Floor Statements

I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Smith), and the Senator from Michigan (Ms. Stabenow) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Kaine), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Smith), and the Senator from Michigan (Ms. Stabenow) are necessarily absent.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the Senate's need to swiftly confirm any U.S. attorney nominees.

Two days ago, I came to the floor to request unanimous consent for the Senate to take up and confirm four pending U.S. attorney nominations that were being held up by one U.S. Senator, the junior Senator from Ohio, Senator Vance.

Two days ago, he said:

My position is we should have a full Senate vote on each

one of these . . . Justice Department nominations.

He also said:

[I]f it's so important to confirm these folks, bring them

to the floor for a vote.

But now that is exactly what he is attempting to prevent today.

For decades, the Senate confirmed U.S. attorney nominees of both political parties by voice vote or what is called unanimous consent in the Senate after they had been reported by the Judiciary Committee. Before the beginning of the Biden administration, the Senate had not required a rollcall vote on the confirmation of a U.S. attorney since 1975--almost 50 years. In fact, during the Trump administration, Senate Democrats allowed every one of Trump's U.S. attorney nominees--all 85-- to move through the committee and be confirmed by voice vote, unanimous consent.

Let me tell you, as a Democrat in those days, I knew what I was getting with these U.S. attorneys working for Jeff Sessions, former Attorney General Jeff Sessions, and William Barr. I knew what was going to happen, but I respected the tradition of the Senate.

Now Senate Republicans have decided to change the rules and are blocking the confirmation of these critical law enforcement officers.

I have faced this before. Republicans had said they were going to object to U.S. attorneys but fortunately had better thoughts on the subject as time progressed.

Now, this year, the Senator from Ohio has proudly announced that he will--I will quote him, in fact: ``I will hold all [DOJ] nominations. . . . We will grind [the Justice Department] to a halt.''

Grind the Justice Department to a halt.

U.S. attorneys are too important to be used as political pawns in a national debate. They lead our Nation's effort to prosecute violent criminals.

Don't tell me that you are for law and order, but you want to stop criminal prosecutors from being appointed to the job. They lead our Nation's effort to protect our communities from drug trafficking.

I quoted some numbers the other day about drug trafficking and fentanyl deaths in the State of Ohio, the State where one of these U.S. attorneys would be going to work, in the Cleveland area. Ohio runs fourth in the Nation in narcotics deaths, and for the Senate to respond by having one Senator from Ohio stopping the appointment of a criminal prosecutor to go after these cartels or drug gangs is not explainable.

So I offered Senator Vance the opportunity to allow us to schedule confirmation votes on all pending U.S. attorneys. I want to read exactly what he said from the Congressional Record,

which, of course, is the permanent record of the Senate and will be read by future generations.

This was on September 27, 2 days ago. Here is what Senator Vance said:

I am the new guy, and I recognize that I am a little naive

when it comes to matters of the procedures in the U.S.

Senate. But I have had a lot of jobs in my life; and

yesterday we passed one vote and today we have passed zero

votes. The time that we have spent debating whether we should

have unanimous consent over these nominations, we could

actually use to vote on these nominations and end this

charade and call it out for what it is. If we believe that

these nominees must go forward, let's just have a vote on it.

Allow me to scrutinize them. Allow my colleagues to vote them

up or down. That is a totally reasonable thing to ask of this

Chamber and to ask of this leadership; and because of that, I

object.

Well, I accepted his challenge. I took his words to be heartfelt and truthful, that he wanted votes. So today we had two votes on two of the U.S. attorneys, considered by the Senate, which is exactly what the Senator from Ohio asked for.

But there are two more on the calendar that he held up initially. He said on the floor during our debate that these weren't people he was necessarily objecting to but that somebody else in the Senate might be objecting to. I didn't know what that meant, but I wanted to give him the time to find out who that might be. It turns out there is no one else--he is the only objector--even though he said on the record, in the Congressional Record, that all he wanted was a rollcall vote on these nominees.

Well, he is going to get the chance to keep his word that he put in the Congressional Record, and he is going to get a chance to have the vote he asked for. It is only fair. If we did it for the first two, we will do it for the others.

Let me repeat it again. Senator Vance did not only refuse to move these nominees by voice vote, as the Senate has done for decades, he is now backtracking on his own words from 2 days ago and is refusing even to allow rollcalls on these nominees.

This kind of obstructionism is becoming commonplace, I am afraid. If you take a look at this Executive Calendar that we have here, there are pages and pages of military officers who have served this country nobly and honorably who are asking for a simple promotion they are entitled to. They are being held up by another Republican Senator who doesn't want to move forward on this, holding them for 6 months from promotion. Is this the new way of doing business under a MAGA regime? I hope not.

Rebecca Lutzko is nominated to be U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Ohio. She is a longtime Federal prosecutor who has served as assistant U.S. attorney in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Ohio for nearly 18 years. As a Federal prosecutor, she handles cases involving prescription drug trafficking, gun crimes, and corruption. Important? You bet it is.

April Perry is nominated to be U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Illinois. She has significant experience in the private sector and as a Federal prosecutor. She served in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Illinois for over a decade, where she handled narcotics, gang violence, public corruption, and fraud. Important? You bet it is. Ms. Perry specialized in child exploitation prosecutions and spent 6 years as the office's Project Safe Childhood coordinator.

Are you concerned, as I am, about the exploitation of children, the trafficking of children, the terrible sexual abuse that is taking place on the internet? Do you think we ought to have the Department of Justice on that case? Of course we should.

One week ago, Senator Vance was quoted as saying, ``My objection is not to the specific qualifications of these particular individuals who have been nominated.''

So, here, he is not complaining about any of their resumes or their capacity to do the job and do it effectively. His concern--and he said it publicly, so I think I am going to accurately quote him--his concern is that the former President of the United States was indicted, and he is very concerned about a Department of Justice that would even let that happen.

For goodness' sake, things happened in the Department of Justice's activities during the administration of Donald Trump that I objected to, but I didn't stop the appointments of U.S. attorneys under Trump. I didn't stop the people in law enforcement, who are keeping us safe in our communities.

These are ably qualified individuals. I am asking Senator Vance: In good faith, keep your word. What you said in the Congressional Record is a matter of record, and you should stand by your word.

For that reason, I make the following motion: I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations en bloc: Calendar Nos. 314 and 315; that the Senate vote on the nominations en bloc without intervening action or debate; that if confirmed, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action; and that the Senate resume legislative session.

Madam President, it is interesting that we have got a new argument.

Previously, he said: I have no objection to these nominees. I just don't like the process. I want a vote.

I said: Fine. You can have a vote.

Now when we ask for a vote on the two remaining nominees for U.S. attorney, he is finding fault with those individuals.

I hope he will take the time--and I know he is a fair person--to read the record about what Ms. Perry did when she worked for the State's attorney, Kim Foxx. It is true there was a controversial case before her office and that she was the chief ethics officer in the Cook County State's Attorney's Office. She served in that office at the time the Jussie Smollett matter was being investigated, but Ms. Perry' role as chief ethics officer was limited to recommending that State's Attorney Foxx recuse herself and that the office seek the appointment of a special prosecutor.

Notably, Ms. Perry resigned from that office a few weeks after the prosecutors initially agreed to drop the charges against Mr. Smollett. She has never been implicated, and to throw her name into this situation is unfair. I am sure the Senator from Ohio doesn't want to do that.

So listen to what he suggests--and I am glad Senator Reed is on the floor, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee.

Does it sound familiar?

We have a group of people--of nominees--who have come before us who have been considered throughout history in a routine, unanimous consent way, and now the Senator from Ohio says we have to go one by one and have a cloture motion on each one of them. You and I both know, having been here a few years, what that means. It is physically impossible, whether we are talking about officers in the military or U.S. attorney nominees, to say we will just stack them up on the calendar and go through cloture votes, and it is unnecessary.

If we didn't single out a single U.S. attorney nominee in the Trump administration but gave voice votes to all 85, it is an indication of an effort of good will and bipartisanship even when we are suspicious of what the political agenda may be of that Department.

To hold some of these people--the U.S. attorney for his own home State, the city of Cleveland--to hold this person to this kind of scrutiny that goes way beyond anything we usually have been involved in is unfair to her, and it is unfair to the process and the system.

I am going to return to the floor. The Senator from Ohio and I are going to be pretty familiar fixtures on this floor because if you say something in the Congressional Record, as he did--that all he wants is a rollcall, and we offered a rollcall, just as I did, and he denies it over and over--he has some explaining to do.

If he thinks that standing up for the MAGA process here is something the American people admire, I beg to differ with him.

We understand that the Department of Justice has an important job to do to keep us safe in our communities, and for someone to say--for a Senator from the U.S. Senate to say, ``I will hold all [DOJ] nominations. . . . We will grind [the Justice Department] to a halt,'' really? That is your agenda? That is why you came to the Senate?

If the Department of Defense is being ground to a halt because of the promotions of officers and to do the same thing at the Department of Justice, and we are facing a government shutdown because of MAGA Members of the House of Representatives, the American people have a good picture, a good photograph, of the future if we go down one particular path in terms of the future of politics in America.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, it is that time of year again--ending the month of September, starting a new fiscal year. We have a responsibility we accept as Members of Congress to do some things: Answer rollcalls, respond to our constituents, keep the lights on in the Federal Government. The third issue is one which we are contesting this week.

The Senate, I believe, has taken a responsible, thoughtful approach to this. It gets down to basics. There are 51 Democrats, 49 Republicans, effectively, and most measures of consequence require more than a majority vote. So the decision was made by both Senator Schumer and Senator McConnell to put together a continuing resolution, which is a stopgap spending measure, on a bipartisan basis so that we would have bipartisanship as the starting point. They achieved that. They achieved that in a way that surprised a lot of people because we had a procedural vote in the Senate on the Senate bipartisan continuing resolution and 77 Senators voted in favor. Now, 77 Senators in the U.S. Senate is more than just a supermajority; it is a pretty impressive number, and it doesn't happen very often.

On Tuesday evening, the Senate Appropriations Committee chair, Senator Patty Murray of Washington, working with Republican Senator Susan Collins of Maine, released a text of the bipartisan continuing resolution. It spelled out what we think needs to be done to keep the government open and functioning for about 6 or 7 weeks, until November 17, giving us time to negotiate a budget for remainder of the year.

I would quickly add that the efforts of Senator Murray and Senator Collins in the Appropriations Committee leading up to this moment were historic in nature. It has been more than 5 years, I believe, since we have come to the floor and actually debated spending bills and actually amended spending bills on the floor. We usually are faced with short- term spending bills or omnibus bills that combine the entire budget in one massive piece of legislation. But Senators Murray and Collins had us moving in the right direction, a bipartisan direction, and that is evidenced as well in their efforts in this continuing resolution.

This continuing resolution does more than keep the lights on. It includes crucial emergency assistance and program extensions.

It includes $6.5 billion to maintain our commitment to Ukraine and $6 billion to help FEMA respond to federally declared disasters, including one in my State of Illinois, where 20 counties are working to recover from the impact of summer storms.

It would prevent a lapse in funding for critical healthcare efforts, like community healthcare centers. I am sure the Presiding Officer has visited many of these centers in his State. I have in my State.

It really is one of the more amazing products coming out of the Affordable Care Act. I can remember when Senators met at the last minute and demanded that we fund these community healthcare clinics as part of the bill. It was a stroke of genius. It meant that people of limited means would have access to quality medical care. I have said, and it is not political puffery, that if I were seriously ill, I would gladly visit one of these clinics and seek treatment because I think they are that good.

Also, there is the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children. It is one thing to give a speech about families and mothers, mothers surviving pregnancy, and about children, young children, getting off to a strong start in life; it is another thing to put bread on the table. The WIC Program puts bread on the table. In our continuing resolution, we keep the lights on at that Agency. It is the right thing to do.

We would also extend the authorization to the Federal Aviation Administration through December 31. How important is safety in airline travel? Critically important. If you remember the last time there was a threat of shutting down the government, it was the people responsible for regulating and keeping our planes safe that convinced us we could no longer play that game. I hope we don't have to go through that experience again.

This week, 77 Senators recognized that bipartisanship was the solution to avoiding a shutdown. That includes the leaders of both parties, the Democratic chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee and the ranking member, whom I have noted.

Unfortunately, over in the House, it is just an exercise in chaos. Speaker McCarthy has declared the bipartisan Senate continuing resolution is dead on arrival. Our bipartisan bill, worked out with both sides of the aisle, that won 77 votes, he has dismissed as unacceptable. For reasons beyond my understanding, he has chosen the far-right rebellion of a few MAGA House Republicans over the continued, orderly function of our government. He has chosen to put bipartisanship and politics above the American people.

For however long it takes the Speaker to gain control of this small faction of his party, essential social services will be slowed, Federal employees and military servicemembers will go without paychecks for their families.

This group of extreme Republicans is intent on slashing millions from social programs, attaching their political agenda for our border before they will even begin to discuss keeping the government open. The American people deserve better.

I just left a meeting of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary where Senator Graham raised the legitimate concern about what is happening at our border. We are being swamped with people seeking entry into the United States. This is not unusual. If you look around the world, that is happening in many places. There are so many people now who have been dislocated from

their homes that the refugee experts tell us there is no record of such a number in the modern history of the world. It is no surprise that the United States, as a prize destination, is feeling that pressure.

Why would it make sense, I would say to Speaker McCarthy, for us to shut down the government and take the men and women who are along the border now, trying to keep us safe, and make a dramatic budget cut in their Agency? It is just the opposite of what we need. We need the resources and the personnel to have an orderly process at our border. Shutting down the government fails to meet that responsibility.

The group of extreme Republicans intent on slashing millions on social programs and attaching their political agenda to the border say that they want to discuss these issues before any serious measure is considered. The American people deserve better. We are not a bargaining chip.

A shutdown would harm every American who relies on government services. It would halt small business loans and, if you can imagine, stall medical research at the National Institutes of Health and jeopardize nutrition assistance for low-income women, infants, and children. It would delay food safety inspection and deprive children access to Head Start. It would likely cause travel delays because more than 13,000 air traffic controllers and 50,000 TSA officers would be forced to work without pay. It would also furlough 1,000 air traffic controllers who are now being trained for filling the vacancies critically important at that Agency.

Shutdowns are slowing down our economy progress and jeopardizing jobs and future economic growth. They also tell the world that, in America, politics can rule. It can get in the way of basically paying our bills, providing service to our people, and conducting day-to-day business that keeps our Nation afloat.

The last three government shutdowns led to 56,940 years in lost productivity and cost the government at least $338 million in additional costs and late fees. That is American taxpayer dollars that are being wasted because of this shutdown.

The last full shutdown in 2013 reduced gross domestic product growth by $20 billion, and a 5-week partial shutdown in 2018 reduced economic output by $11 billion.

I urge my House Republican colleagues to resist making shutdowns a 5- year tradition in their party. If we have the option of keeping the government funded while we continue to negotiate a longer term funding plan, why put the Nation through this pain?

Funding the government is one of the essential parts of this job. It is time that we meet our responsibility and do it in a way that doesn't disrupt America's livelihood and well-being. We need to finish the full-year appropriations process and do it in a responsible way.

I urge my colleagues in both Chambers to choose bipartisanship and pass the Senate continuing resolution so we can continue the important process of funding the government in a grownup, responsible way for the year 2024.

I yield the floor.

I announce that the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Smith) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Brown), the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein), the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Smith), and the Senator from Mississippi (Ms. Stabenow) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Brown), the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein), the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Smith), and the Senator from Michigan (Ms. Stabenow) are necessarily absent.

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

Mr. President, a few weeks ago, regulations enacted in the European Union went into effect that cover more than a dozen of the world's biggest tech platforms. This includes online marketplaces, app stores, and social media platforms like Facebook and Instagram.

The European Union regulations address a host of harmful practices, including preventing targeted advertising, minimizing illegal content and hate speech, and, most importantly, protecting kids from horrible content.

If companies fail to comply in the European Union, they could be fined up to 6 percent of their annual global revenue. They can also be banned from operating in the European Union countries.

This shows that Big Tech can be regulated. It is possible to craft rules to protect our families without breaking the miracle of the internet.

In contrast to what has happened in Europe, here in the United States, Congress has failed to regulate high tech. And while we sit on our hands, other nations are moving ahead and shaping the rules of the digital world.

Worse than that, while we fail to act, children are left in harm's way. We can, and we must, regulate Big Tech to protect our kids.

Let me tell you about one young man named Cornell Johnson. He is from Illinois. He is a man who preyed on 17 victims, ranging in age from 4 to 17 years old and located across 8 States. His tool of choice: Facebook.

Johnson would set up profiles claiming to be a woman and then use these Facebook profiles to contact girls all over the country. First, he would entice these girls to send him sexually suggestive images of themselves in various stages of undress. Then he would

use these images to coerce the victims into sending him sexually explicit content. He would threaten to post the nude pictures online unless the young victims submitted to his demands for still more explicit images.

Horrifically, Johnson also directed his teenaged victims to sexually abuse younger children in their household and send him the images. He was prosecuted and sentenced to 45 years in Federal prison.

Johnson was held accountable for his conduct, but what about Facebook? Johnson could not have committed his crimes without the social media platform. He could not have sexually exploited those 17 children in 8 different States. Yet our current law, as written, shields Facebook from any accountability for the role they played in making Cornell Johnson's crimes possible.

Sadly, there are many examples where Big Tech is failing children in America.

Earlier this year, the Wall Street Journal exposed how Instagram's algorithms are connecting pedophiles and guiding them to locations where they can purchase child sexual abuse material. The platform permitted searches with terms associated with child abuse so vile that I won't repeat them in this Chamber. Senator Lindsey Graham and I wrote to Meta, Instagram's parent company, in June asking for answers to explain these algorithms. We are still waiting.

On X, formerly known as Twitter, Elon Musk reinstated the account of a user who was banned for tweeting an image of a toddler being tortured. As of late July, that image had drawn more than 3 million views and 8,000 retweets. A study released in June found that Twitter failed to stop the uploading of copies of known child sexual abuse material, CSAM. The study also found that Twitter would sometimes allow accounts to remain active until they had uploaded CSAM multiple times. Elon Musk's claims of a zero-tolerance policy for child exploitation on his platform doesn't reflect the disturbing reality.

Another company failing our children is Apple. In 2021, the company paused its plan to detect CSAM uploaded to its cloud service. Then last month, Wired published a letter from Apple in which the company confirmed it will make no effort to address child sexual abuse material stored on its platform. Apparently, Apple views permitting this ongoing child sexual exploitation as an acceptable and necessary cost of protecting their right to privacy.

But I believe we can live in a world where user privacy and child safety can coexist, and I believe I have written a bill that does just that. My STOP CSAM Act will end Big Tech's free ride and give victims a way to hold these companies accountable for their failure to stop online child sexual exploitation and, in some cases, for their actions that make it worse.

Importantly, the bill achieves this goal in a manner that will avoid any unintended impact on technology that protects privacy.

The STOP CSAM Act is the product of extensive consultations with stakeholders. It passed out of the Judiciary Committee, which I chair, unanimously--every Democrat, every Republican supported it--and I am working to bring it to the floor.

The Senate must act. Our failure to do so will preserve the status quo where our children are being sexually exploited online every single day. What a nightmare. As a father, mother, grandfather, grandmother, you think all the time: What are they looking at on those phones all day long? What is on those screens? What message is being sent to them? What is changing them from that experience? And what can I possibly do as a parent or grandparent to police what is going on there?

We need to have the law on our side. Sure, I want to be certain to recognize the basic fundamental constitutional rights in our country, but I have to acknowledge as well that we aren't doing anything at this point. The current law says that these platforms are not responsible for whatever they do or fail to do. It is a get-out-of-jail-free card completely, and it has been that way for decades.

We have to wake up to the reality of the year we live in and the reality of life in families across America. Even the most conscientious parents cannot know what is going on every hour of every day with children and these screens.

The sexploitation which I outlined here in detail is happening, and what are we doing about it? If we are going to help Americans raise good kids--and we want them all to raise good kids--we have to give them the tools and we have to back them up with laws that say we are going to take it seriously. The European Union has done it, so why not the United States of America? It is time for us to make progress in this area for the good of our children.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I rise today to speak about the critical role that U.S. attorneys play in keeping America safe from the scourge of drugs--like opioids, fentanyl--gun violence and violent crime.

Why are we on the floor? We are on the floor because one Senator has decided to stop the appointment of U.S. attorneys for the Department of Justice across the United States. He has picked four States--one is a pretty red State, Mississippi; California; Ohio, his own home State; and my State of Illinois--to stop the U.S. attorneys from being approved by the U.S. Senate.

This is a pattern.

The Senator from Alabama, Senator Tuberville, has stopped 300 military officers--career officers--from getting a promotion for more than 6 months. Many of these career officers, women and men, have fought in combat and risked their lives for America. We salute them every Memorial Day. We say that we love our veterans, and I certainly do. I'm sure the Senator from Ohio does too. And yet they are being treated so shabbily here in the U.S. Senate that the leading veterans organization in the United States of America is protesting what this Alabama Republican Senator is doing. He is stopping 300 of the best, highest ranked individuals who will lead our military in the world from being approved in the U.S. Senate for 6 months--more than 6 months.

Does he have a specific complaint about any one of them? No. Just, categorically, this is his political approach: Let's stop all the military from a promotion.

Is that fair to them and their families? I don't think so.

Now let's take a look at this situation. The Senator from Ohio has decided he is upset with the Department of Justice. How upset is he? Here is what he said:

I will hold all [Department of Justice] nominations . . .

We will grind [the Justice Department] to a halt.

Grind the Justice Department to a halt, he says.

Well, let's see. Do the people at the Department of Justice, the U.S. attorneys, do they do anything important? Do we really need them?

Well, how about starting with the issue of narcotics: 180,000 Americans died from narcotics last year--180,000. You might know some from your community, your church, your business. And 70,000 died from fentanyl.

Let's talk about fentanyl for a minute. What is this narcotic? Well, it is the new and deadliest narcotic on the streets. Let me tell you a story that breaks my heart, because I know this couple. They had a daughter who graduated from college. She went to a party in Chicago. Marijuana is legal in Illinois. She decides to smoke a joint at a party. It has been laced with fentanyl, and she drops dead on the spot--22 years of age.

Fentanyl is a deadly narcotic. Where does it come from? It comes from Mexico--mainly from Mexico. Two drug cartels are sweeping the United States and into Europe with the sale of fentanyl that is killing people right and left--last year, 70,000 Americans.

Who is trying to fight the scourge of fentanyl? The Department of Justice--the same Agency that this Senator wants to grind to a halt.

Are we going to declare a timeout and call Mexican cartels and say: Don't be selling your fentanyl for a while because we are going to make sure you don't have leadership that you need in your department. How can we do something that irresponsible?

Don't stand up and say you are for law and order, you are for law enforcement, and then turn around and stop the appointment of U.S. attorneys who prosecute the criminals who are responsible for the narcotics sales.

I came to the floor last week and asked unanimous consent for the Senate to take up and confirm these nominations. They are nominations of Todd Gee, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Mississippi.

If you think this is partisan, let me tell you the whole story. Todd Gee is from Mississippi with two Republican Senators. Both Republican Senators approved his appointment as U.S. attorney.

Is this political? Both Republican Senators are supporting the nominee that is being held by another Republican Senator. It doesn't make sense.

Tara McGrath--the request was made by the Senator from California just a few moments ago. She wants to be the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of California, eminently qualified, no controversy with her nomination.

Rebecca Lutzko--now this is interesting--to be U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Ohio, the same State as the Senator who is now objecting to it.

He approved her. She went through the committee. She came out and was reported to the floor, and now she is being held up.

Well, let's take a look here. Does Ohio have a narcotics problem?

Let me make sure we get this right.

Oh, my. In the last year, Ohio had 5,155 drug overdose deaths, the fourth highest overdose deaths in America. And the U.S. attorney who would be fighting these narcotics with the appropriate task force of the law enforcement is being held up by which Senator? The same State. The Senator from Ohio is holding up his own U.S. attorney to prosecute narcotics criminals.

And it is not just drugs. In Cleveland, the largest city in the Northern District of Ohio, the number of homicides is up 30 percent compared to last year. Nearly 90 percent of all overall homicides in Cleveland this year has involved a firearm. The city has seen a 99 percent increase in vehicle grand theft, a Federal crime, so far in 2023.

So to deal with the crime in the streets, to deal with the homicides, the firearm violations and the increase in vehicle grand theft, you count on one major prosecutor. Who is it? The U.S. attorney. So you have a vacancy in the U.S. Attorney's Office. The Senator from Ohio approves the person to fill the vacancy and then stops her nomination on the floor of the U.S. Senate.

I can't follow his logic, unless you are determined to grind the Department of Justice to a halt, even at the expense of the people you represent, the people you were sent here to protect. Don't tell me you are for law and order in your own neighborhood when you stop the nomination of the U.S. attorney for no controversy. It makes no sense.

U.S. attorneys are an integral part of our justice system in overseeing important operations that help protect our communities. They are empowered to prosecute all Federal criminal offenses. They play a critical role in enforcing the law.

In the Northern District of Ohio, for example, the U.S. Attorney's Office led the response to a surge in fatal doses from fentanyl. It brought together doctors, State and local law enforcement, addiction specialists, and other stakeholders and created the U.S. attorney's Heroin and Opioid Task Force. This is in the Northern District of Ohio.

This U.S. attorney is to fill the spot to lead that, but she is being held up on the calendar--by whom? The Senator from Ohio.

The U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Ohio also recently secured the conviction of a drug trafficker who attempted to traffic 1 kilogram of fentanyl pills, which were made to look like oxycodone, into the State. In addition, the office coordinated with ATF on a 3-month violent-crime-reduction initiative in Cleveland that resulted in the arrest of 59 individuals who have been charged with firearms trafficking, narcotics, conspiracy, and other firearms offenses.

Are these important? They would be important in Chicago. They would be

important in Los Angeles. They are important, I am sure, in Cleveland and in other cities as well. These convictions are trying to keep people safe in their homes and communities and to reduce violent crime.

The lead prosecutor--the lead Federal prosecutor--is a U.S. attorney. It is a vacant position we are trying to fill with a person with demonstrated competence to take it over--and who is holding it up but the Senator from Ohio. I don't understand it.

When he ran for office, Senator Vance argued that he would ``fight the criminals and not the cops.'' Well, take a look at what is happening here. In this situation, the people we need to fight these criminals--the prosecutors--are being held up by the Senator before they can be voted on on the floor.

He has pledged to be ``tough on crime'' and to support our brave law enforcement officers. In fact, just this May, he introduced a resolution in the Senate, saying he has ``support for the law enforcement officers of the United States.''

His resolution says:

[T]he Senate . . . highly respects and values the law

enforcement officers of the United States and greatly

appreciates all that [they] do to protect and serve.

The Senator's resolution then calls on ``all levels of government to ensure that law enforcement officers receive the support and resources needed to keep all communities . . . safe.''

Support and resources are great, but give them the job. The job is still vacant because the Senator is withholding his approval for them to move forward.

I say to my colleagues: Reread the resolution he introduced last May, and take your own advice. Give these U.S. Attorneys' Offices the leadership they need to keep their communities safe.

Now I would like to engage the Senator, if he doesn't mind, in a question.

I listened carefully to what you said earlier in objecting to the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of California. What is your position, if you wouldn't mind saying it, in terms of the vote on that nomination?

So you want a record vote for each U.S. attorney?

Do you understand, before President Biden was elected, that that was common practice--that a unanimous consent request was all that was necessary to approve a U.S. attorney?

Is the Senator aware--I am not going to ask this question. I know you know the answer as well as I do.

I will just state, generally, that the people who were involved in the prosecution of former President Trump were attorneys appointed to that position by President Trump.

And a special counsel, separate and apart from the Department of Justice, was independently making those decisions.

Your decision to stop U.S. attorneys from taking these jobs means that they will not be in a position to be able to prosecute individuals of either political party who are guilty of criminal wrongdoing. Do you understand that?

So I am going to make a unanimous consent request consistent with the statement that you just made. I have listened to it carefully. I don't know if you have been given a copy, but I want to make sure you understand.

No, and you are not expected to.

But if individual Senators have an objection to moving forward on a nomination and they know a unanimous consent request is going to be made on the floor, it is their responsibility to be present physically. You can't mail it in.

So even if you got your way, even if you got a rollcall vote, which you have asked for twice now, you are still not going to allow us to move to fill these vacancies for U.S. attorneys, even in Ohio?

That is what I am going to request right now, so you can decide whether you are going to go along with it or object.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that at a time to be determined by the majority leader, in consultation with the Republican leader, the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations: Calendar Nos. 129, 314, 315, and 266; that there be 2 minutes for debate, equally divided in the usual form, on each nomination; that upon the use or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to vote without intervening action or debate on the nominations in the order listed; that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action; and that the Senate then resume legislative session.

Madam President, there again, I just gave him what he asked for, and he said it wasn't enough. He has to have every other Senator come to the floor and agree to this.

Let me say that this is a unanimous consent request for four U.S. attorneys who have gone through the Senate Judiciary Committee, which Senator Padilla and I serve on. They went through that bipartisan committee, and they have been reported to the floor. This is customary, ordinary. There is nothing controversial about these individuals, but still and all not

good enough. He has objected to even having a vote later in the day on the very nominations that he asked for earlier.

You can't have it both ways. If you are going to vote no against these nominees under any condition, make it clear. To say you want to clear it with every other Senator, they have been given notice of this unanimous consent request. They could be here on the floor if they wanted to object personally. To my knowledge, this junior Senator from Ohio is the only one objecting, and it is a shame he is because these U.S. attorneys are needed desperately in California, Mississippi, Ohio, and my home State of Illinois.

And to think that what we are going through is to the point at which a Congressman who is the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee came to Chicago to hold a hearing this week to outline how much trouble we have with violent crime. We do have problems with violent crime. We certainly need a U.S. attorney, who is one of the persons up for this nomination, to do her best to make sure that we have a safer community in Chicago.

How can she do it if she can't clear the Senate floor?

I hope the Senator will get it straight as to what exactly he is trying to achieve here. If he wanted a rollcall vote, I just offered to it him, and it wasn't good enough. I am going to be returning regularly to the floor to make this unanimous consent request.

Sadly, during the period of time that we debate this, crime will continue to be committed in Ohio, in Illinois, in Mississippi, and in California that, in many instances, could have been avoided if the Senate, on a regular dispatch approach, decided to move these nominations forward as they have been traditionally.

To say that you want the Department of Justice to grind to a halt in the United States of America, come on. That is the kind of statement you make in a speech, come back later, and say: Well, I didn't mean that exactly. Certainly, no one means that exactly.

We don't want the Department of Justice to stop its fight against narcotics and fentanyl in the United States that are claiming thousands of lives, and slowing down that process here on the Senate floor is just unacceptable.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that, notwithstanding rule XXII, at a time to be determined by the majority leader in consultation with the Republican leader, the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations: Calendar Nos. 129 and 266; that there be 2 minutes for debate, equally divided in the usual form, for each nomination; that upon the use or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to vote without intervening action or debate on the nominations in the order listed; that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order; and that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's actions and the Senate then resume legislative session.

Mr. President, for those who are following this debate, we had four nominations that were being held. Two were just approved. We will keep working to make sure all four are approved. The two remaining are in the States of Illinois and Ohio. We feel just as intensely about those vacancies as all the others, but we are seizing the moment to order a rollcall vote on the two that have been approved by both sides.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I want to join the Republican leader, as well as the Democratic leader, with our hopes that we can still rescue the situation on Capitol Hill before the deadline. We have an impending government shutdown that is only 5 days away.

The House Republicans on the other side of the Rotunda have not taken on their responsibility at this moment, and we are doing our best on a bipartisan basis to do the opposite. Extreme factions of the Republican Party continue to list their demands for reckless cuts and partisan proposals in exchange for keeping the lights on in the Federal Government. In doing so, their radical agenda is holding the livelihood of the American people and the proper functioning of our government hostage.

House Republicans' proposals, which some of their own Members don't even agree with, would cut millions of dollars from public health, childcare, education, food safety, law enforcement, housing, and more. These cuts would create uncertainty for hard-working families across the country, and they would put our national security and economic well-being at risk.

Instead of negotiating in good faith, House Republicans are willing to put the country through the pain of a shutdown. Now, we have had shutdowns before. I remember them well--2013, 2018, and now the threat of one in 2023. It appears to be a 5-year cycle. The shutdowns in 2013 and 2018 reduced economic output and GDP growth by projections in the billions. They forced Federal employees to go without checks, to either work without pay or be furloughed, and that included our military at the time. Servicemembers would not be paid until Congress funds the government. That would mean missed paychecks and strained household budgets for the duration of a shutdown, until extreme MAGA Republicans felt their demands had been met.

Take one Agency for example--the National Institutes of Health, the premier medical research Agency in the world. They would have to delay new clinical trials during a government shutdown, stalling critical medical research on diseases like cancer and Alzheimer's.

A shutdown would halt training of 2,600 air traffic controllers at a time when our country desperately needs them, and the air traffic controllers already on the job would have to work without pay. How would you like to have the pressure of that job and in the back of your mind wonder if you are going to make your mortgage payment? That would potentially lead to delays, longer wait times for those traveling, as we have seen in past shutdowns. The same goes for TSA.

The shutdown would delay major infrastructure projects that were created by the bipartisan infrastructure bill.

It could jeopardize the benefits of more than 6 million American participants in the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Children, and Infants, including 170,000 in my home State of Illinois.

Public housing operations and housing choice voucher subsidies could be at risk of running out of funding.

A shutdown could deplete relief funds and slow emergency responses in the case of natural disasters. We have seen evidence of plenty of those.

In short, it would be nothing less of a disaster for the economy and for American families for this handful of MAGA Republicans to stop the funding of our government.

Here in the Senate, we have taken a bipartisan approach to the task of keeping our government funded.

I have served on the Senate Appropriations Committee for a number of years, and I have watched carefully as the procedure of that committee--one of the most important committees in the Senate--has changed.

For the last almost 5 years, we have gone without a meaningful, bipartisan effort to write budget bills, and we have taken from the Members the opportunity on the floor of the Senate to actually review those bills and make amendments.

It is our good fortune that the leaders in the Senate Appropriations Committee currently are two of the best. One of the best Democratic Senators and legislators, Patty Murray, of Washington, chairs the Appropriations Committee. Her ranking Republican member, Susan Collins, of Maine, is another extraordinary legislator. What they managed to achieve so far in the Appropriations Committee is a tribute not only to their skill but also a tribute to bipartisanship.

They have reported out all 12 appropriations bills to the floor of the U.S. Senate for consideration on the floor for the first time in 5 years. Instead of a massive package called an omnibus, they were leading us toward individual appropriations bills and an amendment process on the floor we haven't seen for a long, long time. Unfortunately, it was set aside by one Republican Member last week, but we haven't given up on the notion of making this bipartisan.

I heard earlier a statement made by the Democratic leader in the Senate that there were negotiations through the weekend for a temporary spending bill. I hope that spirit continues when it comes to the appropriations bills. I am sure with Senators Murray and Collins working on it, we have a good possibility.

Now we recognize, more than ever before, the need to keep the lights on in Washington on Capitol Hill. This week is going to be our test. What must be top of mind in any compromise is keeping the Federal employees paid, their families fed, keep the economy moving forward, keep our affairs in order so that our adversaries know that the United States of America can actually fund its own government.

That is why here in the Senate we are going to consider a bipartisan continuing resolution to keep the government open at current funding levels while we work toward a longer term answer.

Instead of considering a similar, serious short-term proposal to prevent a shutdown, some House Republicans are now trying to consider 11 individual appropriations bills before Sunday. Let me tell you, the track record doesn't look so good. Speaker McCarthy has already pulled down more than one vote on the defense spending bill, despite the fact his own party actually drafted the bill. They drafted the bill, then they couldn't pass it with their own members of the House.

I am not sure what his plan is. But in the Senate, ours is to prevent a government shutdown and have an orderly process of spending bills considered by the Senate. We owe it to every American family to do our jobs and to do it in a timely, respectful manner.

I urge my colleagues in the House to put the needs, well-being, and livelihood of Americans above any partisan loyalty. I am committed to working with my colleagues to prevent a shutdown. I look forward to the Senate considering a continuing resolution that does just that.

United Auto Workers Strike

Mr. President, on a separate topic, I heard my colleague earlier, Senator Schumer, talk about visiting a picket line for the United Auto Workers this morning. I did the same thing yesterday morning in Bolingbrook, IL, where UAW local warehouse workers were out on the line drinking coffee and eating a few donuts, holding their signs that said ``solidarity'' with their union. I wanted to walk over there and be with them at this moment.

You have to understand, when a worker like a UAW worker goes on strike, they are really walking away from their regular paycheck and receiving emergency pay from the unions, which, historically, has never quite been the same or as much. The same thing is true when it comes to the medical benefits. They may lose the coverage they had in the workplace and have the union program that is an alternative that doesn't provide the same level of benefits.

What I am trying to get to is the bottom line is, these strikes are personal, and families sacrifice on behalf of the workers.

Why would they do that? Why would they walk off the job, stand in the cold or outside weather from time to time like this? Because there is more at stake than their own personal well-being. They are fighting not only for their fellow members of the union, they are fighting for working people all over the United States.

The organized labor movement--which I was happy to be a childhood union family growing up--really made a difference in the life of America. The 40-hour work week, overtime, vacation, healthcare benefits, pension--virtually every one of those elements that are part of a modern job--a good modern job--were fought for and sometimes died for by those who were working in the labor movement in the earliest stage.

The UAW is a good example. It was back in the forties when a young fellow named Walter Reuther decided to make the UAW a viable force in Detroit, MI. There was the famous confrontation at a River Rouge plant where the UAW workers were on strike and violence broke out. Some people were seriously injured. Those sacrifices were made, and America changed as a result of it.

Now the modern struggle of the UAW is not unlike that of the forties. The President of the UAW, Mr. Fain, came by my office several times to talk about his goals. He made it clear--and we all knew the answer-- that when it came to the question of the survival of these automobile makers in 2008 when the economy plunged, it was the workers who stood up and said: We will make sacrifices and changes so that these companies can survive. Some people, even those on the floor of the Senate, were arguing: Let them go. That is capitalism. There are winners and losers.

But President Obama and I and many others felt just the opposite. Automobile manufacturing is a critical part of the American economy. President Obama was determined to keep those companies alive during that period of time. UAW did its part, and it did it well. They sacrificed wages and benefits. They said that the new workers would get paid dramatically less than those who had been there for years, and they literally saved those companies.

Now those companies are profitable to the tune of billions of dollars a year. What the UAW is saying is, for goodness' sake, make sure the workers are part of the success. Don't let them read in the papers how much the company is making while they are breaking their backs to make the products that are successful.

That is what the strike is all about. There was a time not that long ago in the early sixties when the executives of automobile companies and similar corporations were making about 30 times the wages of those who were working on production lines. Now the number is 500 times. The three executives who lead the automobile manufacturers all make over $20 million a year, each and every one of them. I believe the one from General Motors makes $29 million a year. Meanwhile, the wages for the executives have gone up 40 percent in the last 5 years and for the workers, 6 percent. So there is a disparity there that needs to be addressed and done fairly.

We want to make sure that the companies are profitable--they build products we are proud of. But we want to make sure the workers who are sacrificing every single day share in that profitability, share in that productivity. And they can do it if they are part of the contract that is now being negotiated.

I was out there on the line for about a half hour yesterday, standing along with the workers and encouraging the workers to be strong during this period. It is a time of personal sacrifice, but it is well worth it, not only for sisters and brothers in the union but workers all over America who prosper with the achievements made by the UAW.

I am proud to have had their support over the years, and I am proud to stand with them in this time of challenge.

I yield the floor.

I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein) and the Senator from Minnesota (Mrs. Smith), are necessarily absent.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein) is necessarily absent.