[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 43 (Thursday, March 10, 2022)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1105-S1111]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 EB-5 REFORM AND INTEGRITY ACT OF 2022

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I would like to thank Senator Leahy for 
joining me to discuss the EB-5 Reform and Integrity Act of 2022. He and 
I have worked together on the issue of EB-5 reform for many years.
  Because of that, we are proud that the Consolidated Appropriations 
Act 2022 includes the provisions of the EB-5 Reform and Integrity Act 
of 2022, of which we are the primary authors.
  Congress originally authorized the EB-5 Regional Center program in 
1993 as a pilot program, and, in recent years, its reauthorization was 
often included in appropriations bills. However, due to lack of an 
agreement to reauthorize and reform the program last year, it lapsed on 
June 30 and has remained lapsed since that time.
  This legislation formally repeals the pilot program created by 
Congress in 1993 and codifies in its place a new regional center 
program reflecting a number of reforms that we have pursued for many 
years.
  All regional centers which operated under the lapsed and repealed 
pilot program will be expected to seek a new regional center 
designation in compliance with the new requirements and reforms laid 
out in our bill. However, the bill allows petitions filed by immigrant 
investors under the old pilot program to continue to be adjudicated 
under the law as it existed when they were filed.
  The EB-5 Reform and Integrity Act of 2022 codifies a number of our 
long-sought reforms designed to enhance the integrity of the regional 
center program and prevent fraud and abuse that have plagued it for far 
too long.
  The bill also requires that DHS issue regulations regarding the 
redeployment of investor funds if certain conditions are met. We expect 
USCIS to oversee redeployments and take action as necessary. Investors 
should not be left vulnerable and regional centers cannot be allowed to 
deploy funds in any way they please. We expect capital to remain at 
risk, as required by the law, and the redeployment of funds to be in 
projects that are preapproved.
  The legislation codifies the definition of and the designation 
process for a ``high unemployment'' targeted employment area that was 
found in the 2019 EB-5 Immigrant Investor Program Modernization Rule. 
As under the 2019 rule, the bill allows only DHS to make such 
designations.
  The codification of the so-called donut model from the 2019 rule will 
significantly limit the number of census tracts that may be used to 
seek a designation as a ``high unemployment'' TEA.
  This limitation, combined with the exclusive authority of DHS to make 
high unemployment TEA designations, will crack down on the notorious 
practice of TEA gerrymandering, the practice of creating elaborate 
configurations of multiple census tracts strung together so that a 
census tract with high unemployment at one end can be used in order to 
obtain a TEA designation for a building project within an affluent 
census tract at the other end, perhaps many miles away.
  It is also our expectation that ``high unemployment'' TEA 
designations will be reserved for census tracts that have experienced 
persistently high unemployment for a number of years and not because of 
temporary anomalous circumstances such as local unemployment caused by 
the COVID-19 pandemic.
  Finally, the legislation puts in place specific visa set-asides for 
rural area projects, high unemployment area projects, and 
infrastructure projects. The visa set-aside for infrastructure projects 
is limited to true public infrastructure projects--that is, those that 
benefit the public and the American people--not public-private 
partnerships or projects for a private business.
  The EB-5 Reform and Integrity Act of 2022 is the result of years of 
hard work and negotiation, and it is our hope that it brings meaningful 
reform to a program badly in need of it and, most importantly, much-
needed investment capital and the permanent jobs that can come with it, 
to inner city and rural areas where it is normally difficult, if not 
impossible, to attract investment capital. We are grateful that it was 
included in the Omnibus bill and look forward to seeing it signed into 
law.


         Violence Against Women Act Reauthorization Act of 2022

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the 
Violence Against Women Act Reauthorization Act of 2022. This bill would 
reauthorize our Nation's critical law to respond to domestic violence. 
It is long overdue.
  Last month, I introduced the Violence Against Women Act 
Reauthorization Act alongside Senators Ernst, Durbin, Murkowski, and 
others. A number of advocates joined us, including Angelina Jolie, to 
speak about the importance of this bill.
  This bill has received strong bipartisan support, including from 11 
Republican cosponsors. And it has now been included in the Federal 
Omnibus spending bill we are set to vote on this week.
  This bipartisan bill would reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act 
through 2027. And the bill includes important updates to modernize the 
Violence Against Women Act to do an even better job of protecting and 
supporting the survivors of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual 
assault, and stalking.
  I was proud to support the original Violence Against Women Act in 
1994. And I have supported each reauthorization of the law since then.
  This includes the most recent reauthorization in 2013, which passed 
the Senate by a strong bipartisan vote of 78-22.
  I was honored to be able to sponsor this new reauthorization, which 
expands protections for survivors.
  This bill is the result of a truly bipartisan effort. I would like to 
thank Senators Ernst, Durbin, and Murkowski for working with me to 
prepare this important piece of legislation.
  We have also had help from a number of our Senate colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle who have made important contributions to this 
effort.
  I would also like to thank the many advocates who provided valuable 
input and support for this effort. This bill was written in close 
consultation with the people who are on the frontlines helping 
survivors of domestic violence every day.
  Together, we drafted a bill that preserves the good work of the last 
Violence Against Women Act reauthorization and strengthens existing 
programs.
  For nearly 30 years, the Violence Against Women Act has played a 
vital role in the Federal response to domestic violence, dating 
violence, sexual assault, and stalking. I hope that this bill will be 
an effective tool to build on those efforts.
  The need to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act is clear. 
These programs are vital tools that provide thousands of domestic 
violence survivors with the resources they need.
  For instance, according to the National Network to End Domestic 
Violence, in a single day in 2020 there were

[[Page S1106]]

76,525 survivors of domestic violence who received assistance thanks to 
programs funded and supported by the Violence Against Women Act.
  Despite the progress made over the last three decades, sexual, 
emotional, and physical abuse are still painful realities for far too 
many Americans.
  More than one in three women and more than one in four men will 
experience rape, physical violence, or stalking by an intimate partner 
in their lifetime.
  According to the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, in my 
home State of California, approximately 35 percent of California women 
and 31 percent of California men will experience violence from intimate 
partners in their lifetimes.
  All too often, these instances of domestic violence have fatal 
consequences. Nationwide, an average of three women each day are killed 
by a current or former intimate partner.
  Based on a recent study of domestic violence occurring in Orange 
County, CA, just under half of domestic violence-related homicides 
involved an individual with a known history of violence.
  The Violence Against Women Act plays a critical role supporting law 
enforcement in their efforts to stop these perpetrators before it is 
too late.
  It is clear that the programs created by the Violence Against Women 
Act are necessary. And they need to be continually updated to meet the 
needs of survivors.
  The bipartisan reauthorization bill that will soon be considered by 
the full Senate would reauthorize these important programs and provide 
the necessary updates to strengthen them.
  This bill enhances and expands services for survivors of domestic 
violence, including survivors in rural communities, LGBT survivors, 
survivors with disabilities, and survivors who experience abuse later 
in life.
  This bill reauthorizes and strengthens the criminal justice response 
to domestic violence, including by improving the Justice Department's 
STOP grant program and strengthening the ability of Tribal courts to 
address instances of domestic violence on Tribal lands.
  This bill establishes a pilot program on restorative practices that 
focuses on addressing domestic violence, dating violence, sexual 
assault, and stalking through community-based, victim-initiated efforts 
to seek accountability.
  This bill invests in prevention education efforts and improves the 
healthcare system's response to sexual violence across the country.
  These updates can have a real impact. According to analysis by the 
International Association of Forensic Nurses, only one in four 
hospitals throughout the country currently has a sexual assault 
forensic nurse on staff. These gaps in our healthcare system have 
critical impacts on a survivor's ability to seek necessary medical 
attention after they experience sexual violence.
  Our bipartisan bill seeks to remedy this problem by providing 
additional funding and training to increase access to forensic nurses, 
particularly in rural areas.
  Though this bipartisan bill makes significant improvements to our 
Nation's response to domestic violence, it is not a perfect bill. I 
regret that certain provisions were unable to be included in this bill.
  In particular, I wish that we had been able to include a provision in 
this bill closing the ``boyfriend loophole.'' This provision would have 
ensured that individuals convicted of domestic abuse against a dating 
partner could not purchase firearms.
  Individuals who are convicted of domestic violence against a spouse 
are already prevented from purchasing a firearm. It is deeply 
disappointing that there is not sufficient bipartisan support for this 
commonsense provision to close this dangerous loophole.
  Though we still have work to do, this bipartisan bill represents a 
strong step forward in protecting and supporting the survivors of 
domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking.
  It is time for the Senate to pass this long-overdue reauthorization 
of the Violence Against Women Act.
  I urge all of my colleagues to support this important bipartisan 
legislation as it is considered on the floor. This bill is not for us; 
it is for the millions of brave survivors that deserve action from 
Congress.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.


                           Amendment No. 4989

  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 4989 and ask that 
it be reported by number.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment by number.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Utah [Mr. Lee] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 4989.

  The amendment is as follows:

      (Purpose: To prohibit funding for COVID-19 vaccine mandates)

       At the end of division HH, add the following:

    TITLE VII--PROHIBITION ON FUNDING FOR COVID-19 VACCINE MANDATES

     SEC. 701. PROHIBITION ON FUNDING FOR COVID-19 VACCINE 
                   MANDATES.

       None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available 
     under any division of this Act (notwithstanding section 3) 
     may be obligated or expended to--
       (1) implement or enforce--
       (A) section 1910.501 of title 29, Code of Federal 
     Regulations (or a successor regulation);
       (B) Executive Order 14042 of September 9, 2021 (86 Fed. 
     Reg. 50985; relating to ensuring adequate COVID safety 
     protocols for Federal contractors);
       (C) Executive Order 14043 of September 9, 2021 (86 Fed. 
     Reg. 50989; relating to requiring Coronavirus Disease 2019 
     vaccination for Federal employees);
       (D) the interim final rule issued by the Department of 
     Health and Human Services on November 5, 2021, entitled 
     ``Medicare and Medicaid Programs; Omnibus COVID-19 Health 
     Care Staff Vaccination'' (86 Fed. Reg. 61555); or
       (E) the memorandum signed by the Secretary of Defense on 
     August 24, 2021, for ``Mandatory Coronavirus Disease 2019 
     Vaccination of Department of Defense Service Members''; or
       (2) promulgate, implement, or enforce any rule, regulation, 
     or other agency statement, that is substantially similar to a 
     regulation, Executive Order, rule, or memorandum described in 
     paragraph (1).

  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, a few short months ago, President Biden 
issued a series of Executive orders. These Executive orders issued by 
the Biden administration proposed some pretty sweeping mandates on the 
American people, mandates insisting that covered persons, including for 
our purposes today military employees, Federal workers, employees of 
businesses with government contracts with the Federal Government, and 
medical professionals who contract with CMS--basically anyone involved 
with the provision of services through Medicare or Medicaid must get 
the COVID-19 vaccine on condition of termination.
  The way these mandates work is particularly nasty, especially if they 
work for one of the private companies, as is the case with CMS and 
independent contractor mandates. If they don't fire all their workers 
who don't get vaccinated, then they basically are rendered out of 
business.
  Yes, the Federal Government was going to just impose these crippling 
costs that no corporation could afford to carry. They knew that this 
was creating a big issue and that this would force people into getting 
vaccinated.
  Here is the problem with that. Now, I want to be clear. I have been 
vaccinated. My family has been vaccinated. I believe that vaccines have 
made things safer and healthier for hundreds of millions of people. I 
also believe that, like any medical procedure, it is not without risk, 
particularly to some people who might have extreme sensitivities, who 
might have an idiosyncratic response to the vaccine. So it is not right 
to force this on everyone and to render those who refuse to get it not 
only unemployed but unemployable.
  I have received communications from countless people--for example, 
military professionals, military officers, and enlisted personnel who 
have worked for the U.S. military for nearly two decades, who are 
actually coming up on retirement, who are saying that, for one reason 
or another, they don't want to get the vaccine. Sometimes, it is 
religious; other times, it is based on a history of poor reactions to 
other vaccines or a prior medical condition that they believe would 
cause them to respond poorly or based on natural immunity.
  They don't want to get the vaccine, and they are being told that, in 
the case of military personnel, if they don't get it, then they will 
not receive

[[Page S1107]]

an honorable discharge. This could render them not only unemployed but 
unemployable, and that is the case for many, many others subject to 
these overreaching mandates.
  Look, if we decided as a country that this was good policy, good 
policy, like all good policy, should be embodied in law. In my copy of 
the Constitution, the very first clause of the very first section of 
the very first article says that ``all legislative Powers herein 
granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall 
consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.'' Article I, section 
7 makes the point even clearer. It says that in order to pass a law 
within the Federal system and have it be a Federal law, it has to be 
proposed in one body or the other, but it has to be the same 
legislation passed by both Houses prior to its presentment to the 
President for signature, veto, or acquiescence.
  In this case, we have had none of those things. No, instead, you have 
unilateral Executive action taken by the President and those working 
within his administration. In the process, they have bypassed that this 
set of mandates is largely unnecessary, dramatically overreaching, not 
within the executive power granted to the executive branch of 
government by the U.S. Congress, and is fundamentally immoral, in 
addition to being wildly and increasingly unpopular.
  You see, the little secret is, people don't like the government doing 
things that are immoral. And all of us understand that you don't render 
someone unemployed, unable to put bread on the table for their 
children, simply because they won't bow to Presidential medical 
orthodoxy. That is not right, it is not American, and it is not 
constitutional, but more than anything, it is not moral.
  We all know deep down that this is not right. This is not something 
any of us would want to do. Not one of us would want to show up and 
tell our own employees: You know, if you don't do what I say with 
regard to a medical procedure you may not want and as to which you 
might have legitimate, sincere religious objections or that might be 
unnecessary because you have natural immunity, which, by the way--
recent studies have confirmed natural immunity is at least as good as 
and, according to many studies released by many countries and studies 
in possession of our own government, is indicated to be at least as 
powerful as and in many cases more powerful than the immunity achieved 
through the vaccine. None of us would do that to a friend, a neighbor, 
or our own employee because we know it would be wrong; it would be 
mean; it would be unkind.
  You can't atone for the unkindness and the immorality in that by 
claiming it is OK because it is through the government, especially not 
when the President of the United States is flouting circumventing the 
Constitution of the United States.
  We have a chance to make this right. Yes, over time, sadly, Senates 
and Houses of Representatives and White Houses of every conceivable 
partisan combination have contributed to this because, yes, we have 
given Executives too much power. I complained about it during the 
previous administration in response to specific actions taken by the 
previous President--who was a Member of my own party--sometimes at 
great personal expense because I believe Congress has given the 
Executive too much power. It is bad. It is harmful. It is dangerous. We 
have to stop it somewhere.
  We have a chance right now. We have a shot with something that is 
wildly unpopular and inherently immoral, and that shot exists with not 
funding it. We don't have to fund that part of government that goes to 
fund these dangerous, immoral, unconstitutional vaccine mandates. We 
shouldn't do it. I encourage all of my colleagues, all within the sound 
of my voice, please end this madness now.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I will be very brief. There are two reasons 
why Senators should vote against the Lee anti-vaccination amendment 
that affects our dedicated healthcare workers and our superlative 
military.
  First, vaccines for healthcare workers protects the most vulnerable, 
particularly seniors and those with chronic illness. Three in four 
COVID deaths in America were seniors. Two hundred thousand were people 
living in long-term care. Vulnerable people are safer when their homes, 
hospitals, and doctors' offices are safe. Furthermore, flu shot 
requirements for healthcare workers were already common. Health workers 
know vaccinations are part of the job.

  Turning to the Armed Forces, I am simply going to quote the letter 
General Milley wrote with respect to the vaccination requirement. Here 
is General Milley:

       We need each and every Soldier, Sailor, Airmen, Marine and 
     Guardian healthy and capable of performing our duties. COVID-
     19 is a threat to force protection and readiness.

  General Milley went on to say:

       With this in mind, the Secretary of Defense intends to 
     mandate vaccinations for all Servicemembers.

  And then he makes it clear:

       The Joint Force medical professionals recommended this as a 
     necessary step to sustain our readiness and protect our 
     force, our coworkers, our families, and our communities.

  For these reasons, when we get a chance to vote on the Lee anti-
vaccination amendment affecting healthcare workers in the military, I 
urge my colleagues to oppose the Lee amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.


                           Amendment No. 4983

  Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, I am rising to support the amendment that 
my colleague Senator John Kennedy will introduce. So I will speak 
before he introduces it, but I speak in support thereof.
  Senator Kennedy is going to introduce an amendment that would 
increase and that would grant disaster relief in several regions of the 
country, but I speak on behalf of those in Southwest Louisiana.
  A picture tells a thousand words. If you recall back 3 years ago, 
Hurricane Laura hit Southwest Louisiana. Two weeks later, almost on the 
exact same track, Hurricane Delta followed up, destroying that which 
had not already been destroyed by Hurricane Laura.
  The devastation of these storms was dramatic. Now I thank the 
American people. There has been aid that has been given by fellow 
Americans to these communities, but it has been less than what is 
required. And flying over, the picture tells a thousand words. There 
are still blue tarps on top of roofs years after the storm has hit. And 
for those who are unfamiliar with it, blue tarps are when the roof has 
been destroyed, you place the tarp so that it hopefully provides 
protection that shingles otherwise would.
  When you are on the ground and you go through the neighborhood, there 
are homes that are blighted, boarded up, and as they have been boarded 
up, criminals have come in and businesses have closed. This 
particularly affects lower income communities. Those who have more 
resources, they will recover, but those folks who need a little extra 
help, they are not.
  And so, as we think about the aid that my fellow Americans are asked 
to give to their fellow Americans, I just will give some statistics. 
Hurricane Laura cost $19 billion in damages; Hurricane Delta another $3 
billion; and Ida, of course, not only hit Southwest Louisiana, but cost 
$75 billion in damages from Louisiana to New York.
  There is a lot that has happened. I ask for additional support as 
outlined in my colleague John Kennedy's amendment to finish the 
recovery for these folks who have endured so much.
  I humbly ask my colleagues to support the amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise tonight to urge my colleagues to 
support the Omnibus appropriations bill before us.
  The bill represents a massive bipartisan effort that rests upon a 
framework that preserves all legacy riders, rejects poison pill policy 
provisions from both sides, and achieves dollar-for-dollar funding 
parity for defense and nondefense increases.
  As political compromise has become more and more difficult here, 
great credit, I believe, belongs to Chairman Leahy for making the tough 
choices that needed to be made and showing leadership to reach this 
agreement tonight.

[[Page S1108]]

  The senior Senator from Vermont, who also serves this body as the 
President pro tempore, has accomplished many things in his long and his 
distinguished career. Each and every one of these accomplishments were 
made possible by his unparalleled ability to get things done, and this 
bill needed to get done.
  Because the international security situation demands a greater 
emphasis on and investment in our national defense, this omnibus bill 
provides $782 billion for the Department of Defense and for other 
defense functions; $4 billion more than the level authorized by the 
National Defense Authorization Act; $30 billion more than President 
Biden's budget request; and nearly $42 billion more than 2021.
  The bill also provides an 11-percent increase over fiscal year 2021 
for the Department of Homeland Security, including $6.5 billion for 
much needed investments in border security resources and a 7-percent 
increase for ICE operations. Critically, the package restores $2 
billion in funding for wall construction on the southwest border.
  The bill also cuts nearly $65 billion in wasteful nondefense spending 
proposed in the Biden administration's budget--a nearly 10-percent 
decrease from the requested level.
  Finally, the package also provides critical emergency assistance to 
our military, to Ukraine, and to our European allies, without reducing 
base defense spending by a single dollar.
  Is an omnibus appropriations bill ideal? I will tell you tonight, the 
answer is, no, it is not, but at this critical time and this late date, 
it is necessary.
  My hope is that we can pass this bill and use the same framework that 
made this bill possible as we begin the 2023 appropriations process.
  I have no illusions that once again it will not be a difficult 
process. It will be. I know that our chairman can get it done, and I 
look forward to continuing to work with Senator Leahy and the 
Appropriations staff--and with him one last time for both of us.
  Before I complete my remarks, I would also like to recognize the 
incredible--and it is incredible--effort put forward by the staff 
members of both the Senate and House Appropriations Committees, as well 
as the staff of the respective leaders' offices. Without them we 
couldn't be where we are tonight. We asked them to do the impossible, 
and they delivered as they always do. And on behalf of the entire 
Senate, I want to thank them very, very much.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be given a 
minute to describe my amendment and a minute be given to the Senator 
from Washington.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, it is unkind for us to tell Americans--just 
moms and dads, ordinary people who are trying to live their lives and 
put food on the table--that they can't put food on the table and that 
they are going to be rendered unemployed and unemployable unless they 
defer to Presidential medical orthodoxy. It is not who we are as 
Americans. It is especially not who we are as is the case with these 
mandates. There are not adequate provisions made for those with 
preexisting medical conditions, for those with religious objections, 
and for those with natural immunity. That is what we are dealing with 
here. It is illegal; it is immoral; it is unkind; and we should not 
fund its enforcement.
  I plead with my colleagues to support my amendment to defund the 
enforcement of these mandates.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, we have had this debate before many, many 
times.
  Vaccines are safe; they are effective; and they are lifesaving. 
Because of our ability to get safe and effective vaccines out to 
Americans, nearly 100 percent of our schools are open again. More than 
90 percent of people are in communities with low or medium levels of 
COVID, and people are finally getting back to a sense of normal in 
their everyday lives. Vaccines have helped to make that happen.
  Here we are once again. It is hard to believe this isn't the first or 
even the second time that a few Senate Republicans have decided they 
want to risk a damaging government shutdown in order to oppose steps 
that save lives. I hope, for the sake of the people of this country, it 
is the last time this happens.
  There are problems real families want us to solve. They want us to 
bring down costs with steps like the Democrats have proposed. They want 
us to stand up for democracy and the people of Ukraine, who are facing 
a war and a humanitarian crisis. They want us to learn from this 
pandemic so we are better prepared for whatever is next. I am going to 
focus on finding steps that we can actually take to help families, and 
I believe that is what most of us want too.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment, which risks 
derailing this important bipartisan bill, delaying needed aid to 
Ukraine, and causing a dangerous government shutdown.
  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 20 seconds to 
respond.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, it is not helpful to American families to 
threaten the breadwinner--the mom or the dad or, maybe, both of them in 
some cases--with being rendered unemployed and unemployable and unable 
to put bread on the table.
  This is not about being anti-vaccine. I am not that, and neither are 
any of the Senators who are supporting this effort. This is about 
supporting American families. It is not supporting them to order them 
fired.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 4989

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question occurs 
on agreeing to amendment No. 4989, offered by the Senator from Utah, 
Mr. Lee.
  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Baldwin). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 49, nays 50, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 75 Leg.]

                                YEAS--49

     Barrasso
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Braun
     Burr
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagerty
     Hawley
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Lankford
     Lee
     Lummis
     Marshall
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Portman
     Risch
     Romney
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Shelby
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Tuberville
     Wicker
     Young

                                NAYS--50

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coons
     Cortez Masto
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Gillibrand
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Hickenlooper
     Hirono
     Kaine
     Kelly
     King
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Lujan
     Manchin
     Markey
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Murphy
     Murray
     Ossoff
     Padilla
     Peters
     Reed
     Rosen
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Sinema
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warnock
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Inhofe
       
  The amendment (No. 4989) was rejected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, if we want to hasten the evening, I 
would suggest everybody stay around. Try to sit in your seats. We are 
going to try to limit the rest of the votes to 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2 
minutes of debate equally divided prior to the vote in relation to the 
Braun amendment, No. 4990.
  The Senator from Indiana.


                           Amendment No. 4990

  Mr. BRAUN. Madam President, I call up my amendment, No. 4990, and ask 
that it be reported by number.

[[Page S1109]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment by number.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Indiana [Mr. Braun], for himself and 
     others, proposes an amendment numbered 4990.

  The amendment is as follows:

       (Purpose: To prohibit funds from being used for earmarks)

       At the end of the matter preceding division A, add the 
     following:

     SEC. 7. PROHIBITION ON EARMARKS.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any provision of any 
     division of this Act, none of the funds made available under 
     any division of this Act may be used to implement any 
     earmark, Community Project Funding, or Congressionally 
     Directed Spending specified in any provision of any division 
     of this Act or in the explanatory statement described in 
     section 4.
       (b) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section shall 
     prevent funds allocated for any earmark, Community Project 
     Funding, or Congressionally Directed Spending included in any 
     division of this Act or in the tables contained in the 
     explanatory statement described in section 4 from being 
     awarded under a merit-based process under existing law.

  Mr. BRAUN. Madam President, this bill has 367 pages worth of 
earmarks, roughly 5 pounds of paper. Before it came to the Senate, 
dozens of House offices deleted their public disclosures. I think the 
swamp is rising again.
  Dr. Tom Coburn, he would be appalled by this. He called earmarks--
Madam President, I think it is clear that most aren't interested in 
talking about earmarks--something else. I believe they lead to waste 
and abuse. That is why Congress got rid of them 10 years ago. They 
should have never been allowed back.

  My amendment would cut every one of them from this bill that should 
have been run through regular process, through the Budget Committee, to 
where appropriators should have known what was in it until it landed in 
our laps last night.
  For anyone here that loves the institution, you ought to have enough 
common sense that $1.5 trillion deficits that are embedded in this bill 
aren't a good business plan for the institution. I ask you all here 
this evening: Make a statement--a symbolic one--to get rid of these 
earmarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. BRAUN. And let's quit shoving all this debt onto the next 
generation and on our kids.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, the Senator asked those who love this 
institution to speak up. I am the Dean of the U.S. Senate. I have 
served here for 48 years. I love this institution.
  I know the Constitution vests the power of the purse in the Congress. 
Certifications of these earmarks have been available to the public on 
our committee website at my request and Senator Shelby's request for 8 
months. Everybody knows what is here.
  Vote for them or not; but, frankly, if I have to speak of what is 
needed for my State of Vermont, I want to be the one speaking for it--
not somebody downtown. I would hope every Senator feels the same way.
  I yield back the rest of my time. I oppose the amendment.
  (Applause.)


                       Vote on Amendment No. 4990

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  Mr. BRAUN. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 35, nays 64, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 76 Leg.]

                                YEAS--35

     Barrasso
     Blackburn
     Boozman
     Braun
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Grassley
     Hagerty
     Hawley
     Hoeven
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Lankford
     Lee
     Lummis
     Marshall
     Paul
     Portman
     Risch
     Romney
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Tester
     Thune
     Toomey
     Tuberville
     Young

                                NAYS--64

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Booker
     Brown
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Coons
     Cortez Masto
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Hickenlooper
     Hirono
     Hyde-Smith
     Kaine
     Kelly
     King
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Lujan
     Manchin
     Markey
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Ossoff
     Padilla
     Peters
     Reed
     Rosen
     Rounds
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Sinema
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Sullivan
     Tillis
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warnock
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Inhofe
       
  The amendment (No. 4990) was rejected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 
two minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to 
Kennedy amendment No. 4983.
  The Senator from Louisiana.


                           Amendment No. 4983

  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I call up my amendment number--and 
Senator Cassidy's amendment No. 4983 and ask that it be reported by 
number.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment by number.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Kennedy], for himself and 
     Mr. Cassidy, proposes an amendment numbered 4983.

  The amendment is as follows:

  (Purpose: To provide emergency assistance for disaster response and 
recovery, and for other expenses, directly related to Hurricanes Laura, 
 Delta, and Ida and to provide assistance for the Port Infrastructure 
                          Development Program)

        At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE THROUGH THE COMMUNITY 
                   DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--In addition to amounts otherwise 
     appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury of the United 
     States not otherwise appropriated, there is appropriated to 
     the ``Community Development Fund'', for necessary expenses 
     related to disaster relief, long-term recovery, and 
     restoration of infrastructure, housing, and economic 
     revitalization in areas in States for which the President 
     declared a major disaster under title IV of the Robert T. 
     Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act of 1974 
     (42 U.S.C. 5170 et seq.) related to Hurricanes Laura, Delta, 
     and Ida, $2,000,000,000, to remain available until expended, 
     for activities authorized under title I of the Housing and 
     Community Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.), 
     of which--
       (1) $600,000,000 shall be for activities related to 
     Hurricanes Laura and Delta; and
       (2) $1,400,000,000 shall be for activities related to 
     Hurricane Ida.
       (b) Deposit of c-band Spectrum Auction Proceeds in 
     Treasury.--Section 309(j)(8) of the Communications Act of 
     1934 (47 U.S.C. 309(j)(8)) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``and (G)'' and 
     inserting ``(G), and (H)'';
       (2) in subparagraph (C)(i), by striking ``and (G)'' and 
     inserting ``(G), and (H)''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(H) C-band auction proceeds.--Notwithstanding 
     subparagraph (A), and except as provided in subparagraph (B), 
     of the proceeds (including deposits and upfront payments from 
     successful bidders) from the use of a system of competitive 
     bidding under this subsection to award licenses in the band 
     of frequencies between 3700 megahertz and 3980 megahertz 
     (designated by the Commission as `Auction 107'), 
     $2,500,000,000 shall be deposited in the general fund of the 
     Treasury and used for emergency assistance under section 
     240(a) of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022.''.

     SEC. ___. ASSISTANCE THROUGH THE PORT INFRASTRUCTURE 
                   DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM.

       In addition to amounts otherwise appropriated, out of any 
     money in the Treasury of the United States not otherwise 
     appropriated, there is appropriated $500,000,000 for the Port 
     Infrastructure Development Program within the Department of 
     Transportation's Maritime Administration, to equitably 
     administer grant awards to ports that incurred damages from 
     Hurricanes Laura, Delta, Zeta, and Ida and Tropical Storm 
     Cristobal.

  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to be 
recognized for up to 2 minutes of debate; Senator Cassidy for 1 minute 
of debate; and Senator Schatz for 2 minutes of debate prior to the 
vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, in 2020, Hurricane Laura hit Louisiana,

[[Page S1110]]

then Hurricane Marco hit us, then Hurricane Delta hit us, then 
Hurricane Zeta, then Hurricane Ida--all in a period of 2 years.
  Those storms caused $150 billion in damage. My amendment and Senator 
Cassidy's amendment will appropriate $2.5 billion in disaster aid to 
Louisiana. That would include $600 million for housing aid for 
Hurricanes Laura and Delta and $1.4 billion in housing aid for 
Hurricane Ida. The amendment would also provide for $500 million in 
funding to rebuild Louisiana ports.
  I am mindful of the fact that we should make sure this aid is paid 
for. I would remind everyone that through the heroic efforts of Senator 
Schatz and Senator Cantwell, in which I played a small part, that we 
forced our FCC not to give away the C-band to our telecommunications 
industry and, instead, auctioned it out, in which case it brought in 
$81 billion.
  And I think we can spare a little bit of that for people who lost 
their homes and businesses through no fault of their own.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. CASSIDY. Madam President, I'll add to what my colleague, John 
Kennedy, said.
  If you fly over southwest Louisiana, you see blue tarps. Those tarps 
are there because the families have not had the money to replace their 
roofs. If you get on the ground, you see blighted neighborhoods. Those 
blighted neighborhoods are where people have moved, the rooms are 
boarded up, criminals have entered, and those who have left are now 
prey to criminals. And as they have left, the businesses have closed.
  We do so much in this country for those who have been injured, and we 
appreciate in South Louisiana all that has already been done. But there 
is a little bit more needed to particularly benefit those who are less 
well-off.
  So I join my colleague, Senator Kennedy, in requesting that 
additional funding to complete the job started so Southwest Louisiana 
can become whole once more.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. SCHATZ. Madam President, I respect my colleagues' desires to take 
care of the people and the needs of their State, and I agree there is a 
need--not just in this State but for a number of States that have been 
impacted by disasters in recent years.
  We must pass a disaster supplemental to provide funding for States 
fairly and based on need. We wish that the supplemental were in this 
bill, but it was not agreed to by Republicans in the House and the 
Senate. Looking ahead, we ought to pass a bill to provide $2 billion 
and permanently authorize the CDBG-DR program.
  As for pay-fors--this is an important point--the spectrum sale funds 
that my colleagues suggested as a pay-for are already spoken for. That 
has already been used as a pay-for in previous bills, so we can't 
double count; and so, unfortunately, I urge my colleagues to vote no. 
Thank you.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 4983

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
4983.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote or change their vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 35, nays 64, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 77 Leg.]

                                YEAS--35

     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Booker
     Burr
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Coons
     Cornyn
     Cramer
     Cruz
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagerty
     Hawley
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Kennedy
     Marshall
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Portman
     Romney
     Rubio
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tuberville
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Young

                                NAYS--64

     Baldwin
     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Blackburn
     Boozman
     Braun
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cortez Masto
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Daines
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Gillibrand
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Hickenlooper
     Hirono
     Johnson
     Kaine
     Kelly
     King
     Klobuchar
     Lankford
     Leahy
     Lee
     Lujan
     Lummis
     Manchin
     Markey
     Merkley
     Murphy
     Murray
     Ossoff
     Padilla
     Paul
     Peters
     Reed
     Risch
     Rosen
     Rounds
     Sanders
     Sasse
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Sinema
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warnock
     Warren
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Inhofe
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 35, the nays are 
64.
  Under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this 
amendment, the amendment is not agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 4983) was rejected.


                           Motions Withdrawn

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the motion to refer 
and the motion to concur with amendment No. 4984 are withdrawn.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I have been impressed that our Eastern 
European allies have been able to act so quickly in providing aid of 
all kinds to Ukraine, including weapons these countries need for their 
own defense to deter Putin.
  Even the notoriously bureaucratic European Union has acted with 
unprecedented speed.
  When asked by Eastern European diplomats why Congress is taking so 
long to pass aid for Ukraine, I do not have a good answer.
  It always takes time to negotiate and draft an appropriations package 
to get it just right. But the Ukrainians do not have the luxury of 
time.
  We should have passed a Ukraine supplemental last week, even if 
imperfect. It would have passed overwhelmingly, sending a strong 
message to Ukraine, our eastern flank allies, and the aggressor Putin.
  Now, the much needed Ukraine supplemental has been rolled into a 
giant Omnibus bill.
  This package has some things I strongly support, or even helped 
write. But these provisions are riding along with a big growth in 
spending, which I do not support.
  I typically vote against giant take-it-or-leave it omnibus bills. 
They are no way to legislate.
  Senators who are not on the Appropriations Committee never see the 
contents of an Omnibus spending bill until we face a deadline for 
government funding running out--and an up-or-down vote; with no 
amendments.
   I urged my party's leadership to insist on a separate vote on the 
Ukraine funding package in their negotiations with Democrat leaders, 
but here we are, nevertheless.
  Urgent aid for Ukraine shouldn't be wrapped up in an Omnibus full of 
unrelated spending.
  A cynic would say Ukraine aid was added to the Omnibus intentionally 
to help it pass. Well, this is a town where cynicism is often well-
deserved.
  Senators who support helping heroic Ukrainians defend themselves from 
a barbaric onslaught, as I do, are being forced to swallow a giant, 
bitter pill.
  So, for the record, I oppose the spending level in this Omnibus bill 
and the broken process by which it was cobbled together. I am not happy 
about being pushed into a corner yet again. Be advised--I will not roll 
over and play nice going forward.
  But I cannot in good conscience vote in a way that would further 
delay urgently needed support for Ukrainians fighting for their freedom 
on the front lines against tyranny.


                        Vote on Motion to Concur

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs on the motion to concur in 
the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 2471.
  There are 2 minutes of debate equally divided prior to the vote.
  The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SHELBY. Madam President, I have got a minute here, and I hope I 
won't use it all. Everybody wants to leave, and I understand.
  But this has been a lot of work to put this omnibus together. I want 
to thank

[[Page S1111]]

Senator Leahy, his staff, the Republican staff, and everything else.
  This is a big improvement for defense. It is a big improvement for 
homeland security. And I think we have talked about what is in it and 
what is not, but I think overall it is something we should have done 6 
months ago.
  I urge my colleagues to support the omnibus.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, the distinguished Senator from Alabama, 
Senator Shelby, and I have been friends for decades. I applaud his work 
on this. I applaud his staff. I applaud our staff and the 
Appropriations Committee.
  I thank those Senators of both parties who came together to come 
here. We stand up for America. We stand up for the needs of America. 
But we also stand up for Ukraine, which is being attacked by a war 
criminal, Putin of Russia.
  I yield back my time.
  I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the motion to concur.
  The yeas and nays have been requested.
  Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 68, nays 31, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 78 Leg.]

                                YEAS--68

     Baldwin
     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Booker
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Collins
     Coons
     Cornyn
     Cortez Masto
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Ernst
     Feinstein
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Hickenlooper
     Hirono
     Hyde-Smith
     Kaine
     Kelly
     King
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Lujan
     Manchin
     Markey
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Ossoff
     Padilla
     Peters
     Portman
     Reed
     Rosen
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Sinema
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Thune
     Tuberville
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warnock
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden
     Young

                                NAYS--31

     Blackburn
     Boozman
     Braun
     Burr
     Cassidy
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Fischer
     Hagerty
     Hawley
     Hoeven
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Lankford
     Lee
     Lummis
     Marshall
     Paul
     Risch
     Romney
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Sullivan
     Tillis
     Toomey

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Inhofe
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 68, the nays are 
31.
  Under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this 
motion, the motion to concur is agreed to.
  The motion was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I am delighted to see the vote, and I 
thank the Senators who voted with us.
  I would note that a lot of Senators, along with Senator Shelby and 
me, on both sides of the aisle worked so hard on this.
  I especially want to say again that I don't know how many times on 
weekends and in the evenings I could leave and go home at 10 or 11 
o'clock at night, but our staffs were still there at 2, 3, and 4 
o'clock in the morning, doing this. They are the ones who deserve so 
much credit in doing this.
  This is the reality. This is our government. This is how we protect 
our country. It is also how we show our responsibility to a country--in 
this case, Ukraine--that is being attacked by a war criminal, Vladimir 
Putin.
  So I thank every Senator who voted this way. I thank the 
distinguished majority leader, who worked with us every step of the way 
to make sure we had the schedule so we could do this. I thank the 
Republicans and Democrats who worked with us.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, before I do all of these things, let me 
just thank Senator Leahy, who was so diligent and so relentless from 3, 
4, 5 months ago in warning our caucus of the dangers--of the very real 
dangers--of a CR, which wouldn't have been able to move the government 
forward. His hard work, his diligence, and his dedication has been 
amazing.
  I join him in thanking the great staffs of the Appropriations 
Committee, who are second to none, as well as my staff, who worked very 
hard with them. Meghan Taira is another person of whom I might be able 
to say it wouldn't have happened without her.
  It is a very good night for this country, a good bipartisan night, 
and I thank our Senator from Vermont--and our President pro tempore, of 
course.
  (Laughter.)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.

                          ____________________