Floor Statements

Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk.

I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum calls for the cloture motions filed today, December 11, be waived.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 10:30 a.m. on Tuesday, December 12; that following the prayer and pledge, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day and the Senate resume consideration of the Coker nomination; further, that the cloture motions filed during Thursday's session ripen at 11:45 a.m. and that the Senate recess following the cloture vote until 2:15 p.m. to allow for the weekly caucus meetings; further, that if cloture is invoked on the Coker nomination, all time be considered expired at 2:15 p.m., and that following the confirmation vote, there be up to 15 minutes for debate prior to the cloture vote on the conference report to accompany H.R. 2670; finally, that if any nominations are confirmed during Tuesday's session, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's actions.

Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order.

I announce that the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Lujan) is necessarily absent.

Mr. President, I want to first rise to congratulate my colleague from Iowa. I am glad that he has told the story for all to hear about Medicare Part D and the benefits that he has brought to his State and mine and to the Nation. It was a remarkable achievement, and I congratulate him on the anniversary of enacting that legislation.

I say, even though we are of different political parties, we are friends, and we find common ground, and we have repeatedly. One of the issues we are both fighting for now is that of a simple disclosure on the television ads for prescription drugs to tell consumers across America what they cost. What a radical idea--the cost of the drug. We think--and we share the belief--that disclosure to the consumer is important, and an understanding of how some of these drugs--which, I guess, have become so common in our daily lives that we can actually not only print out but spell Xarelto--that we ought to know what it costs so that those who think it might be the right drug for them will at least have an idea of the thousands of dollars a month they have to pay for these drugs.

It is not a radical idea. We passed it before in the Senate, and it was signed by the President. Questions were raised, so we are at it again. Like your prescription drug Part D, this is something that helps basic consumers in Iowa and Illinois, and I am proud to be a part of that effort with the Senator. I congratulate him again on that achievement.

Mr. President, it is pretty well-known by Members of Congress--but it bears repeating--that on October 7, an atrocity occurred. The innocent people living in Israel were attacked by Hamas terrorists. What happened during the course of that attack is not a subject of just speculation; it is a fact.

Those of us who serve in the Senate had an opportunity 2 weeks ago, at the invitation of Senator Rosen, to see the actual videotapes of the horrible scenes that occurred when Hamas terrorists attacked innocent people in Israel, and 1,200 individuals were harmed. They were the victims of systemic rape, violence, murder, mayhem. Every single list of war crimes was checked off that day when the Hamas terrorists attacked. For those of us who are committed to the survival and future of Israel, it was a horrible occurrence. More Jews died on October 7 of this year than at any time since the Holocaust during World War II--a terrible tragedy.

Does Israel have the right to exist? The answer is, clearly, yes. Does Israel have the right to defend itself? The answer is yes. Should Israel make sure that they are safe in light of all of the Hamas terrorists in Gaza? Certainly.

Having said that, there is another part to this story. The reaction of

Israel to what happened on October 7 has been measured by many different people in many different ways.

This is what we know: There are 80 percent of the people who live in Gaza who have been displaced and moved to locations that are supposedly safe, which sometimes are and sometimes are not; 60 percent of the dwelling places in Gaza have been destroyed so that families can no longer live in the areas they once lived in.

The third point I want to make is, the number of people who have died as a result of this conflagration between Hamas terrorists and Israelis--which is now in the range of 13,000 to 17,000 people--70 percent of those who have died--innocent people who have died--have been women and children. It is the largest loss of life of children in a wartime setting in modern times, and it gets worse every single day. We see the pictures. We see the videos. We see the news reports. It is a humanitarian crisis of epic proportion.

Once President Biden made it clear that, on behalf of the United States, we stand behind Israel, he has spent every moment since urging the Israelis to show caution in their activities and military campaigns because too many innocent people are being victimized.

Yesterday, the Secretary General of the United Nations, Mr. Guterres, said that we have to return to a situation where there is at least an opportunity for peace and to stop the fighting. A ceasefire, he called for. Some have criticized him for it. I applaud him. I think it is the only thing that we can do to stop the wanton killing of innocent people in Gaza.

There are solutions to the problem in that area that are not military entirely, only partially. Primarily, they are political. There has to be an understanding between the Palestinian people and those living in Israel that there is an opportunity for peace, and they have to trust one another to enact that. You can't do that with the end of the barrel of a gun.

I believe this idea of having an end to hostilities so that we can complete the exchange of hostages is critical. The longer we wait, the less likely these hostages can survive. They are calling on the Israeli Government and I am joining them in saying that we need another period of peace to try to negotiate more releases before these hostages die-- and the military operations that are taking place.

So I urge the leaders in our government and those involved to think of the innocent people who are dying--the children, the women, elderly folks--as a result of this campaign and to find a peaceful solution, which starts, as far as I am concerned, with the decision not to move forward with the military operations.

Mr. President, on a different subject matter completely, I want to explain a bill that I have introduced that is so controversial that when you go to the airport here in Washington, DC, they have billboards flashing about how dangerous this bill is. Let me tell you about the bill.

Most Americans pay for their purchases with credit and debit cards. I know I do. However, most Americans don't know that, when they go to the register to pay or to enter their card information online, there are fees that are being charged when they use their credit cards that are known as swipe fees, or interchange fees. Each time a credit card is used to make a donation to the Red Cross, to purchase groceries, fuel, Christmas gifts, or something else, Visa and MasterCard charge a fee you never see. Some of that fee they keep for themselves; most is given to the bank that issues the credit card.

Today, Visa and MasterCard control around 80 percent of the credit card market in the United States of America--two companies, a duopoly-- wielding enormous power over the American economy. Visa and MasterCard set these interchange fees, or swipe fees, on behalf of thousands of banks, leaving merchants, retailers--many of them just small businesses and restaurants--without a choice but to accept the outrageous fees. There is no negotiation on this fee. There is no competition. Small business owners and consumers face a ``take it or leave it'' choice. In 2022 alone, U.S. merchants and consumers paid $93.2 billion in credit card interchange fees to line the pockets of the biggest banks on Wall Street. That is absolutely unacceptable and unfair, and we can and must do something about it.

That is why I made it a priority to pass my bipartisan Credit Card Competition Act. The legislation, which I introduced with Senators Marshall, Welch, and Vance, would finally bring competition and choice to the credit card market and bring down the excessive credit card fees by requiring only the largest 30 banks in this country to enable at least two credit card networks to be used on the credit cards they issue. It would be provided with at least one network outside the Visa- MasterCard duopoly. My bill is estimated to save merchants, retailers, businesses, and consumers $15 billion every year.

Given this threat to their ability to exorbitantly profit off of consumers and small businesses, it is no surprise that the credit card industry is paying a pretty penny to convince consumers that my bill will take away the credit card rewards programs, like frequent flier miles. In fact, a new report found that Visa, MasterCard, Wall Street, and the industry trade groups they fund, such as the Electronic Payments Coalition, have spent a combined $51 million in lobbying against my bill since 2022.

They also have recruited allies, including some in the airline industry, to breathlessly claim that my bill would make frequent flier rewards programs disappear. United Airlines' CEO Scott Kirby recently said that my bill would ``kill the rewards program.''

Let me be very clear: That is a patently false statement. A recent study found that if my bill were enacted, it would have a negligible impact, at most, on rewards and noted that banks' swipe fees profits provide a more than sufficient margin to maintain a current reward level.

What I have come to find out and what most people would be surprised to hear--and United Airlines is a good example--is that we think of it as an airline that also has credit cards, but when you look at the profit statement for United Airlines, it turns out it is a credit card company that happens to own some airplanes. That is a fact. More profits are made by United Airlines off their credit card than their flight operations. Think about that for a second. All the planes and all the schedules and all the people who work don't generate the same level of profit as their credit cards from these interchange fees.

So you say to yourself: Well, the credit card companies that are offering all of these special programs, if they make less money, they will provide fewer programs.

Well, let's take a look across the pond at Europe for comparison.

In 2015, the European Union capped credit interchange fees at 0.3 percent compared to the U.S.'s rates for United Airlines and others--a U.S. rate between 2 to 3 percent. Compare that 2 to 3 percent to 0.3 percent, and you say to yourself: Well, surely, they don't offer the frequent flier programs in Europe if they have so dramatically cut this interchange fee. But major European airlines still offer co-branded credit cards and frequent flier programs that are comparable to, if not better than, anything offered in the United States.

Moreover, this past July, Forbes magazine published an article saying that compared to other nations, the airline rewards program in the United States has made it more challenging to earn and redeem miles. I am going to be taking a look at these frequent flier programs now that United Airlines wants to make such a to-do about it. I think we have got to make sure that the American consumers are getting what they think they are getting.

So let me repeat: My bill is not coming after your airline rewards programs or any other program, and any effort by the airline industry or big banks to convince you otherwise is just a scare tactic. They are feigning concern for hard-working Americans to protect their bottom line.

Since I introduced the bill, those who oppose it have falsely claimed the legislation would hurt unions and benefit billionaires. What a claim. Just a few weeks ago, multiple unions, including the International Brotherhood of Teamsters and the Service Employees International Union, endorsed my Credit Card Competition bill.

The Teamsters' general president, Sean O'Brien, said:

Union members and American families cannot afford to

sacrifice so much of their hard-earned wages to predatory and

consolidated credit card corporations trying to skim every

last dollar they can from vulnerable consumers.

That is exactly the problem this legislation was introduced to fix.

And just before Thanksgiving, a diverse group of organizations representing workers, small businesses, and competition advocates launched the Lower Credit Card Fees Coalition, urging Congress to pass my Credit Card Competition Act.

Few things could unite unions, businesses, consumer groups, and a bipartisan group of Senators. This bill does just that because it will benefit hard-working Americans.

Far from threatening rewards programs or hurting workers, the bill will benefit Americans who currently are paying the price for the credit card industry's price-gouging schemes. It will give a fighting chance to small businesses and restaurants that we want to see stay open; support the mom-and-pop shops that make our communities feel whole; and, ultimately, keep money in the pockets of hard-working Americans. It is time we bring this commonsense, consumer-protecting bipartisan legislation to the floor for a vote.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at a time to be determined by the majority leader, in consultation with the Republican leader, the Senate proceed to executive session to consider Calendar No. 415, Martin O'Malley, of Maryland, to be Commissioner of Social Security; that there be 1 hour for debate, equally divided in the usual form, on the nomination; that upon the use or yielding back of time, the Senate vote on the nomination without intervening action or debate; that if confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to legislative session and be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Madam President, I have three requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority Leaders.

Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate:

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Eleanor Skelly, a detailee to the Senate Judiciary Committee, be granted floor privileges until December 16, 2023.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 492, which was submitted earlier today.

I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 3 p.m. on Monday, December 11; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, 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 proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the Federico nomination postcloture; further, that all postcloture debate time on the Federico nomination be considered expired at 5:30 p.m. and that upon disposition of the nomination, the Senate resume consideration of the Coker nomination; finally, that if any nominations are confirmed during Monday's session, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.