.

Senator Tuberville felt that would be an unfortunate result and wanted to give Secretary Austin the chance to avoid it. So he said: Don't do it; but if you do do it, it is going to take you a whole lot longer to confirm your admirals and your generals.

Well, what happened? A month or two later, lo and behold, the Department of Defense releases that policy: 3 weeks of paid leave and compensated, reimbursed travel expenses, and per diem, for the purpose of getting an abortion. Sure, they try to dress it up in other language. This is about abortion. This is about Dobbs because the administration doesn't like the Dobbs decision. It is mad that the Supreme Court of the United States stood up for the plain text of the Constitution.

The plain text of the Constitution does not make abortion itself categorically a Federal issue and certainly doesn't prohibit to the States the authority to protect unborn human life. It doesn't take that away, and because it doesn't take that away, it is not an issue that nine lawyers wearing robes can just decide, just graft it on to the Constitution.

So the Dobbs Court reached that conclusion. Whether you agree with the Dobbs Court or not--I do. It was right. But whether you agree with me on that or not, it is the Supreme Court's ruling.

This is a temper tantrum. It is a temper tantrum by the Department of Defense and by the Biden administration. They are still mad that they lost the Dobbs ruling. That is what this is.

So they proceeded with it, and Coach Tuberville said: I told you what I would do, and I am going to stand up for what I told you I would do. This isn't right. You are encouraging, you are facilitating abortions, and it sends the wrong message altogether. This is not something that we are comfortable with the Department of Defense doing. We made that clear in law decades ago. And you are doing this for the sole purpose of flouting--of circumventing. So don't do it.

Now, it is clear as a bell: This doesn't stop anyone from getting confirmed. There is not one person whom we stop from getting confirmed simply because any one Senator decides that he or she isn't going to continue to expedite the process. Every one of these people could be confirmed. Essentially, every one of them could be confirmed in not a whole lot of time. It would be some time-consuming processes they would have to go through, but it is not overwhelming.

In the meantime, all this pressure is mounting. The message from the White House and from the Pentagon has been to put the blame entirely at Senator Tuberville's feet and to say that all kinds of horrible things are going to happen--dogs and cats living together in the streets; Book of Revelations

stuff, apocalyptic stuff is going to happen--and it is all Senator Tommy Tuberville's fault. This is nonsense.

For those who have made that argument within this body, it is uncollegial. For the President of the United States to jump on this bandwagon and do the same thing--the President of the United States, a longtime Member of this body who never served with Senator Tuberville, but if he had, he would have known him and he would have liked him. They would have been friends. Senator Biden, I have no doubt, would have respected as a matter of senatorial courtesy what Senator Tuberville is doing because we respect each other's procedural rights, especially when standing on a sincerely held conviction. But that is not what President Biden is doing.

He gave a speech just a little while ago. He begins with the words ``Something dangerous is happening.''

A few sentences later, he says:

The Republican Party used to . . . support the military,

but today they're undermining the military. The senior

senator from Alabama, who claims to support our troops, is

now blocking more than 300 military operations with his

extreme political agenda.

Let's talk for a moment about what is extreme. It is extreme to take U.S. taxpayer dollars and use them to facilitate, promote, and encourage abortion. That is extreme. It is also extreme for this administration to refuse even to consider the possibility that maybe they overstepped.

Now, there is dispute among people in the military as to whether or to what extent any delay in the promotion of these members is a matter of national security. I understand there are disagreements on that. There are also no fewer than 5,000 veterans who have signed on to support Senator Tuberville's Pentagon hold--5,000--who say that Senator Tuberville's decision to place these holds is absolutely right and that he is not to blame and that there are no circumstances in which Senator Tuberville should be blamed for any impact on military readiness.

Now, let's step back for a minute, and let's just assume. Let's assume for purposes of argument here that we are living in a world in which there are legitimate national security ramifications flowing from the nonconfirmation of any or all of the roughly 300 promotions we are talking about. Let's assume that into existence.

If that is the case, to whatever extent that is true, what is true for the goose is also true for the gander. It is not something that you could put solely on Senator Tuberville, especially given the fact that we could promote and confirm the promotions of every single one of these people right now within the next 5 minutes. We could do it if only this administration would stop trying to advance its radical, pro- abortion agenda through every jurisdiction, every Department, every Agency. This is an all-of-government thing. They don't care; they are going to promote abortion in whatever way possible. All they would have to do is say: You know, let's set that aside. In the interest of national security, let's do that.

It is not as if members of the military choosing to get an abortion are prohibited from doing so. It is not as though members of the military choosing to seek an abortion are denied leave or denied the ability to do this.

So what exactly are we fighting for, and to whatever degree this is impairing and impacting national security, who exactly is doing this? The President of the United States and Secretary Austin both independently have at their disposal the ability to end this now.

So a national security threat? Not a national security threat? To the extent it is, it is on you, President Biden, and you certainly can't put this entirely at Senator Tuberville's feet. This is your doing. You have chosen this route. He warned you that Federal law itself cautioned against it, and you did it anyway.

It goes on a few sentences later:

This partisan freeze is already harming military readiness,

security and leadership, and troop morale.

He goes on:

Freezing pay, freezing people in place. Military families

who have already sacrificed so much unsure of where or when

they change stations, unable to get housing or start their

kids in the new school [because they are not there yet].

Here again, I get it. It would be great to get those people confirmed. It really would. I would like to see them confirmed. So even though this wasn't my decision--I wasn't in his shoes. I wasn't the one who chose this particular option. But he is my friend, he is my colleague, and he is a U.S. Senator who holds an election certificate just like the rest of us and just like President Biden did for the many decades he served in this body. He has every right to decide when and when not to extend the courtesy of expediting these confirmations. He went about it in a gentlemanly, courteous way, giving advance notice. He rested his theory on a law that has been in place for decades that is being flouted.

The President of the United States has the audacity to lay at his feet any suffering, any misfortune, any unhappiness among these families, any military readiness that may flow from it, when he himself knows darn well that in order to score cheap political points with the abortion lobby, he is willing to bring these things on. And then he has the audacity to blame this on one Senator from Alabama.

Shame on you, President Biden. Shame on you.

He goes on:

Military spouses are forced to take critical career

decisions, not knowing where or if they can apply for a new

job. . . . a growing cascade of damage and disruption all

because one senator from Alabama and 48 Republicans refused

to stand up to him to lift the blockade over a Pentagon

policy offering servicemen and women and their families

access to reproductive health care rights they deserve if

they're stationed in states that deny it.

He can dress that up all he wants. It is still on him. He can call this healthcare all he wants, but he is talking about a procedure that has one purpose, and that is to culminate in the cessation of unborn human life.

I find that difficult to take--difficult to take especially in the face of 10 U.S.C. 1093, which on its face makes clear that the American people don't want and have outlawed the use of military funds and facilities to perform abortions. Why should we be willing to tolerate something that indirectly, in a way that is way too cute by at least half, openly flouts the intended purpose and spirit of that law?

He continues:

I think it's outrageous. But don't just take it from me.

Hundreds of military spouses petitioned to end the extreme

blockade.

One spouse, referring to the Senator from Alabama, said:

This isn't a football game. This nonsense must stop right

now. Enough.

You know, the military spouse quoted is right. This isn't a football game. It is much more serious than that--in fact, far more serious. This is about the law. This is about maintaining military readiness. This is about making sure that our laws aren't openly flouted by those charged with managing and directing the affairs of what is our largest Department and one of the central, key parts of the Federal Government, one of its main reasons for existing. It is not a football game, and this business of openly flouting the law and the business of law in which we work is also not a game.

You see, the fact is, Secretary Austin made a grave miscalculation when he decided he was going to make policy and make policy utterly at odds with the policy embodied in enacted law. You see, you can't legislate from the E-ring of the Pentagon. It can't be done.

My copy of the Constitution, the very first operative provision of that document, article I, section 1, says:

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a

Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a

Senate and a House of Representatives.

Article I, section 7, puts additional meat on the bones and makes abundantly clear what is teed up in article I, section 1, clause 1. It says that in order to make a law within the Federal Government, it has to be through Congress. In order to make a law, you have to pass it through the House and pass it through the Senate. Once you pass the same text through both Houses of Congress, it has to be presented to the President for signature, veto, or acquiescence.

Maybe he didn't get the memo on article I. Maybe he needs to be reminded of the fact that he doesn't get to make law. It is not within his prerogative.

He openly, brazenly and I believe very, very deliberately sought to undermine the stated purpose, intent, effect, and spirit of 10 U.S.C. 1093. He chose to do that.

What is sad in this day and age, when the government is as big as ours, a government that unwisely gives as much deference as it does to the executive branch--not just to the President himself but those who serve him in various capacities in executive branch Agencies and Departments. In this day and age, it is almost analogous to the expression that ``possession is nine-tenths of the law.'' As long as he remains in charge of the Department of Defense, he can say up is down and is surrounded by people who literally salute him every day and people who follow those orders. Unless or until Congress does something about it, he may get away with openly flouting the law.

(Ms. Cantwell assumed the Chair.) That doesn't mean that nobody in the Senate can have anything to say about it, and it certainly does not entitle the Secretary of Defense or the President of the United States to have every Member of the U.S. Senate agree to continue to reward them with continued deference and a grant of expedited consideration of all military promotions, whether flag officers or otherwise. This is not something they are entitled to. It is something that Senators freely choose to give or to withhold. Here, he has chosen to withhold it.

The beginning of the end of his speech says:

I urge Senate Republicans to do what they know is right.

On that point, I agree, and we will.

Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 376 and ask that it be reported by number.

My amendment, Lee No. 376, is a measure that drives accountability and fairness in supporting Ukraine. My amendment creatively incentivizes our NATO allied nations to shoulder their fair share of the security burden in securing Europe.

This isn't about withholding funds from Ukraine; it is about encouraging allies to meet their 2 percent of GDP spending thresholds with regard to their national security.

Within Congress, we respond to the call of duty by urging NATO allies to step up and to meet their obligations--obligations that they have made and obligations that, when they go unmet, result in the United States of America shouldering a disproportionate, unfair share of the burden. We have been doing this for years, just as we have provided and held a disproportionate share of the burden specifically with regard to Ukraine.

Let me be very clear. My amendment ensures that funds for Ukraine remain untouched while allies contribute their fair share.

Europe's security is indeed a collective endeavor, and Lee No. 376 motivates our allies to meet or exceed the 2 percent pledge. But for it to be a collective endeavor, they have to pay their way. They haven't been. This would incentivize them to do so.

I urge its passage.

I call for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, there is an obsession on the left with abortion. It is becoming all-encompassing, infecting conversations that we have in the Senate on everything from the military to the Department of Veterans Affairs to phantom State laws that don't even exist.

Judges have to bow their policy objectives if they want to be appointed in this administration. Or those who are already on the bench, if they don't bow their policy objectives, if they don't bow to the abortion-centric, abortion-obsessed culture on the left, then all of a sudden, they are going to face these baseless attacks to their credibility and even threats of violence.

This bill, properly understood, really should be called the ``Freedom to Traffic Act.'' You see, to my knowledge, no State--not a single State--has enacted a law restricting an adult's right to travel across State lines for purposes of an abortion or otherwise. I am not even aware of a single State considering such a thing.

And if a State were to even consider it, they wouldn't do it. And if they did do it, social law would undoubtedly be struck down as unconstitutional on one of at least several grounds, including the fact that the commerce clause, article I, section 8, clause 3 of Constitution has interpreted by the Supreme Court--among other things-- to prohibit any State from treating an article of commerce--including a good, a person, a thing--in interstate commerce differently based on its origin or designation, out of State or outside the United States.

States can't cabin their own residents or anyone inside their own State boundaries. That is well-understood. So they don't have that authority. But more importantly, we are dealing with a phantom problem, a phantom law that does not exist. There is not a single State law out there that restricts an adult's right to travel out of State for an abortion or otherwise.

What some States do have, and perhaps that is what is causing the confusion here, are some laws to stop the trafficking of children across State lines to obtain an abortion without notifying their parents.

This is well-established. We have laws on the books prohibiting the trafficking of minors across State lines with good reason. This is very different than what was implied as a reason why we need to pass this bill here today. It just isn't true. Those laws don't exist. They are not on the books. They are not even being considered to be placed on the books.

These laws are aimed to stop the sexual abuse of children by prohibiting their adult abusers and those in the abortion industry to help facilitate that abuse by transporting them across State lines for the purpose of obtaining an abortion and thus hiding the fact that they got an abortion from their parents.

There are good reasons for these laws. In 2004, for example, the 14- year-old daughter of Marcia Carroll was taken by her boyfriend's family from their home in Pennsylvania, where they lived, to New Jersey--New Jersey, where parental consent for an abortion was not required at the time. There, once in New Jersey, they threatened to leave her in New Jersey unless she got an abortion, which she did, under duress, under coercion, afraid. The grief and devastation crushed this 14-year-old girl and her family, who had agreed to keep the baby.

This so-called Freedom to Traffic Act would hamper the ability of States to punish such criminal and cowardly actions. I don't think there is anyone here who can defend that--trafficking a child across State lines for purposes of obtaining an abortion.

Sadly, this is not an isolated incident--far from it. We know from undercover videos, testimony from other courageous victims and reports from former employees that Planned Parenthood actively works to hide these child sexual abuse instances--covering up for adult abusers by providing their child victims with abortions and failing to report abuse.

This, again, is another thing that happens. Not only do we distort the facts, not only do we distort the status quo of the law in this country, but we also distort key facts when people become obsessed with abortion, and they see abortion as if it were, somehow, an unmitigated good.

This bill was just barely introduced in the Senate--I believe as recently as yesterday. This bill has not been through any committee. It has not been marked up in the committee of jurisdiction--the Senate Judiciary Committee, on which I serve. But Democrats think we should just pass it

anyway. I guess maybe they are channeling the now infamous words of former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi when she said ``We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.''

This isn't how we legislate, and we certainly shouldn't be legislating when we haven't reviewed the bill, it hasn't been through committee, we don't know what it says, and the bill's proponents are badly mischaracterizing what it does and why we need it.

On that basis, I object.

Mr. President, it is important to point out that this legislation makes no distinction between those covered by it, whether they are children or adults, and that is my whole point, is that one of the problems with this is that it would block the effectiveness of State statutes that are there to protect children against interstate trafficking for the purpose of getting them abortions in another State without the knowledge or consent of their parents. That is an issue.

Yes--and I do maintain--I am not aware of a single State law that prohibits a woman from traveling out of State, an adult woman from traveling out of State. If such a law exists, I am not aware of it, and if it exists despite my nonawareness of it, it is unenforceable. It would be deemed invalid instantaneously. You can't do that.

But what this would do, since it makes no distinction between children and adults, is it would halt the operation of these States' State laws designed to protect children from interstate trafficking for the purpose of obtaining an abortion, which is very often necessary in order to conceal child sex perpetrators and child traffickers and what they are doing.

Now, my colleague and friend from Nevada, the distinguished Senator from Nevada, referred to this--kept characterizing the ``far right.'' Now, to my knowledge, nearly every Republican in this Chamber is pro- life. There are a few variations along the way, but nearly all of us are pro-life. To call all of us far right is excessive, and it is unfair. It is unfair especially because there is a mischaracterization also of why we believe what we believe. At least I can tell you what I believe about this.

She refers to States' rights. I never call it that. Why? Well, because States don't have rights; States have authority. Authority is sort of the inverse polar opposite of a right. A right is something that you have that protects you from actions by the State, by the government, protects you from the authority of the collective, coercive force that is government. So they aren't States' rights; this is State authority. And that is really how we arrived here. That is really where we have been for the last half-century.

While people are, on the left, bemoaning the depravation of a right, I challenge each of them to tell me where in the Constitution it talks about abortion. Of course, the word ``abortion'' doesn't appear in the Constitution, but what part of the Constitution actually confers that right? That is the problem we are getting at

here, and that is what I would like to address here for a moment.

You see, because in Washington, it sometimes starts to feel like we are up against an immovable object and where progress is measured in inches and then victories are sparse and hard-fought, and occasionally the tides turn and something significant happens and there is a seismic shift.

One year ago, we experienced such a seismic shift when the Supreme Court issued its landmark decision in the case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health. But to fully appreciate the significance of that historic moment and that decision, we must first understand the journey that got us to this point in the first place. So let's rewind the clock 50 years, all the way back to 1973, when the Supreme Court handed down its ruling in Roe v. Wade, a decision that--to say that it legalized abortion doesn't really capture the image. It centralized power in Washington, DC, over abortion policy decisions, and then it kept that power not in the legislative branch of the Federal Government based in Washington, DC, but across the street at the Supreme Court in nine lawyers wearing black robes who have been sworn in as Justices, by removing the American people's ability to make decisions through their duly-elected lawmakers regarding abortion. It was a moment that completely reshaped the American people's ability to impact abortion policy.

So for nearly five decades after that decision, this power to determine abortion policy rested ultimately with the Supreme Court. Sure, the Supreme Court would leave enough wiggle room to leave the impression that lawmakers--primarily at the State level, of course-- could make law, but the Supreme Court was constantly inventing and reinventing what the standard was, what was and what was not a permissible restriction on abortion.

You see, this is what happens when you make up a nonexistent constitutional right, when you just decide that something is really important, that you feel so strongly about it that it must be in there, that it has to be in the Constitution because it is so important. When you take away the constitutional text from the words of the document, all of a sudden, you are left in this sort of no-man's land where you have to make things up as you go along.

The result was chaos--49\1/2\ years of chaotic manipulation at will of the law. A State would do one thing; the Supreme Court would strike it down. Another State would do something slightly different; the Supreme Court would uphold it, sometimes changing the standards along the way.

But in Dobbs, the Supreme Court recognized the constitutional importance of keeping the power with the people, affirming that they have a legitimate interest in protecting the lives of the unborn and that they possess the authority to enact laws that reflect their values.

You see, remember a moment ago when we talked about the difference between authority and rights. They are the opposite of each other. Rights protect you from authority.

So when the Supreme Court decided as a matter of policy that it was so passionate about abortion in 1973 that it had to be in the Constitution, they effectively wrote it into the Constitution even though it is not there. They made it utterly impossible for people's elected representatives--either in their State legislative bodies, entities of local government, or, where appropriate, in Congress--to make most of the laws, and ultimately those were all subject to the will and the whim and the caprice of the Supreme Court. They did that because they deemed it part of the Constitution. But when you just deem something a part of the Constitution, that doesn't make it a part of the Constitution.

I believe it was Abraham Lincoln who once asked rhetorically the question: If you call the tail of a dog a leg, how many legs does the dog have?

He asked the question.

Someone answered: Five.

He said: No. Wrong. It is still four. Just because you call the tail a leg doesn't make it a leg. The dog still has four legs.

This is still the Constitution. There still is nothing in here that says, by the way, that people can't make laws to protect the lives of the unborn unless the Supreme Court decides that they are permissible based on its own meandering standards ultimately untethered from the text of the Constitution or from 400 years of Anglo-American legal and jurisprudential tradition.

So in Dobbs, they restored this power back to the people. In Dobbs, it reaffirmed the fundamental belief that every human life is sacred, and every human life is deserving of protection. In Dobbs, the Court recognized the decisions of deeply personal and morally significant matters should be made closest to the people they affect.

Unfortunately, in the wake of Roe, we have witnessed a really dark chapter in our Nation's history. This decision wrongly declared that abortion was a right, despite no mention of it anywhere in the Constitution. A decision ushered in a new era, one that forced us to tolerate some of the most barbaric of practices: late-term abortions, gruesome procedures that practically no American supports became a stain on our society.

Even as those cases were litigated, the gruesome procedures were described, some of the most hardened lawyers could barely tolerate mentioning or even listening to the words describing the procedures.

Sure. I anticipate I will be finished within 5 minutes.

We refuse to accept this as the new status quo. We knew something had gone terribly, terribly wrong.

The Dobbs decision brought us a glimmer of hope. It reaffirmed the fundamental belief that every human life really is sacred and is deserving of protection and is capable of being protected within our constitutional system.

Finally, we are empowered to exercise our constitutional prerogative and resume our efforts to protect the lives of the unborn and end these unspeakable horrors.

And so this issue of States' rights--again, these are not States' rights. That is oxymoronic. And we call it federalism, State authority. So this victory of Dobbs, it is not just a victory for States' sovereign authority; it is also a victory for humanity because when we are told by the judicial branch of government, contrary to fact that the Constitution tells us that we cannot, may not, must not protect unborn human life, that really does grave damage to humanity.

The victory in Dobbs is a reminder that we can't afford to turn a blind eye to the moral and ethical implications of our laws. We must proceed in a way that protects the innocent and defend against the atrocities allowed under this lofty-sounding but ultimately barbaric platitude of choice.

Even with this victory, we still have a long way to go. Contrary to the assertions of many on the Democratic side of the aisle, the Dobbs decision did not make abortion illegal. It did nothing of the sort.

While many States have passed laws that protect preborn children--and I applaud them for doing so--others have expanded their abortion laws. Late-term and partial-birth abortions are still a reality in many States. This isn't something that I celebrate. I disagree with those laws. But I don't live in those States. And the important thing is that the people in those States are making those laws. And most of the time, it is in the States, and not here in Congress, where things not rendered Federal by the Constitution should be decided.

As we approach the 1-year anniversary of Dobbs, I believe we are dutybound to remember the millions upon millions of innocent lives lost, the pain and suffering endured, and the resilience of the men and women who fought for those who could not fight for themselves, who have no voice and therefore had to have others speak on their behalf.

We should be inspired to build a society where every life is cherished, where compassion triumphs over convenience and cowardice, and where the horrors of abortion become a distant memory, especially the horrors of abortion forced upon us by a judicial oligarchy utterly untethered from the text of the Constitution.

The Dobbs decision represented a turning point the moment when we said: Enough is enough. Now we are positioned to acknowledge that every life, from conception to natural birth, deserves our protection and our compassion and our care. And, yes, in some States they are going to do that differently than in others, but the fact that they are going to do it differently in one State or another doesn't mean that they don't deserve protection.

So as we celebrate this milestone, I hope we can remain committed to this cause. Let us never forget the horrors hoisted upon us by Roe and the significance of the Dobbs decision in restoring sanity and compassion to the laws that guide our Nation. Together we can forge our future, where the rights of the unborn are safeguarded, where the dignity of every human being is cherished, and where the dark days of the past remain only as reminders of our resolve to create a better world.

In the face of adversity, remember that change is possible. Remember that we possess the ability to achieve great things. Our Nation's health and strength lie in the people's hands, and together we can shape a future where every life is valued.

Mr. President, it has been a long time coming, but it is with enormous pride that I stand to celebrate the passage of the REINS Act in the House of Representatives today.

This landmark legislation represents a significant step forward toward reining in the ever-expanding Federal Government. I am immensely grateful to House Republicans, to the House Freedom Caucus, and to Representative Kat Cammack, for their unwavering persistence in championing this desperately needed reform legislation.

The journey of the REINS Act began years ago with profound recognition that something was fundamentally wrong with our Federal regulatory system.

We realized the power wielded by these faceless Agencies was unfolding unchecked, eroding the very foundations of our Republic, rendering it unaccountable.

The notion that a small group of unelected individuals could impose far-reaching regulations that affected every aspect of our lives was itself an affront to the principles upon which this great Nation was built--certainly, contrary to the rules established and embodied in the Constitution, which govern the way our government operates.

Year after year, the proponents of regulatory reform within the Federal system have fought against the odds, facing resistance from those who have defended the status quo. We knew that the American people deserved better, that their voices should be heard, and that their elected representatives should have the final say.

Throughout its evolution, the REINS Act has undergone refinements, fine-tuning its provisions to maintain the cutting edge, while ensuring democratic accountability. It is about reining in unchecked power, bringing spending under the watchful eye of our elected representatives, and restoring the principles of transparency and accountability.

The tenets of the REINS Act are rooted in common sense in a way that every American can grasp. If you understand the concept of no taxation without representation, then it should be easy to understand the REINS Act. But what exactly does the REINS Act mean for hard-working families?

Well, the entrepreneurial spirit runs deep within our country--the entire country--and certainly within my home State of Utah, driving economic growth and fostering innovation across various industries. From tech startups to local artisans, Utahns have a strong inclination to pursue their passions, start their own businesses, and create opportunities for themselves, their families, and their communities.

However, this entrepreneurial spirit often faces significant hurdles, sometimes insurmountable hurdles, due to overregulation by this or that Federal Agency. It is like the feeling you get when you try to assemble a new piece of furniture from a certain Swedish retail store, and you are not quite sure if you have purchased the kejserlig or the plogfara. Yet you are bombarded with a thousand-page jargon-filled instruction manual. Federal regulations often feel like those convoluted instruction manuals, but with much higher stakes, though the titles are a little easier to pronounce.

The REINS Act seeks to change that. The term ``REINS'' is an acronym that stands for Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny, and its purpose is simple: to ensure that unelected bureaucrats cannot impose major regulations on us without the consent of our elected representatives.

It is about putting power back into the hands of the people and their elected representatives, where it rightfully belongs. You see, this isn't just a good idea. It is a good idea that has been embedded within the Constitution. The very first operative provision of that document-- article I, section 1, clause 1--makes this clear:

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a

Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a

Senate and House of Representatives.

The meaning of that is clear and simple: to make law, you have to go through the Congress. There is no other way to make law. Legislative powers are powers to make law, and all legislative powers granted in the Constitution are Federal laws. Therefore, to make a Federal law, you have to follow the formula prescribed in article I, section 1.

Article I, section 7 explains exactly how that has to happen. You have the same legislative proposal that has to

pass the House and the Senate, in identical text, before it can then be presented to the President for signature, veto, or acquiescence.

The point of this is simple: The power to make law is inherently dangerous and volatile. It can harm people, just as it can protect others. For that reason, it is not to be entrusted to any branch of government other than the branch of government most accountable to the people at the most regular intervals.

You see, regulatory reform is more than just some esoteric concept that exists solely within Capitol Hill or in Washington, DC. Its impact reverberates across our daily lives, affecting everything from the cost of goods and services to the livelihoods of hard-working individuals and families.

That is why it is about a whole lot more than just what the Constitution says and what it should be interpreted and understood to mean. It is about how this affects individuals and families. By requiring congressional approval for major regulations, for enactment of a new major rule or regulation, as if it were a legislative proposal, rather than just allowing executive branch Agencies to make new laws themselves, the REINS Act brings accountability and transparency to the rulemaking process, injecting a much needed and constitutionally prescribed dose of common sense into our bureaucratic system.

The REINS Act articulates and imagines a world where small businesses are free from the weight of onerous regulations, detached from any common sense, where parents can provide for their children without being bogged down by unnecessary redtape, and where innovation and entrepreneurship thrive without the suffocating grip of excessive government control. That is the world we strive to create with the passage of the REINS Act.

Now, to be clear, even with the REINS Act, from time to time some Federal regulations would end up being approved and enacted in the law by Congress. Congress, after all, can and does make mistakes, but there is a big difference when Congress makes that mistake. Members of Congress who vote for that mistake can be held accountable.

Currently, they cannot. In fact, by design, they are insulated from the process, left only in a position where the best they can do is write a harshly worded letter, beating their chest, and calling the people who wrote this or that regulation at this or that Federal Agency barbarians.

But, after all, our job is not about writing letters. It is about making law. Insofar as we have got other entities that are not us, run by people who are not elected by voters in our State or in any State, that is a problem, and it is a problem that we have to fix.

Today, we celebrate this victory--this victory for freedom, for common sense, and for the hard-working families who deserve a government that serves, not stifles them. We owe an immense debt of gratitude to the House of Representatives and, in particular, to the House Republicans who voted for this, specifically, most notably, the Members of the House Freedom Caucus for their tireless efforts in pushing this legislation forward, reminding us all that persistence and unwavering dedication can yield remarkable results.

I stand before you humbled and honored to witness this historic moment. Together, we can continue to fight for this needed reform, not just as an abstract concept, not just as something that the Constitution already requires, but also as a tangible path toward a brighter, more prosperous future for all Americans.

All Americans benefit from this, but it is especially those Americans who struggle who will benefit the most from this. You have to remember that these regulations, when they are put in place, come at a cost. They are not free.

It has been a few years since anyone has undertaken a comprehensive effort to estimate the total cost of complying with Federal regulations. But according to one study that I saw--it has been several years ago now since this study was produced--they estimated that the cost, while impossible to calculate in its entirety, was at least $2 trillion. When adding a whole lot of Federal regulations, including some very costly Federal regulations since that study was done, one can surmise from that that the cost is now somewhere between $2 trillion and $3 trillion. This is an enormous sum of money.

Now, let's not deceive ourselves. Let's not minimize this by assuming that those costs are borne simply by wealthy Americans, by big blue- chip corporations, by someone whom we can imagine in our mind's eye as a Monopoly game piece wearing a monocle, dressed up like Mr. Peanut. No, that is not who pays for this. Who pays for this are hard-working Americans, disproportionately America's poor and middle class, who pay dearly for this. That 2 or 3 trillion-dollar figure is supported by you and me and, disproportionately, by those who are near the bottom of the socioeconomic scale. Those people who are working hard, living paycheck to paycheck, find that, as a result of these regulations, everything they buy--from cornflakes to cars, from groceries to gasoline, and everything in between--becomes more expensive. They also pay for it through diminished wages and unemployment.

Those are real people who are being harmed by these things. The least we can do is, before subjecting them to even more regulations that are going to cost America's poor and middle class even more money, we owe it to them to have the decency to at least vote on these regulations before they have to comply, before they have to pay through the nose, yet again, for more and more products.

Inflation has many causes, but one of the significant ones is excessive Federal regulation. Those regulations won't go away with the REINS Act, but when the REINS Act becomes law, we will at least be doing the American people the basic courtesy of voting on regulations before they have to comply. It is not too much to ask.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today we commemorate the 100th anniversary of the attraction now known as Bryce Canyon National Park. This occasion allows us to reflect on the importance of Bryce Canyon and pay tribute to the pioneers who have helped make it such a great place and have shaped its history over the years and those pioneers who are still shaping its contribution to the world today.

Bryce Canyon holds a special place in the hearts of Utahans and of visitors from across the United States and really throughout the world. Its towering rock formations, which are known as hoodoos, are a testament to the unparalleled beauty found in nature. The vibrant colors that paint the canyon's walls at sunrise and sunset create a truly mesmerizing spectacle. And if you haven't been there, you need to visit Bryce Canyon.

In 1874, Scottish immigrant Ebenezer Bryce settled with his wife Mary on the land just below these stunning reddish-hued cliffs. The settlers in the area began calling it Bryce's Canyon after Ebenezer Bryce, who humorously remarked that it was ``a helluva place to lose a cow.''

The charm and allure of the canyon were evident even in those early days, long before millions of visitors from around the world had come to see it.

Fast-forward to 1915, when J.W. Humphrey, a U.S. Forest Service supervisor, first set foot on the rim above the location we refer to today as the Bryce amphitheater. Overwhelmed by the indescribable beauty, Mr. Humphrey shared his enchantment with the world, sending photographs and films to newspapers, magazines, and TV stations far and wide. He built roads, constructed trails, and established a campground, charging campers a $1 fee.

And this fee had a guarantee attached to it. He made the $1 fee fully refundable if any visitor didn't find the view completely worth it.

Well, Mr. Humphrey proudly boasted that he never once had to return a single dollar, not from a single visitor who received that guarantee.

Year after year, the allure of Bryce Canyon has continued to grow. In fact, it has grown exponentially. What started with around 20,000 annual visits in its early years had escalated to over 500,000 by 1975, over 1 million by 2002, and over 2 million in 2016. Last year alone, the park welcomed an astonishing 2.4 million visitors.

What is it then about Bryce Canyon that draws people in like this? I think it is the ``Bryce moment,'' that magical instant when the park's magnificent panorama suddenly comes into focus. It is especially magical if you see it either at sunrise or sunset. Either way, you are going to be amazed by what you see. It is that breathtaking experience that is sort of akin to looking up at the Empire State Building or at the Taj Mahal, where you can't quite believe what you are seeing.

A few years ago, I was thinking about my many visits to Bryce Canyon over the years, and I have visited Bryce Canyon as a child and as an adult. I visited Bryce Canyon first with family members, and I have also visited with friends, with work colleagues, and in all kinds of different situations.

I still remember the first time I brought my three children to Bryce Canyon, when they were young, and how proud I was to show them this beautiful feature within our State, and how much I enjoyed it.

I remember another time, when I was right out of law school, clerking for a Federal district judge, the honorable Dee Benson of the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah. We had been working hard, and one day Judge Benson decided he was going to schedule a brief weekend visit for us, just voluntarily, just for fun, to go down and visit Bryce Canyon. The law clerks and the other court personnel who worked in his chambers went down and visited Bryce Canyon. It was so much fun.

During one of my more recent visits to Bryce Canyon, a few years ago--not my last one but one of the more recent visits--I went down there and met with one of our county associations of governments, where State, local, and Federal elected officials came together to talk about lands issues. And I happened to have brought my daughter Eliza with me on that trip. It had been a few years since I had brought Eliza to Bryce Canyon, but we got there. We looked over the hoodoos and looked through those canyons right at sunset. It was yet another magical moment.

So these things become a tradition and certainly become a tradition with me and my family and my friends. It is a cherished tradition that brings people together. In rural communities and in this particular rural community, it brings tourist visitors to an otherwise sparsely visited region of our State, and it exemplifies the spirit of adventure and of camaraderie.

On that particular trip, when I brought my daughter Eliza to meet with these State, local, and Federal Government officials, we went on an ATV ride around some of the areas surrounding the park, and it took us just outside of the park to the north.

The night before, we had had the opportunity to meet with these incredible individuals who call the region home, and at Ruby's Inn, we had gotten together for dinner and shared stories and laughter at the deep appreciation for this unique landscape and for the people who lived there. The sense of community and shared experiences was palpable.

We ventured into Bryce Canyon National Park for an evening hike, and, as the sun began to set, casting a warm glow upon those structures known as hoodoos, we were enveloped in a world of natural wonder. The majesty of Bryce Canyon revealed itself in all its glory. It was a transformative experience, just one of many that reminded me yet again of the enduring power of nature to uplift and to inspire.

So, as we celebrate the 100th anniversary of Bryce Canyon, let us honor the pioneers who recognized the unique beauty of the land and its potential to inspire and to attract people from all across the United States and throughout the world. Let us embrace the spirit of adventure and exploration that defines Bryce Canyon and all of our national parks, but especially that one. And may we continue to cherish the memories and experiences these natural wonders provide, ensuring that future generations can forge connections with the breathtaking landscapes of Bryce Canyon.

Thank you, Mr. President, and may Bryce Canyon forever hold a special place in our hearts.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I call up my amendment No. 98 and ask that it be reported by number.

Madam President, this amendment is simple. It strikes section 265 of this bill. Section 263 creates a regulatory pay-go measure, but section 265 nullifies that by giving outright, complete discretion to the Director of OMB--who, by the way, just announced the day before yesterday from the White House that she would use this effectively to nullify the regulatory pay-as-you-go measure.

Please support my amendment.

I yield the rest of my time to the Senator from Louisiana.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, today I rise to speak in opposition to the nomination of Nancy Abudu to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Ms. Abudu may well be the most radical judicial nominee nominated to date by President Biden.

I have had concerns with Ms. Abudu's radical views and her apparent lack of respect for the rules of the court ever since her nomination. During her confirmation hearing, I asked her about allegations of potential judge shopping raised by Judge Burke of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama in a series of cases brought by the Southern Poverty Law Center as a result of troubling attorney conduct.

In this series of cases, the three Federal district courts in Alabama took the extraordinary and joint measure of convening to hear concerns raised by Judge Burke that Ms. Abudu's litigation team and their cocouncil brazenly abused the judicial process.

Ms. Abudu is, to be clear, the Director of Strategic Litigation for the Southern Poverty Law Center. And strategic litigation is what they do. That is what they are about. She is the director of this division.

When I asked her about her strategic litigation decisions in this series of cases, she stated:

As Director of Strategic Litigation, my responsibility is

to oversee and provide general management for our cases, but

it is the subject matter experts in the litigation team that

handle the day-to-day, including the filing of complaints,

the briefing, and any oral arguments.

In response to my questioning, she refused to be forthright. She didn't deny her oversight of these cases. She simply refused to admit that she was responsible for the strategic decisions the three Alabama Federal district courts found so troubling.

Her lack of candor and her apparent disregard for the protections built into our legal system disqualify her for a position on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

As I asked her about these--about these cases--pointing out only that the day-to-day litigation management was handled by other attorneys-- which was obvious--she was openly, directly avoiding a direct line of inquiry, a line of inquiry that was very relevant to her nomination, to her confirmation process.

But, unfortunately, my concerns with Ms. Abudu's nomination do not end--and they didn't begin--with this troubling series of cases that I just described. You see, the attorneys general in every single State of the Eleventh Circuit--who are joined, by the way, by the attorneys general in a number of other States--but every single attorney general serving within the Eleventh Circuit is part of this letter articulating concerns and confirming that there are grave dangers in confirming Ms. Abudu to the Eleventh Circuit.

These attorneys general, along with attorneys general from 15 additional States, including my home State of Utah, recently sent a letter to the leadership of this body expressing their numerous concerns with Ms. Abudu's nomination.

The attorneys general of the people who would be subject to coming before Ms. Abudu in Federal cases are justifiably worried about her potential confirmation today. These are people who really need to be able to have the confidence that when appearing before Judge Abudu, she will not only respect the law, but that she will handle their cases without any preconceived biases--biases that could lead her off course as she administers justice in her courtroom. If anyone has preconceived notions, biases regarding how justice ought to be administered such that litigants could come to the conclusion that they won't get a fair shake in front of that judge--not to mention the preconceived prejudices against the good people living in the Eleventh Circuit--Ms. Abudu has certainly demonstrated that she does.

Ms. Abudu is a longtime and current member and past leader of an entity called the National Lawyers Guild. This group identifies itself as consisting of a radical movement of legal activists--their words, not mine. After violent protests against Atlanta police officers, the National Lawyers Guild declared that ``policing is the true threat to our collective safety.''

Imagine that. It is not crime, it is not other problems that police deal with; it is the police themselves policing--the act of policing.

They didn't say specific police officers who may, unlike most officers, not be doing their jobs right. They said policing--policing itself--is the true threat to our collective safety.

Imagine that.

I agree with these attorneys general that Ms. Abudu's longstanding and ongoing association with this radical anti-police group is, alone, grounds for refusing, rejecting her nomination.

I find it very troubling indeed that those who would be subject to having to come before Ms. Abudu find her track record dishonest and divisive. Let me quote from the letter outlining their concerns:

We are familiar with Ms. Abudu's work and her willingness

to demonize those with whom she disagrees, and we know well

the importance of the seat on the Eleventh Circuit that she

would fill. Ms. Abudu has proven herself unfit for that role.

She has compared her fellow Americans to Jim-Crow-era

racists. She has aligned herself with self-proclaimed

``radical movement legal activists'' who view ``policing'' as

``the true threat to our collective safety.''

And the quote continues:

And she has proclaimed that our criminal justice system is

``practically the same system as during slavery.'' These

spurious and outrageous statements vividly demonstrate that

she lacks the judgment, fair-mindedness, and integrity

required of a Federal judge.

Now, to be clear, Ms. Abudu chose to associate herself with the Southern Poverty Law Center, which is itself well known for leveling unfounded

charges of ``hate'' against any person or any group with which that organization happens to disagree.

She became a leader in that organization and fully embraced its deplorable tactics, which are not intended to foster debate and understanding but rather to silence opposition.

They are well known for publishing things. Their hate list has brought about hate. It led to a shooting in Washington, DC, of an entity here. Someone got shot after believing that the Southern Poverty Law Center had indicated that that was the appropriate action.

She has made offensive and baseless assertions against the people in the Eleventh Circuit. Now I want to quote some more from the Attorneys General letter:

Since becoming a leader [of the Southern Poverty Law

Center], Ms. Abudu has engaged in [the] deplorable tactics

[beloved by that organization] by disparaging those in her

way, including each of the three States within the

jurisdiction of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. For

example, she and her team submitted a ``Report'' to Congress

about Alabama's supposed ``unyielding record of racial

discrimination in voting.'' The Alabama Attorney General's

Office set the record straight in a follow-up report that

went claim-by-claim, documenting the SPLC's many

misrepresentations.

The quote continues:

Each misrepresentation served the overarching theme of Ms.

Abudu's report--that any disagreement over policy is proof

that her political opponents are evil. Indeed, according to

Ms. Abudu, things in Alabama are the same or worse today than

they were in 1965. As she tells it, Alabama's goal--today--is

to--

Now, these are her words--

``establish white supremacy in this State.''

The letter continues:

While some might see room for good faith debate, for

example, about the merits of Alabama's voter identification

law, (which was upheld by the Eleventh Circuit)--

The Court on which she has been nominated to serve--

Ms. Abudu sees only a ``relentless commitment to finding

new ways to keep . . . Alabamians from making their voices

heard,'' all . . . part of a desperate attempt ``to

perpetuate majority white control.''

Her words, not mine.

The letter concludes:

These assertions are as offensive as they are baseless, and

they are disqualifying for an aspiring Federal judge.

To quote one more time from the letter, another part of the letter says:

Though Ms. Abudu is surely aware of [the] facts, she

prefers to use her powerful position at [the Southern Poverty

Law Center] to sow division and erode trust among Americans--

declaring that ``Jim Crow is still alive and well [in the

South].'' But as the Supreme Court has recognized (and as any

fair-minded person knows): ``Things have changed in the

South.'' Ms. Abudu's contrary contention doesn't show simple

professional disagreement. It shows, at best, insuperable

bias. It more likely shows dishonesty. And it certainly shows

unfitness for judicial office.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter from these Attorneys General be printed in the Record.

She has shown marked hostility toward Alabamians, Floridians, and Georgians. She has accused them of suppressing minorities and poor people from voting. She has accused their police officers of targeting minorities, and all throughout her accusations is the threat of racism. It animates her every action, her every assault, her every view.

She accuses Georgia of being ``committed to keeping us in the past and that is scary.''

As the Attorneys General appropriately ask, ``How could Ms. Abudu impartially adjudicate the many Eleventh Circuit cases involving Georgia, its statutes, its citizens, and especially its law enforcement officers, when she already believes the State is a `bad actor' with a `culture of law enforcement' that `targets Black and Brown people'?''

There again, they are quoting her words. Ms. Abudu's record of hostility toward the people and the laws of the Eleventh Circuit is nothing short of alarming. When you combine that hostility with her lack of respect for the judicial system and her ongoing commitment to a group of self-described ``radical movement legal activists,'' I simply don't know how any Member of this body can still believe she will serve the people of the Eleventh Circuit or, even less, our judicial system well.

But the only way one can justify voting for this nominee is if one agrees with her hostile views and is comfortable with her activist approach. I am not, and I oppose her nomination in the strongest possible terms.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I am here to express my support for Senator Tuberville, who is, of course, opposing the Department of Defense's ongoing attempt to use taxpayer funding to fund abortion.

Now, until recently, this was an understood policy. The policy to which my friend and colleague refers is, of course, embodied in a statute. It is not just a policy. It is a policy rooted in law. Under 10 USC, section 1093, the Pentagon is prohibited from using Department of Defense funds or facilities to perform abortions.

You see, because, in a word, divided as a country on issues related to abortion; people have sharply divided views on this. In fact, there is a pretty wide spectrum of views. But one thing that does tend to unite Americans overwhelmingly is the idea that, regardless of how you feel about abortion, you don't want your U.S. taxpayer dollars going to fund abortions. People don't want that. There is overwhelming bipartisan consensus among the American people on that.

Only here in Washington is this regarded as controversial because Americans just consider that common sense--common sense that has been, for decades, codified in Federal law.

The last time I read the Constitution, Congress makes the laws, not the Department of Defense. And when there are laws that the Department of Defense doesn't like, the Department of Defense isn't free to just reimagine the laws as the Secretary of Defense wishes those laws were written.

And yet the Department of Defense's policy memo from just a few months ago does just that. It attempts to sneak around the laws that we have already passed.

This policy memo violates at least the spirit, quite arguably the letter of the law. They are trying to get around that, and they have made no secret of that fact.

So Senator Tuberville is right to oppose this egregious policy. We should commend his courage and his dedication to upholding the Constitution and standing for those who cannot stand for themselves.

And so I would say, let this be a message to Secretary Austin. Look, Secretary Austin, if you want to make the laws, run for Congress, run for the House, run for the Senate. But you cannot legislate from the E- Ring of the Pentagon. It is not your job. That is our job, not yours.

Until then, Secretary Austin, stand down--stand down, soldier--and let the lawmakers actually make the laws. But you certainly don't get to rewrite them just because you feel like it.

Now, as to the suggestion made by my friend and colleague moments ago that Senator Tuberville would override the recommendations made by board-certified medical doctors to women as to the best outcome for their health, it is not at all fair. It is incompletely inaccurate. In fact, it is utterly untethered from what Senator Tuberville is doing and what he has ever said on this. On no planet is Senator Tuberville trying to tell women in the military or dependents of military families that they may not have an abortion. All he is standing behind is what Federal law already says, which is that you can't use Federal funds or Federal facilities within the Department of Defense to fund abortions. And that is exactly what is happening here.

Now, as to the specific personnel mentioned just moments ago, when we look at, say, Admiral Chatfield or Admiral Wikoff or General Hodne's or anyone else on the list, if there is any one of those people whose service, whose promotion is so mission critical to American national security, let's bring those forward. There are mechanisms, procedures, in the Senate, after all, that would allow not only each of them but everyone on this list to be confirmed.

Yes, it takes a little bit more time. But what the Department of Defense and those advocating for its position here are doing is coming to us as U.S. Senators and asking us to waive our procedural rights, to waive our procedural objections so that they can have their policy.

Senator Tuberville has raised a legitimate, bona fide opposition to that policy because it is in violation of the spirit, if not the letter, of 10 U.S.C. 1093.

It takes a lot of gumption--that is audacity--for the Department of Defense to ask for our help to facilitate the confirmation of these nominees when they have taken away from us the prerogative that is uniquely ours.

It is no coincidence that the very first clause, in the first section, of the first article of the Constitution says that ``[a]ll legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives.''

Article 1, section 7 makes even more abundantly clear that we are the sole lawmaking organ of the Federal Government; that in order to pass a Federal law, you have to get the same legislative proposal passed in the House and then in the Senate and then submit it to the President for signature, veto, or acquiescence.

Secretary Austin has bypassed all of that. He would make himself the legislative and the executive branches at once. It is not his role. It is not his job. And he has the audacity to come here and question our patriotism, question our commitment to American military readiness, simply because we will not expedite his own request to get these people moved through faster.

If he wants to circumvent these processes ordained by the Constitution, Senator Tuberville is in no position where he has to agree to help them expedite it, nor should he.

On that basis, I object.

Mr. President, here again, the Senate has procedures for dealing with any nomination, including these military promotions. These could be brought up individually; they could be voted on; and those whose promotions have the greatest urgency could be dealt with. We could stay in session until all these are done. Neither Senator Tuberville nor any other Senator, to my knowledge, would interfere with that, nor could we.

What Senator Tuberville refuses to do, with very good reason, is to pretend like nothing has happened; pretend like nothing has changed; to pretend that he didn't have repeated conversations with high-ranking officials within the Department of Defense in recent months expressing his concerns about rumors that this very policy was being considered; to pretend that he didn't tell them then there would be serious consequences if they decided to proceed in violation of 10 U.S.C., section 1093. No, this is not fair to put this on him.

When the Pentagon comes crawling back after they did what they did to him--after they did what they did to the law, to all Americans--that is manifestly unfair. To all of a sudden put it on him to make sure it is his job to make sure that everyone gets confirmed--and, oh, by the way, you also have to help--you are being told--you have to help the Pentagon, even though the Pentagon has just cut you off at the knees.

Look, it is very clear. When the law says you may not use Federal taxpayers for abortions, that is a thing. When you have Department of Defense specific legislation that says you may not use Department of Defense funds, you may not use Department of Defense facilities to perform abortions, that is a thing.

To argue otherwise and to try to point out that this policy memo somehow complies with that is too cute by half.

No. 1, it is still, quite arguably, in violation of the letter of the law. You are still doing this to bring about an abortion. You are using Federal taxpayer dollars from the Department of Defense so that someone has an abortion. You are paying for someone's travel to that State--per diem to that State--3 weeks of paid leave time to that State, and it is specific to abortion. That is what that is.

If, in any other circumstance, someone were asked: Are you using Federal dollars for abortions? The answer would be, unequivocally, ``yes.''

I know those raising these consent requests are trying to get Senator Tuberville to capitulate, trying to get him to reverse course, trying to get him to help the Department of Defense when the Department of Defense hid from him what they were going to do, then undercut Federal law in the process, that is not fair. That is what this is about. That is what you are trying to do.

I am happy to stand with Senator Tuberville in defending his rights. On that basis, I object.

Mr. President, to the extent any one of these nominations-- or all of them taken together--to the extent military readiness is invoked, implicated, is threatened, challenged, by all means, let's figure out a workaround. By all means, let's have the Department of Defense realize that as this policy debate happens, it should be the very last entity putting American national security at risk.

So if that is what this is resulting in, then the Department of Defense, with all due respect, needs to stand down on this until such time as this can be debated and discussed.

The fact is that every single year--every single year--the Department of Defense has the luxury that very few other branches have in that we devote an enormous amount of time to debating a policy bill--every year, year after year, going back for the last half century--the National Defense Authorization Act. This is the kind of thing that, if it is going to be addressed, if they want a change of law, then that change of law ought to be pursued on the floor of the Senate.

The National Defense Authorization Act would present an opportunity for the Department of Defense to pursue that change. It can do it that way. It can do it in a stand-alone bill if it wants to. What it may not do is change the law on its own.

So, look, to the extent that this implicates military readiness-- which let's just take those words on their own face--that seems to me that should apply with at least as much force, if not a ``for sure'' to the Department of Defense rather than to Senator Tuberville. It is the Department of Defense that is asking for his help. It is the Department of Defense that is using Federal funds to facilitate the performance of abortions.

If anyone is threatening national security, it is not Senator Tuberville. And if these are threatening America's national security, particularly those you have identified, bring those to the floor. We have procedures to do that. It takes time.

I understand, perhaps, that is not what this Democratic majority of the Senate wants to do. That is the Democratic majority's prerogative. But that being the prerogative, they can't all of a sudden put that on Senator Tuberville.

Finally, as to the suggestion that Senator Tuberville is extorting anyone--extortion, of course, is a crime. That is a really inappropriate reference to use here, but let's go with it for a second for purposes of this discussion. Who is extorting whom? Who is it that receives all this money and then goes about saying: We are going to change the law. Now, it is up to you to help us make sure that every one of these people gets a promotion.

If you are going to use that term, you have to realize it cuts both ways. I don't think it has any place on the floor. But if you are going to use it, it swings both ways. And it may well hit you.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, again, when faced with a problem, the Department of Defense has decided to anoint itself a lawmaker, even though it is not in charge of making laws. It doesn't have that power. That power is reserved to us--to us exclusively--under article I, section 1 and article I, section 7.

So if Secretary Austin wants to make laws, he should run for the Senate or he can run for the House. But he can't do this from his perch as Secretary of Defense. That doesn't work in our system of government.

So here again, we are being asked to consider national security implications of these advancements and of any delay that might be caused as a result of the Department's unwise decision to try to remake abortion law, to try to rewrite laws restricting the use of Federal funds in facilities within the Department of Defense for abortions.

I have another idea. I have an idea about how we might resolve this. I can't speak for Senator Tuberville, but I can speak for what I could advocate for Senator Tuberville. I can speak for what I suspect Senator Tuberville would seriously consider.

We can deal with all this right now. We could probably get all of these folks confirmed tonight if they will just do one thing. This would be a nice compromise position. I suspect he would withdraw his objections and we could get everybody confirmed if the Department of Defense were to suspend this policy. Suspend it and say: Do you know what? You are right. We should have addressed this legislatively. We will bring it up in connection with the Defense Authorization Act.

You know, they may well be able to get the votes in the Senate to do that. I am not here to prejudge that position, but that would be the appropriate way of doing it. And that, by the way, would allow my friends on the other side of the aisle to accomplish what they want, and really to accomplish what Senator Tuberville wants, which is to get these folks confirmed.

But what he is not willing to do is ignore the fact that they are rewriting the law to their own image, to their own liking, to their own political preferences. That is not something they can do, and that is certainly not something they can ask us to play a part in doing.

Senator Tuberville is standing on principle. He is standing for the law. He is standing for the principle that we understand. The American people, while sharply divided on many issues related to abortion, are united--overwhelmingly united--on the fact that we do not use taxpayer funding for abortions. That is what they are doing here.

So you want to get these folks confirmed? We can get them confirmed tonight, but the Department of Defense needs to suspend this until such time as it can get the law changed through Congress.

If that is on the table, I would love to discuss it. I would love to advocate to Senator Tuberville on behalf of that, if you are willing to consider it. But that is not on the table at the moment, and on that basis, I object.

Mr. President, I appreciate the thoughtful insight provided by my friend and colleague, the distinguished Senator from Colorado. In particular, I appreciate his acknowledgment that issues related to abortion really involve deep and profound areas of fundamental disagreement among and between Americans.

I also appreciate his acknowledgment that this really is about Dobbs; it really is about abortion. This didn't arise in a vacuum.

I also appreciate his reference to federalism. He knows me well, and he knows that I am a fan of federalism, this concept that there are 50 States that have united for common purposes related to our national defense; weights and measures; trademarks, copyrights, and patents; regulating trade or commerce between the States and with foreign nations and with Indian Tribes; and a handful of other purposes, but then we leave the rest of the governing to the States.

We come together in the same manner articulated by the Iroquois Indian Chief Canassatego from the Onondaga Tribe, who at a conference in Albany explained to early Americans the secret to the Iroquois Confederacy's longevity, to its peace, to its security. The Tribes came together. When they were united, they couldn't be broken, but each one maintained its independence.

A quiver of arrows bound together is almost impossible to break. One arrow by itself can be broken easily. It is that same vision--largely unheard of in the rest of the world--that helped create a uniquely American experiment in self-government. This has been the recipe to our success, to our longevity as a constitutional Republic, to our ability to exist as now 50 separate States with different opinions.

There are great consequences to moments when we take debatable matters--matters of profound and fundamental disagreement, as described by my colleague--and we place them beyond debate. This is precisely what happened some 50 years ago when the Supreme Court of the United States arrogated to itself at once the power of lawmaker and the power of constitutional draftsman. You see, what they did was they took away the power from the 50 respective States to decide these issues of profound and fundamental disagreement regarding the sanctity of life: when it begins, when unborn human life deserves protection of the law and when it does not.

Oh, yes, last year, the Supreme Court of the United States finally undid that usurpation of constitutional authority. They were acting as lawmakers. It was not their role. They were taking something Federal, relegated to the States. It wasn't theirs. Even if it were a Federal issue, it wouldn't be theirs to make law in this area because there is absolutely nothing in the Constitution of the United States that makes abortion something to be decided at the Federal level by nine lawyers wearing robes, sitting at the Supreme Court of the United States. Not one jot, not one tittle, not one syllable pertains to that. So the Supreme Court of the United States was right in making that decision.

I understand that my friend and distinguished colleague, the Senator from Colorado, disagrees with me on that front, as is his right. Importantly, however, this debate is not about that. This debate doesn't even deal with abortion. It doesn't deal with abortion directly. It doesn't deal with whether or under what circumstances the law should allow a woman to pursue an abortion. I have strong feelings about that that differ sharply from those of my friend and colleague from Colorado, but that is not what we are talking about here.

What we are talking about here is that the American people recognize that this is an issue that sharply divides Americans--an issue that my colleague describes as a matter of profound and fundamental disagreement. What does unite them is the idea that Federal taxpayer dollars shall not be used for abortions.

This is codified elsewhere, in the Hyde amendment, in the Mexico City policy. It is codified in matters particular to the Department of Defense in 10 U.S.C., section 1093. That is what we are dealing with here.

We can't make the mistake of accusing Senator Tuberville of trying to impose his morality or his conception of under what circumstances a woman ought to be able to obtain an abortion. I believe Senator Tuberville's views on that are similar to mine, but those are not at issue here. What is at issue here is whether taxpayer dollars from U.S. taxpayers ought to be spent in this area.

My colleague also suggested that this is somehow not different from what we do in other areas. There are all kinds of medical procedures for which members of the military can travel from one State to another in order to obtain those procedures. Understood. But those aren't the procedures at issue here.

This is specific to abortion. We are specifically creating measures for abortion--not for appendicitis, not to have bunions removed, not for other procedures. It is for abortion.

What you are doing here is to say we will pay your travel. We will give you a per diem. We will give you 3 weeks of paid leave time. You don't have to use your accumulated leave time in order to do that.

That is unique to abortion. That means they are paying for abortion.

So, no, I am not willing to concede, and I have not conceded, that the law has no application here. I believe it violates the spirit--if not also the letter--of the law. It certainly violates the spirit but, inarguably, the letter.

When there is a Federal law that says you may not use this for abortion, if you use it for things that are entirely around abortion-- we will pay for your travel out of State to get the abortion; we will give you additional leave time with an attached value to it; we will give you per diem while you seek that abortion--that is about abortion.

Imagine a young college student--a young college student who has something that every college student probably wishes they had, a rich uncle. Imagine there is a college student. We will call him Bill. Bill has got a rich uncle. We will call him Thurston--Thurston Howell III. Thurston Howell III has got an enormous amount of money--more money than he knows what to do with. He is what you might call a gazillionaire. He says to his nephew Bill: Bill, I don't have any kids. You are the only one who is going to be able to carry on the family name. You are attending my alma mater, and I want you to live in style. I want you to enjoy life. I am going to pay for your tuition. I am going to pay for your room and board. In fact, not just your housing, I am going to buy you a house located close to the campus where you can live in style. I will get you a car, pay your healthcare expenses, and everything. I am going to do all of this for the rest of the time you are in college.

Bill, you see, is in his first semester, about to wrap up the first semester. So he is excited about all he is about to gain.

But his uncle, Thurston Howell III, imposes one restriction on those funds. He says: Now, I know that you have pledged with and are now a member of the Sigma Beta Fraternity. And the Sigma Betas at this university are known for one thing. They are infamous. Everybody knows they throw really big, exciting keg parties, drunken frat parties. They love those things.

So Mr. Howell says to his nephew, Bill: Look, as a Sigma Beta, you are going to do what you are going to do. That is your decision. I am not going to tell you that you can't drink while receiving money. But I am going to say this: You may not use my money for your drunken frat parties. And, by the way, I want you to submit quarterly receipts to me so I can review what you are doing.

Well, the first quarter of the next semester goes by, and Thurston Howell III is reviewing Bill's receipts. He is aware that some huge keg parties have been thrown. He has heard that the latest of them happened to be carried out in the house that he bought for his

nephew Bill and that there was a lot of alcohol served there, just as there is at every Sigma Beta party. Then he sees in the receipts-- receipt after receipt--one for invitations, one for streamers, one for various forms of video entertainment that they had set up there, a big expense for a lot of red cups, and even an expense line for ping-pong balls, you know, for beer pong.

He goes to Bill, and he says: What have you done? I have asked you not to use this for your drunken frat parties. I don't want to be paying for your alcohol-filled ragers.

Bill says back to him: Well, no, every other member of the fraternity paid for the alcohol. I just paid for the invitations and the streamers and the red cups and the ping-pong balls and the video entertainment system and the DJ.

I don't think Thurston Howell III would be all that convinced that Bill hadn't violated the terms of the support agreement.

Now, sure, Bill could argue with him all along. He could say: No, you are wrong, Uncle Thurston.

It doesn't make Uncle Thurston any more inclined to go out of his way to continue to provide that funding. If anything, what we are dealing with here is far clearer than the restriction placed on Bill in my hypothetical.

Congress has said unequivocally: We are not going to use Department of Defense funds, we are not going to use Department of Defense facilities for abortions.

That is what the Department of Defense has done. It is a policy change, and a policy change that my friend from Colorado has acknowledged is a policy change. He believes it is justified somehow by the Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs. He is welcome to that opinion, but it is not accurate.

There is no clause in there that says that there is an exception if the Supreme Court changes its jurisprudence with regard to Roe v. Wade, Casey v. Planned Parenthood, and their progeny. Not a jot, not a tittle, not a scintilla supports that.

So, now, unhappy that some of these nominees aren't moving, Secretary Austin sends his emissaries, sends his friends in the Senate to go and attack Senator Tuberville. Why? Because Senator Tuberville is standing up for what the law says.

He is not trying to impose his morality on women in the military--far from it. He is just trying to impose the law, to make sure the law is followed, and that when the law is not followed, he is not going to help the Department of Defense move things any faster. That is well within his right to do, and I applaud him for it. We need more of that very kind of courage in the U.S. Senate.

As the Supreme Court has learned--as we have all learned from that experience--we don't end these profound and fundamental disagreements by taking debatable matters beyond debate. That is what the Supreme Court tried in Roe v. Wade, and it failed, especially because it was untethered from the Constitution and fundamentally at odds with it.

This effort here to rewrite the law from the E-Ring of the Pentagon will fare no better.

Mr. President, there are myriad ways in which concerns of those serving in the military, concerns of dependents of those serving in the military, could be accommodated in a way that doesn't violate the letter, if not--or at least the spirit of the law. Among other things, the military, if it wanted to, could, without offending this provision of law or any provision of law that I am aware of, give military personnel some say in where they live.

If there is some State that, for one reason or another, whether related to this issue or another, is offensive to them; if it would, in their judgment, impair their health or otherwise be objectionable to them--perhaps just be objectionable to them on this basis--the military could, without implicating this or any other statute of which I am aware, give them some say in it, give them the ability to say ``I don't want to serve there; I would like to be transferred somewhere else.'' That wouldn't involve Federal funds funding or at least facilitating abortion.

So the fact that we have different States with different laws and the fact that those laws may impact people differently depending on where they happen to be living, where they happen to be serving at the time, doesn't mean that the only answer is for the Department of Defense to ignore 10 U.S.C. 1093 and pretend that nothing has changed and pretend that nothing has changed relative to its relationship to Congress.

Now, as to Senator Tuberville, let's remember, he went to the Department of Defense. If I am not mistaken, he went to the Secretary of Defense himself. He outlined his concerns because there have been rumors circulating about this policy for months.

Senator Tuberville, remember, is a member of the Armed Services Committee. The Senate Armed Services Committee has an oversight role-- an important one--over the Department of Defense. It was his right, it was his duty to know what was going on in the Department of Defense. He inquired again and again and again, and they wouldn't tell him.

Finally, he got an audience with the Secretary of Defense and informed him, as I understand the conversation, of the fact that there would be dire consequences, including this one, if he chose to proceed. The Secretary of Defense considered that risk, and he undertook it nonetheless. He stood before the law and the wishes of a U.S. Senator and the promise of a U.S. Senator that this would be the consequence, and he did it anyway.

I can't speak to why he chose to do that, but it was, in fact, his choice; it was, in fact, his decision.

So, now, as to the suggestion that there are other procedures for which people can travel interstate and that we haven't raised objections with regard to those, those aren't covered by this policy. This one is about abortion. This one is there to say: If you want to get an abortion, then you get the 3 weeks of extra leave, paid leave; then you get the per diem; then you get the reimbursed travel. You get all of that if you are getting an abortion.

That is not there for anything else. It is not there for the treatment of other medical conditions that are common--strep throat treatment that happens to be unavailable in one area or another or--I don't know--schistosomiasis. I don't know what that is, but I heard the term on ``M.A.S.H.'' once. It is a real dire medical condition. Maybe you are serving in one State, and they can't treat that in one State because of that State's quirky laws. This policy doesn't offer any relief on that, no.

This applies specifically to abortion, implicating the concerns of the American people--legitimate concerns, I would add--over the use of Federal funds for that purpose. That unites Americans more than perhaps any other, and with a lot of good reason.

They are telling these military women: We are so supportive of this particular thing that we are going to pay for your travel; we are going to reimburse everything; we are going to give you a per diem and give you 3 weeks of paid leave.

I do wonder sometimes how one would feel, as a woman serving in the military, being told that. What if you are a woman who may become pregnant who wants to become pregnant? Does this create the kind of hostile environment in which a woman wanting to serve in the military and wanting to have children feels that the Department of Defense is so, so resistant to childbearing among its female servicemembers that it is willing to pay out a lot of money to do that?

In any event, this is not something that one can easily reconcile with the policy embodied in 10 U.S.C. section 1093. That can be changed. There is nothing etched into the Constitution about that. Congress could change it. But to do that, you would have to have the votes. To have the votes, you would have to have some sort of legislative effort to do that. There hasn't been one here.

Why? Well, because it is a lot easier to just decree it, just pen a memo and issue the memo, saying: We are going to make it so. We are going to ignore it.

As to the suggestion that this is not something that can be compared to a drunken frat party, well, fair point; it cannot. No, it is much more serious than that. The American people don't feel so passionately about a drunken frat party that they have put in place a Federal law saying that the Department of Defense may never use funds to hold certain kinds of parties, including those involving alcohol.

This involves unborn human life. Now, I understand that not everybody approaches unborn human life and its sanctity and the degree to which it should be protected under law the same way, but that is exactly why this policy exists, and that is exactly why the policy is embodied in a Federal statute. This stands squarely in the face of that, and it disregards it.

Senator Tuberville has every right and every reason to stand up for this.

Mr. President, the argument made by my friend and my distinguished colleague from Colorado resonates with me. He doesn't want this to be treated ``unlike every other medical procedure.'' I couldn't agree more. That is all Senator Tuberville is suggesting. It shouldn't be treated any differently than the others, because other medical procedures--you don't get 3 weeks of paid leave; you don't get per diem; you don't get your airfare and whatever else paid for. Just treat it the same way. It is not just that it is a good idea; it is not just that it is fair; it is that it is also consistent with Federal law, which says we don't use Federal funds for abortions. We just don't do that.

So here, not only are we doing the opposite of what he said he wanted, which is to not have abortions treated unlike every other medical procedure, but we are using Federal funds to do it. I find that difficult to reconcile with the law and with the policy embodied in that law.

As to the suggestion of States' rights, I want to be very clear here. Speaking of federalism--I don't speak of this ever as States' rights. States don't have rights. States have power. They have authority. Rights are the opposite of power and authority. Rights are things that you invoke against authority, as a carve-out to that authority.

So with regard to federalism, there is no reason why someone serving in the military couldn't be given some sort of preference not to serve in a particular State, whether because of a moral objection to a State's policy or a practical medical objection. That would be an entirely permissible way, as far as I am concerned, for the Department of Defense to deal with the issue raised by the Senator from Colorado. But what they can't do is find a way sneakily to use Federal funds-- Department of Defense funds--in order to bring about these abortions.

Look, it is not Senator Tuberville who brought us here. Senator Tuberville didn't bring us to this moment. This was a conscious, deliberate choice made by the Department of Defense, made by the Secretary of Defense, and it was an unwise one, and I am proud to stand behind him in that.

We can confirm every one of those folks tonight, right now.

Do it right now. If the Department of Defense takes it off the table and says they will suspend it until such time as the Senate can debate, discuss it, and bring about the necessary change to Federal law, I will agree to that right now, and we will get them confirmed tonight.

Mr. President, the statute prohibits the use of Federal funds to pay for an abortion--can't possibly be interpreted as having nothing to say about paying most of the cost associated with an abortion. By the time you pay someone to travel, by the time you pay someone to travel interstate, you give them 3 weeks of compensated leave, you give them per diem, most of the cost associated with that abortion has then been paid by the Federal Government.

Mr. President, I stand here before my friend and colleague, the senior Senator from Alabama. He stands in opposition, as do I, to the plan of the Department of Defense to use Federal funds to facilitate the performance of abortions.

Now, let's remember what we are looking at here. This has been in place for a long time. Congress enacted a law. Codified 10 USC section 1093. Let's just brief that here.

1093 part (a) says:

Restriction on use of funds. Funds available to the

Department of Defense may not be used to perform abortions

except where the life of the mother would be endangered if

the fetus were carried to term or in a case in which the

pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest.

Part (b) reads as follows:

No medical treatment facility or other facility of the

Department of Defense may be used to perform an abortion

except where the life of the mother would be endangered if

the fetus were carried to term or in a case in which the

pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest.

Look, this policy has been in place for a long time--for decades, in fact. It is accompanied by other policies restricting the use of Federal funds on issues related to abortion.

You know, the American people, yes, are divided on questions, many questions, regarding abortion. There are a lot of gradations of that. Some would put restrictions here; others restrictions there; others would insist on no restrictions whatsoever.

But one thing that does tend to unite Americans, more than any other topic within the area of abortion, is that we don't want the use of Federal taxpayer dollars going to facilitate or fund abortions. We don't want that.

Overwhelmingly, that holds really, really well. Democrats and Republicans

alike believe that it is unfair, understand that it is unjust, especially on an issue that is as divisive as abortion is.

To take money at the point of a gun, which is what we do when we collect tax revenue, essentially. You know, that if you don't pay your taxes, at some point people with guns will show up, and you have got to do what they say.

So when you are taking money at the point of a gun--as you do when you are collecting tax revenue--you have a sacred responsibility to handle that well. And if the American people don't want it, that is why they enacted a Congress that has put this in law, that we don't use Federal funds to fund abortion.

So along comes Secretary Austin and the current Department of Defense, and they decide, well, we really want to do this. And so I can only imagine how this conversation must have gone internally. Obviously, I wasn't part of those conversations. I was not made privy to them. They didn't invite me to them, we will just say.

But I would imagine they more or less went something like this, hey, what can we do to, you know, help people get abortions using Federal funds. And I am sure someone brought up, well, 10 USC section 1093 prohibits that. So they said, what could we do that arguably could circumvent that, something that Congress may not have specifically identified.

And at some point, someone said, well, there is nothing in here that directly categorically prohibits the use of travel funds or the availability of leave time for people seeking abortions.

So, bingo, they came up with this idea. Let's just give people who want abortions, women who want abortions in the military 3 weeks of paid leave and an expense account to handle out-of-state travel during that 3-week period, and that circumvents, technically speaking, the restriction. This is, of course, a major policy change, and it is a policy change on a topic that many Americans feel passionately about-- and, by many Americans, I mean not just Republicans. Republicans and Democrats don't like the idea that U.S. taxpayer dollars should be used for abortions, and they have put this in place--this being a major policy change, a major policy change affirmatively at odds with the spirit, if not also the letter, of various provisions of Federal law. Respect for the Constitution itself, for the separation of powers, and for the sacred role of the legislative branch to make laws should have commanded that the burden of making this policy change should be on those who would want Congress to act, and that we not give special privilege to an executive branch Department--here, the U.S. Department of Defense--to undertake such a major policy change that they knew they could never get past the Congress. They couldn't. It wouldn't pass. There is not a chance it would get past the House. It wouldn't get past the Senate either. They knew this, and that is why they did it by executive action--just executive fiat.

If Secretary Austin, the Secretary of Defense--if he wants to make law, he should run for Congress. He should run for the House. He should run for the Senate. I would welcome him here as a colleague or as a counterpart, down the hall in the House. I genuinely would. Then he would be in a position to do this. But he may not and must not be allowed to legislate from the E-Ring of the Pentagon. That is not how we do things in this country.

Now, as you look at the arguments that have been exchanged today, we have talked about military readiness. I agree with my colleague from Alabama. I haven't seen anything indicating that military readiness commands this, much less commands it in a way that justifies departing from the spirit, if not the letter, of Federal law.

I have also heard the argument made, quite counterintuitively, that if the Senator from Alabama, Senator Tuberville, wants to change the law, he should run legislation to that effect. He should be required to pass a statute.

That is not how our system works. We have got laws. This is a major departure from established policy set in existing law. The burden is not on Senator Tuberville.

You see, it is this body that gets to change laws, to change policy. We are the policymaking organ of the Federal Government, and to pass a law--any law--article I, section 1, and clause 1, the very first operative provision of the U.S. Constitution, right after the preamble and all the initial language, it says that ``all legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives.''

Article I, section 7, makes it clear how you make a Federal law, and it is not made by the Secretary of Defense or any other executive branch official. It is made, under article I, section 7--the only way you can make a Federal law--when the House of Representatives and the Senate both agree on the same legislative text, then presents that legislation to the President of the United States, who may sign it or acquiesce to it--after 10 days, if he acquiesces, it becomes law--or he can veto it. If he vetoes, it can become law only after two-thirds of both Houses have overridden that veto. Those are the only ways you can change Federal law.

The onus is not on those of us opposing this policy. Nor should the onus be on Senator Tuberville to establish that he is not the one impacting military readiness. This is untrue. It is unproven. It is contrary to fact. But even if it were not so, this is not on him. You see, because to whatever degree this is impacting military readiness, that argument goes right back on Secretary Austin in a heartbeat. It goes right back on him because he doesn't have to impose this policy. He doesn't have to force this change in policy amounting to a hostile act against the spirit, if not the letter, of this law. He doesn't have to do that. He could and should allow Congress to make this determination in due course, as Congress does. And it just so happens that we are coming up, in the coming weeks and months, on an opportunity to do precisely that, through a committee--through legislation that comes through a committee--on which both the Senator from Massachusetts and the Senator from Alabama serve, the Senate Armed Services Committee.

This legislative vehicle of which I am speaking, of course, is the National Defense Authorization Act. It is an opportunity that we use every year, for many, many decades, to make policy decisions involving the Pentagon.

So, if this issue is so important to military readiness, let Secretary Austin and those around him come to Congress and ask us to approve that, to make that policy choice--recognizing, as they should have done already without having to be told, that it is wildly inappropriate for them to make this policy change so wildly in conflict with the spirit, if not also the letter, of existing statute.

So that is what he could do. He can come to us and make that argument in connection with the National Defense Authorization Act. If he can persuade enough Members of the House and enough Members of the Senate to get it passed, it would be done.

In the meantime, unless or until such time as he can do that, especially to the degree that this is impacting military readiness-- these objections--then, what he should do is abundantly clear: Suspend implementation of these policies until such time as Congress acts to change them. That is not an unreasonable demand--not in the slightest.

Look, it is also apparent that Secretary Austin and the Department of Defense have become hostile toward female members of the military who choose to have children. That is the message this sends--undeniably, unequivocally. When you tell people: You know, you are pregnant, and it sure would be convenient for us if you didn't have this baby--so inconvenient, in fact, that we will give you 3 weeks of paid leave and a travel account so that you can go somewhere else, you know, so that you cannot have that child--think about what that does. That creates a hostile work environment for our female servicemembers, and I find it repugnant, and so do the American people.

That is why we have a prohibition in law.

For these reasons, Mr. President, I object.

Mr. President, in reserving the right to object, first of all, my friend and colleague, the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts, a moment ago, referred to the Pentagon's policy as a bill. Perhaps this was a Freudian slip, but one way or another, it was an acknowledgment of the fact that it is a change in policy--a change in policy that is in conflict with the spirit if not also with the letter of Federal law. So, as a bill--and I think it is fair to characterize it as such--it ought to have to be passed through Congress.

Now, my friend from the State of Massachusetts has used the language of the text of statute 10 U.S.C., section 1039 in much the same way, I would imagine, that Secretary Austin and his advisers parsed it and cribbed it and manipulated it in their development of this policy.

But let's remember the reason I say that it violates the spirit if not also the letter of it. It is that there is an argument to be made here that it is. Funds available to the Department of Defense may not be used to support abortions. How is this money being used? Well, with the extra leave time that you wouldn't get in the absence of this and with the travel to another State, it is for the purpose of an abortion. It is conditioned on your getting an abortion.

My friend and colleague from Massachusetts points out that it is also there with respect to fertility treatments--IVF or otherwise. Well, all that may be the case, and I have a couple of responses to that.

No. 1, I do not and would never object to that if that is what this were. In fact, I would relinquish my objections altogether if this policy were about helping military women gain access to fertility treatments. There is no provision in Federal law--not in title 10 and not anywhere else that I am aware of--that prohibits the Secretary of Defense from doing that. That would, moreover, not amount to a major departure from established policy. So, if that is really what is on the table here, I wouldn't object to that at all.

But it is the part about abortion. The Senator is conditioning the use of these funds--the receipt of additional leave time, the receipt of an expense account, and 3 weeks off--to go have an abortion. That is using Federal funds to get an abortion, to fund an abortion, because that is part of that.

Moreover, the suggestion that this applies evenhandedly, equally-- that it was equally intended to promote access by military women to fertility treatments--is at odds with and belied by the fact that the President, ever since the Dobbs opinion was released at the end of the last term of the Supreme Court, has been calling this an all-of- government cause--an all-of-government cause--to make sure that they can get around Dobbs in any way that they possibly can. This is, was, always has been, and always will be about abortion.

Like I say, the rest of it would be unobjectionable. I wouldn't raise any objection to it. I can't imagine my friend and colleague from Alabama would anyway. So that is a bit of a red herring, and it is a bit of a smokescreen to say that this is about fertility treatment. It is not about that.

With respect to the readiness component of it, look, I get it. As for the hard-working men and women of the military, for whom I have deep respect, in having gained promotions, we want to be able to promote them and approve their promotions. Yes, that needs to happen. And to the extent that any one of those people really needs to be processed and approved very quickly, there are ways to do that. We could tick these off one after the other. Senator Tuberville mentioned that we took care of one just in the last week or so on the floor. We could be doing that right now. If you want to see where the Senate's legislative priorities are, they are not with this. They are with other things. If this really were a priority, we would, through the leadership of the Democratic majority leader, be in a position to do that. He has chosen different priorities and not this one.

Look, at the end of the day, this thing--you could dress it up any way you want, but this is a major change in policy that is utterly at odds with the spirit if not also the letter of Federal law. As such, changing it should require a change in statute. If he wants to push for that, he is free to do so. If it doesn't pass, then he is stuck with that. If he is not content with being able to advocate for it from the outside, he should run for the House, or he should run for the Senate. He must not be allowed to legislate from the E-Ring of the Pentagon.

Mr. President, I object.

Madam President, I would like to talk about fentanyl. It is cheap, it is highly addictive, and it is deadly. It is responsible for more overdose deaths in America than any other drug. Last year alone, 110,000 Americans died from fentanyl poisoning in America.

I recently joined a U.S. delegation to Mexico focused on stopping illicit drug trafficking, curbing illegal immigration at the U.S.- Mexico border, and addressing China's role in providing precursor chemicals for fentanyl production and laundering money for the cartels.

I can say that the drug crisis spilling into our country is apparent to anyone willing to travel to the border and witness it for themselves. It is becoming more and more apparent every day. In fact, it is becoming more apparent even within Mexico.

During my recent visit with President Lopez Obrador in Mexico, I heard him talk about the fact that, although in many instances, with many other drugs, drug production in Mexico has often been sending drugs just to the United States, at least far more than it has to Mexico, but with fentanyl, we are seeing something different. We are seeing that fentanyl is now spilling into the Mexican market, and many Mexican citizens are starting to die from fentanyl poisoning.

So he, too, is concerned about it and is looking for ways he can make sure that China keeps closer track of the precursor chemicals and that the Government of Mexico is notified when those shipments of large- scale containers of these precursor chemicals arrive in Mexico, presumably for the production of fentanyl inside of Mexico.

Yet, notwithstanding all these developments and 110,000 Americans dying in the last year alone from fentanyl, the Biden administration has utterly failed to stop this massive influx of fentanyl flowing across our southern border. In fact, fentanyl is one of the only commodities to see a price decrease since Biden took office. We have seen rampant inflation everywhere else but not with fentanyl. So despite this historic inflation that we have been experiencing ever since January 21, 2021, street prices for this deadly drug have fallen, indicating supply is meeting demand without significant impediment,

bringing down the price. For example, in Arizona, users were paying $20 per pill in early 2021, but by early 2022, the price had plummeted to $5. In Ohio, the cost of fentanyl went from $75,000 per kilogram in 2017 to $50,000 in 2019 and then to $36,000 in 2021.

This is the last of the places where we want to see the opposite of inflation. We wish that our consumer products at grocery stores and everywhere else were going down, not the price of illegal, deadly fentanyl.

To put these numbers in perspective, we have been talking about the price per kilo--$75,000 per kilo a few years ago; and then 50,000 in 2019; and then 36,000 in 2021. To put it in perspective, each of those kilos--just 1 kilo of fentanyl contains half a million lethal doses. That is to say, 1 kilogram could wipe out the entire city of Atlanta, GA; and 1 kilo could essentially wipe out the entire population of the State of Wyoming. And 2 kilos could kill the entire State of Delaware.

The DEA recently announced the seizure of more than 50 million fentanyl-laced pills and more than 10,000 pounds of fentanyl powder, just in 2022 alone. These seizures--that no doubt just represent a fraction of all fentanyl that made its way into the United States without detection and seizure--represented a staggering 379 million lethal doses, far more than enough to kill every man, every woman, and every child in the United States.

Fentanyl is a killer. It is more powerful than morphine and has a potency that is measured in micrograms. Even a tiny amount can be lethal. Just 2 milligrams can kill an adult. That is why, when you measure this out, 2 milligrams--or 2,000 micrograms--going into a kilogram is going to get you to half a million lethal doses in 1 kilo.

It is just unconscionable for this administration to turn a blind eye to the problem of fentanyl trafficking across the border. In the face of such a lethal threat, we need to have bold and decisive action, not empty rhetoric, because the drug cartels really don't care about party politics. They only care about making money. And that money is coming from the pockets of our fellow Americans suffering from addiction.

This isn't just a problem for border States like Texas and Arizona. It is a threat to every community in America. It is sold on street corners in small towns and in big cities. It is killing our friends, our neighbors, and our loved ones.

We must secure our borders to disrupt the drug cartels. We cannot tacitly allow fentanyl and other deadly drugs to continue flowing into our communities and destroying the lives of our everyday citizens.

Now, yes, it is true, they are working to seize the stuff; and our law enforcement agents have seized a lot of it. But with millions of people crossing into our border--our southern border--over the last slightly more than 2 years--millions of people pouring in--it is making it worse, especially when you consider those same people are being trafficked into the United States, earning billions of dollars--the extortionate rates that they charge--to smuggle human traffic into the United States. It would be folly to assume, as the Secretary of Homeland Security recently suggested at a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, that that doesn't play a very significant role in fentanyl making its way into the United States. He insisted that nearly all of the fentanyl comes in by way of vehicles--trucks and passenger vehicles--at points of entry. I don't know how he can possibly know that. In fact, it is impossible he could know that, because when you have 5 million people coming into the United States illegally through our southern border in slightly more than 2 years, it would be folly to assume that those people being trafficked by the drug traffickers wouldn't also be used to carry fentanyl.

In short, every pill of fentanyl is a potential killer. Every shipment of fentanyl is a ticking time bomb, if not a weapon of mass destruction. And every life lost to fentanyl is a tragedy.

We owe it to ourselves, our families, and our communities to tackle this problem and to do everything in our power to stamp out the scourge of this drug in American communities.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed

to the consideration of S. Res. 164, which is at the desk; further, 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, for half a century, the Heritage Foundation has worked to build a United States where freedom, opportunity, prosperity, and civil society flourish. Their unwavering commitment to our Nation's core principles has been a guiding light for generations, and we owe them our deepest gratitude.

In 1972, the Heritage Foundation was conceived by Dr. Edwin J. Feulner and Paul Weyrich to deliver timely and persuasive research to Congress with facts, with data, and sound arguments on behalf of principles that promote freedom, opportunity, and prosperity for all Americans.

On February 16, 1973, the Heritage Foundation opened its doors for the first time and quickly grew to become one of the most influential and most broadly supported think tanks in the United States.

Over the past 50 years, the Heritage Foundation has played a critical role in many great legislative successes of our great country. They published the ``Mandate for Leadership'' in 1981, which served as a ``policy bible'' for President Ronald Reagan in his administration.

In 1982, the Heritage Foundation published the first comprehensive study outlining a missile defense system to defend the United States from nuclear missile attacks. Six months later, President Reagan made his historic speech calling for a strategic defense initiative to protect the United States.

Research by the Heritage Foundation formed the basis for welfare reform in the 1990s, resulting in more than 5 million people in the United States leaving welfare, finding work, and, ultimately, reducing African-American child poverty to historic lows.

The Heritage Foundation understands that the people of the United States are best served by a government that understands, honors, and respects self-governance. They have been a voice of reason and an advocate for our shared American values, reminding us of the power of individual liberty and the importance of limited government. Their dedication to promoting a society based on these ideals has helped shape the course of our Nation, and we are all better off for it.

As we look back on the past 50 years, we should remember the incredible impact of the Heritage Foundation on our Nation. Their legacy is one of service, and we are grateful for their unfailing commitment to our country.

I urge my colleagues to support my resolution recognizing the important contributions at the Heritage Foundation to American life over the past 50 years and acknowledging their central role in shaping our Nation's policies and values.

As we move forward, the challenges facing our country continue to grow. We need the Heritage Foundation now more than ever. Their expertise, research, and dedication to our shared values are crucial. They will continue to be a force for good in the years to come, and I am proud to stand with them to support a better, brighter, and more prosperous future for all Americans.

Mr. President, moments ago, when I asked to pass this resolution honoring the Heritage Foundation by unanimous consent, moments before I made that motion, I was informed of this policy, a policy that I have never seen. After more than 12 years in the Senate, I haven't seen this policy.

It is a policy within the Judiciary Committee--not a rule but a policy--but a policy that is seldom employed. I have never seen it invoked. There are a couple of requirements in it. One is that a commemorative resolution, in order to be approved for clearance for passage by unanimous consent on the floor with the approval of the committee, would need to be bipartisan.

I want to be clear that while this was not bipartisan, I invited Democrats to join in this. I genuinely think they should be willing to join it in the same sense that I would be willing to join them in something honoring Brookings or some other think tank. This group has done good work, and there is nothing in the resolution that commits them to substantively embracing every policy recommendation in the Heritage Foundation's past.

So that one should be easily satisfiable. I hope to get to that point at some point. It is unfortunate that we can't get this passed today, but I would love to be able to do that.

The other one is that no measure may commemorate any entity that is political. Heritage Foundation is a 501(c)(3), and it is a charitable nonprofit entity. It is not political, and it also can't commemorate a living person. This is there to commemorate an institution, a foundation--not an individual.

So even though I wasn't aware of this policy until today, I think there is no strong reason why this should stop us from doing this. In any event, I hope we can get this passed, if not today, then on some other day soon.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, wildfires pose a significant threat to the safety and well-being of our citizens, particularly those living near Federal lands. One way to protect against wildfires is with the use of fuel breaks.

Fuel breaks are--think of them as firewalls, firewalls for our communities. They are manmade areas with a reduced fuel load that are set up to act as a barrier to slow the spread of a wildfire. They slow it down and make it so the fire can't spread as quickly.

In 2021, Congress created a series of categorical exclusions specifically for the creation of fuel breaks. That was good. They were intended to protect communities adjacent to Federal land from the devastating effects of wildfires. However, the Federal Agencies responsible for implementing these

exclusions have been bogged down by regulatory delays.

These delays are really problematic, and they are adding up, especially in certain parts of the country where there is a lot of Federal land and where there is a lot of Federal land near where people live. For example, in California, there are 5.1 million homes in the wildland-urban interface. The Forest Service and the BLM will never have the capacity to protect these homes. The hands of the States shouldn't be tied while they watch their homes being burned.

So Congress did a good thing by creating these categorical exclusions, but it has been more or less rendered--I think by mistake-- a dead letter in many areas because of these regulatory problems.

Rather than throwing the baby out with the bathwater, we need to make this one work. My amendment aims to do precisely that. It aims to create a process for States to assume responsibility for the environmental analysis, approval, and execution of these projects. By allowing States to take on these responsibilities, we can expedite these critical projects for community protection.

The safety and well-being of our citizens and our communities are at stake. By passing my amendment, we can take a significant step toward protecting our homes, communities, and critical infrastructure from the devastating effects of wildfires.

Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 80 and ask that it be reported by number.

Mr. President, I appreciate the insight and the observations of my friend and distinguished colleague, the Senator from Delaware. I appreciate the amount of effort that he puts into this and I am sure a lot of hard work.

He raises some good points, and there are points that I might find persuasive if they were accurate. He seems to be under the impression that these would be broad categorical inclusions, that these procedures we contemplate would apply broadly to all Forest Service operations. It wouldn't. This is talking only about fuel breaks and only about fuel breaks in narrow sets of circumstances.

He suggested incorrectly that there is no requirement in place to make sure that the States have the resources financially, regulatorily, and otherwise to undertake the analysis contemplated under this. It does. He has been misinformed on that point.

Finally, I might feel differently about this if, like my friend from Delaware, if I were from a different State, if I were from the State of Delaware. But when you look at the Western United States, we have Federal land everywhere.

In every State to the east of Colorado's eastern border, the Federal Government owns less than 15 percent of the land in each State, and in most cases, it is in the single digits. In many States, it is in the low single digits. I don't remember what the percentage of land is in Delaware. I can find that out. But in Utah it is two-thirds of our land. It is 67 percent. In every State to the west of Colorado's Eastern Rim, it is more than 15 percent and usually a lot more than that. That affects people. These are people's homes, their livelihoods, their communities, their economies are all put in jeopardy by the fact that the Federal Government owns too much land. It owns so much land that no one would have the capacity to operate this. No one. It is impossible.

More than 5 million homes in California alone are in these affected areas. No matter how efficient we may be in the Forest Service, no matter how many employees we authorized them to hire, they are still not going to be able to keep up with it.

It is a matter of doing this or losing more property, losing more ecosystems and losing more homes and communities and sources of economic activity. That is what is at stake.

Now, if the points he made were factually correct or legally correct, he might be right, but they are not correct. We need this, and we need to pass this now.

Mr. President, thank you.

Mr. President.

I will point to two things. First, on page 4 of the amendment, subdivision (D) Verification of Resources. This requires each State or Indian Tribe to go through a process to verify that they have got the resources to do it.

Turn to page 6. It is subject to full judicial review in the same way that they would be subject to judicial review if these actions were being undertaken by a Federal Agency. So the only difference is, these State and local governments, they have both the personnel, and they have the incentive to do it. Federal land managers can't and don't and won't ever be able to do this the same way State people, State officials, State governments, and local governments will be able to.

We either care about these communities or we don't. If we don't adopt this, we are effectively nullifying what Congress passed back in 2021, and we cannot do that.

Mr. President, I know of no further debate on this matter.

Mr. President.

The distinction he is dwelling on is the distinction on page 4, the ``may-shall'' distinction. The only way he can be right on this, of course, is if he presupposes that the Secretary is just not going to care; that the Secretary is not going to exercise that authority. It is not going to happen. I am sure he is not impugning a lack of concern on the part of the Secretary of Agriculture to do that. He wouldn't do that.

Secondly, look, if that is what is holding this up, if you want to switch--if you would be willing to support it if I made the ``may'' and turned it to a ``shall,'' I will do that right now. I will offer up a second-degree amendment to my own amendment right now, and we will do that. If the gentleman from Delaware were to agree to that, I would be fine with it, and we could get this passed.

Mr. President, this is how the western lands suffer--people from the Eastern United States, with neither the knowledge nor the concern about how they are managed and don't care. And so while they passed something in 2021 to make these firebreaks easier to put in place, as a practical reality, the regulatory hurdles are proving too much. This would fix that. This is reasonable. There is nothing that the Senator from Delaware has pointed to that makes this amendment to this bill objectionable in any way. I urge my colleagues to support it.

And if you do so--if you come from the west of Colorado, you know exactly what I am talking about. If you come from the Eastern United States, I beg you to imagine, for a moment, that you represent a Western State, where we have experienced, in some cases, decades of drought and where we are sitting ducks, where we are an island of private land amidst a vast overwhelming sea of Federal land that is chronically mismanaged just because it is physically impossible for them to manage it properly to avoid this kind of thing. I urge you to be sympathetic to this and support it.

I would be happy to.

Thank you.

I appreciate the magnanimous offer from my colleague. I will take him up on that. I am still hoping that it will pass. It is still my hope that it should pass today.

Mr. President, I know of no further debate.

Vote on Amendment No. 80

I call for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I am back again, seeking unanimous consent for the passage of my FREEBIRD Act.

Now, previously, my request for unanimous consent was met with an objection, an objection on the grounds that we are still in the midst of a public health emergency.

It was obviated. This unanimous consent request was objected to on the grounds that if we were going to do this, we should end the vaccine requirement for foreign travelers and the public health emergency at the same time, in the words of the objector, to make it clean.

Well, just last night, the Senate voted to terminate the COVID-19 pandemic national emergency order. That makes this as clean as it gets.

We have passed this now, and early this morning the White House announced that the President will be signing that measure--which had previously been passed by the House--into law. So that is happening now. That means that this is as clean as it gets. These things would go out at the same time with a bang--as well they should.

Now, that also means that there is no reason why we shouldn't end this particular restriction, the restriction on unvaccinated foreign travelers coming into the United States today.

Now, to those who might think that the Senate passed something last night that might somehow make it unnecessary to pass the FREEBIRD Act, make it unnecessary, separately, to enact legislation ending the foreign traveler vaccine requirement, they are mistaken.

And they are mistaken because those two legal documents--the proclamation issued by President Trump in 2020 declaring a national public health emergency and the October 2021 Executive order issued by President Biden putting in place the foreign traveler vaccine requirement--are separate things; neither depends on the other. And so the fact that the public health emergency Executive order is now on its way out the door, it will be no more in a matter of hours or days, makes no difference as to this one. This one remains in effect unless or until it is undone.

So to paraphrase the words of the Member of the Senate from the Democratic Party who objected to this just a few days ago, we can make it clean. Now, we should make it clean. In fact, we should make it clean by getting rid of this just as the other expires.

Now, look, so basic question, right, why does this matter so much? Why do we care about the fact that we are requiring foreign travelers to prove that they have been vaccinated prior to entering the United States? Well, we care, and we should care because it is levying a really heavy cost on State and local economies and on the American economy and on American relationships across this country.

Continuing to keep this mandate in place at a time when President Biden himself has declared that the pandemic is over and is prepared, apparently, to sign into law legislation passed by both Houses, officially ending the order declaring the existence of a public health emergency over COVID, it doesn't make any sense to continue this, especially at a time when this body has voted and the President's prepared to sign the other measure.

Look, those who oppose this really are unjustified in what they are trying to do, especially because they are ignoring the new risk calculus that is affording Americans a renewed sense of normalcy, much needed normalcy after 3 years of chaos.

This policy has separated loved ones for far too long. It is time to end the COVID-19 vaccination requirement for foreign travelers, prohibit using Federal funds to carry out the requirement, and prevent the CDC from ordering future COVID-19 vaccine mandates for foreign travelers. It is costing us too much.

In 2021 alone, Utah visitors, travelers coming into Utah, spent nearly $11 billion, generating over 130,000 jobs and almost $2 billion in State and local tax revenue.

Now, look, Utah's tourism sector experienced so much decline during COVID, particularly during 2020. By 2021, and even more so by today, it really has recovered quite well, except in one area. We still haven't recovered, much less made any gains, with regard to foreign visitors to the State of Utah.

Why? Well, I think a lot of it has to do with this unnecessary, draconian requirement, a requirement that the developed world no longer recognizes the need for. We are outliers in the free world for keeping this in place. But by lifting the vaccine mandate, Utah and

the United States stand to benefit tremendously from increased international travel.

Look, it is not just that it is costing us tourism. It is costing us meaningful connections, connections that enrich and promote our shared humanity.

Right now, foreign travelers, including family members, including friends, business relations, and even international sports figures are being kept off of U.S. soil arbitrarily due to this draconian vaccine mandate.

Look, right now today, this very moment, we have the opportunity to reverse course. In fact, the House of Representatives has already passed this very bill ending the vaccine mandate, and it passed it with bipartisan support.

Today, we can restore our personal and business relationships, boost our tourism, not just in Utah but across America, and reengage in the competitive spirit that brings nations together.

It is time to end this mandate. It is time to join the rest of the developed and the free world. It is time to free the bird and to pass the FREEBIRD Act.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 14, H.R. 185; further, that the Lee substitute amendment at the desk be considered and agreed to; that the bill as amended be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

If I can respond very quickly because I know the floor is backed up, and I know we want to get back on schedule.

First of all, I really appreciate the kind remarks from the Senator from New Jersey. He is a dear friend. I am a former resident of his State, and I first heard his name when I lived there about 25 years ago.

I have always enjoyed working with him, and I appreciate the dignified manner in which he responded to this request today. He drew the short stick, and you have got a job to do. I get it.

I do look forward to working with you on this because I suspect you and I could get to the point where we agree on this. I would love nothing more than to add you as a cosponsor, but the bottom line is, I haven't reviewed what Senator Sanders has submitted through Senator Booker, but I look forward to doing that.

I surmise, based on the summary, that these are relying on certain experts, some of the same experts who have given some phenomenally bad advice, much of which turned out to be wrong; the same experts who told us it didn't leak from a lab; the same experts who told us that it wouldn't spread among the vaccinated; the same experts who have told us that we should have to mask 2-year-old children when getting on a plane; that there would be no adverse consequences from sending children to school during COVID and that it was absolutely necessary and apparent to do so--some of the same experts who tell us to vaccinate young children, sometimes infants, with this particular vaccine.

So I have great reluctance to defer to those same experts, when especially--especially considering the fact that even though some of those very same experts are telling us not to end the public health emergency, we have now

done so, and President Biden is going to sign that into law.

Let's end the madness of deference to experts who have been proven time and time again to be wrong.