Floor Statements

Mr. President, for the information of the Senate, while I was necessarily absent for the confirmation votes of Ramin Toloui and Rashad Hussain, I want the Congressional Record to reflect my support for their confirmations. Had I been present, I would have voted in the affirmative.

Ramin Toloui is nominated to be the Assistant Secretary of State for Economic and Business Affairs. He is the professor of the Practice for International Finance at Stanford University, and the Tad and Diane Taube Policy Fellow at the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research. His teaching and research focus on international economic policy, financial crises, and the economic impact of artificial intelligence. He began his career as a civil servant at the Department of the Treasury. His nomination was favorably reported by the Foreign Relations Committee, and he is superbly qualified to hold this position.

Rashad Hussain is nominated to be Ambassador at Large for Religious Freedom. He is a senior counsel at the Department of Justice's National Security Division. He previously served as President Obama's Special Envoy to the Organization of Islamic Cooperation--OIC--as U.S. Special Envoy for Strategic Counterterrorism Communications, and as Deputy Associate White House Counsel. In his role as OIC Envoy, Professor Hussain helped develop U.S policy and deepen and expand partnerships with Muslim-majority countries, civil society organizations, and the OIC, the world's second largest multilateral organization after the UN. As Special Envoy for Strategic Counterterrorism Communications, Professor Hussain led an interagency body that worked with international partners to amplify credible narratives in countering terrorist propaganda. Having been reported favorably by the Foreign Relations Committee, I have no doubt of his qualifications for this position.

Mr. President, those who know me, and even those who don't, are well aware of the pride I have in my Italian heritage. My maternal grandparents emigrated from the Friuli region of Italy, coming to South Ryegate, VT, to work in the granite quarries. Since the 1880s, many Italians have followed this same immigration pattern, settling across Vermont, where the beautiful hills and lakes remind them of their ancestral home. Today, Vermont boasts a strong community of Italian Americans, many of whom, including me, are members of the Vermont Italian Cultural Association, VICA. Led by President Lisa DeNatale, the association preserves and promotes Italian culture in Vermont, hosting language and travel groups, presentations, movies, cooking classes, luncheons, and bocce socials. Last year, Marcelle and I were delighted to join VICA and Trattoria Delia for a virtual wine- tasting. Joining with dear friends online helped us, like so many Vermonters, get through the earliest and harder months of the pandemic.

It is nearly impossible to travel across our State without seeing the influence of the Italian-American community. In Northfield, the streets outside of La Panciata smell of Carrara, Italy, where founder Glenn Loati learned the ancient art of baking Latin leavened breads. In Burlington, Trattoria Delia serves traditional Neapolitan pizzas baked in an imported Acunto oven. And of course in Barre, where so many Italians immigrated, the Societa di Mutuo Soccorso provides community support, and the Vermont Salumi and Alimentari Roscini Market keeps us fed with some of the best cured meats in the State.

Some Italian philosophies have also made their way to Vermont. The Slow Food movement, founded by Carlo Petrini in Turin, Italy, found a welcoming home in our State less than 10 years after its conception. The practices of growing and producing good, clean, and fair food certainly weren't new to Vermonters, but Slow Food Vermont has become an important part of our local food economy.

I am proud to be a member of VICA and so grateful for the rich culture that Italian Americans have fostered in Vermont. The Green Mountain appreciation for artisanal products created with craftsmanship and traditional methods will always remind me of my Italian ancestors. I look forward to being back in Vermont, breaking bread and sharing wine, with this incredible community.

``We the Italians'' recently interviewed VICA President Lisa DeNatale. Her comments so resonated with me. I recognize many of the businesses, friends and communities she references. Even when far from Vermont and at work in Washington, these kinds of interviews take me home.

I ask unanimous consent that the recent interview with Lisa DeNatale be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, in Vermont, the general store is the epicenter of a community. It is where people not only buy their groceries and newspapers, but also tools and hardware, mittens and hats, axes and chainsaws, gas for their cars, and too many other things to name. But just as important, general stores are where Vermonters meet their neighbors, and when the weather is good, pass the time and talk about their families, things going on in town, or the state of the world.

Marcelle and I have been to just about every general store in Vermont, and each one has its own history and character. One of them, Dan & Whit's, stands out. Located in Norwich about halfway up the eastern side of the State bordering on the Connecticut River, the store that became Dan & Whit's has been operating since 1891. It was originally called Merrill's Store, and the old Merrill's sign is still affixed to the front. The same neon clock, mounted high on the front of the store's facade, has told the time to the town since the 1950s. Made by the Electric Neon Clock Co. in Cleveland, it was recently restored and made energy efficient.

In 1955, Dan Fraser and Whit Hicks, who had both worked at the store for over 20 years, bought it from Mr. Merrill. Since then, Dan & Whit's has been open for business 365 days a year, including a half day on Christmas and a half day on Thanksgiving. Dan and Whit ran the store as partners, and Dan's wife Eliza, known to all as ``Bunnie'', did the bookkeeping in the raised office near the stationery and greeting cards until Whit retired and sold out in 1972.

Dan, who from what I am told hardly took a day off during all those years, retired in 1993, and turned the management of the store over to his sons George and Jack, and their sister Jane pitched in off and on. George's wife Susan took over Bunnie's job in the office, which hadn't changed in decades, except the typewriter was replaced by a computer. Ownership of the store is currently shared between George and his two sons Dan and Matt. Dan, after a 14-year career as a special education teacher, has taken over the day-to-day management.

Most townspeople have an account, so they can simply sign the register and pay the bill at the end of the month. At no charge for local calls, anyone can use the push-button phone with its long cord by the ice machine, and before cell phones, it was a vital link from the magical abundance of the store to the outside world: ``Do we need anything at Dan & Whit's?''

There is a reason why the sign in the store window says, ``If we don't have it, you don't need it,'' because when you walk in and keep walking, the store never seems to end. Dan & Whit's has got absolutely everything, at least everything a person could reasonably want or need. There is fresh fruit and vegetables, a selection of wines, kitchen utensils, bins of nails and boxes of screws, fishing tackle, ladders and rakes, paint, bags of horse feed, maple syrup and candy, toys, ice cream scooped on the premises in summertime, home-brewed beer, bright orange hunting caps, snow boots, plumbing and electrical supplies, shovels and wheelbarrows, wood stoves, birdseed, the local and national newspapers, a deli, gasoline pumps and an electric vehicle charging station, and lots more. The place is kept warm in the winter by a wood- fired furnace in the basement, requiring cords and cords of wood-- delivered, split, and stacked behind the Frasers' homes, and there are solar panels on the roof. Dan & Whit's has long been a favored stop for hikers on the Appalachian Trail, which passes through the center of Norwich.

Over the years, Dan & Whit's has hired local high school students to run the cash registers, and there was a time not that long ago when the employees who stocked the shelves and helped you find what you were looking for were long-timers like Larry Smith, who worked there for over 50 years.

Recently, like so many other businesses in our State and around the country, it has been hard to find help. In fact, Dan & Whit's was facing the real possibility of closing, which would have been devastating for the people of Norwich, as well as countless others who come there to shop, as well as former residents of Norwich who stop at the store just to be sure that it is the same as it always was.

As many have remarked, Dan & Whit's is the heart of Norwich, and losing it would have changed everything. I can't imagine Norwich without Dan & Whit's, and I suspect just about everyone who knows the store feels the same way. Real estate listings for property sales in the town include the distance from Dan & Whit's. Hundreds of notices are along the wall by the entrance: dog lost, secondhand items for sale, yoga lessons, a free concert, snow plowing. It all happens at the general store.

Fortunately, but not surprisingly, when word got out that the store might close, the people of Norwich came to the rescue, and Dan & Whit's has not lost a day of business. I want to add my thanks to Dan and the volunteers who saved the heart of Norwich. They have reminded us of what is best about Vermont and, in doing so, have set an example for people everywhere.

I ask unanimous consent that a piece written on December 7 by Robert Reich, former U.S. Secretary of Labor, be printed in the Record.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, the House came together with the Senate to raise the debt limit, which I think was good because another closedown of our government would have been disastrous. So I am proud, as President pro tempore, to sign the joint resolution that raises the debt limit, and that will go now to the President. The Speaker signed it, I have signed it, and now the President will be able to sign the bill. I was very, very proud to do that.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I would like to take a moment to recognize Xusana Davis, who delivered the keynote address for Vermont's 24th Annual Women's Economic Opportunity Conference earlier this year. Each year, Marcelle and I host this conference to bring together Vermonters to learn how to navigate, grow, and succeed in today's workplace. While public health concerns led to an online conference this year, the dedication of the women who participated shone through. I hope the participants were as inspired by Ms. Davis's words as I was.

Xusana Davis is Vermont's first Executive Director of Racial Equity and was appointed in 2019 by Vermont Governor Phil Scott. In her position as the Director of Racial Equity, she works with Vermont agencies and communities to address systemic racial disparities, ensures the State's operations meet its equity goals and objectives, and guides policy on equity issues. She offered an insightful view of how we can all advance equity in our communities and offered her remarks with grace and eloquence.

Ms. Davis's leadership comes at a time when we continue to see great need for equity in the workplace. The pandemic has worsened preexisting disparities that have effected women, especially those who identify with historically marginalized communities. As Ms. Davis emphasizes in her speech, we must all work to promote equity as we collectively participate in our Nation's economic recovery. I would like to share her inspiring words by submitting them for inclusion in the Congressional Record in the hopes that we may all take her message to heart.

I ask unanimous consent to have them printed in the Record.

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

Madam President, I know many Senators will be speaking further on this floor about one of the most distinguished Senators, certainly, I have had the honor to serve with, and that is Bob Dole, the Senator from Kansas, a former majority leader.

We will hear, as we should, of his bravery, courageous nature in World War II, how he overcame the horrific injuries received to go on to a life of service--continuous service for the State of Kansas.

We have so many wonderful memories of him, how he and the Democratic leader would meet in person or by phone several times a day, the comments they made about each other. You could always take his word. He never surprised me. That is the way he was. He was the way a Senator should be. He always kept his word.

But I also think of the personal things. He went to Europe, to Italy, to represent President Ronald Reagan on D-Day. President Reagan was going to be in Normandy, and he asked Senator Dole to go over and represent him in Italy, and there would be several Congressional Medal of Honor recipients on board the plane.

I was honored that he wanted to make it a bipartisan trip, and he asked me and my wife Marcelle to join him on the trip to Italy. The reason I mention the trip is that these Congressional Medal of Honor recipients--all for enormous bravery. They, so typical of Congressional Medal of Honor recipients, did not brag about what they did. They were just so honored to talk to Senator Dole about what he did.

Senator Dole tried to be very modest about his exploits. He talked to them about those exploits of theirs that brought about the receipt of the Congressional Medal of Honor. He would

brush it off, but they would ask: Senator Dole, what about this and what about that? And all the way through, he was great, a sense of humor, self-deprecating. Everybody on that plane realized this was a true hero of that war.

I will speak more later on, but he was a good friend.

I was honored to join Senator Pat Roberts to speak about Senator Dole when he received the Congressional Gold Medal. I told him what an honor it was that he asked me to speak. Certainly, when I think back on my years here in the Senate, that is one of the highest honors I received, to have this man whom I admired, I liked, was my friend, to ask me to speak for him. I also felt that there were so many others who were probably even far better prepared to speak for him. I felt the honor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I thank the distinguished leader for his words and his statement about our friend Bob Dole. I also agree with him in that we have to stay here and get this work done.

Madam President, as someone who has observed the evolution of relations between the United States and Cuba for nearly 50 years, particularly since I first traveled there in 1999, I find the situation between our two countries today bewildering, tragic, and exasperating.

Bewildering, because senior Administration officials--who have publicly and privately acknowledged that the 60-year policy of unilateral U.S. sanctions, isolation, and threats has failed to achieve any of its objectives and instead has hurt the Cuban people--have

nevertheless adopted that same failed policy as their own.

Tragic, because the policy has emboldened Cuba's hard-liners who have cracked down even more on citizens who dare to peacefully protest about shortages of food, medicine, and electricity, and against government repression. And it has exacerbated the crisis that has engulfed the island due to the COVID pandemic and the government's dysfunctional economic policies.

Exasperating, because anyone who understands Cuba could have predicted what has happened since the Trump Administration reversed the Obama Administration's policy of engagement and would have taken steps to mitigate it. Instead, the current policy is making the situation even worse.

For the past ten months, I have urged the White House to not repeat past mistakes when it comes to our relations with Cuba's government and the Cuban people and to pursue a policy based on our longterm national interests. I deeply regret that has not yet happened.

Instead, this administration's policy, so far, has been dictated by a tiny but vocal constituency in this country that has always opposed U.S. engagement with Cuba. It is a policy that history has shown is doomed to fail.

Currently, the United States and Cuba have diplomatic relations, but to what end? There is no meaningful diplomacy being conducted, and our Embassy in Havana and Cuba's Embassy in Washington are barely functioning. Consular operations have ceased. The dialogues we had with the Cuban Government on issues of mutual interest, from law enforcement to human rights to public health--dialogues the Trump Administration cut off--have not resumed. How can this be in our national interest?

While Cuba remains on the list of state sponsors of terrorism due to a last-minute, politically driven, vindictive, and factually indefensible decision of the Trump administration, we continue to have diplomatic relations. Is this not irreconcilable? And whatever became of the administration's review of that deeply flawed designation which was promised months ago?

Cultural, scientific, and educational exchanges have largely ended. This is neither justified nor in our national interest. The COVID pandemic provided an obvious opportunity for cooperation between American and Cuban scientists, but that opportunity, like so many others over the years, was squandered due to politics, distrust, and spite.

The U.S. Treasury Department continues to block remittances from Cuban Americans to their relatives on the island even though it is their money, not Treasury's. Shouldn't Cuban Americans have the right to decide for themselves whether to send their own money to their relatives rather than having that decision dictated by the White House? Remittances help Cubans be less dependent on the government, improve their standard of living, and provide the seed capital for Cuba's growing private sector, which, today, comprises one-third of the Cuban workforce.

The number of remittances siphoned off by the Cuban Government is a small fraction of what some have falsely claimed, and is no more than what other governments charge. Let's base our policy on facts rather than on rumor and what plays well domestically.

And Cuba, just 90 miles from Florida, is the only country besides North Korea where travel by Americans is severely restricted despite our common history and cultural traditions. It is as ridiculous as it is self-defeating.

The White House has repeatedly said that ``democracy and human rights'' are at the core of its policy toward Cuba. Those are aspirations--laudable aspirations--but they are not a policy. We all want to see a Cuba where political freedom and fundamental rights, especially freedom of expression, are respected and where an independent judiciary protects the right of due process. Those rights are severely restricted in Cuba today, as they are in many countries, including some recipients of hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. aid.

Where we disagree is on how best to support the Cuban people's struggle to obtain those rights.

I have asked, but I have no idea what the administration's practical objectives are in Cuba or how it proposes to achieve them. After being told 6 months ago that the State Department was conducting a review of its policy, we have yet to see any change from the policy it inherited from the Trump administration a year ago. What happened to the review? What did it say?

Several administration officials have justified the continuation of President Trump's punishing sanctions because of the public protests in Cuba on July 11. They say ``everything changed'' on July 11.

Cuba is changing. Access to social media and cell phones has dramatically increased. Attitudes among the younger generation are changing. The Cuban Government is making historic, albeit hesitant, reforms to relax restrictions on private businesses. President Obama's opening to Cuba, which lasted only 2 years was instrumental in helping to bring about these changes.

Rather than acknowledge the unprecedented progress during that short period, those who defend a policy of sanctions say Obama' s policy of openness failed because Cuba remains a repressive, one-party state. They completely ignore that the same was true for 50 years before Obama and for the 5 years since Obama. When it comes to helping to bring positive changes to the people of Cuba, President Obama wins hand down.

But, today, the United States is, once again, on the sidelines, clinging to an outdated policy that history has shown will not succeed. In fact, it is having the opposite effect by denying opportunities to both Cubans and Americans.

U.S. policy toward Cuba is replete with contradictions, hypocrisy, arrogance, and missed opportunities. Cuba is an impoverished country that poses no threat to the United States; yet we treat it as if it does largely because of our own actions. While we maintain an intricate web of unilateral sanctions that every nation in this hemisphere opposes, the Russians and Chinese are aggressively filling the vacuum as anyone who visits Cuba today can readily see.

Engaging with a government whose policies are anathema to our own does not bestow legitimacy on that government's leaders or acceptance of its repressive policies. If that were the case, we should cease engaging not only with Cuba but with dozens of governments around the world, including several U.S. partners, Saudi Arabia and Egypt being obvious examples.

We condemn the arbitrary arrests, sham trials, laws that criminalize civil society, and the mistreatment and imprisonment of political dissidents. These abuses are common to many countries, and we apply targeted sanctions, and we restrict aid. But, for purely domestic political reasons, we continue to impose a vast web of sweeping sanctions against Cuba even when the administration knows they have not worked.

I have said it many times: Our policy toward Cuba needs to be guided--first and foremost--by what is in our national interest, not by what is in the interest of a tiny domestic constituency and not by making demands that we know the Cubans won't submit to.

Engaging with Cuba affords U.S. diplomats and American citizens the opportunity to build relationships with Cuban counterparts and identify issues of common interest on which to make progress. We saw that during the Obama administration despite some who could not bring themselves to admit it.

Over time, that is how we can then begin to address the more difficult issues that divide us, knowing that it is the Cuban people, not the United States, who will ultimately determine their country's future.

This administration has had 10 months to demonstrate that continuing the failed Trump policy of trying to bludgeon the Cuban authorities into submission can produce positive results. There is not a shred of evidence that it can. It never has. Are we going to waste another year and another after that?

I hope not, but that is what will happen if the White House does not change course and show the kind of thoughtful leadership on Cuba that we saw during the Obama administration and that was welcomed by a large majority of the American people. As Einstein said and so many have repeated, ``Insanity

is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.'' This administration can do better. It needs to do better.

With that, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, it is my hope that soon the Senate might be able to vote on a bipartisan agreement to keep the government open and funded through February 18.

I know both parties are working on that agreement right now. I wish those who are doing it good luck. I have certainly been working hard with the Appropriations Committee to help on that as have others. In fact, the only thing

worse than running the government under a continuing resolution, a CR, is a government shutdown. A shutdown only hurts the American people. We know last time we had one, it wasted billions in taxpayer dollars.

And with the agreement that I anticipate, I am glad that the bill will include critical funding to support Afghan refugees as we help them get resettled here in the United States. These brave women and men were our allies through 20 years of war. We have an obligation to support them as they begin their new lives.

I am not giving this speech as some kind of a victory lap. We are 2 months into the fiscal year, and we appear no closer to getting an agreement on full-year appropriations bills.

Now, if we vote on this, which I hope we will soon, we are buying time to complete these negotiations, and we have to complete these negotiations. It is not a matter of whether we should; we have to. But in order to complete these negotiations, we have to begin them. We have to have both sides represented at the table. My Republican colleagues, to this day, have not come to the table. I have been talking to many of them, and I am hoping they will because the American people deserve better than that from their elected officials. They expect to see both Democrats and Republicans sitting down negotiating--no matter how we vote in the end, that we are working on coming to something that will be voted on.

On October 18, nearly a month and a half ago, Senate Democrats released a comprehensive offer in an effort to jump-start these negotiations. We wanted to let all Senators--both parties but especially our Republican colleagues and the American people--know our values. Since then, it has been very, very quiet. We haven't heard any response.

Let me tell you about our offer. I believe the offer was fair. I talked with Senators across the political spectrum. We provided a 5- percent increase for defense programs compared to last fiscal year and a 13-percent increase for all other programs. I took that 5 percent because it is exactly the amount passed by a 25-to-1 vote by the Senate Armed Services Committee. It certainly is significantly higher than the 1.7-percent increase for defense proposed by the Biden administration, and the amount is lower than the 16 percent the administration proposed for nondefense programs, even though I would like that 16 percent. But it is called compromise. We took from one; we gave to the other. It is compromise. It is how you get things done. Nobody gets every single thing they want, even if you are chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee.

As I mentioned earlier, the 5 percent wasn't something I picked out of thin air. It was the exact amount contained in the fiscal year 2022 National Defense Authorization Act, NDAA, that is before the Senate this week and again reported from the Senate Armed Services Committee. I think it was 24 to 1, but it was overwhelming.

The work on that bill has fallen due to Republican obstructionism over a series of amendments. To be clear though, none of the amendments Republicans are fighting for on the NDAA would increase total spending in the bill. That is because the 5-percent increase has bipartisan, bicameral support--Republicans and Democrats, both in the House and the Senate. That is the percentage they agreed to. Republicans unanimously endorsed the 5-percent increase when the NDAA was marked up in the Senate Armed Services Committee. And the 5-percent increase passed overwhelmingly in the House when they considered the NDAA over 2 months ago.

I have been here for 47 years. This is as close to consensus as we can get--unanimous and near-unanimous votes. So I have to ask, why not take yes for an answer? If I was a cynical person, I would think this delay was deliberate. If I was a cynical person, I would think this delay was meant to drive us into a full-year continuing resolution. If I was a cynical person, I would think that because some in the Republican Party have even expressed this desire out loud.

But for a party that claims to care about our Nation's defense, I suggest they do the math. A full-year CR would not only reduce defense spending instead of increasing it, it would reduce it by $37 billion compared to the levels set forth in the NDAA that they voted for unanimously. Actually, it would cut defense spending below last year's level.

So stop the hyperbole. Stop the rhetoric. Deal with the reality. I have to ask those Republicans who are advocating for a full-year CR is their support for our Nation's security merely political theater? I hope not because what they are asking for is a tremendous cut in defense, not an increase.

But also I look at the nondefense area. The impact a full-year CR would have on American families in all corners of this country is equally unthinkable. Housing, education, childcare, critical healthcare programs--every one of these are at risk under a full-year continuing resolution. I can't possibly imagine that any Senator of either party is going to go home and say: Oh, I support huge cuts in housing, education, childcare, critical healthcare programs. I cannot possibly believe that is an outcome the other side would endorse, but that is what they are asking for in a CR.

Every week, it seems I receive letters from advocacy groups and industry associations--both those normally associated with Republican positions and those normally associated with Democratic positions--and they all say the same thing. They detail the problems that would come from the full-year CR and ask us to do our job and enact full-year bills. Among those, they include the National Defense Industrial Association, the Aerospace Industries Association, numerous veterans groups--all groups we say we support.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that four of these letters be printed in the Record at the end of my remarks.

These four letters and others expressing concern can be found online at https://www.appropriations.senate.gov/download/ advocacy-and-industry-group-letters.

Let me be clear. Refusing to come to the negotiating table undermines national security and inhibits our ability to invest in American families, impedes our capability to respond to the coronavirus and what we now see as emerging variants--which I am sure the Presiding Officer hears in his State, I hear in my State, and I guarantee you in the other 48 States, every Senator is hearing about that concern.

But also there are 100 of us. We are elected to represent the whole country, 325 million Americans. We are elected to do our job. If we don't do it, it is irresponsible. That is the reason we are here today kicking the can down the road another 2 months.

Let's stand and vote yes or no on these issues. We have a job to do. The bill we will soon vote on, which I expect will be coming over soon from the House, gives us roughly 2 months to do it, and that is plenty of time.

But I would ask the Republican leadership to step up and engage, and I hope they will do it in the next few weeks.

I am prepared any day--any day, any weekend, any evening, any morning, whenever--if we could do this. Otherwise, we are going to be back here February 18, and the American people, no matter what party they belong to, are going to say: What are you folks doing? Where is this legislation?

So when the bill comes over, I urge my colleagues to vote aye on the bill, but I urge my Republican colleagues to work with me and with the House to ensure that we do not have to pass another one in February.

I have talked with Members of the Republican Party and the Democratic Party. They will tell me privately they are willing to work, they want to work, and they want to get it done. I appreciate that, but now is the time to step up and do it. I think we can. I hope we will.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I will be very brief.

I will note that, as chairman of the Appropriations Committee, this bill was negotiated on a bipartisan-bicameral basis to keep the government open and operating until February 18.

I urge every Member to vote ``aye.'' We have to pass it tonight, but I warn and remind every Senator: It is not a substitute for doing our work. We have to use the next 2 months to negotiate and enact full-year appropriations bills. I hope my Republican friends will come to the table to negotiate toplines. The Democrats have made a fair offer, a strong offer, and we need a response.

So I thank Vice Chairman Shelby for his cooperation and hard work on this bill. I look forward to working with him, as I did earlier today, and will continue to until we get an agreement on a topline and all 12 appropriations bills by February 18.

Let's get to work and show the country the Senate can do its work.

I yield the floor.

Vote on H.R. 6119

Madam President, in June of this year, Egyptian prosecutors opened a criminal investigation concerning human rights defender Hossam Bahgat, in relation to a December 2020 tweet criticizing Egypt's flawed parliamentary elections. The acts he has been accused of would not be considered crimes in the United States, nor in any other country that respects freedom of expression.

Hossam Bahgat is the executive director and founder of one of the most respected Egyptian human rights organizations, the Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights, EIPR. His work has been recognized around the world, and in April 2021, Mr. Bahgat met with Secretary of State Blinken as part of a group of leading human rights activists. Other EIPR employees have also been targeted, along with many others as part of the government's crackdown on independent civil society organizations. In February of 2020, EIPR researcher Patrick George Zaki was forcibly disappeared and reportedly tortured. A year ago, three of EIPR's senior employees, Gasser Abdel-Razek, Karim Ennarah, and Mohamed Basheer, were also arbitrarily detained, effectively silencing them.

Mr. Bahgat faces up to 3 years in prison and almost $20,000 in fines for reportedly doing nothing more than expressing views the Egyptian authorities consider to be ``insulting'' or ``false news''. This is not the first time Mr. Bahgat has been targeted for his courageous and important reporting. In 2015, he was detained for 3 days after reporting on officers convicted of planning a coup and was only released when the case received international attention from human rights groups and the United Nations.

I have consistently spoken out about human rights in Egypt and in other countries, especially when governments crack down on human rights activists. The State Department publicly expressed concern in July of this year. Today, I am adding my voice to others who have raised concerns about Mr. Bahgat's wrongful detention. A verdict in his case may be imminent. I hope the Egyptian Government will abandon its persecution of Hossam Bahgat and his fellow human rights defenders. Like the Department of State, I have been urging the Egyptian authorities to make progress on human rights so our two countries can expand cooperation in other important areas. Further attempts to silence Mr. Bahgat and the other EIPR employees will needlessly impede those efforts.

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished majority leader for his comments. He and I have been friends for decades. I also acknowledge the distinguished Secretary of the Senate, who is here this morning.

Mr. President, eight times the voters of Vermont--who are my neighbors, my friends, my family--have had the great faith to send me to the U.S. Senate to represent them. Yesterday, I told those neighbors and friends and my family that I would not run for reelection.

I told the Vermonters who have humbled me since my first election to the Senate in 1974 that I will leave this seat at the conclusion of my term. It is a decision I do not come to lightly but one in which Marcelle and I find great peace.

In the last nearly 47 years, the Senate has become a family to both Marcelle and me. Here we found friends, some of the best of friends, and relationships that will and have lasted a lifetime. But the Senate has always been where I have come to fight for Vermont, a State that has been my home since birth, the place where I met Marcelle, where we started our family, and to which in early 2023, we will return for good. It is time to go home.

Here is the thing about the Senate. Here is where small States like Vermont have not just a seat at the table but a voice at the table. For decades, I have been privileged to fight for Vermont, from the small grown-in-Vermont ideas like the revitalization of our historic downtowns to farm to school programs, to organic farming--all of which started small and have become increasingly popular across the country-- and to Vermont's trailblazing approach to criminal justice reforms and victim advocacy, to taking Vermonters' outward view that our great Green Mountain State is open and welcome to anyone, including

those fleeing desperate situations in far-off places. On all of these issues and so many more, it has been an honor to represent the great State--the greatest State--of Vermont in the U.S. Senate.

I am going to have more to say about the challenges, the rewards, and, I am afraid, some disappointments over the last 46 years at a later time. Now I want to celebrate the accomplishments that, together with my constituents, we have achieved for Vermont over the last decades.

I want to recognize the work still to do this year in Congress.

I want to thank the unbelievably wonderful women and men on my staff and my staff throughout the years. They have steadfastly stood by me in our shared goals to deliver for Vermonters and for Vermont and for the country.

I want to thank my family--my children, grandchildren, my parents, and Marcelle's parents who were here with me to start this journey in the first Senate election who I know watch over the entire Leahy family today. I think of how my immigrant grandparents and great-grandparents and Marcelle's immigrant parents, how they must feel if they are looking down.

And, of course, Marcelle, my closest friend, my partner. The last couple of years have been challenging in ways we could never have imagined. But she was with me from the first moment of the first campaign, and we made our decision together and decided it is time to go back home.

Now, we both look forward to the hard work the coming year will bring with the same conviction that brought us to Washington in the first place; that the brighter horizons of tomorrow hold the hope of the future and the privilege I feel to serve in this body and trying to guide our wonderful country toward the future.

As I said, I will speak more about this later, but, Mr. President, I thank my colleagues.

I yield the floor.

(Applause, Senators rising.)

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, we are now 4 weeks into the fiscal year. The Federal Government--the most powerful nation on Earth--is running on autopilot, and we only have 4 weeks until the government shuts down unless Congress takes action.

And it is not a theoretical exercise. The actions we take, or don't take, in this Chamber with respect to the fiscal year 2022 appropriations bills affect people's lives and also the direction of this Nation.

These bills provide for our national defense, help educate our Nation's children, provide medical care for our veterans, ensure that we have clean air and water, invest in science, and provide a social safety net for our Nation's most vulnerable populations.

Now, we can, and we should, do our job and finish these bills in the coming weeks, and we should be ready to go. I mean, 2 weeks ago, I made public nine Senate appropriations bills. When you combine this with the three bills the Senate Appropriations Committee marked up way back in August, all 12 bills have been released. The House has marked up all of their bills, and all but three of them have already passed the House.

But in order to finish our work, we need to have an agreed-upon top line that has been worked out in a bipartisan and bicameral basis-- something that has been done so many times in the past. We can't finalize bills until we know how much we are able to spend. And I have been calling for these negotiations for months. But we need all the party to come to the table. It takes both Republicans and Democrats to strike a deal.

Now, Democrats have already made a fair offer. My Republican colleagues made clear to us that they believed the President's proposal for a 1.7-percent increase for defense programs was inadequate. I thought it struck the right balance, as did many of my colleagues.

But this institution is built on compromise. So in the Senate posted bill, I included a 5-percent increase for defense instead of the 1.7 percent the administration had proposed. The 5-percent increase is based on the funding level included in the National Defense Authorization Act, NDAA.

Now, the Senate Armed Services Committee voted on that. Do you know what the vote was?--25 to 1, in favor of that 5-percent increase. Every single Senate Republican on the Committee supported this level of funding. The House bill contains the same 5-percent increase, and it passed the House Chamber, 316 to 113.

In order to increase the defense number and stay within the top line established in the FY 2022 budget resolution, I reduced the amount for nondefense programs from President Biden's proposed 16-percent increase, which I would have preferred--but I reduced it to a 13- percent increase. That is how negotiations work. Each side has to give something.

Now, having offered the Republican-endorsed spending level for defense, have they taken yes for an answer?

No.

Have they taken time for a counteroffer?

No.

Instead, they seem intent on driving us toward a full-year continuing resolution.

If I had been here a long time and was a cynical person, which I am not, I would be worried that delay was a political calculation to tie the hands of the Biden administration and thwart his agenda--governing under a long-term continuing resolution is difficult, and they know it. But this Vermonter tries not to be cynical.

But I would remind, from a practical point of view, the stakes are too high to play politics with the practical budget. This is not something we should play politics with because the consequences for the American people are too great. The impacts of a full-year CR are too onerous for the country to bear. That is unquestionably true for those who claim to care about defense programs and national security. And you would think that fact all by itself would bring all parties to the negotiating table.

A full-year CR would not only reduce the defense spending by $37 billion compared to the Senate bill I posted, it would actually cut defense spending below last year's levels. Since a CR freezes programs at last year's level, certain programs would be overfunded and others would be underfunded. The Department of Defense would be unable to shift enough money around within their transfer authority to correct the imbalances, resulting in billions of unspent dollars and even more unmet priorities. And you can only imagine the waste and confusion that would occur.

With money tied up in outdated priorities, the United States will struggle to meet the challenges and threats of today. While the U.S. is no longer in Afghanistan, a CR would revive the Overseas Contingency Operations, OCO, to the tune of $69 billion at DOD. And that is the account, of course, meant to fund wartime activities. It would also provide--just think of this for a moment--$3.3 billion to train and arm the now-defunct Afghan security forces. In other words, a continuing resolution would have $3.3 billion to train and arm a no longer existing Afghan security force.

Now, while we are paying for a war we are not actually fighting, DOD may be forced to reduce the end-strength of our military just so they can pay our troops and civilian personnel the 2.7-percent pay raise they so rightly deserve, that is set to go into effect on January 1, 2022. In other words, the Pentagon may have to lay off soldiers to find the money for a pay raise under a continuing resolution, while money is tied up on a war we are not even fighting. That makes no sense. That makes no sense.

Just think of this: We lay off soldiers so we can pay for a pay raise, because we have our money tied up in a war that we are not fighting. I mean, Kafka couldn't think of something this crazy.

Now, most Members in this Chamber would agree that China is one of our biggest threats. Reflecting that reality, the President proposed over $66 billion in military investments to counter the growing influence of China. None of the new capabilities included in the defense appropriations bill would be funded under a continuing resolution.

So we can say, boy, we are going to gear up with China; however, the Senate can't get around to vote on it.

Now, many Senators have come to the floor in recent weeks to ask that we provide an additional $1 billion for Iron Dome. I wonder if they are aware that if we have a CR, Iron Dome doesn't get a billion dollars; it gets $73 million.

Given these facts--and these are only a few of many examples--I am mystified why there doesn't seem to be any urgency on the other side to solve these problems. Republican Members have been quick to criticize Democratic leadership for not bringing the NDAA to the Senate floor for consideration more quickly, but that is an authorizing bill. And when it comes to actually funding the Defense--not just authorizing, but actually putting the money there--they won't even come to the table. Yet, on the very same day, I was told that the Republican leadership wants to have a full-year continuing resolution that would cut defense funding.

They are out here saying, Why aren't you passing an increase in the Defense spending--but, oh, by the way, we want a bill that would cut the Defense funding?

So I would ask them, which is it? Is one aim for the TV soundbites? But if rhetoric doesn't match the reality, start being honest with the American people.

If we fail to get a deal on full-year appropriations bills, our veterans also lose out. Due to increased demands for community care, under a continuing resolution, the VA will not have sufficient funds to cover medical care for veterans. These are men and women who served our country. Think of all the praise we have had, all the greetings as the great men and women come back from wars, many suffering all kinds of injuries. ``We will never forget our veterans.'' Oh, yes, we will because we won't stand up and pass the money they need. Veterans deserve better than this.

Our domestic priorities will also suffer under a continuing resolution. The fiscal year 2022 Senate bills include historic increases to care for and educate our Nation's children, combat climate change, build and renovate affordable housing, improve our infrastructure, and continue to combat the pandemic, which is still with us. None of these increases--none of them--will occur under a full-year CR. We will be forced to operate at last year's levels in a country that now has been transformed by a global pandemic. How irresponsible is that?

For example, in our bill, we provide critical funding increases for mental health and substance abuse. These funds are desperately needed in every State in this country as rates of anxiety and depression have soared during the COVID-19 pandemic. Drug overdose deaths are expected to reach their highest levels to date. But in a continuing resolution, we say: Tough. You are on your own. We don't have the money.

Under a continuing resolution, funding at the National Institutes of Health will stagnate, leaving us behind in critical advancements in medical research at a time I think we need it more than anytime in my life.

The fiscal year 2022 Senate bills include critical investments to combat climate change. That would disappear under a CR. A CR says we will have complacency, not bold action.

The next few days and weeks are critical. I hope the American people realize what is at stake. I ask our colleagues on the other side of the aisle to join us in negotiating a path forward.

It is not an exaggeration to say that the choice we face with these appropriations bills goes to the very heart of why we are here. We can either come together the way we used to, the way democracy is supposed to, and make our government work for the American people or we can become the branch of government where, instead of governing, the minority party defines its role as preventing the Congress from doing its job so it can then falsely blame the majority party.

There have been around 2,000 Senators who have had the privilege of serving this country since it began. I served with over 400 of them-- more than 20 percent of all the Senators in the Nation's history. I remember Republicans and Democrats could work together, not for their party's interest but for the country's interest.

There are only 100 of us. We should be the conscience of the Nation. We should be working together to protect the Nation. But I fear that we have political gamesmanship, and it is not just about these bills but the relevance of Congress itself today and for the future, whichever party is in the minority. If that becomes the norm, it is going to be impossible to turn the clock back.

We need a top-line deal. Republicans need to come to the table and make a comprehensive offer. Those of us on this side of the aisle are ready to work on behalf of the American people. I ask our Republican colleagues to join us in working for the American people.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I thank the distinguished chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee for his comments.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I am pleased that yesterday, the Senate confirmed Adrienne Wojciechowski to be the Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations at the U.S. Department of Agriculture--USDA--a role for which is eminently qualified. For more than a decade, Adrienne has been an indispensable staff member in the Senate, dedicated to supporting farmers, growing our rural economies, and tackling climate change and land stewardship challenges. Adrienne has earned deep respect from on both sides of the aisle.

Adrienne first joined my staff in 2007 and quickly became a key member of my legislative team on topics ranging from agriculture to water quality to climate change. Adrienne was immediately involved in 2008 farm bill negotiations and played an integral staff role in negotiating substantial portions of the 2014 and 2018 farm bills.

Over the years, I could always count on Adrienne's persistence, attention to detail, and sound judgement. Adrienne brought these same gifts to her work with USDA partners in Vermont, carefully building trusting relationships that enabled my legislative work to be informed by on-the-ground, State-level delivery of USDA programs.

Most recently, Adrienne has served as a professional staff member on the Senate Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee, managing Senators' diverse spending priorities in the annual appropriations cycle and negotiating bipartisan final bills.

I have served on the Senate Agriculture Committee since I first came to the Senate. There is an old saying that Vermont without farms would still be a nice place, but it wouldn't be Vermont. While she is not a native Vermonter herself, it has been a pleasure to see Adrienne form such deep relationships with Vermont's agrarian traditions, our farmers, and our landscape. Whether it was navigating USDA bureaucracy or rebuilding a barn after a fire, farmers and the agriculture community in Vermont knew that a call to my office would get Adrienne on the case.

Although Senate staff work behind the scenes and their contributions can go unheralded, the impact of Adrienne's dedication, her contributions to conservation policy, farm viability, and farmland protection programs can truly be seen on the landscape of Vermont and across the country. On behalf of all Vermonters, I thank Adrienne Wojciechowski for her service to the U.S. Senate and wish her the best of luck as she joins the Biden administration.