zone 2,027,488,000. >> adjusted for placement as well as credit card late in the one 100% of what the minimal paymentat is so a lot of these numbers are arbitraryof and immunity given the industry the way, they don't even have to prove inflation adjustment coincides with cost and what it cost them to do business regarding late fees. >> cfpb according to this reporting in 2020 charged 12

billion in late fee penalties. respond to that. >> in 2019, it was 13 so 2020 was down because of the packages the president at the time issued so consumers were paying down their credit card debt, down from $14 billion. >> the americans financial reform joining us for this conversation. first call from ruth, a california on with our guests, question or,. >> we are keeping our 40 year commitment to live gavel to gavel, congress. the senate returns now for work on judicial nominations. senators holding several vote today including confirmation vote. ...

the presiding officer: the senate will come to order.

the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. kennedy kennedy mr. president -- kennedys. mr. kennedy: mr. president, are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: we are not. mr. kennedy: may i proceed, mr. president? thank you. a leading philosopher of the last century, his name was john paul sarte, famously once said that existence precedes essence. in other words, sarte's words, not mine, to be is to act.

in other words, my words, not mr. sarte's, in other words, what you do is what you believe. what you do is what you believe. not what you say. what you do is what you believe, and everything else is just cottage cheese. i think that is particularly relevant to our government in washington, d.c., and indeed probably to all forms of government in america. we are what we do, not what we say. as you know, mr. president, we are in negotiations with respect to the debt limit. i for one, and i think almost all, if not all of my colleagues in the senate will

agree with me on this, we will not default on america's debt. we will not. but in conjunction with addressing that issue of the debt limit, many of our colleagues in the house and many of my, our colleagues here in the senate would like to talk to president biden about what we can do as a congress and as a president to keep us from getting in the situation again where we have to so radically raise the debt limit. in other words, the request of the president is, mr. president, let's sit down and talk about how we can slow the rate of growth in our spending and slow the rate of growth in our debt accumulation for a variety of reasons. not only pertaining to the debt

limit, but also pertaining to trying to get control of inflation. and i hope the president will, i hope the president will accept that invitation. in those negotiations the president has said, incorrectly, in my judgment, but he has said repeatedly, as have some of my democratic friends, that automatic republicans want -- all the republicans want to do, all the republicans want to do in these negotiations is hurt medicare and hurt social security. i understand politics. we both do, mr. president. we've been doing this for a long time. and politically, i understand why the president and some of my colleagues are saying that. it is not true, of course, and i don't think it's beneficial to these negotiations.

but the fact that the president is saying this and saying, well, you republicans want to hurt medicare, for example, i find to be quite ironic, extraordinarily ironic, maybe even a tad hypocritical. in washington, d.c., you have to watch what people do, not what they say. in the waning days of the last congress, once again, watching what people do, not what they say, president biden, who has accused members of my party of wanting to hurt medicaid, tried to cut -- or wanting to hurt medicare, tried to cut medicare himself. the centers for medicare and

medicaid services, cms, as we call it, as you know, mr. president, every year proposes were a -- what's called a physicians fee schedule for doctors who treat medicare patients. if you are a doctor and you have a medicare patient, you don't get to send the federal government a bill for whatever you think your services are worth. that's not the way it works. medicare every year, through the centers for medicare and medicaid services, cms, cms every year proposes a physician fee schedule. they tell the physicians this is what you can charge and not a penny more. president biden's cms last year proposed to cut all physician

payments, all provider payments by 4.5%. he didn't want to lift up medicare. he wanted to cut it, not republicans. the president. now why is that important? well, a lot of physicians won't take medicare anymore because they say, well -- and they won't take medicaid either, for that matter. they say we just can't, we can't turn a profit. we're not looking to make, say the physicians, obscene profits, but we're in the middle of inflation, health care inflation is as real as anything else. we're paying more in rent, we're paying more for our nurses, we're paying more for supplies, and the medicare fees that we're paid to treat folks

on medicare are not, they're not keeping up. they're just not. and so here comes president biden through his centers for medicare and medicaid services, cms, here comes president biden, the champion of medicare, he proposed a 4.5% across-the-board cut for every physician treating medicare in america. that's 900,000 people in my state. so i'm sitting there listening to this hearing the president say all republicans want to do is hurt medicare on the left hand but on the right hand he's trying to cut all physicians and providers in the program. we have 900,000 people in my state in the program, by 4.5% in the middle of raising inflation. and i just found that

extraordinary. watch what people do, not what they say. so i've introduced a bill, mr. president. the name of my bill was protecting medicare patients and physicians. the protecting medicare patients and physicians act. it would have eliminated, it would have have eliminated that 4% to 4.5% cut that president biden wanted to impose on medicare doctors. and i came to the body of this senate to present that bill, and i didn't come to my colleagues with a problem. i came with a solution. i wasn't going to say, well, let's just don't cut medicare

doctors and eliminate the cut. i said let's don't eliminate the cut -- or let's do eliminate the cut, but i have a way to pay for it. i'm not suggesting that we reject president biden's attempt to cut medicare and fill the hole by borrowing the money. i said i've got a solution. i found $9.8 billion sitting in a fund at the department of health and human services. it was $9.8 billion when i was able to get the data. i suspect at one point it got as high as $15 billion. it was called the provider relief fund. as the president knows, this congress appropriates lots of money to our health care providers to help them deal with covid, and not all of the money thankfully was needed.

many of the health care providers returned some of the money. and at the time i presented the bill, there was $9.8 billion that had been returned and was sitting in an account at the department of health and human services, way more than enough, way more than enough to prevent a 4%, in some cases 4%-plus to medicare that president biden proposed. i went to every one of my republican colleagues in the senate. they all said we're with you, kennedy. let's do it. so i came to this floor. i came to this floor to ask for unanimous consent, and that, as you know, mr. president, is where you present a bill and if nobody objects, it's passed.

but there was an objection, and it came from a good friend and a good man, senator ron wyden, who is chairman of our finance committee. there aren't words in english to express how much i respect ron wyden. but senator wyden came to the floor and he said kennedy, i'm going to object to your bill. and he said i don't want you to worry about this. we're aware that president biden has proposed to cut every medicare physician in america, but we're not going to let him do that. we're putting together a budget bill right now, we call it the omnibus. we're putting together a budget bill right now that's going to address that problem. and that's why i'm objecting to your bill. your bill, kennedy, is unnecessary. now, i'm not blaming this on

chairman wyden. i'm not. the oibs passed with a vote of -- the omnibus passed with if not all, but most of the republican colleagues and some of the democratic colleagues. am the omnibus passed, i didn't vote for it. in part because i didn't know what was in it. but after the omnibus passed, i went back and looked and lo and behold, the omnibus bill, which passed at the encouragement biden, and with a lot more votes from my republican friends than my democratic colleagues, had a 2% cut for every provider, every physician that treats a medicare

patient in america. 2% cut. that's better than a 4% cut, but it's still a cut in the time of raging inflation. now, i don't know yet what that impact is going to be on health care and the health care delivery system in my state. i don't know how many more physicians, after president biden has cut their fees, i don't know how many more physicians are going to stand up and say, i can't take medicare patients anymore. i hope none, but i suspect some. so i'm going to end where i began. oh, and let me mention this, mr. president. i talked about that pool of money, the provided relief fund that had 9 $9.8 billion in it, maybe $15 billion sitting there in an account unappropriated.

what happened to it? ii don't know, but it get spent on something, but it didn't get spent on helping medicare doctors and medicare patients. they got cut 2%. so i'm going to end like i began. in this town you have to watch what people do, not what they say. the president can try to blame the republicans and say, well, they don't want to seriously negotiate about controlling spending an controlling -- and controlling debt, although want to do is cut medicare. he already did. he did it in december. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. mrs. murray: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: mr. president, i

ask unanimous consent to be able to speak as if in morning business and senator bennet be allowed to conclude his remarks before the vote today. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. murray: thank you, mr. president. i come to the floor today to continue to raise the alarm about how extreme republicans' ongoing attacks on reproductive rights are putting women's lives at risk, are trampling the will of the american people who supported the right to abortion, by the way, everywhere it was on the ballot last november, and even undermining care for states like mine which has strong abortion protections. in fact, right now a truly extreme lawsuit, which some far-right republicans in congress just filed a brief supporting is seeking to overturn the fda's long-standing approve approval of a safe and effective medication used in abortion

care. this suit could cause chaos nationwide and could rip abortis away from every state, including my constituents in washington. the overturning of roe v. wade was not the end. we have already seen 14 extreme state abortion bans go into effect from bans that set bounties for information about anyone that gets an abortion or helps provide one to bans that even lack exceptions for rape and incest and the life and well-being of moms. some states are even passing new bans to try and get around state courts that block their first one or laws to get around the fact that their own constituents backed the right to abortion in a statewide vote last year. here in congress, we saw senate republicans introduce a national

abortion ban last year, and it was one of the first things the republican house voted on this year. and we are still seeing new appalling proposals from stream republicans across the country. while republicans here in congress blocked our bill to make sure doctors cannot be jailed for providing an abortion, republicans state -- republican state legislatures have passed bills to make sure that women can be -- while republicans in congress protect our bill to protect the right to travel across statelines for abortion, republicans have state bills to stop employers to help employees travel for abortion. right next door to my home state, there is a bill in idaho that could lead to parents and grandparents being charged with human trafficking for helping a minor travel out of state so they can get an abortion. that is appalling. republican politicians have

investigated a doctor for providing care to a child who was raped. they have proposed funding to jail people for abortions. they have talked about using existing child endangerment laws to prosecute women who use abortion pills. they have made it harder for patients to get birth control and even the treatments they need for life-threatening injuries illnesses like cancer. and there are republican attorneys general suing right now because the biden administration told pharmacists they can't discriminate against pregnant patients. and because the administration reminded care providers that when a woman's life is at stake, they are required, by federal law, to provide necessary care and that includes abortion. and then there is the case i mentioned earlier where a far-right group is trying right now to ban mep haprostone, that

is an important medication nationwide, and i mean all across the country and every other state that has strong protections for abortion. and 22 attorneys general and 67 republicans right here in congress have filed briefs in support of that outlandish lawsuit. let's be clear about what's going on here. in this lawsuit these far-right extremists are asking one district judge to overrule fda's experts and rule-making authority to undermine health care for patients nationwide by declaring a drug that was approved over 20 years ago as unsafe, which, let's set the record straight right now because there has been so much misinformation on this, including from republican members of congress, the drug is safe, it's effective for ending

a pregnancy during the first ten weeks and the fda determined that decades ago. the science is done, the results are in, they have been for over 20 years. mi perpristone is safe. it is not protecting women, it's about controlling their bodies. now the reality of what extreme republicans have already caused with their bans is a nightmare. because of republican bans, women facing miscarriages have already been unable to get the care they need for days on end. they've already been left bleeding, getting sicker and sicker and pleading for help. doctors are already being forced to compromise medical care, leave patients in pain and even forego providing lifesaving care because they fear far-right

politicians will jail them for doing their job. abortion providers in states like mine are overbooked and overwhelmed with patients who have had to wait weeks an travel hundreds of miles to get an abortion because of republican bans. this lawsuit will make things much worse. mifepristone is used in over half of abortions. taking that drug away would mean longer waits for those seeking care and chaos for a health care system republicans have already put in crisis. it is cruel and utterly unnecessary. there is no reason for this. and you don't have to take my word for this, by the way. listen to doctors and patients and listen to women because that's exactly what i have been doing and i am not going to stop. i'm going to continue to make sure their stories are being heard, especially when they are hard stories to hear because we

will not be quiet. i'm going to continue to be their voice and vote here in the senate and i'm going to keep putting a spotlight on their concerns and on the threats to their health like these extreme abortion bans and ideological abortion lawsuits. i'm going to be here, raising the alarm and fighting to pass commonsense laws and to be a firewall against extreme republican attacks on abortion and working in the meantime to build the support we need to restore roe once more. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. mr. bennet: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from colorado. mr. bennet: thank you, mr. president of. and before i speak on what i am here on the floor, i would like

to thank senator murray for not just the women in my state and the women in your state but all across the nation. i want to say how grateful i am. thank you. mr. president, we have had over the last ten days or so or two weeks or so in the senate briefing after briefing that our constituents never get the chance to see. these are briefings by the intelligence community, by the department of defense about what the nature of the global threat is to the united states, the state of our national security, what they call our -- the net effect is between, you know, where we are as strategic force and where our competitors are as a strategic force, and without revealing anything i've heard in any of those classified

sessions, either in those sessions or as a member of the intelligence committee, i can tell you that i i have found the briefings very sobering over the years. and i'd be surprised if there isn't a ing single member of the senate who doesn't feel the same way i do. we have our work cut out for us, mr. president. and it is time for us to move from a 20th century mind-set when it comes to our national defense and national security to a 21st century mind-set. and that's not going to be easy. we're going to have a lot of choices to make as a body to do that, but i'm confident that we will do it. and one of the places where we have a lot of ground to cover is space. my colleague from colorado is on the floor this evening, and i'm very glad that he's here because he was governor of colorado and

he knows this issue as well as anybody in this chamber. i've seen it from the intelligence committee, and, you know, i deeply regret the fact that for many years, among other things, we've enabled the chinese, in particular beijing, specifically, in particular to steal a lot of our technology to be able to benefit their national security in the space race that we have. and so i'm really focused on this, and we have had based in colorado for many years something called space command, which is the unified combat and control for space in the united states of america. that is -- the home has been in colorado and it's always been in colorado. i'm not going to bore you, mr. president, with one of the saddest stories i know about a process run completely awry that

resulted in the top generals in the air force walking into the white house with a recommendation that said we ought to leave space command in colorado. by the way, the assistant secretary of the air force in the trump administration was part of making that recommendation to the last white house. they walked into that white house with, as i said, the recommendation that it stay at peterson air force base, now peterson space force in colorado. and there were three principal reasons they were arguing it should stay there. one was that it would reach full operational capability in colorado faster than if it moved anywhere else, between four and six years faster. that it would be cheaper to repurpose assets in colorado than to move it across the

country, to move it somewhere else, and that there would be massive attrition if space command were moved. and of course roughly 60% of the personnel that are part of space command are civilians. they're not people that are in the department of defense, although 40% are people that are in the department of defense. and that worries me a lot. all those things worry me a lot, but nothing was of more concerned to me, especially in the wake now of putin's invasion of ukraine, nothing is more important than making sure that we get to full operational capability and that we do it in a way that makes sense. that's where the generals were on this issue. that's where the secretary of the air force was. in fact, the people who went in to see president trump said if you're going to make a decision other than, other than leaving space command in colorado, you should delay the decision because nowhere else in america

is ready to do the work that needs to be done. and instead president trump overturned their recommendation. as senator hickenlooper would tell you, that's never happened before in the history of our country that we can find the president of the united states overruled the recommendation of the generals who knew the subject best. and he went on the radio and he said to these radio hosts in alabama which is where donald trump preferred to send space command for reasons i suppose only he could know, but he went on a radio show and bragged that he had single-handedly had overruled everybody else who had looked at this and said it ought to stay in colorado, to put it in alabama instead. the inspector general had confirmed the facts that i have

just related to you, mr. president, but instead of removing the state of politics, i'm sad to say the biden administration may be close to ratifying a decision that can't be ratified, a decision that was made in the face of the recommendations of the generals, a decision that was belied by all the relevant facts, and a decision that the gao, the ig -- the dod's own inspector general and donald trump on a radio program all confirmed, which is that politics made the decision about moving space command to alabama, not the national security interests of the united states. i know it's easy to think and i will just confess in front of the pains and everybody else that it might seem like this is just a parochial interest on the part of the senators from

colorado because space command happens to be in colorado. and i'll admit that fact. we've been a great home to space command. but i will also say that the months and months and months that we have dedicated, the years we have dedicated to analyze this decision, i think it is fair to say that we are here not representing the parochial interests of our state but representing the national security interests of the united states and the incredible importance of this biden administration not ratifying a political decision that was made in the last few days of the trump administration because decisions of this importance shouldn't be made this way. they should be made in the interest of our national security. and the biden administration has the opportunity to restore the

integrity of this process, and i think they do restore the integrity of this process. they will find that this space command belongs in colorado and shouldn't be moved anywhere else. and this is -- i'm on the floor today to remind people here of the importance of this issue, the urgency of this issue, not just for colorado, not even for colorado but for the country as a whole and for our national security as a whole. this is a decision that should be made in the interest of the national security of the united states of america. and that decision will lead the biden administration, i think, to reverse donald trump's political decision, the decision that he went on a radio show to advertise for the people of alabama demonstrating the political spoil that he was holding up in one hand instead of saying he had done the right thing for the people who work at space command, done the right thing for the mission that we

all care about so deeply. and that in the end is what the american people, of course, deserve here because our opponents and our competitors in space are not waiting for us to get out of our own way. it's critically important for us to give the people that are serving in this capacity a sense of security and a sense of stability about what the choice is going to be. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor, and i thank the senate for your attention. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: will the senator withhold that request. mr. bennet: yes. the presiding officer: the question is on the nomination. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll.

vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: the yeas are 51. the nays are 47. the nomination is confirmed.

under the previous order, the motion to reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table and the president will be immediately notified of the senate's action. the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of executive calendar number 1, lester martinez-lopez of florida to be an assistant secretary of defense signed by 18 senators. 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 the nomination of lester martinez-lopez of florida to be an assistant secretary of defense shall be brought to a close. the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: the yeas are 64, the nays are 33, and the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, lester martinez-lopez, of florida, to be an assistant secretary of defense.

test

the presiding officer: the senator from washington. ms. cantwell: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the legislative session and be in a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. cantwell: i ask unanimous consent that the armed services committee be discharged from further consideration and the senate now proceed to senate res. 49. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate res. lusion 49, expressing the sense of the senate that the chinese communist party's es espionage mission to send a balloon across the united states is unsearchable and should be condemned. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate is discharged and the senate -- the committee is discharged and the senate will proceed. ms. cantwell: i ask consent the reading of the names be 6

submitted today. the presiding officer: the crer. the clerk: -- the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed. ms. cantwell: i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to be reconsidered be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. cantwell: i ask unanimous consent the senate now proceed to the ep block consideration of the following senate resolutions introduced earlier today, senate res. 67, senate res. 68, senate res. 69, senate res. 70. the presiding officer: without,- the presiding officer: without objection, senate will proceed en bloc. the presiding officer: i ask nawct that the motions to

consider be laid upon the table, all en bloc. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. cantwell: i ask the senate proceed to senate res. 59. the presiding officer: the clerks will report. the clerk: s. res. 59, authorizing expenditures by committees of the senate for the periods march 1, 2023, through september 30, 2023, and so forth. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed. ms. cantwell: i ask further -- i further ask that the resolution be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. cantwell: i i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today it standed adjourned until 10:00 a.m., february 16, that following the prayer and pledge, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and morning business be closed, further, that following the cop collusion of morning business the senate proceed to executive session to resume consideration

of the martinez-lopez nomination, postcloture. further, if any nominations are confirmed during the thursday session, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, and the president be immediately notified of the senate actions. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. cantwell: for the information of the senate, there will be two roll call votes at 11:30 a.m. and one roll call vote at 1:45 p.m. if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands