Floor Statements

Mr. President, a person wandering up Church Street or jogging down on the shores of Lake Champlain on a crisp, snowy day in Burlington, VT, this past winter could have glanced up at the sky and seen an angular, white aircraft gliding through the air. It is called the Alia and is an electric aircraft modeled after an Artic tern that has been designed and manufactured by Beta Technologies.

At their headquarters, located beside the Burlington International Airport in South Burlington, Beta Technologies has been ``quietly'' revolutionizing the aviation industry by designing an environmentally friendly, rechargeable, and, yes, quiet, electric aircraft that can vertically take off and land without a runway. It is incredible technology that has game-changing applications for the domestic shipping industry, private transportation, and the military. Their research, production, and testing has been supported by dozens of private investors, several public companies, and funding appropriated by the Appropriations Committee to the Air Force's AFWERX Agility Prime program. The Agility Prime program was launched in 2020 in an effort to encourage private commercial development of the electric vertical takeoff and landing--eVTOL--aircraft industry.

I am proud of the innovative work that Beta Technologies does in Vermont. The company employs a workforce of over 350 employees and is growing, employing veterans, pilots, engineers, and technicians. The company is enriching the engineering and technology community of Vermont. I am excited about the potential for Beta's aircrafts and look forward to supporting their work in the future.

On April 16, 2022, The New York Times published an article on the innovative work of Beta Technologies, and I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, in reserving the right to object, if the Senator from Florida's bill were to pass, it would make routine domestic spending bills nearly impossible to be passed in the U.S. Senate, freezing spending at current levels.

I worry that the Senator from Florida believes the false impression that inflation does not impact the millions of Americans who benefit from nondefense discretionary programs. These are people who have to go to work every single day and try to figure out if they are going to have enough money to put groceries on their table. This bill would make things worse for the American people, not better.

As an example, this year, the cost of the veterans medical care system is expected to grow by $21 billion. We have all heard the patriotic speeches of how we stand behind our veterans when they answer the call, but I wonder how many VA hospitals and clinics in Florida would have to be closed if this proposal were to be approved. I know there are a lot all over the country that would have to be closed.

Natural gas costs have grown by 35 percent this year. Do any of us who may be from a State where the weather can get warm want to tell our constituents who rely on the LIHEAP program to cool their homes ``No, you don't need air conditioning because the money is not going to be there''?

If Florida is struck by another hurricane this summer and the Senator from Florida's constituents look to FEMA for fuel, food, and water, will the Senator tell his constituents ``Sorry. Inflation was too high. You are on your own. We can't respond to that emergency''?

In 2017, Members on the other side of the aisle lined up to vote for a $1.9 trillion tax cut for the wealthy--a tax cut that I believe has contributed to the inflation we now see in the country. There is nothing in this request to roll back those tax cuts. So I object.

I object.

Mr. President, in reserving the right to object--and I will--I think back over the years to some of the debates.

I remember, during the Reagan administration, when we heard so many speeches from President Reagan and his supporters on how they had to balance the budget. He did this at a time when he doubled and tripled the national debt, all the time telling everybody how they were balancing the budget.

Then I heard the objections to President Clinton's budget, saying that it didn't do the wonderful things that the Reagan budget did even though, of course, it gave the United States the first surplus it had had in decades.

Every so often, reality catches up with rhetoric, and because of that, I object.

Mr. President, one of the ways you try to save money is, again, not with rhetoric but with reality.

I would urge everybody to join with us on both sides of the aisle who are working to get our appropriations bills together so we can reflect the actual needs and go forward with that. Again, rhetoric is easy; reality is a tad more difficult.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

If I might say, the Senator was absolutely right. He was central in putting that together.

Unfortunately, it passed here; would have passed the House. They had enough votes--enough votes, Republicans and Democrats. But the then- Speaker said he couldn't bring it up because it didn't have a majority of his party and it would violate the sacred Dennis Hastert rule. I don't think they follow that rule after former-Speaker Hastert went to jail.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to finish my statement prior to the vote.

Mr. President, the horrors we have witnessed in the weeks and months following Vladimir Putin's unprovoked attack on Ukraine are an abomination and an affront to all civilized people--entire communities wiped from the face of the earth; countless lives ruined; unarmed civilians summarily executed randomly in the street; millions of desperate people fleeing everything they have ever known because of one man's zeal to destroy whatever is necessary to realize his own twisted vision of the world--all of this while fueling a broader humanitarian crisis across the region, spiraling costs, and sparking a global hunger crisis.

The need is clear for this Congress to act decisively and to act now to reaffirm our unwavering support for the Ukrainian people in protecting their lives and their country and to stem this global crisis. The United States stands against the atrocities inflicted upon the free people of Ukraine, an independent country with a democratically elected government.

Last Tuesday, the House passed H.R. 7691, providing more than $40 billion in emergency funding, with overwhelming bipartisan support. The Senate should have done the same, sending this bill to the President so that he could immediately execute on it and get this much-needed aid into Ukrainian hands. Unfortunately, one Member has decided to slow this process down. One Member has caused needless delay. In a few moments, we will vote to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to H.R. 7691. Because of Senator Paul's objection, we must go through this step just to bring up the bill for debate. I urge everyone to vote yes. And I would urge the Senator from Kentucky to reconsider his objections and help us move quickly to get this bill to the President.

This emergency bill provides $40.1 billion--$7.1 billion more than the administration requested--in critical military and humanitarian assistance for Ukraine, to help defend democracy abroad and to address the rising, global hunger crisis that the world is facing in large part due to Russia's aggression.

This includes $8.5 billion in additional Presidential drawdown authority for critical weapons transfers and $6 billion for the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative. This will allow us to continue to supply the Ukrainians with the tools they need to defend themselves, their country, and their freedom. The urgent need for these resources cannot be overstated. As we stand here today, the administration is raising the alarm that if we do not act, the resources we provided in March--which have been critical to Ukraine's success on the battlefield--will be exhausted in a matter of days.

It includes more than $8.5 billion for the economic support fund to respond to emerging needs in the country and ensure the continuing operation of the government. It provides needed resources for temporary housing, medical care, food, and other basic services for Ukrainian's displaced in their own country and refugees fleeing the violence and devastation Vladimir Putin has inflicted on them and their communities.

The humanitarian crisis instigated at the hands of Vladimir Putin is not limited to within Ukraine's borders or even within the borders of Eastern Europe. It has triggered a global hunger crisis. Last year, before Putin's war, Ukraine grew enough food to feed 400 million people. Today, Ukraine cannot even feed its own people. As David Beasley, the Executive Director of the UN World Food Programme--WFP-- testified before the Appropriations Committee last week, war has forced Ukraine from being a global bread basket to being on the bread lines.

Tens of millions of tons of wheat, barley, maize, vegetable oil, and other Ukrainian produce are currently locked in warehouses and languishing in ports occupied by Russian forces. If the ports are not opened, this food will either be stolen or go to waste, leading to skyrocketing prices and regional shortages. The WFP estimates that this will have a ripple effect, increasing the number facing acute hunger by 47 million. This would bring the estimated global total to 323 million people suffering from acute hunger in the 81 countries WFP operates in alone.

It is important to remember that hunger is not a moment in time; it has lasting consequences for families, communities, and whole societies. This is why we cannot wait to act on this crisis. As noted in one recent Washington Post editorial; preventing a looming, global famine is ``as urgent and morally necessary as sending tanks to Ukraine.''

This bill provides over $5 billion for global food aid. If those funds are programmed quickly, they will save millions of lives.

Vladimir Putin's war is exacerbating a global crisis of food insecurity already set in motion by the COVID pandemic and successive years of severe drought in Africa. I am extremely disappointed that this bill does not include new resources to address the ongoing COVID pandemic.

Last week, we passed the grim toll of 1 million recorded COVID deaths in our country and estimates as high as 20 million deaths worldwide. If we fail to prepare for anticipated surges in the fall and winter, as immunity from existing vaccines wanes and the virus continues to mutate, the death toll will rise, potentially exponentially.

For months--for months--the administration has warned that we do not have the necessary vaccines, therapeutics, tests, and other resources to stay ahead of this virus. We do not have enough funding to purchase new shots for everybody in the fall, and we already will be forced to ration the next generation of vaccines--more suited to variants like Omicron--to only those at the highest risk.

This is not a problem that can be solved by flipping a switch. We cannot just say that we will appropriate the money later in the fall if it is needed. In order to produce the tens of millions of doses of vaccine that will be necessary, biotech companies need to begin to purchase supplies and start production before July. This means we only have weeks to provide the funding to secure these shots in time.

The same can be said of our testing capacity. Unless we act, domestic manufacturing will continue to shut down, shifting production to countries like China. This will leave us flat-footed once again should another COVID variant wave crash over our country in the fall.

The virus traveled to this country from abroad, and that is where new variants have also originated. The U.S. Agency for International Development, which manages our global response to the COVID pandemic, has obligated 95 percent of the funds they have available. They are running on fumes, and they will have no choice but to start shutting down their vaccine delivery operations if additional funds are not forthcoming soon. That means more mutations, more variants, more infections, and more death.

It is extremely frustrating that, time and again, Members on the other side of the aisle have pushed this responsibility off. We are out of time. We cannot defeat this virus with complacency or by burying our heads in the sand. It remains a global health emergency. According to the experts, it is entirely possible that we have not seen the worst yet. As chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, I will continue to fight for these urgently needed resources in the coming weeks.

However, the people of Ukraine and the millions facing acute food insecurity require the funds in this bill today, and I strongly urge the Senate to pass it without further delay.

I yield the floor.

Cloture Motion

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, today is a historic day. Today, each Member of the Senate will have the opportunity to cast a vote on the nomination of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to be an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. I say ``historic'' because throughout our Nation's history, only 115 people have served on the Supreme Court. Until now, only five of the Supreme Court Justices have been women. Only two of the Justices have been Black. And none has been a Black woman. So history, indeed, and long overdue.

But I am not going to cast my vote in support of Judge Jackson's confirmation because she is a woman or because she is Black; I will cast that vote because she is eminently qualified to serve in the position to which she has been nominated.

Her nomination shouldn't just be welcomed; it should be celebrated. It is a major step forward for our democracy. It is further widening the lens to help make our Nation more inclusive and more representative with each passing generation.

She is one of the most qualified nominees to the Supreme Court that I have ever considered in my 48 years here: a graduate of Harvard and Harvard Law School; a judicial clerk at the district, circuit, and Supreme Court levels; a Federal appellate judge; a Federal district court judge; a member of the U.S. Sentencing Commission; an attorney in private practice. And she will be the first ever Justice who has served as a public defender, bringing that much needed perspective to the Court. No one--no one--can argue that Judge Jackson is not objectively qualified to be confirmed.

The manufactured accusations that were thrown at her by some of our committee during our hearings not only fell flat, but they have been refuted and debunked by serious voices across the political spectrum. They hold no water. They serve only to showcase the vitriol and the contempt with which some Members of this body approach their sacred constitutional role of advice and consent.

I said it during the hearings, and I will say it again: It is distressing, it is disheartening, and as the dean of the Senate, it is saddening. Yet I find hope in the fact that Judge Jackson's confirmation to our highest Court will have the bipartisan support it deserves and it commands. I commend the Republican Senators who have lauded her qualifications and staked their support of her nomination. Judge Jackson has earned the President's nomination, and she has earned confirmation from the Senate.

Each and every day, millions of American families are living their lives, and how they live those lives--from the salaries they make to the education their children receive and scores of issues in between-- is directly impacted by the decisions made at the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court--in fact, all of our courts can't be ivory towers, accessible only to and bending to the will of a select few in our society. They have to be accountable to all--all--all Americans. To do so, they must reflect the diversity of our Nation, the diversity that is at the foundation of our democracy--diversity of gender, of race, of creed, of education and history--but also diversity of thought and life experiences. Judge Jackson brings that and more to the Bench.

Mr. President, I am proud to be the President pro tempore of the Senate, and I was proud to chair the Senate Judiciary Committee in the past. In that regard, I voted for the first woman to ever serve on the Supreme Court. I voted for the first Latina to serve on the Supreme Court. I voted on thousands of judicial nominations, nominees of both Republican and Democratic Presidents. I voted for nominations to the Supreme Court who were put forward by Republican Presidents.

I have long lamented the increasing political gamesmanship that has infected our current confirmation process, and many times on this floor, I have warned about the dire consequences for our courts and for our democracy of converting our confirmation process into a zero-sum game where one party wins and one party loses. But to change that gamesmanship requires that we have some adults in the room, that we all come here to the floor of the U.S. Senate not to score a headline or a trending tweet but simply to do our jobs. There are only 100 of us to represent this whole country. So who is going to do that today, simply do their job?

I have taken a clear look at Judge Jackson's record. I heard her testimony 2 weeks ago. I met with her. I read opinions that she has written. I spent hours listening to her. I saw her intellect, her humility, and her temperament on full display.

Mr. President, she is the Justice we need now. For America today, for the generations to come, for our children and our grandchildren, for all of us, I will cast my vote to confirm Judge Jackson, and I will do it proudly.

I hope the Senate can rise to this moment. I hope it can be the deliberative body the Founders envisioned when they conceived of this great experiment. Our independent judiciary--in fact, our democracy-- demands it of us.

Mr. President, history will remember the votes cast here today. I will proudly vote aye.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, among the many barbaric atrocities committed by Russian soldiers in Ukraine where civilian infrastructure including hospitals, schools, and apartment buildings have been repeatedly bombed and shelled and countless civilians have been summarily executed in the streets, the New York Times reports today that the Russians are using a new kind of landmine.

This mine, called the POM-3, is inherently indiscriminate like other mines in that it cannot distinguish between a civilian and a combatant, and it is apparently equipped with a sensor that triggers the explosive when a person approaches. With a kill radius of 50 feet, it is even more deadly than a typical anti-personnel mine. And, unlike typical landmines, it cannot be disarmed by a human deminer because anyone who approaches it is likely to become a victim before reaching it. So it will be necessary to use robots to clear these mines, at great additional time and expense. As in other countries affected by armed conflict, it will be many years and almost certainly decades after the fighting ends, before the people of Ukraine can walk safely without fear of mines and other unexploded ordnance.

Human beings seem to have an unlimited capacity to devise new ways of destroying the lives of others. Landmines are especially insidious because they maim or kill whoever comes into contact with them, or, in the case of the POM-3, whosever's footsteps it detects. It could be anyone, including a young child.

No matter how ``sophisticated'' the technology, mines are an exceedingly primitive weapon because they are designed to be indiscriminate in an age of so-called precision munitions.

Mines are the opposite. While landmines are so easy to make that it will never be possible to completely eliminate them, in 1997, the international community took an historic step, thanks in large part to the leadership of former Canadian Foreign Minister Lloyd Axworthy and the tireless advocacy of the International Campaign to Ban landmines.

In December of that year, countries came together to sign the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production, and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction, known informally as the Ottawa Treaty or the Mine Ban Treaty. Today, the treaty has 164 states parties. But one of the reasons anti-personnel mines have yet to be universally stigmatized is because key countries including Russia, China, India, Pakistan, and the United States have not joined the treaty.

Of course, when one country joins a treaty, it does not guarantee that others will. But the more countries that do, the harder it is for others to fail to do so, as they become the outliers, the pariahs. So if the United States, which has not used anti-personnel mines since 1991, were to join the treaty it would not guarantee that Russia would. But it would greatly enhance our credibility to call out their use of mines, their devastating effects on innocent civilians, and the need to universalize the treaty.

In 1994, President Clinton, at the United Nations, called for ridding the world of anti-personnel mines. He also directed the Pentagon to develop alternatives. They never did. While we can drive a robot on Mars 100 million miles away, our own military continues to stockpile landmines that are triggered by the victim. Whether a U.S. soldier or a child, our landmines, like Russian landmines, cannot tell the difference.

If anything good can come of this catastrophic and senseless war in Ukraine, it would be for the international community to bring to justice those responsible for war crimes and for the United States to once and for all renounce the use of anti-personnel landmines. These are not weapons that belong in the arsenals of civilized nations and certainly not in the arsenal of the most powerful, modern military on Earth. Let us be the country that not only denounces their use in Ukraine, but denounces and renounces their use everywhere. What a gift to the world that would be.

I ask unanimous consent that the New York Times article entitled ``New Russian Land Mine Poses Special Risk in Ukraine'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, 16 years ago the United Nations General Assembly designated April 4 as the International Day for Mine Awareness and Assistance in Mine Action. Today, I am introducing a Senate resolution recognizing that designation and reaffirming United States leadership in eliminating landmines and unexploded ordnance.

As we read the reports of withdrawing Russian troops leaving landmines to terrorize, maim, and kill Ukrainian civilians, we are reminded of the necessity to redouble our efforts to ban these insidious weapons once and for all. The mines in Ukraine will remain a deadly hazard there long after the fighting ends, whenever that time comes.

Landmines and other unexploded ordnance cause death and terrible injuries to people in dozens of countries, mostly places where the ability to provide lifesaving medical care and long-term rehabilitation and vocational support is lacking or far from adequate.

The United States continues to provide the largest share of demining assistance, and we spend many millions of dollars annually helping the survivors. That is something we can be proud of.

But in some countries, like Laos, the millions of cluster munitions that failed to detonate on contact were manufactured in the United States and dropped by American aircraft. Fifty years later they continue to destroy innocent lives.

So while the number of landmine and UXO casualties has fallen significantly since I and others first took on this issue in the late 1980s and early 1990s,

we are not where we hoped to be back then.

First, the Biden Administration needs to restore the policy on landmines that was put in place during the Obama Administration. The White House said they would but it has not happened yet. There is no excuse for delaying.

Second, we need to continue to provide the funding for humanitarian demining and survivors assistance. Fortunately, this is not a partisan issue. It is simply a matter of continuing to treat it as a priority.

And third, this is my last year in the Senate and while I will do everything I can while I am here, we need others to continue to advocate for the United States to sign the international treaties banning anti-personnel landmines and cluster munitions. It should have happened already, and we have to keep working until it does.

I have seen first-hand the effects of landmines and other unexploded munitions. It is horrific, especially when it's a young child with a leg or an arm missing. Or a parent blinded and crippled by a landmine, being led around by a child.

We should be the country that leads the world in ending not only the carnage of landmines and UXO left behind, but the production, export, use and stockpiling of these indiscriminate weapons that don't belong in the arsenals of civilized nations.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, today, I am pleased to acknowledge the confirmation of Shalanda Young to be the Director of the Office of Management and Budget with a bipartisan vote of 61 to 36.

Director Young has a depth of experience that cannot be matched to lead the Office of Management and Budget. A staff member on the House Appropriations Committee for 15 years--serving 4 of these years as the committee's staff director--Director Young has years of experience in crafting the budgets of the Federal agencies that the American people rely on.

In 2019, Director Young was one of the few staff present in the room while then Chairman Shelby, Chairwoman Lowey, Ranking Member Granger, and I negotiated the end to the longest Federal Government shutdown in U.S. history. Her knowledge of Federal programs, understanding of the political process, and years of critical insight into the operations of the federal government were invaluable in our negotiations to reach a deal.

I was glad to strongly support Director Young's nomination to be Deputy Director of OMB. After she was confirmed to that position, she began to serve as its Acting Director. It was in this role that she guided the Biden administration's budget priorities through the COVID pandemic, devastating natural disasters, a long sought after bipartisan infrastructure law, and now the response to President Putin's unprovoked invasion of Ukraine.

As if she did not have enough on her plate, on October 31, 2021, she gave birth to a beautiful baby girl, Charlie. If juggling all of that did not prove she is more than qualified for the job, I am not sure what would.

As the chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, I look forward to working with her and her team at OMB on the fiscal year 2023 appropriations process. Director Young understands how to work across the aisle to get a deal done. I cannot think of someone I would rather work with in putting the appropriations process to work on behalf of the American people.