[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.
____________________