[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 130 (Thursday, July 27, 2023)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3713-S3725]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          LEGISLATIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

    NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024--Resumed

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will resume consideration of S. 2226, which the clerk will 
report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 2226) to authorize appropriations for fiscal 
     year 2024 for military activities of the Department of 
     Defense, for military construction, and for defense 
     activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military 
     personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other 
     purposes.

  Pending:

       Schumer (for Reed-Wicker) amendment No. 935, in the nature 
     of a substitute.
       Schumer amendment No. 936 (to amendment No. 935), to add an 
     effective date.


                   Recognition of the Majority Leader

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader is recognized.


                                S. 2226

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, today the Senate will continue to process 
the National Defense Authorization Act, the NDAA. I believe we have had 
a really good process so far, and I hope this bipartisan work can get 
us through to the finish as soon as possible.
  We made good progress on amendments last night. It took a while, but 
we have voted on 19 amendments to the NDAA and have at least 8 more 
amendment votes lined up for today. We have a lot of votes to get 
through, so I urge Senators--I urge my colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle--to be cooperative, to remain in the Senate Chamber as the series 
of votes progresses through the afternoon so we can keep the process 
moving.

  Last night, we ran a hotline that includes a few additional votes and 
a managers' package of 48 amendments--23 from Democrats, 23 from 
Republicans, and 2 bipartisan. Each side of the aisle has amendments 
they really want in that managers' package and a good number of them 
were bipartisan. We have had an open and constructive amendment process 
for the NDAA, with both sides--both sides--working together in good 
faith. This is exactly how the process for the NDAA should look: 
bipartisan, cooperative.
  I want to thank all of my colleagues, particularly Senators Reed and 
Wicker, for their good work.
  I am also proud of our first managers' package that had 51 
amendments--21 from Republicans, 21 from Democrats, and 9 bipartisan. 
And some of the biggest accomplishments in this bill, I am proud to 
say, are broadly bipartisan, like progress on our efforts to outcompete 
the Chinese Government.
  As I have been saying for weeks, passing the NDAA is a chance to show 
the American people how the Senate can productively work.
  Another really important thing that is in this bill is the FEND Off 
Fentanyl Act, which will help give the administration tools it needs, 
including emergency powers, to stop the precursor

[[Page S3714]]

drugs from flowing out of China--the Chinese Government has done 
virtually nothing to help us thus far--going to Mexico, being made into 
fentanyl, and then being shipped to the United States to kill our 
children. Over 100,000 people have died of fentanyl last year.
  So as I have been saying for weeks, the NDAA is a chance to show the 
American people the Senate can work productively on significant things 
they care about as well as on national security matters, which they 
care about as well.
  What is happening in the Senate is a stark contrast to the partisan 
race to the bottom we saw in the House, where House Republicans are 
pushing partisan legislation that has zero chance of passing. House 
Republicans should look to the Senate to see how things get done. We 
are passing important bipartisan legislation. They are throwing on the 
floor partisan legislation that has no chance of passing. The contrast 
is glaring. If House Republicans would look to how we are working here 
in the Senate and emulate us a little more, they could be far more 
productive.
  We have every reason today to believe that we can finish the NDAA as 
soon as possible, and I am hopeful we can get it done.


                             Appropriations

  Mr. President, off the floor, our appropriators continue to make good 
progress on the appropriations bill. This morning, the Appropriations 
Committee is marking up the remaining four appropriations bills.
  It is just like the NDAA. Both sides--Democrats, Republicans--have 
been working really well together. This is never an easy process. But I 
really want to thank Chair Murray and Vice Chair Collins. They have 
worked together in a really supremely bipartisan, almost exquisite, way 
for shepherding these bills through committee with bipartisan support. 
It ain't easy in this time when the country is so divided.
  This is a model for how appropriations processes should always work: 
both sides coming together, finding common ground, and advancing bills 
that invest in American families, keep communities safe, drive down our 
costs, and keep our government open. It is this type of bipartisanship 
that has prevented any government shutdowns last Congress when 
Democrats had majorities in the House and Senate. And the American 
people certainly don't want to see a shutdown now.
  So there is a lot of work left to do, but I am pleased that our 
appropriators are making progress on these markups, and I thank them 
again.
  You look at the NDAA bill and you look at the appropriations bill, 
you compare the House to the Senate, the contrast, as I said, is 
glaring. And House Republicans should look to the Senate for how to 
really get things done and help the American people instead of just 
shouting partisan screeds.


                        Artificial Intelligence

  Mr. President, on the AI briefing, yesterday, we held our third all-
Senate briefing on AI. This was our final briefing, in a three-part 
series on AI, and it focused on U.S. investment and innovation and 
American leadership in AI technology that will continue to shape our 
world over the next decade and beyond.
  The presentation was informative. Our briefers did a superb job 
highlighting just how quickly AI technology is developing.
  I want to thank our briefers: Rick Stevens from the Department of 
Energy; Dr. Geri Richmond from the Department of Energy; Dr. Sethuraman 
Panchanathan, nicknamed affectionately ``Panch,'' head of the National 
Science Foundation; Dr. Kathleen Fisher from DARPA; and our moderator, 
Dr. Jose-Marie Giffiths.
  We had great attendance on all three of our AI briefings. Both 
Democrats and Republicans were engaged and asked a lot of really good 
questions. It shows there is real bipartisan interest in AI, which will 
be necessary if we want to make progress on what really is imperative 
for this country: putting together AI legislation that encourages 
innovation but has safeguards to prevent the liabilities that AI could 
present.
  Later this fall, we will continue our work on AI by convening the 
first ever AI Insight Forums. These forums will bring the top AI 
developers, executives, and experts together to lay the foundation for 
action on AI.
  And, again, I want to thank my colleagues who attended our briefings, 
including, of course, Senators Heinrich, Rounds, and Young, part of our 
little group that helped to organize them.


                        Remembering Tony Bennett

  Mr. President, finally, on a great, great American icon, Anthony 
Dominick Benedetto, more affectionately and widely known as Tony 
Bennett. We lost an American icon last week, a son of Astoria, Queens, 
and one of the most beloved singers of our time--the incomparable, 
wonderful, caring Tony Bennett. On Tuesday, I introduced a resolution 
declaring Tony Bennett's birthday, August 3, as ``Tony Bennett Day.''
  It didn't matter if you were young, old, or in the middle, if you 
were a close friend or a new fan, everyone just loved Tony. Just to 
hear him sing a few bars, you knew he cared about you and he really 
cared about the words of the song. He wasn't just getting up there to 
make some money. He really wanted to show his love for music and for 
people.
  Tony Bennett leaves behind a tremendous legacy that will inspire 
generations of artists to come, and I look forward to passing this 
resolution honoring him today a little bit later.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DAINES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The Senator from Montana.


                               Marc Fogel

  Mr. DAINES. Mr. President, I would like to use my time today to raise 
awareness about an important issue. Actually, it is about an important 
person, and his name is Marc Fogel.
  Marc is a beloved father and husband. He is also a son, a brother, 
and an uncle. Over the course of his life, he has been a formative 
mentor to many young minds. You see, Marc Fogel spent 35 years teaching 
American history at American international schools around the world and 
most recently in Moscow. But after dedicating so much of his life to 
the service of others, he is currently detained in a Russian labor 
camp.
  On August 14, 2021, as Marc returned to Russia for 1 final year of 
teaching before a much-deserved retirement, he was arrested in a Moscow 
airport for carrying about half an ounce of medical marijuana in his 
luggage. Marc had been prescribed the medical marijuana as an 
alternative to opioids to manage his chronic pain after undergoing 
multiple back surgeries, including a spinal fusion and various other 
challenging and painful procedures. Marc did not think that this 
healthcare decision would cost him his freedom and maybe even his life, 
but following his arrest, a Russian court convicted Marc of ``large-
scale drug smuggling'' and sentenced him to 14 years in a maximum 
security penal colony. He has been there ever since.
  In 2021, the same year as Marc's arrest, the U.S. State Department 
described the conditions in Russian prisons and detention centers as 
``often harsh and life threatening.'' They reported overcrowding, abuse 
by guards and inmates, limited access to healthcare, food shortages, 
and inadequate sanitation as common occurrences--many practices that 
most Americans can't even imagine.
  Considering the inhumane and harsh treatment reported in these 
centers and especially given the health challenges that Marc was 
already facing upon his arrest, Marc's family now fears he is not going 
to survive his sentence.
  This is an injustice at the highest level, and it must not be 
tolerated by our government.
  It is important to recognize that Marc is not the only American 
illegally detained abroad. U.S. Marine Paul Whelan and Wall Street 
Journal reporter Evan Gershkovich are both still trapped in Russian 
prisons as well.
  But while all three of these men are wrongfully detained in Russia, 
only Paul Whelan and Evan Gershkovich have been recognized as 
wrongfully detained by the State Department. The State Department 
considers a formal

[[Page S3715]]

wrongful detention status as being one of the first steps to getting an 
American who is detained abroad back home. This determination mobilizes 
multiple U.S. Agencies to work with the State Department and the family 
of the detained to secure the prisoner's release.
  There are currently over 50 American citizens the State Department 
lists as wrongfully detained in Russia, China, Iran, and Venezuela. 
However, despite being unjustly detained for the last nearly 2 years--
with no end in sight--Marc is still not designated as wrongfully 
detained by the U.S. State Department.
  You may recall the Biden administration's high-profile negotiation to 
bring WNBA star Brittney Griner home after she was detained in Russia, 
just after Fogel, over a similar drug-related offense. Ms. Griner is, 
thankfully, home. One of the key differences between Brittney Griner's 
and Marc Fogel's cases is that, less than 3 months after Griner's 
arrest, the State Department classified her as wrongfully detained. 
Fogel deserves the same justice, and we should be using every tool at 
our disposal to bring him home.
  I have had the privilege of getting to know some of Marc's family, 
some of whom are Montanans. They have been fierce advocates here 
stateside, but they fear they will never see their brother's face again 
or hear their father's voice. We can't let that happen.
  In working alongside the Fogel family, I have also teamed up with 
President Obama's U.S. Ambassador to Russia, Mike McFaul. Mike McFaul 
was my former Bozeman High School debate partner, whose son was 
actually a student of Marc Fogel when Ambassador McFaul was serving in 
Moscow. Mike McFaul and I are working together to implore the State 
Department to finally declare Marc as wrongfully detained.
  This week, I also worked with colleagues across the aisle to 
introduce a resolution highlighting the unjust and disproportionate 
criminal sentence by Russia and calling for the immediate release of 
Mr. Fogel.
  Time is of the essence. Tomorrow is Marc's 62nd birthday, but instead 
of celebrating with his friends and family, he will be spending it 
illegally detained in a Russian labor camp.
  No American should ever have to endure this type of injustice. It is 
time the country and the world know about Mr. Fogel's case, and I urge 
the administration to help bring this American back home once again.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Booker). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                   Recognition of the Minority Leader

  The Republican leader is recognized.


                              The Economy

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, yesterday, Senate Democrats celebrated 
the anniversary of their reckless taxing-and-spending spree. As the 
Democratic leader put it, ``this legislation is paying huge 
dividends.'' Well, he is right about that, but the windfalls from the 
deluge of liberal spending are headed all in the wrong directions.
  Last year, Senate Republicans warned anyone who would listen about 
the dangers of our colleagues' plan. We explained how green slush funds 
dreamed up by leftwing activists wouldn't bring on the American 
industrial renaissance that Democrats were claiming it would, how half-
baked climate schemes that relied on Chinese components and raw 
materials would give American workers and job creators the short end of 
the stick, and how crucial industries would face even heavier reliance 
on foreign supply chains.
  But Washington Democrats paid these warnings no mind. They rammed 
through their radical spending on a party-line basis. Afterward, the 
senior Senator from West Virginia boasted that he ``did it to help 
America.'' The senior Senator from Montana said he ``look(s) forward to 
seeing the benefits of that bill.'' And President Biden summed up their 
action by saying:

       We are going to invest in America again. . . . That's been 
     my economic vision.

  Well, it is now crystal clear. Either Democrats didn't know what 
their own bill was actually designed to do or they knew exactly what it 
would do and decided to sell out American workers and job creators.
  Here is the inconvenient--and dangerous--truth. Of the $110 billion 
this scheme has spent on green projects so far, foreign companies are 
involved in over 60 percent of it. In fact, foreign entities have their 
hand in 15 of the 20 biggest projects receiving money from the bill, 
and a full $8 billion is benefiting companies either based in or with 
significant ties to the People's Republic of China--over $100 billion 
in leftwing spending, and the majority has some tie to foreign 
countries, including America's biggest strategic adversary.
  So our Democrat colleagues sold their reckless spending spree as a 
``Made in America'' investment, but the only thing it appears to be 
making in America is a mess.


                                S. 2226

  Now, on another matter, Mr. President, almost 2 years ago, the United 
States took an important step toward deeper cooperation with two of our 
closest friends: Australia and the United Kingdom.
  The AUKUS agreement promises to equip our Australian allies with 
cutting-edge U.S. attack submarines to help deter aggression in the 
Indo-Pacific and clear the way for closer collaboration between all 
three nations on advanced defense technologies.
  Like Ranking Member Wicker, Vice Chair Collins, and many other 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle, I have been supportive of this 
important effort. Outcompeting China is going to take a coalition of 
committed allies and partners. Senate Republicans want AUKUS to be more 
than just a talking point or a one-time summit deliverable. We want it 
to be an enduring contribution to our collective security and a major 
expansion of defense cooperation with our closest allies.
  But standing in the way of the historic opportunity--AUKUS--is the 
same persistent roadblock holding back our other efforts in military 
modernization. President Biden's defense budget request grossly--
grossly--underestimates what is required to meet the challenges his own 
national defense strategy identifies.
  If we are serious about deterring conflict in the Indo-Pacific, we 
must address America's aging attack submarine fleet.
  Senior military leaders say they need 66 attack submarines to carry 
out necessary missions, but the Navy currently has 49. Right now, our 
defense industrial base produces 1.2 new submarines a year, but the 
Department of Defense will need to double production capacity just to 
avoid further reductions in the fleet.
  Our allies' significant investments in shipbuilding are welcome steps 
that will improve our mutual security, but if the United States doesn't 
increase our own shipbuilding capacity and production rate, we will 
both fall behind, as China erodes our key advantage in the undersea 
domain. As Ranking Member Wicker has pointed out, that means funding 
for more attack submarines and concrete investments in the production 
lines that will help us meet our goals.
  If the administration is serious about making AUKUS a success, it 
should work with Congress this fall to make urgent supplemental 
investments in meeting military requirements in the Indo-Pacific. 
Importantly, the administration should also prioritize removing 
barriers in the technology transfer process that prevent more effective 
long-term cooperation with our closest allies.
  The reforms laid out in Pillar Two of AUKUS are essential not just 
for putting more cutting-edge U.S. technology in the Indo-Pacific but 
also for tapping into our allies' own technical advances and industrial 
bases.
  If we are serious about building secure, high-tech supply chains, we 
should go further to shore up this critical pillar of AUKUS and lower 
barriers to cooperation with our closest allies. As I have said before, 
for the purposes of defense technology cooperation, we should treat 
Australia and the United Kingdom like we treat Canada.
  So, today, I joined Ranking Member Wicker, Vice Chair Collins, and 
several of our colleagues in making the

[[Page S3716]]

case to President Biden. I hope and expect that the administration will 
recognize the need to invest further in our capacity to counter growing 
threats in the Indo-Pacific. And for our part, I expect the Senate to 
continue our work to provide for the common defense in earnest.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.


             Unanimous Consent Request--Executive Calendar

  Mr. PADILLA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination: 
Executive Calendar No. 266, Tara K. McGrath, to be U.S. Attorney for 
the Southern District of California; that the Senate vote on the 
nomination without intervening action or debate; that if confirmed, the 
motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the 
President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the 
Senate resume legislative session.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. VANCE. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, my objection 
is not specific to this nominee. I think the Biden administration is 
not sending its best to the Department of Justice. Many of the nominees 
are unqualified. Some of them seem actively corrupt, and some, I 
assume, are good people. But the problem is not this specific nominee. 
The problem is the fact that the Department of Justice has been 
corrupted under the Biden administration, and there needs to be some 
reckoning with the American people and with this body and with the 
nominations process before we allow these nominees to glidepath to the 
confirmation process.
  Let's just talk about a tale of two leaders in this country right 
now, one a Democrat and one a Republican. Of course, for the President 
of the United States, his son Hunter Biden has multiple Federal 
charges, multiple Federal investigations that implicate directly on the 
President's business dealings and may very well implicate the President 
directly and plausibly could lead to some significant problems for the 
President in the Presidential election.
  Yesterday, the plea deal that the Department of Justice cut with 
Hunter Biden fell apart with minimal scrutiny from the Federal judge in 
that case. That is how the Department of Justice treats the Democratic 
leadership in this country, with kid gloves, even in the face of very 
serious corruption.
  Let's ask ourselves how they treat the former Republican President in 
the face of a classified document scandal, where, literally, the claim 
is that the President of the United States mishandled the documents of 
his own administration.
  Now, nobody doubts that President Trump had the right to declassify 
documents at issue in this case. The argument is that he didn't, and, 
therefore, they want to throw him in jail. Is that really what we are 
doing at the height of the Presidential campaign--trying to throw the 
former President in jail, the likely leader of the opposition, in 
prison, because he didn't cross the t's and dot the i's on the 
classification or declassification process? This is a ridiculous 
scandal in our entire country.
  Look, whether these nominees are qualified or not qualified, we 
should have the vote and make that determination as a body. It is not, 
at the end of the day--as I have learned in 8 months--all that 
difficult and all that hard to vote. But we have to stop giving these 
nominees a glidepath until Merrick Garland commits to using the 
Department of Justice for justice and not for politics, as it is being 
used today.
  So I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
  The Senator from California.
  Mr. PADILLA. Mr. President, let me just add that it is beyond 
disappointing and beyond frustrating that our colleague from Ohio 
continues to hold the Senate process hostage for political gain.
  I won't get into the credentials and stellar qualifications that Ms. 
McGrath has to serve in this capacity. I will reserve that for a more 
constructive day relative to her confirmation. But I will note this 
with a sense of urgency. In the Southern District of California, the 
current acting U.S. attorney is due to step down on August 4. So there 
is an urgency to this particular confirmation--a confirmation which was 
approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee, by the way, but has not 
been voted on by the entire Senate.
  And it is not just this confirmation. I am not going to talk about 
Federal judges. I am not going to talk about military promotions that 
are on hold because of politics being played on the other side of the 
aisle.
  I believe the American people deserve to know that when even the 
confirmation of U.S. attorneys are being held up, it is impeding the 
investigation of crimes. It is impeding the enforcement of our Nation's 
laws. It is impeding the cooperation and coordination between various 
prosecutors' offices throughout the country. That is the job of a U.S. 
attorney. And it is shameful that Republican colleagues are holding 
these confirmations up, particularly of candidates for these positions 
who are far and above the qualifications necessary to serve in these 
capacities.


                                 Energy

  Mr. President, I also rise to speak today on this hot summer day in 
Washington, DC, where the forecast, as I was on the way in, showed that 
it was going to be 99 degrees today. Well, 35 years ago, on a scorching 
98-degree summer day here in Washington, NASA scientist Dr. James 
Hansen testified in the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee 
to share an alarming conclusion.
  Thirty-five years ago, he said this: Manmade pollution was causing 
our climate to change. It was one of the earliest major scientific 
warnings that, without action, one day our planet would be at risk of 
catastrophic climate events.
  So colleagues, I am here to say that day has come. This past May, in 
a report in the Environmental Research Letters journal, researchers 
found a direct correlation between increased carbon emissions and 
wildfires in the Western United States.
  Eight of the last ten largest wildfires in California history have 
occurred in just the last 6 years. In June, last month, New York City 
experienced the worst air pollution recorded on the planet, while 
Washington, DC, was blanketed in smoke not because of wildfires in 
California but because of wildfires in Canada. And over the last 
several weeks, a heat wave has brought record-breaking temperatures 
from coast to coast and put over 140 million Americans under heat 
alerts. And just today, we learned that this July is set to be the 
hottest month in recorded history.
  So the question is no longer hypothetical; the question is real: How 
viable of a planet are we going to leave to our children and our 
grandchildren? We must act, colleagues. Yet, even in the year 2023, 
with indisputable proof in many scientific studies, too many of our 
Republican colleagues remain defiant.
  Now, I will acknowledge that the deliberate attempt to distract from 
the problem at hand has evolved over time. What was once ``climate 
change is a hoax'' has become ``defense of industry'' or ``market-based 
solutions.'' What was once the Republican chair of the Senate 
Environment and Public Works Committee bringing a snowball onto the 
floor of the U.S. Senate to somehow disprove the dynamic of a warming 
planet has been replaced with press conferences promising energy 
independence if we only allow continued polluting.
  It is a new kind of climate denial, a sophisticated campaign to 
create delays and undermine climate progress in order to enrich major 
corporations' bottom lines. But, make no mistake, the result is the 
same: Republicans continuing to obstruct desperately needed solutions.
  They vilify President Biden and all of us Democrats for having the 
courage to fight for bold action, and all too often they hold up 
California as the punching bag for enacting lifesaving policies that 
they disagree with. That is right; they bash California for having the 
audacity to lead.
  So, today, I want to set the record straight. Yes, in California we 
have long accepted the truth about climate change, and as a result, we 
have been trailblazers for enacting environmental protections and 
leading our clean energy transition. As far back as 1966, California 
established the first tailpipe

[[Page S3717]]

emission standards for passenger vehicles in the Nation. Three years 
later, after a catastrophic oil spill off the coast of Santa Barbara, 
Californians rose up and demanded environmental protections, spurring 
the birth of the modern-day environmental movement and eventually 
creating the very first Earth Day, which we now celebrate every year.
  Mr. President, flash forward to 2006, when California passed AB 32, 
also known as the Global Warming Solutions Act--legislation with the 
bold goal of reducing emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020. I was 
elected to the State senate that year, eager to be part of 
implementation of that measure, and I went on to serve for 6 years as 
chair of the State senate Committee on Energy.
  Now, since then, California has continued to lead the Nation with 
increasingly ambitious goals for cutting emissions, conserving public 
lands, becoming the first State committed to conserving 30 percent of 
our lands and water by the year 2030, a goal that President Biden has 
called for nationally.
  Just this month, California's environmental leadership came in the 
form of the Nation's heavy-duty truck manufacturers agreeing to comply 
with California's first-in-the-Nation zero emission truck standards, 
which will advance the adoption of 100 percent zero-emission trucks by 
2036, a truly historic achievement. And I think it is important to 
repeat and emphasize here, I am talking about a standard that truck 
manufacturers have agreed to.
  But let me make another point, Mr. President, just to demonstrate 
just how partisan this conversation ought not to be. It has not just 
been Democrats in California who have led the way. As President, former 
California Senator Richard Nixon signed into law landmark legislation, 
including the National Environmental Policy Act, the Clean Air Act of 
1970, the Endangered Species Act, and the creation of the EPA. That is 
right; a Republican President did that.
  As President, former California Gov. Ronald Reagan built on 
California's leadership when he signed the first national energy 
efficiency standards for appliances into law. That is right; a 
Republican President did that.
  It was Republican Gov. Pete Wilson, who established the California 
EPA, and it was Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who signed the 
2006 Global Warming Solutions Act that I referenced earlier.
  The net result in California's efforts is that, in 2023, our State 
has a diverse portfolio of clean energy resources, not hypothetical--
operational solar, wind, and geothermal energy--all while fostering a 
growing economy that is on its way to becoming the fourth largest 
economy in the world. It is that long-term vision and commitment to 
clean energy and a transition to it that will bring the first-ever 
transition to Caltrain's all-new electric fleet in 2024, a three-
decade-long project that will result in the first transition from 
diesel trains in the West. It is that same vision that diversified our 
energy sources so that, after a winter of extreme storms like we saw 
this last year, we can take advantage of torrential rains with 
hydropower capabilities or reap the benefits of our expanded solar 
capacity and battery storage.
  I raise these examples, colleagues, not just to showcase California's 
leadership but to prove that these aren't just lofty climate 
aspirations. California is proving that a clean energy transition is 
not only possible; it is actually good for our economy. And, today, the 
Federal Government is smart to follow California's lead.
  Over the last 2 years, we have made huge strides toward transitioning 
our Nation's energy sector to clean, renewable sources and adopting 
California's clean vehicle emission standards. When we passed the 
bipartisan infrastructure law, we also chose to invest in clean 
schoolbuses, to invest in electrifying public transit across the 
country. We chose to expand electric vehicle charging stations to make 
the switch to electric vehicles that much more convenient for 
Americans.
  Last summer, we passed the Inflation Reduction Act, which is jump-
starting clean energy and clean transportation projects, providing tax 
credits for Americans to upgrade their appliances and their homes and 
making electric vehicle ownership more affordable.
  And, more recently, we were able to defend our hard-fought gains 
during the debt ceiling negotiations from Republicans who wanted to 
undercut our progress.
  Now, part of making sure we fully realize the investments in the IRA 
is speeding up the permitting process for transmission lines that are 
needed to deliver the renewable energy from where it occurs as a 
natural resource to the communities where it is needed. It also means 
pushing Agencies like the EPA to embark on ambitious regulatory efforts 
on light- and heavy-duty vehicles, trains, and ships, thanks to 
investments in the IRA.
  So when we hear the defeatist attitude of Republicans who say this is 
going to hurt jobs, we can show them the millions of good-paying jobs 
being created by the Inflation Reduction Act.
  When we hear about alleged overreliance on foreign imports, we will 
show them badly needed investments in domestic manufacturing and a new 
generation of American solar, wind, geothermal, and green hydrogen.
  And when we hear cynics who prefer inaction to intervention, a planet 
burning to Congress acting, we will show them that the audacity to lead 
has paid off before, and it can pay off again.
  Now, I am willing to forgive all that has been said--all the 
misinformation about climate change, all the ranting about California--
if my Republican colleagues were just willing to do what is right. Now, 
in the end, I wouldn't even ask my Republican colleagues to reverse 
their positions and have the courage to lead. I will settle for their 
courage to follow or at least get out of the way because California has 
already shown us the path forward.
  Have the courage, colleagues. Have the courage for the sake of our 
children and future generations.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lujan). The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. BARRASSO. 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. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection.


                           Amendment No. 999

  (Purpose: To require the Secretary of Energy to establish a Nuclear 
Fuel Security Program, expand the American Assured Fuel Supply Program, 
establish an HALEU for Advanced Nuclear Reactor Demonstration Projects 
Program, and submit a report on a civil nuclear credit program, and to 
enhance programs to build workforce capacity to meet critical mission 
needs of the Department of Energy)
  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, at this point, I call up my amendment 
No. 999 and ask that it be reported by number.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Wyoming [Mr. Barrasso], for himself and 
     others, proposes an amendment numbered 999.

  (The amendment is printed in the Record of July 20, 2023, under 
``Text of Amendments.'')
  Mr. BARRASSO. For decades now, Russia has flooded America's uranium 
market. Russia has driven America's nuclear fuel suppliers out of 
business. Russia now supplies 24 percent of our enriched uranium 
imports. Russia is our third largest supplier. We spend nearly $1 
billion each year on Russian uranium. Russia uses these revenues to 
fund its invasion of Ukraine.
  Here in America, we have the resources to fuel our own reactors. My 
amendment authorizes the Department of Energy to take the steps 
necessary to expand U.S. nuclear fuel production.
  The Energy Committee passed this legislation by voice vote in May. 
The Senate passed this legislation by voice vote last December. It was 
included in last year's Senate Defense bill.
  I would like to thank Senator Manchin, Senator Risch, Senator Mark 
Warner, Senator Budd, and Senator Coons for their effort and their 
support and cosponsorship on this critical issue.

[[Page S3718]]

  I urge you to support this bipartisan amendment.
  I yield back all time.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 999

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  Mr. BARRASSO. 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. SCHUMER. I announce that the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Durbin) 
is necessarily absent.
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 96, nays 3, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 202 Leg.]

                                YEAS--96

     Baldwin
     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Blackburn
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Boozman
     Braun
     Britt
     Brown
     Budd
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Coons
     Cornyn
     Cortez Masto
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Duckworth
     Ernst
     Feinstein
     Fetterman
     Fischer
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagerty
     Hassan
     Hawley
     Heinrich
     Hickenlooper
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Johnson
     Kaine
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     King
     Klobuchar
     Lankford
     Lee
     Lujan
     Lummis
     Manchin
     Marshall
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Moran
     Mullin
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Ossoff
     Padilla
     Paul
     Peters
     Reed
     Ricketts
     Risch
     Romney
     Rosen
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Schatz
     Schmitt
     Schumer
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Shaheen
     Sinema
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Thune
     Tillis
     Tuberville
     Van Hollen
     Vance
     Warner
     Warnock
     Welch
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden
     Young

                                NAYS--3

     Markey
     Sanders
     Warren

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Durbin
       
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. On this vote, the yeas are 96, the 
nays are 3.
  Under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this 
amendment, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 999) was agreed to.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 1 
minute.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                        Tribute to Rory Stanley

  Mr. MANCHIN. First of all, I want to take time for recognizing a 
gentleman who has given 10 years of service being our nuclear expert on 
the Senate Energy Committee, Rory Stanley. He is leaving us, but he is 
not going far. He is going to the Department of Energy's Department of 
Nuclear Energy.
  Rory, thank you for the service you have given us. We appreciate it 
very much.


                                S. 2226

  Next of all, I want to thank everyone for voting for this amendment. 
Finally, the United States is going to start taking care of its own and 
producing the enriched uranium that we need rather than depending on 
Russia. It is long past due, and we, finally, with this amendment, will 
get started in the right direction.
  I want to thank all of my colleagues for voting for that.
  Again, Rory, thank you for your service.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Vermont.


                           Amendment No. 1030

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 1030 and ask 
that it be reported by number.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Sanders], for himself and 
     others, proposes an amendment numbered 1030.

  The amendment is as follows:

                 (Purpose: To reduce military spending)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. REDUCTION IN MILITARY SPENDING.

       The total amount of funds authorized to be appropriated by 
     this Act is hereby reduced by 10 percent, with the amount of 
     such reduction to be applied on a pro rata basis among the 
     accounts and funds for which amounts are authorized to be 
     appropriated by this Act, excluding accounts and funds 
     relating to military personnel, the Defense Health Program, 
     and assistance to Ukraine. The amount of reduction for each 
     account and fund subject to such requirement shall be applied 
     on a pro rata basis across each program, project, and 
     activity funded by such account or fund.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, there 
will be 2 minutes for debate, equally divided, before a vote on the 
Sanders amendment No. 1030.
  The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, our healthcare system is broken. Eighty-
five million Americans are uninsured or underinsured, and we don't even 
have enough doctors, nurses, or mental health providers. Unbelievably, 
our life expectancy is actually declining. Our childcare system is 
dysfunctional. Millions of parents are unable to find affordable sites 
for their kids.
  We have a major housing crisis, 600,000 Americans are homeless, and--
oh, yes--the planet is on fire, and the world we are leaving future 
generations will be increasingly unhealthy. But somehow we never have 
enough money to address those crises.
  Mr. President, if we have learned anything from the COVID pandemic, 
where we have lost over 1 million Americans, and climate change, which 
is causing massive destruction throughout the world, it is that 
national security is not just about nuclear weapons, submarines, and 
fighter planes; it is about making sure that all Americans have decent 
healthcare, education, housing, and other necessities of life.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 30 more 
seconds.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. SANDERS. Year after year, with very little debate, we pour 
hundreds of billions of dollars into the military-industrial complex. 
This year, it is about $900 billion. While defense contractors make 
huge profits, while the Pentagon remains unaudited, with massive waste 
and fraud, we now spend more than the next 10 nations combined.
  Enough is enough. It is time to change our national priorities, and 
cutting military spending by 10 percent is a good way to begin.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  An across-the-board cut of 10 percent makes no distinction between 
those programs that are actually vital and necessary for the defense of 
the country and those programs that may be subject to reduction based 
on our evaluation of the program.
  The Senator's amendment excludes defense health programs, military 
personnel accounts, and assistance to Ukraine, but that means the 
actual cuts on every other function will be much greater than 10 
percent.
  The other point that I think should be made--he has made a very 
rousing description, an accurate description of some of the issues 
facing us domestically, but we are now involved in an existential 
conflict, helping the Ukrainians to defend democracy. That costs money. 
We are in a situation where China has increased their military 
dramatically, and we must be prepared to react to such a change.
  This world is more dangerous perhaps today than at any time, and to 
simply walk away from adequately funding our Defense Department would 
be, I think, an error.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 1030

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on agreeing to the 
amendment.
  Mr. REED. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The ACTING 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. SCHUMER. I announce that the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Durbin) 
is necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 11, nays 88, as follows:

[[Page S3719]]

  


                      [Rollcall Vote No. 203 Leg.]

                                YEAS--11

     Baldwin
     Markey
     Merkley
     Murphy
     Paul
     Sanders
     Smith
     Van Hollen
     Warren
     Welch
     Wyden

                                NAYS--88

     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Blackburn
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Boozman
     Braun
     Britt
     Brown
     Budd
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Coons
     Cornyn
     Cortez Masto
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Duckworth
     Ernst
     Feinstein
     Fetterman
     Fischer
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagerty
     Hassan
     Hawley
     Heinrich
     Hickenlooper
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Johnson
     Kaine
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     King
     Klobuchar
     Lankford
     Lee
     Lujan
     Lummis
     Manchin
     Marshall
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Moran
     Mullin
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Ossoff
     Padilla
     Peters
     Reed
     Ricketts
     Risch
     Romney
     Rosen
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Schatz
     Schmitt
     Schumer
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Shaheen
     Sinema
     Stabenow
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Thune
     Tillis
     Tuberville
     Vance
     Warner
     Warnock
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Young

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Durbin
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Peters). On this vote, the yeas are 11, 
the nays are 88.
  Under the previous order requiring 60 affirmative votes for adoption 
of this amendment, the amendment is not agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 1030) was rejected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2 
minutes of debate.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.


        Unanimous Consent Agreement--Amendment Nos. 1078 and 944

  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following the 
disposition of amendments under the previous order, that it be in order 
to call up the following amendments to S. 2226: Schatz No. 1078; Scott 
No. 944; further, that with respect to the amendments listed above, the 
Senate vote on the amendments in the order listed, with no further 
amendments or motions in order, and with 60 affirmative votes required 
for adoption, and that there be 2 minutes, equally divided, prior to 
each vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Maryland.


                           Amendment No. 705

  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 705 and ask 
that it be reported by number.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Maryland [Mr. Cardin], for himself and Mr. 
     Young, proposes an amendment numbered 705.

  (The amendment is printed in the Record of July 13, 2023, under 
``Text of Amendments.'')


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

  
  On page S3719, July 27, 2023, in the second column, the 
following appears: (The amendment is printed in the Record of July 
23, 2023, under ``Text of Amendments.'')
  
  The online Record has been corrected to read: (The amendment is 
printed in the Record of July 13, 2023, under ``Text of 
Amendments.'')


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


  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, first let me thank Senator Young, my 
coauthor of this amendment that deals with our foreign policy being 
grounded in our democratic values to fight corruption. I also want to 
thank Senator Wicker for his help, particularly in the Helsinki 
Commission where this issue was debated.
  I also want to thank Senator Menendez and Senator Risch, the chair 
and ranking members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. This 
bill has been reported out by that committee at least twice by near-
unanimous or unanimous votes.
  I think we all recognize that corruption provides the fuel for Mr. 
Putin and other corrupt leaders to do their nefarious actions, 
including the war in Ukraine. It is in our core national security 
interests to fight corruption, as has been declared by President Biden.
  So this bill patterns the efforts we have made in the trafficking of 
persons to have the State Department evaluate the capacity of what 
countries are doing to combat corruption using standard evaluations 
such as criminalizing corruption, investigating and prosecuting, 
adopting measures to prevent corruption, adequate resources, and 
protecting victims of corruption.
  This amendment will continue the U.S. leadership in fighting 
corruption globally. I ask my colleagues to support the amendment.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 705

  Mr. President, it is my understanding that we can do this by voice 
vote. If that is the case, I ask unanimous consent that the 60-vote 
threshold with respect to this amendment be vitiated.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Schatz). Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 705) was agreed to.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the previous 
order be amended so that consideration of the Scott amendment No. 944 
occur immediately, with all previous provisions remaining in effect.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.


                           Amendment No. 944

  Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Mr. President, I call up my amendment 
No. 944 and ask that it be reported by number.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Scott] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 944.

  The amendment is as follows:

  (Purpose: To require an assessment of the impact and feasibility of 
 restricting gifts and grants to United States institutions of higher 
  education from entities on the Non-SDN Chinese Military-Industrial 
                        Complex Companies List)

       At the end of subtitle D of title XII, add the following:

     SEC. 1269. ASSESSMENT OF GIFTS AND GRANTS TO UNITED STATES 
                   INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION FROM ENTITIES 
                   ON THE NON-SDN CHINESE MILITARY-INDUSTRIAL 
                   COMPLEX COMPANIES LIST.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Treasury 
     shall submit to the appropriate congressional committees an 
     assessment of gifts and grants to United States institutions 
     of higher education from entities on the Non-SDN Chinese 
     Military-Industrial Complex Companies List maintained by the 
     Office of Foreign Assets Control.
       (b) Elements.--The Secretary, in consultation with the 
     Secretary of Education, shall include in the assessment 
     required by subsection (a) an estimate of--
       (1) a list and description of each of the gifts and grants 
     provided to United States institutions of higher education by 
     entities described in subsection (a); and
       (2) the monetary value of each of those gifts and grants.
       (c) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Appropriate congressional committees.--The term 
     ``appropriate congressional committees'' means the Committee 
     on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate and the 
     Committee on Financial Services of the House of 
     Representatives.
       (2) Gifts and grants.--The term ``gifts and grants'' 
     includes financial contributions, material donations, 
     provision of services, scholarships, fellowships, research 
     funding, infrastructure investment, contracts, or any other 
     form of support that provides a benefit to the recipient 
     institution.

  Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Mr. President, my amendment is a very 
simple amendment. It directs the Treasury Department to provide 
transparency on the state of Chinese military donations to U.S. 
universities. Every year, undisclosed sources within the People's 
Republic of China sends millions of dollars in gifts, grants, and other 
financial means to U.S. colleges and universities, and the sad fact is 
we know too little about that. My amendment would be the first step in 
understanding their impact.
  I ask unanimous consent that the 60-vote threshold with respect to 
this amendment be vitiated.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 944

  Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent 
that we do this by voice vote as well.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 944) was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Marshall amendment is next.
  The Senator from Kansas.


                           Amendment No. 874

  Mr. MARSHALL. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 874, and I 
ask that it be reported by number.

[[Page S3720]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kansas [Mr. Marshall] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 874 to amendment No. 935.

  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To prohibit the flying, draping, or other display of any flag 
     other than the flag of the United States at public buildings)

        At the end of subtitle G of title X, add the following:

     SEC. __. PROHIBITION ON FLAGS OTHER THAN THE FLAG OF THE 
                   UNITED STATES.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Flag of the united states.--The term ``flag of the 
     United States'' has the meaning given the term in section 
     700(b) of title 18, United States Code.
       (2) Public building.--
       (A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), 
     the term ``public building'' has the meaning given the term 
     in section 3301(a) of title 40, United States Code.
       (B) Inclusion.--The term ``public building'' includes--
       (i) a military installation (as defined in section 2801(c) 
     of title 10, United States Code); and
       (ii) any embassy or consulate of the United States.
       (b) Prohibitions.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law and except as provided in subsection (c), no flag that is 
     not the flag of the United States may be flown, draped, or 
     otherwise displayed--
       (1) on the exterior of a public building; or
       (2) in the hallway of a public building.
       (c) Exceptions.--The prohibitions under subsection (b) 
     shall not apply to--
       (1) a National League of Families POW/MIA flag (as 
     designated by section 902 of title 36, United States Code);
       (2) any flag that represents the nation of a visiting 
     diplomat;
       (3) the State flag of the State represented by a member of 
     Congress, outside or within the office of the member;
       (4) in the case of a military installation, any flag that 
     represents a unit or branch of the Armed Forces;
       (5) any flag that represents an Indian Tribe (as defined in 
     section 4 of the Indian Self-Determination and Education 
     Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 5304)); or
       (6) any flag that represents the State, territory, county, 
     city, or local jurisdiction in which the public building is 
     located.

  Mr. MARSHALL. I ask unanimous consent that there be up to 4 minutes 
of debate, equally divided, prior to the rollcall vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MARSHALL. Mr. President, every time our flag is unfurled, I would 
ask you all: What emotion is stirred in your hearts? Old Glory means 
many things to many people. Some stand and some kneel. Some salute her 
while others burn her.
  Regardless of your sentiments, what no one can deny is that hundreds 
of thousands of Americans have died for this one flag that gives you 
the freedoms we all enjoy. Few, if any, Americans have died for any 
other flag.
  As for me, every time this flag is unfurled, I think about my own 
family members who have served. My family has had someone from every 
generation serve under this one flag since the Civil War. Four of my 
grandfathers' grandfathers enlisted in the Union to preserve this 
Republic, three of whom died on a bloody battlefield. My mom's uncle 
served in World War I and was exposed to mustard gas in the Argonne 
Forest, and two of my dad's uncles stormed the beaches of Normandy. My 
own uncles and cousins have served. My father served. My brother 
served. I served. My son is serving. And we all serve under one flag. 
My family who served, that is what I think of when this flag is 
unfurled.
  Look, many Americans have died to give you the freedom to honor or 
disgrace the flag as you see fit for your own home. Wouldn't you think 
that, to honor America and those who serve, especially for those who 
have made the ultimate sacrifice and the Gold Star families, our 
country should honor one American flag?
  I hope you will agree with me as patriots that it would be right and 
proper that on the buildings and grounds owned by we the people, only 
one flag, with reasonable exceptions--the flag so many Americans have 
fought and died for, the one flag that represents this idea of 
America--should be unfurled. This is exactly what our amendment does.
  A vote against this amendment is a slap on the face of those of us 
who have served, and it is disrespectful to the families whose loved 
ones have died in defending this one flag and the Republic for which it 
stands.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  The author has not truly revealed what the amendment does.
  On all of our Federal buildings, we often see many different flags--
the U.S. flag that we all join in pledging in this body but also, in 
certain States, the State flag. We see the MIA flag. I will tell you, 
in Madison, WI, at the State capitol, during the month of June, it 
adorns the Pride flag.
  This really is thinly veiled. Let's be clear that this is about not 
being able to fly the Pride flag.
  I was so proud last year to work across the aisle with both Democrats 
and Republicans to pass the Respect for Marriage Act. It was a 
milestone for equal rights for all Americans. But like so many other 
Americans in leading this march toward equality, I am reminded of how 
much work we have yet to do.
  LGBTQ+ Americans are our neighbors, our loved ones, our constituents, 
and our colleagues. They serve in our Armed Forces and in the Federal 
Government, making sacrifices every day for their country. They work in 
our Federal buildings, our post offices, and in our own offices. They 
serve in our military and put their lives at risk for our country. 
These Federal buildings connect Americans to their government--a 
government of, by, and for the people. But, for too long, LGBTQ+ 
Americans have felt unwelcomed and sometimes unsafe in these spaces--
these spaces that are meant to serve them too.
  I think the American people are getting tired of politicians who make 
their support for our military servicemembers and their families 
contingent upon pushing a discriminatory agenda whether that be about 
women's rights or LGBTQ+ rights.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Ms. BALDWIN. I urge opposition.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.


                           Order of Business

  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the previous 
order be amended so that the consideration of the Kennedy amendment 
occur immediately preceding the Gillibrand amendment, with all previous 
provisions remaining in effect.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 874

  The question is on agreeing to the Marshall amendment.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I announce that the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Durbin) 
is necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 50, nays 49, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 204 Leg.]

                                YEAS--50

     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
     Manchin
     Marshall
     McConnell
     Moran
     Mullin
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Ricketts
     Risch
     Romney
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Schmitt
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Tuberville
     Vance
     Wicker
     Young

                                NAYS--49

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coons
     Cortez Masto
     Duckworth
     Feinstein
     Fetterman
     Gillibrand
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Hickenlooper
     Hirono
     Kaine
     Kelly
     King
     Klobuchar
     Lujan
     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

       
     Durbin
       

[[Page S3721]]


  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Booker). On this vote, the yeas are 50, 
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. 874) was rejected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.


                           Amendment No. 1034

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 1034. I ask 
that it be reported by number. I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Menendez and I each have 3 minutes to discuss this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator [Mr. Kennedy] proposes an amendment numbered 
     1034 to amendment No. 935.

  The amendment is as follows:

  (Purpose: To prohibit allocations of Special Drawing Rights at the 
  International Monetary Fund for perpetrators of genocide and state 
       sponsors of terrorism without congressional authorization)

       At the end of subtitle G of title XII, add the following:

     SEC. 1299L. PROHIBITION ON ALLOCATIONS OF SPECIAL DRAWING 
                   RIGHTS AT INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND FOR 
                   PERPETRATORS OF GENOCIDE AND STATE SPONSORS OF 
                   TERRORISM WITHOUT CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORIZATION.

       Section 6 of the Special Drawing Rights Act (22 U.S.C. 
     286q) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(c) Unless Congress by law authorizes such action, 
     neither the President nor any person or agency shall on 
     behalf of the United States vote to allocate Special Drawing 
     Rights under article XVIII, sections 2 and 3, of the Articles 
     of Agreement of the Fund to a member country of the Fund, if 
     the government of the member country has--
       ``(1) committed genocide at any time during the 10-year 
     period ending with the date of the vote; or
       ``(2) been determined by the Secretary of State, as of the 
     date of the enactment of the National Defense Authorization 
     Act for Fiscal Year 2024, to have repeatedly provided support 
     for acts of international terrorism, for purposes of--
       ``(A) section 1754(c)(1)(A)(i) of the Export Control Reform 
     Act of 2018 (50 U.S.C. 4813(c)(1)(A)(i));
       ``(B) section 620A of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 
     (22 U.S.C. 2371);
       ``(C) section 40(d) of the Arms Export Control Act (22 
     U.S.C. 2780(d)); or
       ``(D) any other provision of law.''.

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, as we all know, the International 
Monetary Fund--or the IMF, as we call it--is an international bank. 
Most countries belong to it--190, in fact. Virtually every country in 
the world is a member of the IMF--there are 190 countries--and 
everybody puts up money. When another country gets in trouble, the IMF 
helps bail them out.
  Now, not every country in the IMF is equal in voting rights. The 
countries that put up the most money get most of the voting rights and 
have most of the control. And you will not be surprised to learn that 
the United States of America puts up over $100 billion, and we have the 
largest share of voting rights.
  Periodically, the IMF issues what are called special drawing rights. 
The technical definition of a special drawing right is an international 
reserve asset created by and issued by the IMF. But forget that. Let me 
tell you what a special drawing right is. A special drawing right is 
like a dividend. Think of it as a poker chip. So the IMF says: We are 
going to give dividends or poker chips to every member of the IMF.
  Well, what can you do with this poker chip? Well, if you are Iran, 
for example, you can take this poker chip and go to the IMF and say 
``Here is my poker chip, and I want $1.42''--that is the exchange 
rate--``of U.S. dollars,'' whether Iran needs it or not. Pretty sweet 
deal.
  Iran would never have to pay back that money. The IMF does charge 
Iran interest on those U.S. dollars. Iran wouldn't have to pay it back, 
but they have to pay interest. Guess what the interest rate is. It is 
.05 percent--not 5 percent, .05 percent. Sweet deal for Iran, 
especially when they don't need the money.
  My amendment would simply say that the United States cannot--
Secretary of the Treasury--cannot vote to approve special drawing 
rights, or these poker chips, for any country that, according to the 
State Department, sponsors genocide or state-backed terrorism--genocide 
or state-backed terrorism--unless Congress approves.
  I will reserve my time but yield to Senator Menendez, my good friend 
from New Jersey.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, that only means I got there before you.
  Mr. President, I rise in opposition to Senator Kennedy's amendment. I 
have a great deal of respect for my colleague. No one--no one--in this 
Chamber has taken a harder line against the Iranian regime than I have. 
No one. But in this case, a well-intended motion can produce very bad 
consequences. So let me speak to why I oppose the Senator's amendment.
  These special drawing rights--I always love how my colleague from 
Louisiana can bring it to an earthy tone. We have poker chips we are 
throwing around, but these aren't quite poker chips; they are a 
critical liquidity tool to support lower income countries in response 
to global financial youcrises. It is in our interest to do so, to 
create stability. They assist in creating economic stability. They are 
an absolutely essential part of U.S. foreign policy tools, especially 
as we are dealing with the China challenge. We want to help these 
countries instead of China helping them.
  The Biden administration supported a new round of special drawing 
rights allocations at the IMF. This funding played an essential role in 
helping countries address the COVID-19 pandemic and the related 
economic fallout of the pandemic, which we are still hearing about from 
many of these countries. Without this funding, many of these countries 
would have fallen to economic crisis, which means political 
instability, which means chaos, which means refugees coming to the 
shores of many countries.
  The International Monetary Fund's rules dictate that a new general 
issuance of special drawing rights must go to all members. That means a 
requirement to prohibit SDRs for one country would prohibit SDRs for 
all countries. As a consequence, Senator Kennedy's amendment would 
effectively kill the possibility of issuing SDRs to any country ever 
again.
  Now, Senator Kennedy offered the same exact amendment with the 
Endless Frontier Act on the floor in May of 2021. That amendment failed 
by a significant vote.
  Of course we oppose those state sponsors of terrorism. Of course, we 
oppose those who would be responsible for genocide.

  But I would note that most of our adversaries the Senator wants to 
pursue--which I would agree if we could do it antiseptically, but we 
can't--already face obstacles to drawing special drawing rights because 
of the sanctions that we have against them.
  So due to the harmful impact this amendment would have on the 
Treasury Department's ability to respond to deficit in the global 
supply of reserves on a global crisis, I would vote no and I would 
recommend my colleagues do so, as well.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, how much additional time do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. You have 20 seconds remaining.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, this bill will not take poker chips--and 
that is what they are--away from any country unless they are engaging 
in genocide or State-sponsored terrorism. That is it. The world will 
not spin off its axis. If you think a country that commits genocide or 
State-sponsored terrorism should get poker chips, vote against this 
bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. If we were talking about poker chips, I would be all in 
with Senator Kennedy. But what we are talking about is the ability to 
prevent a crisis in the world. That is something we can use. That is 
why the Senator's amendment needs to fail.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 1034

  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?

[[Page S3722]]

  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I announce that the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Durbin) 
is necessarily absent.
  Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from South Carolina (Mr. Scott).
  The result was announced--yeas 51, nays 47, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 205 Leg.]

                                YEAS--51

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

                                NAYS--47

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Casey
     Coons
     Cortez Masto
     Duckworth
     Feinstein
     Fetterman
     Gillibrand
     Hassan
     Hickenlooper
     Hirono
     Kaine
     Kelly
     King
     Klobuchar
     Lujan
     Manchin
     Markey
     Menendez
     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--2

     Durbin
     Scott (SC)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Fetterman). On this vote, the yeas are 51, 
the nays are 47. Under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the 
adoption of this amendment, the amendment is not agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 1034) was rejected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be given 2 
minutes and that Senator Gillibrand be given 2 minutes on this 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                Amendment No. 1065 to Amendment No. 935

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I want to thank my dear friend Senator 
Gillibrand for her work on this amendment and for being such a fierce 
advocate for 9/11 responders and survivors.
  I would like to thank the Republican cosponsors, including Senators 
Braun and Lummis, for their support. And Senator Wicker, I thank him as 
well as thanking Leader McConnell.
  This amendment is a huge step forward in making sure the first 
responders and those injured on 9/11 are never left behind.
  Before the smoke even cleared on 9/11 and before the rubble even quit 
burning, our first responders--our firefighters, our police officers, 
EMT, FBI agents, construction workers--were just running to danger, 
trying to do their jobs and save lives. For their sacrifice, many first 
responders developed severe health complications from working in the 
aftermath of the attack--lifelong injuries, serious cancers. Many of 
them are no longer with us, and some of them were friends of mine. 
Twenty-two years later, people are still getting sick from the dust, 
the air, the poisons.
  We have created the World Trade Center Health Program so that 9/11 
responders could afford the necessary healthcare, but we can't let 
funding for the program dry up. We cannot fail to properly care for 
those who answered the call of duty. Our work is not done. Just as the 
first responders have been there for us and for America, we will 
continue fighting for them.
  This will fund $450 million to the World Trade Center Health Program 
and another over $200 million for the military employees who rushed to 
danger at the Pentagon and in Shanksville. It will be fully paid for. 
It will also, for the first time, help those, as I said, at the 
Pentagon and the DOD.
  I hope, from all of my colleagues, that we can have unanimous and 
broad support for this amendment.
  I yield to the Senator from New York, my colleague, who is such a 
leader on this legislation.
  Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, I want to thank Senator Schumer for 
his unbelievable conviction and persistence in helping our 9/11 first 
responders.
  I also want to thank my Republican colleagues who helped us write 
this bill--Senator Braun, Senator Lummis, and Senator Cotton.
  I am just going to give you a vignette of what this is about.
  Mariama, a New Yorker, came home after 9/11 to find her apartment 
covered in a thick coat of ash. Her children have all developed life-
changing respiratory conditions.
  Jamie, a 19-year-old, was a volunteer with the Sayville Ambulance 
that day. He spent weeks cleaning up at Ground Zero. He developed a 
rare 9/11 cancer as well.
  Another amazing person is Nate, who responded to the attack at the 
Pentagon. He spent weeks climbing in and out of the wreckage, searching 
for remains. He is now a disabled veteran who is suffering from PTSD 
and another rare, life-threatening disease.
  It has been over two decades since 9/11, but, still, thousands of 
people like Mariama, Jamie, and Nate suffer from these terrible cancers 
and conditions.
  In 2011, when Congress created the World Trade Center Health Program, 
which provided medical treatment and monitoring for the survivors, it 
was not fully funded then, and we are hoping to get closer to fully 
funding it with this addition. My amendment brings us one step closer 
to this funding gap, and it includes the Pentagon and Shanksville 
responders.
  9/11 was a horrible day for everyone, but one thing I can say is that 
this body has stood with those responders every single year since then, 
and this body has never given up in making sure they have the 
healthcare they need to survive.


                           Amendment No. 1065

  (Purpose: To amend title XXXIII of the Public Health Service Act with 
respect to funding for the World Trade Center Health Program.)
  Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 1065, and 
I ask that the Gillibrand amendment be reported by number.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New York [Mrs. Gillibrand], for herself 
     and others, proposes an amendment numbered 1065 to amendment 
     No. 935.

  (The amendment is printed in the Record of July 26, 2023, under 
``Text of Amendments.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, there is widespread bipartisan support for 
this amendment. I am going to vote for it, and a number of Republicans 
have cosponsored it. Although we are going to have to call the roll, 
perhaps this could be the moment when a 10-minute vote actually means 
that.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. WICKER. I yield.


                      Unanimous Consent Agreement

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this vote be 
10 minutes, that subsequent votes be 10 minutes, and that we all hang 
around and get the job done.
  Mr. WICKER. I yield the floor.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 1065

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  Mr. SCHUMER. 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. SCHUMER. I announce that the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Durbin) 
is necessarily absent.
  Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from South Carolina (Mr. Scott).
  The result was announced--yeas 94, nays 4, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 206 Leg.]

                                YEAS--94

     Baldwin
     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Blackburn
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Boozman
     Braun
     Britt
     Brown
     Budd
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Coons
     Cornyn
     Cortez Masto
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crapo

[[Page S3723]]


     Cruz
     Daines
     Duckworth
     Ernst
     Feinstein
     Fetterman
     Fischer
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagerty
     Hassan
     Hawley
     Heinrich
     Hickenlooper
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Johnson
     Kaine
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     King
     Klobuchar
     Lankford
     Lujan
     Lummis
     Manchin
     Markey
     Marshall
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Ossoff
     Padilla
     Peters
     Reed
     Ricketts
     Risch
     Romney
     Rosen
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schmitt
     Schumer
     Scott (FL)
     Shaheen
     Sinema
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Thune
     Tillis
     Van Hollen
     Vance
     Warner
     Warnock
     Warren
     Welch
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden
     Young

                                NAYS--4

     Lee
     Mullin
     Paul
     Tuberville

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Durbin
     Scott (SC)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 94, the nays are 4.
  Under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this 
amendment, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 1065) was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.


                           Amendment No. 1058

  (Purpose: To extend the period for filing claims under the Radiation 
Exposure Compensation Act and to provide for compensation under such 
Act for claims relating to Manhattan Project waste, and to improve 
compensation for workers involved in uranium mining.)
  Mr. HAWLEY. Mr. President, I would like to call up my amendment No. 
1058 and ask that it be reported by number.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Missouri [Mr. Hawley] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1058.

  (The amendment is printed in the Record of July 26, 2023, under 
``Text of Amendments.'')
  Mr. HAWLEY. Mr. President, I ask for 6 minutes of debate prior to the 
rollcall vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HAWLEY. Mr. President, for 50 years--50 years--the Federal 
Government has put into the water, into the soil, into the air of St. 
Louis and surrounding regions radioactive nuclear material.
  They have not told the people of St. Louis. They have not compensated 
the people of St. Louis. They have not helped the people of St. Louis--
in fact, just the opposite. For decades--decades--they told the people 
of St. Louis: No problem. There is no problem here.
  Meanwhile, children were dying of cancer, and people all over the 
region were contracting autoimmune diseases. Why? Because the 
groundwater had been poisoned, because the creeks where they played in 
had been poisoned. And now we know for a fact that the government has 
covered it up for decades.
  Mr. President, it is time to make this right. The amendment we are 
about to vote on is a very simple amendment. It is about basic justice: 
compensating the victims of the Federal Government's negligence for 
what the government itself has done.
  And it hasn't only happened in Missouri. It has happened around the 
country, which is why this amendment would reauthorize a victims fund 
for those who have suffered because of the government's negligence. And 
by ``suffered'' I mean gotten sick and had family members die--in 
Missouri, in States across the country. It reauthorizes it, and it 
makes it available to those who have been the victims of what the 
government has done.
  This is a bipartisan bill. I am proud to have worked with Senator 
Lujan, Senator Crapo, Senator Schmitt, and others.
  Now I would like to recognize the Senator from New Mexico, Senator 
Lujan.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. LUJAN. Mr. President, I want to commend Mr. Hawley and Mr. Crapo 
for the work they have done here and all of our colleagues and staff 
who have contributed to telling this story and the support that I 
expect to see today and that I hope will get this across the finish 
line.
  Almost 80 years ago, New Mexico became ground zero for the detonation 
of the first nuclear bomb. Millions of people across the country 
traveled to theaters this weekend, and they saw a blockbuster centered 
around this infamous date. But not enough people have focused on the 
collateral damage caused by our Nation's nuclear weapons testing. 
People who sacrificed on behalf of our country for national security 
purposes, working day in and day out, in States like Colorado, New 
Mexico, Arizona, Missouri, Wyoming, South Dakota, Nevada, Texas, 
Oregon, North Dakota, Idaho, Utah, Montana, and others--they deserve 
our support.
  Folks have traveled to Washington with lung cancer, oral cancer, 
asthma, heart problems, begging us to extend and expand the Radiation 
Exposure Compensation Act. A few years ago, an elder from the Navajo 
Nation traveled here to testify, and she looked us all in the eye, and 
she asked a simple question: Are you waiting for us all to die for the 
problem to go away?
  I ask this body to show these victims compassion, understand their 
pain and suffering so that they know it has not gone unnoticed.
  I respectfully ask for your vote.
  I yield back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, when America conducted nuclear tests in 
Nevada, New Mexico, and the Pacific, we had little understanding of how 
radiation spread.
  Throughout my time in Congress, I have advocated for expanding the 
Radiation Exposure Compensation Act to cover the forgotten victims of 
these tests, including the residents of all the affected States that 
have been identified here today.
  Downwinders, those affected by these tests, deserve to be compensated 
for the effects of these weapons. I am grateful for working with 
Senator Lujan and Senator Hawley and our other colleagues to ensure 
that we do not leave our downwinders behind.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. SCHMITT. Mr. President, I rise in support of this amendment, and 
I am proud to work with my colleague from Missouri and others in a 
bipartisan way to provide some relief to the people who have been 
affected by this.
  Here in Missouri, I can tell you--a couple weeks ago, I gave my 
maiden speech, and I talked a lot about where I grew up. I grew up in a 
blue-collar town in the shadow of the airport in Bridgeton, and that is 
the epicenter of where this happened--near the airport, near a 
landfill.
  In those areas in the city and north county, people work hard. They 
always have. Little did they know that this hazardous toxic waste was 
being dumped in their water, in the ground where their children play.
  And all this amendment does is reauthorize something that has been on 
the books for decades, and it allows people who have been affected to 
apply.
  So I am proud to support the people who have been affected who are 
looking for some measure of justice. Nothing will make them whole, but 
this is a step, and I am proud to work with my colleagues in that 
regard too.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 1058

  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I request the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  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. SCHUMER. I announce that the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Durbin) 
is necessarily absent.
  Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from South Carolina (Mr. Scott).
  The result was announced--yeas 61, nays 37, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 207 Leg.]

                                YEAS--61

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Braun
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coons
     Cortez Masto
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Duckworth
     Feinstein
     Fetterman
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Hassan
     Hawley
     Heinrich
     Hickenlooper

[[Page S3724]]


     Hirono
     Kaine
     Kelly
     King
     Klobuchar
     Lujan
     Markey
     Marshall
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mullin
     Murphy
     Murray
     Ossoff
     Padilla
     Peters
     Reed
     Risch
     Rosen
     Rubio
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schmitt
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Sinema
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Van Hollen
     Vance
     Warner
     Warnock
     Warren
     Welch
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--37

     Barrasso
     Blackburn
     Boozman
     Britt
     Budd
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Grassley
     Hagerty
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Lankford
     Lee
     Lummis
     Manchin
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Ricketts
     Romney
     Rounds
     Scott (FL)
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Tuberville
     Wicker
     Young

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Durbin
     Scott (SC)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 61, the nays are 
37.
  Under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this 
amendment, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 1058) was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.


                           Amendment No. 638

  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 638 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 New Jersey [Mr. Menendez], for himself and 
     others, proposes an amendment numbered 638.

  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To reauthorize the Firefighter Cancer Registry Act of 2018)

       At the appropriate place in subtitle G of title X, insert 
     the following:

     SEC. __. REAUTHORIZATION OF VOLUNTARY REGISTRY FOR 
                   FIREFIGHTER CANCER INCIDENCE.

       Section 2(h) of the Firefighter Cancer Registry Act of 2018 
     (42 U.S.C. 280e-5(h)) is amended by striking ``$2,500,000 for 
     each of the fiscal years 2018 through 2022'' and inserting 
     ``$5,500,000 for each of fiscal years 2024 through 2028''.

  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask that there be unanimous consent 
for 3 minutes, equally divided.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, this amendment is to reauthorize the 
Firefighter Cancer Registry, which was passed unanimously by Congress 
and signed into law in 2018.
  The Firefighter Cancer Registry improves our Nation's ability to 
conduct research and gather data on the cancer risk associated with 
firefighting. It is a vital program, one that furthers our 
understanding of how to protect the brave first responders who run 
toward danger when everyone else runs away from it. And yet, on October 
1 of last year, the program expired.
  My bipartisan, commonsense amendment would reauthorize the program 
for an additional 5 years while bringing it into line with the current 
appropriation level.
  Supported by Senators Murkowski, Brown, Klobuchar, Fischer, Rubio, 
and Tester, it would benefit both career firefighters as well as 
volunteers like my constituent Edward Diaz. He was the son of Eduardo 
Diaz, a North Bergen firefighter who tragically passed away in 2017 
from pancreatic cancer. Today, he carries on his family's legacy of 
service as a volunteer firefighter in Hasbrouck Heights, NJ.
  I submit to my colleagues, the Diaz family, along with their fellow 
brothers and sisters in the profession, are the reason we should all 
support this amendment today. Firefighting is more than a job. It is a 
calling, a calling that sometimes takes your life as we saw in the loss 
of two Newark firefighters within the last month.
  Let's honor that calling by reauthorizing the Firefighter Cancer 
Registry Act with this amendment. I urge my colleagues to support it 
and reserve the balance of my time.
  I yield the floor.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 638

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. 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. SCHUMER. I announce that the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Durbin) 
is necessarily absent.
  Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from South Carolina (Mr. Scott).
  The result was announced--yeas 96, nays 2, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 208 Leg.]

                                YEAS--96

     Baldwin
     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Blackburn
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Boozman
     Braun
     Britt
     Brown
     Budd
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Coons
     Cornyn
     Cortez Masto
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Duckworth
     Ernst
     Feinstein
     Fetterman
     Fischer
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagerty
     Hassan
     Hawley
     Heinrich
     Hickenlooper
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Johnson
     Kaine
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     King
     Klobuchar
     Lankford
     Lujan
     Lummis
     Manchin
     Markey
     Marshall
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Moran
     Mullin
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Ossoff
     Padilla
     Peters
     Reed
     Ricketts
     Risch
     Romney
     Rosen
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schmitt
     Schumer
     Scott (FL)
     Shaheen
     Sinema
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Thune
     Tillis
     Tuberville
     Van Hollen
     Vance
     Warner
     Warnock
     Warren
     Welch
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden
     Young

                                NAYS--2

     Lee
     Paul
       

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Durbin
     Scott (SC)
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 96, the nays are 2.
  Under the previous order requiring 60 affirmative votes for the 
adoption of this amendment, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 638) was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.


                           Amendment No. 1078

  Mr. SCHATZ. I call up my amendment No. 1078 and ask that it be 
reported by number.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Hawaii [Mr. Schatz], for himself and Ms. 
     Murkowski, proposes an amendment numbered 1078.

  (The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of 
Amendments.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2 
minutes for debate, equally divided, before the vote on the Schatz 
amendment No. 1078.
  Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, I want to urge passage of an amendment to 
reauthorize this critical housing law for American Indians, Native 
Hawaiians, and Alaska Natives, NAHASDA. This amendment would 
reauthorize NAHASDA for 7 years, promote greater local control over 
NAHASDA programs, streamline environmental reviews for Native housing 
projects, and incentivize private partnerships.
  Senator Murkowski and I introduced a stand-alone bill to reauthorize 
NAHASDA, which cleared our committee unanimously.
  This amendment is an important win for Native communities to address 
their urgent housing needs. It has gone through regular order and has 
been well studied for years.
  I urge my colleagues to vote yes on this important measure.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I join my colleague in supporting this 
very important reauthorization, the Native American Housing Assistance 
and Self-Determination Act, NAHASDA. This has been 10 years in the 
making. This has seen process, this has seen input, this has seen 
extraordinary effort, and, as the chairman of the Indian Affairs 
Committee has noted, this process has led to a place where we were able 
to incorporate this into the NDAA last Congress. Earlier this year, we 
moved it out of committee by voice vote.
  We need to move it. People need housing. It is a priority in so many 
of our States. I thank those who have been working with us over the 
years to

[[Page S3725]]

accomplish this, and I would ask for strong support in this body for 
housing within our American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian 
communities.
  Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, due to my mother's sudden hospitalization 
late this afternoon for a serious illness, I need to leave Washington 
unexpectedly and immediately. As a result, I will miss the vote on 
final passage of the National Defense Authorization Act, as well as any 
remaining amendment votes.
  I would like the Congressional Record to reflect that I support final 
passage of this legislation. When I return to Washington following the 
August work period, I will submit another statement to the Record 
detailing how I would have cast my vote on each of the amendment votes 
I was forced to miss.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 1078

  I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  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. SCHUMER. I announce that the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Durbin) 
and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Casey) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from South Carolina (Mr. Scott).
  The result was announced--yeas 86, nays 11, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 209 Leg.]

                                YEAS--86

     Baldwin
     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Boozman
     Braun
     Britt
     Brown
     Budd
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carper
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Coons
     Cornyn
     Cortez Masto
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Duckworth
     Feinstein
     Fetterman
     Fischer
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hassan
     Hawley
     Heinrich
     Hickenlooper
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Johnson
     Kaine
     Kelly
     King
     Klobuchar
     Lankford
     Lujan
     Lummis
     Manchin
     Markey
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Moran
     Mullin
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Ossoff
     Padilla
     Peters
     Reed
     Ricketts
     Risch
     Romney
     Rosen
     Rounds
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Scott (FL)
     Shaheen
     Sinema
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Thune
     Tillis
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warnock
     Warren
     Welch
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden
     Young

                                NAYS--11

     Blackburn
     Ernst
     Hagerty
     Kennedy
     Lee
     Marshall
     Paul
     Rubio
     Schmitt
     Tuberville
     Vance

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Casey
     Durbin
     Scott (SC)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kaine). On this vote, the yeas are 86, the 
nays are 11.
  Under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of the 
amendment, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 1078) was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.


                           Order of Business

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, for the information of the Members, we 
are getting very close to locking down a final agreement, which will 
allow us to vote on a number of things, including the managers' 
amendments and final passage this evening. We are still waiting for 
some final paperwork to be done. So, in the meantime, I am going to 
introduce and ask unanimous consent for a resolution praising Tony 
Bennett, making August 3, his birthday, Tony Bennett Day.

                          ____________________