Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of S. 3115 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 675 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Van Hollen amendment at the desk to the resolution be agreed to; the preamble be agreed to; and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the en bloc consideration of the following resolutions, submitted earlier today: S. Res. 749 and S. Res. 750.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolutions be agreed to, the preambles be agreed to; and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 466, S. 4205.

I ask that the committee-reported substitute amendment be agreed to; the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed; and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 698 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that all remaining time on the bill be yielded back; that there be 2 minutes of debate, equally divided, prior to each vote with respect to the reconciliation bill; and that following the disposition of Sanders amendment No. 5210, the following amendments be the first Republican amendments in order: No. 1, amendment No. 5301, Senator Graham; No. 2, amendment No. 5409, Senator Barrasso; No. 3, amendment No. 5382, Senator Capito; No. 4, amendment No. 5384, Senator Lankford; and No. 5, amendment No. 5404, Senator Crapo.

Would the Senator from Montana hold for just one moment, please? Thank you.

Order of Business

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that following disposition of the Crapo amendment No. 5404, the following amendments be the next Republican amendments in order: No. 5358, Collins; motion to commit, Scott; No. 5389, Marshall; No. 5383, Capito; and No. 5421, Grassley.

Madam President, I raise a point of order that the pending amendment does not produce a change in outlays or revenues and therefore violates section 313(b)(1)(A) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Collins amendment No. 5358 be in order following Grassley amendment No. 5421.

Mr. President, the senior Senator from Florida says we should stop our efforts on reconciliation until we put money in law enforcement. So we checked the record. When we put billions in local communities for law enforcement in the American Rescue Plan, the senior Senator from Florida voted no.

And when it came to the Omnibus bill and Byrne grants and COPS money that local organizations and law enforcement needed so they could be stronger and fight crime, 31 Republicans voted no, including the senior Senator from Florida.

So I would suggest we vote no on his amendment.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following amendments be the next Republican amendments in order: 5316, Lee; 5418, Shelby; Motion to Commit, Tim Scott; 5263, Cruz; 5425, Daines; 5361, Ernst; 5360, Fischer; 5265, Cruz; 5385, Kennedy; motion to waive budget with respect to insulin; 5472, Thune; 5406 Hagerty; 5224, Portman; motion to commit, Hoeven; Cruz motion to commit on vaccines; Cruz motion to commit on targeting parents; further, that the Sanders amendment No. 5208 occur following the Scott motion to commit; and Sanders No. 5281 following the Daines amendment No. 5425.

I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Leahy) is necessarily absent.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the following amendments and motions be the next amendments and motions in order: 5265, Cruz; 5281, Sanders; 5385, Kennedy; motion to waive the budget with respect to insulin; Cruz motion to commit on vaccines; Cruz motion to commit targeting parents; and that all provisions under the previous order remain in effect.

Mr. President, the FBI has told us repeatedly that domestic extremism is a very real threat in America. Last November, 60 percent of America's school leaders said that someone in their schools had been verbally or physically threatened over school policy.

There is no evidence--none--that the Department of Justice is threatening the constitutional right of parents to peaceful, free speech. But there is no excuse--none--for violence against school teachers or board members.

If you believe there is nothing peaceful or legitimate about threatening teachers, school board members or their families, vote no on this amendment.

Vote on Motion to Commit

Mr. President, Members, the Senator from Tennessee just provided us with this copy of his new amendment, and I hope you will take a look at it because it is recommitting this motion for 3 days. End of conversation, end of debate, end of any possibility of passing what we consider to be a major piece of legislation, from prescription drugs, dealing with environmental issues, and the list goes on. We have faced this so many times already in the last 12 or 14 hours.

But the second thing I would like to note is, we understand the seriousness of this challenge, so much so that we have already decided it is a crime, and it is a crime that can be prosecuted. And it is a crime that is investigated and enforced by an Agency of the Federal Government which we funded just 4 months ago. Four months ago, we gave $8 billion to ICE for this purpose. Thirty-one Republicans voted against funding this purpose. One of them was the Senator from Tennessee.

So now we are told we need the money, but 4 months ago he wouldn't vote for it. I think we know what we have here. We have a challenge that really is important to this motion that both parties share, but we have a political challenge with an effort to derail this measure today. Stick together and vote against this amendment.

I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Leahy) and the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Merkley) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Leahy) and the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Merkley) are necessarily absent.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print the following letter in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 5 minutes.

Mr. President, I hope that my remarks are even less.

I stand in solid support of the accession of Finland and Sweden into NATO. Just a few weeks ago, I was fortunate enough to visit Lithuania. It is a country that means a lot to me and my family. I met with the former President Valdas Adamkus.

Adamkus, a Lithuanian immigrant to the United States, had a distinguished record in our government's service here and then returned to Lithuania after his retirement from the U.S. Federal Government and ran successfully for President.

He had the vision to realize that the future of Lithuania and the Baltic States was in the European Union and NATO and worked strenuously to achieve those goals, and I was happy to be joining him in that effort.

Now, this moment in history really complements his leadership because the accession of Finland and Sweden to NATO is a confirmation that the Baltic Sea is safer than ever when it comes to the West. If Vladimir Putin thought that by invading Ukraine he could somehow inhibit the future of NATO or in some way limit its future, the opposite has occurred.

NATO is stronger than ever. And the United States' commitment to NATO is stronger than ever. The fact that only a handful of Senators from either political party are even questioning the accession of Sweden and Finland are good indications to me that we have bipartisan support for this NATO coalition now more than ever--and we should, first, for the Ukrainians and, secondly, for the United States and its future.

Those who are speaking against the accession of Finland and Sweden suggest that we ought to focus our attention on Asia. Well, we cannot ignore Asia. It is an important part of our near-term future. And we have got to show strength throughout the world. Why don't we start right now? With this accession of Finland and Sweden, the strengthening of the NATO alliance says to any adversary of the United States, even to China and its future, that this country does business with other countries in the world on an arm's-length basis and a respectful basis and can deal with democracies in a constructive way in building their economies for the future.

I will gladly join in the support of the accession of Finland and Sweden to NATO. I believe it not only strengthens that alliance when it comes to this war in Ukraine, it prepares us for challenges in the future, and it is the right thing for America's security.

I yield the floor.

I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Leahy) and the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Merkley) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Leahy) and the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Merkley) are necessarily absent.

Reserving the right to object.

Mr. President, I have read and reread the Senator from Kansas's resolution. As best I can determine, it is a declaration of war. For that reason, it should be taken very seriously. He says, in the earliest stages of the preamble, to express the sense of the Senate regarding the constitutional right of State Governors to repel the dangerous ongoing invasion at the U.S. southern border.

The operative language at the end of his resolution on this decoration of war relates to a provision in the Constitution which is rarely quoted. It is section 10 of article I. I would like to read it into the record. It says:

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any

Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of

Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another

State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless

actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not

admit of delay.

I am trying to understand the thinking of the Senator from Kansas, but here is the best I could come up with. He says that what is happening at the southern border with our immigration issues is, in his words, ``actual invasion of the United States.'' And then goes on to say:

Governors of all 50 States possess the authority and power

as Commander in Chief of their respective States to repel the

invasion described in paragraph 2.

So as best I can determine, the Senator from Kansas is suggesting that each Governor has the power to initiate military action. It doesn't say who the enemy will be or who the target will be. But according to this provision in the Constitution, these Governors can enter into compacts with other States for this military action or with a foreign power.

I don't know if the Senator from Kansas has thought this through, this idea that the State of Kansas would team up with the State of Arizona and declare war on Nicaragua. Is that what he is thinking because Nicaraguans are presenting themselves to the border? I would suggest that I have never seen a declaration of war that calls on the States to take such action, and the only time--the only precedent in our history was a sad one that involved the Civil War in the United States.

I don't know if the Senator is anticipating similar State action-- State by State or combination of States--attacking a foreign power. For that reason and many others, I object.

Mr. President, today, the Senate will consider another highly qualified judicial nominee to the Federal bench. We will vote to confirm Judge Elizabeth Hanes to the Eastern District of Virginia.

Judge Hanes currently serves as a U.S. magistrate judge in the Eastern District of Virginia, a position to which she was appointed by the current judges of the district court in 2020. She has already issued 100 opinions during her time on the bench.

A lifelong Virginian, Judge Hanes has deep ties to the Eastern District. She was born in Roanoke, VA, and attended the University of Richmond and the University of Richmond School of Law. After graduating, she clerked for Judge Joseph R. Goodwin on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia and for Judge Robert B. King on the Fourth Circuit.

Judge Hanes began her career in public service as an assistant federal public defender in the Office of the Federal Public Defender for the Eastern District of Virginia, a role she held for 7 years. She then joined Consumer Litigation Associates in Richmond. Judge Hanes gained significant trial experience during this time. And throughout her time in legal practice, she represented indigent defendants in criminal matters and low-income clients--including veterans--in civil claims related to predatory lending practices.

Judge Hanes received a ``qualified'' rating from the American Bar Association and has the strong support of Virginia's Senators, Mr. Warner and Mr.

Kaine. With her depth of experience and proven commitment to equal justice, Judge Hanes will continue to serve the Eastern District of Virginia with distinction. And importantly, as a former public defender, she will bring vital professional diversity to the Federal bench.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this outstanding nominee.

I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Leahy) is necessarily absent.

Madam President, this is my first day back in the Senate since I contracted COVID last week. It is good to be back, particularly for a historic week. I am grateful to the healthcare professionals and brilliant scientists who developed the COVID vaccines and therapies so quickly and am thankful for the Federal funding that made their work possible. Luckily, I am double-vaxxed and double-boosted, and I encourage everyone: Get your shots.