[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.
____________________