[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.

                          ____________________