[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 180 (Wednesday, November 1, 2023)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5269-S5284]
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 PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of H.R. 4366, which the clerk will report.
  The senior assistant 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.


                   RECOGNITION OF THE MAJORITY LEADER

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Welch). The majority leader is recognized.


                         Military Appointments

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, so last night, I filed cloture on 
President Biden's nominees to serve as Chief of Naval Operations and 
Chief of Staff to the Air Force, the remaining vacancies on the Joint 
Chiefs of Staff which we said we would fill. We will move on these 
critical military appointments soon here on the floor.
  I also filed on the nomination of Lieutenant General Mahoney to be 
second in command of the U.S. Marine Corps. His appointment has become 
urgent because this weekend the Commandant of the Marines, Gen. Eric 
Smith, was unexpectedly hospitalized after a serious medical emergency. 
Now, normally, Lieutenant General Mahoney would have been able to 
immediately step in to temporarily serve as Commandant. But, 
unfortunately, because of the blanket holds of just one Senator, 
Senator Tuberville, that cannot happen. The situation at the Marine 
Corps is precisely the kind of avoidable emergency that Senator 
Tuberville has provoked through his reckless holds. Lieutenant General 
Mahoney is one of more than 300 nominees Senator Tuberville is 
currently blocking. So while the Senate will proceed quickly to vote on 
Lieutenant General Mahoney's nomination, these holds cannot and must 
not continue.
  Yesterday, my colleague Senator Reed, the chairman of the Armed 
Services Committee, introduced a resolution that will allow the Senate 
to quickly confirm the nominations that are currently being blocked by 
the Senator from Alabama. The resolution will be referred to the Rules 
Committee; and when the time comes, I will bring it to the floor of the 
Senate for consideration.
  We must--we absolutely must--ensure that our military is fully 
staffed and fully equipped to defend the American people, and it begins 
by confirming these vital nominations that are currently on hold. Every 
day that Senator Tuberville continues his blanket holds, our military 
preparedness is degraded. Our military families--most of whom have 
served decades in the Armed Forces--suffer. Our military appointments 
risk being further ensnared in partisan politics. These nominees must 
be confirmed, and both parties should work together to make sure we 
fulfill our obligation to America's servicemembers.


                           Government Funding

  Mr. President, now on the minibus, for the information of Senators, 
today we will pass the first of three bipartisan appropriations bills: 
Agriculture, MILCON-VA, and T-HUD.
  When these bills pass, they will be the only--I underscore--the only 
bipartisan appropriations bills that have passed either Chamber. These 
bills will make a huge difference for America's farmers, for our 
infrastructure, for housing on our military bases, and for veterans. 
Bipartisanship isn't easy. On the contrary, it is very difficult. But 
here in the Senate, we are making sure

[[Page S5270]]

that the appropriations process is succeeding. I want to thank the good 
work of Chair Murray, Vice Chair Collins, and all the appropriators. 
Passing these appropriations bills today is not just terrific news for 
the country, but an affirmation of what I have said since the start of 
the year: The only way to get things done in a divided government is 
bipartisanship.
  The House is going through a futile exercise in passing partisan 
appropriations bills that have no input or support from Democrats. They 
are going nowhere. The House ought to learn its lesson. The Speaker 
ought to understand that the 30 hard-right people should not be 
dictating what the entire House or the entire country does. Those bills 
are filled with poison pills. They break the agreement and cut below 
the agreement that we made when we wanted to avoid the debt from being 
not fulfilled, and they are nowhere.
  On the other hand, the Senate has bipartisan bills. And that is the 
real difference here. Sooner or later, the House and the new Speaker 
will learn the lesson: If you don't do it bipartisan, it ain't getting 
done. The Senate has been a strong model for how bipartisanship can 
work, even amidst the deep disagreement, and I thank my colleagues on 
both sides for their work on these bills.


                        Artificial Intelligence

  Mr. President, now, we continue on our AI Insight Forums. Today, as 
leaders gather in London for the first AI summit, the Senate will hold 
our third and fourth bipartisan AI Insight Forums. This morning will be 
focused on the intersection of AI in the workforce. We will hear from a 
balanced group of leaders in labor, tech, civil rights, and business 
about both the opportunities and risks that AI presents to the American 
worker and to our economy.
  People are worried. Many people worry, Will I still have my job as AI 
kicks in? We want to make sure that we have guardrails that protect 
workers, not make the mistake that was done with globalization, where 
so many were thrown out of work through no fault of their own.
  And then this afternoon, we will discuss AI's use in high-impact 
areas like finance, healthcare, law enforcement. We will focus 
especially on the potential bias in AI technologies in these high-
impact areas and how Congress can create guardrails to protect our 
civil rights in the age of AI.
  The Senate is continuing to be all hands on deck when it comes to 
trying to pass AI legislation. Yesterday our bipartisan AI gang--
Senators Rounds, Heinrich, Young, and I--had a great meeting with 
President Biden at the White House on AI. So we are making good 
progress, but we still have more to learn about AI as we work to 
develop bipartisan legislation. And the world is paying attention. 
There is a forum in London today where the Vice President will attend. 
And, inevitably, they will be looking. The whole world will be looking 
to the Senate to see whether and what kind of legislation we can pass. 
We will work hard to get the best possible bipartisan legislation done.


                           Government Funding

  Mr. President, about the supplemental, on Monday, Speaker Johnson and 
House Republicans released a totally unserious and woefully inadequate 
package that omitted aid to Ukraine, omitted humanitarian assistance to 
Gaza, had no funding for the Indo-Pacific, and made funding for Israel 
conditional on hard-right, never-going-to-pass proposals. What a joke.
  Yesterday afternoon, President Biden issued a veto threat on the GOP 
proposal, and it is no wonder why: It needlessly politicizes aid to 
Israel. It balloons the Federal deficit. Here the House is talking 
about we need to pay for, to reduce the deficit, and they put in a 
provision that actually increases the deficit. Why? Because they don't 
want their superrich, megawealthy friends to be audited by the IRS like 
every other citizen is.
  As we know, when Trump was President, he almost exempted them from 
auditing. Someone making $40,000 a year had a greater chance of being 
audited than someone making $4 million a year.
  It is amazing that the main focus as the world is in crisis--in the 
Middle East, in Ukraine, in the Indo-Pacific--our House Republicans are 
spending more time trying to further reduce taxes of those who don't 
pay much tax at all. So I am so glad that President Biden issued a 
strong veto message. I would urge every House Republican, every House 
Democrat, every Senate Member to read the President's veto message. It 
is strong and well thought out. He talks about it politicizing aid to 
Israel, it ballooning the Federal deficit, and it failing to address 
the national security threats America faces around the globe--
particularly our need to help Ukraine, provide humanitarian aid to 
Gaza, and help in the Indo-Pacific.
  So the House GOP proposal is not going anywhere. It is dead before it 
even is voted on. The Speaker should start over--this time without 
terrible, partisan poison pills; this time sitting down with Democrats 
and working this issue through.
  Israel has suffered the worst terrorist attack in its history. It 
needs help. But House Republicans are asking a price for helping them 
by cutting off funding that holds rich tax cheats accountable. That 
ain't happening, House. It ain't happening.
  Now, Speaker Johnson says that this supposed pay is needed because of 
his concern about the national debt; but as I mentioned, every 
independent estimate shows this partisan bill raises the deficit by 
billions of dollars. So, what hypocrisy. It is not responsible. It is 
reckless. It is utterly baffling--baffling--that at a moment that 
demands maximum bipartisanship, when the country is in crisis and our 
friends in Israel and Ukraine are in crisis, that the House GOP is, 
instead, trying to pick an egregiously partisan fight over wealthy tax 
cheats.
  Years back, both parties would have come together for the good of the 
country and the good of security in the world when crises like these 
happen. But the House GOP--continuing the kind of recklessness, the 
kind of inability to get their act together--continues to do these 
kinds of things.
  Their proposal is simply not a serious one. And, worse, it still 
wastes precious time at a moment when we need to help Israel, Ukraine, 
and send humanitarian aid to Gaza ASAP.
  All friends of Israel should loudly and clearly say that any move to 
make the United States-Israel relationship a partisan one, as the House 
is doing, is a move that hurts Israel. That is what they do, 
unfortunately: harming our partnership with Israel by politicizing 
their aid package. I urge Speaker Johnson: Quickly change course, 
Speaker Johnson, because this stunningly unserious proposal is not 
going to be the answer. It is not going anywhere. As I said: It is dead 
almost before it is born.


                          Oil Industry Mergers

  Mr. President, the FTC letter that we sent this morning--and I think 
people should pay attention to this because this is a very serious 
issue. Last month, America's two largest oil companies, ExxonMobil and 
Chevron, announced two of the largest oil acquisitions of the 21st 
century--in fact, some of the largest mergers in the history--in the 
whole history--of the United States. And where are these mergers 
occurring? In the heavily concentrated oil industry where the consumer 
has almost no say whatsoever.
  These deals have all the hallmarks of harmful, anticompetitive 
effect. And if they are allowed to happen, Americans could see the 
consequences through higher prices at the pump. People are complaining, 
justifiably, that gas prices are too high, and these mergers inevitably 
will make the price even higher.
  So today, I am leading a group of 22 Senators calling on the Federal 
Trade Commission to use the full powers of the FTC to investigate these 
mergers. In our letter, we say that if any antitrust laws may be 
violated, the FTC should step in and oppose the mergers.
  We broke up Standard Oil's illegal monopoly in 1911. We are quickly 
getting back to that place. The FTC should also investigate whether it 
is time to break up today's anticompetitive oil conglomerates. When 
America's largest oil companies can just buy some of their largest 
competitors--here we have Exxon, the biggest oil company in America, 
buying the largest oil driller in the Permian Basin, which is the 
biggest U.S. oil field--it is outrageous. When the largest companies 
can control the lion's share of the supply chain, when they are able to 
act

[[Page S5271]]

with little accountability, the result is a raw deal for American 
consumers, American workers, and the American economy.
  And this isn't speculation. We have seen this happen before. In the 
1990s, there were over 2,600 mergers across the petroleum industry. The 
number of major oil companies was cut in half.
  I will never forget the day. This was a Democratic President. 
President Clinton, unfortunately, allowed the merger between Exxon and 
Mobil--two of the biggest oil companies. I opposed it at the time. The 
result of these mergers and lax accountability was market manipulation, 
an unstable supply, and, ultimately, price hikes for Americans.
  Well, why repeat that mistake? We cannot allow it.
  With ExxonMobil's merger with Pioneer and Chevron's merger with Hess, 
we are seeing history repeat itself. More consolidation and less 
competition may be good for the shareholders and the big oil company 
execs, but it ain't good for America, and it certainly ain't good for 
the consumer, who will inevitably pay more for gas, oil, and so many 
other things.
  There is something deeply wrong about seeing the largest oil and gas 
companies in the world manipulate their way to higher profits as 
Americans are struggling at the pump. Last year alone, the world's five 
largest oil companies saw record profits--$219 billion--more than 
double the profits of 2021.
  And where did the profits go? Did they translate to lower prices for 
Americans? Did the companies invest in worker productivity or in 
finding new, clean energy sources? No. The soaring profits fueled 
soaring stock buybacks. Americans, meanwhile, saw higher prices every 
time they filled up the tank.
  And one other point about these mergers: At one point, the big oil 
companies said: Hmm, we understand that the world is moving in a 
direction of clean energy. We are going to move that way, too.
  These mergers show they are not. They are not. They are simply 
investing in the old carbon resources that we know, in the long run, 
will do such damage to our world and our world economy. Yet they are 
just moving headlong in that direction--short-term gain, long-term 
loss.
  Mergers will accelerate these disturbing trends of high gas prices 
and less competition. So we are calling on the FTC to look into the 
announcements made by ExxonMobil and Chevron and step in if necessary.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                   Recognition of the Minority Leader

  The Republican leader is recognized.


                          Supplemental Funding

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I have spoken frequently about the 
clear links between the biggest national security challenges facing our 
country and about what we need to do to address them, but let's not 
lose sight of a few overarching points.
  America's adversaries don't ease up when we lose our resolve. In 
fact, they press their advantage. How many of our colleagues would 
disagree that withdrawing from Afghanistan caused America's friends and 
foes to question the credibility of our commitments?
  How many would disagree that failing to respond decisively to 
hundreds of terrorist attacks against U.S. forces in Syria and Iraq has 
weakened our deterrence against Iran?
  How many Senators would disagree that the Biden administration 
shouldn't have withheld lethal assistance to Ukraine in the summer of 
2021 or that they should have shipped lethal weapons more quickly as 
Russia's preparations became glaringly obvious that fall and winter?
  How many would disagree that the President's caution and hesitation 
to provide critical weapons--like HIMARS, Patriots, tanks, and ATACMs--
has prolonged the conflict in Ukraine?
  Over and over again, history has taught us that the costs of 
disengaging from the world are far higher than the costs of engaging. 
And just as the threats we face aren't isolated, neither are the 
benefits of investing in American leadership.
  So here is the plain truth: The overwhelming majority of the 
resources approved by the Senate as security assistance for Ukraine 
has, in fact, gone directly--directly--to American manufacturers, 
supporting American jobs, expanding the American industrial base, and 
producing new weapons for America's military, with almost $70 billion 
in investments spread across at least 38 different States. The 
production of artillery rounds alone has distributed multiple billions 
into facilities from Arkansas to Virginia and Texas to Ohio--all to 
improve our ability to equip the United States and our allies for the 
growing challenges we face.
  These investments are not just replacing what is being used to 
destroy Russia's military strength; they are expanding production 
capacity to meet the soaring demand from allies. NATO countries have 
invested $90 billion in capabilities produced here in America since 
last February, and they are helping equip U.S. forces for our own long-
term competition with China.
  Take the Patriot interceptor. This air defense system is arguably the 
most in-demand weapon in the United States' arsenal. It has saved 
thousands of American and allied lives. It is deployed across Europe, 
the Middle East, and the Indo-Pacific. It is produced in Tucson, AZ, 
with components coming from all over our country; and the supplemental 
resources we are working on could expand production capacity by nearly 
20 percent.
  Or take the 155-millimeter round. It is relevant in nearly every 
conflict imaginable. More than 75 percent of our investments marked for 
this munition has gone toward capacity expansion. Today, U.S. 
manufacturers are able to produce double what they could before our 
response to the Russian aggression last year. With the further 
investment of so-called Ukraine spending, American production would 
reach 1 million rounds per year.
  The notion that this money is distracting from America's other 
security priorities is nonsense. Anyone making this claim doesn't 
understand how critical production lines work. The truth is the 
investments we have made in expanding production capacity to respond to 
Putin's escalation are helping American manufacturers produce more of 
the weapons Israel and Taiwan need.
  I have spoken at length about America's clear national security 
interest in helping Ukraine demolish Russian military strength and in a 
secure and peaceful Europe. I have spelled out the glaring and 
immediate threats we face from Iran-backed terror and of the importance 
of supporting our closest ally in the Middle East. I have emphasized 
the gravity of strategic competition with China and the urgency of the 
threat facing our friends out in the Indo-Pacific.
  But, as foolish as it is to deny the clear link between America's 
adversaries and the threats we face, it is every bit as dangerous to 
pretend that, as a global superpower, our Nation cannot or should not 
face each of them down. We have the means to lead the free world and 
ensure our own security. In the face of coordinated aggression from our 
adversaries, we have the clearest possible objective: We win. They 
lose.


                            Border Security

  Now, Mr. President, on a related matter, as I mentioned last week, 
illegal crossings at our southern border are setting alltime records. 
In just 3 years, under the Biden administration, the CBP has recorded 6 
million border encounters--6 million. And yet, in the face of these 
astonishing statistics, the Secretary of Homeland Security continues to 
say: ``Our approach to managing the border . . . is working.''
  The White House Press Secretary has reiterated this insanity, saying:

       It's not like someone walks over [the border]. . . . That's 
     not how it works.

  Well, of course, we know that is exactly--exactly--how it works. The 
Border Patrol has been tracking 1,000 known ``got-aways'' per day--
1,000 ``got-aways'' per day.
  The facts on the ground send a clear message: The Biden 
administration's handling of the border crisis is a complete and utter 
failure.

[[Page S5272]]

  Yesterday, Senator Cruz and Senator Barrasso both shared an encounter 
they witnessed on the border, over the weekend, of a 10-year-old girl 
and a man claiming to be her father. They described the terror on the 
girl's face as the man attempted to use the Biden administration's 
family unit loophole to cut the line at the border. As Senator Cruz put 
it, ``the cartels are renting children to grown men.''
  The crisis that has unfolded on President Biden's watch is inhumane 
and dangerous. Fiscal year 2022 was the deadliest year on record at the 
southern border, and fiscal year 2023 set an alltime record for terror 
watchlist encounters. We are watching a humanitarian crisis that has 
become a glaring national security vulnerability.
  The solution is pretty clear. The solution isn't billions of dollars 
to make it easier and faster to process illegal immigrants or ``money 
for a welcome wagon,'' as Senator Barrasso put it yesterday. The 
solution is a clear and commonsense policy that forces the Biden 
administration to enforce the law and treat the border with the legal 
consequences that it demands.
  So I am grateful to my Republican colleagues who are working hard on 
a policy proposal to deliver actual border security and drawing on 
ideas put forward by Senator Lankford, Senator Cruz, Senator Grassley, 
and others.
  Washington Democrats have proved that their border security approach 
is simply not working. President Biden's border supplemental request is 
just more of the same. It is time to wake up and embrace policy changes 
that will keep Americans safe.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, we recently learned that fiscal year 2023 
set a new record for the number of illegal immigrants apprehended at 
the southern border--the third recordbreaking year of illegal 
immigration under the Biden administration.
  First, fiscal year 2021 set an alltime record. Then, fiscal year 2022 
broke that record. And, now, fiscal 2023 has broken that record. In 
other words, we have had 3 straight years of the Biden border crisis 
getting worse and worse and worse.
  Since the President took office, more than 6.2 million individuals 
have been caught attempting to illegally cross our southern border--6.2 
million. If every one of those individuals lived in one city, it would 
be the second largest in the country.
  I don't need to tell anyone that the kind of unchecked illegal 
immigration we are experiencing represents a serious security threat.
  The Department of Homeland Security recently noted in its 2024 threat 
assessment:

       Terrorists and criminal actors may exploit the elevated 
     flow [of migration] and increasingly complex security 
     environment to enter the United States.

  And by all indications, bad actors are, in fact, taking advantage of 
the chaos at the border to try and enter the United States. During 
fiscal year 2023 alone, 169 individuals on the Terrorist Watchlist were 
caught attempting to illegally cross our southern border--169 on the 
Terrorist Watchlist. Those are the ones they apprehended. That is more 
than in the previous 6 years combined.
  The head of the Border Patrol recently said that his Agency is 
arresting an average of more than 47 people per day who have ``serious 
criminal histories''--more than 47 people per day with serious criminal 
histories. Those are just the individuals who are being caught.
  Since January 2021, when President Biden took office, there have been 
more than 1.7 million known ``got-aways.'' Those are individuals the 
Border Patrol saw but was unable to apprehend. We can only imagine the 
number of unknown ``got-aways'' who have sneaked into the country.
  How many of those individuals have ``serious criminal histories'' or 
hail from hostile countries? We just don't know, but we can be pretty 
confident that among those ``got-aways'' are dangerous individuals who 
should not be entering our country.
  This is a serious issue, and we need a serious course correction from 
this administration.
  Vice President Harris, who is in charge of overseeing border policies 
for this administration, recently told ``60 Minutes'' that ``we need a 
safe, orderly, and humane border policy.'' This has been the purported 
goal of the Biden administration for almost 3 years now, but the 
administration has been failing on all three counts.
  The current crisis we are experiencing is a predictable result of the 
Biden administration's decisions. Before the President took office, his 
team was warned of the possibility of a migrant surge. Yet the moment 
the President took office, he set about dismantling the immigration 
policies of his predecessor and weakening our border's security, and 
the result has been, as I said, 3 successive years of recordbreaking 
illegal immigration.
  While the Biden administration has finally started to, at least 
halfheartedly, acknowledge our Nation's border crisis and put in place 
policies attempting to encourage legal migration and penalize illegal 
border crossings, the changes are insufficient--far too little, far too 
late--or, as one columnist recently put it in the Washington Post, 
``The Biden administration's various efforts have amounted to Band-Aids 
on a massive, open wound.''
  The President's recent supplemental funding request has not left me 
hopeful that the administration is suddenly going to become more 
effective. Potentially billions of dollars in reimbursement for blue 
States struggling to house illegal immigrants won't do a single thing 
to solve the crisis we are facing at the border.
  While the President's proposal does include some funding that would 
actually go toward security, funding alone is simply not enough. We 
need meaningful policy changes that will, for starters, end the rampant 
abuse of our asylum system and sweeping parole designations.
  Senators Graham, Lankford, and Cotton, among several others, are 
working hard to craft a set of changes to our asylum and parole 
policies that would stem the flow at our southern border. These changes 
would address obvious flaws in President Biden's immigration policies 
and make tangible progress toward getting our border crisis under 
control.
  Recent events have underscored the importance of national security, 
and a porous southern border is a huge--huge--vulnerability when it 
comes to our national security. We need to use every tool we can to 
secure the border and keep terrorists and criminals out of the United 
States.
  Senate Republicans are committed to putting policies in place at the 
border that keep Americans safe, and I hope that, in the days and weeks 
to come, Senate Democrats will join us to make securing our border a 
priority.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hickenlooper). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                                 Israel

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, the situation in Gaza today is a 
disaster. Congress must take action. The administration must take 
action. The world must take action.
  Today, 3 weeks after Hamas's barbaric attack against civilians in 
Israel, which began this war, many hundreds of thousands of innocent 
men, women, and children in Gaza are on the brink. Over the past 3 
weeks, it is estimated that some 8,000 people in Gaza have been killed 
in bombings, including more than 3,000 children, and far more have been 
wounded.
  More than a million people in Gaza have been displaced from their 
homes, and some 670,000 are sheltering in U.N. installations, where 
they are down to 1 liter of water per person per day. They lack 
sufficient food, water, medical supplies, or fuel. The hospitals and 
medical facilities there are in nightmarish conditions, with hundreds 
of

[[Page S5273]]

babies in incubators and patients on life support at risk of death 
should the generators that sustain them run out of fuel. Corridors are 
lined with injured and displaced people, and overwhelmed doctors must 
turn patients away or operate without anesthesia or antibiotics.
  The humanitarian crisis is dire and getting worse by the minute. 
There must be a humanitarian pause now so that sufficient supplies--
food, water, medicine, fuel--can reach the people of Gaza. If not, 
thousands more will die needlessly. We cannot allow that to happen. A 
stop to the bombing is critical to save innocent lives and secure the 
safe return of hostages.
  Let us never forget the lives of all children--all people--are 
sacred, whether they are Palestinian children, Israeli children, or 
American children, and we must do everything we can to protect them. 
But if we are going to make any real progress in addressing this never-
ending conflict between Israel and Hamas--there have been five wars in 
the last 15 years--we need to understand somewhat as to how we got to 
where we are today. If peace is to come to that troubled region and if 
the Palestinian people are ever going to be able to enjoy lives of 
security and dignity, there must be a vision of where we go in the 
future.
  So, let us be clear, the living conditions in Gaza before October 7 
were horrific and inhumane, and that is before Hamas ignited the latest 
war. Before this conflict, in Gaza, nearly 80 percent of people there 
lived in poverty, and two-thirds were reliant on humanitarian 
assistance. Almost half the population and over 70 percent of young 
people were unemployed in Gaza. What kind of life could they look 
forward to? Electricity there was intermittent, with 11- to 12-hour 
blackouts every day. Water and sanitation systems were inadequate, and 
there were constant shortages of all basic necessities.
  Gaza was mostly cut off from the world, with Israel and Egypt 
severely limiting the number of people and types of goods that could go 
in or out. In fact, many observers described Gaza as ``an open-air 
prison''--and all of that is before October 7.
  If we are serious about bringing freedom and dignity to the 
Palestinian people, that is a situation that can never be allowed to be 
returned to. The Palestinian people are entitled to much more than 
that.
  In Gaza, Hamas, an authoritarian terrorist organization, ruled by 
force, stockpiling arms and war materiel, taxing the desperately poor 
population, and stealing resources to build tunnels and rockets. Make 
no mistake about it, Hamas is a terrorist organization bent on the 
destruction of Israel, and long before this horrific attack, they had 
killed countless innocent people, including Americans. They advance a 
fundamentalist ideology which treats women as inferior, second-class 
citizens and which threatens to kill people who are gay.
  Hamas is an authoritarian nightmare, repressing dissent and stealing 
from Gazans not just many materials of life but the dream of a better 
future. And that was the situation before October 7.
  And what was going on in Israel before Hamas's terrorist attack? What 
was going on there? That country had the most rightwing government in 
its history, a Cabinet that included outright racist Ministers who 
consistently dehumanized the Palestinian population. Benjamin 
Netanyahu, the Prime Minister, was under indictment for a litany of 
corruption charges, and many believe that Israel's intelligence--or 
lack of intelligence--on October 7 had everything to do with his 
government's preoccupation with his political problems.
  Before the war, this rightwing Israeli Government had systematically 
undermined the prospects of peace. Netanyahu and his extreme partners 
in the Cabinet had worked to marginalize Palestinian voices committed 
to peace, pursued settlement policies designed to foreclose the 
possibility of a two-state solution, stymied economic development in 
Palestinian areas, and passed laws that entrenched systemic inequality 
between Jewish and Palestinian citizens of Israel.
  This last year saw record Israeli settlement growth in the West Bank, 
where more than 700,000 Israelis now live in areas the United Nations 
and United States agree are occupied territories. Despite that, the 
Israeli Government authorized thousands of new homes for settlers and 
opened up new areas to construction, while bulldozing thousands of 
Palestinian homes and schools and further restricting Palestinian 
movement.
  Legal experts agree, these policies constituted nothing less than 
illegal annexation. All of these policies and more greatly increased 
tension in the West Bank. Before October 7, 179 Palestinians had been 
killed in 2023--179 Palestinians in the West Bank--which made it the 
deadliest year in two decades. Since October 7, 121 more Palestinians 
have been killed in the West Bank, including some by settlers.
  These tensions were part of why so much of the IDF, the Israel 
Defense Forces, was deployed in the West Bank rather than the border 
with Gaza.
  And then came October 7 and Hamas's atrocities that began this latest 
and horrific war. The Hamas attack was unspeakable. Over 1,300 innocent 
men, women, and children in Israel were killed; over 200 Israelis and 
Americans taken hostage, including young children and grandparents. 
Young people were gunned down in cold blood at a music festival, babies 
and older people brutally murdered in their homes.
  And let's remember that Hamas did not primarily target the military--
no. They intentionally targeted civilians. Their goal was to kill 
civilians. Their attack was designed to provoke a response, and in that 
they succeeded.
  Many Israelis are now understandably furious, and they want to strike 
back forcefully. I think we can all understand that. But rage and 
revenge do not make useful policy. And here in the United States, after 
the attack on 9/11 in this country, we acted with rage and revenge, and 
I think many people now understand that that was a horrific mistake.
  Killing innocent Palestinian women and children in Gaza will not 
bring back to life the innocent Israeli women and children who have 
been killed by Hamas. Like any other country, Israel has the right to 
defend itself and destroy Hamas terrorism, but it does not have the 
right to kill thousands of innocent men, women, and children in Gaza.
  Israel does not have the right to endanger the lives of millions of 
Palestinians--half of whom are children--by shutting off water, food, 
fuel, and electricity. That type of action against a helpless and 
impoverished population is morally unacceptable and in violation of 
international law.
  Israel does not have the right to bomb an entire neighborhood to 
target one Hamas leader or installation, but that is what the Israeli 
Government is doing. One need only look at the satellite imagery and 
photography of Gaza to see that this is not a carefully calibrated 
campaign. These are not surgical strikes.
  Yesterday, Israel struck the densely populated Jabalia refugee camp 
and killed a Hamas commander, but they also killed some 50 other people 
and injured hundreds more, although the exact toll is not yet known. 
That was actually the fourth airstrike on that community. An October 9 
airstrike killed 60, an October 19 airstrike killed 18, and an October 
22 airstrike killed 30, according to outside researchers.
  UNRWA reported yesterday that their head of security--that is the 
United Nations Relief Agency--their head of security was killed, along 
with his wife and eight children. In total, 67 United Nations Relief 
Agency workers have been killed, and 44 United Nations facilities have 
been damaged since October 7.
  The current Israeli strategy must end. Israel must begin the process 
of restoring water and electrical services to areas where they are 
still operable. The international community must also rush generators 
and solar capacity to Gazan medical facilities to address acute needs 
and reduce Israeli fears of diversion to Hamas.
  Israel will not stop going after Hamas, but it must do it in a very, 
very different way, and additional pauses will be needed.
  Let me conclude by saying that Israel must also begin the process of 
laying out a political strategy. It cannot bomb its way to a solution. 
Such a strategy must include as minimum first steps a clear promise 
that Palestinians displaced in the fighting will

[[Page S5274]]

have the absolute right to safely return to their homes; a commitment 
to broader peace talks to advance a two-state solution in the wake of 
this war; an abandonment of Israeli efforts to carve up and annex the 
West Bank; and a commitment to work with the Palestinian Authority to 
build genuine governing capacity.
  The United States must make it clear that these are the conditions of 
our solidarity. Just as we want justice for the Israelis murdered by 
Hamas, we also want justice for the Palestinian people, and that is not 
going to happen with Hamas. Palestinians need a state of their own, 
contiguous, with the freedom of movement and access that can sustain a 
vibrant economy.
  This will be a long and difficult road. It will take concerted U.S. 
and international support and a doubling down of our political 
commitment to a two-state solution. But the first step right now must 
be to stop the bombing and bring in as much humanitarian aid as 
possible.
  I think Secretary Blinken said it well when he said:

       Providing immediate aid and protection for Palestinian 
     civilians in the conflict is a necessary foundation for 
     finding partners in Gaza who have a different vision for the 
     future than Hamas--and who are willing to help make it real.

  This is a dreadful situation. It is part of a very, very long-term 
conflict between Israel and its neighbors. But the immediate crisis is 
to save lives, to stop the bombing, to bring forth a humanitarian 
pause, and then to go forward to bring peace and stability to the 
region.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.


                              S.J. Res 42

  Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, I rise today about a resolution to make it 
harder for students--all students--to have access to school meals. I am 
referring to S.J. Res. 42. We deal with a lot of complex issues here 
every day. This is not a complex issue.
  First, the Federal policy: the USDA memo clarifying that State 
agencies and programs participating in Federal school meal programs are 
required to abide by our Nation's anti-discrimination laws. This means 
that they cannot deny access to kids on the basis of their gender 
identity or sexual orientation. In other words, schools may not deny 
lunch to LGBTQ+ kids.
  Now, this isn't some strange, new interpretation of the law that USDA 
came up with and announced out of the blue; this is the USDA 
implementing anti-discrimination laws that apply across government, in 
line with the Supreme Court's reading. This is what the Republicans 
attempted to overturn with S.J. Res. 42.
  Of course, S.J. Res. 42 was never really just about school lunches. 
The goal was to send a message to LGBTQ+ kids that they are not 
welcome, to send a message that it is OK to discriminate against these 
kids because of who they are. I want to be very clear. That is wrong. 
We proudly stand with LGBTQ+ kids.
  Your rights matter. You are welcome at school.
  The USDA guidance will help kids. It will also reduce discrimination 
and bring Agency guidance in line with Supreme Court precedent.
  The USDA policy will also ensure that hungry kids get the food they 
need to grow and to do well in school. According to census data, LGBTQ+ 
individuals are almost twice as likely to live in a household that 
experiences food insecurity, and trans individuals are almost three 
times more likely not to have enough food to eat, as compared to 
cisgender individuals.
  The last thing our kids need is adults behaving like classroom 
bullies and trying to justify taking away their lunches. I am glad the 
Senate rejected this resolution.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.


                           Amendment No. 1241

  Mr. CRAMER. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 1241 and ask 
that it be reported by number, as I intend to withdraw the amendment 
shortly due to majority party mischief.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report by number.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Cramer], for himself and 
     Mr. Manchin, proposes an amendment numbered 1241 to amendment 
     No. 1092.

  The amendment is as follows:

    (Purpose: To prohibit the use of funds to finalize, implement, 
    administer, or enforce the proposed rule of the Federal Highway 
    Administration relating to greenhouse gas emissions performance 
                               measures)

       In title I of division C, insert after section 127 the 
     following:
       Sec. 128.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to finalize, implement, administer, or enforce the 
     proposed rulemaking entitled ``National Performance 
     Management Measures; Assessing Performance of the National 
     Highway System, Greenhouse Gas Emissions Measure'' (87 Fed. 
     Reg. 42401 (July 15, 2022)) or a successor regulation.
  Mr. CRAMER. Mr. President, the Senate has been preaching regular 
order for some time, and I have been cheering them on. I have been a 
strong advocate for regular order because we need a process that 
engages all of the Members of this body. But one has to ask why my 
bipartisan, germane amendment is deemed a ``poison pill'' and now needs 
60 votes to pass. Well, I know the answer. It is simple. Because it was 
going to pass. That is why. That is why suddenly it is a ``poison 
pill.'' Senate Democrats would rather provide the Biden administration 
cover by taking a show vote designed to fail than follow real regular 
order. The will of the Senate should prevail here, but they are not 
going to let it.
  This appropriation limitation amendment would prevent the U.S. 
Department of Transportation from finalizing their illegal rule 
requiring States to measure CO2 tailpipe emissions and then 
set declining targets for individual States on their roadways.
  Congress has not provided any authority for the Department of 
Transportation to dictate CO2 performance requirements. They 
can't do what they don't have the authority to do. And even if we had, 
it is not a workable solution. It may be hard for bureaucrats in 
Washington, DC, to imagine this, but you cannot tell States like North 
Dakota and Montana that to reduce tailpipe emissions is easy. Just 
build a subway. Build a subway or dedicate bus lanes on your gravel 
roads. That is why a majority of the States in this country have 
submitted comments expressing their concern and opposing--outright 
opposing--this rule.
  When the Environment and Public Works Committee negotiated the last 
highway bill, we expressly left this authority out. We made the 
decision to not give this authority to the Department of 
Transportation.
  I would note that that bill moved out of committee unanimously and 
then became the cornerstone of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs 
Act. Ironically, the Biden administration created the ``poison pill'' 
that this amendment is meant to address.
  I am not interested in show votes, so I am going to withdraw the 
amendment.
  The administration should scrap this rule, but if they finalize it, I 
will be back. I will be back with a CRA resolution, and then Senate 
Democrats can't force a 60-vote majority on that one, and I will lead 
an amicus brief pointing to the major questions doctrine, which the 
Department of Transportation clearly violates with their rule.
  With that, I yield.


                      Amendment No. 1241 Withdrawn

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is withdrawn.
  The amendment (No. 1241) was withdrawn.
  Mr. CRAMER. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be up to 
4 minutes of debate equally divided on Senate amendments Nos. 1217 and 
1347.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1217

  Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 1217 and ask that 
it be reported by number.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report by number.

[[Page S5275]]

  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. Paul] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1217 to amendment No. 1092.

  The amendment is as follows:

  (Purpose: To require a full audit of the Board of Governors of the 
Federal Reserve System and the Federal reserve banks by the Comptroller 
                     General of the United States)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. _____. AUDIT REFORM AND TRANSPARENCY FOR THE BOARD OF 
                   GOVERNORS OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding section 714 of title 31, 
     United States Code, or any other provision of law, the 
     Comptroller General of the United States shall complete an 
     audit of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System 
     and the Federal reserve banks under subsection (b) of that 
     section not later than 12 months after the date of enactment 
     of this Act.
       (b) Report.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 90 days after the date on 
     which the audit required pursuant to subsection (a) is 
     completed, the Comptroller General of the United States--
       (A) shall submit to Congress a report on the audit; and
       (B) shall make the report described in subparagraph (A) 
     available to the Speaker of the House, the majority and 
     minority leaders of the House of Representatives, the 
     majority and minority leaders of the Senate, the Chair and 
     Ranking Member of the committee and each subcommittee of 
     jurisdiction in the House of Representatives and the Senate, 
     and any other Member of Congress who requests the report.
       (2) Contents.--The report required under paragraph (1) 
     shall include a detailed description of the findings and 
     conclusion of the Comptroller General of the United States 
     with respect to the audit that is the subject of the report, 
     together with such recommendations for legislative or 
     administrative action as the Comptroller General of the 
     United States may determine to be appropriate.
       (c) Repeal of Certain Limitations.--Subsection (b) of 
     section 714 of title 31, United States Code, is amended by 
     striking the second sentence.
       (d) Technical and Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) In general.--Section 714 of title 31, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (A) in subsection (d)(3), by striking ``or (f)'' each place 
     the term appears;
       (B) in subsection (e), by striking ``the third undesignated 
     paragraph of section 13'' and inserting ``section 13(3)''; 
     and
       (C) by striking subsection (f).
       (2) Federal reserve act.--Subsection (s) (relating to 
     ``Federal Reserve Transparency and Release of Information'') 
     of section 11 of the Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 248) is 
     amended--
       (A) in paragraph (4)(A), by striking ``has the same meaning 
     as in section 714(f)(1)(A) of title 31, United States Code'' 
     and inserting ``means a program or facility, including any 
     special purpose vehicle or other entity established by or on 
     behalf of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve 
     System or a Federal reserve bank, authorized by the Board of 
     Governors under section 13(3), that is not subject to audit 
     under section 714(e) of title 31, United States Code'';
       (B) in paragraph (6), by striking ``or in section 
     714(f)(3)(C) of title 31, United States Code, the information 
     described in paragraph (1) and information concerning the 
     transactions described in section 714(f) of such title,'' and 
     inserting ``the information described in paragraph (1)''; and
       (C) in paragraph (7), by striking ``and section 13(3)(C), 
     section 714(f)(3)(C) of title 31, United States Code, and'' 
     and inserting ``, section 13(3)(C), and''.
  Mr. PAUL. The Federal Reserve effectively controls the economy but 
without scrutiny. No other institution has so much unchecked power.
  The Fed demonstrated its unlimited authority during the pandemic. The 
Fed printed money, purchased government-backed securities, and doled 
out massive amounts of money to favorite industries. The result added 
almost $5 trillion to the Fed's balance sheet, the largest in our 
history.
  When Dodd-Frank ordered a limited, one-time audit of Fed actions, the 
Government Accountability Office uncovered that during the financial 
crisis, the Fed doled out over $16 trillion to domestic and foreign 
banks. This kind of inflationary bailout should not be kept secret from 
the public.
  While the Fed's easy money policies make the rich richer, the side 
effect is high inflation. As Milton Friedman famously explained, 
``Inflation is taxation without legislation.''
  Congress cannot control the Fed's actions, but Fed actions can cost 
Americans dearly. Just ask any parent who has to feed his or her family 
during historically high inflation rates.
  My amendment would require a full audit of the Fed within 1 year. It 
is time for the Federal Reserve to operate in a manner that is 
transparent and accountable to the taxpayers. I ask for a ``yes'' vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in opposition to the 
Paul amendment.
  Members of both parties have always agreed an independent--underscore 
independent--central bank is critical to a functioning economy. 
Congress put in place restrictions to shield the Fed's monetary policy 
from political influence. This longstanding restriction ensures that 
the Fed isn't subject to the whims of Congress, to the partisanship, to 
the nihilism--if I could use another word--of, too often, people in 
this body.
  Whether it is threatening a default or a government shutdown, all too 
common because of dysfunction and chaos in the House of 
Representatives--whether it is threatening a default or government 
shutdown, we have already seen how partisanship so negatively impacts 
people's pocketbooks in the broader economy. We don't need it here too.
  This amendment would make the Fed less effective. It would open it up 
to all kinds of nefarious political pressure. Congress already requires 
that the Fed undergo regular review of their operations, of their 
programs, of their balance sheet, of their financial statements. These 
are some of the ways Congress holds the Fed accountable while avoiding 
dangerous political interference.
  This amendment is irrelevant to what we are voting on today. It is 
yet another impediment to keeping our government open. It shouldn't be 
partisan. It shouldn't be political. Those antics should stay out of 
this debate.
  I urge my colleagues to vote no on the Paul amendment.
  I yield the floor.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 1217

  Mr. PAUL. 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).
  The result was announced--yeas 46, nays 51, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 280 Leg.]

                                YEAS--46

     Baldwin
     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
     Risch
     Rubio
     Sanders
     Schmitt
     Scott (FL)
     Sinema
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tuberville
     Vance
     Wicker
     Young

                                NAYS--51

     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
     Ricketts
     Romney
     Rosen
     Rounds
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warnock
     Warren
     Welch
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Lee
     Scott (SC)
     Tillis
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 46, the nays are 
51.
  Under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this 
amendment, the amendment is not agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 1217) was rejected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.


                           Order of Procedure

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, for the information of the Senate, 
starting at 2:30 p.m. today, the following amendments are expected to 
be called up and made pending: Cruz No. 1249 and Lee No. 1121. Upon 
disposition of the amendments, the Senate will vote on

[[Page S5276]]

adoption of the substitute amendment No. 1092, as amended, and on 
passage of H.R. 4366, as amended; further, that upon disposition of 
H.R. 4366, the Senate will vote on passage of H.R. 662, as amended, and 
that all previous provisions of the order from October 24 remain in 
effect.
  So for the information of all Senators, there will be four rollcall 
votes beginning at 2:30 p.m. today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.


                Amendment No. 1347 to Amendment No. 1092

  (Purpose: To reduce the amounts appropriated in divisions B and C and 
to rescind amounts appropriated to the Internal Revenue Service.)
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 1347 and ask that 
it be reported by number.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. Paul] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1347 to amendment No. 1092.

  (The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of 
Amendments.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be up 
to 4 minutes of debate, equally divided.
  The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, the national debt just recently surpassed 
$33 trillion. That is $280,000 per household. Unless we change course, 
the debt only increases.
  CBO predicts trillion-dollar deficits as far as the eye can see. We 
borrow over $176,000,000 every hour, $3,000,000 is borrowed every 
minute, and $50,000 every second. It is out of control.
  Net interest payments are anticipated to double, from $475 billion to 
a trillion dollars by fiscal year 2028. Interest will be the largest 
item of expenditure for the Federal Government.
  Americans could pay dearly for Congress's inability to say no to the 
welfare and warfare state. It could mean confiscatory tax rates, high 
inflation, and a weak economy. But it doesn't have to be this way.
  My amendment begins the path toward fiscal health by saving the 
taxpayers $30 billion. My amendment also cuts $25 billion that the 
Biden administration wants to use to sic the IRS on taxpayers to 
squeeze them for even more money. That is a reduction of $55 billion 
for what the government is on track to spend.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, we have a bipartisan package before us. 
This amendment that is being offered would slash funding supported 
unanimously in our committee in the Ag and T-HUD bills--kicking women 
and kids off of WIC or gutting funding for our farmers and agricultural 
research, making our food supplies less safe; laying off air traffic 
controllers, leading to flight delays and cancellations; booting people 
from their homes as housing assistance would be cut off; eliminating 
resources for communities to invest in important local infrastructure 
needs and a lot more. This would be catastrophic.
  The bills we are considering today have been carefully drafted. They 
are written to the spending levels that were set by the debt ceiling 
agreement that the House Republicans and the President agreed on. 
Congress passed it in July, so I urge my colleagues to vote no.


                       VOTE ON AMENDMENT NO. 1347

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  Mr. PAUL. 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. 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 ``nay.''
  The result was announced--yeas 23, nays 74, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 281 Leg.]

                                YEAS--23

     Barrasso
     Blackburn
     Braun
     Budd
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Grassley
     Hawley
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Lummis
     Mullin
     Paul
     Ricketts
     Risch
     Rubio
     Schmitt
     Scott (FL)
     Sullivan
     Tuberville
     Vance

                                NAYS--74

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Boozman
     Britt
     Brown
     Butler
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Coons
     Cortez Masto
     Cramer
     Daines
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Ernst
     Fetterman
     Fischer
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Hagerty
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Hickenlooper
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Kaine
     Kelly
     King
     Klobuchar
     Lankford
     Lujan
     Manchin
     Markey
     Marshall
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Ossoff
     Padilla
     Peters
     Reed
     Romney
     Rosen
     Rounds
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Sinema
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Thune
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warnock
     Warren
     Welch
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden
     Young

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Lee
     Scott (SC)
     Tillis
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Cortez Masto). On this vote, the yeas are 
23, the nays are 74.
  Under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this 
amendment, the amendment is not agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 1347) was rejected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.


                          Supplemental Funding

  Mrs. CAPITO. Madam President, I rise today to address this Chamber at 
an increasingly important moment in our Nation's history, to discuss 
the national security issues that we are currently facing and the ways 
in which the U.S. Senate can address them.
  On the floor, over the past several weeks, I have repeatedly called 
for American leadership in support of our allies abroad and in support 
of the many challenges that we face here at home. Again, today, I renew 
that call for American leadership and continue to stress the urgency 
created by the trials at hand: from the vicious, horrific attacks on 
our allies in Israel by Hamas to Putin's aggression we see in Europe; 
from North Korea's brazen nuclear posturing to Iranian militias 
attacking our men and women overseas in uniform; and, of course, the 
increasing tensions that we see in the Indo-Pacific, where China 
continues to threaten stability and to pursue the largest military 
buildup since World War II.
  We are currently living in times and are tasked in making decisions 
that will greatly shape the world in which we and the young people here 
today will be living in. Our Nation is being tested. Our resolve is 
being tested. And a country as powerful as ours needs to show strength, 
clarity, and control that only the United States of America can 
generate.
  This is something I have addressed repeatedly with my constituents 
across West Virginia and something that I am confident they understand 
and agree with. The Mountain State is incredibly patriotic. We are very 
proud Americans. Pride in our country and a steadfast belief in the 
ideals and values that we stand for are invaluable, both now and in our 
future. I agree with my fellow patriotic West Virginians that this is 
the greatest country on Earth and that the title requires us to make 
critical investments in both our own national security and in the 
security of our allies, before it is too late.
  It is imperative that Americans across this country recognize this 
and that we come together as our adversaries attempt to turn us against 
one another.
  I am appreciative of the Biden administration for proposing a 
supplemental appropriations package that addresses key areas of concern 
that I have talked to, but those key areas of concern that we see 
across our country and the world. That being said, the administration's 
supplemental request needs to be recognized for what it is--a request. 
The Senate must and will have a say in how this is formulated. The 
Biden administration has not shown the strength it needs to during 
these challenging times.
  We need to unabashedly stand with Israel. We need to responsibly 
support

[[Page S5277]]

Ukraine as they further deteriorate Putin's military. They are getting 
back land that they lost. They are regaining it. We need to strengthen 
our allies and our own defense capabilities in the Indo-Pacific. And we 
may need to make strong changes to policies that have allowed our 
southern border to remain in chaos for years now. Any response from the 
Senate must reflect these four categories because they are directly 
tied to what is in the best interest of our country and our national 
security.
  Yesterday, I participated in a Senate Appropriations hearing to 
examine President Biden's request. This was an important step. It 
allowed us to grow consensus as we move toward a supplemental that will 
be crafted by the Senate. I firmly believe that this was one of our 
most important Appropriations Committee hearings, and I congratulate 
the chair and the vice chair. This hearing highlighted how investments 
into the defense of Israel and Ukraine go a long way to strengthening 
our own defense capabilities and how the lack of deterrence and 
enforcement at our southern border is creating elevated threats to our 
national security.
  This further underscores the importance of responsible relief efforts 
that need to be included in a response from the Senate. It is critical 
that a Senate-crafted supplemental address all four areas that I have 
mentioned and that we provide the tools needed for our allies to win 
and to strengthen our own defense capabilities, at the same time, in 
the process.
  Israel is currently under attack by Hamas and Hezbollah and 
terrorists who are supported by America's most evil adversaries. 
American lives have been lost, and far too many innocent families have 
been left without a home and without their loved ones.
  Ukraine is facing an unjust and unprovoked ground war, the likes of 
which we have not seen in generations--nor did we think we would see in 
this generation. Putin's aggression creates dangers all around the 
globe. The Ukrainian military is decimating Russia's military strength 
without putting one American troop in harm's way.
  Additionally, funding toward Ukraine goes straight into replenishing 
our own stockpiles with new and more advanced weapons. These are 
weapons that are made in the U.S.A., for the U.S.A., some of which are 
made in my home State of West Virginia.
  Our Indo-Pacific allies remain on heightened alert. I saw this 
directly when I visited the region last summer. It is irresponsible to 
neglect the tie between the attacks on Israel, the war in Ukraine, and 
the security of Taiwan and the increasing aggression from China--and on 
our southern border, which remains in chaos.
  President Biden's policies have led to record after record of illegal 
crossings, with an alarming amount of encounters with individuals on 
our own country's Terrorist Watch List. I saw where Secretary Mayorkas 
testified yesterday that 600,000 ``got-aways''--we don't even count 
them in the over 2 million who were apprehended. This is 600,000 people 
who are believed to have entered our country without any interdiction 
at all. We don't know who these people are.
  We do not just need funding for a border wall; we need substantial 
changes in policy, as I said earlier, that will strengthen our security 
and protect our homeland, which has been left under siege for far too 
long.
  It is important that Congress and the American public recognize the 
importance of support across those four categories. The investments 
will support our own defense industrial base. It will increase the 
security of the United States. We will support our allies in their time 
of need, and, most importantly, we will keep U.S. servicemembers from 
fighting in these battles. Each of these categories is in the direct 
and best interest of the United States and the security of our homeland 
and the security of our allies.
  There is no doubt that now is the time to act. If we fail to meet our 
obligations in any of the four areas, we weaken the overall impact of 
all of them. I am confident in the ability of this Chamber to craft a 
supplemental that meets the growing and urgent national security needs 
of our country and our world.
  The time for American leadership is now.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.


                                 Israel

  Mrs. FISCHER. Madam President, we have heard story after story this 
past month about Hamas's brutal ground attacks on Israel. Hamas 
militants murdered Israelis and Americans alike as they stormed places, 
from border towns to music festivals. Hamas didn't just attack from the 
ground; they continue to rain rockets on Israel. These rockets have 
destroyed people's homes, ruptured their livelihoods, and taken their 
lives.
  Throughout this conflict, Israel's Iron Dome defense system has 
played a crucial role. The Iron Dome acts as a shield, detecting 
rockets and firing missiles to intercept them before they hit the 
ground.
  The United States has stood by Israel--our closest ally in the Middle 
East--since the country's inception. We have always pledged our support 
in times of crisis. So it is critical that my colleagues and I on the 
Senate Appropriations Committee work together to ensure that Israel 
receives the defensive and offensive capabilities that it has requested 
from the United States. That includes replenishing the Iron Dome system 
so that Israel is able to protect its people from rocket attacks by 
terrorist groups. It includes replenishing Israel's David's Sling 
system and investing in the development of the Iron Beam system. These 
defensive systems set Israel up for an effective response to the havoc 
that Hamas and Hezbollah continue to wreak.
  We must provide Israel with the time and resources its government 
needs to eliminate those threats. But as we consider the aid we will 
provide to Israel, we also need to consider the question, how do we 
better position the United States to support our allies as well as 
bolster our own defense systems amid the escalating global threats?
  A few days after the heinous attacks on Israel, a bipartisan, 
bicameral congressional commission released its report on the strategic 
posture of the United States. This report, based on the consensus of 
respected national security experts from across the political spectrum, 
concluded that the United States will be woefully underprepared for the 
threats we are facing.
  Our two peer nuclear adversaries, Russia and China, have dramatically 
expanded their nuclear forces over the decades. They continue to 
develop novel nuclear weapons and delivery systems. Meanwhile, the 
United States is barely keeping up with modernizing our nuclear forces.
  The report emphasized the need to grow our nuclear and conventional 
forces and, above all else, to expand our production capability, 
including our workforce, supply chain, and infrastructure.
  As Senators, we regularly receive briefings and intelligence reports 
that clearly outline the threats we face from actors like Russia and 
China. I have often said that if the American people had access to more 
of this information themselves, they would better understand the nature 
and the severity of the threats we face. Investment in national 
security would move to the top of their priority list.
  These events--the release of a disquieting defense report and the 
assault against our ally Israel--should serve as a wake-up call for the 
United States of America. We must expand our production capacity to 
meet the needs of our country. If we don't expand our production 
capacity, we also won't be able to support our allies and our partners 
or supply them with the lethal aid they desperately need.
  Building out our capacity so we can meet future threats--that is 
going to take time, and it is going to take resources. But we can start 
now, and we can start by making targeted investments in munitions 
production.
  The administration's supplemental request includes $25 billion just 
to replenish our own weapons stockpiles and expand the critical 
munition production capacity--initiatives that, frankly, should have 
already begun. Including this funding in the supplemental will be a 
step in the right direction.
  The supplemental request must bring together our goals of 
strengthening our own military readiness, supporting our troops in 
Europe and the Middle East, and providing our allies and our partners 
with lethal aid. I look forward to

[[Page S5278]]

working with my colleagues to ensure that the supplemental includes 
these priorities.
  We have been asleep to changes in the global threat environment for 
too long, and now is the time to wake up.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.


                          Supplemental Funding

  Mr. HOEVEN. Madam President, yesterday, the Senate Appropriations 
Committee heard from the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of 
State about the administration's request for supplemental 
appropriations. We heard about a wide range of threats to the national 
security and the national interests of the American people.
  Now, I believe that we need to support Israel, our staunch ally. We 
see the Israelis fighting for their very existence. They need our help, 
and they need it now. I believe this includes not only military 
assistance but also standing against Iran. Various attacks have been 
launched at U.S. forces across the Middle East since October 7, and 
they have been launched at the behest of Iran--we know that--and we 
must make it clear to Iran that there are consequences for attacking 
U.S. forces.
  In addition to support for Israel, I also recognize that we need to 
support Ukraine. We know from history that tyrants like Putin do not 
stop. They must be stopped. And as we support Ukraine, we need a 
strategy for victory to end this war, not to have a continued 
stalemate. Ukraine does not want the war to drag on, and neither do we. 
So I will continue to press the Defense Department, as I did yesterday 
with the Secretary of Defense, to ensure that we are on a path to win, 
that Ukraine is on a path to win and end the conflict, not to have an 
ongoing war.
  So we need to support Israel, and we need to support Ukraine. But, at 
the same time, enhancing our national security means we also need to 
secure the homeland, and that means securing our southern border.
  Border security is national security--I will repeat that: Border 
security is national security. But this administration, the Biden 
administration, does not have a plan in place to secure the border. 
They are doing just the opposite. We have an open border--an open 
border at a time when we are concerned about attacks from terrorists.
  Last month, we had a record 270,000 illegal encounters at the 
southern border. Last year, we had 2.5 million illegal encounters--also 
a record. That includes 169 individuals who are on the Terrorist 
Watchlist. I am sure our adversaries are very much aware of this 
vulnerability.
  The supplemental calls for funding to support ``border security.'' 
This administration's definition of ``border security'' is processing 
migrants who illegally come across the southern border and then 
providing them with housing, transportation, and other services once 
they enter the United States. That will only encourage more illegal 
immigration when we should be making every effort to get the border 
under control.
  The keys to securing the border and stopping the illegal crossings at 
our southern border are simple, and we know what they are. The 
solutions are there, but the administration won't apply them. And we 
know--we are not guessing at this--because the last administration put 
these in place, and they worked. They are reinstating the Migrant 
Protection Protocols, meaning the ``Remain in Mexico'' policy, and 
enforcing the safe third country agreements. They work. We know they 
work. We have seen them work. The Biden administration has those tools, 
but they won't use them. They won't enforce the law. As a result, we 
have an open border, with 270,000 illegal encounters last month, 2.5 
million last year, and 169 people encountered who are on the Terrorist 
Watchlist.
  How many came across who are on the Terrorist Watchlist whom we don't 
know about--the ``got-aways''--at a time when we are worried about the 
possibility of there being a terrorist attack in our country? What is 
going on?
  We need to also recontinue the construction of the border wall so 
that the CBP can truly control this border. It is way past time to get 
this done. These are the things that, I think, must be included as we 
consider this funding. We need to secure our border as well. If we are 
talking national security, we have to recognize that border security is 
a vital part of national security, and that must be part of what we 
include as we consider this funding. Again, I emphasize that border 
security is national security.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Rosen). The Senator from Alaska.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, we just heard from the Senator of 
North Dakota talking about the imperative of ensuring that our borders 
are secure, particularly at the southern border.
  We had an opportunity yesterday in the Senate Appropriations 
Committee to hear from Secretary Austin and Secretary Blinken about the 
administration's supplemental funding request. If there were one common 
thread there that was underscored over and over, it was the dire need--
the immediate need--of support for our allies, our allies who are 
locked, really, in two existential wars that threaten both their 
sovereignties and their people. So the support for Israel and the 
support for Ukraine, in my view, is one that I shared with the two 
Secretaries: that they are inextricably linked and our support for both 
must be inextricably linked.
  We have all watched with horror as Hamas has unleashed this terrorist 
attack on civilians, killing more than 1,400 Israelites and taking at 
least 240 Israelites hostage; then in Ukraine, with Russia's brutal 
invasion of Ukraine homeland killing over 70,000 Ukrainians in just a 
hellbent mission to reclaim their old Soviet territory.
  It is times like this when I think we look to the role that the 
United States should be playing. We are not--no, we are not--the police 
force for the world. We are not there to fight the wars for others. But 
when the world is watching democracy face direct assaults from 
terrorists and from authoritarian regimes, this is the time that the 
United States must be leading from the front. We have a responsibility 
to our allies, and we have a responsibility to the world at large, 
whether that is providing humanitarian aid, promoting stability, or 
lending support through the most powerful military in the world.
  This is the United States. These are responsibilities that, I think, 
are significant, and, again, others from around the world look to us 
for that leadership.
  Now, there are some who would suggest that we have supported Ukraine 
enough; that we should move and direct our attention only to our own 
borders; that the situation in Israel is such that we should focus 
exclusively there. As we heard yesterday in the Appropriations hearing, 
we do not have the luxury of dealing with one crisis at a time. That 
would certainly make things easier, but we do not have that.
  So to those who would suggest that we must abandon our allies in 
their most desperate hour, I would remind them that this defense 
spending comes right back to the United States through our own defense 
industrial base, providing an opportunity to refresh outdated war-
readiness items, making the United States stronger in return as well as 
providing jobs to Americans. So this is not just about providing aid to 
others outside our borders. This is also helping to strengthen us.
  There was a comment that I had read: The United States can lead 
through the power of example; but in order to be most effective, we 
need the example of our power.
  It is that industrial base that we know we have work to do there.
  Then, to those who say we need to be looking at home--again, as the 
Senator from North Dakota mentioned--we do. We must pay attention to 
those who are coming across our border illegally, those who would 
threaten us from within. We cannot ever, ever lose sight of that 
obligation and the responsibility; but I think it is important to 
recognize that this supplemental request does include support for our 
Department of Homeland Security to strengthen our border. It also 
provides over $1 billion toward combating fentanyl--just the 
devastating drug that has taken the lives of far, far, far too many 
Americans. So that also must be part of this.
  What we are talking about with this supplemental is, effectively, 
four legs of a chair. Think about what makes

[[Page S5279]]

that chair that you are sitting in stable. You have got four pillars 
here. One essential imperative: We must be there to support our friends 
in Israel. We must be there. An imperative is to continue our support 
for Ukraine. We must address our southern border--an absolute 
imperative. Then that fourth underpinning that provides for that 
greater stability is the threat from the Indo-Pacific.
  So I think we know that, within the contours of this package that the 
President has sent to us, there is room to move things around; there is 
room to subtract or add. But I think it is these four fundamental 
pillars here that are so inextricably linked that we cannot lose sight 
of what it means and what our role here in the United States is.
  The violence that we see may be across the globe, but the eyes of the 
world are squarely on us. Our enemies are probing. They are waiting for 
our response. They want to see what the United States is capable of. 
Can they only do one thing at a time? Can they only do one thing? And, 
if they can only do one thing, who are they going to choose? Are they 
going to be there for their allies in words only or, when things get 
hot over here, are they going to walk away over there? We have seen how 
that failure in Afghanistan has reverberated around the world and what 
it has meant to our friends and allies.
  I would suggest that this supplemental package is measured, and it is 
necessary as a strategic response. I will tell you, our opponents are 
praying that we fail to take this up--as, again, that balance. So we 
will and we should discuss and debate the contours within, but I would 
hope that we would stand together and unite on a package that is good, 
that is solid, and that is stable for our country and for our friends 
and allies.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. WICKER. Madam President, let me say that I associate myself with 
the remarks that were just made by the previous two speakers--the 
senior Senator from the State of North Dakota and the distinguished 
Senator from Alaska.
  I rise today to follow on with the importance of national defense 
and, in that regard, to speak specifically about the historic 
Australia, United Kingdom, United States agreement known as AUKUS.
  This pact, AUKUS, builds upon a bond forged during the First World 
War between the United States and Australia and made unshakable in the 
second. That bond remains strong today as we face the greatest 
challenge of our lifetime--the Chinese Communist Party.
  The Senator from Alaska just spoke about the importance of building 
our defenses in the Indo-Pacific, and that is exactly what the AUKUS 
agreement is designed to address.
  Our military leadership has made the stakes clear. The Secretary of 
the Air Force, Frank Kendall, recently said:

       The intelligence couldn't be clearer. . . . China is 
     preparing for a war and specifically for a war with the 
     United States.

  Now is the time for free nations across the Pacific to prepare for 
this sobering possibility. The AUKUS deal will help prevent that war 
from happening. Indeed, the AUKUS agreement is vital, but there is more 
work to do beyond that. We have yet to take the actions necessary to 
ensure that our industrial base can support both the United States and 
Australia.
  The basic fact is this: Our defense industrial base is not where it 
needs to be. Workforce shortages, a shrinking base of contractors, and 
insufficient resources have damaged our military readiness. Year after 
year, we have deferred maintenance on our surface ships, even as these 
ships are spending more days deployed and the fleet continues to 
shrink. Our capabilities are stalling as we hurtle toward a window of 
maximum danger with the Chinese Communist Party.
  The story for our submarines is no better. We are not prepared to 
fulfill our Navy's submarine construction and maintenance needs, let 
alone fulfill the prospective commitments in the critical AUKUS 
agreement.
  Our Navy's requirement is to have 66 attack submarines at 80 percent 
readiness. We currently have 49 attack submarines at 67 percent 
readiness. Let me say that again. We need 66 attack submarines. We have 
only 49. They need to be at 80 percent readiness. They are only at 67 
percent.
  We should be building two attack submarines per year, but we are 
really building 1.2 attack submarines per year. The demands of the 
AUKUS agreement would push this requirement higher to above 2.3 attack 
submarines per year. We should do that, but we can't meet that 
challenge right now. To meet this challenge, our defense industry will 
need to handle more demand than ever before.
  To handle this demand, our defense industry will need to reverse its 
current trajectory. Since the so-called peace dividend of the 1990s, we 
have closed two nuclear submarine repair yards and one construction 
yard. COVID-19 took a sledgehammer to an already declining workforce, 
and our government is expecting that same inexperienced workforce to 
meet deadlines not just on our Virginia-class submarines but also the 
critically important, nuclear-armed Columbia-class.
  Our submarine fleet, just like our surface fleet, is still living off 
the Reagan-era defense buildup. Many vessels are in a deteriorating 
state and will soon need to be retired, but replacements are not 
waiting in the wings. The remaining ships will face longer deployments 
and fewer opportunities for maintenance. This is not a blueprint for 
American command of the seas, nor does it put us in a position to 
provide our Australian friends the submarines which they need.
  These cascading problems create what some have called a debt spiral 
of submarine construction and readiness. This spiral keeps us from 
hitting our shipbuilding targets. Moreover, today's threats mean the 
current targets are actually too small. China's navy is now the world's 
largest navy. Russia is increasing its nuclear submarine activity in 
the Atlantic. Keeping up with these challenges means raising our 
shipbuilding goals in the first place, then expanding our industrial 
capacity to meet them.
  According to our Acting Chief of Naval Operations, Virginia-class 
construction needs to nearly double. This is the man whom we have put 
in charge and confirmed to let us know about the readiness of our Navy.
  I am grateful for past congressional and executive branch efforts to 
fund this work; otherwise, we would construct fewer than one Virginia-
class submarine each year. But even those funding increases have not 
matched our need. At the current rate, we will be at least nine 
submarines short by 2030.
  Our defense policy cannot continue to hinge upon a hope and a prayer. 
To make good on AUKUS and stand by our friends in Australia, the 
administration and Congress need to make the investments necessary to 
improve submarine construction.
  Our first step is clear. We must enact into law the nearly $3.4 
billion in submarine funding, including in the defense supplemental 
Congress is considering. We need every bit of this funding increased 
and more.
  These funds will be spread throughout our industrial base in the 
United States--inside the United States, employing American workers. It 
will modernize our shipyards, accelerate maintenance on our existing 
submarine fleet, and put capital investments in place for future 
submarine components to be built in our country. They will put 
Americans to work, showing that economic development and national 
security go hand in hand.
  This additional funding is a welcome first step, but we must do more 
to show our allies and the U.S. industry and our adversaries that we 
can meet the obligations of the AUKUS agreement without putting our own 
submarine fleet in jeopardy. We should sustain investments in our 
shipbuilders, public shipyards, and the nearly 16,000 suppliers across 
the Nation, many of them--most of them--small businesses around the 
Nation. This industry network supports American undersea supremacy and 
prevents conflicts on the seas, but it needs more long-term investment 
to stay afloat.
  We already have some sense of what this investment should look like. 
I want to emphasize this. The Biden administration commissioned the 
``Submarine Industrial Base 2025'' study to examine the best way to 
execute

[[Page S5280]]

AUKUS. From what I understand, the study will document what we already 
know: We need significant additional funding to fulfill Australia's 
needs alongside those of our fleet. But here is the problem: We 
commissioned the study. Inexplicably, the Biden administration has yet 
to let Congress actually see the specifics of the study--not Members of 
the Democratic leadership, not Members of the Republican leadership. 
Until the elected Members of the U.S. Senate and the House see this 
study, Congress cannot make its strongest argument for submarine 
investment.

  I led a letter, signed by a bipartisan group of defense leaders, 
asking the administration to send us the study without delay. This was 
a bipartisan letter. Friends from both sides of the aisle joined me on 
that. We are an equal part of the government. We have authorized this 
study, and, for heaven's sake, the elected Senators and Representatives 
of the people need to see this.
  If the President desires the same success for the AUKUS deal that 
many of us in Congress desire--and I believe he does, given the funding 
request included in the supplemental--then the administration ought to 
release the study promptly. They ought to release the study to us 
today.
  This study is just one element of strengthening AUKUS. Of course, the 
most crucial element is increasing overall American sea power. For 
years, I have cast a vision for restoring American maritime supremacy, 
following President Reagan's own defense buildup. Again, this is not 
something that sprung from the brow of Senator Wicker. These are 
requirements given to us by the top military Navy and Marine 
leadership, in particular, across the Nation. AUKUS ought to be part of 
that buildup.
  This vision will require historic investment to ensure we have the 
necessary shipbuilding capacity. It is not an easy task, but history 
suggests it would underwrite and protect American security for decades.
  It will also include strengthening the U.S.-Australian alliance 
throughout the 21st century. This alliance is symbolized by Australian 
Prime Minister Albanese's travel to Washington last week. I was honored 
to meet with him and his team several times during that visit.
  The bond between our two nations is deep and abiding. It stood the 
test of World War II, and it will continue to stand as we confront the 
challenge of Xi Jinping's communist Chinese fleet.
  I can think of no action more emblematic of our bond than the AUKUS 
agreement, which, again, I fully support. I know the Australians do. 
They told me last week. They show this also by committing $3 billion to 
our industrial base. The best way to honor our special relationship 
would be to back AUKUS with funds of our own. Australia's economy is a 
tenth the size of ours, and the United States should commit a 
proportional investment. The current plan doesn't get us there.
  We have never pursued a defense technology partnership at this scale 
and level of sophistication, but we have moments in our history to draw 
upon that inform our path forward. Since its invention in the American 
midcentury, our nuclear Navy has been second to none because we have 
never accepted anything less.
  Our adversaries knew this. When Admiral Rickover, the founding father 
of our nuclear Navy, traveled to discuss nuclear submarines with Soviet 
Premier Nikita Khrushchev and his aides, Admiral Rickover boasted:

       Although the United States is a democracy, it can act fast. 
     . . . Can't Russia act as fast as the United States?

  The answer was that Russia could not act as fast as we could. The 
strength of our free enterprise system, the clarity of our mission set 
by our Federal leaders, and our collective appreciation of the Soviet 
threat gave us a focus, a singular focus, and it allowed the American 
system to unleash our arsenal of democracy, and we prevented war with 
the Soviet Union by maintaining our naval supremacy. We need to unleash 
that arsenal again.
  In the words of Admiral Rickover, ``We shall let nothing deter us 
from building a nuclear Navy in the shortest possible time.''
  Once more, we cannot let anything deter our skilled shipbuilders from 
cutting the steel and constructing the fleet that will safeguard 
America for a generation to come.
  We have submarines to build. Let's get to work.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic whip.


             Unanimous Consent Request--Executive Calendar

  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I rise to discuss the Senate's urgent 
need to confirm nominations of Rebecca Lutzko to be U.S. attorney for 
the Northern District of Ohio and April Perry to serve as U.S. attorney 
for the Northern District of Illinois.
  On five previous occasions, I have come to the floor of the Senate to 
request unanimous consent to move these nominees forward. Each time, 
the junior Senator from Ohio has objected. He campaigned for the 
Senate, claiming he would be tough on crime, but now that he is here, 
he proudly brags that he wants to ``grind the Department of Justice to 
a halt.''
  These communities desperately need these nominees in place. There are 
85 U.S. attorneys across the United States. Under President Donald 
Trump, we approved all 85 without a record rollcall--voice vote. It was 
the understanding that we would voice--we would debate the issue of an 
attorney general. When it came to the U.S. attorneys in individual 
cities and States, it was too important for us to slow these down with 
additional procedural requirements on the floor. And so we do 
background checks on these U.S. attorney nominees on a bipartisan 
basis. And once they clear, we add them to the calendar. That is when 
the junior Senator from Ohio stepped in and decided he would try to 
stop the process.
  How important is the U.S Attorney's Office for the Northern District 
of Ohio that he is holding up? The entire Nation has been impacted by 
the opioid epidemic, but Ohio has been especially hard-hit.
  In recent years, fentanyl has been involved in 80 percent of 
unintentional drug overdose deaths within the State of Ohio. Last year, 
Federal law enforcement officials and local partners in Ohio seized 
over 87,000 fentanyl-laced tablets in a span of less than 4 months. And 
over the course of 1 year, from April 2022 to April 2023, more than 
5,000 Ohioans lost their lives to drug overdoses--5,000. Let that sink 
in.
  On average, every day, 14 Ohio families lose a loved one to drugs. 
How important is it to have a U.S. attorney in Ohio--and in Illinois--
working on this drug crisis that claims so many lives every single day? 
Can we really make an excuse that we have some political petulance at 
work on the floor of the Senate that stops us from putting a prosecutor 
in place to stop this drug trafficking?
  The U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Ohio plays a 
significant role in holding drug traffickers accountable. Last month, 
the office secured a 320-month sentence for a Toledo-based man who was 
a local drug distributor for the Sinaloa Cartel and had helped traffic 
fentanyl, heroin, cocaine, and methamphetamine into the State of Ohio. 
In addition, Federal prosecutors found this defendant engaged in sex 
trafficking and secured a 140-month sentence after he was convicted.
  Notably, the U.S. Attorney's Office coordinated this with both the 
Toledo Metro Drug Task Force and the Toledo Human Trafficking and Child 
Exploitation Task Force. That is what an efficient U.S. Attorney's 
Office does to keep the people of Ohio and Illinois safe.
  Why in the world would any Senator stand up and object to a U.S. 
attorney prosecutor who is working to stop this drug trafficking across 
his State?
  Well, the Senator from Ohio explained it. He is upset, Madam 
President. He is upset that the U.S. Department of Justice, through a 
special counsel, would actually consider indicting the former President 
of the United States. And because he is upset--and he calls it 
weaponization--he is going to make sure that, in his own State, there 
is not a Federal prosecutor doing the job that should be done to stop 
the sale of narcotics and, in my State of Illinois, the same thing.
  This is unprecedented. It has not happened in the history of the 
Senate. You can be upset, petulant, worried, hate it that a friend of 
yours in politics has been indicted, but to hold that against the 
people of Ohio and the families who are dying on such a regular

[[Page S5281]]

basis from these narcotics--that is shortsighted. That does not really 
reach the level that we, as Senators, should aspire to.
  So, Madam President, I make the following request: I ask unanimous 
consent that at a time to be determined by the majority leader, with 
the Republican leader's consultation, the Senate proceed to executive 
session to consider the following nominations: Calendar Nos. 314 and 
315; that there be 2 minutes for debate, equally divided in the usual 
form, on each nomination; that following the use or yielding back of 
time, the Senate proceed to vote without intervening action or debate 
on the nominations in the order listed; that the motions to reconsider 
be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action 
or debate; that no further motions be in order; that the President be 
immediately notified of the Senate's action and the Senate then resume 
legislative session.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. VANCE. Madam President, reserving the right to object, the 
Senator from Illinois has made two comments that I would like to 
respond to.
  First of all, I think it takes a special amount of gall to be from 
Joe Biden's political party and to complain about the fentanyl crisis 
that is ravaging not just Ohio but the entire country, because it is 
Joe Biden's border policies that have invited this fentanyl into our 
country at record levels. I heard a briefing from the Department of 
Homeland Security and Customs and Border Protection today that 
confirmed that very fact.
  Second of all, the Senator said something I actually agree with: that 
this whole policy that I have implemented on Department of Justice 
nominees is unprecedented. He mentions that we have in the past in this 
body, before I got here, approved a number of Department of Justice 
nominees through unanimous consent.
  What the Senator from Illinois doesn't mention is that, in that time, 
when these nominations sailed through unanimous consent, the Department 
of Justice was not trying to throw the political rival of the President 
of the United States in prison.
  I object to this because we are living in a banana republic where the 
President is using his Department of Justice to go after his chief 
political rival, the person he will appear on the ballot with in about 
a year.
  If the Department of Justice will use these nominations for law 
instead of politics, I am happy to end this whole policy. But so long 
as the Department of Justice uses its nominations and uses its 
personnel to go after its political opponents--from the President of 
the United States on down--I will object. And, because of that, Madam 
President, I do object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, so, on average, every day, 14 Ohio 
families lose a loved one to drugs.
  The explanation: We want to send a message to the Department of 
Justice. We want to keep the U.S. attorney off the job who would try to 
attack this narcotics epidemic.
  It just doesn't make sense. How can you explain to the people of Ohio 
and Illinois that you are trying to get some way to make it even on 
political grounds at their expense? For goodness' sake, for the sake of 
families in your own home State, give these U.S. attorneys a chance to 
fight to make life safer for these families.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.


                Amendment No. 1249 to Amendment No. 1092

  Mr. CRUZ. Madam President, I call up my amendment No. 1249 and ask 
that it be reported by number.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Texas [Mr. Cruz], for himself and Mr. 
     Cornyn, proposes an amendment numbered 1249 to amendment No. 
     1092.

  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To ensure that United States diplomats and officials of the 
  U.S. Section of the International Boundary and Water Commission are 
able to advance efforts seeking compliance by the United Mexican States 
   with the 1944 Treaty on Utilization of Waters of the Colorado and 
                 Tijuana Rivers and of the Rio Grande)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. ADVANCING EFFORTS SEEKING COMPLIANCE BY MEXICO WITH 
                   TREATY ON UTILIZATION OF WATERS OF THE COLORADO 
                   AND TIJUANA RIVERS AND OF THE RIO GRANDE.

       The Secretary of State shall use the voice, vote, 
     diplomatic capital, and resources of the United States to 
     ensure that United States diplomats and officials of the U.S. 
     Section of the International Boundary and Water Commission 
     are able to advance efforts seeking compliance by the United 
     Mexican States with the Treaty on Utilization of Waters of 
     the Colorado and Tijuana Rivers and of the Rio Grande, signed 
     at Washington February 3, 1944, and to establish 
     understandings to provide predictable and reliable future 
     deliveries of water by the United Mexican States.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be up 
to 2 minutes of debate, equally divided.
  Mr. CRUZ. Madam President, this is an amendment that should be a 
simple and bipartisan, commonsense amendment.
  Under a treaty in 1944, Mexico is obliged to provide 350,000 acre-
feet of water per year to the Rio Grande Valley. Farmers in the Rio 
Grande Valley are facing drought right now, and Mexico has been slow in 
meeting its treaty commitments. This amendment simply instructs the 
water negotiators to press Mexico to meet its treaty agreements and 
provide the water that is owed.
  I would note that the language of this amendment was worked out in a 
bipartisan manner and was cleared by both Democrats and Republicans on 
the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. This language was also worked 
out directly with the negotiators of the International Boundary and 
Water Commission. It is designed not to negatively impact any other 
State but to instruct States to urge Mexico to meet its treaty 
commitments so that farmers who need water can get the water they need.
  I urge Members on both sides of the aisle to support the amendment.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. We yield back our time.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 1249

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  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 senior assistant 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 PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Baldwin). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote or change their vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 52, nays 45, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 282 Leg.]

                                YEAS--52

     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
     Kaine
     Kennedy
     King
     Lankford
     Lummis
     Manchin
     Marshall
     McConnell
     Moran
     Mullin
     Murkowski
     Ossoff
     Paul
     Ricketts
     Risch
     Romney
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Schmitt
     Scott (FL)
     Sinema
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Thune
     Tuberville
     Vance
     Wicker
     Young

                                NAYS--45

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

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Lee
     Scott (SC)
     Tillis
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 52, the nays are 
45.

[[Page S5282]]

  Under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this 
amendment, the amendment is not agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 1249) was rejected.


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

  
  On page S5282, November 1, 2023, in the first column, the 
following language appears: The amendment (No. 1292) was rejected.
  
  The online Record has been corrected to read: The amendment (No. 
1249) was rejected.


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


  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The junior Senator from Kentucky.


               Amendment No. 1121 to Amendment No. 1092.

       (Purpose: To require congressional review of certain agency 
     rulemaking)

  Mr. PAUL. Madam President, I call up my amendment, No. 1121, and ask 
that it be reported by number.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. Paul], for Mr. Lee, proposes 
     an amendment numbered 1121 to amendment No. 1092.

  (The amendment is printed in the Record of September 12, 2023, under 
``Text of Amendments.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be up 
to 2 minutes of debate equally divided.
  The junior Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. PAUL. Madam President, our Declaration of Independence asserts 
that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the 
governed. While voters may elect Members of Congress, Americans are 
increasingly governed by bureaucrats they do not know, will never meet, 
and cannot hold accountable.
  In 2022, the Biden administration imposed $117.1 billion in 
regulatory costs on the American people. Unelected, unknown, and 
unaccountable bureaucrats should not unilaterally develop the most 
significant public policies that impose costly burdens on American 
families and businesses.
  To restore republican accountability to our government, Senator Lee 
and I propose that we adopt as an amendment a bill that I have 
introduced for several years called the REINS Act. The REINS Act would 
require Congress to affirmatively approve every new major rule proposed 
by the executive branch before it is permitted to become effective.
  By passing the REINS Act, the American people, through their elected 
officials, will reclaim the ability to prevent unnecessary government 
interference in everyday life.
  I ask for a ``yes'' vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The junior Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. PETERS. Madam President, this amendment would prevent Federal 
Agencies from effectively serving the American people. It would weaken 
the government's ability to enact key health and safety standards. It 
would endanger a range of public protections for the environment, 
American workers, and people with disabilities. It would stifle 
innovation for emerging technologies, such as self-driving cars, 
artificial intelligence, and other tools that will help carry our 
country forward.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in voting no on this amendment.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 1121

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on agreeing to 
amendment No. 1121.
  Mrs. FISCHER. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. 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 ``nay'' and the Senator from Utah (Mr. Lee) 
would have voted ``yea.''
  The result was announced--yeas 46, nays 51, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 283 Leg.]

                                YEAS--46

     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
     Vance
     Wicker
     Young

                                NAYS--51

     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
     Warner
     Warnock
     Warren
     Welch
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Lee
     Scott (SC)
     Tillis
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Butler). On this vote, the yeas are 46, 
the nays are 51.
  Under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this 
amendment, the amendment is not agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 1121) was rejected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 60-
affirmative vote threshold for the adoption of the substitute 
amendment, No. 1092, as amended, be withdrawn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I know of no further debate on the substitute amendment.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 1092

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment, No. 1092, as amended.
  The amendment (No. 1092) in the nature of a substitute, as amended, 
was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I am proud to say that today the Senate 
becomes the first Chamber in Congress to pass bipartisan, responsible 
appropriations bills: MILCON-VA, Agriculture, and Transportation-HUD. 
These bipartisan bills deliver big wins for America's farmers, for our 
infrastructure, for housing, and for our military bases and veterans 
and more. And passing these bills affirms what I have said all year 
long: The only way--the only way--to get things done in divided 
government is bipartisanship.
  I hope the Senate's success today shows Speaker Johnson and House 
Republicans that bipartisanship is the way to go. The American people 
won't support futile exercise of passing partisan, extremist 
legislation that has no chance of becoming law, which is what the House 
is doing right now. Their appropriations bills, A, are loaded with 
poison pills that they know are not going to be accepted in this 
Chamber or by Democrats in their Chamber, and they make cuts in the 
budget that go against the agreement we made during the debt ceiling.
  I told Speaker Johnson last week that if we can figure out how to 
work on appropriations together, we can get good things done for the 
country, which is what both sides, I am proud to say, in the Senate 
want to do. I urged Speaker Johnson not to repeat the mistakes of 
Speaker McCarthy's team, who pushed party-line funding bills that went 
way below the agreement from June, without input from Democrats. Only--
only--bipartisan appropriation bills will be able to fully fund the 
government.
  I want to recognize my colleague. Chair Patty Murray has done 
excellent work in her first year as chair of the Appropriations 
Committee. She has been outstanding. I also wish to thank Vice Chair 
Susan Collins for her terrific work, as well as all the appropriators 
on both sides of the aisle.
  Pursuing bipartisanship isn't always easy. Most of the time, it is 
difficult--more difficult now than ever. But if you stick with it, we 
can do it. And we have stuck with it, and we have done it. Thanks to 
both sides, we are reaching a good outcome for the country.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I want to thank everyone who has worked 
with me and the senior Senator from Maine to get our bipartisan 
spending package here.
  Over the last few days, we have had a truly robust amendment process 
and considered 40 amendments, and this vote is now our chance to get 
Congress back on track so that we can fund our

[[Page S5283]]

government in a bipartisan way, avoid another massive, end-of-the-year 
omnibus, and address pressing issues like aid to our allies, disaster 
relief, childcare prices, and more.
  By passing this bill today, we can send a crucial message to the 
American people and the world that, yes, Democrats and Republicans can 
work together; and, yes, the United States is still strong and still 
responsive to the challenges before us.
  So I urge everyone who wants to avoid another year-end omnibus, 
everyone who has worked with us to put this package together, to vote 
with us to pass it. Let's get the job done.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, the Senate is about to cast its vote--a 
key vote--on passage of the first package of fiscal year 2024 
appropriations bills. They include the Military Construction-VA bill, 
the Agriculture and FDA legislation, and the Transportation and Housing 
and Urban Development appropriations.
  I want to thank everyone involved for their cooperation for getting 
us to the point of passing this significant package.
  First, let me thank Chair Murray for her strong, persistent, and 
dedicated leadership.
  The support of Leaders McConnell and Thune and Leader Schumer were 
also absolutely essential.
  I want to express my thanks to our hard-working staff, led by Betsy 
McDonnell and Evan Schatz.
  We have a great Republican team on the Appropriations Committee. And 
I want to thank all of them for working with their Democratic 
counterparts to bring about truly bipartisan bills. Particularly, I 
want to thank on the Agriculture Subcommittee, the chairman, Senator 
Heinrich, and the ranking member, Senator Hoeven.
  I want to thank my Military Construction and Veterans Affairs 
Committee, Senator Murray, for playing a double role there, as well as 
Senator Boozman.
  And on the Transportation-HUD Subcommittee--a subcommittee I chaired 
for many years and was ranking member on--I want to thank Senator 
Schatz and Senator Hyde-Smith. They all worked incredibly hard.
  After working for weeks with our colleagues, we considered 40 
amendments to these three bills. All three of these bills passed the 
Appropriations Committee unanimously this past summer. And I appreciate 
the hard work of every single one of our members.
  Giving Senators a voice in funding decisions through a robust 
committee and floor process was an early goal that Chair Murray and I 
established. It guided our process as the committee approved all 12 of 
the appropriations bills by the end of July for the first time in 5 
years. It also has guided our process on the Senate floor. Well, it was 
certainly not easy and certainly took far longer than either the chair 
or I would have liked. The amendment process allowed for Senators of 
both parties to fully debate these bills and be heard.
  I look forward to working with Chair Murray and her colleagues to 
build on this progress by continuing to process our committee-approved 
appropriations bills on the Senate floor.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for this important 
legislative package that honors and serves our Nation's veterans, 
supports our farmers, ranchers, and rural communities, and improves 
transportation infrastructure and housing opportunities all across our 
great country.
  I urge a yea vote on the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will read the title of the bill for 
the third time.
  The amendments were ordered to be engrossed and the bill to be read a 
third time.
  The bill was read the third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the 
question is, Shall the bill, as amended, pass?
  Mrs. MURRAY. 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. 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'' and the Senator from Utah (Mr. Lee) 
would have voted ``nay.''
  The result was announced--yeas 82, nays 15, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 284 Leg.]

                                YEAS--82

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blackburn
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Boozman
     Britt
     Brown
     Butler
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Coons
     Cornyn
     Cortez Masto
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Daines
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Fetterman
     Fischer
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagerty
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Hickenlooper
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Kaine
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     King
     Klobuchar
     Lankford
     Lujan
     Manchin
     Markey
     Marshall
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Moran
     Mullin
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Ossoff
     Padilla
     Peters
     Reed
     Romney
     Rosen
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Sinema
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Thune
     Van Hollen
     Vance
     Warner
     Warnock
     Warren
     Welch
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden
     Young

                                NAYS--15

     Barrasso
     Braun
     Budd
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Ernst
     Hawley
     Johnson
     Lummis
     Paul
     Ricketts
     Risch
     Schmitt
     Scott (FL)
     Tuberville

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Lee
     Scott (SC)
     Tillis
  The bill (H.R. 4366), as amended, was passed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kaine). The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, what we have just done is really 
important, and I want to thank everyone who helped us get here: my vice 
chair, the senior Senator from Maine; our subcommittee leaders, the 
Senators from Arkansas, New Mexico, North Dakota, Hawaii, and 
Mississippi; and all of our colleagues--all of our colleagues--who 
worked hard to craft and strengthen these bills. I want to thank Senate 
leadership and, of course, all of our tireless staff who have met every 
challenge this process has thrown at us.
  Today, months of hard work paid off. We just passed a strong 
bipartisan spending package--the only bipartisan spending bills in 
Congress, by the way--and we did it with an 82-to-15 vote.
  So let us be crystal clear about what that means. Unlike the funding 
measures we have seen pushed through the House, these are serious and 
reasonable bipartisan bills that can actually be signed into law.
  They are the product of months of hard work, careful negotiation, and 
thoughtful input from Members on both sides of the aisle.
  They stick to the spending levels that House Republicans and 
President Biden signed and negotiated and that we all passed into law 
this past spring.
  And despite the tough funding constraints, these bills move our 
country forward, not back, with important investments to keep our 
promise to our Nation's veterans, to get Americans where they need to 
go safely, to increase our housing supply, address the homelessness 
crisis, support our farmers, our ranchers, and keep American families 
healthy and safe and more.
  What we have done here--finding common ground to produce reasonable, 
bipartisan bills--is not just a template; it is the only way to get our 
jobs done in a divided government. There is a clear lesson from the 
last few months here in Congress, and it is that we must work together, 
not retreat to extreme partisan corners.
  So let us be clear to my colleagues. We have a lot more work to do. 
Our mission here isn't just to send a message or pass a bill through 
the Senate. We have to work to get these bills signed into law. And I 
don't just mean these investments but crucial funding in all of our 
bipartisan appropriations bills.
  While we may need another CR before our work is done, we absolutely 
have to remember: Long-term CRs are no way to govern, and they 
certainly

[[Page S5284]]

are no way to lead. When we operate under long-term CRs, our Agencies 
are stuck in neutral. They cannot plan for the future. They have to 
delay initiatives and investments. They are far less equipped to meet 
the pressing challenges we face. Governing by CRs hurts families who 
need a government that works reliably, seriously stunts our economy and 
American innovation, and dangerously impedes our national security.
  I think we all know that our competitors across the world are not 
putting their budgets on autopilot. They are doing everything they can 
to get ahead, and they are hoping that we fall behind into the chaos of 
partisan infighting. We cannot let that happen. We need to pass full-
year funding with the investments we need to keep the United States 
strong and safe and competitive--especially in a moment that truly 
calls for American leadership.

  There is no question we have got our work cut out for us, but today, 
we have shown a clear roadmap for how we can get our work done. So I am 
talking with my vice chair about the next set of bills we will work to 
move in the Senate and continuing work to move a comprehensive, 
bipartisan supplemental funding package.
  We need to start conferencing our appropriations bills. That will 
require House Republicans to get serious about governing, to get back 
to the spending agreement that they negotiated and work with us to 
finalize these bipartisan bills. It is critical that happens.
  We do not have time to waste. The clock is ticking. The American 
people are tired of watching Congress wait until the last second before 
kicking the can down the road. Our constituents do not want to see 
chaos. They do not want to see shutdowns or threats, and they don't 
want to see our country's future limited by CRs. They do want to see 
their elected officials roll up their sleeves, sit down at the table, 
and do the hard work of governing to help people and solve problems. 
That is what we have done today. So let's get to it, and let's get our 
work done.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________