[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 56 (Tuesday, March 28, 2023)]
[Senate]
[Pages S975-S982]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          LEGISLATIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

 REPEALING THE AUTHORIZATIONS FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ--
                                Resumed

  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of S. 316, which the clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 316) to repeal the authorizations for use of 
     military force against Iraq.

  Pending:

       Schumer amendment No. 15, to add an effective date.

  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. WARNOCK. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Warnock). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                   Recognition of the Majority Leader

  The majority leader is recognized.


                                 S. 316

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, yesterday, by a large bipartisan vote of 
65 to 28, the Senate invoked cloture on legislation repealing the Iraq 
AUMFs of 2002 and 1991. We will continue voting on amendments over the 
course of today, and Members should expect the final passage on 
repealing the Iraq AUMFs as soon as tomorrow.
  I want to thank both sides of the aisle for their cooperation and 
bipartisanship. This has been a reasonable process here on the floor, 
with votes on amendments brought forth by our Republican colleagues. I 
hope this process can serve as a blueprint for how the Senate can work 
into the future and in the next few months for sure. We will have 
amendments without being dilatory. We will have debate without bogging 
down the process. We will look for opportunities to advance bipartisan 
bills as we did over the past 2 years.
  So, again, I hope this AUMF portends good things to come. I hope it 
can serve as a blueprint for how the Senate can work in this session of 
Congress as we work together to make our country a better place.
  I want to thank Senators Kaine and Young, Chairman Menendez, and all 
of the cosponsors of this legislation for their good work.


                           Women's Healthcare

  But, unfortunately, there are disturbing trends here in the Senate, 
and one of the most disturbing is what the Senator from Alabama is 
doing to weaken our national security. For a long time, both parties 
have worked together to quickly confirm the routine promotions of 
generals and flag officers without partisan bickering, without needless 
delay. Confirming military promotions is one of the most important 
responsibilities of the Senate--a charge that rises far above normal 
political fights. But, today, one Member--one Member, the Senator from 
Alabama--is blocking the routine promotions of 160 generals and flag 
officers because he objects to women within the military getting access 
to reproductive care.
  It is very simple. The senior Senator from Alabama wants to make the 
healthcare decisions for the women of our military, and the Senator 
from Alabama is holding up scores of military nominees, who have not 
done anything to be treated this way, until he gets his way.
  The women of our military are more than capable of making their own 
decisions when it comes to their health. They do not need the senior 
Senator from Alabama making decisions on their behalf, and they 
certainly do not need any Senator throwing a wrench in the 
functioning--the vital functioning--of our military when they, our 
military, work every day to keep us safe.
  So the Senator from Alabama risks permanently injecting politics into 
the confirmations of routine military promotions. The Senator from 
Alabama

[[Page S976]]

risks permanently injecting politics into the confirmations of routine 
military promotions. And that would risk our entire national security. 
For what? So he can push the MAGA hard line on blocking women's choice, 
which is something that most women in this country--that most people in 
this country--reject? That is beyond the pale.
  Now, let's be clear. The Senator from Alabama's delay of 160 routine 
military promotions is reckless. It puts Americans' security in 
jeopardy. The 160 nominees who are on hold, all of whom have worked to 
earn their promotions and all of whom we need to protect our security, 
include 5 three-star generals, commanders for the U.S. naval forces in 
the Pacific and Middle East--leaders who are confronting the likes of 
China and Iran--and the U.S. Military Representative to the NATO 
Military Committee, which is especially important right now as Russia 
continues its war in Ukraine.
  So let me say it again. This level of obstruction of routine military 
promotions is a reckless departure from the Senate norm. None of us 
want to live in a world where military appointments get routinely 
politicized, and that is just what the Senator from Alabama is 
doing. He is inflicting unnecessary damage to our military leadership. 
It would paralyze the Senate if all of us had to take one rollcall vote 
after another just to confirm routine, apolitical, qualified generals 
and other flag officers.

  I know that Members of both sides of the aisle feel passionately at 
times about certain issues. We all do. But if every one of us went to 
the floor and said that we are holding up every general, every admiral, 
every flag officer until we get our way, our military would come 
crashing down, would be in shambles, and our national security would be 
in jeopardy. But that is just what the Senator from Alabama is doing. 
The obstruction is dangerous--dangerous--for our national security.
  I urge my colleague from Alabama to think about it. Why shouldn't a 
Member on this side block military appointments? Why shouldn't any 
other Member on that side on things they believe in just as 
passionately as he believes in his issue of choice? The proper place to 
take it up is on the floor of the Senate and the House as a legislative 
proposal, not as hostage-taking and taking hostage of our generals and 
admirals and people who deserve a promotion.
  I urge my colleagues, my Republican colleagues on the other side, to 
speak out and to certainly speak to the Senator from Alabama and tell 
him how reckless this is. Several of my colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle, to their everlasting credit, have voiced their concerns with 
the Senator from Alabama's action. Our colleagues, our Republican 
leadership, should convince him to stand down and let these military 
promotions go through.


                              Debt Ceiling

  Mr. President, now on the debt ceiling, this morning, Speaker 
McCarthy stated in an interview that he sent a letter to President 
Biden demanding the two sit down to talk about the debt ceiling. He has 
been saying that for a very long time, but for a very long time, he has 
not shown us any plan.
  To date, Speaker McCarthy has failed to unite his conference behind a 
single proposal that can win 218 votes. We are hearing a lot of 
contradictions and U-turns by the Republican caucus in the House and 
lots of outlandish proposals that would harm a lot of Americans, but as 
far as a plan goes, the Republican leadership still has none. When the 
Speaker is asked about specifics for his plan, all we get is crickets. 
All we get is crickets.
  Republicans have been flailing. One day there is a term sheet. Then 
there is having a budget. Then there is not having a budget. Now there 
is a supposed amorphous $4 trillion number. But the only thing missing 
is a real plan. You can't just pick a number out of the sky and say 
this is a plan. Of course it is not. You can't just put a number on the 
floor of the House and try to get it to pass.
  So when Speaker McCarthy points fingers at Democrats, all he is doing 
is deflecting from problems he has in his own conference--that those on 
the MAGA right want to pull one way and those who are more mainstream 
want to pull another way, and he can't bring the two of them together.
  Speaker McCarthy says he wants to sit down with the President, but if 
he comes to the President's office with no specific plan, no specific 
details about what the Republicans want to cut, what are they going to 
talk about? The weather? If the two sit down, the Speaker would have 
nothing to say because for 3 months he has been missing the one thing 
that he needs most: an initial plan that can unite 218 votes.
  We Democrats have had a plan--House, Senate Democrats. Pass it 
without brinkmanship, without hostage-taking. Do what we have done 
under President Trump and President Biden in the past when we have 
reached the limit of the debt ceiling.
  We say to Speaker McCarthy: Where is your plan? If the two were to 
sit down, the Speaker would have nothing to say because for 3 months he 
has been missing an initial plan that can unite 218 votes.
  During today's interview, the Speaker also claimed multiple times 
that his party is considering $4 trillion in cuts.
  Great. Fill out the specifics, where the $4 trillion exactly comes 
from. Put it on the floor, Mr. Speaker. Show us the plan. Have a vote. 
We need specifics. You can't say you are for $4 trillion in cuts if you 
can't point to specifics.
  If the Speaker truly has a proposal, he should lay it out. This isn't 
about some amorphous, vague number; it is about having a plan. This is 
the central problem with Speaker McCarthy's approach. It is not even 
possible to meet with the President and have a true meeting if he can't 
guarantee he will keep his conference together.
  That is why Republicans should drop their brinkmanship, drop the 
hostage-taking, work with Democrats on a clean, bipartisan extension of 
the debt ceiling, and remove this cloud that is hanging over our 
economy that is imposed by Speaker McCarthy's brinkmanship.


                         Lower Energy Costs Act

  Mr. President, on H.R. 1, the House is expected to vote this week on 
Republicans' partisan, unserious, so-called energy package they call 
H.R. 1. All it takes is a brief glance at H.R. 1 to realize it is just 
a big giveaway to Big Oil, pretending to be an energy package.
  House Republicans' so-called energy package would gut important 
environmental safeguards on fossil fuel projects. It would lock America 
into expensive, erratic, and dirty energy sources while setting us back 
more than a decade on our transition to clean energy.
  Everyone admits we have to do something about the carbon that is 
causing global warming. We have seen all the changes that it has caused 
all across the country. And they want to move back 10 years at the 
behest of Big Oil?
  It is a plan that has no support with the American people--very 
little--the oil interests, yes, but just about nobody else. It falls 
woefully short on long-overdue and much needed reforms for accelerating 
the construction of transmission to bring clean energy projects online. 
Transmission is hugely important to increasing access to clean energy, 
but the Republican plan falls woefully short on this front as well.

  I want to make clear that H.R. 1 is dead on arrival in the Senate. It 
is another exercise. You can go back to the MAGA supporters back home, 
the big oil companies you are walking in lockstep with, and say: See, 
we put this on the floor, but it is not going to get anything done.
  We are not going to waste our time on a bill that sets America back 
decades in our transition to clean energy.
  A serious clean energy package would help ease America's transition 
to clean energy while ensuring that clean energy is reliable, 
accessible, and most importantly, affordable.
  Fortunately, many Democrats and Republicans understand that we need a 
bipartisan, bicameral approach to produce a serious energy package. 
Everyone knows there is going to have to be give on both sides to get 
it done. We on our side will continue working in good faith on real 
permitting reform talks.
  But, House Republicans, H.R. 1 is, very simply put, a nonstarter.


                             Student Loans

  Mr. President, on the student debt CRA, yesterday, Republicans 
introduced legislation that would end the pause on payments and 
overturn President Biden's historic student loan debt

[[Page S977]]

relief program, denying the millions of Americans with student debt the 
critical relief they need.
  Republicans talk a big game about helping working families, but they 
are once again showing how callous and uncaring they are by blocking 
that relief that would immediately improve the lives of millions of 
families burdened with student debt.
  Republicans call President Biden's plan a ``giveaway to high 
earners.'' That is just false. That is just malicious. That is just 
nasty. Under President Biden's plan, nearly 90 percent of relief 
dollars would go to out-of-school borrowers making less than $75,000 a 
year.
  Republicans, look at the facts. Let me repeat it. Under President 
Biden's plan, 90 percent--nearly 90 percent of debt relief dollars 
would go to out-of-school borrowers making less than $75,000 a year.
  Under President Biden's plan, no one in the top 5 percent of incomes 
will receive a penny in debt relief. President Biden's plan is not a 
giveaway to high earners. In fact, there are a lot of very, very 
wealthy people who never want to see the government help anybody except 
themselves who seem to push this idea of getting rid of the President's 
plan.
  President Biden's plan is a ladder up to the middle class for 
millions of Americans who need it most. Rather than help the privileged 
few, the Biden plan would benefit students of color, poor Americans, 
children of immigrants, and working and middle-class families across 
the country. These are the Americans who bear the brunt of the student 
debt crisis. They are the ones hurt by Republican legislation.
  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. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                         Defense Foreign Policy

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, providing for the common defense is one of 
the core responsibilities of the Federal Government. It is, in fact, a 
primary reason why the Federal Government exists. In fact, the 
Constitution states:

       The United States shall guarantee to every State in this 
     Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each 
     of them against Invasion.

  So how do we do that? How do we protect our Nation and ensure that 
Americans can live in peace and safety? The answer can be summed up in 
one word: ``strength.''
  As Ronald Reagan said, ``We know only too well that war comes not 
when the forces of freedom are strong, but when they are weak. It is 
then that tyrants are tempted.'' Or to put it in the words of another 
President, our first, speaking 200 years earlier, ``To be prepared for 
war is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace.'' That is 
from President George Washington.
  We secure peace by maintaining our strength. So what does that mean 
in practice? At its most basic level, of course, it means maintaining a 
strong military and national intelligence apparatus. It means ensuring 
that our military is well-funded, sufficiently manned, and fully 
equipped to meet current and future threats. Unfortunately, we are not 
doing the best job at that right now.
  We have military services that are struggling to meet recruiting 
targets. There is a persistent pilot shortage, and in a number of 
cases, we have too few mission-capable aircraft. Under the President's 
budget, Navy ships would be retired faster than we can replace them in 
our limited shipyards. War-gaming analysis suggests we would run out of 
certain long-range and precision munitions in conflicts with a great 
power much sooner than any American should be comfortable with. On top 
of that, last month, the spectacle of a Chinese spy balloon flying over 
U.S. military bases made it clear that there has been an alarming gap 
in NORAD's--the North American Aerospace Defense Command--monitoring of 
U.S. airspace.
  Our current situation isn't being helped by the fact that the 
President is deemphasizing investment in our military. The budget he 
just introduced for next year requests a massive hike in nondefense 
spending compared to a mere 3.2-percent increase for defense.
  In fact, the supposed increase in defense spending isn't really an 
increase at all. The increase the President is proposing fails to keep 
pace with current levels of inflation, which means that his defense 
spending hike is really a defense spending cut--and not for the first 
time.
  In November of 2018, the bipartisan National Defense Strategy 
Commission released a report warning that our readiness had eroded to 
the point where we might struggle to win a war against a major power 
like Russia or China. The Commission noted that we would be especially 
vulnerable if we were ever called on to fight a war on two fronts.
  We have made some progress since then, but we are definitely not 
there yet. We have to make continued investment in our military and our 
readiness a priority. We need to be prepared to meet any threat because 
that will allow us to deter almost any threat.
  Reducing investment in our military--as the President has proposed--
would leave us in a situation where we could have difficulty defending 
our Nation or our Nation's interests if attacked.
  It is worth noting, too, that while the President deemphasizes 
funding for our military, hostile powers are not doing the same.
  China recently announced that it is increasing its defense budget by 
7.2 percent this year, after increasing it 7.1 percent last year.
  We need to continue to reinvest in our military, address recruitment 
challenges, and ensure that our men and women in uniform--and our 
intelligence personnel--have what they need to meet and deter the 
threats of the 21st century.
  The most basic requirement of national strength is a strong military. 
And that isn't the only requirement. Investment in our military and 
national security apparatus needs to be accompanied by commitments to 
border security, energy security, and more. Border security--and here, 
I am talking not just about physical security at our borders but also 
enforcement of our immigration laws--is an essential part of keeping 
our Nation secure.
  Porous borders--or lax immigration enforcement that allows things 
like visa overstays--are an invitation to criminals, terrorists, and 
others who would seek to harm our country.
  The fact that 16 individuals on the terror watch list were 
apprehended attempting to cross our southern border illegally in 
February alone should be all the reminder we need that people who do 
not wish us well are seeking to enter our country.
  And we need to ensure that we are enforcing our immigration laws and 
maintaining our borders to stop them.
  I also referenced energy security as a component of national strength 
and security.
  What does energy security mean? It means developing our domestic 
energy resources--both conventional and renewable--to ensure a stable 
and reliable supply of energy that does not depend on imports from 
hostile countries.
  The energy challenges and soaring costs countries like Germany have 
faced over the past year owing to their heavy reliance on Russian 
energy are a timely reminder of the importance of developing domestic 
energy supplies.
  Depending on imports from hostile nations or unstable regions not 
only enriches those nations, it places us in a position of 
vulnerability.
  So far, I have talked about what we should be doing domestically to 
build the kind of strength that will protect our Nation and deter 
aggressors. But security is not just a matter of working at home to 
strengthen our military and secure our borders. We also need to engage 
globally--to build relationships with allies, support free nations, and 
stand against hostile actions by hostile countries.
  Now, standing against hostile actions or hostile nations doesn't mean 
fixing every country's problems or getting militarily involved in every 
conflict around the globe. We are not--and cannot be--police officer to 
the world.
  But an isolationism that would recede from any world event unless it 
directly and immediately affects us is dangerous and contrary to our 
national security interests because sooner or

[[Page S978]]

later, world events--particularly those that involve powerful and 
hostile nations--do affect us.
  We ignore the importance of security challenges, like Ukraine, at our 
peril. Putin is already making it clear his ambitions don't end with 
Ukraine. He is also occupying territory in Georgia and, seemingly, 
working on asserting Russian influence in Moldova and the Balkans.
  A Putin victorious in Ukraine would be on the doorstep of four former 
Soviet satellite states--now NATO members whom we are bound by treaty 
to protect--and he would likely be emboldened. War could spread, which 
would compound the existing humanitarian catastrophe cost, cost U.S. 
lives, and spell economic disaster not only for European countries but 
for the United States, which trades heavily with Europe.
  For the sake of our own security, we cannot afford to sit by and 
ignore the Ukrainian conflict. Helping Ukraine fight its fight degrades 
Russia's capability and helps ensure that the United States and NATO 
troops won't have to fight a war with Russia. And it sends a clear 
message to Russia and other nations with imperial ambitions that 
aggression will not go unanswered away.
  I would also note that along with isolationism, we need to be wary of 
the tendency to focus on one global threat to the exclusion of others. 
China, which is flexing its military and economic power and threatening 
the safety of Taiwan, should rightly be a major focus right now.
  But it cannot be the only one. For those who, for example, contend 
that U.S. support for Ukraine is a distraction from the threat that 
China represents, I would argue that the outcome in Ukraine and 
upholding Ukraine's sovereignty has significant implications for China 
and Taiwan.
  It appears Japanese Prime Minister Kishida would agree, as he 
traveled to Kyiv 1 week ago--a trip not undertaken lightly given that 
Japan is neighbors with Russia, China, and North Korea.
  We know that Chinese leader Xi Jingping is watching the West's 
response to the war in Ukraine closely. And our support--and NATO's 
support--of Ukraine can send a powerful message to General Secretary Xi 
that he should think twice before making any move across the Taiwan 
Strait.
  In addition to confronting the dangers posed by great powers, we also 
need to continue to maintain focus on threats in the Middle East and 
Africa, including ISIS and Iran and their proxies.
  In the past week, there have been multiple strikes on American forces 
in Syria, with attacks tracing back to Iran-backed militia groups. And 
we need to continue to make it clear that hostile action against 
Americans--like last week's attacks--will not be tolerated.
  Iran is fomenting unrest in the Middle East, moving closer to 
enriching weapons-grade uranium, and sending drones to Russia to 
support its war on Ukraine. Meanwhile, it is looking likely that Russia 
will supply Iran with modern fighter jets, making Iran an even more 
deadly presence in the Middle East.
  We cannot afford to ignore Iran any more than we can ignore China, 
Russia, or any other serious threat to peace and stability. We need to 
remain engaged on the global stage--always pursuing peace but always 
ready to respond to those who would jeopardize it.
  Above all, we can't be afraid to call evil by its name. Ronald Reagan 
never declared war on the Soviet Union. But he helped bring down the 
Evil Empire, in part, by not being afraid to speak with moral clarity.
  There will always be threats to peace and security. And it must be 
our job to ensure that the United States always has the strength to 
meet them. There is no surer way of preserving the peace or protecting 
the heritage of freedom that we have been given.
  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. LANKFORD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Padilla). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                                SOIL Act

  Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, I wanted to be able to come back to the 
floor to talk about the SOIL Act. The SOIL Act is a bill that I 
introduced last year that deals with Chinese ownership of land in the 
United States.
  Since I have introduced this bill, several of my colleagues here in 
this room have also introduced other bills that are similar to it. 
Good. That means people are paying attention to this and the 
conversation is starting. I am all for as many ideas as we can get out 
here on how to be able to solve this because the most basic principle 
that we have right now is, if we miss an obvious trend that is 
happening here, it is to our economic peril.
  This chart has just a very simple number on it. In 2020, Chinese 
entities owned almost 200,000 acres of land in the United States. One 
year later, they are at almost 400,000 acres in the United States--in 1 
year. This is from 2020 to 2021. This trend is happening all over the 
country, and we are certainly seeing it in my State of Oklahoma.
  When I travel around my State, I hear people talk about the border; I 
hear people talk about the economy; and I often will hear people say: 
Hey, there is a lot of foreign ownership going into land right now in 
Oklahoma, and it is dramatically affecting the price of real estate, 
the price of agricultural land but also what is happening on that land.
  Now, my State may be a little bit different than some others or it 
may be that the same thing is happening in your State.
  About half a decade ago, my State did medical marijuana legalization. 
It was a decision of the voters of my State to be able to say they want 
to get access to medical marijuana for those who need it. The problem 
is that Chinese entities and Chinese criminal organizations and Mexican 
cartels immediately flooded the market in our State, and we have seen a 
rapid rise in marijuana in our State, much of it done in the illegal 
market. It is not just happening for the ``medical'' side in our State; 
it is being distributed all over the country from my State.
  Just a few months ago, I was looking on different worldwide news 
sources and was shocked to see in the BBC News headlines for that day a 
story about my State on the global news headlines about a group of 
Chinese nationals who were shot execution-style in a grow operation in 
Oklahoma. The individual who executed them was on the run and then was 
arrested in Florida a couple of days later. He was also a Chinese 
national.
  Chinese criminal organizations have moved into my State in mass 
numbers. The year after marijuana was legalized in my State for 
``medical'' purposes, we had more land sales to foreign entities in 
Oklahoma than any other State in America as Chinese criminal 
organizations and Mexican cartels immediately moved in to be able to 
set up shop in distribution nationwide.
  Many people said they didn't think it was legal for foreign entities 
to be able to own land in the United States. Well, there is a gap, 
actually, in our law. It is an issue that I want us to be able to deal 
with on how we are going to challenge this issue.
  Let me give you just another perspective beyond just the Chinese side 
of things--another perspective on this. Ten years ago, 321,000 acres in 
Oklahoma were owned by a foreign entity--10 years ago. Today, it is 
1.67 million acres in my State are owned by a foreign entity--from 
321,000 to 1.67 million acres. There is a rapid transition that is 
happening. Foreign entities are rapidly buying up land. I will tell 
you, if you are a farmer and rancher, they would say, you know, there 
are some things God is just not making more of, and one of them is 
land. You can't just give that up.
  This is a problem. It is a problem nationally. It is not just a 
problem in the marijuana industry; it is a problem nationally. It is a 
problem dealing, quite frankly, with our national security. We 
currently have a 1-mile buffer around all of our military installations 
that you can't own land if you are a foreign entity within 1 mile 
around our military installations. We now believe that is not nearly 
enough.
  Quite frankly, foreign nationals from many countries like China are 
buying up the land around our critical infrastructure, around our 
telecom infrastructure, around military bases,

[[Page S979]]

around government offices. They are not buying it because they are 
looking for another place to invest. They are buying it to set up shop 
for their own operations and their own spying and their own control of 
our economy. We should pay attention to this.
  As we deal with different entities, like data or healthcare entities, 
they have to go through a process. It is called the CFIUS process. It 
is that process, the Committee on Foreign Investment in the 
United States--the abbreviation you will hear for Committee on Foreign 
Investment in the United States is CFIUS. That process includes 
entities like the Treasury, Commerce, Defense, the intelligence 
community--they all have to be involved if a foreign entity wants to be 
able to buy, let's say, a telecom company or they want to buy a lot of 
big data around a hospital, whatever it may be. It has to go through 
that process on that.

  Agricultural land is not in that though. There is no review for that. 
So there is no prioritization for foreign investment of our land, even 
where it is, so this has become an ``out of sight, out of mind'' issue.
  The bill that I have called the SOIL Act does a mandatory review of 
CFIUS of that process--the Committee on Foreign Investment in the 
United States--for agricultural land and the entity. That is in two 
categories: if they are a national security threat--that country is a 
national security threat--or they are what is called a nonmarket 
economy.
  Let me explain what those two things are. The national security 
threat is pretty straightforward. That is China, Russia, Iran, and 
North Korea. If China, Russia, Iran, or North Korea want to buy land 
around the edge of one of our military bases, right outside that 1-mile 
buffer, if they want to buy lots of land around our infrastructure or 
telecom, it is not for our good. We should have a review of that.
  The second thing is a nonmarket economy. This is an economy that is 
run by the government, not by private business.
  Again, China would fall squarely into this as a communist nation. You 
cannot run an investment business--especially a foreign entity outside 
of China--without it running through the Communist Party in China, so 
they are a nonmarket economy.
  One of the most basic parts about this is, if you are going to buy 
any kind of land in the United States and you are from one of those 
countries that is a nonmarket economy or that is a national security 
threat, we should have a mandatory review of that so they could 
actually do that kind of purchase. But we just want to know why, where, 
how much, what is the purpose of this, and we can ask those practical 
questions of it.
  The SOIL Act that I have also tries to close some of the loopholes 
that are in our Federal law. Let me talk through a couple of those. 
Currently, we have a foreign entity--let's say a Chinese entity--that 
is doing an ag purpose there, they would still be available for 
agricultural subsidies in the United States. Well, that needs to be 
closed.
  We shouldn't do agricultural subsidies for any entity that is a 
foreign entity coming into the United States doing investment, so it 
closes that loophole. It closes all of the disclosure loopholes dealing 
with agricultural landholdings.
  Right now if you have a landholding that is around 10 acres, then you 
don't have to disclose it. Well, a lot of these operations are less 
than 10 acres, and there is a lot that you can do on 10 acres if that 
10 acres also happens to be right on our critical infrastructure, right 
on our telecom, or maybe it is also doing a criminal operation.
  Also this deals with issues of long-term leases. Entities would come 
in and say, well, we are not really buying the land, we are just doing 
a 99-year lease. Well, that is the equivalent of actually owning the 
land, and so it gets around that loophole.
  It also beefs up our enforcement for those who violate our foreign 
investment laws. It also requires annual reporting, for China and 
Russia in particular.
  Listen, I am not trying to stop foreign investments into the country. 
If BMW wants to be able to come do manufacturing here in the United 
States for their cars or Nissan or any number of manufacturing products 
that are here from all over the world, they are welcome to be here. 
They are welcome to do foreign investment.
  But when Iran is buying up a big chunk of land, we should ask the 
question why they are doing that. And, currently, we don't even have a 
process to do that. When China is snapping up land by the hundreds of 
thousands of acres, we should ask the question: Why is China buying 
hundreds of thousands of acres of American land all of a sudden? What 
is the goal?
  We should ask that question; and, currently, we don't have a process 
to do that. So let's fix that. The SOIL Act gets on top of that issue 
and says we see the trend. Let's not just watch this go sideways; let's 
actually engage. And let's protect our national security, and let's 
protect our national interest.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HAWLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                        Covenant School Shooting

  Mr. HAWLEY. Mr. President, yesterday the Nation witnessed a murderous 
rampage at an elementary school, a small Christian school in Nashville, 
TN. Tragically, three small children, 9 years old, lost their lives; 
three employees of this school lost their lives. And even as I am on 
this floor now, Nashville police are releasing the body cam footage of 
the officers who responded with heroic speed and heroic courage to the 
deranged individual who made her way into that school and was executing 
students and teachers one by one.
  Those officers deserve to be praised; they deserve to be thanked; 
they deserve to be honored for what they did and for the lives that 
they saved.
  We must also tell the truth about what happened yesterday in 
Nashville. This murderous rampage, this taking of innocent life was a 
horrific crime; but, more specifically, it was a hate crime. A crime 
that, according to Nashville police, specifically targeted--that is 
their word--targeted the members of this Christian community, the 
members of this religious institution, its students, its educators, its 
employees.
  Let's be clear, Federal law prohibits the targeting of violence 
against any American on the basis of religious affiliation or religious 
practice or religious belief.
  But that is, according to police, exactly what we saw happen 
yesterday. The members of this community were singled out because of 
their religious affiliation. And now, three young children are dead, 
and three educators are dead because of their affiliation with this 
religious institution, because of their beliefs, because of their work, 
because of their service. That is a crime under Federal law, and it 
must be treated as such.
  Today I have called on the director of the FBI and the Secretary of 
Homeland Security to open a Federal investigation, a Federal hate crime 
investigation, into what happened in Nashville. We need the facts. We 
need to know about the premeditated crime. We need to know about what 
this shooter did and intended to do. We need to know about the 
influences. What kind of violent rhetoric motivated this shooter? Were 
there others involved?
  This contagion of hateful rhetoric and violence must not be allowed 
to spread, and that is why we need all Federal resources, according to 
Federal law, devoted now on the ground in Nashville to get the facts 
and to stop the violence from spreading further.
  And I call on this body, every Member of this body, to condemn, in 
the clearest of terms, this hate crime against this community in 
Nashville. Today, I will introduce a resolution explicitly condemning 
this massacre as the hate crime that it is and calling upon this body 
to condemn hateful rhetoric that leads to violence. Hateful rhetoric 
against religious believers, religious institutions, religious 
communities that leads to violence.

  This isn't speculation; this is a tragic fact. It is happening before 
our eyes, and we must condemn it. And I would call on those corporate 
partners who

[[Page S980]]

are so quick to weigh in on social issues, now, make your voice heard. 
Condemn this violence as the hate crime that it is. Stand with this 
community in Nashville. This is a time to be heard. This is a time to 
be clear about what has happened and is unfolding before our very eyes.
  And let's just be crystal clear, rhetoric about days of vengeance and 
genocide, rhetoric directed against religious believers of whatever 
background--whether they are Presbyterians like the students and 
teachers and employees targeted yesterday or some other Christian 
affiliation or Orthodox Jews or Catholics or whatever the religious 
background--it is a crime under Federal law to target and commit acts 
of violence against Americans because of their religious beliefs, 
because of their religious affiliation, because of their religious 
practices.
  This should not happen in the United States of America, and now we 
must act to see that it does not spread.
  And so I hope the Senate will soon take up my resolution. I hope that 
every Member of this body will be clear about what has happened in 
Nashville and will be clear in standing against the violence, in 
standing against the hate, in standing against the rhetoric, in 
standing with this community that needs now our support, that needs now 
our encouragement and condolences, yes, but also needs our action.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.


                            Amendment No. 11

  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, last December, the World Health Assembly 
established an intergovernmental negotiating body to draft a new 
convention on pandemic prevention and preparedness.
  At its fourth meeting last month, the negotiating body accepted a 
draft of this new convention that would give the World Health 
Organization broad new powers in managing future pandemics. If 
accepted, it would cement the World Health Organization at the center 
of a global system for managing future pandemics, and it would erode 
U.S. sovereignty.
  Let me just list a few of the examples of some of the provisions of 
this draft--and I will call it a treaty. Currently, it would require a 
substantial new U.S. financial commitment to an international body 
without proportional voting power.
  It would require the U.S. to give the World Health Organization 20 
percent of vaccines and other pandemic-related products produced during 
future pandemics. It includes a heavy emphasis on the transfer of 
intellectual property rights to the World Health Organization.
  It gives the World Health Organization a leading role in fighting 
misinformation and disinformation, and as the Twitter files reveal, 
that leads to censorship and the suppression and abridging of freedom 
of speech.
  It also promotes a global one-health approach to healthcare, 
including harmonizing regulation under WHO guidance. The WHO has not 
earned this power--far from it. At a critical moment in late 2019 and 
early 2020, the WHO utterly failed to detect the emerging COVID-19 
pandemic and delayed in forming its member states. Instead, it was 
kowtowing to Beijing.
  Unfortunately, there are indications that the Biden administration is 
considering joining this new convention by executive agreement and 
avoiding the Senate. We should not let this happen. An agreement of 
such magnitude needs to be submitted to the Senate for advice and 
consent. This is not a partisan issue; this is about reclaiming the 
Senate's prerogatives on international agreement.
  Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 11 and ask that it be 
reported by number.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment by number.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. Johnson] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 11.

  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To require any convention, agreement, or other international 
 instrument on pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response reached 
   by the World Health Assembly to be subject to Senate ratification)

       At the end of the bill, add the following:

     SEC. 3. ANY WORLD HEALTH AGENCY CONVENTION OR AGREEMENT OR 
                   OTHER INTERNATIONAL INSTRUMENT RESULTING FROM 
                   THE INTERNATIONAL NEGOTIATING BODY'S FINAL 
                   REPORT DEEMED TO BE A TREATY SUBJECT TO ADVICE 
                   AND CONSENT OF THE SENATE.

       (a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the ``No WHO 
     Pandemic Preparedness Treaty Without Senate Approval Act''.
       (b) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) On December 1, 2021, at the second special session of 
     the World Health Assembly (referred to in this section as the 
     ``WHA'') decided--
       (A) to establish an intergovernmental negotiating body 
     (referred to in this section as the ``INB'') to draft and 
     negotiate a WHO convention (referred to in this section as 
     the ``Convention''), agreement, or other international 
     instrument on pandemic prevention, preparedness, and 
     response, with a view to adoption under article 19 or any 
     other provision of the WHO Constitution; and
       (B) that the INB shall submit a progress report to the 
     Seventy-sixth WHA and a working draft of the convention for 
     consideration by the Seventy-seventh WHA, which is scheduled 
     to take place beginning on March 18, 2024.
       (2) On February 24, March 14 and 15, and June 6 through 8 
     and 15 through 17, 2022, the INB held its inaugural meeting 
     at which the Director-General proposed the following 5 themes 
     to guide the INB's work in drafting the Convention:
       (A) Building national, regional, and global capacities 
     based on a whole-of-government and whole-of-society approach.
       (B) Establishing global access and benefit sharing for all 
     pathogens, and determining a global policy for the equitable 
     production and distribution of countermeasures.
       (C) Establishing robust systems and tools for pandemic 
     preparedness and response.
       (D) Establishing a long-term plan for sustainable financing 
     to ensure support for global health threat management and 
     response systems.
       (E) Empowering WHO to fulfill its mandate as the directing 
     and coordinating authority on international health work, 
     including for pandemic preparedness and response.
       (3) On July 18 through 22, 2022, the INB held its second 
     meeting at which it agreed that the Convention would be 
     adopted under article 19 of the WHO Constitution and legally 
     binding on the parties.
       (4) On December 5 through 7, 2022, the INB held its third 
     meeting at which it accepted a conceptual zero draft of the 
     Convention and agreed to prepare a zero draft for 
     consideration at the INB's next meeting.
       (5) In early January 2023, an initial draft of the 
     Convention was sent to WHO member states in advance of its 
     formal introduction at the fourth meeting of the INB. The 
     draft includes broad and binding provisions, including rules 
     governing parties' access to pathogen genomic sequences and 
     how the products or benefits of such access are to be 
     distributed.
       (6) On February 27 through March 3, 2023, the INB held its 
     fourth meeting at which it--
       (A) formally agreed to the draft distributed in January as 
     the basis for commencing negotiations; and
       (B) established an April 14, 2023 deadline for member 
     states to propose any changes to the text.
       (7) Section 723.3 of title 11 of the Department of State's 
     Foreign Affairs Manual states that when ``determining whether 
     any international agreement should be brought into force as a 
     treaty or as an international agreement other than a treaty, 
     the utmost care is to be exercised to avoid any invasion or 
     compromise of the constitutional powers of the President, the 
     Senate, and the Congress as a whole'' and includes the 
     following criteria to be considered when determining whether 
     an international agreement should take the form of a treaty 
     or an executive agreement:
       (A) ``The extent to which the agreement involves 
     commitments or risks affecting the nation as a whole''.
       (B) ``Whether the agreement is intended to affect state 
     laws''.
       (C) ``Whether the agreement can be given effect without the 
     enactment of subsequent legislation by the Congress''.
       (D) ``Past U.S. practice as to similar agreements''.
       (E) ``The preference of the Congress as to a particular 
     type of agreement''.
       (F) ``The degree of formality desired for an agreement''.
       (G) ``The proposed duration of the agreement, the need for 
     prompt conclusion of an agreement, and the desirability of 
     concluding a routine or short-term agreement''.
       (H) ``The general international practice as to similar 
     agreements''.
       (c) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that--
       (1) a significant segment of the American public is deeply 
     skeptical of the World Health Organization, its leadership, 
     and its independence from the pernicious political influence 
     of certain member states, including the People's Republic of 
     China;
       (2) the Senate strongly prefers that any agreement related 
     to pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response adopted by 
     the World Health Assembly pursuant to the work of the INB be 
     considered a treaty requiring the advice and consent of the 
     Senate, with two-thirds of Senators concurring;
       (3) the scope of the agreement which the INB has been 
     tasked with drafting, as outlined by the Director-General, is 
     so broad that any application of the factors referred

[[Page S981]]

     to in subsection (b)(11) will weigh strongly in favor of it 
     being considered a treaty; and
       (4) given the level of public distrust, any relevant new 
     agreement by the World Health Assembly which cannot garner 
     the two-thirds vote needed for Senate ratification should not 
     be agreed to or implemented by the United States.
       (d) Applicability of Senate Advice and Consent 
     Constitutional Requirement.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, any convention, agreement, or other 
     international instrument on pandemic prevention, 
     preparedness, and response reached by the World Health 
     Assembly pursuant to the recommendations, report, or work of 
     the International Negotiating Body established by the second 
     special session of the World Health Assembly is deemed to be 
     a treaty that is subject to the requirements of article II, 
     section 2, clause 2 of the Constitution of the United States, 
     which requires the advice and consent of the Senate, with 
     two-thirds of Senators concurring.

  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, this amendment is very simple, it 
declares any pandemic convention produced by the intergovernmental 
negotiating body to be a treaty requiring Senate advice and consent.
  I had a similar amendment on the Iranian agreement a few years ago. 
It is far past time that the Members of this body reclaim our 
Constitutional authority at ratifying these incredibly serious treaties 
and no longer allow the administration to go ahead and negotiate 
agreements that can have a dramatic impact on our sovereignty and 
bypass the Senate entirely.
  So, again, a very simple amendment, it would deem any amendment a 
treaty and require that it be ratified by the Senate, and I urge all my 
colleagues to support my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment, not 
because my colleague from Wisconsin is completely wrong about the need 
for WHO accountability. The facts he stated are facts that are 
troubling. But the bill that is on the floor is a bill to repeal the 
Iraq war authorizations of 1991 and 2002. The bill has nothing to do 
with global health or the WHO.
  The Senate has not repealed a war authorization since 1971--52 years. 
This is a historic debate.
  When we authorized the wars in Iraq, the Gulf war and the invasion of 
2003, we did it in authorizations that didn't include extraneous 
amendments. The Senate deemed these important enough that other 
matters, even if they were important, were not added onto the 
declarations of war.
  I strongly believe we should take up this repeal, keep it limited 
precisely to the question on the floor--should we repeal the Iraq war 
authorizations--and not add in extraneous matter, even if that matter 
has some merit.
  And for that reason, I would ask my colleagues to vote against the 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, there is nothing in my amendment that 
would harm what the Senator from Virginia tried to accomplish in 
repealing the authorization for use of military force. So my amendment 
can be accepted and have no impact whatsoever on the legislation before 
the floor or the body.


                        Vote on Amendment No. 11

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
11.
  Mr. KAINE. 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 legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Coons), 
the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein), and the Senator from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Fetterman) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Kentucky (Mr. McConnell).
  The result was announced--yeas 47, nays 49, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 71 Leg.]

                                YEAS--47

     Barrasso
     Blackburn
     Boozman
     Braun
     Britt
     Budd
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagerty
     Hawley
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Lankford
     Lee
     Lummis
     Marshall
     Moran
     Mullin
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Ricketts
     Risch
     Romney
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Schmitt
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Tuberville
     Vance
     Wicker

                                NAYS--49

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cortez Masto
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Gillibrand
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Hickenlooper
     Hirono
     Kaine
     Kelly
     King
     Klobuchar
     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
     Welch
     Whitehouse
     Wyden
     Young

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Coons
     Feinstein
     Fetterman
     McConnell
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hickenlooper). On this vote, the yeas are 
47, the nays are 49.
  Under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this 
amendment, the amendment is not agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 11) was rejected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. RICKETTS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be up 
to 4 minutes of debate, equally divided, prior to the votes on the 
remaining amendments today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                            Amendment No. 30

  Mr. RICKETTS. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 30 and ask 
that it be reported by number.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Ricketts] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 30.

  The amendment is as follows:

                 (Purpose: To require a certification)

       Amend section 2 to read as follows:

     SEC. 2. REPEAL OF AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE 
                   AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002.

       (a) Repeal.--The Authorization for Use of Military Force 
     Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243; 116 
     Stat. 1498; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) is hereby repealed 30 days 
     after the President certifies to Congress that Iraq, Israel, 
     and other United States partners and allies in the region 
     have been meaningfully consulted on the ramifications of 
     repeal.
       (b) Description of Risks.--The certification submitted 
     under subsection (a) shall include a detailed description of 
     how Iraq, Israel, and other United States partners and allies 
     in the region perceive the risks and benefits of a repeal.

  Mr. RICKETTS. This amendment is very simple. It is less than 150 
words long. So I ask that you take some time to consider it.
  What it does is ask the administration to check in with our allies in 
the Middle East--Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Israel, UAE--and let them know 
what we are doing with this amendment.
  I agree in principle that we ought not let these things hang out 
there for 20 years, but I am concerned about the timing because, in my 
trip to the Middle East last month, what I heard from our allies is 
that it looks like we are withdrawing from the Middle East. And what 
that does is it emboldens Iran, it emboldens China, and it encourages 
our allies in the Middle East to start looking to hedge their bets from 
America and start, maybe, bringing in the Chinese as part of their 
security arrangements. And I think that is bad for our country, and, 
certainly, I think we can all agree we do not want China to be leading 
a world order here; that the United States is the best for providing 
peace and prosperity.
  What this amendment does is just ask the administration to check in 
with our allies, issue a report back to Congress, and, in 30 days after 
Congress, then the AUMF would expire. So I just ask that everybody 
please consider that.
  With that I yield back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I 
support the notion of dialogue, of course, with our strategic partners 
and allies, but the purpose of this AUMF repeal is for Congress to 
reclaim war powers and not outsource them to the Executive but also not 
outsource them to other nations.
  When we passed the Iraq war authorization in 2002, there was no 
requirement that it only went into effect if we

[[Page S982]]

then went out and had dialogue with other nations. Why would we declare 
war unilaterally but then say the only way to repeal it is following 
dialogue with other nations?
  Our allies and partners are very aware of this bill. It has been on 
the floor for 2 years. There have been floor debates about it in the 
House. There have been two separate markups in the Senate Foreign 
Relations Committee. They are very aware of it.
  All of us meet with Ambassadors. All of us meet with 
Parliamentarians. If nations in the region felt that there was any 
danger to this, they would have let us know. I will conclude and just 
say that the American Legion also strongly opposes this amendment. I 
would ask my colleagues to oppose it as well.


                        Vote on Amendment No. 30

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs on agreeing to the 
amendment.
  Mr. RICKETTS. 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 senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Coons), 
the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein), and the Senator from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Fetterman) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Kentucky (Mr. McConnell).
  The result was announced--yeas 31, nays 65, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 72 Leg.]

                                YEAS--31

     Barrasso
     Blackburn
     Boozman
     Britt
     Capito
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Graham
     Hagerty
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Lankford
     Mullin
     Ricketts
     Risch
     Romney
     Rosen
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Tuberville
     Wicker

                                NAYS--65

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Braun
     Brown
     Budd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Cortez Masto
     Cramer
     Cruz
     Daines
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Gillibrand
     Grassley
     Hassan
     Hawley
     Heinrich
     Hickenlooper
     Hirono
     Kaine
     Kelly
     King
     Klobuchar
     Lee
     Lujan
     Lummis
     Manchin
     Markey
     Marshall
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Ossoff
     Padilla
     Paul
     Peters
     Reed
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schmitt
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Sinema
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Van Hollen
     Vance
     Warner
     Warnock
     Warren
     Welch
     Whitehouse
     Wyden
     Young

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Coons
     Feinstein
     Fetterman
     McConnell
  (Mr. WARNOCK assumed the Chair.)
  (Mr. HICKENLOOPER assumed the Chair.)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lujan). On this vote, the yeas are 31, and 
the nays are 65.
  Under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this 
amendment, the amendment is not agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 30) was rejected.

                          ____________________