[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 148 (Wednesday, September 13, 2023)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4421-S4437]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          LEGISLATIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

     MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, VETERANS AFFAIRS, AND RELATED AGENCIES 
          APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2024--MOTION TO PROCEED--Resumed

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to H.R. 4366, 
which the clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       Motion to proceed to Calendar No. 198, H.R. 4366, a bill 
     making appropriations for military construction, the 
     Department of Veterans Affairs, and related agencies for the 
     fiscal year ending September 30, 2024, and for other 
     purposes.


                   Recognition of the Minority Leader

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


                             Appropriations

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, as I outlined yesterday, the Senate's 
pending business on appropriations is tremendously important to 
America's farmers, to our veterans, and to the future of our airports, 
roads, bridges, and ports. My home State of Kentucky is certainly no 
exception.
  The Commonwealth is home to a host of important and overdue 
infrastructure projects. As a transportation and logistics hub, my home 
State boasts an impressive network of roads, ports, railroads, and 
waterways that keep our economy and the American people literally on 
the move. Overhauling this infrastructure strengthens the essential 
link folks in Kentucky have to the rest of the Nation while making 
those transit resources faster, more efficient, and more reliable for 
everyone.
  I am also proud of Kentucky's diverse agriculture industry, made up 
of over 75,000 farms, an overwhelming majority of which are family-
owned and family-operated. Kentucky's rural communities understand the 
importance of efforts like expanding rural broadband deployment and 
protecting livestock from diseases that can financially devastate small 
family farms.
  Certainly, our work in the coming days will also impact Kentucky's 
Army installations and National Guard facilities. Investments in 
military construction ensure our brave men and women in uniform have 
access to the world-class training facilities they need to defend our 
country. Maintaining Kentucky's premier fighting forces is critical to 
deterring aggression from our adversaries and protecting American 
strength.
  So, as the Senate continues to make progress on regular order 
appropriations, I am pleased to see Kentucky take center stage in 
solving some of the real issues that face our people.


                           National Security

  Mr. President, America's defense industrial base is in the middle of 
a historic transformation. This is something Republicans have been 
working toward literally for years. It is good news for America's 
national security. In fact, it is essential for our strategic

[[Page S4422]]

competition with communist China; and, today, I would like to talk a 
bit more about what exactly is making this urgent progress possible.
  Over the past year and a half, the lethal U.S. aid helping Ukraine 
defend its sovereignty and degrade Russia's military has consisted, in 
large part, of aging weapons stocks that were sitting in our own 
arsenal--in many cases, literally collecting dust.
  The security assistance money appropriated ``for Ukraine'' isn't just 
buying weapons for Ukraine; it is also replenishing and modernizing 
America's own arsenal, and the vast majority of it is going to American 
defense manufacturers. This includes funding to expand production lines 
of munitions needed by the U.S. military as well as vulnerable allies 
in both Asia and Europe that want and need American weapons. That is 
tens of billions of dollars directly supporting tens of thousands of 
jobs in at least 38 States so far. Support for Ukraine is driving 
historic investments in the communities that we all represent.
  Take the 155-mm artillery round. Replenishing America's stockpile of 
this critical munition has meant sending $3.6 million to producers in 
Nevada, $48 million to Florida and Illinois, $65 million to Ohio, $141 
million to Arizona, $174 million to Tennessee, $181 million to 
Virginia, $355 million to Pennsylvania, and $519 million to Texas. That 
is nearly $2 billion worth of direct investment in American industry, 
American jobs, and American strength.
  And, contrary to critics who say Ukraine is a distraction from China, 
this investment isn't flowing in spite of our support for Ukraine but 
actually because of it.
  A West Virginia facility that supports 1,600 jobs has significantly 
increased production of motors and warheads for guided multiple-launch 
rocket systems, for which there is increased global demand; and a St. 
Charles, MO, facility that employs 1,300 workers--so-called Ukraine 
money--has funded a vastly expanded production line to build fresh 
stocks of extended-range, JDAM precision-guided munitions.
  These are actually transformational investments, and they wouldn't 
have happened without the supplemental funding that we approved last 
year. We are not just talking about buying new stocks but about 
expanding production capacity to meet U.S. and allied demand. This is a 
critical piece of our race to compete with China.
  In fact, that same Missouri munitions production line is also set to 
fulfill orders from some of America's closest allies and partners in 
Asia. That is right. Japan, Singapore, South Korea, and the Philippines 
are arming themselves with American munitions to deter China.
  And the same is true for other critical munitions. Thanks to Ukraine 
funding, we are on a path to double the production of critical weapons 
like Stingers and Javelins, along with innovative new weapons like the 
ground-launched, small-diameter bomb, which will be produced in 
Arkansas and New York. This expanded production capacity will benefit 
America as well as partner militaries from European to Asia.
  I will have more to say in the coming days about the historic 
investments our allies are making here in the United States as a direct 
result of American leadership, but, for now, I am tremendously proud of 
our own work to invest in American industry, American workers, and 
American strength.


                               Inflation

  Now, Mr. President, on one final matter, I spoke yesterday about the 
Biden administration's war on American energy and how working families 
are feeling it at the gas pump, but energy prices are not the only 
reason it has been so hard to balance household budgets on Washington 
Democrats' watch.
  Just this morning, the Bureau of Labor Statistics announced that 
inflation increased by 0.6 percent this month, putting year-over-year 
inflation at 3.7 percent. That is well above the Federal Reserve's 2-
percent target, and it puts cumulative inflation since President Biden 
took office at over 17 percent.
  But as the American people continue to struggle against rising costs, 
the President appears to be taking a victory tour, touting Bidenomics 
as one of his crowning achievements. Over the Labor Day weekend, 
President Biden told voters that Bidenomics ``is working.'' The 
American people are not fooled by this. They can feel the pinch in 
their wallets, and they know that Washington Democrats' runaway 
spending is the reason for it.
  As one woman told reporters recently, ``I don't think [President 
Biden] has the everyday people's best interests in mind. . . . 
Everything has gone up--electricity, groceries, fuel. . . . It's not 
fair to the American people.''
  Well, she is not alone. According to one recent survey, a large 
majority of Americans disapproves of the President's handling of the 
U.S. economy. Families are paying 20 percent more at the grocery store. 
Credit card debt has surpassed $1 trillion for the first time ever, and 
overall real wages are down 2.3 percent since 2021.
  The numbers do not lie. Even Biden's Secretary of Commerce has said 
that inflation is ``still a challenge'' and ``something that people 
still see on a daily basis when they go to the grocery store or pay 
their mortgage.''
  Bidenomics may be working, but it is working against working 
Americans.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                       Fiscal Responsibility Act

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, in June, Congress passed a bipartisan 
bill to increase the debt limit and impose meaningful fiscal controls. 
That law was appropriately titled the ``Fiscal Responsibility Act.'' 
Its passage marked a long-overdue step toward fiscal sanity. I assume 
you have to go back about a dozen years until Congress had taken such a 
fiscally responsible step.
  The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, or CBO, as we call it 
here in town, projects the Fiscal Responsibility Act could save 
Americans $1.5 trillion over the next 10 years. I say ``could save'' 
because for this to hold true, Congress must adhere to the spending 
caps that it has imposed. The CBO's latest long-term budget outlook 
shows that in 30 years, our national debt will be $11 trillion lower 
than previously projected. This is, in large part, thanks to this bill 
passed this year, the Fiscal Responsibility Act.
  While $11 trillion is certainly a large sum, it is a drop in the 
bucket compared to the $118 trillion in debt that the United States is 
expected to chalk up over those same 30 years. So, of course, the 
fiscal path we are on is not sustainable.
  If you take debt held by the public, today public debt is about as 
large as the annual U.S. economic outlook. Within 6 years, public debt 
will reach a historically high 107 percent of GDP. The previous record 
was set in the wake of World War II. Once that dismal record is broken, 
public debt will grow faster than the economy with no end in sight, as 
you can see from the chart on display here.
  When the public holds large amounts of debt, well, it naturally slows 
the economy; it naturally reduces national income; and it naturally 
increases inflation. It also leads to ballooning interest costs, which 
are already at a 22-year high.
  Based on the current trajectory, here is a snapshot of the years 
ahead. So pay attention to the chart, please. Within 5 years, the 
United States will spend more on interest than on national defense. 
Within 8 years, interest payments will surpass our spending on 
nondefense discretionary programs. Over the next 10 years, interest on 
our debt will cost taxpayers more than $10.4 trillion. That is $10.4 
trillion that could be used to improve the lives of Americans. Now, 
instead, it will pad the pockets of our Nation's creditors, even 
including foreign adversaries like China, which considers investment in 
the national debt of the United States to be a good investment.
  Finally, within 30 years, interest payments will reach over $5 
trillion a year. That would make interest the single largest annual 
government expenditure, surpassing both Social Security and Medicare.

[[Page S4423]]

  Now, everybody listening and everybody not listening knows that we 
can't keep swiping our Nation's maxed-out credit card while we cross 
our fingers for prepandemic interest rates to return.
  Families, farmers, and small businesses make tradeoffs every day to 
stay on budget. They have to balance their checkbooks besides staying 
on budget. Congress, of course, needs to do the same. Enacting spending 
caps in the Fiscal Responsibility Act was the very, very easy part. So 
the real challenge will be walking that walk and sticking to those 
caps. To do this, Congress must renew its focus on two things: fiscal 
responsibility and good governance.
  Now, recently, you know Fitch downgraded the United States' credit 
rating just last month. It named both fiscal responsibility and good 
governance as factors in its decision.
  Congress has the responsibility and the duty to demonstrate fiscal 
responsibility and good governance and to do it now, as we work to fund 
Federal Agencies and programs for this upcoming fiscal year.
  Former Fed Chairman Paul Volcker told Congress in the 1980s:

       Cutting spending may appear to be the most painful part of 
     the job, but I'm convinced that the pain for all of us will 
     be ultimately much greater if it is not accomplished.

  Paul Volcker's advice is even more apt today than ever because our 
national spending and our national debt are much greater than in Paul 
Volcker's time.
  We need to stop governing from crisis to crisis and return to regular 
order, like we are today on the appropriations bills before the U.S. 
Senate. That means restoring a key component of Senate procedures: real 
and robust debate on spending decisions.
  The Senate has only debated one or more appropriations bills seven 
times--just seven times--since 2008. The last time we did it was 5 
years ago: 2018. Otherwise, between 2018 and last year, we operated 
under this Omnibus appropriations bill process where we didn't give 
proper attention to each segment of our government. We didn't have much 
chance for debate and probably no chance for amendment.
  Last year, as one of those years, not a single funding bill was 
reported out of committee. Congress didn't complete its appropriations 
until December 23. We must do better this year, and we need to applaud 
Chairman Murray and Ranking Member Collins. They have both done their 
part by shepherding all 12 regular funding bills through the Senate 
Appropriations Committee.
  Now it is the full Senate's turn. So let's get to work and get the 
job done.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I want to associate myself with the remarks 
of the Senator from Iowa and just say that it is long overdue that this 
institution gets back to regular order when it comes to processing 
appropriation bills. If you look at the way that you govern a country 
and have as much spending and debt on an annual basis as this country 
does, you need to do it in a way that reflects each individual bill 
being considered so that individual Senators--not just those on the 
Appropriations Committee but those in the entire Senate--have an 
opportunity to have their voices heard.
  In the last few years, we have ended up with, as the Senator from 
Iowa pointed out, a huge omnibus spending bill at the end of the year 
put together, cobbled together, by a bunch of people in a back room. 
That is not the way to run a government, a government of this size and 
scope, with as many moving parts as we have. We need the oversight that 
comes with the annual appropriations process, and we need the fiscal 
responsibility and restraint, hopefully, that comes with a regular 
appropriations process.
  So I would echo that and am pleased that the Senate Appropriations 
Committee has reported the bills out to the floor of the Senate. I 
would hope, now, that the Democratic leader will ensure that that is 
job No. 1; that is, taking up these bills and passing them in a way 
that reflects not only the will of our constituents, which is to have 
more visibility and transparency and accountability when it comes to 
government spending, but also a way that reflects the rights and the 
prerogatives that their elected representatives have to consider these 
things in the light of day and to have their voices heard whether they 
serve on the Appropriations Committee or not.


               School Hunting and Archery Program Funding

  Mr. President, since taking office, President Biden has not hesitated 
to use the power of the modern regulatory state to advance his far-left 
agenda, at times in contravention of the clear intent of Congress.
  Take his recent decision to cancel oil and gas leases in Alaska in 
defiance of congressional direction or his radical interpretation and 
implementation of the Green New Deal provisions of the so-called 
Inflation Reduction Act, which has left one of the bill's Democratic 
authors deeply frustrated with the White House.
  But today I want to talk about another instance of Presidential 
overreach, and that is the Biden administration's decision to use the 
Bipartisan Safer Communities Act to deny Federal funding to school 
hunting and archery programs. The provision of the bill the 
administration is citing as justification for its decision denied 
Federal funding for training or arming teachers and school resource 
officers. It was not intended to prevent hunting safety training or 
deny students the opportunity to participate in archery programs. In 
fact, neither hunting nor archery is ever mentioned in the legislation. 
But, characteristically, the Biden administration has decided to make 
use of this provision to further advance its far-left agenda.
  Mr. President, for the sake of the Biden administration, which 
frequently seems completely out of touch with rural America, let me 
just talk about hunting for a minute. Hunting is a venerable 
institution in rural communities. It is about gathering meat to fill 
the freezer, yes; but it is also about much more than that. It is about 
community, tradition, coming together around the table, conservation, 
and respect for the land.
  My dad taught me and my siblings to hunt, and while we learned how to 
bag roosters, we also learned a lot of life lessons, from patience to 
perseverance to gun safety. I cherish those times with my dad and the 
times I spend today hunting with my family, friends, sons-in-law, and 
people on an annual basis, just to get together for an opportunity to 
spend time together, quality time together, in the beautiful outdoors 
in South Dakota.
  School districts should have the choice of spending their Federal 
extracurricular dollars on programs that teach kids how to carry on 
this venerable tradition safely and responsibly.
  HuntSAFE for Schools, which teaches hunting safety in South Dakota 
schools, uses nonfunctional guns to teach kids about hunting, with ``an 
emphasis on firearm safety and responsibility.''
  These kinds of programs have an effect. Learning to safely handle 
firearms results in a decrease in firearm-related injuries and 
accidents. Hunting education programs have contributed to a steep 
decline in hunting accidents. Funding these programs in schools seems 
like a good thing to do to promote safer communities.
  As for archery, I am going to tell you, I am at a complete loss as to 
why the Biden administration would seek to deny Federal funding to 
these programs. The National Archery in the Schools Program, which has 
1.3 million students in nearly 9,000 schools in 49 States enrolled in 
archery programs, offers students the opportunity to experience all the 
benefits of an accessible and inclusive sport that teaches everything 
from personal excellence to perseverance.
  The National Archery in the Schools Program reports that 58 percent 
of participating students say they feel more connected to their school, 
40 percent feel more engaged in the classroom, and a whopping 91 
percent pursue or want to pursue other outdoor activities as a result 
of their archery participation.

[[Page S4424]]

  Once again, school districts should have the choice of spending their 
Federal extracurricular dollars on programs like this that 
unquestionably--unquestionably--meet the goal of helping to offer 
students a well-rounded education. And it is a use of those dollars 
that Congress never sought to ban, as I suspect the Biden 
administration is well aware and already knows.
  There have already been reports of schools canceling plans to include 
hunting or archery education in their curricula as a result of the 
Biden administration's directive. The Biden administration needs to 
immediately reverse its decision before more programs are canceled and 
more kids lose out on opportunities to develop the confidence, the 
skills, and the sense of community that come from participating in 
these programs.
  I have little hope that the Biden administration will rein in its 
radical agenda or stop using its regulatory power to impose its far-
left visions, but I am grateful that both Democrats and Republicans are 
raising questions about this particular instance of Biden 
administration overreach. I hope we can continue to work to curb the 
Biden administration's regulatory excesses and prevent Americans from 
suffering the painful consequences of this President's radical 
policies.
  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.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             Appropriations

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I want to start today by thanking Senator 
Collins once again for her partnership in putting together the package 
that we are now considering. I am very pleased she was able to join me 
on the floor yesterday as we both spoke about the effort that has gone 
into getting this bill off the ground.
  At risk of repeating myself, I would like to speak again about how we 
crafted the bills before us and urge all of my colleagues to join us to 
debate and advance this package.
  Today, we are doing something that many Senators have been calling 
for, for quite some time, something Senator Collins and I have been 
hearing about from our colleagues since the moment we took over the 
leadership of the Appropriations Committee. We are keeping our foot on 
the gas as we continue returning the appropriations process to regular 
order for the first time in years.
  Last night, we began the process to allow the Senate to consider a 
legislative package of three strongly bipartisan funding bills.
  Let me just say this again: Getting to this point was no easy feat.
  I am grateful to my partner on the Appropriations Committee, Vice 
Chair Collins, for working with me to make this happen and to all of 
our Members, especially the subcommittee chairs, who worked on the 
bills in the package before us today. Senator Collins and I knew from 
the start, if we wanted this to work, we had to write serious 
bipartisan funding bills that can actually be signed into law.
  As I said yesterday, that meant a few things. First of all, we are 
going to have to abide by the topline numbers that were set in the debt 
limit deal, and I shared my personal concerns about that limit before. 
They have meant some tough choices because that was agreed on by the 
House and the Senate for all of us in these bills. But President Biden 
and Speaker McCarthy shook hands. They shook hands, and we passed this 
deal in Congress in a bipartisan way.
  The reality is, we can't produce serious bills if we start by 
throwing that bipartisan framework out the window. So we didn't do 
that. We worked within the framework, and I pushed at every stage of 
the process with my colleagues to make sure we produced the strongest 
possible bills under those circumstances because we simply have to move 
forward, not back.
  Secondly, we understood that we were going to have to work together 
to find common ground, including on some very tough and thorny issues, 
and compromise where necessary to produce spending bills that can make 
it through both Chambers and to the President's desk. That meant 
avoiding poison pills that could sink these bills.
  Third, we understood it was important that we give each and every one 
of our colleagues the chance to weigh in on these bills and the 
American public the chance to see us work on them. So we held over 40 
hearings this spring to assess our Nation's needs for the year ahead. 
We sought input from all of our colleagues, including requests for 
congressionally directed spending so Members could advocate for project 
they know are crucial for their States. Then we held markups with 
debate and amendments from Members on both sides, and we actually 
televised the markups for the first time ever so people could follow 
this debate from home.
  The result is that we passed all 12 of our funding bills out of 
committee for the first time in 5 years, and we did it with 
overwhelming bipartisan support. In fact, all three of the bills that 
are included in the package we are now considering passed the committee 
unanimously.
  As I detailed in my remarks yesterday, these bills provide essential 
investments for programs that all of our communities rely on. The 
MILCON-VA bill provides funding to shore up our military installations 
and improve quality of life for our servicemembers and to make sure 
that we live up to our obligation to get our veterans the care they 
need.
  The Ag-FDA bill funds programs that are critical to making sure our 
food supply is safe and secure, getting families the support they need 
to put dinner on the table, and helping our farmers to stay ahead of 
global competition.
  And the T-HUD bill, the third one, provides crucial investments to 
help keep people living in their homes, not on the streets, and to make 
sure we can get people and goods quickly and safely where they need to 
go.
  I look forward to saying more about these bills and how these 
investments are crucial to supporting our families and growing our 
economy and securing our future as we continue to debate this package.
  Just as importantly, I look forward to hearing from all of our 
colleagues during this time, as well. I hope that everyone will come to 
the floor to talk about these bills, what they will mean for your 
State, for your constituents, and what your priorities here are. And I 
invite all of our colleagues to talk to me and to talk to Senator 
Collins if you have amendments and ideas for how we can make these 
bills better, because Senator Collins and I are working now to clear a 
managers' package and set up votes.
  Our staffs are still working hard on this, and we are happy to work 
with your teams--all of your teams--so we can pass the strongest bill 
possible. We have been working closely together from day one to run an 
open bipartisan process, to get input from all of our colleagues, and 
to make sure that everyone can make their constituents' voices heard.
  We know our work is not done yet, but we are committed to showing the 
American people that this place can actually work, that Members with 
different viewpoints can actually come together in a timely, 
responsible way to get our communities the resources they need and to 
help people and solve problems, which is why so many of us got into 
politics in the first place.
  The American people are watching. Let's show them we are listening. 
Let's pass this package and continue to get our job here done.
  This summer, we produced a bipartisan roadmap to fund the government 
with serious bills that can actually be signed into law. I am glad 
that, here in the Senate, we are moving right ahead with several of 
these bills now. I urge our colleagues to work with us to get this 
done.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           National Security

  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. President, Monday marked 22 years since the 9/11 
terrorist

[[Page S4425]]

attacks on our Nation. Although we are now over two decades removed 
from one of the greatest tragedies in our Nation's history, the 
memories remain in our minds as if it had just happened yesterday. We 
will never forget.
  Many of us were here that day, including me, and I certainly will 
never forget that awful horrible tragic day. Those horrific events in 
New York City and Washington, DC, and Shanksville, PA, forever changed 
the national security of the United States of America. Our Nation 
banded together, and we supported one another as we rebuilt and 
recovered.
  As part of our collective response, we saw the beginnings of the 
Global War on Terror. Together, with the help of our allies, we made 
significant progress in countering violent extremism and eliminating 
the territorial gains that the Islamic State had made.
  While this threat still remains today, we made progress in 
diminishing the ability of terrorists to harm Americans. Now we are 
again seeing the landscape of our national security shift as we are 
facing a new challenge of rising threats from nations like Russia and 
China.
  Putin's unwarranted aggression has created a large-scale ground war 
in the European continent--something that was really nearly unthinkable 
just a few short years ago.
  Adding to that, we are witnessing the unprecedented buildup of the 
Chinese military state. Make no mistake, those Chinese military 
investments were made with U.S. capabilities in mind.
  Nations that directly oppose U.S. values and interests are beginning 
to create an uneasy closeness with one another. Just yesterday, North 
Korea's leader, Kim Jong Un, pledged ``full and unconditional support'' 
for Russia's Vladimir Putin. And we don't know what the behind-the-
scenes conversations were or the tradeoffs that were made.
  This is something that we must monitor closely, and it demands a 
collective and united response. The growing threat from China was 
something that I discussed with the United States Indo-Pacific Command 
leaders when I met with them over August. This is a real threat and 
underscores the importance of working with our allies in this region.
  Our allies in the Indo-Pacific area are very important when it comes 
to both deterrence efforts and facilitating U.S. operations in the 
event of a crisis or conflict. That cooperation is a key piece in our 
ability to protect the power that the United States has led with.
  The AUKUS agreement between Australia, the United Kingdom, and the 
United States further cements this relationship and ensures that we 
will become even more interoperable with our allies in the Indo-
Pacific.
  We need to maintain a strong military posture in this region and 
bolster our cybersecurity and technological abilities to ensure that 
our Nation and our allies will be ready for any and all threats that we 
may face.
  The intrinsic relationship between China and Taiwan and Russia and 
Ukraine cannot be lost on us. There is no doubt that China and Xi 
Jinping are closely watching Russia's attempted land grab and are 
taking notes of the united resistance that they are now facing. 
Stopping Russia in Ukraine will send a clear and direct signal to China 
that violent, unwarranted aggression will be met with a swift and 
unified response.
  It is vitally important to recognize that supporting Ukraine 
explicitly and clearly strengthens our own national security. I truly 
believe that is a fact. Our support for Ukraine has benefited the 
United States by illuminating vulnerabilities in our own defense 
industrial base, which we now have the opportunity to remedy. Without 
this, we might not have discovered these issues until a crisis of our 
own, and these production challenges would have severely disabled our 
ability to defend ourselves and strengthen our U.S. warfighters in a 
time of conflict.
  It is important to recognize that funding Congress has appropriated 
in support of Ukraine is going directly back into our own capabilities. 
This has initiated facilities upgrades at our ammo plants. It has 
boosted production at our defense industrial base sites and funded 
replenishment of our own U.S. arsenal.
  As Leader McConnell mentioned on Monday, by showing support for 
Ukraine, Americans are making strides in our competition with China, we 
are degrading the Russian military capacity, we are encouraging our 
allies to ``Buy American,'' and we are reassuring the importance of 
investing in their own defense. We have seen this directly from our 
allies like Australia and Japan, which are making serious investments 
in their defense capabilities, or the UK, which has also pledged 
meaningful military support for Ukraine.
  Moving forward, NATO members need to take the commitment to pledge 2 
percent of their GDP towards defense more seriously and move at the 
speed of the threats that we face.
  One thing is for certain: This is not a time to show weakness. 
However, President Biden and his administration have unfortunately not 
shown the strength needed in the face of these rising threats. We saw 
this in the botched withdrawal in Afghanistan in 2021, where 13 of our 
servicemembers senselessly--senselessly--lost their lives, or just this 
weekend when President Biden claimed, while he was on a trip to the Far 
East, that ``we're all better off if China does well.'' And then on 
9/11, of all days, the Biden administration notified Congress that they 
are negotiating with the leading sponsor of terrorism--Iran--and 
sending $6 billion in frozen assets with little or no accountability.
  Actions like these endanger every American abroad and display a level 
of deficiency that is inconsistent--inconsistent--with the true 
standing and power that the United States has.
  We are currently at a pivotal moment in our history, both in the 
history of our Nation but also the history of the world. American 
leadership has always transcended nefarious forces. That, I am 
confident in. We must always lead with the strength that defines this 
leadership and work to ensure that our national security remains the 
foremost priority that it deserves to be.
  My own State of West Virginia, which has deep roots of military 
service and patriotism, has established a growing presence and 
participation in our national defense infrastructure. West Virginia 
companies and universities are stepping up and are contributing in 
increasingly important ways to the military industrial base in this 
country. From ammunition production to cybersecurity advancements and 
critical components for vehicles, aircraft, and weapons, West Virginia 
is leading the way. Our country must follow this example and continue 
this level of investment into our national security, with each and 
every one of us contributing to the proud tradition of American 
leadership.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Cortez Masto). The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mrs. FISCHER. Madam President, China is on track to triple its 
nuclear arsenal by 2035. Russia continues its saber-rattling in 
Ukraine. North Korea is hell-bent on developing the capability to 
deliver nuclear weapons at longer ranges, conducting dozens of missile 
tests in this last year, and Iran is weeks away from obtaining nuclear 
weapons. But on Sunday night, President Biden said, and I am quoting 
him:

       The only existential threat humanity faces even more 
     frightening than a nuclear war is global warming going above 
     1.5 degrees in the next . . . 10 years.

  The leader of the free world believes that global warming is a bigger 
threat to global security than nuclear war.
  Now, I am not dismissing the importance of our climate. We should 
continue to take responsible, commonsense action to address climate 
change, and we should support an ``all of the above'' energy strategy. 
We should promote policies to ensure that we have clean air, clean 
water, and we should do that without hindering economic prosperity or 
burdening hard-working Americans and their families. But the 
President's claim that global warming is more frightening than nuclear 
war sends the wrong signal to our adversaries and to our allies. It 
demonstrates a total ignorance of the instability of today's global 
threat environment.
  The Strategic Forces Subcommittee, where I am ranking member, 
specifically oversees our country's nuclear

[[Page S4426]]

forces, and based on the hundreds of official hearings, briefings, and 
documents we have analyzed, I can tell you with all confidence that the 
most frightening threat to global security today is the Chinese 
Communist Party.
  The CCP made it crystal clear that it wants to fundamentally alter 
global deterrence dynamics. China's relentless military buildup has 
outpaced anything that we could have imagined. Like I said earlier, 
China wants to triple its nuclear arsenal over the next decade, and it 
is well on its way to meeting that goal, if not exceeding it.
  U.S. Strategic Command, or STRATCOM, is located in my home State of 
Nebraska, and they confirmed earlier this year that China possesses 
more intercontinental ballistic missile launchers than we do here in 
the United States. China is developing a subsonic stealth bomber that 
is essentially a copycat of our B-2 bomber. It is continuing work on 
Jin-class submarines capable of carrying over 12 nuclear missiles at a 
time.
  To the people of the United States, let me say this: For the first 
time in history, the United States will face two adversaries who are 
peer nuclear powers--China and Russia--and that is the biggest national 
security threat we face.
  When the President says that climate change is more frightening than 
nuclear war, he is downplaying the serious, terrifying possibility that 
China puts its nuclear weapons to use.
  This administration neglects our nuclear arsenal while our 
adversaries, well, they prioritize theirs. This administration has done 
things like try to cancel the Sea-Launched Cruise Missile Program, or 
SLCM. SLCM would fill a known--a known--capability gap. It would allow 
us to more effectively deter China or Russia from using a nuclear 
weapon, which is part of their ``escalate to deescalate'' strategy.
  Well, Congress has pushed back on the President in a bipartisan and a 
bicameral way when it comes to him canceling SLCM. It is past time for 
this administration to get serious about the existential threat that 
China poses. The President needs to tackle this issue head-on and not 
trivialize it.
  One way that President Biden can do this is by signing this year's 
National Defense Authorization Act. The Senate successfully passed this 
year's NDAA by a significant bipartisan majority, 86 to 11. I led 
provisions to accelerate the modernization of our nuclear triad--our 
land-, our sea-based nuclear weapons, and our air-based ones. These 
military capabilities that we have are essential to keeping adversaries 
like China in check. China will be less likely to use its weapons if it 
believes that we can and that we will hit back harder.
  Once the NDAA gets to the President's desk, he should sign this 
legislation without hesitating for a moment. Let's not put nuclear war 
on the back burner. Let us step forward. Let us show China that it has 
no chance against the United States of America.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I want to thank our friend Senator 
Capito for bringing us together to discuss national security and the 
many challenges that we see on the horizon. When we think about 
national security, we often picture the brave men and women in our 
uniformed military who have made immeasurable sacrifices to protect our 
freedom. We envision the ships, the tanks, the aircraft, and the 
weapons that they use to keep us safe. We think about the greatest 
threats to our country, including countries like Russia and China.
  But today I want to talk about a lesser known but no less important 
aspect of our national security apparatus, which is section 702 of the 
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, FISA, as it is sometimes called. 
In short, section 702 allows the intelligence community and the 
Department of Justice to obtain intelligence on foreigners located 
outside of the United States.
  As we know, different rules apply here in the United States and 
particularly insofar as it involves U.S. persons and U.S. citizens. All 
of the protections of our criminal justice system, including the 
requirement of a warrant and a showing of probable cause for a search 
and that sort of thing, that applies to American citizens and U.S. 
persons on American soil, but overseas, when it involves foreigners, 
this is an important tool, section 702.
  Congress enacted section 702 in 2008 in response to threats posed by 
terrorist groups in the wake of 9-11. It tore down some of the walls 
between the criminal justice system and our intelligence community and 
made sure that we could share--legally share--information that could be 
used to keep America safe. There is no question that it has been a 
success.
  When talking about section 702, the FBI Director, Chris Wray, said 
several years ago, ``The fact that we have not sustained another 9/11-
scale attack is not just luck.''
  He noted that it is a product of diligence, teamwork, information 
sharing, and connecting the dots, and much of that dot-connecting 
occurs and is made possible by section 702. This authority has been 
vital to detecting potential terrorist attacks; but, also, it is 
important for applications that reach far beyond America's 
counterterrorism missions.

  Section 702 has helped the United States understand and combat drug 
trafficking, including the scourge of fentanyl, which is affecting so 
many people in this country as I speak.
  Section 702 has helped us to identify multiple foreign ransomware 
attacks on our critical infrastructure--for example, the attack on the 
Colonial Pipeline that shut down gasoline deliveries on the east coast 
for days on end.
  It helped prevent components of weapons of mass destruction from 
reaching foreign adversaries.
  Section 702 has helped to uncover Russian war crimes in Ukraine.
  It has even helped to disrupt our adversaries' efforts to recruit 
spies on American soil or to send their operatives to the United 
States.
  Section 702 is a critical tool in America's national security 
toolbox, but its future is in question. Unless Congress acts in the 
next few months, section 702 is set to expire at the end of this year. 
If this happens, it will deprive America's dedicated intelligence 
professionals of the laws and the authority they need to keep us safe.
  Director Wray recently said that allowing section 702 to expire would 
be an ``act of unilateral disarmament in the face of the Chinese 
Communist Party''--``unilateral disarmament in the face of the Chinese 
Communist Party.''
  Given the threat that China poses to the United States and to peace 
in the region, an unforced error is the last thing we need. In the 
coming months, I hope we can pass a bipartisan law to preserve section 
702 and, at the same time, promote greater trust in the Agencies that 
use it.
  GEN Paul Nakasone, who heads both the National Security Agency and 
the U.S. Cyber Command, has been very clear about the need to preserve 
section 702 authorities. Last month, he summed up its importance rather 
succinctly when he said 702 ``saves lives and protects the homeland.'' 
It ``saves lives and protects the homeland.''
  That is what national security is all about: saving lives and 
protecting the homeland and our very freedoms that we cherish. We have 
a clear and urgent opportunity to do just that, and we can't let it 
slip through our fingers.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. ROSEN). The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SULLIVAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SULLIVAN. Madam President, my colleagues and I are down on the 
floor, talking about national security.
  It is clear--and this is testimony from admirals and generals and 
Department of Defense officials over the last few years--that we are 
certainly in one of the most dangerous times globally anytime since 
World War II. We have this new era of authoritarian aggression, led by 
the dictators in Beijing and Moscow, who are very aggressive and 
paranoid about their neighbors. They are certainly willing to attack 
them. So we need to be strong as a nation.
  As a matter of fact, National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan often 
talks about situations of strength. Now, this

[[Page S4427]]

is actually a phrase that came from Dean Acheson, one of our fabled 
Secretaries of State. When the Cold War began right after World War II, 
he talked about confronting the Soviet Union--the strategy of 
containment--but emphasized situations of American strength. So that is 
a good framework. It is a good framework. Unfortunately, the Biden 
administration, especially in a couple of key areas, is not focused on 
situations of strength at all. Let me give you two, and I really want 
to focus on one.
  The first one, of course, is our military. Pretty obvious. It is a 
dangerous world. The dictators in Beijing and Moscow understand hard 
power, and hard power is U.S. military power. So what have we seen from 
the Biden administration since the President came into office? Three 
budgets for 3 years in a row that are inflation-adjusted cuts to the 
U.S. military. That is a fact. Next year's budget will actually go 
below 3 percent of GDP spent on our military. It is probably one of 4 
or 5 times in the last 70 years that we have gone that low on 
investments in our military at one of the most dangerous times we have 
faced since World War II. This year's budget from the Biden 
administration shrinks the Army, shrinks the Navy dramatically, and 
shrinks the Marine Corps.
  Do you think that impresses Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin? It 
doesn't. So that is the military going in the wrong direction.
  White House, take note. That is not a situation of strength. That is 
a situation of weakness.
  Here is the other one that is quite remarkable, actually. It is 
America's natural resources and energy, and I am talking everything.
  We are the envy of the world in terms of oil, gas, renewables, 
critical minerals--all of the above. We are the envy of the world, and 
what does this administration do from day one--day one?
  With this incredible American strength, with this incredible 
comparative advantage we have relative to China, there is reporting 
that Xi Jinping looks at American energy dominance and knows how 
vulnerable they are in terms of importing energy, particularly oil and 
gas, and they are frightened by it. Frightened by it. Our biggest 
adversary, the Chinese Communist Party, is scared to death of American 
energy independence and dominance.
  So what does the Biden administration do? On day one, they come into 
office, and they say: We are going to shut down the production of 
American oil and gas. We are going to go to Wall Street and the 
investment firms in America and pressure them not to invest in American 
energy, and we are going to kill and delay key infrastructure that 
moves energy.
  Well, of course, the predictable result is the $90 oil that we are 
seeing right now and working families in America being hit the hardest. 
That is a fact. What I just stated are facts. That has been the policy 
of this administration's since day one.
  Of course, it hurts working families, as I mentioned, but this is a 
gift to our adversaries, one of the great strengths of the United 
States of America that administrations--Democrat and Republican--for 
decades have pursued.
  Read the history of World War II. A big part of how we won is because 
we were the dominant energy producer in the world. We have been seeking 
energy independence for decades. We got it during the Trump 
administration. The Biden administration comes in and unilaterally 
surrenders that great competitive advantage.
  How do I know? I see this every day in the great State of Alaska, my 
home State.
  Alaska has been ground zero on the radical, irrational policies of 
the Biden administration to undermine American energy and natural 
resource strength. Let me give you two examples.
  We have an area in Alaska called the Ambler Mining District. It has 
one of the richest deposits of critical minerals anywhere in the world. 
There is no road to it. So in Federal law, in 1980, Senator Stevens got 
a provision in what is called the ANILCA Act to mandate a road to the 
Ambler Mining District.
  In most States, if you want to build a road, nobody cares. In my 
State, if you want to build a road, every lower 48 radical 
environmental group sues to stop it. It is unbelievable, but it is 
true. It is sad, but it is true.
  So during the Obama administration and the Trump administration, the 
State of Alaska applied for a road. They got an environmental impact 
statement--it cost about $10 million--a 7-year EIS to build a road to 
the Ambler Mining District so America could have critical minerals. 
What happened? That is good news, supported by two different 
administrations. The day the President of the United States, President 
Biden, held a critical mineral summit telling the world that we need 
critical minerals to compete with China and for our renewable energy 
future, do you know what they did? Do you know what they did, Madam 
President? I know you have seen it in your State so I know you are 
frustrated on these issues as well. They reversed the Record of 
Decision granting Alaska the ability to build this road to the Ambler 
Mining District. What? Where are we going to get our critical minerals? 
Where are we going to get our oil and gas? We need these things. Let's 
get them from America, with the highest standards on the environment in 
the world. My State has the highest standards on oil and gas 
development in the world.
  They said: No. Alaska, go back to ground zero. We will continue to 
get our critical minerals from China. And as for oil and gas, we will 
shut it down in America.
  Where are we going to get it? Well, we have seen this administration. 
Three months ago, they lifted sanctions on Venezuela so now we are 
importing 100,000 barrels a day from Venezuela. It is a terrorist 
country. It doesn't matter. They are still going to import from them. 
They have the worst environmental standards in the world. They have a 
greenhouse gas emissions profile 20 times higher than the State of 
Alaska does in terms of energy production, but we are going to get oil 
and gas from Venezuela and shut down Alaska. That is No. 1.
  No. 2, the President was recently, last year, over in Saudi Arabia 
literally on bended knee begging the Saudis for more oil and gas. But 
America, Alaska--no, we are going to shut you down.
  And recently--and I know every Member of this body is like what? We 
are now going to do a deal with the Iranians, lifting sanctions on 
their ability to put oil on world markets. The largest state sponsor of 
terrorism, no environmental standards, but we are going to let the 
Iranians produce oil and shut it down in America.
  We just had another attack on my State--55 Executive orders and 
Executive actions from the Biden administration singularly focused on 
Alaska to shut my State down. We have so many resources for America, 
for Alaskans, for the world. They are shutting them down. And what are 
we going to do? We are going to get them from adversaries like 
Venezuela, Iran, and other countries. It makes no sense, and it is 
illegal as well.
  Last week, the Biden administration announced that the lease sales 
that this body--the Congress of the United States--mandated for the 
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, they just canceled them. The Secretary 
of the Interior said: Hey, I know Congress said shall put out two lease 
sales. They said: We didn't like the process by which they were given 
out so we just canceled them.
  This is ``banana republicville.'' This is Venezuela. That is what we 
are doing in terms of energy security.
  It is national security suicide when we favor our adversaries who 
have no environmental standards at all and we shut down the production 
of American energy in Alaska, in America, in the gulf.
  In August, they took over a million acres of land from the State of 
Wyoming to produce energy. It makes no sense. It makes no sense.
  If you care about the environment, you need to produce it from the 
place with the highest environmental standards, not the lowest. That is 
my State. If you care about energy security, you should produce from 
America, not Iran or Venezuela. If you care about American workers--the 
best workers in the world who get paid a very high wage to work in the 
oil and gas fields in my State--you should produce in America and 
Alaska, not Saudi Arabia.
  None of it makes sense. It is national security suicide, and the vast 
majority

[[Page S4428]]

of the American people know it. They know it, and it has got to change.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic whip.


                  Credit Card Competition Act of 2023

  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, it was about 12 years ago when I went 
into a hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee. I think it was about 
the time that Arlen Specter was the chairman of the committee, and he 
had a hearing on something that I knew nothing about. It was called 
interchange fees.
  I walked in there, and the room was packed. It turned out there were 
two sides to a debate over this so-called interchange fee. On one side 
were the monsters and giants of the credit card industry, Visa and 
Mastercard--the duopoly that controls 73, 75 percent of the credit 
transactions in the United States--and on the other side were a handful 
of people from gas stations and restaurants.
  What were they talking about with the interchange fee? They were 
talking about the fact that credit cards issued by the banks that honor 
the Visa and Mastercard exchanges are required to pay fees on every 
transaction.
  What was interesting about the conversation was that when it got down 
to it, the retailer--the restaurant owner, the gas station--had no 
control over what the fee was going to be charged by the bank and Visa 
and Mastercard. Take it or leave it. If you want to honor our credit 
cards and use them in your business, you will pay the interchange fee. 
I kind of thought that was unusual or maybe unfair. There was no 
competition. There no was voice. The retailer just had to pass along 
the charge, and Visa and Mastercard raised the charges on a regular 
basis. They just did recently.
  We are fighting inflation in America, and Visa and Mastercard are on 
the other side of the battle. Consumers and retailers are trying to 
keep prices down; Visa and Mastercard are trying to run them up with 
the fee they charge for each transaction.
  So I decided to ask for a study--that is pretty easy and innocent--a 
study to find out how much the fees were, why these credit card giants 
were charging fees in the United States which they weren't charging in 
other countries.
  They fought me tooth and nail to stop me from this study. So I got my 
back up and decided to offer an amendment to the Dodd-Frank bill, which 
dealt with Wall Street and the excesses of the 2008 recession. I came 
to the floor, offered it, and to everyone's surprise, it passed. It 
regulated the amount of interchange fees on debit cards. Debit cards 
are just like a checking account. It didn't touch credit cards.
  It turned out that that was a big deal because the big banks on Wall 
Street that were affected by my amendment were losing up to $8 billion 
a year in interchange fees that people were paying. Debit cards were at 
least containing the growth of these fees, while credit cards were 
still untouched. And so here we are today.
  American consumers are concerned about inflation and the high price 
of groceries and gas. What they may not know is that the fees charged 
by the credit cards that they use, known as swipe fees or interchange 
fees, are adding to the problem.
  Visa and Mastercard control just about 80 percent of the credit card 
market. Each time a credit card is used--whether for groceries, 
gasoline, critical drugs, anything else--Visa and Mastercard charge an 
interchange fee. Some of that they keep for themselves, but most of it 
is given to the bank that issued the card. It is usually charged as a 
percentage of the transaction plus a flat fee; for example, 2 percent 
of the transaction plus 10 cents each transaction.
  Visa and Mastercard set the fees on behalf of thousands of banks and 
tell the merchants--the retailers, the restaurants--take it or leave 
it. Merchants have no choice but to accept these outrageous fees if 
they want to have credit cards used by their customers.
  There is no negotiation. There is no competition. Small business 
owners and consumers, take it or leave it, are holding the bag.
  In 2022 alone, U.S. merchants and consumers paid $93.2 billion in 
these fees, credit card interchange fees, to line the pockets of the 
biggest banks on Wall Street.
  If you ask the man who owns the restaurant or ask the lady who owns 
the shop: What percentage of your overhead cost is interchange fees on 
credit cards, you will be shocked. Interchange fees are the second 
largest cost for small businesses only behind labor costs. Just think 
of that for a moment. Making your payroll is the highest expense. The 
next expense is not utilities or rent; it is the interchange fees 
charged by Visa and Mastercard and their banks.
  Despite the nearly $100 billion Visa and Mastercard took out of 
communities and small businesses across the country last year, guess 
what they are going to do in October? They are going to raise the 
interchange fee again. While we are trying to fight inflation at every 
angle that we can find to bring down the cost of groceries and gas, the 
credit card companies have decided it is just the right time to have 
this take-it-or-leave-it fee increased.
  When credit cards fees go up, it increases inflation, and consumers 
pay it. I strongly urge Visa and Mastercard to reconsider this 
misguided decision. I wrote them a letter. I doubt if they will read 
it. I am not holding my breath.
  That is why I have made it a priority to pass the bipartisan Credit 
Card Competition Act this year. The Credit Card Competition Act, which 
I introduced with Senator Marshall--there he is on the floor now; good 
to see you--Senator Welch from Vermont, who has joined us, and Senator 
Vance of Ohio. A bipartisan bill would finally introduce competition 
and choice to the credit card market and bring down the excessive 
credit card fees. It would require only the largest 30 banks in 
America--and they are the big boys, banks with more than $100 billion 
in assets--to enable at least 2 credit card networks to be used on 
their credit cards, with at least 1 of the networks a company outside 
the Visa and Mastercard duopoly so there would be competition. I 
thought that was part of a free market. But when it comes to credit 
cards, they want no competition.
  Merchants would then get to choose one of the networks. There would 
be real competition for their business, and it would keep the fees as 
low as possible.
  The Credit Card Competition Act is estimated to save merchants and 
consumers $15 billion a year. With that in mind, nobody should be 
surprised to hear that Visa and Mastercard and their big bank buddies 
have committed to ``spend whatever is needed'' to stop the Durbin-
Marshall amendment.
  I stood up to the big banks and giant debit card companies in 2010 
when I introduced similar reforms, and I will always choose Main Street 
over Wall Street. It is long overdue for Congress to break up the 
sweetheart deal that Visa and Mastercard and the biggest banks in 
America and certain airlines enjoy. We must bring the bipartisan Credit 
Card Competition Act to the floor for a vote.
  Madam President, the question is whether my colleagues will listen to 
the consumers and families who are struggling with inflation, whether 
they will listen to the restaurants that they frequent, as I do, 
whether they will listen to the small shops and businesses that have to 
pay these outrageous fees.
  Give them a chance. Bring competition into the duopoly. Tell Visa and 
Mastercard that they cannot lord over these people who are working hard 
for a living and shouldn't be stuck with these duopoly fees.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. MARSHALL. Madam President, I am proud to stand in the gap. I am 
proud to stand in this foxhole with my friends and my colleagues and 
with the Democratic whip from Illinois, Senator Durbin, and my friend 
Senator Welch from Vermont.
  The Democratic whip is right. The Senate has to choose. Who are we 
going to listen to? Are we going to listen to Wall Street, or are we 
going to listen to the folks back home?
  Across Kansas, everyone is feeling the impacts of inflation. Family 
budgets are being stretched to the absolute limit, with little room for 
error. So you can imagine the shock in Kansans' eyes when I tell them, 
this year, they will spend over $1,000 in hidden credit

[[Page S4429]]

card swipe fees--which is really a tax. These swipe fees are really 
just another additional tax--in this case, a 2- to 4-percent tax paid 
to Wall Street--on top of every purchase you make.
  These fees are baked into nearly every purchase you make, whether it 
is your morning coffee--that Starbucks cup of coffee that you are 
paying $7, $8 for, you are going to send 2 percent more, 3 percent, 4 
percent more to Wall Street. When you stop and fill up your gas tank--
again, $50, $100 of gas--you are going to spend 2 or 3 percent, sending 
that to Wall Street. On school supplies, shopping, groceries, every 
time you swipe your card--every time--the Visa and Mastercard duopoly 
and Wall Street megabanks line their pockets.
  Madam President, I rise today with a clear message to Wall Street: 
Enough is enough.
  And before you feel sorry for these multibillion-dollar industries, I 
want to remind everyone that on top of the nearly $100 billion in fees 
Americans pay to Wall Street, these banks charge an average of 25 
percent interest to consumers. The average consumer in America carries 
a balance of over $1,000 every month--25 percent interest. Back home, 
we would call that highway robbery.
  At a time when Kansans are facing the highest inflation prices in 40 
years, small businesses are fighting to keep their losses and their 
costs low while Wall Street plots their next payday, announcing, as the 
whip said, that they are doubling down and hiking up their fees on 
merchants and consumers yet again this fall.
  Now, I, for one, am not going to stand for the massive wealthy 
corporations price-gouging small businesses at every turn. In fact, as 
I speak, swipe fees here in America are a staggering seven times higher 
than those in the European Union. Americans are paying seven times more 
for this swipe fee than the folks in the European Union are.
  Now, that is not a trivial difference. That is a canyon-size gap. Why 
should our small businesses and, by extension, our consumers bear such 
a disproportionate burden to our friends in the EU? Are payments seven 
times more secure in America than in the rest of the world? Of course 
not. Is the Visa-Mastercard duopoly providing American consumers seven 
times the value and customer service they provide their EU customers? 
Of course not.
  It is simple: They are exploiting our weakness. Due to this lack of 
competition in the payment processing industry, Visa and Mastercard are 
grabbing every penny they can from small businesses and consumers until 
this gets fixed.
  When I was first sworn in, my friend and mentor, the late, great 
Senator Bob Dole, gave me the best advice I could ever get. He said: 
Listen to Kansans. When you have a concern, when you don't know what to 
do, go back home and listen to Kansans.
  And I am sure my colleagues are hearing the same voices that I am 
hearing back home.
  In August, I went to visit a little grocery store in Conway Springs. 
It was called Hired Man's Grocery & Grill. Hired Man's Grocery & Grill 
is run by a wonderful couple, Jenny and Clint; and their employees, for 
the most part, are high school students. They are the only grocery 
store in town. That is why they opened it. They were indeed in a 
desert--a food desert. They are the only ones in the community with 
fresh produce and butchered cuts of meat as well. Their products are 
crucial to the success of the town, and without their help, this 
community would have no grocery store.
  When I visited them, they shared with me their challenges: Inflation 
is raising prices for their business, and swipe fees are eating away at 
their profits. In fact, they are paying more in swipe fees than they do 
for utilities or employee healthcare--more in swipe fees than utilities 
or their employee healthcare.
  Now, back in Kansas, we have a saying: Pigs get fat; hogs get 
slaughtered.
  Visa and Mastercard have gotten hoggish on the backs of hard-working 
Americans.
  I understand my colleagues from the great State of Illinois and 
Vermont and I have bull's-eyes on our backs, and those who support this 
legislation are being attacked by misleading ads. But I guess that just 
simply means we are over the target.
  But when we have legislation that will benefit every single person in 
Vermont, Illinois, Kansas, and every American who uses a credit card, I 
am moving full speed ahead.
  Now, just a couple of weeks ago, Visa announced they plan to raise 
their swipe fees on merchants again. The problem is these megabanks 
have no guardrails. They can play fast and loose with your money 
because no one can stop them. Sadly, the credit card industry has been 
enriched by the COVID-19 pandemic that pushed us further into a 
cashless society.
  Inflation is impacting every corner of our country, putting the 
American dream further out of reach for millions, but not Visa. Listen 
to what the Visa CEO said. He even admitted that inflation has a 
``positive'' impact for them. Inflation? Visa and Mastercard welcome 
the inflation. Why? Because these swipe fees are inflation multipliers, 
and Wall Street is the benefactor.
  I want to go back and talk about that little grocery store in rural 
Kansas. Jenny and Clint and other small businesses across the State 
have little to no wiggle room in their budgets, but the big banks press 
on, tightening the grip on similar mom-and-pop businesses across 
America.
  Wall Street doesn't care about my friends in Conway Springs, that 
they would lose their town's only grocery store, forcing everyone to 
drive 40 miles each way to get some milk, to get some food for their 
families.
  And while these financial titans may have their hands around the 
necks of merchants, I can promise you that leaders like Senator Durbin, 
Senator Welch, and myself are going to keep fighting for justice and 
doing the right thing. We will fight for our Main Street small 
businesses and choose hard-working Americans over Wall Street every 
single time.
  Look, the credit card market is broken, but we have a solution to fix 
it. The Credit Card Competition Act will level the playing field for 
merchants by injecting competition into the credit card payment 
industry--not a price cap but more competition--with the bank that 
issues the card picking the alternative interchange.

  And, oh, by the way, financial institutions with a value of less than 
$100 billion are excluded from this legislation.
  Our legislation forces Visa and Mastercard to come to the table and 
compete with other companies in the industry, and, in doing so, we will 
drive down the costs for merchants and consumers.
  Let me be clear. Competition is always a good thing for consumers. 
Our Credit Card Competition Act will lower the cost of doing business 
for Jenny and Clint in their store in Conway Springs, and, in turn, it 
is going to lower those bills for American consumers in the checkout 
lane.
  My message of hope to the merchants across the country is that help 
is on the way. We hope to be voting on our Credit Card Competition Act 
soon, and when that time comes, we hope other leaders in this Senate 
body will be willing to stand up to Wall Street and fight for hard-
working families. I hope all our colleagues will listen, not only to 
the folks back home but also to the thousands of your small businesses 
who are pleading for relief. And, please, choose those voices over Wall 
Street.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. WELCH. Madam President, I am delighted to be here with my 
colleagues, the Senator from Illinois and the Senator from Kansas.
  I am going to start by answering a question that the Senator from 
Kansas asked rhetorically: Why is it that American citizens and 
consumers and merchants pay seven times what is paid by merchants and 
individuals in Europe? It is because our government doesn't protect our 
consumers. Our government is not protecting our merchants and our small 
businesses.
  Where there is a monopoly or, in this case, a duopoly and there is 
this massive pricing power that Visa and Mastercard have, they are 
doing what monopolies and duopolies do. They abuse that pricing power, 
and they just stick it to our merchants. It was $33 billion in charges 
in 2013, and it is $93 billion in charges now. And it is not as though 
the expenses for Visa and Mastercard have really gone up anything close 
to that.

[[Page S4430]]

  Inflation is their ally, as the Senator said. COVID was their ally, 
as we had to rely more on those cards. And they justify what they are 
doing because it is a convenience for the shopper. You know what, it is 
a convenience for the shopper. It is a convenience for the merchant. 
But how does that justify a rip-off just because you are doing 
something that we need?
  And it is folks in Kansas who voted for my Republican colleague, it 
is folks in Illinois who voted for my Democratic colleague, and it is 
all of the people we represent, not only these small businesses that 
are absolutely essential to our local economy and to the vitality of 
our small communities.
  We were at that press conference, and Senator Marshall's grocery 
store folks were here. They were salt of the Earth. They were like--the 
highest compliment I can give: They are almost like Vermonters, all 
right. They were terrific people. And we had a father, and we had the 
son who was going into the family business, and the family business is 
about serving people in that community.
  And we have got a store in Vermont, Dan & Whit's, which has been 
there for generations, and its motto is, ``If we don't have it, you 
don't need it.'' And you can basically get anything you want. But, do 
you know, during COVID, when they had these incredible challenges with 
workforce, they actually put an ad on the signboard, and retired folks 
from Norwich would come help do the work, stack the shelves, and do the 
checkout.
  And when a lot of my neighbors found out that every time a customer 
used a credit card it was costing Dan & Whit's 2 to 3 to 4 percent just 
so they would pay the bill, they were shocked and appalled. And this 
store, like the Senator's store in Kansas, all of them--retail is hard. 
That is such hard work. You have got to watch your costs. You have got 
to save your money. You have got to provide really good service.
  And Senator Durbin mentioned the second highest expense for many of 
these small merchants is the cost of the credit card, paying the bill. 
And it is invisible to most of us when we use our card, because I 
always thought, if I use my card and I pay my bill, I am not going to 
have to pay those 25 percent interest rates. But when I found out about 
what was going on, how much the merchants were getting ripped off, it 
actually was the last time we had over $4 gas and I was filling up at 
my local small convenience store, and I went in and talked to the 
owner. I got my coffee and got a doughnut. But he got out his bill, and 
he showed me that when I filled up the tank of gas, with the swipe fee 
and then the percentage that was taken out--and a very, very small 
margin on the sale of a gallon of gas for these stores--he was losing 
money. Visa and Mastercard were doing fine, but my local merchant was 
losing money.
  And the thing that I so enjoy about being with my colleagues here and 
Senator Vance on this bill is, at the heart of this, we understand 
that, in rural America and smalltown America and in neighborhoods even 
in big cities like Chicago, these local stores, these merchants, they 
give us so much service and so much emotional satisfaction. It is where 
you stop in, you talk to folks you see every day, you share the stories 
about who won, what happened to the Bears, what happened to the 
Patriots. But we need those places. Our communities, democratic life 
need those places.
  And this is not a Democratic-Republican deal. All of the people we 
represent and all of America want to have a sense of community, and who 
more than our local merchants, who oftentimes live above the store, 
right? I mean, a pretty tough job.
  They come down, sweep it up in the beginning and at the end. They 
give kids their first jobs. So many high school kids work in these 
stores, and they learn how to be good employees, how to do good 
customer service. The ability to hire these kids gets compromised 
because of this extra expense.
  And, really, what are they doing? We are paying a bill, all right. 
They have got incredible intellectual property. They have got security 
systems and all of that. It is good. It is a service.
  So no dispute there. But just because you are providing a service 
doesn't entitle you to rip off everyday merchants because you can.
  And the question that I think we have to ask as the U.S. Senate is, 
What is our job and whom do we work for? Our job is not to pad the 
already obscene profits of Visa and Mastercard. Our job is to protect 
our merchants who are doing the work day in and day out and our 
consumers who are doing their best to stay afloat, pay their bills, get 
from one end of the month to the other, and hope their checks clear and 
they can pay their credit card bill.
  Our obligation is to the people who have no power but who do have a 
right to expect that their elected Representatives and Senators, when 
they see a rip-off, will call it a rip-off and stand up and say: You 
are going to get treated fairly.
  And that is essential for restoring our trust and faith in one 
another. It is essential for our obligation to help communities that 
are working so hard to create a sense of place that people want, a 
sense of connection that we want, to make certain that those businesses 
that are doing so much in all of our communities--that are doing so 
much in all of our communities--can keep doing that work that is 
strengthening communities, providing good jobs to our kids.
  And do you know what? Let's act. Let's pass Senator Durbin's and 
Senator Marshall's bill, and let's protect our merchants against these 
rip-off credit card fees from Visa and Mastercard.
  I yield back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 2391

  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be discharged from 
further consideration of S. 2391 and the Senate proceed to its 
immediate consideration; and I further ask that the bill be considered 
read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be 
considered made and laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, will it be in order for me to explain 
S. 2391?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Unanimous consent agreements are not 
debatable.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I withdraw my unanimous consent request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Request is withdrawn.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, in a few moments, I am going reassert 
my unanimous consent; but, first, I wanted to tell you why I rise today 
in our Senate. It has to do with flood insurance.
  The National Flood Insurance Program, which is administered by FEMA, 
is going to expire in 17 days, September 30. About 5 million Americans 
depend on national flood insurance, as you know. Up until recently, 
private insurers would not provide flood insurance. The Federal 
Government, for that reason, decided a number of years ago to implement 
its own program, and it is administered by FEMA.
  The National Flood Insurance Program is far from perfect. I don't 
want to give the impression that I think that somehow it is a model of 
efficiency because it is not, especially after its implementation of 
risk rating 2.0.
  Having said that, it is an economic--``it'' meaning the Federal flood 
insurance program--it is an economic and commercial necessity. It is 
almost impossible to buy a home in an area that has the potential of 
flooding--which is everywhere now--without ever being able to get flood 
insurance.
  My bill is a simple bill. It does nothing but extend the Federal 
flood insurance program, which, again, is about to expire on September 
30, in 17 days. All my bill does is extend it, as is, by 1 year through 
September 30, 2024.
  If there is a threat--and there obviously is--the government is going 
to shut down, I do not want to risk allowing the NFIP to expire during 
hurricane season, which we happen to be in.
  I mentioned 5 million Americans depend on flood insurance. Well, 
500,000 of those Americans are in my State of Louisiana. What would 
happen if we allow the NFIP, the National Flood Insurance Program, to 
expire? Well, for one thing, the NFIP would be prohibited from issuing 
new policies during that period of time, which would shut down commerce 
and the real estate business.
  Existing NFIP policies--I don't want to scare anyone. If, for some 
reason,

[[Page S4431]]

the flood insurance program expires, existing policies are still in 
effect until their expiration date and claims will continue to be paid 
as long as FEMA has money. However, the Federal requirement that you 
have to purchase flood insurance under certain circumstances to get a 
mortgage would be suspended, which means many mortgage companies would 
not loan money to homeowners.
  If we allow the NFIP to expire, the National Flood Insurance Program 
would not be able to borrow money from Treasury. Their authority to 
borrow money would be reduced from the current $30 billion to about $1 
billion, which is not much money, as you know, Madam President, to 
recover from a national disaster.
  The National Association of Realtors has suggested that during the 
lapse of the NFIP--about 13 years ago, we allowed it to expire. At that 
time, just in my State alone, about 1,400 residential home sale 
closings had to be canceled.
  Let me say it again. I know the flood insurance program is not 
perfect. I will be the first to say that. I will lead the parade. A lot 
of work needs to be done on it, but the only thing worse than what we 
have is nothing. It will shut down commerce in terms of real estate in 
this country. And in 17 days, September 30 of this year, the National 
Flood Insurance Program expires.
  All my bill does is one thing: It extends it 1 year. For that reason, 
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, 
Housing, and Urban Affairs be discharged from further consideration of 
S. 2391, which is my bill, and the Senate proceed to its immediate 
consideration; and I further ask that the bill be considered read a 
third time and passed, and that the motion to reconsider be considered 
made and laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Baldwin). Is there objection?
  The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. LEE. Madam President, I rise today with great respect, affection, 
and admiration for my friend and distinguished colleague, the Senator 
from Louisiana. I have always appreciated his dedication to the welfare 
of his constituents and the prudent management of taxpayer dollars. 
When it comes to the National Flood Insurance Program, or NFIP, as it 
is known, I must voice some concerns.
  The NFIP, by its very nature and its current structure and the way it 
has been operating, remains a perfect example of what can happen when 
good intentions meet imprudent policy.
  We find ourselves on the precipice of what is euphemistically called 
a clean reauthorization. While the term ``clean'' as used here may 
suggest unerring direction or impurity or transparency, in this 
context, clean is better understood as ``unchanging'' or even 
``unreflective.''
  Let's be clear on the facts here. Commerce created the NFIP as a 
government flood insurance monopoly, one that covers privately owned 
properties. Yet this government-backed monopoly behemoth sits on more 
than $26 billion in debt owed to the U.S. Treasury.
  My friend and colleague referred, a moment ago, to the ability to 
cover up to $30 billion of potential liabilities. They have $20 billion 
in debt because of the way the program has been run. There is no subtly 
as to why this has happened. The NFIP is offering special below-market 
rates for insurance in regions and for specific properties that are 
inherently flood-prone.
  Congress is no stranger to the adage of doing the same thing over and 
over again and, somehow, nonetheless expecting different results. And 
yet we find ourselves here, yet again, ready to do battle again.
  This isn't merely about economics; it is also about evenhanded 
fairness. The NFIP, as constructed, disproportionately benefits, in 
many instances, those who least need the assistance. The data speaks 
clearly to this. Historically--and, certainly, this was the case as of 
just a few years ago--the median value of an NFIP-insured home has been 
roughly double that of the average American home.
  I have introduced several pieces of legislation trying to reform this 
program. I introduced several bills in the past proposing some fixes, 
including one that would propose a particularly meaningful simple 
change, and that is capping the NFIP insurance eligibility at $1 
million. This isn't about penalizing success. Rather, it is a 
recognition that those fortunate enough to afford homes in the million-
dollar-plus range are also most likely very able to secure insurance 
without a public subsidy and without running the NFIP program even 
further into debt, on top of the $20 billion that they have already 
racked up.
  So my objection is not about negating Senator Kennedy's genuine 
concerns and very legitimate points about our citizens; it is about 
ensuring that we take steps in the right direction as stewards of 
taxpayer dollars.
  With the utmost respect to my friend and colleague, with whom I agree 
on most things, the NFIP, in its current form, isn't moving us in that 
direction. It is a broken government subsidy program that has long been 
in need of some reforms to accompany any reauthorization.
  When this has come up in the past--each time it comes up as we are 
approaching another expiration--I have offered up reforms, year after 
year. And year after year, I have been told: We will get to that. We 
will get to that. We will add some of those reforms. You are right, we 
need to reform the program. We will get to that but not yet.
  It is as if echoing the famous words of St. Augusta who, during his 
conversion to Christianity, reportedly said: Lord, grant me chastity, 
but not yet.
  The time comes when you actually have to do what needs to be done.
  So I appreciate the opportunity to share those views and remain 
committed to working alongside my friend and colleague, Senator 
Kennedy, to identify and implement solutions that best serve all 
Americans.
  There are a number of solutions. I introduced a number of pieces of 
legislation over the years, one of which I mentioned a moment ago. 
There are others. If we can adopt one or more of these reforms, we can 
get this done.
  What I am not willing to do is agree, yet again, with another hollow 
promise, yet again, that at some unknown point in the future, we will 
reform the program, as I think everyone acknowledges needs to be done.
  On that basis, Madam President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I appreciate Senator Lee's remarks.
  I know he has concerns, as well he should.
  I am sorry. I will start over.
  Madam President, I appreciate Senator Lee's remarks. His objection 
does disappoint me; but I appreciate his remarks, and I share his 
concern about reforming the Federal replenishment program.
  It doesn't look like someone designed it on purpose. It should look 
like someone designed it on purpose. It should be reformed. There 
aren't 60 votes right now to reform the program, and we don't have time 
to do it in the next 17 days. We could, if our majority leader would 
vacate all other business on the floor and we worked like most 
Americans work, but you and I both know that is not likely to happen.
  As imperfect as the program is, I will be back to reurge this 
unanimous consent. This is the worst possible time to allow our 
National Flood Insurance Program to expire for my State, imperfect as 
it is, because we are right in the middle of hurricane season.
  I also want to point out, as I told Senator Lee before, I am 
certainly willing to discuss with him putting a cap on the amount of 
insurance offered. And I will tell you why.
  A mischaracterization--that is probably the wrong word. A 
characterization that is irrelevant to my State with respect to flood 
insurance is as follows: that flood insurance just benefits a lot of 
multimillionaires who live on the coast and could afford, frankly, to 
even be uninsured. And that may be true in some States. Certainly, if 
it is true, I am certainly not denigrating the folks who were 
successful enough to be able to buy a beach home. My only point is that 
is not true of Louisiana.
  Insurance of 500,000 people who rely on flood insurance in my State 
are just like you and me. They just get up every day. They go to work. 
They obey the law. They pay their taxes. They try to save a little bit 
for retirement, and they try to do the right things by their

[[Page S4432]]

kids. They are not millionaires. They are working women and working 
men. They have to have this insurance. I just wanted to make that point 
for the record.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  Mr. LEE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The senior Senator from Utah.
  Mr. LEE. Madam President, I appreciate my friend and colleague's 
words, and, yes, I want to be very clear--under no circumstance did I 
suggest that this benefits only wealthy people. Quite to the contrary, 
my whole point was that we can reform this program so that it doesn't 
have $20 billion in debt at the same time that it has $30 billion in 
liabilities. That is not a good way to run this, because, he is right, 
there are a whole lot of people who are not in the wealthy, million-
dollar-plus homeowner category. But for those who are, they should not 
be in the same position because they are not in the same position. So 
that is why I would be happy to work with my friend and colleague. We 
can get this done. This one does not have to be difficult. Sure, it 
takes a lot of time to put a bill on the floor and subject it to a full 
process.
  I am not the only one with concerns about this legislation, but for 
my own purposes, as far as I am concerned, if we can get agreement on 
that, I would be happy to let your measure pass if we can incorporate 
that reform. We can incorporate that reform very easily, do another 
unanimous consent request, and if no one else objects, I am happy to 
let that one go with a simple reform. I already have the legislation 
drafted from previous Congresses. We can get this done.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KAINE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                          Military Promotions

  Mr. KAINE. Madam President, I rise today to try, with my colleagues, 
to put an end to the double shutdown threat.
  There are two shutdown threats existing right now in the U.S. 
Capitol. One is a threat by certain Members in the House majority to 
shut the government down at the end of the month. That would be 
foolish. It would hurt people unnecessarily. It would be particularly 
foolish given the existence of Federal law that says Federal employees 
get paid even during a shutdown. How would it be fiscally conservative 
to shut the government down, lock Federal employees out of their 
offices, disable them from serving their fellow Americans, and then pay 
them? So we need to put an end to any risk of shutdown or threat of 
shutdown, and, in fact, it is a bad-faith tactic even to raise it. The 
second shutdown we need to avert is the shutdown of military 
promotions, and that is what I want to address today.
  The senior Senator from Alabama has held up political nominations of 
more than 300 senior military officers for months. I have spoken about 
this numerous times on the Senate floor, and yet it is getting more and 
more severe every day. This is the behavior of one Senator who has 
placed a hold on these nominations, but, frankly, it is behavior that 
is being enabled by his colleagues on the Republican side of this body.
  Military leaders who have done nothing other than volunteer to wear 
the Nation's uniform and risk their lives in serving this country, who 
have served honorably, have had their lives and careers derailed over a 
disagreement on a policy matter that these officers had nothing to do 
with.
  A few weeks ago, Senator Reed and I took to the floor, and we read 
the names and backgrounds of all who had been blocked. We read their 
names, their rank, how long they served, where they have been deployed, 
military awards, nominations, and medals they received: Silver Star, 
Bronze Star, Purple Heart--all of whom are being blocked--it is 
extremely disrespectful to all these nominees--simply because an 
executive Agency has implemented a policy that one Senator does not 
like. As I have explained previously on the floor, it is particularly 
galling because we have repeatedly given this Senator an opportunity to 
convince his colleagues that the DOD policy is wrong, and he has been 
unsuccessful.
  In the Armed Services Committee, where we serve together, he wanted a 
vote on an amendment to change the DOD policy. He failed. I have failed 
in making amendments in the Armed Services Committee before, and I 
never take out my failure on people who are serving, wearing the 
uniform of this country. If I am not persuasive enough to convince my 
colleagues of a policy, I am not going to punish those who are serving 
this country.

  This is causing critical challenges in critical positions throughout 
the DOD, and it is affecting Virginia, just as it is all States. Of 
those who are being held, 39 of the positions are positions that affect 
Virginians. They are unable to move their families and unable to put 
their children in school. They can't start the jobs for which they have 
been nominated based upon their track record. Of the 39 positions, 25 
are in one region; Hampton Roads, VA, the center of sea power in this 
country. These affect operations, modernization, and the future of the 
largest naval base in the world. But it is not just Hampton Roads, it 
is also McLean, Fort Belvoir, Falls Church, Fort Gregg-Adams, and 
Winchester.
  The irresponsible hold is not only affecting the lives of individuals 
and affecting the strength of our military, it is getting attention 
from around the world. It is getting attention from allies who depend 
on us and want to know we are reliable, and it is also getting 
attention from adversaries.
  Let me just read a sampling--and this is a small sampling--of 
headlines about how the actions of the U.S. Senate in blocking these 
appointments are being interpreted around the world.
  RT is Russia Today newspaper. An article that was somewhat lethal: 
``U.S. military hit by unprecedented leadership void''--this is a good 
news story in RT. The action of the Senate is a good news story in 
Russia Today.
  Al Jazeera. This is not a publication of an adversary, but it is a 
publication that is widely read throughout the Middle East, including 
by folks and nations that are adversaries. ``Senator stalls US military 
promotions in anti-abortion standoff.'' This is going throughout the 
Middle East.
  BBC News. The UK is probably our most reliable ally militarily and 
also in the intelligence community. They are part of the Five Eyes. We 
share intel. ``Senator Tuberville: No truce over military blockade on 
abortion.''
  The Presiding Officer knows President Biden announced 2 years ago a 
pivotal new partnership called AUKUS--the United States, Australia, and 
the UK. This is an alliance that has been important and will be more 
important. Yet what is being read by the citizens and military leaders 
in the United Kingdom? They are reading about this action of the United 
States in blocking military promotions.
  This is a publication--and I have to admit, I cannot pronounce this, 
but I will translate it. It is Global Times. It is a publication in the 
People's Republic of China that is subordinate to People's Daily. ``The 
dispute over the right to abortion has been spreading like fire!'' 
Exclamation point. This is a good news story in China. ``More than 300 
appointments were blocked by Republican lawmakers, and the three U.S. 
military branches angrily denounced them.''
  This is what our adversaries are saying about what is happening in 
this Chamber--or, more accurately, what is not happening in this 
Chamber.
  The Sydney Morning Herald. Again, this AUKUS announcement about our 
framework with the United States and UK will depend heavily upon not 
only cooperation with the Australians, but the Australians have planned 
to invest billions of dollars in the American submarine industrial base 
so that we can train them and eventually build up a domestic submarine 
production capacity in Australia.
  ``US senator blocks hundreds of military promotions over reproductive 
rights.'' As the Australian Parliament is making the decision about 
whether to commit these resources to the United States in a historic 
way, this is

[[Page S4433]]

what they are reading about the American military and the leadership of 
this body with respect to the promotion of military members.
  CBC. This is the Canadian broadcasting network, and this is, again, 
one of our primary allies in the world whom we work with together on 
everything. ``Embassies unstaffed, military gaps: America's toxic 
politics spills into foreign affairs.'' One of our best allies, that is 
what they are saying about us.
  Finally, this last publication, this is a Taiwanese publication. 
Taiwan is increasingly reliant upon the United States and other nations 
to try to protect them from Chinese aggression. ``U.S. anti-abortion 
senator boycotted general promotions, criticized for `assisting the 
Communist Party.' ''
  Whether it is our allies or our adversaries, they watch what we do, 
and they watch what we don't do; and they are paying critical attention 
to the blockade of these worthy men and women in the military.
  Now, my Republican colleagues have sort of switched tactics. For a 
while, they weren't sure whether they wanted to defend the blockade 
that the Senator from Alabama is leading. They have realized it is 
indefensible, so now they are trying to blame Senator Schumer for it, 
that Senator Schumer should just take responsibility for addressing 
this by putting votes on the floor.
  Senator Schumer has nothing to do with these blocks. During his 
entire time in the Senate, he has not put a blanket hold on military 
promotions nor has any other Member of the Democratic caucus. The 
suggestion that it is Senator Schumer's fault is laughable.
  The Congressional Research Service has done the study and suggests 
that the only way to overcome this massive blockade by the Republicans 
would be to take up each of these appointments--hundreds of them. That 
would take over 700 hours to complete what, throughout decades, has 
been a matter of course in this body. Of course, if we did that, we 
wouldn't get to the budget. We wouldn't get to other important 
priorities. We wouldn't get to the FAA reauthorization. We wouldn't get 
to the farm bill. We wouldn't get to confirm judges. So, as to the 
notion that we will just bring them all up individually, the Republican 
majority knows that that is not practical.
  Some have suggested something that, frankly, is even more pernicious 
and that I find insulting. Some of my Republican colleagues have said: 
OK. Look, Senator Tuberville is holding up hundreds of people, 
including service chiefs and the head of the Naval Academy in 
Annapolis. Why don't we do this: Why doesn't Senator Schumer just bring 
up the top brass? Then we will have votes on the top brass and allow 
Senator Tuberville to keep punishing everybody else down the line.
  That is not a good-faith offer, and it is directly contrary to the 
spirit of the American military. I am not a veteran. I serve on the 
Armed Services Committee, and I am from a very military State. My 
oldest son is a U.S. marine. If you say to somebody in the military 
``just advantage the brass, and punish everybody underneath them''--I 
would advise you not to say that to anybody in the military. That is 
not the American military effort. I have heard my son say many times 
that officers eat last. You take care of the enlisted. You take care of 
the lower ranks before you take care of the higher-ups.
  So the notion that this body or that even some of the military 
nominees who have been advanced for the high positions would accept 
this body's acting on them while continuing to punish everybody beneath 
them is outrageous.
  In fact, I will just remind my colleagues and my colleagues who are 
here--the Presiding Officer and the Senator from Washington--that we 
all were together once at a lunch a number of years ago with Senator 
John McCain before he passed away. A decision was made that was sort of 
rare, which was that we would have a closed-door lunch with all 100 
Senators and Senator McCain would speak about the unspeakable: his time 
as a POW in Hanoi during the Vietnam war.
  His plane was shot down in Hanoi. He was beaten and tortured. He was 
imprisoned as a prisoner of war for multiple years. There came a time 
during his imprisonment when his captors realized that his father was 
one of the key members of the Navy, one of the key members of the 
brass. He was a VIP. Many people had been imprisoned as POWs in that 
same Hanoi Hilton before Senator McCain, but the North Vietnamese 
believed, if we let Senator McCain out, it will suggest that we are 
beneficial; but it also may weaken the morale of those who remain here 
because we will have let out somebody who is high up on the list, and 
we will have continued to punish others.
  They came to Captain McCain, and they said: We will let you out.
  How tempting that must have been. I don't know any of us who could 
kind of put themselves in that position. The Presiding Officer and I 
were together a few years ago at the memorial for John McCain where he 
was shot down in Hanoi. Put yourself in that position. You have been a 
POW for years, and you are given an offer for your freedom. And he 
turned it down. He turned it down and said: I am not accepting it 
because there are people who were here before me; and only if you let 
all of those hostages go will I then accept your offer of freedom. I am 
not going to let you benefit me and continue punishing others who were 
here before me.
  That is what the ethos of the American military is. You don't benefit 
the VIP or the big shot or the person with the high rank and punish 
others.
  So for us to countenance such a suggestion in this body that we would 
have a debate and a vote on a few of the top brass and then would allow 
the punishment of these poor people who are trying to move across the 
country--whose kids need to be in school, whose spouses have jobs they 
can't report to--not only should we not do this here, but I can't 
imagine that the key military leadership who is waiting in line would 
even want us to do that.
  There is one solution for this, and the solution is for the 
Republican minority in this body to go to Senator Tuberville and 
convince him to stop this punishment of these individuals. These 
officers had nothing to do with the policy that Senator Tuberville 
doesn't like. If he doesn't like the policy--and I disagree with him on 
that--he is within his rights to not like the policy, but when he has 
had the repeated ability to try to persuade his colleagues that the 
policy is wrong and he has been unsuccessful, he should not take out 
his inability to persuade his colleagues on these patriotic public 
servants.
  I urge, in the most urgent way that I can, the quickest end to this 
blockade. Let's get these people into the positions that they have 
earned through their lives of service and enable them to continue to 
serve this country.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from New Mexico.


                       Agriculture Appropriations

  Mr. HEINRICH. Madam President, the substitute amendment contains the 
Appropriations Committee-reported versions of three bills: Military 
Construction and Veterans Affairs; Agriculture; and Transportation, 
Housing and Urban Development.
  I rise today as the chair of the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food 
and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Subcommittee. I just want 
to urge all of our colleagues--all of them--to support the Agriculture 
bill that the Appropriations Committee reported out on a unanimous and 
bipartisan 28-to-0 vote.
  The fiscal year 2024 Agriculture appropriations bill provides nearly 
$26 billion to continue the important work of the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture and of the Food and Drug Administration. This includes 
support for American farmers and food producers, protections for our 
Nation's food supply, and investments in important conservation and 
clean water programs.
  As we drafted this bill, our subcommittee made difficult decisions on 
how best to invest taxpayer dollars in line with the agreement forged 
earlier this year by both President Biden and--I would point out--House 
leadership. I am proud of the incredibly collaborative approach taken 
by Ranking Member Hoeven to make this a truly bipartisan bill.
  Our subcommittee held substantive hearings. We considered nearly 
3,000 requests from our Senate colleagues, and we worked in an 
incredibly bipartisan manner to address all of the ways that these 
Agencies serve our Nation and our constituents. Every single State,

[[Page S4434]]

including my own State of New Mexico, has farmers, families, and rural 
economies that will benefit directly from the investments in this 
legislation.
  At the core of this bill is our commitment to ensuring that families 
can put food on their tables and that no child goes hungry. The 
committee-reported bill includes $6.3 billion for the Special 
Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children, or 
WIC. It safeguards the enrollment of over 6 million women, infants, and 
children across this Nation in this vital nutrition program; and we 
will continue to monitor the impacts of rising food costs and the 
increased participation of families in WIC. We must deliver on the goal 
of providing every eligible family with the full benefits that they 
need to keep healthy and nutritious food on their tables.
  Few Federal aid programs garner such broad bipartisan support as WIC, 
and I am confident that my colleagues will continue to sustain this 
essential program, just as they did when the Presiding Officer was 
chair of this Appropriations subcommittee.
  Equally important, this bill fully funds the Supplemental Nutrition 
Assistance Program and child nutrition programs so that kids across the 
country will continue to receive healthy school meals. Children should 
be able to focus on learning and growing, not on the worries about when 
or if they will get their next meals.
  This bill also provides a $20 million increase for the Food and Drug 
Administration to support its mission of protecting the safety and 
security of our Nation's food supply.
  As we head into another winter flu season and see potential new 
upticks of COVID cases, this bill will ensure that the FDA has the 
resources it needs to keep our Nation's drug supply safe.
  This bill maintains our support for vital agricultural research and 
our Nation's next generation of researchers through funding for both 
the Agricultural Research Service and the National Institute of Food 
and Agriculture. These funds support scientific discovery at land grant 
universities and research centers all across this great Nation. These 
programs protect our Nation's current food supply and ensure the long-
term viability of American agriculture.
  I am also pleased with the $922 million that we provided for 
conservation efforts around the country. In the face of a rapidly 
changing climate and the weather impacts that that has, it is essential 
that our farmers and producers have access to technical assistance and 
the tools that they need to implement best practices on their working 
landscapes.
  Importantly, this bill makes key economic investments in rural 
America as well. Many rural communities, including in New Mexico, are 
burdened by a lack of affordable housing as their housing stock 
continues to age and construction costs increase. The bill provides 
over $30 billion for rural Americans to achieve homeownership, the 
majority of whom will be first-time home buyers.
  It also fully funds the rental assistance program, which provides a 
lifeline for many low-income families in rural communities. These funds 
are coupled with almost $2 billion for business and industry 
development to increase job growth and revitalize rural economies.
  Finally, this bill underscores our commitment to global food security 
by maintaining funding for vital international food aid programs. These 
programs support developing countries and provide for the donation of 
U.S. agricultural commodities. As conflict and climate threats around 
the globe contribute to rising levels of famine and poverty, these 
programs demonstrate our Nation's leadership in the fight against world 
hunger while also building new markets for our agricultural exports.
  The agriculture portion of this minibus appropriations package is a 
bipartisan, comprehensive bill, and I am proud to see it before the 
full Senate for consideration.
  I want to take just a moment here at the end to recognize the members 
of our subcommittee and all of their staffs, from both the majority and 
the minority, for their incredibly tremendous efforts to negotiate this 
bill.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. HOEVEN. Madam President, I am here and am pleased to join my 
colleague from the State of New Mexico. I thank him for his leadership 
on the Ag Appropriations Committee and join him in urging support for 
our legislation.
  It did pass the full Appropriations Committee. I see that our 
Appropriations chair is here, and I want to thank her for her work as 
well. But it did pass our full Appropriations Committee unanimously. 
You know, we like to see that bipartisanship, but I think it says a lot 
that it came through the full Approps Committee with a unanimous ``do 
pass'' vote.
  I just want to talk a little bit about the bill and how important it 
is that we are returning to regular order. I think that is incredibly 
important. Our objective here is not just to pass the bill but to do it 
through regular order, meaning an open amendment process. I think that 
is something that our Members have very much wanted, and that is 
something we are working very hard to achieve.

  Like the Senator from New Mexico, I want to thank his staff, Dianne 
Nellor, Rachel Erlebacher, and Hannah Chauvin, for their work. We 
appreciate working with them. And, of course, my crew, Morgan Ulmer and 
Patrick Carroll, who worked very diligently, worked well together to 
craft the bill. I want to express my appreciation as well to Senator 
Heinrich.
  As he detailed, this bill represents careful consideration of many 
important programs that are included in the Ag appropriations bill. It 
reflects a balance of making the right investments in critically 
important programs while lowering levels in some areas that had seen 
supplemental increases in the past because, obviously, we were given a 
302(b) number that we had to achieve, and that actually reduces 
spending in some areas. Tough decisions were made dollar for dollar. 
This bill spends less than 1 percent more than last year, even though, 
obviously, the cost of inflation has been significantly higher.
  Still, we were able to provide the necessary investments in 
agricultural research programs, for example, to support the continued 
success of America's farmers, ranchers, and agribusiness. That ag 
research has made incredible differences in terms of not only disease 
resistance but also productivity gains for our farmers and ranchers.
  We were also able to support efforts to protect our producers from 
things like Avian influenza, chronic wasting disease, and other 
diseases that affect our crops and animals as well.
  We also provided funding for the Farm Service Agency and Risk 
Management Agency to ensure that our farmers and ranchers continue to 
have access to important programs, to disaster assistance, and to crop 
insurance.
  Obviously, with the FSA and the RMA, it is vitally important that 
they have adequate staffing to work directly with our farmers and 
ranchers. Agriculture has become like all businesses, more complicated 
and more challenging, and we need to make sure that assistance is in 
place for our producers.
  We fully fund the Food Safety and Inspection Service to support our 
Nation's frontline inspectors and maintain progress made in recent 
years to increase transparency and competition in the meat industry. 
There is a lot more that we need to do there as well, but we are making 
progress and need to continue to work on that important issue.
  We were able to provide targeted increases to the FDA--the Food and 
Drug Administration--in order to promote programs that support food 
safety and address critical drug and device shortages.
  Last Congress, there were significant increases for conservation and 
rural infrastructure programs like broadband coverage. While the USDA 
is working to get that funding out the door, we were able to make 
reductions in some of these accounts while still making substantial 
progress on those things. But, again, it required that in order to make 
sure that we could achieve the budget number that we were given--like I 
said, just 1 percent more than last year.
  We also rescinded previously appropriated discretionary dollars that 
have gone unspent in the Department on a multiyear basis and worked 
very hard to make sure we could find any areas of waste and tried to 
reduce spending in those areas.

[[Page S4435]]

  Essentially, what we are doing is what Americans are forced to do 
every single day, and that is to do more with less, to prioritize, and 
make sure that they find savings where possible and fund priors.
  Essentially, we know there is more to do. We think that this bill, as 
I stated, coming through the committee unanimously, is a solid piece of 
work. We are ready for an open amendment process, and I certainly 
welcome ideas from the entire body.
  Again, I want to emphasize the importance of getting back to regular 
order. This gives us an opportunity to do that. So let's seize the 
day--as they say, carpe diem. Let's get to work on it, and make sure 
that we also do the absolute best that we can for our farmers and 
ranchers.
  One point, in closing, that I want to make, and that is this: We have 
about 60 million people involved in agriculture across this great 
country. We have a system of family-based small businesses in 
agriculture. Our farmers and ranchers are largely family-based small 
businesses, and we can't take that for granted. They produce the 
highest quality, lowest cost food supply in the world.
  Americans spend less of their budget on food than almost any other 
developed country, brought to them by farmers and ranchers. So it is 
critically important that we support them because every American 
benefits every single day from what our farmers and ranchers do, and we 
can't take that for granted.
  Look at the consolidation we see in so many other industries. Let's 
make sure that we continue to have that family-based small business 
network out there, providing our food, fiber, and fuel every single 
day. That is what this legislation is all about.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Murphy). The Senator from Hawaii.


                             Maui Wildfires

  Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, I rise in support of the package of bills 
on the Senate floor.
  But first, I want to share a brief update on the situation on Maui. 
We are now a month on from the devastating wildfires that killed 115 
people and leveled the town of Lahaina.
  After a weekslong search and recovery effort for remains, we have 
entered a new phase of the response. The Environmental Protection 
Agency has begun removing toxic household materials and waste so that 
residents can return to their homes safely. It is a painstaking process 
that is likely to take several months to complete.
  Life in Lahaina is still not normal. Forty-two people are still 
missing. That is down from an initial count of nearly 3,000. More than 
7,000 people are living in temporary housing like hotels and Airbnbs. 
Three thousand students are displaced from their schools.
  And the local economy is reeling without tourism. Small businesses 
are struggling to stay afloat. Hundreds of people--restaurant workers, 
hotel workers, helicopter tour operators--are being laid off.
  More than 10,000 people filed for unemployment in the 3 weeks 
following the fires. In total, the economic impact of the fires is 
estimated at nearly $2 billion through next year. That is not counting 
the damage. That is the economic impact.
  It is hard to overstate how much help the people of Maui need. To 
date, more than 15,000 survivors have applied for FEMA assistance. That 
is just a narrow snapshot into what is needed now and in the months and 
years to come.
  People urgently need basic items like phones and new IDs. Long term, 
they are going to need permanent solutions for housing and schools. In 
the meantime, damaged infrastructure like roads, highways, schools, and 
healthcare centers will need to be rebuilt.
  The road to recovery will be long, and it will require billions of 
dollars in Federal aid to get the job done. Congress has a 
responsibility to provide relief and to deliver it quickly.


                             Appropriations

  Mr. President, now, I want to turn to the appropriations bills under 
consideration. These bills make critical investments to advance our 
Nation's health and safety by ensuring affordable housing for 10 
million people, protecting the integrity of our food supply, supporting 
the readiness of our Armed Forces, and more. And so it is vital that we 
pass them.
  Each of these bills was developed through a collaborative, bipartisan 
process, and each bill was unanimously passed out of committee by a 
vote of 29 to 0--unanimously passed out of committee by a vote of 29 to 
0.
  I want to thank Chair Murray, in particular, and Vice Chair Collins, 
as well as Majority Leader Schumer and Minority Leader McConnell, for 
their leadership in helping to restore the appropriations process to 
regular order.
  I am looking at the Presiding Officer, my good friend from 
Connecticut. We entered the Senate, I think, only 13 days apart from 
each other. And people have been talking about regular order for a long 
time, to the point where it actually sometimes results in an eye roll: 
We should do regular order. We should do regular order. Easier said 
than done. But it took the two women chairs--chair and vice chair--of 
the Appropriations Committee to get us onto the floor to have not an 
omnibus but a minibus, to have just a couple of bills that were 
actually marked up on a bipartisan basis and then to have amendments. 
And so this is a significant moment for the Senate in trying to restore 
its reputation as the world's greatest deliberative body.
  The Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related 
Agencies, T-HUD, portion of this minibus package, where I am the chair 
and I work so closely with my friend and vice chair, Senator Hyde-
Smith, provides $99 billion for affordable housing and homeless 
assistance, infrastructure development, the operations of the FAA and 
Amtrak, and safety oversight of our transportation systems.
  While it does not include everything we wanted because it was 
negotiated to be in line with the spending caps set by the debt ceiling 
budget agreement, it still makes meaningful investments to improve 
housing access and the reliability and safety of transportation 
nationwide.
  So I want to thank again my counterpart on the T-HUD Committee, 
Ranking Member Cindy Hyde-Smith, who has been a collaborative partner 
throughout this process. And I want to thank the committee members and 
our staff on both sides of the aisle--the subcommittee staff, the whole 
committee staff, the leadership staff, our personal office staff. We 
come out here and it is our name on the door and it is our name on the 
bumper sticker and we are going talk about the work that has been done, 
but anybody who knows the legislative process knows that we are not the 
ones actually executing. We are not the ones drafting the legislative 
text. It doesn't mean we don't play a role, but there are dozens and 
dozens of people who make personal and professional sacrifices to be 
here and do this work and produce an incredibly strong bill.
  It is no secret that we have a housing crisis in America. It affects 
millions of Americans in every State. And day by day, more and more 
people are falling into homelessness. The homeless population is also 
aging with more complicated medical conditions that make it harder to 
serve. That is why we are protecting existing rental assistance 
programs and increasing efforts to reduce homelessness. Specifically, 
we are targeting resources to improve coordination between housing and 
health services, building the capacity of communities and service 
providers, and creating more permanent supportive housing 
opportunities.
  The bill also maintains funding levels for the HOME Investment 
Partnerships and Community Development Block Grant Programs. Both of 
these are popular and important tools that enable State and local 
governments to support the construction of more housing and the 
community needs around it.
  And in the second year of the Yes In My Backyard Program, we are 
incentivizing jurisdictions to remove regulatory barriers and unlock 
private investment to increase housing stock. We need to continue to 
use every tool at our disposal to address this national housing 
shortage.
  One more thought on the Yes In My Backyard initiative: There is no 
amount of money that we could put in this bill that will solve our 
housing problem unless we deal with the barriers. We are creating 
shortages of housing at the State and county level.

[[Page S4436]]

We are creating shortages of housing. It is the only thing I have ever 
thought of in the government where the government creates a shortage 
and then the policymakers sort of stroke their chins, going, What 
should we do about this shortage? Well, you have made it harder to 
build housing for people. And so the YIMB Program is designed not to 
control but to incentivize jurisdictions to try to figure out how to 
unleash private sector investment and increase the supply of housing. 
Yes, LIHTC is important; yes, permanent supportive housing is 
important; yes, the housing voucher program is important; yes, HFA is 
important; yes, HUD-VASH is important. All of that matters, and we 
should fund it at as high of a level as we can possibly stomach. But 
the truth is, even that won't be enough until we allow people to do 
what they wish with their property and build more housing.

  We have included record-level funding for Native American housing 
programs--something I am particularly pleased about, as the Senator 
from Hawaii and the chairman of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs. 
Native residents are nearly twice as likely to live in poverty and 
three times more likely to live in an overcrowded condition compared to 
other U.S. households. Given the scope of this challenge, this funding 
is just the start, and we are going to need a lot more to address it 
fully.
  And for transportation, the bill is focused on supporting the 
operational needs of the FAA. We have fully funded the FAA's budget 
request on operations, staffing, facilities, and equipment in order to 
restore hiring and modernization efforts that were frozen during the 
pandemic.
  My colleagues and I are separately working to reauthorize the FAA, 
and this funding is complementary to those efforts. This bill also 
maintains our commitment to building on the historic investments in the 
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, to improve our aging 
transportation systems across America. For instance, it aims to address 
the rail safety deficiencies identified in the East Palestine, OH, 
train derailment by fully meeting the request for rail safety 
inspectors and research into wayside detection technologies.
  Tens of millions of Americans across the country, including our 
veterans, will benefit from the investments that we made in these 
bills, in terms of where they live, how they get around, and the food 
that they eat. It is critical that we pass these bills.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mrs. HYDE-SMITH. Mr. President, I am pleased the Senate is beginning 
consideration of the Military Construction-Veterans Affairs, 
Agriculture, and Transportation, Housing and Urban Development 
appropriations bills.
  Let me begin my remarks by thanking Chairman Murray and Vice Chairman 
Collins for their strong leadership in advancing these bills through 
committee and now to the Senate floor. This returns to regular order, 
which is long overdue and is a testament to what we can accomplish 
through a committed bipartisanship.
  I also want to thank Senator Schatz, the chairman of the T-HUD 
Subcommittee. He has been a delight to work with and has been very, 
very pleasant to go through this and help me.
  The fiscal year 2024 Transportation, Housing, Urban Development, and 
Related Agencies appropriations bill is a bipartisan and fiscally 
responsible bill that has passed unanimously--a 29-to-0 vote in July--
by the full Appropriations Committee.
  There are a few important aspects of the bill that I would like to 
highlight. First, I want to stress that this bipartisan bill 
incorporates input and requests from more than 80 Senators from both 
sides of the aisle. The bill provides adequate resources for the 
Department of Transportation and the Department of Housing and Urban 
Development to administer the many important programs and activities 
under their jurisdictions. These programs protect public health and 
safety, promote economic growth, and improve the overall quality of 
life for all Americans.
  The bill includes $28.5 billion for DOT and $73 billion for HUD, as 
well as funding for small independent Agencies like the Federal 
Maritime Commission and the National Transportation Safety Board.
  With this bill, we are continuing to foster and grow the safest and 
most reliable transportation system in the world. The bill makes key 
investments in our transportation infrastructure, including $800 
million for the popular RAISE Grant Program, and nearly $1.2 billion 
for the important bridge repair and rehabilitation program.
  We also fully fund critical aviation needs, such as funding for 1,800 
new air traffic controllers and for modernizing our legacy airspace 
systems.
  The popular Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety Improvements 
Grant Program is funded at $500 million, and Amtrak is funded at $2.5 
billion, which will continue to provide upgrades and service to rural 
communities, as well as the Northeast corridor.
  In addition to transportation programs, this bill maintains existing 
rental assistance for more than 4.6 million households. This includes 
working families, seniors, people with disabilities, and those who are 
homeless or at risk of homelessness. Additional investments are made to 
support ending veteran and youth homelessness, as well as to develop 
more permanent supportive housing.
  Ending cycles of dependency requires promoting self-sufficiency and 
financial literacy tools, and I am pleased that the bill includes $198 
billion for HUD's self-sufficiency programs.
  Finally, the bill continues to fund the CDBG Program at $3.3 billion, 
which continues to be one of the most requested programs in this bill 
by Members from both parties to help State and local governments across 
the country promote economic development and job creation.
  In closing, given the wide array of projects and activities funded by 
this bill, the subcommittee received a substantial amount of Member 
requests and has worked to try to address as many Member priorities as 
possible. The fiscal year 2024 Transportation, Housing and Urban 
Development, and Related Agencies appropriations bill is worthy of 
consideration and passage by the full Senate.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the investments in this 
bill to support families and communities across this country, as well 
as the Military Construction, VA, and Agriculture bills that make up 
this minibus.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.


                       Remembering Jimmy Buffett

  Ms. LUMMIS. Mr. President, I begin my remarks today with the words 
from a song:

       There's this one particular Harbor, so far but yet so near, 
     where I see the days as they fade away and finally disappear.

  When a timeless, iconic American passes away, reflection sets in, 
perhaps more so for those of us who are contemporaries, to that 
timeless American's gift to our culture, to America as we know it, live 
it, and find joy in it.
  Today, I rise to pay tribute to Jimmy Buffett, a legendary singer-
songwriter, author, and iconic American who created an incredible and 
uniquely American musical genre that inspired us to celebrate life with 
joy, to celebrate everything from a ``Cheeseburger in Paradise'' to a 
``Pencil Thin Mustache,'' to this ``One Particular Harbor.''
  Jimmy Buffett's unique contribution to American culture spans his 
early career, Bourbon Street performances in New Orleans, to sold-out 
Red Rocks Amphitheatre, inspiring generations of Parrot Heads that were 
drawn in by his extraordinary American perspective.
  From remarkable creations like ``One Particular Harbor,'' ``Fins,'' 
``We Are the People Our Parents Warned Us About,'' ``Son of a Son of a 
Sailor,'' ``Jolly Mon,'' ``Cowboy in the Jungle,'' ``Stars on the 
Water,'' ``Livingston Saturday Night,'' and, of course, ``Come 
Monday,'' and ``Margaritaville,'' Jimmy Buffett chronicled an American 
life of sunny gulf coast days, the sound of steel drums, extended happy 
hours, and all the joys of the seas and the islands.
  Commuting from Cheyenne to Laramie during law school and in need of a 
break from law school lectures on cassette, I would pop in Jimmy 
Buffett, roll down the windows, and be lost in lyrics like ``forget 
your blind ambition and learn to trust your intuition, plowing straight 
ahead, come what may.''

[[Page S4437]]

  In an instant, Jimmy Buffett could transport a ranch girl in Wyoming 
to a sandy beach in a wave-licked paradise, surrounded by friends, 
sporting a tan earned over countless days of deep-sea fishing. He 
invites us to escape the weight of the world, reminding us that it is 
always ``5 o'clock somewhere.'' When you are by yourself and you cannot 
wipe the smile off your face because of a song, that is pure Jimmy 
Buffett.
  What is so remarkable about Jimmy Buffett's music is its ability to 
reach and relate to generations of people from all different times of 
life. To be with Jimmy Buffett and the Coral Reefer Band in concert, 
the sound of steel drums floating on a breezy summer night sky, 
watching giant beach balls bouncing among Parrot Heads wearing Hawaiian 
shirts and shorts, parents and grandparents with children on their 
shoulders, all of whom are singing every word to every song--that was 
also pure Jimmy. When so many voices are driving Americans apart, 
Jimmy's voice called Americans back together.
  So here is to Jimmy Buffett and his enduring legacy, sailing in the 
sky alongside dolphins and the many manatees he saved through his 
charities.
  I conclude with Jimmy's own words from ``Jolly Mon'':

       The night was filled with magic. They bid the sea goodbye. 
     They swam into the heavens. They stayed up in the sky. And 
     all the island people, when they wished upon a star, see the 
     dolphins and the Jolly Mon who tell them where they are.
       Oh, Jolly Mon sing. Oh, make the heavens ring.

  I thank Jimmy's friends Eric and Lisa Eisner and my brother Del 
Lummis for helping with this tribute to Jimmy Buffett.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Cortez Masto). The Senator from Kansas.


                          Silicon Valley Bank

  Mr. MORAN. Madam President, it was a few weeks back that I was on the 
Senate floor visiting with my colleagues about the Federal Reserve's 
response to the failure of Silicon Valley Bank, and I again am here 
today, this time to, in more specific terms, indicate there needs to be 
a pause in any new banking regulations until an independent 
investigation of the Fed's response to the failure at Silicon Valley 
Bank.
  I asked for and would again reiterate the importance of an 
independent review and indicate that that review should be done prior 
to the enactment of new capital requirements in order to ensure that 
these new regulations are properly tailored. Led by a nonpartisan 
financial expert uninvolved in the Federal response, an independent 
investigation would allow a clear picture of what reforms are truly 
necessary. Instead, new capital requirements are largely based upon the 
Fed's ``holistic review,'' the origins of which are vague at best.
  Regulators have now proposed a host of new requirements and rules for 
midsized banks to conform to the same capital standards of the 
country's largest lenders. Lumping regional lenders in with global, 
systemically important banks ignores the congressional intent laid out 
in the bipartisan piece of legislation S. 2155. Independent oversight 
might reveal these regulations to be an overprescribed or plainly 
unnecessary response to SVB's failure.
  While some measured regulations may be in order, implementing new 
capital requirements on healthy, well-run financial institutions will 
do little to prevent a similar crisis. Healthy levels of capital are 
necessary for strong banks and their ability to lend, but the lack of 
attention paid to downstream effects of higher capital requirements in 
the proposal is concerning. This is a sentiment that is shared--my 
sentiment, and it is shared by multiple Federal Reserve Board 
Governors.
  Meaningful oversight from regulators requires objectivity and must be 
done without having a predetermined outcome in mind. It should come as 
no surprise that the Fed's remedy does virtually nothing to address the 
root cause of recent bank failures, poor bank management, and lacks 
supervision. Instead, I worry that the regulations set in motion will 
serve as an opportunity for regulators to push a preestablished 
regulatory agenda that will dry up lending.
  It is widely acknowledged that the increase in capital requirements 
go hand in hand with a reduction in credit availability, and with 
interest rates near a 20-year peak, access to credit for families and 
businesses is already shrinking.
  The draft proposal from the Federal Reserve would drive up the cost 
of home ownership for low-income households, underserved borrowers, and 
those unable to afford large downpayments. Affordable housing is in 
short supply, and with midsized lenders forced to pull back on home 
loans, mortgage lending will continue to be pushed outside the highly 
regulated banking system. With continued labor shortages, elevated 
input costs, and supply backlogs, less credit availability is the last 
thing--the last thing--our housing market needs.
  To put it simply, there should be no new regulations until an 
independent review of Silicon Valley Bank's failure is completed. We 
need to know what we are doing before we attempt to do it. Regulation 
this significant warrants increased transparency from the Fed. We need 
that transparency.
  An additional review would alleviate concerns about impartiality of 
the ``holistic review'' and ensuing capital requirements. The Federal 
Reserve itself recognized in its recent ``Financial Stability Report'' 
that American banks as a whole were already well-capitalized.
  Tightening capital requirements at the expense of lending will not 
prevent another SVB-type failure. A comprehensive response from 
policymakers and regulators would address the glaring supervisory 
shortfalls that preceded Silicon Valley Bank's collapse.
  I yield the floor.


                   Recognition of the Minority Leader

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader is recognized.


                             Appropriations

  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, we have been working all day to get 
consent to let us move forward on the minibus. We are not there yet, 
but we hope we can get there tomorrow.
  In the meantime, for the information of Senators, we are going to 
have a vote on the motion to proceed to the minibus at 10:30 tomorrow 
morning. Again, thank you to the appropriators, particularly Senators 
Murray and Collins, and all the committee on both sides of the aisle.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it so ordered.

                          ____________________