[Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 103 (Tuesday, June 18, 2024)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4126-S4142]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             FIRE GRANTS AND SAFETY ACT OF 2023--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.


                           U.S. Supreme Court

  Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, I rise today deeply concerned that the 
far-right majority on the Supreme Court is preparing to sow further 
chaos in our country.
  Any day now, the Court is expected to rule on two cases pertaining to 
the Chevron doctrine, a 40-year-old doctrine with roots that go back to 
our country's founding that is critical to a functioning Federal 
Government.
  The Chevron doctrine is pretty simple. It recognizes that Congress 
delegates authority to technical experts at Federal Agencies so that 
those Agencies can effectively and efficiently implement Federal laws 
in their areas of expertise in line with congressional intent. As a 
result, for nearly four decades, courts generally have deferred to 
reasonable interpretations by administrative Agencies where the law is 
unclear or ambiguous.
  In fact, before 1984, lower court judges were criticized for 
overriding agency experts and imposing their own policy views. That is 
why the Court handed down the Chevron decision in the first place.
  The Chevron doctrine was originally favored by conservative judges, 
including the conservative majority on the Supreme Court during the 
Reagan administration who viewed it as a check against judicial 
activism.
  In recent years, however, many on the right have turned against the 
Chevron doctrine, viewing it as an impediment to their efforts to 
consolidate power and enable far-right judges to legislate from the 
bench.
  Now the same far-right ideologues who fought to end Roe are all in 
for ending Chevron as well. Justice Gorsuch, one of the most outspoken 
critics of Chevron, has gone so far as to call for the Court to give 
the doctrine ``a tombstone no one can miss.'' The so-called Alliance 
Defending Freedom--the same group leading the charge to eliminate 
access to mifepristone, as approved by the FDA--has called for the 
Chevron doctrine to go, asserting without evidence that it allows 
Agency experts to ``impos[e] personal political agendas that Congress 
has not authorized.''
  To be clear, this case is not about the so-called major question 
doctrine but about the sorts of day-to-day decisions that Federal 
Agency experts make when implementing law. Overturning Chevron would 
undermine these sorts of everyday decisions and, in doing so, 
jeopardize the regulatory system on which much of our country and our 
economy rests. It would empower the hundreds of individual Federal 
judges to overrule carefully considered rulemaking decisions by Agency 
experts, turning a consistent regulatory framework into a chaotic mess 
of conflicting opinions.
  At its core, this case is about who should be making policy decisions 
on issues that affect our lives--subject matter experts or Federal 
judges. Who gets to determine the safety of the air we breathe--
environmental scientists at the EPA or Federal judges? Who decides 
whether or not a new drug is actually effective--doctors at the FDA or 
Federal judges? Who determines whether nursing homes are meeting safety 
standards--eldercare experts at HHS or Federal judges? With no 
disrespect to our Federal judges, they lack the expertise to make these 
kinds of decisions.
  While Congress enacts legislation at a high level, it recognizes that 
the institutional capacity and expertise to implement legislation 
exists within executive Agencies. That is why our Federal Agencies 
exist--to implement informed, evidence-based regulations that provide a 
level of regulatory certainty and stability.
  Eliminating Chevron now, after more than four decades, would sow 
chaos and confusion on Agency actions moving forward as well as the 
nearly 18,000 Federal cases that have been decided based on the Chevron 
doctrine. Even if the Court stops short of fully eliminating Chevron, 
significantly narrowing it will have much the same effect.
  Overturning Chevron is yet one more component of the far-right's 
broader agenda to capture the courts, advance their conservative 
ideological agenda, and hollow out our regulatory system.
  The Court will hand down a decision in this highly important case in 
a matter of days, and we will see whether this case becomes yet another 
cautionary tale for a Court that has been busy overturning decades of 
precedent, sowing chaos left, right, and center.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.


                               Nicaragua

  Mrs. BRITT. Mr. President, as Americans, we believe that every person 
on the planet is created by their Creator with certain unalienable 
rights. Religious freedom is at the top of that list, and for me, I 
believe it must be protected at every turn.
  That is why I continue to be deeply concerned with what is happening 
in Nicaragua. Since 2018, the Nicaraguan regime has persecuted 
Christians, including the Catholic Church and various Christian 
missions and charities. This lawless behavior has only escalated 
recently.
  In December, Nicaraguan police arrested approximately a dozen 
individuals--mostly pastors--associated with Mountain Gateway. These 
Christian faith leaders have been unjustly imprisoned since then and 
were handed down a sham sentence in March. The regime has imposed a 
fine totaling nearly $1 billion--so that is about 6 percent of that 
country's entire GDP--along with 12 to 15 years of imprisonment.
  Let's be very clear: These Christians are in prison today because of 
their faith. Their very freedom has been taken away because they chose 
to preach the Gospel. And the regime doesn't seem to want to stop 
there. In addition to those arrested and imprisoned, Nicaragua has 
issued arrest warrants for three more Americans. They are all 
associated with Mountain Gateway.
  Mountain Gateway is an American nonprofit, a faith-based organization 
that was founded by an Alabamian and is based in Texas. Mountain 
Gateway recruits, trains, commissions, and sends out ordained Christian 
ministers to spread the Gospel.
  In Nicaragua, the organization has advanced God's Kingdom through 
discipleship, through feeding and clothing those in need, through 
providing assistance after natural disasters and sharing the Gospel of 
our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. These individuals doing this work 
should be celebrated, not persecuted.
  Earlier this year, I joined a bicameral group of colleagues in 
criticizing Nicaragua's regime and this egregious violation of 
religious freedom. Led by Congressman Robert Aderholt and Congressman 
Barry Moore, Alabama's entire congressional delegation has been united 
against this and on this very important bipartisan issue.
  We have written letters. We introduced resolutions in both Chambers 
of Congress, and we called on the Biden administration to utilize all 
sanctions enforcement powers and leverage in any diplomatic way. Any 
options that are in the toolbox should be used to force Nicaragua to 
remedy the situation.
  Today, I want to emphasize that we cannot and we will not stop 
speaking up against this religious persecution in Nicaragua. We are 
calling on the Biden administration to do more now. This regime must 
stop targeting American citizens, and it needs to begin faithfully 
upholding religious freedom in compliance with international law and 
universal standards of human rights.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.


                                 S. 870

  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I ask to be recognized, and I am pleased 
to be here with you today.
  I rise today in strong support of critical bipartisan legislation 
that will come to the Senate floor--not later

[[Page S4127]]

this year, later this week, or this month, but later today. It is 
called the Fire Grants and Safety Act.
  Importantly, this legislation includes two--not one, but two--
critical pieces of bipartisan legislation that I have been working on 
with Senator Shelley Capito and a bipartisan coalition of our 
colleagues--literally, for years.
  The first part is called the Accelerating Deployment of Versatile, 
Advanced Nuclear for Clean Energy Act. That is a mouthful, but it is 
also known as the ADVANCE Act. And we coupled that with legislation 
involving support for our firefighters across the United States of 
America.
  Last month, the House of Representatives passed these two bills, not 
as one but as a package, by an overwhelming bipartisan vote of--get 
this--393 to 13. Now, we don't pass a lot of bills by margins like that 
over in the House or the Senate, but today we have an opportunity in 
the Senate to do something very much the same.
  Before this evening's vote, though, I want to take a few minutes to 
highlight the significance of both the Fire Grants and Safety Act as 
well as the so-called ADVANCE Act. In my role as cochair of the 
Congressional Fire Services Caucus, along with Senators Susan Collins 
and Lisa Murkowski, I have shared here on the Senate floor, many times 
over the years, that every day--every day--our Nation's firefighters 
bravely run toward danger in order to save lives across America.
  In my home State of Delaware, there are more than 6,000 
firefighters--6,000--and a great majority of them are volunteers. The 
same is true in many States across America. Yet despite their 
extraordinary dedication to protecting our communities, their jobs are 
not getting any easier. In fact, they are getting harder, and the risks 
that they continue to face grow each year.
  Annually, I am told that there are over 36 million emergency calls 
that fire services respond to--36 million. That is a 20-percent 
increase in the last 12 years. This is in no small part due to climate 
change and the resulting increases in extreme weather events across our 
country, which are translating directly into hotter, bigger, and more 
dangerous fires. Just this week, our country is experiencing 
recordbreaking temperatures from New England to California, where heat 
risks have been categorized by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration as ``extreme.''
  It is clear that the kinds of emergencies that our firefighters must 
respond to are changing, and the demands on fire departments across 
this country are changing as well. For example, last year when a 
devastating tornado touched down in southern Delaware, in Sussex 
County, it was our firefighters who showed up to lead people to safety. 
We have seen similar acts of service across our Nation, especially on 
the west coast, where firefighters have long helped families escape the 
hazards of wildfires.
  I believe we have a moral obligation, which I believe is a shared 
responsibility, to provide the resources that firefighters need to 
continue to protect the rest of us, our families, and our businesses. 
And today we have an opportunity to do just that.
  The Fire Grants and Safety Act reauthorizes not one but two critical 
grant programs that fire departments across our Nation rely on to 
safeguard our communities. The first is called Staffing for Adequate 
Fire and Emergency Response Grant Program, and it provides funding to 
local fire departments to hire much needed personnel to respond around 
the clock to emergency situations. The second is the Assistance to 
Firefighters Grant Program, which helps provide fire departments and 
emergency medical service organizations with the vital training and 
equipment, like firetrucks and protective gear that they need.
  Fire departments across Delaware have contacted my office to share 
how these grant programs are a lifeline--a lifeline for their work that 
they do every day--and I am sure our colleagues have heard similar 
stories of the essential roles that these programs play in fire 
departments across America.
  For example, fire departments in Colorado reported a lack of critical 
funding and supply, which could be aided by the Assistance for 
Firefighters Grant Program. Firefighters in Vermont, where our 
Presiding Officer is from, and firefighters in West Virginia, who 
cosponsored this legislation--where I was born--have reported being 
overwhelmed and understaffed in light of recent emergencies in their 
community.
  It is clear as day that reauthorizing these grant programs is 
imperative. The Fire Grants and Safety Act will also enable the U.S. 
Fire Administration to continue to provide leadership, coordination, 
and training for first responders and emergency medical personnel.
  As the lead Federal Agency for fire data collection, public fire 
education, fire research, and fire service training, the U.S. Fire 
Administration ensures that the fire service is prepared to respond to 
any and all hazards.
  Firefighters put their lives on the line for us every single day. I 
am proud to work with Senator Gary Peters, as well as with my 
Congressional Fire Services Caucus cochairs, Senator Collins and 
Senator Murkowski, on this legislation to equip our firefighters with 
the tools and training they need to do their jobs and do them safely.
  There is an African proverb that many of my colleagues have heard 
because I have said it enough, but the African proverb goes something 
like this: If you want to go fast, go alone. If you want to go far, go 
together.
  I think that is true: If you want to go fast, go alone. If you want 
to go far, go together.
  Today, on the Senate floor, with this legislation we are going far, 
and, as it turns out, we are going together, both Democrats and 
Republicans from all across the country and in concert with the 
administration, with the President, who supports this legislation.
  And we are doing it by considering not one but two bipartisan 
priorities at the same time. That second priority before us today is 
legislation known as the ADVANCE Act. This is legislation that Senator 
Shelly Moore Capito of West Virginia, my native State, and Senator 
Sheldon Whitehouse and I have worked on tirelessly for years in both a 
bipartisan and a bicameral manner.
  The ADVANCE Act accelerates the deployment of our Nation's largest 
source of clean power, and that is nuclear energy. Nuclear energy 
powers millions of homes and businesses across this country every day 
with zero emissions. It is an indispensable tool in our ongoing efforts 
to address the climate crisis and strengthen our Nation's energy 
security.
  My own personal interest in the potential for nuclear energy goes all 
the way back to my days as a Navy ROTC midshipman and later as a naval 
flight officer, tracking nuclear submarines throughout the oceans of 
the world. I witnessed how, initially, our submarines and, later, our 
aircraft carriers could travel millions of miles safely on nuclear 
power.
  Largely because of the success of the Navy Nuclear Propulsion 
Program, the United States had the technology and the workforce at the 
ready to build a commercial nuclear energy industry that could provide 
safe, reliable, and clean energy to American homes and businesses.

  Today, nuclear energy provides about 20 percent of America's 
electricity--20 percent--but nearly half of America's clean energy.
  Let me repeat that: Nuclear energy provides about 20 percent of 
America's electricity but nearly half of America's clean energy.
  There is no question that this carbon-free source of energy can and 
will help us meet--it is helping us meet--our climate goals. That is 
why I have long believed that nuclear energy needs to be part of our 
work to address climate change, while also creating thousands of jobs--
tens of thousands of jobs, in fact--across this Nation of ours.
  The ADVANCE Act empowers the Nuclear Regulatory Commission with the 
tools and with the workforce that it needs to keep our current reactors 
safe and to review new nuclear technologies efficiently. These 
resources will enable the Commission to provide the certainty needed to 
deploy more clean energy and to make sure that our commitment to safety 
remains paramount at this crucial moment in the history of our planet.
  The ADVANCE Act also directs the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to 
support 21st century applications of nuclear energy. For example, the 
ADVANCE Act requires the Commission

[[Page S4128]]

to explore how to repurpose retired fossil fuel-fired powerplants, as 
well as existing infrastructure, to support new, clean nuclear energy 
production.
  Additionally, this legislation fundamentally--and I think firmly--
maintains the core of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's mission, and 
that is to ensure the safety of America's nuclear power. Unless the 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission diligently ensures the safety of our 
nuclear fleet of reactors every day--every day--as well as new nuclear 
technologies, the United States will not be able to realize the 
potential of this carbon-free energy source.
  And the Nuclear Regulatory Commission must maintain this commitment 
to safety while considering all stakeholder views and concerns equally 
in order to maintain the public trust and confidence.
  Ultimately, this bill addresses the most pressing needs of the 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission and will lay the foundation for the safe 
and successful deployment of the next generation of advanced reactors. 
As a result, we will strengthen America's leadership on nuclear energy 
and provide climate leadership on the world stage.
  Let me be clear, the ADVANCE Act will strengthen our energy and our 
national security and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, as well as 
creating thousands of new jobs while growing our economy.
  I am not sure what our colleagues would call that in their States, 
but in Delaware, something like that, we call that a win-win-win 
situation. We need more of those.
  In closing, the legislation we vote on today will provide fundamental 
support for our Nation's firefighters, while bringing our Nation one 
step closer to a clean energy future.
  Once again, I want to share my heartfelt gratitude to our colleagues 
and our staff members who have worked with us--Democrat and Republican, 
House and Senate--in some cases, not just for days or weeks or months 
but, literally, for years in order to bring these provisions across the 
finish line.
  So many of our colleagues have had a hand in this effort, but, in 
particular, I want to thank Senator Gary Peters, who chairs the 
Committee on Homeland Security; Senator Susan Collins and Senator Lisa 
Murkowski, who have been great leaders in the Fire Services Caucus over 
the years; Senator Shelly Capito, who, literally, is the lead author on 
the ADVANCE Act; and Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, who has been very much 
involved in drafting that legislation as well. We could not have done 
this and be where we are today without each of you.
  Before I close, there is something else I want to mention. This is 
not something that I get to do every day, but I want to also thank the 
Speaker of the House, Congressman Johnson, for ensuring this bill's 
passage through his Chamber with resounding bipartisan support. I think 
it was about 393 to 13. That is an amazing, amazing outcome in 
legislation of this magnitude.
  I want to thank our own majority leader, Senator Schumer, for working 
with us and his staff to bring this legislation up for a vote today. 
Some people might be watching this across the country and think: What 
is this all about, and why would we take legislation dealing with 
firefighters and the tools and the resources of firefighters and why 
would we couple that with legislation involving nuclear energy? What is 
the connection?
  And the connection is this: Last year was the hottest year on record 
on this planet--the hottest year ever. This week may be the hottest 
week we will have had in this country and maybe on this planet--the 
hottest week. And what is causing that?
  Well, we know what is causing it. It is too much carbon dioxide in 
the air, and we need to reduce it. And one of the great sources of 
carbon dioxide in the air is the cars, trucks, and vans that we drive. 
That is only about 35 percent of our carbon emissions that come from 
our mobile sources. Maybe another 30 percent comes from the powerplants 
that provide electricity for us. Maybe another 25 percent comes from 
our manufacturing plants.
  That is where it is coming from, and we are doing a whole lot of 
things--House and Senate, Democrats and Republicans, working together 
in many cases--working with the current President and the current 
administration in order to try to turn it around--to turn around the 
fact that our planet is on fire and getting hotter.
  We have passed all kinds of legislation that is being enacted now: 
methane emission reduction program; legislation involving the release 
of hydrofluorocarbons, or HFCs; legislation that is part of the 
bipartisan infrastructure law, including, literally, across the 
country, the places where people can charge and recharge their 
batteries--corridors and corridors across the country to recharge 
electric vehicles.
  That is part of what we are doing--clean hydrogen--clean hydrogen 
which can be used, literally, to fly airplanes and to move cars, 
trucks, and vans, and to provide us the electricity that we need.
  We are doing a lot on wind, windmills--especially windmills--not just 
on land but windmills on either side of our country. And a lot is going 
on with respect to solar, and we can be proud of all that.
  Having said that--I am probably mixing metaphors here--but we are 
paddling against the tide. This is a tough battle, and while we have 
launched a lot of smart programs and smart initiatives and doing it in 
a bipartisan way--and we have done it with, in many cases, not just 
environmental groups but business groups as well--we still have a big 
fight ahead of us, and we need to implement fully the Methane Emissions 
Reduction Act, the bipartisan infrastructure law, the Inflation 
Reduction Act, clean hydrogen and hydrogen hubs, and all the stuff that 
people hear about. And we need to not just talk about it. We need to 
implement it. That is what I am going to be spending the next 6 months 
that I serve here or am privileged to serve here in the U.S. Senate to 
do--to make sure that the promise of all of the legislation, all of the 
groundwork that we have laid will actually bear fruit.
  These young pages that are sitting here, along with the Presiding 
Officer, have come here from all over the country. They are 16, 17, 18 
years old. We want to make sure that they are going to have a planet to 
grow up on. We want to make sure that they have a planet to grow old 
on. It is up to us to make sure that that happens.
  It is a shared responsibility, like most things. It is not just a 
Democratic responsibility. It is not just a Republican responsibility. 
It is not just on the President or the legislative branch. It is not 
just businesses. It is really all of us. We all have a dog in this 
fight.
  A lot of us have children and grandchildren, and, hopefully, they 
will benefit throughout their lives from the work that we are doing 
here, including--including--the work that we are doing here today.
  I am very proud of my colleagues for getting us to this point in time 
and especially anxious to have this vote later today, and I hope the 
kind of margin that we--it will stand up in the House. I think it was 
390 to 13. I hope we can do at least as well and maybe even a little 
bit better.
  I am grateful to the President for his strong support of what we are 
bringing up today. He has already telegraphed that he is prepared, when 
he receives this legislation, to sign it into law.
  Joe Biden used to say, when he was a mere mortal, when he was a 
Senator from Delaware, we used to talk about volunteer fire companies. 
We have a bunch of them. Most of the firefighters in Delaware are 
members of volunteer fire companies. I think that is probably true 
across the country. But then-Senator Joe Biden used to say that the 
volunteer fire community in Delaware was really so potent, they are 
kind of like a third party--sort of like a third party--and they punch 
above their weight in many ways. They punch above their weight in many 
ways to make our State safer. I think that is the case across America.
  We want to make sure that they have the tools, the resources that 
they need to do their jobs even better and to make sure they are able 
to do it safely, at the end of the day, so they can go home to their 
families and have a full and long life.
  With that, I think that pretty much is what I wanted to say. I want 
to thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer, as someone who has been very 
supportive

[[Page S4129]]

of this initiative, and we look forward, under your leadership today, 
to have a strong vote, and I will look forward to coming back in an 
hour or so and being a part of that vote.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Welch). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss S. 870. I am a 
passionately strong supporter of the effort to reauthorize the U.S. 
Fire Administration, the Assistance to Firefighters Grants Program, and 
the Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response Grant Program. It 
is essential.
  I voted in favor of all of that legislation to reauthorize these key 
programs on April 20 of last year, and I remain strongly and staunchly 
in support of these efforts to support our first responders. Those who 
run into danger must know that we in Congress have their back. They 
keep our community safe, and we must keep their resources safe in 
return.
  Unfortunately, the vote today is not just for the lifesaving programs 
that I am staunchly on record as supporting. On the coattails of this 
noncontroversial bill to protect our heroes, our colleagues in the 
House tacked on a dangerous additional 90-page package of provisions 
that merge the Senate's ADVANCE Act and the House's Atomic Energy 
Advancement Act.
  Well, because of this airdropped provision into the fire bill, I will 
be opposing final passage of this bill.
  So let me go now to what is the ADVANCE Act and why they would try to 
attach it to something that is absolutely essential. Why would they not 
just bring it out, try to have a big debate on it? Well, I will tell 
you why.
  The original version of the ADVANCE Act, which I voted against in the 
committee, was weakened further and watered down further 
in negotiations with the House. The new language attempts to water down 
the duties of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission; it puts communities on 
the back burner; and it dilutes existing protocols that keep our Nation 
safe from the threat of nuclear war. That is what we are talking about 
today, nuclear war.

  It puts promotion over protection and corporate profits over 
community cleanup. Notably, the provisions from the Senate bill that 
would have provided a much needed $225 million for communities affected 
by nuclear closures and $100 million to clean up contaminated Tribal 
communities are not in the legislation anymore as it came back from the 
House of Representatives. But the provisions to prop up the nuclear 
industry, they remain.
  I entered office just a year after the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 
was established in 1975. Why did we create a Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission? Very simple. Because there was an identification of a need 
for an independent oversight of nuclear domestic powerplants in the 
United States and nuclear activity, generally. And there was a 
decision, looking at the Atomic Energy Commission which existed, to 
say, That Agency is responsible for regulating nuclear power, but it is 
also responsible for promoting nuclear power here and around the world. 
And that was a fundamental conflict of interest. You promote something 
by minimizing the problems or ignoring the problems, and that was 
becoming a big problem--that they weren't dealing with the very real 
issues of safety that had been raised about nuclear power in our 
country.
  This was before Three Mile Island. It was before Chernobyl. But it 
was anticipating the safety issues that were going to be growing and 
growing and growing.
  So the NRC's current mission, before this bill passes, reflects this 
critical responsibility to the American public: regulation and 
licensing free from the influence of industry and that puts health and 
safety above all else.
  So we have a separate Agency. It is called the Department of 
Commerce. They can go and promote anything they want. They can try to 
sell whatever they want, domestically or internationally. But the 
Agency in charge of safety is the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. They 
have got to make sure that anything that the Department of Commerce is 
pushing doesn't wind up being a danger.
  So we create this dynamic tension inside of the government. 
Ultimately, that goal of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that puts 
health and safety above all else is what protects us against nuclear 
accidents here or overseas, wherever we are selling nuclear 
powerplants.
  The ADVANCE ACT, as attached to the Fire Grants and Safety Act--
completely unrelated subject; one deals with the resources we are 
giving to firefighters, the resources we are giving to local fire 
departments in order to fight fires as they pop up in our local 
communities. That is something we all support. But what they did was 
they added to that bill language that would require--underline that--
require the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to rewrite its mission, to 
state that its regulation and oversight should--and this is a quote--
``not unnecessarily limit'' civilian nuclear activity regardless of 
whether it is beneficial or detrimental to public safety and national 
security.
  The Nuclear Regulatory Commission shouldn't be the ``Nuclear Retail 
Commission.'' The Commission's duty is to regulate, not to facilitate. 
Their job is to ask all of the safety questions; to make sure the 
design is OK; to make sure that the waste is being stored properly; to 
make sure that an accident can't happen; to make sure that climate 
change, as the tides rise, doesn't swamp a nuclear powerplant near a 
river, near the ocean. That is their job; it is to protect all of the 
people who live in communities.
  We have got other Agencies that are funded, able, and willing to 
fulfill the role of promoting nuclear power. But this legislation does 
nothing to assure communities at the frontline of nuclear 
infrastructure that nuclear expansion won't come at their expense in 
local communities. It compels the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to 
identify how it can improve efficiency in its oversight and inspection 
programs without asking it how it can also improve safety or public 
engagement so that the public can go in and ask questions about this 
nuclear powerplant in their neighborhood, force the CEO of the company 
to answer questions about concerns that people who live near a nuclear 
powerplant might have. It provides no redress for families living near 
abandoned uranium mines and unsafe nuclear waste sites.
  At the very least, a rapid expansion of nuclear activity should be 
accompanied by rapid expansion of the resources and regulators that 
help protect community health and safety. If we do it, we should do it 
all together, one big package.
  This new language also fails to ensure continued American leadership 
on nuclear nonproliferation overseas. It fails to do anything to 
strengthen our current regime, and export licenses for nuclear 
materials and technology could be issued to countries that do not meet 
our own standards for nuclear safety and cooperation. The only 
requirement--that is what this law now says--it will only require a 
notification to Congress after that nuclear license is issued in 
another country and exempting even this after-the-fact notification for 
exports of up to 20 percent enriched uranium.
  And you are right. Whenever you hear the words ``uranium'' or 
``plutonium,'' your ears should perk up.
  Because in many countries they see a nuclear powerplant as a 
generator of electricity that has this side effect of uranium and 
plutonium, but in the eyes of some countries--and we saw that in Iran, 
in Iraq, in North Korea--as they got nuclear powerplants, they saw it 
as a place where they can get uranium and plutonium that has this 
wonderful byproduct of electricity that it also generates.
  So we should be concerned because we have already been forewarned by 
our experiences over the last 20 or 30 years. We can see what happens 
if there isn't a proper recognition of how all of this material can, in 
fact, be diverted.
  We shouldn't get a heads-up about the fact that Saudi Arabia now has 
American nuclear material. That shouldn't happen after the fact; that 
should happen before the fact. We

[[Page S4130]]

should know that this is going to happen.
  The bill also pushes the Secretary of Energy to identify generally 
authorized countries for exports beyond those with existing 123 
agreements.
  So what are 123 agreements in the Atomic Energy Act? Well, 123 
agreements lay the foundation for the responsible exchange of nuclear 
materials and technology with countries that share common guardrails 
for nuclear safety--that is the diversion of uranium or plutonium and 
other nuclear materials in a way that ultimately could wind up in a 
bomb-making program somewhere in the world. We should not be looking 
for ways to work around or weaken our export standards even further.
  Throughout my career, I have seen nuclear safety and nonproliferation 
undermined in the interest of the short-term geopolitical concerns of a 
particular administration or industry at the expense of the longer term 
nuclear nonproliferation goals, which we say are our highest foreign 
policy objectives.
  They get compromised in the short term because one administration or 
another just wants to use nuclear powerplants as a way of ingratiating 
the United States into the good favor of a particular country--it could 
be Saudi Arabia soon; it could be another country right after that--but 
without all the safeguards that should be there in order to protect 
against diversion of these materials.
  So the United States is supposed to be the leader in the global 
arena, and as a nation with nuclear capabilities, we have a duty to set 
the strongest possible standards for domestic and international nuclear 
activities as an example to the rest of the world. We also have to 
clean up our existing messes--particularly in Tribal and environmental 
justice communities--before investing in anything that might make those 
messes worse.
  As a result, despite my strong and continued support for the fire 
safety grants and my respect for my colleagues working on this issue, I 
must vote no.
  In 1982, I wrote a book about nuclear proliferation and about 
domestic nuclear powerplants. The book was entitled ``Nuclear Peril: 
The Politics of Proliferation,'' and it is what happens when there is a 
shortchanging of the safety, the security measures which should be put 
in place. It also dealt with the issues domestically of a reduction in 
the generalized supervision of nuclear powerplants in terms of having 
the highest possible safety standards.
  There are many in this institution who want to see a vast expansion 
of nuclear power using plutonium and uranium in the United States. They 
also support a vast expansion of nuclear powerplants around the world 
using uranium and plutonium. I appreciate the fact that they want to do 
that, and many want to see that happen in the name of climate change 
because it reduces greenhouse gases, but it has its own problems. It 
brings its own problems.
  We still don't have a solution to where we are going to bury all the 
nuclear waste in the United States. The Yucca Mountain facility in 
Nevada still hasn't been completed, and in my opinion, it will never be 
complete. We are now up to 35 years working on it.
  Similarly, overseas, if we get into a race with other countries--
Russia, China--in the export of nuclear power, we should not lower the 
standards; we should ensure that we are in as the responsible provider 
of nuclear power around the world so that we reduce dramatically the 
threat of proliferation.
  So my book in 1982 is directly relevant to this subject right here, 
because whether it be North Korea that converted a civilian nuclear 
powerplant over to a bomb-making factory, whether it be in Iraq with 
Saddam Hussein, whether it be in Iran--you name it--the story is the 
same.
  So we have to be very responsible and ensure we have the highest 
standards, and that is my goal in coming out here. I am going to vote 
no because I think if we are going to be encouraging a brandnew era of 
nuclear power here domestically and internationally, we should have 
that discussion. It shouldn't be attached to the fire safety bill to 
make sure that firefighters can put out the fire in the house that is 
next door to us. We all agree on that. On this issue, however--the 
issue of nuclear nonproliferation and the domestic safety of 
powerplants in our country--that is a different subject.
  But, honestly, my great friend Chairman Carper, who is just such an 
incredible leader on clean energy, the chairman of the committee that 
produced the most important climate bill in 2022 in a generation, he is 
my friend, and I thank him for engaging in a colloquy with me to 
clarify in detail the legislative intent of some of these provisions. I 
look forward to continuing to work on efforts to protect communities, 
clean up toxic waste, and create a consent-based pathway to nuclear 
waste storage in our country.
  The decision to put all of the nuclear waste in our country in Yucca 
Mountain was a political decision. I was in the room when it was made. 
The National Academy of Sciences said that the Yucca Mountain facility 
was at the bottom of the places in our country. It is near a river. It 
is near an earthquake fault. No wonder we haven't finished it. The 
safety questions were never answered at the beginning. And that is all 
I ask. If we are going to move into a new era of nuclear power here and 
around the world, let's ask the questions upfront. Let's make sure we 
put the safeguards in place. Let's make sure we avoid having to look 
back and say: How in the world did we ever allow something like that to 
ever occur again?
  I thank you for the opportunity to be out here.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to enter into a colloquy with 
the senior Senator from Delaware, the chairman of the Committee on 
Environment and Public Works, concerning two aspects of the ADVANCE Act 
before us today: nuclear regulation and nonproliferation.
  First is the provision regarding the mission statement of the Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission, referenced in section 501. The current mission 
statement of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission--the independent 
regulatory Agency responsible for the safe use of nuclear energy and 
nuclear materials--is based upon Congress' action in the Energy 
Reorganization Act of 1974. That landmark legislation recognized and 
addressed the need to separate nuclear regulatory and safety functions. 
In doing so, Congress strongly declared that this separation was in the 
public interest. Since then, the Commission has adopted Principles of 
Good Regulation and organizational values that underscore its 
responsibility towards evidence-based, independent regulation and 
licensing activities.
  Today, I rise to discuss the implications of the language in the 
ADVANCE Act regarding the mission statement of the NRC. This language, 
which did not move through the Senate and was not debated in the 
Committee on Environment and Public Works, would require the NRC to 
``update the mission statement of the Commission to include that 
licensing and regulation of the civilian use of radioactive materials 
and nuclear energy be conducted in a manner that is efficient and does 
not unnecessarily limit the civilian use of radioactive materials and 
deployment of nuclear energy, or the benefits of civilian use of 
radioactive materials and nuclear energy technology to society.''
  As the chair of the Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on 
Nuclear Safety, I see NRC's safety mission as the primary 
responsibility of the Agency--not the protection of its relationship to 
the nuclear industry.
  Chairman Carper, can you confirm that it is not the intent, nor the 
direction, of the new section 501 to in any way change the Agency's 
safety focus?
  Mr. CARPER. Yes, I can. Let me be clear on this point--and I thank 
the Senator for pointing it out--the ADVANCE Act does not in any way 
alter the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's longstanding statutory 
responsibility to protect public health, safety, and the environment. I 
do not believe that the language in section 501 in any way asks the 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission to do anything that it does not already 
do, within the limits of its existing authority and consistent with 
congressional intent in the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974. I 
believe that it is essential for the Commission to continue to adhere 
to congressional direction to prioritize safety in order to maintain 
the trust and confidence of

[[Page S4131]]

the public and the industry. In fact, the provisions in the ADVANCE 
Act, originally part of S. 1111 reported by the Committee on 
Environment and Public Works, provide the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 
with the tools and resources it needs to ensure that it can execute 
that safety mission efficiently and effectively into the future.
  Mr. MARKEY. I thank you, Chairman Carper, for your unequivocal 
statement that, under this bill, the NRC will still be required to 
implement a safety-first mission.
  I would also like to note my concern over language directing that 
regulatory activities ``not unnecessarily limit'' civilian nuclear 
activity. We do not need to enable any new lines of argument for 
industry to protest necessary safety updates required by the NRC that 
may require additional investments for licensees to implement and thus 
``unnecessarily limit'' their activity.
  Chairman Carper, can you confirm that this language should not be 
interpreted to suggest that the NRC should adopt a new, cost-benefit 
approach to decisions affecting public safety?
  Mr. CARPER. Yes. The update to the mission statement does not compel 
the NRC to update its approach to determining how to set safety 
standards beyond what is required by current law.
  Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Chairman Carper. I will continue to hold the 
Commission accountable to its primary safety responsibilities as 
outlined in the Energy Reorganization Act.
  Finally, before I yield the floor, I must raise my concerns in this 
bill concerning nonproliferation. Chairman Carper, section 103 under 
division B of the Fire Grants and Safety Act requires the Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission to notify the appropriate committees of Congress 
if an export license is issued for a covered country, defined as a 
country that has not ratified an Additional Protocol with the 
International Atomic Energy Agency or has not acceded to the amendment 
to the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material.
  Chairman Carper, am I correct in my understanding that these 
notifications occur after an export license is already issued?
  Mr. CARPER. Yes. The notification is meant to provide an additional 
mechanism for Congress to use in the oversight of the Commission's 
activities relating to nuclear exports. However, nothing in the ADVANCE 
Act changes the NRC's current responsibilities under the Atomic Energy 
Act to determine whether the granting of an export license is inimical 
to the national security interests of the United States. This means 
that if the NRC determines that issuance of an export license to any 
country is inimical to the national security interests of the United 
States, then the NRC is required by law to deny such a license, 
regardless of the technology involved.
  Mr. MARKEY. Chairman Carper, is the intent of requiring congressional 
notification to facilitate a better understanding of the extent and 
nature of export licensing activity?
  Mr. CARPER. Yes. To assist Congress in understanding the extent and 
nature of exports to countries that have not ratified International 
Atomic Energy Agency safety and security protocols, the Commission must 
notify Congress if the NRC determines that an export license for a 
covered item to a covered country is not inimical to the common defense 
and security of the United States. This bill does not intend to 
establish a new standard that differs from the current inimicality 
requirements under the Atomic Energy Act.
  Mr. MARKEY. Chairman Carper, how will a congressional notification 
requirement work to address proliferation concerns, if there is no 
explicit direction for the Commission to deny a license for nations 
that do not have the strongest possible nonproliferation standards?
  Mr. CARPER. The ADVANCE Act has no effect on the current authorities 
of the Commission, the Secretaries of Energy, State, or any other 
Federal Agency involved in the export of nuclear technology. The 
notification in section 103 exists in addition to existing authorities 
and does not absolve Federal Agencies charged with executing and 
overseeing nonproliferation polices from ensuring that the deployment 
of all nuclear technologies intended for peaceful civilian power uses 
do not contribute to proliferation, as required by law. In addition to 
relying on its own resources, the NRC currently, and as a matter of 
routine practice, consults with intelligence and other national 
security agencies in order to inform its inimicality determinations. I 
fully expect that practice will continue, and nothing in this bill 
would change it.
  Mr. MARKEY. I commend Chairman Carper for his efforts to maintain 
adequate guardrails against proliferation during negotiations with our 
House colleagues. But we must not export nuclear material and 
technology to countries that do not meet the same safety standards to 
which we hold ourselves, and we cannot afford to compromise decades of 
nonproliferation efforts to advance short-term geopolitical interests.
  In addition to my concerns over the export license provision, I would 
like to raise my concerns over section 105 under division B of the Fire 
Grants and Safety Act. This section directs the Secretaries of Energy 
and State to assess factors beyond 123 agreements to determine a 
country's Generally Authorized Destination status under part 810 of 
title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, which facilitates the export and 
transfer of certain nuclear material and technology as ``general 
activities.'' 123 agreements refer to section 123 of the Atomic Energy 
Act, which sets out specific requirements for the United States to 
engage in significant civilian nuclear cooperation with another 
country. 123 agreements are critical to the nonproliferation apparatus. 
These agreements require congressional approval, include a list of nine 
safety criteria, and set out clear procedures governing cooperation 
under the agreement.
  This provision provides no definition or guidance on what ``other 
factors'' qualify as adequate criteria for Generally Authorized 
Destination status.
  Chairman Carper, is it the intent of this provision to allow the 
Secretaries of Energy and State to grant Generally Authorized 
Destination status to countries that do not meet our own standards for 
nuclear safety and proliferation?
  Mr. CARPER. No. The bill simply allows the Secretaries of Energy and 
State to explore pathways to grant generally authorized status to 
countries other than having 123 agreements in place. The bill does not 
relieve those Secretaries of their statutory responsibilities to 
preserve standards for nuclear safety and nonproliferation in the 
export of nuclear technologies to any countries, including those 
designated as Generally Authorized Destinations.
  Mr. MARKEY. I thank the Senator from Delaware for his comments on 
these issues and his leadership.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.


                                Veterans

  Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, 10 years ago, a wait-time scandal at the VA 
Medical Center in Phoenix, AZ, led to a nationwide access and 
accountability crisis for the VA healthcare system. Many of us 
responded to that, worked to find a solution, and we ultimately passed 
something called the Choice Act.
  Subsequent to that, we made improvements in what we learned from the 
Choice Act's implementation and usage by veterans and its consequences 
to the Department of Veterans Affairs, and we enacted the MISSION Act, 
which was signed into law 6 years ago this month.
  The MISSION Act expanded the ability for veterans to seek care in 
their communities and made VA healthcare more accessible, convenient, 
and veteran-centric than ever before. The MISSION Act has also 
contributed to significant increases in enrollment of veterans, 
utilization and reliance on VA care, and improvements in quality and 
trust among veterans.
  For veterans--particularly those in rural States like yours and 
mine--the ability to get care closer to home can be life-changing and 
lifesaving. Unfortunately, recently, VA leaders have been taking 
alarming actions to limit the choices that the MISSION Act affords 
veterans in Kansas and across the country.
  It is unfathomable that the VA would consider leaving veterans with 
fewer options--fewer options--to seek the care they need. Yet I have 
seen a dramatic increase in community care-related casework requests 
from veterans

[[Page S4132]]

and VA staff in recent weeks and whistleblowers in their conversations 
with me, and I know that many of my colleagues have experienced the 
same thing.
  A lot of what I know about what is going on in veterans' lives and 
how the VA is doing is from the conversations I have with veterans in 
what we as Senators and Members of Congress call casework--someone who 
brings us a problem with the hope that we can make a difference and 
find a solution. Our casework in this area has escalated dramatically.
  A number of these casework requests involve--one of them, for 
example, involves a veteran with cancer. I mentioned this in a hearing 
in which VA officials were in front of our Veterans' Affairs Committee 
just in the last couple of weeks. But this veteran with cancer--he and 
others who have cancer, chronic pain, or mental health concerns are 
among the most vulnerable, high-risk veterans in the VA's patient 
population.
  In one case, the VA canceled the community care authorization for a 
veteran in Manhattan, KS, about an hour away from Topeka, where there 
is a VA hospital. The issue here is, this veteran--one, why did they 
cancel the care? Two, this veteran had completed 58 of 60 cancer 
treatments, and the VA canceled the last 2 in his hometown and told him 
he needed to find chemotherapy at the VA in Topeka, about an hour away. 
The VA wanted him to drive back and forth to Topeka for his remaining 
treatments.
  The VA, when I told them the facts, saw that something is wrong here 
and adjusted to allow him to have his treatments--the last 2 of the 
60--where he had been receiving the first 58. But it is only one 
example in which the VA is rolling back the opportunities for veterans 
who are already receiving care in the community to continue to receive 
that care.
  These kinds of decisions would be alarming and unacceptable to me and 
many of my colleagues I think at any time, but it is particularly 
concerning right now--and it is why I am on the Senate floor today 
highlighting this issue--it is particularly concerning right now given 
that the VA recently implemented a strategic hiring pause in the VA 
healthcare system and is actively working to reduce the VA workforce by 
10,000 employees.
  It defies my understanding, how the VA expects to limit choices for 
veterans in the community--in other words, forcing them into a VA 
direct care system--while at the same time working to reduce staff in 
that direct care system that are actually available to care for those 
veterans.
  Independently, these policy goals are cause for concern. Together, 
they risk the welfare of veterans and the VA's workforce nationwide.
  I would encourage my colleagues to take a look at the casework that 
their staffs are working on on behalf of veterans in their States and 
see if they are not experiencing the same thing that I am seeing, which 
is more and more veterans saying: Senator, Jerry, Senator Moran, can 
you help me? I have been receiving care in the community. I like the 
way I am receiving that care. I like my provider. Yet the VA is pulling 
the rug out from under me.
  These actions could cost some veterans their lives and drive other 
veterans away from VA healthcare benefits that they have earned and 
deserve. I have had several veterans tell me: I like what I am getting 
in the community so much, I am going to pay for it out of my own 
pocket.
  Veterans can do better. The VA can do better. The VA must do better.
  But I don't think this is just a happenstance. I don't think that the 
facts or the circumstances I am describing to my colleagues are just 
something that seems to be happening at the VA. It is a concerted 
effort by VA leadership to bring community-care veterans back into 
direct care at the VA.
  As my colleagues may recall from the MISSION Act, what the law says 
is a veteran, in many instances--in most instances--is entitled to care 
in the community if he or she--the veteran--along with their provider, 
decide it is in the best interest of the veteran.
  That decision is not made by the VA whether a veteran is entitled to 
care in the community; it is made by the patient--the veteran--and the 
provider--the doctor, the nurse practitioner, the physician assistant. 
Yet there is a concerted effort in VA leadership to deny veterans that 
care and insist that if they are going to receive care, they receive 
direct care within the VA healthcare system.
  I am a fan of the VA healthcare system. I support it. I work hard to 
make sure that it has the capabilities--their assets, the necessary 
resources--to do its job. But I also know that there are circumstances, 
particularly in rural areas or certain kind of specialized treatment, 
in which it is the right thing to do to allow a veteran, with his or 
her desire, and his or her provider saying this is in the best interest 
of my patient to have care provided in the community.
  This is a really important issue. The VA struggled to provide care 
for veterans in the past. Many improvements have been made. We have 
given veterans a choice. But the VA has no right, no ability, to 
undermine the choice that a veteran makes. I call on the VA to 
immediately reverse course.
  The VA has, of course, explained to me their rationale, in some ways 
deny that there is any concerted effort or any policy change; but the 
circumstances are so evident, so prevalent, that I absolutely believe 
that the VA's policies, the encouragement of their staff, is to do 
something contrary to the law.
  The VA needs to reverse its course, reaffirm the right of veterans--
those who have served our country. They have the right to seek the care 
that they need and desire in the community in which they live or where 
they believe the best absolute care can be provided to them under their 
current healthcare circumstances.
  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.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                   Spectrum and National Security Act

  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, today, the Committee on Commerce, 
Science, and Transportation was slated to consider the Spectrum and 
National Security Act. This bill, a hard-won compromise months in the 
making, would have provided a balanced approach to spectrum management, 
protected our national defense by ensuring our military has the 
telecommunications capacity they need, promoted innovation by 
unleashing spectrum for commercial use, and essential for America's 
economic and international competitiveness. It also funded key 
bipartisan priorities that make our Nation more secure and also 
increases opportunities for Americans to be competitive in higher-wage 
jobs.
  This bill was to be considered in a markup today and included shared 
priorities by the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and 
the Secretary of Commerce. In fact, they all released a joint statement 
last week in support of the bill.
  I ask unanimous consent that their statement be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       A Joint Statement from the Secretary of Defense, the 
     Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Secretary of 
     Commerce on the Spectrum and National Security Act:
       ``The Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint 
     Chiefs of Staff, and the Secretary of Commerce support 
     adoption of the spectrum legislation proposed by Chair 
     Cantwell subject to a set of agreed upon changes, which both 
     Departments, working closely with the White House, have 
     concurred on.''
  Ms. CANTWELL. Why did these Agencies stop sparring and finally agree 
to a path forward? Simply put, it is because spectrum helps each of 
them meet their responsibilities on behalf of this Nation. The spectrum 
deal would have put policies in place that give Federal Agencies equity 
at each part of their Agencies and a seat at the table in spectrum 
decision-making.
  It eliminated the disruptive inter-agency disputes that we have come 
to know that literally have impeded spectrum policy progress in the 
past years. It also reinstated the FCC's spectrum auction authority 
without compromising national security. The FCC has been without its 
auction authority for more than a year because the fighting

[[Page S4133]]

among these special interests threaten our economic growth.
  Establishing a sustainable spectrum pipeline would not only spur our 
own economic growth and promote innovation, it would also have raised 
revenues to fund important critical security and economic opportunities 
across the United States. One of those key priorities funded through 
this legislation is the continuation of the Affordable Connectivity 
Program. And I will note that the Presiding Officer is very vocal in 
his support for the Affordable Connectivity Program. I thank him for 
his leadership.
  This Affordable Connectivity Program provides affordable broadband to 
more than 23 million American households. Americans need broadband to 
speak to their doctors, to do their homework, to connect to their jobs, 
to stay in touch with loved ones.
  It is interesting--Mr. President, you will know--that there are parts 
of the United States where people either can't afford broadband, nor 
are the fees and services requirements affordable enough for people to 
purchase them. I am pretty sure there are places like that in Vermont. 
So it is so important to have a program like the Affordable 
Connectivity Program.
  The pandemic laid bare how important broadband access was to every 
American and to businesses--no different from having access to 
affordable electricity or heating or telephone capacity.
  Who are these 23 million Americans? About half of the ACP households 
are military families; about a quarter are African-American; another 
quarter are Latino; 300,000 ACP households are on Tribal lands; over 10 
million Americans who use the program are over 50. A lot of people are 
on a fixed income, elderly, but still count on affordable broadband for 
their daily lives.
  Not surprising, just as in this article that was in yesterday's 
newspaper in my State: End of the internet subsidy puts healthcare 
lifeline at risk, which describes the story of a woman in Idaho who 
literally was trying to fix her home in a rural community and actually 
fell down and broke her leg and then needed that connectivity to 
maintain connection with her doctors and her healthcare. These are the 
Americans who need this program. They are in every State.
  One school employee told me about a student who hadn't done their 
homework for weeks. Her teacher called to find out why. The student 
didn't want to say. They didn't want to be called out in school. They 
didn't want any of their friends to know they just didn't have internet 
services. She wasn't trying to get out of the work; she was just trying 
to protect her family and protect herself.
  We can't be asking parents to choose between a child's food and their 
education. But despite this demonstrated level of need, the Commerce 
Committee, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, offered 
amendments to actually reduce the ACP program. They wanted to get rid 
of the program that helps these families who cannot afford 
connectivity. I am not surprised because some members on the other side 
don't even support the ACP program.
  But blocking the committee progress will have serious consequences. 
For example, this legislation also funded a program called Rip and 
Replace to remove Chinese spyware from our telecom system.
  Some providers in rural communities and telecom networks don't have 
the resources to, as we say, rip out the Chinese spyware and replace it 
with American products. This legislation would also help them.
  Releasing more spectrum also would lead to greater adoption of new 
technologies like the Open RAN system--another alternative to an open 
system that would help our telecommunication providers upgrade our 
infrastructure to new spectrum and get rid of the Chinese technology. 
Getting more of the secure technology will protect our communities from 
network adversaries and allow Americans to be in the lead again on 
telecommunications network equipment.
  Additionally, the all-of-government approach to spectrum management 
in this bill allows the United States to maintain our commercial and 
military leadership around the globe, including at important standard-
setting bodies where adversaries are going to make inroads.
  This bill would have funded a historical investment in our technology 
advancements that we voted for in the CHIPS and Science Act, 
particularly in what are called EPSCoR States, tech hubs, and essential 
programs to maintaining U.S. competitiveness.
  There is no way that ``rip and replace'' should be a partisan issue. 
We don't want Chinese spyware in our telecom system. There is no way 
that ACP--affordable connectivity for people who can't afford it--
should be a partisan issue. This is about tackling the cost of 
expensive broadband for the working poor, and it should not be a 
partisan issue.
  Pushing ahead with grant funding enhances America's innovation and 
competitiveness, it protects our national security, and it helps us 
with the economic innovation we all want to see happen throughout the 
United States.
  I hope my colleagues will stop with obstructing and get back to 
negotiating on important legislation that will deliver these national 
security priorities and help Americans continue to have access to 
something as essential as affordable broadband.
  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. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                            BUMP Act of 2023

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I am proud to come to the floor today to 
stand with my good friend and a great leader on this issue, Senator 
Martin Heinrich, on a matter of life and death.
  A few days ago, the MAGA Supreme Court struck once again, reversing a 
ban on dangerous bump stocks like the one used in the Las Vegas 
shooting--the deadliest mass shooting ever committed by one person.
  Today, the Senate must step into the breach and pass a Federal ban on 
bump stocks, which Senator Heinrich has championed. I urge Republicans 
not to block this commonsense safety measure.
  Banning bump stocks should be the work of 5 minutes. It is an idea 
that even some conservative Senators have claimed to support in the 
past. One conservative colleague of mine on the Republican side said a 
while ago that if a bump stock ban ``actually gets on the Senator 
floor, I'd vote for it.''
  The senior Senator from South Carolina also said:

       I think doing away with bump stocks, that's achievable. . . 
     . I'm willing to get rid of that.

  Senate Republicans even supported Donald Trump when he, hardly a 
friend of gun safety, backed bump stocks after the Las Vegas shooting. 
If banning bump stocks was good enough for Republicans in the past, it 
should be good enough for them today.
  But if Republicans block this bill today after claiming to support 
bump stock bans in years past--a ban even President Trump supported 
when he was President--shame on them. They would be siding with the gun 
lobby over families exasperated by gun violence.
  Mr. President, it is amazing to me that the MAGA Supreme Court even 
went to the right of Donald Trump on this issue. It is surprising, 
appalling, and very, very hard to swallow that they would have this 
kind of reasoning.
  If Republicans now believe a ban on bump stocks is simply too much, 
they should explain their change of heart to the families in Nevada who 
lost loved ones. If Republicans block this bill today after claiming to 
support bump stock bans in years past, shame on them. Republicans 
should explain to parents and teachers and students why they would 
rather make it easier for murderers to access dangerous weapons instead 
of making it harder. It is not enough for Republicans to roll their 
eyes and dismiss this bump stock vote as a show vote. Tell that to the 
families who lost loved ones.
  I urge Republicans not to object. Americans are sick of gun violence. 
They are especially sick of lawmakers who obey the gun lobby and kill 
any effort to make our communities safer.
  I want to thank my friend and great leader in the Senate Martin 
Heinrich on this and so many other issues,

[[Page S4134]]

whether it is conservation or environment or protecting the rights of 
people or just helping New Mexico in every way, as he is now vowing to 
help them with the fires that are ravaging in his State. The Senator 
from New Mexico is one of our great leaders here, and I am so proud to 
yield to him to make the unanimous consent request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.


                South Fork and Salt Fires in New Mexico

  Mr. HEINRICH. Mr. President, I want to begin today before we get to 
bump stocks by acknowledging the South Fork and Salt fires that have 
forced literally thousands from their homes in Lincoln County, NM, and 
the Mescalero Apache Nation over the last 24 hours.
  I was actually just at the White House discussing these fires with 
Homeland Security Advisor Elizabeth Sherwood-Randall. These are no-joke 
fires. They are large, they are fast-moving, and they are threatening 
thousands of people's homes today.
  I know that many are worried that they may have already lost their 
homes, their property, their businesses, their animals. My thoughts are 
with every single one of you.
  I want to extend my extraordinary thanks to the wildland 
firefighters, the first responders, local and Tribal leaders who are 
working right now to protect New Mexicans. I am also grateful to all 
the surrounding communities that have already welcomed thousands of 
their neighbors.
  In times of need, New Mexicans look out for each other, and I know 
that we will do everything possible to help our fellow New Mexicans 
through this immediate emergency and the recovery in the months and 
years ahead.
  I want to stress the importance for everyone in the impacted area to 
please heed evacuation orders and follow directions from local 
authorities. Please do everything you can to stay safe.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 1909

  Mr. President, I am also here today to make a UC request for the 
Senate to consider my legislation, the Banning Unlawful Machinegun 
Parts or BUMP Act.
  Nearly 7 years ago on October 1, 2017, more than 20,000 people 
gathered for a large outdoor music festival. It was the third day in a 
row that folks from all around the country joined their friends and 
family to hear music from some of their favorite musicians. No one 
could have anticipated the nightmare that was about to unfold that day.
  Just after 10 o'clock at night, thousands were listening to the final 
performance of the night. And then over the music, they started to hear 
what at first people thought were fireworks. Rapid gunfire rained down 
on the crowd with shots so close together they seemed to almost bleed 
into each other. Complete panic erupted. And for the next terrifying 10 
minutes, concertgoers ran in every direction, searching for cover where 
there was none--some falling down next to bleeding friends and dying 
loved ones, others fleeing desperately trying to reach safety.
  In total, the shooter fired more than 1,000 rounds of ammunition in 
just 10 minutes. He killed 58 people that night, injured hundreds more, 
including 2 more who ultimately perished from their wounds. It was and 
is the deadliest mass shooting in American history.
  The Las Vegas gunman was able to murder and injure so many people so 
quickly because he used a deadly device known as a bump stock. Bump 
stocks are an attachment that modify semiautomatic firearms to 
dramatically increase their rate of fire, allowing them to operate as 
fully automatic weapons. They make it possible to shoot hundreds of 
rounds a minute. And let me be real clear, as a firearms owner myself, 
there is no legitimate use for a bump stock--not for self-defense, not 
in a law enforcement context, not even in military applications as they 
are less accurate than a standard fully automatic military platform.
  But what they are tailor-made for is a mass shooting. I know there 
are people who will say: Guns don't kill people. People kill people. 
But the reality is this: Bump stocks kill and injure in the hundreds.
  As someone who has owned and used firearms for most of my life for 
hunting, sport, for self-defense, I know for a fact that bump stocks 
serve no legitimate purpose. And that is why in the days and weeks that 
followed the horrific mass shooting in Las Vegas, NV, I led a 
bipartisan effort to ban bump stocks. I introduced legislation in the 
Senate alongside my Republican colleague and friend Jeff Flake of 
Arizona and Nevada's Senator Catherine Cortez Masto. We also called on 
then-President Trump to use his authority to ban bump stocks in a 
Federal rule. President Trump actually agreed with us at the time and 
finalized an ATF rule to get that done.

  But last week, our wildly out-of-touch Supreme Court majority 
invalidated that rule. In an illogical and deadly ruling, they made 
bump stocks legal once again.
  As Justice Sotomayor said in her dissent, ``When I see a bird that 
walks like a duck, swims like a duck, quacks like a duck, I call that 
bird a duck.''
  I agree with Justice Sotomayor. A bump stock-equipped semiautomatic 
rifle is a machinegun, and it should be banned just like machineguns 
have been banned for nearly 100 years.
  Even still, within the Supreme Court majority's ruling, they gave 
Congress--they gave us--clear direction on the only way for us to 
protect Americans from these deadly devices. Congress needs to act. We 
need to pass my bill to ban bump stocks and do it now.
  I am proud to lead the Banning Unlawful Machinegun Parts, or BUMP 
Act, alongside Senators like Catherine Cortez Masto, Susan Collins, 
Angus King, and the more than 20 new cosponsors who joined our 
legislation after the Supreme Court's recent ruling. This is the same 
bipartisan bill that I first introduced in 2018 in the aftermath of 
that shooting.
  The BUMP Act would prohibit the sale of bump stocks and other devices 
that allow semiautomatic firearms to increase the rate of fire and 
operate as fully automatic weapons. This is something that nearly all 
Americans agree should be done.
  This should be a commonsense, bipartisan public safety vote that all 
of us should welcome if we believe that our kids should have the 
freedom to feel safe in their church or their classroom or their movie 
theater.
  We should also be clear about what happens if we don't pass this 
legislation. We will be giving a free pass to street gangs and cartels 
and mass shooters to access these deadly devices and turn them against 
our communities. That is the harm that we are putting our communities 
in.
  There is some skepticism out there about whether Congress can get 
this done, about whether all of us coming together to ban bump stocks 
is impossible. But 2 years ago, we proved that type of thinking is flat 
wrong. Over my time here in the Senate, I have learned that people are 
always quick to tell you there is no path forward for your legislation. 
And the reality is that there is never a path forward until we 
collectively choose to make one.
  I was proud to be part of the core group of bipartisan negotiators 
here in the Senate that helped pass the Bipartisan Safer Communities 
Act. That was the first significant Federal gun safety legislation 
signed into law in nearly three decades. During those negotiations, I 
worked especially close with my colleague Senator Collins on a 
successful effort to increase criminal penalties for those who would 
put guns into the hands of criminals and to make it illegal to traffic 
firearms out of our country. And by passing that law, we proved that 
Congress can take concrete action to protect our communities from gun 
violence.
  Now, it is time that we take similar bipartisan action to ban these 
bump stocks. For my part, I refuse to stand idly by and wait for the 
next mass shooting. I would ask all of my colleagues to please support 
the BUMP Act to ban these deadly mass killing devices once and for all.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the 
Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of S. 1909, the 
Banning Unlawful Machinegun Parts Act, and the Senate proceed to its 
immediate consideration; further, 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. RICKETTS. Reserving the right to object.

[[Page S4135]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. RICKETTS. Welcome to another day of the Democratic summer of show 
votes. We need to be clear why the majority leader is holding this show 
vote. The Supreme Court made a decision last week he didn't like. A 6-
to-3 majority Supreme Court ruled the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, 
Firearms and Explosives overstepped their authority when they tried to 
reclassify bump stocks as machineguns. The Supreme Court made the right 
decision. In January, I joined Senator Lummis and other colleagues 
filing an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to do what they did.
  But the majority leader and his Democratic colleagues supported the 
gun-grabbing overreach. The majority leader decided to bring up a bill 
called the BUMP Act. He claims this bill will ban bump stocks. Just 
like his previously misnamed bills, if you actually read the bill, that 
is not what it does at all.
  The BUMP Act targets common firearm accessories, not just bump 
stocks. This is from the text of the bill. The bill bans ``any manual, 
power-driven, or electronic device primarily designed, or redesigned, 
so that when the device is attached to a semiautomatic firearm, the 
device--[i] materially increases the rate of fire on the firearm.''
  In short, this doesn't ban bump stocks. This bill would ban literally 
any item that makes a firearm easier and, in some cases, safer to 
shoot. We are talking about competition or adjustable triggers.
  We are also talking about items that reduce the distance between a 
shooter's hand or trigger, like certain firearm stocks and grips. It is 
not just about bump stocks. That is why the disabled veterans hate this 
bill. I have heard about veterans in Nebraska who are concerned about 
this bill. Sometimes veterans who are disabled or elderly choose to 
adjust the stock or grip on a firearm to make it easier and safer to 
shoot. The Constitution protects their right to do so through the 
Second Amendment.
  This bill would take that constitutional right away from the same men 
and women who fought for our Constitution.
  The other problem with this bill is it doesn't even define what it is 
trying to regulate. The bill uses the phrase ``rate of fire'' 500 
times. Three of those times, the bill said it would ban a device that 
materially increases the rate of fire in the firearm. Nowhere in the 
bill does it define what constitutes the ``rate of fire'' increase.
  The other two times, it says it would ban a device that approximates 
the action of a rate of fire of a machinegun. But under Federal law, it 
is not the rate of fire that makes something a machinegun. Under 26 
U.S.C. 5845(b), it is a mechanical function.
  So either this ``rate of fire'' section was written by someone who 
had no idea what they are talking about, or it is a cynical attempt to 
include more firearm accessories than just bump stocks. I would bet the 
latter.
  And let's be honest. Does anyone seriously believe this lawless Biden 
administration would interpret this law in a way that respects law-
abiding gun owners? Not.
  On this and other issues, the Biden administration has repeatedly 
expanded previous interpretations of our laws in ways that go far 
beyond what even the Obama administration was coupled with, and they 
were no friends of the Second Amendment. We cannot allow unelected 
bureaucrats at the ATF to abuse their authority and interpret laws in 
ways Congress clearly never intended.
  So this bill may be called the BUMP Act, but it is not really about 
bump stocks. This bill is about banning as many firearm accessories as 
possible, giving the ATF broad authority to ban most semiautomatic 
firearms. It is an unconstitutional attack on law-abiding gun owners. 
Under this bill, owners of any semiautomatic firearm that has been 
modified to make it easier to fire will be forced to register their 
firearms alongside actual machineguns in the ATF's National Firearm 
Registration and Transfer Record Database. And if they don't, they 
would be in violation of the law. That is really, really scary.
  If this bill becomes law, it would give the Biden administration the 
authority to force confiscation of any common semiautomatic firearm 
that has been modified to make it easier to shoot.
  The majority leader knows this bill will not pass. It won't pass 
because enough people in this building still believe in the 
Constitution, and the Constitution affords Americans the right to own a 
firearm. This vague, overreaching bill directly infringes upon that 
right.
  For safety, we ought to better enforce existing gun laws and address 
mental health issues. This bill doesn't do that. In fact, it doesn't do 
anything to address the root causes of gun violence. We are not 
addressing mental health or cultural issues driving men and women to 
commit these horrible crimes--the failed family structures, the 
depression, the division and glorification of violence on social media.
  If Democrats really cared about gun violence, they would be trying to 
build support for a bill that could actually pass. Instead, we have a 
show vote on a bill that uses vague language to ban as many firearms 
accessories as possible and limit the Second Amendment rights of 
disabled and elderly Americans who may need certain accessories to use 
a firearm safely.
  We should be working on things that actually keep America safe, like 
the National Defense Authorization Act.
  For these reasons, therefore, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
  The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. HEINRICH. Mr. President, I just want to remind our colleagues 
that we actually did pass legislation, 2 years ago, to invest in mental 
health, and we passed a meaningful gun safety piece of legislation. But 
the assertion that this would ban some enormous number of firearm 
devices is certainly not rooted in fact. It would, however, ban bump 
stocks, and it would ban things like Glock switches, which also let 
semiautomatic firearms act as fully automatic firearms.
  I think the American people understand what commonsense gun safety 
looks like, and that is what the BUMP Act is all about.
  And I will reserve the rest of my time, but this will not be the last 
time you hear about these devices on the floor of the Senate.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Ms. CORTEZ MASTO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. CORTEZ MASTO. Mr. President, I rise today to express my deep 
disappointment of what I just heard, unfortunately, from my Senate 
colleague from Nebraska, Senator Pete Ricketts, who blocked Senator 
Heinrich's and mine and Senator Collins' legislation--common sense--
that would save lives. And I am talking about S. 1909, which is the 
Banning Unlawful Machinegun Parts Act, or what we are calling the BUMP 
Act.
  Now, it is shocking to me that my colleagues aren't willing to move 
forward on such an important issue. Bump stocks are deadly firearm 
accessories that turn semiautomatics guns into machineguns, which are 
illegal, allowing a shooter to fire multiple bullets per second.
  Now, my husband and I are gun owners. We don't need a bump stock. And 
I know any commonsense gun owner doesn't have a bump stock. What do you 
need it for? They are dangerous. They are incredibly deadly devices 
that have no place on our streets.
  And I will tell you what, I know firsthand the damage that bump 
stocks can do because, nearly 7 years ago, when I was a brandnew 
Senator and had just been elected, in 2017, Las Vegas, my hometown, 
experienced the deadliest mass shooting in American history because of 
bump stocks.
  On October 1, 2017, a gunman opened fire at the Route 91 Harvest 
Festival in my hometown of Las Vegas. He had outfitted his weapons with 
bump stocks, allowing him to spray over 1,000 bullets into the crowd of 
concertgoers. And when I say ``sprayed,'' he was in a hotel room, 
knocked out the window--and it wasn't just a spray of bullets; it was 
raining down bullets on concertgoers below. It was intentional.

  In 10 minutes--10 minutes with that bump stock--he murdered 58 
people.

[[Page S4136]]

And 867 total people were wounded. Half of those people, 411, were 
wounded by gunshots, including 2 who later died as a result of their 
injuries. Think about that. Almost 470 people hit by bullets in under 
10 minutes.
  Now, I want you to imagine the terror all of those families must have 
felt. Unfortunately, I don't have to imagine it because I experienced 
it. My niece was at that concert that night. And I know exactly where I 
was when I found out she was there; I know exactly where I was when I 
found out she was safe.
  And later on that evening, I went to the family reunification center 
and sat with those families who were waiting to hear from the coroner, 
who was in the back room, whether their loved one was in that back 
room.
  Now, I am thankful that my niece was not hit by one of those bullets. 
But too many were either killed or hit by bullets or suffered emotional 
distress because of it.
  I will never forget that night. I will never forget those families. 
It is heartbreaking. You could see their hopelessness in the room at 
the number of deaths and injuries being reported on TV as it continued 
to grow, waiting to hear.
  I have to explain this because too much happens here in Washington, 
DC, that we just think, Oh, this is a number, or, This happened in some 
other community. When I am talking about raining down bullets on 
concertgoers, think about this: As I talked to the doctors afterwards 
in the emergency rooms--the people that were injured, because it rained 
down, it came down on their heads. It came down on their body parts. It 
came down in devastating locations for people who actually survived 
that event but were wounded.
  Our hospitals were overrun. Nevadans, including me, we stood in line 
at blood banks for hours because there was such a need for blood in the 
hospitals for so many who had been injured.
  And as I have said, I talked to the doctors treating these injuries, 
and they described to me the scene that night was like a battlefield--a 
battlefield, the blood everywhere, the blood on the floor. The people 
who picked up bodies and took them to emergency rooms, they weren't 
literally ambulances that were picking these people up; these were 
concertgoers. These were people who grabbed people to save them, put 
them in their own vehicles, and took them to the closest hospital.
  That was what was happening that night because somebody had a bump 
stock, because somebody thought it was OK to outfit their guns with 
bump stocks so they could kill more people in rapid succession.
  Now, understanding this--because this happened October 2017. We had a 
new President at the time; President Trump was the President at the 
time. Former President Trump directed his administration to ban these 
bump stocks. And I tell you, President Trump came out to Las Vegas at 
that time. He saw. He heard.
  He banned the devices because he said:

       Legal weapons into illegal machine guns.

  That is what these bump stocks do: They turn ``legal weapons into 
illegal machine guns.''
  Now, I believe the Supreme Court was wrong to overturn the Trump 
administration bump stock ban. But now that it has been struck down, it 
is on Congress to pass legislation to keep our community safe from 
these deadly devices.
  Now, the reason why we went through ATF and the Trump administration 
asked ATF was because that was the quickest way that we could do it 
administratively, the quickest way we could take action and keep people 
safe.
  Now, in the most recent decision, Justice Sam Alito said it himself 
in his concurring opinion in the case. He said it is within Congress's 
power to make this right. This is from his concurring opinion:

       The horrible shooting spree in Las Vegas in 2017 did not 
     change the statutory text or its meaning. That event 
     demonstrated that a semiautomatic rifle with a bump stock can 
     have the same lethal effect as a machine gun.
       But an event that highlights the need to amend a law does 
     not itself change the law's meaning.

  And Justice Alito went on to say:

       There is a simple remedy for the disparate treatment of 
     bump stocks and machine guns. Congress can amend the law--and 
     perhaps would have done so already if ATF had stuck with its 
     earlier interpretation.
       Now that the situation is clear, Congress can act.

  So to my colleague from Nebraska, this is not a show vote. If you 
were here when I was here back then, we were trying to move as quickly 
as possible to get something done to save lives. First 
administratively, couldn't do it according to the Court now. I disagree 
with the Court; this is a machinegun. But the Court now has put it 
back, back really in our realm to do something about it. And I cannot 
imagine any one of my colleagues standing there saying they wouldn't 
want to do the right thing here to continue to save lives. I don't 
think they want to turn a blind eye to what happened in Las Vegas. I 
don't think they want to turn a blind eye to the 411 people that were 
shot at the Route 91 Harvest Festival, the 60 who were murdered by 
gunfire, and the thousands of families throughout our country whose 
lives have been tragically upended because of bump stocks.
  If we can't do something as Congress and come together in a 
bipartisan issue that not just Nevadans but people in this country 
understand, then that is disappointing and irresponsible, and it is 
negligent. It is negligent.
  So to my Republican colleagues, if you want to do something about 
this and you are not happy with the Bump Stock Act that Martin Heinrich 
just put forward, which I think addresses all of the issues, then let's 
figure out how we can get this done because it is our role now to do 
it. And we shouldn't stop working to right this wrong.
  I will tell you, I am going to keep pushing this bill to keep our 
communities safe. I am going to continue to work with anyone who wants 
to eradicate bump stocks from this country once and for all.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority whip.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 204

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, in just a few minutes, I will ask for a 
unanimous consent to pass my Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection 
Act. This is a very simple bill, and it should be a noncontroversial 
one. It simply says that a baby born alive after an attempted abortion 
is entitled to the same protection and medical care that any other 
newborn baby is entitled to.
  That is all. It doesn't limit abortion. It doesn't make abortion 
illegal. It simply states that a baby born alive after an attempted 
abortion is entitled to medical care, and yet somehow this bill is too 
much for my Democratic colleagues. Somehow saying that a living, 
breathing baby born alive after an attempted abortion is entitled to 
medical care is a step too far.
  I would be interested to know exactly what it is that they are afraid 
of, and I suspect they are afraid that by pointing to the humanity of 
the born child, they might end up pointing to the humanity of the 
unborn child. After all, it makes no sense to say that a baby is not a 
human being a second before birth and is a human being a second after.
  And so I suspect that Democrats are afraid that recognizing the 
humanity of a living, breathing, born child in an abortion clinic might 
end up leading to protection for unborn children.
  And Democrats are apparently so determined to ensure that the 
supposed right to kill unborn children is protected that they are 
willing to oppose a law to protect born children.
  It is a tragic measure of their extremism on this issue. And if 
anyone thinks that abortion isn't a slippery slope, that we can somehow 
devalue unborn babies' lives while maintaining respect for everyone 
else's, well, I am here to tell them differently, because we are at a 
point where roughly 50 percent of the U.S. Congress opposes protecting 
the lives of born human beings if they happen to be born alive after an 
attempted abortion.
  In a matter of seconds now, one of my Democratic colleagues will 
object to this legislation. But I hope and pray that this will not be 
the last word and that, one day soon, we will get to a point where 
legislation like this will not be controversial and where human rights 
of every human being, born and unborn, will be respected.

[[Page S4137]]

  So, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the 
Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of S. 204 and that 
the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration. I further ask 
consent 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?
  The Senator from California.
  Ms. BUTLER. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I rise in 
opposition to the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act.
  Despite what our Republican colleagues propose, the contents of this 
legislation would yield harmful impacts on patients and providers. This 
bill creates new and vague standards of care for physicians, providing 
reproductive healthcare that are not based in medicine, not based in 
science, and not based in fact.
  It goes to unnecessary lengths to penalize doctors and patients for 
so-called substandard care when current Federal law already ensures 
doctors the obligation to provide appropriate medical care to all their 
patients.
  This bill fails to consider a serious reality for expectant parents. 
Too often some parents learn late in their pregnancy that their baby 
wouldn't survive due to factors beyond their control. At that point, 
parents are often placed in a position to make one of the most 
difficult decisions of their lives, which is to end the pregnancy at 
the delivery of their baby.
  That is why my Democratic colleagues and I have taken to the Senate 
floor over the last few weeks to plead with our Republican colleagues 
about protecting a patient's right to choose what to do with their own 
bodies.
  But this bill is an attempt to once again drag our Nation backwards, 
and I refuse to sit idly by and watch it happen.
  For those reasons, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
  The Senator from Mississippi.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 4533

  Mrs. HYDE-SMITH. Mr. President, in a few moments, I would like to ask 
unanimous consent for the Senate to take up and pass legislation I have 
introduced to support genuine solutions to infertility and empower 
couples with autonomy over how they build their families.
  First, I want to take a moment to recognize the second anniversary of 
the Dobbs decision, a ruling that underscores the great significance of 
bringing life into this world. It still doesn't feel real that we were 
able to overturn Roe. What a blessing for this country that that was.
  However, we are still fighting daily to protect Americans from the 
harmful pro-abortion agenda being pushed by the Democrats. Pro-abortion 
advocates have been creative in spreading fear by using issues that 
Republicans support, such as access to IVF.
  I have been clear about my strong support for access to IVF and am 
grateful for its ability to bring God's beautiful creations into this 
world. And while the left wants to stoke fear in this arena, it is time 
that we hone in on the real problem and find long-lasting, affordable 
solutions.
  Infertility affects 15 to 16 percent of couples in the United States 
and is a profoundly emotional experience. While IVF is a procedure used 
to create life, it does not treat the underlying conditions that cause 
infertility and make it difficult for a woman to sustain that life in 
the womb.
  If we are going to address the issue of infertility, then we need to 
start with solutions that promote genuine healing. This is the mission 
behind the RESTORE Act, which I introduced with Senator Lankford last 
week. ``RESTORE'' stands for reproductive empowerment and support 
through optimal restoration.
  Provisions of this budget-neutral bill include: educational tools for 
women seeking information about reproductive health conditions and 
restorative reproductive medicine, training opportunities for medical 
professionals who feel called to help couples build their families.
  They will learn how to diagnose and treat reproductive health 
conditions such as endometriosis, PCOS, uterine fibroids, blocked 
fallopian tubes, hormone imbalances, and thyroid conditions, ovulation 
dysfunctions, and other health conditions that cause infertility and 
painful menstrual cycles.
  The RESTORE Act also directs HHS to conduct data collection and 
implement ongoing reports to assess the access women have to 
restorative reproductive medicine and infertility care.
  We also ensure strong religious and conscience protections in the 
bill. What we are trying to do here is promote long-term healing for 
couples struggling with infertility. We want to empower childbearing 
generations so that families can address fertility concerns in a cost-
effective manner.
  This bill is separate and complementary to IVF. We have seen great 
success numbers come from fertility clinics that take a holistic 
approach to healing the root cause of infertility, and if IVF is still 
necessary, these clinics see a greater success rate in the first round 
of IVF.
  This pro-family bill is one more step toward increasing successful 
fertility treatments for women and men.
  I will continue to support those going through infertility and search 
for ways to help families who dreamed of bringing children into this 
world.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, 
Education, Labor, and Pensions be discharged from further consideration 
of S. 4533 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; 
further, that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and 
the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Markey). Is there objection?
  The Senator from Minnesota.
  Ms. SMITH. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and with 
respect for my colleague Senator Hyde-Smith with whom I serve on the 
Agriculture Committee, I fear this bill is another attempt to distract 
from the truth, which is that Republicans are trying to make it harder 
for women to access reproductive healthcare.
  Now, this bill purports to empower and support women and families 
facing fertility challenges--something that I would certainly agree 
with. But instead of protecting access to IVF services and other 
assisted reproductive technologies, what it would do is to direct the 
government to actually steer people away from using evidence-based 
services like IVF in favor of ``restorative reproductive medicine.''
  Now, let me be clear, women and their families deserve the freedom 
and the autonomy to decide for themselves how to start and grow their 
families in consultation with their doctors, and they don't need 
politicians deciding what kind of care they should or shouldn't be 
getting.
  But if you need more evidence, the Republicans are trying to distort 
their record on these issues, look no further than section 2 of this 
bill, which would declare that Congress finds that ``in vitro 
fertilization and other assisted reproductive technologies are not 
under threat at the Federal level or in any State or territory of the 
United States.'' That is in section 2.
  I would say: Tell that to the families in Alabama who saw their 
fertility treatments interrupted by the Alabama Supreme Court's ruling.
  Just last week, all but two Republicans voted against a bill that 
would have provided comprehensive protections for American families 
trying to start or grow their families through IVF.
  So when they present bills like this one as evidence that they care 
about women's reproductive health, they should remember that in these 
situations, actions speak louder than words.
  And their message here is clear: Republicans will do anything, except 
the most obvious things, to protect women, pregnant women, mothers, and 
families.
  So for those reasons, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
  The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I want to commend my friends and 
colleagues from Mississippi and South Dakota and Oklahoma for their 
leadership in protecting the lives of the unborn and to thank them for 
bringing us together in this fight for life.
  Two years have passed since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, 
a controversial decision that found no

[[Page S4138]]

basis in the text or history of the Constitution, a right that was 
simply made up by the nine members of the Supreme Court.
  What they have done is to return the power where it belongs, to the 
people of the various States to protect unborn children.
  And I dare say the rule in Massachusetts will be different than 
Texas, and you may find some different lines being drawn. But make no 
mistake about it, we are here to stand with the unborn who have rights 
of their own.
  America cannot be at its best if we devalue the lives of the most 
vulnerable among us. They deserve protection under the law too. And 
that is what we are fighting to deliver.
  Make no mistake, those on the other side of the aisle want abortion 
on demand, without limit, up to and including the point of a live 
birth. That is a position overwhelmingly disapproved of by the vast 
majority of the American people.
  The Declaration of Independence guarantees the right to life. That 
includes the unborn, just as it does every other American.
  So I am proud to stand here in defense of that right, and I am proud 
to stand with my colleagues today as we fight to safeguard that right, 
to the best of our ability.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 4296

  Mrs. BRITT. Mr. President, first, I would like to thank my colleague 
from Oklahoma, Senator Lankford, for putting this together today, 
showing that we are truly the party of life, the party of parents, the 
party of families.
  I would also like to thank my colleague from Florida, Senator Rubio, 
and my colleague from North Dakota, Senator Cramer, for joining me in 
introducing the MOMS Act.
  I also appreciate the 20 additional Republican colleagues who 
cosponsored this commonsense legislation.
  The MOMS Act is straightforward. It stands for ``More Opportunities 
for Moms to Succeed.'' That is exactly what this bill would secure. As 
a mom, I know that there is no greater blessing in this world than that 
of being a mother.
  And I understand many of the challenges that women face during their 
pregnancy journey and while raising their kids. And that is why I was 
proud to introduce the MOMS Act.
  The MOMS Act would provide critical support for women during simple 
challenging phases of motherhood. It includes the prenatal, postpartum, 
and early childhood development stages. At the end of the day, this 
legislation would help mothers and their children thrive.
  Let's walk through the three sections of the bill.
  First, the MOMS Act would establish pregnancy.gov. This new website 
would feature a wide range of resources available to expecting and 
postpartum moms as well as moms and families with young children.
  Unfortunately, some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
have put out flagrantly false, outlandish information about this part 
of the bill. These partisan smears have been debunked by several 
independent fact checks. But I also want to set the record straight 
right now.
  First, visiting this website is 100 percent voluntary.
  Next, no one would have to disclose personally identifiable 
information to use it or to access the list of its resources. There is 
no database of women created; there is no registry established; and 
there is no tracking involved.
  So why did Democrats make up these absurdly false claims? To be 
honest with you, I can't quite wrap my head around it.
  In my 18 months in this body, I probably have never been more 
disappointed. I understand that we come to things from different 
perspectives, but to create outlandishly false and absurd things about 
this bill was truly a bridge too far. But ultimately, they know they 
can't publicly oppose what is actually in the bill.
  Here are the types of resources pregnancy.gov would connect women and 
families to. And I am going quote some exact texts of the bill.
  So mentorship opportunities, including pregnancy and parenting help, 
help and well-being services, including women's medical services. This 
includes OB-GYN services, primary care, dental care, and mental health 
services, financial assistance, work opportunities, childcare 
resources, foster care resources, adoption services, education 
opportunities for parents.
  I could go on.
  It also includes material or legal support. That material support 
includes: transportation, food, nutrition, clothing, household goods, 
baby supplies, housing, shelters, maternity homes, help with tax 
preparation, and more.
  Also, legal support can cover: child support, family leave, 
breastfeeding protections, and custody issues.
  I could keep listing examples of resources, but we would be here for 
a while.
  Next, I want to touch on the second part of the bill. So this part of 
it would actually create two separate grant programs.
  One grant program would help purchase necessary tools for prenatal 
and postnatal telehealth appointments, including medical equipment and 
technology for those in rural areas and other medically underserved 
areas. And the second program would establish a grant program for 
nonprofit entities to support, to encourage, and to assist women 
through their pregnancies, and to care for their babies after birth.
  The grant program would be funding many of the resources I just 
named: mental health services, other medical care, childcare, housing 
assistance, education and employment assistance, and nutritional 
assistance.
  And, finally, the third part of the bill is Senator Cramer's Unborn 
Child Support Act. It would require States to apply childcare support 
obligations to the time period during pregnancy if it was requested by 
the mother. This would be requested retroactively. And State-level 
requirements involving proof of paternity would still apply.
  The legislation is further evidence that you can absolutely be pro-
life, pro-woman, and pro-family all at the same time. The MOMS Act 
advances a comprehensive culture of life. It grows and strengthens 
families and ensures that moms have the opportunities and the resources 
needed so that they and their children can thrive and live the American 
dreams.
  It is a perfect example of why I believe that the Republican Party is 
the party of families. What you are going to hear after I make my 
motion to pass the MOMS Act will be very telling about whether or not 
Democrats can say the same thing of their party.
  They are about to answer that question: Are they more interested in 
scaring women and families or helping women and families? Personally, I 
am proud to support women throughout the seasons of motherhood, and I 
am honored to lead this pro-life, pro-woman, pro-family legislation.
  Mr. President I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, 
Education, Labor, and Pensions be discharged from further consideration 
of S. 4296 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; 
further, that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and 
the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Minnesota.
  Ms. SMITH. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, with respect 
to my colleague and friend Senator Britt, this bill is another attempt 
to shift the narrative for Republicans away from the fact that they 
have blocked every attempt to pass bills that would actually protect 
women's reproductive health and freedom.
  By overwhelming majorities, Americans support protecting acts such as 
contraption, IVF, assisted reproductive technologies, and safe, legal 
abortion care. Republicans know that they are out of step with the 
American people, and that is what we are seeing here today.
  Ever since President Trump's Supreme Court overturned Roe with the 
disastrous Dobbs decision, women's healthcare in this country has been 
thrown into chaos, and every day we hear more stories of the cruelty 
brought by these Trump Republican abortion bans across the country.
  The solution to this problem is simple and obvious: Congress should 
pass comprehensive protections for contraption, for IVF, and for 
reproductive freedom. But, instead, Republicans have

[[Page S4139]]

been blocking those bills and are putting forward bills like this one, 
which would create a Federal Government website, among other things, 
that functions basically as a crisis pregnancy center. To be clear, 
healthcare providers who provide information about the full range of 
their options to women, including abortion care, would be blocked from 
this website.
  This website would allow women to put into the website their ZIP 
Code, and they could then find a list of resources for adoption 
agencies and crisis pregnancy centers, which, I think we know, can 
intentionally mislead and pressure and shame pregnant women against 
seeking abortion care and sometimes even block them from accessing that 
care.
  I want to be clear that this bill does not require anybody to put in 
their contact information, but it also does not include any 
restrictions on how the Federal Government could use or share that data 
that people input.
  I don't think Americans need another government website. What they 
need is for their government to respect their freedom and their dignity 
and their autonomy to make their own decisions about if, when, and how 
to grow their families.
  For this reason, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
  The Senator from Alabama.
  Mrs. BRITT. Mr. President, I have a great deal of respect for my 
colleague from Minnesota. However, I am disappointed that Senate 
Democrats have blocked the MOMS Act from passing today. It is a 
commonsense bill that would help vulnerable women and help families. My 
Republican colleagues are going to continue to fight for tangible 
solutions like this bill that do just that.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, my guess is, if I went to every person 
in this room--every page, every person sitting in the Gallery, every 
Senator--and I pointed to this image and said, ``What do you see 
there?'' my guess is every person in this room would go, ``Well, that 
is a baby.''
  That is my guess. I mean, I haven't asked every person here, but my 
guess is every person would look at it, and they would go: Well, that 
is a sonogram of a baby.
  That is what I would say: It looks like a child to me.
  So the issue here in America and the next question is: Should it live 
or die?
  The first answer is pretty obvious: That is a baby.
  The second question is: Should it live or die?
  That one, in America, is not quite so obvious anymore.
  You know, what is interesting is that I have two daughters. They are 
amazing, remarkable, beautiful women. They are adults now, but I 
distinctly remember that pregnancy test and seeing those little lines 
on that test, and my wife and I looking at each other with excitement.
  I distinctly remember talking to friends and her parents and other 
folks, saying that we are pregnant. And as we shared our story, I don't 
remember a single person saying to me: Well, you are pregnant. What are 
you going to do with it? Are they going to live or die?
  No one asked us that. No one asked us: Is it really a baby or is that 
just a fetus? No one said: You just have tissue.
  They asked us questions like: Have you thought of a name? Have you 
figured out how to install the car seat yet?
  Those are the questions they asked us because, every person we talked 
to and every person with whom we shared the news that we were pregnant, 
all acknowledged that reality that that is a baby.
  Two years ago, the Supreme Court ruled on what is now called the 
Dobbs decision. It took away the Roe v. Wade decision that mandated 
that abortion had to be everywhere in the country and took it back to 
where it was for the first 180 years or so of our country, when the law 
was that the rules about abortion are handled in each State. That is 
all it did.
  It didn't end abortion in America. We still have abortion in America, 
in very high numbers. But the decision of how that is done was not done 
by a Supreme Court. It was done by legislators, as it always had been. 
And that is what the Court said. So this is now going back to the 
people and the people's representatives on all levels.
  So the debate is, again, scattered all across the country now, and 
the debate is very simply over: Is that a child? And if it is a child, 
what should happen to it?
  I have to tell you, that baby is not mine, but she is really cute. I 
look at a baby like that--my daughters both slept in that same 
position, which we, as parents, call the touchdown position, where they 
both have their hands up above their heads. I am amazed at this picture 
of the sonogram to see that infant in the womb in that exact same 
position asleep.

  I think the only difference between this child in the womb sleeping 
with her hands over her head and this child is time. That is it. That 
baby is as much of a baby as that baby is a baby. There is no 
difference there, other than time.
  So we debate, and we talk about this very complicated question: When 
is a child valuable, and when is a child medical waste? When is a child 
valuable, and when is a child disposable?
  We, as Americans, are grappling with that issue. The issue about when 
that child is a child really comes down to preference and convenience 
and to determine if the child is convenient. If they are convenient, 
then they are a child. If they are not convenient, then they are 
disposable.
  If two ladies are walking down the same street--both of them, let's 
say, 18 weeks pregnant--and of those two ladies on opposite sides of 
the street, one of them steps into her workplace and into a baby 
shower, the folks at work are going to talk about how to install a car 
seat. They are going to talk about: Where are you going to set up the 
crib? They are going to talk about baby names, and they are going to 
talk about all the expenses and things. And the person on the other 
side of the street, also 18 weeks pregnant, is headed to get a surgical 
abortion.
  And so I ask the question: Of those two children, what is the 
difference between those two children? They are both at 18 weeks of 
development. One of them is being celebrated and prepared for, and one 
of them will be disposed of. What is the difference between the two?
  We, as Americans, are trying to figure out the answer to that exact 
question. And the conversation is happening all across the country.
  I get it. It is a fair conversation: When is a child a child? Or when 
are they not a child?
  Well, under this administration--this administration, by far, has 
been the most pro-abortion administration ever in the history of the 
country. That is not just an opinion. That is just the actions of the 
administration. That has just been their response to the Dobbs 
decision.
  This administration was so disturbed that we might have fewer 
abortions in America that the Biden administration has aggressively 
worked to increase the number of abortions in America to offset the 
possibility that there could be fewer abortions, because they didn't 
want to see fewer abortions in America. They wanted to see as many or 
more.
  So the Biden administration opened up, for the first time, VA 
hospitals to provide abortions--even late-term abortions, even up to 
the very final months of a viable child. For those VA hospitals, it 
would be the first time that they would be able to provide abortions.
  They are withholding funds for pregnancy resource centers. Now, these 
are the centers that they really hate the most. These are pregnancy 
resource centers around the country that offer crazy things like 
diapers and formula and support for pregnant moms--that if pregnant 
moms walk in and say, ``Hey, I am really struggling with my pregnancy, 
and I am afraid,'' they say, ``We will walk with you. We will counsel 
you. We will give you free materials. We will help provide diapers and 
baby clothes and a car seat, and we will walk along with you so you 
don't have to be afraid and alone.''
  The Biden administration really hates those folks. So they are 
withholding funds from any grants going to those folks where they have 
received grants in the past.
  HHS is now paying to move people who illegally cross our southern 
border

[[Page S4140]]

to places--even teenagers--where they can get abortions, and we have 
Federal dollars going to be able to move people to make sure that those 
people who illegally cross our border who want access to abortion be 
able to get it. It has been frustrating to be able to watch.
  Even in my State, my State has chosen to say: We think every child is 
valuable. We look at these two girls, and we see them just a couple of 
weeks apart. But we see them both as young girls. They kind of state 
the obvious.
  But in my State, because we don't allow abortion and promote 
abortion, Health and Human Services has now stripped away grant dollars 
from my State for one reason. Health and Human Services came to my 
State and said: If you don't put a 1-800 number on all of your 
healthcare materials stemming from the State, telling women where they 
can get an abortion, we will take away your Federal funding. If you 
don't show and give a 1-800 number where you can get an abortion, we 
will take away your grant funding.
  They didn't take away just any grant funding, because, by the way, my 
State said: We are not going to do that. So the grant funding they took 
away from my State was for impoverished women to get cancer screenings 
and for AIDS patients to get testing. They took that funding away, 
saying: We will not allow any Federal dollars coming into your State 
for AIDS testing and for cancer screening for impoverished women, if 
you don't promote abortion in your State.
  They were serious. So they did it because this administration is 
obsessed with increasing the number of abortions in the country and 
finding ways to be able to expand this and telling people not to look 
at this picture.
  It has been a frustrating journey, the last couple of years, because 
we seem to be ignoring the obvious. We are so tied up here on the 
politics of this, even when Senator Thune brings a bill that says, if a 
child is born alive after a botched abortion--they are a fully 
delivered, full-term baby on the table breathing--what should we do?
  That is a pretty commonsense bill. Yet my Democratic colleagues have 
knocked it down today and said: No, that child should not have the 
opportunity for life.
  When Senator Hyde-Smith brings a bill that just says, ``Why don't we 
give education to more doctors and more moms about infertility''--it 
doesn't limit IVF at all, at all--they are like, ``No, no, not going to 
do that.''
  When Senator Britt from Alabama brings a bill that says: Why don't we 
recognize, during pregnancy, that that is really expensive, and if 
States have the requirement to do child support for a child--well, I 
will just say it: for a deadbeat dad who is not paying child support. 
If they walk away at that point, that child support should also cover 
the time of pregnancy, not just after delivery. That is pretty common 
sense because, for any mom, they know pregnancy is really expensive. It 
is a very expensive time. So child support should begin when that child 
is there.
  A commonsense bill that, I dare say, most Americans would say, 
``Well, that makes sense,'' has been knocked down today.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 4524

  Mr. President, I bring one more that I think is pretty common sense. 
It is already the law in the United States that every person has the 
right to conscience. Healthcare providers that go into the profession 
to protect life, to save life, to heal--many of them also say: I don't 
want to be a part of taking human life. I went into this profession to 
protect life.
  So they express to their clinics, their hospitals--wherever they 
serve--that they don't want to be a part of the taking of human life. 
They understand that it is happening in their hospital; they just don't 
want to be a part of that. They express their conscience issues.
  By the way, that is protected in Federal law right now, that every 
one of those healthcare providers has the right to be able to express 
their conscience and not be required to take human life. The problem 
is, it requires the Federal Government to actually step in and enforce 
that law.
  So let me show you what that looks like. A nurse in Vermont, a few 
years ago, went into her hospital as she normally did, and as she went 
into her hospital, went into work as she normally does--she is a nurse 
that is passionate about the life of every person, including children 
in the womb, and she had expressed that to the hospital. She got caught 
as she was going in, saying: Hey, we need you in the ER right now.
  She said: No problem.
  So she steps into the ER to help with a procedure, gloves up, gets 
ready. She is going to go assist. As she walks in, the doctor that is 
in the room looks at her and says: Don't hate me.
  She suddenly says: What is going on?
  She realizes she is being called in to be able to assist with an 
abortion. She has already made it clear she doesn't want to be a part 
of taking human life.
  The hospital says: No. We will fire you if you don't help. We need 
your help. We are short of staff today, so you are going to do this.
  A direct violation of Federal law--clearly, no question. They 
expressed it in the operating room. They knew they were violating her 
conscience.
  So the Federal Government goes through the process of starting to be 
able to enforce the law on that hospital--until the last Presidential 
election occurs. When the last Presidential election occurred, the new 
leadership of HHS stepped in and said: We are not going to enforce 
that. In other words, we are dropping that case.
  It would be the equivalent of a police officer walking down the 
street, looking at a burglary that is happening, knowing that a crime 
is occurring right there, and just saying, ``I am going to choose not 
to enforce the law today,'' and just walking on by. That is what is 
happening right now.
  So the Conscience Protection Act that I bring does a simple thing. It 
says that if an employer violates Federal law and the Federal 
Government chooses not to enforce this, the individual that has had 
their conscience violated--that individual has the right to be able to 
bring a case on their own.
  This is not controversial. This would not eliminate a single abortion 
in America. We will not have one fewer abortion in America based on 
this policy. But what it will do is it will say to an American: You are 
free to be able to live your conscience without fear of being fired for 
living your conscience. That is the only thing it does. I think that is 
pretty straightforward and pretty common sense.
  Of all things that we should be able to agree to in this body, let's 
protect each other's right to believe and to live our faith.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, 
Education, Labor, and Pensions be discharged from further consideration 
of S. 4524 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; 
further, that the bill be considered read a third time, passed, and the 
motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Minnesota.
  Ms. SMITH. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, let me just 
say that the crisis facing women and families in this country is a 
crisis of access with respect to healthcare. The solutions to this 
crisis are obvious, and I am sorry to see that our Republicans are 
blocking those solutions at every turn.
  This bill claims to protect healthcare workers if they refuse to 
participate in abortion care due to moral or religious obligations, 
but, of course, we know that those protections already exist in Federal 
law. And I think this bill would actually go well beyond that. It 
would, in fact, create a pathway for providers to object to providing 
other critical prevention and treatment services--for example, 
treatment to HIV.
  So I think this is another effort to distract Americans from the core 
fact that Republicans are trying to restrict access to reproductive 
health care and reproductive freedom while Democrats are trying to 
protect them. I, for those reasons, Mr. President, object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, we will continue to be able to speak 
out. We do believe that is a child. We believe in the dignity of every 
human being.
  My wife, when we were pregnant--every single cell in her body--every 
cell--from her toenails and her toes and her nose and her elbows--every 
single cell in her body has the exact same

[[Page S4141]]

DNA. It has that signature of her. But when we were pregnant, suddenly 
there was a group of cells that had different DNA. They didn't 
match hers, and they didn't match mine. They were cells with DNA that 
had never existed on Earth before until that moment. They were uniquely 
different. I think we should acknowledge that fact in the days ahead, 
that there is something special about those different cells.

  We will continue to speak up for the conscience rights of all 
individuals to be able to state the obvious and to be able to live 
their faith. I think in the days ahead we will have a time as Americans 
when we will look back on this season and think, why would we turn away 
from what was so obvious to all of us?
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
following Senators be allowed to speak prior to the scheduled rollcall 
vote: me for 5 minutes, Senator Peters for up to 5 minutes, and Leader 
Schumer for up to 2 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from West Virginia.


                              ADVANCE Act

  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. President, today, I rise to encourage and urge 
support for our bipartisan, bicameral legislation that provides a 
significant boost for the future of nuclear energy here in America. 
After a lot of hard work and negotiations, I am thrilled to be on the 
floor today as we are on the cusp of getting this bill across the 
finish line.
  I see Senator Whitehouse here, my friend from Rhode Island. He was 
very integral in making this happen today, so I thank him.
  In March of 2023, we introduced the Accelerating Deployment of 
Versatile, Advanced Nuclear for Clean Energy Act, or what we call the 
ADVANCE Act. We did so because Republicans and Democrats recognize that 
the development of new nuclear technologies is critical to America's 
energy security and our environment.
  Today, nuclear power provides about 20 percent of our Nation's 
electricity. Importantly, it is emissions-free electricity that is 24/
7, 365 days a year.
  Not only is it necessary to continue developing and deploying more 
nuclear energy reactors from an energy and environmental standpoint, it 
is also vital to our national security, and it is good for the economy.
  So it was important for us as lawmakers to prepare to meet the 
increased demand--it is predicted to be twice the demand--with policies 
that encourage investment and deployment of nuclear technologies right 
here on our shores. The ADVANCE Act does just that and preserves the 
United States as the destination for innovation and expansion, ensuring 
that we are what we should be, which is the global leader, for decades 
to come.
  Here are just a few of the ways our bill benefits America's energy, 
economic, and environmental future:
  The ADVANCE Act reduces regulatory costs for companies seeking to 
license advanced reactor technologies.
  It requires the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to establish a 
regulatory roadmap to license new nuclear facilities on brownfield 
sites--something that would be very important to my State of West 
Virginia.
  It directs the NRC to update its mission statement to reflect the 
beneficial uses of nuclear technology and establish a licensing 
structure to support an efficient, timely, and predictable regulatory 
review.
  It establishes an initiative to more quickly license advanced nuclear 
fuels that are both safer and more economic.
  It provides the NRC new tools to hire and retain highly qualified 
staff to enable the licensing of advanced reactors.
  As I said, I am proud of the work we put into this legislation over 
the past few months and years. With the House having already passed it 
overwhelmingly, I am excited that we are on the verge of sending the 
ADVANCE Act to the President's desk.
  I want to thank Chairman Carper, and I thank Senator Whitehouse, who 
are my--the three of us--cosponsors. I want to thank House Energy and 
Commerce Chair McMorris Rodgers and Ranking Member Pallone. I would 
like to thank House Energy, Climate, and Grid Security Subcommittee 
Chair Duncan and Ranking Member Diana DeGette and all of our cosponsors 
for their hard work and support.
  I also want to sincerely thank the staff members who have put so much 
work into this to help us get to this point today. This has been a 
journey. From my team at EPW, I would like to thank Andy Zach, Will 
Dixon, and Maddie Blalock; from Chairman Carper's team, Matt Marzano 
and Courtney Taylor; and from Senator Whitehouse's team, Kara Allen.
  With that, I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in supporting 
this bipartisan legislation.
  With that, I yield the floor.


                                 S. 870

  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for 
the Fire Grants and Safety Act, which is included in the bill we are 
considering today. I have co-led this bill with Senator Peters and 
fellow Congressional Fire Caucus cochairs, Senators Murkowski, Tester, 
and Carper.
  The Fire Grants and Safety Act would reauthorize the U.S. Fire 
Administration and critical FEMA fire prevention programs through 
September 30, 2028. The current authorization for appropriations for 
all three of these entities expired on September 30, 2023, and the AFG 
and SAFER programs are set to sunset on September 30 of this year, 
absent action from Congress. This bill before us will extend 
authorizations for all three entities until September 30, 2028, and 
impose a new sunset clause of September 30, 2030, for AFG and SAFER.
  This legislation, which passed the Senate on April 20, 2023, by an 
overwhelming vote of 95-2, has been pending in the House. I am pleased 
we will soon vote on the motion to concur with the House bill as 
amended and finally reauthorize these critical programs.
  Firefighters across Maine and the country courageously and selflessly 
put their lives on the line to serve their towns and cities. 
Recognizing this, in 2000 and 2003, I helped create FEMA's firefighter 
grant programs as part of a bipartisan effort to ensure firefighters 
have the adequate staffing, equipment, and training to do their 
important jobs as effectively and safely as possible.
  The Fire Grants and Safety Act would reauthorize three important 
firefighting and emergency services programs: the U.S. Fire 
Administration, which provides training and data to State and local 
departments, as well as education and awareness for the public; the 
Assistance for Firefighters Grant program, known as AFG, which helps 
equip and train firefighters and emergency personnel who work to keep 
us safe; and the Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response 
program, known as SAFER, which helps local fire departments recruit, 
hire, and retain additional firefighters.
  Fire chiefs across Maine tell me about the importance of these 
programs in helping their local fire departments keep their communities 
safe. Since October 2020, fire departments across Maine received just 
under $12 million from the AFG and SAFER grant programs. These critical 
investments in local, rural fire departments supported replacements of 
decades old fire engines, obsolete self-contained breathing 
apparatuses, hiring of additional firefighters, and allowed fire 
departments to provide free health screenings to firefighters.
  In 2023, an AFG grant enabled the town of Allagash in rural Aroostook 
County, ME, to replace its nearly 50-year old GMC firetruck with a 
newer model with double the water pumping capacity. To put this into 
perspective, the town was operating a firetruck built the same year the 
Vietnam war ended, to respond to fires in its 134-square-mile response 
area--or as the Allagash fire chief put it, an area roughly equal to 
the size of Atlanta.
  In Portland, ME, an AFG grant enabled Portland Fire Department's 
marine division to cover the cost of lung cancer screenings for its 
firefighters. If it hadn't been for these screenings, doctors may not 
have detected a precancerous spot on Lieutenant Dave Crowley's lung 
until it was too late.
  These examples underscore how important these grant programs are for 
fire departments across the Nation to safely provide lifesaving 
services and keep our communities safe. Failure to reauthorize these 
programs would have devastating impacts to the safety of

[[Page S4142]]

Americans across the country. I urge my colleagues to support this 
bill's swift passage.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, soon, the Senate will have an opportunity 
to ensure that essential Federal resources remain available to fire 
departments all across our country.
  Every day, firefighters risk their health and safety to protect our 
communities. They don't just respond to fire emergencies; they also 
help keep us safe from threats like chemical hazards, terrorist 
attacks, and even active shooters.
  The Fire Grants and Safety Act gives our firefighters the support 
they deserve. This bipartisan legislation reauthorizes two vital grant 
programs administered by FEMA. These programs help fire departments 
purchase safety equipment, address staffing needs, train their staff, 
and provide cancer screenings to first responders.
  The bill also reauthorizes the U.S. Fire Administration, which 
represents firefighters at the Federal level. The USFA helps ensure 
that our local fire departments get the proper support, and it takes 
the lead on data collection, research, education, and training for the 
fire service.
  Federal programs like these enable fire departments to do their jobs 
safely and effectively, and I have seen it firsthand while visiting 
local departments across my home State of Michigan. Without these 
programs, many fire departments would simply not have the resources and 
equipment they need to stay safe in the line of duty. Every day, 
firefighters have our backs, and now we can do the same for them.
  I would like to thank Ranking Member Paul, Senator Carper, Senator 
Murkowski, and Senator Collins for their help in advancing this 
legislation. I would also like to acknowledge Chairman Frank Lucas and 
Ranking Member Zoe Lofgren of the House Committee on Science, Space, 
and Technology for their work to get this bill passed out of the House 
of Representatives.
  Now it is time to finish the job. Let's finish the job and send this 
bipartisan legislation to the President and help firefighters 
everywhere keep our communities safe.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, first, let me thank Senator Peters, 
Senator Whitehouse, and so many others for their great work on this.
  Today, the Senate does a great thing for our firefighters in New York 
and across America by passing the bipartisan Fire Grants and Safety 
Act. The Fire Grants and Safety Act reauthorizes several expiring 
funding programs that help firefighters with the basics, from staffing 
to equipment, to training, and more. I was very proud to help create 
these programs a long time ago with Senator Chris Dodd, but they would 
have expired in a few months had we not acted today. Today's bill keeps 
our firefighters whole.
  This helps two kinds of firefighters. It helps our paid firefighters 
in larger cities by giving the ability of those communities to hire 
more firefighters, but it also particularly helps our volunteer 
firefighters. These are people who volunteer, who rush to danger in 
suburban and rural communities. They are particularly strong on Long 
Island, which I represent. Yet they can't afford and their communities 
can't afford the equipment that is so desperately needed. They are 
rushing to danger, risking their lives. They ought to have the best 
equipment, and these grants allow that to happen. It is so important to 
our volunteer firefighters in New York, particularly on Long Island, 
and for our paid departments in New York City, Albany, Buffalo, and 
across New York State. The ability to get more firefighters to help 
them so they are not overstretched and help communities pay for them is 
so important.
  I am also glad that today's bill includes the ADVANCE Act, which 
secures America's leadership in the next generation of clean, safe, and 
affordable nuclear energy. Chairman Carper, Ranking Member Capito, and 
Sheldon Whitehouse, who sponsored the legislation, have done a great 
job. It is going to support job growth, clean energy, and American 
leadership, while preserving the NRC's fundamental mission of safety.
  This is a great bill. I am sorry it took so long. The House dithered 
after we passed it. But now our firefighters, both paid and volunteer, 
can breathe a sigh of relief. This is going to happen very, very soon, 
and it will go to the White House and be signed into law.
  I yield the floor.


                        Vote on Motion to Concur

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
concur.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I announce that the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Durbin), 
the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fetterman), the Senator from New 
Jersey (Mr. Menendez), and the Senator from Arizona (Ms. Sinema) are 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. THUNE. the following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Indiana (Mr. Braun), the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Cramer), 
the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Hoeven), the Senator from Kansas 
(Mr. Marshall), the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Sullivan), and the Senator 
from Alabama (Mr. Tuberville).
  Further, if present and voting: the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. 
Hoeven) would have voted ``yea.''
  The result was announced--yeas 88, nays 2, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 200 Leg.]

                                YEAS--88

     Baldwin
     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Blackburn
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Boozman
     Britt
     Brown
     Budd
     Butler
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Coons
     Cornyn
     Cortez Masto
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Duckworth
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagerty
     Hassan
     Hawley
     Heinrich
     Hickenlooper
     Hirono
     Hyde-Smith
     Johnson
     Kaine
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     King
     Klobuchar
     Lankford
     Lee
     Lujan
     Lummis
     Manchin
     McConnell
     Merkley
     Moran
     Mullin
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Ossoff
     Padilla
     Paul
     Peters
     Reed
     Ricketts
     Risch
     Romney
     Rosen
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Schatz
     Schmitt
     Schumer
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Shaheen
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Thune
     Tillis
     Van Hollen
     Vance
     Warner
     Warnock
     Warren
     Welch
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden
     Young

                                NAYS--2

     Markey
     Sanders
       

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Braun
     Cramer
     Durbin
     Fetterman
     Hoeven
     Marshall
     Menendez
     Sinema
     Sullivan
     Tuberville
  The motion was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kelly). Under the previous order, the 
motion to reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table.
  The majority leader.

                          ____________________