[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 65 (Wednesday, April 19, 2023)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1219-S1227]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          LEGISLATIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

                  FIRE GRANTS AND SAFETY ACT--Resumed

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will resume consideration of S. 870, which the clerk will 
report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 870) to amend the Federal Fire Prevention and 
     Control Act of 1974 to authorize appropriations for the 
     United States Fire Administration and firefighter assistance 
     grant programs.

  Pending:

       Schumer amendment No. 58, to add an effective date.


                   Recognition of the Majority Leader

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader is recognized.


                              Debt Ceiling

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, let me begin with a quote:

       I can't imagine anybody ever even thinking of using the 
     debt ceiling as a negotiating wedge.

  These words are not mine. They are not even the words of a Democrat. 
They come from former President Donald Trump.
  For all of his terrible flaws--in this case, I would say a broken 
clock is right twice a day--even Donald Trump understood what House 
Republicans today do not: The full faith and credit of the United 
States must never be taken hostage.
  Again, to quote former President Trump:

       I can't imagine anybody ever even thinking of using the 
     debt ceiling as a negotiating wedge.

  Time is ticking before the United States enters into a first-ever 
default on the national debt if things don't change.
  Yesterday, Speaker McCarthy met with House Republicans in the hopes 
of uniting his party around a single framework of cuts, albeit one that 
will never become law. Speaker McCarthy's meeting, from all reports, 
did not go well, to put it lightly.
  One GOP Member said yesterday:

       I am still a no.
  Another from Florida:

       I think that they should go further. . . . I am in favor of 
     very aggressive cuts.

  Another from South Carolina:

       I'm not there yet.

  We could go on and on with these quotes.
  Even now, Speaker McCarthy--this is months and months after he 
proposed making deep cuts as a condition, as brinksmanship, as hostage-
taking, to just simply make sure that we avoid default--even now, he is 
still very short of the support he needs to pass a debt ceiling bill 
because the chasm is too big between moderates and the hard-right 
extremists who are glad to see the economy taken hostage in exchange 
for their priorities.
  As the Washington Post wrote this weekend:

       Many GOP lawmakers and aides admit it is not even clear 
     whether their emerging plan can actually attract 218 votes.


[[Page S1220]]


  And now the clock is ticking. We are getting closer and closer to 
when we have to act to avoid default.
  So for all the speeches, for all the letters, for all the wish lists 
and meetings with this family or that family, the underlying facts 
haven't changed: At this point, Speaker McCarthy does not have a plan 
for avoiding a catastrophic default on the debt.
  I quoted one former Republican President, let me quote another, 
Ronald Reagan. Ronald Reagan said:

       [Debt ceiling] brinksmanship threatens the holders of 
     government bonds and those who rely on Social Security and 
     veterans benefits.

  And:

       The United States has a special responsibility to itself 
     and to the world to meet its obligations.

  When Ronald Reagan and Donald Trump say that the Republican strategy 
led by Speaker McCarthy is folly, you know how far right the whole MAGA 
Republican House has gone. Things that were accepted a few years ago, 
by very conservative Republican Presidents--Reagan, Trump--now seem to 
be discarded in a headlong rush to make the kind of deep cuts that 
Americans will never support and to tie it to the debt ceiling, which 
could head us crashing into default.
  The solution to this entire mess is staring Republicans right in the 
face: Do what we did three times under Donald Trump and twice under 
President Biden and work with Democrats to avoid default without 
brinksmanship, without blackmail, and without hostage-taking. If 
Republicans drop their hostage-taking and approach Democrats in good 
faith, the default crisis could be resolved. But if Speaker McCarthy 
does not change course, he--he--will be leading America into default of 
not paying our debts for the first time.


                                FOX News

  Mr. President, on FOX News, yesterday, FOX News agreed to pay nearly 
$800 million to end a defamation suit brought by Dominion Voting 
Systems after FOX spent months lying about the 2020 election. It is one 
of the largest settlements ever in a defamation case.
  Trial or no trial, the world sees that FOX News knowingly and 
intentionally lied to the country about the 2020 election. The amazing 
thing is that FOX knew that these were lies, and they still put that 
propaganda on the air. And it is not just trivial lies; it is lies that 
go to the essence of our democracy. To think that the leaders of FOX 
News, Rupert Murdoch, don't give a hoot about democracy and still would 
put these lies on for political or mercenary purposes is just galling, 
appalling, and, frankly, downright against what America stands for and 
has stood for for hundreds of years.
  FOX commentators spread conspiracy theories and passed them off as 
news. They spread distrust in our democracy and claimed it was a 
legitimate concern. So FOX News's legacy and Rupert Murdoch's legacy is 
forever sealed as the network that sought to undermine American 
democracy one prime-time segment at a time. FOX News's legacy is sealed 
as the network that has minuscule reward for the truth and would 
knowingly lie to achieve political and mercenary goals.
  Even without a single witness taking the stand, what we do know about 
this case is shocking. Under oath, Rupert Murdoch the owners of FOX 
News, admitted his hosts were spreading the narrative of the Big Lie. 
We are not just throwing rhetoric around here; these are facts. Here is 
what Murdoch said: ``Maybe Sean [Hannity] and Laura [Ingraham] went too 
far,'' he admitted in one email. That is certainly a way to put it.
  Asked if he could have stopped the lies, Mr. Murdoch admitted:

       I could have . . . but I didn't.

  Amazing. Amazing.
  So settlement or not, there is no question that FOX News lied. Sadly, 
too much damage has already been done. A significant segment of 
voters--by some measures as much as 30 percent of the electorate--still 
do not believe the 2020 election was legitimate. And when people start 
doubting that elections are legitimate, that is the beginning of the 
end of a democracy. It is just galling.

  Again, this is not lying about some trivial thing; this is lying that 
undermines the essence of what America has been all about.
  And 2 years after the Presidential election, FOX News still lies 
about what happened in 2020. Not 2 months ago, Tucker Carlson claimed 
January 6 was not an insurrection, using manipulated security footage 
provided to him exclusively by Speaker McCarthy. FOX News has not shown 
any remorse--any remorse--for undermining our democracy and blatantly 
lying.
  Again, Rupert Murdoch's legacy and FOX News's legacy is sealed. They 
will forever be remembered as the ones who sought to break American 
democracy from within by lying about it.
  For their own sake--even more importantly, for the sake of our great 
country--Mr. Murdoch and FOX News leadership should put a halt to the 
spread of the Big Lie on their network because when enough people 
believe elections are not on the level, that is the beginning death 
knell of a democracy.


                                Abortion

  Mr. President, now on the abortion issue and military holds, for the 
last 10 months, the American people have made clear they reject the 
hard right's war on women. After many ballot initiatives, special 
elections, and one disastrous midterm for the GOP, there is no denying 
that the MAGA obsession with attacking women's freedom of choice has 
been a disaster. And yet, the more Americans reject MAGA extremism, 
particularly on the issue of choice, the more MAGA Republicans double 
down. Now, through the actions of one Senator, even military families 
have been taken hostage by the hard right.
  We are talking about women veterans. We are talking about women who 
volunteer and risk their lives oftentimes for us. And now this hard-
right group is telling them they don't have the right to decide what to 
do when it comes to their bodies and their healthcare--it is 
outrageous. The same people on the other side who praise our military 
and our soldiers are treating women as second-class citizens. That is 
outrageous.
  It is outrageous when they do it to all women, but particularly 
outrageous when they do it to women veterans, women who serve because 
they, again, are our heroes and risk their lives for us.
  And now, through the actions of one Senator, even military families 
have been taken hostage by the hard right. Today, the Senator from 
Alabama will push legislation that would take away reproductive care 
for hundreds of thousands of veterans and their families. It is the 
extreme kind of proposal millions of Americans strongly oppose and one 
which, if passed, would gravely harm the health of women, particularly 
our veterans.
  Senator Tuberville's legislation is bad on its own, but he has made 
it even worse because he continues threatening our national security by 
blocking over 180 military promotions. The Secretary of Defense himself 
and so many of our leading military figures, past and present, have 
warned us that this delay is dangerous to the security of America.
  What is equally disappointing as the Senator from Alabama's reckless 
action, it is disappointing to see that more of my colleagues on the 
other side have not yet called out the Senator's reckless stunts. I 
thank those who, indeed, have raised their voice, but we need more.
  Republicans who claim to be such supporters of our military all of a 
sudden have gone mum, silent, when the Senator from Alabama risks 
military security because he believes passionately in something. Every 
one of us could do this. No one has chosen to do it the way the Senator 
has.
  It is a new chapter, a sad chapter. We hope it will end soon, that, 
whether publicly or privately, our Republican colleagues go to him and 
say this is just dead wrong, no matter how passionately he feels.
  And why is Senator Tuberville doing this? Because he wants to make 
the healthcare decisions for the women of our military. He wants to 
decide that. The military shouldn't decide it. The country shouldn't 
decide it. The women shouldn't decide it. He wants to make that 
decision. What arrogance.
  He is threatening to permanently inject politics into the 
confirmation of routine military promotions so he can

[[Page S1221]]

push the MAGA hardline on blocking women's choice.
  This is the MAGA hard right in a nutshell: Eliminate women's choice 
at all costs, even at the cost of our national defense.
  I urge my colleagues sincerely, passionately, as passionately as he 
is, maybe even more so, to drop his hold, and I will certainly oppose 
this measure later today.
  I yield the floor.


                   Recognition of the Minority Leader

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Republican leader is 
recognized.


                                 Energy

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, we are 2 years into the latest chapter 
of Washington Democrats' war against our own domestic energy. America 
spent decades working toward affordable, reliable energy independence, 
and Democrats have tried to reverse it all, turned it all around: less 
exploration for American oil and gas, more dependence on immoral 
Chinese supply chains. Even as the left wants Big Government to gamble 
our whole grid on less reliable new technologies, they don't even want 
to let us mine here in America on our own soil for the rare earth 
minerals those technologies actually require.
  The Democrats have fundamentally misunderstood both the economics and 
the geopolitics of American energy. So the result is going to be fewer 
jobs for our workers, bigger bills for our families, less security for 
our country, and more vulnerability to foreign actors who don't like 
us.
  Just last week, the Biden EPA announced it will try to slap a radical 
and unprecedented new mandate on our country regarding electric 
vehicles. The same people who can't handle inflation and can't secure 
our border want to stick their noses into Americans' garages and our 
driveways. The administration's radical plan would cut down the 
marketplace of affordable and reliable vehicles that most Americans 
actually want to drive. It would massively increase demand on already 
highly taxed electrical grids with no workable plan to grow capacity, 
and it would force rich liberals' lifestyle choices onto the whole 
country.
  Good luck--good luck farmers, ranchers, rural Americans. California 
wants to dictate what you drive. See, California is the proving ground 
for these bad ideas. They have already set their own punitive targets 
for electric vehicle sales, and--surprise--the math actually doesn't 
work. At the same time Governor Newsom is mandating his citizens buy 
electric vehicles, he is telling people not to plug them in--don't plug 
them in--for fear of blackouts.
  California expects to see 15 times more electric vehicles on the 
roads and on their electrical grid by 2035--the same California that 
already had to spend last summer begging citizens to turn down their 
air-conditioning because their grid can barely survive as it is right 
now.
  Democrats want less American energy, less production, and, of course, 
less reliability. Republicans want more, more, and more--more 
production, more independence, more affordability, and more security.
  The House Republican majority's landmark H.R. 1 goes right at this 
very issue. It would be a huge shot in the arm for American energy. But 
here in the Senate, the Democratic leader controls the floor, and he 
has declared the bill ``dead on arrival''--dead on arrival here in the 
Senate.
  It is the clearest possible contrast. Republicans are fighting for 
cheaper and more reliable power, stronger supply chains, and a stronger 
America on the world stage; and Democrats, they are actually fighting 
us.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


            28-Year Anniversary of the Oklahoma City Bombing

  Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, we remember, at 9:02 a.m. on April 19, 
1995, 168 people were tragically murdered in the worst act of homegrown 
domestic violence and terrorism in our Nation's history. That was in 
Oklahoma City.
  The bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City 
destroyed nine floors, where they collapsed in on each other. The 
physical impact to the building and of the bombing itself was felt 55 
miles away, and the force of the blast damaged 324 surrounding 
buildings.
  The emotional impact was felt around the world as, literally, the 
world stopped and stared at their televisions 28 years ago today, and 
the Nation felt the pain of those who were killed and of the survivors 
and of the family members who remained.
  The victims included 19 children, many who attended the daycare in 
the building called America's Kids. A total of 219 children lost a 
parent that day, and 30 children were orphaned that day. It is 
estimated that 360,000 Oklahomans knew someone personally who worked in 
the Murrah Building.
  The 16-day rescue-and-recovery effort took a toll on our first 
responders and our family members who held onto hope that their loved 
one was still alive. The events of April 19, 1995, changed my State and 
changed our country forever. There are incredible stories about 
survivors of the bombings who helped their coworkers escape the rubble 
and exit the building to safety.
  In the midst of immense grief, we introduced what we now know as the 
Oklahoma Standard: the way Oklahomans immediately stepped forward to 
offer help, showed compassion to their neighbors in pain, donated 
blood, donated even their shoes that day to rescue workers and other 
individuals who needed help. Out of the terrible tragedy was 
demonstrated tremendous love.
  By 3:30 p.m. on April 19, 1995, a family assistance center called the 
Compassion Center was set up at the First Christian Church in downtown 
Oklahoma City. The center was supported by the American Red Cross, 
hundreds of local clergy, chaplains, and mental health professionals.
  Donations for victims and rescue workers poured in from fellow 
Oklahomans and Americans. Fourteen million dollars was donated to the 
Oklahoma City Disaster Relief Fund, and the Oklahoma Legislature 
created the Murrah Fund that pooled public and private dollars to 
assist victims with lost wages, grief counseling, funerals, and burial 
costs.
  There is a lot to be said about the aftermath of the Alfred P. Murrah 
bombing. One notable piece that is often overlooked is the remarkable 
work of law enforcement that day.
  See, law enforcement was called in from all over to able to assist, 
but one State trooper who was responding to it was actually turned 
around and was told to ``stay in your area. We do need to keep coverage 
across the State.'' So this State trooper, Charlie Hanger, stayed in 
his area way north of Oklahoma City on I-35.
  On that day, in his normal duties that he was doing, he saw a yellow 
Mercury that had no license tag on it, and he pulled them over. He was 
just doing his job. The person he pulled over was the person who had 
actually committed the murders. Just a great cop doing his job.
  The FBI came in from all over the country to come help. U.S. 
attorneys came to be able to help. Employees helped the FBI put 
together a drawing of the person. When they found out the truck that 
was actually used for the bombing was rented, they helped develop this, 
as the FBI worked, and they figured out that the person Charlie Hanger 
had pulled over was actually the person they were looking for at the 
same time and were able to speedily make an arrest.
  My city and my State are very grateful to the FBI for the work they 
did that day, local law enforcement, U.S. attorneys, first responders, 
everyday Oklahomans who literally ran toward that moment, some staying 
literally for weeks and months going through the debris. You can't 
imagine the pain and the difficulty of digging through rubble and 
identifying people. What those first responders did and what those 
individuals who stayed on the pile did will never be forgotten by our 
State.
  One resounding message from the survivors of the Oklahoma City 
bombing is that life can be forever altered in a single moment. 
Oklahomans who lost their lives that day simply woke up,

[[Page S1222]]

went to work, dropped off their child at America's Kids daycare, 
thinking they would all come home that night.
  There is a lot we can learn from those events. It reminds us that 
time with our family and loved ones is precious and should never be 
taken for granted. But we should also remember that the Oklahoma City 
bombing was driven by anti-American hatred. Single individuals with 
misguided government beliefs and hatred for people in government 
literally drove a truck bomb in front of a building full of people 
serving their Nation that day in a Federal building and chose to kill 
them just because of their hatred for government.
  We can never allow our Nation to rise up with that kind of anger and 
hatred against fellow Americans. We are a nation that has 
disagreements, and we solve those by talking to each other as fellow 
Americans.
  The Oklahoma City bombing memorial museum, which sits next to the 
memorial itself, continues to tell the story every single day, as they 
are today, of what it means to be able to have one person talking to 
another person to solve our problems and to work out our differences.
  On the 28th anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing, we still feel 
the sharp pain and loss in Oklahoma. While some in the Nation look back 
on it and think that was a long time ago, we remember.
  We thank the first responders and the law enforcement officers for 
their invaluable service. We remember the lives of the victims lost, 
and we continue to pray for their families and for the survivors who 
are still gathering together just to check on each other as families. 
Most importantly, we will continue to tell the story of what happens 
when rage and hatred for fellow Americans spill over into the 
destruction of life. We remember.
  And I would ask this body to do what we are doing in Oklahoma City 
today. We are pausing for 168 seconds to remember the 168 victims whom 
we lost that day. So would this body pause with me for 168 seconds?
  (Moment of silence.)
  Today, we honor those who were killed, those who survived, and those 
who were changed forever.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Connecticut.


                              Gun Violence

  Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, late on the night of November 2, 2012, 
Theodore Wafer was woken up by a loud sound. Somebody was knocking on 
his door--pounding on his door. He looked for his phone to call the 
police but couldn't find it. So, instead, he picked up his shotgun and 
went to the door. He saw on the other side a figure. He thought the 
person, maybe, was trying to break into his house, and so he fired a 
shotgun blast through the screen door to his porch.
  A couple of hours before that, Renisha McBride had gotten into a car 
accident not far away from Theodore Wafer's house. She was intoxicated. 
She was disoriented after the crash. She wandered around the 
neighborhood, late at night, looking for help. She couldn't find any, 
and she found herself knocking on the door of Mr. Wafer's home, looking 
for assistance. The shotgun blast hit her in the face, and she died.
  Jordan Davis was in Jacksonville, FL, a teenager out with his 
friends. They pulled into a gas station. As a lot of teenagers do, they 
were playing loud music. Michael Dunn was at the gas station as well. 
He didn't like the fact that the teenagers were playing their music too 
loud. He asked them to turn it down. There was an argument that took 
place. Michael Dunn said: I am not going to let anybody talk to me like 
that. And he pulled a handgun out of the glove compartment of his car, 
and he started shooting at Jordan Davis and his friends. Jordan Davis 
died as his friends sped away, trying to get away from the killing 
scene. Michael Dunn continued to shoot at the fleeing car.
  His girlfriend came out of the convenience store. She didn't know 
what had happened. Michael Dunn didn't tell her. They went to the hotel 
they were staying in, and they ordered a pizza. That happened 1 year 
before the death of Renisha McBride.
  This week, this country is convulsed by a series of horrific 
shootings where mistakes and minor slights are being met by gunfire. 
You know these stories by now. Ralph Yarl, 16 years old, went to go 
pick up his siblings, went to the wrong house, and Andrew Lester fired 
at him. Ralph Yarl is now clinging for life right now.
  Kaylin Gillis, 20 years old, and her friend pulled into the wrong 
driveway--just pulled into the wrong driveway--and Kevin Monahan fired 
his gun at them, killing Kaylin Gillis.
  And, just this morning, we are hearing news of another stunningly 
similar incident in Austin, TX, where a cheerleader, by accident, got 
into the wrong car after cheerleading practice and apparently that 
slight was so serious that the man in the car fired a gun at this 
cheerleader and her friend. One of those young women is critically 
injured.
  My friends, there is a toxic mixture in this country today of hate, 
of anger, and a population that is increasingly armed to the teeth with 
deadly weapons, many of them with no training, many of them with 
criminal records. This mixture is leading to our neighborhoods becoming 
a killing field. Minor slights and indiscretions, small arguments, even 
simple wrong turns are becoming potentially deadly.
  We are becoming a heavily armed nation, so fearful and angry and 
hair-trigger anxious that gun murders are now just the way in which we 
work out our frustrations.
  This is a dystopia. I am here to tell you that it is a dystopia that 
we have chosen for ourselves.
  And before I challenge my colleagues to do better, I just want to 
tell you a quick short story of how we got here, because this 
combination of anger and fear and guns is actually not new. It is worse 
now. Our rage is bigger. The number of guns on the street today is 
dizzying compared to just a few decades ago. But I have to be honest 
with you. The underlying problem of this combination is actually not 
new.
  In our early years, after our founding, America actually wasn't a 
fundamentally more violent place than our European neighbors. But a few 
things happened, about 50 years into the American story, that set 
America on a very different course--a course that, beginning in about 
1840, made America an outlier of global violence, and we have never 
come back down to Earth.
  I think it is just interesting to sort of talk for a minute about 
those three things because they are relevant to today's discussion.
  First is the creation of America as a true melting pot. Waves of 
immigrants came to America beginning in the early to mid-1800s, looking 
for jobs and living space and partners. The competition amongst those 
groups, combined with demagogues and provocateurs who would pry on this 
friction, became explosive. People began to think that they needed to 
be suspicious of people who were different from them--a different race 
or ethnicity or religion. And, over time, if you look at American 
history, it is when these big waves of new immigration come to this 
country that we tend to have spikes in violence because those 
demagogues or those provocateurs tell us that we should be fearful of 
each other, and, all of a sudden, violence increases.

  The second thing that happens in that period of time is the invention 
of the cotton gin. Why is that important? America was a slave nation at 
our founding. In 1800, we only had about 850,000 slaves. The cotton gin 
explodes the need for slaves. In 40 years, we go from 850,000 slaves to 
2.4 million slaves, and the amount of violence that is necessary to 
keep that number of people in bondage is extraordinary. And the 
country--you can imagine this--just becomes anesthetized to violence. 
So, all of a sudden, violence rates go up amongst all Americans--not 
just White-on-Black violence, but White-on-White violence goes up, 
because violence is part of how we keep our economy running.
  Then, third, in the same period of time, the early to mid-1800s, we 
see the invention of the modern mass-produced handgun. The cotton gin 
is a Connecticut invention, and so is the modern mass-produced handgun.
  Now, other nations figured out how dangerous this was--the ability to 
slip into your coat pocket the means of lethal violence. Other nations 
decided to regulate the access that their citizens had to this 
instrument, but not in the United States.

[[Page S1223]]

  So, quickly, shortly after the explosion of access to the handgun, 
violence rates began to increase. And given this history I talked about 
prior--our history of racial and ethnic violence--the decision not to 
regulate handgun access in any meaningful form was kind of like 
throwing gasoline on this raging fire.
  I am saying all of this because we have known for 200 years that this 
combination of violence between ethnic groups, violence as a means of 
subjugation, all supercharged by unlimited access to guns, is a 
uniquely American problem.
  Throughout our history--and this is the most important part--we have 
assiduously and purposefully, as a nation, tried to turn the dials of 
laws and norms and customs to have less hatred; to have less animosity 
toward each other; to have less oppression and less access to guns, at 
least for people who shouldn't have them.
  It is not a coincidence that the rates of violence in this Nation 
spike when we have waves of new immigrants, but then it settles out; it 
flattens. It often decreases as time goes on, and we learn how to live 
with each other. We change our norms and our customs. It is also not a 
coincidence that the biggest drops in lethal violence in this country 
tend to happen right after we make major adjustments to our Nation's 
firearms laws.
  What I am saying is that America is definitely set up to be a place 
more violent than other nations. We shouldn't expect that we are going 
to, with any set of changes, become as violent as European or Asian 
countries.
  But it doesn't have to be like this. Cheerleaders don't need to be 
shot when they walk into the wrong car. Teenagers don't need to be 
murdered because their music is too loud. Kids shouldn't fear for their 
life when they go to school or when they pick up their siblings from a 
house in the neighborhood. We can do better. We can adjust the dials in 
order to decide not to live in this dystopia.
  Everybody here knows what I feel about American gun laws. I am not 
going to litigate that question again here today. I think we can do 
better. I think we can just make it a little bit harder for 
irresponsible people, people with criminal records, people with serious 
mental illness to get their hands on deadly weapons.
  I want universal background checks. I want bans on the weapons that 
were designed for the military. But we also need to have a more 
apolitical discussion about the level of fear and hatred and mistrust 
in our society today that puts so many people on the edge, ready to 
fire a gun at somebody over the smallest threat or insult. There is 
just a collective anxiety in this country that we need to deal with 
and, frankly, doesn't require us to have debates that fall on easy 
political or partisan lines.
  Everybody in this body has an obligation to take steps so that 
today's demagogues and provocateurs--the same ones that convinced 
people in the 1840s that they should be fearful of new immigrants--have 
less air time and less influence. We shouldn't elevate political 
leaders who lead with messages of hate and division. That is part of 
what is driving America to fear everybody, to fear their neighbors.
  But we should also pass laws that incentivize our national dialogue 
to just be kinder and less hateful. Social media companies are making 
money off of hate and polarization, and we don't need to accept this. 
Holding them accountable for the ways that they have pit us against 
each other, that is not an impossible task and, frankly, not one we 
necessarily need to fight about along partisan lines.
  I will leave you with this. We also just need to ask some deeper 
questions about why people in America are just so unhappy and so alone 
that they would resort to violence this regularly and this casually.

  A detective in Bridgeport, CT, told me the other day he barely ever 
responds to fistfights any longer. Everything, every beef ends up in 
gunfire.
  We have lost so many pathways in this country to positive meaning and 
positive identity and fulfilling connection to each other. People have 
less opportunity today to build healthy, economically secure, and 
personally fulfilling lives. We need to talk about why this is and what 
government can do to spiritually jump-start this Nation. It is not all 
about the gun laws. I think the gun laws should change, but there is 
also an anxiety of fearfulness in this Nation that we can have a 
collective conversation about.
  I get it. It is a big, huge, weighty conversation, but something 
stinks out there right now. We shouldn't accept this shoot-first 
culture--at kids, at cheerleaders, at students, at people shopping at 
grocery stores--as our new reality. It is a choice.
  America has always been a more violent place. That is true. But the 
degree of that violence has always been up to us. We have always had 
dials that we can turn. We should realize this, and we should do 
something about it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hickenlooper). The Republican whip.


                                 TikTok

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, there has been a lot of discussion lately, 
here in Congress, about the national security concerns posed by TikTok, 
whose parent company is Chinese-owned ByteDance.
  Chinese law requires social media technology companies to provide 
information, including individually identifiable personal information, 
to the Chinese Government, when asked.
  This obviously has implications for Americans' personal security and 
privacy and raises troubling questions about how the Chinese Communist 
Party could use TikTok for its own ends, whether that is using personal 
data to develop sources for espionage or manipulating content to 
advance the Communist Party's agenda. The Director of the CIA, the FBI 
Director, and the Director of National Intelligence have all outlined 
national security concerns with TikTok, and Members of Congress are 
currently discussing various ways of addressing these concerns.
  In March, Senator Mark Warner, chairman of the Senate Intelligence 
Committee, and I introduced bipartisan legislation called the 
Restricting the Emergence of Security Threats that Risk Information and 
Communications Technology Act--or the RESTRICT Act, the acronym--to 
address the national security concerns posed not just by TikTok but by 
other technologies from foreign adversary countries.
  I am pleased that our bill, which is cosponsored by a full quarter of 
the U.S. Senate, has received a lot of attention in the media, 
attention that I hope will ensure our legislation receives a full 
hearing in the Commerce Committee and a vote on the Senate floor, but 
along with the attention our bill has received has come a lot of 
misrepresentation about the bill's content. And I want to take just a 
moment today to set the record straight on some misconceptions about 
the RESTRICT Act.
  First of all, many critics of the bill seem to be unaware of the fact 
that the bill is closely modeled after a 2019 Executive order by 
President Trump as well as a subsequent rule by the Trump Commerce 
Department. So I wanted to underscore that the RESTRICT Act seeks to 
codify a policy that was put in place by President Trump. Unlike some 
of the other TikTok bills out there, our bill is not exclusively 
focused on TikTok and would instead create a framework for reviewing 
not only TikTok but any technology from a foreign adversary nation that 
poses an undue national security risk.
  This has led to some claims that our bill is too broad or gives the 
Federal Government too much power, but nothing could be further from 
the truth.
  Our bill is, in fact, narrowly tailored, and it is designed not to 
expand the Federal Government's power but to update authorities the 
Federal Government already has to account for the digital age.
  Both Democrat and Republican administrations have taken Executive 
action to counter the threat posed by technology from foreign adversary 
countries, but they have been limited by the fact that current law was 
written before the age of the internet and is not always easily applied 
to digital threats.
  Our legislation, which, again, codifies an Executive order issued by 
President Trump as well as a subsequent rule by the Trump Commerce 
Department, would fill in the gaps in current law and ensure that it is 
possible to address not just traditional risks from foreign-owned 
companies but the specific

[[Page S1224]]

threats posed by foreign-owned digital technology.
  I imagine some claims that our bill is too broad have arisen because 
our bill is not limited to TikTok, but there is a reason for that. 
First, there is reason to believe that legislation targeted solely at 
TikTok would be overturned by the courts because of the Constitution's 
prohibition on bills of attainder. Second, our bill would apply a way 
to address more than just TikTok because this is not the first time 
technology from a hostile nation has posed a serious national security 
concern, and it probably won't be the last.
  Before there was TikTok, we had to engage in a protracted effort to 
remove technology from Chinese companies Huawei and ZTE from our 
telecommunications networks--after U.S. security officials raised 
concerns that much of Huawei and ZTE's equipment was built with 
backdoors, giving the Chinese Communist Party access to global 
communications networks.
  And before Huawei and ZTE, there was Russia's Kaspersky, which 
threatened the security of government-owned digital devices, and that 
is just looking backward in time.
  Looking forward, we are also confronting risky platforms like WeChat, 
a Chinese app that has 19 million users in the United States. By many 
accounts, WeChat is even worse than TikTok in terms of the Chinese 
Communist Party being able to steal data, censor information, and 
propagandize Americans.
  No other bipartisan bill introduced in Congress does anything to 
address the risks posed by this platform or other dangerous apps or 
technologies. Only the RESTRICT Act contains the necessary authorities 
for the Federal Government to do something about not only TikTok but 
other technologies that present a potential national security risk.
  Instead of trying to play catchup and find a way to individually 
address each threat after it emerges, as has happened in the past, we 
need a process in place to provide for an orderly and transparent 
review of technologies from foreign adversary countries, and that is 
what our bill would provide.

  Under our bill, the Department of Commerce, in both Republican and 
Democrat administrations, would review any information and 
communications technology product from a foreign adversary company that 
is deemed to present a potential security threat, with an emphasis on 
products used in critical telecommunications infrastructure or with 
serious national security implications.
  And the Secretary of Commerce would be required to develop a range of 
measures to mitigate the danger posed by these products, up to and 
including a ban on the product in question.
  Importantly, our bill would ensure transparency by requiring the 
Commerce Secretary to coordinate with the Director of National 
Intelligence to provide declassified information on why any measure 
against technology products from foreign adversary countries were 
taken.
  I have mentioned that our bill is narrowly tailored. That is true 
about the process created by the bill, which is designed not to expand 
government but to fill a hole in current law. But it is true about the 
countries whose technology is targeted for review by this bill.
  The RESTRICT Act would provide for the review of technology from just 
six foreign adversary countries: China, Russia, North Korea, Iran, 
Venezuela, and Cuba. The Secretary of Commerce would be allowed to add 
countries to this list if it became necessary, but Congress would have 
the authority to reject any addition.
  And contrary to claims that the act would exclude judicial review, 
the RESTRICT Act specifically provides that any challenges to the act 
be considered at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia 
Circuit.
  Other charges that have been leveled against the RESTRICT Act are 
about the impact the bill would supposedly have on individual 
Americans. Opponents of the bill have suggested that the RESTRICT Act 
would somehow infringe on Americans' First Amendment rights or target 
individual Americans. Again, nothing could be further from the truth.
  The RESTRICT Act would do nothing--nothing--to restrict the content 
Americans can post online. Now, let me just repeat that because this is 
very important: The RESTRICT Act would do nothing to restrict the 
content Americans can post online.
  If the RESTRICT Act becomes law, Americans will be free to post 
exactly the same online content that they are posting right now. 
Nothing in the bill would in any way censor what Americans can put on 
the internet. And the bill would not allow the Federal Government to 
surveil Americans' online content or give the government authority to 
access any American's personal communications device.
  Nor would the bill target individual Americans in any way. No 
individual user would be prosecuted for using something like a private 
VPN network to get around a potential ban on an entity like TikTok. 
This legislation would simply allow for the possibility of banning 
certain technologies from foreign adversary countries that pose a 
threat to national security.
  And the only entities that would possibly be subject to prosecution 
under this legislation would be companies that deliberately violated a 
prohibition on technologies that had been determined to be dangerous 
enough to trigger a ban.
  The digital age has provided us with enormous benefits, but 
inevitably it has also come with its own unique risks and threats--not 
least the risk of a hostile foreign government exploiting 
communications technology for nefarious purposes.
  And those threats increase substantially when we are talking about 
technology produced by companies in hostile nations and affiliated with 
hostile governments.
  We need a process to address those threats, a narrowly targeted way 
to mitigate the dangers of digital technologies from foreign adversary 
countries while protecting the rights and liberties of American 
citizens.
  That is exactly what the RESTRICT Act would provide. I am proud of 
the legislation that we have developed, and I look forward to working 
with colleagues of both parties to further improve this legislation and 
advance it here in the U.S. Senate.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I am here to talk about the Fire Grants 
and Safety Act.
  I do appreciate the words of my colleague. It was good to hear his 
concerns, and I think we all share concerns about Americans being spied 
on and their data.
  I also note that as we look at dealing with platforms and social 
media and the like at the same time we pursue this, we must pursue the 
bills that have been out there for well over a year now and passed 
through the Judiciary Committee last year and will do so again. And 
those are bills related to monopoly power; bills related to the 
incredible imbalance in power with two of the platforms, Google and 
Facebook, when it comes to dealing with small newspapers and radio 
stations and TV and their content, a bill that was nearly passed at the 
end of last year; another bill that Senator Grassley and I have that 
speaks to the fact that other countries in the world are now putting 
forth regulations and rules about self-preferencing and the unfairness 
to our small businesses; and then, of course, other bills, some of 
which are in the Commerce Committee, on privacy and children's issues 
and the like.
  All of these bills must be considered on this floor because, as noted 
by my colleague, we have not passed any rules when it comes to not only 
the issues he was addressing but also when it comes to a competition 
tech policy since the advent of the internet.
  I think we know a lot more than we knew when Facebook was in a 
garage. We know a lot more, and it is time for us to get up to speed 
and to actually pass some rules and stop talking about it.


                                 S. 870

  So I rise today in support of the Fire Grants and Safety Act. I would 
like to thank Senators Peters, Collins, Carper, and Murkowski for their 
leadership. Our communities are strongest and safest when local fire 
departments have the funding that they need to hire firefighters and 
pay for equipment.
  We all know that firefighters do lifesaving work. They are there for 
us during house fires, car crashes, medical

[[Page S1225]]

emergencies, and so much more, and I am committed to being there for 
them.
  Over the past several months, I have visited fire halls across my 
State. I have heard from local departments in both cities and rural 
communities about how important the Assistance for Firefighters Grant 
and the SAFER Grant Programs are to them.
  That is why we must pass the bipartisan Fire Grants and Safety Act to 
ensure that we continue providing Federal funding for these critical 
programs.
  Local fire departments in Minnesota and across the country rely on 
these programs to invest in training and purchasing critically needed 
equipment. I have seen some of these firetrucks in small communities, 
like in Houston, MN, firetrucks that are outdated, things that need to 
be changed. Fires burn just as strong and are just as dangerous in 
small rural communities as they are in a big city. Yet they don't have 
the equipment that some of the larger communities have.
  We also must support fire departments' efforts to hire and retain 
trained firefighters so they can keep our communities safe. Because of 
a SAFER grant, for instance, the Minneapolis Fire Department was able 
to hire 15 additional firefighters, which means an additional 5 
firefighters on every shift, and it helped the department to reduce 
reliance on overtime shifts, which in the end saves money.
  Thanks to another of these grants, Bloomington, MN--the home of the 
Mall of America for those listening today who are looking for a great 
place to visit--which has been facing a serious shortage of staff in 
the fire department there, was able to add 18 full-time firefighters 
and will now have firetrucks available 24 hours a day. That is one of 
the biggest cities in my State.
  As a result of an assistance for firefighters grant, the Duluth Fire 
Department sent 40 firefighters to a training program to reduce 
emergency response time and increase safety for firefighters. And let 
me tell you, in Duluth, they don't just fight fires; they have people 
stranded on icefloes in the middle of Lake Superior.
  They have all kinds of disasters that maybe some of our warmer States 
do not experience that they must respond to each and every day, 
including how to get to fire hydrants when they are surrounded by six 
feet of snow. In the town of Proctor, which has a population of just 
over 3,100, because of one of these grants, the local fire department 
there was able to purchase 20 air packs, including five with thermal 
imaging cameras, and get a new set of cutting-edge rescue tools. I 
think many of my colleagues have similar stories about how important 
these resources are to fire departments.

  One of the things that I learned in my last few years of visiting 
with our firefighters and chiefs is that, in fact, one of the major 
problems facing them is not always discussed. And that is similar to 
what so many of our veterans have faced when they were stationed next 
to burn pits, and that is what is happening with a number of our 
firefighters getting cancer and, sadly, perishing from cancer at very 
young ages.
  Cancer is the leading cause of death among firefighters. Firefighters 
can be exposed to hundreds of potential carcinogens when responding to 
fires. It is only right that we treat cancer caused by on-the-job 
exposure the same way we treat other physical injuries.
  Two solutions here: One is, with these fire grants, helping, 
especially, smaller departments that didn't have them to get up-to-date 
washing machines, up-to-date dryers that do a much better job and 
quicker job in terms of cleaning off this equipment, because the stuff 
that is burning in these buildings--just as what has happened with our 
veterans--that wasn't being burnt 20, 30, 50, 100 years ago. We know 
that is what part of the problem is.
  The second is to make sure we take care of them, not just in our 
words as well as speaking from the Senate floor, but in what we 
actually do to have the backs of their families. To truly do right by 
our firefighters, we have to look out for those who tragically get 
cancer as a result of their service. That is why Senator Kevin Cramer 
of North Dakota and I have joined forces and introduced a bill to do 
just that. This, for me, goes back to 2018, when I championed the bill 
to create a national firefighter cancer registry, along with Senator 
Menendez and others.
  Senator Cramer's and my bill is called Honoring Our Fallen Heroes 
Act, and it would make sure that firefighters who become disabled or 
die from cancer as a result of their service get the benefits that they 
deserve.
  We must make sure that our firefighters have everything they need to 
do their job. It is the least we can do for our heroes who sacrifice so 
much to keep us safe.
  I am excited to support this bill, and I see Senator Peters is here 
and has been such a great leader on this issue.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 
10 minutes prior to the scheduled rollcall vote on my amendment No. 79.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.


                            Amendment No. 79

  Mr. PAUL. Firefighting and emergency medical services are some of the 
most important and most inherently local services that people rely on. 
The men and women who show up when the call for help goes out are 
everyday heroes in communities across America.
  City governments have predominantly decided to provide fire services 
at taxpayer expense with local taxes, while in rural areas, volunteer 
fire departments are still prevalent. Many localities have decided to 
provide medical services as well. Although hospitals still are the 
primary EMS providers in a lot of locations, private companies are 
playing an increasing role in this space as well. But no matter who 
provides the services--government employees, volunteers, or private 
entities, these are local needs best met by local providers and best 
paid for with local taxes.
  For the first 225 years of our country's history, this is just what 
happened, until 2000, when the Federal Government had its first budget 
surplus in almost 50 years--a surplus that disappeared the very next 
year, by the way. Congress, in the year 2000, decided to spend a bit of 
that surplus to create a new subsidy for local firefighters.
  This first year, the program was authorized at a total of $110 
million for government and volunteer fire departments; however, the 
bill before us today now authorizes $2.3 billion per year for these 
subsidies. That's right, in the 30 years for this program, Federal 
subsidies for these important, but inherently local, programs have 
increased 18-fold.
  In that same time, our government has gone from an annual surplus of 
about $86 billion to perpetual deficits of over $1 trillion a year. The 
national debt has grown from less than $6 trillion to over $32 
trillion.
  Despite the reality of our fiscal condition, this bill makes no 
reforms. It doesn't limit the grants to departments that can't raise 
money on their own. It doesn't ask local governments to invest more of 
their own funds. The only thing this bill accomplishes, really, is to 
increase spending by 25 percent.
  The unsustainable increases in spending with no attempt to rein-in 
future costs or make offsetting cuts elsewhere in the budget is 
concerning. I am glad to see we have an amendment, though, to pay for 
the bill by reallocating unspent COVID funds that are still in 
existence and haven't already been allocated and could be used for this 
program. So we will have an amendment to pay for this program. We will 
see if anyone on the other side is actually interested in paying for a 
program.
  The other major problem with this bill is it rewards governments--
local governments that chose to trample on the freedom of firefighters 
and medics to speak their own minds and make their own medical 
decisions. One purpose of the grant in this bill is to increase 
staffing for fire departments. Over the last few years, even as these 
grants were awarded, firefighters around the country found themselves 
with a choice: submit to COVID vaccine mandates or lose your 
livelihood.
  This was no idle threat. In New York, L.A., and Seattle, among other 
places, firefighters lost their jobs simply because they insisted upon 
living according to their own conscience.

[[Page S1226]]

  One of those firefighters who was terminated is Joseph Kimball, who 
served in Salt River, AZ, and has six children. His wife is a stay-at-
home mom, but this didn't stop local officials from firing him for not 
getting a COVID vaccine.
  It seems bizarre and contradictory to provide financial support to 
increase fire department staffing to departments that are firing people 
for not being vaccinated--firefighters that were trained and effective 
and there was no good reason to fire them, particularly when we had 
shortages of firefighters as reported throughout the country.
  Firefighters tend to be young and fit. They are the very people who 
have the least to worry about with COVID-19. They also tend to be male, 
and young males are the group most likely to suffer the vaccine-related 
injury of myocarditis. Firemen and EMTs who chose not to be vaccinated 
were never a threat to anyone, never a threat to their communities. On 
the contrary, these firefighters served their communities bravely and 
made their neighbors safe. They served throughout an entire year when 
there was no vaccine. Many of these firefighters contracted COVID and 
have naturally acquired immunity.
  What was being done to them? What was done to them through firing 
them for making their own medical decisions, what was done to the 
police and to doctors and to nurses, what was done to first responders 
was shameful. And we should stand together to make sure it never 
happens again.
  To that end, I offer an amendment that will restore sanity and 
compassion to this government program. My amendment would make grants 
provided for by this bill unavailable to fire departments that 
dismissed firefighters for not getting a vaccine. This would bring some 
sense of justice to this program. And fire departments would only be 
eligible for these grants if they reinstated the firefighters. So this 
amendment would actually serve to allow some of the firefighters that 
were unfairly dismissed to get their jobs back.
  It turns out--and we all know this now--the vaccine didn't protect 
anybody from getting infected. It showed some efficacy of increasing 
your immunity to resist infection, but there was never any medical 
reason to mandate people to be vaccinated. And no one ever offered to 
these firefighters: Well, you can be tested. If you have had COVID and 
we know you have immunity, you don't have to be vaccinated. There was 
never any alternatives. Many of them weren't even given religious or 
philosophical or medical alternatives to being forced to be vaccinated.
  So if you want to support firefighters, if you want to support your 
communities, if you want to support safety, you should support my 
amendment that says that fire departments are eligible only if they 
reinstate the firefighters they unfairly dismissed.
  Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 79 and ask that it be 
reported by number.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. Paul] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 79.

  The amendment is as follows:

                     (Purpose: To improve the bill)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. PROHIBITION ON AWARD OF FEDERAL FUNDS.

       (a) In General.--A fire service shall be ineligible to 
     receive any Federal funds made available under this Act and 
     the amendments made by this Act if the fire service dismissed 
     or discharged from employment any individual based solely 
     on--
       (1) the failure of the individual to obey an order to 
     receive a vaccine for COVID-19; or
       (2) the exercise by the individual of any rights protected 
     under the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United 
     States to speak against the implementation of any mandate to 
     receive a vaccine for COVID-19.
       (b) Exception.--The prohibition in subsection (a) shall not 
     apply if the fire service has offered reinstatement to all 
     individuals dismissed or discharged based solely on a reason 
     described in paragraph (1) or (2) of that subsection to the 
     position and rank held by the individual on the date of the 
     dismissal or discharge with full back pay calculated from the 
     date of the dismissal or discharge.
       (c) Fire Service Defined.--The term ``fire service'' has 
     the meaning given that term in section 4 of the Federal Fire 
     Prevention and Control Act of 1974 (15 U.S.C. 2203).

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, firefighters are on the front lines of 
safeguarding our communities, often providing emergency care and 
interacting with high-risk populations. Firefighters themselves may 
also be at risk of COVID-19 infections. Vaccines are the safest and 
most effective way to make sure an individual doesn't get severely ill 
or spread COVID-19 to others.
  This amendment would interfere with State and local governments' 
ability to determine health policies for their own employees and how to 
best keep their communities safe. This amendment would also require 
FEMA to evaluate local and State government vaccination policies--
something well beyond the scope and responsibility to determine 
eligibility for grants.
  I would urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment to ensure that 
local communities can continue counting on these resources that these 
programs provide.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. PAUL. There is a longstanding tradition in our country when we 
dispense Federal money to localities to have rules. We don't let you 
discriminate based on your sex or race or ethnicity. We also should not 
let localities discriminate against people who refuse to be vaccinated, 
particularly people who have already had COVID.
  There is no science behind saying you need to be vaccinated if you 
already had it. In fact, the studies show this: They show that if had 
you had the disease you are 57 times less likely to contract it again, 
whereas the vaccine makes you about 19 times less. So infection does 
work and it should be part of the criteria, and we should restrict 
funds to any agency that fired people unfairly for not getting a 
vaccine.


                        Vote on Amendment No. 79

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  Mr. PAUL. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. 
Feinstein, is necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 45, nays 54, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 88 Leg.]

                                YEAS--45

     Barrasso
     Blackburn
     Boozman
     Braun
     Britt
     Budd
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagerty
     Hawley
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Lankford
     Lee
     Lummis
     Marshall
     McConnell
     Moran
     Mullin
     Paul
     Ricketts
     Risch
     Rubio
     Schmitt
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Tuberville
     Vance
     Wicker
     Young

                                NAYS--54

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

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Feinstein
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 45 and the nays are 
54.
  The amendment (No. 79) is rejected.
  The Senator from Tennessee.


                     Amendment No. 72, As Modified

  Mr. HAGERTY. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 72, as 
modified, and ask that it be reported by number.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Tennessee [Mr. Hagerty] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 72, as modified.

  The amendment is as follows:

                     (Purpose: To improve the bill)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

[[Page S1227]]

  


     SEC. ___. EMERGENCY FOOD AND SHELTER PROGRAM REORGANIZATION.

       (a) Emergency Food and Shelter Program National Board.--
       (1) In general.--Section 301 of the McKinney-Vento Homeless 
     Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11331) is amended--
       (A) by striking subsection (b) and inserting the following:
       ``(b) Members.--
       ``(1) In general.--The National Board shall consist of--
       ``(A) the Director;
       ``(B) 2 members appointed by the Director in accordance 
     with paragraph (2);
       ``(C) 1 member appointed by the Secretary of Homeland 
     Security;
       ``(D) 1 member appointed by the Secretary of Housing and 
     Urban Development;
       ``(E) 1 member appointed by the Secretary of Agriculture; 
     and
       ``(F) 1 member appointed by the Director of the Office of 
     Management and Budget.
       ``(2) Application for membership.--
       ``(A) In general.--In appointing the members described in 
     paragraph (1)(B), the Director shall select from applications 
     of individuals seeking to serve as a member on the National 
     Board.
       ``(B) Criteria.--In selecting applications of individuals 
     under subparagraph (A), the Director shall select the 2 most 
     qualified individuals who--
       ``(i) have not less than 10 years of experience working on 
     public policy relating to housing and homelessness; and
       ``(ii) are not from the same geographic region of the 
     United States.
       ``(3) Conflicts of interest.--An individual may not serve 
     as a member of the National Board if, during the 5-year 
     period preceding the first day of service on the National 
     Board, the individual was an employee of an organization, or 
     an affiliate of an organization, that, during the preceding 5 
     fiscal years, received funding under this title.
       ``(4) Revolving door.--During the 2-year period following 
     the final day of service of an individual as a member of the 
     National Board, the individual may not serve as an employee 
     of an organization, or an affiliate of an organization, that, 
     during a fiscal year during which the individual served as a 
     member of the National Board, received funding under this 
     title.
       ``(5) Term limit.--An individual may not serve as a member 
     of the National Board for a period of more than 2 years.''; 
     and
       (B) by striking subsection (e).
       (2) Current national board members.--With respect to an 
     individual serving as a member of the Emergency Food and 
     Shelter Program National Board established under section 301 
     of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 
     11331) as of the date of enactment of this Act, for the 
     purpose of section 301(b) of the McKinney-Vento Homeless 
     Assistance Act of that Act, as amended by this Act, the 
     individual shall be deemed to have begun service on the Board 
     on the date of enactment of this Act.
       (b) Local Boards.--Section 302 of the McKinney-Vento 
     Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11332) is amended by 
     striking subsection (a) and inserting the following:
       ``(a) Establishment.--
       ``(1) In general.--Each locality designated by the National 
     Board shall constitute a local board for the purpose of 
     determining how program funds allotted to the locality will 
     be distributed. The local board shall consist, to the extent 
     practicable, of--
       ``(A) agencies of State and local governments that serve 
     functions similar to the functions of the Department of 
     Homeland Security, the Department of Housing and Urban 
     Development, the Department of Agriculture, and the Office of 
     Management and Budget;
       ``(B) the mayor or other appropriate heads of government; 
     and
       ``(C) representatives of nonprofit organizations that aid 
     individuals and families who are experiencing, or are at risk 
     of experiencing, hunger or homelessness.
       ``(2) Program funds for reservations.--Each local board 
     administering program funds for a locality within which is 
     located a reservation (as such term is defined in section 3 
     of the Indian Financing Act of 1974 (25 U.S.C. 1452), or a 
     portion thereof, shall include a board member who is a member 
     of an Indian tribe (as such term is defined in section 102(a) 
     of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 (42 
     U.S.C. 5302(a)). The chairperson of the local board shall be 
     elected by a majority of the members of the local board. 
     Local boards are encouraged to expand participation of other 
     private nonprofit organizations on the local board.''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are now 2 minutes of debate, equally 
divided.
  Mr. HAGERTY. Mr. President, in the last fiscal year alone, 
appropriations to FEMA's Emergency Food and Shelter Program have 
increased by more than 5 times, totaling approximately $1 billion in 
the last 2 years alone. Currently, hundreds of millions of taxpayer 
dollars appropriated to this program are doled out annually by a 
national board comprised of the very same organizations that receive 
those funds. This amendment in no way impugns the integrity of the 
organizations involved. Rather, it helps them avoid the reputational 
risks that can occur when the pitcher is also the umpire.
  My amendment is simple and common sense. It will restructure the 
Emergency Food and Shelter Program to ensure that the individuals 
sitting on that board do not have this obvious conflict of interest. 
Instead, the national board composition would be shifted to include 
qualified individuals who do not work for the organizations that seek 
funding from the board.
  At a minimum, Congress must resolve this blatant conflict of interest 
within the Emergency Food and Shelter Program, especially given its 
dramatic increase in funding in recent years. That is what this 
amendment does.
  I yield back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, this amendment is intended to make changes 
to an entirely unrelated program that is completely outside of the 
scope of this bill. The Emergency Food and Shelter Program is an 
important resource that provides aid to those who are at risk of 
experiencing hunger. And any changes certainly must be thoroughly 
considered. And I look forward to having an opportunity to work with a 
sponsor on this amendment in some other manner. However, the bill 
before us extends programs that firefighters are counting on to 
purchase lifesaving equipment or receive important cancer screenings. 
We should not jeopardize the enactment of this incredibly important 
bill by putting in completely unrelated matters.

  I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.


                 Vote on Amendment No. 72, As Modified

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Time has expired.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  Mr. HAGERTY. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. 
Feinstein) is necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 45, nays 54, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 89 Leg.]

                                YEAS--45

     Barrasso
     Blackburn
     Boozman
     Braun
     Britt
     Budd
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagerty
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Lankford
     Lee
     Lummis
     Marshall
     McConnell
     Moran
     Mullin
     Paul
     Ricketts
     Risch
     Romney
     Rubio
     Schmitt
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Tuberville
     Vance
     Wicker
     Young

                                NAYS--54

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

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Feinstein
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lujan). On this vote, the yeas are 45, the 
nays are 54.
  Under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this 
amendment, the amendment is not agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 72) was rejected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.

                          ____________________