[Pages S3629-S3646]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

LEGISLATIVE SESSION

______

SECURING GROWTH AND ROBUST LEADERSHIP IN AMERICAN AVIATION ACT--Resumed

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
Senate will resume consideration of H.R. 3935, which the clerk will
report.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

A bill (H.R. 3935) to amend title 49, United States Code,
to reauthorize and improve the Federal Aviation
Administration and other civil aviation programs, and for
other purposes.

Pending:

Schumer (for Cantwell) modified amendment No. 1911, in the
nature of a substitute.
Schumer amendment No. 2026 (to amendment No. 1911), to add
an effective date.
Schumer motion to commit the bill to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation, with instructions,
Schumer amendment No. 2027, to add an effective date.
Schumer amendment No. 2028 (to (the instructions) amendment
No. 2027), to add an effective date.
Schumer amendment No. 2029 (to amendment No. 2028), to add
an effective date.

Recognition of the Majority Leader

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

Southern Border

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, on the border, when it comes to fixing
our southern border, the American people demand that elected
representatives prioritize action over rhetoric.
It is the easiest thing in the world to do what many Republicans have
done this year and done year after year: come to the floor, complain
that the border is a mess, and then do just about nothing to fix the
problem.
It is the easiest thing in the world to do what Donald Trump and his
followers have perfected over the years: demonize immigrants, pay
lipservice to our border agents, but ignore the work required to make
change happen.
Democrats know that the situation at the border is unacceptable. We
know

[[Page S3630]]

that the status quo cannot continue. But Democrats also know that
fixing the border requires bipartisan legislation from Congress.
Six months ago, Democrats sat down with our Republican colleagues to
get to work on drafting the strongest border security bill Congress has
seen in decades. It contained many of the biggest issues that our
Republican colleagues have demanded: fixes to asylum, more money for
border agents, and it increased the President's emergency powers to
respond to high numbers of border crossings.

Our bipartisan bill was the closest Congress has been in decades to
fixing our southern border--until Donald Trump blew it all up for
political gain.
I have seen many cynical things around here over the years, but it is
hard to think of something more cynical than Republicans blowing up
their own border deal in order to help Donald Trump win an election
because they think chaos will help him win. After all, how many times
have we heard from Republicans that we need to fix asylum?
How many times did we hear Donald Trump say that our asylum system
was ``archaic'' and that ``what Democrats should be doing now is . . .
changing the loopholes''? That is Trump. Trump said that.
How many times did we hear our Republican colleagues say on the floor
things like ``We've got to redo our asylum laws,'' as my colleague from
Florida has said?
If my Republican colleagues care about fixing asylum, why did they
vote to kill the best chance we have seen in decades to fix it? If my
Republican colleagues care about our border agents, why did they vote
against a bill that would have hired 1,500 more agents and given them
more tools to stop the flow of drugs and weapons? If my Republican
colleagues truly believe the system is broken, why did they vote
against a bill that would have provided more immigration judges, more
asylum officers, and had the support of the very conservative Border
Patrol union? Two words is why: Donald Trump. It was Donald Trump who
didn't like that Congress had finally reached a deal on the border that
would have taken away a key issue for him on the campaign trail. It was
Donald Trump who made clear that exploiting the border is great but
actually fixing the problem is not.
I know this is a frustrating issue for millions of Americans. Many of
us who want to solve the problem, on both sides of the aisle, are
frustrated as well. Republicans are going to go on and on and on about
the border, but facts are stubborn things. When Americans ask this year
who is to blame for the continued mess at the border, they should
listen to the words that came from Donald Trump himself. He said,
``Please, blame it on me.'' That is what Trump said.

Taxes

Mr. President, on taxes, yesterday, the CBO released a new report
that should be a shot across the bow for all Republicans who supported
the disastrous 2017 Trump tax cuts. The CBO reported that extending all
of the Trump tax cuts, which Republicans support and Donald Trump has
promised to do if elected, would add a whopping $4.6 trillion to the
deficit. That is $4.6 trillion. Let me say that again. An extension of
all of the Trump tax cuts would add a whopping $4.6 trillion to the
deficit.
To the self-proclaimed fiscal hawks on the right who always complain
about deficits, this CBO report about the Trump tax cuts is like a pie
in the face.
This report should come as no surprise. We all saw what happened when
Donald Trump and Republicans first pushed their tax cuts a few years
ago. They blew a nearly $2 trillion hole in our deficit. They left
American families out to dry, with no trickle-down stemming from the
benefits for the very wealthy and the largest corporations. The Trump
tax cuts were a dud for our economy and a political loser at the same
time for the Republican Party.
So I ask my Republican colleagues: Are they really willing to double
down on the disastrous Trump tax law and blow a $4.6 trillion hole in
our deficit? Are our Republican colleagues, who claim to be the party
of fiscal responsibility, so desperate to help the very wealthiest few
and large corporations that they would add another $4.6 trillion to the
deficit?
Do my Republican colleagues believe so deeply in giveaways to the
ultrawealthy that they would let programs like Social Security and
Medicare, which millions of Americans rely on every day--would they let
them run dry? If nothing else, this shows how out of touch Republicans
are with working- and middle-class America.
The American people don't want tax cuts that overwhelming favor the
wealthiest few and corporations. They want a fair and equal Tax Code
that works for everybody.
While Republicans keep pushing terrible tax giveaways for the wealthy
and cuts to Social Security and Medicare, Democrats continue to deliver
meaningful results for the American people.
This week, for instance, we learned that the United States will
triple its domestic chip manufacturing by 2032, thanks to our Chips and
Science Act. This is great news for both American jobs and the American
economy. It is exactly what we envisioned when we were working on the
bipartisan Chips and Science Act: a new wave of tech jobs, a new wave
of scientific research, and a revival of Federal investment in the
technologies of the future.
Under President Biden and Democratic leadership, America is on the
right track.

H.R. 3935

Mr. President, on the FAA, later today, the Senate will vote on
cloture on FAA reauthorization. We hope to get this done today to keep
the FAA funded and operational before tomorrow's deadline.
The work we are doing on FAA is going to have practical consequences
for millions of Americans who travel by air every single day. So
Senators have every reason in the world to continue working together on
a bipartisan basis to get this done.
If we let funding for the FAA lapse, it could be disastrous for the
safety of our skies and the efficiency of our airports. Thousands of
employees might be furloughed. Air traffic controllers will be forced
to work longer and extra hours. Funding for infrastructure projects
would be halted.
I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to continue working
together so we can fund the FAA and avoid missing tomorrow's deadline.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.

Recognition of the Minority Leader

The Republican leader is recognized.

Israel

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, war is hell. It tears apart societies.
It alters the course of entire civilizations, and innocent
noncombatants suffer. Try as we might, humanity has not eradicated war
or stripped it of its horrors.
But in the modern world, civilized nations hold themselves to the
highest standards and take deliberate care to minimize harm to
civilians. The United States is first among these nations, but even we
make mistakes. On this administration's watch, precision military
strikes have inadvertently killed civilians in multiple theaters of
operations.
Our ally Israel goes to great lengths to avoid civilian casualties.
Over decades of grinding conflict to preserve its security, a
circumstance most Americans can hardly imagine, Israel routinely
accepts great risk to its own soldiers to avoid endangering innocent
civilians.
But the forces sworn to erase Israel from the Earth follow a
different code. To Hamas, civilian casualties are not tragedies; they
are tools of the trade. To these savages, kidnapping, torture, rape,
and murder aren't crimes; they are tactics. For terrorists around the
world, human suffering is the weapon of choice, and Hamas seeks to
magnify it.
These are the facts, and any serious conversation about the war in
Gaza needs to start here.

[[Page S3631]]

If war could be avoided entirely, so could its terrible costs. Israel
tried to avoid this war. It negotiated a cease-fire with the savage
terrorists bent on destroying the Jewish State, all to try to avoid the
war.
The terrorists used this cease-fire to plan and prepare for war, and,
on October 7, Hamas launched it. It also chose how Israel would be
forced to fight it, putting fighting positions in hospitals, schools,
and United Nations facilities; directly attacking humanitarian aid
crossings. This doesn't just contravene the laws of war. It exploits
human suffering.
Why does Hamas behave this way? Because it works. Because they know
the media will cover it--``if it bleeds, it leads.'' Because they know
it creates an international rush--rush--to blame Israel. Because
leftist columnists and useful idiots of university campuses will play
at revolution and express solidarity with the terrorists. Because the
President of the United States will be forced to choose between his
supposedly ``ironclad'' commitment to an ally under attack and the will
of his leftist political base. And because they bet that the President
would choose the latter.
Well, it would seem that Hamas bet correctly. President Biden is
withholding urgent military assistance to Israel.
But he cannot have it both ways. He cannot claim his support for
Israel is ironclad while denying Israel precisely the weapons they need
to defend themselves.
The President is old enough to remember 1968, but he seems to have
learned the wrong lesson from that pivotal year. Caving to the college
radicals will only whet their appetite to spend the summer demanding
further anti-Israel concessions at his party's convention.
I fought for months to secure passage of the national security
supplemental to support Israel, Ukraine, and vulnerable Asian partners,
and to make important investments in our own military. I stood up to
the opposition in my own party to do the right thing.
If the Commander in Chief can't muster the political courage to stand
up to the radicals on his left flank and stand up for an ally at war,
the consequences will be grave. Other allies who rely on ``ironclad''
guarantees from America will question our commitment. Nations on the
fence in the middle of a major power competition for influence will
look elsewhere for their own security, and our enemies will be
emboldened.

Nomination of Adeel Abdullah Mangi

Mr. President, on a different matter, I have spoken many times about
Adeel Mangi, President Biden's nominee to the Third Circuit. I have
covered his shocking and deep association with virulent anti-Semites
and how he misled the Senate about them.
I have also covered his association with anti-police radicals. Just
last week, it was revealed that Mr. Mangi introduced one of his anti-
cop friends to the head of the Rutgers Center for Security, Race, and
Rights so they could ``collaborate'' on a project.
Democrats can't rebut these disqualifying associations because they
are facts. So, instead, they have mounted an all-out campaign to gin up
leftwing support for Mr. Mangi and force our Democratic colleagues to
walk the plank on this nomination. And in so doing, they have given the
Senate reason to move from Mr. Mangi's judgment to questioning his
ethics.
After the biggest police unions came out in opposition to his
nomination, Mr. Mangi complained, in an extraordinary letter to one of
my colleagues, that the groups opposing him ``never spoke to'' him
about his ``position'' or ``views.''
Really? What would these outside parties have learned about his views
had they asked?
Well, we don't actually have to guess. For the past few months,
Democrats have paraded Mr. Mangi in front of liberal interest groups in
order to secure their endorsements. For example, a group of leftwing
law enforcement organizations met with Mr. Mangi and then praised his
commitment to ``help ensure equity'' in law enforcement.
Equity in law enforcement, what on Earth does that even mean? Are
those his views? These are questions our colleagues on the Judiciary
Committee might have liked to ask Mangi; but, unfortunately, these
meetings took place after--after--his hearing.
More recently, 125 congressional organizations sent a letter
supporting Mangi. How many of these leftwing organizations had Mangi
met with? Did he meet with the AFL-CIO? What views did he discuss with
them? We will never know.
You see, nominees have to disclose in their questionnaires whether or
not they have made any promises during their confirmation process.
Committee Republicans also ask written questions about meetings and
coordination with leftwing dark money. But what Mangi has found is that
if he makes the sales pitch after--after--the committee process is
over, as he did with certain law enforcement groups and maybe to
others, nothing needs to be disclosed.
This is particularly troubling given that these small law enforcement
groups seem to almost be almost always based in very Democratic New
Jersey counties like Middlesex and Hudson. Hudson County, of course, is
the home to one of the last old-style Democratic political machines.
Are the ward bosses taking care of Mr. Mangi? What do they expect in
return?
Compare this to the behavior of Judge Quraishi, the Nation's first
Muslim district judge, whom I supported and have mentioned before.
Judge Quraishi recently made headlines by striking down--down--New
Jersey's unique--and uniquely corrupt--primary balloting system.
In other words, he drained the lifeblood of the same Hudson County
Democratic machine while it was calling in favors for Mr. Mangi. As I
have said, there is a better way in New Jersey, if only the Biden
administration would care to look.
It is the role of the Senate to provide advice and consent. We ask
nominees questions and evaluate their answers. We judge nominees on
that political record.
Mr. Mangi's closed-door meetings with interest groups short circuits
that process and calls into question what fairness we might expect from
him.
It is yet another reason the Senate should not, cannot confirm Mangi.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, one of our important responsibilities in
Congress is to protect American consumers. But allies of Big Business
and Wall Street, who always fear threats to their bottom lines, have
been working overtime to convince consumers that a bill that I have
introduced with Senator Marshall, the Credit Card Competition Act, will
do more harm than good.
Their latest tactic, they are recruiting allies from the airline
industry. United Airlines CEO Scott Kirby recently said that our bill
would ``kill rewards programs.''
Let me be very clear. This is false. Moreover, this past July, Forbes
published an article saying that compared to other nations, airline
rewards programs in the United States have made it more challenging to
earn and redeem miles.
Because while the airline industry is trying to argue that my bill
would stifle competition and their loyalty programs, it is actually
their own questionable practices that threaten American consumers'
ability to redeem rewards.
Let me explain. The airline industry knows how much consumers value
rewards programs that over 100 million Americans participate in. These
programs originated as a way to reward true frequent flyers for their
loyalty and patronage. And, today, millions of Americans participate.
But these programs have evolved to include cobranded credit cards
that focus on dollars spent using those cards.
The Presiding Officer and I spend a big part of our lives on
airplanes. I don't know about your experience, but I will tell you what
mine is: As soon as they have us in our seats buckled in, they start
advertising their credit cards.
I have seen times when the flight attendants walk up and down the
aisles

[[Page S3632]]

passing out brochures for people to consider enlisting in their credit
card program. And then as you are leaving the plane, they are once
again passing them out.
They seem to focus as much on credit cards as they do on safety in
these airplanes. You have to ask yourself why. It turns out there is
one basic reason for it. Airlines make more money off the cobranded
credit cards they issue than they do from aviation programs.
At the same time, they are showing troubling reports that airlines
use their loyalty programs to engage in abusive, unfair, and sometimes
deceptive practices.
Airlines incentivize Americans to purchase goods and services, obtain
certain credit cards, and spend as much money as they can on the cards
in exchange for promised rewards. And all the while, they retain the
right to strip consumers of these rewards or alter the terms of these
programs at will.
For example, there are troubling reports that airlines may be
devaluing the miles that you accumulate making it harder for consumers
to ever achieve promised rewards.
At certain times, the cost of purchasing points from airlines'
websites may be up to three times the value of the points at
redemption. This is a rip-off with wings. We must do more to protect
American consumers.
In October, I wrote to the Secretary of Transportation Pete
Buttigieg. I expressed my concern about these unfair practices, and in
March, he replied. I was pleased to read that DOT's Office of Aviation
Consumer Protection is using its authority to initiate a review of
airlines' rewards programs.
DOT has been meeting with major U.S. airlines to get more information
on exactly how these frequent flyer programs work. Secretary Buttigieg
shared with me that DOT has the necessary authority to investigate
these programs and take enforcement action where appropriate.
The Secretary also announced a joint hearing with the Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau. That is good news for consumers. That
meeting took place this morning to discuss airline credit cards and
frequent flyer programs with industry representatives, labor leaders,
and consumers. These are important steps forward in the conversation,
and I thank Secretary Buttigieg for showing this initiative. Just last
week, I had a chance to raise the issue directly with him at an open
hearing during the Senate's Appropriations Subcommittee. Once again, I
was glad to hear the Department of Transportation also is concerned
with airline shady practices and seeks to protect Americans.

This week, the Senate has been considering the FAA reauthorization
bill. I support a provision, which made the final bill, that would
create a Senate-confirmed Assistant Secretary for the Department of
Transportation's Office of Aviation Consumer Protection. I think it is
important to put someone in this post to have better oversight of
frequent flyer programs for the consumers of America.
We should pass the reauthorization bill as quickly as possible to
ensure there is no lapse in resources for our Nation's airports, air
traffic controllers, aviation industry, and all the passengers.
Employed by the credit card and airline industries, critics have
accused me of jeopardizing Americans' airline rewards with my idea of
competition among credit cards. This isn't true. Modern-day airlines
have become credit card companies that also happen to own airplanes. It
is their deceptive practices that threaten Americans' ability to redeem
rewards that they have earned. I am committed to holding both
industries accountable for exploiting hard-working consumers to further
line their own pockets.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
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.
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
mandatory quorum call for the cloture motion with respect to the
substitute amendment numbered 1911, as modified, be waived.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Cloture Motion

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before
the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

Cloture Motion

We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
do hereby move to bring to a close debate on Cantwell
substitute amendment No. 1911, as modified, to Calendar No.
211, H.R. 3935, a bill to amend title 49, United States Code,
to reauthorize and improve the Federal Aviation
Administration and other civil aviation programs, and for
other purposes.
Charles E. Schumer, Maria Cantwell, Martin Heinrich, Gary
C. Peters, Patty Murray, Brian Schatz, Christopher A.
Coons, Jack Reed, Sheldon Whitehouse, Christopher
Murphy, Peter Welch, Richard Blumenthal, Michael F.
Bennet, Debbie Stabenow, Laphonza R. Butler, Angus S.
King, Jr., Jeanne Shaheen.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum
call has been waived.
The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on
amendment No. 1911, as modified, offered by the Senator from New York
[Mr. Schumer], to H.R. 3935, a bill to amend title 49, United States
Code, to reauthorize and improve Federal Aviation Administration and
other civil aviation programs, and for other purposes, shall be brought
to a close?
The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Ms. Sinema) is
necessarily absent.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from Indiana (Mr. Braun) and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Scott).
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 84, nays 13, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 161 Leg.]

YEAS--84

Baldwin
Barrasso
Bennet
Blackburn
Blumenthal
Booker
Boozman
Britt
Brown
Budd
Butler
Cantwell
Capito
Carper
Casey
Collins
Coons
Cornyn
Cortez Masto
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Duckworth
Durbin
Fetterman
Fischer
Gillibrand
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hassan
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Kelly
Kennedy
King
Klobuchar
Lankford
Lujan
Lummis
Manchin
Markey
Marshall
McConnell
Menendez
Moran
Mullin
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Paul
Peters
Reed
Ricketts
Risch
Romney
Rosen
Rounds
Rubio
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Scott (SC)
Shaheen
Smith
Stabenow
Sullivan
Tester
Thune
Tillis
Tuberville
Warnock
Warren
Welch
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden
Young

NAYS--13

Cardin
Cassidy
Daines
Ernst
Hawley
Johnson
Kaine
Lee
Merkley
Schmitt
Van Hollen
Vance
Warner

NOT VOTING--3

Braun
Scott (FL)
Sinema
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Peters). On this vote, the yeas are 84,
the nays are 13.
Three-fourths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in
the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
The majority leader.

Amendment No. 2040

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2040 to the text
proposed to be stricken.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from New York, [Mr. Schumer] proposes an
amendment numbered 2040 to the text of the language proposed
to be stricken by amendment No. 1911.

Mr. SCHUMER. I ask to dispense with further reading of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To add an effective date)

At the end add the following:

SEC. EFFECTIVE DATE.

This Act shall take effect on the date that is 7 days after
the date of enactment of this Act.

[[Page S3633]]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.

Amendment No. 2041 to Amendment No. 2040

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I call up second-degree amendment No.
2041.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Washington [Ms. Cantwell], for Mr.
Schumer, proposes an amendment numbered 2041 to amendment No.
2040.

Ms. CANTWELL. I ask to dispense with further reading of the
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To add an effective date)

On page 1, line 3, strike ``7 days'' and insert ``8 days''.

Ms. CANTWELL. 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. COONS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Butler). Without objection, it is so
ordered.

American Hostages

Mr. COONS. Madam President, I come to the floor today to speak for a
few moments about the urgent--the pressing--matter of Americans held
hostage or wrongfully detained abroad and about a specific positive
recent development to make sure that when they are released and freed,
they are welcomed home in a positive and meaningful way.
Today, there is somewhere between 30 and 40 Americans wrongfully
detained abroad, and they range all over from their backgrounds to the
countries in which they are held.
I have met repeatedly with Rachel and Jon, who are the parents of
Hersh Goldberg-Polin, an American Israeli who was attending a music
festival in Israel when he was attacked, badly injured, kidnapped by
Hamas terrorists, and dragged to Gaza where he is still today hostage
beneath Gaza in tunnels.
Ryan Corbett has been held in Afghanistan for years, an NGO worker
who was abducted by the Taliban.
Mark Swidan has been held in China on narcotics trafficking charges,
a sentence upheld recently but not yet imposed.
And, of course, Evan Gershkovich, a Wall Street Journal reporter
currently imprisoned in Russia whose mother I met with recently and who
I join with his family in continuing to pray and work for his release.
There has recently been a positive step forward in how we welcome
home these hostages.
First, I have to tell you something disturbing about how we have long
welcomed home hostages. Jason Rezaian is a Washington Post reporter who
was taken prisoner in Iran and, ultimately, served a year and a half--
544 days--in prison in Tehran before he was released. And I want you to
guess what was the first thing Jason got from the U.S. Government when
he returned home? It was a tax bill with fines and penalties for his
failure to file and pay his taxes on time.
Jason came to meet with me and recounted to me that when he pointed
out to the IRS that it was front-page news in the Washington Post that
he was unjustly imprisoned--of course, he couldn't pay his taxes on
time--they said: We would like to help you, Mr. Rezaian, but Congress
needs to act in order for us to stop imposing tax penalties on American
hostages.
So today I am here to celebrate that my dear friend Mike Rounds,
Republican Senator, and I have introduced and the Senate has now passed
a bill with a catchy title, Stop Tax Penalties on American Hostages
Act. It cleared unanimously--thank you. We now await House action.
This is the latest in a number of actions several of us have taken
together. There is now a National Hostage and Wrongful Detainee Day. It
was recognized by a bill that was passed in the Defense authorization
bill last year and signed into law by President Biden. That was March
9.
We are also working on legislation to repair the credit score of
those who are wrongfully imprisoned, held hostage, or detained. As you
can imagine, if you spend years in prison in Russia or in Iran or being
held captive in Afghanistan or in Gaza and you aren't making payments
on your bills, your credit score suffers. Senator Tillis and I are next
hoping to move the Fair Credit for American Hostages Act.
Let me conclude by saying this: We have to do more together to deter
hostage-taking, to restore to the United States those who have been
wrongfully detained, to cooperate across our government.
I am grateful that the Biden administration has increased its focus
on this urgent moral issue and that 47 wrongfully detained Americans
have been brought home so far under the present administration. But,
frankly, all of us should be working together to hold in our prayers
and thoughts those who are hostages, those who are wrongful detainees
and their loved ones, and to work together, as Senator Rounds and I
have in recent weeks and as the Congress as a whole will in coming
days.
Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. COONS. The Senator will so yield.
Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I have a great deal of respect for the
Senator from Delaware, and we work well together on the Judiciary
Committee and always operated in good faith, even though we sometimes
have differences of opinion. I know he spends a lot of time thinking
about national security and foreign relations affairs, and he has
traveled the world and knows more leaders of the different countries
around the world than I ever will.
But I do know that since he shares the concerns about the status,
particularly the American citizens who are hostages in Gaza, I would
just like to get some idea from him what his thoughts are about the
administration's pause on weapons delivery to Israel.
Let me just predicate this by saying, I remember back when, of
course, we were concerned about al-Qaida in Fallujah where the marines
fought a terrible battle. And, unfortunately, any time there is a
conflict, there are going to be civilian casualties. Obviously, the
goal is to minimize those casualties; likewise, in places like Mosul
where ISIS made its last stand in Iraq.
I would like to get an idea from the Senator, if he would be so kind,
if he would share what his thoughts are about what Israel is supposed
to do in Rafah, obviously, to satisfy the concerns about civilian
collateral damage but also in a way that allows Israel to eliminate the
terrorist threat.
Mr. COONS. Madam President, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to
what is a pressing concern for so many of us.
I will simply reflect on my last in-person meeting with Prime
Minister Netanyahu and Defense Minister Gallant in Israel, now many
weeks ago. It was part of a visit I made to a number of countries in
the region. I spoke directly to this, and I believe what I am saying
also reflects the views of the administration.
Of course, the United States stands strongly behind Israel and its
defense and its security. Secretary of Defense Austin, when asked this
same question about what it might mean if there were pauses or reviews
of weapons deliveries--what that might mean. Just yesterday, he said
that the administration, the United States, retains an ironclad
commitment to Israel's security and defense, as just demonstrated a few
weeks ago when we worked together with Israel, with the UK, with
France, with Saudi Kingdom, and with Jordan to provide their defense
against 300 missiles and drones launched at Israel by Iran.
So what is it that we are saying with regard to Rafah? What I said to
the Prime Minister was: You don't just have the right to defend the
Israeli people against Hamas; you have the obligation. After October 7,
you have to restore a sense of security and deterrence against this
terrorist organization that massacred more Jews, more civilians--1,200
people of a wide range of backgrounds, in fact. It is the worst day for
Jews since the Holocaust. But many who are still held captive in Gaza
by Hamas are from a dozen different nations, languages, and religions.
You have to go after them and finish the job. You have to go into
Rafah, go

[[Page S3634]]

after these four remaining battalions, and you have to secure Gaza and
make certain Hamas does not reemerge as a fighting force that can ever
threaten Israel again.
And given that there are a million civilian refugees who have flown
down to the very bottom of Gaza and are now up against the hard border
with Egypt, and given that Egypt will not allow any of them into Egypt,
you have to provide a pathway for civilians to leave Rafah before you
go in at scale with a bombing campaign--a ground campaign--to minimize
civilian injuries and deaths. If there are 10,000 or so Hamas fighters
remaining in Rafah, and if the multiplier--to use a crass term--has
been 2-to-1 civilian deaths for every Hamas fighter killed, to
contemplate 20 or 30,000 more civilian deaths in Rafah is to
contemplate a horrifying outcome.
But it is not acceptable to leave Hamas in control of a segment of
Gaza and capable of returning.
So what is it I am hoping and expecting Israel will do? To relocate
all of the civilians in Rafah, north in Gaza, screen them so that none
of the leaders of Hamas or the fighters of Hamas escape; to provide for
humanitarian aid and for shelter in another part of Gaza; and then to
go in in scale, get into the tunnels, secure the release of the
hostages, if possible, and finish the job. That is difficult but, in my
view, doable.
For us to ignore the consequences of using American weapons at scale
in a very heavily concentrated place where there are a million refugees
there because they were told to move south, as the IDF carried out its
justified campaign against Hamas over the last 6 months, would be to
undertake a tragic loss of life that is needless.
Madam President, at this point, I am inclined to yield unless the
Senator has a follow-up question for me.
Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I appreciate the comments from my friend
and colleague from Delaware.
I am reassured by his commitment to make sure that Israel will have
the capacity to actually eliminate the terrorist threat, which is, of
course, an existential threat. Hamas, a proxy of Iran, wants to wipe
Israel off the map. This is not a conflict of choice. It is an
existential fight by the Israeli people. And, of course, no one wants
any civilian casualties, collateral damage.
And from the news reports that I read and see, it looks to me like
the Israelis are trying to provide a safe passage for many of the
refugees who, as the Senator says, have moved south, but now they are
up against the hard border of Egypt with nowhere else to go. My hope
is, as he said, that they will be given safe passage, if they can, to
someplace where they won't be in harm's way.
But, again, to me, the bottom line is we have to give Israel the
flexibility they need to eliminate the threat. We would ask for nothing
less if it were us as it has been in places like Mosul and Fallujah in
the past.
I appreciate the Senator for responding. Again, I am reassured by his
comments. But I hope--I hope--we never are so arrogant or so full of
hubris as we think we can dictate or micromanage a conflict in a
foreign country thousands of miles away when they are in a fight for
their lives.
Thank you very much. I appreciate my colleague.
Mr. COONS. Madam President, if I might extend my remarks briefly,
then conclude.
There is another path a bipartisan group of us worked hard to
support, and I hope is still possible. This path forward, which I also
discussed directly with Prime Minister Netanyahu, was given real life
just 2 weeks ago--3 weeks ago--when Iran attacked Israel.
Israel's defense against these Iranian missiles and drones was, yes,
primarily provided by missile systems and by Israeli jets but also by
the cooperation and assistance of the Saudis, the Jordanians, the
Americans, and the British.
There is another path forward where ending Hamas in Gaza and the
region is the joint project of the Saudis, the Egyptians, the
Jordanians, and that there is an end to the Arab-Israeli conflict. It
was exactly that prospect that helped precipitate the Hamas attack of
October 7.
Yes, Hamas is a hateful terrorist organization dedicated to
eradicating Israel and killing Jews. But the timing, the timing of the
October 7 attack was very closely aligned to when a final next step in
the Saudi-Israel reconciliation was about to move forward. They have
been determined to prevent peace.
There is a way forward whereby Hamas may be eliminated from having
any role in Gaza and the West Bank and, in the future, of the region by
a regional cooperation which could be facilitated by achieving peace.
That is also much to be hoped for and worked for.
I yield the floor and thank my colleague.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. For the information of the Senate, cloture
having been invoked, the motion to commit and the amendments thereto
fall.

H.R. 3935

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, the Senate has spent much of the past
couple of years rushing to complete high-stakes bills before long-
awaited deadlines arrive. Matter of fact, we have been very bad about
meeting those deadlines. We keep kicking the can down the road in a
number of cases. That was the situation last month, when one of our
Nation's most vital intelligence tools was in danger of expiring on the
19th of April. It was the case last spring, when the United States hit
the debt limit and nearly defaulted on its debts while Congress debated
solutions. It was the case for fiscal year 2024 appropriations, when
Congress had to pass multiple eleventh-hour funding bills to avert a
government shutdown.
It seems like we have lurched from one deadline to another up against
the wall, where we have postponed making important decisions on a
timely basis, so there is no more time, no more flexibility, and we
have lurched, as I said, from potential shutdown to potential shutdown.
But the big item on the Senate's agenda this week is the
reauthorization of the Federal Aviation Administration, and to my
point, it is set to expire tomorrow night.
The Federal Aviation Administration is vital to the safety and the
efficiency of our Nation's air travel system that millions of us depend
on, on a daily basis. From certifying aircraft and pilots to overseeing
air traffic controls, this Agency touches on virtually every aspect of
the aviation industry, and its operations have a major impact on all
the American people. On an average day, the Agency serves more than
45,000 flights involving 2.9 million passengers. That is a staggering
number--45,000 flights, 2.9 million airline passengers a day.
A highly functioning FAA is vital to the country, but it is clear
that the Agency has fallen short in a number of respects in recent
years. Travelers have dealt with widespread flight cancelations and
paralyzing staffing shortages. They have experienced jarring safety
issues, such as near collisions on airport tarmacs, including one at
the Austin airport, where I live. All of these incidents have
underscored the need to pass a strong FAA reauthorization bill that
prioritizes safety, efficiency, and consumer confidence.
My friend Senator Cruz, the junior Senator from Texas, is leading the
reauthorization effort on this side of the aisle, and he has worked
with the chairwoman, Senator Cantwell, to help craft a bipartisan,
bicameral bill that will make flying safer and more convenient for all
airline passengers.
This reauthorization bill importantly includes a range of reforms and
will modernize and improve the FAA. It strengthens safety standards,
enhances consumer protections, invests in technologies to improve
efficiency, and expands training programs to meet the workforce demands
of the rapidly growing air travel industry.
I am glad this legislation also delivers a major win for Texas and in
particular, San Antonio, where I was raised. San Antonio is the seventh
largest city in the United States, and it is known as Military City USA
because of the large presence of our Armed Forces. As a matter of fact,
that is the reason my family moved to San Antonio when I was a freshman
in high school--because my dad was a career Air Force officer stationed
at Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio.
Despite the fact that we are talking about the seventh largest city
in the country, you can fly directly from Washington, DC, from Reagan
National Airport, to Houston, to Dallas, to Austin, but you can't fly
directly to San

[[Page S3635]]

Antonio. You have to go through a major hub, like Dallas-Fort Worth.
This is because of this archaic and really quite inappropriate
perimeter rule which limits the number of gates available for aircraft
to fly in and out of Washington, DC, at Reagan National Airport.
This makes it difficult for military personnel serving in places like
San Antonio or businesspeople who want to come back and forth or simply
families who want to come visit the Nation's Capital. This makes it
unnecessarily difficult for each of them, but I am optimistic this will
change soon as a result of the underlying Federal Aviation
Authorization Act. This legislation will allow five additional long-
haul flights into Reagan National Airport, giving airlines the ability
to establish a direct route between, in this case, San Antonio and the
District of Columbia.
Again, I want to commend Senator Cruz for his leadership on this
legislation. He knows how important this is to San Antonio and the
entire State of Texas. It is also important for consumers to have a
competitive choice when it comes to the airlines they choose to fly on
because the more competition, it means that the prices will have to be
better, more affordable for consumers, and it will force everybody to
be better. He and Senator Cantwell and our colleagues on the Senate
Commerce Committee have crafted a strong bill to modernize the FAA and
promote safety for the American people, so I just want to say a few
words about how much I appreciate their hard work.

I hope the Senate will pass this bill soon, perhaps as early as this
evening.

House of Representatives

Madam President, on another matter, while all these big, deadline-
driven bills often get the most attention, they aren't the only pieces
of legislation moving through the Senate and across the Capitol to the
House and then to the President's desk. This Chamber, the Senate, has
been very productive in producing countless bipartisan bills that
address some of the biggest challenges our country is facing.
One example is the need to protect our kids online. The social media
platforms that were designed to connect people have become breeding
grounds for exploitation and abuse of children.
Out of every great technology that has made our lives easier and made
us more prosperous, unfortunately, there always seems to be a dark side
that is exploited by bad actors and evil people.
Last year, the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children
received over 36 million reports of suspected child exploitation.
Let me say that again. Last year alone--NCMEC, it is called--the
National Center for Missing and Exploited Children received 36 million
reports of suspected child exploitation online.
Predators are increasingly using these social media platforms to
groom and exploit vulnerable children. Republicans and Democrats--
again, this is not a partisan issue--Republicans and Democrats on the
Judiciary Committee have taken these threats seriously. We have held
multiple hearings on this topic, and my colleagues and I have
introduced a range of bills to build a safer world online for all of
our children.
One of those bills is the Project Safe Childhood Act, which gives
Federal prosecutors and law enforcement more tools to go after online
child predators. This legislation that I introduced and passed the
Judiciary Committee passed the Senate unanimously last October, but it
is still awaiting action in the House of Representatives after all
these many months.
Sadly, it is not the only such bill. The House is also sitting on
another important bill to protect children called the Jenna Quinn Act.
This legislation carries the name of an inspiring young Texas woman who
is a survivor of child sexual abuse. Jenna was the driving force behind
a 2009 law in Texas that required training for teachers, caregivers,
and other adults who work with children in schools on how to identify,
prevent, and report child sexual abuse. Given the amount of time our
children spend in class, it is important that our teachers and our
counselors and people who work with them in their schools are trained
to identify the signs and symptoms of child sexual abuse.
Since the Jenna Quinn Law passed in Texas in 2009, a number of States
have passed similar laws, but this training lacks funding typically,
and that is where the Jenna Quinn Law comes in. The bill I introduced
with Senator Hassan to finally back the Federal training will come with
Federal grant funding attached.
Again, this bill, like the previous bill I mentioned, passed the
Senate unanimously, but it is still awaiting action in the House of
Representatives.
But I am not done yet. The House is also holding up another bill that
would reauthorize Project Safe Neighborhoods through the Department of
Justice. This is another bill that I introduced. This program fosters
partnerships between Federal, State, and local law enforcement to help
reduce violent crime and make our neighborhoods safer.
It was inspired by a successful program that started just down the
road in Richmond, VA, called Project Safe Neighborhoods. Actually, I
think it was called Project Exile at that time. But it also is
something that, when I was attorney general a few years ago, we scaled
up for a statewide effort, and it helped reduce crime rates across our
State.
The Federal program is called Project Safe Neighborhoods, and it has,
during its tenure, helped reduce violent crime in large cities and
small towns across America.
Given the growing concerns about crime in our country, including
right here in the Nation's Capital, in the District of Columbia, there
could not be a more important time to make this program better,
stronger, and more effective.
So these are three bills that were bipartisan and basically voted
unanimously out of the Senate and are sitting, waiting for action in
the House. Each one passed the Senate, as I said, with unanimous
support, and each one would go a long way to help reduce crime, support
survivors, and make our country safer. But there are a total of 10
bills which I have authored that have passed the Senate but are
awaiting action in the House, including these 3. So when you add the
other bills that have been introduced by many of my colleagues, we have
a serious legislative logjam on our hands. The House is sitting on
bills to protect children, improve public safety, promote efficient
trade, and so much more.
I am here to plead with the House to take up and pass these bills.
Many of them are, as they were in the Senate, not controversial. There
shouldn't be any reason for any more unnecessary delay.
We know here we are 6 months before the next election, and
legislating only gets harder each day, the closer and closer we get to
the November election. Including this week, the Senate is scheduled to
be in session for only 12 weeks between now and election day, and the
same is true for the House of Representatives. In that time, we will
need to reauthorize the Federal Aviation Administration
reauthorization, pass the Defense authorization bill, pass the farm
bill, and fund the government, among many other things. Of course,
those are just the must-pass bills. There are countless other items,
like the ones I mentioned, that we should be working on together.
So we have a lot to accomplish in the next 12 weeks, and I would
encourage our friends in the House to take up these commonsense,
bipartisan bills that are noncontroversial and send them to the
President's desk as soon as possible.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. BUTLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Booker). Without objection, it is so
ordered.

Public Service Recognition Week

Ms. BUTLER. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues in
recognizing the indispensable contributions public service workers
across the Nation make every single day.
I would like to start by thanking Senators Sinema and Lankford--thank
you so much--for championing the 2024 reintroduction of their Public
Service

[[Page S3636]]

Recognition Week resolution of which I am a proud cosponsor.
For more than four decades, the first week of May has been set aside
to show appreciation to the Federal, State, county, and local
government employees who form the backbone of our country. As we mark
the 40th anniversary of this tradition, we have a renewed opportunity
to salute those working behind the scenes in small towns and big
cities, many of whom have dedicated their entire professional careers
to giving back to their community and to this country.
California is home to more public servants than any other State in
our Nation. As one of the two Senators representing more than 40
million Californians, I could not be prouder of that fact. Whether it
is here in the Halls of Congress or in the pockets of our Nation, I
stand shoulder to shoulder with millions of public servants who get out
of bed every morning, committed to shaping our world for the better.
From our teachers to our librarians, our elected officials and our
election workers, our people in uniform who fight crimes and fight
fires, they and so many others exemplify some of our Nation's highest
ideals.
I am inspired by the stories of hard-working Californians who have
dedicated their lives to public service. They are the reason our
communities are kept safe. They are the reason our students are kept on
the right track. They are the reason democracy endures against attempts
to erode it. And they don't get nearly enough credit or thanks for the
sacrifices that they make to keep our country moving forward.
My office performed direct outreach to communities up and down our
State, inviting people to nominate those working in local, State, and
Federal offices they believe best define what it means to be a public
servant. We received hundreds of nominations--extraordinary people from
all across California who embody the spirit of public service--and
though each and every one of them deserves their own recognition, I
would like to share a few of those stories today.
The first is Roxana Samame.
Roxana is a multilingual cultural academic language coach for the
L.A. Unified School District. She is nominated by Geraldine Hernandez-
Abisror. Geraldine met Roxana this year from Geraldine's work in
community engagement and as a parent liaison for the Reseda Community
Schools.
A member of United Teachers Los Angeles, Roxana is a single mom,
nominated for having the biggest heart and the best gift for working
with students from underserved communities. She was a former dean of
students at West Adams Prep School, has worked with students involved
in gangs, and has provided meaningful support to keep our kids on the
right path. She currently serves as a coach for title III multilingual
and cultural language students in Los Angeles, which is the second
largest school district in our Nation. In addition, she works in
supportive services for the English Language Development Program at
William Mulholland Middle School.
Congratulations, and thank you, Roxana.
Veronica Marbella from Los Angeles, CA.
Veronica is a nurse practitioner at the Martin Luther King, Jr.
Outpatient Center in Los Angeles, CA. She was nominated by Guadalupe
Alvarado.
Veronica is a proud union member of SEIU Local 721, and she was
Guadalupe's first supervisor in 2001 at Charles Drew Medical Center.
She has served for 30 years as a nurse practitioner, including the
supervision of the Trauma Intensive Care Unit at the Martin Luther
King, Jr. Community Hospital in LA. She built a track record of
training nurses on how to best advocate for their patients and for each
other. She also worked closely with Dr. Meade, who was the ICU director
and a Nobel Peace Prize recipient, to orient and train both interns and
residents in the surgery program.
Veronica has dedicated her life to serving others in the most complex
environments. In the words of Guadalupe, ``She reminds us of the
compassion, dedication, and skill involved in providing excellent
patient care.''
Thank you, Veronica and Guadalupe.
Joy Murphy from Santa Clara, CA.
Joy works at NASA's Ames Research Center and was nominated by her
cousin, Geraldine Hernandez-Abisror.
Joy has been a public servant for more than 26 years and was the
first Filipina-African American to serve as the Deputy Director of the
Office of Human Capital at NASA's Ames Research Center. She now serves
as the Director for California Human Resources and Chief Human Capital
Officer at NASA's Armstrong Flight Research Center in Edwards, CA.
Joy is a mother who has dedicated her life to serving her community
and, according to Geraldine, has a heart of gold and talent that words
cannot describe.
Thank you, Joy, for all that you do to make California and our Nation
great.
Josh Hoines from Shasta, CA.
Josh works for the National Park Service and was nominated by Erin
Ryan, who works with Josh in serving California constituents. A public
servant for more than 18 years, Josh currently serves as the
Whiskeytown Park Superintendent.
Erin told us that Josh came into his role during a very difficult
time. Over 90 percent of the park had burned in a wildfire, and he was
dealing with COVID shutdowns and a lack of funding. Despite these
obstacles, Josh has returned to the park, and he has returned the park
to an effective recreation area. According to Erin, Josh has done great
work with staff and the community and our office. She adds that the
community is fortunate to have him in the district. I know I am
fortunate to have Josh in our national parks as a representative of
this government.
I am grateful, Josh. Thank you and congratulations.
Finally, Diego Rivera.
Also from Los Angeles, Diego is a firefighter. He is a firefighter at
the U.S. Forest Service, Angeles National Forest in Los Angeles, CA. He
was nominated by Robert Garcia, who served as his boss, the fire chief.
On August 16, 2023, Diego was fighting fires in the Six Rivers
National Forest in Northern California when he was struck by a fallen
tree and was severely injured, rendering him paralyzed. Since his
injury, Diego continues to defy a lot of his medical prognoses,
exceeding any expectation that medical professionals have made. Despite
his paralysis, he remains engaged with his firefighting team and the
U.S. Forest Service's fire agency to continue to motivate and inspire
firefighters to believe in themselves and in each other.
In closing, service is the rent we pay for living or, as Shirley
Chisholm reminded us, it is the great price that we pay for living. I
am grateful to the thousands of public servants across the State of
California for their continued service to the people of this Nation.
Choosing a life of dedicated service to others is a decision that
demands the highest respect and the greatest gratitude. Far too often,
people in this line of work go unsung and underpaid.
So, as we use this moment to recognize the critical role they play in
holding our Nation together, let's recommit ourselves to understanding
that they are needed, ensuring that they are protected, and making the
path to public service smoother for those who choose to walk it.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican whip.

Biden Administration Regulations

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, regulations have been coming thick and fast
from the Biden administration lately as the administration races to
squeeze in regulations before the deadline, after which they could be
overturned by a new Congress.
In fact, a recent spate of regulations brought the total regulatory
costs imposed by the Biden administration in 2024 to over $1 trillion--
$1 trillion--in just one year.
All told, the Biden administration has imposed a staggering $1.47
trillion in regulatory costs since the President took office--$1.47
trillion.
Compare that to President Trump, who had actually reduced regulatory
costs by this point in his administration. But, perhaps, I am not being
fair. Perhaps, it is not surprising that a Republican President didn't
impose a staggering regulatory burden.
Let's compare President Biden to his Democratic predecessor,
President Obama. By this point in his first term,

[[Page S3637]]

President Obama had imposed regulations costing $303.5 billion--
certainly, of course, more than President Trump, but, I am afraid to
say, still a long way away from President Biden. The total cost of
President Obama's regulations at this point in his first term doesn't
come anywhere close to President Biden's total.
In fact, the total cost of President Obama's regulations to this
point was roughly 20 percent of the cost of President Biden's--20
percent.
The Biden administration has imposed regulations costing almost five
times as much as President Obama's. President Biden is bringing new
meaning to the phrase ``the heavy hand of government.''
What do we mean when we refer to regulatory costs? What do those look
like in practice? They can look like forcing electric generation
facilities to spend millions of dollars to install costly carbon
capture systems, as the Biden administration is doing with its new
powerplant rule.
They can look like an additional $7,000 in construction costs for new
homes. See President Biden's energy efficiency requirements for
affordable housing.
They can look like imposing new vehicle emission standards,
effectively forcing car companies to spend enormous amounts of money to
rejigger their supply chains and factories to produce a lot of new
electric cars, even though Americans are not exactly clamoring for
electric vehicles.
They can look like forcing farmers and ranchers and other private
landowners to spend tens of thousands of dollars for permits or
penalties concerning water features on their private land. And for
that, I would have you see the Biden administration's waters of the
United States, or what we call the WOTUS, rule.
I could go on.
All of these regulatory costs have consequences. It just stands to
reason, if your family is facing a major, unexpected medical bill, for
example, there is a good chance you are going to have to account for it
somehow--either by cutting back spending, dipping into savings, or
picking up extra hours at work, or perhaps a second job to increase
your income.
Similarly, if you are a South Dakota nursing home facing a Federal
requirement to hire additional staff--and for that, I would have you
see the Biden administration's new nursing home staffing regulation--
you are likely going to have to do something like reduce the number of
patients that you care for or close your doors altogether, which is
becoming already way too common in my State of South Dakota.
Or if you are a small business facing the new overtime rule the Biden
administration recently put in place--which imposes a massive 65-
percent increase in the overtime exemption threshold--you may be faced
with the unappealing prospect of either increasing prices on the goods
or services that you provide, reducing the number of positions you have
available, or lowering the base pay you offer to create room to be able
to pay overtime wages.
Or take President Biden's powerplant regulations. His so-called good
neighbor rule and his new carbon capture and emissions regulations will
not only drive up energy prices for American families and businesses,
they are also likely to result in a less reliable energy supply.
Our current assumption that we will automatically have the energy we
need to power our businesses, operate our heating and air conditioning
systems, run our appliances, and light our homes may not survive the
long-term imposition of President Biden's powerplant rules.
Then there are still other costs. American taxpayers are now being
forced to pay for abortion services at the VA--in defiance of Federal
law--thanks to a Biden administration regulation.
This is far from the only attempt by the Biden administration to
impose its far-left social agenda through Federal regulation and
endanger conscience rights in the process.
We are facing serious consequences from the Biden regulatory regime,
from threats to conscience rights to questions about the future
stability of our energy supply to immense financial costs for families
and businesses--$1.47 trillion in regulatory costs in less than 4
years. I shudder to think what that number will look like should we see
another 4.
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. VANCE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Affordable Connectivity Program

Mr. VANCE. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about a program of
critical importance to my State and to a number of people all across
the country, and that is the Affordable Connectivity Program--something
that doesn't generate a lot of headlines; something that doesn't
generate a lot of partisan debate; and something for which, gratefully,
there is a bipartisan group of Senators who would, I think, extend the
Affordable Connectivity Program for this country, but, unfortunately,
it looks like the leadership does not want to give us a vote on it.
So I want to talk about why this program is important and talk about
why it is important that we hopefully, sometime in the future,
authorize this important program, which just expired a matter of a few
days ago.
Now, this is a town where, often, the things that generate headlines
are sometimes the most partisan fights, the things that are most
pressing and most relevant. And, of course--the Presiding Officer knows
me--I participate in those debates just as well or just as much as
anybody.
But sometimes--hopefully, most of the time--this body should be
geared toward actually accomplishing things for the constituents that
we represent. In the State of Ohio, the Affordable Connectivity Program
benefits over a million households. That is not a million people. A
million households in the State of Ohio benefit from this program. And
my cosponsors from Vermont, from New Mexico, Democratic colleagues, and
from a number of Republican States as well, I think, testify to how
important this program actually is.
Let me just sort of try to identify a couple of the reasons why it is
important. So the first reason it is important is because we know that
connectivity is actually one of the important and necessary parts of
living life in the 21st century. We may not like this. We may think
that this is a negative trend. But, look, kids can't do their
schoolwork without access to high-quality broadband. A lot of parents
can't do their work from home if they don't have access to high-quality
broadband. Teachers can't prepare lessons for the next day.
And, increasingly, especially in a country that is as constrained by
budget and fiscal matters as ours, one of the great ways to lower
healthcare costs in our country is telemedicine. Yet you can't do
telemedicine, of course, if you don't have an internet connection at
home.
The Affordable Connectivity Program solves this problem by ensuring
that our low-income residents all across the country can afford their
internet bills.
Now, it is not just about the consumers; it is not just about our
citizens who need a high-quality connection because the guarantee that
consumers will be able to pay their internet bills, regardless of their
income level, is one of the things that makes it possible for a lot of
companies to invest in rural broadband infrastructure.
Now, I talked to a number of companies, a number of businesses that
do rural broadband infrastructure just in the State of Ohio, and it
costs a lot of money. Right? You lay a mile of fiber in a place like
Cleveland, Columbus, or Cincinnati, and you instantly have thousands
upon thousands of people who are ready to tap into that connection; but
you lay a mile of fiber in rural southeastern Ohio, and maybe, if you
are lucky, you have a few people who are willing to tap into that
connection. So it is more expensive in the parts of our country that
are more sparsely populated.
I think it is one of the reasons my Democratic colleague from New
Mexico is as passionate about this as I am--Senator Lujan because you
have, of course, large numbers of reservations

[[Page S3638]]

all over New Mexico and a large number of rural areas that are in
reservations. And, look, you need to be able to access the stuff. You
need to be able to access internet connection in the 21st century. It
is important for economic development. It is important for people to be
able to live their lives.
But in order to ensure that people are willing to actually invest in
that broadband infrastructure, to pay for that mile of fiberoptic
cable, we have to make sure that, on the other end, there are customers
who are willing to actually access and pay for those services.
So this is an important thing, and it is already expired. And it
hasn't expired because of partisan bickering. This is a bipartisan
piece of legislation that wants to reauthorize this program. It hasn't
expired because we don't have the resources. This is a very, very small
amount of money in the grand scheme of the Federal budget. The reason
it is expired is because sometimes in Washington, people are too busy
arguing about public policy and not actually busy enough doing public
policy.
We have the votes. We have the need. We have the necessity. But the
reason why this program has fallen, the reason why this program has
lapsed, the reason why it has gone offline--if you will forgive a pun--
is because we can't actually vote on it. And that, unfortunately, I
think, is a reflection on Senate leadership; it is a reflection on the
brokenness of this town; and it is a reflection on the fact that, too
often, so many good public policies for the people of our country fall
through the cracks because other things take priority.
Well, this should take priority. This is important. And I think,
unfortunately, a lot of people in Ohio are about to find out how
important it is when they start to see the effects of it expiring.
So one of the things, Mr. President--I am mindful a little bit of the
time here. I received a number of letters about this. One of the really
fascinating dynamics of becoming a U.S. Senator--I have been here for
all of 18 months--is that your constituent letters very often tell you
the issues that the people you represent, the people you serve,
actually care the most about. I expect a lot of constituent mail--
positive and negative--and sometimes I am surprised by it.
I am always surprised that anytime an issue of animal rights comes
up, that is when I get maybe the most mail. People in Ohio really love
animals, and rightfully so. And this issue I have gotten a lot of
letters on. Again, it doesn't gather a lot of headlines, but it matters
to a lot of people.
This is one letter I received from a constituent:

Senator Vance: I am writing to you today to stress the
importance of Congress providing continued funding for the
Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP) as soon as possible. My
household, along with a special needs person that relies on
GPS for tracking his whereabouts could be life-threatening if
I cannot find him.

Think about that, right?

I am his legal guardian and look over his well-being so as
when he wanders off, I would not be able to find him through
his cell phone device. More than 21 million other vulnerable households
in the United States--

Mr. President, 21 million, 8 percent or so of our population, rely on
this program to pay for broadband services.

Without the support provided by this program, my home and
many others would struggle to afford a broadband
subscription.
The support provided by the ACP program has kept my family
and families like mine online through these difficult
economic times.

I am going to read a second letter here, but I just want to highlight
what an extraordinary testament that is: the legal guardian of a
special needs person who needs broadband access to be able to keep tabs
on this person when they need to. And the program that they desperately
need has already expired, and they are about to start feeling it. It
only expired a week ago, so they haven't maybe noticed it yet, but they
certainly will. And this person needs access to this program to keep
track of a special needs person. And you wonder, Will they have it
without this continued program?
I am going to read another letter here. This is from Poland, OH:

Dear Senator Vance, I represent the Ohio Connectivity
Champions, a group of technology experts who were hired by
the Management Council of the Ohio Education Computer Network
during the pandemic to help Ohio families find affordable
internet.
We originally focused on parents of students who needed
internet so that their children could complete schoolwork.
Since then, we have focused on all Ohioans and helping them
with enrollment in the Affordable Connectivity Program as
well as other technology related assistance.
We have heard from thousands of Ohioans on how much the ACP
has helped them with affordable internet.
I know that budgetary issues are very difficult right now
and that government expenditures are at the top of everyone's
list of priorities, but the ACP is one of the most successful
social programs in a long time.
The pandemic opened everyone's eyes to the digital divide
in this country and the ACP has allowed for millions of
Americans to participate in the 21st century economy. I know
that the ACP will most likely be adjusted through
negotiations in Congress, and that is fine, but to not fund
the program completely would affect many Ohioans. We would
appreciate your support of the ACP as we continue to help
Ohioans with finding affordable internet.

Another letter comes from Columbus, OH. And though one of the things
I really admire and like about the ACP program is it induces investment
in rural broadband infrastructure, we also know that there are a lot of
people in our urban areas who could not afford their internet bills
without the ACP program.
So this is from Natalie in Columbus, OH:

We receive a $30 credit each month on our internet
connection. This is scheduled to end in early 2024 unless the
Affordable Connectivity Program is fully funded. This makes a
significant difference in our monthly budget as we are on
food stamps. Both my husband and I are disabled. This credit
makes a significant difference in our lives. Without it that
$30 will have to come out of our food budget as we don't have
anywhere else to squeeze the budget. Food costs have gone up.
Every month, we end up spending more on food than we get in
food stamps. When we got that extra $95 at the end of the
month it really helped. However, that program was
discontinued. Now, another program is scheduled to end that
directly impacts those Americans on the bottom end of the
economic scale.

So two people--a husband and wife--disabled, who are actually going
to forgo food because this program has expired in my home State of
Ohio. What a shame that we have failed Natalie and her husband by
failing to reauthorize this program, and what an opportunity to
actually get off our rear ends and make sure that we do it when we get
the opportunity.
This is another letter I am going to read from Mansfield, OH:

I am 73 years old.

Mansfield, OH. Speaking of pets, this is actually where my wife and I
got the very first dog that we ever owned together.

Without the ACP, I would not have internet.
So, I am writing to you today to stress the importance of
Congress providing continued funding for the Affordable
Connectivity Program (ACP) as soon as possible.
The support provided by the ACP program has kept my family
and families like mine online through these difficult
economic times. We use it to stay connected to work, school,
and healthcare providers, in addition to family and friends.
Without ACP, the reality is we may no longer be able to
afford to be connected and that would be an added hardship.

Think about this. I know that, like a lot of Americans with young
kids at home, probably the most important thing that I use my broadband
connection for is so that my three little kids can call their
grandparents and call their aunts and uncles.
So this 73-year-old from Mansfield, OH, I wonder whether she will be
able to contact her grandkids, whether she will be able to keep
connected with her family who are not easy to get to if this program
disappears.
One final letter I want to read. I am sorry. Mr. President, given the
time, I will not read the last letter that I have. But the point that I
think these letters drive home is that real people are going to suffer
when this program goes away. You have people who have to pick between
food service and internet connectivity. You have an elderly woman who
may not be able to connect to her friends and family. You have people
worried about their telemedicine and healthcare visits.
And on the point about Federal spending, it sort of breaks my heart
when a constituent who can't afford internet service is writing to us
apologizing for a program's budgetary hit

[[Page S3639]]

when it is a tiny, tiny slice of the American Federal budget. And I
know this is a controversial comment with some of my colleagues, but if
we can afford to fund military conflicts the world over, can't we
afford to provide basic connectivity and services for our own people?
Disabled people choosing between food and internet connection--that is
the choice that we have foisted upon them by not authorizing this
program. I am disappointed by that, Mr. President, and again I will say
that it presents an opportunity for us to do the right thing--to make
reforms to the ACP program where it needs to be reformed but to do the
right thing: Reauthorize this program, and ensure that Ohioans and
people all over our country don't have to choose between internet
service and food. We can do that. We just have to do our jobs.

I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.

H.R. 3935

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, this is a little like deja vu all over again.
Here we are dealing with another piece of legislation. It is an
important piece of legislation. It is important legislation that deals
with a lot of things important to a lot of Americans, affecting
something that is uniquely, distinctively within our legislative
jurisdiction as Federal lawmakers; that is, the work of the Federal
Aviation Administration.
It has been part of the interstate network from the dawn of the
Republic. Article I, section 8, clause 3, the commerce clause, has been
interpreted, among other things, to give Congress regulatory--
legislative jurisdiction over channels and instrumentalities of
interstate commerce, and air travel happens to be one of those things.
This important FAA reauthorization bill that has a lot of provisions
in it--some of which I like, some of which I am not wild about--was
processed by the Senate Commerce Committee. The Commerce Committee--the
chair and especially the ranking member--did yeoman's work in
incorporating into the base text amendments from a wide array of
Members, and I have appreciated the hard work they have put into it.
It is important to remember that no matter how hard a committee chair
and ranking member work--certainly the ranking member, my friend and
colleague, the distinguished Senator from Texas--have done in this case
on this bill, it still doesn't obviate or supplant the need for robust
consideration of amendments to be offered on the Senate floor because,
remember, any one Senate committee, including the Commerce Committee,
contains at most, you know, a few dozen Members of this body--a couple
of dozen is about all--and there are, of course, 100 of us. Every one
of us holds an election certificate.
One of the most fundamental rules in the Constitution--a rule that,
by directive of the Constitution itself, can't be changed--is the
principle of equal representation among the States in the Senate. So to
give life and vitality to that, it is absolutely imperative that
individual Senators be given the opportunity to have meaningful input
into legislation whether they sit on the committee of jurisdiction or
not.
To that end, throughout the nearly 2\1/2\ centuries of the existence
of this body, the U.S. Senate, our rules have given pretty broad
deference to individual Members and given certain prerogatives to each
and every Senator, no matter how junior or how senior, whether a Member
is with the minority party or with the majority party.
The whole basis of traditions in the Senate built into our rules--
things like the filibuster, like the cloture standard--they are all
designed to allow Members to engage in robust debate. You can't really
have meaningful debate and meaningful input from every Member of this
body who wants to participate unless you have something of an open
amendment process on the floor.
Now, this was always the norm in the history of the Senate. It was
even when I arrived here. I was sworn into office at the beginning of
2011. The Presiding Officer, of course, joined us not too long after
that, and thus commenced the golden era of the U.S. Senate with the
arrival of the current Presiding Officer.
When we arrived here in the Senate, there were still real, live,
significant vestiges of the way the place always operated; namely, when
we had a significant bill--especially a significant, must-pass
legislative vehicle like the FAA reauthorization bill we are
considering now--it was still normal, still to be expected that an
individual Senator could come down to the Senate floor, call up his or
her amendment, and make that amendment pending.
Once an amendment is made pending, then the Senate has an obligation
eventually to dispose of that amendment either by passing it or voting
on it and declining to pass it or tabling it or something like that.
There are not many options, but it had to be disposed of once it was
made pending.
We have gotten into a bad pattern since then. Unfortunately, both
political parties have played a role in this. We have had increased
prevalence of a situation in which the majority leader will come to the
Senate floor, file cloture on the bill to bring debate to a close, set
that process for bringing debate to a close in motion, and fill the
tree.
Fill the tree. Filling the amendment tree is what that refers to.
That is fancy Senate terminology that just means the majority leader
has some tricks at his disposal to make it nearly impossible to get
amendments made pending by individual rank-and-file Members.
It was fairly common that we could make our amendments pending as
recently as 2011 and 2012, when I arrived and then when the Presiding
Officer arrived in the Senate. It is almost unheard of now because
filing cloture and filling the tree have become almost automatic,
almost reflexive. They are almost self-perpetuating. And it is
relentless to the point that many Members who have joined us since then
haven't ever even really experienced the Senate the way it is more
properly expected to function. Individual Members have to beg and
plead, go on bended knee to political leaders of both parties in the
Senate, asking: Please, please, may I have a chance to do this? Without
the acquiescence of the majority leader, the only way you can get your
amendment pending in many circumstances involves coming to the floor
and asking unanimous consent to make it pending. That consent is too
routinely denied now, very often by the majority party--typically by
the majority party; sometimes not.

What that results in is really a truncation, an abbreviation, a
short-circuiting of the legislative process as it has always functioned
here, as it was designed to function in the Senate rules, as I imagine
it to have been envisioned by the Founding Fathers.
There are 100 Members of this body, and they should all have the
opportunity to fight publicly for their constituents, to make
improvements to the bill, to take away things they consider harmful,
and to add things that have not been included that they think should be
included.
This bill has not been amended on the Senate floor. That is why I
opposed cloture moments ago. Like I say, there are some things in this
bill that I really like, and there are other things that I don't like,
but the biggest single reason to oppose cloture on the bill is that I
don't know how you can in good conscience vote to bring debate to a
close when debate has effectively not happened--at least not on the
Senate floor.
I don't believe debate can happen meaningfully, effectively on an
amendable vehicle like this one where there has been no opportunity to
amend. The bill hasn't been amended on the Senate floor.
The Senate shouldn't simply agree to rubberstamp this so-called four
corners agreement.
``Four corners agreement'' is a term that can refer to several
different things. Very often it means that it has been blessed--
depending on the nature of the bill, very often it has been blessed by
the law firm of Schumer, McConnell, Johnson, and Jeffries or perhaps
the law firm of Schumer, McConnell, Johnson, and Jeffries accompanied
by the chair and ranking member of the appropriate legislative
committee or committees.
But we are not a rubberstamp for one or more committees or for the
firm; we are each elected by the voters in our respective States and
should stand accountable to them. In order to do our jobs, we have to
stand here and be willing to debate. If you don't want to

[[Page S3640]]

fight fires, for heaven's sake, don't become a firefighter. If you
don't want to cast votes, including lots of votes on amendments to
legislation, even where you don't feel like taking the vote, even where
you would rather be kicking back, drinking a root beer or something--
you would be really doing your constituents a disservice if you
subjugated your own desires--your own desire for bliss and for inaction
and you preferred those over your duty to your constituents who elected
you.
We are not here to celebrate somebody's birthday. We are not here to
rubberstamp what the committees do or what the law firm suggests. We
are here to legislate.
We are not really legislators; we are a gigantic rubberstamp to the
extent that we ourselves don't have the opportunity to vote for
amendments. That is why I call upon all Senators within the sound of my
voice, whether you are a Democrat or a Republican or something else, a
liberal or a conservative, whether you have been here for a few years
or a really long time--it doesn't matter; you should want your job that
you worked really hard to get elected to--you should want to be able to
do your job.
I want to be clear. There are a lot of amendments that have been
prominently featured and touted in connection with this bill,
amendments--the sponsors of which have really aggressively argued for.
A lot of those amendments are not amendments I support. In fact, a
number of them are things that I strongly oppose and would really hope
would not pass. Some of them, I would support; others, I wouldn't.
But notwithstanding the fact that some of them really are awful, call
me old fashioned, Mr. President, but I think that is our job, is to
take votes, to try to make legislation better, and to offer
improvements to it, and that means amendments.
Look, I understand that in the House of Representatives, things
operate a little bit differently. You have 435 people over there. It is
a lot harder to have--this is why we have always bragged about our
status as the world's greatest deliberative legislative body.
On paper, we are. Historically, we certainly have been. Today, we are
not. We are kidding ourselves. We are delusional if we want and expect
the American people to believe otherwise, because we are not that.
But here is the good news: We still are that entity on paper. We
still are that entity as it is envisioned, as it is created, as it is
established and outlined by the Constitution. We still are that entity
with our own rules, our own precedents, and our own customs.
But, alas, the best rules, the best constitutional provisions will
amount to dead letter if we ourselves refuse to exercise our own rights
and our prerogatives. The muscle of legislative procedure begins to
atrophy with nonuse--especially, deliberate, willful, chronic nonuse--
always ultimately to the benefit of the firm, to the benefit of a small
handful of Senators and to the exclusion, to the effective
disenfranchisement of everyone else--most importantly, those who
elected us to do a job that we are neglecting, that we are outsourcing
to third parties. Sometimes, it is third parties in the executive
branch of government. Sometimes, it is individual Senators within our
own ranks, within our own body, our own party leaders within our
respective legislative Chambers.
Here is my closing plea. I hope and I humbly ask Senators--and I have
great affection for the Presiding Officer and consider him a dear
friend, even though he and I don't agree on every political issue. We
have different positions on everything from the consumption of meat to
whether I waited too long to shave my head. But the Presiding Officer
and I are good friends, and even though we have different ideas for a
lot of things, I think we both agree on the fact that the Senate could
do a better job and would be doing a better job if we were voting more
on his amendments, more on my amendments, more on the amendments that
anyone else wants to file.
Sure, it takes a little bit more time, perhaps. Sure, it requires a
little bit of effort. But that way we are doing our job. And not
everything we want will always pass. And, yes, that way the law firm of
Schumer, McConnell, Johnson, and Jeffries wouldn't be able to control
as much as it does. But it was never intended to be that way.
We are intended to make laws, not other lawmakers--certainly not
legislative oligarchs who stand in for everybody else while the muscle
of legislative and constitutional procedure continues to atrophy.
So, in short, the next Senate Republican and Democratic leader,
regardless of who holds the majority, I hope, including and especially
the next majority leader of either political party--I certainly hope he
or she, whoever holds that position, will plot out a course that is
different than the one that we have been on for the last few years and
plot out a course that allows and encourages and enables each and every
Senator to do his or her job.
We are all going to work better if everyone is allowed to do his or
her job, and that means the leader needs to stop filling the tree
reflexively, consistently, instinctively every time and boxing out
rank-and-file Members.
Now, look, I get it. There are times when the majority party may see
fit to do that, and those decisions have to be made in realtime. But I
don't think it should be done often. I don't think it should be done
for lighter, transient reasons. It should be the rare exception, rather
than the norm.
But regardless of who the next majority leader is and to which party
that leader may belong, it is not as though we are hopeless, passive
observers, subjects to be acted upon here. No, we can be a part of this
process.
Wherever, whenever there is an effort to lock out amendments, to fill
the tree and exclude individual rank-and-file Members from the
amendment process, any 41 Senators--Republicans, Democrats, or a
combination of the two--can respond to that by proposing cloture and
prohibiting the process from resulting and bringing debate to a close,
unless or until each Senator is allowed the opportunity to offer, call
up, and make pending their amendments.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Fetterman). The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. HAWLEY. 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 Missouri.

Radiation Exposure Compensation Act

Mr. HAWLEY. Mr. President, I am, again, on this floor, this
afternoon, because it is, again, apparent that Congress will fail to
pass the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act. Congress will, again,
fail to compensate those Americans who have been exposed by their own
government to nuclear radiation, to nuclear testing, to nuclear waste.
Why is Congress failing to act again? Well, because the House doesn't
want to vote on it. The House doesn't want to vote on the radiation
bill as part of the FAA. The House doesn't want to vote on the
radiation bill as part of anything. The House just doesn't want to vote
at all.
The only problem with that is that there is only 1 month remaining
before this vital program--this commitment that this Nation has made to
the working people of this Nation, to the veterans of this Nation who
have served this country--before this commitment runs out, before it
goes dark, before people exposed to nuclear waste by their own
government get nothing. We have 1 month to go, and the House is not
acting.
And so I am here, again, to remind this Congress, again, why it is
vital, why it is a moral imperative that Congress--the House, in
particular--act without delay.
So let me once more remind the House and all of those listening of
just a few of the stories of the good Americans who have given their
health--and, in many cases, I am sad to say, their lives--in an effort
to help this country's nuclear program and as a result of what this
country, what this government, what the military did in pushing forward
with the nuclear program, including uranium processing and mining,
without telling and informing the American people of what they were
doing.
Let me just start in the State of Missouri. I could start in any
number of

[[Page S3641]]

States because this was a nationwide effort that stretches all the way
back to the Manhattan Project. And now most of America has seen that
movie about Dr. Oppenheimer that won all those awards, and that is
fine, and I am sure Dr. Oppenheimer deserves all the credit.
But let's just be clear that the real people who won not just the
Second World War, the people who won the Cold War, the people who have
fought and won every conflict that this Nation has been involved in,
the people who are truly responsible and get the credit for the success
of the Nation's nuclear program and military writ large are the working
people of this country, who were not featured in that movie, who have
not won awards, who are not getting plaudits from Hollywood or Wall
Street or anybody else but are instead dying because of the radiation
their government exposed them to.
In St. Louis, the government opened the uranium processing site in
the 1940s, at the height of the Manhattan Project. St. Louis was a so-
called secret city because it wasn't known that it was a site for
uranium processing, and that went on for years.
When the government finally decided to close down the site, they
didn't dispose of the nuclear waste. Instead, they allowed that waste
to leak out of trucks that were supposed to transport it. They set it
out in barrels in a parking lot, where it was exposed to the elements
for years on end. Eventually they ended up dumping it--or some of it--
in a public landfill.
You heard that right. Our government dumped nuclear waste in St.
Louis into a public landfill, where, by the way, it still is. All these
years later, it hasn't been cleaned up.
And as for the rest of it, the nuclear waste that sat out in barrels
exposed to the elements, that was negligently transported in trucks,
what happened to that? Well, it ran off into local creeks. It ran off
into the soil. It helped pollute the air. And because of that, for 50
years and running, the people of St. Louis and St. Charles, which is
right next door, and the entire region have been subjected to nuclear
radiation in their homes, in their creeks--yes, in their schools--and
it is still happening today.
What has the Federal Government done? Nothing. Nothing but mislead
the people of my State. In fact, mislead is really too nice. They have
out-and-out lied to them.
The government said for years that there was no nuclear contamination
in Coldwater Creek in the St. Louis area. They said to the people of
North County St. Louis: Your homes are fine. Your schools are fine. You
are paranoid. Don't worry about it.
It turned out that was all a lie. The soil was contaminated. The
water is contaminated as I stand here tonight. And now we have got the
Army Corps of Engineers testing underneath people's basements because
that is how deep the nuclear radiation, waste, and contamination, have
sunk. That is how deeply embedded it is, really in the entire region.
And that story has been repeated over and over in places like
Tennessee to Kentucky, to Alaska, to New Mexico and Utah and Nevada and
Wyoming and many another State, in the West, in Ohio, in Pennsylvania.
Now, it is a pattern because this government's refusal to take
responsibility for what it did is a pattern that continues to this day,
and it is time to break it.
Because of what the government did, people like Zoey from St. Louis,
she was born, this little girl, with a mass on her ovary--born with it.
Why? Well, because her parents lived right near the creek that has been
contaminated with nuclear radiation for decades and decades.
She had to have surgery to remove that mass from her body when she
was 3 weeks old--3 weeks. She is 5 years old now, and she continues to
experience regular complications from this disease that she was born
with because of what the Federal Government did.
She is not the only one, not by a stretch--a long stretch. There is
Zach Visintine. Zach was born with a rare brain tumor, one known to be
caused by radiation. He had his first surgery when he was 1 week old.
He started chemotherapy when he was 3 weeks old.
Zach died when he was 6. Why? Well, because his parents lived in that
same region of St. Louis, right along that creek that the government
poisoned, right along that waterway that the government contaminated,
right along that area where the government said, for decades: totally
fine, totally safe.
People played in the water. They built their homes right along the
creek. Schools were built there. It was contaminated the entire time,
and now Zach's family is left to mourn.
Or there is Claire. Claire's parents also grew up in the St. Louis
area. Claire's parents grew up near another nuclear site called Weldon
Spring, which is out in St. Charles, MO. For those who don't know the
State, it is just to the west there of St. Louis. Claire was diagnosed
as a baby with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma when she was only 2 years old.
This is happening not just in Missouri. We could talk about the
victims of the Trinity Test, the original Oppenheimer test, like
Bernice Gutierrez. Bernice was 8 days old when Trinity was detonated, 8
days. What we now know was--despite the government telling people at
the time that there was no danger to their lives or property or
persons, despite their saying it was fine--the nuclear fallout, the
radiation, generated a cloud so large nearly the entire State of New
Mexico was covered, and Bernice lived just miles from the test site.
Forty-four members of Bernice's family--44--have been diagnosed with
cancer or radiation-linked diseases. Her mother had cancer three
times--three times. Three of her brothers have had cancer. Her sister
has had cancer, and she has a thyroid disease that is radiation
induced. Her oldest son passed away from radiation illness; her
daughter died of thyroid cancer; and 36 additional relatives--
additional--have died of cancer and radiation-linked thyroid disease.
What has Bernice received from the U.S. Government? An apology? Nope.
Recognition? Nope. Compensation? Not a dime. Not a dime.
Then there is Leslie Begay, who is a Navajo marine. Leslie is so
typical of so many of the Navajo Nation. Did you know the Navajo Nation
volunteers to serve this country in our Armed Forces in a proportion
greater than any other community in the United States of America? It is
extraordinary.
And when the time came during the Cold War to open mines to mine for
uranium, guess who did more mining than any other community in the
United States of America. It was members of the Navajo Nation. You want
to talk about patriots? These are patriots. They have served this
Nation at every hour of need, and Leslie is a prime example.
What did Leslie get when he went to the uranium mines? This is after
he served the country in the Marines now. He goes to the uranium mines
to continue serving this country. Did the government support him? No.
Did they warn him? No. Have they compensated him for the diseases and
cancers he has suffered? No. No.
Let me give you just one more example. These are young men and
women--very young--elementary students at Jana Elementary School back
in the St. Louis area. This picture was taken just a year or so ago.
Their school was closed in 2022, closed, because independent, verified,
third-party testing discovered dangerous levels of radiation in the
dust on the windowsills at the school, in the dust covering the desks
at the school. Why is that? Because Jana Elementary sits right next to
that contaminated creek that the government poisoned all those years
ago. And now these kids are told not only can they not go to school any
longer in the neighborhood where they grew up--for months they were
without a school entirely. Now they are told: Who knows what they have
been exposed to. Who knows.
What has the government done about it? Have they rebuilt the school?
No. Have they cleaned it up? Nope. Have they helped any of these
children? No.
It is the same story. And I could give you 6 more examples or 60,000
or 600,000 because that is the minimum number of the good Americans who
have been poisoned by their government, exposed by their government and
the government's negligence to nuclear radiation.
Now, I will say this: The Senate did the right thing just a couple of
months ago when we finally passed legislation

[[Page S3642]]

to right this decades-long injustice. This body finally passed--by an
overwhelming, bipartisan margin, I might add--legislation to compensate
these families, to compensate these good Americans, these brave
Americans, to acknowledge them and their service, to elevate them to
the stature that they deserve. These are American heroes. They deserve
to be honored. They deserve to be elevated. They deserve to be
compensated. This legislation, our legislation, would do it, and this
body has passed it.
And now, now it waits for action in the House. Now, Speaker Johnson
said, upon passage of the Senate's legislation 2 months ago--I have his
statement in front of me. He said that he would work to move forward
and act on the reauthorization measure, move forward and act on a
reauthorization measure.
That was March of 2024; this is May. What has the House done?
Nothing. How has the House voted? Not at all. What action has the House
taken? None. And in 1 month--1 month--if the House does not act, this
program goes dark. These children are not helped. These good Americans
are not compensated. One month to go.

So I say again today: It is time for Speaker Johnson to keep his
commitment not to some politician somewhere; it is his job to keep his
commitment to the American people. It is his job to keep his commitment
to the good people of this Nation who are waiting for him to act. And I
will just say that weakness in the face of injustice is not
commendable. Vacillation in the face of injustice is not to be praised.
Indecision in the face of injustice is nothing to be proud of. This is
the time to act and to move. This is the time for the House to keep its
commitments and for the Speaker to keep his commitments.
We need politicians who are less concerned about how long they will
hold their office and how many votes they have to support them in some
election for office and more concerned about delivering justice for the
American people.
Now, I will say this: I know there are some in the Speaker's party,
my party, who would urge him to turn back and to reject what this body
did in honoring and compensating the American people who so deserve it.
I see these remarks from today published, remarks made by the junior
Senator from Utah, Senator Romney. Here is what Senator Romney said. He
does not like the bill passed by the Senate compensating these
Americans. He said it costs too much, and he goes on and says that any
compensation should be reserved for people ``who have been determined
to actually be suffering''--to actually be suffering--``as a result of
radiation exposure.''
I have to tell you, I don't understand this statement at all. I do
not understand it. I do not understand why it is not good enough for
these children and their suffering to matter. I don't understand why
the thousands and tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands of
Americans poisoned in my State and other States, why that isn't good
enough for this body to act. We have evidence. We have studies. This
has been years of research done on the scope of the government's tests,
on the scope of the downwind exposure to radiation, on the uranium
processing done in Missouri and in Tennessee and in Kentucky and so
many other States, Ohio. We know what the facts are. That is why this
body finally acted.
And I would just say to the Speaker: It is incumbent now on you to
act. Do not turn back and do not listen to those who would tell you to
put people last and money first. Make no mistake. The bill for this
program has been paid. The bill for this radiation has been paid. It
has been paid by the American people. They are the ones who are paying
the costs. They are the ones who are dying. They are the ones who are
having to forgo cancer treatments, treatments for their children,
because they can't afford it because their government has exposed them
to this radiation negligently and now won't do anything about it. They
are paying the cost. It is time the government bore its share.
Now, this is a moment of truth for Congress and also for the party of
which I am a Member. It is a moment of decision. If you want to be the
party of working people, you have to stand up for working people. If
you want to be the party of those who have fought and died and bled and
given their health for this country, you have to stand up for them.
This is the time. This is the time. This is a test, and it is time for
my party to rise to it, along with the rest of this Congress to honor
the people who have built this Nation.
So, yes, I am in earnest about it. And, yes, I do feel a heaviness of
heart about this today because, yes, the clock is ticking. I know that
the lives we have lost we can never get back. I realize that. But that
doesn't mean that we shouldn't act now to help those who are suffering
now. It doesn't mean that we shouldn't act now to right the wrong.
It was wrong for the government to poison the American people, lie to
them about it, and do nothing about it. That was wrong. But we can
right that wrong. This is America. We can make it right. The bill the
Senate passed makes it right. This is a moral matter. It is a moral
commitment.
I call on the House to act without delay. I call on them to do the
right thing without hesitation. I urge the Speaker: Do what is right
for the American people. Do what is right for the working people of
this Nation. If you do, the Nation will commend you and stand with you.
Courage in the service of justice is what we need now, and I urge
them toward it.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.

Israel

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, some of my Republican colleagues held a
press conference today, criticizing President Biden for his decision to
stop sending additional bombs to Israel due to the Netanyahu
government's apparent decision to launch a major military assault on
Rafah.
One of my Republican colleagues even said:

Joe Biden objectively favors a Hamas victory over Israel.
It's just that simple.

Which sounds rather amusing given the fact that, for the last 40
years, there has probably been nobody here in Washington, DC, more
strongly supportive of Israel than Joe Biden, as a Senator and a
President.
We all know that President Biden has been very clear about his
opposition to an attack on Rafah for many, many months and for good
reason: An offensive--a major military offensive--in Rafah would worsen
an already horrendous humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza.
I am not quite sure--I know a little bit about politics, but I am not
quite sure whom my Republican colleagues think they are speaking for
when they attack the President.
The truth of the matter is that the American people--Republicans,
Democrats, Independents, progressives, conservatives, moderates--are
increasingly sick and tired of the massive destruction that is now
taking place in Gaza. That is not Bernie Sanders' opinion; that is what
poll after poll after poll shows. What those polls show is that the
American people want an immediate cease-fire, and they do not want more
U.S. military aid going to the war machine of the rightwing extremists'
Netanyahu Government.
Let me just take a second to mention a few of the polls that are out
there showing where the American people are on this issue.
Just this week--a few days ago--a Data for Progress poll found that
70 percent of voters, including majorities of Democrats, Republicans,
and Independents, support the U.S. calling for deescalation and a
cease-fire in Gaza. Deescalation is not a massive assault on Rafah, and
a majority of voters, including 68 percent of Democrats and 55 percent
of Independents, support suspending all U.S. arms sales to Israel until
it stops blocking U.S. humanitarian aid from entering Gaza.
An April 14 POLITICO/Morning Consult poll: 67 percent of Americans
support the U.S. calling for a cease-fire.
An April 12 CBS poll: 60 percent think the U.S. should not send
weapons and supplies to Israel. Those are all, for my Democratic
colleagues, disproportionately higher among Democratic supporters.
An April 10 Economist/YouGov poll: 37 percent support decreasing
military aid to Israel; just 18 percent support an increase. Overall,
63 percent support a ceasefire, and 15 percent oppose.

[[Page S3643]]

So I am not quite sure where my Republican colleagues are coming from
and who they think they are representing.
Let me just take a moment to tell you why the American people are
opposed to more military aid going to the Netanyahu Government.
Almost 35,000 Palestinians have already been killed in the 7-month
war, and more than 78,000 have been wounded, over two-thirds of whom
are women and children--two-thirds of whom are women and children. As
we speak right now, according to humanitarian organizations, hundreds
of thousands of Palestinian children face the possibility of
malnutrition and starvation.
No. The American people do not want to see an increase in destruction
in Gaza. They want to see an end to this horrific war.
Mr. President, as I am sure you know, the Netanyahu government has
already destroyed the civilian infrastructure of Gaza. There is
virtually no electricity, virtually no clean water, and raw sewage is
running through the streets, spreading disease.
The housing infrastructure of Gaza has been demolished. Over 60
percent of the housing units have been damaged or destroyed, including
221,000 housing units that have been completely decimated, leaving more
than 1 million people homeless--almost half the population of Gaza.
The healthcare system has been systematically annihilated--
healthcare--at a time when you have tens and tens of thousands of
people who have been injured, 26 out of 36 hospitals in Gaza have been
made inoperable, and more than 400 healthcare workers have been killed.
The educational system in Gaza has been virtually destroyed. Every
one of Gaza's 12 universities has been bombed, 56 schools have been
destroyed, 219 have been damaged, and 625,000 children have no access
to education.
Some of my Republican friends think that this is not enough violence,
that this is not enough destruction? They want Netanyahu to go into
Rafah and kill more people, making it impossible for humanitarian aid
to get out to starving people. Maybe some of my Republican colleagues
think that is a good idea. I do not believe the American people agree
with them.
Last year at this time, the population of Rafah was about 300,000.
Today, it is about 1.3 million. In other words, the population has
quadrupled--quadrupled--in a 7-month period, with people who have been
driven out of their homes throughout Gaza now landing in Rafah. That is
why an attack on Rafah would make an unspeakable humanitarian disaster
even worse. There are 1.3 million people, including 600,000 children,
sheltering in that area. That means there are some 50,000 people per
square mile. It is enormously densely populated.
This is also Rafah, where the vast majority of humanitarian aid is
received and distributed and where most of the few remaining medical
facilities are located.
In other words, at a time of massive humanitarian disaster throughout
Gaza, an attack on Rafah would not only greatly add to the death toll,
it would severely hinder the ability of humanitarian aid to get through
to desperate and starving people.
Let me conclude by saying this: The United States does and should
stand by its allies, but our allies must also stand by the values and
the laws of the United States of America. That is what an ally is.
We must now use all of our leverage to prevent the catastrophe in
Gaza from becoming even worse, and that means holding back all
offensive military aid, including billions in recent funding, until the
Netanyahu government withdraws from Gaza, restores humanitarian aid to
people who are now facing starvation, ends the disastrous war, and
stops killing Palestinians in the West Bank.
The United States of America must not be complicit in this atrocity.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.

Unanimous Consent Request

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, in a few moments, I will make a unanimous
consent request on a bill on airline slots, sponsored by Senators
Warner and Kaine.
I am here for the sake of fairness--fairness. There are very strong
feelings on both sides of this issue. It is not partisan but, rather,
different people have different opinions. The proper and fair and only
right thing to do is have a vote and let the body decide.
I yield to the senior Senator from Virginia to explain his amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank the majority leader for making
this UC request.
I have been in this body since early 2009. This issue which we are
debating about--slots at DCA--is a perennial one. People feel very
strongly on both sides. There has never been a time since I have been
in the Senate that there was not either a bipartisan agreement to
resolve this issue before it came to the floor or a debate on the floor
which resulted in a vote. Sometimes it is part of the States--Virginia
and Maryland--that don't want additional slots. We have been
successful. Sometimes we have not. But each and every time, there has
been a vote.
As a matter of fact, if we look over at the proceedings on this bill,
in the House, managers of those bills thought they had some sense of
what should be included in or not included in, in a slot debate. But
the House of Representatives actually had a vote, and to the surprise
of the managers of the bill, slots were completely eliminated from that
piece of legislation.
I am not going to sit here and rehash all of the statistics. What is
clear, though, is that the single busiest runway in the United States
of America is not at DFW; it is not in New York; it is not in Seattle;
it is not in Atlanta; it is at National Airport--an airport that was
originally constructed for 15 million passengers, with 3 runways to
allow some distribution of those flights. Now, because of the lack of
turbo planes and prop planes, we have an airport that handled 25
million passengers last year--90 percent of all that traffic on a
single runway.
My friends who don't agree with this--and as the majority leader
said, it is not a partisan issue; it comes from both sides--have said:
No, no, Senator Kaine, Senator Warner, you are wrong. This won't add to
the delay. It won't add more cancellations. It was a one-off a few
weeks ago when two airplanes came within a few hundred feet of a
collision. It won't add any additional safety concerns.
So in an effort to try to meet folks halfway, we have amended the
original Kaine amendment, which said, no, let's just have an up-or-down
vote on slots, and said, no, let's allow the five slots if and only if
the Secretary of Transportation certifies that no additional safety
concerns will be raised, the traveling public won't be impaired, there
won't be any additional cancellations, and there won't be any
additional delays--all things the opposition has said: Add these slots.
There is no problem.
Well, let's not have Congress weigh in on something that, frankly, we
don't have the expertise to weigh in on in the first place. Let's give
it to the Secretary of Transportation to make that determination on
passenger safety, on cancellations, on delays. Let's let the
professionals make that decision. That is what our amendment does.
Again, I am going to yield now to my friend, my fellow Senator from
Virginia, Senator Kaine.
Again, I thank the majority leader for making this request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. KAINE. Thank you, Senator Warner.
I also want to thank the Senate majority leader.
Mr. President, I have spoken on the floor a number of times about
this, and I don't need to rehash the deep concern I have about the
excessive delay that already exists at Reagan National, the excessive
cancellations that already exist at Reagan National, and the excessive
need to put planes into holding patterns circling over a city with very
restricted airspace at Reagan National.
I deeply oppose the jamming of more flights onto this runway, and I
oppose that it was done with no involvement from Virginians whatsoever,
no opportunity for us to weigh in. We are not on the Commerce
Committee. So the only way we have to have an impact on this is to have
an amendment on the floor. We may win it or we may lose it, but this is
our hometown airport. It is all

[[Page S3644]]

being done without us. The only impact we have is to be able to do
something on the floor.
So the proposed amendment that I introduced was simply to strip the
slots, to follow the advice of the FAA, to follow the advice of the
Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority, to follow the advice of
people who know what they are doing so as to avoid a potential
catastrophe.
I am not going to get that amendment. I am not going to get that
amendment. So, instead, what Senator Warner has done, together with our
Maryland colleagues, is propose a compromise. We will accept the 5
slots--5 slots are equal to 10 flights--if, as Senator Warner
indicates, the Secretary of Transportation says with respect to each
slot: It will not increase delay, it will not raise the risk of
cancellation, and it will not risk passenger safety.
We should all want that, not only for the airport that the Capital
region uses but for all airports--not increasing delay, not increasing
the safety risk, not increasing the cancellation risk. That is what
this amendment is.
We want a vote on our amendment about our hometown airport, and we
have offered a compromise to protect safety and the convenience of
passengers.
And I would hope that my colleagues would see fit to allow the home
State Senators in whose territory this airport is to at least have an
amendment vote.
And, with that, I yield back to the majority leader.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, let me just reiterate: For the sake of
fairness, it is only the right thing to do to allow a vote. We don't
know what the outcome will be, but it is very fair to have a vote.
Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that the only amendment in order
to the Cantwell-Cruz substitute amendment No. 1911, as modified, be
Warner amendment No. 2057 and that at a time to be determined by the
majority leader in consultation with the Republican leader, the Senate
vote on the amendment; further, upon disposition of the Warner
amendment, all postcloture time on substitute amendment No. 1911, as
modified and as amended, if amended, be considered expired and all
remaining amendments be withdrawn; that upon disposition of the
substitute amendment No. 1911, as modified and as amended, if amended,
the cloture motion with respect to the underlying bill be withdrawn;
that the bill, as amended, if amended, be read a third time and the
Senate vote on passage of the bill, as amended, with a 60-vote-
affirmative threshold required for passage and with 2 minutes for
debate prior to each vote, all without further intervening action or
debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any objections?
The Senator from Texas.
Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, let me say I
appreciate the passion of my colleagues from Virginia. I have served
with both of them for 12 years. Senator Kaine and I both were elected
together in 2012. He and I have worked together on many issues, and I
anticipate we will work together on many issues going forward.
On this issue, he and I see the issue very differently. This bill
that is before the Senate is a bill that moved forward the right way.
It moved forward, frankly, a way I wish a lot more legislation
proceeded in the Senate. This bill proceeded through regular order.
It began in committee. The Commerce Committee took it up. We had a
series of markups scheduled over several months. In the process of
drafting this bill, we solicited the input, initially, of every Senator
on the Commerce Committee. And every single Senator--Democrat and
Republican--has priorities that are reflected in the underlying bill
that were adopted.
After the bill came out of the Commerce Committee, we solicited the
input of every other Senator, those not on the Commerce Committee, for
their ideas, their priorities for their respective States.
This bill contains over 200 Member priorities, from Democrats and
Republicans, reflecting the different needs and the different
priorities of our 50 States.
In addition to all of those, this week, we added nine more amendments
in a managers' package when the majority leader laid down the
substitute earlier this week. This is an amendment that reflects the
consensus view of this body, which is why I anticipate shortly we will
see an overwhelming bipartisan vote passing the FAA bill.
Now, on the question of slots, in the committee initially, an
amendment was offered by Senator Raphael Warnock, a Democrat from
Georgia, to expand the number of slots at DCA Reagan airport by 28
slots. That was an amendment that had a lot in its favor, but it also
prompted furious lobbying on the other side. Ultimately, what the
committee did is work to seek common ground, work to seek a compromise.
Senator Warnock's amendment of 28 slots was not adopted. Instead,
what was adopted was an amendment that I drafted, working hand in hand
with the chairman of the committee, Senator Cantwell, that went down
from 28 slots to merely 5 slots.
Now, several arguments have been raised against creating any
additional slots at Reagan. One argument is pointing to the recent near
miss at DCA Reagan as evidence that no additional flights can go into
or out of Reagan. However, it is worth noting that the FAA experts have
recently clarified that this near miss had absolutely nothing to do
with traffic on the runway; that it was unrelated issues that produced
the near miss. And I might note those unrelated issues include what
this underlying bill addresses, which is ensuring we have sufficient
air traffic controllers to monitor the traffic and protect safety.
Another argument used by opponents of adding new flights to Reagan is
the argument that DCA was originally designed to accommodate 15 million
passengers annually and that in 2023 it served 25.5 million passengers.
What that argument fails to acknowledge is that DCA has made
significant investments to increase capacity, including adding more
gates and expanding terminals.
Opponents of additional flights have also claimed that DCA is
overburdened by its current flights and that DCA flights are already
delayed. What that argument omits is the fact that DCA has a better on-
time arrival rate than either Dulles or BWI. It has the best on-time
arrival rate of the three airports in this immediate vicinity.
I would note, the most voracious opposition to this amendment comes
from lobbying on behalf of United Airlines, and the reason is not
complicated to ascertain. United has a near-monopoly position at Dulles
airport, and United understandably wants to preserve its monopoly
profits. Five new flights into and out of Reagan airport would provide
additional competition--competition that would, predictably, lower the
price of tickets. It is not surprising that United Airlines doesn't
want tickets to go down; they want to continue charging monopoly
prices.
I will point out, for the people of Virginia and the people of
Maryland and the people of DC, limiting supply, allowing United to reap
monopoly profits, and raising prices is not a good outcome. And for
that reason, this bill, as drafted, with the new flights, will benefit
the people of Virginia, the people of Maryland, and the people of DC.
Indeed, in a recent poll, 67 percent of Northern Virginians support
adding flights to DCA.

This bill improves competition. And in terms of the overall traffic,
there are right now 800 slots at DCA Reagan. When this bill is adopted,
it will go from 800 to 805. So it is a small, reasonable increase.
I would also point out, DCA Reagan is the only airport in the country
that has Federal slot control and a restriction on long-haul flights.
This restriction is in no other airport in the country, and there is a
long, protectionist history as to why this one airport is subject to
these restrictions.
I want to make one final point. In addition to being a benefit for
everyone going to our Nation's Capital or from our Nation's Capital, a
benefit that impacts the entire country--Americans from all 50 States
travel to Washington, DC, to our Nation's Capital, whether it is
schoolkids coming to tour the Capital, whether it is families coming to
the Smithsonian, whether it is people coming to the Holocaust museum or
the Lincoln Memorial, whether it is people coming to see the cherry
blossoms.

[[Page S3645]]

Everyone coming to and from DC will benefit from this provision, but
there is also a very particular benefit to my home State of Texas, and
that, understandably, is near and dear to my heart. This issue first
came to my attention about 3 years ago, and it came to my attention
because a delegation from the city of San Antonio came to my office.
That delegation included business leaders; it included committee
leaders; it included elected leaders in San Antonio, most of whom are
Democrats. And to a person, they were deeply, deeply dismayed that the
city of San Antonio does not have even one direct flight to DCA Reagan.
Now, San Antonio is, today, the seventh largest city in America. San
Antonio is the second largest city in Texas. San Antonio actually has a
higher population than Dallas, TX. San Antonio also has an enormous
military population. Indeed, the city's nickname is ``Military City
USA.'' And there is an enormous population of Active-Duty military and
veterans who live in San Antonio. DCA Reagan is right next to the
Pentagon, and it is right next to Arlington National Cemetery.
I can tell you, the community of San Antonio is united on a
bipartisan basis that San Antonio deserves a direct flight to and from
Reagan, that it will save money for residents of San Antonio, that it
will generate jobs for residents of San Antonio, and that it is only
fair for residents of San Antonio that they be able to come directly to
DCA Reagan. And as a result of this bill that the Senate is preparing
to vote on, San Antonio is going to win a major bipartisan vote to get
that flight.
And my final observation: Senator Warner said in the past a
bipartisan compromise had been reached on this issue. I would note that
happened here too. This bill that was voted out of committee was a
bipartisan compromise. It was a compromise that was negotiated between
me, the ranking member on the committee, and Senator Cantwell, the
chairman of the committee--a Republican and a Democrat--and this
provision was added to the bill and voted out of the committee
unanimously. Every Democrat voted for it; every Republican voted for it
because it is a reasonable provision that benefits consumers and is
fair.
Therefore, Mr. President, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
The majority leader.
Mr. SCHUMER. 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 (Mr. Kaine). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The majority leader.

H.R. 3935

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, after months of painstaking work, the FAA
reauthorization is passing the Senate today.
Aviation safety has been front of mind for millions of Americans
recently, and this FAA bill is the best thing Congress can do to give
Americans the peace of mind they deserve.
Passing this FAA bill preserves critical funding for airport
security, training for more air traffic controllers and safety
inspectors at manufacturing plants.
Passing FAA means avoiding costly delays to airport infrastructure
projects, and passing FAA means avoiding the furlough of over 3,000
Federal employees. I am especially proud that this FAA bill keeps in
place the 1,500 hour rule for airline pilots, which I promised would
not be weakened.
Thank you to Chair Cantwell--she worked so hard on this bill--and to
Ranking Member Cruz for their work to finish this bill.
Thank you to all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who
contributed to making this bill stronger.
Without everyone working together and being willing to reach
consensus, this very difficult bill would not have gotten done.
So I know of no further debate on the substitute amendment No. 1911,
as modified.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is
on amendment 2041.

Amendment Withdrawn

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I withdraw my amendment No. 2040.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right. The amendment is
withdrawn.

Amendment Withdrawn

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I withdraw my amendment No. 2026.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right. The amendment is
withdrawn.
Mr. SCHUMER. I ask unanimous consent that following disposition of
the substitute, the cloture motion with respect to the bill--H.R.
3935--be withdrawn, and that the bill as amended, if amended, be read a
third time, and that the Senate vote on the passage of the bill as
amended, if amended, with a 60-vote affirmative threshold required for
passage, and with 2 minutes for debate prior to the vote, all without
further intervening action or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Vote on Amendment No. 1911, As Modified

The question is on agreeing to the substitute Amendment No. 1911, as
modified.
The amendment (No. 1911), in the nature of a substitute, as modified,
was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the cloture motion
is withdrawn, and the clerk will read the title of the bill for the
third time.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading and was read
the third time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 2 minutes of debate equally
divided.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I yield back that time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the
question is, Shall the bill pass?
Mr. SCHUMER. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr.
Manchin), 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 Wyoming (Mr. Barrasso), the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Braun), the
Senator from Alabama (Mrs. Britt), the Senator from Tennessee (Mr.
Hagerty), and the Senator from Utah (Mr. Romney).
Further, if present and voting: the Senator from Alabama (Mrs. Britt)
would have voted ``yea'' and the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Hagerty)
would have voted ``yea.''.
The result was announced--yeas 88, nays 4, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 162 Leg.]

YEAS--88

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

NAYS--4

Cardin
Kaine
Van Hollen
Warner

NOT VOTING--8

Barrasso
Braun
Britt
Hagerty
Manchin
Menendez
Romney
Sinema
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Warnock). On this vote, the yeas are 88,
the nays are 4.
The 60-vote threshold having been achieved, the bill is passed.
The bill (H.R. 3935), as amended, was passed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.

[[Page S3646]]

____________________