[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 130 (Thursday, July 27, 2023)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3725-S3730]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024--Continued
Now, until we get the paperwork done and can lock everything in, I
suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Order of Business
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in
order to call up the following amendments to S. 2226: Rubio, No. 523;
Young, No. 230; Daines, No. 1084; 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; further, that upon disposition of
the Daines amendment, that it be in order to send to the desk a
managers' package of 47 amendments, and after the clerk reports it, I
ask that the clerk
[[Page S3726]]
also read the numbers and sponsors of each of the individual amendments
in this package and that they be the only amendments remaining in order
to be offered to S. 2226; that the Senate vote on the amendment with no
intervening action or debate; that upon disposition of the managers'
amendments, the cloture motions filed during Wednesday's session ripen
and the Senate vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the substitute
amendment No. 935, as amended; further, that if cloture is invoked, all
postcloture time be considered expired, the Schumer amendment No. 936
be withdrawn, and the Senate vote on the substitute amendment, as
amended, with no intervening action or debate; further, that if the
substitute amendment is agreed to, the cloture motion with respect to
the underlying bill, S. 2226, be withdrawn, the bill, as amended, be
considered read a third time, and the Senate vote on passage of the
bill, as amended, with 60 affirmative votes required for passage; that
the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table,
with up to 10 minutes for debate, equally divided, prior to the vote on
passage; finally, that upon disposition of S. 2226, the Senate
immediately proceed to the consideration of H.R. 2670, which was
received from the House and is at the desk; that all after the enacting
clause be stricken, the text of the Senate bill, as passed, be
inserted; H.R. 2670, as amended, be considered read a third time and
passed, the Senate bill then be indefinitely postponed, and the motion
to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no
intervening action or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SCHUMER. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 523
Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 523 and ask that
it be reported by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Florida [Mr. Rubio] proposes an amendment
numbered 523 to amendment No. 935.
(The amendment is printed in the Record of July 13, 2023, under
``Text of Amendments.'')
=========================== NOTE ===========================
On page S3726, July 27, 2023, in the first column, the following
appears: The Senator from Florida [Mr. RUBIO] proposes an
amendment numbered 523 to amendment No. 935.
The online Record has been corrected to read: The Senator from
Florida [Mr. RUBIO] proposes an amendment numbered 523 to
amendment No. 935. (The amendment is printed in the Record of July
13, 2023, under ``Text of Amendments.'')
========================= END NOTE =========================
Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, this is my amendment that is going to be
voted on here by agreement. It is pretty straightforward. The Federal
Thrift Savings Plan is the largest defined contribution plan in the
world. It has 22 China-only funds. Every single one of them has money
going towards companies that are sanctioned, that are on the Entity
List--companies that are responsible for the human rights violations
against Uighurs; companies that our own government has said are helping
the Chinese build their military--Chinese-sponsored companies. And so
this amendment, basically, is geared towards that. It tells the TSP--
the Thrift Savings Plan--board that they can no longer invest your
money--the money of Members of Congress, members of the military,
Federal employees.
Federal employee retirement money is being invested in companies that
are undermining American national security according to our own
government. We are investing in those.
Think about the irony. You are a member of the military and your
retirement money is being invested in companies that are building
missiles designed to blow up the ship that you serve on.
So if we are serious about this, we need to cut this off. This is not
a ban on Chinese investment. This is a ban on the Thrift Savings Plan
and its money--your money, the investment money of Federal employees--
being used to invest in companies that our own government has placed on
lists for human rights violations and posing a threat to the national
security of the country.
Vote on Amendment No. 523
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
Mr. WICKER. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. SCHUMER. I announce that the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Casey) and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Durbin) are necessarily
absent.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from South Carolina (Mr. Scott).
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennet). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 55, nays 42, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 210 Leg.]
YEAS--55
Barrasso
Blackburn
Boozman
Braun
Britt
Brown
Budd
Capito
Collins
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Ernst
Fischer
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hassan
Hawley
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Johnson
Kennedy
King
Lankford
Lee
Lummis
Manchin
Marshall
McConnell
Moran
Mullin
Murkowski
Peters
Ricketts
Risch
Romney
Rounds
Rubio
Schmitt
Scott (FL)
Shaheen
Sinema
Sullivan
Tester
Thune
Tillis
Tuberville
Vance
Warner
Wicker
Young
NAYS--42
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Cassidy
Coons
Cortez Masto
Duckworth
Feinstein
Fetterman
Gillibrand
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Kaine
Kelly
Klobuchar
Lujan
Markey
Menendez
Merkley
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Paul
Reed
Rosen
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Smith
Stabenow
Van Hollen
Warnock
Warren
Welch
Whitehouse
Wyden
NOT VOTING--3
Casey
Durbin
Scott (SC)
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennet). On this vote, the yeas are 55,
the nays are 42. Under the previous order requiring 60 affirmative
votes for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is not agreed
to.
The amendment (No. 523) was rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
Amendment No. 230
Mr. YOUNG. I call up my amendment No. 230, 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 Indiana [Mr. Young] proposes an amendment
numbered 230.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To ensure that the Department of Defense has received an
unqualified opinion on its financial statements by October 1, 2027)
At the appropriate place in title X, insert the following:
SEC. __. REQUIREMENT FOR UNQUALIFIED OPINION ON FINANCIAL
STATEMENT.
The Secretary of Defense shall ensure that the Department
of Defense has received an unqualified opinion on its
financial statements by October 1, 2027.
Mr. YOUNG. Mr. President, Congress has passed an annual Defense
authorization bill for the past 62 years. This body--both parties--
takes seriously the threats our servicemembers face and the sacrifices
their families make.
To date, the Department of Defense has executed five audits--five
audits. No uniformed service has returned a clean audit, nor have major
offices and agencies within the Office of the Secretary of Defense.
By setting this deadline, we communicate Congress's seriousness on
this issue. We also communicate to the Secretary of Defense that we
believe this should be a priority of his and that we will hold him
responsible for failing to meet this deadline. In 4 years--4 years--we
must have a clean audit.
As the Department undergoes an extensive vital modernization and
seeks to take care of its people, policymakers must be able to debate
and consider the Department's budgetary priorities in a transparent
manner with
[[Page S3727]]
all the facts at our disposal. My cosponsor, Senator King, and I
believe DOD is doing the right things to be able to complete a full,
clean audit in the next 4 years. This amendment serves as a commonsense
communication of intense seriousness and urgency to the Department in a
practical manner.
I urge a ``yes'' vote, and I request a voice vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Vote on Amendment No. 230
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 60-vote
threshold with respect to this amendment be vitiated and we vote by
voice.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 230) was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
Amendment No. 1084
(Purpose: To provide for the settlement of the water rights claims of
the Fort Belknap Indian Community.)
Mr. Daines. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 1084 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 Montana [Mr. DAINES] proposes an amendment
numbered 1084.
(The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of
Amendments.'')
Mr. DAINES. Mr. President, I would like to thank my colleague from
Montana, Senator Tester, and all of those who have worked so hard to
get this home today.
This settles a 100-plus-year battle in Montana. This is the last
Indian water rights settlement for the State of Montana--the Fort
Belknap water rights settlement. It codifies existing water rights,
prevents costly litigation, provides clean drinking water, and invests
in irrigation for farmers and ranchers to provide food for our country.
This bill passed out of committee by a voice vote. It is supported by
the Governor of Montana, by the entire Montana congressional
delegation, the Fort Belknap community, all of the locally affected
counties, including the county commissioners, and our farmers and our
ranchers.
This is truly a win for our State and the country. I ask my
colleagues to support this amendment, and I am going to ask for a voice
vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from Montana.
Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I want to thank Senator Daines for all the
effort he put into this legislation, the Fort Belknap Indian Community
Water Rights Settlement Act. It has been a long time coming, and I want
to take a moment to acknowledge the current leader of the Fort Belknap
Indian Community, President Stiffarm.
President Stiffarm is a courageous leader, and he deserves a
tremendous amount of credit for bringing this bill to the moment we are
at today.
This bill was first introduced by me in 2012. The bipartisan version
that we are voting on today is the result of years of negotiation
between the Tribe, local elected officials, State legislators, Federal
Agencies, and other stakeholders that hammered out a fair compromise
that honors the trust and treaty responsibilities while guaranteeing
water certainty to all water users in North Central Montana through the
rehabilitation of the Milk River Project.
Look, I am a farmer, and I know how critical water is for the health
of communities, for agriculture, and for economic growth. Water is
necessary for our crops, for our businesses, for our homes. We all rely
on it.
For the Fort Belknap Indian Community the work started on this over
100 years ago. In the Senate, we have been debating moving this water
settlement forward for years, and, today, we can make it happen.
I would urge my colleagues to do right by the Tribe by honoring our
trust and treaty responsibilities, and do right by all the folks who
rely on clean water in the Treasure State. And I support Senator
Daines' call for a voice vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Vote on Amendment No. 1084
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 60-vote
threshold be vitiated and that we vote by voice.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 1084) was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Amendment No. 1087
(Purpose: To provide for a managers' package.)
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I believe it is in order now to call up the
managers' package.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Reed], for himself and
Mr. Wicker, proposes an amendment numbered 1087.
(The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of
Amendments.'')
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the clerk will read
the names and sponsors of the amendments.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
Murray No. 205, Cruz No. 188, Reed No. 270, Menendez No.
292, Lankford No. 1082, Klobuchar No. 416, Murkowski No. 411,
Coons No. 475, Grassley No. 484, Schatz No. 555, Ernst No.
506, Cardin No. 701, Ernst No. 508, Merkley No. 740, Rubio
No. 525, Brown No. 761, Sullivan No. 647, Cortez Masto No.
800, Cornyn No. 814, Fetterman No. 825, Kennedy No. 861,
Manchin No. 826, Braun No. 871, Ossoff No. 908, Schmitt No.
906, Padilla No. 910, Graham No. 917, Warner No. 913, Ernst
No. 988, Shaheen No. 928, Lummis No. 1000, Warnock No. 977,
Cotton No. 1015, Kelly No. 985, Risch No. 1017, Wyden No.
1035, Lankford No. 1027, Whitehouse No. 1036, Hoeven No.
1037, Rosen No. 1040, Barrasso No. 1042, Cardin No. 1050, Lee
No. 1051; Sinema No. 1070, Hyde-Smith No. 1064, Peters No.
1043, and Warner No. 1053.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the 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 yeas and nays are ordered.
The Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. WICKER. Does the distinguished chairman wish to speak on the
motion?
Mr. REED. Go ahead.
Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, this represents another degree of
cooperation. This comes to us by unanimous consent. According to the
rules, we must have a vote of the yeas and nays, but we are approaching
the finish line, and out of consideration for those who have travel
plans later tonight, I hope we can stick to the 10-minute rule.
I urge the passage of this important managers' package.
Vote on Amendment No. 1087
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. SCHUMER. I announce that the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Casey) and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Durbin), are necessarily
absent.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from South Carolina (Mr. Scott).
The result was announced--yeas 94, nays 3, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 211 Leg.]
YEAS--94
Baldwin
Barrasso
Bennet
Blackburn
Blumenthal
Booker
Boozman
Braun
Britt
Brown
Budd
Cantwell
Capito
Cardin
Carper
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
Peters
Reed
Ricketts
Risch
Romney
Rosen
Rounds
Rubio
Schatz
[[Page S3728]]
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--3
Markey
Paul
Sanders
NOT VOTING--3
Casey
Durbin
Scott (SC)
The amendment (No. 1087) was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ossoff). The majority leader.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, let me give the order. We are almost
done. We are about to vote.
I first have to do a unanimous consent to vitiate cloture. I am going
to speak on the NDAA bill, on the pages, and yield to Leader McConnell
to follow me, and then we vote.
Unanimous Consent Agreement
So, first, I ask unanimous consent to modify the previous order so
cloture motions with respect to the substitute amendment No. 935, as
amended, and the underlying bill, S. 2226, be withdrawn; that the
Schumer amendment No. 936 be withdrawn; that the substitute amendment
No. 935, as amended, be agreed to; further, that the bill, as amended,
be considered read a third time and the Senate vote on passage of the
bill, as amended, with 60 affirmative votes required for passage; that
the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table
with up to 10 minutes for debate, equally divided, prior to the vote on
passage, with all previous provisions remaining in effect.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I want to thank the Senator from Utah and
the Senator from Maryland for putting forward this critical amendment
ending China's developing nation status.
The ability of countries to take advantage of ``special and
differential treatment'' as it is called in the World Trade
Organization--WTO--to skip out on meaningful obligations and upend the
trade playing field has long concerned me and other members of the
Finance Committee on both sides of the aisle.
While I support the goal of the amendment, the language needs to be
refined to effectively achieve that objective. I want to work with you
in conference to ensure this amendment directs the U.S. Trade
Representative to meaningfully address China's status at the WTO. The
WTO has a unique and, frankly, antiquated form of governance and is
long overdue for significant reform, including its treatment of major
economies like China.
Mr. ROMNEY. I thank the Senator from Oregon. I agree with him that
this amendment is critical.
Congress needs to push the Federal Government on this policy. Our
government must acknowledge the reality that China is no longer a
developing country. I commit to working with the chairman of the
Finance Committee, in good faith, in conference.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, as a strong supporter of U.S. assistance
to Ukraine, I am keenly aware of the important role that appropriate
and effective oversight plays in ensuring that support can continue. I
support independent, effective oversight and believe we should be doing
all that we can to make sure those oversight mechanisms are strong and
that our inspectors general have the resources they need to carry out
their work.
But given that we have an existing framework, given that there are
three inspectors general who have been working day in and out,
effectively, to conduct such oversight, I do not think we should create
new offices and additional layers without evidence that the current
framework is not working. So while I appreciate that my colleagues
share the same goals of ensuring we have robust oversight of U.S.
assistance to Ukraine, I do not agree that these amendments are the
best way to achieve that goal.
The Wicker amendment would create a new office that could impede the
work that is ongoing, not enhance it. There is an existing statutory
framework for designating a lead inspector general. I have not heard a
good case for why that framework should not be used here.
The inspectors general from the Department of State, USAID, and
Department of Defense have been on the ground in Ukraine, conducting
work of virtually all U.S. assistance involving multiple Agencies. They
have an established working group that ensures oversight is efficient
and not duplicative. Creating a new office, with the need for new staff
and potentially conflicting roles, would likely make those efforts
less, not more, efficient.
The Paul amendment would add further and unnecessary complexity to
ongoing oversight efforts. It would likely impair ongoing oversight by
drawing personnel away from the inspectors general already engaged in
oversight work. Instead of ramping up current efforts, inspectors
general would spend time deconflicting or sorting out personnel issues.
It is also unclear how an expanded Special Inspector General for
Afghanistan Reconstruction--SIGAR--would successfully pivot to
oversight of Ukraine assistance or how it would an expanded mandate
would be funded.
I am committed to ensuring that we have robust, independent,
effective oversight of all U.S. assistance to Ukraine. But the answer
to ensuring that we have successful mechanisms for such oversight is
not to create new structures and additional layers of bureaucracy. It
is to make sure those who already have the tools, expertise, and
resources to conduct oversight and audit spending, have sufficient
resources to do so, and for us to hold them to account. That is
precisely what I intend to do, and I call on my colleagues in this body
to do the same.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I concur with many of my colleagues
that spending on defense is important to meet our national security
needs and support our allies like Ukraine. My State of Maryland plays
an important role in bolstering national defense, advancing critical
research, and supporting our military, and I strongly support the work
of our bases.
However, it is clear to me that we as a country are not spending our
money wisely. The defense budget has grown considerably and, despite
its size, has not passed an independent audit. Admiral Mike Mullin, the
former Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said in reference to
defense spending that ``with the increasing defense budget, which is
almost double, it hasn't forced us to make the hard trades. It hasn't
forced us to prioritize.''
While I do not believe that across-the-board cuts are ever the best
way to reduce spending, I voted in favor of the Sanders amendment to
send a message that we need to put our defense dollars to much better
use and make the hard choices necessary to right-size our defense
spending.
Mr. KING. Mr. President, I want to say a few words about my vote in
support of the Hawley amendment No. 1058, relating to expansion of the
Radiation Exposure Compensation Act. I voted in favor of this
amendment, but I would like to highlight that an important group is
left out of this expansion: payments to beneficiaries of deceased
individuals who were responsible for cleaning up atomic testing sites.
While this amendment includes payments to beneficiaries of deceased
individuals who qualify under the new Manhattan Project Waste sections,
cleanup veterans are notably left out of such payments to their
beneficiaries upon their passing.
I hope that during the conference process for the underlying bill, we
are able to include this provision to ensure just compensation for
these veterans and their families. If we are not able to include these
veterans during the conference process, I hope to work with my
colleagues to provide benefits to our cleanup veterans as standalone
legislation or through another appropriate, legislative vehicle.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Business Before the Senate
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, it has been a long day but a very
successful day.
The NDAA is a prime example of both sides coming together and
crafting a strong, bipartisan defense bill that will strengthen
America's national security, take care of our servicemembers, and keep
the United States the leader in innovation for years to come.
This was a bipartisan process through and through. I want to thank
[[Page S3729]]
Chairman Reed and Ranking Member Wicker and all the Members for their
good work on this.
A bipartisan process is precisely what the American people are
yearning for in a fractured Congress, Democrats and Republicans coming
together to provide something as critical as our national defense.
The NDAA and the bipartisan process we went through to get here
should be a glimmer of hope for the American people, a sign that
bipartisanship is alive and well in the Senate, but it is not the only
glimmer. We also came together to avert a first-ever default a few
months ago, and we are currently making great progress on the
appropriations bill, where, almost miraculously, under the leadership
of Senator Murphy and Senator Collins, they have advanced all 12 bills
out of committee with bipartisan support.
(Applause.)
I hope what has happened on this bill, the NDAA bill, and these other
bills can be a metaphor for future bills down the road.
These are two of our highest responsibilities--appropriations and
national defense--and we made great progress in these last few months.
It has been a really good Senate that the American people can be proud
of.
It was a good process on and off the floor. Listen to this: 98
amendments. We talk about how we don't do amendments--98; 44 Democrat,
44 Republican, and the rest bipartisan. That is what an NDAA bill
should look like--a full floor process with input and debate from both
sides. As a result, there are many critical provisions in this NDAA
bill as well that we should be proud of.
We made critical downpayments on our effort to outcompete the Chinese
Government by limiting the flow of investment and advanced technology
to China.
We are passing the first piece of legislation related to artificial
intelligence, including important provisions to increase data sharing
with the DOD and increase reporting on AI's use in financial services.
Maybe most important to everyone here aware of this fentanyl crisis,
we are boosting resources in a major way to tackle the fentanyl crisis
by including the FEND Off Fentanyl Act. Senators Brown, Scott, and many
others led to that legislation. This act gives the President more
powers to stop any country--China, Mexico--from sending the precursor
materials that are made into fentanyl to kill our children.
Together, all of these provisions provide a strong foundation for the
safety and security of our country.
One more point. It is in stark contrast to the partisan race to the
bottom we saw in the House. House Republicans should look to the
bipartisan Senate to see how to get things done. We are passing
important bipartisan legislation; they are throwing partisan
legislation on the floor that has no chance of passing. The contrast is
glaring. If the House of Representatives would look at how we are
working here in the Senate and emulate us a little more, they could be
far more productive.
Senate Pages
Mr. President, now on a final note and a serious note. Today is the
final day for this page class. It has been a busy session. The pages
can help make this place run smoothly. They are here when we need them,
and they have served this institution with grace. However, I understand
that late last night, a Member of the House majority thought it
appropriate to curse at some of these young people, these teenagers, in
the Rotunda. I was shocked when I heard about it, and I am further
shocked at his refusal to apologize to these young people.
I can't speak for the House of Representatives, but I do not think
that one Member's disrespect is shared by this body, by Leader
McConnell, and myself.
So I would like to take a moment to thank these pages for their
assistance these many weeks. We wish them well as they return to their
homes and families.
(Applause.)
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the names of the current
pages be printed at the appropriate place in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Amelia Barnum, Claire Erickson, Ava Heaphy, Benjamin Kagan,
Tova Korry, Arav Mehta, Andrew Morgan, Chloe Patricof, Daniel
Ross, Colton Sorce, Angela Valle-Rivera, Evangeline Enright,
Christopher Freshwater, Mila Jolley, Maya Karafotas, Emily
Maikoo, Jack Milroy, Amrutha Nandakumar, Matthew Pollak,
Julia Sandoval, Allison Stoudt, Patrick Willocks Duncan.
Isabella Aversano, Robert Charles Cresanti, Andrew James
Kozeny, Reed Daniel Gray, Mia Solomon, Augusten ``Gus'' James
Sugarman, James Christian Pittman, Owen Peter White, Brady
Patrick Butler, Dorsa Tajvidi, DeLacy Jane Poletti, Madeline
Garcia, Colin Hughes Cole Murkowski, Josee Compton, Evans
O'Brien Reynolds, John Andrew Guyer, Nora Shitandi, Brianna
Elizabeth Schmitz, Maxwell Noah White, Brett Aaron Poggi,
Walker Bryan Coley, Katherine Kaia Wrench.
Mr. SCHUMER. I now turn to Leader McConnell.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I want to associate myself with the
remarks of the majority leader. Everybody on this side of the aisle
feels exactly the same way.
S. 2226
I also want to offer my congratulations to those deeply involved in
passing this important NDAA. We kept our record. This is the 63rd year,
I guess, and a good way to wrap up this session. This is really
important for our country.
Mr. SCHUMER. Thank you, Leader McConnell.
I ask for the yeas and nays on final passage of the NDAA.
Cloture Motions Withdrawn
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the cloture motions
are withdrawn.
Amendment Withdrawn
The amendment (No. 936) was withdrawn.
Amendment No. 935, as Amended
The amendment (No. 935), as amended, was agreed to.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading and was read
a third time.
Vote on S. 2226
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the
question is, Shall the bill pass?
The yeas and nays have been requested.
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 Pennsylvania (Mr.
Casey) and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Durbin) 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. 212 Leg.]
YEAS--86
Baldwin
Barrasso
Bennet
Blackburn
Blumenthal
Boozman
Britt
Brown
Budd
Cantwell
Capito
Cardin
Carper
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
Marshall
McConnell
Menendez
Moran
Mullin
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Peters
Reed
Ricketts
Risch
Romney
Rosen
Rounds
Rubio
Schatz
Schmitt
Schumer
Scott (FL)
Shaheen
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Sullivan
Tester
Thune
Tillis
Tuberville
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Whitehouse
Wicker
Young
NAYS--11
Booker
Braun
Lee
Markey
Merkley
Paul
Sanders
Vance
Warren
Welch
Wyden
NOT VOTING--3
Casey
Durbin
Scott (SC)
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 86, the nays are
11.
The 60-vote threshold having been achieved, the bill, as amended, is
passed.
The bill (S. 2226), as amended, was passed.
(The bill will be printed in a future edition of the Record.)
[[Page S3730]]
____________________