Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to speak out about the absurd book bannings that are happening in schools across our country. I want to thank Senator Butler for inviting me to speak today about this issue.

You know, I was reflecting, as I was listening to Senator Butler speak in the beginning, about what reading meant to me when I was a young person and when I was first understanding what it felt like to be immersed in a book that I loved--that feeling of learning, of being able to imagine myself living different lives, being able to think about what different experiences would be like, and understanding that my life was not everybody's life, that there is such diversity of life in this world, and being exposed to that through reading was so exciting to me.

Also, as I was seeing how I was not like everybody else, I was also able to see myself in the people whom I read about--both my own struggles as well as triumphs in the stories that I read--and that is the gift of reading. So to think about the absurdity of trying to block that gift from people because of one's own views about what is OK and what is not OK is, I think, what is at issue here.

So I appreciate very much having the opportunity to read into the Record incredible authors whose works have been unfairly banned.

To my colleagues, I think it is interesting that, just last week, the American Library Association released new data documenting how prevalent this is. They are documenting book challenges that are happening throughout the United States, and they found a huge surge in these challenges--a 65-percent increase in challenges to books just in 2023. It is the highest level the ALA has ever recorded.

Among the books that were banned last year is a book called ``And Tango Makes Three.'' This is a book by Justin Richardson and Peter Parnell. It is a demonstration of the absurdity of banning books--this book in particular. It is based on the real story of two penguins in the Central Park Zoo who create a family and raise a chick together. Both of these penguins were male, and so a Florida school district banned the book because of their State's ``don't say gay'' law. Now I am going to read a bit of the text because I think it shows so much. Here we go.

[C]hildren and their parents aren't the only families at

the zoo. The animals make families of their own. There are

red panda bear families, with mothers and fathers and furry

red panda bear cubs. There are monkey dads and monkey moms

raising noisy monkey babies. There are toad families, and

toucan families, and cotton-top tamarin families too.

And in the penguin house there are penguin families. Every

year at the very same time, the girl penguins start noticing

the boy penguins. And the boy penguins start noticing the

girls. When the right girl and the right boy find each other,

they become a couple.

Two penguins in the penguin house were a little bit

different. One was named Roy, the other was named Silo. Roy

and Silo were both boys. But they did everything together.

They bowed to each other. And they walked together. They

sang to each other. And [they] swam together.

They didn't spend much time with the girl penguins, and the

girl penguins didn't spend much time with them. Instead, Roy

and Silo wound their necks around each other. Their keeper

Mr. Gramzay noticed the two penguins and thought to himself,

``They must be in love.''

Now, I have four grandchildren, and I think that reading a story like this to them--reading this story to them--is exactly what should be happening as children and people of all ages really think about what it means to love one another, what it means to be a family, and how we can come together in that idea rather than being driven apart.

I hope and will do everything I can to make sure that my four grandchildren live in a future where books that affirm that families can come in all different forms and in all different shapes and sizes aren't considered worth banning.

I thank Senator Butler for organizing this discussion.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Paul amendment.

As part of the effort to support our economy following the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Federal Reserve established a liquidity facility to help State and local governments better manage their cash flow and those pressures that existed and that they faced as a result of the increase in State and local government expenditures related to the pandemic and the delay and decrease of some tax revenues and other revenues. And all of the funds borrowed by municipalities under this program have been repaid.

So tying the Feds' hands to prevent it from helping States and municipalities, as this provision would do, would be dangerous. Congress has given the Fed the flexibility to transact in State and local bonds because we knew that it could be an important and helpful tool in times of an emergency--protecting millions of public workers, including police officers, healthcare workers, and other first responders.

So, as we have seen during the pandemic and natural disasters, uncertainty can hurt both big and small States, and the Fed's simple ability to assist States and local governments in this way can provide stability and allow policymakers to address emerging crises. Preventing emergency programs outright would be dangerous and unnecessary.

And, finally, adopting this amendment would require the continuing resolution go back to the House and be voted on again.

So I urge my colleagues to vote no on the Paul amendment.

Vote on Amendment No. 1614

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate consider the following nominations en bloc: Calendar Nos. 441 and 442; that the Senate vote on the nominations en bloc without intervening action or debate; that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table; and that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to legislative session and be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 10 a.m. on Tuesday, February 27; that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day and morning business be closed; further, that following the conclusion of morning business, the Senate proceed to executive session and resume consideration of the Becerra nomination postcloture; that all postcloture time be considered expired at 11 a.m. and that following the cloture vote on the Leibowitz nomination, the Senate recess until 2:15 p.m. to allow for the weekly caucus meetings; that at 2:15 p.m., if cloture has been invoked on the Leibowitz nomination, the Senate vote on confirmation of the nomination; and that if cloture is invoked on the Dellinger nomination, all time be considered expired at 5:45 p.m.; further, that if any nominations are confirmed during Tuesday's session, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's actions.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to legislative session and be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 10 a.m. on Tuesday, February 6; that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, 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 Campbell nomination; further, that the cloture motions filed during Thursday's session ripen at 11:30 a.m. and that the Senate recess following the cloture vote on the Campbell nomination until 2:15 p.m. to allow for the weekly caucus meetings; further, that if cloture is invoked on the Campbell nomination, all time be considered expired at 2:15 p.m., and that if cloture is invoked on the Baggio nomination, all time be considered expired at 5:30 p.m.; finally, that if any nominations are confirmed during Tuesday's session, the motion 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.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the cloture motion with respect to the Szabat nomination be withdrawn and that following disposition of the Coscia nomination, the Senate immediately vote on confirmation of the Szabat nomination, with all provisions of the previous order remaining in effect.

Mr. President, for the information of the Senate, Senators should expect two rollcall votes starting at 2:15 p.m. We do not expect additional votes this evening.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to legislative session and be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that if the Senate receives a veto message on S.J. Res. 38, it be considered as having been read and be printed in the Record and spread in full upon the Journal; further, that notwithstanding rule XXII, the veto message with respect to S.J. Res. 38 be considered at a time to be determined by the majority leader in concurrence with the Republican leader prior to January 31, 2024; that there be up to 2 hours for debate equally divided between the two leaders or their designees; and that the Senate then vote on passage of the joint resolution, the objections of the President to the contrary notwithstanding.

I understand there is a bill at the desk, and I ask for its first reading.

I now ask for a second reading and in order to place the bill on the calendar under the provisions of rule XIV, I object to my own request.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 10 a.m. on Tuesday, January 23; that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, 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 Koos nomination postcloture; further, that all time be considered expired at 11:30 a.m.; that the Senate recess following the cloture vote on the Coscia nomination until 2:15 p.m. to allow for the weekly caucus meetings; further, that if cloture has been invoked on the Coscia nomination, all time be considered expired at 2:15 p.m., and that if cloture is invoked on the Szabat nomination, all time be considered expired at 6 p.m.; finally, that if any nominations are confirmed during Tuesday'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.