grandmother who was born 1883 and died 1917 in philadelphia, pennsylvania. and i just found this at the library and what is interesting about it is she died in a philadelphia hospital for contagious diseases and went in december 25, christmas day and died december 30. >> lawmakers are back from recess for earlier they confirmed pete buttigieg to be secretary of transportation. at 2:30 p.m. they will hold a confirmation vote for the nomination of alejandro mayorkas to be holy and secure the secretary. live now to the floor of the u.s. senate here on c-span2. the senator from delaware. mr. carper: thank you, madam

president. we're not in a quorum call, are we? the presiding officer: we are not. mr. carper: thank you. i have had the honor of serving on the committee that oversees the department of homeland security. over two decades later, i remain concerned that the nominees tootled that department must possess sound intelligent and the leadership skills that will enable them to take on the most daunting challenges we face today as nation. the department of homeland security is a department with the budget of over $50 billion and a staff of over 240,000 men and women. it's to protect our one from threats. they respond to natural disasters and help secure our critical infrastructure. unfortunately, in recent years the senior leadership ranks of this department have come to

remind many of us as something akin to executive branch swiss cheese, with critical positions remaining vacant for far too long or without senate confirmation at all. in fact, the department of homeland security has been without a senate-confirmed secretary for 21 months. think about that -- 21 months. meanwhile, there's no shortage of work to be done, from the clear and present threat of domestic terrorism to responding to the solar convinced cyber breech to -- the solarwind cyber breach. it is important for the department to be led by men and women who have been vetted and confirmed by members of this body. the american people deserve a capable leader at the helm of this department. and i believe that leader is alejandro mayorkas. ali represents the best of america. born in havana, cuba, he knows firsthand what its like for a

family to flee its native land and come to the united states in search of refuge. he is a man of integrity, a person of principle, and possesses a truly, truly remarkable work ethic. what's more, he may well be the most qualified nominee we've ever been asked to consider to lead the department of homeland security. he has previously served admirably as deputy secretary for nearly four years. and before that as the head of d.h.s.'s largest agency, the u.s. citizenship and immigration service. as director of this agency, he works to combat immigration fraud. he directed and implemented the daca program to protect hundreds of thousands of dreamers and much more. as deputy secretary, he led the department's successful unity -- initiative to improve morale, which previously had the lowest morale of any large agency in the federal government. the greatest improvement in morale in the final obama administration was the department of homeland security,

in large part due to ali's leadership and that of former secretary jeh johnson. as deputy secretary, mr. mayorkas also shepherded through congress cybersecurity legislation to better protect our .gov and private-sector networks. he may have also had something to do with reining in the ebola plague. he has no partisan agenda. remember, he is a thoughtful, policy-minded public servant who has spent much of his career improving the department of homeland security so that the men and women who serve there can better protect our homeland. and we've seen that he is willing to work with democrats, republicans, and their staffs to get things done. that's one of the many reasons that five former secretaries of homeland security -- democrat and republican alike -- have encouraged us to confirm him swiftly. i know that ali can do this job. he's also demonstrated that.

and i believe that many of our colleagues here today know it as well. after all, ali mayorkas has been confirmed three times in the past, including once as u.s. attorney for the central district of columbia. having said that, some of our republican colleagues are attempting now to use a 2013 i.g. investigation as a cudgel against his investigation. we've seen this movie before. i should note that a number of those colleagues that were not serving in congress at that time in 12013 and most were not -- in 2013 and most were not serving on the homeland security and governmental affairs committee when we considered his nomination to serve as deputy secretary that year. i was privileged to serve as chairman of the committee at that time. in fact, i led the fight to confirm him. toughest fight i've had in 20 years here. it's one thing to disagree with a nominee politically, but to

continue to question his dedication on the basis of ai.g. report -- of an i.g. report flies in the face of evidence. at a time when our nation faces so many crises, we cannot afford less than full support for this nominee. so i want to take a few minutes to set the record straight, if i can. here are the facts. in 2013 an i.g. investigation into ali mayorkas' oversight of a program within the united states descension and immigration services known as the eb-5 program was conducted in a highly regular manner, including through false releases to the media literal lit on the eve of his confirmation hearing. as a result of the i.g. public leaks and his failure to complete a report before the close of congress, ali was denied a chance to have any concerns fully litigated ahead of his confirmation in the senate in 2013. ultimately, the i.g. who investigated the -- who

initiated the investigation stepped down later that year amid bipartisan calls for his resignation. last year that same former i.g. was charge add by the department -- was charged by the department of justice with 16 counts of fraud. 16 counts of proud to. following ali's confirmation, my staff and i worked to ensure that the subsequent i.g. completed their report to any allegation. the new i.g. completed a report. the report found no wrongdoing by ali, none. what it did suggest was that some of his actions as director of united states citizenship and immigration services may have created, quote, the appearance of favoritism, close quote. in particular, it asserted that ali met with a number of well-connected individuals over time regarding their concerns over the eb-5 investor visa

program. after ali joined the united states citizenship and immigration service as its director in 12009 he came to the -- in 2009 he can a i am to conclusion that this program was not well-run. he was not alone in this conclusion. he has testified that as director, he received more complaints from members of congress on both sides of the aisle regarding the eb-5 program than he did about any other program. in response to these bipartisan concerns as director of the agency, ali did what in my opinion many of us would expect an agency head to do -- he rolled up his sleeves and worked with his employees to gain an understanding of how the program was being run and to find out how they might make it run better. he directed systemic changes that included improving management and administration of the program in order to reduce favoritism and to combat fraud. he also proposed reform of the

program to congress in an effort to prevent future abuses, which were not pursued by congress. our fault, not his. and, yes, as director he set a precedent for getting back to members of congress quickly in response to their inquiries even if the answers he came up with were ultimately not what they wanted to hear. completing the 20159 i.g. report was important to clear him of any wrongdoing. ali's actions have been mischaracterized by some of our colleagues who assert that he showed favoritism by reaching out personally to the staff of former senator harry reid over an eb-5 issue they had raised on behalf of a constituent. as it turns out, though, the report is clear. ali mayorkas did reach out to that staff, not to deliver preferential treatment but, rather, to let the staff know that u.s. citizenship appeared

immigration services would not be able to accommodate the request nor that staff and -- for that staff and their senator. and why? if responsiveness to inquiries of congress and their staff regardless of whether the repones is favorable or not is a -- response is favorable or not is a problem for any of my colleagues, that is new to me. let me make one more point, if i may. as someone who knows ali, known him for years, knows his family, knows his work, his ethic, i believe the 2015 i.g. report was missing some needed context. let me try to provide it. fortunately, though, ali provided in a 32-page response, a response almost as long as the i.g. report itself. among other things, it describes how he met not just with democratic members but with a number of our republican colleagues to address issues important to them, including international adoption, fighting fraud in our immigration programs. following those meetings, just

as with the eb-5 program, ali took appropriate steps to make improvements based on feedback from his constituents. that is what leaders should do. those examples and others included right there in the 2015 i.g. report serve to further illustrate ali's commitment to doing what a. felt was right, to improving the department without fair of favor and by responding properly and fully to inquiries from members of congress on both sides of the aisle. and if are ally mayorkas is -- and ifali mayorkas is confirmed today, i am confident that many of our staff will have a chance to work with him and la witness for themselves the kind of leader he fuel is. alejandro mayorkas may soon have the opportunity to serve the department. we don't have to take my word

for it. the late tom coburn, a dear friend of mine, led the fight against ali's confirmation in 2013 when he'd been nominated to be deputy secretary of homeland security. tom was then the ranking member of the homeland security committee. he is deceased. we lost a really good man a couple of years ago. tom's staff director at the time was a very capable gentleman named keith ashton. last week keith sent a letter to our committee. in it he wrote of a his strong support today, ali's nomination to serve as secretary of d.h.s. and mr. ashton wrote these words. i first came to know mayorkas when i was the republican staff director of this committee, the homeland security committee. at that time, i was working -- this is mr. ashton. i was working to block his

nomination to serve as deputy secretary of the department of homeland security. he went on to say, with the benefit of hindsight, i am glad my efforts to block his nomination were ultimately unsuccessful. how obvious do you hear that? he went on to write, he worked in a bipartisan manner to respond to the committee's requests and concerns. he added, having been on the other side of this battle, i understand the importance of vetting a nomination thoroughly, but no one -- no one -- have been yeted more than has ali mayorkas. mr. ashton looted with these words when he said, i urge the united states senate to expeditiously confirm ali mayorkas as the department of homeland security secretary without delay, without delay. let me close by saying that it i'm grateful and i know that the

mayorkas family is grateful as well, to keith ashton and to the republican senators who have broken ranks in committee and on the floor in last week's cloture vote, who have taken the time to fully consider this nomination and who now support it. we're grateful to you. i sincerely hope that more of our colleagues will join them and us today. i would say to my colleagues, i don't stake my reputation on a lot of people, but i am more than willing to stake it on ali mayorkas. just as i have three times before in this same chamber. if you're undecided today, my colleagues, i hope you will join me this time. ali mayorkas will make us and this country proud. in fact, i believe he already has. and while we're waiting for folks to come onto the floor, madam president, i just want to make -- people say, what is this eb-5 program? it is a program that's designed to bringing foreign people into

this country in return for the ability to come to had this country and to eventually have legal residency here. that's what it's about. everything i do i know i can do better. every program that we have, even ones i helped to create, we can make them better. the eb-5 program, bipartisan program created, i think, under the partnership with maybe ted kennedy and senator chuck grassley if i'm not mistaken, it wasn't a perfect program and wasn't being administered in a perfect manner either. the constitution of our country has its prable. it starts off with these words -- we the people of the united states in order to form a more perfect union. that's what it says. we the people of the united states in order to form a more perfect union. that includes writing more perfect legislation and creating more perfect programs. when we find they're not, they're flawed or the people

administering are ill be-equipped with their skills, we have to make changes. to those people whose feelings were hurt, those people who maybe had to find a different path in their careers, i reach out to you with a heavy heart. but i want to close by saying ali mayorkas is a good man, a great nominee. he served us before. he'll do it again. let's give him our votes. thank you, madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. mr. peters: thank you, madam president. i rise in support of confirming alejandro mayorkas as secretary of homeland security. may i have unanimous consent to complete my remarks? the presiding officer: without objection. mr. peters: i rise in support of confirming alejandro mayorkas as secretary of of homeland security. i appreciate both sides of the aisle for advancing this critical nomination so that we can finally provide the

department of homeland security with qualified, experienced, and senate-confirmed leader that they so desperately need. mr. mayorkas is a proven leader and has the experience to protect the american people from harm. throughout his confirmation process, mr. mayorkas confirmed his commitment to transparency and working on a bipartisan basis to ensure the department is able to take on persistent and emerging threats. and right now the threats we face are severe, from domestic terrorism including the rise of white supremist violence, to cyber attacks, to combatting a deadly pandemic, d.h.s. continues to face daunting challenges, challenges that have only been made more difficult to address due to the years of chaos during the previous administration. that is why former homeland

security secures from both republican and -- homeland security secretaries from republican and democratic administrations, other senior homeland security officials and other law enforcement organizations have urged the senate to quickly confirm mr. mayorkas because they know he is well prepared for the difficult task that lies ahead. the department of homeland security needs leadership, and it needs it now. by voting to confirm mr. mayorkas, this body can show every american that we are committed to ensuring that they are safe and secure. l -- thank you, madam president. the presiding officer: under the previous order, all postcloture time has expired. 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:

0

the presiding officer: is there anyone in the chamber who would like to change his or her vote. if not, the yeas are 56 is the nays are 43, the nomination is confirmed. mr. schumer: madam president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. schumer: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and that the president be immediately notified of the senate's action. the presiding officer: is there objection? if no objection, so ordered. mr. schumer: madam president, i move to proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. those opposed, no.

the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. schumer: madam president, could we have order? the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. mr. schumer: could we have order, please? the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. mr. schumer: thank you, madam president. we all know of the crisis in america. the greatest economic crisis in 75 years since the new deal. the greatest health care crisis in 100 years since the spanish pandemic flu. americans are suffering and hurting, losing jobs, businesses closing, can't feed their families, being evicted from their homes. we are in a very, very difficult situation. we cannot -- cannot afford to dither, delay, or dilute. we need a big, bold package along the lines of what president biden has proved.

proposed, the american relief plan. we hope that our republican colleagues will join us in offering amendments. of course, as you know, as the reconciliation process moves forward, it is open to amendments and suggestions. so we wanted to -- we want it to be a bipartisan proposal but we also know we must move forward with the crisis in america and that's why today's vote is a very good vote because it sets on the process of moving forward and solving this, one of the greatest crises america has never had. and so, i move to proceed to calendar number 4, s. con. res. 5, the concurrent resolution on the budget and i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there is. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: the yeas are 50, the nays are 49. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the concurrent resolution. the clerk: calendar number 4, s. con. res. 5, concurrent resolution setting forth the congressional budget for the united states government for fiscal year 2021, and setting forth the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2022 through 2030.

mr. sanders: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. sanders: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that for the duration of the senate's consideration of s. con res. 5, the majority and republican managers of the concurrent resolution while seated or standing at the manager's desk be permitted to deliver p floor remarks and send e-mail and other data communications from texts displayed on wireless personal digital assistive devices and tablet devices. i further ask unanimous consent that the use of caculators be permitted on the floor during consideration of the budget resolution. further, that the staff be permitted to make technical and conforming changes to the resolution if necessary, consistent with the amendments

adopted during senate consideration, including calculating the associated change in the net interest function and incorporating the effect of such adopted amendments on the budgetary aggregates for federal revenue, the amount by which the federal revenues should be changed, new budget authority, budget outlays, deficits, public debt and debt held by the public. finally, that the following staff members from my staff and from senator graham's staff be given all access floor passes for consideration of the budget resolution s. con res. 5 -- majority staff michael jones, joshua smith, mike lewis, ethan rosen iskrans and rob by oroenhof. republican staff nick meyers, matthew jokeely and matthew the presiding officer: objection without objection.

mr. sanders: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. sanders: mr. president, i rise today to speak in support of budget resolution that was introduced today. mr. president, let us be clear and let us in the senate understand what the american people know all too well, and that is that our country is currently experiencing the worst economic crisis since the great depression and the worst public health emergency in over 100 years. january marked the deadliest month of the pandemic with over 90,000 americans losing their lives as a result of covid-19.

90,000 americans in one month. in the midst of all of this, over 90 million americans are uninsured or underinsured and are unable to afford to go to a doctor when they become ill. the isolation and the anxiety caused by this pandemic has resulted in a horrible increase in mental illness, in depression, in anxiety, and in suicidal ideation. mr. president, today as we speak, over half of our people are living paycheck to paycheck, including millions of essential workers who put their lives on the line each and every day. more than 24 million americans are unemployed, underemployed or have given up looking for

work, while hunger in this country -- hunger in the richest country in the history of the world is at the highest level that we have seen in decades. because of lack of income, over 14 million americans are behind on their rent, averaging some $5,800 a family, and many of those families face eviction. all across this country people are worried that when the moratorium on evictions ends they're going to be thrown out of their homes, put out on the street. americans who worry about eviction understand that they must not join the half a million americans who are already homeless. that's some of what we are

experiencing today. that's what the american people understand. meanwhile, in the midst of this devastation to the working class and the middle class of our country, the wealthiest people in america are becoming much wealthier, and income and wealth inequality, a longtime problem, is now soaring. incredibly, while families throughout the country are struggling to put food on the table to feed their kids during this pandemic, 660 billionairest of people -- have increased their wealth by over $1 trillion. mr. president, as a result of this pandemic, education in our country from child care to graduate school is in chaos.

the majority of young people in our nation have seen their education disrupted. kids are not getting the learning that they need, falling further and further behind. and on top of that, it is likely that hundreds of colleges will soon cease to exist. mr. president, in this moment of unprecedented crises, the senate must respond through unprecedented action. the budget resolution we are debating today is simple and it is straightforward. it will enable us to pass president biden's $1.9 trillion emergency covid relief plan through reconciliation with 51

votes instead of 60. now, mr. president, i have heard from some of my republican colleagues who tell us that, this reconciliation concept, that's a radical idea. why are you using reconciliation and they are telling us that it is absolutely imperative that we go forward in a bipartisan way and require 60 votes for passage. but i must say that when republicans used this same reconciliation process, mr. president, i didn't hear much about bipartisanship at that point. in fact, republicans used the reconciliation process to provide trillions of dollars in tax breaks to the top 1% and large profitable corporations by

a simple majority vote. the only people who voted for that bill were republicans. no bipartisanship in that bill. my republican colleagues used reconciliation to open up the arctic national wildlife refuge, for the drilling of oil once again by a simple majority. only people who supported that were republicans. not one democrat. as we all remember painfully, my republican colleagues used the reconciliation process to try to repeal the affordable care act and throw up to 32 million americans off of the health care they currently have. and as you'll recall, mr. president, that was a 100% partisan vote which fortunately lost by one vote.

further, weeks, weeks before a presidential election -- last election -- my republican colleagues pushed through their nominee for the supreme court with 50 votes. a few weeks before the election election, not one democrat supported that nominee. totally partisan vote. well, as the incoming chair of the senate budget committee, this is what i believe -- if republicans can use reconciliation to help the wealthy and the powerful, and pass legislation strongly opposed by the american people, we can and must use reconciliation to help americans recover from the worst economic

and public health crisis in the modern history of our country. in other words, now is the time for this congress to stand with the working class and the middle class of this country and do what the overwhelming majority of the american people want us to do. mr. president, it is worth pointing out that poll after poll shows an overwhelming majority of americans, over 70%, support what president biden and what we are trying to do. they know we have got to act boldly. so i hope we will not hear much more about bipartisanship given my republican colleagues' record on that issue. mr. president, let us be clear, the working class of this country and the middle

class are facing more economic desperation than at any time since the great depression. i have to tell you that to me, emotionally it was a painful sight to see in my own city of burlington, vermont, hundreds of cars lined up so that families could get the food they needed to feed their kids. and what happened in burlington is happening in every state of this country. people, many of whom have never had any public assistance at all, are now lining up to get emergency supplies of food in order to keep their families alive. whether it is the pandemic, which is killing 3,000 people a day, whether it is the economic collapse, which is leaving millions of our people destitute, whether it is the

disruption of education in this country which means that kids are falling further and further behind, this congress must act and act boldly. foretoo long, mr. president -- for too long, mr. president, congress has responded to the needs of the wealthy and the powerful and big money campaign contributors. now is the time in this unprecedented set of crisis cease, for us to -- crises, for us to respond to the working families whether they are black, white, latino, asian american. mr. president, it is no secret that millions of our fellow americans are literally giving up on democracy. giving up on democracy. they think that the united

states congress and the united states government does not care a wit about the needs of working people, the people who go to work every day who keep our country going, who put their lives on the line during this pandemic, and they look at us and say, does anybody there in washington, all you rich guys, do you understand what's going on in our lives? well, this week during this debate, we are not only going to begin addressing the health and economic and occasional crisis we says, but maybe even more importantly we are going to begin the process of restoring naith the -- faith in the united states government. maybe, just maybe we can do what abraham lincoln talked about in the midst of the terrible civil

war and that is, be a government, act like a government of the people, by the people and for the people and not just powerful special interests and their lobbyists. what will this budget resolution mean for the average american? i know we throughout -- threw out a lot of numbers, $1.9 trillion. what does it mean? how is it going to impact the lives of ordinary people? so let me just say a few words on that. everybody is concerned about the pandemic, which has taken so many lives and caused so much illness and suffering. what this legislation is about is an effort to aggressively crush the pandemic and enable the american people to return to their jobs and schools by

providing the funding necessary to establish a national emergency program to reduce the quantity of vaccines that we need. we need to increase vaccine production and equally important we need to significantly improve the distribution of vaccines so that we get them into the arms of people as quickly as we can. what this legislation means is that during the severe economic downturn we must make sure that every american, low income people, working class people, middle-class people, have the financial resources that they need to live with dignity. this budget resolution will allow us to keep the promises that we made to the american people and increase the $600 in direct payments for cowering

class a -- for working-class adults and their kids up to $1,400. whether it's connect or vermont -- connecticut or verm or south carolina or any place else, you think about what it will mean for an average family to suddenly get a check for $5,600 for a family of four on top of the $600 per person that they received a few weeks ago. think about what that will mean for people who are losing hope right now. passing this budget resolution will give us the tools we need to raise the minimum wage to a living wage of $15 an hour, expand unemployment benefits, expand the child tax credit and prevent eviction, homelessness and hunger. passing this budget resolution means that during this raging

pandemic we will be able to provide health care to millions of americans who are uninsured and under insured by expanding medicaid and approving the affordable care act and other approaches. passing this budget resolution means that we will go a long, long way forward to addressing the long-term problem of childhood poverty in america. and that is that by expanding the child tax credit we have the opportunity to cut childhood poverty in this country in half and no longer be the major country on earth which has one of the highest rates of childhood poverty. mr. president, let me very briefly mention a few of the

specific provisions in the budget resolution that will enable the senate to pass this budget under reconciliation. mr. president, as i just mentioned, the overwhelming majority of the american people have told us very loudly and clearly that the $600 direct payment that congress passed in december was a good start but is not enough. in this bill we're going to increase that $600 by another $1,400. mr. president, we cannot continue to allow workers in america to work at jobs that pay them a starvation wage. the united states of america, jobs should lift you out of

poverty, not keep you in it. so let us be clear, when we increase that minimum wage to $15 an hour, not only will we be providing a much-needed raise for tens of millions of american workers, we will also, by the way, save taxpayers many billions of dollars each and every year. moreover, mr. president, this pandemic has caused tens of millions of american workers to lose their jobs through no fault of their own. for 45 consecutive weeks unemployment claims have been higher than during the worst week of the great recession in 2008. this budget resolution that we are consideration now will provide the funding necessary to

provide 18 million americans with $400 a week in supplemental unemployment benefits until the end of september. so if you are watching, you're watching tv now because you're unemployed when you would rather be at work, understand that this bill will extend unemployment $400 on top of the normal unemployment your state provides until the end of september. we have not forgotten the unemployed. further, mr. president, all of us know that we have a child care crisis in america. it was severe before the pandemic, it is even worse now. this budget resolution would begin to provide the resources necessary to provide child care to 875,000 children in america. and it would expand the child tax credit from $2,000 to $3,000

and $3,600 to kids under the age of 6. in other words, we hear what working families are going through, especially those who are struggling and have children. this will be a major, major step forward in improving lives and easing anxiety for young couples with kids. in addition, mr. president, let us not forget this pandemic has had a horrific toll on the finances of state and local governments. many of which are literally on the verge of bankruptcy. over the past ten months state and local governments have laid off some 1.4 million workers, including 50,000 in december alone. these are teachers, firemen, cops, and other municipal and

state employees. budget resolution that we are debating today would provide $350 billion to prevent mass layoffs of public sector workers in state and local governments. the congressional budget office has said that the best banking for the buck of all of the money that congress has passed so far for covid relief is to aid state and local governments. further, mr. president, if there's one thing this horrific pandemic should have taught all of us is that we must no longer consider health care as simply an employee benefit. health care must be a human right. it is unacceptable, in my mind, that over 14 million americans have lost their employer-provided health benefits over the past ten

months. 14 million workers have lost their health coverage, impacting even more people because there are wives, husbands and children involved as well. this budget resolution will, among other health care provisions, enable the senate to expand medicaid, it will allow more americans to receive the primary care they need through community health centers, it will address the serious shortage of doctors and nurses in rural areas and inner cities by expanding the national health service corps and it will make sure that our veterans receive the health care that they have earned and deserve by increasing funding at the v.a. by $17 billion. in addition, mr. president, in the wealthiest country on earth, we can no longer tolerate hunger

in america. and this budget resolution will enable the senate to provide nutrition assistance to tens of millions of families struggling to get the food that they need, and that includes the disabled and the he would arerly -- and the elderly by expanding snap, w.i.c. and the pandemic e.p.t. program. mr. president, in america today, some 14 million americans owe an average of $1,500 in back rent. if we do not get our act together, tens of millions of americans will soon face the possibility of being thrown out of their apartments and homes and on to the streets. this budget resolution that we are debating will provide the funding for rent relief, utility assistance, and mortgage relief to millions of tenants and

homeowners who are in danger of eviction or foreclosure. and it also, mr. president, deals with the shame of homelessness in america. today, in the midst of the dead of winter, we cannot have hundreds of thousands of americans sleeping in homeless shelters, in their cars, or out on the streets. right here, walking distance from this capitol, there are tents located in parks where americans are sleeping in the middle of winter. mr. president, this resolution provides investments in appropriate housing that will protect the health of our people and help decrease covid-19 transmissions with safe and socially distant housing. further, mr. president, all of us must acknowledge that there is a pension crisis in america

today. as a result of the greed on wall street, workers and retirees and multi -- in multiretirement plans are in danger of seeing their retirement cut by as much as 65%. that is unacceptable. promises were made to those workers and the united states congress cannot renege on those promises. mr. president, not only is this $1.9 trillion emergency covid relief package the right thing to do from a moral perspective and a public policy perspective, it is exactly what the overwhelming majority of the american people want us to do. according to a recent poll from change research, nearly 70% of the american people support president biden's $1.9 trillion covid-19 plan.

83% support boosting direct payments from $600 to $2,000, 64% support raising the federal minimum wage to $16 an hour and 62% of voters support additional unemployment benefits. mr. president, we are living in an unprecedented moment in american history. the last year has been a year the likes of which none of us have experienced in our lifetime. the american people who are living in pain, in anxiety, in isolation, they are looking to the united states senate, and they are saying are you going to hear and understand what we are going through? are you going to do something to address the terrible problems in terms of health care, the

economy, education that we are experiencing? mr. president, it is no great secret that for many years, congress has listened very attentively to the needs of billionaires, to the needs of campaign contributors, to the needs of lobbyists. now is the time for us to listen to the needs of working families , the elderly, the children, the sick, the disabled, and the poor. now is the time to restore confidence that the american government works for all of us and not just the few. and, mr. president, i urge passage of this important, important piece of legislation. and with that, mr. president, i will yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the senator from south carolina. mr. graham: thank you. i will be responding to my good friend, senator sanders. apparently, i will be the ranking member on budget, he will be the chairman, and i look forward to finding some common ground where we can. today is not that day, but hope springs eternal. there are things that i think we can do on the budget committee that will be good for the country. so here's the other side of the story. about a year ago, a little over a year ago, the pandemic coming out of china is detected. covid on the west coast of the united states. it has just done a number on us as a nation. 440,000 people have died from covid-related infections.

and we finally got vaccines. they are in the pipeline. we need to get them out quicker. but i do believe that the vaccines are going to help us a lot. and the american people have been suffering. i think better days lie ahead, but we are not there yet. but here's what's different. february 2, 2021, things changed. up until now, we have been able as a congress and with the white house to pass things together regarding covid. so we have passed over $4 trillion of covid relief in a bipartisan fashion up until today. how was that done? you had a republican president, president trump, working with a democratic-controlled house and a republican-controlled senate the beginning of january, i guess march of last year, and here is what we are able to do

together. phase one we approved 96-1 a coronavirus preparedness and response supplemental of 2020 was $8 billion. that was on early on last year when we really didn't know what we were dealing with. then we did $355 billion, 90-8. then the next was $1.9 trillion. listen to this. we spent $1.9 trillion, 96-0. so it's not like we don't see a need to spend money. 96-0, this body agreed to spend $1.9 trillion last year. after that, we did the paycheck protection enhancement of $355 billion by voice vote. it's not like people on this side don't see a need. we had a continuing resolution where we had another $8 billion,

84-10. in the omnibus, we did another $1.04 trillion, 92-6. so when you add all this up, we have appropriated $4 trillion to deal with the problems associated with covid. money for people have been struggling. money for hospitals and doctors. money for vaccine development and distribution, direct payments. the p.p.p. program to keep small businesses from going under that can't operate at full capacity. it's been a great program. it was bipartisan until now. here is what the american people know. we have done a lot together. of the $4 trillion we have appropriated, today we spent $2.7 trillion. of the federal reserve actions we took allowing the federal

reserve to help business, we had a $5.7 trillion market cap for lack of a better term and we have allocated $2.6 trillion. the bottom line is of the $900 billion that we passed recently, a little over $900 billion, we have only spent 20% of the money. and here we are being asked for another $1.9 trillion. what's the difference between the first $1.9 trillion and this request? when it was first offered, the $1.9 trillion, it was the largest single appropriation i think maybe in the history of the country since world war ii. the fact that 96 senators have come together and passed it 96-0 tells you about the way we saw the problem. and we have been adding and adding and adding. now we are to a point where the biden administration is proposing $1.9 trillion of

additional spending. we haven't spent the money we've allocated, nowhere near the money we've allocated, and you have got a bipartisan group of republicans, ten, that went to the white house yesterday and said what about a little over $600 billion, see if that is enough, and i'm afraid the answer is going to be no. so what's happened here? democratic colleagues have won the white house and biden is president, he won. it's a 50-50 senate. the vice president makes it a democrat-controlled body, to the extent that the vice president breaks ties. and you have a smaller majority in the house than we've had in the last 20 years. but the consequence of what i have just described is that my democratic colleagues are now in charge of everything. when it was divided government, when you had a republican president, a republican senate, and a democratic house, we were

able to come together with overwhelming votes to help the american people. now we find ourselves at a crossroads. our democratic colleagues are using a process called budget resolution that begins today that would allow them to pass the $1.9 trillion basically on a party-line vote, a simple majority, not reaching the 60-vote milestone. the 60-vote problem was never a problem up until now because republicans and democrats were able to work together up until now. what changed? they have got it all. everything we told you would happen in the election is coming true. you have got one-party control of washington, and they are seizing the moment. what a 15-dollar an hour minimum wage has to do with fighting covid, i don't know, but i do know this -- now is the worst possible time to increase the

cost on small businesses in south carolina and the -- in the restaurant and hospitality industry. you're about to hit them with two government mandates that are going to put them out of business. they are all struggling. a lot of states have reduced capability in terms of indoor dining. d.c., i think, last week for the first time you could dine indoors at 25% capacity. states all over the country have different rules about how small business operates. the tourist industry is just about squashed. so people in the hospitality industry, the restaurant business, in the service industry, if this bill passes the way it's been proposed, we're going to have a 15-dollar per hour per employee mandate. that's going to sink them. they are going to have to lay a

lot of people off because they are barely struggling -- barely making it as it is. so here's what we're doing to those businesses. state and local government are mandating a reduction in revenue. why? because we reduced the capability to earn money by reducing seating capacity and the other things associated with fighting covid. so what does the congress do? do we relieve that burden by having more p.p.p.? no. we increase your cost of doing business. this $15 an hour minimum wage increase will dramatically increase the cost of doing business to small businesses at a time they can afford it the least. and there are people out there working today that will be out of work tomorrow if this bill passes. my democratic colleagues have taken the energy sector head on. they stopped the keystone pipeline. i don't know how many thousands

of jobs will be affected by that. but all of these mandates and all these change in policies are making it really hard right now to employ people. so count me in for more covid relief once i understand how the money we have previously allocated has been spent. i think continuing to spend at this level without understanding what the money in the past has done is not very responsible. we have only spent 20% of the $900 billion we passed just a few weeks ago. now we're going to do $1.9 trillion more? of the $4 trillion we did together, $2.7 trillion has been spent, over a trillion dollars is sitting there, not spent yet. so i guess the point i'm trying to make, and my republican colleagues, is that this $1.9 trillion package, there has been no effort to make it bipartisan. they're spending a lot more money before we understand how the money we spent actually

works and some of the policy provisions in this package i think are going to do more damage to the economy that's struggling to get back on its feet than good. but they have the power and they're using it. he's right, senator sanders. when we had this authority, we cut your taxes through budget resolution. that's what we did. it's not like republicans haven't used this process. democrats used it pretty much to pass obamacare. but this is one area where there has been pretty much common view of things. taxes are different between republicans and democrats. how you -- who decides what health care you get. there are some people like my good friend from vermont that wants single-payer health care. that's one way of doing it. i just disagree. everything is about trying to

help people. i don't doubt the motives. i just doubt where we're headed is a good outcome for the american people. so the bottom line is up until now, we have had bipartisanship when it comes to covid relief. the reason that bipartisanship has stopped is because we have one-party control of the united states senate, the house, and the white house. and here's what i think. that's going to end not well because it's not like we don't want to help people. we just have a different view of how to help, and we'd like to let some of the money we have already appropriated go to work and see how well it works and fill in gaps where you need to fill in gaps. count me in for more payments, direct payments beyond $600. count me out for giving $2,000 payments to people that make almost $200,000 a year. i think it needs to be more targeted. i don't mind having more direct payments.

i'd like to make it less targeted. and i don't mind discussing raising the minimum wage when the covid problem passes and we get back on our feet. i do mind doubling it in the middle of a pandemic. and i do believe that this $1.9 trillion package is going to do more harm than good to the american economy, and the reason we're having this debate, the way we're having this debate, is because they have unlimited power, my democratic colleagues. they have chosen to do this. the ten republicans who went down to the white house, i appreciate their effort. maybe some good will come from that. but this process we're engaged in today makes me wonder if it was worth their time. maybe we can pull a rabbit out of the hat and find a bipartisan compromise consistent with what we have done over the last year. if not, we're going to march down the reconciliation road,

we're going to take $1.9 trillion of spending, and let one party spend it. we're going to have one point of view about this money. we're going to let people spend $1.9 trillion without any input from the other side of the aisle, in a 50-50 divided senate. i don't know what you got from the last election. here's what i got. we did better in the house than i thought we would do. president trump lost but it was still is a close election from an electoral college point of view. and the senate is 50/50. i don't think the message from the last election was, we want democrats to spend $1.9 trillion and deal republicans out. that's exactly what you're doing. so it would be different if we had had a history over here of trying not to help. we were able -- 96-0 -- to spend

$1.9 trillion less than a year ago. and now we want to spend $1.9 trillion again? after the money previously allocated hasn't been spent. so all i'm suggesting to my democratic colleagues, we're going to have a different view on taxes, we're going to have a different view on health care. but this is the one area where i really do believe there is a bipartisan middle ground to be had. and to senator sanders, there may come a time where i will work with you to raise the minimum wage. the p.p.p. program has been highly successful. the $600 billion program for republicans, there's more money for that. it's target. senator manchin said he wants it target to people on the lower economic end. mike rounds, our colleague from south dakota, got a check. so the bottom line is, i don't

mind helping people, but there's got to be some sense that we can't just constantly write checks and hope one day that doesn't come back to bite us. one thing about a $15-hour minimum wage now, you think what this does -- i think what it does, it puts pressure on businesses who can't stand anymore pressure. it's going to cost people jobs that have a job. it's going to do more harm than good in this environment. when you combine the mandate of increasing wages for the $15-an-hour is the least wage and add what we're doing in terms of restricting income generation, that is a formula for disaster for small businesses. this is it. if this bill passes the way it's written, there are going to be thousands of people out of work who were previously working in a small business that's going to fold. how does that help covid?

and if you don't believe that you're not walking and talking to the people out there on the front lines of this economy. the tourism industry in myrtle beach, south carolina, has been decimated. you can't fly from one state to the other without a two-week quarantine. hopefully that begins to pass when we get vaccine distribution at a higher level. but people along the coast of south carolina in the hospitality tourism business are hanging by a thread. the p.p.p. program to be a lifeline. the last $900 billion package had a new round of p.p.p. money. if we need more money, count me in. again, i'd like to have a higher direct payment but not to people that make $150,000, $200,000 in combined income. so this package is going to be devastating to the hospitality service industry.

it's going to take us down a path we haven't gone before, which is a partisan approach to covid. and i do believe -- and maybe i'm wrong -- that with some effort on our part, we could reconcile the difference between what our republican colleagues proposed and what president biden has proposed and find some middle ground, like we have in the past. but it doesn't seem to be a real effort to do that. and all i can say is that the american people want us to work together for their benefit, and this will be the first time that i can recall where we spent $1.9 trillion based on one party's view of things. that's not good. that's a lot of money, and it's so unnecessary. so i would encourage senator

sanders and my colleagues on the other side to give a chance to this negotiation, see if we can get there. i hope we can. but this is not the right way. what we're doing today is going to set into motion partisanship where there was previous bipartisanship. president biden said he wanted to unify the nation. you've picked the one topic that we've been pretty unified on, and you're going to disrupt that unification. the first covid package had a $600 federal supplement to state unemployment benefits, and i looked at that -- my family was in the restaurant business. senator sanders gave us statistics about the support of the public. you're literally paying people more not to work than work. i want to help people because

they're out of work, no fault of their own, because of covid. but when we went to $600, we were paying people $23 an hour, i think, in south carolina not to work. that did not go over well with the public at large, and we're trying to reduce that federal supplement down to $300, not $600, to help people who are out of work but not to incentivize people not to go back to work when the economy is beginning to open. so in this package, we go back to $400, and it goes all the way to september, which means it's going to be harder to hire people back when the economy does show signs of reopening. and it's beginning to show signs of coming back. the faster the vaccine is distributed, the more people that get inoculated, the sooner we can go back to business. so i would just say to my democratic colleagues, you've chosen this path.

all of us are going to vote no to $1.9 trillion spending, not because we don't care. it's because we would like too see what the money we spent in the past is doing before we add another $1.9 trillion. a lot of the provisions in your proposal we think have very little, if anything, to do with covid. and it would be unfortunate if we go down this road. but we're not in charge. now, 2022 will be here before you know it. hopefully by 2022 we'll have the american people build up immunity to covid and our economy will come back the way it was before had the covid pandemic. -- before the covid pandemic. before the pandemic, the economy was doing well for all sectors of the american people. i think one of the things that helped was that tax cut that senator sanders opposed. but we can have political debates about that. the point i'm trying to make is,

up until this moment in time, we've been able to achieve overwhelming bipartisan support dealing with the covid problem that we all face. it really is disappointing and disheartening that we're going to abandon that model when i don't think we have to. but that will be up to my democratic colleagues. that will be up to president biden. and finally, a message to president biden -- you won. we lost. you're the legitimate president of the united states. i want to help you where i can. i just got a briefing about what you're proposing in afghanistan. i think it's darn good. there are plenty of things we can do around here together -- on foreign policy and domestic policy. it doesn't have to be a fight to the death all the time. an infrastructure bill that's there for the taking. i think most americans realize our roads and our bridges and

our ports need upgrading and count me in for that. there are things that we can do. but, president biden, you can do something too. you can say slow down in the senate. slow down in the house. i'm going to see if i can find middle ground. i'm it telling you right now, $9 trillion being spent the way this bill envisions is not responsible. we haven't spent the money we previously allocated. there is a lot in this bill that will cost us jobs at a time we need cost. you are not going to help the covid crisis by putting somebody out because of a government mandate that businesses can't afford to fulfill because they're hanging bay thread. we'll have -- by a thread. we'll have some time to debate this over the next few days. i will yield back here with a sense of optimum. to my republican colleagues who went to talk to the white house,

count me in. i'd like to be able to help. it's not like there's not some more money that can be spent. but this approach and wait you're spending the money, the amount of money in this approach i think is going to make this place less unified. if you're looking for unity, this is a lousy way to get it. with that, i yield. mr. wyden: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: mr. president, we've already begun to hear a little revisionist history with respect to this crucial issue. there was exactly one amendment on the cares act, and that amendment, supported by almost every senator on the other side of the aisle, basically would

have blown up the law that i put special focus on because it was deemed the only way to get expanded unemployment benefits out to folks in a timely way. so we were told that there was all this bipartisanship, yet on the crucial issue, that wasn't the case because that benefit in particular is what helped scores and scores of communities a you will across the country -- all across the country stay afloat because that money was spent locally. it was spent on rent, it was spent on groceries. and, most of all, mr. president, it was weekly with. and yet there was exactly one amendment in the original legislation, and that one amendment was to blow up the

only way to get checks out to folks relatively quickly. point number one. point number two -- these were not folks who didn't want to work. they were told by their government -- told by their government -- that they really needed to be at home to deal with the virus. these folks want to work. there is no question about it. and, mr. president, we are going to talk about this i imagine in this debate. but study after study has shown that the expanded unemployment during this period was not a disincentive to work. there's just no evidence of that. in fact, when we look at crucial periods of time when people might have stayed home, they were rushing to get back to work. so we're going to discuss this.

and i'm going to start the debate now on where we are at this moment because i think this discussion comes down to a simple proposition, and that is whether millions of workers and their families should have to spend years and years living in the wreckage of the covid economy. the jobs recovery for millions is going in reverse. millions of americans have lost jobs through no fault of their own. maybe they were working at the airport, maybe they were tending bar, maybe they were teaching our kids when the worst pandemic, the worst pandemic in a century, swept the united states. they didn't do anything wrong, so the question now is whether the united states senate is going to step in with big policies to actually be of help

to them. or whether it's going to quit on those workers when they need a modest amount of assistance until everybody gets vaccinated. president biden has a strong, focused plan that's going to meet the moment, get relief to workers in the middle class, and kickstart the jobs recovery. the plan that was brought forward yesterday by ten republican senators doesn't come close to meeting that bar. so the debate isn't a whole lot more complicated than that. i'm glad that there is some agreement on both sides for funding vaccines. yet the economic divide in this debate is very clear. so here are the key facts as we start this discussion: the independent experts, the congressional budget office, released a new report yesterday that shows how long-lasting this jobs crisis is really going to

be. according to the budget office, it could be more than five years before the unemployment rate even begins to approach where it was a year ago. millions of workers could stay stuck on an economic tightrope, worried about eviction, worried about going hungry. wages could flat line for the better part of the a decade. americans know what happens when congress takes its foot off the gas, slows down the recovery, because that's what happened a little bit over a decade ago, 12 years exactly. the great recession hit, but in early 2009 the senate decided we're going to go small. i was around, and everybody was told, you know, not so bad if you go small because the second will get the second bite at the apple. nobody ever got a second bite at

the apple, and workers suffered and suffered some more. in my home state it took seven and a half years in oregon for the unemployment rate to fall back to where it was before the recession. recent history tells us you've got to go big s. we're hearing from economic experts telling the senate to go big. treasury secretary yellen, fresh off her unanimous, 26-0 vote in the finance committee, as well as fed chair powell, are saying go small and you make a big mistake. mr. president, that's why the outline that a group of my republican colleagues brought forward this week just does not get the job done. it's the same playbook, same playbook as 2009, and it leaves too many workers on that economic tightrope for years to come. the budget resolution before the senate has some big solutions on the economy and on our workers.

right off the top it makes investments in vaccines and care that's needed to end the pandemic as quickly as possible. this is the number-one way to get the lives of americans back to normal. it's not going to happen overnight, so in the meantime our economy needs another rescue package. that's what the resolution, the budget resolution essentially sets up. it's hard to figure when you're at home all of the legalese and lingo, but now we're really dealing with the lives and the well-being of the american people, and this is what starts us in the right direction. three examples of why this resolution is so important -- first, it sends big financial support to jobless americans. there is not going to be a full jobs recovery as long as it's unsafe to go to restaurants indoors or go to conventions or

pack fans into basketball arenas. those workers need help. as i mentioned when we heard a little revisionist history on the expanded unemployment earlier, as the ranking democrat on the finance committee, i negotiated the $600 per week boost and expansion of unemployment insurance last year in the cares act. it was an economic life saver for workers who used that money to pay rent, to buy groceries, to cover the costs of medicine. and i still have those workers come up to me and say ron, i heard about what was going on in the senate. you all gave me the money to pay for my car insurance. because if i didn't have that car insurance, life in our family would just fall apart. so contrary to what we heard earlier -- and, mr. president, during the course of this debate i'm going to put several studies into the record. there has never been hard evidence that enhanced expanded

unemployment benefits in any way held back the recovery. in fact, when enhanced unemployment benefits expired last summer, the job recovery actually slowed down. now in december, our colleagues on the other side extended unemployment insurance just to mid-march, and they cut the additional benefit in half. i believe that was also a big mistake. between the worst economy since world war ii and the pandemic entering its second year in america, you couldn't find a worst time for senators to start nickel and diming workers, hard-hit workers, out of the relief that they so desperately need. and as i noted, there was just one vote, only one vote, mr. president, in the original cares package, and that vote was led by my colleagues who would have blown up the only way

to get benefits in a relatively quick way out to millions of workers. in my hometown the average rent for a two-bedroom apartment is $1,750. traditional unemployment insurance benefits don't come anywhere near paying that rent. if you're a single parent trying to raise one or two kids, even swt expanded -- even with the expanded benefits, you're barely making ends meet. if you're a two-income household, it can also be a big struggle. nobody's going out and buying boats with their unemployment insurance benefits. they're spending it at corner stores, local markets, going to the pharmacy, paying for medicine for kids that aren't feeling well. the budget resolution before the senate calls for a six-month extension with an extra boost to $400 per week. it's a proposal that i support.

in later packages, i want colleagues to know i'm going to keep pushing for the full $600, and i believe that congress ought to tie the extension of unemployment benefits to economic conditions in our communities, to economic conditions on the ground. it's just common sense. unemployment insurance works best when it covers all workers, when it pays an adequate benefit, and when members of the united states senate can't politicize it by setting arbitrary dates and setting up cliffs when people are going to get cut off of those benefits. second, the budget resolution helps bring back jobs. the restaurant act is a vital jobs program. it will save a lot of jobs in one of the industries hardest hit by the pandemic. it's particularly important

because all of a lot of restaurs weren't able to take advantage of the paycheck protection program, another key jobs proposal that is part of this resolution is help for states and localities. and i want to make something clear for the record about state and local funding because this has been attacked by colleagues on the other side since last march. i would bet somebody will come down on the senate floor next week and rail about the blue state bailout and say it's all waste. that is nonsense. state and local funding is first and foremost about jobs that are a lifeline. it's about firefighters, it's about road crews, it's about sanitation workers, it's about public health employees, it's about teachers. it's got nothing to do with red states or blue states. it's about saving people's jobs in communities across the

country, and those are jobs where they're out saving people's lives. nearly 1.5 million of these essential workers have already lost their jobs since the pandemic began, and unless congress provides funds to states and localities, even more will be laid off this year. third, the budget resolution is going to put money into the pockets of working families and the middle class. now the fact is tens of millions of american families are literally one financial setback away from devastation. that should have been clear before the pandemic. certainly no denying it today. increasing relief checks to $2,000 is going to help, especially because so many workers have lost hours or taken lower-paying jobs than they had a year ago. but the budget resolution also includes fresh ideas from president biden and colleagues on this size to increase

families' income, first and foremost, expanding the earned income tax credit and the child tax credit. in my view, this is long overdue. mr. president, people always ask, well, what's it really going to do? what's it going to do that's meaningful for our country? what we are told is that that effort is going to cut child poverty in half. just try to put your arms around that. when you go home to talk to folks, and they ask, hey, what's going on there? and you can say i'm part of an effort, a sensible effort which for many years had some real republican support, i'm supportive of an effort to cut child poverty in half, give millions and millions of families a chance to get ahead. it sure sounds to me like a policy like that is a no-brainer. so i'm going to close by briefly

addressing some arguments i've heard coming from the other side. first, i've heard a number of members say that the price tag is too high. well, i'll tell you, if you voted for donald trump's deficit finance handouts to multinational corporations and billionaires, you cannot credibly argue that the relief for workers is fiscally reckless and the fact is the deficit isn't going to get better until unemployment comes down and the economy gets back to strong and consistent growth. second, i've heard some senators suggest that the budget resolution is bad for unity. my answer to that is the only place where big, bold economic relief is a divisive proposition is within the four walls of the united states senate. we've seen the polls overwhelming support for these

key positions, key policies that are part of this budget resolution. i would submit to my colleagues the only place where there is really strong division on the value of this budget resolution is within the four walls of the senate. last point, it's a little bit personal. the president of the senate and i have known each other a lot of years, worked very closely in the other body and here. and i've over time gotten a fair amount of flak for sometimes being too bipartisan, doing too much to try to bring both sides together. and i always will say -- alwaysu can find common ground. but calls for unity aren't supposed to be a political baseball bat where you club

somebody. they're supposed to be real. they're supposed to be about finding common ground, not about stalling for the sole purpose of stalling. what you see in this budget resolution is exactly the kind of plan that americans voted for and the overwhelming majority of americans support. so that's why i'm strongly behind this resolution. as a senior member of our party on the finance committee, i am looking forward to a lot of debate on this issue. that's why i felt it was important to step in when we heard some revisionist history from the other side that there hadn't been any partisanship. there sure was on that very first vote on the cares act. so this is an important debate. and what's really most important is that while we continue to

listen to our colleagues on the other side, while we continue to reach out, which i am committed to do, the united states senate gets this job done, because there is too much economic hurt in america to do otherwise. we have another unemployment cliff coming in just a few weeks. technically, the debate, mr. president, is march 14. that's when the next round of unemployment expires. and i really think we've got to get this done by the beginning of march. there is no time to waste. i urge my colleagues to support the resolution, as i will. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: i come to the floor to bring up the point that

there must be equal attention to the dangers of extremism, whether it's extremism of the right or extremism of the left. we've all been horrified by the senseless criminal acts that occurred at the state capitol january 6 of this year. a violent mob was able to overrun the capitol police and quickly gain access to the area where a joint session of congress was being held. five people, including a capitol police officer, died as a result of this attack. i hope that together republicans and democrats, we can get to the bottom of what occurred on that day and ensure that it never happens again. in the spirit of collaboration,

i must direct everyone's attention to something that has occurred to me, and that is the need to condemn all political violence regardless of ideology. like many americans, i've been deeply troubled by the rioting, looting, antipolice attacks and deaths that have occurred this summer. while many very legitimately protested the death of george floyd in a peaceful manner, consistent with their rights under the first amendment, thousands of others did not do it in a peaceful manner, and probably did it for a lot of other reasons and just because of george floyd's death. one of the most upsetting aspects of the violence of this

summer has been how it has targeted innocent law enforcement officers. over 700 officers were injured between may 27 and june 8, 2020. this number is likely underreported as nearly 300 of those injuries occurred only in new york city. acting deputy homeland security secretary ken kiewch cuccinelli testify that there had been 277 federal officers in injuries at the federal courthouse in portland, adding further to that total previously given to you. officers were assaulted nightly

there and there for months slashed, hard objects thrown at them, struck with objects like hammers and baseball bats, even blinded by lasers. in another offensive, 60 secret service officers were injured during a sustained attack on the white house which caused then-president trump to be brought into a secure bunker. the church across the street from the white house was lit on fire as a part of that continued assault. over 300 people were charged federally for their roles in these weeks and months of violence. 80 of those charges related to the use of arson and explosives. others involved sawlts on -- assaults on officers and destruction of government

property. however, the nationwide riots, which broke out in nearly every major city in the country, were predominately state offenses. at least 14,000 people were arrested in 49 cities. at least 25 people died in violence related to the riots. property claim services, a company that tracks insurance claims relating to riots and civil disorder, estimated that the insurance losses from the summer's civil unrest far outstripped all previous records to possibly exceed $2 billion. it has been a relatively frequent sight at the summer's violent events to see individuals acting in coordination in all black block holding the a symbol of antifa

and admitted antifa adherent in portland murdered a protester. antifa supporters have been charged federally for promoting riots and using molotov cocktails. while that violence has slackened now after president biden's electoral victory has been declared, it has far from gone away, rye otters -- the far left of this country continues to believe violence will get more attention for their causes even after a democratic victory win for the white house. much of the violence of the summer was specifically investigated by the f.b.i. as

domestic terrorism. f.b.i. director chris wray provides statistics on domestic terrorism in his annual threats testimony. he has previously testified that 900 to 1,000 domestic terrorism investigations exist at any given time. there are also about 1,000, what they call homegrown violent extremism investigations. these are cases in which an entirely u.s.-based person without direct contact with a foreign terrorist organization is motivated by global jihadist movement and, of course, there are thousands more international terrorism investigations. former u.s. attorney aaron kneely cox testified in a subcommittee hearing that over

300 domestic terrorism cases were opened due to the violence just this past summer. this is a significant increase in the ordinary amount of domestic terrorism in the united states. that this violence occurred, the facts and the figures that surround it should not be news to anyone. however, i must admit that i've been extremely surprised by the responses of democratic members to this violence. for weeks and months the most consistent response seemed to be to deny the violence was occurring at all. i saw chairman gerald nadler on tv, chairman of the house judiciary committee, deny that antifa itself was real in a

national i will tell -- national i will tell viced -- televised debate and then stated that antifa was only quote, unquote, an idea, this is even after f.b.i. director wray had already testified to congress that antifa was absolutely, quote, unquote, a real thing and that the f.b.i. had cases and investigations against those calling themselves antifa. it seems that some democrats are living in a different world than those who have seen businesses boarded up, if not burned out, images of violence in the streets and terrifying attacks on police officers.

when the violence was admitted by those same people, it seemed to have been condoned rather than condemned. now vice president harris previously said, quote, they are not going to stop and everyone beware and they should not and we should not, end of quote. you've seen that quote many times on various tv channels. our new vice president did not disclaim the rioting and unrest and direct her followers only to lawful action. congresswoman pressley stated, quote, there needs to be unrest in the streets for as long as there is an unrest in our lives, end of quote. speaker pelosi, famously --

speaker pelosi famously said on the widespread property damage that you saw when asked about it, she was quoted as saying, people will do what they do, a direct quote from her. you've seen that many times on television. now that indifference that seems to be expressed in those and a lot of other quotations we could give to the violence that our constituents were enduring was dramatically shattered when a violent riot came to this building itself. after that event, many members of congress asked why a more

militarized force had not protected them from a group of then-president trump supporters who turned violent. police officers were again considered heroes and protectors, unlike last summer when they were attacked. the presence of national guard members was all of a sudden welcomed rather than decried unlike last summer in cities like portland and seattle where mayors condemned -- maybe the federal or the government generally, for interfering and trying to bring peace to those cities. many of the people of this country would like to have such resources available to them to

ensure their safety. like every weekend in chicago, when there's dozens of people hurt by shootings and a lot of people killed in that same weekend. since the day of the attack on the capitol, i've heard much of a renewed focus among my democratic colleagues on combating domestic terrorism and political violence. and there's nothing wrong with combating domestic terrorism and political violence, and that's why my first words today was there needs to be equal attention to the danger of terrorism, whether it's of the left or of the right. and, as i indicated in my -- and my words just stated, this is

very much welcome. any taxation we can give to dmes -- any attention we can give to domestic terrorism and political violence. and i hope we can work together to keep americans safe, however, any work that we do in this area must be focused on preventing violence no matter what ideology is given to justify that violence. in fact, in a recent department of homeland security bulletin, that bulletin noted the breadth of potential threats that we may be facing after the capitol riot, including domestic violent extremists, quote, motivated by a range of issues, including anger, covid-19 restrictions,

and 2020 election results, and police use of force as well as racial and ethnic tensions and homegrown violent extremists inspired by foreign terrorists and groups. end of quote. the response that i've seen to the capitol riot here in congress has not given me hope that we're in agreement about combating this broad range of threats in the spirit of giving equal attention to the dangers of domestic terrorism or any kind of violation of law, whether it comes from the right or the left.

i've seen that many democratic members of congress seem to be discussing the need to combat white supremacy with reference to the capitol riot. and i'm not going to find fault with anybody that talks about any race of any kind thinking they are supreme to anybody else because we're all individuals that god loves, and if we would return that love, we wouldn't have a lot of problems in this country. we must absolutely combat white supremacy wherever it occurs, and we have a responsibility to understand the true factors that led to the attack on this building. i hope to learn more from law enforcement over the coming

weeks and months about what the involvement of white supremacists, or any other extremist, was in this attack. however, i'm concerned that the use of the term may have a different purpose to try to portray any supporters of former president trump who garnered over 74 million votes in the most recent election as white supremacists. comom cory bush stated on the house floor that former president trump was, quote, a white supremacist president who incited a white supremacist insurrection, end of quote. i hope everyone can agree that such rhetorical and inaccurate characterizations are dangerous.

more concerning, seem to be the idea that violence committed by the far left or for left-leaning ideologies is in some way tolerable because of the less assessment that the purpose of all that violence is somehow noble. however, right-leaning thought, whether accompanied by violence or not, is considered terrorists. former c.i.a. director john brennan whose credibility has been questioned praised incoming president biden's inaugural with reference to defeating, quote-unquote, white supremacy,

and likewise libertarians to, quote, religious extremists, authoritarians, fascists, bigots, racists, nativists, end of quote. it's hard to see how libertarians, libertarian political philosophy, a mainstream conservative political ideology which is scarcely in any way associated with violence is related to the other terms that mr. brennan lists. unless, of course, mr. brennan is simply referring to religious americans as religious extremists or those who believe in the rule of law rather than antifa rioting as authoritarians and fascists or those who believe in having a functioning

immigration system as somehow they seem to be bigots or racists or nativists. in short, these are all terms that are applied regularly and unfairly to conservative americans using peaceful means to argue for their ideas of religious freedom, law and order, and secure borders and probably a lot of other things that they argue for. congresswoman jackie spears was even more direct in a tweet, suggesting that all republicans be labeled terrorists. as a body, we may begin looking into domestic terrorism more generally. i look forward to so doing. i'm sure all members will share

my commitment that the focus of our inquiries should be all -- beyond all of the politically motivated violence we've seen in this country and not somehow just a subset of that politically motivated violence. the men and women of this nation who have been affected by antifa and other left-wing extremists are entitled to much more than a cursory acknowledgment of that fact. likewise, i hope no part of our effort will focus on demonizing the peaceful expression of ideas with which democratic members disagree. i will be chairing the ideas that i have -- sharing the ideas that i have on this subject, and

these concerns that i've stated today directly with my friend, the incoming senate judiciary chairman, senator durbin. he'll get a letter from me, and i look forward to working with senator durbin on the path forward. i yield the floor. mr. murphy: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. murphy: thank you very much, mr. president. rightfully, when we talk about the issue of gun violence in this country, we think about it through the prism of those lives that have been lost because the numbers are just stunning. they're hard to get your head wrapped around. here are the rough numbers in front of me. this is on an average year we

have 39,000 people who lose their lives through a gunshot wound. that's a suicide, homicide, an accidental shooting, domestic violence crimes. if you break it down, that's around 100 people a day. and there is no other high-income nation in the world that comes anywhere close. we talk about the issue of gun violence through the prism of people whose lives have been lost because so morally disrupting, cataclysmic when you have a loved one. normally a young loved one, a brother or sister, a child who is there one instant and then gone the next because of a random shooting. i always get drawn back to the people that i have been lucky

enough to have had access to and friendships with in connecticut. one of them is janet rice. janet lost her son shane, who was 20 at the time, who a gunshot wound back in 2012. it was actually only a month and a half before the sandy hook shooting. shane was just selling a car to some acquaintances, and the conversation went off the rails. there was some pushing and shoving. there was a gun fired and shane was dead. it's really hard for janet to describe how her life changed. she talks a lot about in those early months and years really not being able to even leave the house. she would drive a couple blocks to the corner grocery store because she didn't just want to

talk down the street and encounter friends and have to talk about what happened. she had this habit of waking up in the middle of the night and driving her car down to where shane was shot, which is about only two blocks from where i live in hartford. she would arrive there in the middle of the night. she would pull up in the parking lot and she would turn on her high beams. half expecting that shane was going to show up. her life is fundamentally different today than it was when shane was in her life. i have no idea what it's like to lose a child. i have no idea what it's like to lose a loved one to gun violence. but we talk about it in these terms because it is absolutely catastrophic when you lose somebody that way.

this week, though, mr. president, is gun violence survivors. this week we focus on those who survived gunshot wounds. and i think i hate to tell you this, but the numbers are much worse. more people survive gunshot wounds than are killed by gunshot wounds, and that wound can change your life as well. it can inflict you with physical pain that you can never get over, render you unable to walk, in our colleague gabby giffords' case, almost unable to speak, but it can also inflict you with an ongoing, cascading trauma from which you may never recover.

james harris was shot in hartford in 2018. he was shot while he and another friend were just hanging out in the hallway of the friend's apartment building, when a man showed up and shot james and his friend. the man was charged with a whole bunch of things, including possession of an illegal firearm, but they were just in the wrong place at the wrong time. his friend lost his life. james survived. and to this day, he experiences post-traumatic stress disorder, chronic pain, mental health challenges that i don't think anybody in this chamber can get their head wrapped around. tyreek march cez was shot in the head a decade earlier in heartford when tyreek was 7 years old following a west indian day parade in hartford in

the summer of 2008. guess what? the three shooters who were arrested were all found to have illegal firearms. one of the guns they found in the perpetuation of that crime had been used in 14 other crimes. it's a decade later, and tyreek remains partially paralyzed on the left side of his body. but he's part of the antigun violence movement. he survived, and he wants to make sure this never happens to anybody ever again. you've got to overcome obstacles. that's what i have been able to do, he says. there are 100 people a die who die from guns but there are just as many who survived gunshot wounds, and they are now demanding that something change. right now as we debate a covid relief package, our focus

rightfully is squarely on trying to reverse the disturbing trend of this virus expanding all across this country and righting the economic ship of this country. but not coincidental to the pandemic and the economic meltdown, we saw a dramatic increase in homicides. some cities reported 40%, 50% increases in homicides in 2020 versus 2019. you saw record numbers of gun sales. those two things are not coincidental. and those are just the reportable gun sales. likely we saw a dramatic spike in illegal gun transfers as well. more weapons equals more gun crimes in this country. and so knowing that 20%, 30% of guns get transferred outside of the legal system, knowing that, as in the case of tyreek and

james, it was illegal guns that ended up being used to shoot them, as it was for shane oliver in hartford, that mother i talked about, janet rice. shane was killed with an illegal gun. to honor gun violence survivors week, we've got to make a plan this year. we've got to make a plan to work on an issue that can bring us all together. i hope that republicans join us in voting for covid relief funding. the things in president biden's package are supported by 70% of the american public. that's impressive. it's really hard to get the american public to agree on anything at a 70% rate. they've actually done polling on things like kittens and baseball and grandmas. it's hard to get 70% support for that stuff. so joe bibbed's agenda, boy, it

must be pretty popular to get 70% of the american public supporting it. universal background checks requiring that everybody have to prove you're not a criminal or seriously mentally ill before you buy a gun, that has 90% to 95% support. think about that. that means that the vast majority of gun owners, of n.r.a. members, of republicans, democrats, independents, all support universal background checks. it is something that this body can come together on. and just like in tyreek and james' case, every single day we are presented with evidence of what happens when we let these illegal guns flow onto our streets. in pennsylvania, a man purchased two handguns advertised on a classified ad. he used those guns to kill a person and wound seven others inside a psychiatric institute. he had failed a background check at a gun store just a few months prior. in illinois, a man killed a

chicago police commander with a gun he purchased online. he was prohibited from buying a gun because he had a restraining order. wisconsin, where a man killed his wife and two other women and wounded four others with a gun that he purchased outside the background system. why? because he was prohibited from purchasing a gun because of domestic violence restraining order. or in texas where a man killed seven people and injured 22 others after being fired from his job. he failed a background check but was able to find an unlicensed seller. i could go over and over and gergen. the victims of gun violence are very often put at risk at harm's way because there are so many guns that are being sold illegally or so many guns being

sold legally to people who shouldn't have them. like people with serious violent criminal records, people who have been arrested for things like domestic violence. and so right now our priority has to be covid relief. but as we take part this week in gun violence survivors week, we have to recognize that the status quo is not acceptable. and that there is something fundamentally wrong with democracy if a public policy measure can enjoy 90% support amongst the american people and it can't get passed through the representative bodies that are assembled in the nation's capital. 39,000 people die every year, more are injured and survive, and we owe them in 2021 to pass

legislation that fine amly starts putting -- that finally starts putting these trajectories downward. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. barrasso: mr. president? the presiding officer: we are in a quorum call. mr. barrasso: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. the senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i come to the floor today to discuss the urgent need to get our kids back in school. kids deserve to be back in school. last week the white house chief of staff was on television. he was interviewed, and the interviewer asked him why so many public schools remain closed. his answer, amazingly, astonishingly was money. if i may, mr. president, the record is very clear. republicans support more money for schools since last summer. a full $105 billion to get our kids about a being to school.

-- to get our kidded backs back to school. the bill included more money for schools than speaker pelosi included in her bloated liberal wish list. for months senate democrats obstructed, delayed, dragged their feet. for months democrats played politics with coronavirus relief. all that time, families across america suffered. it wasn't until the end of december that democrats finally agreed to pass legislation to reopen the schools, and it included $82 billion. less than the republicans had offered last summer. well, the ink is now barely dry on the overall relief bill. at the end of the year it is a $900 billion relief bill. so here we are just one month later and the new administration says that there's no money to reopen schools.

the white house chief of staff goes on television with a supposedly new idea. the idea is that, quote, we as a country should make the investment to make it safe to get back to school. astonishing. because, mr. president, we did that. ful the biden administration -- if the biden administration really wants our schools to reopen, they ought to be talking to the teachers union. they should talk to the leaders of the teachers unions in places like fairfax county, virginia, just a few miles from here. you know, it's one of the largest school districts in america. fairfax county teachers demanded a vaccine before they would go back to the classroom. thanks to operation warp speed, they got the vaccine. yet they still refuse to go back to the classroom. which of course means that the students aren't in the classroom

either. in chicago the teachers union is threatening to go on strike rather than to go back into the classroom. which of course means the students don't get to go back into the classroom either. in washington, d.c., the teachers union would rather go to court than to the classroom, which means that students don't get to go back to the classroom either. similar stories are taking place all across america. the union bosses might think this is just a big game. the truth is, this is doing terrible things to our children. our teachers do incredible work. many are working harder than ever in the virtual setting. many want to go back to the classroom, and yet because of the union bosses who pull the strings, our kids are being

denied access to in-person learning by our amazing teachers. on wednesday, "the new york times" said it was, quote, breaking news -- breaking news in "the new york times" that the centers for disease control and prevention wants the kids back in school. mr. president, that's not breaking news. that's old news. the c.d.c. said it last july. experts have been echoing this call for months. one study estimated that because of the lockdown last spring, a typical student entered this school year 35% behind schedule in reading and nearly 50% behind in math. the children hurt the most are, of course, the most vulnerable -- kids from lower-income families like the millions of kids who receive nutrition assistance, medical care, or

counseling in public schools. also the children of single parents, many of whom -- the parents, that is, can't work from home. according to the national education association, a quarter of the families with kids aged 5 to 17 either don't have a computer or don't have wireless internet. so the lockdowns have been especially tough in all of those kids in those settings. now, for many children, the lockdown has been far tougher on their health than coronavirus itself would be. that's because serious coronavirus symptoms among healthy children is extremely is rare, and congress has provided funding to prevent kids from spreading the coronavirus. done it by improving ventilation, by supporting social distancing and by disinfecting our classrooms. so while democrats were taking

the orders from teachers' unions, senate republicans listened to the science. it's time for democrats to decide, are they going to put our kids first or are they going to continue to put the teachers' unions ahead of our kids? senate democrats have done our part to reopen our schools with incredible amounts of funding and support. it's no time for excuses, no time for backtracking. the science supports it. we have provided the funding. now, i would point out, mr. president, the students in wyoming have been back in school since september. that's where students belong. kids deserve to be in school, so let's get our kids back in the classroom. it's what's best for kids, certainly it's what's best for working families, and it's what's best for our future as a nation. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum.

the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: mr. president, i ask the quorum call be rescinded. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cornyn: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, relations between the united states and russia are more precarious today than at any other time since the cold war. from russian-backed mercenaries fighting in the middle east to the kremlin's attempts to poison putin's critics like alexi navalny using a nerve agent, the actions of russia are

growing more and more aggressive. that's especially true when it comes to actions against the united states and our allies. we know russia made a clear attempt to interfere with the 2016 election and delegitimized our democratic processes like our elections. through everything from highly coordinated disinformation campaigns to targeted attacks on voting systems, it sought to undermine and potentially change the result of a democratic election. of course it's not just our voting systems that have come under attack. moscow has launched massive cyberattacks against private companies and government agencies alike, the latest being the solar winds hack. and last year russia attempted to steal coronavirus vaccine research from the united states and our closest allies. the biden administration has responded to these mounting threats in an unlikely way --

by giving russia exactly what it wants. sure, i know there were some press reports about a conversation between president biden and president putin, but then again that's all it was is words, not action. this friday is the expiration date for the new start treaty, the only remaining bilateral strategic nuclear agreement between the united states and russia. since new start entered force a decade ago, there's been no lack of criticism about its short comings. for example, here on the senate floor last week i outlined some of the may issues with new start, including the fact that it only placed limits on strategic nuclear weapons, leaving room open for an endless arsenal of tactical nuclear weapons which are particularly of interest to russia and a potential land war in europe. the new senator from tennessee

and former u.s. ambassador to japan bill hagerty has echoed that concern as well. but it's not just republicans who acknowledge the need for a new approach. victoria newland is an experienced and accomplished diplomat with more than three decades of experience, and she's been nominated by president biden for a high-ranking position in the state department. in an opinion piece she wrote last year, she wrote that the u.s., quote, should not grant moscow what it wants most -- a free rollover of a new start without any negotiations to address russia's recent investments in short- and medium-range nuclear weapons systems as well as new conventional weapons. in other words, russia is building new weapons that will not be included in the new start negotiations. but they should be.

the president didn't take the advice of ambassador newland, obviously. he didn't advocate for new limits on tactical weapons or these new weapons systems or any, or impose any other conditions to combat russian aggression. in a call with president putin last week, president biden agreed to a clean five-year extension. no conditions, no negotiations. in short, a capitulation. he gave them a green light to keep doing what they have been doing. well, it didn't take long for russian leaders to celebrate this win. the deputy foreign minister of russia declared that the u.s. had agreed to the, to extend the treaty on russia's terms, and both houses of russia's parliament unanimously voted in favor of the ratification of the extension within hours of the announcement. in other words, the biden

administration are on exactly the same page as the duma. that ought to give them some pause. it's fair to say there's been no celebration here in the united states, but the truth is there's hardly been any attention paid to this issue at all, including here in congress. the administration has tried to maintain its focus on the president's long list of executive actions. in his first two weeks in office, president biden has used the power of the pen to cancel the keystone x.l. pipeline, rejoin the paris agreement, stop drilling on federal lands and federal waters and so much more. why did the president focus on this agenda? well, because he's called climate change, not nuclear weapons, the existential threat of our time. don't get me wrong,

mr. president, i think our country can and should do more to reduce emissions and preserve our land and waters for future generations, but those measures shouldn't come at the cost of thousands of jobs, reduced energy independence, and higher prices for consumers, including seniors on fixed incomes. i've always been a proponent of the all-of-the-above energy strategy which relies on fossil fuels, renewables as well as innovative technologies to provide our country with affordable energy sources. in fact, just about a month ago i introduced a bill to help spur that innovation which was signed into law. but based on the emphasis of the biden administration on climate change and the near silence we're hearing on nuclear treaties, you'd think that climate change is a bigger threat to the world than a nuclear war. only in a fevered imaginary

world could that be true. our democratic colleagues in the senate and many members of the media play it along as well, praising the president's efforts to combat one self-proclaimed crisis while ignoring its failure to address a clear and present danger and a threat to the planet. the fact of the matter is the administration missed a huge opportunity by extending the new start treaty without any other conditions, and it has to do with much more than just the threats posed by russia. while the u.s. and russia are the two biggest nuclear powers in the world, we're not the only ones. there are five nonpro proliferation treaty states two of whom are russia and the united states, but there's also the u.k. and france, both of which provide regular information about the size and makeup of their nuclear arsenals. the fifth and final power is

china, a police state and one of the world's greatest secret keepers, especially when it doms their nuclear arsenal. china, we think, has quietly been growing its nuclear arsenal for years, and the thick cloak of secrecy surrounding the chinese communist party has made it nearly impossible to verify information about the breadth and depth of its nuclear capabilities. but from the information we have, we know china continues to pursue a nuclear triad, and experts estimate china to have about 300 nuclear weapons. assuming that figure is correct, it makes china the third-most powerful nuclear country in the world behind the united states and russia. and we have every reason to believe that the size of its arsenal will continue to grow. in may of 2019 then-director of

the defense intelligence agency, robert ashley, said china is likely to at least double the size of its nuclear stockpile over the next decade. he referred to this effort as, quote, the most rapid expansion and diversification of its nuclear arsenal in china's history. here we are a year and a half after that estimate and there's no reason to believe that china has changed its course. in fact, it appears the announcement of a new start extension received a warm welcome in beijing just as it did in moscow. a story that ran this weekend in the "south china morning post" said this extension, quote, means the gap between china and two, the two nuclear giants will not widen, and beijing can spend the next five years catching up, close quote. there you have it, that's the real take-away of a clean

extension of new start. the biden administration has agreed to leave in place a framework in which the russians continue to cheat, the chinese play catch-up, and the united states is left to play by the rules of a bygone era. rather than enter into a five-year extension of new start, the administration should have used its leverage to convene multilateral nuclear talks. america should invite the other nonproliferation states -- russia, china, france, and the u.k. -- to the negotiating table and encourage multilateral talks at limiting the growth of nuclear arsenals worldwide. i understand president biden's desire to focus on the issues he campaigned on, whether it's climate change, immigration reform, or any other policy area. but in doing so, he should not ignore the larger threats to global security or relinquish

the leverage we have to secure a deal that improves global security at large. now, mr. president, nuclear weapons, not climate change, are the greatest existential threat we face, and the united states cannot sit idly by while moscow and beijing pass us by. mr. president, i yield the floor, and i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: