[Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 10 (Thursday, January 18, 2024)]
[Senate]
[Pages S181-S183]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
LEGISLATIVE SESSION
______
AMENDING THE PERMANENT ELECTRONIC DUCK STAMP ACT OF 2013--Continued
Mr. SCHUMER. I move to proceed to legislative session.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. SCHUMER. 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. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
H.R. 2872
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, shortly, we are going to be voting on an
amendment authored by our colleague from Kentucky, Senator Paul, that
deals with restrictions on U.S. support in regard to the Middle East. I
want to urge my colleagues to vote against that amendment.
Our ally Israel is at war to destroy Hamas terrorists, not at war
against the Palestinian people, but this amendment by my colleague
threatens U.S. efforts that support stability and security efforts and
that serve Israeli and U.S. interests. What it would do is put certain
restrictions on what funds America can make available in the region,
particularly in regard to the Palestinians. It would undermine the
United States' ability to work in lockstep with Israel on critical
security cooperation and on counterterrorism efforts with the
Palestinian Authority in the West Bank.
Today, we have a partnership in regard to security on the West Bank.
The United States is helping in regard to the training of Palestinian
security forces.
Mr. President, one of the pleasant surprises, I would say, is during
this war between Israel and Hamas, we have seen relative peace in the
West Bank. The security forces are doing their job. It is not perfect
by any stretch of the imagination. There is too much violence taking
place everywhere. But the security forces have been successful in
providing more stability in the region. That would be compromised or
eliminated under the Paul amendment.
It would prohibit the United States from meeting longstanding
commitments to providing lifesaving assistance for hospitals, vaccines
for children, and water treatment facilities. This goes beyond Taylor
Force in cutting off potential funds to the Palestinians for their
lifesaving type of activities, from hospitals to water treatment
facility plants.
It would also prohibit future assistance--including humanitarian
assistance--to any governing entity for innocent Palestinians the day
after Israel has destroyed Hamas, undermining the United States'
ability to work toward a political horizon for Palestinians that
protects Israel's security needs.
We are all concerned about what happens after the war ends with
Hamas, after Hamas is destroyed. We need to have an entity that has the
credibility among the Palestinians, and that will require us all to
have partnerships to make a lasting peace so we can have lasting peace
between the Israelis and the Palestinians. The Paul amendment
compromises that from being able to be done. It would restrict what we
can do in partnership to make that a reality.
We know the tragedy of this war with Hamas, but we hope coming out of
it will give us a new opportunity for peace in the region, and that
will require us to be able to help deal with the crisis that has been
created through Hamas's attack, particularly with the Palestinian
people, and to work to make sure there is a future with the Palestinian
people living in peace with Israel.
So this amendment does not serve our national security interests. It
compromises our ability to have a successful conclusion after Hamas has
been destroyed. It compromises our current abilities to keep peace in
the region, particularly in the West Bank. It compromises what we need
to do in regard to the humanitarian needs of the region.
For all those reasons, I would urge my colleagues to reject the
amendment.
Mr. President, I know of no further debate on the Paul amendment.
I ask unanimous consent that we begin the vote on the amendment.
Vote on Amendment No. 1384
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
Hearing none, the question now occurs on agreeing to amendment No.
1384.
Mr. CARDIN. 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 executive clerk called the roll.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from Wyoming (Mr. Barrasso), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr.
Graham), the Senator from Iowa (Mr. Grassley), the Senator from
Louisiana (Mr. Kennedy), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Scott), and the
Senator from Missouri (Mr. Hawley).
Further, if present and voting: the Senator from Missouri Mr. Hawley
would have voted ``yea.''
[[Page S182]]
The result was announced--yeas 44, nays 50, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 10 Leg.]
YEAS--44
Blackburn
Boozman
Braun
Britt
Budd
Capito
Cassidy
Collins
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Ernst
Fischer
Hagerty
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Johnson
Lankford
Lee
Lummis
Manchin
Marshall
McConnell
Moran
Mullin
Murkowski
Paul
Ricketts
Risch
Romney
Rounds
Rubio
Schmitt
Scott (SC)
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Tuberville
Vance
Wicker
Young
NAYS--50
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Brown
Butler
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coons
Cortez Masto
Duckworth
Durbin
Fetterman
Gillibrand
Hassan
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Kaine
Kelly
King
Klobuchar
Lujan
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--6
Barrasso
Graham
Grassley
Hawley
Kennedy
Scott (FL)
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Peters). On this vote, the yeas are 44,
the nays are 50.
Under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this
amendment, the amendment is not agreed to.
The amendment (No. 1384) was rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be up
to 6 minutes of debate, equally divided, prior to the vote on the
Marshall motion to commit.
Motion to Commit
Mr. MARSHALL. Mr. President, I have a motion at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The senior assistant executive clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Kansas [Mr. Marshall] moves to commit the
bill, H.R. 2872, to the Committee on Appropriations of the
Senate with instructions to report the same back to the
Senate in 1 day, not counting any day on which the Senate is
not in session, with changes that provide continuing
appropriations for the entire Federal Government through the
end of fiscal year 2024.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
Mr. MARSHALL. I rise in support of my motion to commit this
continuing resolution to the Appropriations Committee with instructions
for them to return to the floor a new continuing resolution to fund the
government through the 2024 fiscal year.
The requested modifications to this continuing resolution are nothing
more than date changes and minor anomalies that the Appropriations
Committee is more than equipped to handle with the 24-hour turnaround
time.
Doing so gives us ample time for the Senate and House to pass this
amended legislation and send it to the President's desk before Friday's
funding deadline.
Under the bipartisan agreements made as part of the Fiscal
Responsibility Act, a full-year CR through September 30 would result in
a spending cut of $73 billion, bringing our total discretionary
spending down to 1.56 trillion, a significant cut from the $1.66
trillion funding deal that is in the works currently.
This is the fiscally responsible decision that the American people
deserve and Congress has an obligation to make. We should agree to this
spending cut, roll up our sleeves, and get back to work on an even more
responsible funding package for the next fiscal year that will start to
address our Nation's massive $34 trillion dollar debt.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the motion to
commit the CR with instructions. The Senate has before it a bipartisan,
bicameral CR which keeps the government open and gives us time to
negotiate and pass full-year funding bills under the Schumer-Johnson
top-line agreement.
The junior Senator from Kansas wants us to walk away from the
bipartisan compromise on the CR, guarantee a government shutdown, and
accept a devastating, year-long CR rather than do our jobs as Senators
and write full-year bills.
I spoke at length recently about how a full-year CR would lock us
into last year's spending plans and policies as if nothing has changed
in over a year, and it would force devastating across-the-board cuts to
programs that our country and families rely on, defense and nondefense
alike.
It is simply not an option. We need to pass this CR, keep working 24/
7 to hammer out the strongest possible funding bills. And for all those
reasons, I strongly oppose the motion and urge my colleagues to vote
no.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I, too, urge our colleagues to reject
this motion that calls for the Appropriations Committee to put forward
a year-long continuing resolution for fiscal year 2024.
Adopting this motion would wipe out the work of the appropriations
committee that led to 12 stand-alone bills being reported last summer
with overwhelming bipartisan support. It would also lock in dangerously
inadequate funding levels for our national security and lead to cuts in
other vital programs serving our veterans, older Americans, low-income
families. It would stall biomedical research, harm our farmers, and
slow progress that we are making on our infrastructure.
A year-long CR would result in defense funding levels that are nearly
$27 billion less than the President's request in the Fiscal
Responsibility Act. According to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, under a year-long CR:
Thousands of [defense] programs will be impacted with the
most devastating impacts being to personnel, the nuclear
triad modernization, shipbuilding and maintenance, munitions
productions and replenishments, and the U.S. Indo-Pacific
Command priorities.
A year-long CR would result in our military being less ready to
respond to the serious security threats around the globe.
I urge my colleagues to reject this motion and support the reasonable
approach of completing our work.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
Mr. MARSHALL. Mr. President, a reminder of two dates: a date in June
when the Appropriations Committee did their job--they got all their
appropriations bills done--and another date in November when we last
worked on this on this floor through a minibus.
We asked for more time. We stand at the ready. We are begging to
bring these bills to the floor. Let them see the light of day. Let us
finish our job. But in the meantime, I believe that this CR is the best
path for American citizens.
I yield the floor.
Vote on Motion to Commit
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to
commit.
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 legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from Wyoming (Mr. Barrasso), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr.
Graham), the Senator from Iowa (Mr. Grassley), the Senator from
Louisiana (Mr. Kennedy), and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Scott).
The result was announced--yeas 13, nays 82, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 11 Leg.]
YEAS--13
Budd
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Hawley
Johnson
Lee
Lummis
Marshall
Paul
Risch
Tuberville
Vance
NAYS--82
Baldwin
Bennet
Blackburn
Blumenthal
Booker
Boozman
Braun
Britt
Brown
Butler
Cantwell
Capito
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Cassidy
Collins
Coons
Cornyn
Cortez Masto
Cotton
Cramer
Duckworth
Durbin
Ernst
Fetterman
Fischer
Gillibrand
Hagerty
Hassan
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Kaine
Kelly
King
Klobuchar
Lankford
Lujan
Manchin
Markey
McConnell
Menendez
Merkley
Moran
Mullin
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
[[Page S183]]
Ossoff
Padilla
Peters
Reed
Ricketts
Romney
Rosen
Rounds
Rubio
Sanders
Schatz
Schmitt
Schumer
Scott (SC)
Shaheen
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Sullivan
Tester
Thune
Tillis
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Welch
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden
Young
NOT VOTING--5
Barrasso
Graham
Grassley
Kennedy
Scott (FL)
The motion was rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, amendment No. 1381
is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 1381) was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill, as amended, is considered read a
third time.
The amendment was ordered to be engrossed and the bill to be read a
third time.
The bill was read the third time.
Order of Business
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be up to 6 minutes of debate,
equally divided, prior to the vote on the passage of H.R. 2872, as
amended.
The majority leader.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, we have good news for America. There will
not be a shutdown on Friday. Because both sides have worked together,
the government will stay open. Services will not be disrupted. We will
avoid a needless disaster.
My colleagues and I on both sides of the aisle worked late into the
evening last night to reach this agreement. So I thank everyone for
their good work. Keeping the government open wasn't a given. We stayed
up, negotiating amendments and timing, but thanks to both sides working
together, the Senate is passing the CR with enough time for the House
to take it up today and send it to the President's desk well before
Friday's deadline.
Avoiding a shutdown is very good news for every American, especially
for our veterans, our parents, our children, our farmers, our small
businesses, and so many others who would have felt the sting of a
government shutdown.
I thank my colleagues on both sides for their good work. It is
precisely what Americans want to see--both sides working together and
governing responsibly, with no chaos, no spectacle, no shutdown.
I yield to the chair of the Appropriations Committee, who has done
such a good job on this measure.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I urge all of our colleagues to join us
in voting to pass the CR so we can continue the work of negotiating and
passing full-year funding bills without a shutdown, causing needless
harm and chaos for folks back home.
We know a shutdown come end of day Friday would be devastating. I
will be frank. Just the fact that our Agencies have to continually plan
around the potential of a shutdown nearly constantly is a huge
opportunity cost. A shutdown tomorrow would force staff administering
our Nation's veterans and nutrition assistance programs and so much
else to either work without pay or stop working altogether.
The Chair of the National Transportation Safety Board said a shutdown
this week would force the Board to hit pause on investigations it is
conducting, including the recent incident when a door plug blew out
midflight. This should not be an acceptable option to anyone.
Now, I have been working nonstop with my colleagues in both Chambers
to keep this process moving as quickly as we possibly can so we can
write and pass the strongest possible funding bills. Passing this
measure will allow us the time we need to hammer out those funding
bills for fiscal year 2024 after many months of needless delays.
I think we all want this to be a drama-free and reliable process, so
I hope House Republicans will work with us to make that possible now,
too, which means leaving extreme partisan demands at the door. We are
all working as quickly as possible, but we aren't going to lose sight
of the millions of Americans who count on the programs we fund whether
it is WIC--for so many moms and babies we don't want to go hungry--or
lifesaving healthcare research.
We have a lot of work left to do, but it has to happen in a
bipartisan way. So let's get this CR passed and then work to make sure
it is the last by keeping our focus on finalizing serious
appropriations bills, which means no partisan poison pills and
understanding that there needs to be a bipartisan agreement when it
comes to key investments in our country's future.
I yield the floor.
Vote on H.R. 2872
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the
question is, Shall the bill pass?
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have been requested.
Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from Wyoming (Mr. Barrasso), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr.
Graham), the Senator from Iowa (Mr. Grassley), the Senator from
Louisiana (Mr. Kennedy), and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Scott).
The result was announced--yeas 77, nays 18, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 12 Leg.]
YEAS--77
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Boozman
Brown
Butler
Cantwell
Capito
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Cassidy
Collins
Coons
Cornyn
Cortez Masto
Cotton
Daines
Duckworth
Durbin
Ernst
Fetterman
Fischer
Gillibrand
Hagerty
Hassan
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Hyde-Smith
Kaine
Kelly
King
Klobuchar
Lankford
Lujan
Lummis
Manchin
Markey
McConnell
Menendez
Merkley
Moran
Mullin
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Peters
Reed
Ricketts
Romney
Rosen
Rounds
Rubio
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Sullivan
Tester
Thune
Tillis
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Welch
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden
Young
NAYS--18
Blackburn
Braun
Britt
Budd
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Hawley
Hoeven
Johnson
Lee
Marshall
Paul
Risch
Schmitt
Scott (SC)
Tuberville
Vance
NOT VOTING--5
Barrasso
Graham
Grassley
Kennedy
Scott (FL)
The bill (H.R. 2872), as amended, was passed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Butler). On this vote, the yeas are 77,
the nays are 18.
The 60-vote threshold having been achieved, the bill is passed, as
amended.
The bill (H.R. 2872), as amended, was passed.
____________________