A bill to prohibit the use of funds to implement, administer, or enforce certain rules of the Environmental Protection Agency.

Madam President, the CBP One app is a downloadable app to schedule appointments with CBP at a land port of entry. Under our existing asylum laws, noncitizens may apply for asylum at our Nation's ports of entry.

Using this app improves security because it provides the CBP with advanced notice of who is arriving and of those individuals who have already passed security checks. About 1,400 appointments a day occur through the app. By providing people with advanced travel authorization, it allows them to avoid human traffickers and drug cartels and other criminal organizations.

Accepting this amendment will lead to more encounters at the border, pulling our agents from other work and responsibilities, like stopping drug cartels from getting fentanyl through our border, and it will create long lines at ports of entry as individuals travel to the border to apply for asylum, and it will all but guarantee a shutdown for no sensible reason.

I strongly urge my colleagues to vote no.

Vote on Motion to Concur

Mr. President, in that case, I will also yield back my time.

Mr. President, this amendment would create an outright blanket ban on trans kids in K-12

schools participating in any sport activity consistent with their gender identity in every single State.

Let me just say this loud and clear: This amendment is as bigoted and dangerous as it is unnecessary. Of all the challenges facing our Nation, I am stunned this is how any Senator would ask this institution to spend its time.

Trans kids deserve to be kids. They deserve to play sports, go to school, be with their friends. They should not have to worry about hateful rhetoric and laws that attack their very existence, and they definitely shouldn't live in fear of a Congress that is going to stipulate that their school won't get any Federal funding if their coach just simply lets them play sports with their friends.

That is nothing to say that passing any amendment on this bill will guarantee a government shutdown.

I urge my colleagues--

--to vote yes on the motion to table.

Motion to Table

I move to table the motion to concur with the Tuberville amendment No. 1781.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, this motion would impose exactly the sort of poison pill rider we all worked very hard to keep out of this important bipartisan package, and it is worth stating once more that there was a bipartisan proposal on border policy changes just a few weeks ago. Republicans walked away from that issue just as soon as Donald Trump told them to.

And, now, here we are tonight, facing a serious, prolonged shutdown. Some are pressing for measures like this even when they know full well they are putting forward partisan policies we worked very hard to keep out of this bill. And there is no way to support this motion now without forcing a pointless government shutdown--none.

If Republicans want to show that they are serious, they can work with us on comprehensive immigration reform and real solutions to the challenges we are facing at the border.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this motion.

Mr. President, we have a bipartisan, bicameral package of funding bills before us, and right now our job is to pass this as soon as possible. We cannot delay a moment further, and that is what this motion would do--needlessly drag this out even longer for absolutely no good reason at all.

It is already well past midnight. Let us finish this job, pass our bills. I urge my colleagues to vote no.

Vote on Motion to Table

The question is on agreeing to the motion to table amendment No. 1794.

Mr. President.

Exactly like the previous vote, this is a procedural vote that will cause a shutdown. I urge a ``no'' vote.

Like the previous votes, this is procedural vote that will cause a shutdown. I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. President, it has been a long road, but we are about to vote on a bipartisan funding bill that the House passed overwhelmingly, and we are finally ready to close the book on fiscal year 2024.

This is not the legislation the Democrats and Republicans would have written on our own. It is the result of tough negotiations. It is a bipartisan package that invests in families and our country's future.

I want to thank Vice Chair Collins and so many others for working with us to get this done.

This was not easy, but we all know how important the investments are that this bill makes in our country. It matters. So I hope all of our colleagues will join us now in voting to send these bipartisan bills to the President's desk. We don't have a minute to spare.

Mr. President, there were a lot of naysayers who didn't believe that this divided Congress could pass full-year appropriations bills. Tonight, we proved them wrong. We have finally passed all 12 bills to fund the government, and I am proud to be sending a $1 billion increase in funding to childcare and pre-K to the President's desk.

As chair of the Appropriations Committee, you have a responsibility: You help decide in a big way how to set the Nation's spending priorities. I wanted to write our bills to put working people--the parents I talk to all around my State who can't afford or find childcare--first.

I remember when I drove 100 miles to Olympia, our State capital, with my two young kids to try and save their preschool program, and a State lawmaker told me I couldn't make a difference; I was just a mom in tennis

shoes. Well, this mom in tennis shoes is now the Senate Appropriations chair. I think it makes a difference when you have a former preschool teacher and someone who lived what it means to be a working mom with young kids holding the pen in our Nation's spending bills. So I decided childcare had to be at the top of our country's priorities, and this time it was not going to get knocked off.

I am so glad we are making this investment in our kids, in our families, and in our economy. But this bill delivers a lot more. President Biden will be signing a bipartisan bill that delivers on the investments that matter most in people's daily lives--on everything from Pell grants to community health centers--this funding, free of the devastating cuts and extreme riders that was pushed by the House Republicans that would have sent our country back decades.

From day one of this process, I said there would be no extreme far- right riders to restrict women's reproductive freedoms in these funding bills--not small, not big; none. And there are none.

Democrats stood firm to protect a woman's right to choose in these negotiations, beating back countless far-right policies from House Republicans to ban abortion and attack reproductive freedom in every way possible.

These bills came about after some tough negotiations, but they will move our country forward.

I have to, once again, thank my vice chair Susan Collins for her partnership. We passed 12 bills with overwhelming bipartisan support last summer, and that was important. I think that bipartisanship and shared commitment to doing what was right for the country served us well in negotiating these final spending bills.

I hope my House Republican colleagues now understand that bipartisanship is the only path forward in a divided government. I hope they understand that when you strike a deal, you have to stick to it. It has to mean something. And I hope my House Republican colleagues will now continue to work with us, not against us, to deliver for the American people.

As Appropriations chair, I am so glad to finally close the book on this year's government funding. I am ready as ever to work with all of my colleagues as we determine what investments our country will make. Let's keep working to help people and solve problems.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I rise today because I truly want to depoliticize this.

I want to give you the facts because I was the one who negotiated the bill with the President. I negotiated the bill with the Speaker of the House. I negotiated this bill with the majority leader. So let me give you the facts and depoliticize it, take the Republican-Democrat equation out of this.

This rule should have never happened. It wasn't our intent, and it wasn't what we agreed upon. We shouldn't even be voting down or up on this rule today because it should have never been here. I will tell you the reason why.

The IRA was designed truly--and we all agreed--on energy security and manufacturing in America. That was it: energy security and manufacturing.

We are producing more energy today than ever in the history of the world. We produce more energy today than anybody else in the world, and they are having a hard time grabbing that. But that was the way we designed the bill, to be an all-in. We are going to do fossil cleaner and better than anywhere in the world and more of it, and we are going to do investments in clean technology energy for the future. And we have done that.

When we put this bill out, the administration knew exactly the timetables. I am giving you the timetables here, and I can show you how they have accelerated everything because it did not meet their timetable.

The deadlines are 2024, 2023. They are going with the temporary rules, 2026 and 2027. The reason they are going to temporary rules is you can't sue on temporary rules. You can sue on permanent rules if you have been damaged--absolutely negating everything that we had an agreement on.

So I said this: We tried to basically persuade or bribe the American public to buy an EV. They are a great vehicle. I don't contest that. Only 1.1 percent of West Virginians want them. We are a market-driven society. We are capitalists. You can't force with government regulations to do things that we have always been trained not to do. Buy what you want. Buy how you want. That is what they are trying to do.

What happened on top of that, then they changed how we basically--the regulations we all agreed on--the President, the Speaker, and the majority leader. We said the first year in 2023, at least 40 percent-- 40 percent--of extracted minerals that we need for critical minerals to build these batteries had to come from the United States or our allies, our trading partners.

Our whole goal was basically to eliminate being dependent upon China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea. This is the first time--and the lady spoke from Michigan. I love Michigan. I love the vehicles that Michigan has produced. I can't tell you that every Michigander is enthralled with what they are trying to do because they are saying by 2032, basically, 70 percent of the vehicles have to be electric. You can't do it.

There are two reasons why you can't do it: First of all, we don't have the infrastructure to do it. Next of all, we don't have the minerals to make the batteries. So the only way they can get around that is to change.

You tell me in the bill where it says you can go from 40 percent to 20 percent the first year. You tell me, when the bill was written, where it says by 2031, you can go from 80 percent that you should be doing here in America to 40 percent.

You are not going to be beholden to China. We have never been beholden to another country or a foreign supply chain, especially an unreliable foreign supply chain, for our modes of transportation.

I remember in 1974, we were dependent on oil. We weren't producing the oil we should have been producing. We were depending on Saudi Arabia, and OPEC basically put an embargo on us. I waited in line to buy gasoline to go to work. I remember that day very well. It was a horrible time.

I sure as heck don't want to have to wait on a battery to come from China to drive my vehicle to work. That is all we are talking about. So this rule should never be here.

When you go through the things, the compromise that we made, only EVs that were made in North America and with the batteries that were made and the minerals sourced there, would they get the full $7,500 credit. That was the whole purpose of bringing manufacturing here.

There was not a quibble. They weren't saying: Oh, I am not sure we can do that. Everybody agreed--again, the President of the United States, the Speaker of the House, and the majority leader here in the Senate, totally agreeable. It was wonderful.

Now, you tell me if it was so wonderful, why they have to cut everything in half and basically usurp the intentions of the bill that we passed? That is the reason that I am standing up today to support getting rid of the rule because the rule shouldn't even be here. It wasn't something that we agreed on. It wasn't something that we talked about.

Then, on top of that, they want to make sure that you can't sue with the timelines because they have temporary rules. They want to put the temporary rules out because you can't sue.

So we are in a catch-22 here, gang. Forget about being a Democrat or a Republican, be an American. Do the right thing. Let the market do what it does best. The market will decide. The market will--basically, if you have a better mouse trap, I will buy it. But we shouldn't be buying it when we have to be totally reliant on a foreign country of concern.

Again, if what we saw that Putin did in weaponizing energy for our allies overseas, I tell you that Xi Jinping from China will do the same thing with the critical minerals that we are depending on. And if our transportation mode for our economy, our work, our getting our goods to market is dependent upon him giving us what we need, it ain't going to happen, gang. Why are we going down this path?

So to the Senator from Idaho Senator Crapo, my dear friend, thank you for working with us together on this thing to try to bring common sense to it. It is exactly what we talked about.

These charts are telling you exactly what happened. I am telling you exactly how it happened. And if the President were standing here and if the Speaker of the House were standing here and if the majority leader were standing here, they all would have to agree because they were with me when we made the deal. That was the deal; that, I can tell you. Those are the facts, and there is nothing else that we can talk about. Why we are even having to vote down a rule that should never be before us makes no sense to me at all.

So, yes, just do what we said we would do: Bring manufacturing back to America. Bring, basically, the reliable things that we do and do best here and

make sure that we have the energy and we can produce it. At the rate they are going now, if you electrify what they want to, we would not have the energy or the grid or the capacity to handle everything. And then you are going to have people, basically, having rolling brownouts or blackouts or paying exorbitantly high prices for energy that is absolutely driven by the mistakes that are being made today.

I urge everybody in this body--Democrat and Republican alike--to vote yes on the overturning of this rule that is not part of America, not part of what we do.

With that, I yield the floor.

Madam President, I ask that all time be yielded back.

Madam President, it is good to be here with my friend and colleague who just addressed the body on this legislation. I remember he said: Who is going to be on the other side of the position that he has taken? Well, I am the face of the person who is on the other side.

I am here with students from Wyoming, 4-H kids, who understand from an agricultural standpoint what kind of vehicles families in Wyoming want and need and the freedom to choose the kind of vehicles that they drive, the practicality of what they can afford and of what they know will work for them. They are from Sheridan and they are from Gillette, WY, and they are here because they support the freedom to choose what kind of vehicles people want to drive in America. It is not just Wyoming; it is all across the country.

I want to thank the Senator from Idaho who wrote this legislation, because he is the driving force behind this very important bill, which I am here to support.

This legislation that we are talking about today would prohibit any government money from going to fund Joe Biden's obscene attacks against American cars and American trucks. Every day, people in Wyoming rely on their cars and their trucks to get to work, to get to school, and to do the daily work of our economy: agriculture, ranching, farming. There are great distances that people travel in Wyoming, and they need reliability. They need vehicles that they can trust, that they can count on. This bill today is about defending their freedom, and it is against those who want to take away that freedom.

What President Biden and the Democrats are trying to do is to force Americans to switch to electric vehicles--vehicles that many people don't want, can't afford, and that aren't practical for them in their daily lives. The actions by the Democrats and the EPA aren't driven by facts. They are driven by that party's blind faith in their climate religion, a faith that says we need to prioritize--as the President has told the EPA--climate over energy for our country that is affordable, available, or reliable.

How is that way out? How do people feel about that? Which do you want? Do you want energy that is affordable, available, and reliable? Well then, you are going to be for this piece of legislation that we are talking about today.

But for the climate alarmists who continue to come to this floor and harp about the issues, let me point out to them the inconvenient truth. The inconvenient truth is that the American people do not want to buy EVs, and they actually are voting with their feet. They aren't buying electric vehicles. They simply aren't interested in that car or the truck that they know is too expensive, too unreliable, and, for them, too inconvenient. That is what it is about.

The public has absolute legitimate concerns about the lack of charging stations around the country and the time it takes to recharge.

But EV batteries, they lose their charge in the cold of winter. Well, we have longer winters in Wyoming. We also have longer roads to drive to get from work or school to home. EVs certainly do not inspire confidence. They don't inspire confidence for those of us who live and drive in States like Wyoming or the West, with our cold winters and our long distances.

So the President of the United States wants to force the people of Wyoming and across the country to buy EVs anyway. He doesn't care about this. He is from a small State, Delaware. I don't think he has any clear understanding of the vastness of the Rocky Mountain West. I have heard him in a number of his comments, and it is clear that he doesn't understand the people who live in the Rocky Mountain West.

But Joe Biden does understand that he has had and placed a heavy hand on the EPA so that they can tell us what to buy, what to drive. I am against all of these sorts of obligations and mandates.

The EPA wants to dictate that 7 of 10 vehicles, new cars, sold need to be electric. By comparison, EVs make up less than 1 in 10 cars being sold today--and what has happened now, late Friday afternoon on Good Friday, right before Easter, new mandates on trucks as well that clearly aren't practical, expensive mandates, unaffordable. They talk about the benefits. The benefits are highly exaggerated.

This self-righteous Biden administration imposes punishing, political, and penalizing fines on the carmakers who don't comply with their mandates. This isn't right.

This Biden car ban, it is bad for consumers; it is bad for the economy; and it is bad for American jobs.

Look, if this regulation goes into full effect, the impacts are going to be devastating. Republicans reject all of these unjustified, unnecessary restrictions.

Democrats are the party of regulating every room in your home, and now they want to move to the garage after banning gas stoves and natural

gas. They want to control our lives. It is coercive.

To me, what they are doing is a crusade against consumer choice, convenience, and affordability. The focus in Washington should be on lowering prices, producing more American energy, focusing on energy that is available, affordable, and reliable.

The people of Wyoming, across the West, we are America's energy, powerhouse, bread basket for American energy. We do it with the kind of respect for the environment that one would expect and want and demand, and we do it that way.

We understand what Americans want. The Senator from Idaho's legislation is what we need to do to put Americans not in the back seat but in the front seat. That is why we are here today talking about this.

It is so interesting, when the EPA, with their truck mandate, they talked about how much carbon they would avoid putting in the atmosphere over the next 30 years. Now, I think their numbers are exaggerated. But the amount that they are talking about saving from putting into the atmosphere in 30 years is what China and India combined put, added, in the atmosphere every single year.

So the Democrats say: OK, China and India, OK, drill 30 holes in the bottom of the boat. And the U.S. in that time, we are going to patch one of them up. Aren't we great. Well, we are not, and it is wrong to take away the choice of the American people from what they want, what they can afford, and what is practical in their lives.

I think it is just time to put a stop to Democrats' mandate madness.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the only motions and amendments in order to the House message to accompany H.R. 2882 be the following: Paul motion to refer, which is at the desk; motion to concur with Cruz No. 1804; motion to concur with Tuberville No. 1781; motion to concur with Lee No. 1722; motion to concur with Schmitt No. 1795; motion to concur with Johnson No. 1706; motion to concur with Lankford No. 1713; motion to concur with Lankford No. 1718; Blackburn motion to refer, which is at the desk; further, that the Senate vote in relation to the above motions and amendments in the order listed; that upon the disposition of the Blackburn motion to refer, Senator Budd be recognized to make a motion to table the motion to refer with amendment No. 1794, and if that motion is not agreed to, Senator Hagerty be recognized to make a motion to table amendment No. 1793, and that if that motion is not agreed to, Senator Budd be recognized to make a motion to table the motion to refer with amendment No. 1792; further, that if the tabling motions are not agreed to, the cloture motion with respect to the House message be withdrawn, the pending amendments and motions be withdrawn, and the Senate vote on the motion to concur in the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 2882, with 60 affirmative votes required for adoption of the motion to concur, without further intervening action or debate, and with 2 minutes for debate, equally divided, prior to each vote; further, that S. 4072, introduced earlier today, be placed on the calendar and, notwithstanding rule XXII, at a time to be determined by the majority leader in consultation with the Republican leader but no later than Friday, April 19, 2024, the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. 4072, Crapo tailpipe emissions; that there be up to 2 hours for debate, equally divided, and upon the use or yielding back of time, the bill be considered read a third time, and the Senate vote on passage of the bill with 60 affirmative votes required for passage, without intervening action or debate, and if passed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Madam President, I am going to be brief because we want to move quickly on to votes.

It has been a very long and difficult day, but we have just reached an agreement to complete the job of funding the government. It is good for the country that we have reached this bipartisan deal. It wasn't easy, but tonight our persistence has been worth it.

I want to thank the great leadership of Chair Murray and Vice Chair Collins for making this agreement possible.

Again, it is good for the American people that we have reached a bipartisan agreement to complete the job of funding the government tonight.

I am going to put us into a short quorum call as we wait for the first person of the first amendment to arrive. He is on his way. I will ask everyone to stay in their seats so we can get this done very quickly. Some people have very important places to go, and we want to get her there.

Unanimous Consent Agreement

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that all of the votes after the first vote be 10 minutes.

Again, I would ask Members respectfully but with strength to sit in their chairs, please, so we can get this done.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to modify the previous order so that the Lee motion to concur be first in the order.

Mr. President, I object. Let me just say to my colleagues, accuracy is very important. We must make sure the vote count is accurate. But if we all sit in our seats and do 10-minute votes, we can get this done as quickly as possible.

Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, we are going to try to skip the recap. That will save a lot of time. But that means everyone has to be in his or her seat. Don't go to the front and answer. Just be in your seat and answer yes or no when called.

Mr. President, could everyone please stay in their seats until we complete this vote? That way, we can get it done most quickly. Thank you. This is the final passage.

Mr. President, it has been a long day, a long week, and a very long few months, but, tonight, we have funded the government with significant investments for parents and kids, small businesses and healthcare workers, military families and so much more. It is no small feat to get a package like this done in divided government. These past few months have shown yet again that when bipartisanship has room to work, we can get the job done.

A deep and sincere thank you to all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for their good work. I thank Chair Murray, Vice Chair Collins, and all on Appropriations and their staffs. Thank you to my incredible staff too.

This was not easy, but our efforts have paid off with a strong funding bill that now goes to the President.

Remembering Patricia Collins

Finally, Mr. President, many of us have signed a condolence book to Senator Collins on the loss of her mother. It was even more difficult for her to get this bill done given the circumstances, but she showed her usual strength, courage, and tenacity.

So I would like to just ask for a couple of seconds of silence for Susan's mother, and I will present this book to her.

(Moment of silence.)

Vote on Motion to Concur

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, I am here today to defend the Environmental Protection Agency's vehicle emissions standards-- standards that will cut air pollution to tackle the climate crisis, protect public health, and save drivers money at the pump. These standards for passenger vehicles, cars, SUVs and light trucks will help us accelerate toward our climate targets and put the brakes on our dependence on fossil fuels.

Last year, we imported 8.5 million barrels of oil every single day, of petroleum products, including gasoline, while simultaneously exporting more than 10 million barrels a day.

But do you want to hear something? Do you know who we were importing oil from? Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Oman. And what does this proposal do that the Republicans want to propound here? It is to say: No, we are not going to move to an electric vehicle future. No, we don't want to, in any way, send a signal that we are a technological giant, as the United States, and we are going to back out that imported oil so that we are not contributing those petrodollars to those nations which are ultimately intent on undermining stability.

So this dependence on fossil fuels, traded on the global market and imported into our country, puts drivers at the whim of OPEC. It puts them at the whim of those who are driven by profiteering. It allows Big Oil CEOs to turn drivers upside down at the pump and shake money out of their pockets.

Why do we continue this? We are technological giants. We have an all- electric vehicle future, a hybrid future for our Nation and for the world. Are we going to lead on that or retreat, because that is what is being proposed here?

Gas guzzling cars aren't just bad for drivers; they are bad for all of us. According to the EPA, the transportation sector accounts for 29 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, contributing to global warming--actually, the largest single source of climate warming emissions in the United States. And the EPA has a legal, statutory responsibility to set strong clean power standards to help us put this crisis in the rearview mirror.

The final clean car rules are estimated to avoid more than 7 billion metric tons of carbon pollution, equivalent to four times the emissions from the entire transportation sector. This is the single most significant rule we have ever seen in our fight to tackle the climate crisis--more than any other rule in the history of the United States. That is a big deal. That is something to be proud of, and that is something that is worth protecting from political attacks.

In addition to building a livable future, this rule will also save lives right now, providing $13 billion in annual health benefits as a result of reduced air pollution. The clean cars rule isn't banning gas cars, but it is expected to help supercharge our already booming sales of hybrid and all-electric vehicles. These final rules are technically feasible, economically achievable, and technologically neutral, increasing vehicle choice for Americans. This means that families and individuals will still be able to choose from a wide range of vehicle options, including more than 100 different plug-in hybrid and battery electric vehicles here in the United States.

Automakers are innovating and driving us closer toward a clean energy future. That is why Big Oil hates these

vehicle emissions standards. The oil industry is scared to death that $46 billion in reduced annual fuel costs will stay stranded in drivers' pockets instead of in the padded company profits of Big Oil companies.

If you follow the money, it becomes pretty clear why Big Oil would want to attack these standards. All the Republicans have to do is wait outside and drive the getaway car.

That is why I am urging my colleagues to vote no on Senator Crapo's legislation, S. 4072, which would block the EPA from carrying out the final clean cars rule. This bill is irresponsible because it undoes and it undermines future regulations that would protect public health.

The clean cars rule will reduce particulate matter by 95 percent compared to current standards, prevent 2,500 premature deaths, and reduce heart attacks and respiratory and cardiovascular illnesses.

This bill coming up for a vote would, instead, prevent working families from saving money on gas and maintenance repairs. Over the lifetime of the standards, drivers will save $62 billion in fuel and repair costs or $6,000 over the lifetime of a model year 2032 car.

Rolling back these clean car standards is not an option. We have to protect this rule. We have to protect drivers' budgets. We have to protect public health. We have to protect our economy.

That is why a ``no'' vote on this is so important, and I want to thank everyone who is in this fight. I see Chairman Carper and Senator Whitehouse here. This is an absolutely critical rule.

I will say this. Every day, Donald Trump and Big Oil say: Drill, baby, drill.

But the younger generation says: Plug in, baby, plug in.

We are moving to the future. We are moving to an all-electric future, and that is what this vote is all about today. I urge a ``no'' vote on the floor of the Senate.