[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 179 (Tuesday, October 31, 2023)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5244-S5251]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          LEGISLATIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

     MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, VETERANS AFFAIRS AND RELATED AGENCIES 
                   APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2024--Resumed

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume legislative session and the consideration of H.R. 4366, which 
the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 4366) making appropriations for military 
     construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and related 
     agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2024, and 
     for other purposes.

  Pending:

       Schumer (for Murray/Collins) amendment No. 1092, in the 
     nature of a substitute.


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

  
  On page S5244, October 31, 2023, third column, the following 
appears: Pending: Schumer (for Murray/Collins) amendment No. 1092, 
in the nature of a substitute. Murray motion to suspend rule XVI 
for the consideration of Schumer (for Murray/Collins) amendment 
No. 1092 (listed above) to the bill.
  
  The online Record has been corrected to read: Pending: Schumer 
(for Murray/Collins) amendment No. 1092, in the nature of a 
substitute.


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



  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.


                Amendment No. 1200 to Amendment No. 1092

  Mr. HAWLEY. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 1200, and I ask 
that it be reported by number.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment by number.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Missouri [Mr. Hawley] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1200 to amendment No. 1092.

  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To prohibit the use of funds for providing grants, funding, 
             or any financial benefit to Chinese entities)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. ___. PROHIBITION ON USE OF FUNDS FOR PROVIDING GRANTS, 
                   FUNDING, OR ANY FINANCIAL BENEFIT TO CHINESE 
                   ENTITIES.

       (a) In General.--None of the funds appropriated or 
     otherwise made available by this Act may be used to provide 
     grants, funding, or any financial benefit to any entity, 
     including any corporation, that--
       (1) is organized under the laws of, is headquartered in, or 
     has its principal place of business in the People's Republic 
     of China, including any Special Administrative Region; or
       (2) is subject to the control (as defined in section 
     800.208 of title 31, Code of Federal Regulations (as in 
     effect on the date of enactment of this Act)) of an entity 
     described in paragraph (1).
       (b) Definition of Corporation.--In this section, the term 
     ``corporation''--
       (1) means an entity with the business structure of a 
     corporation, a company, a limited liability company, a 
     limited partnership, a business trust, a business 
     association, or another similar entity; and
       (2) includes any subsidiary or branch of an entity 
     described in paragraph (1).

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2 
minutes for debate, equally divided.
  The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. HAWLEY. Mr. President, the appropriations bills that we are now 
considering appropriate a total of $280 billion--$280 billion--in 
taxpayer money--money that will be used by Agencies ranging from the 
Department of Veterans Affairs to Transportation and Agriculture.
  This amendment does something very simple. Whatever other 
disagreements we may have about the spending in these bills, surely we 
can agree that this money ought to go to Americans and American 
companies and our allies. So all this amendment does is it

[[Page S5245]]

says that none of the money we are appropriating can go to China. It 
can't go to Chinese companies or companies that are owned and 
controlled by China. That is it. It is simple: no American taxpayer 
dollars to the People's Republic of China.
  This should be an easy vote. I urge a ``yes'' vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I want to make clear that I also worry 
about the influence of Chinese entities, but this amendment is not the 
answer. This amendment could have far-reaching, unintended consequences 
that would affect our Agencies' ability to fulfill their missions and 
serve people.
  If this amendment passed, the VA could face challenges in obtaining 
products for essential mission needs, like pharmaceuticals, medical 
devices, and IT.
  This amendment could negatively impact the procurement of meat for 
the school meals programs. For example, Smithfield is owned by a 
Chinese company. This amendment would actually prohibit the USDA from 
purchasing hogs from any U.S.-based farmers owned by Smithfield. Is 
that what we want?
  It could also prevent Americans from understanding the security 
challenges related to Chinese-made drones because this amendment would 
mean the FAA would no longer be able to purchase drones made by Chinese 
entities to conduct critical counter-UAS research, testing analysis, or 
training.
  We should have more time to carefully consider the impact of this 
amendment and the serious, unintended consequences it could have before 
adding it to this legislation.
  I urge a ``no'' vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. HAWLEY. Mr. President, how much time is remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Fifteen seconds.
  Mr. HAWLEY. I would just say, Mr. President, do we want to be buying 
school lunches from China? Do we want to be buying pharmaceuticals from 
China and be dependent on them? I think not. Let's bring these 
resources to the United States of America. Let's fund Americans and 
American companies.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 1200

  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. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Utah (Mr. Lee), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Scott), and 
the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis).
  Further, if present and voting:
  The Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis) would have voted 
``yea.''
  The result was announced--yeas 61, nays 36, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 277 Leg.]

                                YEAS--61

     Baldwin
     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Blackburn
     Boozman
     Braun
     Britt
     Brown
     Budd
     Capito
     Casey
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Cortez Masto
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Ernst
     Fetterman
     Fischer
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagerty
     Hassan
     Hawley
     Hickenlooper
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Klobuchar
     Lankford
     Lujan
     Lummis
     Manchin
     Marshall
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Moran
     Mullin
     Murkowski
     Peters
     Ricketts
     Risch
     Romney
     Rosen
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Schmitt
     Scott (FL)
     Sinema
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Thune
     Tuberville
     Vance
     Wicker
     Young

                                NAYS--36

     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Butler
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Coons
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Gillibrand
     Heinrich
     Hirono
     Kaine
     Kelly
     King
     Markey
     Merkley
     Murphy
     Murray
     Ossoff
     Padilla
     Paul
     Reed
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warnock
     Warren
     Welch
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Lee
     Scott (SC)
     Tillis
  The amendment (No. 1200) was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.


                Amendment No. 1296 to Amendment No. 1092

  Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 1296 and ask that 
it be reported by number.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Texas [Mr. Cruz], for himself and Ms. 
     Lummis, proposes an amendment numbered 1296 to amendment No. 
     1092.

  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To prohibit using funds to pay the salary of an individual 
  who was nominated to the position of Administrator of the National 
    Highway Traffic Safety Administration and whose nomination was 
                        subsequently withdrawn)

        In the matter under the heading ``operations and 
     research'' under the heading ``National Highway Traffic 
     Safety Administration'' in title I of division C, strike the 
     period at the end and insert the following: ``: Provided, 
     That none of the funds made available under this Act may be 
     used to pay the salary of an individual carrying out the 
     responsibilities of the position of Administrator of the 
     National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in an acting 
     or temporary capacity who was nominated to that position and 
     whose nomination was subsequently withdrawn.''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be now 10 
minutes of debate equally divided.
  The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the need to protect 
the Senate's constitutional authority to advise and consent on 
Presidential nominations.
  With his appointment of multiple acting officials to perform senior 
roles that would, otherwise, require confirmation by this body, 
President Biden is deliberately circumventing the Senate and the 
nomination process. In some instances, these are vacancies of President 
Biden's own making. He has routinely nominated individuals with no 
relevant experience to key safety positions. When threatened with the 
rejection of these unqualified nominees, President Biden simply 
withdraws their names from consideration and, instead, installs them in 
Senate-confirmed positions in an acting capacity. Julie Su's tenure as 
the head of the Department of Labor is a notable example. The recently 
reported elevation of Laura Daniel-Davis to Acting Deputy Secretary at 
the Department of the Interior is another.
  But I speak today about yet another case of this gamesmanship at a 
key safety Agency where a rejected nominee has been given the reins--
the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration or NHTSA. Earlier 
this year, President Biden nominated Ann Carlson to be the 
administrator of NHTSA. She is an environmental law professor who has 
written for decades about how unelected bureaucrats should make major 
changes to American society in the name of combating global warming. 
But NHTSA is a safety Agency whose mission it is to make American roads 
safer. It is not the EPA, and Ms. Carlson has zero road-safety 
experience.
  It was immediately obvious to many, including myself, that she was 
not qualified for this position. And in the face of opposition from 
every Republican on the Commerce Committee and dozens of stakeholders 
because of her lack of experience, the President withdrew Ms. Carlson's 
nomination just 2 months after he submitted it.
  President Biden could have followed his withdrawal of Ms. Carlson's 
nomination with the appointment of a qualified individual to lead 
NHTSA. He did just that with the FAA only last month, and that nominee 
was confirmed. But, instead, President Biden turned around and 
appointed Ms. Carlson to the same position in an acting capacity in 
July.
  Promptly thereafter, she led the charge to effectively mandate 
expensive electric vehicles by proposing standards that stretched the 
Agency's authority far beyond what the law allows. And, as my committee 
has uncovered, Ms. Carlson has been involved in helping a for-profit 
law firm file dozens of nuisance suits across the country to try to 
bankrupt American energy companies. Then, when it was pointed out how 
she used her position and law students to help, she tried to cover it 
up.
  The stakes here are significant. Big government mandates for EVs 
threaten to make our Nation less secure, as we rely on supplies 
controlled by China;

[[Page S5246]]

less productive, as autoworkers fear for their jobs; less competitive, 
as automakers seek to stay afloat after unprofitable investments--Ford 
is losing a whopping $36,000 on every single EV sold--and less 
prosperous, as families pay more for cars they don't actually want or, 
even worse, see their tax dollars spent on yet more bailouts.
  Congress must have a role in these kinds of far-reaching policies and 
the officials who implement them. The appointments clause of the 
Constitution is a critical check on Executive power. The Senate must 
protect its prerogative to review the President's nominees to powerful, 
unelected positions in the Federal Government.
  Some important protections already exist in law. The ``Vacancies 
Act'' sets rules for how a President may temporarily fill posts with 
acting officials. One of the restrictions it imposes is that a person 
may not serve as an acting official once the President submits his or 
her nomination to the Senate for the same position. This rule protects 
the Senate's constitutional role. It applies to Ms. Carlson's withdrawn 
nomination, and the limited exceptions to the rule do not allow her to 
serve as the acting head of NHTSA.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. CRUZ. This bill would enforce our advice-and-consent authority.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, this is a personal attack on a public 
servant, and it should be rejected.
  To be clear, Ann Carlson is legally authorized to serve as the Acting 
Administrator of NHTSA under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act. But what 
this amendment would do is set an alarming precedent in the Senate 
that, if you have a political or policy disagreement with a particular 
administration policy, you can take the public servant who is in charge 
of implementing it and take their salary hostage.
  And if the issue is that she hasn't been confirmed by the Senate, 
let's remember that in the last administration we had two different 
Acting Administrators working for months without being Senate 
confirmed, and it is no surprise that the ranking member of the 
Commerce Committee didn't object to them because he agreed with their 
policy.
  It is fine for you to disagree with fuel efficiency incentives. It is 
fine for you to never want to move on from the internal combustion 
engine and to oppose the electric vehicle revolution. That is fine. 
What is not OK is the U.S. Senate coming in and defunding a position of 
an Administrator with whom you disagree.
  And I want you all to think about this, Republicans. I want you all 
to think about this, Democrats. There will be times, as Claire 
McCaskill used to say, that ``the door swings both ways in 
Washington.'' So let's think very carefully about whether we want to 
set a precedent where the U.S. Senate defunds public servants with whom 
we disagree.
  This amendment should be rejected.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 1296

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question 
now occurs on agreeing to amendment No. 1296.
  Mr. CRUZ. 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. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Ossoff) is 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Utah (Mr. Lee), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Scott), and 
the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis).
  Further, if present and voting: the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. 
Tillis) would have voted ``aye.''
  The result was announced--yeas 47, nays 49, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 278 Leg.]

                                YEAS--47

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

                                NAYS--49

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

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Lee
     Ossoff
     Scott (SC)
     Tillis
  The amendment (No. 1296) was rejected.
  (Mr. LUJAN assumed the Chair.)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hickenlooper). The Senator from Maine.


                Amendment No. 1349 to Amendment No. 1092

  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I call up Senator Blackburn's amendment 
No. 1349, and I ask that it be reported by number.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report by number.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Maine [Ms. Collins], for Mrs. Blackburn, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1349 to amendment No. 1092.

  The amendment is as follows:

     (Purpose: To withhold Federal funding from the Department of 
  Transportation for awarding any Federal assistance to entities from 
  certain foreign countries for projects related to unmanned aircraft 
                    systems, and for other purposes)

       At the appropriate place in division C, insert the 
     following:
       Sec. ___.  None of the funds made available by this Act for 
     the Federal Aviation Administration related to unmanned 
     aircraft systems may be used to make awards to any entity 
     that, after the date of enactment of this Act, intends to use 
     such funds to partner with or otherwise transact business 
     related to unmanned aircraft systems with the People's 
     Republic of China, the Russian Federation, the Islamic 
     Republic of Iran, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, 
     the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, or the Republic of 
     Cuba. No such entity may receive awards for any project 
     related to unmanned aircraft systems if the entity is:
       (1) included on the Consolidated Screening List maintained 
     by the Under Secretary of Commerce for International Trade;
       (2) domiciled in the People's Republic of China, the 
     Russian Federation, the Islamic Republic of Iran, the 
     Democratic People's Republic of Korea, the Bolivarian 
     Republic of Venezuela, or the Republic of Cuba;
       (3) subject to influence or control by the government of 
     the People's Republic of China, the Russian Federation, the 
     Islamic Republic of Iran, the Democratic People's Republic of 
     Korea, the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, or the Republic 
     of Cuba; or
       (4) owned by the People's Republic of China, the Russian 
     Federation, the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Democratic 
     People's Republic of Korea, the Bolivarian Republic of 
     Venezuela, or the Republic of Cuba.
       Sec. ___.  None of the funds made available by the Act for 
     the Federal Aviation Administration related to unmanned 
     aircraft systems may be used by the Secretary of 
     Transportation to operate an unmanned aircraft system or to 
     enter into, extend, or renew a contract for the procurement 
     of an unmanned aircraft system or a contract with an entity 
     that operates an unmanned aircraft system in the performance 
     of any Department of Transportation contract if the unmanned 
     aircraft system is manufactured by an entity that is included 
     on the Consolidated Screening List maintained by the Under 
     Secretary of Commerce for International Trade, domiciled in 
     the People's Republic of China, the Russian Federation, the 
     Islamic Republic of Iran, the Democratic People's Republic of 
     Korea, the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, or the Republic 
     of Cuba, subject to influence or control by the government of 
     any such country, or owned by any such country unless--
       (1) the operation, procurement, or contracting action is 
     for the purpose of--
       (A) detection or counter-UAS system surrogate testing and 
     training (including at Federal Aviation Administration-
     approved testing sites);
       (B) intelligence, electronic warfare, cybersecurity, and 
     information warfare operations, testing (including at Federal 
     Aviation Administration-approved testing sites), analysis, 
     and training; or
       (C) research to inform unmanned aircraft system data-driven 
     policy decisions, safety assessments, procedures, rulemaking, 
     and

[[Page S5247]]

     standards to safely integrate emerging entrants into the 
     national airspace system (including at Federal Aviation 
     Administration-approved testing sites); and
       (2) the Secretary of Transportation, on a case-by-case 
     basis, certifies in writing to the Secretary of Homeland 
     Security, the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
     Transportation of the Senate, and the Committee on 
     Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of 
     Representatives that such operation, procurement, or 
     contracting action is required in the public interest.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 1349

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1349) was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.


                Amendment No. 1243 to Amendment No. 1092

  Mr. BUDD. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 1243, and I ask 
that it be reported by number.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report by number.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Budd] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1243 to amendment No. 1092.

  The amendment is as follows:

    (Purpose: To prohibit the use of funds to implement or enforce 
                         Executive Order 14019)

       At the appropriate place in division A, insert the 
     following:

     SEC. ___. PROHIBITION ON USE OF FUNDS TO IMPLEMENT EXECUTIVE 
                   ORDER 14019.

       None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available 
     by this division may be used to implement or enforce 
     Executive Order 14019 (86 Fed. Reg. 13623; relating to 
     promoting access to voting).
       At the appropriate place in division B, insert the 
     following:

     SEC. ___. PROHIBITION ON USE OF FUNDS TO IMPLEMENT EXECUTIVE 
                   ORDER 14019.

       None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available 
     by this division may be used to implement or enforce 
     Executive Order 14019 (86 Fed. Reg. 13623; relating to 
     promoting access to voting).
       At the appropriate place in division C, insert the 
     following:

     SEC. ___. PROHIBITION ON USE OF FUNDS TO IMPLEMENT EXECUTIVE 
                   ORDER 14019.

       None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available 
     by this division may be used to implement or enforce 
     Executive Order 14019 (86 Fed. Reg. 13623; relating to 
     promoting access to voting).

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. BUDD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for up to 3 minutes 
of debate equally divided prior to the scheduled rollcall vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BUDD. Mr. President, on his 47th day as President, Joe Biden 
signed an Executive order directing the head of every Federal Agency to 
submit a plan for their Agency to promote voter registration and voter 
participation.
  The problem is that the order also mandates that all Federal Agencies 
partner with approved third-party organizations to provide these 
services on Federal Agency property across the Nation. Determining 
which third-party organizations will be approved, by whom, and based on 
what criteria is missing from the order.
  In spite of congressional oversight attempts and Freedom of 
Information Act lawsuits, the Biden administration has refused to 
release copies of these Agency plans. The prospect of the Biden 
administration writing their own rules and using taxpayer money to 
partner with liberal ``get out the vote'' organizations is wildly 
inappropriate.
  As a matter of principle, I don't believe that the Federal Government 
should be using official taxpayer resources to advance partisan 
politics. Further, mandating that every Federal Agency engage in 
election engineering on the taxpayers' dime raises serious ethical and 
legal concerns. Simply put, this Executive order is further 
weaponization of the Federal Government's power to boost one side of 
the aisle over the another.
  My amendment would defund this ethically and legally dubious scheme 
and restore faith in our elections.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, interesting in our democracy: two 
different political parties and two different attitudes toward 
registration and voting.
  Many of us on this side of the aisle believe that expanding the 
number of voters makes the democracy stronger. So does President Biden. 
His Executive order was a message to the Agencies: Help where you can 
to help with voter registration and to make sure that voting is 
accessible to Americans across the board.
  Example: They decided that VA health facilities would be registration 
sites for disabled veterans. Does that sound like some radical idea? It 
sounds to me like common sense.
  That is the kind of thing we should support, and I urge my colleagues 
to vote against this amendment.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 1243

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  Mr. BUDD. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner) is 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Utah (Mr. Lee), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Scott), the 
Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis), and the Senator from Ohio 
(Mr. Vance).
  Further, if present and voting: the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. 
Tillis) would have voted ``yea'' and the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Vance) 
would have voted ``yea.''
  The result was announced--yeas 45, nays 50, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 279 Leg.]

                                YEAS--45

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

                                NAYS--50

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

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Lee
     Scott (SC)
     Tillis
     Vance
     Warner
  The amendment (No. 1243) was rejected.
  (Mr. MARKEY assumed the Chair.)
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Iowa.
  Ms. ERNST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 
6 minutes on my amendment.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                Amendment No. 1177 to Amendment No. 1092

  Ms. ERNST. Mr. President, I call up my amendment, No. 1177, and ask 
that it be reported by number.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report the amendment 
by number.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Iowa [Ms. Ernst] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1177 to amendment No. 1092.

  The amendment is as follows:

   (Purpose: To require reporting regarding telework by employees of 
    agencies funded under the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. 4. REPORTING REGARDING TELEWORK.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section, the terms ``employee'', 
     ``locality pay area'', ``locality rate'', and ``official 
     worksite'' have the meanings given those terms in section 
     531.602 of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations.
       (b) Reporting Requirement.--Not later than 30 days after 
     the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary for each 
     agency funded under division A, division B, or division C of 
     this Act shall submit to Congress a report containing--

[[Page S5248]]

       (1) the number of employees of the agency or department 
     who, based upon information technology login information, 
     office swipe-ins, and other measurable and observable 
     factors, perform the majority of their working hours in a 
     locality pay area with a lower locality rate than the 
     locality rate for the locality pay area in which the official 
     worksite of the employee is located, but continue to receive 
     the higher locality rate associated with the official 
     worksite of the employee;
       (2) the cost savings that would be achieved by adjusting 
     the locality rate for employees described in paragraph (1) to 
     be the locality rate for the locality pay area in which the 
     employees perform the majority of their working hours;
       (3) the actions the agency or department has taken to audit 
     and adjust the locality rates for employees with a telework 
     agreement to account for the location from which the 
     employees perform the majority of their working hours;
       (4) as of the date of enactment of this Act, the actions 
     the agency or department has taken to ensure oversight and 
     quality control of remote work;
       (5) any additional steps the agency or department is 
     considering taking to improve oversight and quality control 
     of remote work;
       (6) the typical daily onsite attendance in the office 
     buildings of the agency or department, as a proportion of the 
     total workforce of the agency or department;
       (7) any guidance, initiatives, or other incentives in 
     effect to entice the employees of the agency or department to 
     return to working from the office buildings of the agency or 
     department;
       (8) a description of the instances in which the agency or 
     department has exercised the authority under paragraph (2) of 
     section 531.605(d) of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations to 
     waive the twice-in-a-pay-period standard under paragraph (1) 
     of such section;
       (9) the number of exceptions to the exercises of authority 
     described in paragraph (8) that have been revoked during each 
     month beginning on or after July 1, 2021;
       (10) as of the date of enactment of this Act, the number of 
     employees for whom an exception described in paragraph (8) 
     remains in effect;
       (11) a discussion of the monetary and environmental cost of 
     maintaining underutilized space for the agency or department, 
     in terms of energy use and carbon emissions;
       (12) any steps the agency or department is taking or 
     planning to take on or before the date that is 30 days after 
     the date of enactment of this Act to reduce underutilization 
     of building and office space; and
       (13) the impacts of telework on the delivery of services 
     and response times, including any increase or decrease in 
     backlogs relative to the backlog as of March 1, 2020.

  Ms. ERNST. Mr. President, thousands of calls to the VA from veterans 
seeking mental health care went unanswered over the past year, and that 
was just at the Atlanta VA.
  One veteran in the midst of a mental health crisis called 10 times 
over a 3-month period and could not get the care she needed, much less 
anyone to answer her calls, so she ended up in an emergency room. Other 
veterans who made VA appointments say their therapists didn't even show 
up.
  Meanwhile, a manager at the Atlanta VA responsible for overseeing the 
scheduling of veterans' appointments actually called in to a meeting 
from a bubble bath and posted this selfie on social media with the 
caption:

       My office for the next hour.

  Another VA staffer lamented:

       It's almost as if this employee is making a mockery of all 
     the veterans. I can sit here in my tub and relax, and you 
     just have to wait.

  And that is exactly what is happening.
  While this bill provides nearly $320 billion for the VA, what good is 
it to give the Agency all of this money if the VA isn't even answering 
the phone or showing up for appointments with our veterans?
  This isn't just a problem at the VA either. Desperate travelers are 
waiting hours on the phone or in line, hoping to speak with someone at 
the State Department about passport delays that are causing vacation 
cancelations, and seniors calling the Social Security Administration 
are increasingly having their calls go unanswered altogether as the 
Agency shifts toward remote work.
  Frustrated Americans are sick and tired of being put on hold while 
many Federal employees are phoning it in, ``working'' from home.
  In his 2022 State of the Union Address, President Biden pledged that 
``the vast majority of Federal workers will once again work in 
person.'' A year and a half later, government employee unions are still 
fighting off efforts to bring their bureaucrats back.
  Only one out of every three bureaucrats is fully back in the office, 
according to a recent Office of Personnel Management survey. Some said 
they never report to a physical office.
  Seventy-five percent or more of the office space at the headquarters 
of most Federal Agencies is not even being used. Taxpayers are picking 
up the cost of maintaining these mostly empty buildings.
  If Federal employees can't be found at their desks, exactly where are 
they? The work locations of over 281,000 employees were redacted by the 
Biden administration to a Freedom of Information request filed by the 
nonprofit group Open The Books.
  Well, folks, time is up for Biden's game of bureaucrat hide-and-seek. 
I am offering an amendment making the Biden administration account for 
the location of every bureaucrat who works for the VA and every other 
Department funded by this bill. My amendment also requires taxpayers to 
be told the financial and environmental costs of maintaining empty 
offices and the impact remote work is having on veterans' care and the 
response times of other government services.
  To all of my Senate colleagues, don't claim that you are taking care 
of veterans just because there is a spending increase for the VA in 
this bill. We need to work together to ensure that the VA is actually 
showing up and caring for our veterans.
  My amendment will provide some much needed accountability to monitor 
if that is happening. Our veterans answered the call of duty. Now it is 
time for Federal employees to do the same.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I oppose the Ernst telework amendment 
because, in general, it imposes an overly burdensome reporting 
requirement for Agencies--without providing additional resources--both 
because of the very short time allotted--30 days--and the vague 
language used to outline the reporting requirements. The amendment 
includes multiple, undefined terms, some of which do not appear in 
title 5--for example, ``majority of work hours''. Further, there are no 
parameters outlining the period of time that should be represented in 
the data being reported. As such, Agencies would have significant 
challenges defining and providing what data is actually being sought.
  This reporting requirement also does not take into consideration the 
state of the workforce as some Agencies have a substantial number of 
staff that do not report to a ``building'' on a routine basis because 
of the nature of their mission, such as some law enforcement officers 
and those who work in disaster relief. Again, per the above comment, 
many employees legitimately reporting to and performing routine work 
will not be captured, skewing data, and generating lower counts. 
Additionally, there are more technical challenges with the amendment 
language. For example, subsection (b)(8) does not describe an Agency's 
authority in 5 CFR 531.605(d)(2) correctly.
  To summarize, the vague nature of this language and the lack of 
context and consideration for the varying nature of positions across 
the workforce would result in reports that do not accurately convey the 
nature of telework and remote work across the Federal Government.
  I received comments from three of the largest Federal employee unions 
opposing the Ernst amendment. Here is what I heard from the 
International Federal of Professional and Technical Engineers, IFPTE:

       This amendment seems duplicative in some parts and counter 
     to what is required by the Telework Enhancement Act of 2010. 
     It asks agencies to consider and report actions that, if 
     taken, would require agencies to violate current legal 
     standards and regulations. The Telework Enhancement Act of 
     2010 also requires agencies to design telework programs that 
     ``do not diminish employee performance or agency 
     operations.'' By definition, agencies (and unions, when 
     bargained) must create programs that work for employees and 
     agencies. Not working on-site does not mean not working.
       (b)(1) is highly burdensome for agencies--For employees 
     with management-approved telework agreements, the Office of 
     Personnel Management (OPM) defines the official worksite/
     official duty station (ODS) as the regular work location to 
     which they are assigned as long as the employee is reporting 
     ``on a regular and recurring basis'' to that worksite. 
     Regular and recurring is defined as at least twice/pay 
     period. So (b)(1) is highly burdensome for agencies and asks 
     agencies to guess and estimate whether legal teleworking 
     ("majority of their working hours'') in the amendment is 
     greater than two days per pay period).
       Agencies are not legally able to carry out the cost savings 
     in (b)(2) and nothing is

[[Page S5249]]

     going to be achieved by the audit in (b)(3). For example, if 
     an agency took action to change the ODS for an employee who 
     teleworks six days per pay period, they would violate OPM 
     regulations. If the agency reduced an employee's salary based 
     on this, the agency would be liable for back pay and 
     attorney's fees for each employee who reported at least twice 
     per pay period per OPM regulations but had their ODS changed. 
     Also, emergency conditions provide exceptions to all of this 
     (the agency head can take any actions necessary for 
     emergencies) so it is not relevant to look at periods under 
     the COVID-19 health and national emergencies.
       The premise of (b)(7) also doesn't make much sense. 
     Employees are not in charge; management is, so employees do 
     not need to be ``enticed'' to the office, they are directed 
     to do so in concert with existing policies.
       Reporting in (b)(7)-(10) may have a chilling effect on 
     telework for employees with disabilities. Many federal 
     employees with disabilities are legally entitled to telework 
     as a reasonable accommodation. In many agencies, federal 
     employees who have maximum telework have difficult personal 
     situations and disabilities and it is often the only way they 
     can remain in federal service.
       Evaluation of environmental concerns related to 
     underutilized space in (b)(11) needs to be balanced. Any 
     evaluation of telework and space utilization needs to 
     consider the increased environmental burden that commuting 
     causes, especially in vehicles with a single occupant. 
     Further, many federal office spaces and worksites have better 
     space utilization due to telework. For example, IFPTE members 
     working for Navy shipyards have more productive office 
     workstations when on-site and when working from home, whereas 
     prior to the current telework levels, these employees were in 
     uncomfortably tight cubicles and constrained office spaces.

  Here is what I heard from the National Treasury Employees Union, 
NTEU:

       The Ernst amendment seeks to obstruct well developed 
     federal telework programs by using a self-crafted standard 
     contrary to law to determine an employee's post of duty. 
     Telework and remote work initiatives have saved millions in 
     taxpayer dollars and improved productivity in part by better 
     recruitment and retention. Some employees now work remotely 
     full time following a management determination that the 
     nature of the work allows for this. These employees receive 
     locality pay based on the location of their home office. As 
     federal offices tend to be in high-cost central urban 
     centers, these moves generally result in a savings to 
     agencies.
       Teleworking employees are different than remote workers and 
     must, by law, report to their office at least two days per 
     pay period. Travel to and from the office is considered the 
     employee's normal commute with no travel expense obligations 
     by the agency since their official post of duty is their 
     office, not their home, and they do in fact report to that 
     office. Even if they do live outside of the locality pay area 
     it is not fraud, it is just a long commute. The reporting in 
     the amendment also fails to contemplate that many employees 
     work away from the office because of work-related travel that 
     is required by their job (e.g., bank examiners, food and drug 
     inspectors, fraud monitors, etc.).

  And finally, this is what I heard from the American Federation of 
Government Employees, AFGE:

       Please oppose the amendment offered by Sen. Joni Ernst. 
     This amendment would require extensive new reporting from 
     federal agencies, on an unrealistic 30-day timetable, 
     concerning the telework and remote work activities of 
     hundreds of thousands of federal employees. As the nation's 
     largest employer, the federal government is a vast and 
     complex enterprise with millions of employees performing work 
     at offices, remote work sites, telework centers, and in some 
     cases from their homes. Their pay (including locality pay) is 
     governed by longstanding rules promulgated by the Office of 
     Personnel Management (OPM). Senator Ernst has publicly and 
     without evidence accused federal agencies and employees of 
     ``fraud'' in how locality pay is provided for teleworking 
     employees.
       AFGE supports telework and remote work programs where 
     appropriate, though the majority of our members--who include 
     healthcare workers, law enforcement officers, border patrol 
     agents, and transportation security officers--never 
     teleworked even during the height of the pandemic. We support 
     programs to evaluate and measure the effectiveness of 
     telework and remote work arrangements, and we believe such 
     efforts will show that these workplace flexibilities are 
     critical for maintaining a high-performing federal workforce 
     that can compete with the private sector for the best talent.
       The Ernst amendment duplicates almost verbatim a series of 
     recent requests from Senator Ernst to dozens of agency 
     inspectors general (OIG) to report on the same questions. 
     These OIG requests were made less than three weeks ago. 
     Moreover, the requests were premised in part on a single 
     report of an alleged poor performer at the U.S. Patent & 
     Trademark Office that occurred in 2014, nearly a decade ago. 
     Furthermore, the amendment conflates and confuses remote 
     work, where an employee is assigned full-time to a remote 
     duty station that may be far from agency offices, with 
     telework, where under existing OPM rules employees must 
     report to an office twice per pay period. In either case, 
     existing rules govern locality pay and there is no evidence 
     of widespread misapplication of these rules.

  It is for all of these reasons that I oppose the Ernst amendment.
  Ms. ERNST. Mr. President, I know of no further debate on my 
amendment.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there further debate?
  If not, the question occurs on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1177) was agreed to.
  I yield floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my chief of 
staff, Jon Donenberg, be allowed to join me on the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                        Tribute to Jon Donenberg

  Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize an extraordinary 
public servant who is leaving my office for a new role.
  Jon Donenberg has been one of my most trusted senior advisers since 
2011, when I first ran for the U.S. Senate. After his stint advising me 
on policy during the 2012 campaign, I asked Jon to serve as my first 
legislative director in my Senate office. Jon was my LD for 6 years, 
then senior adviser and policy director for Warren for President, and, 
for the last 4 years, he has served as my chief of staff.
  After nearly a dozen years of working together, I have come to know 
Jon pretty well. So I can say with some authority that he is one of the 
best policy nerds and sharpest minds on economic policy in the 
business.
  When I arrived in the Senate, I knew more than pretty much anybody 
else in the world about a very specific slice of commercial law. I also 
spent a lot of time thinking about how middle-class families were 
getting crushed by an economy that didn't work for them and thinking 
through how to fix it. And this was a good a start. But being a Senator 
means doing work on a much, much broader range of issues.
  Jon was the person I turned to for counsel as I developed that 
broader agenda, drawing on his deep expertise with policy, his facility 
for digging into data, and his formidable technical training. Also, 
importantly, Jon has good values--the longstanding belief that 
government is here to serve not the richest and most powerful, not 
those who can hire armies of lobbyists and lawyers, but here to serve 
the people who are trying to build a future for themselves and their 
families.
  Jon and I were a good match, and, when I say that, I am not saying 
that we always saw our next moves the same way. But he has a lightning-
quick mind, a staggering command of both domestic and foreign policy 
topics, and instincts honed by years of working in Congress, and those 
qualities allowed him to see around corners I didn't even know existed. 
He is good with numbers, and he has never been afraid to change his 
mind based on what the data has shown him.
  Our relationship has always been energetic. Jon hasn't been afraid to 
tangle with me when he thought I was getting something wrong. He would 
tell me I was making a mistake, and I would tell him he didn't know 
what he was talking about. We would size each other up, and I would 
start lobbing fastballs at him, just like I was back in the classroom, 
trying to figure out if a student had done reading and was on solid 
ground in their arguments.
  Jon, of course, has always, always done the reading. He would grab 
those fastballs out of the air and zing them back at me with a spin, 
often highlighting an aspect to the issue I had failed to consider.
  Sometimes, I would try a new angle and play the devil's advocate to 
see if he could defend his position, back and forth, until I had--often 
in the space of 10 or 15 minutes--pressure-tested an argument more 
thoroughly than seemed possible. Now, I am not saying Jon won all of 
those arguments, but I would give him a 50-50 lifetime record, which is 
pretty respectable in my book. And I would also say this: 100 percent 
of the time, my thinking about an issue got deeper and sharper as a 
result of running my views through the gauntlet of Jon's scrutiny.

[[Page S5250]]

  Given all of these attributes, it should come as no surprise that Jon 
had a very specialized skill that is rarely employed among adults 
outside elected office: Jon was a wiz at debate prep. He has worked 
with me and several other Senators during our races, helping candidates 
prepare for preelection debates. He put all of us through our paces, 
forcing us to confront the frustration--and the opportunities--of 
butting heads with our opponents, and doing it in 1-minute chunks. For 
all of us who managed to survive those debates far better than we 
expected, we owe Jon our thanks.

  When he came to work for me, Jon brought with him years of experience 
in Congress. Before joining my office, Jon served as chief counsel to 
Senator Richard Blumenthal. Before then, he served as a health law 
advisor to Representative Henry Waxman on the House Oversight and 
Government Reform Committee and the House Energy and Commerce 
Committee.
  I asked Henry Waxman for a few words about Jon, and he had this to 
say:

       Jon started his congressional career as a precocious young 
     staffer in my office working on the Affordable Care Act. He's 
     leaving Senator Warren's staff as a veteran chief of staff 
     with many distinguished legislative accomplishments. What's 
     been constant is the gratitude and respect he has earned from 
     everyone who has been lucky enough to work with him along the 
     way.

  Jon's first experience working in Congress has a special resonance 
for me: Jon was a legal fellow for Senator Ted Kennedy, the senior 
Senator from Massachusetts who served for 47 years in the seat I now 
hold. I think Senator Kennedy would be pleased to know that the young 
man he first brought in for work in the Federal legislature ended up 
contributing so much to this work.
  There is one more aspect of Jon's leadership that I want to make sure 
to highlight. He is a dedicated mentor who has trained scores of policy 
staffers in how to make this country work better for families who don't 
always have someone in government looking out for them. Year after 
year, I have observed as Jon invests in the staff on my team and 
throughout government--supporting them, teaching them, and challenging 
them, and always, always, always making them better at what they do.
  Congress is a hard place to work in, in a lot of ways. Jon often 
tells me that trying to make change by working in the Senate can feel a 
lot like running face-first into a brick wall, over and over and over 
again. You have to keep standing up and sprinting back at the wall 
because, even though history suggests you are going to smack right into 
it, just like last time, the only way you will ever smash through the 
bricks is by taking one more run at it.
  Jon is the kind of colleague who makes you want to take one more run 
at knocking down the wall that has never been knocked down before--the 
one who will help you dust yourself off and then sprint along beside 
him.
  I have watched as these staffers who Jon has trained have transformed 
from eager, gifted beginners into seasoned strategists. Jon and I have 
stood proudly, side by side, as we have seen them leave our office and 
take their talents to go make change somewhere else. Jon's commitment 
to mentorship means that today we have more dedicated public servants 
doing topnotch work all around the country and doing it better because 
of their time learning from him.
  Now Jon is the one who is taking his talents to another public 
service post. He is headed to the White House to serve as Deputy 
Director of the National Economic Council. I know Jon will bring with 
him to this position an abiding commitment to helping working families, 
as well as one of the best policy brains in the business.
  One last note: Jon is a good man. He is honest. He is principled. He 
is generous. He is funny. He cares about people. He loves his family 
deeply, and he is always there for his friends. He tries to live his 
life every day according to deeply held moral values. I admire him.
  So, Jon, I am grateful down to my toes for the years that we have 
worked together. I will miss having you by my side, but I know that the 
President, the Nation, and the world will be better off because of the 
challenges you will help tackle in this new role. Thank you for your 
work, both past and present and future. Thank you.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Maine.
  Mr. KING. Mr. President, first, I would like to ask unanimous consent 
that my senior colleague and I from Maine may engage in a colloquy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             Maine Shooting

  Mr. KING. Mr. President, I have often asked, particularly around 
here, why Maine is so special, why I am so passionate about it, why 
Maine people are always so connected to our State, no matter where they 
may roam. And I always have the same answer: that Maine is a big small 
town, with very long streets. We know each other. We care about each 
other.
  There is a fabric of our community that is a beloved community, and 
we go through storms, and we go through all of the vicissitudes of life 
together, supporting one another and caring about one another.
  A week ago, there was a tear in the fabric of our community. A lone 
gunman visited two places, a bowling alley and a bar and grill, and 
killed 18 people--18 innocent, beautiful people--and injured another 
13.
  We are going to have a lot of time around here to talk about policy 
and what to do about this problem and what our policies can and should 
be. But, tonight, my colleague and I simply want to remember the people 
who lost their lives last Wednesday night in Lewiston, ME.
  Lewiston is a microcosm of that Maine community. It is a community 
where people are close, where they know one another, where they grew up 
together. It is a diverse community. It was largely formed over 100 
years ago by immigrants coming to this country by Canada. It is one of 
the most vital and vibrant communities in our State.

  I now want to ask my colleague for her thoughts. And she and I are 
going to remember those that we lost.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, let me first thank Senator King for 
inviting me to join him in this colloquy this evening. Tonight, we 
honor and remember our fellow Mainers who lost their lives in a 
senseless tragedy, a senseless act of violence, as well as those who 
were wounded in this heinous attack. We also remember the family 
members and the loved ones who grieve for them.
  We want to recognize the people of this proud community of Lewiston 
who have rallied together to support each other during these dark and 
difficult days: first responders; law enforcement; healthcare 
providers, especially at Central Maine Medical Center; businesses and 
community members who provided food for law enforcement; State and 
local officials; Federal agents. So many people deserve our thanks.
  Those efforts and more will be acknowledged by the city of Lewiston 
tomorrow as it hosts an Act of Kindness and Gratitude Day. The city 
intends for this to be an annual occasion for the community to come 
together and celebrate the spirit of kindness and unity which 
characterizes our wonderful State.
  As the phrase ``Lewiston strong'' echoes across our State and our 
country, the grit, resolve, and compassion of the people of Lewiston 
have rallied and inspired the Nation.
  No words can diminish the pain, shock, and understandable anger felt 
by the families who lost loved ones. Nevertheless, it is my hope that 
they will find solace and strength in knowing that they are in the 
hearts of so many. As my colleague from Maine has just said, Maine, in 
many ways, is a small town, a place of caring communities where people 
know their neighbors.
  One of my staffers in my Lewiston office knew 9 of the 18 people who 
lost their lives that horrible day.
  Members of the close-knit deaf community had gathered at a local 
restaurant to play cornhole that night. Four members of that community 
lost their lives in the attack. One of the family members taught me the 
American sign language symbol for ``I love you.'' It reminds me of this 
proverb:

       Death leaves a heartache no one can heal; love leaves a 
     memory that no one can steal.

  In their memory, let us support one another through this difficult 
grieving period and hope for brighter days.

[[Page S5251]]

  Senator King and I will now read the names of those who lost their 
lives: Tricia Asselin. Tricia, age 53, was a part-time employee at 
Just-In-Time Recreation and was fatally shot while calling 9-1-1. She 
was a mother who worked three jobs, an accomplished athlete, and a 
terrific volunteer.
  Peyton Brewer-Ross. Peyton, 40, was a new father and a pipefitter at 
Bath Iron Works. He enjoyed playing cornhole and often brought beanbags 
to family gatherings, according to his brother. He was described as the 
life of the party.
  William Frank Brackett. William was 48. He was part of the gathering 
of deaf people who were playing cornhole. He was known for his ability 
to help place those who were deaf in the workplace. He had just 
celebrated his third wedding anniversary with his wife in August and 
leaves behind a 2\1/2\-year-old daughter.
  Thomas Ryan Conrad. Thomas, 34, was manager of Just-In-Time 
Recreation and was an Army veteran who served tours in Iraq. He had 
just returned to the State of Maine to be closer to his daughter. And 
he was one of the brave individuals who attempted to stop the shooter.
  Michael Deslauriers. Michael was fatally shot while trying to rush 
the gunman at Just-In-Time Recreation. His close friend Jason Walker 
was also killed in the bowling alley. The two men made sure that their 
wives and children were under cover before charging at the killer.
  Maxx Hathaway. Maxx was 35 and a stay-at-home father. He and his wife 
were expecting their third child in a little more than a month. He was 
described as a ``goofy, down to earth person'' who always had an 
``uplifting attitude no matter what was going on.'' He was working on 
completing his degree in business administration at the University of 
Southern Maine.
  Bryan MacFarlane. Bryan, 41, had recently moved back to Maine to be 
closer to his mother. He was playing in the cornhole tournament for the 
deaf community at the restaurant and bar. He loved the outdoors and was 
one of the first deaf people in Vermont to earn his commercial driver's 
license. He was often accompanied on the road by his beloved dog, M&M.
  Keith Macneir. Keith Macneir was 64 and lived in Florida. He was 
visiting Maine to celebrate his 64th birthday with his son. He most 
recently worked as chief of maintenance at the Virgin Islands National 
Park.

  Ronald Morin. Ronald, 55, was a dedicated husband and father, too, 
and was described by his family and friends as having an ``infectious 
personality.'' He was a sales merchandiser for Coca-Cola and was an 
avid cornhole player.
  Now Senator King will resume the reading of the rest of those who 
lost their lives.
  Mr. KING. Senator Collins mentioned that one of the most poignant 
parts of this tragedy was there were four members of the Maine deaf 
community who happened to be at this restaurant playing cornhole--
recreation, having fun.
  One of them was Joshua Seal. He was 36 years old, a member of the 
deaf community who regularly went to the bar and grill to play 
cornhole. During the pandemic, this gentleman served as the American 
Sign Language interpreter for the head of our CDC who had press 
conferences practically every day. He became one of the best-known 
people in Maine. He was a director of interpreting services. He 
coordinated summer camps for the deaf and hard of hearing, and he was 
the father to four children.
  Arthur Strout, 42, was playing pool--imagine, playing pool at a bar 
and grill with his father. The father, blessedly, left before the 
shooting occurred. Arthur was the husband and father of five children, 
described as a ``Christmas person'' who started decorating for 
Christmas around Halloween.
  Steve Vozzella, 45, was a letter carrier for the U.S. Postal Service 
and also an active member of the deaf community--a letter carrier, 
mailman. He was playing in the cornhole tournament for the deaf at the 
restaurant when the shooting happened. He was the father of two and was 
preparing to celebrate his 1-year anniversary with his wife next month.
  Lucille Violette, 73, was a valued member of the business office at 
the Lewiston public schools. She was well-known in the community. She 
worked in the community for over 52 years. She was fatally shot 
alongside of her husband, Bob Violette, at the bowling alley.
  Bob Violette was 76. He was a dedicated volunteer coach in a youth 
bowling league. He was shot and died along with his wife while out for 
a night of bowling.
  Joseph Lawrence Walker, 57, was the manager of the bar and grill. His 
father is a city counselor in Auburn. He recounted that his son's final 
moments were spent trying to save lives during the shooting.
  Jason Adam Walker. Jason Walker, 51, was a father and husband who was 
shot at the bowling alley. His close friend Michael Deslauriers was 
also killed when the two of them charged the gunman to try to make 
others safe. As my colleague mentioned, he made sure their wives and 
children were safe before they took their last risk.
  William Young--Bill Young--44. Auto mechanic, father to a 14-year-old 
son. He was described as the rock of the family. And perhaps most 
poignantly, that 14-year-old son, Aaron, was also killed. He was a high 
school honor student, proud of his grades, avid bowler. And he lost his 
life that night in this tragedy.
  Senator Collins and I, on Sunday night, were at a vigil at the 
magnificent Catholic basilica in Lewiston. There were well over a 
thousand people in that church. When we went outside afterwards, there 
were well over a thousand on a cold night in Maine, watching and 
listening to the service.
  One of the most poignant moments in the service for me was when a 
member of the deaf community gave his address in sign language, and it 
was the reverse of what we usually see where a person is speaking and 
there is an interpreter. In this case, the person was giving the signs, 
and the interpreter was giving us the words that we could hear. One of 
the signs was this. It means love. There is another sign in American 
Sign Language for love. It is this.
  This community will never recover from this tragedy, but it will 
heal. But it will only heal as long as we remember and understand that 
this was a tragedy. And we have to resolve ourselves to move forward to 
find a way to prevent tragedies like this and to always remember those 
people that gave their lives on a night of fun, on a night of 
recreation, on a night when there was no expectation of such an event 
occurring. We just have to remember all of these wonderful people, 
these beloved people that we lost that night.
  We love Lewiston. We love the State of Maine. And we will always 
remember, not only the events of that night, but these beloved people 
of Maine.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kelly). The majority leader.

                          ____________________