[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 171 (Wednesday, October 18, 2023)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5055-S5062]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          LEGISLATIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

  PROVIDING FOR CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL UNDER CHAPTER 8 OF TITLE 5, 
  UNITED STATES CODE, OF THE RULE SUBMITTED BY THE BUREAU OF CONSUMER 
  FINANCIAL PROTECTION RELATING TO ``SMALL BUSINESS LENDING UNDER THE 
             EQUAL CREDIT OPPORTUNITY ACT (REGULATION B)''

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will proceed to the consideration of S.J. Res. 32, which the 
clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A joint resolution (S.J. Res. 32) providing for 
     congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United 
     States Code, of the rule submitted by the Bureau of Consumer 
     Financial Protection relating to ``Small Business Lending 
     Under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (Regulation B)''.


                   Recognition of The Majority Leader

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


                      Unanimous Consent Agreement

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
recess from 3:30 p.m. until 5 p.m. to allow for the all-Senator's 
briefing.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                                 Israel

  Mr. SCHUMER. Now, Mr. President, the slaughter of over 1,300 people 
in Israel on October 7 reminds every Jewish person in the world of 
darker, more sinister times. It lay bare, sadly, that the ancient 
poison of hatred against Jews still persists.
  We must be clear that Hamas does not speak for the Palestinian 
people. Hamas is a terrorist organization dedicated to Israel's 
eradication. Hamas must be defeated. And the violence of Hamas 
terrorists has tragically put innocent Palestinians in harm's way.
  I was deeply saddened and shocked by the awful news of the explosion 
at the Al Ahli Arab Hospital in Gaza. The loss of innocent life is a 
sickening tragedy. My prayers are with the victims, the families, the 
children, and all innocent people who were injured or killed.
  Now, while we await the results of a full review to be completed, as 
the President indicated and as of this morning--people should look at 
this--the released signal intelligence confirms, it appears that 
terrorist fighters within Gaza were responsible for the explosion and 
deaths, not the Israeli IDF. It is clear that terrorists in Gaza have 
no regard for civilian human life.

  As I have said, and as the Biden administration has made clear, 
civilian life must be protected. And we must help civilians impacted by 
the war--Palestinian civilians--who have nothing to do with Hamas. As 
the Senate considers a supplemental package to help Israel fight Hamas, 
we will include robust humanitarian aid to help civilians and make sure 
that the aid goes to those who need it urgently and does not fall into 
the wrong hands, such as Hamas's.

[[Page S5056]]

  When I joined my Senate colleagues in meeting with the Israeli 
Government, we promised to do whatever we could to help Israel defend 
herself.
  In the coming days, President Biden will send Congress a supplemental 
request that will provide Israel the resources they need to defend 
themselves and eliminate the threat of Hamas.
  The Senate will move this package as soon as we can, without delay, 
with strong bipartisan support. Democrats want to act, and I know a lot 
of Republicans want to act, and I was very encouraged to hear my friend 
the Republican leader, Leader McConnell, express his support too.
  At this moment of crisis in Israel and of the chaos in the House of 
Representatives, the Senate must step into the breach and stand firmly 
together to get emergency military and humanitarian aid to Israel.
  In this difficult moment, the Senate must act as a steady, bipartisan 
force. We must show that the work of the first branch of government is 
continuing.
  We will not wait for the House--we cannot--because the need for this 
package is too urgent to sit and wait for them to get themselves out of 
their own morass. I hope the Senate passing a strong bipartisan package 
will importune the House to follow suit in whichever way they see fit.
  Passing this supplemental and providing Israel the tools they need 
will show Israel and the world that the United States stands with our 
ally, now and always.
  And I expect very soon--as early as today, maybe tomorrow morning--
the Senate will act to pass a resolution from Senator Cardin, Ranking 
Member Risch, Leader McConnell, and myself, affirming that the Senate 
stands firmly with Israel and firmly against Hamas. Our resolution has 
overwhelming--nearly unanimous--bipartisan support in the Senate. It is 
cosponsored by 99 Senators, Senator Paul being the outstanding one who 
hasn't.
  Passing a supplemental and passing this resolution will affirm an 
unchanging truth: So long as there is a United States of America and so 
long as there is a United Sates Senate, the people of Israel will not--
will not--be alone.
  Mr. President, now on the all-Senators classified briefing, later 
this afternoon, we will have an all-Senators classified briefing on 
Israel and Gaza. We will be briefed by the top people in the 
administration: Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin, Secretary of State 
Tony Blinken, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen. C.Q. Brown, and 
Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines.
  I encourage all my colleagues on both sides to attend today's 
briefing from our top leaders so we can stay fully updated on the 
latest information on the ground regarding Israel's security and their 
efforts to defeat the evil, terrorist, horrible organization named 
``Hamas.''


                              Nominations

  Mr. President, on nominations, now, with all the conflagration in the 
Middle East, it is really important that we have Ambassadors in 
critical places. It is always important, but a lot of them have been 
blocked. But now, with the conflagration in the Middle East, it is more 
important than ever that they be there. When we were in Israel, the 
lack of an ambassador was apparent. Now, there is a great Charge 
d'Affaires person; she did a great job. But we still need an 
ambassador.
  So, Mr. President, for that reason, I want to thank my colleagues on 
both sides of the aisle for working quickly this week on getting 
critical nominees through the Senate. Last night, we confirmed Ana 
Escrogima to serve as Ambassador to Oman, and earlier this week, we 
confirmed Karen Sasahara as Ambassador to Kuwait.
  We have more nominees whom we need to pass to fill ambassadorships in 
the Middle East. More important than ever, we must do more. It is 
important that the Senate show bipartisan unity right now to get these 
critical diplomats confirmed. And I hope we keep doing so, like we did 
with these two Ambassadors, in the days ahead.


             U.S. House of Representatives Speaker Election

  Mr. President, now, on what is going on across the way in the House, 
thanks to MAGA Republicans, the U.S. House of Representatives has now 
been without a Speaker for 2 weeks, a paralysis in governing 
unprecedented--unprecedented--in modern times.
  Hard-right extremists in the House have ground the people's House to 
a halt at the worst possible moment: at a time when our ally Israel 
faces its darkest hour and the U.S. Government would shut down in less 
than a month if we don't act.
  Today, the House will gavel in to try and break the impasse, though 
it seems like the chaos of the hard right has exposed the deep, perhaps 
irreparable, divisions within the House GOP.
  No matter who becomes Speaker, one lesson remains true: Whether it is 
funding the government, avoiding default, or helping American families, 
bipartisanship will be the only way things get done in a divided 
government.
  Bipartisanship is the only way. When there is a Democratic President, 
a Democratic Senate, and a Republican House, a small band of rightwing, 
MAGA Republicans in the House cannot say: It is my way, not your way.
  You are a minority, MAGA Republicans. You are a minority in the 
Republican Party. You are a minority with the people of America. You 
are a minority in this government. Certainly, your voices will be 
raised, and you will want some say, but it can't be your way or no way.
  Bipartisanship will be required to help Israel. It will be required 
to avoid a government shutdown. It will be required to finish the 
appropriations process. Bipartisanship will be required for just about 
everything--everything--that happens in the Congress.
  So whoever the House elects as Speaker will not be able to ignore the 
realities of divided government, no matter what the hard right demands. 
As former Speakers Boehner, Ryan, and McCarthy have learned, you cannot 
let the hard right run the caucus or you won't last as Speaker. And, 
even worse, it will lead to more chaos at a time when the American 
people need unity and help and stability.


                        Artificial Intelligence

  Mr. President, on the AI Insight Forum, next Tuesday, the Senate will 
hold our second in a series of bipartisan--let me underscore 
``bipartisan''--AI Insight Forums, focusing on our North Star for AI 
innovation.
  Our inaugural AI forum last month was one of the most historic and 
informative discussions ever held in the Congress. The debate was 
illuminating, and the discussions were candid, unvarnished, and direct.
  Next week, we will turn to AI innovation, both transformational 
innovation--the kind of innovation that creates new vistas, unlocks new 
cures, improves education, protects our food supply and our national 
security--but also to sustainable innovation, which is the kind of 
guardrails that are needed to prevent the negatives in AI, necessary to 
prevent against AI's risks and minimize the chance that this technology 
becomes unmanageable or worse. We are going to focus on both of these 
types of innovation, both of which are needed.
  Congress has taken leaps forward in the past few months, learning 
more about the benefits and risks of AI from the world's leading 
experts, getting some of the companies that do AI to sit down with some 
of the critics, so we can begin to fashion the kinds of guardrails that 
are necessary. Our committees continue to lead the way, having hosted 
more than 15 hearings on AI this year, and the bipartisan AI gang is 
working to supplement the committees' critical work with our AI Insight 
Forums. But there is still so much more to learn and do on AI, which is 
rapidly changing as we speak. So these forums are designed to ensure 
the Senate is asking the right questions, having the right debates, and 
getting to the heart of this complex issue.
  I urge everyone to attend next week's bipartisan forum, and I thank 
my colleagues Senator Rounds, Senator Heinrich, and Senator Young for 
helping organize this discussion.
  To repeat, our AI forum will be--I am trying to get the date here--I 
don't have it. We will get everybody the date right away. I believe it 
is on the 24th of next week, at 3 p.m., in the Kennedy Caucus room.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.

[[Page S5057]]

  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. 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.


                   Recognition of the Minority Leader

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


                                 Israel

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, the barbaric terrorist attacks of 
October 7 have elicited two sorts of reactions in the West. Most 
reasonable people have responded to the slaughter of innocent Israelis 
with utter horror, fervent prayer, and strong support for Israel's 
right to defend itself.
  The overwhelming majority of Americans think the United States should 
publicly support our closest ally in the Middle East. They recognize 
this moment as a time for choosing, and they see the choice between a 
democracy's right to self-defense and a terrorist group's obsession 
with destroying it as an easy choice.
  The United States must have Israel's back as it roots out the 
terrorists who threaten it. For as long as it takes, I am proud to 
stand with this overwhelming majority.
  But, alas, in recent days, we have also seen just how the default 
position in some highly influential corners of our society--from 
national newsrooms to elite college campuses--how quickly they have 
been to blindly amplify terrorists' versions of events.
  This was especially true of the reporting of a deadly explosion at a 
Gaza hospital yesterday. Hamas immediately blamed Israel for the blast, 
and major news organizations took their word for it, running headlines 
about an ``Israeli strike.'' In the hours since this tragedy, credible 
evidence has emerged suggesting that the same terrorists who used 
innocent civilians as human shields were themselves responsible. Well, 
the media can revise its headlines, but the shameful anti-Semitic 
fringe of our society has already heard what it wanted to hear.
  Unsurprisingly, the woke incubators of the Ivy League have been at 
the epicenter of this anti-Israel outrage. One coalition of 30 student 
groups at Harvard declared that they ``hold the Israeli regime entirely 
responsible'' for Hamas's terrorism--that Israel is responsible for 
Hamas's terrorism.
  Now, student radicals taking extremist stands is par for the course. 
The more important question is how university administrators--the 
supposed grownups on campus--would respond. The answer is not good. As 
former Harvard President Larry Summers rightly noted, his institution's 
initial silence ceded the field to campus extremists in defining 
Harvard's response.
  And when Harvard's leaders did respond, they failed the most basic 
test: distinguishing the victim from the aggressor. The university's 
response professed heartbreak at ``the war in Israel and Gaza now under 
way,'' as if there were even a shred of moral equivalence between 
terrorism and self-defense.
  The presidents of Columbia and Dartmouth expressed regret at ``the 
ensuing violence'' and ``the escalating violence,'' respectively. Not 
to be outdone, Notre Dame didn't even assign perfunctory blame to the 
terrorists.
  Instead, they bemoaned ``the outbreak of war in the Holy Land'' and 
calling ``for an end to the cycle of violence.''
  I am reminded of a retort the late, great Bill Buckley deployed in a 
debate when his opponent tried to have both sides of the Cold War. He 
said:

       That is like saying that the man who pushes a little old 
     lady into the path of a bus is morally equivalent to the man 
     who pushes her out of its path, because they both push little 
     old ladies around.

  If you want to know where this leads, take the American Bar 
Association, the organization that accredits our Nation's law schools. 
At first, the ABA's president called ``on both sides to show 
restraint'' and urged Israel and Hamas to ``settle their disputes in a 
peaceful and legal fashion.'' But yesterday, the ABA denounced Israel's 
self-defense efforts as ``collective punishment, forced displacement, 
[and] ethnic cleansing.''
  Terrorism and self-defense are not morally equivalent. They are not 
morally equivalent. And you would think the leaders of America's higher 
education would understand that.
  Some leaders in higher education have argued in recent days that 
schools should not wade into political disputes. Stanford's president 
said that doing so means picking winners and losers on campus. 
Northwestern's president observed of his students and faculty that 
``for me to speak for them displaces their own freedom to speak.'' That 
may actually be a wise policy, but it is certainly not one elite 
academia has been known to practice in the past. It doesn't take long 
to find the impassioned stances universities took following the murder 
of George Floyd or the ending of DACA. So why the new policy?
  Let's be clear. Some university leaders have displayed admirable 
conviction. Our former colleague Ben Sasse at the University of Florida 
describes support for the terrorists who murdered Israeli children as 
``sickening'' and ``dehumanizing.'' Emory's president said the attacks 
``must be condemned in the strongest possible terms.'' Princeton's 
president called it ``among the most atrocious of terrorist acts'' and, 
importantly, placed the blame for the coming war entirely where it 
belongs--on Hamas's shoulders.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all of these statements--
the good, the bad, and the ugly--be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as fallows:

                         University of Florida

       Dear Jewish Gator Alums: Many of you have reached out about 
     the vigil at UF last night. I was overwhelmed to see a 
     thousand Gators standing with Israel. You can find my remarks 
     here.
       The chaos at the event was an unfortunate end to a 
     beautiful gathering, but I wanted to let you know that there 
     was no attack on campus and the injuries that have been 
     reported seem to be relatively minor. From what we can 
     gather, a student passed out and, when a fellow student 
     called for 911, other students--understandably on edge--fled.
       While we all wish the night had ended differently, we are 
     tremendously proud of the students who came to stand with 
     Israel. I hope Rabbi Jonah and Rabbi Berl reschedule the 
     vigil, and I hope the community reconvenes.
       Like you, I am tremendously grateful for our students. The 
     University of Florida is home to the largest number of Jewish 
     students at any university in this country. We are honored by 
     and committed to that legacy. Our Jewish students and alumni 
     around the world have been devastated by Hamas' terrorism.
       I will not tiptoe around this simple fact: What Hamas did 
     is evil and there is no defense for terrorism. This shouldn't 
     be hard. Sadly, too many people in elite academia have been 
     so weakened by their moral confusion that, when they see 
     videos of raped women, hear of a beheaded baby, or learn of a 
     grandmother murdered in her home, the first reaction of some 
     is to ``provide context'' and try to blame the raped women, 
     beheaded baby, or the murdered grandmother. In other 
     grotesque cases, they express simple support for the 
     terrorists.
       This thinking isn't just wrong, it's sickening. It's 
     dehumanizing. It is beneath people called to educate our next 
     generation of Americans. I am thankful to say I haven't seen 
     examples of that here at UF, either from our faculty or our 
     student body.
       As for us, our educational mission here begins with the 
     recognition and explicit acknowledgment of human dignity--the 
     same human dignity that Hamas' terrorists openly scorn. Every 
     single human life matters. We are committed to that truth. We 
     will tell that truth.
       In the coming days, it is possible that anti-Israel 
     protests will come to UF's campus. I have told our police 
     chief and administration that this university always has two 
     foundational commitments: We will protect our students and we 
     will protect speech. This is always true: Our Constitution 
     protects the rights of people to make abject idiots of 
     themselves.
       But I also want to be clear about this: We will protect our 
     Jewish students from violence. If anti-Israel protests come, 
     we will absolutely be ready to act if anyone dares to 
     escalate beyond peaceful protest. Speech is protected--
     violence and vandalism are not.
       I'm grateful to have heard from so many of you. Like I said 
     at the vigil last night: When evil raises its head, as it has 
     in recent days, it is up to men and women of conscience and 
     courage to draw strength from truth and commit ourselves to 
     the work of building something better--to the work of 
     pursuing justice and pursuing peace. That is what we aim to 
     do through education, compassion, and truth here at the 
     University of Florida.
           Sincerely,
     Ben.
                                  ____


                            Emory University

       Dear Emory Community: As students return to campus this 
     morning after fall break, I know many at Emory are in 
     profound pain,

[[Page S5058]]

     absorbing the shock and grief from the Hamas terrorist 
     attacks in Israel over the weekend. So am I. The reality of 
     Jews being senselessly murdered and taken as hostages will 
     not soon leave my mind, and must be condemned in the 
     strongest possible terms.
       We are fortunate that Emory students and faculty in the 
     region are safe at this time. I have heard from many members 
     of our community about how the attacks have affected them and 
     their families and friends. The suffering they are 
     experiencing is tremendous. I know they are not alone.
       In June, I traveled to Israel with a delegation of Emory 
     colleagues. We visited with Emory students studying and 
     interning, alumni who live and work in the region, and 
     scholars at universities in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv. It was my 
     first trip back to Israel in 40 years and as a Jew, it 
     offered me an opportunity to visit a homeland that is 
     meaningful to my family across generations. To see the nation 
     where I walked peacefully a few months ago now under attack 
     is hard to comprehend. Acknowledging that a war has begun and 
     more lives, both Israeli and Palestinian, will be lost to 
     this conflict fills me with grief.
       Each member of our community is experiencing this tragedy 
     in their own way. As we move forward, we must show empathy 
     for one another. My wish is for Emory to come together 
     peacefully, and I see that we are already doing that with 
     student-led vigils and memorials. I also urge you to treat 
     your peers and colleagues with dignity as difficult 
     conversations take place. As a research university, we are 
     fortunate to have scholars who have deep expertise on the 
     Middle East, Israel, and relevant disciplines. Our faculty 
     experts will be invaluable at this time.
       The students, faculty, physicians, staff, and alumni who 
     call Emory home come from all over the world and represent 
     many backgrounds and life experiences. Emory's motto, the 
     wise heart seeks knowledge, is based on an understanding that 
     we treat each other with respect even, and especially, in 
     moments of disagreement. That is my plea to you in the coming 
     days--seek knowledge but do so in a way that acknowledges our 
     shared humanity. That's what unity looks like at Emory.
       Treat each other well and keep your minds and hearts open. 
     Pray for peace.
           Sincerely,
                                                Gregory L. Fenves,
     President.
                                  ____


                          Princeton University

       Even in a world wearied and torn by violence and hatred, 
     Hamas's murder and kidnapping of hundreds of Israelis over 
     the past weekend is among the most atrocious of terrorist 
     acts. This cruel and inhumane attack has provoked a bloody 
     war that has already claimed the lives of thousands of 
     Palestinians and Israelis and will tragically take many more 
     as it continues.
       Princeton is a community that embraces many Israelis and 
     Palestinians among its cherished members, as students, 
     faculty, staff, and alumni. Even more have friends or 
     relatives directly experiencing this awful violence. The 
     nightmare underway in Israel and in the Palestinian 
     territories is being deeply felt on this campus. That pain 
     will inevitably continue in the months ahead. My heart goes 
     out to everyone personally affected.
       The University has reached out to students and other 
     community members from Israel and the Palestinian 
     territories. Resources and support services are available 
     from the Davis International Center, Counseling and 
     Psychological Services, and the Office of Religious Life.
       Our experts at the School of Public and International 
     Affairs have produced a thoughtful compilation of initial 
     analysis and there will be many more such scholarly 
     contributions and public panel discussions about these events 
     in the coming days.
       Of course, our work as researchers and teachers must also 
     make space for the recognition of suffering, and for time to 
     grieve and heal. I hope that Princetonians from all 
     backgrounds will treat each other with grace and compassion 
     during this difficult time.

     Christopher L. Eisgruber.
                                  ____


                               Notre Dame

       Given the current situation in Israel, we have relocated 
     our students who were studying in Jerusalem to other Notre 
     Dame International locations. We will continue to support our 
     relocated students and ensure that their transitions are as 
     smooth as possible. We have temporarily suspended our study 
     abroad program at Tantur and will continue to assess the 
     situation as it develops.
       Saddened by the outbreak of war in the Holy Land, I join 
     with many in abhorring the killing of non-combatants and I 
     echo the Holy Father's call to pray for all victims of the 
     current conflict, for an end to the cycle of violence, and 
     for a lasting peace with justice. I welcome all of our Notre 
     Dame family to join us for this evening's interfaith prayer 
     service for peace and protection of the innocent.
                                  ____


                           Harvard University

       Dear Members of the Harvard Community: We write to you 
     today heartbroken by the death and destruction unleashed by 
     the attack by Hamas that targeted citizens in Israel this 
     weekend, and by the war in Israel and Gaza now under way.
       The violence hits all too close to home for many at 
     Harvard. Some members of our community have lost family 
     members and friends; some have been unable to reach loved 
     ones. And, even for people at Harvard who have not been 
     affected directly by the fighting, there are feelings of 
     fear, sadness, anger, and more that create a heavy burden. We 
     have heard from many students, faculty, and staff about the 
     emotional toll that these events are taking.
       Across Harvard, we will continue providing as much support 
     to our students and colleagues as possible. Our Schools 
     either have shared or will soon share messages regarding 
     available resources.
       We have also heard an interest from many in understanding 
     more clearly what has been happening in Israel and Gaza. Even 
     as we attend immediately to the needs of our community 
     members, we can take steps as an academic community to deepen 
     our knowledge of the unfolding events and their broader 
     implications for the region and the world. We expect there 
     will be many such opportunities in the coming days and weeks.
       We have no illusion that Harvard alone can readily bridge 
     the widely different views of the Israeli-Palestinian 
     conflict, but we are hopeful that, as a community devoted to 
     learning, we can take steps that will draw on our common 
     humanity and shared values in order to modulate rather than 
     amplify the deep-seated divisions and animosities so 
     distressingly evident in the wider world. Especially at such 
     a time, we want to emphasize our commitment to fostering an 
     environment of dialogue and empathy, appealing to one 
     another's thoughtfulness and goodwill in a time of 
     unimaginable loss and sorrow.
       As many colleagues, classmates, and friends deal with pain 
     and deep concern about the events in Israel and Gaza, we must 
     all remember that we are one Harvard community, drawn 
     together by a shared passion for learning, discovery, and the 
     pursuit of truth in all its complexity, and held together by 
     a commitment to mutual respect and support. At this moment of 
     challenge, let us embody the care and compassion the world 
     needs now.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Claudine Gay,
     President, Harvard University.
                                  ____


                          Columbia University

       Dear Fellow Members of the Columbia Community: I was 
     devastated by the horrific attack on Israel this weekend and 
     the ensuing violence that is affecting so many people. 
     Unfortunately, at this moment, little is certain except that 
     the fighting and human suffering are not likely to end soon.
       I know many members of our community are being impacted in 
     profound ways and I want to assure each of you that Columbia 
     will provide any measure of care or comfort that we can. This 
     is your community, and you are not alone.
       Since Saturday, our first priority has been to make sure 
     everyone connected to Columbia is safe and to provide 
     logistical support and other types of resources for students, 
     staff, and faculty who are directly affected by the conflict. 
     We are in close touch with students, staff, alumni, and 
     faculty throughout the region. I have included a list of 
     university resources below.
       I am gratified by and grateful for the skill, agility, and 
     care that I have witnessed by professionals across Columbia. 
     Colleagues in our community have shown great sensitivity and 
     leadership, including staff at the Kraft Center for Jewish 
     Student Life, our leaders in the Earl Hall Center for 
     Religious Life, and the various student support teams across 
     our schools.
       Many of you have reacted to these terrifying events by 
     pulling closer your friends, classmates, and relatives whose 
     sense of security was shattered. These acts of kindness and 
     empathy represent the best of Columbia and exemplify what we 
     as a community can contribute to this moment. I encourage you 
     to continue gathering, supporting each other, and listening 
     to one another in the days ahead.
       As a global university, we are devoted to examining and 
     debating difficult issues that affect our world. Our job is 
     to educate, enlighten, and engage. We must reject forces that 
     seek to pull us apart and model behavior that shows respect 
     for all. I welcome events like the SIPA webinar scheduled for 
     tomorrow, examining the evolving situation in Israel and 
     Gaza. I strongly encourage Columbia faculty to find ways of 
     bringing clarity and context to this painful moment, just as 
     you contribute your expertise and scholarship to other great 
     challenges of our time.
       I am committed to ensuring that these values are reflected 
     in our teaching, our research, and our community support.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Minouche Shafik,
     President, Columbia University.
                                  ____


                               Dartmouth

       Dear Dartmouth Community: Like many of you, I watched with 
     growing horror the Hamas attack on Israel this weekend, the 
     escalating violence, and the devastating loss of life, 
     especially among civilians. Adding to my deep sorrow over the 
     overwhelming human tragedy playing out in Israel and Gaza are 
     the ways in which the war affects Dartmouth's global 
     community and many of our colleagues, peers, and friends. 
     Dartmouth alums live in the region, scholars work there, and 
     students, staff, and faculty have deep roots in the areas now 
     in danger. I want to extend my concern to each of you at this 
     time.

[[Page S5059]]

       We have been working over the weekend and into this week to 
     make sure our community members with ties to the region--both 
     in the U.S. and abroad--are as safe and supported as 
     possible.
       In every conflict, one of the most important roles a 
     university can play is to help us understand it, and to make 
     a space for dialogue and community. As Dean Elizabeth F. 
     Smith and Senior Vice President Shontay Delalue indicated in 
     their message below, shared yesterday with the campus 
     community, Dartmouth faculty and staff experts have organized 
     a series of discussions that can help bring us together and 
     shed light on the situation. These discussions will be held 
     today and Thursday at 5 p.m. and livestreamed for those who 
     cannot attend.
       I encourage you to join these forums, which you can view 
     here, and others that we will plan over time. As we navigate 
     these difficult times, please care for one another and take 
     advantage of the support Dartmouth has to offer, as an 
     institution and a community.
           Sincerely,
                                                Sian Leah Beilock,
     President.
                                  ____


                                Stanford

       Dear Stanford Community: Our news and social media feeds 
     have been filled over the last few days with horrifying new 
     details about the Hamas attack in Israel last weekend, which 
     involved intolerable atrocities including murder of civilians 
     and kidnapping. The likelihood of a lengthy and violent 
     continued conflict in the region has become clearer. Our 
     focus as university leaders is on supporting the members of 
     our Stanford community in this difficult moment. We hear the 
     deeply felt concerns, fears, and grief that have been 
     expressed by students, faculty, and staff. We want to address 
     several issues that have arisen on our campus in the past few 
     days.
       We have heard many expressions of concern regarding student 
     safety. We have heard from Jewish students, faculty, and 
     staff concerned about rising antisemitism. We have heard from 
     Palestinian students who have received threatening emails and 
     phone calls. We want to make clear that Stanford stands 
     unequivocally against hatred on the basis of religion, race, 
     ethnicity, national origin, and other categories. The 
     expression of political views, in appropriate times and 
     places, is important. Thoughtful, reasoned discussion of 
     current issues is central to the life of the university. Our 
     commitment to academic freedom means that latitude for 
     expression of controversial and even offensive views is 
     necessary to avoid chilling freedom of thought and ideas. But 
     harassment and abuse have no place here. We are committed to 
     working with affected communities to provide support and 
     resources, and also to ensuring the physical safety of those 
     on campus.
       We have received a report of a class in which a non-faculty 
     instructor is reported to have addressed the Middle East 
     conflict in a manner that called out individual students in 
     class based on their backgrounds and identities. Without 
     prejudging the matter, this report is a cause for serious 
     concern. Academic freedom does not permit the identity-based 
     targeting of students. The instructor in this course is not 
     currently teaching while the university works to ascertain 
     the facts of the situation.
       We have received complaints about banners, signs, and 
     chalking on campus that express views that many find 
     offensive. Again, it is important to remember that 
     controversial and even offensive speech is allowed except 
     when it crosses the line into certain illegal categories such 
     as threats or harassment for which the threshold is quite 
     high. Unlawful threats and harassment will not be tolerated. 
     Stanford also has content- and viewpoint-neutral time, place, 
     and manner rules that limit locations for banners and signs. 
     Thus, many of the banners and signs have been removed, 
     because they were in places where they are not allowed. 
     Moreover, it is worth remembering that while a climate of 
     free expression requires breathing room, our aspiration as a 
     community is for respectful and substantive discourse.
       Here and across the nation this week, there also has been 
     discussion of the role of university leaders in commenting on 
     global events. This provides an opportunity for the two of 
     us, who are new in our current roles at Stanford, to share 
     some further thoughts on this topic, and on the place and 
     purpose of universities.
       Stanford University is a community of scholars. We believe 
     it is important that the university, as an institution, 
     generally refrain from taking institutional positions on 
     complex political or global matters that extend beyond our 
     immediate purview, which is the operations of the university 
     itself. Maintaining university neutrality allows for our 
     individual scholars to explore them freely. In recent years, 
     many universities have gotten into the habit of issuing 
     frequent statements about news events. This creates a number 
     of difficulties. The decision to take a position about one 
     event or issue yields implications for silence with regard to 
     other issues; given that different subsets of a campus 
     community may be more or less affected by particular issues, 
     this inconsistency is felt acutely. It can enmesh 
     universities in politics and create a sense of institutional 
     orthodoxy that chills academic freedom. In addition, crafting 
     each message is challenging, from gathering facts and context 
     on complex issues at the speed of online media and the news 
     cycle while also walking a line between platitudes and overly 
     political positions.
       As a moral matter, we condemn all terrorism and mass 
     atrocities. This includes the deliberate attack on civilians 
     this weekend by Hamas. One of the advances in international 
     law in the 20th century following the horrors of the 
     Holocaust was the development of international humanitarian 
     law prohibiting war crimes, crimes against humanity, and 
     genocide. Such crimes are never justified. Sadly, they occur 
     regularly throughout the world; the International Criminal 
     Court website lists seventeen different country situations 
     for which it has launched investigations, all of which 
     involve mass atrocities. And that court's docket does not 
     even reflect the full range of situations. We point this out 
     not to in any way diminish the shocking severity of the 
     events in Israel and Gaza this week, but to highlight the 
     pervasive problem that humankind faces in conquering hate.
       The events in Israel and Gaza this week have affected and 
     engaged large numbers of students on our campus in ways that 
     many other events have not. This is why we feel compelled to 
     both address the impact of these events on our campus and to 
     explain why our general policy of not issuing statements 
     about news events not directly connected to campus has 
     limited the breadth of our comments thus far, and why you 
     should not expect frequent commentary from us in the future.
       The fighting in the Middle East is likely to continue in 
     the coming weeks, with casualties on both sides, and the 
     overall situation has a deep and complex history. Stanford 
     has community members who are themselves from the region or 
     who have friends and family there. We recognize the deeply 
     felt impacts across our community. We encourage you to 
     approach one another with a spirit of compassion and respect 
     for our shared humanity.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Richard Saller,
                                                        President.
                                                   Jenny Martinez,
     Provost.
                                  ____


                              Northwestern

       Dear Colleagues: Some of you have asked either me or the 
     provost about whether the University would be issuing a 
     statement on the current conflict in Israel and Gaza. I also 
     know many of you are receiving similar requests from your own 
     leadership, staff and communities. I am not planning to put 
     out a statement officially stating a University position. I 
     thought I would write to give you a bit of insight into why.
       Let me start by saying that I am deeply repulsed, sickened 
     and disappointed by what Hamas has done. Kidnapping, 
     beheading, murdering people--children and adults, civilians 
     and people in the armed forces--is horrific and inhuman, pure 
     and simple. This sort of behavior is entirely unacceptable 
     regardless of one's political convictions or grievances. 
     Period. No moral equivalencies needed.
       That is the view of Mike Schill, citizen, Jew and human 
     being. I didn't give up those parts of me when I assumed the 
     presidency of Northwestern.
       However, I understand that when I put out an official 
     statement on a political matter, an atrocity, a catastrophe, 
     people read it not as the views of Mike Schill, but as 
     President Michael Schill speaking for the University. As 
     such, the decision to exercise speech takes on different 
     meaning. We are a University which celebrates free 
     expression, diversity of people and diversity of viewpoints. 
     This is essential to our role in society. The University does 
     not speak for our faculty, students and staff on these 
     matters--they have their own voices, and I would venture to 
     say, there are no doubt differences among our students and 
     faculty on what Hamas did and how Israel is responding. For 
     me to speak for them displaces their own freedom to speak.
       Some of you who have followed recent discussions about free 
     expression may see strong influence of the Chicago 
     Principles, and you would not be mistaken. Regardless of what 
     the University has done in the past, I do not foresee that I 
     will be issuing statements on political, geopolitical or 
     social issues that do not directly impact the core mission of 
     our University, the education and futures of our students, or 
     higher education. This reticence to speak out publicly as 
     President Michael Schill will sometimes please and often 
     infuriate members of our community. But I believe it is the 
     right approach.
       Just to be clear, as individuals in a democracy, we do not 
     give up our rights to have and express our personal political 
     and social viewpoints. We just need to make clear we are 
     speaking for ourselves and not for all our students, faculty, 
     staff and trustees. So, on Monday night when I stood with our 
     students at a Vigil for Israel in Deering Meadow, I did that 
     as Mike Schill. And I will continue to personally support, 
     when my conscience demands it, issues that I care deeply 
     about, always making the distinction in roles as clear as 
     possible.
       I will end by expressing my concern, my prayers and my 
     hopes for a peaceful resolution of the current violence. We 
     all have an obligation at a moment like this to care for one 
     another . . . and most particularly our students and members 
     of our community who have loved ones whose lives have been

[[Page S5060]]

     taken, who are held hostage or who are engaged in combat. If 
     you wish to relay my views to your respective communities, I 
     ask that you stress that our community has resources 
     available to help. Please contact Vice President for Student 
     Affairs Susan Davis if you would like to inquire more about 
     resources for students. Lorraine Goffe and Sumit Dhar can 
     address resources for our staff and faculty.

  Mr. McCONNELL. I can only hope that the leaders of America's 
universities recognize what time it is in America. This is a time for 
moral clarity, not a time for anti-Semitic hate dressed in faculty-
lounge jargon. Leaders cannot afford to be silent. Terrorism is evil. 
Anti-Semitism is despicable. And Israel has a right to exist. It 
shouldn't take a Ph.D. to understand that, but it also shouldn't be so 
hard for a Ph.D. to acknowledge it.


                  Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

  Mr. President, now on an entirely different matter, today, the Senate 
will vote on a Republican resolution to chip away at yet another 
example of the Biden administration's runaway regulatory state using 
the Congressional Review Act. The junior Senator from Louisiana, 
Senator Kennedy, has put forward a measure that would block a proposed 
rule at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau that would require 
financial institutions to collect and report personal information on 
small business loan applications, including data on race and sex. 
Apparently, as if the radical progressivism on campuses wasn't enough, 
Washington Democrats want to tie small business loans to diversity 
quotas.
  Small businesses are the lifeblood of the American dream, and I am 
grateful to my colleague from Louisiana for giving the Senate an 
opportunity to stick up for them. I would urge each of our colleagues 
to join me in supporting his resolution later today.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hickenlooper). 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 PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                   National Defense Authorization Act

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, Israel and the world are still reeling from 
the surprise attack by Hamas on October 7 that left somewhere around 
1,400 Israelis and at least 31 Americans dead. In scale and scope, the 
attack carried echoes of our 9/11. And as on 9/11, life changed in an 
instant.
  I came down to the floor yesterday to talk about these attacks and 
the United States' commitment to standing with the Israeli people 
against terrorism. And today, I would like to talk about another 
important point these attacks raise: the importance of our national 
defense and military readiness.
  It has been said that ``Only the dead have seen the end of war.'' We 
live in a fallen world. And as long as we live in a fallen world, there 
will be evil men bent on aggression. And if we wish to continue living 
in peace and freedom, we must be always ready to defend against such 
men. Military preparedness is an essential and constant need. There is 
never a time where we can guarantee our peace and safety, and so there 
is never a time when we can afford to be ill-prepared to defend our 
peace and safety.
  As citizens of the United States--an immense country with a 
reputation for military strength--it can be easy to become complacent 
and to assume that we will always be able to deter or defeat attacks, 
but that is a dangerous assumption. As strong as we are, we are not 
invulnerable, and we are not the only great power out there. And if we 
don't make the necessary investments in our military to back up our 
reputation of strength, we may find our ability to deter hostile 
countries quickly waning.
  And the fact of the matter is, our military preparedness is not where 
it should be. Thanks to budgetary impasses and increased operational 
demands, by 2018, our readiness had eroded to the point that the 
bipartisan National Defense Strategy Commission released a report 
warning that we might struggle to win a war against a major power like 
Russia or China.
  And while we have made progress since then, we are still a long way 
from where we need to be. We have military services that are struggling 
to meet recruiting targets. There is a persistent pilot shortage, and 
in a number of cases, we have too few mission-capable aircraft. And we 
are not doing an adequate job of maintaining the kind of supply we need 
of munitions.
  That is not an acceptable situation for us to be in, and it could 
have very serious consequences. To give you just one example, recent 
U.S. war games envisioning a United States-China conflict following an 
attack on Taiwan have had grim results, showing enormous military and 
economic costs on both sides. One story on these war games noted: And 
while the ultimate outcome in these exercises is not always clear--the 
U.S. does better in some than others--the cost is clear. In every 
exercise, the U.S. uses up all its long-range air-to-surface missiles 
in a few days, with a substantial portion of its planes destroyed on 
the ground.
  Let me just repeat that last line:

       In every exercise, the U.S. uses up all its long-range air-
     to-surface missiles in a few days, with a substantial portion 
     of its planes destroyed on the ground.

  That is not a promising scenario, and it highlights our serious 
readiness shortages, shortages that other countries may not share. 
China, which is investing heavily in its military, is outpacing our 
military in modern capabilities like hypersonic missiles and has 
amassed a larger navy. And while Russia is currently expending its 
military resources in its war of aggression against Ukraine, it too 
does not hesitate when it comes to military investment.
  We have serious work to do on the readiness front. And as I said, we 
have made progress since 2018. But we still have a long way to go to 
ensure that our military is fully prepared to meet and deter 21st 
century threats, and this is a priority we need to address now, not 
when we are waking up one morning reeling from an attack on our country 
or on Americans abroad, but right now.

  Investing in our military after we are threatened or attacked is too 
late. We can't scale up defense capabilities in an instant or suddenly 
produce an adequate supply of munitions out of thin air. We need to get 
and keep--and keep--our military where it needs to be on the readiness 
front so that we can deter threats and meet them, if needed, with 
overwhelming force.
  And boosting our strength is important for our friends and allies as 
well. We can't and shouldn't send troops into every conflict, and we 
can't solve all the world's problems. But sooner or later, world events 
do affect us, and we can't retreat from the world stage and allow 
maligned powers to fill the resulting vacuum, nor can we afford to 
concentrate on one threat or area of the world to the exclusion of 
others. Putin's war in Ukraine and Hamas's attack on Israel should be 
ample reminders that threats can come from both great powers and non-
state actors alike.
  So we need to get to work, and that should start with passing a final 
version of this year's National Defense Authorization Act and making 
progress on our annual appropriations bills, including the defense 
appropriations bill. And we should also take up a supplemental to 
provide the necessary support to our allies and to ensure that we 
provide any additional funding needed for our own military.
  October 7 was the latest reminder that we live in a fallen and 
dangerous world. Let us ensure that we always are prepared to preserve 
the peace and to defend our Nation.
  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.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                         Small Business Lending

  Mr. BROWN. We know our middle class relies on strong, small 
businesses. Small business ownership is the second largest source of 
personal wealth in this country, only behind owning a home. Small 
businesses make up more than 40 percent of our economy--no better 
example than that of the Presiding Officer from Colorado and the

[[Page S5061]]

work that he did as he had the phenomenal success he did starting small 
businesses.
  We know, to build strong businesses, entrepreneurs need credit. A 
loan lets you turn an idea into a business or invest in your company to 
hire more workers. That is why small business credit is so essential to 
our economy and to our middle class.
  Today, small business lending takes place in the dark. We don't have 
good data about how lenders are serving the small businesses in their 
communities. We don't have good data about whom lenders might be 
leaving behind. Without transparency, it is all too easy for 
entrepreneurs in Ohio and around the country to lose out.
  The data we do have suggests too many small business owners aren't 
getting a fair shot at a loan for their businesses. Take rural small 
businesses. We know that rural communities have seen bank branch close 
after bank branch close for years, drying up access to credit for lots 
of small businesses in rural Ohio. We need the data to understand how 
to reach these business owners and how to grow smalltown economies.
  Or take small businesses owned by women or by people of color. The 
data we do have suggests they are more likely to be denied loans and 
they are more likely to be charged higher interest rates. You don't 
need reports and studies to know that most Ohioans don't get a fair 
shake from big banks and the financial system. You do need accurate 
information to fight back. That is why, in 2010, Congress required the 
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to get that information; and this 
spring, the CFPB issued a rule to finally implement the law and to 
bring transparency to the small business lending market.

  We are talking about basic data on the borrowers' demographics, loan 
pricing, application approvals, and other critical information--just 
like we do with mortgages. It is not that complicated and not that 
difficult and not that expensive. With this data, we will be able to 
see gaps in the small business lending market, allowing programs to 
expand access to credit for small businesses, especially like small 
businesses in rural areas. More data means more accountability, 
ensuring that lenders reach minority communities and helping to root 
out discrimination.
  We have seen this model work before. After we began publishing data 
some years ago about home mortgages, more Americans of all races and 
backgrounds were able to achieve the dream of homeownership.
  This still protects people's privacy. Borrowers are not required to 
submit information if they don't want to. Of course, big banks and 
their lobbyists are putting up a fight. They always do. Any time there 
is a rule that might change their behavior, they come up with the same 
song and dance: It is too expensive. We have to hire new people. 
Actually, it helps them serve the community better.
  I am not going to help Wall Street avoid accountability. There has 
been too much of that. When I took over chairmanship of this committee, 
it was called the Senate Banking Committee, and it was a committee all 
about Wall Street. We changed this. The colloquial name of this 
committee is the Senate Housing and Banking Committee. Our charge is to 
build more homes, to make them more affordable, to help with transit 
systems in places like Atlanta and Denver and Cleveland, and to look 
out, especially, to help small banks and communities. That is why we 
are going to hold Wall Street accountable.
  I want to see more rural small businesses get loans and grow and be 
successful. We are not going to let the banking lobby stand in the way, 
as it all too often has.
  I hope my colleagues will stand up for small businesses, will stand 
up for entrepreneurs, and will vote no on this resolution.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ossoff). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask for permission to speak for up to 
20 minutes before the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the Consumer Financial Protection 
Bureau--we call it the CFPB--has struck again. It has made another bad 
decision--this by an Agency that has become famous for bad decisions. 
Here is what is going on.
  You will remember the Dodd-Frank Act, of course, which this Congress 
passed after the financial meltdown in 2007, 2008, and 2009. There was 
a section in the Dodd-Frank Act called section 1071--fairly innocuous. 
Congress directed certain information to be collected about small 
business loans. We were curious about small business lending in 
America, so we directed, in this section 1071, certain covered 
financial institutions--I call them small banks because most business 
loans to small business people come from small banks. We directed small 
banks to start collecting information about their loans to small 
business people because we wanted to know and see if we could do 
something to make their services more efficient.
  We, the Congress, asked that 13 pieces of information be collected. 
It is the sort of stuff that you would imagine, very routine stuff, 
like ``What was the date of the loan, the small business loan? How much 
was the loan?'' that sort of thing.
  Well, the CFPB has taken our work and totally perverted it. The CFPB 
has promulgated a rule that totally perverts our intention in section 
1071 of the Dodd-Frank Act.
  First, we intended for only small businesses to be covered in 
providing this information. Now, if you look at the definition of a 
``small business,'' most people use the definition that has been put 
out by the National Federation of Independent Business. That is the 
NFIB. It says that a small business is a business that has 10 or fewer 
people and sales of about half a million dollars a year--not according 
to the CFPB. They want to cast the net as far and as wide as they can. 
Their definition of a ``small business'' will almost double that--more 
than double that. They say a small business is a company with $5 
million in revenue or less from the previous fiscal year, not $500,000 
but $5 million. So this is going to throw the net of government much, 
much wider than Congress ever intended.
  But, secondly, the most egregious thing the CFPB has done is they 
took our 13 pieces of information that we asked for, by Congress, and 
they expanded it to 81. All of a sudden, they want a book.
  Here are some examples of what the CFPB is going to require small 
banks to ask of small business women and small business men when they 
come to the bank and ask for a loan. The bank has to ask the small 
business person how long it has been in business. That is fair. The 
bank has to ask the small business woman or small business man about 
its annual revenue. That is fair. But then it gets a little intrusive. 
It gets a lot intrusive.
  The bank has to ask the small business woman or small business man 
what their race is. The bank has to ask the small business person about 
their ethnic background. The small bank has to ask the small business 
person if he is a male. The bank has to ask the small business person 
if she is a female. It should be obvious to many, but those questions 
have to be asked. The bank has to ask the small business person if that 
person is a lesbian. The bank has to ask the small business person if 
that person is gay. The bank has to ask that small business person if 
that small business person is bisexual. The small bank has to ask its 
customer, that small business person, if that small business person is 
transgender. The bank, according to the CFPB, has to ask that small 
business person who is applying for a loan, who just came in for a loan 
for the business, if that person is queer. The small bank has to ask 
that small business person if the small business person is intersex.
  Not only does the bank have to ask those questions, those private 
questions, of the person from the small business applying for the loan, 
the person applying for the loan on behalf of the small business has to 
bring in every one of its owners who owns 25 percent or more, and the 
bank has got to start over with those people. Are you a male? Are you a 
female? What is

[[Page S5062]]

your race? Tell me about your ethnic background. Are you a lesbian? Are 
you gay? Are you bisexual? Are you transgender or are you queer or are 
you intersex?
  Give me a break.
  Then all of this information that is collected, this private 
information, has to be sent to the CFPB, and they are going to put it 
on their website. Are you gay? Are you lesbian? What race are you? They 
are going to put it on their website.
  Now, the CFPB says: Well, it is going to be institutional-level data, 
just top-line data fields. Bull. You will be able to take this data, 
particularly if you are a small bank in a rural area, and be able to--
the snoops will be able to go on that public website and identify small 
business people in their community--how much money they are borrowing, 
how they answered the question about whether they were gay, how they 
answered the question about whether they were intersex. This is 
incredibly private information.
  And why? Why would the CFPB need this information? Well, the truth 
is, they don't, but I will tell you why. The CFPB is setting these 
small business people--but also these small banks--up for lawsuits. 
That is exactly what they are doing.
  What happens if a small business person goes into the bank and the 
small banker says: Listen, I hate to have to ask you this, but the CFPB 
says I have to ask you. Are you gay?
  As if that is anybody's business.
  The small business person says: That is none of your business, and I 
am not going to answer that question. I am here for a loan, not to talk 
about my private life. What I do in the privacy of my bedroom with a 
consenting adult is my opinion, Mr. Banker.

  The small banker says: You are right. I am sorry. I had to ask. They 
made me.
  If the small business person won't answer the question, the small 
banker can get in trouble with the CFPB.
  What has the world come to?
  And the CFPB doesn't care about the cost. Do you know what this is 
going to cost to implement every year? Four hundred million dollars. 
Why? And that doesn't even include the cost of actually setting up this 
program. That will be hundreds of millions of dollars more.
  It is not like the CFPB is exactly a wizard when it comes to data 
security. I mean, yes, it is going to be on their public website, but 
in terms of the granular information, the CFPB says: Oh, don't worry; 
we will protect it.
  Right. Like they protected it a few months ago? The personally 
identifiable information of 256,000 consumers, which is being held by 
the CFPB, was breached. And do you know what the CFPB did? They didn't 
tell anybody for 2 months. They acted like a rock, only dumber. We are 
not talking about wizards here, wizards of financial data privacy and 
security.
  You know, I hear it all the time, and the Presiding Officer probably 
hears it back in his State, perhaps. But people tell me all the time: 
Kennedy, what is wrong with Washington, DC? Why is common sense illegal 
there?
  This rule. This rule. What has the world come to?
  So my Congressional Review Act request is to have the Senate tell the 
CFPB that it is none of their business--none of their business--what a 
private American does with another private adult American in the 
privacy of their bedroom. We are free, so long as it doesn't break any 
laws, to express our sexuality however we want to, and it is none of 
the CFPB's business.
  With that, I ask my Senate colleagues to overturn this rule.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we start the 
vote now, 1 minute early.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                          Vote on S.J. Res. 32

  Under the previous order, the clerk will read the title of the joint 
resolution for the third time.
  The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading 
and was read the third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The joint resolution having been read the 
third time, the question is, Shall the joint resolution pass?
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I announce that the Senator from California (Ms. Butler) 
and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Durbin) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Kentucky (Mr. Paul).
  The result was announced--yeas 53, nays 44, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 260 Leg.]

                                YEAS--53

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

                                NAYS--44

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

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Butler
     Durbin
     Paul
  The joint resolution (S.J. Res. 32) was passed, as follows:

                              S.J. Res. 32

       Resolved by the Senate and House of Represenatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress 
     disapproves the rule submitted by the Bureau of Consumer 
     Financial Protection relating to ``Small Business Lending 
     Under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (Regulation B)'' (88 
     Fed. Reg. 35150 (May 31, 2023)), and such rule shall have no 
     force or effect.

  (Mr. Hickenlooper assumed the Chair.)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Cortez Masto). The Senator from Oklahoma.

                          ____________________