[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.
____________________