age abuse victim of representing her prep school. one of them did know what article ii of the constitution says. one of them did know what abrading motion is. -- didn't -- the fourth one argued the sexr offender he -- sex offender registry does not help keep children safe. those are the four they are having a hard time moving. they are not on track to get bipartisan support. it's purely the democratic political choice to hell a more reasonable nominee hostage so the unqualified ones can move in a pack. so even though they could move a number of less controversial nominees right now, right now,

they want to sideline senator feinstein so they can ram through their worst four as well. i understand our judiciary committeeer colleagues report ty cannot find a single past example where the committee let a member be temporarily replaced in this fashion that some democrats are advocating. so let's be clear. senate republicans willli not -- >> here on c-span2 we are going to break away now for live coverage of the u.s. senate. wi. 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:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: the yeas are 59, the nays are 40. 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. mr. schumer: mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent the senate resume legislative session, resume consideration of s. 870. the presiding officer: without objection. the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 28, s. 870, a bill to amend the federal fire prevention and control act of 1974 and so forth. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous

consent the cloture motion with respect to s. 870 be withdrawn and the amendment amendments in order be the fog, lee, 80, scott, 81, hagerty 72, as modified. saul van 83, paul, 79. that if offered, the senate vote in relation to the amendments listed at a time to be determined by the majority leader, following consultation with the republican leader. following disposition of the above amendments, amendment 58 be withdrawn. the bill, as amended, if amended, be considered read add third time and the senate vote on passage of the bill. that 60 affirmative votes be required for the adoption of these amendments and passage of the bill with the exception of the sullivan and paul amendments and that there be two minutes for debate equally divided between the two leaders or their designees prior to each vote, all without intervening action with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered.

mr. schumer: the vote on the lee amendment will be at approximately 4:30 p.m. today. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from maine. ms. collins: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i am delighted it that the senate is proceeding to consideration of the fire grants and safety act. this bipartisan legislation, which my colleague from michigan, senator peters, the chairman of the homeland security committee, and i have introduced is cosponsored by our fellow congressional fire caucus chairs, senators murkowski, tester, and carper. our bill would extend critical fema fire prevention programs, some of which are set to expire at the end of this fiscal year.

mr. president, your state of vermont and mine are a lot alike, and firefighters are critical to the safety of our communities, whether they are small or large. firefighters across maine and the country courageously serve their communities. recognizing their commitment in 2000 and 2003, i helped create fema's firefighter grant programs as part of a bipartisan effort to ensure that firefighters have adequate staffing, equipment, and training to do their essential jobs as effectively and safely as possible. at that time, i was the chair -- or ranking member of the senate homeland security committee.

pentagon fire grants and -- the fire grants and safety act would reauthorize four critical firefighting and emergency services programs -- the u.s. fire administration, which provides training and data to state and local fire departments, as well as the education and awareness for for the public; the assistance for firefighters grant program, known as the afg, which helps to equip and train firefighters and emergency personnel; the fire prevention and safety grant program, which provides resources to carry out fire prevention education and training; and the staffing for adequate fire and emergency response program, better known as the safer program, which helps our local fire departments

recruit, hire, and retain additional firefighters. since october of 2020, fire departments across maine have received just under $12 million from the afg and safer grant programs. these critical investments in local, rural fire departments supported the replacements of decades' old fire engines and obsolete breathing apparatuses. it also allowed for the hiring of additional firefighters, thus helping to ensure that maine communities continue to provide excellent public safety services to our residents. mr. president, i have visited many of the fire stations around the state, and i've seen

firsthand the difference that these federal grant programs make in improving the safety of our firefighters who risk their lives to protect ours. many of the fire stations in maine are decades or even a century old. they need updated equipment. they need better breathing equipment. they need better fire engines. and that's the purpose of many of these programs. they also are helped by these programs in getting a sufficient number of firefighters and emergency medical personnel. fire chiefs across the state of maine tell me of the critical importance of these programs in helping their local fire departments keep their communities safe. and that's ont

this bill has such broad support from the international association of firefighters, the association of fire chiefs, the list goes on and on and on. failure to reauthorize these programs would lessen the ability of our firefighters to perform their vital jobs, and thus would reduce the safety of the public. so i urge all of my colleagues to support the swift passage of this legislation to support our firefighters. we simply cannot allow these vital programs to expire. thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i would suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president.

the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. mr. carper: mr. president, are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: we are. mr. carper: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. carper: thank you. mr. president, before i begin my floor remarks, let me just ask unanimous consent that several individuals who serve in my personal office and on the senate committee on environment and public works majority staff be granted privileges of the floor for the remainder of this congress. their names are daniel kem, victoria carol, mania savay, nicole kimisky, and matthew marzano. i ask unanimous consent. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. carper: thanks very much. mr. president, i rise today to highlight the importance of supporting the brave men and women who protect us every day, our nation's firefighters in all 50 states. as i laid out on this floor last month, the fires we face are

getting worse, not better. every day there are more fires ravaging our communities and more folks relying on firefighters for protection. just last week almost 4,000, that's 4,000 acres in our neighboring state of new jersey were scorched by the jimmy's water hole fire forcing evacuations from something like 170 buildings and homes. in pennsylvania, over 2,500 acres were burned and over 150 homes threatened, forcing the pennsylvania turnpike to temporarily close. mr. president, let me just say, make this as clear and strong as i can. we have to support our firefighters. we have to support our firefighters so that when they bravely run toward danger to help others, they are well

prepared, they are properly trained and equipped. that's one of the reasons why i continue to co-lead the grants and safety act with my colleagues on the congressional fire services caucus. firefighters put their lives on the line for us every day, every day, and it's our duty to provide them with the necessary support that they need. i am proud to join alongside senators gary peters, susan collins, and lisa murkowski in fighting for this crucial legislation to better ensure that our firefighters are armed with the tools that they need to get the job done on behalf of other people. today i want to talk for a few minutes, if i could, about the fire grants and safety act and how it will actually have an impact on communities not just on the east coast, not just on the west coast, the middle of

our country, but all over the united states of america. at a high level this bill reauthorizes telecritical -- three critical offices. first this legislation will authorize the federal emergency management agencies staffing for adequate fire and emergency response, also known as the safer grant program. the safer grant program provides funding for career, for volunteer, and some combination of local fire departments to increase the number of men and women on duty at any point in time. the job of a firefighter can be incredibly demanding and baseline industry standards include protocols like 24-hour standing, 24-hour staffing to make sure our communities have adequate protection at all hours of the day and night. the safer grant program also provides funding to recruit

staffs so that we can ensure staffing needs can actually be met. for example, safer grants could help ensure that more personnel are properly trained and available on the ground to assist in major fires in the areas that need it the most. in states like delaware where the majority of our firefighters are volunteers, it is particularly important that staffing needs are met and resources are provided so that all first responders are ready to take on each day that lies ahead of them. the fire grants and safety act also reauthorizes the assistance to firefighters grant program. the assistance to firefighters grant program helps local fire departments and ems organizations fulfill equipment and training needs like fire

trucks and protective gear, all of which lead to a more effective emergency response. firefighters do a whole lot more than just put out fires, as i think the presiding officer knows and our colleagues know. annually there are over 36 million emergency calls that fire services across the country respond to. let me say that again. there are over 36 million emergency calls that fire services respond to across the country. that's not going down. that's going up. i think an increase of about 20% over the last dozen or so years. just a few weeks ago in my own state, a strong, dangerous tornado struck southern delaware in the area of sussex count, the southern most county near a community called bridgeville. it was our firefighters that

showed up to lead people to safety. we lost a grandfather in the, when the tornado struck bridgeville, as i recall. i think he was in his 70's and left behind a family. it's critical to the emergency response. finally, the fire grants and safety act will reauthorize the united states fire administration to provide leadership, to provide coordination, and to provide training for first responders and health care leaders. responding to emergencies is no small undertaking. it is a huge undertaking. and in addition to our firefighters, health care leaders help guide the disastrous response by making sure that people are taken care of both during and after an emergency response. the united states fire administration also plays a critical role in that

coordinated effort, ensuring that our first responders are ready to handle hazards from saving lives to preventing loss of homes and personal belongings. beyond the initial response, the administration collects fire data. it conducts important research and prevention methods. and they host public safety, education and fire service training. this proactive approach to local fire departments in handling future emergencies and creating a more comprehensive approach to fire safety. the lifesaving work made possible by these three federal programs must continue, and we have the opportunity here in the senate to make that happen. last month we came together, democrats and republicans, to vote. we voted to take up the fire grants and safety act. that vote passed by a whopping

96-0. that doesn't happen here, as the presiding officer knows. it doesn't happen here every day and it is a testament to the bipartisanship. it's also a testament to the critical role that firefighters play in communities across america. today we'll improve our emergency response and we'll make sure that our firefighters have -- it's not everything they need. more of what they need. i'm pleased our president has announced his support for this legislation. i strongly encourage our colleagues and friends over in the house of representatives to do their part once we've taken care of business here and send the fire grants and safety act to the president's desk. mr. president, i want to go back a little bit in time. remember the time when i was young and playing with other kids in our neighborhood. maybe our cousins, whoever viforting us.

we -- visiting us. west had a fire truck. in fact, we had a couple of little fire trucks. we'd take turns being a firefighter. some days we'd put out fires. other days we'd respond to imaginary weather events that endangered our community where we lived. later on, decades later, my sister would have her kids, a son and daughter, and my wife and i had a couple of boys. and one of their favorite toys were fire trucks. and more than -- on more than a few occasions, friends would come over to our house to play and they'd break out the fire trucks. they didn't have anything else to do but fight fires. for them it was just fun. they loved doing it with their neighbors, their friends. they loved doing it with their cousins who might be visiting with us. that was fun for them. in the real world, being a firefighter can be enormously

satisfying. i don't know that i'd say it's fun. it's dangerous. there's a chance that someone will get hurt trying to help out other people. and the risk can be, as we know, great. i just want to make sure that those young kids who grow up to be firefighters like the ones that we honored this past month in bridgeville, the bridgeville fire company in southern delaware, i want to make sure they know that we value them, we value their service, we value their willingness to risk their own lives on behalf of other people, including people they may not even know. the legislation that's before us, we have the opportunity to make that clear to firefighters around the country. states large and small, east and west, blue and red, let them know how much we value them and the service that they provide to

so many of us. and with that, mr. president, i have a committee request document to enter into the record. mr. president, i have 11 requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of both the majority and minority leaders. the presiding officer: duly noted. mr. carper: thank you, mr. president. i think that's pretty much what i have here today. and with that, mr. president, i don't see anybody else yearning to address our colleagues. i would just note the absence of a quorum. thank you so much. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from mississippi. a senator: what is the pending business. the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call. a senator: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. wicker: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i come before the senate this afternoon to address the disturbing matter of vladimir kara-murza and to call on the state department to act and act decisively now on behalf of mr. kara-murza.

vladimir kara-murza is a courageous russian leader, an outspoken opponent of the dictatorship of president putin there in russia, and a leader in the democracy effort in his home country of russia. manner colleagues, myself included, know vladimir kara-murza personally. i admire him. i consider him a friend. other senators will remember who mr. kara-murza is after i remind the senate of his history. mr. kara-murza was the right-hand man of the late russian opposition leader boris nemtsov. i say the late russian leader because he was assassinated within the shadows of the kremlin in 2015 after a career

of courageous, outspoken opposition to the dictatorship in russia. that was boris nemtsov. his assistant and right-hand man cara hur today -- kara-murza was just this week sentenced to a 25-year prison term in russian having already served one year under -- in prison for the simple offense of speaking out on behalf of freedom and democracy in russia. over the years vladimir kara-murza has spoken up against president putin's invasion of ukraine. he's spoken out against the suppression of human rights in russia. he's worked with members of congress. he's worked with senator cardin. he's worked with senators like

me. with former senator john mccain. and he's been instrumental in getting us to pass and getting the administration to sign important human rights legislation. like the magnitsky act which has now been adopted by some 35 or more countries internationally to crack down on those individuals within a dictatorship regime who have benefited from the violations of human rights. how has mr. vladimir kara-murza paid for this offense of speaking out on behalf of democracy and freedom? he's the one who's twice been poisoned by the putin regime. on two occasions. and they fumbled it twice. now they've got a third chance

to kill him. and it may be that unless the state department acts quickly, mr. president, the putin regime may finally get their wish and see the obituary of vladimir kara-murza. his life is in danger now because of his previous poisonings, both of which he recovered from. he has suffered already from polly neuropathy. after a year in prison, he's lost 40 pounds. he's lost feeling in both of his feet now and is losing the feeling in one of his arms. that's the situation he finds himself in this week where he was sentenced to a 25-year prison term simply for speaking out on behalf of freedom.

even under russian law, a statutory scheme that none of us would approve of, even under russian law, a diagnosis such as this would lead to the release of any prisoner. but not, apparently, for vladimir kara-murza. predictably the russian courts have violated their own law to keep him detained. today we read about many victims of russia's despotism. we have been talking this week about former u.s. marine paul whalen who has been sitting in a russian prison prison since 201r fabricated charges and the recently detained wall street reporter evan diverse vich.

those two individuals need our support and are getting the support of state department, the same support that mr. vladimir kara-murza needs now and that the senate should demand of the state department. the state department has the capability as they've done for these two other prisoners, gershkovich and whalen, they have the ability to designate mr. kara-murza as, quote, wrongfully detained. unquote. under the bevinson act. -- levinson act. this classification would make the release of vladimir kara-murza a top u.s. government priority. granting this designation would be a major step forward and would raise this case to the highest level of attention within the state department and with regard to their

negotiations with the kremlin. it would give negotiators new tools to act strongly and quickly. and strong action and quick action is needed now to save the very life of vladimir kara-murza. efforts on his behalf could be conducted alongside the efforts that are being initiated for mr. whalen and mr. gershkovich which i very much support. i implore the state department, mr. president, to elevate this case also and save the life of vladimir kara-murza and i implore all members of congress to join me in urging our government to take immediate action to support all three of these gentlemen. let's resolve that our government and our state department act in every way

possible to gain the release of these prisoners, and in particular this prisoner whose life is hanging at the very moment by a thread. i met with the vladimir kara-murza's wife only yesterday. she had met with the state department along with her attorneys along with some advocates. clearly she fears for the life of her husband. she's had a resident of northern virginia, by the way, with two small children. she fears for the life of her husband and she worries about the future of herself and her chairman but also she wonders -- and her children, but also she wonders why the state department would not act in the most forceful way possible, and that is with this designation of

wrongfully detained. senator cardin and i will be speaking to members of the senate and the house about this. we'll be passing around a letter to sign to the secretary of state urging that this matter be given the highest consideration, and perhaps we can diplomatically obtain the release of this courageous person who has committed no crime and save the life of vladimir kara-murza. thank you, mr. president. and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. lee: i ask unanimous consent to suspend the quorum

call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. lee: mr. president, wildfires pose a significant threat to the safety and well-being of our citizens, particularly those living near federal lands. one way to protect against wildfires is with the use of fuel breaks. fuel breaks are -- think of them as fire walls. fire walls for our communities. they're man-made areas with a reduced fuel load that are set up to act as a barrier to stop the slow, to slow the spread of wildfire. they slow it down. they make it so that the fire can't spread as quickly. in 2021 congress created a series of categorical exclusions specifically for the creation of fuel breaks. that was good. they were intended to protect communities adjacent to federal land from the devastating effects of wildfires.

however, the federal agencies responsible for implementing these exclusions have been bogged down by regulatory delays. these delays are really problematic, and they're adding up, especially in certain parts of the country where there is a lot of federal land and where there's a lot of federal land near where people live. in california there are 5.1 million homes in the wildland urban interface. the forest service and the blm would never have the capacity to protect these homes. the hands of the states shouldn't be tied while they watch their homes being burned. and so congress created a good thing. it did a good thing by creating these categorical exclusions. but it's been more or less rendered -- i think by mistake -- a dead letter in many areas because of these regulatory problems. so rather than throwing the baby out with the bathwater, we need to make this one work.

my amendment aims to do precisely that. it aims to create a process for states to assume responsibility for the environmental analysis, approval, and execution of these projects. by allowing states to take on these responsibilities, we can expedite these critical projects for community protection. the safety and well-being of our citizens and our communities are at stake. by passing my amendment, we could take a significant step toward protecting our homes, communities, and critical infrastructure from the devastating effects of wildfires. and so,mr. president, i call up my amendment number 80 and ask that it be reported by number. the presiding officer: the clerk will report by number. the clerk: the senator from utah, mr. lee, proposes an amendment numbered 80.

mr. carper: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. mr. carper: i don't rise every day to oppose amendments offered by senator lee. i am i'll frayed -- i'm afraid i am going to have to oppose this one. for a couple runs, one as the chairman of the senate committee on environment and public works, and chair of the national governors association for a while, i believe this amendment undercuts the national environmental policy act and the federal government's important role in managing our federal lands. and while i appreciate the need for federal agencies and states to work together, to minimize

wildfire risk on our public lands, this amendment, i am i am eight sorry to say, misses the mark. specifically, this amendment would require -- and i underline the word require -- this amendment would require the forest service and the bureau of land manage to allow states to take over federal responsibilities for environmental reviews of many activities on public lands. this would be a single change in management of our public lands, which belong, as we know, to all americans. although senator lee's proposal is-month-olded on a program at the department of transportation -- is modeled on a program at the department of transportation, it allows states to assume some responsibility for highway projects, this lacks a number of safeguards that are in place for for the highway program. for instance this amendment establishes mandatory -- i

emphasize mandatory -- not discretionary assignment of responsibilities to states. it has no requirement, as best i can tell, for public notice and comment, and does not require the federal agency to verify that the state has the the resources and the personnel available to carry out federal responsibilities. it also includes asest i can tell no -- as best i can tell no auditing or monitoring requirements. i am working with my colleagues, i believe, on on both sides of the aisle on opportunities to improve the environmental review procedures, but i must say this is not the right vehicle or way to proceed on this. and i am reluctantly going to have to urge our colleagues to vote no on this particular amendment. i yield.

mr. lee: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. lee: mr. president, i appreciate the insight and the the -- observations of my friend and distinguished colleague, the senator from delaware. i appreciate the amount of effort he has put into this. he raises some good points, and they are points i might find persuasive if they were accurate. he seems to be under the impression that these would be broad categorical seclusions. that these -- ex seclusions that it would apply to all forest operations. this is only talking about fuel breaks and fuel breaks in narrow sets of circumstances. he suggested that there's no requirement in place to make sure that the states have are the resources financially, regulatory, and otherwise to undertake the analysis

contemplated under this. he does. he's been misinformed on that point. finally, mr. president, i might feel differently about this if, like my friend from delaware, if i were from a different state, if i were from the state of delaware. but when you look at the western united states, we -- we have federal lands everywhere. every state to the east of colorado's eastern border, the federal government owns less than 15% of the land in the states. in most states it's in the single digits. in many digits it's in the low single digits. i don't remember what the percentage of land owned in delaware is. i can find that out. but in utah, it's two-thirds of our land. it's 67% and every state to the west of colorado's eastern rim, it's more than 15% and usually a lot more than that.

that affects people. these are people's homes, their livelihoods, their communities, their economies are all put in jeopardy by the fact that the federal government owns too much land. it owns so much land that no one would have the capacity to operate this. no one. it's impossible. more than five million homes in california alone during these effected areas, no matter how efficient we made the forest service, no matter how many employees we offered them to hire, it's still not going to be table to keep up with this. it's a matter of doing this or losing more property, losing more ecosystems, more homes and communities and sources of economic activity. that's what is at stake. if the facts he made were factually correct were legally correct, he might be right but they're not correct. we need this and we need to pass

this now. mr. president, thank you. the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. mr. carper: i don't think i've got this wrong. i could be mistaken, but i don't think so. i would just say again, senator lee's proposal seems to be modeled on the department of transportation that allows states, i underline allows, some states responsibility for highway projects. this amendment -- krg said it -- having said it, this amendment is far broader in scope and impact and lacks the numerous safeguards that are in place for the highway program. for example, this amendment establishes mandatory -- mandatory nondiscretionary assignment of responsibilities to states. and in doing that, it has no requirement for public notice

and does not require the federal agency to verify the state has either the resources or the personnel available to carry out federal responsibilities. moreover, as best i can tell, this mandate includes no auditing or monitoring requirements. that should give all of us pause. that should give all of us pause and cause for concern. having said that, i'm working with our colleagues on opportunities to improve environmental review procedures, but i just don't believe this is the right vehicle or the way to proceed on this particular provision. i look forward to discussing it further with our colleague from utah in the days ahead. but for now i'm going to urge our colleagues to vote no on this amendment. mr. lee: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. lee: i want to point to two

things. first on page four of the amendment, sub division d verification of resources. this requires each state participating in this -- in this to go through the process of verifying they can do it. page six, this is -- in the same way they would be subject to judicial review if these actions were undertake bin a federal agency -- undertaken by a federal agency. federal land managers can't and don't and won't ever be able to do this the same way state people -- state officials, state governments and local governments will be able to. we either care about these communities or we don't. if we don't adopt this, we are effectively nullifying what congress passed back in 2021. we need to not do that. mr. president, i know of no further debate on this matter. the presiding officer: is there

further debate? mr. carper: mr. president, if i could. the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. mr. carper: i'm looking at the language of the amendment. and page four, under subparagraph d, which is entitled verification of resources, and it says, as a condition of entering into an agreement under paragraph one, the secretary concern may require a state -- may require an tribe to verify that the state or indian tribe has the financial and personnel resources necessary to carry out the responsibilities described in that paragraph. it doesn't say should, it doesn't say must require. it says may require a state or indian tribe to verify that the state or indian tribe has the

personal or financial resources necessary to carry out the responsibilities described in that paragraph. i, again, have significant concerns here. i appreciate the -- the intent of the author of the amendment, but i would just reiterate again the concerns that -- the more i like at this, the most concerned -- rather than being less concerned, the more concerned i have become. with that, i yield back my time. mr. lee: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. lee: the distinction he's drawing on from subdivision d on page four is the may shall decision. the only way he can be right on this point is if he presupposes the secretary's just not going to care or exercise that authority. it's not going to happen. i'm sure he's not imputing lack of concern on the part of the

secretary of agriculture to do that. he wouldn't do that. secondly, if that's what's holding us up, if you'd be willing to support it if i made the may and turn it to a shall, i will offer up my own amendment right now and do that. if the gentleman from delaware would agree to that, i would be fine with that and we can get this passed. mr. carper: i'm not prepared to know whether or not -- if there are other safeguards that need to be considered. i appreciate the good intent the senator from utah is showing. but standing here on the fly, i'm reluctant to say, if we change this one word in this one proposal, then i'm okay with all of it. so i would need time to drill down and decide. it's hard to do it on the fly. mr. lee: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. lee: this is how western

lands suffer. people from the eastern united states with neither the knowledge nor the concern about how they're managed, don't care. and so while they pass something in 2021 to make these fire breaks easier to put in place, as a practical reality, regulatory hurdles have proven too much. this would fix that. it's reasonable. there's nothing that the senator from delaware has pointed to that -- that makes this bill -- this amendment to this bill objectionable in any way. i urge my colleagues to support it. and as you do so, if you -- if you come from west of colorado, you know exactly what i'm talking about. if you come from the eastern united states, i beg you to imagine for a moment that you represent a western state where we've experienced in some cases decades of drought and where we're sitting ducks where islands of private land amidst a

vast overwhelming sea of federal land chronically mismanaged because it is physically impossible to manage this properly. i urge you to be sympathetic to this and support this. the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. mr. carper: this will be the last. i say with respect to this amendment, if this amendment is not adopted, i say to my colleague from utah to sit down and talk it through and to better understand our concerns and to better understand where you're coming from. i would ask you to keep that in mind. mr. lee: thank you. mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from utah utah. mr. lee: i appreciate the magnanimous offer by my colleague. i think it will pass today. mr. president, i know of no further debate on this amendment. the presiding officer: is there further debate? if not, the question is on the amendment. mr. lee: i call for the yeas and

nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: on this vote, the yeas are 49, the nays are 50. under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this amendment, the

amendment is not agreed to. mr. schumer: mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. schumer: mr. president, few have left their mark on this country like our dear friend senator dianne feinstein. she's a legend in california. the first woman senator from the state. she's a legend here in the senate. the longest-serving woman senator in u.s. history. she built a reputation as an expert legislator on so many issues, gun violence, have a u.a.w. -- vawa, and so much more more. dianne is a legend throughout the country, moved countless mountains and-month-old -- and molded millions of minds. few have accomplished as much in

office as senator feinstein. she has made her wish clear, that are another senator temporarily serve on the judiciary committee until she returns. i thank senator cardin for agreeing to step in. so today, i am acting not just as leader but as dianne's friend in honoring her wishes until she returns to the senate. mr. president, when someone as dear and as accomplished as senator feinstein asks us for something so important to her, we ought to respect it. and so i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the consideration of my resolution, which is at the desk. i further ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to and that the the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: is there objection?

a senator: mr. president. reserving the right to object. the presiding officer: the senator from south carolina. mr. graham: thank you. i will be very brief. to my colleague and good friend senator schumer. i want you to know that 99 senators agree with you said. we all hope, she's a dear friend and we hope for her speedy recovery and her return back to the senate. with all due respect to my colleague, senator schumer, this is about a handful of judges that you can't get the votes for and i have been a pretty consistent vote in the judiciary committee in a bipartisan fashion. i understand that you won the election, we lost, and i want to make sure we process judges fairly. but the reason this is being made is to try to change the numbers on the committee in a way that i think would be harmful to the senate and it to pass out a handful of judges that i think should never be on the bench. so with that in mind and with

all due respect to senator feinstein, i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard.

mr. whitehouse: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: is the senate presently in a quorum call? the presiding officer: no, we are not. the senator is recognized. mr. whitehouse: then i may proceed. i am now here for the 21st in my series of speeches about the scheme to capture and control our supreme court, a scheme to which right-wing special interests have devoted hundreds of millions of dark money dollars. the ingredients in this noxious

cocktail are creepy right-wing billionaires, phony front groups, amenable justices, large sums of money, and secrecy. this month we've gotten a whole new look at how these ingredients mix. according to extraordinary reporting by propublica, for more than 20 years justice clarence thomas has accepted luxury trips virtually every year from billionaire harlan crow without disclosing them. here is how propublica described it. thomas has vacationed on crow's superyacht, he flies on his

global 5000 yet, he -- jet, he has gone to the bohemian grove, the exclusive all-male retreat and the sprawling ranch in texas and spe a week every summer at crow's private resort in the adirondacks. close quote. one of those trips, mr. president, has been valued at more than 5$00,000. we heard from civil servants who have to report a gift of $5. this justice received a gift of a trip that they valued at $500,000. it was a trip to indonesia on crow's private jet followed by -- and i quote here -- nine days of island hopping on a super yacht staffed by attendants and

a private chef. and that's just one excursion. no telling how many others there were. none of this was disclosed. the supposed rationale was that it was all personal hospitality. so let's set aside for one second the question whether this actually was personal hospitality. let's presume that there was personal hospitality here somewhere. what that overlooks is the problem of the personal hospitality exemption which covers exemption if disclosure of food, lodging, or entertainment received as personal hospitality of an

individual. food, lodging, or entertainment. not transportation, not travel. not trips on harlan crow's private jet propublica was able to identify multiple trips that thomas took on crow's jet, and each one of those trips seems to be a slam-dunk violation of this provision. not food, not lodging, not entertainment. transportation. it does not stop there. additional reporting by propublica revealed more of crow's undisclosed generosity. in 2014 crow purchased from thomas and his relatives three properties in georgia, including the home where thomas' mother lives.

there seem to be more collateral gifts in the form of renovations, and an agreement that thomas' mother would live there rent free for the rest of her life. there's much more to learn about all of this transaction, but back to the disclosure. here is what the law requires for property disclosures. it requires the disclosure of any purchase, sale, or exchange during the preceding calendar year which exceeds $1,000 in real property other than the property used solely as a personal residence of the reporting individual. if it's not your home, if it's any other real property and if it's worth more than $1,000, the law requires that it be reported. thomas disclosed none of this on the annual disclosure form

required by law. this law applies across the government. this isn't something special for the supreme court. but transparency is especially important for judges who must recuse themselves from cases if there's even an appearance of impropriety. purchasing thomas' property and offering him free international vacations weren't the only favors bestowed by the billionaire. in 2011 "the new york times" reported on him having, quote, done many favors for the justice and his wife, including using his company to finance what the "times" called the multimillion dollar purchase and restoration of a property where justice thomas' mother used to work, donating $175,000 to a savannah library project dedicated to

justice thomas, giving justice thomas a $19,000 bible that belonged to frederick douglass, and providing $500,000 for ginny thomas, his spouse, to start a tea party-related group. end quote. well, could any of that raise an appearance of impropriety or was it purely personal? nothing to do with the court? well, let's have a look at a picture that shows us a little illumination of that. this is a painting that harlan crow commissioned during one of thomas' visits to crow's private lakeside adirondack retreat. on the right here is crow

himself. next to him is justice thomas. crow sits on the board of two conservative organizations that file briefs before the supreme court. crow is also a donor to the federalist society from which trump's infamous supreme court list emerged. and by the way, dark money surged into the federalist society during that period. crow is also a political donor to republican politicians. investigation would show whether all this amounted to enough business before the court to create a conflict of interest. but the supreme court won't permit any investigation of its

members. here on the left is the infamous leonard leo, the man behind that trump supreme court list whose three new justices created the far-right supermajority that justice thomas now enjoys. leo's front group, the judicial crisis network, bought the campaign ads for the three justices paid for with dark money. here is a graphic i've used before showing leonard leo's flotilla of front groups that he uses. he has more. this is just one assortment of his front groups. here's the judicial crisis

network. which took checks as big as $17 million from anonymous donors and used that money to spend on ads for the confirmation of the three new justices. leo is the one who helped the right-wing billionaires knock out harriet miers. do you remember when she was a nominee for the supreme court by a republican president? knocked her out to make room for none other than sam alito to get on to the court. the campaign that leo oversaw by the billionaires to capture the court has been tallied at more than $580 million, $580 million,

much of it dark money. and he recently received from another creepy right-wing billionaire a $1.6 billion slush fund into yet another 051c4 front group. so it is deeply misleading to claim that justice thomas never vacationed with people that had business before the court. leonard leo's business is the court. the creepy billionaire's campaign was to capture the court. leo was the billionaire's contractor for construction of the court that dark money built. personal hospitality. after thomas gets on the court, a major republican donor befriends him with half a million dollars for his spouse' activist group, a renovated home for his mother and lavished undisclosed vacations at which

thomas was sometimes accompanied by right-wing activists at the center of the scheme to capture the court. and we're supposed to believe this is all legit? i don't think so. and guess who else doesn't think so? justice thomas who knew and he broke the law repeatedly to keep it secret. guess who else doesn't think so? ask other federal judges. they can't get away with this personal hospitality nonsense. they know this is wrong and that it's embarrassing to the judiciary. that's why the judicial conference just cracked down on the personal hospitality shenanigans of their supreme court colleagues. thomas is feeling enough heat that he even released a public statement. early in my tenure at the court, he said, i sought guidance from my colleagues and others in the judiciary and was advised that

this sort of personal hospitality was not reportable. and that he has always sought to comply with the disclosure guidelines. wow. where to begin. first, who advised thomas that this personal hospitality was not that's the formal committees of the judicial conference that advise on ethics and financial disclosure issues.

they have committees for this. that would be the obvious place to go for real advice, yet all indications are that he did not. i suspect that thomas knew that they would not like the facts that he would have to disclose if he were to ask them in candor to offer an opinion on his situation. and he also, i suspect, knew that he would not like the answer that he would get. so he just didn't file. the recent definition of personal hospitality that the judicial conference announced in response to two years of urging from me was intended to clarify what was already prohibited, a clarification that every other branch had already issued. and the reporting law never

exempted private jet travel. thomas actually knew this because he had reported flying on crow's private jet before. back in 19 1997. what changed? federal law is crystal clear on the need to report real estate transactions worth over $1,000. the law is so clear that cnn reported yesterday that thomas will amend his disclosure report to include that sale. according to what cnn called a source close to thomas, thomas has always filled out his forms with the help of his aides, and he didn't think he needed to report this but he didn't make any -- this because he didn't make any money off of it. that excuse might be believable if the statutory language weren't so clear. crystal clear. and if thomas weren't what one commentator has called a repeat offender at disclosure. in 2011 thomas had to amendment

13 years worth of financial disclosure reports to add his wife's income from the heritage foundation, a dark money conservative outfit which also files amicus briefs at the supreme court. he said it was a misunderstanding. here's what he misunderstood. financial disclosure report form. b, spouse's noninvestment income. if you are married during any portion of the reporting year, complete this section. income, none or date and source. that is not complicated. those instructions are simple. and like his private jet travel, justice thomas had reported his

wife's income before. back in 1996. what changed? congressman hank johnson and i sent a bicameral letter to chief justice roberts urging him to get his courthouse in order and set up a means to investigate these and other serious allegations of misconduct. we have also sent a letter to the judicial conference calling for the conference to refer justice thomas to the attorney general for failure to report his real estate transaction with crow. here's how that works under the ethics law. the head of each agency or the judicial conference shall refer to the attorney general the name of any individual which such official or committee has reasonable cause to believe, has willfully failed to file a report or has willfully falsified or willfully failed to file information required to be reported.

the attorney general in turn may bring a civil action against any individual who knowingly and willfully fails to file a report any information. that such individual is required to report. that is not complicated. and the supreme court is completely alone here in its peculiar approach to these issues. wherever else you go in government, you will find an ethics code and you will find a process for investigating and enforcing the ethics rules. the executive branch has an ethics office and inspectors general. federal courts have their own ethics process. only the supreme court has none of that. no designated place to submit complaints. no investigative mechanism to

review

there's little reason for a justice to dplie with the ethics standards. when there's no ref, there's ultimately no rules. the rule that exam clearly pertains is that it's not -- that clearly pertains is that it's not okay to judge one's own case. that rule is so obvious, i hardly need to state it. and that rule is so old it's in latin. no one should be judged in their own case. we know that justice thomas is familiar with this rule because he cited it in an opinion he wrote just a few years ago when he noted that, at common law, a fair tribunal meant that no man shall be a judge in his own

case. end quote. this good old rule, grounded in history and tradition, the present supreme court constantly and flagrantly flouts. that must stop. the justices have lost the benefit of the doubt. 240 years the court went without needing this. but this roberts court has squandered the public's confidence with its behavior, and now there must be rules and process. the senate judiciary committee, along with my subcommittee, will hold a hearing to consider these issues. i hope our colleagues will take it seriously. congressman hank johnson and i have introduced the supreme court ethics transparency and recusal act, which would solve a lot of this mess, this big,

tragic, unnecessary, self-inflicted mess. let me conclude where i began. with that noxious cocktail of creepy right wing billionaires, phony front groups, amenable justices, large sums of money, and secrecy. it's a toxic brew. the ethics failures at the court are just one part of that stinking cocktail. we have justices picked in some backroom at the federalist society by creepy billionaires to put on a list for donald trump. we have justices who came through a confirmation process so tainted with influence that the fbi was breaking its own

procedures in background investigations, and senators were fulg screeching 180's -- were pulling screeching 180's in confirming supreme court justices in an election year. flotilla's of front group amicus curiae who won't tell who orchestrates and funds them appear in court to tell those justices what to do. and the justices, with astonishing statistical reliability, do as they are told. to get the results they want, the justices smash through precedent, violate so-called conservative judicial principles, make up false facts, and change the applicable legal standards. all of this mess, all of it, is

the product of that toxic brew of creepy right wing billionaires, phony front groups, amenable justices, large sums of money, and secrecy. for now, let's at least fix the ethics mess and bring the supreme court into alignment with the rest of the federal courts. the highest court should not have the lowest standards. to be continued, mr. president. i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: if i may interrupt the distinguished senator from alaska to do closing business, then leave her the floor. on behalf of the majority leader, i'm asking unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the en bloc consideration of the following senate resolutions introduced today, 160, 161 and 162. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the resolutions en bloc. mr. whitehouse: i ask unanimous consent that the resolutions be agreed to, the preambles be agreed to and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, all en bloc. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: i further i ask unanimous consent when the senate completes its abouts today it stand adjourned until wednesday, 10:00 a.m., the morning hour deemed ek tired, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it recess until, 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. that upon the conclusion of morning business, the senate resume consideration of calendar

number 28, s. 870. further, at 11:30 a.m., the senate vote on the paul and haght earthy -- hagerty amendments, that following the disposition of the hagerty amendment, senator tuberville or his designee be recognized to make a motion to employed to calendar 35. that the time until 4:15 p.m. be equally divided between their due leaders and designees, and the final 15 minutes equally divided in the same form. the senate recess from 3:00 to 4:00 p.m. for the all-senators briefing with the time counting equally to both sides. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: if there's no further business before the senate, i ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order, following the remarks to senator murkowski, to whom i express gratitude for her kurtzcy -- for her courtesy. the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. ms. murkowski: i ask that the

following fellows be recognized, abby, robert goods. the presiding officer: without objection. mems. murkowski: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i'm pleased we are at the point in the senate calendar when we're talking about legislation on the floor. we have s. 870, the fire grants and safety act. i'm a sponsor, is proud cosponsor of this measure. my state of alaska routinely faces severe fire seasons every year. i'm cochair of the senate fire caucus and follow these issues very carefully, whether they're wildland fires or in our urban centers, but i believe we have a bill in front of us, a measure, that deserves our support. the fire grants and safety act is a pretty simple bill. it's not very often we actually have things that are simple and

short. this one is just a few pages long. it reaustralia auth -- reauthorizes the u.s. fire assistance program, as well as the staffing for adequate fire and emergency response grant programs. that's the safer program. it reauthorizes all of these through 2030, instead of expiring next year. this is increased slightly, but the rest are straight extensions. it's a pretty simple bill, but it's important to appreciate and understand the importance, because sometimes i think these programs are underappreciated. they help our local fire departments recruit personnel. pretty important. we've got to get those firefighters to us. but not only recruit them, but to retain them as well. it also helps allow them to

purchase updated vehicles and equipment. they also help our fire stagses by providing for safety and rescue training, as well as health screenings. the fire grabts and safety act is -- fire grants and safety act is also a very timely measure. not just because we are looking at these programs mirroring their expiration date, but our u.s. fire administrator has reminded us that america is still burning, was the quote. last year, fires destroyed over one million structures and over 7.5 million acres of land across the country. again, in the state of alaska it is not unusual that we have a million-plus acres burn each season. in many seasons, well north of a million. in addition to dealing with the

impact to the land and to structures upon them, it is the safety issue that comes with fighting fires. approximately 2500 people, including 96 firefighters, have died because of these fires. again, as we are seeing, as we are seeing wildfires become larger and more catastrophic, the danger that it presents from a health safety perspective, but also the devastation and impact to the land becomes that much greater. in our state, in alaska, our geography and really our lack of core infrastructure oftentimes make it harder to respond sometimes really not possible at all, but you've -- difficult to deal with.

but then you have house fires in, in one village off where road travel, there is no connection between the two villages and inability to help address a local fire as we have seen, unfortunately, on far too many occasions. just last month the kennikot mccarthy's fire department received $7,950. it doesn't sound like a lot in terms of dollars we talk about here on this floor, but it was $77,000-plus to support recruitment and retention of firefighters. they were able to utilize fema's safer grant program. again, this is a program that's going to sunset this year. but let me put the kennikot

mccarthy fire department into context. this fire department is over 300 miles from anchorage, the large city there. that's about a seven-hour drive in good weather. i would challenge people most times getting into mccarthy doesn't make any difference what the weather is, the road is tough enough that it is going to take you well more than seven hours. there is about 42 people that live in mccarthy kennikot area year round. but in the summertime you've got a growth in population when tourists are coming into the area and folks who have cabins and properties who like to spend the summers out there. so it can grow to over 1,000, 1,200 people in the summer. it serves as a gateway to the national park, another tourist

destination for us. this little town hosted over 65,000 visitors last year. it kind of causes you to ask the question how can a town of 42-year round residents support this influx of outside traffic without the assistance of the federal government here. and that's exactly what the safer grants have allowed them to do. believe me, that $77,000 is going to go a long way for that volunteer fire department in kennikot mccarthy. i mentioned that we face unique challenges in alaska, but i would wager to say that every member of this chamber or one of your family members, your friends, your neighbors, every one of us has benefited from the emergency services that are provided by their local fire department. and so as they have helped us, it's our turn to be helping them.

i am hopeful that we'll be able to move through this process. it was good to have a vote on an amendment this afternoon. we will have the opportunity for more tomorrow and hopefully be able to wrap this bill up soon, this week. but i do hope that this measure will garner the same level of bipartisan support as its predecessors. back in 2017, we passed a fire grant reauthorization by unanimous consent. i think so that reflects how every state recognizes the benefit from this act. and i think that this year's effort should really be no different. the fire grants and safety act has garnered widespread support. we've got organizations and groups like the international fire chiefs association, the national volunteer fire council, congressional fire

services institute, national fallen firefighters foundation, the international society of fire service instructors, as well as the international association of firefighters. so great support from these very important organizations. one of my friends and a real leader in alaska is the president of the alaska professional firefighters association, dominic hosano. he has shared his endorsement of this measure, and he explained that and he says over the last few years alaska has faced record fire seasons across the state, making our firefighters, rescuers and emergency medical workers as vital as ever. and whether the fire takes place in urban or rural alaska, our rugged terrain and harsh climate can make emergency response far more difficult. this bill will assist alaska fire departments with hiring new firefighters to attain proper

staffing levels as well as provide valuable equipment to agencies across the state. i really appreciate dominic's support for this measure. i tell you, i think we know there are firefighters, that our firefighters have an extraordinarily difficult job, a dangerous job, a job that tasks them every day. i had the opportunity to participate in a vip day where we all got, donned on the turnout suits and had the hats and had the opportunities to see how jaws of life actually worked, had the opportunity to go into a training facility that was, was built out to be a burning apartment building, and to haul the hose from the truck up the stairs into a burning

room to put out the fire. i can tell you that those who went in to literally take the heat got a very, very, very small, small glimpse of what our firefighters go through every day. i thank all of our firefighters. i thank our alaska firefighters, but all those around the country for the tremendous and selfless work that they do, putting themselves in harm's way to protect our lives, our lands, and our communities. i'm certainly committed to making sure that they have the resources to get home safely every single day. so i appreciate the leadership from senator peters, senator collins, and senator carper, that they put into this fire grants and safety act. again, i'm glad to cosponsor it with them and glad to be able to give some short comments in support.

our firefighters deserve this bill. our communities need in bill. and that should be enough for all of us to support it. and with that, mr. president, i yield the floor and suggest -- i yield the floor. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate stands adjourned until stands adjourned until

the very first president correspondent dinner was calvin coolidge and 1874. i was just elected to the senate. honoring the

former congressman and gop co-founder. >> fellow republicans, today begins our march to victory on november 5, 2024.