[Pages S1105-S1111]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

EB-5 REFORM AND INTEGRITY ACT OF 2022

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I would like to thank Senator Leahy for
joining me to discuss the EB-5 Reform and Integrity Act of 2022. He and
I have worked together on the issue of EB-5 reform for many years.
Because of that, we are proud that the Consolidated Appropriations
Act 2022 includes the provisions of the EB-5 Reform and Integrity Act
of 2022, of which we are the primary authors.
Congress originally authorized the EB-5 Regional Center program in
1993 as a pilot program, and, in recent years, its reauthorization was
often included in appropriations bills. However, due to lack of an
agreement to reauthorize and reform the program last year, it lapsed on
June 30 and has remained lapsed since that time.
This legislation formally repeals the pilot program created by
Congress in 1993 and codifies in its place a new regional center
program reflecting a number of reforms that we have pursued for many
years.
All regional centers which operated under the lapsed and repealed
pilot program will be expected to seek a new regional center
designation in compliance with the new requirements and reforms laid
out in our bill. However, the bill allows petitions filed by immigrant
investors under the old pilot program to continue to be adjudicated
under the law as it existed when they were filed.
The EB-5 Reform and Integrity Act of 2022 codifies a number of our
long-sought reforms designed to enhance the integrity of the regional
center program and prevent fraud and abuse that have plagued it for far
too long.
The bill also requires that DHS issue regulations regarding the
redeployment of investor funds if certain conditions are met. We expect
USCIS to oversee redeployments and take action as necessary. Investors
should not be left vulnerable and regional centers cannot be allowed to
deploy funds in any way they please. We expect capital to remain at
risk, as required by the law, and the redeployment of funds to be in
projects that are preapproved.
The legislation codifies the definition of and the designation
process for a ``high unemployment'' targeted employment area that was
found in the 2019 EB-5 Immigrant Investor Program Modernization Rule.
As under the 2019 rule, the bill allows only DHS to make such
designations.
The codification of the so-called donut model from the 2019 rule will
significantly limit the number of census tracts that may be used to
seek a designation as a ``high unemployment'' TEA.
This limitation, combined with the exclusive authority of DHS to make
high unemployment TEA designations, will crack down on the notorious
practice of TEA gerrymandering, the practice of creating elaborate
configurations of multiple census tracts strung together so that a
census tract with high unemployment at one end can be used in order to
obtain a TEA designation for a building project within an affluent
census tract at the other end, perhaps many miles away.
It is also our expectation that ``high unemployment'' TEA
designations will be reserved for census tracts that have experienced
persistently high unemployment for a number of years and not because of
temporary anomalous circumstances such as local unemployment caused by
the COVID-19 pandemic.
Finally, the legislation puts in place specific visa set-asides for
rural area projects, high unemployment area projects, and
infrastructure projects. The visa set-aside for infrastructure projects
is limited to true public infrastructure projects--that is, those that
benefit the public and the American people--not public-private
partnerships or projects for a private business.
The EB-5 Reform and Integrity Act of 2022 is the result of years of
hard work and negotiation, and it is our hope that it brings meaningful
reform to a program badly in need of it and, most importantly, much-
needed investment capital and the permanent jobs that can come with it,
to inner city and rural areas where it is normally difficult, if not
impossible, to attract investment capital. We are grateful that it was
included in the Omnibus bill and look forward to seeing it signed into
law.

Violence Against Women Act Reauthorization Act of 2022

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the
Violence Against Women Act Reauthorization Act of 2022. This bill would
reauthorize our Nation's critical law to respond to domestic violence.
It is long overdue.
Last month, I introduced the Violence Against Women Act
Reauthorization Act alongside Senators Ernst, Durbin, Murkowski, and
others. A number of advocates joined us, including Angelina Jolie, to
speak about the importance of this bill.
This bill has received strong bipartisan support, including from 11
Republican cosponsors. And it has now been included in the Federal
Omnibus spending bill we are set to vote on this week.
This bipartisan bill would reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act
through 2027. And the bill includes important updates to modernize the
Violence Against Women Act to do an even better job of protecting and
supporting the survivors of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual
assault, and stalking.
I was proud to support the original Violence Against Women Act in
1994. And I have supported each reauthorization of the law since then.
This includes the most recent reauthorization in 2013, which passed
the Senate by a strong bipartisan vote of 78-22.
I was honored to be able to sponsor this new reauthorization, which
expands protections for survivors.
This bill is the result of a truly bipartisan effort. I would like to
thank Senators Ernst, Durbin, and Murkowski for working with me to
prepare this important piece of legislation.
We have also had help from a number of our Senate colleagues on both
sides of the aisle who have made important contributions to this
effort.
I would also like to thank the many advocates who provided valuable
input and support for this effort. This bill was written in close
consultation with the people who are on the frontlines helping
survivors of domestic violence every day.
Together, we drafted a bill that preserves the good work of the last
Violence Against Women Act reauthorization and strengthens existing
programs.
For nearly 30 years, the Violence Against Women Act has played a
vital role in the Federal response to domestic violence, dating
violence, sexual assault, and stalking. I hope that this bill will be
an effective tool to build on those efforts.
The need to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act is clear.
These programs are vital tools that provide thousands of domestic
violence survivors with the resources they need.
For instance, according to the National Network to End Domestic
Violence, in a single day in 2020 there were

[[Page S1106]]

76,525 survivors of domestic violence who received assistance thanks to
programs funded and supported by the Violence Against Women Act.
Despite the progress made over the last three decades, sexual,
emotional, and physical abuse are still painful realities for far too
many Americans.
More than one in three women and more than one in four men will
experience rape, physical violence, or stalking by an intimate partner
in their lifetime.
According to the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, in my
home State of California, approximately 35 percent of California women
and 31 percent of California men will experience violence from intimate
partners in their lifetimes.
All too often, these instances of domestic violence have fatal
consequences. Nationwide, an average of three women each day are killed
by a current or former intimate partner.
Based on a recent study of domestic violence occurring in Orange
County, CA, just under half of domestic violence-related homicides
involved an individual with a known history of violence.
The Violence Against Women Act plays a critical role supporting law
enforcement in their efforts to stop these perpetrators before it is
too late.
It is clear that the programs created by the Violence Against Women
Act are necessary. And they need to be continually updated to meet the
needs of survivors.
The bipartisan reauthorization bill that will soon be considered by
the full Senate would reauthorize these important programs and provide
the necessary updates to strengthen them.
This bill enhances and expands services for survivors of domestic
violence, including survivors in rural communities, LGBT survivors,
survivors with disabilities, and survivors who experience abuse later
in life.
This bill reauthorizes and strengthens the criminal justice response
to domestic violence, including by improving the Justice Department's
STOP grant program and strengthening the ability of Tribal courts to
address instances of domestic violence on Tribal lands.
This bill establishes a pilot program on restorative practices that
focuses on addressing domestic violence, dating violence, sexual
assault, and stalking through community-based, victim-initiated efforts
to seek accountability.
This bill invests in prevention education efforts and improves the
healthcare system's response to sexual violence across the country.
These updates can have a real impact. According to analysis by the
International Association of Forensic Nurses, only one in four
hospitals throughout the country currently has a sexual assault
forensic nurse on staff. These gaps in our healthcare system have
critical impacts on a survivor's ability to seek necessary medical
attention after they experience sexual violence.
Our bipartisan bill seeks to remedy this problem by providing
additional funding and training to increase access to forensic nurses,
particularly in rural areas.
Though this bipartisan bill makes significant improvements to our
Nation's response to domestic violence, it is not a perfect bill. I
regret that certain provisions were unable to be included in this bill.
In particular, I wish that we had been able to include a provision in
this bill closing the ``boyfriend loophole.'' This provision would have
ensured that individuals convicted of domestic abuse against a dating
partner could not purchase firearms.
Individuals who are convicted of domestic violence against a spouse
are already prevented from purchasing a firearm. It is deeply
disappointing that there is not sufficient bipartisan support for this
commonsense provision to close this dangerous loophole.
Though we still have work to do, this bipartisan bill represents a
strong step forward in protecting and supporting the survivors of
domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking.
It is time for the Senate to pass this long-overdue reauthorization
of the Violence Against Women Act.
I urge all of my colleagues to support this important bipartisan
legislation as it is considered on the floor. This bill is not for us;
it is for the millions of brave survivors that deserve action from
Congress.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.

Amendment No. 4989

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 4989 and ask that
it be reported by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment by number.
The bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Utah [Mr. Lee] proposes an amendment
numbered 4989.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To prohibit funding for COVID-19 vaccine mandates)

At the end of division HH, add the following:

TITLE VII--PROHIBITION ON FUNDING FOR COVID-19 VACCINE MANDATES

SEC. 701. PROHIBITION ON FUNDING FOR COVID-19 VACCINE
MANDATES.

None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available
under any division of this Act (notwithstanding section 3)
may be obligated or expended to--
(1) implement or enforce--
(A) section 1910.501 of title 29, Code of Federal
Regulations (or a successor regulation);
(B) Executive Order 14042 of September 9, 2021 (86 Fed.
Reg. 50985; relating to ensuring adequate COVID safety
protocols for Federal contractors);
(C) Executive Order 14043 of September 9, 2021 (86 Fed.
Reg. 50989; relating to requiring Coronavirus Disease 2019
vaccination for Federal employees);
(D) the interim final rule issued by the Department of
Health and Human Services on November 5, 2021, entitled
``Medicare and Medicaid Programs; Omnibus COVID-19 Health
Care Staff Vaccination'' (86 Fed. Reg. 61555); or
(E) the memorandum signed by the Secretary of Defense on
August 24, 2021, for ``Mandatory Coronavirus Disease 2019
Vaccination of Department of Defense Service Members''; or
(2) promulgate, implement, or enforce any rule, regulation,
or other agency statement, that is substantially similar to a
regulation, Executive Order, rule, or memorandum described in
paragraph (1).

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, a few short months ago, President Biden
issued a series of Executive orders. These Executive orders issued by
the Biden administration proposed some pretty sweeping mandates on the
American people, mandates insisting that covered persons, including for
our purposes today military employees, Federal workers, employees of
businesses with government contracts with the Federal Government, and
medical professionals who contract with CMS--basically anyone involved
with the provision of services through Medicare or Medicaid must get
the COVID-19 vaccine on condition of termination.
The way these mandates work is particularly nasty, especially if they
work for one of the private companies, as is the case with CMS and
independent contractor mandates. If they don't fire all their workers
who don't get vaccinated, then they basically are rendered out of
business.
Yes, the Federal Government was going to just impose these crippling
costs that no corporation could afford to carry. They knew that this
was creating a big issue and that this would force people into getting
vaccinated.
Here is the problem with that. Now, I want to be clear. I have been
vaccinated. My family has been vaccinated. I believe that vaccines have
made things safer and healthier for hundreds of millions of people. I
also believe that, like any medical procedure, it is not without risk,
particularly to some people who might have extreme sensitivities, who
might have an idiosyncratic response to the vaccine. So it is not right
to force this on everyone and to render those who refuse to get it not
only unemployed but unemployable.
I have received communications from countless people--for example,
military professionals, military officers, and enlisted personnel who
have worked for the U.S. military for nearly two decades, who are
actually coming up on retirement, who are saying that, for one reason
or another, they don't want to get the vaccine. Sometimes, it is
religious; other times, it is based on a history of poor reactions to
other vaccines or a prior medical condition that they believe would
cause them to respond poorly or based on natural immunity.
They don't want to get the vaccine, and they are being told that, in
the case of military personnel, if they don't get it, then they will
not receive

[[Page S1107]]

an honorable discharge. This could render them not only unemployed but
unemployable, and that is the case for many, many others subject to
these overreaching mandates.
Look, if we decided as a country that this was good policy, good
policy, like all good policy, should be embodied in law. In my copy of
the Constitution, the very first clause of the very first section of
the very first article says that ``all legislative Powers herein
granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall
consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.'' Article I, section
7 makes the point even clearer. It says that in order to pass a law
within the Federal system and have it be a Federal law, it has to be
proposed in one body or the other, but it has to be the same
legislation passed by both Houses prior to its presentment to the
President for signature, veto, or acquiescence.
In this case, we have had none of those things. No, instead, you have
unilateral Executive action taken by the President and those working
within his administration. In the process, they have bypassed that this
set of mandates is largely unnecessary, dramatically overreaching, not
within the executive power granted to the executive branch of
government by the U.S. Congress, and is fundamentally immoral, in
addition to being wildly and increasingly unpopular.
You see, the little secret is, people don't like the government doing
things that are immoral. And all of us understand that you don't render
someone unemployed, unable to put bread on the table for their
children, simply because they won't bow to Presidential medical
orthodoxy. That is not right, it is not American, and it is not
constitutional, but more than anything, it is not moral.
We all know deep down that this is not right. This is not something
any of us would want to do. Not one of us would want to show up and
tell our own employees: You know, if you don't do what I say with
regard to a medical procedure you may not want and as to which you
might have legitimate, sincere religious objections or that might be
unnecessary because you have natural immunity, which, by the way--
recent studies have confirmed natural immunity is at least as good as
and, according to many studies released by many countries and studies
in possession of our own government, is indicated to be at least as
powerful as and in many cases more powerful than the immunity achieved
through the vaccine. None of us would do that to a friend, a neighbor,
or our own employee because we know it would be wrong; it would be
mean; it would be unkind.
You can't atone for the unkindness and the immorality in that by
claiming it is OK because it is through the government, especially not
when the President of the United States is flouting circumventing the
Constitution of the United States.
We have a chance to make this right. Yes, over time, sadly, Senates
and Houses of Representatives and White Houses of every conceivable
partisan combination have contributed to this because, yes, we have
given Executives too much power. I complained about it during the
previous administration in response to specific actions taken by the
previous President--who was a Member of my own party--sometimes at
great personal expense because I believe Congress has given the
Executive too much power. It is bad. It is harmful. It is dangerous. We
have to stop it somewhere.
We have a chance right now. We have a shot with something that is
wildly unpopular and inherently immoral, and that shot exists with not
funding it. We don't have to fund that part of government that goes to
fund these dangerous, immoral, unconstitutional vaccine mandates. We
shouldn't do it. I encourage all of my colleagues, all within the sound
of my voice, please end this madness now.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I will be very brief. There are two reasons
why Senators should vote against the Lee anti-vaccination amendment
that affects our dedicated healthcare workers and our superlative
military.
First, vaccines for healthcare workers protects the most vulnerable,
particularly seniors and those with chronic illness. Three in four
COVID deaths in America were seniors. Two hundred thousand were people
living in long-term care. Vulnerable people are safer when their homes,
hospitals, and doctors' offices are safe. Furthermore, flu shot
requirements for healthcare workers were already common. Health workers
know vaccinations are part of the job.

Turning to the Armed Forces, I am simply going to quote the letter
General Milley wrote with respect to the vaccination requirement. Here
is General Milley:

We need each and every Soldier, Sailor, Airmen, Marine and
Guardian healthy and capable of performing our duties. COVID-
19 is a threat to force protection and readiness.

General Milley went on to say:

With this in mind, the Secretary of Defense intends to
mandate vaccinations for all Servicemembers.

And then he makes it clear:

The Joint Force medical professionals recommended this as a
necessary step to sustain our readiness and protect our
force, our coworkers, our families, and our communities.

For these reasons, when we get a chance to vote on the Lee anti-
vaccination amendment affecting healthcare workers in the military, I
urge my colleagues to oppose the Lee amendment.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.

Amendment No. 4983

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, I am rising to support the amendment that
my colleague Senator John Kennedy will introduce. So I will speak
before he introduces it, but I speak in support thereof.
Senator Kennedy is going to introduce an amendment that would
increase and that would grant disaster relief in several regions of the
country, but I speak on behalf of those in Southwest Louisiana.
A picture tells a thousand words. If you recall back 3 years ago,
Hurricane Laura hit Southwest Louisiana. Two weeks later, almost on the
exact same track, Hurricane Delta followed up, destroying that which
had not already been destroyed by Hurricane Laura.
The devastation of these storms was dramatic. Now I thank the
American people. There has been aid that has been given by fellow
Americans to these communities, but it has been less than what is
required. And flying over, the picture tells a thousand words. There
are still blue tarps on top of roofs years after the storm has hit. And
for those who are unfamiliar with it, blue tarps are when the roof has
been destroyed, you place the tarp so that it hopefully provides
protection that shingles otherwise would.
When you are on the ground and you go through the neighborhood, there
are homes that are blighted, boarded up, and as they have been boarded
up, criminals have come in and businesses have closed. This
particularly affects lower income communities. Those who have more
resources, they will recover, but those folks who need a little extra
help, they are not.
And so, as we think about the aid that my fellow Americans are asked
to give to their fellow Americans, I just will give some statistics.
Hurricane Laura cost $19 billion in damages; Hurricane Delta another $3
billion; and Ida, of course, not only hit Southwest Louisiana, but cost
$75 billion in damages from Louisiana to New York.
There is a lot that has happened. I ask for additional support as
outlined in my colleague John Kennedy's amendment to finish the
recovery for these folks who have endured so much.
I humbly ask my colleagues to support the amendment.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise tonight to urge my colleagues to
support the Omnibus appropriations bill before us.
The bill represents a massive bipartisan effort that rests upon a
framework that preserves all legacy riders, rejects poison pill policy
provisions from both sides, and achieves dollar-for-dollar funding
parity for defense and nondefense increases.
As political compromise has become more and more difficult here,
great credit, I believe, belongs to Chairman Leahy for making the tough
choices that needed to be made and showing leadership to reach this
agreement tonight.

[[Page S1108]]

The senior Senator from Vermont, who also serves this body as the
President pro tempore, has accomplished many things in his long and his
distinguished career. Each and every one of these accomplishments were
made possible by his unparalleled ability to get things done, and this
bill needed to get done.
Because the international security situation demands a greater
emphasis on and investment in our national defense, this omnibus bill
provides $782 billion for the Department of Defense and for other
defense functions; $4 billion more than the level authorized by the
National Defense Authorization Act; $30 billion more than President
Biden's budget request; and nearly $42 billion more than 2021.
The bill also provides an 11-percent increase over fiscal year 2021
for the Department of Homeland Security, including $6.5 billion for
much needed investments in border security resources and a 7-percent
increase for ICE operations. Critically, the package restores $2
billion in funding for wall construction on the southwest border.
The bill also cuts nearly $65 billion in wasteful nondefense spending
proposed in the Biden administration's budget--a nearly 10-percent
decrease from the requested level.
Finally, the package also provides critical emergency assistance to
our military, to Ukraine, and to our European allies, without reducing
base defense spending by a single dollar.
Is an omnibus appropriations bill ideal? I will tell you tonight, the
answer is, no, it is not, but at this critical time and this late date,
it is necessary.
My hope is that we can pass this bill and use the same framework that
made this bill possible as we begin the 2023 appropriations process.
I have no illusions that once again it will not be a difficult
process. It will be. I know that our chairman can get it done, and I
look forward to continuing to work with Senator Leahy and the
Appropriations staff--and with him one last time for both of us.
Before I complete my remarks, I would also like to recognize the
incredible--and it is incredible--effort put forward by the staff
members of both the Senate and House Appropriations Committees, as well
as the staff of the respective leaders' offices. Without them we
couldn't be where we are tonight. We asked them to do the impossible,
and they delivered as they always do. And on behalf of the entire
Senate, I want to thank them very, very much.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be given a
minute to describe my amendment and a minute be given to the Senator
from Washington.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LEE. Mr. President, it is unkind for us to tell Americans--just
moms and dads, ordinary people who are trying to live their lives and
put food on the table--that they can't put food on the table and that
they are going to be rendered unemployed and unemployable unless they
defer to Presidential medical orthodoxy. It is not who we are as
Americans. It is especially not who we are as is the case with these
mandates. There are not adequate provisions made for those with
preexisting medical conditions, for those with religious objections,
and for those with natural immunity. That is what we are dealing with
here. It is illegal; it is immoral; it is unkind; and we should not
fund its enforcement.
I plead with my colleagues to support my amendment to defund the
enforcement of these mandates.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, we have had this debate before many, many
times.
Vaccines are safe; they are effective; and they are lifesaving.
Because of our ability to get safe and effective vaccines out to
Americans, nearly 100 percent of our schools are open again. More than
90 percent of people are in communities with low or medium levels of
COVID, and people are finally getting back to a sense of normal in
their everyday lives. Vaccines have helped to make that happen.
Here we are once again. It is hard to believe this isn't the first or
even the second time that a few Senate Republicans have decided they
want to risk a damaging government shutdown in order to oppose steps
that save lives. I hope, for the sake of the people of this country, it
is the last time this happens.
There are problems real families want us to solve. They want us to
bring down costs with steps like the Democrats have proposed. They want
us to stand up for democracy and the people of Ukraine, who are facing
a war and a humanitarian crisis. They want us to learn from this
pandemic so we are better prepared for whatever is next. I am going to
focus on finding steps that we can actually take to help families, and
I believe that is what most of us want too.
I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment, which risks
derailing this important bipartisan bill, delaying needed aid to
Ukraine, and causing a dangerous government shutdown.
Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 20 seconds to
respond.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LEE. Mr. President, it is not helpful to American families to
threaten the breadwinner--the mom or the dad or, maybe, both of them in
some cases--with being rendered unemployed and unemployable and unable
to put bread on the table.
This is not about being anti-vaccine. I am not that, and neither are
any of the Senators who are supporting this effort. This is about
supporting American families. It is not supporting them to order them
fired.

Vote on Amendment No. 4989

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question occurs
on agreeing to amendment No. 4989, offered by the Senator from Utah,
Mr. Lee.
Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe).
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Baldwin). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 49, nays 50, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 75 Leg.]

YEAS--49

Barrasso
Blackburn
Blunt
Boozman
Braun
Burr
Capito
Cassidy
Collins
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Ernst
Fischer
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hawley
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Johnson
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
Lummis
Marshall
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Portman
Risch
Romney
Rounds
Rubio
Sasse
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shelby
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Tuberville
Wicker
Young

NAYS--50

Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coons
Cortez Masto
Duckworth
Durbin
Feinstein
Gillibrand
Hassan
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Kaine
Kelly
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
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
Whitehouse
Wyden

NOT VOTING--1

Inhofe

The amendment (No. 4989) was rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, if we want to hasten the evening, I
would suggest everybody stay around. Try to sit in your seats. We are
going to try to limit the rest of the votes to 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2
minutes of debate equally divided prior to the vote in relation to the
Braun amendment, No. 4990.
The Senator from Indiana.

Amendment No. 4990

Mr. BRAUN. Madam President, I call up my amendment, No. 4990, and ask
that it be reported by number.

[[Page S1109]]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment by number.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Indiana [Mr. Braun], for himself and
others, proposes an amendment numbered 4990.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To prohibit funds from being used for earmarks)

At the end of the matter preceding division A, add the
following:

SEC. 7. PROHIBITION ON EARMARKS.

(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any provision of any
division of this Act, none of the funds made available under
any division of this Act may be used to implement any
earmark, Community Project Funding, or Congressionally
Directed Spending specified in any provision of any division
of this Act or in the explanatory statement described in
section 4.
(b) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section shall
prevent funds allocated for any earmark, Community Project
Funding, or Congressionally Directed Spending included in any
division of this Act or in the tables contained in the
explanatory statement described in section 4 from being
awarded under a merit-based process under existing law.

Mr. BRAUN. Madam President, this bill has 367 pages worth of
earmarks, roughly 5 pounds of paper. Before it came to the Senate,
dozens of House offices deleted their public disclosures. I think the
swamp is rising again.
Dr. Tom Coburn, he would be appalled by this. He called earmarks--
Madam President, I think it is clear that most aren't interested in
talking about earmarks--something else. I believe they lead to waste
and abuse. That is why Congress got rid of them 10 years ago. They
should have never been allowed back.

My amendment would cut every one of them from this bill that should
have been run through regular process, through the Budget Committee, to
where appropriators should have known what was in it until it landed in
our laps last night.
For anyone here that loves the institution, you ought to have enough
common sense that $1.5 trillion deficits that are embedded in this bill
aren't a good business plan for the institution. I ask you all here
this evening: Make a statement--a symbolic one--to get rid of these
earmarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. BRAUN. And let's quit shoving all this debt onto the next
generation and on our kids.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, the Senator asked those who love this
institution to speak up. I am the Dean of the U.S. Senate. I have
served here for 48 years. I love this institution.
I know the Constitution vests the power of the purse in the Congress.
Certifications of these earmarks have been available to the public on
our committee website at my request and Senator Shelby's request for 8
months. Everybody knows what is here.
Vote for them or not; but, frankly, if I have to speak of what is
needed for my State of Vermont, I want to be the one speaking for it--
not somebody downtown. I would hope every Senator feels the same way.
I yield back the rest of my time. I oppose the amendment.
(Applause.)

Vote on Amendment No. 4990

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
Mr. BRAUN. 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 Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 35, nays 64, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 76 Leg.]

YEAS--35

Barrasso
Blackburn
Boozman
Braun
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Ernst
Fischer
Grassley
Hagerty
Hawley
Hoeven
Johnson
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
Lummis
Marshall
Paul
Portman
Risch
Romney
Rubio
Sasse
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Tester
Thune
Toomey
Tuberville
Young

NAYS--64

Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Blunt
Booker
Brown
Burr
Cantwell
Capito
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Cassidy
Collins
Coons
Cortez Masto
Duckworth
Durbin
Feinstein
Gillibrand
Graham
Hassan
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Hyde-Smith
Kaine
Kelly
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Lujan
Manchin
Markey
McConnell
Menendez
Merkley
Moran
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Peters
Reed
Rosen
Rounds
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Shelby
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Sullivan
Tillis
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden

NOT VOTING--1

Inhofe

The amendment (No. 4990) was rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be
two minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to
Kennedy amendment No. 4983.
The Senator from Louisiana.

Amendment No. 4983

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I call up my amendment number--and
Senator Cassidy's amendment No. 4983 and ask that it be reported by
number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment by number.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Kennedy], for himself and
Mr. Cassidy, proposes an amendment numbered 4983.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To provide emergency assistance for disaster response and
recovery, and for other expenses, directly related to Hurricanes Laura,
Delta, and Ida and to provide assistance for the Port Infrastructure
Development Program)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. __. EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE THROUGH THE COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM.

(a) In General.--In addition to amounts otherwise
appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury of the United
States not otherwise appropriated, there is appropriated to
the ``Community Development Fund'', for necessary expenses
related to disaster relief, long-term recovery, and
restoration of infrastructure, housing, and economic
revitalization in areas in States for which the President
declared a major disaster under title IV of the Robert T.
Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act of 1974
(42 U.S.C. 5170 et seq.) related to Hurricanes Laura, Delta,
and Ida, $2,000,000,000, to remain available until expended,
for activities authorized under title I of the Housing and
Community Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.),
of which--
(1) $600,000,000 shall be for activities related to
Hurricanes Laura and Delta; and
(2) $1,400,000,000 shall be for activities related to
Hurricane Ida.
(b) Deposit of c-band Spectrum Auction Proceeds in
Treasury.--Section 309(j)(8) of the Communications Act of
1934 (47 U.S.C. 309(j)(8)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``and (G)'' and
inserting ``(G), and (H)'';
(2) in subparagraph (C)(i), by striking ``and (G)'' and
inserting ``(G), and (H)''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(H) C-band auction proceeds.--Notwithstanding
subparagraph (A), and except as provided in subparagraph (B),
of the proceeds (including deposits and upfront payments from
successful bidders) from the use of a system of competitive
bidding under this subsection to award licenses in the band
of frequencies between 3700 megahertz and 3980 megahertz
(designated by the Commission as `Auction 107'),
$2,500,000,000 shall be deposited in the general fund of the
Treasury and used for emergency assistance under section
240(a) of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022.''.

SEC. ___. ASSISTANCE THROUGH THE PORT INFRASTRUCTURE
DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM.

In addition to amounts otherwise appropriated, out of any
money in the Treasury of the United States not otherwise
appropriated, there is appropriated $500,000,000 for the Port
Infrastructure Development Program within the Department of
Transportation's Maritime Administration, to equitably
administer grant awards to ports that incurred damages from
Hurricanes Laura, Delta, Zeta, and Ida and Tropical Storm
Cristobal.

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to be
recognized for up to 2 minutes of debate; Senator Cassidy for 1 minute
of debate; and Senator Schatz for 2 minutes of debate prior to the
vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, in 2020, Hurricane Laura hit Louisiana,

[[Page S1110]]

then Hurricane Marco hit us, then Hurricane Delta hit us, then
Hurricane Zeta, then Hurricane Ida--all in a period of 2 years.
Those storms caused $150 billion in damage. My amendment and Senator
Cassidy's amendment will appropriate $2.5 billion in disaster aid to
Louisiana. That would include $600 million for housing aid for
Hurricanes Laura and Delta and $1.4 billion in housing aid for
Hurricane Ida. The amendment would also provide for $500 million in
funding to rebuild Louisiana ports.
I am mindful of the fact that we should make sure this aid is paid
for. I would remind everyone that through the heroic efforts of Senator
Schatz and Senator Cantwell, in which I played a small part, that we
forced our FCC not to give away the C-band to our telecommunications
industry and, instead, auctioned it out, in which case it brought in
$81 billion.
And I think we can spare a little bit of that for people who lost
their homes and businesses through no fault of their own.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
Mr. CASSIDY. Madam President, I'll add to what my colleague, John
Kennedy, said.
If you fly over southwest Louisiana, you see blue tarps. Those tarps
are there because the families have not had the money to replace their
roofs. If you get on the ground, you see blighted neighborhoods. Those
blighted neighborhoods are where people have moved, the rooms are
boarded up, criminals have entered, and those who have left are now
prey to criminals. And as they have left, the businesses have closed.
We do so much in this country for those who have been injured, and we
appreciate in South Louisiana all that has already been done. But there
is a little bit more needed to particularly benefit those who are less
well-off.
So I join my colleague, Senator Kennedy, in requesting that
additional funding to complete the job started so Southwest Louisiana
can become whole once more.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
Mr. SCHATZ. Madam President, I respect my colleagues' desires to take
care of the people and the needs of their State, and I agree there is a
need--not just in this State but for a number of States that have been
impacted by disasters in recent years.
We must pass a disaster supplemental to provide funding for States
fairly and based on need. We wish that the supplemental were in this
bill, but it was not agreed to by Republicans in the House and the
Senate. Looking ahead, we ought to pass a bill to provide $2 billion
and permanently authorize the CDBG-DR program.
As for pay-fors--this is an important point--the spectrum sale funds
that my colleagues suggested as a pay-for are already spoken for. That
has already been used as a pay-for in previous bills, so we can't
double count; and so, unfortunately, I urge my colleagues to vote no.
Thank you.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.

Vote on Amendment No. 4983

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No.
4983.
Mr. KENNEDY. 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 Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote or change their vote?
The result was announced--yeas 35, nays 64, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 77 Leg.]

YEAS--35

Blumenthal
Blunt
Booker
Burr
Cassidy
Collins
Coons
Cornyn
Cramer
Cruz
Ernst
Fischer
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hawley
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Kennedy
Marshall
McConnell
Menendez
Moran
Murkowski
Portman
Romney
Rubio
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Sullivan
Thune
Tuberville
Whitehouse
Wicker
Young

NAYS--64

Baldwin
Barrasso
Bennet
Blackburn
Boozman
Braun
Brown
Cantwell
Capito
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Cortez Masto
Cotton
Crapo
Daines
Duckworth
Durbin
Feinstein
Gillibrand
Hassan
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Johnson
Kaine
Kelly
King
Klobuchar
Lankford
Leahy
Lee
Lujan
Lummis
Manchin
Markey
Merkley
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Paul
Peters
Reed
Risch
Rosen
Rounds
Sanders
Sasse
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Shelby
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Tester
Tillis
Toomey
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Wyden

NOT VOTING--1

Inhofe

The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 35, the nays are
64.
Under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this
amendment, the amendment is not agreed to.
The amendment (No. 4983) was rejected.

Motions Withdrawn

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the motion to refer
and the motion to concur with amendment No. 4984 are withdrawn.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I have been impressed that our Eastern
European allies have been able to act so quickly in providing aid of
all kinds to Ukraine, including weapons these countries need for their
own defense to deter Putin.
Even the notoriously bureaucratic European Union has acted with
unprecedented speed.
When asked by Eastern European diplomats why Congress is taking so
long to pass aid for Ukraine, I do not have a good answer.
It always takes time to negotiate and draft an appropriations package
to get it just right. But the Ukrainians do not have the luxury of
time.
We should have passed a Ukraine supplemental last week, even if
imperfect. It would have passed overwhelmingly, sending a strong
message to Ukraine, our eastern flank allies, and the aggressor Putin.
Now, the much needed Ukraine supplemental has been rolled into a
giant Omnibus bill.
This package has some things I strongly support, or even helped
write. But these provisions are riding along with a big growth in
spending, which I do not support.
I typically vote against giant take-it-or-leave it omnibus bills.
They are no way to legislate.
Senators who are not on the Appropriations Committee never see the
contents of an Omnibus spending bill until we face a deadline for
government funding running out--and an up-or-down vote; with no
amendments.
I urged my party's leadership to insist on a separate vote on the
Ukraine funding package in their negotiations with Democrat leaders,
but here we are, nevertheless.
Urgent aid for Ukraine shouldn't be wrapped up in an Omnibus full of
unrelated spending.
A cynic would say Ukraine aid was added to the Omnibus intentionally
to help it pass. Well, this is a town where cynicism is often well-
deserved.
Senators who support helping heroic Ukrainians defend themselves from
a barbaric onslaught, as I do, are being forced to swallow a giant,
bitter pill.
So, for the record, I oppose the spending level in this Omnibus bill
and the broken process by which it was cobbled together. I am not happy
about being pushed into a corner yet again. Be advised--I will not roll
over and play nice going forward.
But I cannot in good conscience vote in a way that would further
delay urgently needed support for Ukrainians fighting for their freedom
on the front lines against tyranny.

Vote on Motion to Concur

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs on the motion to concur in
the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 2471.
There are 2 minutes of debate equally divided prior to the vote.
The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SHELBY. Madam President, I have got a minute here, and I hope I
won't use it all. Everybody wants to leave, and I understand.
But this has been a lot of work to put this omnibus together. I want
to thank

[[Page S1111]]

Senator Leahy, his staff, the Republican staff, and everything else.
This is a big improvement for defense. It is a big improvement for
homeland security. And I think we have talked about what is in it and
what is not, but I think overall it is something we should have done 6
months ago.
I urge my colleagues to support the omnibus.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, the distinguished Senator from Alabama,
Senator Shelby, and I have been friends for decades. I applaud his work
on this. I applaud his staff. I applaud our staff and the
Appropriations Committee.
I thank those Senators of both parties who came together to come
here. We stand up for America. We stand up for the needs of America.
But we also stand up for Ukraine, which is being attacked by a war
criminal, Putin of Russia.
I yield back my time.
I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the motion to concur.
The yeas and nays have been requested.
Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 68, nays 31, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 78 Leg.]

YEAS--68

Baldwin
Barrasso
Bennet
Blumenthal
Blunt
Booker
Brown
Cantwell
Capito
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Collins
Coons
Cornyn
Cortez Masto
Duckworth
Durbin
Ernst
Feinstein
Gillibrand
Graham
Grassley
Hassan
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Hyde-Smith
Kaine
Kelly
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Lujan
Manchin
Markey
McConnell
Menendez
Merkley
Moran
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Peters
Portman
Reed
Rosen
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Shelby
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Tester
Thune
Tuberville
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden
Young

NAYS--31

Blackburn
Boozman
Braun
Burr
Cassidy
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Fischer
Hagerty
Hawley
Hoeven
Johnson
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
Lummis
Marshall
Paul
Risch
Romney
Rounds
Rubio
Sasse
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Sullivan
Tillis
Toomey

NOT VOTING--1

Inhofe

The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 68, the nays are
31.
Under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this
motion, the motion to concur is agreed to.
The motion was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I am delighted to see the vote, and I
thank the Senators who voted with us.
I would note that a lot of Senators, along with Senator Shelby and
me, on both sides of the aisle worked so hard on this.
I especially want to say again that I don't know how many times on
weekends and in the evenings I could leave and go home at 10 or 11
o'clock at night, but our staffs were still there at 2, 3, and 4
o'clock in the morning, doing this. They are the ones who deserve so
much credit in doing this.
This is the reality. This is our government. This is how we protect
our country. It is also how we show our responsibility to a country--in
this case, Ukraine--that is being attacked by a war criminal, Vladimir
Putin.
So I thank every Senator who voted this way. I thank the
distinguished majority leader, who worked with us every step of the way
to make sure we had the schedule so we could do this. I thank the
Republicans and Democrats who worked with us.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, before I do all of these things, let me
just thank Senator Leahy, who was so diligent and so relentless from 3,
4, 5 months ago in warning our caucus of the dangers--of the very real
dangers--of a CR, which wouldn't have been able to move the government
forward. His hard work, his diligence, and his dedication has been
amazing.
I join him in thanking the great staffs of the Appropriations
Committee, who are second to none, as well as my staff, who worked very
hard with them. Meghan Taira is another person of whom I might be able
to say it wouldn't have happened without her.
It is a very good night for this country, a good bipartisan night,
and I thank our Senator from Vermont--and our President pro tempore, of
course.
(Laughter.)
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.

____________________