Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be discharged from further consideration and that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 408.

I ask unanimous consent that the Rosen substitute amendment to the resolution be agreed to; the resolution, as amended, be agreed to; the Rosen substitute amendment to the preamble be agreed to; the preamble, as amended, be agreed to; and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 459, which was submitted earlier today.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 3 p.m. on Monday, November 13; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and morning business be closed; that upon the conclusion of morning business, the Senate proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the de Alba nomination postcloture; further, that all postcloture time be considered expired at 5:30 p.m. and the cloture motion filed during today's session ripen at 5:30 p.m.; finally, that if any nominations are confirmed during Monday's session, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order.

Madam President, today, I am introducing legislation to designate the General George C. Marshall House, also known as the Dodona Manor, in Leesburg, VA as an affiliated area under the National Park Service.

The legislation will be the final step in the year-long effort to recognize the Dodona Manor as a unit of the National Park System. It will also promote the public appreciation of the significant historic contributions made by U.S. military leader and statesman George C. Marshall.

George C. Marshall was an American hero, playing a significant role in the Allied victory in World War II and serving as an architect of one of the most significant foreign policy initiatives in our country's history. He led a lifetime of public service, serving as Chief of Staff to the Army during America's entry into World War II, as Secretary of State, where he orchestrated the historic Marshall Plan to rebuild Europe following the war and provided counsel to Presidents Roosevelt and Truman, and as Secretary of Defense after the onset of the Korean war. He acquired Dodona Manor while serving as the Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army in 1941 and lived there until his death in 1959.

Today, the George C. Marshall House is dedicated to preserving and advancing General Marshall's life's work and legacy by hosting international exchanges, historical exhibits, and community events, and supporting educational programming based on General Marshall's desire to inspire future leaders. The legislation would bring greater resources, including technical assistance, accessibility improvements, and new programming, to this historical site and enable the Marshall House to improve and expand its work.

I am hopeful that this designation will provide new resources to preserve, honor, and celebrate General Marshall's legacy at this historic site, and I am pleased that companion legislation is also being introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives by my colleague, Representative Jennifer Wexton, who has led this effort for years.

Madam President, today, I am introducing legislation to designate the General George C. Marshall House, also known as the Dodona Manor, in Leesburg, VA as an affiliated area under the National Park Service.

The legislation will be the final step in the year-long effort to recognize the Dodona Manor as a unit of the National Park System. It will also promote the public appreciation of the significant historic contributions made by U.S. military leader and statesman George C. Marshall.

George C. Marshall was an American hero, playing a significant role in the Allied victory in World War II and serving as an architect of one of the most significant foreign policy initiatives in our country's history. He led a lifetime of public service, serving as Chief of Staff to the Army during America's entry into World War II, as Secretary of State, where he orchestrated the historic Marshall Plan to rebuild Europe following the war and provided counsel to Presidents Roosevelt and Truman, and as Secretary of Defense after the onset of the Korean war. He acquired Dodona Manor while serving as the Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army in 1941 and lived there until his death in 1959.

Today, the George C. Marshall House is dedicated to preserving and advancing General Marshall's life's work and legacy by hosting international exchanges, historical exhibits, and community events, and supporting educational programming based on General Marshall's desire to inspire future leaders. The legislation would bring greater resources, including technical assistance, accessibility improvements, and new programming, to this historical site and enable the Marshall House to improve and expand its work.

I am hopeful that this designation will provide new resources to preserve, honor, and celebrate General Marshall's legacy at this historic site, and I am pleased that companion legislation is also being introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives by my colleague, Representative Jennifer Wexton, who has led this effort for years.

Mr. President, I appear in a very timely way to make clear that our military will be paid if the House Republicans do not shut our government down. But in the off chance that they do, because of Democrats, in the last shutdown we had, we got a bill passed that guaranteed that all of them will at least receive backpay. In earlier shutdowns, that was never a guarantee. So people were forced to come to work not knowing whether they would be paid.

But during the last shutdown, in early 2019, I forwarded a bill to the floor. I used a procedural objection to recess at the end of a week. And using that objection, we were able to get a guarantee in place that all Federal employees, including members of the military, will not be punished when ne'er-do-wells and malefactors in the GOP decide to shut the government down.

Why do I make it so partisan? It is because only the GOP ever threatens to shut government down. In 2013, 2018, 2019, right now--only the GOP threatens to default on the national debt. We in the Senate, with a little cooperation from our Republican colleagues, will pass an overwhelmingly bipartisan continuing resolution within the next couple of days. And if the House will only do their job and agree to be as bipartisan as the Senate is, nobody needs to worry about losing a paycheck. But at least we have put a guarantee in place that nobody serving our Nation, whether in uniform or otherwise, will be at risk of losing pay because of an unnecessary shutdown.

Just a few months ago, the Speaker and the President negotiated a deal to avoid a default, and they set the stage to fund government spending bills. Since then, bipartisan colleagues in the Senate Appropriations Committee have worked in an impressive way.

The Presiding Officer is part of that team, working impressively and in a bipartisan manner to pass 12 appropriations bills out of committee.

But now, Members of the House are backtracking on the agreement that we just made 4 months ago. We made an agreement on spending limits, and the Senate Appropriations Committee has written their bills to those numbers. And yet the House is using Federal shutdown as a bargaining chip to undo the deal they just voted for and to try to get more draconian cuts and unnecessary policies in this year-end deal.

I am a Senator from Virginia. Some of the hardest effects of shutdown will be seen in my State, and they are already starting. Even before we get to midnight on Saturday, September 30, my office has been flooded with more than 600 constituent comments expressing their concerns about government shutdown. And what I would like to do is just share some of the stories that I am hearing from Virginians.

April, from Orange County, writes:

My husband is a member of the Army Reserves and [he] is

preparing for a deployment to Africa next year. His training

has been delayed due to funding with the close of the fiscal

year, and a shutdown will certainly delay [the] training

[even further].

So what does that mean? Do you deploy without adequate training or does the deployment date change? Families have planned around this. Employers have planned around this. A government shutdown affects April and her family.

Jennifer from Norfolk writes:

My husband is a USMC veteran who utilizes [the] VA. . . . A

government shutdown places an undue financial and emotional

burden on [my] family.

Kelsey from Harrisonburg wrote:

My parents, along with two friends, are on a 7-week post-

retirement [celebration] camping trip to visit National

Parks. [The park] closure would significantly . . . [affect]

this trip.

Katie from Fredericksburg, whose husband is a civilian DoD employee wrote:

I work directly with families through the Head Start

program in Stafford County. A shutdown to include so many

important social services will be devastating to so many

families I see and serve every day.

It is interesting that Katie, whose own husband is a Federal employee, does not write about her own family but writes about other families relying on Head Start services.

Mary, who lives in Virginia, but whose husband is overseas in Foreign Service, writes:

It's a huge problem for my family to go without pay for an

unknown period of time. I have a son with a chronic illness

whose medications are very expensive. This could impact our

ability to purchase his . . . medications. As a foreign

service family, we spend every day representing our nation

and making sacrifices on behalf of our nation. We hope that

Congress will do the same and work hard to resolve the issue

before the deadline later this week.

Lauren from Glen Allen, near where I live in Richmond, wrote and shared that government shutdowns are a reason she has lost faith in the system. In a letter to my office, she wrote:

My family and I purchased plane tickets to visit Utah about

6 months ago. Our entire itinerary is to visit National Parks

. . . and it is heartbreaking to realize now that on the cusp

of our trip--

They are supposed to leave on September 30--

we may not get to visit the locations and hike the trails

that we have been looking forward to for [many] months now.

It may seem like a trivial matter to you, but we saved money

for over a year and [we] managed our own household budget in

order to afford this trip. Now Congress is on the verge of

ruining it.

Amber from Williamsburg wrote:

We recently PCSd--

That is the military phrase for moving to a new duty station--

and a shutdown could not only cost us my husband's paycheck,

but it would also delay the reimbursement from our

personally procured move. We could face missing payments

on the [credit] card we used to pay for our move and my

husband's student loan, taken out so he can pursue a

degree he needed for [a] promotion. Not to mention that he

will continue to work, doing the job of many more that

will be furloughed until a resolution is agreed upon. We

are a family that has served this country for generations,

and we are still serving, but I am hesitant to encourage

my son that dreams of enlisting to pursue a career for a

country that is so quick to ignore the needs of its

military families.

Cheryl from Centreville writes:

My husband's business will be affected, as he has several

government contracts. He will be required by law to pay his

employees, whether he receives government funding or not. I

also have several friends who will be required to keep

working without pay, just as they did last time--and the time

before that. They have families to feed.

Tracy from Virginia Beach, who recently relocated to Virginia from California, is worried about how a shutdown will impact relocation and the ability to pay bills. She wrote:

My family . . . has experienced government shutdowns

previously. My husband has been a federal employee since

2005. It always creates stress and worry and having to figure

out how to pay basic expenses while he has to work without

pay.

Lori from Falls Church writes:

As an active duty military family whose income depends on a

government job, a shutdown will have a real and lasting

impact on our family. The government shutdown affects our

ability to pay our mortgage, to pay for groceries, medical

expenses . . . the struggle is [very] real. . . . We have had

some extra medical expenses from an illness my son has that

Tricare won't cover. . . . This is just too much pressure on

active duty families.

Yesterday, I met with the director of the Shenandoah National Park. He told me that there are many couples who have weddings planned for this weekend and the following weeks, during the most beautiful month of the year in the Shenandoah National Park. And they are ringing the phone off the hook at the Shenandoah National Park office. They asked what will happen if that park closes and their weddings can't go forward as planned.

This might seem like a minor one compared to people who have medical bills or in whose businesses they have to keep paying their employees when they are not getting paid. This is supposed to be the happiest day of your life. It is supposed to be the happiest day of your life. And because the House wants to backtrack on a spending deal they just reached a few months ago and they are unwilling to act in the same bipartisan manner that the Senate is acting in, these couples, who are going to pledge themselves to each other for the rest of their life, now, don't know whether their weddings will go forward.

Some politicians out there are saying shutdowns aren't that bad. I can assure you these 600 people--and they are writing in, more every day, and it will only get more intense--what they are saying tells you: Don't believe those who say a shutdown isn't a problem.

More than 100,000 Virginians would either be furloughed or forced to work

without pay. And while I am proud of the fact that we worked together to get this backpay guarantee, in an extended shutdown, a backpay doesn't pay the grocery bills, doesn't pay the medical bills, doesn't pay the rent bills. You might be able to take the guarantee to a landlord or to a school that needs a tuition payment and get them to cut you a break. But in an extended shutdown, a backpay guarantee, though OK, is not the same as getting your paycheck.

A shutdown affects us in so many ways. The SBA has to stop approving or modifying small business loans. The FDA delays food inspections. That is not a good thing. Air traffic controllers and TSA agents are working without pay, which in the past has contributed to significant flight delays all across the country. Nutrition benefits are potentially at risk in an extended shutdown, programs that help food insecure Virginian kids put food on the table.

I mentioned my Shenandoah National Park example. October is the busiest month of the year for Virginia communities that surround our National Parks, especially the Shenandoah National Park and the Chincoteague National Seashore and National Wildlife Refuge. These small communities that surround these two beautiful natural assets have reoriented their economies around tourism, and October is the peak season, especially in Shenandoah. This is not just the park itself and weddings that would take place in the park. This is the outdoor outfitters and the hotels and the B&Bs and the restaurants and diners that are in these small communities that surround these National Parks. This is their busy season. They count on this month of October as being the way they will have a successful year or an unsuccessful year. And if you shut down--because we saw this in October 2013--we have seen this before. If you shut down right at this time of year, they lose business that they will never get back, because the people who want to go in the peak of leaf season to have a vacation with their family, when the park reopens, maybe in a couple of weeks or a month, they are not going to say: OK, the leaves are all brown in November, but let's go. No, they are not going to do it. And so these small businesses don't recoup the revenue they lost during their busiest time of the year.

So whether it is closed parks or people who can't have a wedding or whether it is military members or Foreign Service overseas or people stressing about medical bills, this affects every ZIP Code, every last crossroads in this country, and it affects hundreds of thousands of Americans who are living abroad, serving this Nation in other countries, whether they be serving in the military or in a civilian capacity.

And, most of all, it is completely unnecessary. The President and the Speaker came to a bipartisan, bicameral agreement. It was voted positively in the House. It was voted positively here.

The only reason we are here is that a small but loud minority of House GOP Members who didn't like the deal that we reached, who voted against it, are now trying to use the leverage of shutting down the government of the greatest Nation on Earth to try to get their way.

I don't know if you noticed one thing they did earlier today. The Members who were loudly in the House, fighting in many instances for shutdown, cast a vote to reduce the salary of the Secretary of Defense, Lloyd Austin, to $1. This is the complete lack of seriousness with which these Members are taking this issue. The head of the American military? I am on the Armed Services Committee. One of my kids is a marine reservist. Somebody overseeing the military of the most important nation on Earth, a nation that has, through leadership, inspired the democracies of the world to link arms and stand up against an illegal invasion of Ukraine by Russia--the United States has forged a global coalition, and on the verge of a shutdown that would hurt our military members, what is the House doing? Are they even sending us legislation? They can't get their act together to do that. But in a voice vote earlier today, they could get their act together, in the middle of the biggest land war in Europe since World War II, to suggest that the salary of the Secretary of Defense should be reduced to $1 a year.

The biggest threats we face as a nation are not external to this Nation's borders. They are exemplified by the dysfunction that we are seeing with the House majority that refuses to abide by a deal they just voted on, who would put our military and all others--all other citizens--at risk.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to salute the Society for Human Resource Management, known today simply by its initials SHRM.

For 75 years, SHRM has contributed to opportunity in our Nation's workforce. The human resource profession emerged in the early 20th century and was known as ``Personnel Administration,'' as personnel departments over time began developing hiring procedures and employee handbooks to manage personnel according to fair, consistent policies. In 1948, the American Society for Personnel Administration--ASPA--was born. By 1950, ASPA had 130 members and launched Personnel News, which eventually became HR Magazine and remains one of the Nation's longest running association publications. In 1954, the term ``human resources'' emerged, reinforcing the value of the profession. In 1964, ASPA launched a nationwide student chapter program, which today hosts chapters at more than 200 colleges and universities. This period also saw the creation of SHRM's research arm to advance higher standards of performance in personnel administration. SHRM Research is now a leader in studies focused on the intersection of people and work.

In 1966, the association created the ASPA Foundation to mobilize members for positive change. Today, the SHRM Foundation supports initiatives on topics like mental health and wellness, inclusive workplaces, and military veterans. In 1968, as ASPA turned 20, its leaders made a commitment to articulate a defined body of HR knowledge. The ASPA Accreditation Institute was born; in 1976, the first HR certification exam was given to 80 test takers, and today, more than 120,000 people are SHRM-certified.

In 1973, ASPA opened its first DC office, and that same year and for the first time, ASPA provided testimony in a congressional hearing on pending legislation, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

In 1984, with national legislation becoming a growing focus for ASPA the association moved its national headquarters to Alexandria, VA. Today, SHRM has approximately 275 Alexandria-based employees located on its multibuilding campus, with another 75 employees across the United States. SHRM has 18 chapters throughout Virginia and approximately 11,148 Virginia human resource professionals and business executives who play an active role in this vibrant trade association. SHRM Government Affairs has since become the go-to source for workplace legislative and legal issues. Today, the SHRM Advocacy Team includes more than 17,000 HR professionals in all 435 congressional districts who inform public officials on how legislation will impact employers and employees. Today, SHRM has offices in eight locations worldwide servicing members in 165 countries.

Finally, in 2020, the HR profession faced its biggest challenge ever--and rose to the moment. The COVID-19 pandemic gave HR professionals the opportunity to lead their organizations through every phase of the public health crisis and helped inform businesses and policymakers on the changing landscape of work and offer thoughtful advice on the evolving human resources issues brought on by the pandemic.

Over the past 75 years, SHRM has become the voice of all things work. Their long history of advocacy before State and local government and 50 years of advocacy of workforce policy before the Congress, Federal Agencies, and the executive branch in the United States. Today, I salute the association and its 325,000 members for their positive impact on our Nation.

Madam President, today I want to discuss legislation I am introducing, the Modernizing the Federal Calendar Act.

This bill would shift the start of each fiscal year from October 1 to January 1 and, in doing so, align the deadline for appropriations with the deadline that Congress typically sees as the real target. This bill would eliminate the risk of government shutdowns in October, reduce the time spent on CRs, and lead to a higher probability of completing government funding work on time.

Congress's recurring reliance on continuing resolutions, CRs, to temporarily fund the government from the start of the fiscal year until the winter holidays poses significant challenges for Federal Agencies due to delays to contracts, grants, and hiring while operating under CRs. Even if Congress misses the December 31 deadline, changing the fiscal calendar will still yield benefits, as it will give Federal Agencies more time to enact the appropriations bills once passed and eliminate the annual uncertainty around a short-term CR in September among Agencies, government employees, and industries that rely on government operations.

In addition, Americans are forced to worry about a potential government shutdown if Congress can't reach an agreement on a year-long government funding bill or CR, creating unnecessary stress and uncertainty for the millions of Americans who work for or with the Federal Government, as well as the countless people and small businesses that rely on full-scale government operations and services. Starting

the fiscal year on January 1 will not end the possibility of shutdowns, but it will eliminate need to pass a CR by October 1 to fund the government and help ensure that Congress passes government funding bills without a shutdown.

Today, as the Federal Government rapidly approaches the end of the fiscal year, I am reminded that Congress has never passed all 12 appropriations bills by the October 1 deadline during my entire time in the Senate. Since the Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 updated the start of the fiscal year from July 1 to October 1, there have only been 4 years where Congress has passed yearlong government funding bills by October 1. The last time Congress did so was for fiscal year 1997. This trend makes clear that Congress already sees the December holidays as the real deadline and that the time to improve the certainty and reliability of the appropriations process is now.

Madam President, today I want to discuss legislation I am introducing, the Modernizing the Federal Calendar Act.

This bill would shift the start of each fiscal year from October 1 to January 1 and, in doing so, align the deadline for appropriations with the deadline that Congress typically sees as the real target. This bill would eliminate the risk of government shutdowns in October, reduce the time spent on CRs, and lead to a higher probability of completing government funding work on time.

Congress's recurring reliance on continuing resolutions, CRs, to temporarily fund the government from the start of the fiscal year until the winter holidays poses significant challenges for Federal Agencies due to delays to contracts, grants, and hiring while operating under CRs. Even if Congress misses the December 31 deadline, changing the fiscal calendar will still yield benefits, as it will give Federal Agencies more time to enact the appropriations bills once passed and eliminate the annual uncertainty around a short-term CR in September among Agencies, government employees, and industries that rely on government operations.

In addition, Americans are forced to worry about a potential government shutdown if Congress can't reach an agreement on a year-long government funding bill or CR, creating unnecessary stress and uncertainty for the millions of Americans who work for or with the Federal Government, as well as the countless people and small businesses that rely on full-scale government operations and services. Starting

the fiscal year on January 1 will not end the possibility of shutdowns, but it will eliminate need to pass a CR by October 1 to fund the government and help ensure that Congress passes government funding bills without a shutdown.

Today, as the Federal Government rapidly approaches the end of the fiscal year, I am reminded that Congress has never passed all 12 appropriations bills by the October 1 deadline during my entire time in the Senate. Since the Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 updated the start of the fiscal year from July 1 to October 1, there have only been 4 years where Congress has passed yearlong government funding bills by October 1. The last time Congress did so was for fiscal year 1997. This trend makes clear that Congress already sees the December holidays as the real deadline and that the time to improve the certainty and reliability of the appropriations process is now.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

Madam President, I rise today to try, with my colleagues, to put an end to the double shutdown threat.

There are two shutdown threats existing right now in the U.S. Capitol. One is a threat by certain Members in the House majority to shut the government down at the end of the month. That would be foolish. It would hurt people unnecessarily. It would be particularly foolish given the existence of Federal law that says Federal employees get paid even during a shutdown. How would it be fiscally conservative to shut the government down, lock Federal employees out of their offices, disable them from serving their fellow Americans, and then pay them? So we need to put an end to any risk of shutdown or threat of shutdown, and, in fact, it is a bad-faith tactic even to raise it. The second shutdown we need to avert is the shutdown of military promotions, and that is what I want to address today.

The senior Senator from Alabama has held up political nominations of more than 300 senior military officers for months. I have spoken about this numerous times on the Senate floor, and yet it is getting more and more severe every day. This is the behavior of one Senator who has placed a hold on these nominations, but, frankly, it is behavior that is being enabled by his colleagues on the Republican side of this body.

Military leaders who have done nothing other than volunteer to wear the Nation's uniform and risk their lives in serving this country, who have served honorably, have had their lives and careers derailed over a disagreement on a policy matter that these officers had nothing to do with.

A few weeks ago, Senator Reed and I took to the floor, and we read the names and backgrounds of all who had been blocked. We read their names, their rank, how long they served, where they have been deployed, military awards, nominations, and medals they received: Silver Star, Bronze Star, Purple Heart--all of whom are being blocked--it is extremely disrespectful to all these nominees--simply because an executive Agency has implemented a policy that one Senator does not like. As I have explained previously on the floor, it is particularly galling because we have repeatedly given this Senator an opportunity to convince his colleagues that the DOD policy is wrong, and he has been unsuccessful.

In the Armed Services Committee, where we serve together, he wanted a vote on an amendment to change the DOD policy. He failed. I have failed in making amendments in the Armed Services Committee before, and I never take out my failure on people who are serving, wearing the uniform of this country. If I am not persuasive enough to convince my colleagues of a policy, I am not going to punish those who are serving this country.

This is causing critical challenges in critical positions throughout the DOD, and it is affecting Virginia, just as it is all States. Of those who are being held, 39 of the positions are positions that affect Virginians. They are unable to move their families and unable to put their children in school. They can't start the jobs for which they have been nominated based upon their track record. Of the 39 positions, 25 are in one region; Hampton Roads, VA, the center of sea power in this country. These affect operations, modernization, and the future of the largest naval base in the world. But it is not just Hampton Roads, it is also McLean, Fort Belvoir, Falls Church, Fort Gregg-Adams, and Winchester.

The irresponsible hold is not only affecting the lives of individuals and affecting the strength of our military, it is getting attention from around the world. It is getting attention from allies who depend on us and want to know we are reliable, and it is also getting attention from adversaries.

Let me just read a sampling--and this is a small sampling--of headlines about how the actions of the U.S. Senate in blocking these appointments are being interpreted around the world.

RT is Russia Today newspaper. An article that was somewhat lethal: ``U.S. military hit by unprecedented leadership void''--this is a good news story in RT. The action of the Senate is a good news story in Russia Today.

Al Jazeera. This is not a publication of an adversary, but it is a publication that is widely read throughout the Middle East, including by folks and nations that are adversaries. ``Senator stalls US military promotions in anti-abortion standoff.'' This is going throughout the Middle East.

BBC News. The UK is probably our most reliable ally militarily and also in the intelligence community. They are part of the Five Eyes. We share intel. ``Senator Tuberville: No truce over military blockade on abortion.''

The Presiding Officer knows President Biden announced 2 years ago a pivotal new partnership called AUKUS--the United States, Australia, and the UK. This is an alliance that has been important and will be more important. Yet what is being read by the citizens and military leaders in the United Kingdom? They are reading about this action of the United States in blocking military promotions.

This is a publication--and I have to admit, I cannot pronounce this, but I will translate it. It is Global Times. It is a publication in the People's Republic of China that is subordinate to People's Daily. ``The dispute over the right to abortion has been spreading like fire!'' Exclamation point. This is a good news story in China. ``More than 300 appointments were blocked by Republican lawmakers, and the three U.S. military branches angrily denounced them.''

This is what our adversaries are saying about what is happening in this Chamber--or, more accurately, what is not happening in this Chamber.

The Sydney Morning Herald. Again, this AUKUS announcement about our framework with the United States and UK will depend heavily upon not only cooperation with the Australians, but the Australians have planned to invest billions of dollars in the American submarine industrial base so that we can train them and eventually build up a domestic submarine production capacity in Australia.

``US senator blocks hundreds of military promotions over reproductive rights.'' As the Australian Parliament is making the decision about whether to commit these resources to the United States in a historic way, this is

what they are reading about the American military and the leadership of this body with respect to the promotion of military members.

CBC. This is the Canadian broadcasting network, and this is, again, one of our primary allies in the world whom we work with together on everything. ``Embassies unstaffed, military gaps: America's toxic politics spills into foreign affairs.'' One of our best allies, that is what they are saying about us.

Finally, this last publication, this is a Taiwanese publication. Taiwan is increasingly reliant upon the United States and other nations to try to protect them from Chinese aggression. ``U.S. anti-abortion senator boycotted general promotions, criticized for `assisting the Communist Party.' ''

Whether it is our allies or our adversaries, they watch what we do, and they watch what we don't do; and they are paying critical attention to the blockade of these worthy men and women in the military.

Now, my Republican colleagues have sort of switched tactics. For a while, they weren't sure whether they wanted to defend the blockade that the Senator from Alabama is leading. They have realized it is indefensible, so now they are trying to blame Senator Schumer for it, that Senator Schumer should just take responsibility for addressing this by putting votes on the floor.

Senator Schumer has nothing to do with these blocks. During his entire time in the Senate, he has not put a blanket hold on military promotions nor has any other Member of the Democratic caucus. The suggestion that it is Senator Schumer's fault is laughable.

The Congressional Research Service has done the study and suggests that the only way to overcome this massive blockade by the Republicans would be to take up each of these appointments--hundreds of them. That would take over 700 hours to complete what, throughout decades, has been a matter of course in this body. Of course, if we did that, we wouldn't get to the budget. We wouldn't get to other important priorities. We wouldn't get to the FAA reauthorization. We wouldn't get to the farm bill. We wouldn't get to confirm judges. So, as to the notion that we will just bring them all up individually, the Republican majority knows that that is not practical.

Some have suggested something that, frankly, is even more pernicious and that I find insulting. Some of my Republican colleagues have said: OK. Look, Senator Tuberville is holding up hundreds of people, including service chiefs and the head of the Naval Academy in Annapolis. Why don't we do this: Why doesn't Senator Schumer just bring up the top brass? Then we will have votes on the top brass and allow Senator Tuberville to keep punishing everybody else down the line.

That is not a good-faith offer, and it is directly contrary to the spirit of the American military. I am not a veteran. I serve on the Armed Services Committee, and I am from a very military State. My oldest son is a U.S. marine. If you say to somebody in the military ``just advantage the brass, and punish everybody underneath them''--I would advise you not to say that to anybody in the military. That is not the American military effort. I have heard my son say many times that officers eat last. You take care of the enlisted. You take care of the lower ranks before you take care of the higher-ups.

So the notion that this body or that even some of the military nominees who have been advanced for the high positions would accept this body's acting on them while continuing to punish everybody beneath them is outrageous.

In fact, I will just remind my colleagues and my colleagues who are here--the Presiding Officer and the Senator from Washington--that we all were together once at a lunch a number of years ago with Senator John McCain before he passed away. A decision was made that was sort of rare, which was that we would have a closed-door lunch with all 100 Senators and Senator McCain would speak about the unspeakable: his time as a POW in Hanoi during the Vietnam war.

His plane was shot down in Hanoi. He was beaten and tortured. He was imprisoned as a prisoner of war for multiple years. There came a time during his imprisonment when his captors realized that his father was one of the key members of the Navy, one of the key members of the brass. He was a VIP. Many people had been imprisoned as POWs in that same Hanoi Hilton before Senator McCain, but the North Vietnamese believed, if we let Senator McCain out, it will suggest that we are beneficial; but it also may weaken the morale of those who remain here because we will have let out somebody who is high up on the list, and we will have continued to punish others.

They came to Captain McCain, and they said: We will let you out.

How tempting that must have been. I don't know any of us who could kind of put themselves in that position. The Presiding Officer and I were together a few years ago at the memorial for John McCain where he was shot down in Hanoi. Put yourself in that position. You have been a POW for years, and you are given an offer for your freedom. And he turned it down. He turned it down and said: I am not accepting it because there are people who were here before me; and only if you let all of those hostages go will I then accept your offer of freedom. I am not going to let you benefit me and continue punishing others who were here before me.

That is what the ethos of the American military is. You don't benefit the VIP or the big shot or the person with the high rank and punish others.

So for us to countenance such a suggestion in this body that we would have a debate and a vote on a few of the top brass and then would allow the punishment of these poor people who are trying to move across the country--whose kids need to be in school, whose spouses have jobs they can't report to--not only should we not do this here, but I can't imagine that the key military leadership who is waiting in line would even want us to do that.

There is one solution for this, and the solution is for the Republican minority in this body to go to Senator Tuberville and convince him to stop this punishment of these individuals. These officers had nothing to do with the policy that Senator Tuberville doesn't like. If he doesn't like the policy--and I disagree with him on that--he is within his rights to not like the policy, but when he has had the repeated ability to try to persuade his colleagues that the policy is wrong and he has been unsuccessful, he should not take out his inability to persuade his colleagues on these patriotic public servants.

I urge, in the most urgent way that I can, the quickest end to this blockade. Let's get these people into the positions that they have earned through their lives of service and enable them to continue to serve this country.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I have four requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority Leaders.

Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate:

Madam President, today I want to discuss legislation I am introducing, the End Shutdown Act.

When Congress is unable to come to an agreement about government funding, Federal employees, government contractors, and Americans who depend on critical government services all suffer the consequences of using government shutdowns as a negotiating tactic. This bill prevents government shutdowns by initiating an automatic continuing resolution on October 1 if no appropriations bill is passed by that date and stops Congress from considering any nonemergency legislation until it reaches a long-term spending deal.

For Federal employees who are forced to go without a paycheck through no fault of their own during a government shutdown, furlough can mean falling behind on mortgage, rent, or student loan payments and uncertainty about how to put food on the table for their families. I am glad my colleagues and I were able to guarantee backpay for all Federal employees in 2019, but the potential for prolonged shutdowns continues to threaten families' budgets and local economies. Virginia is home to more than 170,000 Federal employees and tens of thousands of Federal contractors. They are not a bargaining chip to be played in these negotiations.

Government shutdowns disproportionately harm Virginia's economy, but over 80 percent of Federal workers live and work outside of the DC area. Shutdowns inflict pain on communities across the Nation, as they disrupt Federal contracts and loans to small businesses, complicate supply chains, and stall the release of data business owners need to make decisions.

Further, government shutdowns halt the essential services that furloughed employees are unable to provide, from food inspection services to passport renewals and Social Security card replacement. Over the past two decades, government shutdowns have put some of our most essential programs like Medicare, SNAP, TANF, and WIC in jeopardy. Using government shutdowns as a negotiating tactic has the potential to inflict senseless pain on millions of Americans who rely on these and other Federal programs.

By ending the threat of government shutdowns, Congress can ensure no one can ever again hold public servants and critical programs hostage by using a shutdown as a negotiating tactic. I encourage my colleagues to support this common-sense proposal that is needed for both the American people and the Federal employees across the country on whom we rely.

Madam President, today I want to discuss legislation I am introducing, the End Shutdown Act.

When Congress is unable to come to an agreement about government funding, Federal employees, government contractors, and Americans who depend on critical government services all suffer the consequences of using government shutdowns as a negotiating tactic. This bill prevents government shutdowns by initiating an automatic continuing resolution on October 1 if no appropriations bill is passed by that date and stops Congress from considering any nonemergency legislation until it reaches a long-term spending deal.

For Federal employees who are forced to go without a paycheck through no fault of their own during a government shutdown, furlough can mean falling behind on mortgage, rent, or student loan payments and uncertainty about how to put food on the table for their families. I am glad my colleagues and I were able to guarantee backpay for all Federal employees in 2019, but the potential for prolonged shutdowns continues to threaten families' budgets and local economies. Virginia is home to more than 170,000 Federal employees and tens of thousands of Federal contractors. They are not a bargaining chip to be played in these negotiations.

Government shutdowns disproportionately harm Virginia's economy, but over 80 percent of Federal workers live and work outside of the DC area. Shutdowns inflict pain on communities across the Nation, as they disrupt Federal contracts and loans to small businesses, complicate supply chains, and stall the release of data business owners need to make decisions.

Further, government shutdowns halt the essential services that furloughed employees are unable to provide, from food inspection services to passport renewals and Social Security card replacement. Over the past two decades, government shutdowns have put some of our most essential programs like Medicare, SNAP, TANF, and WIC in jeopardy. Using government shutdowns as a negotiating tactic has the potential to inflict senseless pain on millions of Americans who rely on these and other Federal programs.

By ending the threat of government shutdowns, Congress can ensure no one can ever again hold public servants and critical programs hostage by using a shutdown as a negotiating tactic. I encourage my colleagues to support this common-sense proposal that is needed for both the American people and the Federal employees across the country on whom we rely.