[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 99 (Thursday, June 9, 2022)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2884-S2887]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          LEGISLATIVE SESSION

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume legislative session.


                         Recognizing WGN Radio

  Ms. DUCKWORTH. Mr. President, I rise today to honor Chicago's very 
own WGN Radio for reaching its milestone 100th birthday this year.
  In a century's time, WGN has reported on so much of our Nation's 
history. The station is synonymous with Chicago's vibrant sports 
history and has defined time and again what it means to have a vision 
and work to see it through.
  WGN, which stands for ``World's Greatest Newspaper'' and pays homage 
to the Chicago's Tribune's 20th century slogan, comes from humble 
beginnings.
  Starting with a single staff member in 1922, WGN went on to cover 
some of the past century's defining moments and solidify a legacy of 
storytelling and determination.
  In 1942, it was WGN who interrupted their broadcast of a Bears game 
to report for the next 257 hours and 35 minutes on the attack on Pearl 
Harbor.
  On 9/11, WGN was there, focusing on Chicago's reaction to the events 
on that tragic September morning.
  As an Illinoisan, I am proud that WGN has consistently shown up 
during some of our country's darkest days. But they have been with us 
through many of our brightest moments too.
  WGN went from broadcasting its very first sports game--a match 
between the Cubs and White Sox--go Cubs--in 1924, to Wayne Larrivee, 
Dick Butkus, and Jim Hart broadcasting the Chicago Bears' legendary 
Super Bowl XX win to 2010's triumphant cries as the station's 
broadcasters described Patrick Kane scoring the winning goal in 
overtime, earning the Chicago Blackhawks the Stanley Cup for the first 
time in 50 years.
  WGN has not just been telling our stories for the last 100 years, but 
they have become a vital member of our community.
  Judy Markey and Kathy O'Malley's beloved afternoon talk show, and 
making Mary Sandberg Boyle the station's first woman general manager in 
2019, or bringing the voices like Orion Samuelson and Bob Collins to 
our days--WGN is embedded in the hearts of so many Chicagoans.
  WGN's legacy isn't just about radio. It is about community. It is 
about being proud of where you have come from and where you are going.
  So here is to 100 more years of WGN, and many more to come.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                              Memorial Day

  Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, it is Thursday, and I normally come down 
on the Senate floor to give the ``Alaskan of the Week'' speech. And, 
unfortunately, I am not going to do that today.
  Actually, last week, I named two Alaskans of the week. We kind of had 
a two-for-one last week. Just as a little wrap-up for that, it was 
quite a remarkable thing that took place just last week in Alaska on 
Memorial Day.
  My two Alaskans of the week, a 92-year-old artist working with a 
detective, both Alaska Natives, both from the community of Unalaska out 
on the Aleutian Islands chain, worked together. Actually, Gertrude 
Svarny worked for decades to right a wrong and get a military burial on 
Memorial Day for a young man and also an Alaska Native from Unalaska 
who died fighting in World War II and was never recognized, no 
gravestone, no tombstone, nothing--for decades. And we had an amazing 
ceremony thanks to these two amazing Alaskans--Gertrude Svarny, as I 
mentioned, and Mike Livingston. And the memory of this young Alaska 
Native soldier, Private George Fox, was now finally recognized.
  That was in a Memorial Day ceremony last week. I was trying to get 
there. Unfortunately, they sometimes get a lot of bad weather out 
there. I flew halfway out to the Aleutian Islands, and we had horrible 
weather. We couldn't land.
  But the ceremony happened. So there were two Alaskans of the week 2 
weeks ago that I just wanted to highlight again. It was an incredibly 
moving ceremony.
  So I figured that was two for one. So, unfortunately, I am not going 
to do an ``Alaskan of the Week'' today. I know we like to end the week 
on a high note.


                             Infrastructure

  Mr. President, I am going to talk about a mystery that has really 
been, certainly, flummoxing me and, I think, so many people in our 
Federal Government on a matter that especially impacts millions and 
millions of Americans suffering from high energy prices. It is a 
mystery for the American people.
  And, you know, our Federal Government can sometimes be so opaque that 
you often don't know who is up to what in this Big Government of ours, 
particularly when people are trying to do

[[Page S2885]]

things that are so obviously harmful to the American people. So I am 
going to talk a little bit about this mystery because I think we 
finally solved it. There is a culprit who is usually the culprit in a 
lot of bad things happening in our Federal Government, and I am going 
to talk about that.
  So here is a little bit of background on the mystery. We passed a 
bipartisan infrastructure bill in November. Now, I voted for it. Some 
of my colleagues didn't. I voted for it primarily because I come from a 
resource-rich, infrastructure-poor State.
  Alaska has resources--oil, gas, minerals, renewables--that can help 
our State and can help the country and, really, help the world, but we 
have very little infrastructure.

  Think about this. My State is 120 times bigger than Connecticut, and 
we have less road miles than Connecticut. And I know we have less road 
miles than Maryland.
  So, we need infrastructure. So Senator Murkowski, Congressman Young, 
and I participated, certainly in our own ways, on getting this 
infrastructure bill written and then over the goal line in terms of 
votes.
  Overall, I thought it was a positive bill. It wasn't perfect, but 
especially with the focus on roads, bridges, ports, harbors, and 
broadband--and there is actually a provision in there for Federal loan 
guarantees on a huge Alaska gas project--an LNG project. So in my view, 
this bill was a win-win-win for jobs, infrastructure, and energy 
infrastructure to help bring down energy prices, and, of course, on the 
environment.
  I like to show this chart a lot. It has gotten a lot of attention. 
Some of our national media folks have seen it, and they say: Gee, that 
can't be true. Let's PolitiFact or fact-check Senator Sullivan's 
emissions chart. So they have, and they have come back and said: Hey, 
gosh, he is actually right.
  It shows annual emissions from the major economies in the world since 
2005 to present. Who is the leader in reducing emissions? Who is the 
leader? We are. America is--actually, by far; not even close--with 
almost a 15-percent emission reduction since 2005.
  Who is the main culprit of spewing emissions out into the global 
atmosphere? Well, you guessed it--our good friends, the Chinese 
communists--China, India, Iran, and Russia.
  So we are the leader on this. I had the opportunity during a 
confirmation hearing recently for one of the Biden administration's EPA 
nominees in charge of air quality. I showed him this chart. He didn't 
seem to know a lot about the chart, but he seemed like a good guy. I 
asked: Hey, why do you think this happened? He kind of trotted out 
initially the EPA regs. Wrong answer. This is because of the revolution 
in the production of American gas. That is a fact, OK? You can check it 
all you want.
  So you would think that infrastructure, part of the infrastructure 
bill that can help us actually produce more energy with more energy 
infrastructure, that everybody would be for it--helps the environment, 
global emissions, certainly helps workers, and helps build out 
infrastructure, which we sorely need.
  As I mentioned, Mr. President, big supporters of the infrastructure 
bill were all the trade unions in Alaska and America because they know 
they are going to get the jobs from the build-out of this 
infrastructure bill.
  Now, one of the things the bill had that I thought was actually 
really important--it was something I worked on in the Environment and 
Public Works Committee--were provisions to streamline our Federal 
permitting system to be able to get infrastructure projects deployed 
and built. That was a big element of this bill--not as much as I 
wanted, but certainly a good start.
  This has been an issue I have been working on since my time here in 
the Senate. It is a bipartisan issue, as the Presiding Officer knows. 
When you talk to mayors and Governors in America anywhere--it doesn't 
matter what party they are--they want the ability to have the Federal 
Government permit infrastructure projects so we can move them out. That 
is not controversial.
  And here is the thing. As a country, we used to be really good at 
building stuff--building stuff on time, building stuff that is 
impressive. Just to give you a few examples--I think a lot of people 
know this--but our country used to be the envy of the world building 
great projects responsibly, efficiently, and on time. The Pentagon was 
built in 16 months. The Empire State Building was built in 1 year 45 
days. With the 1,500-mile Alaska-Canadian Highway--what we call the 
ALCAN Highway, connecting the lower 48 all the way through Canada up 
into Alaska, 1,500 miles--it took 8 months to do that. So we know how 
to do this as a country.

  Let's fast-forward to today. A new U.S. highway construction project, 
to build a highway, usually takes 9 to 19 years. That is according to 
the GAO. Let me just give you a couple of examples of those.
  The Gross Reservoir in Colorado, which is going to offer clean water 
to the people of Colorado, has taken two decades of planning and 
permitting. To expand the Gross Reservoir northwest of Denver has taken 
two decades--20 years--to get this important project in Colorado 
permitted.
  The California bullet train project was approved in the late 1990s. 
It is still not built. Its costs, because of permitting delays, have 
gone from $33 billion to $105 billion.
  The Mountain Valley Pipeline in Virginia and West Virginia began in 
2015 to bring natural gas. There are only 20 miles left to complete. It 
might not ever be completed because of permitting delays. The Federal 
courts are delaying, delaying, and delaying energy projects.
  The Kensington mine in Alaska, which now employs over 400 people--it 
is a gold mine with an average wage, by the way, of over $100,000, the 
average wage--took 20 years to permit if you include the litigation. 
The list goes on and on and on.
  When NEPA was originally passed, the EIS, the environmental impact 
statement, was to take less than a year. It usually took less than a 
year and was usually a couple hundred pages. Now the average EIS takes 
4 to 6 years to complete on any project in America, and it usually 
costs several millions of dollars. We are killing ourselves as a 
country in our ability to build or to not build infrastructure 
projects.
  What did we do in the infrastructure bill? It was bipartisan. We 
worked together and put together some pretty good permitting reform 
provisions. They are not nearly as good as I would have wanted them, 
but they were pretty good, pretty good, to get the infrastructure that 
is in this bill--roads; bridges; ports; yes, energy projects of 
pipelines for oil and gas, which we need--built quickly or at least in 
a reasonable amount of time, not in 20 years.
  So here is the mystery. That all happened. The President said he 
liked it. The unions really liked it. The building trades--the men and 
women who build stuff in this country--liked it. I have worked with 
Terry O'Sullivan, the great leader of the Laborers, on permitting 
reform--this very issue. We have got some good things in there. So what 
is the mystery?
  Here is the mystery: After all of this work and the President touting 
the infrastructure bill and our getting ready to build and having good 
impacts in terms of natural gas, not just on environment and emissions 
but in continuing to make us the global leader, the White House set out 
new rules in April, under NEPA, for infrastructure projects.
  What did they do? They made the NEPA rules much harder to actually 
build infrastructure, not just for oil and gas, but it targeted oil and 
gas. This is for all infrastructure--roads, bridges, ports, renewable 
projects, LNG projects, natural gas projects.
  The White House put out new NEPA rules rescinding the Trump 
administration's rules, which were quite good and similar to some of 
the reforms we got in the infrastructure bill, and everybody knows that 
these White House rules are going to delay infrastructure projects. Why 
in the heck would we do that as a country? We just passed a big 
infrastructure bill with permitting reform in it, and somebody over at 
the White House said: No, let's make it harder.
  Here is an editorial from the Wall Street Journal that talks about 
the infrastructure NEPA regs. It is called: ``How to Kill American 
Infrastructure on the Sly. The White House revises

[[Page S2886]]

NEPA rules that will scuttle [the ability to build] new roads, bridges 
and oil and gas pipelines.''
  (Ms. CORTEZ MASTO assumed the Chair.)
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the 
Record this editorial.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

             [From The Wall Street Journal, April 20, 2022]

             How To Kill American Infrastructure on the Sly

              (By The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board)

       Americans are going to need a split-screen for the Biden 
     Administration's policy contradictions. Even as the President 
     on Tuesday promoted the bipartisan infrastructure bill he 
     signed last November, the White House moved to make it harder 
     to build roads, bridges and, of course, oil and natural-gas 
     pipelines.
       The White House Council on Environmental Quality is 
     revising rules under the National Environmental Policy Act 
     for permitting major construction projects. CEQ Chair Brenda 
     Mallory says the changes will ``provide regulatory 
     certainty'' and ``reduce conflict.'' Instead, they will cause 
     more litigation and delays that raise construction costs, if 
     they don't kill projects outright.
       NEPA requires federal agencies to review the environmental 
     impact of major projects that are funded by the feds or 
     require a federal permit. Reviews can take years and run 
     thousands of pages, covering the smallest potential impact on 
     species, air or water quality. Project developers can be 
     forced to mitigate these effects by, say, relocating species.
       While the 1970 law was intended to prevent environmental 
     disasters, it has become a weapon to block development. The 
     Trump Administration sought to fast-track projects by 
     limiting NEPA reviews to environmental effects that are 
     directly foreseeable--e.g., how a pipeline's construction 
     would affect a stream it crosses.
       Some liberal judges, however, have interpreted NEPA broadly 
     to require the study of effects that indirectly result from a 
     project such as CO2 emissions. Now the Biden Administration 
     is mandating this. CEQ's new rule will require agencies to 
     calculate the ``indirect'' and ``cumulative impacts'' that 
     ``can result from individually minor but collectively 
     significant actions taking place over a period of time.'' 
     This means death by a thousand regulatory cuts for many 
     projects.
       The Transportation Department will likely have to examine 
     how a highway expansion could increase greenhouse-gas 
     emissions in concert with new warehouses. The Federal Energy 
     Regulatory Commission might have to calculate how a new 
     pipeline would affect emissions from upstream production and 
     downstream consumption.
       Wait--didn't FERC recently walk back its policy to do 
     exactly this? The White House is thumbing its nose at West 
     Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin, who blasted FERC's now-suspended 
     policy for shutting ``down the infrastructure we desperately 
     need as a country.''
       The rule's obvious intent is to make it harder to build 
     pipelines, roads and other infrastructure that would enable 
     more U.S. oil and gas production, even as the Administration 
     makes phony gestures to reduce energy prices. Last Friday the 
     Administration announced it would comply with a court order 
     to hold oil and gas lease sales on public land. Those leases 
     won't matter if energy companies can't get federal permits 
     for rights-of-way.
       While fossil fuels may be the rule's political target, 
     don't be surprised if green energy is snagged in this trip-
     wire. Environmental groups have used NEPA to block new 
     mineral mines and transmission lines that connect distant 
     renewable energy sources to population centers. In this 
     Administration, the left hand doesn't seem to know what the 
     far left hand is doing.

  Mr. SULLIVAN. So the new rules come out. They are clearly meant to 
kill infrastructure, especially oil and gas but kind of everything. The 
President is touting this infrastructure bill as one of his big 
achievements. It was bipartisan. A number of us, myself included, voted 
for it, but there is somebody out there who is trying to make sure the 
infrastructure doesn't get built. Hmm. That is the mystery. That is the 
mystery. Who would do that? Well, heck. I am trying to find the answer 
because I really care about this issue--permitting reform--in order to 
get infrastructure projects built. My State has been ground zero about 
projects being delayed. So who is it?
  So I am starting to ask around the White House. Secretary Granholm 
was testifying in front of the Armed Services Committee 2 weeks ago.
  I raised this issue with her: Madam Secretary, who the heck is doing 
it? Are you?
  Senator, I didn't know anything about this CQ rule.
  It is a little surprising. I mean, there was a lot about energy, but 
that is what she said in the hearing. Go take a look at it. I believe 
her. I don't think she was pushing to delay infrastructure.
  Would it be the Secretary of Labor, Marty Walsh? He is a former 
laborer, a LIUNA guy, right? I supported Marty Walsh strongly because I 
talked to him before his confirmation about--Hey, look. There is a 
group in the White House who hates energy even though it has great 
jobs, and there are some in the White House who think that they want to 
help the building trades build stuff. If you are with that group, Marty 
Walsh, I will support you as Secretary of Labor. He said he was. So I 
don't think it is he.
  As a matter of fact, when these regs came out, the Laborers' 
International put out a statement, saying:

       Once again, communities in need of vital infrastructure and 
     the hard-working men and women who build America will be 
     waiting as project details are subjected to onerous reviews 
     [by these new rules].

  This is the Laborers' International. The men and women who build 
stuff are not happy about this new NEPA rule.

       Americans will continue to bear the expense of NEPA-related 
     delays, which cost taxpayers millions of dollars annually. 
     Lengthy review processes and unpredictable legal challenges 
     [will result from these new NEPA regs. They will have] a 
     chilling impact on private investment in infrastructure.

  Of course, when we need energy, these new NEPA rules will make it 
harder for Americans to get energy, and the price of energy is going to 
continue to go like this: on the backs of working families.
  So was it the Secretary of Labor pushing this? I doubt it. I doubt 
it.
  Who was it?
  Well, as I have said on the floor of the U.S. Senate many times 
before, if there is something bad happening to the national interests 
of our country either domestically or internationally, it is probably 
not farfetched to assume John Kerry is near it. There is nobody in the 
Biden administration who so regularly tries to undermine America's 
national interests than John Kerry's kowtowing to the Chinese Communist 
Party or kissing up to Iranian terrorists. When Putin began his 
barbaric invasion of Ukraine, John Kerry publicly voiced his first 
concerns not about people dying and not about a democracy being overrun 
by a dictator; it was how Vladimir Putin might take his eye off his 
climate change goals.
  This is embarrassing as Americans. He is a senior official. Now, he 
has no power in terms of being confirmed by the Senate. Yes, he is a 
former Secretary of State and a former Senator, but on these issues, he 
is so out of touch with the average American.
  So who was pushing these new NEPA rules to delay energy projects for 
America? It is the big mystery. Heck, I don't even think it was the 
President. He seems proud of this infrastructure bill. He has told all 
of the unions he wants them to get to work and build, but now we have a 
new rule that is going to delay the building of infrastructure.

  The mystery is solved. The mystery is solved.
  This is a headline from a TIME magazine news story that just came out 
yesterday of John Kerry saying:

       ``We Have to Push Back Hard'' on Efforts to Build New 
     [Energy] Infrastructure in Response to Rising Gas Prices.

  We have to push back hard. You can't make this stuff up. This is the 
guy. This is the guy. So we have a new bunch of Federal rules right 
now, driven by this guy--and probably Gina McCarthy--who want to drive 
up energy prices and make it harder for infrastructure to be built, 
which is exactly what this will do. Nobody is even arguing against 
that. It will drive up energy prices on the backs of working-class 
Americans, and now he is out publicly saying that we have got to do 
it--stop infrastructure.
  We have this new revisionism suggesting we have to be producing more 
energy. Well, yes, we do. It is amazing. You never know whose side this 
guy is on, but he is not on America's side, I will tell you that.
  So this is a new regulation, a NEPA reg. We have the authority here 
in Congress to use what is called a Congressional Review Act, a CRA. We 
have the power, when a new reg comes out, to say: No, we don't like 
that in the Senate. We are going to have a vote, a Congressional Review 
Act vote, on whether to rescind an amendment that is clearly driven by 
this guy--a regulation by

[[Page S2887]]

this guy--that will delay energy projects; that will delay renewable 
projects; that will make sure Americans continue to pay record high 
energy prices.
  So we are going to have a vote on that. I plan on bringing that 
resolution to the floor soon. It is a privileged resolution, so we will 
get a vote whether Majority Leader Schumer wants to vote on it or not.
  I am assuming the President will like my CRA because he can't want 
delays to his infrastructure bill. He can't want delays to getting 
energy relief for American families. This guy does, right? So we are 
going to have a little test, and we will have another mystery solved 
here on the Senate floor.
  Two weeks ago, in the Commerce Committee, I had a little debate with 
a couple of my colleagues, friends of mine, but I made a statement, 
which I think is very true. It is certainly true in my State, and it is 
this: At the national level, my Democratic colleagues, when they have a 
choice between supporting guys like this and his radical environmental 
allies and the working men and women of America who want to build 
stuff, they always choose him and his allies.
  My colleagues--some of them--really got upset: How can you say that, 
Dan? That is not true.
  Well, it is true in Alaska. I see it every day.
  So my CRA is going to just ask a simple question: Whom are you for? 
Whom do you stand with? Do you stand with the American working 
families, the laborers, the people who build the infrastructure that we 
need, the families who are suffering from high energy costs or this guy 
and his radical environmental ally and special interests who have a lot 
of power in this White House and who are clearly behind this reg that I 
am trying to rescind to make it harder to build infrastructure, 
especially American energy infrastructure?
  For my colleagues who say no, we are with the working men and women 
of America--we will see. We will see. I hope you vote with me to 
rescind this reg that is only harming our country, only harming working 
families, only harming working Americans, and promotes the radical, 
out-of-touch agenda of John Kerry, Gina McCarthy, and the far-left, 
woke environmental interests that they answer to. It is going to be an 
interesting vote, and the American people are going to be watching.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.


                               H.R. 3967

  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, this week, the Senate has worked 
towards passing the largest expansion of healthcare benefits for our 
veterans in a very long time. Millions of veterans today face the 
flabbergasting indignity. They served our country valiantly, were 
exposed to toxic chemicals in the line of duty but cannot get the 
healthcare benefits they need because of outdated rules at the VA.
  This needs to change, and the PACT Act would provide the fix. Many on 
both sides want to get this bill done as soon as we can. We cannot have 
dilatory or destructive amendments to the PACT Act because it is too 
important for our veterans' well-being.
  To that end, Democrats have spent the day working with Republicans on 
a list of amendments, and these negotiations are ongoing. But while we 
work on an agreement and to keep the process moving, I will be filing 
cloture so we can take the next step towards passing the PACT Act next 
week. We hope to get an agreement--and we are making good progress 
there--so we hope to get an agreement before that, but the legislative 
process must move forward.
  So for the sake of our veterans who have made the ultimate sacrifice 
serving our Nation and defending our freedom, there is no reason we 
can't pass the PACT Act ASAP. Our discussions continue with our 
Republican colleagues in an effort to get that done, and I am hopeful 
that we will succeed.


                           Amendment No. 5076

  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I have an amendment to the underlying 
bill at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New York [Mr. Schumer] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 5076 to the language proposed to be 
     stricken by amendment numbered 5051.

  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I ask to dispense with further reading 
of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

                  (Purpose: To add an effective date)

       At the end add the following:

     SEC. __. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       This Act shall take effect on the date that is 3 days after 
     the date of enactment of this Act.

                             Cloture Motion

  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I send a cloture motion to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under 
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on Tester 
     substitute amendment No. 5051 to Calendar No. 388, H.R. 3967, 
     a bill to improve health care and benefits for veterans 
     exposed to toxic substances, and for other purposes.
         Charles E. Schumer, Jon Tester, Tammy Duckworth, Robert 
           P. Casey, Jr., Margaret Wood Hassan, Kyrsten Sinema, 
           Mark Kelly, Christopher Murphy, Sherrod Brown, Tina 
           Smith, Jacky Rosen, Benjamin L. Cardin, Jack Reed, 
           Tammy Baldwin, Jeanne Shaheen, Mazie K. Hirono, Ben Ray 
           Lujan.


                             Cloture Motion

  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I send a cloture motion to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under 
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on Calendar No. 
     388, H.R. 3967, a bill to improve health care and benefits 
     for veterans exposed to toxic substances, and for other 
     purposes.
         Charles E. Schumer, Jon Tester, Tammy Duckworth, Robert 
           P. Casey, Jr., Margaret Wood Hassan, Kyrsten Sinema, 
           Mark Kelly, Christopher Murphy, Sherrod Brown, Tina 
           Smith, Jacky Rosen, Benjamin L. Cardin, Jack Reed, 
           Tammy Baldwin, Jeanne Shaheen, Mazie K. Hirono, Ben Ray 
           Lujan.

  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
mandatory quorum calls for the cloture motions filed today, Thursday, 
June 9, be waived.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                 Unanimous Consent Agreement--H.R. 3967

  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the filing 
deadline for first-degree amendments to substitute amendment No. 5051 
and the underlying bill, H.R. 3967, be at 4 p.m., Monday, June 13.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________