friday? >> that's a very popular question under suitably butter focus is on getting american rescue plan implemented. we will have more to say and the president will have more to say on his build back better agenda and what the components of that look like and what the size and the proposals be in the order of events will be but i don't have anything to preview for you. >> before the immigration bill -- >> we break away from this now as the u.s. senate is about to gavel back into session. second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: any senators wishing to change their vote or vote? if not, the yeas are 70. the nays are 30, and the nomination is confirmed. ms. klobuchar: madam president. madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota. ms. klobuchar: i ask unanimous consent that with respect to the garland nomination, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, and the president be immediately notified of the senate's action. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of executive calendar number 15, michael stanley regan of north carolina, to be administrator of the environmental protection agency, signed by 19 senators.

the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is, is it the sense of the senate that debate on the nomination of michael stanley regan of north carolina to be administrator of the environmental protection agency shall be brought to a close. the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change his or her vote? if not, the yeas are 65, the nays are 35, and the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, michael stanley regan of north carolina to be administrator of the environmental protection agency.

the presiding officer: the senior senator from delaware. mr. carper: madam president, wife just invoked cloture on the nomination of michael s. regan, president biden's nomination to be administrator of the environmental protection agency. the vote was 65-35. i want to say to every democrat and every republican, maybe an independent or two, thank you for your votes. i rise today to talk about this nomination and more particularly

about the person, the man who has been selected to serve as our e.p.a. administrator. as members of this deliberative body, each one of us has taken an oath to protect and defend our u.s. constitution. that oath includes offering our advice and our concern when it comes to nominations of a president to fill posts in his or her administration. it's hard to think of a time in modern history when the senate's role on nominations could be considered more urgent. we're living in a time of great challenges. our nation faces multiple crises all at once. this includes the ongoing covid-19 pandemic, the first in 100 years of this nature. the worst economy since the great depression, as well as a reckoning of racial injustice. all three of these crises are interconnected with a fourth that is even greater and graver than any emergency the united states may have ever faced

before, and that is the climate crisis. president biden recognizes the importance and urgency of tackling this challenge. that is why he ran with a promise to make climate action the core of his administration's work and of our work. it is also part of the reason why a record-setting majority of the american people voted for him into office last november. there are few leadership roles in the federal government that have greater responsibility for setting environmental and climate policy than that of the administrator of the environmental protection agency. this role has a profound responsibility, profound responsibility to ensure that the agency effectively carries out its mission to protect our health and our environment. that mission is particularly challenging right now. we know that the next e.p.a. administrator has his work cut out for him. he knows it as well. in addition to addressing the

serious environmental issues that are affecting americans, the next e.p.a. administrator will also need to rebuild an agency suffering from organizational drift and low morale after being repeatedly damaged in recent years by flawed leadership. scientific integrity has also been under attack. we need a strong, principled leader to get the e.p.a. back on track. michael regan is the right person for the job at this critical moment. he is a man of deep faith who believes, as i believe we all do, that we have a moral obligation to be stewards of this planet on which we live together. michael regan is the kind of person who can help unite us in common purpose as we respond to the climate crisis we face as well as to clean our air, clean our water, it's time to make sure we don't leave some of our communities, some of our neighbors behind in our efforts to do so. he knows how to put together

inspired teams of men and women who are mission focused and can together tackle complex problems and challenges. as secretary of north carolina's department of environmental quality, he has proved himself to be an effective policy executive and bipartisan problem solver, someone who forges practical solutions to cleaner air, cleaner water, while making building a more nurturing environment for job creation and job preservation. anyone who has watched the e.p.a. over the past few years knows that mr. regan will have his hands full as administrator, from scandal to climate denial to the disregard for the opinions of career scientists throughout e.p.a., the pass two administrators -- past two administrators leave in their wake a suffering workforce, suffering from organize organizational drift and low morale, what may be an all-time low. one of the keys to restoring that morale is returning scientific integrity to the agency. let me say that again.

one of the keys to restoring the morale in e.p.a. is returning to scientific integrity. that also means curbing the influence of special interests on e.p.a.'s scientific advisory boards, which play a large role in crafting the agency's policies. mr. regan will be tasked with climate change, the greatest environmental crisis we're facing as a world today. on this issue we have no time to waste. i know my state of delaware does not have the luxury to wait a minute longer. we are the lowest lying state in the country. it is sinking and the seas are rising. we're not the only state. this is felt by other straits across the country, too, one unlikely state you might find is louisiana according to john neil kennedy, told me last month, he said his state louisiana is losing -- get this -- a football

of wetlands to rising sea levels every 100 minutes. think about that. a football field of wetlands to rising sea levels every 100 minutes. i see the signs of this crisis too clearly as i travel throughout my state, madam president. eroding shorelines, water logged roads and extreme weather threaten our economy and our way of life. patterns make some of our farming -- we raise a lot of soybeans. in your state you raise a couple of soybeans as well but we raise a lot of soybeans. it makes far farming whether yoe raising soybeans or corn or chickens, a lot more difficult. mr. regan saw similar problems around another wilmington -- not wilmington, delaware but wilmington, north carolina. problems we see in wilmington, delaware. he made sure we do not have to

choose between clean air and clear water. it is a false choice. he knows that combating this crisis presents instead of -- a chance for real economic growth that could create millions of good-paying american jobs and breathe life into communities large and small throughout this country. we know that economic -- the economic cost of spending a little more today outweighs the cost of action. i believe it was ben franklin who said an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of criewr. -- cure. we all think that is a quote that comes from our grandmothers. it actually came originally from ben franklin. mr. regan will also need to work with the states, with tribes, where municipalities to combat contamination in our nation's water supplies from something called pfas, one of thousands of permanent chemicals. some are benign. some are very dangerous to our health. they're called forever chem chemicals. this is unfortunately a public

health problem which the last commission did not approach with the urgency it deserved. fought a good game. didn't come through. what do they say in montana in all hat, no cattle. it's hit home for me and probably the presiding officer too in wisconsin. coming from a state -- we have one of the biggest airlift bases in the world, hugely proud of the dover air force base. for years we've had, unfortunately accidents and incidents. we need -- the firefighters come out and use firefighting foam to try and save lives. in doing that, endanger the lives of other people because the pfas contamination is in the firefighting foam. it gets in our underwater. its -- in our ground water. it's not just delaware. maybe 300 bases around the country where there's a problem with pfas contamination in the ground water close to our

military bases. if there's work in north carolina on this issue is any indication mr. regan will leave no stone unturned. we'll also be looking to the e.p.a. administrator to ensure cleaner air by reestablishing the legal basis for the mercury and air toxic standard which were upended by an administration more interested in protecting special interests than they were in keeping mercury out of our air and water supply. these standards have been shown over time to be cost effective and they are supported by major coal-fired utilities across this country. let me say that again. these standards have been shown over time not only to be cost effective but they are supported by major coal-fired utilities across this country. as administrator, mr. regan will also see the facedown of h.f.c.'s, powerful gases used as refridge rants. think of freezers, air conditioners in our house and

cars. they do a good job of keeping it cool and our food cool. unfortunately, they are about a thousand times worse, more dangerous than o -- last congres i led a bipartisan effort with a couple of our colleagues to phase down the production of these harmful chemicals while giving american manufacturers a leg up in making the cool lantses of the future. how many jobs will flow from this? tens of thousands of american jobs. how much economic opportunity for american companies? billions and billions of dollars. and, oh, by the way, i should hasten to add, we hear from scientists. we are sort of the turning point for us in terms of climate change of which we are -- can't turn back is about two degrees celsius for the balance of this century, two degrees. our phasedown of

hydrofluorocarbon is -- just by itself. this is a huge thing. and we did it, bipartisan way here in the senate and the house. very grateful to everyone for their support. let me add a couple point fs i can. madam president, mr. regan will need to help craft emission standards for cars, trucks, and vans that will fight climate change and help keep america in the lead in clean car revolution. we heard about -- long ago from our friends at g.m., g.m. announced that beginning in 2035 they're not going to be building, selling vehicles powered by gasoline or diesel. think about that. that's like 14 years from now. ford may have announced in europe that they're not going to be building vehicles that drive or are powered by gasoline or diesel in europe in 2030. nine years. this is coming. so the question is will we be ready for it?

there we take advantage of it? tiendz in -- find in this adversity opportunity? yes, we can, especially with the kind of vehicles we're going to build and drive into the future. my cal regan's tenure in -- michael regan's tenure in north carolina is a testament to his ability to bring people together and work across the political divide. he spearheaded to the largest cleanup, it resulted in the cleanup of cape fear river right where my wife used to work for the cape fear dupont plant and created north carolina's first ever environmental justice and equity advisory board. he's been able to do these things and much more by bringing people together to find bipartisan lasting policy compromises. all while never compromising on his principles. he and i both believe in the adage that bipartisan solutions are lasting solutions and we could use a few more of those around here. that ability to unite people in

common purpose, to approach his role as a public servant with humility, with empathy and grace, that central part of mr. regan's character has been demonstrated throughout his public service and his nomination process. interestingly, 23 of our country's national agricultural organizations wrote to my committee, to our committee of environmental public works committee late last year to recommend him for the job. most people might say big deal. well, it was a big deal. how often do we have all -- like dozens of major national agricultural organizations step up and say we want to embrace this candidate to be the head of the environmental protection agency? not very often. but they did in this case. and they highlighted his -- and i'll quote -- establishing record of listening to all stakeholders including farmers and ranchers, close quote. and they applauded his pragmatic approach writing, during his

tenure he has worked to find practical, sound solutions to myriad environmental issues in the state. close quo. -- close quote. we heard the same sentiment in his nomination hearing before the environment and public works committee. throughout his testimony in questioning, mr. regan made is clear that he will be an administrator, an e.p.a. administrator for red states just like he will be an e.p.a. administrator for blue states. he listened to concerns from both sides of the dais, made commitments to work with anyone to solve a problem facing their constituents. that's what helped earn him a 14-6 bipartisan vote of approval coming out of the epw committe. i remember us measuring the amount of time from someone's name being submitted by a president to before it had a hearing much less reported out, measured in months. in this case we're talking about weeks. god willing hours from this afternoon. but believe it or not, it is a

committee hearing -- he was introduced to the committee by two senators from his state. they're both republicans. they're both republicans. we heard from one of them thom tillis that mr. regan, quote, has earned a reputation for being a thoughtful leader, willing to engage. close quote. his colleague in north carolina senator burr understand scored his ability to reason saying organizations across north carolina and across the country support him for administrator because, quote, they will understand, they will not always agree with every decision handed downing by e.p.a. but they know and trust they will receive a fair hearing. a democratic nominee recommended by two republican senators from the same state. honestly, we don't see that every day. and i wanted to say a special shoutout and thanks to richard burr and thom tillis for doing that. supporting mr. regan's

nomination. michael regan understands that climate change shouldn't be a partisan issue. its impact hits red states and blue states alike. wildfires rage across california while floods in florida damage homes and roads. deadly ice storms endanger the power supply in texas while the drought in new mexico harms farming and puts people at risk. water contamination at the air force base in delaware harms families just like the contamination near a national guard base in south dakota. and dirty air from a power plant in ohio or west virginia can make their way into neighboring states like ours and like maryland, our neighboring owe owe like -- like jers jerns. the problems before our next e.p.a. administrator, hopefully it will be michael regan, -- inadversity lies opportunity.

we have an opportunity here to fulfill our moral obligation to be good stewards of this planet and we can seize on that opportunity if we have the right leader in place to make it happen. during my years in the navy and as governor of delaware, i learned firsthand leadership is maybe the most important thing of success in any organization i've ever been part of. i don't care if it's a business, a state, the senate, the house, school, leadership is al the key. the leader sets the tone, helps write the rules of the road and makes sure that those working under him or her are doing what's right. i learned a lot from really good leaders and frankly i've learned a few things from awful leaders. i suspect if truth be known, we'd all say the same. but the best leaders are humble, not haughty. they understand their job is to serve, not to be served. leaders have the courage to stay

out of step when everyone else is marching to the wrong tune. they understand their job is to unite, not divide. they build bridges, not walls. leaders surround themselves with the best people they can find. when the team does well, the leader gives the credit to the team. when the team falls short, the leader takes the blame. leaders don't build themselves up by tearing other people down. they aspirationally appeal to people's better angels. a french philosopher once said the leaders are purveyors of hope. think about that. purveyors of hope. leaders always seek to do what is right not what is easy or expedient. they focus on excellence in everything they do. if it's not perfect, they say let's just make it better. leaders treat other people the way they want to be treated. when they are right, they don't give up. michael regan is that kind of

leader. we need that kind of leader. i'm convinced he is the leader we need for this critical role at this critical time in our nation's history. and so, madam chair and colleagues, as chairman of the senate committee on the environment and public works, i urge all of our colleagues to support his nomination. with that, madam president, i yield the floor. and i also note the absence of a quorum. plr the clerk will -- the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

mrs. capito: madam president? the presiding officer: the junior senator from west

virginia. mrs. capito: thank you, madam president. i rise to trade -- the presiding officer: we are in a quorum call. mrs. capito: i ask that we vitiate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. capito: thank you, madam president. i rise today to discuss my opposition to the nomination of michael regan to be administrator of the environmental protection agency. now, before i begin, let me be very clear. i really liked meeting and getting to know michael regan. he is a dedicated public servant and an honest man. he had a beautiful family with him, and he answered the questions as straightforwardly as i think he thought he could. i have enjoyed getting to know him through my role as the ranking member on the environment and public works committee. and i appreciated the willingness he expressed for visiting my home state of west virginia. this vote not based on what mr. regan might do if he had his say. this vote is about confirming someone to execute president

biden's agenda, which mr. regang said he would faithfully do. and i cannot support that agenda. i cannot support that agenda that secretary -- if confirmed -- regan would be tasked with complementing. through his confirmation process, secretary regan did not commit to a different policy agenda than that of the obama administration, an agenda that absolutely devastated -- devastated -- my state and other energy-producing states. in his nomination hearing, secretary regan, because he's secretary of the north carolina environment and protection, would not comment as to whether the so-called clean power plan -- or something worse -- would be reinstituted. he did not rule out a return to the wotus rule. he could not say whether the e.p.a. would again claim overarching authority to force states to shift their

electricity generation sources. he could not commit to real changes, and that is because the agenda is already set. climate czar gina mccarthy and others have already set the table. inside e.p.a., recently reported -- and i quote -- administration observers are questioning whether michael regan could face a diminished role if he wins senate confirmation due to the large number of obama-era officials who have returned to the agency and the white house to work on implementing biden's environmental agenda, end quote. the article went on to say, quote, these sources also say that because there are so many officials now working on climate change, that policies across the obama -- or, excuse me, policies across the biden administration, this could lead to, quote, turf wars between the e.p.a. and the white house on this issue. well, i share those concerns. for almost two months now,

unaccountable czar gina mccarthy has been working both behind the scenes and in front of the press to lay the groundwork for the biden administration agenda. she's wielding her power publicly to make it clear who's calling the shots and directing the troops. as mccarthy herself said recently, quote, i've got a small stronghold office, but i'm an orchestrate leader for -- orb straighter leader for a very large band. she is a operating this office with no transparency outside of the senate confirmation process. it would be bad enough with just a turf war between an equally matched white house and e.p.a., but we know that mccarthy is poised to have influence within the e.p.a., too. in addition to the obama e.p.a. alums already in place, the nomination of janet mccabe to serve as e.p.a. deputy administrator has only increased my concern and made it worse.

in 2019 mccabe, mccarthy and other alum of the obama e.p.a. wrote an op epidemic h. ed fully -- op-ed fully backing the clean power plan. they admitted that their clean power plan was a war on coal. they stated, and i quote, the best way to cut emissions is to shift electricity generation from the dirtiest plants, which happen to use coal. so they're willing to say it outright once they were out of public office. they're willing to admit to their war on coal. it upsets me because they wouldn't say it to people of my state when they were ins office. they didn't have the courage to look the people in the eye and admit that they wanted to wipe coal off the map. had they come, they would have had to hear in person, eye to iraq, the harm, a the devastation that workers in our coal industry and many

associated industries in west virginia were facing. an economist, john deskins, put that in testimony before the senate energy and natural resources committee hat a hearing in 2015. he observed, quote, in central airplay cha, coal production has fallen by 51% since 2010 compared to a decline of 120% from the nation's other coal-producing regions. nearly all of the coal job losses that have occurred in west virginia have come from our state's southern coalfields. the concentration of these job losses has created a great depression -- a great depression -- in six southern county oz -- boon, clay, logan, mcdow, mango. job losses over the past few years -- this was in 23015 -- they range from between 25% and 33% in episcopal of these

counties. that's how many jobs were lost. john kerry stood alongside gina mccarthy and talked about how workers in the fossil fuel industry can just become wind turbine technicians or solar panel technicians. john kerry doesn't really know what it means to be any type of these workers. brad markel, a representative from the afl-cio industrial council, explained some of the ditches to "the washington post." he said, you guys coming off of fossil jobs in the dakotas in the wind belt are making $80,000, $90,000 or $100,000 a year. to put wind turbines up they're looking at $30,000 to $40,000 with no substandard benefits. in president biden's white house we have unadvisable at best or uninformed at worst czars trying to do what they think is best

for this country. so let's go back to secretary regan. in his hearing, he talked in depth about his work with republicans in north carolina and his commitment to transparency, and both of the republican senators from his home state came and introduced him to our committee and spoke very well of his ability to work across the aisle. and i appreciate that greatly, and i welcome that, but the fact remains that i can't support secretary regan when gina mccarthy is the self-described orchestra leader for the biden administration ■an kerry is basing so-called transition policies on a fantasy world that does not exist. i'm very skeptical of the next four years will be any better than the eight years of economic devastation brought on by president obama's e.p.a. without commitment to different policies than what was pursued in the obama e.p.a., i cannot

support secretary regan today. but you know what? i hope he proves me wrong. i hope he makes good on his promise to work with republicans to help address climate issues. as ranking member of the e.p.a. committee, i stand ready to do just do that. we have so much common ground on climate issues. i hope secretary regan can cut gina mccarthy out of power and let her know who is calling the shots for environmental policy in the biden administration. i hope secretary regan embraces president biden's mandate of unity and works with both red and blue states to take care of our planet. until then, i'll continue to look out for my state and practice aggressive oversight of what i think may be copping. thank -- may be coming. thank you, and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from virginia. mr. kaine: madam president, good afternoon. i rise today to talk about the american recovery plan and its effect on my commonwealths. it's been a tough year.

it was a year ago tomorrow that i sent my senate staff home for a trial run two-day telework in case we ever were to need it, and they never came back. until now, as people are starting to get vaccinated, they're coming back personally to the office after having worked in a pretty amazing way virtually for the year. it was just about a year ago that i got coronavirus. it was just about a year ago that i gave my wife coronavirus. and it has been a long, long year. more than 500,000 americans dead, more than ten million still out of work after sizable work by congress in five bills in 2020 to inject resources into the economy, we're still down ten million jobs. but today is a bright day. just within the last few hours the house of representatives passed the senate bill that we sent to them saturday afternoon on the american recovery plan,

building off the original house proposal. and that bill is filled with things that will make a tangible difference nearly immediately in the lives of so many americans. payment to everyday families, individuals, children, acceleration of the vaccine deployment, resources so that we can open our schools and our colleges and our child care centers, which are all preconditions to seeing the economy reopen. in virginia, just making this about my home commonwealth, state and local governments in virginia will receive about $6.8 billion to cover costs of covid, revenues lost due to covid, but also projects that can help the economy accelerate so that we can climb out of of the economic catastrophe that has been covered. 84% of virginians -- that's more than seven million people, two million of whom are childree

stimulus checks because of the bill that democrats got passed in the house and senate. just think that -- think of that. seven million virginians will receive stimulus checks that the average filer, and many filed jointly, so this will be sort of a household average, will be nearly $3,000. the childhood tax credit portion will provide additional resources on top of those checks to 1.6 million virginia children, lifting 85,000 you you -- 85,000 currently below the poverty level to below the poverty level. in my state 85,000 children below the poverty level will no longer be there. the expanded earned income tax credit in virginia will affect nearly 420,000 adults, enabling them to work with more dignity with less financial stress as they try to manage the

challenges of their life in this tough time. 250,000 adults whose unemployment benefits were in danger of expiring are now protected through early september because of the bill. small businesses who have suffered so much will get a significant uplift. just restaurants, with a $28 billion restaurant fund in the american recovery plan, there are 15,000 restaurants in virginia, all of which have suffered because of covid, because of social distancing requirements, supply chain challenges, workers who have been out sick, that $28 billion fund offers great hope for my restaurateurs. virginia education, our local school systems, 134 cities and counties operate k-12 systems, they'll receive more than $2 billion to deal with the costs of covid, including expanded broadband so that their students

can have better access to online course curriculum, including money that can be used for summer instruction, for example, so we can tackle learning gaps that occurred during the last year. $845 million for virginia higher education institutions, and something that i'm particularly excited about -- i have a child who is an early childhood worker. that's what he does, 40% of virginia child care centers were closed for much of the year because of the pandemic. virginia will receive nearly $800 million in additional child care support so our child-care centers can be open, which will not only be good for children, but will enable their parents to return to work more easily. in the health care space, accelerations of vaccines, lower health care premiums because of expanded subsidies for those who are purchasing insurance, mental health expansion to deal with the significant psychological and

emotional trauma for the last year, housing, food, transit, broadband, pension reform -- there is so much in this bill for virginians, there's so much in this bill for the residents of red states, blue states, in between states, every zip code in the united states, every family in the united states will see some impact that they can see, touch, and feel. it's not often that you pass a bill where you can say this about it, that the tangible results to virtually every american will be seen so quickly. i want to focus a little bit, having talked about the tangible benefits in virginia, just to, the analysis of the bill nationally. and i have a couple of charts ii want to show. coincidentally or maybe not coincidentally, the size of the american recovery plan was pretty close to the size of the trump tax cuts done in december of 2017. the trump tax cuts were about

$1.9 trillion and the american rescue plan ended up being at about $1.75 trillion, so they're pretty close. and what these two plans demonstrate, if you look at the trump tax plan and you look at the american recovery plan, you will see how very, very different the priorities of the two parties are. the recovery plan passed in this body with every democratic vote and no republican votes. the trump tax plan passed in 2017 with every republican vote and no democratic vote. i believe these two plans are almost a perfect representation of the priorities of the two parties right now in this body. not just in this body, but all around the country. and if you ands the content of these two bills which were near identical in size, you can definitely understand the priorities of the two parties. on the tax cut and jobs act, the trump tax cuts, 54% of the

$1.9 trillion benefit went to people making more than $75,000 a year. 16% went to people making less than $75,000 a year. 31% were tax cuts for businesses if you look at the american rescue plan, you see something very, very different. 44% of the aid was aid to individuals. 21% was pandemic and other policies that focus upon getting us out of the health care crisis. 9% is to our schools and universities. 18% for our state and local governments to try to forestall massive layoffs of governmental employees. and 8% are tax cuts to individuals. very different priority sets between the g.o.p.'s key accomplishment with the 2017 tax cuts and now this accomplishment that democrats have worked so hard to achieve in the american rescue plan. this tells you about priorities, but the next chart

is probably my favorite because i think it makes it even clearer. this is a chart that shows the benefits of both the rescue plan in blue and the tax cut and jobs act in red, and i don't think those colors were coincidentally done by my staff. but it shows how the benefits of these two bills, near identical in size were arrayed across the income groupings, income confine tiles of the american -- quintiles of the american people. the top 65% got -- the top got 65% of the benefit from the trump tax cut. in the 60 to 80% quintile you'll see the two plans were pretty close to equal, not exactly. the democrat plan was a little bit better in terms of the benefits at that level. as you move into the 40% to 60% quintile, that midrange of

americans, the democratic proposal gave much more of the benefit to people in that income frame, income quintile than the republican proposal. in the 20% to 40% range, it's quadruple the democratic allocation of benefits to that lower middle class portion of the american public, quadruple what the republican tax plan allocated. but what you really see is in the lowest quintile income of the american public, the people who struggle the most -- and during the pandemic were hurt the most during the pandemic -- 23% of the benefits of the american recovery plan went to that lowest 20% of the american public, while only 1% of the benefit of the trump tax cut was allocated to that hard-hit struggling group of people. again, if you want to look at the priorities of the two parties by analyzing these two sizable bills that each side claims is an accomplishment

they're proud of, you just need to look at this particular chart and understand who each side, each party is battling for, who is each side, each party trying to help. finally, one last chart and then a concluding comment. the last chart shows the poverty rate in this country beginning in 2007. we know we had an economic challenge 2008, 2009, 2010 that was significant. and then the poverty rate started to come down late in the obama first term and continued to come down into the trump first term. but you'll see what has happened since 2017 with the passage of the, with the passage of the jobs and tax cut act. if that had not happened, the poverty rate would have started to tick back up again after having come down for a number of years. the tax cut act did have an effect on the poverty rate. it knocked it down a little bit

bit, so there was a positive effect on the poverty rate of the republican tax proposal, but it was not very significant. but the projection about the american poverty rate following the passage of the american rescue plan is a dramatic reduction, a dramatic reduction of poverty for more than 12% down to poverty just above 8%. and we would expect to see that by the end of the year. we're not talking about by the end of the decade or by the end of five years or by the end of this congress. we're talking about by the end of the year. i think these charts -- and again, particularly this chart that arrays the benefits of both the tax cut bill of 2017 and the american rescue plan, and shows to whom the benefits were allocated -- speaks volumes about two very different philosophies about the economy, two very different philosophies about equity, two very

different philosophies about how to truly include everyone in legislation that's big, tough, challenging legislation. finally i'll say this, madam president, as i conclude. the passage and the signing of the american rescue plan will also start a realtime economic is experiment because the republican tax plan was done in it 2017, and we can measure what that's done and what it hasn't done from 2017 to the beginning of the pandemic. you would not want to include the pandemic necessarily. if you look at the passage of the tax cut plan in 2017 to march of 2020, you can get a pretty good view of what that tax bill did or didn't do to the american economy. now in the passage of the american rescue plan and the allocation of the benefits of the plan as demonstrated here, we're going to start the clock on a realtime experiment of a

different economic philosophy. if you take government action and you try to direct the focus of it on middle and lower income people, my surmice is -- surmise is those dollars will likely be spent in community institutions and stores and purchasing properties or maybe buying a car. they will be spent and they will have a multiplier effect throughout the economy. they are not going to be used to buy back stock. they are not going to be used or socked away because there's nowhere to spend it. i think you will see the spending effect of allocating will have a significant, positive effect on the american economy at a time when it needs it and at a time when people who are at most help are most in need. we need to build an economy coming out of this crisis that is not only robust, but also sustainable, meaning environmentally sustainable,

sustainable in areas in boom, bust, we need an economy that is more equitable. not measured by g.d.p. increase or stock market increases that can affect some but measure more in -- in statistics like wages, reduction of poverty, start-up of new businesses that demonstrate an economic vitality that is spread broadly among the population. we're starting the realtime clock on that experiment today. we'll be able to compare the value of the $1.9 trillion tax cut to the $1.75 trillion american recovery plan in the years to come and i'm very excited to understand that because i think it may point the way forward to additional economic issues in the future. with that, madam president, i yield the floor. mr. burr: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from north carolina. mr. burr: i rise in support of the nomination of michael regan to be the administrator of the

environmental protection agency. one look at michael's resume should make it clear to my colleagues that he is immensely qualified for this position, not only in qualifications but in his demeanor. michael's a proud north carolinian who over the last four years has ably served as secretary of the north carolina department of environment. you will consistently hear from those who have worked with him in this role that whether they agree or disagree on be a given policy, he always listens and looked to find agreement. this type of praise is not easy to come by on an environmental environmental -- in environmental matters but it is exactly what we should ask of any nominee to ensure everyone gets a fair hearing at their agency. that's exactly why north carolina's agricultural community supports his nomination. it's our job to ascertain

whether a nominee has the knowledge and experience to do the job the president has nominated them for. but too often we overlook whether a nominee has the right character to lead an organization. in this case, there's no question that michael regan has that character. i've had the pleasure to get to know him over the last several years and to see first hand his sincerity and love for his family. i know when a man of this cal better is -- caliber is confirmed, he'll bring those same qualities to the agency he leads, bolstering the e.p.a. and ensuring the community's reliant on agriculture for their livelihood will be listened to. in choafg, madam president, -- in closing, madam president, michael regan's a good man. he's the right man to lead the environmental protection agency, and i would urge you and urge my colleagues to confirm him to be

the next administrator of the e.p.a. with that, i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

moran monday. mr. moran: madam president, i'm here -- the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call. mr. moran: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. moran: madam president, i am here this afternoon to speak in opposition of the so-called for the people act. every american, no american should be fooled by the wholesome title of h.r. 1. it is an affront of the united states constitution and how it would affect free speech and accelerating the divide between the country, between left an right, rural and urban, red states and blue states. it would be terribly damaging to our nation. we often year elections have consequences. in 2020 americans voted for a congress that is nearly a 50-50

split in the house and nearly a 50-50 split in the united unites senate. the consequence voters may have had in mind is to put aside partisan differences and do their job on their behalf. they did not give free rain to nationalize elections and to strip power from states and localities from now and forever. i'm a conservative and i believe in the prime asy of -- primeacy of individual liberties and a federal government that exercises restraint. i believe state and local units of government are responsible to the wishes of our citizens. article 1, section 4 of the constitution states time, places and manner of congressional elections shall be prescribed by the states. my adherence to the constitution

has state governments oversee their own elections as they always have and always should. there are so many problematic and, frankly, unconstitutional aspects of this legislation, particularly as it pertains to the micromanagement of local elections by the federal government. with regard to the bill's intent to federalize state elections, i draw your attention to page 44, section 1004. democrats in sponsoring and pursuing passage of this legislation seek to eliminate voter identification laws. voter identification laws have a lot of merit. it is required that you be a united states citizen to cast a vote in the united states. american people generally have common sense and the gallup poll shows that 80% of americans support voter i.d. laws. when you explain what voter i.d. is, they support it. under this legislation, voters showing up to the polls without a poll can sign an i.d. claiming

they are who they say they are. if you want to dispel this, this is not the way to accomplish that. i don't want our laws to discourage people from voting, but i want people to be legal who do vote. on page 166, this bill requires that ballots be counted outside a voter's precinct limiting the ability to verify voter rolls. -- that authority instead would go to a bureaucrat in washington. it would allow third parties to pick up absentee ballots, known as ballot harvesting. such a requirement is directly at odds with a recommendation from a 2005 bipartisan, bipartisan commission on federal election reform, led by former president jimmy carter, which recommended that states prohibit this practice due to an increased likelihood of fraud. h.r. 1 doesn't even keep the bipartisan nature of the federal election commission in place. it alters its structure deliberately to make it work on

behalf of the party in power. one last point on local elections. this bill allows for in-person voting 15 days before an election. this is the typical, the classic unfunded mandate. i have talked to local election officials about this provision specifically, and it would kill their budgets, maintaining random staff for weeks on end in rural counties across kansas where realistically you might get fewer than a handful of people to show up on a day that far before the election. there are plenty of other ways to vote in advance when necessary. this would create real-world consequences, real consequences in rural america and in rural kansas. one size solution from washington, d.c. does not solve all problems and in fact in many instances creates more problems. while this provision alone probably wouldn't contribute to voter fraud, this bill does so by prohibiting officials from reviewing voter eligibility or barring local officials from

removing ineligible voters from the voter rolls. it is imperative that we restore america's faith in our elections, and that's why i'm a supporter of s. 13, legislation led by our own senator tim scott of south carolina to establish a bipartisan advisory committee to make recommendations that will improve security integrity in the administration of federal elections. this is a measured approach that will help us regain the trust of american voters. h.r. 1 goes as far to the other end of the spectrum as is imaginable. it drastically dramatically changes the rules of our elections, implementing every left-wing policy idea pertaining to federal elections, ideas that are evidently so good that they must be made mandatory. if they were good, they might find their way into existence across the country because they are good, not because the federal government requires them. this legislation would sow

immense doubts among voters about the integrity of our elections, something we do not further need. it would corrode our entire system of elections, and for what purpose? because, simply put, i think democrats believe passing h.r. 1 would render rural voters, red states, voters i am potent and therefore help them win elections. at a time when our country is so divided, when we should be working together, for example, to end the consequences of the covid-19 pandemic to get americans vaccinated and get our economy back on track, this is a very damaging policy to our republic and it contains in 800 pages of h.r. 1. i hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle take time to read and understand this bill and see, determine for themselves what it truly is. madam president, i'm interested in making sure that all people have the opportunity to vote, all people who are legally eligible to vote, i want them to vote, but we ought to not skew our elections to see that those we want to vote are the only

ones who are eligible to do so, and that those who are not eligible to vote are able to do so. i thank you, madam president, and i yield the floor. i notice the absence of a quorum, madam president. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. cornyn: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cornyn: madam president, yesterday, the senate judiciary committee heard from the nominees for the number two and number three jobs at the department of justice. and as you know, earlier today, we confirmed the next attorney general of the united states, judge merrick garland. i have supported judge garland's nomination because i think he's a qualified, mainstream nominee, with the right experience and the right temperament to lead the department of justice. i believe being attorney general is probably the hardest job in the cabinet because you have two masters. one is the rule of law as the chief law enforcement officer for the country. the other is you're a member of the president's cabinet and serve at his or her pleasure. obviously, a political appointment.

well, judge garland told me, and i take him at his word, that he would work hard to keep politics out of the work of the justice department, a goal that both -- folks on both sides of the aisle should support, especially after the struggles of previous administrations. as i said, i was proud to support judge garland's nomination and now we begin the process of considering other senior positions at the department of justice. one of the nominees who came before the judiciary committee yesterday was lisa monaco who has been nominated to serve as deputy attorney general. she is a lifelong public servant who previously spent 15 years at the department of justice. she's a highly respected federal prosecutor, a national security expert. she advised president obama and a number of other top government officials on matters like homeland security,

cybersecurity, and counterterrorism. and her expertise extends beyond the ins and outs of matters of policy. her knowledge of the department of justice as an organization will be invaluable. the department who is more than 100,000 employees are responsible for carrying out the diverse set of missions. it's a huge organization with a lot of moving parts. like judge garland, ms. monaco affirmed to me she does not intend to inject politics or even to give it a hearing within the department of justice in her duties as deputy attorney general. i asked her, for example, if she would allow mr. durham who has been appointed special counsel to investigate the crossfire hurricane issue in the last administration and the tail end of the obama administration, and she said she saw no reason not to give mr. durham a chance to

complete his work. that's the same position we took on robert mueller who was appointed as a special counsel to investigate president trump. and again, i take her at her word that she will not do anything to fire mr. durham or deprive him of the ability to complete his important work. ms. monaco discussed her experience at the department over the course of the clinton, bush, and obama administrations. she really does have a lot of important relevant experience. she talked about the unique role of the justice department, which, as i suggested a moment ago, functions both as an executive agency that's charged with implementing the president's policies as well as an independent investigator and in some cases as a prosecutor. she described the importance of acting free from political or partisan influence as her north

star. while ms. month company and i will -- ms. monaco and i will surely have policy disagreements at some point, i trust her ability to fairly and impartially administer justice while operating free of personal bias or political agenda. i believe she's well qualified to serve as deputy attorney general, and i plan to support her nomination. unfortunately, madam president, i cannot say the same for the second nominee who appeared before the judiciary committee yesterday. anita gupta has been nominated to serve as the associate attorney general, sometimes considered to be the number three position at the department of justice. throughout her career, ms. gupta has been a clear and outspoken advocate for some pretty radical policies. in 2012, for example, she wrote that states should decriminalize possession of all drugs, not just marijuana chl i presume

would include things like fentanyl. heroin, methamphetamine and other highly addictive and destructive drugs. but when i asked ms. gupta about this statement in yesterday's hearing, she took the opposite position, but she didn't tell me, i used to advocate for that position and have now changed my position. she said unequivocally she did not advocate for the decriminalization of all drugs. but it became apparent she wanted senators to forget what she previously wrote when she said states should decriminalize simple possession of all drugs, particularly marijuana and for small amounts of other drugs. that's a quote from an article she wrote in 2012. unfortunately, the list of inconsistencies does not end there. in june of 2020, less than a year ago, ms. gupta argued it

ought to be easier to sue police officers in court for many damages. now this is sometimes called qualified immunity which recognizes the fact that law enforcement officers have to make split-second decisions, life-or-death decisions act actually, that it would be unfair to them to in retrospect go back and flyspeck all of their decisions. in other words, it gives them some room in which to operate, recognizing the unique nature of their job. but it also applies to other government employees, too. but in june 2020, less than a year ago, she argued it was time to revisit this doctrine of qualified immunity or, in other words, to make it easier to sue police officers for money. this was many -- one of the many steps that she outlined in an opinion piece in a national publication following the death of george floyd.

nine months later, she says she does not support that position, one she supported nine months ago. now she says she does not support that position, making it easier to sue police officers. and there's more. last summer ms. gupta put her support behind the defund the police movement. as our country engaged in an important and long overdue debate about police use of force and responsible policing strategies, the senate judiciary committee held a hearing on that very topic. ms. gupta testified before the committee and said, quote, while front end systems changes are important, it's also critical for state and local leaders to heed calls from black lives matter and movement from black lives activists to decrease police budgets and the scope and role and responsibility of police in our lives.

well, yesterday ms. gupta did not mince words. she said she does not support defunding the police, and she said decreasing police budgets was not defunding the police. well, at the time we were discussing this movement for defunding police and she now attempts to parse her words. it's tough to reconcile the stark difference between what ms. gupta has said in the past and what she now says as she attempts to win support in the senate. i'm weary and frankly skeptical of confirmation conversions where people take the opposite position when they're nominated for an important position, for a senate-confirmed position from the position they've taken in the past. i understand her interest in distancing herself from her previous positions. decriminalizing drugs,

eliminating qualified immunity, making it easy jury to -- making it easier to second-guess and sue police officers for money damages, and defunding the police are radical policy positions that should disqualify someone from becoming the third highest ranking member or official at the justice department. in order to be confirmed, ms. gupta knows she needs to convince us that she actually holds mainstream views on law enforcement strategies and issues. but i find it hard to believe that these views which are not from decades-old law school writing but recent public statements, indeed sworn testimony before the united states senate judiciary committee. i find it hard to believe she no longer holds these views which she said she held so recently. i want to be clear on one point. the opinions of ms. gupta,

private citizen, are not an issue. she has every right to hold opinions that differ from mine or anybody else's. but when you're the nominee for a high-level, indeed one of the highest level critical law enforcement positions, these are hardly -- these are highly problematic and to my mind disqualifying. perhaps more so than any other federal department or agency, the department of justice must operate free from bias and political agendas. the men and women leading the department must be able to separate their personal beliefs from the job before them. so no matter how they feel about the wisdom of policies enacted by congress, their job is to enforce the law, not as they want it to be but as it is. people across the country should have confidence that the senior leaders at the justice department will follow the law as written without fail.

we can't have leaders that turn a blind eye to whatever is politically convenient when it conflicts with their personally held positions. based on ms. gupta's clear history of radical policy positions which stands in stark contrast to the laws she'd be charged with enforcing, i do not believe she can separate her convictions from the job at hand. leaders within the department must be able to view all matters as matters of fact and matters of duty, not just a matter of opinion or a platform to argue for changes in the law. madam president, as the senate has considered the president's nominees over the past several weeks, i've been very clear i will not oppose nominees based simply on the political party of the president. i think the president is entitled to some deference on

the people he chooses. that was the strategy of our democratic colleagues previously. and it's incredibly damaging to both our country and its institution. just because somebody, a president you don't like has nominated somebody does not justify opposing that president's nominations. i'll continue to evaluate all nominees of this president based on the merits and their ability to do the job for which they were nominated. but i firmly believe that the american people deserve to have qualified, fire minded -- fair-minded individuals leading these important departments and agencies. for the department of justice which is responsible for enforcing the law of the land and imparting fair and equal justice, that's doubly true. there's simply no room for political or partisan or ideological agendas in the department of justice. i'm concerned that ms. gupta will continue to pursue those objectives from within the

department and use all the tools of the department and the authority given to her to achieve these ideological outcomes. therefore, madam president, i cannot support her nomination. madam president, i yield the floor. mr. grassley: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: recently the biden administration withdrew a proposed trump administration rule that would have required universities and k-12 schools to identify their connections with confucius institutes, which are very much connected to the country of china and i would even say the communist party of

china, which maybe would be one in the same. i've asked the biden administration about that move, but the administration has failed to respond to date. today i'm here to discuss four areas where the administration must be tough with china as well as other countries. since april 2015 i've conducted oversight on several key aspects of foreign efforts to influence members of congress and the american public. first, i focused on the equal, fair, and aggressive enforcement of transparency laws, and an example of one transparency law that i'll focus on is the foreign agents registration act. i first raised concerns about the foreign registration act in

april 2015 when it became very apparent that it wasn't being used hardly at all, historically hadn't been used very much, and people were getting away without registering under that act. and it may be okay to represent a foreign country or a foreign interest, but at least we in congress ought to know about it and turn the american -- and in turn the american people ought to know who you are and who you're speaking for. in 1938 congress passed that law. and we did it for the purpose then to expose nazi propaganda, and to identify foreign amendments to influence policymakers as well as the american public. last updated in 1966, the

foreign agents registration act requires those who lobby on behalf of foreign governments and foreign interests to register their affiliation and activities with our justice department. the foreign agents registration act reflects the fundamental principle that transparency brings accountability. until recently, however, the law has been seldom used. the foreign agents registration act ought to better enforce and also be equally enforced. that's why i worked to expose holes in the existing law and then find ways in the existing legislation to shore it up or

even use oversight to see that the justice department takes its use more -- with more certainty and with more force. as a result of those efforts, last session then i introduced the bipartisan bill that goes by the title of foreign agents disclosure and registration enhancement act. and since it wasn't passed in the last congress, i'll be reintroducing it this session. the bill requires the justice department for the first time to craft a comprehensive enforcement strategy and to release advisory opinions to promote that transparency. it gives investigators new tools, including civil investigative demand authority, to help identify violations.

last congress the bill had support from chairman graham, ranking member feinstein of the judiciary committee, and chairman rubio and vice chairman warner of the intelligence committee. it also had bipartisan support on the foreign relations committee, including from senators shaheen, rubio, murphy, and young, who've all worked to shine a light on foreign influence. we also had the sign-off from the chairman of the -- of that committee, also with the support from the trump administration. unfortunately, when senator cornyn and i joined on the floor just before christmas to ask for unanimous consent for the passage of this bill that had

such broad bipartisan support, the democrats objected, even though it had this bipartisan, multi-committee support. so i strongly urge the biden administration to join my efforts in making common sense bipartisan reforms to the foreign agents registration act and to make it a priority. my bill gets the job done. now, the second point i want to raise, i focused my oversight on increasing nontraditional espionage activities and foreign threats targeting taxpayer-funded research. when i was chairman of the judiciary committee in 2018, i convened a hearing regarding china's nontraditional espionage against the united states. in that hearing, both d.o.j. and

f.b.i. officials made very clear that the threat to our universities and taxpayer-funded research from foreign governments -- especially china -- is real and it's ongoing. for example, the department of justice witness stated, quote, we need to adapt our enforcement strategy to reach nontraditional collectors, including researchers in labs, universities, and the defense industrial base, some of whom may have undisclosed ties to chinese institutions and conflicting loyalties, end of quote. the f.b.i. witness stated that china's talent recruit program are effectively, quote,

brain-gain programs that encourage theft of intellectual property from u.s. institutions, end of quote. in june of 2019, when i was chairman of the senate finance committee, i held a hearing on foreign threats to taxpayer-funded research, which focused heavily on china's theft and china's espionage within our research community here in the united states. after the hearing, i organized a classified committee briefing on the topics from the department of health and human services, the national institutes of health, the department of health and human services inspector general, and the department of homeland security.

the trump administration ramped up government efforts to investigate and prosecute researchers for stealing intellectual property and research. now, the biden administration must continue those aggressive efforts if they want to be taken seriously. those efforts are more important now than ever. for example, during the covid pandemic, china has used cyberattacks to try and steal covid-related research. so now on another third focus of mine, it's been on propaganda efforts within our schools and universities; specifically, that includes china's confucius institutes. as an extension of the chinese

government, the confucius institutes are a foreign principle for purposes of the foreign agents registration act. according to reporting, the strategic goal of the chinese government is to place its institutes within existing colleges and universities in order to influence perceptions of the communist government in china under the guise of teaching chinese language, chinese culture, and chinese history. in other words, we got to see this problem with open eyes. in light of these factors, in october 2018, i wrote to the justice department and asked why it had yet to require individuals working for confucius institutes to register as foreign agents under the

foreign agents registration act. then in march of 2020, i wrote to dozens of schools asking that they get a briefing from the f.b.i. on the threats confucius institutes bring to the academic environment. i've also strongly backed senator kennedy's confucius act -- that's the title of the bill -- which passed the senate just last week. in part, that bill mandates that if a school wants an institute on campus, that school must have full managerial and academic control, not control from the chinese government. china's threats to our security are very real.

they're known and show no sign of stopping. it's a very good sign that in the past couple of years, many universities and colleges have cut ties with confucius institutes. probably some of those were on those respective campuses for a long period of time. the biden administration must use every tool -- every tool at its disposal -- to protect and defend our national security from this communist threat, which is why i wrote to the biden department of homeland security on february 11 this year regarding its withdrawal of the confucius rule, which i thought was a very good step forward from the previous administration. among the questions i asked the

department, two relate to whether or not the biden administration considers the confucius institute to be an extension of the communist chinese government as well as being purveyors of communist chinese propaganda. that ought to be easily recognized, and i imagine our president does recognize it. but i want to have him tell me so. so far that department has thus far failed to respond. the biden administration would be wise to answer both in the affirmative to clearly state to the country and the world where it stands regarding china's gigantic propaganda machine, of which the confucius institutes are only a small part. in other words, besides going after the confucius institutes,

we got to have our eyes open to every way that the communist chinese and their government is trying to influence things in this country as well as stealing things from our country. lastly, i want to highlight a very important issue that recently has been brought to my attention. upon entering office, president biden fired all u.s. executive directors at multilateral development banks who were currently serving out their term. some of these multilateral development banks are like the international monetary fund, the world bank, the asian development bank and the european bank on reconstruction and development. it's been u.s. tradition for incoming presidents to allow

these nonpartisan u.s. executive directors to serve in their positions until their term ends up regardless of whatever administration put them in those positions. this tradition is meant to ensure that the u.s. maintains a consistent authoritative presence and engagement within those multilateral institutions. in the last administration, the u.s. was tough on china through these development banks, and we were hoping that these people would be left in place so they could contribute -- continue that tough-on-china approach. the executive directors that were in their respective positions made it a point to defend u.s. strategic interests by building coalitions aimed at

eroding chinese influence, which has been allowed to grow at an alarming extent. and there's quite a push by the chinese communist government to get involved in the highest levels of almost every international organization, not just these banks that i'm talking about. removing these u.s. leaders from their position prior to their term expiring and with no replacements even nominated is an example -- isn't an example of the u.s. leading. this is an example of our country ceding its duties and responsibilities on the world stage. in addition to my unanswered letters, the biden administration should inform congress as to why it moved all executive directors from their positions prior to their terms

expiring. i hope president biden knows china is aggressively growing in influence in these multilateral organizations. so now isn't the time to abandon the field. there's no time to be weak with china. we must work tirelessly to protect our way of life and our national security from the ever-present threat of the communist chinese government. and, at the same time, we must build on the foundation that the trump administration created to protect american taxpayers from foreign theft and espionage and propaganda. i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum -- i guess i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call: mr. schumer: madam president? i ask unanimous consent the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: and i ask unanimous consent that the vote that was set for 5:23 begin right now. i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: without objection. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: the yeas are 66, the nays are 34. the nomination is confirmed. mr. schumer: mr. leader -- mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. schumer: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent with respect to the regan nomination, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the president be immediately notified of the senate's action. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: now, mr. president, first let me explain to the public and the senators what we're doing here. in the bipartisan agreement we faced under a 50-50 senate, the rules say that if there was a tie vote, that the majority leader has the ability to discharge the nomination from committee and that then there be a vote on the floor.

in this case, the nomination of xavier becerra, to be secretary of health and human services, there was a tie vote in the finance committee. and what i will be doing in a moment is invoking that rule so that there can be four hours of debate on the motion equally divided, and we will debate whether becerra should be approved. obviously, he only needs approval with 50 or 51 votes, if the vice president comes to break the tie. i will i would just say a brief word here. it is confounding to me that mr. becerra, javier becerra does not get some votes from it the other side of the aisle. he is a qualified member. he was an outstanding member of congress. he was a very good attorney general. and he has led the charge to keep people's health care when he was attorney general, he was involved in the lawsuits of those who wanted to repeal the a.c.a., and if that's the reason

our republican colleagues are objecting, because he wants to keep and preserve the affordable care act, which is very popular with the american people and very needed, i'm surprised. it's yesterday's news. i no he in 2010 a lot -- i know in 2010 a lot of people came here to repeal the a.c.a. but as the public got to know the a.c.a., they saw how good it is. and there's not much groundswell out there except among the hard right to repeal it. then we heard, well, he's not a doctor. i would remind my colleagues that the nominee for -- the last nominee for h.h.s. they supported was a drug company executive. while our republican friend -- are our republican friends saying they'd rather have a drug company executive, who was not a doctor either, than somebody who's been a very careful, smart attorney who's been fighting for people to get better health care? i'm surprised. so i hope that we may get a few of our colleagues to join us

tomorrow and vote for mr. berare a. i don't think it will -- besir a. i don't think it will serve the country well to be so adamantly opposed to him. pursuant to senate resolution 27, the finance committee, being tied on the question of reporting, i move to discharge the senate finance committee from further consideration of the nomination of xavier becerra of california to be secretary of health and human services. the presiding officer: under the provisions of senate resolution 27, there will now be up to four horse of debate on the motion equally divided with no motions, points of order, or amendments to the point of order. mr. schumer: we expect to vote on the motion to discharge to occur at approximately 12:00 noon on thursday, march 11, 2021. now, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the

senate proceed to legislative session and be in a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: and, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10:30 a.m. thursday, march 11, following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and morning business be closed. that upon the conclusion of morning business, the senate proceed to executive session and resume consideration of the motion to discharge the nomination of xavier becerra from the committee on finance with the time expiring at 12:00 noon. further, upon disposition of the motion to discharge, the senate resume consideration of the nomination of deborah haaland to be secretary of interior. that the cloture motion ripen sat 1:30 p.m.

the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: for the information of all senators, there will be two roll call votes during thursday's session of the senate. at 12:00 noon and at 1:30 p.m. on the motion to invoke cloture on the haaland nomination. if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it understand is adjourned under the previous order, following the remarks of senator sullivan. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: thank you, mr. president.

mr. sullivan: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. mr. sullivan: mr. president, is the senate in a quorum call? the presiding officer: it is not. mr. sullivan: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, we just voted on secretary michael regan to be the new e.p.a. administrator. and i want to congratulate him on his vote. he's now the new e.p.a.

administrator. i sit on the e.p.w. committee, environment and public works committee. we had hearings for mr. regan, administrator regan i guess we want to call him now. and i've had a number of conversations with him. i actually voted for him to move out of committee, to come to the floor for this vote that we took today. and i like to come down to the floor and explain my votes because sometimes i'm supporting the biden administration's cabinet officials. i introduced secretary of defense austin at his confirmation hearing. i served with him many years ago when i was a marine. he was a two star general in the army. a lot of respect for the secretary of defense. and then other times i'm a no. what i typically like to do is come and explain the noes. not always. but on this one for secretary

regan, administrator regan, his team, i want to explain it. because i will say i was impressed with him. i think he's qualified. he was essentially the e.p.a. administrator for north carolina. both of his republican senators introduced him at the hearing, voted for him, i believe, today. good conversations with him as well. but here's the thing, mr. president. i was trying to get commitments to him. now this is very normal in the confirmation process. you work with the nominees to try to get commitments. sometimes they give them. sometimes they don't. but that's what we do, advice and consent. we've been doing this since the founding fathers wrote the constitution on what the senate should be doing in these confirmation processes that we're going through right now with the biden administration. so i wasn't asking for a lot, mr. president, in terms of commitments from this administration for the great

state of alaska. but it was important to me. why was it important to me? unfortunately the biden administration has launched a war on working families in alaska. now that sounds like a pretty dramatic statement. a war on working families in alaska. and, mr. president, what i'm looking for is a cease-fire, a cease-fire. i state like a -- my state like a lot of states is hurting economically. we're doing very well. i'm prevud of -- very proud of alaska. number one in vaccinations. it's so huge. the populations are spread out but we're working together, all of us, and we're achieving really remarkable results. number one on testing per capita throughout the whole pandemic. some of the lowest per capita death rates throughout the whole pandemic. but we are being really hit hard

economically. energy sector, tourism sector, commercial fishing sector. so why am i looking for a cease-fire? in the first two months of the biden administration, eight executive orders, if you include the recent statement of the president and prime minister of canada which had a focus on alaska, eight had been focused on my state. usually economic development projects. usually access to federal lands. eight. there's no state in the country that is getting that kind of attention from this administration. and we're hur hurting. not even close. show me any other state represented in the u.s. senate chamber that has eight executive orders directed at your state. it won't exist.

trust me, my constituents don't like all the attention. and i want to ask the president, not the presiding officer, the president, mr. president, mr. president biden, sir, you are a -- you were a u.s. senator for three decades. let me ask you this question. if a republican administration came into office and focused its attention on shutting down delaware with eight executive orders inside of two months, you'd be on the floor every day like me talking about it, asking for some relief. that's all we're asking for. cease-fire. on the hardworking families of alaska. so here's what i ask secretary regan. a commitment on these were not big issues. and i told him, if i get a commitment on these things, i'll come down to the floor and give a speech in favor of your confirmation. one was a very big energy p

project -- project in my state that has been permitted for almost 25 years. started with the clinton administration in a place called the national petroleum reserve of alaska set aside by congress for oil and gas development. that's what the npr a is. we do it responsibly, better than any place in the world. but this is a project started by the clinton administration, moved forward by the bush administration, a big nepa environmental impact statement by the obama administration called the integrated activity plan for npra which was approved, completely noncontroversial because that's what this part of alaska is set aside for. and then the trump administration finalizes a very large but responsibly developed energy project.

started it this winter. no controversy. estimates 2,000 direct jobs with thousands of more indirect jobs. all we wanted was a commitment to keep it going. that's it. simple. status quo. couldn't get it. couldn't get it. there's litigation with regard to this project right now. about 200 people, almost 200 workers have been sent home, pink slips during a recession. these are great jobs, by the way. try to get a commitment on this. couldn't get it. by the way, 75% of those 2,000 jobs, union jobs. high-paying, building trades, labors, operating engineers, teamsters, great americans, by the way, 75%. noncontroversial. 25 years of permits. no one has been against this.

so i just want a commitment on that. nope. like i said, mr. president, war on working families. another one. here's something that a lot of people don't know about alaska. 60% of the country's wetlands, of america's wetlands are in my state. 6-0. now, we have the most beautiful state. we love our wilderness. we love the outdoors. we care about the alaskan environment more than anyone else. trust me. more than anyone in the e.p.a., that's for sure. 175 million acres of wetlands. so this creates challenges. unlike most of the lower 48, we have not drenled and filled -- dredged and filled these areas in the past. you look at the east coast, look at their environments. no offense to some of my colleagues whose states are up the corridor. holy cow. you wonder about my environment? jeez louise, but you can't do compensation for any projects --

it's hard to do compensation for projects where you haven't had dredge and fill before because we have so many wetlands. so in 2018 the corps of engineers, e.p.a., had an m.o.u. to help address some of these mitigation challenges. it wasn't controversial. it was crittive. i think senator regan thought it was creative when i asked him about it. we asked for a continuation of this. these are really simple commitments, good ideas. couldn't get it from the secretary. now, look ... here's my own view, mr. president. i think mr. regan wanted to. i explained these to him. i think he was reasonable, someone who's done this in stated, knows how each state is unique, cares about jobs, cares about environmental justice. that's a big issue in my state when a lot of these communities getting targeted are actually

alaska native american communities. that's environmental justice, that's for sure. so my instinct was he wanted to make these commitments, but i think he was told no. i don't know that, but i'm pretty -- well, i can't say. but i think he was told no by the white house. and this raises a much bigger concern about this nominee. and, mr. president, my good friend, the esteemed senator from west virginia, senator capito, was on the floor earlier. she also sits on the e.p.w. committee. she is the ranking member on the committee. and she gave a really important speech on why she also voted no for mr. regan. and i think she had the same feeling i did. knows his issues, qualified, cares about different states' challenges. but she raised a concern that i want to reiterate, because i think it's going to be at a reay

big concern and i think it's going to come to a head here soon. and that's this -- there is concern -- it is not just among republican senators; it is all over the press; she cited it -- that mr. regan, who's now the e.p.a. administrator, might not be the person in charge of the e.p.a., now, he's senate-confirmed. he's the one that has to come before the senate for hearings, for oversight. but what -- what are we talking about here? well, mr. president, the former e.p.a. administrator, gina mccarthy, is in the white house. she's out talking to the press all the time. she's an unaccountable czar on these issues, woking behind the scenes, actually not even behind

the scenes. she was recently quoting herself -- quoting about herself, saying she's the orchestra leader of all of these issues. wait, what about the e.p.a. administrator? i thought he was the senate-confirmed person nominated by the president. big, big concern that he's not going to have the authority or the decision-making capacity and is going to be told what to do by a shadow e.p.a. working out of the white house run by gina mccarthy. that's not just me. that's not just senator capito. that's all over the press. read it. inside e.p.a., she was quoting from that, senator capito. no transparency there. all these previous obama administration e.p.a. alumni in the white house running it.

by the way, if i'm the new e.p.a. administrator, mr. regan, i wang want that -- i wouldn't want that notion out there. but with all due respect, sir -- and, again, congratulations -- it's out there. and you need to tamp this down because it's going to come to a head. look, my state did not fare well under the gina mccarthy e.p.a. there was a lost list -- waters of the u.s. -- i won't get into the details. disrespect to my constituents. e.p.a. officials, rifles in chicken, alaska. we were not big fans. so i believe mr. regan wants to work with alaskans. i believe he understands the

concept of cooperative federalism on these environmental issues. i don't believe he would authorize armed guards to terrify small miners in interior, alaska, the way the previous administrator, mccarthy, did. and talk to the press in a blatantly disrespectful way to my fellow alaskans. shameful, in my view. but this issue is going to come to a head. who is in charge? regardless if you're a democrat or a republican, you voted for the e.p.a. administrator or you didn't, we want him in charge, because he's the senate-confirmed official, nominated by the president, not an unelected official in the white house who i guarantee you wouldn't have been able to get confirmed. so it's going to be a challenge. and it's not just gina mccarthy. we had an e.p.w. hearing today.

and i raised a question about the other czar, john kerry. he hasn't been confirmed, hasn't been appointed to a senate-confirmed job. he and the president are at loggerheads on a really big issue. the president of the united states recent list in a meeting reported by the press with labor leaders said i'm all in on natural gas. that's important. that's going to be a huge issue. for our environment, for workers. the president of the united states said that. i'm all in on natural gas. so the men and women who build pipelines, he told them that recently in a white house meeting. he's the president of the united states. now, john kerry, i think some people think he's president of the world. he's flying around on his airplane right now. he's telling people he's not for natural gas. well, i wonder who's going to win that debate?

but this goes to this issue, mr. president. these are going to come to a he had had. who's in charge here? the president of the united states? the president of the world on natural gas? i hope it's the president of the united states because natural gas is going to be key for our workers, for our environment, for our national security, and at the e.p.a. level, who's in charge? mr. regan? i hope so. or gina mccar in my judgment it's looking for and more like she's in charge. so that's why a number of us, despite being impressed, wanting to work with the new e.p.a. administrator, voted no. and i certainly hope that the unaccountable team of mccarthy and kerry in the white house are not going to be running policy. it's going to be the people actually confirmed by the u.s. senate, because that's the way our system of government is supposed to work. so, mr. president, for those

reasons, although i again want to congratulate mr. regan, i respectfully decline to support his nomination and we'll see -- we'll see who's going to be ultimately in charge. i want to work with him and his team. these issues are so important to my state. i want him to help convince others in the biden white house for the cease-fire that my constituents need. we need to get to work. and i'm hoping he's going to be a constructive partner in that regard. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to have my following remarks be placed in a separate order -- separate location in the "congressional record." the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sullivan: mr. president, most mornings i get up kind of early and i go for a run on the

mall, run by the capitol, this beautiful building, the senate, house, the people's house. recently it was open for all of us to enjoy. and now, as most americans know, it's surrounded by gates and razor wire and troops. it looks a little bit like the green zone of baghdad, not the u.s. capitol. when i go running -- i do this most mornings; i did it morning -- you see these wonderful national guard men and women still here behind the fence, behind the razor wire. and they're literal lit about every 50 yards, sometimes closer, standing post -- all night, all night. hundreds of them. american soldiers.

and they're doing their duty. we all appreciate it. i talk to them, and i just say, hey, how are you guys doing? how is morale? you want to be here? you think it's time to go home? i think it's time for you to go home. and i'm going to try and help you with that. now, look ... most are stoic, they're tough, they're soldiers doing their job. but, make no mistake, mr. president, they want to go home. standing their posts all night -- 1:00, 2:00, 3:00 in the morning -- every 50 yards. for what? for what? i don't think they know what for, and neither do i. now, mr. president, the assault that took place on our democracy on january 6 was a dark day for

our country, no doubt. i'll remember that the rest of my life. but the members of congress did something really important that same day. we reconvened right here in the u.s. senate, even amid some of the broken glass and smashed doors in the house. we finished our constitutional duty to count the electoral college votes. the rioters that day, who should be prosecuted, did not win. that was important. but that was three months ago. and our nation's capital is still decked in layer -- and our nation's capitol is still decked in layer upon layer of barbed wire. thousands of troops still roam the capitol instead of being where they know they should be -- home, back to their jobs. these are national guard members, so their work is

obviously being disrupted. and back to their states and their communities. the costs of keeping them here since january at this juncture, mr. president, is over half a billion dollars. but here's the thing. i pay close attention to these issues. i keep asking, okay, i understand this. they were here after the 6th. they were here for the inauguration. but what's the threat now? give me a credible intel threat that requires 5,000 troops and razor wire all across the u.s. capitol, the people's house. what's the credible intel? i have not gotten any credible intel that i'm aware of. now, we learned yesterday, mr. president, that the secretary of defense approved

the request for these soldiers to be here for another 60 days. but here's what he didn't hear about in those reports. i have a lot of respect for the secretary of defense. as a matter of fact, as i mentioned in my remarks earlier, i introduced him at his confirmation hearing. but this decision whether there should be troops here or not is actually not his decision. it's our decision. it's the members of congress' decision. that's the threshold issue. should we still have the troops here? i.t. the majority leader's decision. i.t. the speaker of the house's -- it's the speaker of the house's decision. so why do we still have troops here? why is the capitol still in high-security lockdown?

i think it would be really important for the majority leader to come to the floor and not only tell us but tell the troops, tell the american people. what's going on? remember, this is not our house. this is not our building. this belongs to the people of america. we're privileged to be here, certainly, but we need answers. and i will tell you who else needs answers. the troops need answers. my own view is we need to get these troops home. we need to tear down the wall. we need to open the gate. and this is not just my view. this is a widely held view -- democrats and republicans all agree.

mr. president, just look around the capitol hill neighborhoods. these signs are everywhere. free the people's house. don't fence the capitol. what's happening right now, we all love our military. our military normally is a symbol of strength for america, but right now the military here is not a symbol of strength. we're telling the world through razor wire that american democracy is fragile, that it's afraid. american democracy is not fragile and it's not afraid. and so, mr. president, these troops are a symbol that not

just to americans, but to the rest of the world that the capitol lives in fear or weakness. there was evidently some kind of vague -- it wasn't credible -- on march 4 from some nut job group, qanon, however the heck you pronounce it, and we had the entire house on the other side of this great building call it quits, went home, said we're not going to do any work. that's exactly the wrong answer. that's not what we did on january 6. so we need, mr. president, is we need our leaders in the house, in the senate to come down here and tell us why we are still in an armed camp.

one can't help but wonder if there's something else going on here. why do the leaders of the house and senate still want thousands of troops and razor wire around the capitol? i hope they don't fear the people they represent. i don't fear my constituents. is there intel that they have that we don't know about? how long can we expect this green zone in our nation's capital to continue? the american people need answers and here's the key issue -- at the end of the day, this is a law enforcement problem. it's not a military problem. to make it a military problem is dangerous. if the capitol police need more officers, then let's have that discussion. but we are a citizen controlled

government, and our military, whom i respect so much, should not be used for an extended period of time here on the capitol grounds to handle a law enforcement issue. especially at the most important symbol of democracy in america, probably the most important symbol of democracy in the world. so, mr. president, here's what we need to do. it's time to tear these walls down, open these gates, and send our brave national guard troops home. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate stands adjourned until 10:30 a.m. tomorrow.

congressman marcia fudge of the secretary of housing and urban development. also today appeals court judge merritt garden confirmed as attorney general and michael regan's epa administrator paid when the senate is back in session we will have coverage here on cspan2. stay macbook tv on cspan2 has top nonfiction books and authors every weekend. sunday night at 9:00 p.m. eastern on "after words", claremont review of books editor charles kesler talks about his book prices of the two constitutions the rise, decline and recovery of american greatness. he's interviewed by author george mason university law professor salmon. then at ten author journalists and biographer walter isaacson looks at the developer of the crisper method for genome

editing in his book the code breaker. jennifer and her book the daughters of company bonnie, journalist gayle lemmon attacks on female warriors who are fighting and winning against isis in syria. watch book tv this weekend on cspan2. spank your washing cspan2 your unfiltered view of government trade cspan2 is crated by america's cable television company and today brought to you by these television companies who provide cspan2 to viewers as a public service. up next calpurnia democratic governor gavin newsom gives annual state of the state address in los angeles from dodger stadium. talk about the states response of the coronavirus pandemic as well as vaccination efforts

across the state. he also discusses investments in infrastructure, education, climate change in the state's economy. this is just under half an hour. [applause] 's >> let me thank you madam lieutenant governor for your kind introduction and good evening to those of you joining us virtually tonight, toni atkins member the california legislature and all the elected and state officials to my amazing wife jennifer, our first part of the state of california think it will for being here in the most 2021 possible that is remotely. tonight we mark the unprecedented moment california history to reflect on where we have been this past year but think it's important to consider where we are pretty him speaking to you from dodger stadium, transformed from the home of lastra year's world series champions into the centerpiece ofof