>> we've shown you this over the last couple of weeks but it includes $60 billion in additional funding in the supplemental with request for ukraine, $14 billion for israel, money also for border security, i humanitarian aid and the indo-pacific region, when it comes to the polling, on support specifically for israel and ukraine, this was done by "usa today" late last month, israel, 58% of those who responded supporting that, 35% opposing that. when it comes to aid to ukraine, 51% supporting that and 43%

opposing that. and you can make your thoughts known when it comes to this aid for israel and ukraine which the house is set9 to debate this week. you can do that on the lines, 2032-748-# 800. democrats, 8001. and independents, 2032-748-8002 e not. mr. hoeven: we heard about the administration's request for supplemental appropriations, we heard about a wide range of threats to the national security and the interests of the american people. i believe 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 the united states forces across the middle east since october 7. and they've been launched at the behest of iran. we know that. 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. 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. i will continue to press the defense department, as i did yesterday with the secretary of defense, to ensure we're 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,

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 repeat that, border security is national security. this administration, the biden administration, does not have a plan in place to secure the border. they're doing just the opposite. we have an open border. an open border at a time when we're concerned about attack 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 that were on the terrorist watch list. i'm sure our adversaries are very much aware of this vulnerability.

the supplemental calls for funding to support, quote, border security, end quote. this administration's definition of border security is processing migrants who illegally come across the southern border, 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 illegal crossing at our southern border are simple, and we know what they are. the solutions are there. the administration won't apply them. we know -- we're not guessing at this, because the last administration put these in place and they work. they are reinstating the migrant protection protocols, meaning the remain in mexico policy and enforcing the third safe country

agreement. they work. we know they work. we've seen them work. the biden administration has those tools. they won't use them. they won't enforce the law. as a result, we have an open board. 270,000 illegal encounters last month. 2.5 million last year. 169 people encountered who are on the terrorist watch list. how many came across that are on the terrorist watch list that we don't know about, the got-aways, at a time when we're worried about the possibility of a terrorist attack in our country? what's going on? and we need to also continue, recontinue 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. it is -- if we're 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 border security is national security. with that, madam president, i yield the floor. mr. wicker: i ask unanimous consent that caroline newsom, a valued intern from my office, be granted floor privileges until november 17 of this year. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. wicker: thank you, madam president.

the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. ms. murkowski: madam president, we just heard from the senator from 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 was 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 that are locked in in, really, two existential wars, threatening both their sovereignty and their people. so the support for both israel, 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've all watched with horror as hamas has unleashed this terrorist attack on civilians, killing more than 1400 israelites, 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 hell-bent mission to reclaim their old soviet territory. it is times like this, madam president, where 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. we have a responsibility to the world at large. whether that is providing for 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

that, again, others from around the world look to us for that leadership. now, there are some who would suggest that we've 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. 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 it those 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 a billion dollars towards combating fentanyl, just the devastating drug that has taken the lives of far, far, far too many americans. and so that also must be part of this. what we're talking about with this supplemental is effectively four legs of a chair. think about what makes that chair that you're sitting in stable. you've 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. and then that fourth underpinning that provides for that greater stability is the threat from the indo-pacific. and so, madam president, 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's 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're waiting for our response. they want to see what's the united states capable of? can they only do one thing at a time? can they only do one thing? and if they could 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 they're going to walk away over there? we've seen how that failure in afghanistan has reverberated around the world, what it has bhent to our friends and -- has meant to our friends and allies. madam president, i would suggest this supplemental package is measured, it's necessary as a strategic response, and i will tell you our opponents are

praying that we fail to take this up, as again that balance. so, we will -- we should, we should discuss and debate the contours within. but i would hope that we would stand together, unite on a package that is good and is solid and stable for our country and that of our friends and allies. with that, madam president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from mississippi. mr. wicker: thank you, madam president. and let me say that i associate myself with the remarks just made by the previous two speakers, the senior senator from the state of north dakota and the distinguished senior senator from alaska. and 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 packet, aukus, builds -- this pact, aukus, builds upon a bond formed during the first world war, between the united states and australia, and made unshakeable 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. secretary of the air force frank

kendall recently said, quote, the intelligence couldn't be clearer. china is preparing for a war and specifically for a war with the united states. end quote. 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 make the -- 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've 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 hurdle towards 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 perspective commitments in the critical aukus agreement. our navy's requirement is to have 66 attack submarines at 80% readiness. we currently have 49 attack submarines at 67% readiness. let me say that again, madam

president. we need 66 attack submarines. we have only 49. they need to be at 80% readiness. they are only at 67%. 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 make that challenge -- but we can't meet that challenge right now. to meet that 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 1990's, 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 success marines but also -- submarines but also the critical important nuclear armed columbia class submarines. 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 death spiral of submarine construction and readiness. the spiral keeps us from hitting our shipbuilding targets. moreover, today's threats means the current targets are actually too small. china's navy is now the word'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 that we put in charge and confirmed to let us know about the readiness of our navy. i'm 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 increase and more. these funds will be spread throughout our industrial base in the united states, inside the united states, employing american workers. they 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 united states 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 ship builders, public shipyards, and the nearly 16,000 suppliers across the nation. many of them, most of them small businesses around the nation, madam president. 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. and i want to emphasize this, madam president. the biden administration commissioned the submarine industrial base 2025 study to examine the best way to execute 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's 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 united states 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. and 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, madam president. this study is just one element of strengthening aukus. of course, the most crucial element is increasing overall american seapower. for years i've cast a vision for restoring american maritime

supremacy following president reagan's own defense buildup. and 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's 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 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 will continue to stand as we confront the challenge of xi jingping's communist chinese fleet. i can think of no action more emmattic of our bond -- emblematic of our bond than the aukus agreement. again i fully support. i know the australians do. they told me last week. they show this also by committing three -- $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 form our path forward. since its invention in the american mid century, our nuclear navy has been second to none because we've never accepted anything less. our adversaries do this. when admiral rickover, the founding father of our nuclear navy traveled to discuss nuclear submarines with the soviet premier and his aides, the admiral 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, madam president, we cannot let anything deter our skilled ship builders 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. and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the democratic whip. mr. durbin: i rise to discuss the urgent need to confirm rebecca lutzko and april perry to serve as u.s. attorney for the northern district of illinois. on five previous indication occasions, -- occasions, i've

come to the floor 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's here, he proudly brags that he wants to, quote, 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 trump, we approved all 85 without a record roll call. 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 head them to the calendar.

that's 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% 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-laden tablets in a span of less than four months. over the course of one 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 is 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 works 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 illinois -- out of ohio plays a significant role in holding drug traffickers accountable. last month this office secured a 320-month sentence for a toledo-based man who was a local drug districter for the sinaloa cartel. in addition, federal prosecutors found this defendant had engaged in sex trafficking and secured 140-month sentence after he was convicted. notably, the u.s. attorney's office coordinated this with both the toledo metro drug traffic force and toledo trafficking and child exploitation africa force.

that's what -- exploitation task force. that's what they do to keep us safe. why would anyone stand up to object to a prosecutor who is working to stop drug trafficking across their 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, he is going to make sure that in his own state there's not a federal prosecutor doing the job that should be done to stop narcotics. and in my state of illinois, the same thing. this is unprecedented. it's not happened in the history of the senate. you can be upset, petulant, worried, hate that a friend of yours in politics has been indicted, but to hold that up against the people of ohio and the families that are dying on such a regular 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 and consider the nominations, calendar number 314 and 315, two minutes for debate equally divided in the usual form on each nomination, that upon the use or yielding back of time, the senate proceed to vote without intervening action or debate on the nominations in the order listed, 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? mr. vance: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. vance: thank you, madam president. reserving the right to object, the senator from illinois has made two comments that i'd 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 ravage ago 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 patrol today that confirmed that very fact. second of all, the senator said something i actually agree with, that this hold policy that i have implemented on the department of justice nominees is unprecedent. he mentions that we have in the past, 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, madam president, 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 personnel 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 hold 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 because of that, madam president, is do object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. 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 to 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're trying to get some way to make it even on political grounds at their expense?

for goodness sakes, give these u.s. attorneys a chance to fight to make lifesaver for these -- lifesafer for these families. -- life safer for these families. mr. cruz: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cruz: i call up my amendment number 1249 and ask that it be reported by number. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: mr. cruz for himself and mr. cornyn proposes an amendment numbered 1249 to amendment number 1292. mr. cruz: thank you, madam president. the presiding officer: one moment. under the previous order, there will now be up to two minutes of debate equally divided. proceed. mr. cruz: thank you, madam president. this is an amendment that should be a simple and bipartisan, commonsense amendment. under a treaty in 1994 mexico is

obliged to provide 350,000 acre-feet of water per year to the rio grande valet. farmers in the rio grande valley are facing drought right now and mexico has been slow in meeting its treaty commitment. this 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's designed not to negatively impact any other state but to instruct states to urge mexico to meet its treaty commitment so that farmers who need water can get the water they need. i urge members on both -- i urge members on both sides of the aisle to support the amendment. the presiding officer: the question is on the amendment.

is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote: the clerk: ms. baldwin. mr. barrasso. mr. bennet. mrs. blackburn. mr. blumenthal. mr. booker. mr. boozman. mr. braun. mrs. britt. mr. brown. mr. budd. ms. butler. ms. cantwell. mrs. capito. mr. cardin. mr. carper. mr. casey. mr. cassidy. ms. collins. the clerk: mr. cornyn.

ms. cortez masto. mr. cotton. mr. cramer. mr. crapo. mr. cruz. mr. daines. ms. duckworth. mr. durbin. ms. ernst. mr. fetterman. mrs. fischer. mrs. gillibrand. mr. graham. mr. grassley. mr. hagerty. ms. hassan. mr. hawley. mr. heinrich.

mr. hickenlooper. ms. hirono. mr. hoeven. mrs. hyde-smith. mr. johnson. mr. kaine. mr. kelly. mr. kennedy. mr. king. ms. klobuchar. mr. lankford. mr. lee. mr. lujan. ms. lummis. mr. manchin. mr. markey. mr. marshall. mr. mcconnell. mr. menendez. mr. merkley. mr. moran.

mr. mullin. ms. murkowski. mr. murphy. mrs. murray. mr. ossoff. mr. padilla. mr. paul. mr. peters. mr. reed. mr. ricketts. mr. risch. mr. romney. ms. rosen. mr. rounds. mr. rubio. mr. sanders. mr. schatz. mr. schmitt. mr. schumer. mr. scott of florida. mr. scott of south carolina.

mrs. shaheen. ms. sinema. ms. smith. ms. stabenow. mr. sullivan. mr. tester. mr. thune. mr. tillis. mr. tuberville. mr. van hollen. mr. vance. mr. warner. mr. warnock. ms. warren. mr. welch. mr. whitehouse. mr. wicker. mr. wyden. mr. young.

senators voting in the affirmative -- bozeman, brit, collins, cornyn, cotton, cruz, ernst, grassley, hyde-smith, johnson, kennedy, king, moran, rounds, rubio, tester, vance, and wicker. senators voting in the negative -- bennet, booker, brown, cardin, casey, durbin, gillibrand, heinrich, kelly, lummis, peters, rosen, shaheen, warner, warren, whitehouse, and wyden.

vote: the clerk: mr. barrasso, aye. the clerk: mr. welch, no.

the clerk: mr. merkley, no.

the clerk: mr. fetterman, no. the clerk: mr. capito, aye.

the clerk: mr. graham, aye.

the clerk: mr. scott of florida, aye. the clerk: mr. risch, aye. ms. hassan, no.

the clerk: mr. padilla, no.

the clerk: mr. schmitt, aye. ms. klobuchar, no.

the clerk: mr. kaine, no. mr. cassidy, aye. ms. butler, no. mr. young, aye.

mr. daines, aye. the clerk: mr. markey, no. ms. stabenow, no.

the clerk: mrs. blackburn, aye. mr. crapo, aye. mr. ossoff, aye.

the clerk: mr. bainchg ford yie- the clerk: mr. lankford, aye. mr. braun, aye. mr. schumer, no.

mr. mullin, aye. vote:

the clerk: mr. sinema, no.

ms. baldwin, no. ms. duckworth, no. the clerk: mr. murphy, no.

ms. hirono, no. mr. ricketts, aye.

the clerk: mr. reed, no. the clerk: mr. mcconnell, aye.

the clerk: mr. marshall, aye. the clerk: mr. paul, aye.

the clerk: mr. kaine, aye. mr. carper, no.

the clerk: ms. cantwell, no. the clerk: mr. tuberville, aye.

ms. murkowski, aye. the clerk: mrs. murray, no.

the clerk: mr. sanders, no.

the clerk: ms. smith, no.

the clerk: ms. lummis, aye. mr. cramer, aye.

the clerk: mr. budd, aye. ms. sinema, aye.

vote: the clerk: mr. schatz, no. mr. warnock edges, no. mr. warnock, no. mr. lujan, no.

the clerk: mr. sullivan, aye. mr. van hollen, no. mr. hoeven, aye.

the clerk: mr. thune, aye. mr. blumenthal, no. mr. romney, aye.

the clerk: mr. coons, no.

the clerk: mr. hawley, aye. the clerk: mr. menendez, no.

the clerk: ms. cortez-masto, no.

the clerk: mr. manchin, aye.

the clerk: mr. hagerty, aye.

the clerk: mrs. fischer, aye.

>> vote: vote:

the clerk: mr. hickenlooper, no. the presiding officer: have all senators voted? does any senator wish to change his or her vote?

if not, on this vote the yeas are 52. the nays are 45. under the previous order, requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is not agreed to. a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the junior senator from kentucky. mr. paul: i ask unanimous consent that the following interns in my office be granted floor privileges until december 15, 2023. shymis craigen kirk and adam wise. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. paul: i ask unanimous consent to call up senator lee's amendment 1121 and ask that it be reported by number. the presiding officer: without objection, the amendment will be reported by number. the clerk: the senator from kentucky for mr. lee proposes an

amendment numbered 1121 to amendment numbered 1092. mr. paul: madam president. the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. under the previous order, there will now be up to two minutes of debate equally divided. mr. paul: madam president. the presiding officer: the junior senator from kentucky. mr. paul: 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 -- $117 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. it would require congress to affirmatively approve every major new rule proposed by the executive branch before it's permitted to become effective. by passing the reins anxiety, 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 mitch began. 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. and it would stifle innovation for emerging technologies, such as self-driving cars, artificial intelligence, and other tools that will help carry our country forward. madam president, i urge my colleagues to join me in voting no on this amendment. the presiding officer: the question is on the amendment. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote: the clerk: ms. baldwin.

the clerk: mr. barrasso. mr. bennet. mrs. blackburn. mr. blumenthal. mr. booker. mr. boozman. mr. braun. mrs. britt. mr. brown. mr. budd. ms. butler. ms. cantwell. mrs. capito. mr. cardin.

the clerk: mr. carper. mr. casey. mr. cassidy. ms. collins. mr. coons. mr. cornyn. ms. cortez masto. mr. cotton. mr. cramer. mr. crapo. mr. cruz. mr. daines. ms. duckworth. mr. durbin. ms. ernst. mr. fetterman. mrs. fischer. mrs. gillibrand. mr. graham. mr. grassley. mr. hagerty. ms. hassan. mr. hawley. mr. heinrich. mr. hickenlooper. ms. hirono. mr. hoeven.

mrs. hyde-smith. mr. johnson. mr. kaine. mr. kelly. mr. kennedy. mr. king. ms. klobuchar. mr. lankford. mr. lee. mr. lujan. ms. lummis. mr. manchin. mr. markey. mr. marshall. mr. mcconnell. mr. menendez. mr. merkley. mr. moran. mr. mullin. ms. murkowski. mr. murphy. mrs. murray. mr. ossoff. mr. padilla. mr. paul. mr. peters. mr. reed. mr. ricketts. mr. risch. mr. romney. ms. rosen. mr. rounds. mr. rubio. mr. sanders. mr. schatz. mr. schmitt. mr. schumer. mr. scott of florida. mr. scott of south carolina.

mrs. shaheen. ms. sinema. ms. smith. ms. stabenow. mr. sullivan. mr. tester. mr. thune. mr. tillis. mr. tuberville. mr. van hollen. mr. vance. mr. warner. mr. warnock. ms. warren. mr. welch. mr. whitehouse. mr. wicker. mr. wyden. mr. young. senators voting in the affirmative -- budd, cassidy, crapo, cruz, fisher, hagerty, hawley, lummis, marshall, paul, romney, smith, tuberville.

12340rs voting in the negative, baldwin, brown, casey, coons, dwernght, hickenlooper, manchin, peters, sinema, tester. mr. lujan, no. the clerk: mr. wyden, no.

the clerk: mrs. murray, no. mr. whitehouse, no. mr. blumenthal, no.

the clerk: mr. booker, no.

the clerk: mr. kaine, no. mrs. britt, aye. the clerk: ms. smith, no. mr. sanders, no. mr. king, no. mr. grassley, aye.

the clerk: mr. sullivan, aye. mr. schatz, no. mr. cramer, aye. mr. hoeven, aye.

vote: the clerk: mrs. blackburn, aye. mr. johnson, aye. mr. carper, no.

the clerk: ms. stabenow, no. mr. ossoff, no.

the clerk: ms. ernst, aye. mr. heinrich, no.

the clerk: ms. hassan, no.

the clerk: mrs. gillibrand, no. the clerk: mr. merkley, no. mr. braun, aye.

the clerk: mr. barrasso, aye. mr. warnock, no. ms. murkowski, aye. the clerk: ms. collins, aye. the clerk: mrs. capito, aye. mr. risch, aye.

mr. cotton, aye. the clerk: mr. kennedy, aye.

the clerk: ms. hirono, no. mr. boozman, aye. ms. cantwell, no.

the clerk: mr. wicker, aye.

the clerk: mr. murphy, no. the clerk: mrs. hyde-smith, aye. mr. warner, no.

mr. cornyn, aye. the clerk: mr. thune, aye.

the clerk: mr. rounds, aye.

the clerk: mr. lankford, aye.

the clerk: mr. bennet, no. ms. butler, no. mr. moran, aye. mr. welch, no. mr. ricketts, aye. ms. cortez masto, no.

mr. graham, aye. mr. fetterman, no. mr. mcconnell, aye.

the clerk: mr. markey, no. mr. mullin, aye.

the clerk: mr. cardin, no.

the clerk: mr. schmitt, aye.

the clerk: mr. young, aye.

the clerk: mr. rubio, aye.

the clerk: mr. vance, aye.

the clerk: ms. klobuchar, no. mr. reed, no.

ms. rosen, no. mr. scott of florida, aye. vote: vote:

the clerk: ms. warren, no.

the clerk: mr. schumer, no.

the clerk: mr. kelly, no.

the clerk: mr. daines, aye.

the clerk: mr. van hollen, no.

the clerk: mr. padilla, no. 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. mr. schumer: madam president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent that the 60-affirmative vote threshold for the adoption of the substitute amendment 1092 as amended be withdrawn. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. schumer: i know of no further debate on the substitute amendment. the presiding officer: is there further debate? if not, the question is on the amendment. mr. schumer: madam president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. the question is on the amendment. all in favor say aye.

opposed? the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the amendment is agreed to. the majority leader. mr. schumer: madam president, i'm proud to say that today the senate becomes the first chamber in congress to pass bipartisan responsible appropriations bill. milcon, v.a., 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've 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 bills 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 goes 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'm proud to say, in the senate want to do. i urge 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 who has done comment work in her

first year as chair of the appropriations committee. she's 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's difficult, more difficult now than ever, but if you stick with it, we can do it. and we've stuck with it and we've done it. thanks to both sides we are reaching a good outcome for the country. i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: thank you, 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've 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 government in a bipartisan way, avoid another massive end of the year

omnibus and address pressing issues like aid to our allies, child crisis 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 u.s. 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. so let's get the job done. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from maine. ms. collins: thank you, madam president. 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-v.a. 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 dedicateed leadership. the support of leaders mcconnell and thune and leader schumer were also absolutely essential. i want to express my thanks to our hardworking staff led by

betsy mcdonald 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 up 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 on the -- i lost my thought here -- my military construction and veterans' affairs committee, senator murray, 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 incredible 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 end of july for the first time in five 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 an aye vote on the bills. thank you. the presiding officer: the clerk will read the title of the bill for the third time. the clerk: calendar number 198, h.r. 4366, an act making appropriations for military construction and so forth and for other purposes. the presiding officer: the question occurs on passage of h.r. 4366, as amended. mrs. murray: i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there is. the clerk will call the roll. vote: : the clerk: ms. baldwin. mr. barrasso. mr. bennet. mrs. blackburn. mr. blumenthal. mr. booker.

mr. boozman. mr. braun. mrs. britt. mr. brown. mr. budd. ms. butler. ms. cantwell. mrs. capito. mr. cardin. mr. carper. mr. casey. mr. cassidy. ms. collins. mr. coons. mr. cornyn. ms. cortez masto.

mr. cotton. mr. cramer. mr. crapo. mr. cruz. mr. daines. ms. duckworth. mr. durbin. ms. ernst. mr. fetterman. mrs. fischer. mrs. gillibrand. mr. graham. mr. grassley. mr. hagerty. ms. hassan. mr. hawley.

mr. heinrich. mr. hickenlooper. ms. hirono. mr. hoeven. mrs. hyde-smith. mr. johnson. mr. kaine. mr. kelly. mr. kennedy. mr. king. ms. klobuchar. mr. lankford. mr. lee. mr. lujan. ms. lummis. mr. manchin.

mr. markey. mr. marshall. mr. mcconnell. mr. menendez. the clerk: mr. merkley. mr. moran. mr. mullin. ms. murkowski. mr. murphy. mrs. murray. mr. ossoff.

mr. padilla. mr. paul. mr. peters. mr. reed. mr. ricketts. mr. risch. mr. romney. ms. rosen. mr. rounds. mr. rubio. mr. sanders. mr. schatz. mr. schmitt. mr. schumer. mr. scott of florida. mr. scott of south carolina. mrs. shaheen. ms. sinema. ms. smith. ms. stabenow.

mr. sullivan. mr. tester. mr. thune. mr. tillis. mr. tuberville. mr. van hollen. mr. vance. mr. warner. mr. warnock. ms. warren. mr. welch. mr. whitehouse. mr. wicker. mr. wyden. mr. young.

the clerk: senators voting in the affirmative -- balanced bin, booker, cassidy, collins, daines, hirono, hyde-smith, moran, murray, padilla, rosen, rubio, sanders, schatz, shaheen, stabenow, sullivan, thune, van hollen, vance, warren, and wyden.

senators voting in the negative -- ernst and paul. the clerk: mrs. fischer, aye. ms. smith, aye.

vote: the clerk: mr. blackburn, aye. mr. mullin, aye.

mr. johnson, no.

the clerk: mr. kelly, aye. the clerk: ms. hassan, aye. mr. peters, aye.

the clerk: mr. grassley, aye. mr. fetterman, aye. mr. kaine, aye. the clerk: mr. young, aye.

mr. hickenlooper, aye. the clerk: mr. durbin, aye. mr. markey, aye.

the clerk: mr. king, aye. mr. wicker, aye.

the clerk: mr. ossoff, aye. mrs. capito, aye.

the clerk: mr. blumenthal, aye.

mr. marshall, aye. mr. tester, aye. mr. coons, aye.

the clerk: mr. hoeven, aye.

the clerk: mr. ricketts, aye. mrs. britt, aye. mr. murphy, aye. mr. bennet, aye. mr. boozman, aye. mr. hagerty, aye. mr. lujan, aye.

mr. cornyn, aye. mr. casey, aye. the clerk: mrs. gillibrand, aye.

the clerk: ms. sinema, aye. mr. lankford, aye. mr. merkley, aye. ms. lummis, no.

the clerk: mr. cardin, aye. mr. reed, aye. mr. carper, aye.

the clerk: ms. cortez masto, aye. mr. ricketts, no.

the clerk: mr. cruz, no. the clerk: ms. murkowski, aye.

the clerk: mr. cramer, aye.

the clerk: mr. tuberville, no.

mr. schmitt, no. mr. welch, aye. the clerk: mr. whitehouse, aye. mr. warner, aye.

the clerk: ms. duckworth, aye. the clerk: mr. budd, no. mr. graham, aye.

the clerk: mr. menendez, aye. the clerk: ms. klobuchar, aye.

the clerk: mr. warnock, aye. the clerk: mr. heinrich, aye.

vote: the clerk: mr. schumer, aye. mr. manchin, aye.

the clerk: mr. cotton, aye. mr. romney, aye. mr. braun, no. the clerk: mr. scott of florida, no.

the clerk: mr. rounds, aye.

the clerk: mr. risch, no. mr. crapo, no. mr. brown, aye.

the clerk: mr. hawley, no.

the clerk: mr. mcconnell, aye.

the clerk: mr. kennedy, aye.

the clerk: mr. barrasso, no. the presiding officer: the yeas are 82, the nays are 16. the 60 vote threshold having been achieved, the bill is passed. --, as amended, is passed.

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 had and mississippi, and all of our colleagues -- all of our colleagues -- whoworked 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 that this process mass 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 82-15 vote. so let's be crystal clear about what that means. unlike the funding measures we've 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, thoughtful input from members on both sides of the aisle. they stick to the spending levels that house republicans and president biden signed -- negotiated and that we all passed into law this past spring. and despite the stuff 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 homeless unless crisis, support our farmers, ranchers, keep american families healthy and safe and more. whap we have done here -- 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's 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 got 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 c.r. before our work is done, we absolutely have to remember, long-term c.r.'s are no way to govern, and they certainly are no way to lead. when we operate under long-term c.r.'s 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 c.r. 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 infighting. we cannot let that happen. we need to pass full-year funding with the investments we need to keep the u.s. strong and safe and competitive and especially in a moment that truly calls for american leadership. there is no question we've got work cut out for us, but today we have shown a clear road map for how we can get our work done. so i am talking with my vice chair about the next set of bills we'll work to move in the senate and continuing work to move a comprehensive bipartisan supplemental funding package. and we need to start conferencing our appropriations bills. and, mr. president, 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. but it's critical that happens. we do not have time to waste. the clock is ticking. the american people are tired of watching congress wait to 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 c.r.'s. 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 get our work done. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the committee on appropriations is discharged from further consideration of h.r. 662 and the senate will proceed to consideration of the bill which the clerk will

report. the clerk: h.r. 662, an act to amend the disaster relief supplemental appropriations act and so forth and for other purposes. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the substitute amendment number 1357 is considered and agreed to. the senator from florida. a senator: i ask unanimous consent for four minutes of debate equally divided prior to the next roll call vote. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection,so ordered. mr. scott: mr. president, as we work to get the agriculture community back on their feet, i won't stop fighting to make sure that the federal government keeps showing up. following natural disasters in prior years, the usda has administered block grants to many states. it would specifically give usda the authority to provide block grants as an option to states and territories to assist agriculture producers with losses due to natural disasters occurring in calendar year 2022. importantly it provides streamlined resources to

growers, allowing states to allocate funds to growers, allowing farmers to perform necessary and time-sensitive tasks on their farms without the danger of foregoing disaster aid. and this bill does not mandate states to request disaster funding through state block grants. it only opens up this option. i've talked to many of you about this bill in the last few days. i understand that many of my democrat colleagues have concerns about this legislation. i want to address those concerns directly and why are we even talking about this right now. first, this bill doesn't take anything away from any one state. it creates an option for block grants that help other growers and ranchers impacted by disasters. this bill will not negatively impact any state. i want to make sure that's clear. i've also heard some of my colleagues say this isn't needed because just this week, after refusing to take action for 14 months, biden's ag department opened up the erp portable for growers and ranchers to apply for assistants as this was to come to a vote. our farmers have not received a

dime. here's the deal, i don't trust this process. i know my constituents don't and i don't think the assistance being offered is close to what is needed for farmers to recover. this bill helps farmers all across the country but let me speak for florida. we've been waiting for more than a year, 14 months to be exact, and nothing was done by the biden administration until they knew the senate would be voting on my bill and still just an application process. i don't think anyone can blame us for feeling uneasy. if we pass this bill we can give certainty to growers and ranchers that they have a reliable partner in the federal government. this seems like something we can support. folks across the country that put food on the table and create jobs in our states are hurting. i've been clear to the ag community in florida. i want to make sure the federal government keeps showing up. this is a good bill that helps hardworking people, passed by the house and i urge all of my colleagues to support it in the senate today. the presiding officer: the

senator from new mexico. a senator: our nation has experienced a series of recent natural disasters. the tragic maui wildfires, flooding in vermont and california, the damage caused by hurricane have i dahlia -- vidalia. mr. heinrich: we must get these americans the help they need during these difficult times and we must do it as quickly as possible. unfortunately this bill would do the opposite. on friday the biden administration announced that producers impacted by disasters last year are now eligible to apply for critical emergency assistance. h.r. 662 would delay that funding, essentially stopping the application process that the us department of agriculture just got under way. in addition the administration already has the authority under law to provide funding to states through block grants.

so this bill is both counter productive and unnecessary. so for these reasons i would urge my colleagues to vote no. the presiding officer: the clerk will read the bill, the title of the bill for the third time. the clerk: an act to amend the disaster relief supplemental appropriation act, and so forth and for other purposes. the presiding officer: the question occurs on passage of h.r. 662 as amended. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote: the clerk: ms. baldwin mr. barrasso. mr. bennet. mrs. blackburn. mr. blumenthal. mr. booker. mr. boozman. mr. braun.

the clerk: mrs. britt. mr. brown.

the clerk: mr. budd. ms. butler. ms. cantwell. mrs. capito. mr. cardin. mr. carper. mr. casey. mr. cassidy. ms. collins. mr. coons. the clerk: mr. cornyn. ms. cortez masto. mr. cotton.

the clerk: mr. cornyn. ms. cortez masto. mr. cotton. mr. cramer. mr. crapo. mr. cruz. mr. daines. ms. duckworth. mr. durbin. ms. ernst. mr. fetterman. mrs. fischer. mrs. gillibrand. mr. graham. mr. grassley. mr. hagerty. ms. hassan. mr. hawley. mr. heinrich. mr. hickenlooper. ms. hirono. mr. hoeven. mrs. hyde-smith. mr. johnson. mr. kaine.

mr. kelly. mr. kennedy. mr. king. ms. klobuchar. mr. lankford. mr. lee. mr. lujan. ms. lummis. mr. manchin. mr. markey. mr. marshall. mr. mcconnell. mr. menendez. mr. merkley. mr. moran. mr. mullin. ms. murkowski. mr. murphy. mrs. murray. mr. ossoff. mr. padilla. mr. paul. mr. peters.

mr. reed. mr. ricketts. mr. risch. mr. romney. ms. rosen. mr. rounds. mr. rubio. mr. sanders. mr. schatz. mr. schmitt. mr. schumer. mr. scott of florida. mr. scott of south carolina.

mr. scott of south carolina. mrs. shaheen. ms. sinema. mr. ricketts. mr. risch. mr. romney. ms. rosen. mr. rounds. mr. rubio. mr. sanders. mr. schatz. mr. schmitt. mr. schumer. mr. scott of florida. mr. scott of south carolina. mrs. shaheen. ms. sinema. ms. smith. ms. stabenow. mr. sullivan. mr. tester. mr. thune. mr. tillis. mr. tuberville. mr. van hollen. mr. vance. mr. warner. mr. warnock. ms. warren. mr. welch. mr. whitehouse. mr. wicker. mr. wyden.

mr. young. senators voting in the affirmative -- barasso boozman braun, britt, budd, capito, cotton, cramer, crapo, graham, hawley, hoeven, hyde-smith, kennedy, lankford, lummis, marshall, mcconnell, mullin, paul, risch, romney, rounds, rubio, scott of florida, thune, and vance.

senators voting in the negative -- baldwin, booker, brown, cardin, coons, cortez masto, duckworth, fetterman, gillibrand, grassley, hassan, heinrich, kaine, klobuchar, menendez, murphy, murray, reed, sanders, schatz, shaheen, sinema, smith, stabenow, tester, van hollen, warner, warnock, welch, whitehouse, and wyden..

the clerk: mr. hagerty, aye. the clerk: mr. carper, no.

mr. sullivan, aye. the clerk: ms. warren, no. mr. wicker, aye.

the clerk: ms. cantwell, no. mr. ossoff, no. mr. peters, no.

mr. markey, no.

the clerk: mr. hickenlooper, no.

mr. padilla, no. mrs. blackburn, aye.

the clerk: ms. collins, aye.

the clerk: mr. cassidy, aye.

the clerk: mr. cornyn, aye.

the clerk: mr. durbin, no. mr. casey, no.

mr. ricketts, no. mr. king, no. the clerk: mr. schmitt, ay