[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 95 (Thursday, June 1, 2023)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1882-S1892]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT OF 2023

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 3746) to provide for a responsible increase to 
     the debt ceiling.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.


                           Order of Business

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the only 
amendments in order be the following to H.R. 3746: Paul No. 107; Braun 
No. 91; Marshall No. 110; Sullivan No. 125; Hawley No. 93; Kennedy No. 
104; Cotton No. 106; Budd No. 134; Lee No. 98; Kaine No. 101; Kennedy 
No. 102; that at 7:30 p.m., if any of these amendments have been 
offered, the Senate vote on the amendments in the order listed, with 60 
affirmative votes required for adoption with the exception of the Lee 
amendment, Kennedy amendment No. 102, and the Kaine amendment; that 
there be 2 minutes for debate, equally divided, prior to each vote and 
with 6 minutes, equally divided, prior to each of the votes on the 
Kennedy amendments; that following disposition of the above amendments, 
the bill be considered read a third time and the Senate vote on the 
passage of the bill, as amended, if amended, with 60 affirmative votes 
required for passage, all without intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all votes 
after the first be 10-minute votes in length.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I am pleased--so pleased--to announce 
that both sides have just locked in an agreement that enables the 
Senate to pass legislation tonight, avoiding default.
  For the information of my colleagues, this is what will happen on the 
floor: In a few minutes, the Senate will begin holding votes on 11 
amendments--10 from the Republican side and 1 from the Democratic side.
  To finish our work tonight, after the first amendment, we are 
limiting each vote to 10 minutes. So I ask my colleagues to stay in 
their seats or near the floor during the votes. Let's keep this process 
moving quickly. After we finish voting on the amendments, we are 
immediately considering final passage, and by passing this bill, we 
will avoid default tonight.
  America can breathe a sigh of relief--a sigh of relief--because, in 
this process, we are avoiding default. From the start, avoiding default 
has been our North Star. The consequences of defaulting would be 
catastrophic. It

[[Page S1883]]

would almost certainly cause another recession. It would be a nightmare 
for our economy and millions of American families. It would take 
years--years--to recover from. But for all of the ups and downs and 
twists and turns it took to get here, it is so good for this country 
that both parties have come together at last to avoid default.
  I thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for their 
cooperation. Let's finish the job and send this very important 
bipartisan bill to the President's desk tonight.
  Mr. President, I also want to dispel rumors and reassure our friends 
across the world about the Senate's commitment and ability to respond 
to emerging threats and needs.
  This debt ceiling deal does nothing to limit the Senate's ability to 
appropriate emergency/supplemental funds to ensure our military 
capabilities are sufficient to deter China, Russia, and our other 
adversaries and respond to ongoing and growing national security 
threats, including Russia's ongoing war of aggression against Ukraine, 
our ongoing competition with China and its growing threat to Taiwan, 
Iranian threats to American interests and those of our partners in the 
Middle East, or any other emerging security crisis; nor does this debt 
ceiling deal limit the Senate's ability to appropriate emergency/
supplemental funds to respond to various national issues, such as 
disaster relief, or combating the fentanyl crisis, or other issues of 
national importance.
  I know a strong bipartisan majority of Senators stands ready to 
receive and process emergency funding requests from the administration. 
The Senate is not about to ignore national needs nor abandon our 
friends and allies who face urgent threats from America's most 
dangerous adversaries.
  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. PAUL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 107

  Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 107 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 Kentucky [Mr. Paul] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 107.

  The amendment is as follows:

                (Purpose: In the nature of a substitute)

        Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Five Penny Plan of 2023''.

     SEC. 2. STATUTORY ENFORCEMENT OF OUTLAY LIMITS THROUGH 
                   SEQUESTRATION.

       (a) In General.--Part C of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 900 et seq.) 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 258D. ENFORCING OUTLAY LIMITS.

       ``(a) Enforcing Outlay Limits.--In this section, the term 
     `outlay limit' means an amount equal to--
       ``(1) for fiscal year 2024, $4,839,204,000,000 in outlays;
       ``(2) for fiscal year 2025, $4,597,244,000,000 in outlays;
       ``(3) for fiscal year 2026, $4,367,382,000,000 in outlays;
       ``(4) for fiscal year 2027, $4,149,013,000,000 in outlays; 
     and
       ``(5) for fiscal year 2028, $3,941,562,000,000 in outlays.
       ``(b) Total Federal Outlays.--In this section, total 
     Federal outlays shall include all on-budget outlays.
       ``(c) Sequestration.--
       ``(1) OMB report.--Not later than 15 days after the end of 
     session for each of fiscal years 2024 through 2028, OMB shall 
     prepare a report specifying whether outlays for the preceding 
     fiscal year exceeded the outlay limit for that fiscal year.
       ``(2) Sequestration.--If a report under paragraph (1) shows 
     that outlays for a fiscal year exceeded the outlay limits for 
     that fiscal year, the President shall issue a sequestration 
     order reducing direct spending and discretionary 
     appropriations for the fiscal year after the fiscal year for 
     which outlays exceeded the limit by the uniform percentage 
     necessary to reduce outlays during that fiscal year by the 
     amount of the excess outlays.
       ``(3) Procedures.--In implementing the sequestration under 
     paragraph (2), OMB shall follow the procedures specified in 
     section 6 of the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010 (2 
     U.S.C. 935) and the special rules specified in section 256 of 
     this Act.
       ``(d) Consideration in House and Senate.--
       ``It shall not be in order in the House of Representatives 
     or the Senate to consider any bill, joint resolution, 
     amendment, or conference report that would cause the most 
     recently reported current outlay limits set forth in 
     subsection (a) to be exceeded.''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents in section 
     250(a) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control 
     Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 900(a)) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:

``Sec. 258D. Enforcing outlay limits.''.

     SEC. 3. LIMIT ON TOTAL SPENDING.

       Section 250(c) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 900(c)) is amended--
       (1) by striking paragraph (4); and
       (2) by redesignating paragraphs (5) through (21) as 
     paragraphs (4) through (20), respectively.

     SEC. 4. PUBLIC DEBT LIMIT.

       Section 3101(b) of title 31, United States Code, is amended 
     by striking ``$14,294,000,000,000'' and inserting 
     ``$14,794,000,000,000''.

  Mr. PAUL. The Biden-McCarthy debt deal will do nothing to avert the 
looming debt crisis. A debt deal that creates no limits to the debt 
accumulation over 2 years is not fiscally responsible and should be 
rejected.
  My amendment replaces the spending caps with caps that balance the 
budget in 5 years and limits the extension of debt to $500 billion, and 
I urge a ``yes'' vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, with all due respect to my colleague, 
I strongly urge a ``no'' vote.
  This amendment would create catastrophic damage throughout the 
Federal economy, with spending cuts as much as 37 percent by 2028, 
putting Federal programs like Medicare, Medicaid, border security, and 
transportation into extremely difficult circumstances. This is not the 
America that Americans expect, and we should not allow this vote to 
pass.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 107

  Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on agreeing to 
amendment No. 107.
  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 California (Mrs. 
Feinstein) and the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Warnock) are necessarily 
absent.
  Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Texas (Mr. Cruz) and the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Hagerty).
  The result was announced--yeas 21, nays 75, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 136 Leg.]

                                YEAS--21

     Barrasso
     Blackburn
     Braun
     Britt
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Daines
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Hyde-Smith
     Johnson
     Lankford
     Lee
     Lummis
     Marshall
     Mullin
     Paul
     Risch
     Rubio
     Schmitt
     Tuberville

                                NAYS--75

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Boozman
     Brown
     Budd
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Coons
     Cortez Masto
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Fetterman
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hassan
     Hawley
     Heinrich
     Hickenlooper
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Kaine
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     King
     Klobuchar
     Lujan
     Manchin
     Markey
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Ossoff
     Padilla
     Peters
     Reed
     Ricketts
     Romney
     Rosen
     Rounds
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Shaheen
     Sinema
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Thune
     Tillis
     Van Hollen
     Vance
     Warner
     Warren
     Welch
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden
     Young

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Cruz
     Feinstein
     Hagerty
     Warnock
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 21, the nays are 
75.
  Under the previous order requiring 60 votes, the adoption of this 
amendment is not agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 107) was rejected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.

[[Page S1884]]

  

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, about an hour ago, I entered a statement 
into the Record, and I would like to read it so the Members can hear 
it.
  I want to also dispel rumors and reassure our friends across the 
world about the Senate's commitment and ability to respond to emerging 
threats and needs. This debt ceiling deal does nothing to limit the 
Senate's ability to appropriate emergency/supplemental funds to ensure 
our military capabilities are sufficient to deter China, Russia, and 
our other adversaries and respond to ongoing and growing national 
security threats, including Russia's evil ongoing war of aggression 
against Ukraine, our ongoing competition with China and its growing 
threat to Taiwan, Iranian threats to American interests and those of 
our partners in the Middle East, or any other emerging security crisis; 
nor does this debt ceiling limit the Senate's ability to appropriate 
emergency/supplemental funds to respond to various national issues, 
such as disaster relief, combating the fentanyl crisis, or other issues 
of national importance.
  I know a strong bipartisan majority of Senators stands ready to 
receive and process emergency funding requests from the administration. 
The Senate is not about to ignore our national needs nor abandon our 
friends and allies who face urgent threats from America's most 
dangerous adversaries.
  Mr. President, I want to remind Members, we were indulgent in the 
first vote. That is over. We are doing 10-minute votes. Please stay in 
your seats so we can finish this bill at a reasonable hour.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Duly noted.
  The Senator from Indiana.


                            Amendment No. 91

  Mr. BRAUN. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 91 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 Indiana [Mr. Braun] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 91.

  The amendment is as follows:

  (Purpose: To rescind discretionary appropriations in the event of a 
 debt ceiling crisis period and to honor the full faith and credit of 
 the debts of the United States in the event of a debt ceiling crisis)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. RESCISSION OF DISCRETIONARY SPENDING AND HONORING 
                   DEBTS DURING A DEBT CEILING CRISIS.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Current fiscal year.--The term ``current fiscal year'' 
     means the fiscal year during which the applicable rescission 
     of discretionary appropriations under subsection (b) occurs.
       (2) Debt ceiling crisis period.--The term ``debt ceiling 
     crisis period'' means a period--
       (A) beginning on the date on which, but for subsection (c), 
     the Secretary of the Treasury would not be able to issue 
     obligations under chapter 31 of title 31, United States Code, 
     or other obligations whose principal and interest are 
     guaranteed by the United States Government, because of the 
     limit on the face amount of such obligations that may be 
     outstanding at one time under section 3101(b) of title 31, 
     United States Code; and
       (B) ending on date on which the first measure suspending or 
     increasing the limit under section 3101(b) of title 31, 
     United States Code, is enacted into law after the date 
     described in subparagraph (A).
       (3) Discretionary appropriations.--The term ``discretionary 
     appropriations'' has the meaning given such term in section 
     250(c) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control 
     Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 900(c)).
       (b) Rescission of Discretionary Spending.--For each 
     discretionary appropriations account, effective on first day 
     of a debt ceiling crisis period, and every 30 days thereafter 
     until the end of the debt ceiling crisis period, 1 percent of 
     the amount provided for the discretionary appropriations 
     account under the appropriation Act for the current fiscal 
     year is permanently rescinded.
       (c) Temporary Suspension of Debt Ceiling.--
       (1) In general.--Section 3101(b) of title 31, United States 
     Code, shall not apply for the period--
       (A) beginning on the first day of a debt ceiling crisis 
     period; and
       (B) ending on the last day of the debt ceiling crisis 
     period.
       (2) Special rule relating to obligations issued during 
     extension period.--Effective on the last day of a debt 
     ceiling crisis period, the limitation in effect under section 
     3101(b) of title 31, United States Code, shall be increased 
     to the extent that--
       (A) the face amount of obligations issued under chapter 31 
     of such title and the face amount of obligations whose 
     principal and interest are guaranteed by the United States 
     Government (except guaranteed obligations held by the 
     Secretary of the Treasury) outstanding on the first day of 
     the debt ceiling crisis period; exceeds
       (B) the face amount of such obligations outstanding on the 
     last day of the debt ceiling crisis period.
       (3) Extension limited to necessary obligations.--An 
     obligation shall not be taken into account under paragraph 
     (2)(A) unless the issuance of such obligation was necessary 
     to fund a commitment incurred pursuant to law by the Federal 
     Government that required payment on or before the last day of 
     the applicable debt ceiling crisis period.
       (d) Reports.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 30 days after the first day 
     of a debt ceiling crisis period, and every 30 days thereafter 
     until the date that is 30 days after the end of the debt 
     ceiling crisis period, the Director of the Office of 
     Management shall submit to Congress a report detailing the 
     rescission of discretionary appropriations under subsection 
     (b) with respect to the debt ceiling crisis period.
       (2) Review by gao.--Not later than 90 days after the date 
     on which the Director of the Office of Management and Budget 
     submits each report under paragraph (1), the Comptroller 
     General of the United States shall submit to Congress a 
     report evaluating the description of the rescission of 
     discretionary appropriations in the report by the Director of 
     the Office of Management and Budget.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is now 2 minutes of debate, equally 
divided.
  Mr. BRAUN. This should be the easiest vote of the night. This is to 
take default off the table in future endeavors like this. This simply 
says that when we get notice that extraordinary measures are going to 
be incorporated--that happened in January, I believe, of this year; X 
date is this Monday--that if we do not do a bill that either raises the 
amount or changes the date, ideally with reforms, that on the X date, 
after we had 5 to 6 months to do it, we have 1 percent cuts across the 
board on discretionary spending. It is the No Default Act.
  We should not be risking default. This would be simple. It gives us 
plenty of time and puts a little incentive. If you reach the X date, 
you are going to be encouraged to do it by then. If not, it would 
happen again in 30 days.
  I ask for your support. Let's not default when we engage this same 
dynamic in the future.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Senator's 
amendment, which would lead to more reckless brinkmanship, more 
arbitrary cuts by permanently rescinding 1 percent of discretionary 
appropriations every 30 days during a debt limit crisis. This makes no 
sense. Rewarding brinkmanship by slashing funding that our families and 
our communities and our troops depend on is an absolutely dangerous way 
to govern.
  Members on both sides of the aisle come to the floor to air 
legitimate grievances about this process and the outcome and this debt 
limit deal. Nobody likes the position we are in today--nobody. Passing 
this amendment would prove we have learned nothing.
  We do not need to create new opportunities for hostage-taking and 
cuts that would seriously undermine our economy, our families, our 
future, and our global leadership. We just need to do our job. Right 
now, we have to pass this bill to avoid a catastrophic default.
  I will be voting no. I urge my colleagues to do the same.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.


                        Vote on Amendment No. 91

  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  Mr. BRAUN. 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 California (Mrs. 
Feinstein) is necessarily absent.
  Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Texas (Mr.  Cruz) and the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Hagerty).
  The result was announced--yeas 35, nays 62, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 137 Leg.]

                                YEAS--35

     Barrasso
     Blackburn
     Boozman
     Braun
     Britt
     Budd

[[Page S1885]]


     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Daines
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Grassley
     Hawley
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Lankford
     Lee
     Lummis
     Marshall
     Moran
     Mullin
     Paul
     Risch
     Rubio
     Schmitt
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tuberville
     Vance

                                NAYS--62

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Coons
     Cortez Masto
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Fetterman
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Hickenlooper
     Hirono
     Kaine
     Kelly
     King
     Klobuchar
     Lujan
     Manchin
     Markey
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Ossoff
     Padilla
     Peters
     Reed
     Ricketts
     Romney
     Rosen
     Rounds
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Sinema
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Tillis
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warnock
     Warren
     Welch
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden
     Young

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Cruz
     Feinstein
     Hagerty
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. On this vote, the yeas are 35; the nays 
are 62.
  Under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this 
amendment, the amendment is not agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 91) was rejected.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, that was 12 minutes. We are getting 
down to 10. Everyone should be here. Call the vote.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Kansas.


                           Amendment No. 110

  (Purpose: To secure the borders of the United States, and for other 
purposes.)
  Mr. MARSHALL. Madam President, I call up my amendment No. 110 and ask 
that it be reported by number.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report the amendment by 
number.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kansas [Mr. Marshall] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 110.

  (The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of 
Amendments.'')
  Mr. MARSHALL. Madam President, I rise in support of Marshall 
amendment No. 110 to put an end to the culture of lawlessness at our 
southern border embraced by our President.
  I cannot in good conscience support this debt limit deal and saddle 
my grandchildren with this $4 trillion in additional debt.
  This bill misses the mark, and, perhaps, what is more frustrating is 
that it does not give a single cent to securing our border--zero 
dollars to addressing the greatest, most immediate national security 
threat to our Nation.
  This past weekend alone, the Border Patrol made over 13,000 
apprehensions. There were over 4,000 ``got-aways''; and they seized 118 
pounds of meth, 14 pounds of fentanyl, and apprehended 6 sex offenders 
and 5 gang members.
  We have a crisis unfolding at our southern border, and it is 
happening right now in plain sight. It is impacting every community 
across the country. I will not sit here, form committees, and pray 
about it. We need action today.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator's time is expired.
  Mr. MARSHALL. I am proud to introduce my amendment today and hope you 
will vote yes and support it.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, we had a hearing this week in the 
Committee on the Judiciary. We had a grower from South Carolina, a 
guest of Senator Graham. He professes to be the second largest peach 
grower in America. I asked him point-blank: If you had E-Verify on your 
farm today, what would happen to you and the growers who need workers?
  He said: We would be out of business tomorrow.
  That's what your amendment does. It imposes E-Verify on farmers in 
Kansas and Illinois and all across the United States.
  We are not ready for this. You are going to put them out of business.
  And, secondly, it strips away all of the protections of unaccompanied 
children at the border. We do not want kids in cages anymore at the 
border. Please vote against this amendment.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 110

  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question now occurs on agreeing to 
amendment No. 110.
  Mr. BRAUN. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. 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. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. 
Feinstein) is necessarily absent.
  Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: The Senator 
from Texas (Mr. Cruz) and the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Hagerty).
  The result was announced--yeas 46, nays 51, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 138 Leg.]

                                YEAS--46

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

                                NAYS--51

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

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Cruz
     Feinstein
     Hagerty
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. On this vote, the yeas are 46, the nays 
are 51. Under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of 
this amendment, the amendment is not agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 110) was rejected.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Ten minutes forty seconds. We have got 40 seconds to go, 
and we can get it all in 10.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 125

  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Alaska is recognized.
  Mr. SULLIVAN. Madam President, I call up my amendment No. 125 and ask 
that it be reported by number.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Sullivan] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 125.

  The amendment is as follows:

  (Purpose: To provide adequate funding for defense and increase the 
        rescission of funding for the Internal Revenue Service)

       On page 5, line 16, strike ``$886,349,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$904,779,000,000''.
       On page 5, line 21, strike ``$895,212,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$950,017,950,000''.
       On page 53, line 22, strike ``$1,389,525,000'' and insert 
     ``$74,625,475,000''.

  Mr. SULLIVAN. Madam President, the Fiscal Responsibility Act, 
unfortunately, does not meet the moment in terms of defending our 
Nation.
  The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and others have said we are now in 
the most dangerous period of any time since World War II. And yet this 
bill cuts defense spending in inflation-adjusted terms by approximately 
3 percent this year and 5 percent next year.
  By endorsing the President's defense budget, this bill shrinks the 
Navy, shrinks the Army, and shrinks the Marine Corps. Next year, it 
will take us below 3 percent of GDP spending for the first time in 25 
years.
  My amendment does what the Armed Services Committee and this Chamber 
have done in a broad bipartisan manner over the past 2 years. It 
significantly pluses up the inadequate defense budget submitted by the 
President. My amendment fully funds the Biden Pentagon's unfunded 
priorities list by----
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. SULLIVAN. By $18 billion.

[[Page S1886]]

  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. SULLIVAN. And it raises----
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent for 30 seconds more.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Mr. SULLIVAN. And for fiscal year 2025, it raises the defense top 
line by 5 percent to simply keep pace with inflation. These increases 
are offset by rescinding the additional amounts from the President's 
$80 billion plus-up from the IRS.
  So, my colleagues, the choice is clear: more Navy ships, soldiers, 
and marines to protect America or more IRS agents to harass Americans. 
I urge a ``yes'' vote on this important amendment.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Oregon is recognized.
  Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I oppose the gentleman's amendment, and 
Senate Democrats will keep this Chamber on time.
  There are three important reasons to vote against this amendment. 
First, it would be an even bigger Republican handout to wealthy tax 
cheats--nearly $200 billion. Second, at a time when Congress is 
supposed to be debating fiscal responsibility, this amendment double 
counts billions and billions of dollars by increasing the deficit with 
more spending on defense contractors and bigger handouts to wealthy tax 
cheats.
  Finally, this Senate should focus on better service to taxpayers, 
improved information technology, and ending the free ride once and for 
all for wealthy tax cheats.
  I urge colleagues to oppose the amendment.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 125

  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on agreeing to the 
amendment.
  Mr. WICKER. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. 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 California (Mrs. 
Feinstein) is necessarily absent.
  Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: The Senator 
from Texas (Mr. Cruz) and the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Hagerty).
  The result was announced--yeas 49, nays 48, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 139 Leg.]

                                YEAS--49

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

                                NAYS--48

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

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Cruz
     Feinstein
     Hagerty
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. On this vote, the yeas are 49, the nays 
are 48.
  Under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this 
amendment, the amendment is not agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 125) was rejected.
  Mr. SCHUMER. That took 9 minutes 40 seconds. Keep going.
  (Applause.)
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Missouri.


                            Amendment No. 93

  Mr. HAWLEY. Madam President, I call up my amendment No. 93, and I ask 
that it be reported by number.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Missouri [Mr. Hawley] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 93.

  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To require the imposition of additional duties with respect 
 to articles imported from the People's Republic of China until trade 
between the United States and the People's Republic of China comes into 
                                balance)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. IMPOSITION OF DUTIES TO BALANCE TRADE WITH THE 
                   PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA.

       (a) Calculation of Trade With the People's Republic of 
     China.--Not later than January 31 of each year, the President 
     shall calculate and publish in the Federal Register, for the 
     preceding calendar year--
       (1) the total value of articles imported into the United 
     States from the People's Republic of China; and
       (2) the total value of articles exported from the United 
     States to the People's Republic of China.
       (b) Imposition of Duties.--
       (1) In general.--If the total value calculated under 
     paragraph (1) of subsection (a) exceeds the total value 
     calculated under paragraph (2) of that subsection for the 
     preceding calendar year, the President shall impose an 
     additional duty with respect to each article imported into 
     the United States from the People's Republic of China of 25 
     percent ad valorem.
       (2) Additional duties.--A duty imposed under paragraph (1) 
     shall be in addition to any duty previously applicable with 
     respect to an article.
       (c) Continued Imposition of Duties.--The duties imposed 
     under subsection (b) with respect to articles imported into 
     the United States from the People's Republic of China shall 
     remain in effect until the total value calculated under 
     paragraph (1) of subsection (a) is equal to or less than the 
     total value calculated under paragraph (2) of that subsection 
     for the preceding calendar year.

  Mr. HAWLEY. Madam President, in the last 20 years in the State of 
Missouri, we have lost 60,000 jobs to the People's Republic of China. 
That number nationwide is almost 4 million. Our trade deficit with 
China, as we stand here tonight, is at near-record levels, and every 
dollar of that deficit represents blue-collar jobs destroyed, industry 
shuttered, manufacturing capacity withering away.
  I would submit to you that it is the most important deficit that we 
face. We can talk about budget reforms, and we can talk about savings 
here and there, but until we do the work of bringing back productive 
capacity to this Nation and good-paying blue-collar jobs you can raise 
a family on, we will not put our economy on the basis that we need to 
address the economic challenges that we face.
  So my amendment does something very simple. It imposes across-the-
board tariffs on China for every year in which we have a trade deficit 
until that deficit is zero. Bring back jobs to this country.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator's time has expired.
  The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  I take a back seat to no one when it comes to standing up to China. 
Lindsey Graham and I have been fighting to close the trade deficit for 
decades.
  I went to junior high at Johnny Appleseed Junior High in Mansfield, 
OH, with the sons and daughters of machinists and IUE members and 
steelworkers and auto workers and carpenters and millwrights and 
plumbers and pipefitters and operating engineers. Ten years later, most 
of these jobs were gone, and so much of industrial America all over the 
country has been lost because of bad trade policy with China.
  But do you know? The People's Republic of China would love for us to 
pass this amendment because, if it passes, the United States of America 
will default, and they will be rejoicing in Beijing.
  Stand up to China. Vote no on this amendment.


                        Vote on Amendment No. 93

  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question occurs on agreeing to 
amendment No. 93.
  Mr. HAWLEY. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.

[[Page S1887]]

  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. 
Feinstein) is necessarily absent.
  Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: The Senator 
from Tennessee Mr. (Hagerty).
  The result was announced--yeas 17, nays 81, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 140 Leg.]

                                YEAS--17

     Blackburn
     Braun
     Britt
     Graham
     Hawley
     Hyde-Smith
     Lummis
     Marshall
     Mullin
     Ricketts
     Risch
     Rubio
     Schmitt
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Tuberville
     Vance

                                NAYS--81

     Baldwin
     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Boozman
     Brown
     Budd
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Coons
     Cornyn
     Cortez Masto
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Ernst
     Fetterman
     Fischer
     Gillibrand
     Grassley
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Hickenlooper
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Johnson
     Kaine
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     King
     Klobuchar
     Lankford
     Lee
     Lujan
     Manchin
     Markey
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Ossoff
     Padilla
     Paul
     Peters
     Reed
     Romney
     Rosen
     Rounds
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Sinema
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Thune
     Tillis
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warnock
     Warren
     Welch
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden
     Young

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Feinstein
     Hagerty
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. On this vote, the yeas are 17, the nays 
are 81.
  Under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this 
amendment, the amendment is not agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 93) was rejected.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, we are slipping a little--11 minutes. 
Let's stay in our seats.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Louisiana.


                           Amendment No. 104

  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I call up my amendment No. 104 and ask 
that it be reported by number.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report the amendment by 
number.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Kennedy] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 104.

  The amendment is as follows:

  (Purpose: To remove the sunset on modification of work requirement 
                              exemptions)

       In division C, in section 311, strike subsection (b) and 
     insert the following:
       (b) Application.--A State agency shall apply section 
     6(o)(3) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 
     2015(6)(o)(3)), as amended by subsection (a), to any 
     application for initial certification or recertification 
     received starting 90 days after the date of enactment of this 
     Act.

  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator will be notified that there is 
6 minutes, equally divided, to this amendment under the previous 
agreement.
  The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, the American people are the most 
generous people in the world. In our country, if you are hungry, we 
will feed you. If you are homeless, we will try to house you. If you 
are sick, we will pay for your doctor. I am very proud of that, and I 
know you are too. However, those who can work should work. Those who 
can work should work.
  A person without a job is not healthy, not happy, and not free. 
History has demonstrated that the best social program is a job. The 
best social program is a job. Free enterprise has lifted more people 
out of poverty than all the social programs put together. So while we 
should continue to be generous to our neighbors as Americans, we also 
need to repeat and repeat often: Those who can work should work.
  My amendment would make the food stamp work requirement in this bill 
permanent. It would remove the sunset.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, first of all, the great news is, we 
have a robust economy growing, more small businesses opening, the 
lowest unemployment rate in a generation, and we all want people to be 
able to work.
  Let me speak to the reality of what is in this bill. First of all, we 
have had work requirements for people who are single adults with no 
dependents since the 1990s. If you don't work, if you are not in 
school, the most you can qualify for is 3 months' worth of SNAP within 
3 years. That is current law--$6 a day is what we are talking about.
  This bill extends that out in terms of the age, of the number of 
people required to be in school or at work, with certainly important 
exemptions for our seniors, for our veterans, and our homeless, and it 
is in place until 2030.
  Here is my question: How do you tell your constituents that you are 
willing to default, create a catastrophic default now that will raise 
their unemployment, cost us jobs, raise interest rates, and so on, 
because you want to change something that is going to be in place until 
2030--2030? We have plenty of time to revisit it at that point. This is 
a bipartisan agreement.
  I would just suggest it is very irresponsible for us to change 
something here that we know--the House is gone. We are going to go into 
default. We make a change and say it is because we wanted something to 
be extended beyond 2030. I would suggest we give this a chance, 
evaluate it.
  I would suggest we vote no.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there further debate?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Yes, Madam President.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has 1 minute 11 seconds 
remaining.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Thank you, Madam President.
  I think we all know the June 5 deadline is a fiction. It is. We know 
that. We know that the Treasury Secretary can take special measures to 
extend the deadline until the middle of June, when tax revenues will 
come in. I understand the need to go ahead and act, but we all know 
that.
  Let me say it again. Those who can work should work. Those who can 
work should work, and that is all my amendment does.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 104

  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there further debate?
  If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  Mr. WICKER. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. 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 California (Mrs. 
Feinstein) is necessarily absent.
  Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: The Senator 
from Texas Mr. (Cruz) and the Senator from Tennessee Mr. (Hagerty).
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 46, nays 51, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 141 Leg.]

                                YEAS--46

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

                                NAYS--51

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

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Cruz
     Feinstein
     Hagerty
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Klobuchar). On this vote, the yeas are 46, 
the nays are 51.
  Under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this 
amendment, the amendment is not agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 104) was rejected.

[[Page S1888]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, 10\1/2\ minutes. We are getting a 
little better than last time. Let's get it down to 10. Stay here. We 
are all getting to know each other now.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.


                           Amendment No. 106

  Mr. COTTON. Madam President, I call up my amendment No. 106 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 Arkansas [Mr. Cotton] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 106.

  The amendment is as follows:

   (Purpose: To provide appropriate adjustments to the discretionary 
spending limits, in the event of funding under a continuing resolution)

       Strike section 102 and insert the following:

     SEC. 102. SPECIAL ADJUSTMENTS FOR FISCAL YEARS 2024 AND 2025.

       Section 251 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985 is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(d) Revised Discretionary Spending Limits for Fiscal Year 
     2024.--
       ``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (3), if on or after 
     January 1, 2024, there is in effect an Act making continuing 
     appropriations for part of fiscal year 2024 for any 
     discretionary budget account, the discretionary spending 
     limits specified in subsection (c)(9) for fiscal year 2024 
     shall be adjusted in the final sequestration report, in 
     accordance with paragraph (2), as follows:
       ``(A) For the revised security category, the amount 
     specified in subsection (c)(9)(A), reduced by one percent.
       ``(B) For the revised nonsecurity category, the amount 
     specified in subsection (c)(9)(B), reduced by one percent.
       ``(2) Final report; sequestration order.--If the conditions 
     specified in paragraph (1) are met during fiscal year 2024, 
     the final sequestration report for such fiscal year pursuant 
     to section 254(f)(1) and any order pursuant to section 
     254(f)(5) shall be issued on the earlier of--
       ``(A) 10 days, not including weekends and holidays, for the 
     Congressional Budget Office and 15 days, not including 
     weekends and holidays, for the Office of Management and 
     Budget, after the enactment into law of annual full-year 
     appropriations for all budget accounts that normally receive 
     such annual appropriations (or the enactment of the 
     applicable full-year appropriations Acts without any 
     provision for such accounts); or
       ``(B) April 30, 2024.
       ``(3) Reversal.--If, after January 1, 2024, there are 
     enacted into law each of the full year discretionary 
     appropriation Acts, then the adjustment to the applicable 
     discretionary spending limits in paragraph (1) shall have no 
     force or effect, and the discretionary spending limits for 
     the revised security category and revised nonsecurity 
     category for the applicable fiscal year shall be such limits 
     as in effect on December 31 of the applicable fiscal year.
       ``(e) Revised Discretionary Spending Limits for Fiscal Year 
     2025.--
       ``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (3), if on or after 
     January 1, 2025, there is in effect an Act making continuing 
     appropriations for part of fiscal year 2025 for any 
     discretionary budget account, the discretionary spending 
     limits specified in subsection (c)(10) for fiscal year 2025 
     shall be adjusted in the final sequestration report, in 
     accordance with paragraph (2), as follows:
       ``(A) for the revised security category, the amount 
     specified in subsection (c)(10)(A), reduced by one percent.
       ``(B) For the revised nonsecurity category, the amount 
     specified in subsection (c)(10)(B), reduced by one percent.
       ``(2) Final report; sequestration order.--If the conditions 
     specified in paragraph (1) are met during fiscal year 2025, 
     the final sequestration report for such fiscal year pursuant 
     to section 254(f)(1) and any order pursuant to section 
     254(f)(5) shall be issued on the earlier of--
       ``(A) 10 days, not including weekends and holidays, for the 
     Congressional Budget Office, and 15 days, not including 
     weekends and holidays, for the Office of Management and 
     Budget, after the enactment into law of annual full-year 
     appropriations for all budget accounts that normally receive 
     such annual appropriations (or the enactment of the 
     applicable full-year appropriations Acts without any 
     provision for such accounts); or
       ``(B) April 30, 2025.
       ``(3) Reversal.--If, after January 1, 2025, there are 
     enacted into law each of the full year discretionary 
     appropriation Acts, then the adjustment to the applicable 
     discretionary spending limits in paragraph (1) shall have no 
     force or effect, and the discretionary spending limits for 
     the revised security category and revised nonsecurity 
     category for the applicable fiscal year shall be such limits 
     as in effect on December 31 of the applicable fiscal year.''.

  Mr. COTTON. Madam President, colleagues, this bill has budget caps 
for domestic and defense spending. I don't like the defense number this 
year. I like it even less next year. That is why I am opposing it.
  But it also has a much worse provision. It has a 1-percent automatic 
reduction that is based on last year's omnibus, not the caps on this 
bill. Let me restate that: last year's omnibus, not this bill.
  So if we go to a continuing resolution on October 1, which we almost 
always do, domestic spending will go up by $61 billion while defense 
goes down by $27 billion--not the caps in this bill.
  If the sequester of 1 percent kicks in, domestic spending will go up 
by $61 billion and defense will go down by $37 billion. Progressives 
will get more welfare for grown men who refuse to work while defense is 
slashed. Think about the incentives this gives to the Democratic leader 
when it comes to appropriations bills.
  I ask for a simple change in this amendment. The sequester should be 
based on the caps that you are about to agree to, not last year's 
spending bill.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I rise in opposition to the Senator's 
amendment.
  Our defense spending is critical, but so are our investments to 
combat fentanyl; rebuild American manufacturing, especially for things 
like chips; improve access to childcare, early learning, and a lot 
more. We cannot shortchange our investments in families and our 
country's future, and the underlying bill will already force painful 
cuts.
  This amendment would make it so the consequences of failing to pass 
our appropriations bills falls heavily on our nondefense programs, and 
that will hurt our families across the country. Let me be clear. We 
will not let that happen.
  None of us want to end up in a situation where we have a CR in the 
first place. That is exactly why I am committed to making sure that we 
write the strongest 12 funding bills possible and get them passed in a 
timely way.
  This amendment will set us back even further and target the programs 
that are a lifeline for working people in this country.
  I urge my colleagues to vote no.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 106

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  Mr. WICKER. 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.
  Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Tennessee (Mr. Hagerty).
  The result was announced--yeas 48, nays 51, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 142 Leg.]

                                YEAS--48

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

                                NAYS--51

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coons
     Cortez Masto
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Fetterman
     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

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Hagerty
       
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. On this vote, the yeas are 48 and the nays 
are 51.
  Under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this 
amendment, the amendment is rejected.
  The amendment (No. 106) was rejected.

[[Page S1889]]

  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who seeks recognition?
  The Senator from North Carolina is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 134

  Mr. BUDD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to call up Senate 
amendment No. 134 and ask that it be reported by number.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report the amendment by 
number.
  The bill clerk read the amendment as follows:

       The Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Budd] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 134.

  The amendment is as follows:

       Strike title I of division B and insert the following:

                TITLE I--RESCISSION OF UNOBLIGATED FUNDS

     SEC. 201. RESCISSION OF UNOBLIGATED CORONAVIRUS FUNDS.

       The unobligated balances of amounts appropriated or 
     otherwise made available by the American Rescue Plan Act of 
     2021 (Public Law 117-2), and by each of Public Laws 116-123, 
     116-127, 116-136, and 116-139 and divisions M and N of Public 
     Law 116-260, are hereby permanently rescinded, except for--
       (1) such amounts that were appropriated or otherwise made 
     available to the Department of Veterans Affairs; and
       (2) amounts made available under section 601 of division HH 
     of Public Law 117-328.

  Mr. BUDD. Madam President, on March 13 of 2020, the Federal 
Government declared a national emergency concerning the COVID-19 
pandemic. More than 3 years later, on May 11, 2023, that declaration 
ended. And yet, to this day, billions of COVID dollars throughout the 
Federal Government remain unspent.
  So let's be clear. Each and every one of those dollars came from a 
hard-working taxpayer, from a working family's budget. That is why my 
amendment would rescind an additional $17 billion of unspent COVID 
money.
  If we really want the Fiscal Responsibility Act to live up to its 
name, the least we can do is to rescind the taxpayer dollars that 
remain to fight a pandemic that everyone knows is over. Every taxpayer 
dollar is sacred and should be treated that way.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I rise in opposition.
  The bipartisan package importantly negotiated between Speaker 
McCarthy and President Biden, in fact, makes specific rescissions to 
unused COVID funds while protecting important funding for programs that 
are still necessary to support our community.
  This amendment, colleagues, goes beyond the McCarthy-Biden agreement. 
This amendment would take an ax to nearly all of the funding in the 
Recovery Act and several other COVID bills, even if the communities are 
still depending or planning on using that money.
  Blue States or red States, pass this amendment and you risk default. 
I strongly urge a vote against this amendment.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 134

  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on agreeing to the 
amendment.
  Mr. BUDD. Madam President, any remaining time?
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has 5 seconds.
  Mr. BUDD. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. The following Senator was necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Tennessee (Mr. Hagerty).
  The result was announced--yeas 47 nays 52, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 143 Leg.]

                                YEAS--47

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

                                NAYS--52

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

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Hagerty
       
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. On this vote, the yeas are 47, the nays 
are 52.
  Under the previous order requiring 60 votes for adoption of this 
amendment, the amendment is rejected.
  The amendment (No. 134) was rejected.
  Mr. SCHUMER. All right, everybody, that is our record--9:20. Let's 
beat it.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Utah.


                            Amendment No. 98

  Mr. LEE. Madam President, I call up my amendment No. 98 and ask that 
it be reported by number.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report the amendment by 
number.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Utah [Mr. Lee] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 98.

  The amendment is as follows:

   (Purpose: To strike the waiver authority for Administrative PAYGO)

       Strike section 265 of title III of division B.
  Mr. LEE. Madam President, this amendment is simple. It strikes 
section 265 of this bill. Section 263 creates a regulatory pay-go 
measure, but section 265 nullifies that by giving outright, complete 
discretion to the Director of OMB--who, by the way, just announced the 
day before yesterday from the White House that she would use this 
effectively to nullify the regulatory pay-as-you-go measure.
  Please support my amendment.
  I yield the rest of my time to the Senator from Louisiana.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Louisiana is recognized.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, it is late, and I will be candid.
  To my colleagues, I say, not a single one of you is a dummy. Not a 
single one of your mothers raised a fool, and if she did, it was one of 
your siblings. We all know that a pay-go requirement for a regulation 
that can be waived by the proponent of the regulation is meaningless.
  This amendment will provide that the pay-go requirement cannot be 
waived.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator's time is expired.
  The Senator from Michigan is recognized.
  Mr. PETERS. Madam President, the Lee amendment is an unnecessary 
roadblock to this bipartisan deal, and it would interfere with the 
delivery of essential government services in times of need.
  If adopted, this amendment would prevent Agencies from exercising 
their discretion and acting quickly in times of need, such as during a 
national emergency or natural disaster. The government must be able to 
provide essential services to the public. And it is important to 
promote offsets and save taxpayer dollars. We understand that. But we 
must also ensure that the American people receive the services they 
need and protect our economy. That is why we must vote to quickly pass 
this bipartisan bill without amendment to avoid a catastrophic default.
  I urge my colleagues to vote no on the Lee amendment.


                        Vote on Amendment No. 98

  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on agreeing to the 
amendment.
  Mr. LEE. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. 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 Tennessee (Mr.  Hagerty).
  The result was announced--yeas 48, nays 51, as follows:

[[Page S1890]]

  


                      [Rollcall Vote No. 144 Leg.]

                                YEAS--48

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

                                NAYS--51

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coons
     Cortez Masto
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Fetterman
     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

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Hagerty
       
  The amendment (No. 98) was rejected.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Virginia.


                           Amendment No. 101

  Mr. KAINE. Madam President, I call up my amendment No. 101 and ask 
that it be reported by number.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report the amendment by 
number.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Kaine] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 101.

  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To strike a provision relating to expediting completion of 
                     the Mountain Valley Pipeline)

       Strike section 324.

  Mr. KAINE. I ask unanimous consent that there be 4 minutes equally 
divided prior to the vote on my amendment, with Senators Capito and 
Manchin each controlling 1 minute in opposition.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KAINE. Madam President, I rise to offer an amendment to strip a 
single provision out of this bill: the provision green-lighting the 
Mountain Valley Pipeline.
  I offer my amendment for three reasons.
  First, this provision that would put Congress's thumb on a permitting 
scale is completely unrelated to the debt ceiling and should not be 
included in this bill.
  Second, I object on behalf of Virginia landowners. If you could build 
a pipeline in midair, that is one thing. But the only way to build it 
is to use eminent domain to take people's land. Virginians don't want 
to have their land taken for a pipeline unless there is a thorough 
process where they have all the rights accorded to them by law, 
administrative agency, and judicial review. Cutting off those rights is 
disrespectful to these landowners, who, in this part of the State, 
sometimes land is all they have, and it has been in their family for 
generations.
  Finally, this bill would strip jurisdiction of a case away from the 
Fourth Circuit in the middle of the case. That is unprecedented and 
historic.
  I used to try cases all the time in this circuit. I lost them, and I 
would appeal them. But I wouldn't try to get Congress to strip 
jurisdiction away from the court because I was unhappy. No everyday 
person gets this deal. No criminal defendant gets this deal. No small 
business gets this deal. Nobody gets this deal, and we shouldn't give 
it to some company just because they are powerful and they have 
influence in Congress.
  For these reasons I ask for a ``yes'' vote on my amendment.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mrs. CAPITO. Madam President, I rise in opposition to the Senator's 
amendment. This Mountain Valley Pipeline is an important 
infrastructure. It has been vetted numerous times. It has permitting--
all permits that are from the Virginia Department of Environmental 
Quality, the Fish and Wildlife, and the Bureau of Land Management. 
These are all permits through both administrations--both the Biden and 
Trump administrations--that have already been offered. They are in a 
judicial hellhole right now where they can't get out. This is 
absolutely essential to the eastern seaboard.
  It is jobs and tax revenues in the State of West Virginia, and I 
think this is an opportunity for us to cut through this redtape and 
move forward with the very essential infrastructure package.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. MANCHIN. Madam President, I also rise in opposition. For eight 
years--eight years--and three administrations this project has been 
under review. Eight times NEPA--eight times of NEPA reviews. Three 
times through every Agency. This has been reviewed more than anything 
in the United States of America. The people in this eastern, 
southeastern part of the country, especially in the Carolinas, are 
paying sometimes 10 times more for gas because of the shortages during 
severe weather.
  This is critical for the people of this country. If you believe in 
energy security, if you believe in energy independence, and you believe 
that we should be the superpower of the world, this helps us do that. 
It puts more product in the market than anything that we have 
available. This will be up and running in 6 months--6 months. Already, 
293 miles are already built. We only have 20 more miles to go to finish 
it. It is time to finish this project.
  Please vote no on this, an amendment by my friend, who I respectfully 
disagree with.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 101

  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question now occurs on agreeing to 
amendment No. 101.
  Mr. KAINE. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. 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 Tennessee (Mr. Hagerty).
  The result was announced--yeas 30, nays 69, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 145 Leg.]

                                YEAS--30

     Baldwin
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Cortez Masto
     Duckworth
     Gillibrand
     Heinrich
     Hirono
     Kaine
     Klobuchar
     Lee
     Lujan
     Markey
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Murphy
     Paul
     Rosen
     Sanders
     Smith
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warnock
     Warren
     Welch
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--69

     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Blackburn
     Boozman
     Braun
     Britt
     Brown
     Budd
     Capito
     Casey
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Coons
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Durbin
     Ernst
     Feinstein
     Fetterman
     Fischer
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hassan
     Hawley
     Hickenlooper
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Johnson
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     King
     Lankford
     Lummis
     Manchin
     Marshall
     McConnell
     Moran
     Mullin
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Ossoff
     Padilla
     Peters
     Reed
     Ricketts
     Risch
     Romney
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Schatz
     Schmitt
     Schumer
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Shaheen
     Sinema
     Stabenow
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Thune
     Tillis
     Tuberville
     Vance
     Wicker
     Young

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Hagerty
       
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. On this vote, the yeas are 30, the nays 
are 69.
  The amendment is not agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 101) was rejected.


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  On page S1890, June 1, 2023, third column, the following 
appears: The amendment (No. 101) was rejected. The PRESIDENT pro 
tempore. On this vote, the yeas are 30, the nays are 69. The 
amendment is not agreed to. The amendment (No. 145) was rejected.
  
  The online Record has been corrected to read: The PRESIDENT pro 
tempore. On this vote, the yeas are 30, the nays are 69. The 
amendment is not agreed to. The amendment (No. 101) was rejected.


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 


                           Amendment No. 102

  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Louisiana is recognized.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I call up my amendment No. 102 and ask 
that it be reported by number.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report the amendment by 
number.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Kennedy] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 102.

  The amendment is as follows:

  (Purpose: To require up-to-date employment data for waivers of work 
                             requirements)

       In division C, after section 311, insert the following:

[[Page S1891]]

  


     SEC. 312. WAIVERS.

       Section 6(o)(4)(A)(i) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 
     (7 U.S.C. 2015(o)(4)(A)(i)) is amended by inserting ``, as 
     determined by the most up-to-date employment data'' before 
     ``; or''.

  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. On this amendment, there is 6 minutes of 
debate, equally divided.
  The Senator from Louisiana is recognized.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, this is the last amendment of the 
evening. I have 3 minutes. I can read a room, and I can count votes.
  This amendment would require States to use the most up-to-date 
unemployment data for waivers of food stamp work requirements. Thank 
you.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, I will be equally brief. The good news 
is this is already required by law.
  This is a total duplication. States must already provide up-to-date 
employment data in order to measure if they hit a 10-percent 
unemployment rate in order to get a State waiver. This is unnecessary. 
Please do not risk a default of our country on language that is already 
in the law.
  Would my friend accept a voice vote?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I will accept a voice vote.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 102

  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on agreeing to the 
amendment.
  The amendment (No. 102) was rejected.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, for 2 years, Democrats had control of 
the House, the Senate, and the Presidency. They took the reins of power 
as the Nation began to emerge from a pandemic that had upended our 
economy and the lives of all Americans.
  Up to that point, Republicans and Democrats had worked together to 
pass multiple rounds of COVID relief with strong bipartisan support. 
That spirit of cooperation and bipartisanship came to a screeching halt 
when Democrats took total control in January of 2021.
  Rather than viewing the pandemic as a challenge that required 
temporary measures to overcome, Democrats saw it as an opportunity to 
permanently expand the size and scope of government. That was the exact 
opposite of what we needed as a nation.
  Our public debt as a share of the economy had soared to heights many 
would have viewed as unthinkable a few years earlier. What was sorely 
needed was a bipartisan focus on putting our fiscal house in order.
  Instead, Democrats rammed through a nearly $2 trillion partisan 
spending bill that prominent Democrat economists warned risked sparking 
inflation. Then, as inflation soared to 40-year highs, Democrats 
doubled down on their reckless spending with additional legislation and 
executive actions adding trillions more to our national debt.
  Thankfully, the American people had enough. They made their voices 
heard through the ballot box. Republicans were handed control of the 
House of Representatives based on a promise of a return to fiscal 
sanity.
  Speaker McCarthy repeatedly called on the President to negotiate a 
fiscally responsible and timely debt limit increase. Unfortunately, 
President Biden proved not to be a willing dance partner. He sat idly 
by for nearly 100 days watching the clock tick down to default despite 
the urgent need to raise the debt ceiling and begin to put our fiscal 
house in order.
  Speaker McCarthy thankfully never took no for an answer. He kept 
pushing and rallied House Republicans to pass a debt limit package to 
pair back spending excesses of the prior Congress and impose meaningful 
spending controls moving forward.
  House passage of the Limit, Save, Grow Act put a reasonable and 
fiscally responsible offer on the table that President Biden couldn't 
ignore.
  The bipartisan negotiations that ensued brought us to where we are 
today, a bipartisan agreement to address the debt ceiling while 
imposing meaningful brakes on government spending largess.
  As is the case with any bipartisan agreement, neither side got 
everything they wanted. I would have preferred an agreement closer to 
the House-passed bill. But in a closely divided government, you can't 
let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
  The Fiscal Responsibility Act is a step in the right direction after 
years of unchecked Democrat spending. It will impose meaningful caps on 
discretionary spending that, over the next 2 years, will produce 
hundreds of billions of dollars in savings.
  The agreement also strengthens work requirements in social welfare 
programs and claws back tens of billions in unspent COVID funds.
  On the whole, over the next 10 years, this agreement will produce 
$1.5 trillion in savings. However, for all these savings to be 
realized, Republicans in the House and in the Senate will need to stick 
to their guns and vigorously enforce the spending caps.
  As the ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee, I am prepared 
to do my part to hold the line and expect the House chairman is 
prepared to do the same.
  As I said earlier, this agreement is a step in the right direction. 
However, we have a long road ahead to put our debt and deficits on a 
sustainable path.
  Even assuming all the savings in this agreement is realized, public 
debt as a share of our economy will exceed World War II era record 
levels in a matter of years, and annual interest costs will balloon to 
over a $1 trillion.
  We have a moral obligation to the Nation's youth to leave them a 
country that is on solid financial ground. Passage of the Fiscal 
Responsibility Act is a start, but much remains to be done.
  Mr. CRAPO. Madam President, the Inflation Reduction Act, IRA, 
contained a provision for the Internal Revenue Service, IRS, to spend 
$15 million to deliver a report to Congress on an IRS-run and 
maintained ``Direct eFile'' tax return system. This was not a 
bipartisan provision. In fact, not one Republican Senator or 
Representative supported the IRA, and none had an opportunity to vote 
on this specific provision.
  The report, released on May 16, 2023, was supposed to address the 
cost of such a system and the safeguards to protect taxpayers, surveys 
of taxpayer opinions and findings of an ``independent third party'' on 
the overall feasibility, approach, schedule, cost, organizational 
design and IRS capacity to deliver such a Direct eFile tax return 
system. It fell far short of these requirements and was conducted by 
third parties who had previously expressed a desire for the IRS to make 
such an undertaking. Beyond these flaws, the report simultaneously 
announced that the IRS had already built functioning multilingual, 
mobile friendly, tax preparation and filing software. However, the 
Inflation Reduction Act only authorized the IRS to spend funds on a 
report, not the building of the prototype system.
  The implementation of this provision by the Biden administration has 
clearly violated Congress's statutory direction. Worse, the decision by 
the administration to build and publicly launch such a Direct eFile 
system by January 2024, all without congressional authority, and using 
report and IRA funds further violates the IRA and exceeds the IRS's 
statutory authority.
  The IRS has publicly indicated it began the diversion of report funds 
to the building of the software as early as December 2022, but the 
software development using report funds was not disclosed to the public 
or the Senate until May 16, 2023. This is particularly disappointing 
and completely without justification.
  IRS Commissioner Daniel Werfel appeared before the Senate Finance 
Committee on April 19, 2023. In response to specific questions by both 
the majority and minority about the report and the IRS's intentions, he 
not only failed to disclose the building of this software and the 
diversion of report funds for this purpose, but also stated that the 
IRS had not yet decided to act, when the facts strongly suggest that it 
had. These responses do not build the trust he will need to obtain 
bipartisan support from committee members.
  The Fiscal Responsibility Act contains a provision rescinding certain 
IRA funds for the IRS, including unspent funds on the report provision. 
An honest and forthright accounting from the IRS with respect to its 
actions here is essential, including when expenditures were made and if 
payments were being made in advance of

[[Page S1892]]

the work being accomplished. Such accountability is a top priority.
  With respect to the Direct eFile system, the IRS has provided no 
evidence it has authority to create such a system, and, indeed, the 
evidence strongly indicates it does not. The IRS must immediately 
disclose to the Finance Committee and American people the statutory 
provisions it has relied upon to authorize the administration's grand 
foray into becoming a tax preparation company, blurring lines that 
should not be crossed. In doing so, the IRS will also have to explain 
how it has not violated case law prohibiting study provisions 
authorized by Congress from being converted by administrative agencies 
into implementation decisions, as well as those addressing instances 
where the IRS has been found to have unilaterally acted beyond its 
statutory authority.
  Make no mistake: Congress has the final say on the ability of the IRS 
to build and field a Direct eFile program that puts the IRS--the tax 
collector and enforcer--in the business of tax preparation. Beyond this 
clearly being Congress's prerogative, many policy reasons weigh against 
the IRS action, including the intractable conflict of interest of the 
IRS being tax return preparer, adviser, collector, enforcer, and, in 
many cases, adjudicator.
  It is particularly poignant in the context of a bill that attempts to 
rein in excessive Federal spending to address an Agency action that 
will assuredly result in billions in future, and ongoing, expenses to 
the Federal fisc.
  We must return to regular order and let Congress express itself, 
rather than be ignored by an Agency intent on overstepping its bounds.
  Mr. KELLY. Madam President, the CHIPS for America Act uses innovative 
funding tools to incentivize private companies to construct, modernize, 
or expand advanced semiconductor manufacturing facilities in the United 
States. Properly structured, these incentives can encourage companies 
to build more facilities, faster, than without Federal support. In 
order to maximize this opportunity to bring chip manufacturing back to 
the United States, we can't allow redundant regulations to delay 
projects already underway.
  The benefit of Federal funding has influenced the pace of investment 
in the U.S. At the same time, Federal funding doesn't control the 
outcome of projects that are currently being constructed. The role of 
the Department of Commerce under the CHIPS for America Act is to 
determine whether the project is worthy of investing taxpayer dollars.
  The enactment of the CHIPS for America Act has greatly accelerated 
the pace of investment in the U.S., but a Federal grant will not create 
control over the outcome of project plans that are already being 
implemented. Notably, Arizona has four new leading-edge semiconductor 
fabs under construction. These were announced after the CHIPS for 
America Act was enacted and with the hope for potential Federal 
support, but companies aren't going to walk away from the multi-billion 
investment they have already made into these ongoing projects.
  The change to the definition of ``major Federal action'' included in 
section 111 of H.R. 3746, the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023, will 
ensure that certain projects that would not otherwise be subject to the 
National Environmental Policy Act--NEPA--do not in fact trigger NEPA 
simply by receiving a Federal incentive investment through programs, 
like the CHIPS for America Act, where the provision of Federal funds 
does not control the outcome of the project. It is important to note 
that privately funded semiconductor manufacturing facilities undergo 
significant environmental reviews.
  I am grateful that H.R. 3746 clarifies the scope of NEPA as it 
applies to this narrow subset of projects where Federal agencies do not 
control the outcome of a project.
  Mr. OSSOFF. Madam President, today the Senate takes up legislation to 
avert an economically catastrophic default on U.S. sovereign 
obligations. The Department of the Treasury has advised the Congress 
that without passage of this legislation by June 5, the United States 
will default.
  Any modifications to the legislative text under consideration by the 
Senate will require reconsideration of the measure by the House, 
pushing passage of such legislation past Treasury's June 5 deadline and 
forcing a default. Our overriding governing responsibility is to avoid 
default and the massive economic damage it would impose on American 
families and businesses.
  Accordingly, I will oppose all amendments offered to this measure to 
ensure Senate passage of the measure as passed by the House and to 
protect families and businesses from economic catastrophe.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, first, I want to thank everybody for 
cooperating. I think we got the most votes in the least time.
  Second, and more importantly, we are about to vote on something so 
important to the country, and so many of us on both sides of the aisle 
will know that if we do this, we will not default. That is very, very 
important.
  Thank you for your cooperation.
  The next vote is Tuesday at 5:30 p.m.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the bill is 
considered read a third time.
  The bill was ordered to a third reading and was read the third time.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The bill having been read the third time, 
the question is, Shall the bill pass?
  Ms. STABENOW. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Tennessee (Mr. Hagerty).
  Further, if present and voting: the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. 
Hagerty) would have voted ``nay.''
  The result was announced--yeas 63, nays 36, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 146 Leg.]

                                YEAS--63

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Boozman
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Collins
     Coons
     Cornyn
     Cortez Masto
     Cramer
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Ernst
     Feinstein
     Gillibrand
     Grassley
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Hickenlooper
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Kaine
     Kelly
     King
     Klobuchar
     Lujan
     Manchin
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Moran
     Mullin
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Ossoff
     Padilla
     Peters
     Reed
     Romney
     Rosen
     Rounds
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Sinema
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Thune
     Tillis
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warnock
     Welch
     Whitehouse
     Wyden
     Young

                                NAYS--36

     Barrasso
     Blackburn
     Braun
     Britt
     Budd
     Cassidy
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Fetterman
     Fischer
     Graham
     Hawley
     Hyde-Smith
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Lankford
     Lee
     Lummis
     Markey
     Marshall
     Merkley
     Paul
     Ricketts
     Risch
     Rubio
     Sanders
     Schmitt
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Sullivan
     Tuberville
     Vance
     Warren
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Hagerty
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Padilla). On this vote, the yeas are 63, 
the nays are 36.
  The 60-vote threshold having been achieved, the bill is passed.
  The bill (H.R. 3746) was passed.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, 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. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kelly). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________