Floor Statements

Madam President, the inauguration of Bernardo Arevalo as President of Guatemala shortly after midnight on January 15 was a triumph for the people of Guatemala. Despite corrupt forces in the outgoing government, the Congress, and the Office of the Attorney General--who abused their authority in a flagrant attempt to subvert the result of a free and fair election that President Arevalo won overwhelmingly--in the end, Guatemala's democracy was preserved.

I want to congratulate the Guatemalan people for their courage and perseverance, especially the indigenous Mayan population who have suffered deprivation and indignity under successive governments whose officials cared far more about enriching themselves than improving the lives of the country's most vulnerable. It is long past time for Guatemala's indigenous leaders to have a central role in the national government.

I also want to commend the Biden administration, in particular U.S. Agency for International Development Administrator Samantha Power, Assistant Secretary of State Brian Nichols, Charge d'Affaires Patrick Ventrell, and the other U.S. Embassy staff, who in the months leading up to the election and late into the chaotic night of January 14 until Arevalo was finally sworn in, used a combination of diplomacy, sanctions, and advocacy to support a peaceful democratic transition of power. Without their sustained diplomatic engagement and the strong support of the international community, it is likely that the so-called Pact of the Corrupt would have prevailed in destroying Guatemala's fragile democracy.

President Arevalo faces immense challenges. Late last year, in an attempt to ensure that if he came to power he would be unable to govern effectively, the Congress slashed the national budget for the social programs and economic reforms necessary to carry out his anti- corruption, anti-poverty, pro-justice, and accountability vision for the country. The Guatemalan people expect him to deliver on his campaign promises, but the very forces that sought to prevent him from taking office have made clear that they will do every possible to prevent him from governing.

Despite these formidable obstacles, Bernardo Arevalo's remarkable ascendency to the Presidency offers Guatemala and the United States an opportunity that has not existed for generations. Hundreds of thousands of impoverished Guatemalans have fled their country, risking their lives in search of safety and a better life in the United States. In President Arevalo, we finally have a partner of integrity with whom we can focus on addressing the root causes of migration.

For generations, Guatemala's elites, including business and political leaders, have profited from a corrupt system at the expense of the best interests of the country. Tax revenues are a fraction of what they should be. Large areas of the country lack basic public services. Millions of Guatemalan children are malnourished and have no access to higher education. The justice system has been used to perpetuate the unjust and inequitable status quo.

If the Pact of the Corrupt had succeeded, Guatemala's business community would have also paid dearly. The choices were, and remain, stark. They can either help create the conditions

for new investment and economic growth or share responsibility for putting the country on a course leading to the scale of criminality and economic decline that have engulfed Nicaragua and Venezuela. With American companies relocating from China back to this hemisphere and with a Guatemalan President who believes in transparent and accountable governance, there is an opportunity for new investment and business partnerships in Guatemala unlike any time in recent memory. It is time for Guatemala's business leaders to embrace President Arevalo's vision for the country and to become real partners in the Guatemala's development.

I had the privilege of traveling to Guatemala in December as part of a bicameral congressional delegation led by Senator Tim Kaine. Our purpose was to show our support for Guatemala's democracy and for a peaceful transfer of power. We left Guatemala convinced that, while the outcome was far from certain, the people of that country would defend their democracy to the end. That is what they have done, and while the daunting challenges of governing lie ahead, they and President Arevalo deserve our congratulations and our strong support.

Mr. President, I support this resolution and appreciate the leadership of my good friend, the senior Senator from Vermont.

Section 502B of the Foreign Assistance Act is an important and long underutilized tool. It provides a practical mechanism to focus attention on serious human rights concerns around the world. These concerns should matter deeply to every Member of Congress and every American.

There are some who may not support asking the State Department to provide the information called for in this resolution. That is unfortunate. The Senate should be asking the hard questions, especially when fundamental rights and thousands of innocent lives are at stake. Though there are clauses in the resolution I believe could be more effective if drafted differently, that is the nature of the legislative process.

The people of Gaza are in the midst of a humanitarian catastrophe. The amount of death and destruction is staggering. An estimated 10,000 children have been killed and many more likely buried under rubble. The United Nations and other humanitarian relief organizations have warned of widespread starvation if the amount of food, potable water, medicines, and other necessities of life getting into Gaza is not drastically increased in the coming days.

Differences regarding this resolution and the conduct of the war aside, we have a shared responsibility to do whatever we can to save the lives of the 2 million men, women, and children who have been displaced in Gaza and are now completely dependent on international aid. That should be our immediate priority, and I look forward to working on this with other Members of Congress, the State Department, USAID, the United Nations, and other relief organizations in the coming days and weeks. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the cloture vote on the Richards nomination occur at 5:15 p.m. and that if cloture is invoked, all postcloture time be considered expired and the Senate vote on confirmation at a time to be determined by the majority leader, in consultation with the Republican leader.

Madam President, I ask that the Senate resume consideration of Executive Calendar No. 144.

I thank my colleagues tonight, and I thank Senator Whitehouse for his work on this.

You know, the question that is facing, I think, all of us and is troubling Americans is an erosion of confidence in our institutions. We are seeing that with a lot of erosion of confidence in the legislature, which is here to serve the interests of the people we all represent. It is also sometimes with the Executive--huge battles there. And, of course, January 6 was an indication that the norms that have guided us throughout our history--that is, the peaceful transfer of power after the people of this country make a decision about who shall be their elected leader--have all been challenged.

And now we have the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has an incredibly important role in the preservation of our democracy because it has the capacity to make decisions about legislative actions and whether what the legislature did fits within the parameters of the Constitution, and it is an awesome responsibility.

As my colleagues have said, I have an enormous amount of reverence for the institution of the judiciary, and I have an enormous amount of reverence for the particular role of the U.S. Supreme Court.

I have immense respect for the individuals who have achieved that status of being a member of the U.S. Supreme Court. They serve an important institution. They have a very important job. But they are not more important, as individuals, than any other American. They are not. They have more responsibility. They have a special obligation as Justices of the Supreme Court, but they are not above the law.

This is not exactly about whether there are legal questions involved. It is about whether they accept the responsibility that goes with representing an institution that must maintain credibility for the American people in order to have the people whom they serve respect their decisions.

We have a situation in the Supreme Court now. Within our judiciary, we have 850 judges at all different levels. Every single one of those judges is subject to rules that are designed to try to instill public confidence. Those rules require those judges to make financial disclosures. That includes whether they have been the beneficiary of gifts. There are nine people in this country who are in the judiciary who don't adhere to those rules, who don't believe it is their burden to share and disclose with the American people what gifts they have received, and those are the nine Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court. That is outrageous.

You know, when I talk to Vermonters about this and I say: Do you think that a justice of the Vermont Supreme Court or a Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court should be required to let you know--let the public know--if they got private jet travel to a location to get on a private yacht to take a private vacation? They have an obligation to disclose that.

And Vermonters look at me in dismay and they say: Peter, are you serious? They can do that?

This is not about disclosure. This is astonishment that somebody in a position of authority who they know--and every Vermonter knows--is getting that offer of a free jet travel, who is getting that offer of a free yacht trip and vacation in the Indonesian islands. It has nothing to do with who they are as persons. It has to do with who they are because of their responsibility and role as U.S. Supreme Court Justices. Vermonters can't believe it.

So this question of gifts and the bare minimum of having to disclose it, how is it even a question?

You know, I served in the House, as you know, and, in 2011, I and several of my colleagues wrote a letter inquiring about these gifts and why is it that they didn't have to be disclosed. This has been going on for far too long.

There is another matter of personal respect. The Supreme Court Justices, all of them, have the highest position in the judiciary, and all of those other 850 judges under them, are they not entitled to expect that what is required of them will be accepted by those nine members?

I have to confess enormous dismay that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, who is in the position to bring those other eight Justices together and say, ``Hey, let's deal with this; why are we creating this problem when it does so much to undercut public confidence in what it is we are trying to do?'' hasn't done it--hasn't done it.

So we have to do it. I believe that the judiciary--not just the 850 members of the judicial branch but 859 members of the judicial branch-- should all be subject to the same disclosure rules. And let me tell you, if they disclose these gifts, maybe they won't take these gifts-- because, actually, what is the point? I mean, really?

This is where I go back to the Vermonters I talked to who say: Peter, what is the deal? You literally can take an all-expense-paid vacation, and this person thinks it is not going to influence them? And they want to know what I have been smoking--seriously.

So what we are doing here is pretty modest, bare bones, but even if it is bare bones and modest, it is absolutely essential to the first step that we take in our effort to restore confidence to the people of this country--Republicans, Democrats, Independents--that our judiciary is all about serving them, not benefiting individually by their positions.

I yield to my colleague from Rhode Island, Senator Whitehouse.

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to speak about the nomination of Michael Whitaker of Vermont to be Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration.

Yesterday, as you know, his nomination was reported unanimously out of the Senate Commerce Committee in which we both serve. That was by voice vote, with all the Members of the Commerce Committee overwhelmingly agreeing in a bipartisan fashion that Mr. Whitaker should lead the FAA. This is welcome after 18 months of having no one leading the FAA.

It is not surprising that he had such strong support. Why? Michael Whitaker is immensely qualified, with over 30 years of experience in aviation, both in the public sector and in the private sector. His background and knowledge of the industry is formidable.

First, Michael is a longtime aviator, so he has practical concern about safety in the air and personal experience about flying.

Second, he has real experience running large and complex systems. During his time as the Deputy Administrator at the FAA from 2013 to 2016, Mike helped the FAA upgrade to satellite-enabled surveillance technology. He managed cybersecurity threats and chaired an interagency committee coordinating safety and security enhancements in our airspace. He made flying safer.

Third, he has relevant private sector experience. While in the private sector, Mike has worked on strategy operations for some of the world's largest travel companies. They include United Airlines, InterGlobe Enterprises, and Trans World Airlines. He will bring those management skills--that capacity to build a team and organize systems in his forward-thinking vision--to the FAA.

Fourth, Mike's focus is on performance, and his commitment to safety is absolute. That is something that the FAA is primarily responsible for, and it is an awesome responsibility that Mr. Whitaker has taken seriously every day of his life while he has served in both private and public positions in aviation.

Mike is a Vermonter--a small-town person who lives in a small town in Vermont, but he has got big-time experience. He understands the importance of ensuring that everyone is represented, and he knows the realities of what the industry and the FAA needs to succeed.

With Mike in the cockpit of the FAA, our skies will be safer, and he will work tirelessly to ensure that Americans across the country can fly safely and seamlessly wherever they please with as few disruptions as possible. We urgently need a full-time FAA administrator, and Michael Whitaker of Vermont is the ideal candidate for that role.

I urge my colleagues to support his nomination.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, reserving the right to object, I want to make it very clear that there are 100 Members of the U.S. Senate who absolutely condemn the brutal attack by Hamas on innocent Israeli citizens; that absolutely condemn the kidnapping of Israeli citizens and some Americans; who absolutely condemn the vicious ``kill Jews'' philosophy of Hamas. And all of us have an opportunity--which I think all of us are going to take--to stand by Israel when it comes to going after Hamas.

I hope all of us are also going to do everything we can to encourage that every precaution that can be taken to protect innocent Palestinians be taken because they, too, have been kidnapped by Hamas, who cynically use them as human shields.

But I read the resolution of my colleague from Florida. This is not about enforcing the existing law. This is about compromising a constitutional right that Americans have enjoyed since the inception of our country. It is the First Amendment.

And it may be something that people in this body may object to, but when a person is in the United States, they enjoy the protections of our magnificent founding document to be free from unlawful searches and seizures and, certainly, to be able to say things that we may find repugnant. There have been many things that have been said that are repugnant.

But at a time of maximum stress--and we are in that right now--is when there is the maximum stress to compromise the right we have enjoyed of free speech protected by the First Amendment since the founding of our country.

And we have had some recent experience with this. After 9/11 and the trauma that our Nation experienced with the loss of over 3,000 wonderful people--in the Twin Towers, at the Pentagon, in Pennsylvania--there was a call to go after groups, to compromise rights. In hindsight, in those times when we did do the wrong thing, because we harmed innocent people in our anger--our justified anger, by the way--we don't want to do that again.

So this resolution--however my colleague wants to characterize it--is about what happens in this country. This may be something my colleague disagrees with, but when a person is in this country, they enjoy the benefits of our Constitution and the right of free speech. I stand for free speech.

My preference is that we focus on doing the things that this U.S. Senate can do to help Israel go after Hamas, to help all of the innocent Palestinians who seek to live in peace have that opportunity to do so.

I object.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I want to make a few comments.

First of all, the Senator from Arkansas speaks for 100 Members of the Senate when he expresses his outrage at the horrendous killings and terrorist acts by Hamas against innocent people in Israel--the worst attack and suffering in Israel since the Holocaust. So the Senator from Arkansas speaks for every single one of us. Second, in his characterization of Iran as a malign actor, their association with Hamas, Hezbollah, the attacks they had on our soldiers when they were in Iraq, I believe the Senator from Arkansas speaks for all 100 of us. He certainly speaks for me. I want to salute the Senator for the time he has spent during his service in the Senate alerting America to the threat that Iran poses. But I object for the following reasons:

First of all, this President, President Biden, made a tough decision that Presidents before him had to make--including President Trump-- about using the power of the office to bring back hostages who were viciously detained, cruelly detained, in this case by Iran. He made that decision, and, with the help of Qatar, we were able to bring five American hostages home.

That is a tough decision, but I would disagree with my colleague when he says that decision in any way indicates weakness or lack of resolve on behalf of President Biden towards what is happening and has happened in Israel. There is no better friend to Israel than President Joe Biden. He has been an ally and supporter of Israel throughout his time of service in the U.S. Senate, as Vice President, and as President of the United States.

I do disagree, but this is not the time to get into a debate about the Senator from Arkansas's characterization of some of the intelligence about what was the role of Iran in what just happened. That is a debate for a separate time.

I also want to disagree with the characterization that this is more money that is going to go to Iran. When this was being negotiated, there was great care given to the fact that this money had to be fenced off so that it could only be used essentially for humanitarian purposes. I am talking about medicine, medical devices, food, and agricultural products.

Let's keep in mind that, yes, we have an adversary in Iran with the ayatollahs, with Iran's Revolutionary Guard, but there are Iranians who are suffering and who do need medicine. And our beef is not with the people; it is with that government.

How are these funds limited? No bank can approve any one of the transactions. This money is not in the hands of Iran. For any money to be released, we have the backup of Qatar, where the funds are deposited. The money cannot be approved for any expenditure to any vendor unless it gets approval from the U.S. Government first. There is constant--constant--monitoring to make certain that the purpose--that it be for humanitarian use only--is met. The United States completely controls the valve of these funds, with the backup of Qatar.

Finally, this would be somewhat insulting to the confidence we placed in Qatar. What diplomatic efforts they may be involved in now for other hostages, I don't know, but we want to express confidence in Qatar, which has assisted us in bringing five Americans home.

Finally, there is the basic proposition--the United States made an agreement here. We got the benefit of that agreement with five Americans back home with their families. Mr. President, we keep our word. We keep our word.

For these reasons, I object to the unanimous consent request.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I want to join my colleague from Hawaii, Senator Schatz, whose reasons for avoiding a shutdown are points that we all share, as his State also has suffered a devastating fire now in Maui, where we in Vermont have suffered a major flood this summer and need FEMA aid.

There are a couple of things I just want to say. No. 1, I want to express my gratitude to my colleagues in the Senate who have come together--Leader Schumer and Leader McConnell--in bipartisanship, where we have a way of passing a bill to keep the lights on, to keep government functioning. No good comes out of a shutdown, to quote Senator McConnell.

Like Senator Schatz, I have been through it before. And as Senator Schatz has said, when you ask the folks who literally explicitly favor a shutdown, ``What is next?'' they don't have any answer and don't seem to think they need to have an answer.

And we do. The consequences of a shutdown are really devastating in large ways and in small ways. A shutdown means our men and women in uniform don't get paid. Seriously? We are going to condone asking people who are protecting the safety of this Nation to do it without pay? That is what shutdown advocates are saying. It is no big deal to them.

And on some small things, I got a letter from a Vermonter whose heart has been set on taking his family to a hike in the Grand Canyon. I don't know if any of you have ever done that hike. You have to go on the website. It is almost like a lottery. You have to get a permit to hike. He got a permit to hike and camp for 2 nights for his family. That is, I think, October 5 and October 6. If we are shut down, that family hike is not going to happen. Well, do you know what? That is cruel. It is such a wonderful thing that our families can enjoy the Grand Canyon. They won't be able to do it.

But I want to talk specifically about what happens to Vermonters, and this is a situation that Senator Schatz and Senator Hirono share with Hawaii. We got hammered in this flood. FEMA has done a tremendous job. The FEMA fund needs to be replenished because, as a result of the low amount of money in the FEMA fund, they have had to cut back on their efforts of recovery that have already been promised.

Just yesterday, the Washington Post reported that FEMA is delaying $2.8 billion in disaster aid to keep from running out of funds. They have to have some money available if there is another event that requires immediate response to save lives. We understand that. That is the right decision for them. But it has real consequences for us in Vermont.

Repayment of these long-term recovery projects that are being halted are not from last month. They are from last year. Just think of what that means for my State of Vermont, which is in the throes of recovery now. FEMA's transition to ``immediate needs'' funding has paused 13 projects in Vermont, totaling about $7.5 million. As of September 15, Vermont has incurred $291 million in flood-related infrastructure damages, and we need over $160 million from FEMA and $131 million from the Department of Transportation. On top of that, the State has estimated that it has incurred $225 million in damages related to FEMA public assistance activities, $75 million for FEMA public assistance hazard mitigation for 406 mitigation activities, $48 million for the Severely Damaged or Destroyed Residential Property Mitigation or Buyout Program, $20 million in damages related to FEMA individual assistance activities, and $11 million for the Minor Residential Damage Repair Program.

Again, it was so reassuring to me that Republican colleagues approached me and said: Peter, we are going to be there to help you because we know, but for the grace of God, it could have been in my State. Thank you, colleagues.

But there is a small group in the House that has this notion that it is no big deal if we literally shut down government.

Well, it is a big deal for those folks in Vermont who need FEMA relief. It is a big deal for those men and women who serve in the U.S. military services when they won't get paid. And it is a big deal to that family that wants to have this dreamed-about hike in the Grand Canyon and won't be able to do that if, in fact, we are shut down on October 5 and October 6.

So, thank you to my colleagues. I believe we are going to pass the bipartisan bill. Bipartisanship is the only way you can avert a shutdown and for us to have an opportunity to negotiate other issues down the road. And I thank my colleagues for their assistance in our effort.

I yield the floor.

First, I want to thank Senator Collins and assure her that I appreciate the excellent work that she and Senator Murray have been doing, and I will be a vote for cloture so that we can proceed.

Mr. President, Vermont is one of the States that suffered devastating damages as a result of recent floods and very much is in need of the replenishing of the FEMA disaster aid fund.

As a Congress, as a Senate, our leaders, Senator McConnell and Senator Schumer, and our Appropriations chair and vice chair, Senator Murray and Senator Collins, have been working

very hard to get a continuing resolution passed so that we will keep the lights on in government.

And we can't shut down. Just think about it. Military people won't get paid. That is just absolutely unacceptable. Start there, and the cascade of terrible things that are all avoidable will happen.

I am very appreciative of the efforts of our leadership, especially our committee chair and vice chair, for their work to avoid a shutdown. I am totally committed to avoiding a shutdown. It is unacceptable to inflict so much unnecessary harm on so many innocent people because of a crackpot theory that if you shut things down and burn the place down, it is going to result in a good outcome.

There are no good outcomes, as Senator McConnell said earlier, when you use as a tactic to try to get your way to shut the government down.

So I will be supportive of the efforts on a bipartisan basis here to work toward a resolution. It is still very much in play as to what is going to happen to the FEMA money that is so essential to people who have suffered as a result of natural disasters.

I talk about Vermont, of course--and I will do that right now--but I am very mindful that my colleagues in Hawaii suffered that devastating fire in Maui, and, of course, we have had hurricanes and storms in Texas, in North Carolina, in Georgia, in Florida. So one thing all of us should be doing is helping each other when our citizens are the victims of a natural disaster.

So the No. 1 priority is to keep the lights on because we are going to fight another day. No. 2, my hope, is that there is still time to include aid for the Federal Emergency Management Agency to help us in Vermont, to help folks in Hawaii, to help folks in North Carolina, Georgia, Florida, and elsewhere.

But I want to talk a little bit about what the situation is in Vermont. We remember the iconic photo that was broadcast nationwide of the downtown of the capital city of Vermont, Montpelier, underwater. The water is gone now. It has dried up.

This is a local business in Montpelier, and that is the Minikin toy shop in Montpelier. The water was up to here. This is now gone, but the question is--this shop, the Minikin toy shop, where I bought things for my grandkids--Kelly Tackett, the owner, she spoke with the Burlington Free Press about the flooding in her toy store. And she said:

This was my lifelong dream shop. Those photos [of the

flooding] make me realize this is likely the end of Minikin.

I worked so hard to bring it to life.

She really needs a second chance here, and our FEMA funding can make a difference. I visited and spoke with her and her young family as they were cleaning up the shop right after the flood.

Cabot, VT, is a small community, the home of Cabot cheese. It is at the headwaters of the Winooski River, and all of the businesses in the town were hit by flooding. The owners of Harry's Hardware, which also serves--this is a real Vermont story--as a bar and the town's only gas station, were trapped in the building by the floodwaters, which rose from a trickle to a flood within minutes.

Vermont is still dealing with major infrastructure damage. There were more than 1,100 damage sites on roads and bridges in the State, causing significant challenges for commuting in rural areas due to unclear information on closures. We are still dealing with the recovery from that.

Over 12 million pounds of debris from the flooding have been cleared, and the community has stepped up to extract it, as seen on Flood Recovery Day, where volunteers cleaned up over 100,000 pounds in 1 day. But there is still much more to go. Other key components of Vermont's infrastructure and economic drivers--railways, rail and hiking trails, ski resorts--suffered damage and need to be repaired.

For the vast majority of these business owners, the disaster recovery loans offered by the Small Business Administration, they are not a financial reality; it will only force folks into more debt. They need grants. They need flexibility. They need options.

I want to thank my senior Senator, my colleague Senator Sanders, who convened a meeting with the FEMA Administrator, with Governor Scott, and Congresswoman Balint. But the Administrator, Criswell--who is doing a terrific job, by the way, and Vermonters thank FEMA for their great work--she was very candid that the FEMA fund is running on vapors. It needs to be replenished.

So as tough as the situation is--and I do agree we have to avoid the shutdown--my hope is that, before the end of the day, we will be able to have included FEMA relief to replenish that fund and make certain that the good work that FEMA is doing can continue.

It is really a basic question here: No. 1, do we use shutdown threats and shutdown reality as a tactic? We, in this body, have rejected that.

And the second is, do we find a way to make certain that when citizens throughout our country--not just Vermont or Hawaii but any citizens--who are in harm's way when a natural disaster occurs, that we are here so they can count on us to help them get to the other side?

We have an opportunity to begin the process of keeping government functioning and rejecting the politics of shutdown threats. And we have the opportunity to work together again to replenish the FEMA disaster relief--the farm relief--that is so essential so that our citizens who have been in harm's way can get the recovery funds that they need.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I want to thank my colleagues, and I want to thank the administration for the response to the devastating floods that we experienced in Vermont this August.

I am here to make a report and also to make a plea that we replenish the Disaster Relief Fund in the FEMA budget so that the work that needs to be done in Vermont to help our farms, our families, our communities recover will continue to be done.

Today, I had a telephone conversation that was set up by Senator Sanders. Our Governor was on the phone, and my colleague Congresswoman Balint was on the phone with the FEMA Administrator. And she has been doing a tremendous job. She has been extremely responsive. We are all grateful to her for that work. But what she did make very clear is that it is absolutely essential to the well-being of FEMA's capacity to continue to provide a response that this budget be supplemented and the FEMA supplemental be passed.

So I urge my colleagues--and, again, I want to thank them--from both sides of the aisle who have approached me and said: Peter, your folks have been hammered by the natural disaster, and we will be here to help you. But there is a long way from where we are with the precarious activities going on in the House.

First of all, we are pretty proud of the response. President Coolidge, who was our President in 1927 and was a Vermonter from Plymouth, VT, toured the flood damage when we had a catastrophic flood in 1927. And he nicknamed the State ``a brave little State.'' And that is who we are in Vermont. And his appellation of that term was his recognition of the indomitable spirit that our people in Vermont have to pick themselves up, to pull together, and to rebuild.

Nearly a century later, of course, this August we experienced another devastating flood. What we experienced in July and August was nothing short of catastrophic. Towns across the State were devastated, with homes and businesses and farms completely destroyed.

You can see here, this is our capital, Montpelier. And that was right after the rains that were parked over Montpelier and just would never leave. It is dry now, but these businesses along Main Street have not reopened. Some have; many haven't. To some extent, their decision is, will the FEMA aid be there so that they have a chance to open those doors and make up for the lost income and, hopefully, revive that downtown.

Damage estimates are still coming in; but, currently, it is totaling in the hundreds of millions of dollars for our very, very small State.

The impact on Vermont's farmland is stunning. This is Paul Mazza's farm. That farm, with vegetables, row crops, that was under tremendous amounts of water. When the water receded--the crops, the berries, the pick-your-own crops are not only important to families and nutrition, but it was a revered activity by families in Vermont to come to Paul's farm and pick their berries with their kids. He is not going to be able to harvest any berries this year.

By the way, in terms of the damage that was done, USDA's Natural Resources Conservation Service estimates anywhere between 145,000 and 686,000 acres of agricultural land in the State was impacted by flooding.

The Conant's Riverside Farm, which I visited along with the Governor and Senator Sanders, half their hay and corn was impacted by the flooding--silk from the flood-covered corn that was used to feed their cows. There is real question about how they are going to make it through the winter because what they do is grow the crop and store it to feed to their animals over the winter.

The Foote Brook Farm, which is owned by Joie and Tony Lehouillier in Johnson, VT, is one of the main services of food for that community in Johnson. The grocery store in that town was totally flooded out but will be reopening. Their farm was flooded, too. They had over $100,000 in losses. And what was really bad this time, they also lost a lot of their equipment.

I do thank the administration, President Biden, and FEMA. I acknowledge the tremendous work that Governor Scott and his team have been doing staying on top of this. And there has been a tremendous effort on the part of Senator Sanders, who has been the leader of our delegation of three here in the U.S. Congress, but we have got to get that FEMA supplemental passed.

While $16 billion in FEMA's Disaster Relief Fund is critical, the Vermont delegation, as I mentioned, is pushing for more because, with what has happened, regrettably, to our colleagues in Hawaii and the hurricane in Florida has added to the challenge and of the need. We need to increase FEMA's cap for hazard mitigation. We need to make small business loans forgivable.

If you are a small business and you have just implemented a plan to expand and you borrowed money from the bank in order to do it, you can't afford to take out more loans. So it is really essential that we make it possible for folks to get grants--these businesses that are so critical to our communities--rather than saddle our small businesses with more debt.

We also need to expand the USDA's Emergency Grant Relief Program for our farmers.

(Mr. MARKEY assumed the Chair.)

Mr. President, even if the world has moved on for other parts of the country, Vermont still needs help.

One of the heartbreaking situations that you see, we visit when there is a farm, there is a family whose home has been destroyed, a business that can't open, and do all we can to make certain the relief gets there. But if it is your home that you can't get back into, if it is your business that you are not certain at all you can reopen, if it is your farm where the crops have been destroyed, there is a lot of suffering that continues. And it takes an immense amount of courage. What we have to do is make certain that folks who are willing to rebuild and come up from the floodwaters to do their work again, that we make certain we do our work here. That means getting the FEMA supplemental passed and enacted into law with the signature of President Biden.

Our farmers, like the seventh generation Conant family farm, they need the support of Congress to get through the flooding. Our businesses on Main Street that hope to reopen need the support of Congress and the FEMA resources. And, of course, our homeowners, including folks who have mobile homes that were washed away, they absolutely need the assistance in order to get back into a safe and secure home.

So my request to my colleagues is to do what all of us have done for each other when the people we represent have been on the receiving end of a catastrophic natural disaster, and that is to make certain that we come to the aid of our fellow citizens. And the way we can do that is by the passage of the FEMA supplemental request.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize Grace Potter, a talented singer-songwriter who was born and raised in Fayston, VT. She is a Grammy-nominated artist and has been described by Spin Magazine as ``one of the greatest living voices in rock today.'' As her career as a musician has reached remarkable heights, she has continued to be a beacon of hope for her community back home in Vermont.

Music and the arts bring people together and foster healing through difficult times. Ms. Potter has always used her musical talent to build community, which is what Vermonters do best. She has consistently uplifted young musicians and worked to create opportunities for the arts to flourish in Vermont. These efforts are critical to strengthening both local economies and the social fabric of our great State.

Ms. Potter has also spent her career bringing attention to causes that she is passionate about, including promoting fair trade labeling and supporting local farmers. At the height of the pandemic, Ms. Potter hosted a virtual benefit concert with proceeds going to Shift Meals, an organization which delivers locally grown food to food-insecure households throughout the State.

After Hurricane Irene devastated Vermont communities in 2011, Ms. Potter performed benefit concerts to support flood relief efforts. Catastrophic flooding again hit Vermont this past July and August, destroying downtowns, damaging businesses, and forcing Vermonters to evacuate their homes. Thanks to Vermont's indomitable spirit, communities have come together to rebuild from the flooding. Ms. Potter has been a critical part of this rebuilding, again hosting multiple benefit concerts to bring aid to those most impacted by the floods.

Ms. Potter is a source of inspiration for so many, and she stands in solidarity with those in need of assistance during an incredibly challenging time. As Vermonters continue to recover from this summer's floods, we are grateful for Ms. Potter's dedication to the place we call home.

Thank you, Grace Potter, for your contribution to flood relief efforts in Vermont and for your embodiment of Vermont values.

Madam President, I am delighted to be here with my colleagues, the Senator from Illinois and the Senator from Kansas.

I am going to start by answering a question that the Senator from Kansas asked rhetorically: Why is it that American citizens and consumers and merchants pay seven times what is paid by merchants and individuals in Europe? It is because our government doesn't protect our consumers. Our government is not protecting our merchants and our small businesses.

Where there is a monopoly or, in this case, a duopoly and there is this massive pricing power that Visa and Mastercard have, they are doing what monopolies and duopolies do. They abuse that pricing power, and they just stick it to our merchants. It was $33 billion in charges in 2013, and it is $93 billion in charges now. And it is not as though the expenses for Visa and Mastercard have really gone up anything close to that.

Inflation is their ally, as the Senator said. COVID was their ally, as we had to rely more on those cards. And they justify what they are doing because it is a convenience for the shopper. You know what, it is a convenience for the shopper. It is a convenience for the merchant. But how does that justify a rip-off just because you are doing something that we need?

And it is folks in Kansas who voted for my Republican colleague, it is folks in Illinois who voted for my Democratic colleague, and it is all of the people we represent, not only these small businesses that are absolutely essential to our local economy and to the vitality of our small communities.

We were at that press conference, and Senator Marshall's grocery store folks were here. They were salt of the Earth. They were like--the highest compliment I can give: They are almost like Vermonters, all right. They were terrific people. And we had a father, and we had the son who was going into the family business, and the family business is about serving people in that community.

And we have got a store in Vermont, Dan & Whit's, which has been there for generations, and its motto is, ``If we don't have it, you don't need it.'' And you can basically get anything you want. But, do you know, during COVID, when they had these incredible challenges with workforce, they actually put an ad on the signboard, and retired folks from Norwich would come help do the work, stack the shelves, and do the checkout.

And when a lot of my neighbors found out that every time a customer used a credit card it was costing Dan & Whit's 2 to 3 to 4 percent just so they would pay the bill, they were shocked and appalled. And this store, like the Senator's store in Kansas, all of them--retail is hard. That is such hard work. You have got to watch your costs. You have got to save your money. You have got to provide really good service.

And Senator Durbin mentioned the second highest expense for many of these small merchants is the cost of the credit card, paying the bill. And it is invisible to most of us when we use our card, because I always thought, if I use my card and I pay my bill, I am not going to have to pay those 25 percent interest rates. But when I found out about what was going on, how much the merchants were getting ripped off, it actually was the last time we had over $4 gas and I was filling up at my local small convenience store, and I went in and talked to the owner. I got my coffee and got a doughnut. But he got out his bill, and he showed me that when I filled up the tank of gas, with the swipe fee and then the percentage that was taken out--and a very, very small margin on the sale of a gallon of gas for these stores--he was losing money. Visa and Mastercard were doing fine, but my local merchant was losing money.

And the thing that I so enjoy about being with my colleagues here and Senator Vance on this bill is, at the heart of this, we understand that, in rural America and smalltown America and in neighborhoods even in big cities like Chicago, these local stores, these merchants, they give us so much service and so much emotional satisfaction. It is where you stop in, you talk to folks you see every day, you share the stories about who won, what happened to the Bears, what happened to the Patriots. But we need those places. Our communities, democratic life need those places.

And this is not a Democratic-Republican deal. All of the people we represent and all of America want to have a sense of community, and who more than our local merchants, who oftentimes live above the store, right? I mean, a pretty tough job.

They come down, sweep it up in the beginning and at the end. They give kids their first jobs. So many high school kids work in these stores, and they learn how to be good employees, how to do good customer service. The ability to hire these kids gets compromised because of this extra expense.

And, really, what are they doing? We are paying a bill, all right. They have got incredible intellectual property. They have got security systems and all of that. It is good. It is a service.

So no dispute there. But just because you are providing a service doesn't entitle you to rip off everyday merchants because you can.

And the question that I think we have to ask as the U.S. Senate is, What is our job and whom do we work for? Our job is not to pad the already obscene profits of Visa and Mastercard. Our job is to protect our merchants who are doing the work day in and day out and our consumers who are doing their best to stay afloat, pay their bills, get from one end of the month to the other, and hope their checks clear and they can pay their credit card bill.

Our obligation is to the people who have no power but who do have a right to expect that their elected Representatives and Senators, when they see a rip-off, will call it a rip-off and stand up and say: You are going to get treated fairly.

And that is essential for restoring our trust and faith in one another. It is essential for our obligation to help communities that are working so hard to create a sense of place that people want, a sense of connection that we want, to make certain that those businesses that are doing so much in all of our communities--that are doing so much in all of our communities--can keep doing that work that is strengthening communities, providing good jobs to our kids.

And do you know what? Let's act. Let's pass Senator Durbin's and Senator Marshall's bill, and let's protect our merchants against these rip-off credit card fees from Visa and Mastercard.

I yield back.

Madam President, I rise today to recognize Dan Fraser, manager of Dan & Whit's General Store, who will be stepping down from his role. Dan & Whit's is a family-owned general store and the unofficial community center of my town, Norwich,

VT. Dan & Whit's is a local institution, carrying products from coffee to nails, breakfast sandwiches to rubber gloves. As one employee stated, ``Dan & Whit's is the heartbeat of this community''--and I could not agree more.

For decades, Dan Fraser has been an integral member of the Norwich community. Since he was in fourth grade, Dan has been working at the general store, named for his grandfather Dan Fraser, and has been a full-time employee since 1990. Dan's philanthropy and dedication to his community, whether it be on the Harford Town Selectboard or in special education, exemplifies what it means to be a community leader.

Small businesses are the heart and soul of small towns and rural communities. Small businesses account for 99 percent of all businesses in Vermont, and our State serves as a model for the Nation, highlighting that local communities are at their best when small businesses are given the resources they need to thrive. Supporting our neighbors and supporting local businesses is the Vermont way. The town of Norwich is a better place because of Dan & Whit's.

The COVID-19 pandemic made clear what Vermonters already knew: Small businesses and general stores are essential to our communities. The sacrifices that Dan & Whit's made during the pandemic, including a grocery delivery fund for folks who lost their jobs as a result of the pandemic, illustrate the store's commitment to serving the community. Even when staffing shortages nearly forced the store to close, they made sure to meet the community where they were and did all they could to ensure the community could thrive in trying times.

Margaret and I will miss the warm welcome from Dan when we visit the store. His ability to always point us to what we need underscores the store's slogan: ``If we don't have it, you don't need it.'' While the store may no longer have Dan, the Norwich community will always need him. His enthusiasm and passion for his community will be especially missed, along with his colorful and lively shirts and shoes.

Dan has served his community well, and Margaret and I are wishing him well in his next chapter of life.