[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 66 (Thursday, April 20, 2023)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1277-S1285]
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 proceed to 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.
Nomination of Julie A. Su
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, this morning the Senate Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions Committee is considering the nomination of Julie Su
to be Secretary of Labor.
Before joining the U.S. Department of Labor as Deputy Secretary under
President Biden, Ms. Su previously served as labor secretary for the
State of California, and in that post, she was perhaps most notable for
presiding over massive unemployment fraud during the COVID crisis.
Unemployment fraud was a significant problem during the pandemic, but
even with widespread fraud, California stood out for the scope of its
problem.
During the first 6 months of the pandemic, California had an improper
payment rate of 36.6 percent. Let that sink in for a moment--an
improper payment rate of 36.6 percent. Ultimately, the State paid out
around $30 billion in fraudulent claims between the start of the
pandemic and last spring.
Now, certainly, States faced an influx of unemployment claims during
the pandemic that put additional pressure on unemployment agencies. But
California's fraud situation was not simply a result of an increased
workload during the pandemic. It was also in part the result of Ms.
Su's decision to remove safeguards intended to help prevent fraudulent
claims.
During the early days of the pandemic, Ms. Su directed the California
Employment Development Department to--in the words of the California
State auditor--``pay certain claimants UI benefits without making key
eligibility determinations and to temporarily stop collecting biweekly
eligibility certifications.'' These directives unquestionably helped
smooth the path for widespread unemployment fraud as well as a
significant number of improper payments.
It is difficult to know what President Biden was thinking when he
decided to nominate someone who presided over massive unemployment
fraud to be the next Labor Secretary. If that is what happened when Ms.
Su was the labor secretary for a single State, it is difficult to see
her as a qualified nominee to head the Labor Department for an entire
country.
But my concerns with Ms. Su don't end there. In addition to questions
about her ability to effectively administer a Cabinet Department, I
have serious concerns that Ms. Su would use her national platform to
continue promoting policies that are hostile to workers.
During her time in California government, Ms. Su was a proponent of
Assembly Bill 5, which is a piece of legislation that reclassified many
workers who had been considered independent contractors as employees
through a set of criteria known as the ABC test.
That test proved to be so unpopular and unworkable that ultimately
dozens of occupations were exempted from the measure--so many that the
list of exemptions ended up being longer than the text of the original
bill. Even California voters recognized how problematic it was, which
is why they approved Proposition 22, which specifically designated app-
based rideshare and delivery drivers as independent contractors.
Now, people tend to think of Uber or Lyft as the prime example of gig
work, but, in actual fact, gig workers and independent contractors make
up a sizable percentage of the labor force and are part of a wide range
of professions, from hairdressing to truckdriving to insurance
adjustment. And a lot of gig workers and independent contractors are
big fans of the freedom and independence that independent contracting
provides and are not looking to be reclassified as employees.
A 2017 report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics found that a
whopping 79 percent of independent contractors preferred their work
arrangement to a traditional work arrangement. Less than 10 percent
expressed a preference for a traditional job.
The truth is that laws like California's arise not from a groundswell
of gig worker dissatisfaction but from liberals' commitment to Big
Labor, which would like to see the majority of workers forced to pay
dues.
Laws like California's Assembly Bill 5 are supported by unions
because they would put more workers in a position where they might end
up joining unions, even if gig workers and independent contractors
themselves don't
[[Page S1278]]
want to find themselves in that position.
And Ms. Su's anti-gig-economy, anti-independent-contractor positions
aren't limited to her time in California. During her time with the
Department of Labor, Ms. Su has continued to attack independent
contracting and gig work.
She presided over the Biden administration's proposed new worker
classification rule last fall, which would force independent
contractors and gig workers, who typically receive 1099 income, to
reclassify as W-2 employees.
Gig workers who receive 1099 taxable income have the ability to
deduct expenses, like mileage in the case of an Uber or Lyft driver,
equipment rental costs, and home offices.
Forcing gig workers to reclassify as W-2 workers would mean that they
could no longer avail themselves of some of these deductions, putting
this significant sector of our economy at a financial disadvantage and
reducing worker flexibility.
This new rule would, however, offer opportunities for labor unions to
collect new members, which is, presumably, Ms. Su's and the Biden
administration's goal.
President Biden, of course, is a big fan of Big Labor and has done
everything he can to advance Big Labor's priorities. Ms. Su said as
much last year to a group of labor activists. ``The Department of Labor
stands with you,'' she said. ``The Biden-Harris administration stands
with you. . . . And you have a president who has vowed to be the most
pro-worker, pro-union president in history.''
The President's and Democrats' ultimate goal here is passage of the
PRO Act, which Ms. Su supports. This legislation, a major priority of
Big Labor's, would implement a national version of California's
Assembly Bill 5, only without the California bill's exemptions, as well
as a number of other provisions designed to appease union bosses.
And if the PRO Act passed, its anti-independent-contractor provisions
could wreak havoc on whole industries, like trucking, which would not
only be bad for affected workers but for our entire economy.
The last thing that we need during a time of supply chain problems,
for example, is an unnecessary reduction in the number of truckers
carrying food and goods around our country.
I have introduced legislation in the past to help gig workers, and I
was proud to join Senator Tim Scott this week in introducing his
Employee Rights Act, legislation that would protect both union and
nonunion workers and preserve the freedom of independent contractors to
maintain their preferred work arrangements.
And I will continue to support measures to ensure that Americans have
the freedom to choose the work arrangement that works for them, instead
of being forced into arrangements preferred by the Democratic Party and
by Big Labor.
Before I close, I also want to mention the hostility Ms. Su has
demonstrated to franchises and the franchising model, which has
provided economic mobility for so many in this Nation. She is a
supporter of another disastrous California idea, the FAST Recovery Act,
which is legislation passed by the California State Legislature and
signed by the Governor that would give government appointees authority
to micromanage franchise restaurants throughout California, including
setting wages and working hours, among other decisions.
That law is so unpopular in her own home State that a million
Californians signed a petition to add it as a ballot initiative in 2024
so that they can vote on whether the law should actually be
implemented.
And the opposition is not surprising, when you consider that the
measure would raise costs for restaurants and, according to the
International Franchise Association, could increase prices at affected
restaurants by as much as 20 percent.
Julie Su is a poor choice for Secretary of Labor, and I hope that
some of my Democratic colleagues will join Republicans in acknowledging
the serious concerns about both her policy positions and her ability to
effectively administer the Labor Department and will urge the President
to withdraw her nomination.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lujan). The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 85
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 85 as provided
under the previous order, and I ask that it be reported by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment by number.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Maryland [Mr. Van Hollen] for himself and
Ms. Murkowski, proposes an amendment numbered 85.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To provide grants for fire station construction through the
Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency)
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. __. ASSISTANCE TO FIREFIGHTERS FIRE STATION CONSTRUCTION
GRANTS.
(a) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Administrator.--The term ``Administrator'' means the
Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
(2) Career fire department.--The term ``career fire
department'' means a fire department that has an all-paid
force of firefighting personnel other than paid-on-call
firefighters.
(3) Combination fire department.--The term ``combination
fire department'' means a fire department that has--
(A) paid firefighting personnel; and
(B) volunteer firefighting personnel.
(4) EMS.--The term ``EMS'' means emergency medical
services.
(5) Nonaffiliated ems organization.--The term
``nonaffiliated EMS organization'' means a public or private
nonprofit EMS organization that is not affiliated with a
hospital and does not serve a geographic area in which the
Administrator finds that EMS are adequately provided by a
fire department.
(6) Volunteer fire department.--The term ``volunteer fire
department'' means a fire department that has an all-
volunteer force of firefighting personnel.
(b) Grant Program.--The Administrator shall establish a
grant program to provide financial assistance to entities
described in subsection (c) to modify, upgrade, and construct
fire and EMS department facilities.
(c) Eligible Applicants.--The Administrator may make a
grant under this section to the following:
(1) Career, volunteer, and combination fire departments.
(2) Fire training facilities.
(3) Nonaffiliated EMS organizations, combination and
volunteer emergency medical stations (except that for-profit
EMS organizations are not eligible for a grant under this
section).
(d) Applications.--An entity described in subsection (c)
seeking a grant under this section shall submit to the
Administrator an application in such form, at such time, and
containing such information as the Administrator determines
appropriate.
(e) Meeting for Recommendations.--
(1) In general.--The Administrator shall convene a meeting
of qualified members of national fire service organizations
and, at the discretion of the Administrator, qualified
members of EMS organizations to obtain recommendations
regarding the criteria for the awarding of grants under this
section.
(2) Qualifications.--For purposes of this subsection, a
qualified member of an organization is a member who--
(A) is recognized for firefighting or EMS expertise;
(B) is not an employee of the Federal Government; and
(C) in the case of a member of an EMS organization, is a
member of an organization that represents--
(i) EMS providers that are affiliated with fire
departments; or
(ii) nonaffiliated EMS providers.
(f) Peer Review of Grant Application.--The Administrator
shall, in consultation with national fire service and EMS
organizations, appoint fire service personnel to conduct peer
reviews of applications received under subsection (d).
(g) Priority of Grants.--In awarding grants under this
section, the Administrator shall consider the findings and
recommendations of the peer reviews carried out under
subsection (f).
(h) Uses of Funds.--
(1) In general.--A recipient of a grant under this section
may use funds received for the following:
(A) Building, rebuilding, or renovating fire and EMS
department facilities.
(B) Upgrading existing facilities to install exhaust
emission control systems, install backup power systems,
upgrade or replace environmental control systems (such as
HVAC systems), remove or remediate mold, and construct or
modify living quarters for use by male and female personnel.
(C) Upgrading fire and EMS stations or building new
stations.
(2) Code compliant.--In using funds under paragraph (1), a
recipient of a grant under this section shall meet 1 of the 2
most recently published editions of relevant codes
[[Page S1279]]
and standards, especially codes and standards that--
(A) require up-to-date hazard resistant and safety
provisions; and
(B) are relevant for protecting firefighter health and
safety.
(i) Grant Funding.--
(1) In general.--The Administrator shall allocate grant
funds under this section as follows:
(A) 25 percent for career fire and EMS departments.
(B) 25 percent for combination fire and EMS departments.
(C) 25 percent for volunteer fire and EMS departments.
(D) 25 percent to remain available for competition between
the various department types.
(2) Insufficient applications.--If the Administrator does
not receive sufficient funding requests from a particular
department type described in subparagraphs (A) through (C) of
paragraph (1), the Administrator may make awards to other
departments described in such subparagraphs.
(3) Limitation on awards amounts.--A recipient of a grant
under this section may not receive more than $7,500,000 under
this section.
(j) Prevailing Rate of Wage and Public Contracts.--
(1) In general.--All laborers and mechanics employed by
contractors or subcontractors in the performance of
construction work financed with the assistance of any
contribution of Federal funds made by the Administrator under
this section shall be paid wages at rates not less than those
prevailing on similar construction in the locality as
determined by the Secretary of Labor in accordance with
subchapter IV of chapter 31 of title 40, United States Code
(commonly known as the ``Davis-Bacon Act'').
(2) Overtime.--Each employee described in paragraph (1)
shall receive compensation at a rate not less than one and
\1/2\ times the basic rate of pay of the employee for all
hours worked in any workweek in excess of 8 hours in any
workday or 40 hours in the workweek, as the case may be.
(3) Assurances.--The Administrator shall make no
contribution of Federal funds without first obtaining
adequate assurance that the labor standards described in
paragraphs (1) and (2) will be maintained upon the
construction work.
(4) Authority of secretary of labor.--The Secretary of
Labor shall have, with respect to the labor standards
described in paragraphs (1) and (2), the authority and
functions set forth in Reorganization Plan Numbered 14 of
1950 (5 U.S.C. App.) and section 3145 of title 40, United
States Code.
(5) Public contracts.--Contractors and subcontractors
performing construction work pursuant to this section shall
procure only manufactured articles, materials, and supplies
that have been manufactured in the United States
substantially all from articles, materials, or supplies
mined, produced, or manufactured in the United States in
accordance with the requirements (and exceptions thereto)
applicable to Federal agencies under chapter 83 of title 41,
United States Code.
(k) Applicability.--Chapter 10 of title 5, United States
Code, shall not apply to activities carried out pursuant to
this section.
(l) Reporting Requirements.--
(1) Annual report to administrator of fema.--Not later than
1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, and annually
thereafter during the term of a grant awarded under this
section, the recipient of the grant shall submit to the
Administrator a report describing how the recipient used the
amounts from the grant.
(2) Annual report to congress.--Not later than 1 year after
the date of enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter
until the date on which the rebuilding or renovation of fire
facilities and stations are completed using grant funds under
this section, the Administrator shall submit to the Committee
on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate
and the Committees on Transportation and Infrastructure and
Science, Space, and Technology of the House of
Representatives a report that provides an evaluation of the
effectiveness of the grants awarded under this section.
(m) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated $750,000,000 for fiscal year 2024 to carry
out this section. Funds appropriated under this Act shall
remain available until expended.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, our firefighters put their lives on
the line every single day, charging into danger whenever duty calls.
That is why we have a duty to back them up--not just in words but also
in deeds by providing them with the resources and facilities they need
and deserve.
The underlying bill today extends critical programs to provide
training, equipment, and personnel, and I commend the chairman of the
committee and the full committee for their action on this. But there is
also an urgent need to repair crumbling, insufficiently safe
firehouses. Nearly half of the fire stations across the country require
major repairs. Forty-six percent of them do not have systems that
prevent our first responders from being exposed to mold or cancerous
carcinogens.
Some have proposed that we address this by taking funds from the
assistance to firefighters grants for station construction, but that
program is already overprescribed. In fact, in 2020 alone, over $2
billion in requests competed for just $319 million. That is why the
firefighters oppose the amendment to poach moneys from the underlying
fund.
This measure--this amendment does not poach those moneys. It adds an
authorization so that we can have additional funds, when appropriate
and if appropriated by the Congress, to provide for fire stations that
are crumbling.
This is based on a bill, a bipartisan bill I introduced with Senator
Murkowski, and I appreciate her support for this amendment. In the
House, this is also a bipartisan bill led by Congressman Bill Pascrell.
So I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, I want to thank my colleague from Maryland
for his support of the Fire Grants and Safety Act.
The amendment he is offering would authorize a new grant program at
FEMA to fund fire station construction. And while I fully support
increased Federal resources for this purpose, I must, unfortunately and
reluctantly, vote no on this particular amendment.
This language has not been moved through committee, and FEMA has not
had the opportunity to provide input to ensure that this bill achieves
its intended goal.
But let me say again: I fully support this effort, fully support the
Senator from Maryland, and agree with him totally that we need to have
more resources to help our communities upgrade their fire stations.
This is an urgent need.
I also agree we want to make sure that we are not raiding the current
fund for this purpose, which is why the next amendment coming up, I
will also be voting no. But I fully intend to work with the Senator
from Maryland to move towards a markup on his stand-alone bill, on this
very topic, which has been referred to the Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs Committee, a committee in which I chair.
But I will reluctantly be voting no on this amendment.
Vote on Amendment No. 85
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on agreeing to
amendment No. 85.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. SCHUMER. I announce that the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Durbin),
the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein), and the Senator from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Fetterman) are necessarily absent.
The result was announced--yeas 46, nays 51, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 92 Leg.]
YEAS--46
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Casey
Coons
Cortez Masto
Duckworth
Gillibrand
Hassan
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Kaine
Kelly
King
Klobuchar
Lujan
Markey
Menendez
Merkley
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Reed
Rosen
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Tester
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Welch
Whitehouse
Wyden
NAYS--51
Barrasso
Blackburn
Boozman
Braun
Britt
Budd
Capito
Carper
Cassidy
Collins
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Ernst
Fischer
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hawley
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Johnson
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
Lummis
Manchin
Marshall
McConnell
Moran
Mullin
Paul
Peters
Ricketts
Risch
Romney
Rounds
Rubio
Schmitt
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Tuberville
Vance
Wicker
Young
NOT VOTING--3
Durbin
Feinstein
Fetterman
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. King). On this vote, the yeas are 46, the
nays are 51.
[[Page S1280]]
Under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this
amendment, the amendment is not agreed to.
The amendment (No. 85) was rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Tribute to Patty Murray
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, it is a great moment--or a few moments
ago it was a great moment, but it continues to be. Our dear friend
Senator Patty Murray reached an amazing milestone--10,000 votes over
the course of her career in the Senate, the first woman Senator in
American history to do so.
(Applause.)
We are not supposed to clap, but every once in a while, breaking
protocol is appropriate, as it is now.
It is a remarkable accomplishment for a truly remarkable public
servant. Her accomplishments--if she had just cast 10,000 votes, that
would be pretty good, but her accomplishments go way beyond that and
often dwarf it. She was also the first woman to serve in several Senate
leadership positions: chair of the Veterans' Affairs Committee; chair
of the Budget Committee; and, of course, at the beginning of this
Congress, she made history as the first woman ever to serve as
President pro tempore of the Senate.
She is a voice the Senate and the country rely on, on some of the
biggest issues we face. When she speaks, everyone listens--Democrats,
Republicans, liberals, conservatives, Independents--because they know
that she has studied it carefully and it comes right from the heart; it
is not political calculation in any way. In issues like healthcare,
environment, labor rights, pension, childcare, there is Patty Murray as
a beacon--not just a speaker, not just a legislator, but a beacon--to
all of us.
And, let me tell you, she has been such a valued member of my
leadership team through the years, where she did so, so much, and I
relied on her for advice. I know her phone number by heart because I
call her so much.
Let's take a moment to recognize and congratulate this great person,
this great woman, this great Senator, this great friend, this great
Member of the U.S. Senate, Senator Patty Murray.
(Applause.)
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, if I may say to our colleague from
Washington, I remember, as you certainly do, that 1992 was declared the
``Year of the Woman,'' and a number of women were elected to the
Senate. But you were the leader of the group, and you have had an
extraordinarily successful career, and I wanted you to know that people
on both sides of the aisle admire your service. And congratulations.
Mrs. MURRAY. Thank you very much.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I just wanted to add my congratulations
to my friend and colleague Senator Murray for casting her 10,000th
vote. She has been such a remarkable leader, a steady force, a hard
worker, and it has been wonderful to work in partnership with her on
the Appropriations Committee.
Patty, congratulations, and we look forward to many more
extraordinary accomplishments.
Mrs. MURRAY. Thank you.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Amendment No. 83
Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 83 and ask
that it be reported by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment by number.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Sullivan] proposes an
amendment numbered 83.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To improve the bill)
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. ___. ELIGIBLE USE FOR GRANT FUNDS.
Section 33(c)(3) of the Federal Fire Prevention and Control
Act of 1974 (15 U.S.C. 2229(c)(3)) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subparagraphs (K) through (N) as
subparagraphs (L) through (O), respectively; and
(2) by inserting after subparagraph (J) the following:
``(K) To construct in communities with not more than 10,000
individuals fire stations, fire training facilities, and
other facilities to protect the health and safety of
firefighting personnel.''.
Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be 4
minutes of debate, equally divided.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, every job in America is important, but
there is something special, sacred, even noble about a job that entails
putting your life on the line to keep your fellow citizens safe, and
that is the job of our firefighters.
In Alaska, firefighting season will be upon us soon. It can be
brutal. In 2005, roughly 6 million acres of the State burned. That is
about the size of Vermont. Think about the dedication and courage it
takes to fight those fires, many of which are in rural parts of our
States. It is only right that when firefighters come to Congress asking
for assistance, that we give them the flexibility they truly need.
So why is my amendment necessary? Currently, the Assistance to
Firefighters Grants Program only allows modification to existing fire
stations rather than new facilities.
Many old firefighting facilities can't be modified. A 2021 report by
the U.S. Fire Service found that 44 percent of fire stations are over
40 years old. The issue is even more acute in rural parts of our
country where facilities have problems which cannot be fixed through
maintenance and repair alone. For example, roughly 61 percent of fire
stations over 40 years old exist in communities serving less than
10,000 people.
So, Mr. President, my amendment is simple. It costs zero dollars. It
gives discretion to the firefighters in rural communities to allow
Federal grants to small communities of less than 10,000 people to use
the Federal funds to build new stations. That is it: a simple,
commonsense amendment backed by data to help firefighters in small
communities in America who often don't have the tax base to build new
facilities.
We should help them. We all have rural communities that need this
help. I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, first of all, I have to also lend my
voice in congratulations to Senator Patty Murray. We are so proud of
her and look to her for her leadership. It is an honor to serve with
her in the leadership in the Senate, but she is just an extraordinary
Member. And 10,000 votes--that is a lot of votes, and we should all
continue to be very grateful for her leadership. So congratulations.
Mr. President, this amendment is one that, in spirit--I mean, I agree
with the need. Senator Sullivan and I have talked about the fact that I
think he identified something that is very important for small rural
communities. It is, however, duplicative of work we already do through
rural development in USDA.
The USDA has Community Facilities Programs. They provide grants and
loans and loan guarantees for essential community services in rural
areas of 20,000 residents or less, including public safety.
Communities have used this for firetrucks, fire department
construction, and fire equipment that Senator Sullivan has talked
eloquently about. Last year, it was nearly $100 million in assistance
to rural fire departments.
So I told Senator Sullivan that we will have, in the next number of
months, the farm bill reauthorization on the floor. I want to work very
much with him on how we might be able to more focus or strengthen this
program that already exists. The farm bill is coming up. I believe that
is the place for us to address what is a very important issue.
So I would urge my colleagues to channel their support to rural first
responders into supporting this particular program in the upcoming farm
bill reauthorization.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 1
minute on the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, I appreciate my colleague from Alaska's
support and cosponsorship of the Fire
[[Page S1281]]
Grants and Safety Act before us, and I also appreciate and fully agree
with this amendment to help smaller communities build new facilities.
But I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment because of the
unintended consequences it would have. The Assistance to Firefighters
Grant Program historically receives applications for five times the
amount of funding that is available. In 2020, there were $2 billion in
requests for only $300 million available in funding. This program is
massively oversubscribed, and that is why all of the major firefighting
services in this country oppose this amendment. That includes the
International Association of Fire Chiefs, the International Association
of Fire Fighters, the National Volunteer Fire Council, and the National
Fallen Firefighters Foundation. All are calling for clean passage of
the Fire Grants and Safety Act without amendment.
I know my colleague shared the goal of the good Senator from Alaska.
I do as well, but I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, join
with our firefighters all around the country. Let's send a clean
firefighting bill to the House.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. SULLIVAN. I ask unanimous consent for 30 seconds to respond.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, again, I want to work with Senator
Stabenow on this issue, but we have an opportunity right now.
Every Senator knows that our firefighters in small communities come
to the Senate and ask for help because they don't have the tax base to
actually build new facilities. And the facilities, as I mentioned, are
very, very old.
All this amendment does is add a new category to request for
assistance only from communities of 10,000 people or less. It is common
sense. We all know it is needed. Again, I encourage my colleagues to
support it.
I respect all the firefighter groups who are saying they oppose it,
but the only reason they are opposing it is because they say they want
a clean bill. You know what, sorry, but that is not a very good
argument.
I urge the support of this amendment No. 83.
Vote on Amendment No. 83
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
Mr. SULLIVAN. 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.
Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the
Senator from Missouri (Mr. Hawley).
The result was announced--yeas 42, nays 56, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 93 Leg.]
YEAS--42
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
Lummis
Marshall
McConnell
Moran
Mullin
Murkowski
Paul
Ricketts
Risch
Rubio
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Tuberville
Vance
Wicker
NAYS--56
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
Lee
Lujn
Manchin
Markey
Menendez
Merkley
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Peters
Reed
Romney
Rosen
Rounds
Sanders
Schatz
Schmitt
Schumer
Shaheen
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Tester
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Welch
Whitehouse
Wyden
Young
NOT VOTING--2
Feinstein
Hawley
The amendment (No. 83) was rejected.
Amendment No. 58 Withdrawn
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, amendment No. 58 is
withdrawn.
The amendment (No. 58) was withdrawn.
The Senator from Texas.
Southern Border
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, since President Biden took office just a
little over 2 years ago, more than 348,000 unaccompanied children have
crossed our southern border. To be clear, these 348,000 children did
not arrive in the United States by themselves. Children often make this
dangerous journey with friends, neighbors, or other relatives, and, of
course, in the custody of transnational criminal organizations--or what
are otherwise known as coyotes--that get paid to smuggle people into
our country.
The sad reality is that many of these children come to the country in
the care of these cartels, human smugglers, coyotes. Parents pay
smugglers thousands of dollars to bring their child to the United
States, but the truth is, the money doesn't guarantee their safety. The
journey to the southern border is not easy or safe. Children are
subjected to violence, exploitation, and sexual abuse on the way to the
United States. Why in the world would anybody think, if I turn my child
over to a criminal organization that will smuggle them into the United
States--how in the world would they ever have the confidence that they
would be safely transported here? So it, sadly, is not surprising.
As folks along the southern border in our border communities in Texas
will tell you, trying to help these migrant children when they get here
is no small task. There are laws that spell out how long a child can
remain in custody, as well as the resources they must receive, things
like, of course, food, water, medical care, and adequate supervision.
And I believe we do have a responsibility, once those children get to
our border and into our custody, to make sure they are safe and well
cared for.
Given the huge number of children crossing the border every week due
to the administration's open border policies, that job--caring for
these unaccompanied children--has gotten nothing but more difficult,
and we have seen the harrowing consequences.
At the start of the Biden administration, holding cells in detention
facilities were lined with children and other teens sleeping on gym
mats, with only a thin aluminum blanket to keep them warm. Thousands of
children were stuck in Border Patrol facilities, which were never
designed to hold children in the first place, but many were detained
out of necessity beyond the 72-hour limit contained in the law at
massive public facilities like the Freeman Coliseum in San Antonio.
These were used as emergency shelters because there was nowhere else to
put them.
But, unfortunately, most of the public lost interest in these
children after that point. Certainly, the Biden administration appears
to have lost interest in these children once they made it past the
border and were released from these various detention facilities,
because once children were placed with sponsors in the United States,
save for a couple of isolated reports that should have served as
warning beacons, Congress and the public didn't have any information
about how they were doing, whether they were healthy, whether they were
being treated appropriately--anything about their well-being.
Well, that information deficit was recently filled by an
investigative story by the New York Times. In February, the Times
published its first story detailing the widespread child exploitation
of migrant children. It includes stories of unaccompanied migrants who
were working in dangerous jobs that violate child labor laws--for
example, a 15-year-old girl who packages cereal at night in a factory;
a 14-year-old boy who works on a construction job instead of going to
school; a 13-year-old child day laborer; children working in meat
processing plants, commercial bakeries, and for suppliers for
automakers. This is all documented in the investigative report by the
New York Times. We aren't talking about part-time gigs after going to
school; these are grueling and dangerous full-time jobs that are meant
for adults, not children.
So the big question is how they got there. How on Earth did the Biden
administration allow so many vulnerable children to be exploited? After
all, the
[[Page S1282]]
administration should have been aware of the history of migrant
children being exploited by their sponsors.
In 2014, the Office of Refugee Resettlement placed eight children
with members of a human trafficking ring who posed as family or
friends. These children were forced to work on an egg farm in Ohio with
no pay for 12 hours a day, 6 or 7 days a week. They lived in deplorable
conditions and were threatened with violence unless they complied. It
was a disgusting and heartbreaking case of abuse that rightfully
garnered a lot of attention. Given the sheer volume of cases the Biden
administration has managed the last 2 years, it should have been on
alert for similar stories and similar cases.
The percentage of sponsored children who could not be reached a month
after their release increased from 20 percent in 2020 to 34 percent in
2021.
Let me say that again. These children are supposed to be placed with
sponsors checked out by the administration, by Health and Human
Services, but in 2020, 20 percent of those children were unaccounted
for 1 month later, and in 2021, it was 34 percent.
Unfortunately, these warning signs went ignored, and the Biden
administration did nothing to try to correct the problem.
As the Biden border emergency crisis ramped up, emergency shelters
were filling up, and the administration had a major public relations
problem on its hands. Its top priority wasn't, apparently, the safety
of these children but the speed at which they could be moved from the
border to sponsors, with no followup.
The Biden administration wanted to get these children out of the
shelters and into the care of these sponsors as quickly as possible. To
make that possible, Health and Human Services loosened vetting
requirements and urged case managers to move faster, with little regard
for the danger that was created for these migrant children.
In a staff meeting last September, Secretary Becerra reportedly told
employees:
If Henry Ford had seen this in his plants, he would never
have become famous and rich. That is not the way you do an
assembly line.
This is the Secretary of Health and Human Services, a person who is
leading the Agency that is meant to care for these children, and he is
telling his employees to create a manufacturing assembly line. He
deliberately pushed for speed, speed, and more speed because of the
public relations problems that the administration was experiencing.
Just 1 year earlier, during Secretary Becerra's tenure, nearly a
dozen managers from the Office of Refugee Resettlement sent a memo
expressing their concerns about labor trafficking--exactly the problem
the New York Times investigation exposed. They said they feared that
the Office had come to reward speed over safety. But apparently nothing
changed.
Earlier this week, the New York Times published yet another story
with even more details on the administration's failure to protect
migrant children. One of the most startling revelations was the sheer
scale of the crisis.
This chart shows the number of calls to Health and Human Services
each month reporting trafficking, neglect, or abuse of migrant children
who have been placed with sponsors by the U.S. Government--specifically
by the Biden administration's Health and Human Services Department. As
you can see, the Department was receiving fewer than 50 calls a month
back in 2018, but that number climbed in 2019 and 2020, and starting in
2021, the number of calls skyrocketed. And of course these weren't just
cases in which somebody spotted abuse and spoke up. We have no idea how
many cases went unreported. But it has become breathtakingly clear that
this widespread abuse wasn't caused by missteps; it was a result of
intentional policy decisions from top administration officials.
As it turns out, the White House and Federal Agencies were alerted
again and again that these children were at risk and did nothing.
In 2021, the most senior career member of the Office of Refugee
Resettlement sent an email to her bosses warning them that children
were likely to be placed in dangerous situations. When her warning was
ignored, she filed a complaint and requested whistleblower protection.
Not long after, she was moved out of her position. She then filed
another complaint arguing that she was retaliated against--a move that
is against the law.
Sadly, this is not an isolated event. Within Health and Human
Services, at least five staffers have filed complaints and said they
were pushed out of their jobs for sharing concerns with their
leadership about this extraordinary crisis of abuse or neglect.
Well, the Labor Department was aware of child labor violations too.
Last year, investigators identified major instances of child labor
violations that took place in auto parts factories and meatpacking
plants. As they continued to uncover more and more cases of migrant
children being exploited, the Department shared its concerns with the
White House. Former Labor Secretary Marty Walsh confirmed that the
Department included details about these situations in its weekly
reports to the White House, so the White House was clearly informed
about these issues. In December, the Labor Department even released a
public report showing a 69-percent increase in child labor violations
since 2018.
Well, miraculously, the White House now claims to have no knowledge
of this disturbing trend. Susan Rice, who serves as Director of the
White House Domestic Policy Council, which oversees virtually every
aspect of domestic policy affairs, claims no knowledge of this problem.
We know that when the border crisis reached its fever pitch during
the summer of 2021, Ms. Rice's team received a memo from Health and
Human Services' managers about labor trafficking. Two people confirmed
that Ms. Rice was told about the contents of the memo, but the White
House now disputes that claim.
Health and Human Services also provided the White House with frequent
updates on a group of children being exploited in Alabama, but the
White House now says senior officials were never made aware of this
situation.
Again and again, the Biden administration was told but failed to heed
the warnings of these migrant children being exploited.
And, now, after major investigative reporting has been done by the
New York Times, they refuse to accept responsibility and apologize.
Instead, they have decided the blame game is what they need to do. So
HHS blames the Labor Department for failing to enforce child labor
laws. The Labor Department says it shared information with HHS and the
White House, but they failed to respond. The White House blames both
Departments because, even though they passed along information about
potential abuse, they somehow didn't mark it as urgent.
Well, to state the obvious, the Biden administration shouldn't need
to be told that potential child exploitation is an urgent matter and
deserves attention. It is self-evident. Given the history of migrant
children being exploited and the massive scale of President Biden's
border crisis, the administration should have been on top of this from
the beginning. Clearly, they weren't, and they still aren't.
Ultimately, the children they claim to be helping are the ones paying a
terrible price.
As the New York Times makes clear, the Biden administration knew the
children were being exploited and willingly failed to act. It
repeatedly brushed aside warnings and continued to prioritize speed
over safety.
So the American people need to know: Is this an example of gross
negligence, of whistleblower chilling, or, just simply, a willful
violation of the law by the Biden administration?
Right now, the answer to all of those questions appears to be a big
and resounding yes.
We need answers from Secretary Becerra, the Secretary of Labor, and
Susan Rice on how this could possibly be allowed to happen and how it
could continue to happen as I speak. We need accountability, and we
need to see proof that there are changes being implemented to prevent
this from happening in the future.
Time and time again, the Biden administration has claimed that its
approach to the border and immigration is fair, orderly, and humane.
But there is nothing fair about putting children in the care of people
who will exploit them. There is nothing orderly about ignoring warnings
of child labor violations, and there is nothing humane
[[Page S1283]]
about the way migrant children are suffering in silence across America.
Every Member of this Chamber, Republicans and Democrats alike, should
be absolutely outraged by the Biden administration's abdication of
responsibility--of their obligation and our obligation--to protect
these migrant children.
I hope, now that the New York Times has detailed the abuses that are
occurring, that it will somehow finally get the attention of the Biden
White House, and they will finally take appropriate action to protect
these children they claim to be helping but who are, in fact, being
sacrificed to those who would exploit them and take advantage of them.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Nebraska.
Electric Vehicles
Mrs. FISCHER. Madam President, this Presidential administration has
consistently been marked by egregious overreach. Over the past few
months, we have seen them trying to regulate everything from our State
water to our personal retirement funds. Now the Biden administration
wants to control which cars Americans are able to drive.
Last week, the Environmental Protection Agency issued new regulations
cracking down on vehicle emissions. These new standards make it harder
for people to drive gas-powered cars in an attempt to coerce Americans
into purchasing new electric vehicles, or EVs--vehicles that cost about
as much as the average family makes in a year.
These regulations are part of a so-called emissions plan, but there
is nothing realistic about what the Biden administration is trying to
do. The administration says it wants 67 percent of the cars in this
country to be electric by 2032--just 9 years from now. Last year, EVs
only accounted for 6 percent of new car sales. And the International
Energy Agency predicts that, by 2030, EVs will only make up 15 percent
of the vehicles in our country.
We need to tell it like it is. The White House's plan is based on the
speculative wish that EVs will make an inconceivable jump from a tiny
fraction of our vehicles to the majority of them in less than a decade.
The so-called plan is really a pipe dream, and the facts show that the
EPA's goals are highly unlikely, if not impossible. The administration
is using its imagination to try and create a world that real Americans
don't even want, and, in the process, it is ignoring the many
complexities at play when it comes to electric vehicles.
Let's talk about some of those complexities.
Electric vehicles rely on the electric power grid, and a massive
increase in EV use, like the Biden administration wants, could cause
serious issues with the grid. During a heat wave last September, power
authorities in California had to ask residents to avoid charging their
electric cars in the evenings for fear that the power grid would
malfunction from being overwhelmed.
Imagine what would happen if EV use increased exponentially like the
Biden administration wants. If EV use is going to increase, it should
be a natural growth driven by consumers rather than an artificial spike
manufactured by the government. That way, power producers and
electrical grids would have time to grow and adapt to new spikes in
electricity demand.
The EV mandate also overlooks some serious public safety concerns.
Electric vehicles can weigh up to three times as much as gas-powered
cars because of their heavy batteries. The force of an EV hurtling
toward another car in a crash is intensified by all that weight. A
heavy EV accidentally crashing into a lighter, older car is a recipe
for severe injury or death--the heavier the car, the higher the risk of
fatality in a crash.
The Biden administration itself admits this. National Transportation
Safety Board Chair Jennifer Homendy said that she was ``concerned about
the increased risk of severe injury and death for all road users from
increasing size, power, and performance of vehicles on our roads,
including electric vehicles.''
I would point out that this safety risk disproportionately affects
women. A report released last month by the Government Accountability
Office found that crash tests, which identify car safety issues that
might endanger passengers in an accident, don't use physiologically
accurate female dummies. Some only use male dummies. They don't even
attempt to test car safety on the female body. This is part of why
crashes injure and kill women at higher rates than men. Before
mandating a rush of electric vehicles on the roads, the Biden
administration needs to find a solution to the risk these cars can
pose, especially to women.
Heavy cars, like EVs, put extra stress and damage on our roads as
well. Their weight pulverizes the roadbed, causing more maintenance,
more upgrades, and more costs. But, right now, only gas-powered cars
pay into the highway trust fund, or the HTF, which provides 90 percent
of Federal highway assistance. This fund repairs wear and tear from
vehicles on the highway. The sale or charging of EVs doesn't contribute
anything to the highway trust fund, but the highway trust fund exists
to fix exactly the type of damage that heavy EVs can cause. So it is
only fair that both gas-powered and electric vehicles pay into that
fund.
I plan to introduce a bill soon that would fix this discrepancy. We
need to do this to address some of the complexities at play with
electric vehicles and especially a unilateral government mandate that
would push for so many on our roads so soon.
The electricity and road concerns related to EVs should be enough to
temper the Biden administration's fanciful ambitions for a massive
electric vehicle push, but the repercussions of a Federal EV mandate go
beyond America's borders. We know that China completely dominates the
EV battery supply chain, and, you know, that is not going to change
anytime soon, as 60 to 100 percent of all battery minerals are
processed in China, according to an energy think tank known as SAFE.
Our domestic supply--well, it is not anywhere near the demand that
would result from this new legislation.
And it is so ironic that many of the same activists who support an
electric vehicle mandate oppose--they oppose--the U.S. mining needed to
make EV batteries. They would rather use horrible mining practices in
other countries and support very dangerous working conditions for those
miners.
Also, this means that a push for EVs is a push for energy dependence
on China, and China, we all know, is not our friend, as news this week
about a secret Chinese police station in New York City reminds us. Our
turbulent relationship with the Chinese Communist Party means it will
use any dependence that we have on China to its own advantage.
Americans don't want to rely on China for our vehicles, but studies
also show that Americans aren't even interested enough in EVs to merit
a government mandate. A recent Pew Research poll found that the
majority of Americans opposes the Biden administration's plan to phase
out gasoline-powered cars and trucks by 2035. A Gallup poll found that
4 percent of Americans own an EV--4 percent--and that only 12 percent
are seriously considering getting one. And 41 percent claim that they
would never buy an EV.
Sixty percent of people say they think EVs are too expensive. The
price of EVs would have to come down by about $15,000 for the average
American to see them as real competitors to gas-powered cars.
Americans have the right to buy electric vehicles if they so choose,
and I support that right, but they should also have the right not to
buy one. Our government is supposed to be of the people, by the people,
and for the people, but, frankly, this Federal mandate is of the EPA,
by the EPA, and for the EPA. It is not based on the interests of the
American people, only the interests of a power-hungry White House.
President Biden is prioritizing electric vehicles--and, by extension,
the small slice of Americans that wants and can afford EVs--without
adequately considering the effects of a top-down government mandate on
energy security and the lives of the American people.
In closing, the Biden administration's plan for a utopia of perfectly
green vehicles is a cute idea, but it is completely out of touch with
reality. It is also out of touch with Americans' real needs and
desires.
This administration has got to stop with these top-down mandates that
force Americans into outcomes that
[[Page S1284]]
they wouldn't choose themselves. In the meantime, I hope my Senate
colleagues will join me in advocating for what Americans really want
and pushing back on this administration's overreach.
I yield the floor.
S. 870
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise in support of S. 870, the Fire
Grants and Safety Act. This critically important legislation
reauthorizes several important programs in the Department of Homeland
Security--DHS. Specifically, the legislation reauthorizes the Federal
Emergency Management Agency's--FEMA--Assistance to Firefighters
Grants--AFG--grant program, the Staffing for Adequate Fire and
Emergency Response--SAFER--grant program, and the U.S. Fire
Administration--USFA. Without action by Congress, the authorizations
for these programs will lapse in September 2024.
AFG grants help ensure that departments have the resources they need
to train and equip their personnel. This includes vital personal
protective equipment that firefighters and EMS personnel need to do
their jobs safely.
SAFER grants help ensure departments can meet staffing requirements
through hiring of firefighters and recruitment and retention
activities.
I am particularly proud of the work of USFA, which is headquartered
in Emmitsburg, MD. Its mission is to support and strengthen fire and
emergency medical services--EMS--and stakeholders to prepare for,
prevent, mitigate and respond to all hazards. USFA ensures that the
fire service is prepared to respond to all hazards and is the lead
Federal agency for fire data collection, public fire education, fire
research, and fire service training. USFA offers classes on critical
topics pertaining to emergency medical services, fire prevention, arson
investigation, hazardous materials incidents, incident management,
leadership and executive development, planning and information
management, responder health and safety, wildland and the urban
interface.
As our Nation faces increasing extreme weather events due to climate
change, we can expect even stronger natural disasters to afflict our
Nation, including more damaging hurricanes, tornadoes, and wildfires.
Firefighters receive millions of calls each year for help beyond just
fires and often respond to medical emergencies, hazardous materials
spills, natural disasters, and active shooter situations. According to
the National Fire Protection Association, fire killed 3,800 people and
injured another 14,700 people in 2021. Property damage in 2021 reached
nearly $16 billion due to fires. And America's firefighters paid the
ultimate price while running toward danger; in 2021, 141 firefighters
died while on duty.
The National Fallen Firefighters Foundation is located on the campus
of the National Emergency Training Center in Emmitsburg, along with the
USFA. Last year, I was pleased that the foundation received a nearly
$1.5 million grant for its important work. USFA estimates more than
2,000 civilians died in residential fires in 2022.
Communities across Maryland regularly rely on these grant programs to
help provide equipment, facilities, and training for their
firefighters, whether they are career or volunteer. Indeed, many
volunteer fire departments do not receive any local or municipal funds
and must fundraise on their own in order to continue operating their
essential and lifesaving emergency services in their communities.
In Western Maryland, just by way of one example, these grants
programs provide critical funding to enhance firefighters' emergency
response capabilities and their ability to protect the health and
safety of the public and themselves. These grants also support the
recruitment and retention of additional firefighters.
In 2022, these grants allowed Frederick County to hire full-time
firefighters; Washington County to provide new portable radios for Fire
and EMS departments across the county; the Borden Shaft Volunteer Fire
Company No. 1 in Allegany County to purchase vehicle extrication and
rescue tools; and the Community Volunteer Fire Company, Inc., of
District No. 12 in Washington County to purchase a gear washer and
dryer.
Indeed, according to a recent fire services coalition letter
supporting this legislation: ``All across the country, local fire
departments of all types and sizes do not have enough staff, training,
personal protective clothing, breathing apparatus, and other equipment.
The SAFER and the AFG programs help ensure fire and emergency services
personnel across the country are properly trained, staffed, and
equipped to protect their communities. These programs improve response
capabilities across all emergency response areas--from fires to medical
aid and hazardous materials response.''
A recent fire service needs assessment survey from the National Fire
Protection Association noted that most small fire departments have
personal protective equipment that is 10 years of age or older and that
most fire departments cannot equip every firefighter with a self-
contained breathing apparatus, with again much of the equipment being
10 years of age or older. That same survey noted: ``Staffing levels
across job roles and functions have remained flat and weekday staffing
among volunteer fire departments remains a challenge.''
I therefore urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and
reauthorize these critical FEMA programs so that we give our heroic
firefighters the resources, equipment, and training that they need to
carry out their dangerous missions as safely as possible as they
protect and serve the public.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader.
Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be
permitted to speak for 2 minutes following Senator Peters, who will
speak up to 3 minutes, prior to the scheduled rollcall vote.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there an objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. PETERS. Madam President, in just a few moments, each of our
colleagues will have the opportunity to cast their vote for a
bipartisan bill that provides essential Federal resources to fire
departments all across our country.
The Fire Grants and Safety Act reauthorizes two vital grant programs
administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency that provide
funds to help fire departments purchase safety equipment, address
staffing needs, fund fire training and education programs, and provide
cancer screenings to firefighters.
The legislation also reauthorizes the U.S. Fire Administration, which
works to support fire and emergency medical services as they help
safeguard our communities.
Federal grants enable many firefighters, especially those in smaller
and rural communities, to invest in the vehicles, equipment, or
training they need to do their job safely and effectively.
I have had the opportunity to visit several fire stations across
Michigan to see firsthand how they use these vital grant programs to
purchase extraction tools like the Jaws of Life and up-to-date
breathing equipment to keep firefighters safe on the job. Without these
programs, many fire departments would simply not have the resources to
afford the equipment and tools they need to protect their communities.
Now the Senate will be able to show these heroes that we have their
backs by voting to pass this commonsense, bipartisan legislation.
I want to thank my cosponsors and colleagues for their support,
including Senators Collins, Carper, Murkowski, Coons, Moran, Boozman,
Heinrich, Rounds, King, Sullivan, Tester, Sinema, and Kennedy.
By passing this critical bill, we can ensure our firefighters and
first responders have what they need to continue safeguarding our
communities from emergencies.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader.
Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I would like to make two points. The
first is on this great legislation. I thank Senator Peters and the
entire HSGAC Committee--Democrats and Republicans--for moving forward.
Our firefighters are the people who protect us. We need to protect
them. Equipment has gotten more and more expensive to save their lives
and save the lives of the people they are protecting. Yet for many
smaller communities--rural, smalltown, even suburban--there is not the
money to afford
[[Page S1285]]
this equipment. So we have stepped up to the plate.
I helped author this legislation with Senator Dodd back in 2002 to
help them. We desperately need this legislation. We need it for
firefighters--both paid and volunteer--around the country. But,
particularly, as I said, in the smaller areas and the smaller
communities where they desperately need the equipment, we have to get
it done.
The second point is this: This is the second bill we have done in a
very strong bipartisan way. Our colleagues came to us with a list of
amendments. It wasn't dilatory. Some of them were difficult for us, but
we agreed to the amendments, and in turn, our colleagues voted to move
forward. This, again, is how we can run the Senate in a very good and
productive way. I hope to do that in every opportunity, where we can
come to agreement on amendments, move forward, and pass good
legislation.
This is good and needed legislation. I hope we get an overwhelming
vote for it.
Vote on S. 870
The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading and was read
the third time.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The bill having been read the third time,
the question is, Shall the bill pass?
Mr. SCHUMER. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs.
Feinstein) is necessarily absent.
Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the
Senator from Indiana (Mr. Braun) and the Senator from North Carolina
(Mr. Tillis).
Further, if present and voting, the Senator from North Carolina (Mr.
Tillis) would have voted ``yea.''
The result was announced--yeas 95, nays 2, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 94 Leg.]
YEAS--95
Baldwin
Barrasso
Bennet
Blackburn
Blumenthal
Booker
Boozman
Britt
Brown
Budd
Cantwell
Capito
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Cassidy
Collins
Coons
Cornyn
Cortez Masto
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Duckworth
Durbin
Ernst
Fetterman
Fischer
Gillibrand
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hassan
Hawley
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Johnson
Kaine
Kelly
Kennedy
King
Klobuchar
Lankford
Lujan
Lummis
Manchin
Markey
Marshall
McConnell
Menendez
Merkley
Moran
Mullin
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Peters
Reed
Ricketts
Risch
Romney
Rosen
Rounds
Rubio
Sanders
Schatz
Schmitt
Schumer
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shaheen
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Sullivan
Tester
Thune
Tuberville
Van Hollen
Vance
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Welch
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden
Young
NAYS--2
Lee
Paul
NOT VOTING--3
Braun
Feinstein
Tillis
(Mr. PETERS assumed the Chair.)
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Schatz). On this vote, the yeas are 95,
the nays are 2.
The 60-vote threshold having been achieved, the bill is passed.
The bill (S. 870) was passed, as follows:
S. 870
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Fire Grants and Safety
Act''.
SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION OF THE UNITED STATES FIRE
ADMINISTRATION.
Section 17(g)(1) of the Federal Fire Prevention and Control
Act of 1974 (15 U.S.C. 2216(g)(1)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (L), by striking ``and'';
(2) in subparagraph (M)--
(A) by striking ``for for'' and inserting ``for''; and
(B) by striking the period and inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(N) $95,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2024 through
2030, of which $3,420,000 for each such fiscal year shall be
used to carry out section 8(f).''.
SEC. 3. REAUTHORIZATION OF ASSISTANCE TO FIREFIGHTERS GRANTS
PROGRAM AND THE FIRE PREVENTION AND SAFETY
GRANTS PROGRAM.
(a) Sunset.--Section 33(r) of the Federal Fire Prevention
and Control Act of 1974 (15 U.S.C. 2229(r)) is amended by
striking ``2024'' and inserting ``2032''.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 33(q)(1)(B)
of the Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974 (15
U.S.C. 2229(q)(1)(B)) is amended, in the matter preceding
clause (i), by striking ``2023'' and inserting ``2030''.
SEC. 4. REAUTHORIZATION OF STAFFING FOR ADEQUATE FIRE AND
EMERGENCY RESPONSE GRANT PROGRAM.
(a) Sunset.--Section 34(k) of the Federal Fire Prevention
and Control Act of 1974 (15 U.S.C. 2229a(k)) is amended by
striking ``2024'' and inserting ``2032''.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 34(j)(1)(I)
of the Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974 (15
U.S.C. 2229a(j)(1)(I)) is amended, in the matter preceding
clause (i), by striking ``2023'' and inserting ``2030''.
SEC. 5. GAO AUDIT AND REPORT.
Not later than 3 years after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Comptroller General of the United States shall
conduct an audit of and issue a publicly available report on
barriers that prevent fire departments from accessing Federal
funds.
SEC. 6. LIMITATION ON FIRE GRANT FUNDS.
Neither the Government of the People's Republic of China,
nor any entity or organization operating or incorporated in
the People's Republic of China, may be eligible to be a
recipient or subrecipient of Federal assistance under any
assistance program authorized under subsection (c) or (d) of
section 33 or section 34(a) of the Federal Fire Prevention
and Control Act of 1974 (15 U.S.C. 2229, 2229a).
SEC. 7. GAO AUDIT.
Not later than 3 years after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Comptroller General of the United States shall
conduct an audit of and issue a publicly available report on
the United States Fire Administration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
____________________