department needs its leader confirmed and on the job now. i was pleased that there was bipartisan support for discharging attorney general becerra's nomination from the finance committee. i help the senate gives his nomination bipartisan support once again and when it's time to vote on his confirmation, i look forward to working with him in the months and years to come. i yield the floor. >> you're watching c-span2, your unfiltered view of government. c-span2 was created by america's cable television company and today we're brought to you by these television companies who provide c-span2 to viewers as a public service. ♪♪ >> the senate about to gavel back in for more debate on the nomination of xavier becerra to be health and human services

secretary. a final confirmation vote set for 12 p.m. eastern. later senators will also vote whether to move forward with considering labor secretary nominee marty walsh. we take you now live to the senate floor. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the chaplain dr. barry black will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. eternal god, today guide our lawmakers to lead blameless lives by doing what is right. throughout the day may they repeatedly ask you to guide them in fulfilling your purposes

for our nation. lord, empower them to speak the truth from sincere hearts. help them to trust in your loving providence as they strive to be your faithful followers. grant that their quest for integrity will inspire them to seek your divine apositively and please you in all that they do. we pray in your majestic name. amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic

for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington d.c., march 18, 2021. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable ben ray lujan, a senator from the state of new mexico, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: patrick j. leahy, president pro tempore. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved.

mr. schumer: mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. schumer: are we in a quorum? the presiding officer: no. mr. schumer: okay. mr. president, first i understand that there is a bill at the desk that is due for a second reading. the presiding officer: the clerk will read the title of the bill for the second time. the clerk: h.r. 1799, an act to amend the small business act and the cares act to extend the covered period for the paycheck protection program and for other purposes. mr. schumer: in order to place the bill on the calendar under the provisions of rule 14, i would object to further proceedings. the presiding officer: objection having been heard, the bill will be placed on the calendar. mr. schumer: thank you, mr. president.

now, mr. president, the asian american community is still reeling from the senseless murder of eight people near atlanta, six of whom were women of asian descent. it will be sometime before we understand what drove the madman who perpetrated this crime, but there is no doubt that abuse, prejudice, and violence against asian americans is on the rise and it is so un-american and so despicable that we all must be speaking out about this. the same day that six asian women were killed in georgia, the top aapi hate organization released a report naming 3,800 incidents of hate against asian americans and pacific islanders. and that's just in one year alone. the fear in the asian american community and the threat of violence against its members should be a topic of national conversation.

in the last four years, you know, we all know there have been forces of racism, dark forces that have been often seen in america, but the last four years where donald trump at the very minimum refused to condemn the bigotry in the instances when he should have allowed them to come far more up to the surface. it's as if the society's superego that keeps these dark forces down has been greatly diminished or even removed. it is up to us, particularly under a new president who fights bigotry at every step of the way, but it's up to all of us to speak out against it and to act against it. the story of the asian american community is quintessentially an american story, and we cannot allow the rising tide of bigotry against them, the intolerance against them, the prejudice

against them to go unchecked, because in a multicultural society like ours, an attack on any one group is an attack on everyone. i love the asian american community. they are such fine, good american people. the story of the asian american community is quintessentially an american story. it's a story of coming here, building strong communities, opening local businesses, churches, civic organizations, and slowly but surely gaining the political representation they so deserve. just yesterday, we confirmed a nominee whose parents emigrated from taiwan to become the u.s. trade rep. that's notable and important progress. but unfortunately, the past few years has shown us that the -- that america has not excised the age-old demon of racism and to too many it has become

acceptable, permissible or just shrug your shoulders. that cannot be. with respect to the asian american community specifically and all communities, we must condemn rhetoric that is racist. in this case, we must condemn any rhetoric that blames the chinese people for the coronavirus. president trump did that des pickly, and that notion is too often encouraged by others who repeated his harsh, nasty, and bigoted words. we must stand beside and stand up for our asian american brothers and sisters. americans of every faith, every color, every gender and sexual orientation must band together against these dark forces of hate. as i said, they are always with us, but somehow after four years of the trump presidency, they are rising to the surface and seem too acceptable to too many

people. fight them, fight them, fight them we must. as we mourn with the people of georgia, let us recommit ourselves to that most american of creeds that's right above the mantle where you sit, mr. president, e pluribus unum. out of many, one. america, e pluribus unum. out of many, one. now, on nominations, today the senate will vote to confirm another member of president biden's cabinet xavier becerra to serve as secretary of health and human services. in truth, attorney general becerra's nomination should not have taken this long. from the moment the attorney general -- attorney general becerra was announced as president biden's pick for h.h.s., senate republicans have tried to detrail his nomination. their arguments are almost -- almost verge on the ridiculous.

they complained loudly that he had no direct experience as a medical professional, even though republicans voted in lockstep to install alex azar, a pharmaceutical executive who raised drug prices and tried to undermine our nation's health law as the previous h.h.s. secretary. becerra, by contrast, has decades of standing up for working and middle-class americans in congress, fighting to protect and expand medicare, medicaid, and working to safeguard our health care system from attacks by the trump administration. as the biden administration works to defeat this pandemic, the president deserves to have his cabinet confirmed, especially a post as important as h.h.s. secretary. i look forward to completing his nomination today. a few days after democrats gained control of the senate, we have big tasks ahead of us right away. i said that we had three

important priorities to do quickly. one, the impeachment trial of donald trump. two, big and bold covid relief. and three, president biden's cabinet. we have already finished the first two priorities, and very soon we're going to finish the third. i want to thank my colleagues, my democratic colleagues, for working so quickly, so hard, and in such a unified team effort to allow all this to happen. i'm very proud of what we have done in these first few months. later today, the senate will take its first vote on the nomination of boston mayor marty walsh to be our nation's labor secretary. early next week, after we confirm him, the senate will have confirmed every available cabinet secretary and many more cabinet-level appointments beside. that is excellent progress. and again, i want to thank my colleagues in the senate on both sides of the aisle for their

votes in supporting these fine nominees. what does it mean? it means the biden administration will have the personnel in place to implement the american rescue plan, finish the fight against covid-19, and bring our country roaring back. in the meantime, the senate must continue to work to get the rest of the president's team in place. and now on the american rescue plan. as americans learn more and more about a.r.p., the american rescue plan, the more popular it becomes and the more optimistic americans feel about our economic recovery. across the country, the support for the rescue plan has risen to over 70%. in january of this year, before president biden took office and democrats assumed the majority in the senate, more than four in five americans believed america was on the wrong track. less than one in five said it was on the right track.

now a majority, 55%, believe the country is headed in the right direction, back on the right track. that's a dramatic turn rather quickly, but i think it's in part because of the good work we have done here in the senate. now we learn something else. consumer confidence has increased faster after the passage of the american rescue plan than after any of the other stimulus bills passed by congress, particularly among low and middle-income americans who have suffered the most. that's fantastic news. americans at the top have been able to survive the pandemic much more easily than americans at the lower end of the ladder. for that reason, economists have long feared a k-shaped recovery in which high-income earners recover quickly while middle and low-income earners are left behind. the american rescue plan is finally restoring confidence and support for americans at the

middle and at the bottom, helping drive a robust recovery for everyone. one crucial aspect of that recovery is support for housing. as we all know, the pandemic put tens of millions of americans out of work and drained family incomes. americans were forced into impossible choices. do i pay the rent and utilities this month or do i buy another few weeks of groceries? sadly, more than 13 million americans report that they have fallen behind on the rent, especially black and brown americans. so when senate democrats put together the american rescue plan, we made one of the most significant investments in housing assistance in recent history. more than $20 billion in emergency aid for low-income renters, those at the greatest risk of eviction. $10 billion to help homeowners behind on mortgages and utilities. to avoid foreclosure. we include crucial support for

rural america, homeowners struggling with the mortgage, and americans, particularly veterans, who have recently fallen into homelessness or at risk of homelessness. the american rescue plan goes further in delivering housing assistance to tribal nations and native hawaiians, more than any other housing bill in history. the american rescue plan, quite literally, will keep the roof over americans' heads. it's just one of the many ways the a.r.p. delivers relief to struggling americans and sets the stage for a supercharged economic recovery. i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that further proceedings under the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: yesterday secretary mayorkas testified, quote, the border is secure and the border is not open. yet the situation on our southern border has required fema, the federal emergency management agency, to be called in. so either this is the first time fema has been deployed just to admire a situation that is going smoothly or the administration

is not being straight with the american people. here are the facts. customs and border protection reported more than 100,000 migrant encounters in february. 100,000. that was up 28% from january. d.h.s. projects the march totals will keep 2021 on pace for the most border encounters in 20 years. unaccompanied child arrivals have jumped 63%, on pace to shatter all-time records. this would be a humanitarian crisis under any circumstances, but it's even worse during a global pandemic. these thousands of unaccompanied kids are being housed in three high -- three-high bunkbeds at

facilities that have now tripled in capacity. during a pandemic that's keeping american kids out of schools and small businesses from fully reopening, these failing policies have us crowding these kids together down at the border. and don't forget, the administration policy directs c.b.p. to release migrants on u.s. soil while they await asylum rulings. that's without -- without -- a negative covid test. so good low-income -- so good luck to the communities oned border. this isn't just a health crisis. it's a security crisis as well. multiple people have matched to names on the f.b.i.'s terrorist watch list. it is not because of their new administration, they claim. that would be news to the migrants themselves some of

these people have told them that it was democrats' rhetoric that led them to come. some have showed up with t-shirts with the biden campaign's logo on them. administration officials keep sending mixed messages, repeating phrases from the white house podium like, now is not the time to come. so there will be an appropriate time sometime later for people to enter our country illegally? speaking of mixed signals, this week the house is voting on immigration bills. are they leaping into action to repair the crisis? no, that's not what they have in mind. they're taking up an amnesty plan that would create a special new path to citizenship for illegal immigrants working in certain industries. so to summarize, the administration can't admit they've cause add crisis. they have yet to address the crisis, and house democrats are backing policies that would only exacerbate the wrong incentive.

now, mr. president, on a completely different matter, i remember distant days long, long ago, way back through the mist of time, when democrats said it would be wrong for washington to overturn a state-certified election result. no, wait a minute. that was two months ago. two months ago every democrat, cable news channel, and every liberal news channel was mettling down over some republican's effort to dispute state-certified election results here in congress. i opposed those efforts myself. but right now as we speak, speaker pelosi and washington democrats are literally trying to overturn a state-certified election here in congress. that's exactly what they're doing over in the house right now. the voters of iowa's second district spoke in november.

they counted the votes. they recounted the votes. the outcome was certified. that's the magic word, certified, that we heard over and over again in november and december. there was the opportunity to present complaints in court -- sound familiar? -- but the defeated democrat passed up the opportunity to go to court. the process played out in a way that every liberal in america spent november, december, and january insisting was beyond question. ahhh ... but there is a catch. this time, this time, mr. president, the republican won and the democrat lost. so speaker pelosi and washington democrats have set out trying to overturn the result from right here in congress. congresswoman miller meeks has been sworn in.

she's here. she is working. but democratic leadership is trying to use brute political power to kick her out and replace this congresswoman with a democrat whom she defeated. you don't often see hypocrisy this blatant and this shameless so quickly. naturally, now the democrats stand to benefit from this. the concept of washington overturning a certified election has gone from a massive outrage -- a massive outrage -- to a minor afterthought for much of the national media. this is happening at the same time that house and senate democrats are pitching a massive takeover of all 50 states' election laws. the same people who are trying to overturn this certified election result want to ram through a bill that would let them control the democrat

processes -- the democratic process that will determine whether they keep their jobs and their majority in two years' time. this isn't about principle. it's just an attempt to use a temporary majority to pull off a permanent partisan power grab. democraticdemocratic leaders hae razor-thin majorities in both chambers. they're obviously afraid that they're going to lose them. so they've decided their top priority is a washington rewrite of election rules. the second district in iowa is just the appetizer. soon democrats want to come for the main course. every congressional district -- all 50 states, every election for federal office would have to be run the way liberal washington lawyers who donate to democrats prefer. voter i.d.?

their bill bans it unless states implement a huge loophole that makes it meaningless. but ballot harvesting where paid political operatives can hand in stacks of ballots with other peoples' names on them? it won't just be allowed. it will be mandatory nationwide. those are just two examples from an endless list outside special interests are putting tens of millions of dollars behind them in fact, some democrats are so desperate to rewrite the rules of our democracy that many of them want to break the senate's rules in order to do it. they want to break the senate's rules in order to rewrite the rules of our democracy all over america. people have argued it is worth destroying the legislative filibuster over h.r. 1 because the rules that govern our democracy are so important. of course, that's backwards. the rules that govern our democracy are indeed uniquely

sensitive and important. that's why this issue of all issues must be addressed in a fair and bipartisan way. this isn't a uniquely justifiable place to shred of senate's rules and ram through something partisan. it is a uniquely unjustifiable place to do it. i worked with chris dodd to spearhead the help america vote act back in 2002, a big landmark election bill that made it easier to vote and harder to cheat. it passed the senate 92-2. 92-2. that is the kind of consensus you build if you want to tune up our democracy. that's the kind of broad bipartisan support that exists for making it easier to vote but harder to cheat.

a far cry -- a far cry from overing it up a result from the -- from overturning a result from the last election and dictating the terms of the next one. now, one final matter. this weekend marks the end of the acting sergeant at arms. i'm greatful that jennifer is not actually going anywhere. while she is stepping away from the top job, leader schumer had the excellent judgment to retain jennifer as the sergeant at arms chief of staff. so instead of a farewell, i just want to offer a few thanks. i cannot imagine tougher circumstances than those in which jennifer stepped into in this job. she had already impressed everyone, but when the capitol was breached on january 6, she leapt into action on a whole new level.

it then fell to jennifer to take the reins through a challenging time. her sure had shanded leadership and snug institutional knowledge helped us get through a safe inauguration just two weeks after january 6. then came the fourth-ever presidential impeachment trial and there have been all the critical dale lay missions the sergeant at arms' team fulfills from physical security to i.t. infrastructure. so we were lucky to have such a poised professional on the job and we're lucky she's sticking around. i know all of my colleagues share my gratitude for jennifer. the presiding officer: morning business is closed. under the previous order, the senate will proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the following nomination, which the clerk will report. the clerk: nomination, department of health and human services, xavier becerra of

california to be secretary. mr. mcconnell: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

apparently, some democrats think they're not supposed to bully or pressure those senators. mr. president, met me quote a former senator on attempts to change filibuster rules in the senate. and i'm quoting. we should make no mistake. this nuclear option is ultimately an example of the arrogance of power. it is a fundamental power grab by the majority party. folks who want to see this change want to eliminate one of the procedural mechanisms designed for the express purpose of guaranteeing individual rights and they also have a consequence and would undermine the protections of a minority point of view in the heat of majority excess. end quote. mr. president, that

was former senator -- mr. president, that was former senator joe biden. here's what a current senator had to say on eliminating the legislative filibuster. again i quote. i can tell you that would be the end of the senate as it was originally devised and created going back to our founding fathers. we have to acknowledge our respect for the minority and that is what the senate tries to do in its composition and in its procedure, end quote. that was a statement from the current democrat whip in 2018. mr. president, 2017, 33 democrat senators signed a letter urging that the legislative filibuster be preserved. 2017. and of course democrats have not limited their support of the filibuster to words. they supported it by their actions. in the last congress democrats set a record for forcing culture

-- cloture votes which is what has to happen in order to end a filibuster. they repeatedly used the filibuster when they disagreed with legislation that republicans were advancing. they filibustered covid relief. they filibustered police reform, even though senator scott and leader mcconnell had committed to a robust bipartisan amendment process. they filibustered pro-life legislation. and they made it very clear that they deeply regretted the fact that they could not filibuster judicial nominees, a situation i would point out, mr. president, of their own making. even without the judicial filibuster, they used every tool at their disposal to slow down judicial nominations. so, mr. president, as of last year democrats' actions clearly demonstrated their firm support of the filibuster but now that they've actually taken power

here in washington, albeit by the slimmest possible majority, they're pushing to get rid of it. democrats, of course, would like people to believe that this is a principled change, that all of a sudden they've realized that it's really much better for the country if the majority party gets to do whatever it wants when it's in charge. well, mr. president, i have -- just have to say if you believe that, i have some nice ocean front property in south dakota to sell you. i doubt that there is anyone anywhere in the country who seriously thinks that the democrats a dramatic 180-degree turn on the filibuster is a principled reversal of their previous position. no, mr. president, this isn't about principle. it's partisanship. it's political expediency. democrats' principles haven't changed. their power in the senate has.

they're in charge now, and they don't want anything holding them back like that pesky senate rule that they've used so often to their advantage. mr. president, the truth is democrats want a one-sided advantage. last year they were perfectly happy to exercise their rights as a minority and filibuster any republican legislation they didn't like. now that they're in charge, they want to deny the minority -- a right democrats repeatedly exercised when they were in power. and there apparently too shortsighted to see that their proposal could be turned back on them in an instant. when democrats abolished the filibuster for judicial nominees, leader mcconnell warned democrats that they would reap the whirlwind and they did. much to democrats' horror, president trump ended up being the chief beneficiary of the

abolition of the filibuster for judicial nominees appointing a vast number of conservative judges to the federal bench. several democrat senators have openly admitted that they had made a mistake by abolishing the judicial filibuster. the junior senator from delaware came to the floor in april 2017 and said he regretted changing the rules in 2013. the senior senator from minnesota not only said she regretted changing the rules, she went so far as to say in 2018 that she would support bringing the 60-vote requirement back. yet now democrats are apparently ready to abolish, abolish the legislative filibuster. how have they not learned their lesson? unless democrats are so arrogant as to think they'll never again be in the minority. mr. president, some democrats have suggested that we need to

abolish the filibuster because otherwise the senate won't get anything done. well not quite. not quite, mr. president. it's not that the filibuster could prevent us from getting anything done. it's that it could prevent us from getting everything democrats want done. that's a big difference. the truth is democrats could easily get something done in the senate if they were willing to actually work with republicans. and by work with republicans, i don't mean inviting republicans to join their bills while excluding any meaningful republican input. i don't mean threatening republicans to support their bills on pain of having the filibuster abolished or substantially altered. no, i mean genuinely inviting republicans to the table. now, it would mean the democrats wouldn't get everything they want done and of course republicans certainly wouldn't

get everything we want done. but we could get something done. in fact, we could get some pretty meaningful things done. we could negotiate an infrastructure bill. we could pass section 230 reform like the bipartisan bill i've introduced with senator schatz yesterday. we could pass police reform legislation, expand domestic manufacturing capacity, protect election integrity. we could do all of that and more if democrats would engage in genuine bipartisan negotiation. is it really too much to ask that democrats find ten republicans to work with on major legislative items. mr. president, everyone would like to passion their unedited agenda, just like they want it. but that's not how things are supposed to work, at least not

in the united states senate. and it's certainly not how it's supposed to work when like democrats you barely have a majority. the senate and indeed our whole system of government was designed to prevent a partisan majority from steamrolling through its unedited, unchecked agenda. let's just talk for a minute about the purpose of the senate, mr. president. actually, let me take a step back and talk about the purpose of our whole system of government. our founders established not a pure democracy where the will of the majority reins unchecked but a democratic republic. it was their intention to combine majority rule with representation and protection for the minority. why? because the founders knew very well that it wasn't just kings who could be tyrants.

they knew that majorities could be tyrants, too. and that a majority of citizens could easily trample the rights of the minority. so they put safeguards in place throughout our government, checks and balances to keep the government in check and ensure the minority as well as the majority rights were protected. mr. president, one of those safeguards was the united states senate. weary of to quote federalist 62, and i quote the propensity of all single and numerous assemblies to yield to the impulse of sudden and violent passions, end quote, the foufounders created the senate a check on the house of representatives. they made the senate smaller and senators' terms of office longer with the intention of creating ■ more stable, more thoughtful, and more deliberative legislative body to check ill-considered or intemparate

legislation and attempts to curtail minority rights. as time has gone on, the legislative filibuster has become a key tool in preserving the founders' vision of the senate. the filibuster does indeed make it harder to get legislation through the senate. and, mr. president, that's a good thing. that's what the founders int intended. the senate was not designed to be a rubber stamp for a partisan agenda. it was intended to check partisanship or as the founders might put it, faction. mr. president, does the filibuster sometimes stop good legislation from getting passed? of course it does. last congress it stopped us from passing legislation to protect unborn babies who can feel pain from being killed by abortion. the failure of the senate to pass that bill in my view was a tragedy. but just as you don't abolish the burden of proof in criminal

cases just because some criminal sometimes escaped justice for a lack of evidence, you don't permanently remove protections from minority rights because you might be able to force through a good piece of legislation. mr. president, in 2005, when some republicans were suggesting eliminating the filibuster for judicial nominees, then-senator joe biden said, and i quote, i say to my friends on the republican side you may own the field right now, but you won't own it forever. i pray, god, when the democrats take back control, we don't make the kind of naked power grab you are doing, end quote. fortunately, mr. president, in 2005, republicans didn't take that step. and in 2017, and 2018, when president trump was pushing for republicans who were in the majority at the time to abolish

the legislative filibuster so he could push through our agenda and we could push through our agenda, we said no. the future of the senate and our system of government i pray, mr. president, that democrats will make the same decision. mr. president, i yield the floor. and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: mr. president and colleagues -- the presiding officer: we are in a quorum call, sir. mr. wyden: i would ask unanimous consent to vacate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. wyden: mr. president and colleagues, very shortly, the senate will have the opportunity to confirm attorney general becerra to be the next health and human services secretary. and what this means is after four years of going in reverse

on health policy, it will be possible to go to drive and actually make progress for the american people in addressing their health care needs, progress in terms of lowering the cost of health care. we spent $3.8 trillion last year, so we have got to lower costs and we have got to do it in a way that enhances quality. and attorney general becerra is going to be laser focused on the key priorities for the days ahead. we all know that at the heart of that agenda is making it possible to end this pandemic. now, central to his agenda is going to be the distribution of vaccines because there are a lot of pieces to the challenge of beating the pandemic, but right at the heart of it is distribution of those vaccines and p.p.e. and bringing together

all the people, all the people at health and human services and in our country to have a coordinated strategy for dealing with the pandemic. we didn't have that in the past. i remember and i'm sure the president of the senate remembers, at one point we didn't have any idea who was in charge. one day it was going to be the states. the next day it was going to be jared kushner. there was just bedlam for weeks and weeks with respect to who would even coordinate this country's strategy against the pandemic. with xavier becerra there, that will not be the case. and i just want to -- because i see colleagues also wanting to speak -- talk about another crucial aspect of having xavier becerra at the department of health and human services. what he's going to have to do is move quickly to reverse some of

those flawed policies of the trump administration like junk insurance, barely worth the paper it was written on, the mindless restrictions that were placed on coverage, for example, that made it harder for people to get access to medicaid, and some of what they did just defied common sense, making it tougher for people to enroll in the affordable care act and having modest effort in new jersey and michigan and elsewhere to do outreach and to tell people about the availability of coverage. what in the world is health care about? it's about getting coverage out to people, not inventing barriers to their getting care. and finally, i just want to mention some of the exciting things from the recovery legislation that he will be able to focus on. i'm sure my colleague from michigan is going to be talking about these issues as well.

in the days ahead. but what's going to be done in terms of delivering postpartum care, an area where there has been enormous racial injustice. it's going to make a huge difference, a major part of the recovery plan. the home and community-based services, which builds on some of the work being done in the community. i remember from my days when i was director of the gray panthers helping seniors and the disabled. and we're so excited about mental health officials and law enforcement officials coming together for what's known as the cahoots program from my home state, dealing with the racial tensions on the streets. so xavier becerra has been running this mammoth agency in his state. people say what's his experience? he was on the ways and means committee for years and years, the committee of jurisdiction as it relates to these issues, and then has been in california,

taking on monopolies, fighting those who would rip off the health care system, sticking up for the affordable care act. so he's had frontline experience on these issues. he should have been confirmed a long time ago, but now we're on the precipice of finally getting somebody who is going to take us forward to that key agency in terms of meeting the health care needs for our colleagues. when we have this vote shortly, i urge in the strongest possible way for the senate to vote to confirm attorney general xavier becerra for this crucial position. i yield the floor to my colleague. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. ms. stabenow: thank you very much, mr. president. first i have to say to my friend and our leader on the finance

committee how grateful i am for his leadership. we have started out very strongly on the finance committee, really important topics. so appreciated. yesterday focusing on nursing homes and what has happened. the day before, focusing on advanced manufacturing and jobs. and your efforts today. it's just issue after issue. it's wonderful to have you in this position and to be your partner in this. and i so appreciate the leadership of the gentleman, the senator who is currently in the chair, from new jersey as well. i rise today as well to speak on behalf of an outstanding nominee to lead the u.s. department of health and human services. and if there ever was a time we needed an outstanding leader, it's right now. you know, one of the things i find so interesting is that colleagues on the other side of the aisle say they wish he was a doctor. well, the previous health and human services secretary was the former c.e.o. of a drug company.

and so from my perspective, i am much more comfortable having somebody who fought drug companies to lower prescription drug prices than to have had the person in that job before be the person who actually raised prices on people in his former position and tried to block competition. and so he is the right person, xavier becerra is the right person for this moment, i believe. our nation is still fighting to emerge from the worst pandemic in our lifetime. it's hard to believe now it's been over a year that we have been struggling and families have been struggling with this pandemic. nearly 540,000 american lives lost. it's hard for me to even say it and have a concept of what that is right now. the number of people who have lost loved ones and friends and neighbors. countless more have gotten sick. many more remain sick months

later. the cost to our economy and way of life has been massive. millions of workers have lost their jobs. thousands of businesses have closed. too many of them permanently. families are struggling to pay their rent or mortgage, keep the heat on, which is really important in a place like michigan in the winter, keep the lights on, put food on the table. schools are working hard to reopen safely. and in the meantime, families are doing the best they can to make sure their children can keep up. it's true that we're making progress. we are making progress. things are getting better step by step by step. thanks to science, we have three very effective vaccines going into the arms of people across our country. and with the american rescue plan being signed into law, in fact, help is here.

it's here. so now is the time that as we focus on getting help to where it's needed, attorney general becerra is just the leader to do this as the head of health and human services. his experience will be a tremendous asset as he works to address the pandemic and make health care more affordable. he led the defense in court of the affordable care act, which he helped to write. it was my pleasure to work with him during that process, to work with him as house members and then to work with him when we were writing the a.c.a., both the ways and means committee on which he sat in the house and my sitting on the finance committee. he protected the health care of millions in his position as attorney general. he's taken on drug companies, as i said before, for their high prices, and their role in the opioid epidemic.

and he's worked to enforce mental health parity in california which i think is so, so, so important. so many people are living with mental illness and addiction right now and have been. in january, 41% of american adults said that they were struggling with anxiety or depression. so things have gotten worse, the pressure on people as a result of what everybody has gone through in the last year. that's up from 11% before the pandemic. and more than one in four young people have reported having suicidal thoughts. meanwhile, communities are seeing more people overdose. long after the pandemic, these behavioral health issues will linger. attorney general becerra began his career as a legal aid attorney, supporting clients with mental health issues, substance abuse issues. he knows in his heart and soul

how important this is. he will bring that same compassion and dedication to h.h.s. as we work to expand access to care, including through certified community behavioral health clinics that i am so proud to have partnered with senator roy blunt and so many of our colleagues across the aisle to move forward as the new structure for comprehensive, coordinated care in the community. and it's beginning to make a difference, but we have a lot more to do, and we need somebody at the head of h.h.s. who gets it, and that's why i so strongly support xavier becerra, among so many other reasons. american families deserve to know that they have someone at the department of health and human services who has got their backs. with attorney general becerra, they will know they have someone who has their back.

he's the leader we need to help us end this pandemic to get people the care they need, to strengthen our health care system, and to get our country back on track. so i look forward to voting for this excellent nominee and putting him to work on behalf of the american people. i urge my colleagues to join us in supporting this excellent nominee. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. barrasso: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i come to the floor today to oppose the nomination as secretary of health and human services of xavier becerra. mr. president, as i stand here stayed, america is still fighting the worst pandemic in a century. more than half a million americans that we have just heard have died of this coronavirus.

life expectancy in our country has actually dropped by a full year. now, as a doctor, i will tell you that's a significant drop of life expectancy. in this time of crisis, our secretary of health and human services may be the single most important member of the president's cabinet. there are many well-qualified democrats in my opinion who could serve in this position. for example, i voted to the confirm president obama's last secretary of health and human services, sylvia burwell. and, you know, she was confirmed by a large bipartisan majority. that's not the kind of nominee that we have this time. in the middle of a crisis, president biden has chosen someone who is, in my opinion, both unqualified and unfit for this specific job. first, attorney general becerra is unqualified. let me talk about that, mr. president. because as a doctor, i'm deeply concerned that president biden has nominated someone with no

medical or public health experience. he's not a doctor, not a scientist, not a public health official. he's a trial lawyer and a career politician. a global pandemic is no time for on-the-job health care training. the secretary must be ready on day one. attorney general becerra is not only unqualified, i say he is radically liberal in his positions. attorney general becerra is the most left-wing nominee for this job, in my opinion, in history. he's an aggressive culture warrior for the radical left. he supports medicare for all, which would ban private health insurance h180 million people who get their health care three their jobs would lose it. if his positions go forward and he has his way, american workers would lose that opportunity and the benefit of their jobs. he's made a name for himself in the democrat party for his extreme positions on abortion.

during his 24 years in congress, attorney general becerra voted against every restriction on abortion. during his confirmation hearing, senator daines even asked him to name a single restriction he would support. couldn't name a single one. this record has earn him a 100% rating from planned parenthood. as a congressman, mr. becerra even voted against the ban on partial-birth abortion. the supreme court rightly upheld banning partial-birth abortions in the united states. this isn't the only time the attorney general's positions were at odds with those of the current supreme court when he was attorney general of california. he claimed he never sued i had nuns. that's his quote. never sued ninons. he also said he only sued because of california law. both of these statements stretch the truth, to put it mildly.

in 2017, the trump administration gave a group of nuns and exception for being required to pay for birth control. the nuns say that violates their religious beliefs, having to pay for birth control. attorney general becerra then sued the trump administration to stop them from giving this exemption. attorney general of california becerra, the nominee to be secretary of health and human services, lost by a vote of 7-2. one of the jobs of the secretary of health and human services is to protect the conscience rights of doctors and nurses. mr. becerra's record shows he can't be trusted to do that. there is a well-known case involving pregnancy crisis centers. these are groups that help women facing an unplanned pregnancy. california said they had to advertise where these women would go to get abortions. attorney general becerra brought the full power of the state of

california against the pro-life groups. once again, the supreme court of the united states stepped in to stop him. he also used the power to stop pro-life journalists. a promote life activist went undercover to stop planned parenthood for trafficking in abort body parts. these allegations caused outrage across the country. attorney general becerra charged him, the undercover reporter, with 15 felony counts. this was too much even for the attorney general becerra's hometown newspaper. "the los angeles times" said it is disturbingly aggressive -- disturbingly aggressive -- for becerra to apply this criminal statute to people who are trying to influence a contested issue of public policy, regardless of how sound or popular the policy may be. so attorney general becerra is a radical liberal on a whole host

of issues. as attorney general of california, he sued the trump administration over 120 different times, mr. president. this includes filing nine lawsuits on the very last day of president trump's administration, the very last day nine more lawsuits added. he sued to try to stop president trump from building the wall on the southern border. he sued the trump administration to try to stop fracking on federal lands in california. this is just the tip of the iceberg. the list goes on and on. when you look at the record, it's clear -- xavier becerra is out of touch with the views of the american people. president biden has chosen an extremely liberal cabinet. he was forced to wrought nominee of his budget director. his vice president has been the least bipartisan in terms of any senator in 2019.

now attorney general becerra seems to be the most liberal of them all. frankly, mr. president, his selection i think shocked a lot of people across the country. during this pandemic, we need a leader for the department of health and human services who brings us together as a nation. instead, the president has chosen a nominee with no public health insurance, extremely partisan record. so i urge my colleagues to reject this unqualified, incredible bring liberal nominee. incredibly liberal nominee. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. mr. inhofe: mr. president?

the presiding officer: the senator is recognized. mr. inhofe: thank you, mr. president. president biden has a lot of duties and obligations, a lot on his plate right now. but the important thing that we are involved in, we're all concerned about the nominees, who they are, what the process is, and what do we and the minority have -- leverage we have to impact that. i think that xavier becerra is not fit to be our secretary of health and human services. and i say this because of his appalling track record disrespecting the sanctity of life. blatantly attacking first amendment rights and his extreme policy views. now, throughout his career, mr. becerra has proven that he has no shame when it comes it his pro-abortion beliefs. as attorney general of california, becerra led a years' long lawsuit targeting the little sisters of the poor. this order of catholic nuns is devoted to caring for the early

poor. all they want is to be free to operate in accordance with their religious beliefs. i think we can all understand that. but becerra sued the federal government to force the nuns -- and we're talking the little sisters of the poor -- force the nuns to provide access to birth control and abortion-inducing drugs, completely disrespecting their religious beliefs. during his confirmation hearings, multiple senators asked mr. becerra about his lawsuit and he said, well, i never sued any affiliation of nuns. my actions were always directed at the federal agencies. but i think it's pretty misleading, because he may have sued the federal government, but his actions certainly directed at the nuns. and that's not his own assault on life. mr. becerra also filed against the trump administration's title 10 rule in court. we all remember this. this is where he ensured that federal tax dollars would only

go toward family planning clinics that don't offer abortions. and during the pandemic becerra has been an a. gressive advocate of expanding access to chemical abortions, thereby providing abortions by mail that are done at home and without the supervision of a medical provider. all abortions, in my view -- and i know a lot of people don't agree with this -- but i think abortions are bad. but increasing unsupervised access to chemical abortions, which are four times more likely to cause problems and complications for the mother than surgical abortions, it shows that mr. becerra's concern isn't about health. it is about his pro-abortion agenda. we shouldn't be surprised. during his time in congress, becerra voted against multiple pro-life bills, including the partial-birth abortion ban. that was one that was sponsored on both sides.

it is a bipartisan bill. it banned the horrific procedure in which a baby is partially delivered and then painfully destroyed. but becerra isn't just radical in his support for abortion. he also goes after the first amendment rights of individuals who disagree with him. i'm sure everyone here remembers the shocking, heart-wrenching evidence uncovered by two journalist that showed planned parenthood's selling of the aborted body parts of babies. becerra chose to go after the journalists rather than investigate the evidence of his behavior. becerra also targeted the california pro-life pregnancy centers by forcing them to advertise abortions in violation of their first amendment rights. now, he fought them all the way to the united states supreme court and he lost.

but he didn't give up. last fall he supported california's ban on indoor worship services, legitimacy in violation of the first -- also in violation of the first amendment and he lost again in the supreme court. he doesn't give up. justice gorsuch said, if hollywood may host a studio audience or film a singing competition while not a single soul may enter california's churches, synagogues and mosques, something has gone seriously awry. and i agree with justice gorsuch in that observation. becerra also wants to decriminalize illegal immigration saying, quote, they are not criminals. they have not committed a crime against anyone. should he be confirmed as h.h.s. secretary, he would be positioning to give legal immigrants access to his programs. so lastly, i just want to send a

message to the pro-life movement, the people in oklahoma and americans all around the country who really believes in the sanctity of life. we are not going to give up in trying to block this nomination. and we'll do everything we can to stop the confirmation of xavier becerra. with that, a i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: i ask consent the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: earlier today my friend from south dakota, senator thune, came to the floor and discussed the filibuster.

it has been a topic of discussion, not only this week, but before. i hope that senator thune will concede whether you're for the filibuster or against the filibuster, we should certainly be dedicated to the proposition that the united states senate should be a deliberative body which actually considers amendment and legislation on the floor. now, what i've just said sounds very routine and normal. it is radical when you look at the record of the united states senate. last year, under the republican leadership of senator mcconnell, we had 29 amendments on the floor in the entire year -- 29, and that was really an improvement over the previous year. 22 amendments. what that says to those who may not be familiar with senate procedure is the floor is empty and no one is here because we aren't taking up legislation. why? so far this year we've done

three things in the senate, the impeachment trial, the reconciliation bill, the american resk plan by -- rescue plan by senator biden and nominations. what do those three things have in common. not one of them can be stopped by a filibuster. why aren't we taking up other legislation? because looming over us is a supermajority requirement of 60 votes to get anything done. what i've said to my friends on the republican side of the aisle is show me that we can make the senate function. if we can show that with the filibuster, so be it. if we can show it by changing the filibuster, so be it. let's do something. we were elected to do things. we were elected to pass an infrastructure bill for america. it's been years since we've done that. weerm ee -- we were elected to deal with issues of this country. what about the student loan debt in this country? are we going to do anything

about it? say anything about it. there are so many issues we should be taking up that we're not taking up because of the looming specter of the -- specter of the filibuster, that is a reality. let me bring that reality close to home. 20 years ago i introduced the bill act -- the dream act. i said if you were brought to america as an infant, today ler, and if you went to school here and pledged aleej toons that flag in your classroom every single day, at some point you ought to be able to earn the ability to become an american citizen in america. the overwhelming majority of americans support the idea. so, durbin, let me ask you a question. it's been 20 years, you're supposed to be a legislator, why haven't you passed that? something that simple and that direct. i haven't made it a law of the land because of one thing, the filibuster. the filibuster.

five times i brought this measure to the floor of the united states senate and been stopped by the filibuster. a majority vote every time but never the magic 60 -- the magic supermajority. so do i have a problem with the filibuster? yes, i do. and i challenge those who are defending it to show me it can work, to show me we can create bipartisan votes on the floor, actual debates on the floor, amendments on the floor. i think that's not too much to ask. i think that's why we were elected. i come today to address this issue because the house passed the workforce modernization act. if the anti-is able to join the has in passing these bills, we would be able to make significant immigration legislation progress. but i want to add i support comprehensive immigration reform. i believe it is the only honest answer to what we face in america today.

i will do my best to do everything i can. floss excuse for inaction. this broken immigration system needs to be addressed on a bipartisan basis and an answer is long overdue for dreamers in this country. i told you who they are. when president obama created daca for them, some 800,000 came forward, registered with the government, received legal status to work and freedom from p fear of deportation -- and freedom from fear of deportation because of daca. president trump eliminated the program. the battle ensued in court. the supreme court said that trump did it wong and we're in the middle ground. president biden supports daca. he's made it clear that it's open for new people to apply. we don't have the final law. we're dealing with executive orders when it comes to this important issue. that's why i decided to come to this floor and continue to raise the issues of the people who are

involved. and to introduce, again, my 129th dreamer story on the floor of the united states senate, which i have done for years. diana endino, she was born in ecuador and came to the united states when she was 11 years old and grew up in texas. she graduated in the top ten% of his -- 10% of his high school class, went ton to earn a -- went on to earn a behalf -- bachelor degree with honors. she said, i found my calling in medicine after volunteering at a local county hospital while i was in college. and here is what she said about the difference that daca made in her life. i graduated from college in 2011 and my dream of becoming a physician was truncated by my lack of citizenship status.

daca came a year later and i was able to apply for medical school at loyola. and let me add hats off to loyola and their medical school. they have led the nation in accepting wonderful students just like diana. they were the first in the nation to accept daca applicants. more than 30 have since attend it had their medical school and many are practicing in underserviced area. she is now a third-year resident at loyola university medical center. she treats covid-19 patients with serious complications such as stroke or major bleeding. here's what she said about the covid-19 pandemic. it's been a challenging year physically, mental mentally, pas with covid develop multiple compli cases. i leshed to be flexible as there are many unknowns we have

encountered. how many times have we said thank god for people like this woman who risks her life as a doctor for covid-19 patients. our brothers and sisters, our family members, people that we love are kept alive because diana is skilled enough and brave enough to go into their rooms and try to save their lives. we think so much of diana that we have to debate in the senate whether or not she should be a citizen of the united states. there's no debate as far as i'm concerned. she is exactly the kind of person we need in america's future. send her back to ecuador. no. let her stay in her home country of america. make the dream act a reality. make it a law of the land. don't let a filibuster stop it again. when we receive the dream and promise act from the house of representatives, we will have an opportunity to see if ten republican senators can join us

in an effort to finally pass it. i hope more. as i said at the outset, i support comprehensive immigration reform. i want to try to sit down and have a conversation with the -- about the foreign labor bill, about those who are here on temporary protective status and those like diana who should be given a chance to become a citizen. that's what the debate is all about. this empty floor with no conversation among senators is testimony to the fact that this is an aspiration, an aspiration that we could overcome the filibuster, pass the dream act and more and do it soon. lives depend on it. futures depend on it. the dreams of america are at stake. i yield the floor. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the

senator from nebraska -- sir -- to vitiate the quorum call. without objection. absolutely without objection. i note one objection from the junior senator from new jersey. mr. sasse: i ask unanimous consent to start the vote now. the presiding officer: is there an objection. i'm sorry. i might have seen an objection. no. there are no objections to that. under the previous order, all postcloture time has expired. the question is on the nomination. we're asking for the yeas and

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

vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: on this vote the yeas are 50. the nays are 49. the nomination is confirmed.

under the previous order, the motion to reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table and the president will be immediately notified of the senate's actions. the clerk will report the next nomination. the clerk: nomination, department of labor, martin joseph walsh of massachusetts to be secretary. mr. wyden: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senior senator from oregon. mr. wyden: mr. president, i rise in support of legislation

developed by our colleague senator brown and i to protect $1,400 relief payments from being garnished by predatory private debt collectors. we know that millions of american families are hanging on by a thread. they are counting on these payments to make rent and pay for groceries and medicine. now senator brown and i want to include these protections in the american rescue plan. we want it to include them just like was done in the december relief bill. but the problem was senate rules didn't allow senator brown and i to include these protections in the american rescue plan. just like was done earlier. if the senate doesn't pass this

bill, predatory debt collectors will continue to seize relief payments for everything from credit card to medical debt. and as we talk about this right now, i'd like to give an example of what this really means. if you ha have two parents -- if you have two parents who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own and they can't pay the rent because their relief check has been seized to cover a child's outstanding hospital bills, that's what's going to happen if you don't pass the legislation senator brown and i are advocating. so i think this one is cut and dry. the senate will either stand today for the working families who desperately need this help

-- like that couple who are hurting through no fault of their own -- or the senate is with private debt collectors reaching their hands into those families' pockets. now, these protections that we're talking about were included in the december package with republicans fully supporting them. families' financial situations haven't changed. so i hope that republicans will allow for the passage of this measure offered by senator brown and i -- it's just common sense -- and i'm going to yield now -- the minority is aware -- to senator brown. he, too, will have short remarks, and then we'll engage with our colleague on the other side. i yield. mr. brown: i thank the senator, the senior senator from oregon, and i thank the senator from pennsylvania, too. mr. president, we passed the american rescue plan, as senator wyden said, to get shots in

people's arms, money in people's pockets, kids back in school, and people back in jobs. stimulus checks are already going out the door. more than 100 million checks are already in americans' bank accounts. we promised in campaigns, we promised in january we would do this, we would do this quickly. five million ohioans are going to get a check. we know predatory debt collectors are already lining up to take a cut of those checks. we know it costs more to be poor in this country. so often the debt collectors come after you just to cash your check, there is a fee. we passed a rescue plan to put money in people's pockets. they can buy a washer perhaps made by workers in ohio or new tires made for their car by goodyear in akron, ohio. maybe they're looking to throwing a small high school

party in their backyards with a cake from a local restaurant. that's why we passed these checks, to support families and local communities, not to line the pockets of predatory private debt collectors. that'sthat's why i support thisl by senator wyden. we know how they prey on workers, trying to make ends meet. last year, as senator wyden said, we joined colleagues grassley -- a republican from iowa -- scott, a republican from south carolina, to pass bipartisan legislation to protect people's money. it shouldn't be different this time. we're still in a public health crisis. whether you voted for or against this american rescue plan is immaterial. i yield my time back to senator wyden. mr. wyden: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: i ask unanimous

consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of s. 823 introduced earlier today. it would provide for protection of recovery rebates. i further ask that the bill be read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. toomey: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. mr. toomey: reserving the right to object, my friend, the senator from oregon, suggested that senate rules precluded this provision from being addressed in the recently passed bill. it's actually a little bit more complicated than that. so let's remember how we got here. last year republicans and democrats worked together, and we peaced five bills adding up to about $4 trillion authorizing another several trillion dollars of loans. it was an extraordinary reaction to an extraordinary moment. and republicans and democrats came together time appeared time

again. as the circumstances were change ago, we passed new legislation to reflect that. passinga big bill, a trillion-dollar bill nearly, in december. but as soon as our democratic colleagues had the ability, they decided they weren't interested in any bipartisan legislation anymore. it was going to be strictly democrats using the reconciliation process, and that is the only reason that this provision couldn't be addressed because it can't be dealt with under the reconciliation rules. so now our democratic colleagues perceive a problem with this legislation, and they'd like republicans' skeins to fix what might have been -- consent to fix what might have been resolved with some compromise had they pursued the path we pursued when we were in control. let's talk about where we are and what we've done for individuals and families. the unprecedented financial support from the federal

government has been really amaze ago. an average family of four has by now received stimulus checks of $9,200, child tax credit checks of $6,000. that's $15,200. by the way, that's go gone to people who -- that's gone to people who never lost a penny of income. if they did lose their job, as in the hypothetical the senator from oregon suggests, they made more than had they been working, because of the legislation we passed. we designed so they would make more had they been working, in addition to these stimulus checks they got. so result of that is in the aggregate, personal savings has gone through the roof. it is up. total consumer credit is down. we -- the fact is we more than replaced lost income through the series of bills that were passed. but now my colleagues want to

come here and block a valid legal claim from being honored with some of this money. specifically, they want to block these stimulus checks from being subject to garnishments. that's when money is withheld from someone because they owing is, they owe money that they haven't paid to someone else, and that someone else has gone to court, made the case and it's been agued indicated that, yes -- adjudicated that, yes, this is money that's owed. so they want to avoid this windfall. they want to prevent it from being available to be used for the conventional way that we collect money that is owed. and who might this affect? under this legislation, if it were to pass, it would forbid garnishment of the alimony payment that a needy former spouse relies on. that's a common expense for which garnishment applies.

but in this case, the deadbeat former husband who's not paying his alimony payments a, who forced his former wife to go to court to get a court order he's been so far behind, now he gets this big check from the government and she doesn't even get to catch up on the money that he owes her? how about the deadbeat dad not paying his child support? that's another situation in which the mom, trying to struggle to support those kids, had to go to court and get a court order that his future income would be garnished because he just doesn't pay. well, he gets this check in the mail compliments of the taxpayer and he doesn't have to give her any of that? that's so terribly unfair. and, you know, in addition to all these direct payments, we've also provided massive financial support in all kinds of ways to alleviate expenses, like

nutrition assistance -- $80 billion, housing assistance, $65 billion. an increase in medicaid, $175 billion. not to mention almost a trillion in payroll support so people couldtain to work. when you pay for these things and i don't think it is not unreasonable to ask people to pay their bills, especially payments to a former wife or to support kids. at best this is not a political statement because, as one of my colleagues just alluded to, these payments have already gone out the door. most of them have. treasury has already issued probably over $250 billion in these checks. and to the extent that a person was subject to garnisheement, the garnishment happens automatically. what does that mean? if this bill passed, it's -- the legal chaos -- i mean, first of all, it would actually allow the deadbeat dad that i'm referring

to to go back and claim that money back, to claw it back from the account that's meant to support his kids. how is that even possibly fair or reasonable? mr. president, this is a bad idea, and for these reasons, i object. mr. wyden: mr. president? the presiding officer: the objection is heard. mr. wyden: just briefly, i think the key kind of question and the checks are still going out -- we want them to get out as quickly as possible. but the key issue here is the republicans back in december wanted to help that couple that i was talking about, the person laid off through no fault of their own. they wanted to help those folks. make sure their relief check wouldn't be seized to cover a child's outstanding hospital bills. and so what we heard is

discussions about all kinds of, you know, other issues. but the fact is in december -- just a few weeks ago, just a few weeks ago -- republicans were supportive of the families senator brown and i are seeking to help today. that's what the question is all about. will the senate today help the folks who are hurting that senator brown and i have been talking about? in december, republicans said, you bet we're going to be there. now it's a question really of who the senate is for. senator brown and i are for those folks who are hurting. they've been laid off flew no fault of their own. and republicans, unfortunately with checks still going out -- still going out -- have decided they are for the private debt collectors.

i think it really shows whose side you're on. senator brown and i and the members of our caucus are on the side of people who are hurting through no fault of their own. and we especially care about them at this time when checks are still going out. i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mrs. murray: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: thank you, mr. president. i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. murray: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i come to the floor today to support the nomination of mayor marty walsh to serve as secretary of family. across the country working families are desperate for help. even before this pandemic the deck was stacked against workers and especially against women, workers of color and workers with disabilities thanks to an

unlivable federal wage and sublivable wage for tip workers and workers with disabilities and a pay gap that makes getting by even harder. a national sick and medical leave policy and quality affordable child care for working families. a failure to protect workers from pandemics and workplace accidents and harassment and scrims -- discrimination and a wave of job loss and economic uncertainty upending the lives of workers and families across the country. this pandemic has laid bare the painful fact that while our economy might work for the biggest corporations and wealthiest individuals, it isn't working for working families. and all of these challenges -- unsafe workplaces, lost jobs, low wages -- are worse for people of color due to systemic

racism and widening due to this pandemic. our country cannot fully recover from this chives -- crisis unless we begin to change that by rebuilding a stronger, fairer economy, and that starts by making sure we have a secretary of labor who will actually champion workers and working families. as a union leader, a state representative, and as a mayor, mayor marty walsh has done just that. he has a clear track record as a collaborative leader who worked across coalitions with labor groups and the business community to build up boston's middle class. under his leadership, 135,000 new jobs have been created in boston. he fought for a $15 minimum wage and paid leave policies to help ensure women, workers of color, and workers with disabilities can succeed in the workforce and getd the pay they deserve. during this pandemic, mayor

walsh has shown deep commitment to his frontline workers who have kept this country running by providing funding for emergency child care and other resources his essential workers needed to weather the pandemic. and he would bring an important perspective as the first union leader to head the department in decades. his unwavering commitment to put workers first was plain to see during our confirmation hearing. in his testimony, mayor walsh spoke powerfulfully about -- powerfully about the importance of protecting frontline workers who do so much to keep our communities and our country running and rooting out inequities that have done so much damage to workers of color. mayor walsh made clear he will work with congress to help ensure every worker has a fair and livable wage, a safe workplace, paid family sick and medical leave, access to quality affordable child care, a secure retirement, and the right to join a union and collectively organize. i was impressed by his answers

during our hearing and i wasn't the only one. mayor walsh's nomination passed out of our help committee with strong bipartisan support in an 18-4 vote, and i hope he will not be confirmed with similar overwhelming bipartisan support, because even before this pandemic and before president trump's four-year crusade against workers, we had a long road ahead to build a truly fair inclusive economy that works for working families. but now not only is the road longer, the clock is ticking. workers who are the backbone of our economy have been pushed to the brink. they need us to confirm mayor marty walsh so we have a secretary of labor who will take quick action to address the urgent challenges we face and be a valuable partner in helping our economy come back stronger and fairer for all workers. while we made important progress in the american rescue plan to extend unemployment benefits and provide much-needed tax relief for those benefits, provided

direct payments for families and protected the pensions millions of workers and retirees depend on, and while president biden is taking important steps to reverse trump-era rules that undermine workers' rights, this road to recovery is long and there is still many steps we need to take, including raising the federal minimum wage to one fair wage of $15 an hour, to passing the proact into law to strengthen workers right to join a union and passing the be heard in the workplace act to protect people from harassment, assault and discrimination. we have a lot to do and no time to waste. i urge all my colleagues to prove to families back home they understand we need a secretary of labor who who we can trust to stand up for workers and not huge corporations. i urge my colleagues to join me in voting to confirm mayor walsh thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i have eight requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate.

they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. the presiding officer: duly noted. mrs. murray: thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: mr. cruz: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator for texas.

mr. cruz: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cruz: mr. president, in a moment i'm going to propound a unanimous consent request, but before i do so, i want to make some brief remarks. as my colleagues know, and as several fact checkers have confirmed over the past week, the democrats' partisan reconciliation bill that became law last week will provide many illegal aliens with $1,400 paychecks paid for by the taxpayer. by several estimates, millions of illegal immigrants will get these rebates. i offered an amendment two weeks ago to the democrats' bill to close this loophole. during debate on my amendment, one democratic senator spoke against my amendment saying that no illegal aliens have social security numbers and therefore

the premise of my amendment and my speech was, he said, quote, not true. in fact, here are the senator's full remarks from the floor two weeks ago. mr. president, the statement from the senator from texas is just plain false. let me be clear. undocumented immigrants do not have social security numbers and they do not qualify for stimulus relief checks, period. and just in case you didn't notice, they didn't qualify in december when 92 voted for that measure and they don't qualify under the american rescue plan. nothing has changed and for you to stand up there and to say the opposite is just to rile people up over something that's not true. it is not true. we know what's going on here. they want to be able to give speeches to say that the checks go to undocumented people in the circumstance where there is a parent and at that point

senator's time expired. following that debate, the senator in question took to twitter to double down so it was not after an all night of no sleep, a moment of erroneous comment, but rather on twitter that same senator tweeted, quote, senator cruz's claim is only meant to rile people up over something that is not true. you cannot receive a stimulus check without a social security number. that's a fact. instead of discriminating against mixed status families, let's prioritize getting more relief to those families. a second tweet from the same senator. we simply cannot stand by and allow outright falsehoods to be propagated on the senate floor. it's time for g.o.p. senators, like ted cruz, to stop trying to rile people up over

misinformation. well, as john adams famously said, facts are stubborn things and it turns out the comments from the democratic senator were categorically false. and my comments that this bill would send checks to millions of illegal aliens were categorically true. numerous fact checkers began looking at the claims. newsweek officially -- initially fact checked it and as the want with fact checkers took the democrats' words for it and concluded my statement was mostly false. following that, my staff got on the phone with newsweek and gave them facts and that of the immigrants who are here are

those who overstayed their visa and they have social security numbers and will receive checks. indeed, that is why my amendment was scored at saving the federal government over $600 million because of the checks that would not go to illegal immigrants if my amendment had been passed. when "newsweek" heard these facts, they did something quite impressive, admirable. they admitted they were wrong. they revised their fact check and changed their fact check from mostly false to true. true, period, no caveats, true. i want to commend "newsweek" for their journalistic integrity. confirming that fact check i'm sure was not an easy decision to make but it was the right decision to make. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that we enter this fact check into the record.

the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cruz: it is clear and indisputable that a significant number of illegal immigrants will receive checks and are receiving checks right now. all 100 members of this body were misinformed by the democratic senator that no illegal aliens would receive fact checks. would receive, rather, checks -- stimulus checks. so i want to give my colleagues a chance to adopt the amendment now with the correct information, with the true information, with the factual information. and i would note as well in these deeply partisan times it's easy for republicans to throw insults at democrats, it's easy for democrats to throw insults at republicans. far too much of that occurs. the senator from illinois, who

is a friend, who i served with for nine years, is a talented senator. i am not here suggesting that when he stood up and spoke on the senate floor and made statements absolutely false, that he did so maliciously. i would give him the benefit of the doubt that he was innerror instead of mistaking facts. the facts are clear, we have a rule in this body, rule 19, to reprimand any senator who impugns the character and integrity of another are senator. i am not going to seek refuge in that rule, but i think there is an argument that i could. i will say this, i hope my colleague from illinois will show the same principle newsweek showed, to apologize and say he

is sorry for calling me a liar on the senate floor and then going to twitter to do so twice. that would be the right thing to do. to acknowledge ankerror when it -- an error when it occurred. the senator from illinois' statement that no illegal immigrants will receive checks thunder -- under this bill is categorically false. for that reason, as if in legislative session, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to immediate consideration of s. 842, introduced early today. i further ask that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. durbin: reserving the right to object. the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: mr. president, the exchange which took place between myself and the junior

senator from texas has been analyzed from many different directions. the conclusion of cnn, based on what he said on the floor and i responded to, is as follows, cruz said, quote, every illegal alien in america, close quote, would get a $1,400 check. durbin responded that cruz's statement is, quote, just plain false, close quote, because he said, quote, undocumented immigrants do not have social security numbers and do not qualify for stimulus relief checks, period, end of quote. according to cnn, they were both wrong. cruz was inaccurate when he said that every undocumented immigrant will get a relief check and then he goes on to say there are people, a discreet class of people who might have a social security, be undocumented, and receive a check. and because of that clarification, my own investigation afterwards, i will concede their point, i

overstated my case. here's what it boils down to. in this situation people have applied for a work visa, not a tourist, a work visa to come to the united states, been that work visa, they also received a social security null and then they -- number, and then they overstayed their visa, and still could possibly continue to be on the social security rolls and might receive a check. this was in both relief bills signed into law by president trump, one of which the senator from texas voted for, one of which he did not. i ask how many people we are talking about, 10, 100, 1,000, 10,000? i can't find out. they can't give me a number. there isn't a calculation. you have to have applied for a work visa, be granted a work visa and come to the united states, get a social security number, overstay your visa and

then continue to file income tax returns because that's the only way you could qualify for help through these relief packages. i don't know if that group is 10, 100, or 1,000. but i carefully read the provisions that are offered by the senator from texas today, and i'll tell you he basically says to the american government, when it comes to cash payments, stop the presses. stop the presses. i want to know who these people are and i don't want you to send a them -- them a check. i don't believe that is reasonable. we have sent out 90,000 checks, to stop this while we go through to debate is i think unfair. i don't want the checks to go to these people anymore more than he does but i'm not going to stop the issuance of checks to people in texas or illinois. i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard.

the senator from texas. mr. cruz: i would note several things. number one, the senator from illinois said he didn't know if the number of illegal immigrants getting checks from the democrats' stimulus bill was in the tens or the hundreds or the thousands. with all due respect, he does know that. it's not in the tens, it's not in the hundreds, it's not in the thousands. the joint committee on taxation, which is a nonpartisan organization that trorts this senate -- reports to this senate and this congress scored my amendment as roughly 482,000 illegal immigrants are getting checks under the democrats' proposal. two outside organizations have scored it as millions of illegal immigrants, and i would note what newsweek said when they corrected their fact check and i will read a quote. the ruling, true, cruz's claim

that millions of illegal immigrants would receive stimulus payments is true given that the amount of people who have overstayed their visa over the year. once they overstay, they are technically considered illegal. nowhere in the senator from illinois' remarks was a word of apology for falsely calling me a liar on the floor of this senate and on twitter. that is unfortunate. what the senator from illinois said right now is also incorrect. the senator from illinois said this amendment would halt the payments that are going out. this amendment doesn't do anything of the sort. this amendment restricts sending payments to people who are here illegally. when the senator from illinois said he would love to do that, with all due respect, that doesn't withstand even the slightest bit of scrutiny because if he would love to do that, all he had to do was not

object and the american citizens, the people who are here legally would all get their $1,400 checks, get it on the exact same time frame but those here illegally would not. today's democratic party supports sending checks to millions of illegal immigrants. they have justified it as the senator from illinois did by falsely claiming none of them are getting checks. those are not the facts as the newsweek fact check makes clear. and i would note that a bill that democratic senators tried to push, denominated h.r. 1, would compound that by allowing millions of illegal immigrants to be able to register to vote and no doubt cast votes. this is a political decision that is far outside the mainstream. it is unfortunate, but sadly it reflects where today's

democratic party is. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the negotiation to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22, do hereby bring to a close debate on the nomination of executive calendar number 17, martin joseph walsh, of massachusetts, to be secretary of labor. the presiding officer: the question is, is it the sense of the senate that debate on the nomination of martin joseph walsh, of massachusetts, to be secretary of labor 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: the yeas are 68. the nays are 30. the motion is agreed to.

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from west virginia is recognized. mr. manchin: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i rise today to honor the life of a noble veteran, a beloved husband, father, grandfather, friend, brother, uncle, and someone that i have been fortunate enough to call nigh dear brother-in-law, robert goods thompson. what i always admired about bob was his determination and ability to learn. he was a graduate of the university of wyoming, clinician of 1916. he then joined the military and entered flight training in 1963 and he was designated as a naval

aviator in 1964. from the day he was motivated to join the military to his military retirement in 1983, he showcased steadfast dedication and a commitment to excellence that can only be matched by his loving devotion as part of our family. bob proudly served -- proudly served is our nation for more than 20 years and leaves behind a distinguished legacy of military history, including service aboard the u.s.s. intrepid, u.s.s. randolph, lexington and u.s.s. forestahl. he flew thousands of flight hours, trained other pilots, commanded naval units and was deployed multiple timing including to the north atlantic, caribbean, and the arctic circle. he earned the naval achievement medal for his performance as a landing signal officer. in 1967, he joined the vs-30

squadron and reported to florida as an instructor pilot. in 1970 he was awarded the navy commendation medal for recovering aircraft within the arctic circle. in 1972 bob was selected for aattending a naval war college in rhode island and then signed to the naval air station in florida to lead the squadron's relocation operations. in 1967, -- in 1976 he served ad board the ut s.s. forestall as operation officer. he assumed command of the s-30 squadron where he deployed to the mediterranean. later that year, bob received orders to the pentagon to work on what is now known as g.p.s. his assignments were tough. squadron executive officer, squadron commander, instructor pilot, and so many more.

but he was always tougher than they were, and it's unbelievable the leader he was to all those he served and served with pride. put simply, bob was one of the most generous, kind, hardworking, and inspirational people that i ever knew. my whole family and i have adored bob ever since he joined the family and just bob's passing has left a deep impact on all of us. this is also an important time to celebrate bob's life and the profound feelings of joy and pride that he brought to all of us. while bob wasn't born in west virginia, he certainly was a mountaineer through and through, in husband soul and a dedicated fan to his sports teams. when visitors come to our little state -- and i jump at the chance to tell them we're home to the most hardworking and

patriotic people in the nation. we have fought in war morse, shed more blood and lost more lives for the cause of freedom than most any other state. we have always done the heavy lifting. we've built the ships that protect our country to this day. i am so deeply proud of what west virginians like my brother-in-law bob thompson have accomplished and what they will continue to accomplish. we have every reason to be proud and to stand tall knowing that west virginia is the reason americans sleep peacefully at night. it is because of all of our veterans past and present that we can proudly proclaim mountaineers are always free and we are all so very, very proud of our bob for being a vital part of our legacy.

what is most important is that he lived a full life surrounded by his loved ones. i extend all of our condolences to my dear sister janet, bob's beloved wife of 56 years; his daughter mary joe; his son peter; granddaughter isabella; siblings mary, greg, kathy and clark, his brothers-in-law john and rock, sister in law paula, and his 45 manchin nieces and nephews. we extend our most sincere condolences for our shared loss of this remarkable, absolutely remarkable person. the unwavering love bob had for his family, his friends, and our nation will live on forever in the hearts of all who had the privilege of knowing robert gutz thompson. god rest bob.

the presiding officer: the senator from missouri is recognized. blunt --. mr. blunt: i want to join fellow senators in remembering senator manchin's family, sister and the rest of his family as they deal with the loss of his brother-in-law. i want to talk today, mr. president, about a draft i just received, a bill we're actually going to have a hearing on next week, s. 1, the so-called for the people act. this bill is the companion act to the senate version of h.r. 1. i actually think it's even longer than h.r. 1, which i would have thought impossible. it's over 800 pages. i think they'll be introducing the final version in the next day or so, and that's a good thing since we're supposed to have a hearing on it in the middle of next week. it packs a lot of what i consider bad changes relating to election administration, campaign finance,

redistricting, and so much more into those 800 pages. but there's a lot of space there to pack things in. it will take a lot more time than i've got today to talk about all the things in the bill that i have concerns about, but i'd say to start with, this idea that one size fits all, this federal takeover of elections can't be in the interest of voters in our country. it would force a single and, i believe, a partisan view of elections and how they should be run in 10,000 different jurisdictions in the country. i don't know how you do that. i don't know how you take 10,000 jurisdictions and try at the washington, d.c. level in legislation to determine changes like how they would register voters. every state under this bill would do it exactly the same way, which voting systems they would use, how they would handle early voting and absentee

ballots no matter how long they have been doing it one way that worked for voters in their state. and how they maintain their voter list, whether you could go in and verify whether people on the voter list were still there. we used to think that was a critically important protection in the election system, that you knew that the voters that had registered to vote in a jurisdiction actually were still in that jurisdiction. it was actually in every state a bragging point of responsible election administration. that would largely go away in this bill. this bill would require states to make ballot drop boxes available for 45 days prior to the federal government election. those are boxes that even designates the locations and tells the local jurisdiction how they need to handle those ballots as they come out of the boxes and would be processed. remember, these would be not mailboxes. they would be ballot drop boxes all over the jurisdiction if you could find one.

it would mandate unlimited ballot harvesting. that's a process where one person could collect and submit as many ballots as they could collect and submit. in recent elections, we've seen ballot harvesting as a real problem in these elections. not only does one person have your ballot and decide how, and get that ballot to where it should be. frankly, one of the problems always with ballot harvesting is maybe a person who knows voters pretty well would collect 20 and put 18 in the mailbox or take 18 to the vote counting area and the other two just how don't get there. unlimited ballot harvesting, prohibited in many states, and in fact in recent years the democrat house of representatives failed to seat an elected representative in north carolina because that person had used ballot harvesting.

the bill would require states to allow felons to vote in federal elections. if you didn't like that in this case, you could have two sets of voter registration, one for federal elections and one for all other elections. and, by the way, if you did that, you'd also have to have two different sets of ballots for an election day that had both local and state and federal issues on the ballot. and this bill would require, mr. president, that all of these changes be made quickly. even jurisdictions that recently have changed their processes and spent a lot of time talking to people about those changes over maybe two years or four years would suddenly be told, no, you have to change them one more time. and maybe it's a day here, a day there, but that makes a big difference if you've already got in your mind how far before an election you have to register to vote or transfer your address or things that election

administrators work on all the time. my first elected job was, as a count clerk in green county, missouri, where i was chief election authority. we had a county with 180,000 people in it and lots of registered voters. later i was the chief election authority in our state for eight years as the secretary of state. i know how much planning goes into the elections. i know how seriously local officials take it. i also know how difficult it could be if every change you made had to be cleared some way with somebody in washington, d.c. states can often take years to transition to a new ballot system or transition to a new way they do things. they also can do it very quickly if they need to, and we saw that happen in a number of states last year. i think this bill, if it did pass, really doesn't allow the time you need for planning.

the diversity of our election system is one of the great strengths of our system. there's bipartisan agreement on that. i've quoted president obama on this before, but he said in 2016, quote, there is no serious person out there who would suggest somehow that you can even rig america's elections in part because they are so decentralized in the numbers of votes involved. this bill would undo that decentralized strength. is it would undo that state and local responsibility for having the laws who voters who vote for you understand you need to apply in the fair and best way you can. the bill would make our system less diverse, less secure. unfortunately, this bill doesn't just stop at election administration. it takes the campaign finance system and changes it dramatically. you know, when the federal elections commission was created

in the early 1970's, it was a six-member commission. it was to be bipartisan. this turns it into a five-member commission with whoever is the president being able to appoint the third member on one side to always outvote, if they need to, the two members on the other side. there have been many times obviously in the history of the federal elections commission when the vote has been 3-3 or 2-2, whatever the makeup was at the time. this would do away with that and basically turn the commission from a bipartisan commission into a prosecutorial body where one side always has the majority if they want it. i think voters should and would be very concerned about that. it would allow the chair of the f.e.c. to make key staffing changes. it would allow judges to review cases even when the commission

found no violation of the law. in addition, the bill would create a system of public financing for political campaigns by matching certain contributions with federal dollars. the match would be circumstance to one -- would be six to one. so in the matchable, low-dollar, whatever you define that to be contributions, if you raise $100,000 of those contributions, mr. president, you'd have $700,000. $600,000 could have been used by the federal government for other things rather than to finance politicians in a campaign. now understand politicians would like that. i've raised as much money as most people in this body have raised. the idea that just the federal government would come in at some point and give me $6 for some percentage of those that i raised might be pretty appealing, but i think it would be wrong. it takes jurisdiction away from the states into how to draw

congressional districts. this is going to be inconvenient if it passes because the constitution specifically says the state legislatures decide how to draw congressional district. it doesn't say the congress of the united states tells the state legislatures how to draw congressional districts, but this bill would do that. the bill requires redistricting commissions. it dictates who would serve on the commissions. it sets the criteria and the procedures for how you draw the maps. it lays out how the commissions have to take public input. if that wouldn't, wasn't bad enough, it doesn't stop there. it even determines which courts act on all redistricting cases. this would be a dramatic change, where, again, you have a one-size-fits-all system in a country that clearly is not

a one-size-fits-all country. since very few states currently have commissions like that, it would set a lot of deadlines that we don't currently have, districts drawn using 2020 census data would all but be guaranteed to be drawn by federal courts just because of the time that this bill sets out. but the federal court drawing the district isn't the big problem. the big problem is forever you've changed this and forever you've put the d.c. circuit as the ultimate circuit to determine all redistricting cases. we never thought that power belonged in washington,d.c., before, but this bill does. it's an unprecedented power grab by the federal government at the expense of the states. i think it's a transparent attempt to stack elections in favor of one party. election law should not be about a single party.

if this bill were to pass, it would do nothing, in my view, to bolster public confidence in elections. in fact, i suspect most election officials around the country would begin to say i'd like to be able to do something about that problem, but we'll have to clear that with washington,d.c., first. i think the divisions in the country would be worse, not better. successful election laws are passed on a bipartisan basis. we did that with the help america vote act after 2000. we provided assistance and some direction with finance, but we didn't change a single state law after 2016. we left that up to the states. we created bipartisan impact when we did that. we should continue to put the strength and the security of the country's elections before party. we should continue to oppose the efforts of a single party to make sweeping partisan changes

in our election system. i don't talk to anybody who doesn't think that this bill, a similar bill passed the house, would pass the house on a purely partisan basis. that would be a bad idea. i encourage my colleagues to look carefully at s. 1, and i think if you do, a majority of the senate will not support this bill. and i would yield the floor, mr. chairman. mr. grassley: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from iowa is recognized. mr. grassley: on march 6 of this year, the intelligence community issued its intelligence community assessment on foreign threats involving the 2020 u.s. federal

elections. based on that report, some in the liberal media have falsely claimed that my and senator johnson's hunter biden related oversight activity last congress were based on russian disinformation. even peter strue need to chime in on twitter to say that we received russian disinformation. i don't know how many times i have to say it, but such claims are false and misleading. to be precise, senator johnson and i did receive solicit, or rely upon any information from andrii derchev and we publicly said so. i don't know how many times last

year i was on the floor of the united states senate to the people who were making those accusations. it seems like struck pays just about as careful attention to these facts as he did to the crossfire fisa applications. of course twitter let's stories about the steel dossier run wild. there is unrefuted reporting on hunter biden on the 2020 election. in other words, we have a double standard. now, regarding russian disinformation, it wasn't senator johnson and this senator that dealt in it. it happens to be very clear that the other side, the democrats, were dealing with it. here's one quick example.

if you want more, then i would refer you to section 10, september 3, 2020 report. on july 13, 2020, then-minority leader schumer, senator warner, speaker pelosi and then-senator schiff sent -- congressman schiff sent a letter to the f.b.i. that congress was subject to a russian disinformation campaign. the classified attachment to that letter included unclassified elements that attempted but failed to tie our work to derkach's efforts.

that was leaked to the press to support a false campaign accusing us two senators of using russian disinformation. then, during the course of our investigation, we ran a transcribed interview of george cant. before that interview, democrats acquired derkach's material. during the interview, they asked the witness about it. they stated, quote, what you're asking me to interpret is a master chart of disinformation and maligned influence, end of quote. at that interview, the democrats introduced known disinformation into the investigative record as an exhibit. more precisely, the democrats relied upon and disseminated

known disinformation from a foreign source whom the intelligence community warned was actively seeking to influence u.s. politics. yet, can you cleveland this, -- can you believe this, they accused this senator and senator johnson of doing that very thing. now, let that sink in. because there's a -- a case of double standard around here. it's clear that the democrats hope that their self-created disinformation campaign would drown out our report and its finding to protect candidate biden from facts. now that president biden is in office, the markets aren't going anywhere. now, i had an opportunity to serve 28 years in the senate with senator biden.

i liked him then, i still like him, but that doesn't mean that i like the double standard the press has towards president biden and us republicans. as president biden gears up for his first press conference, he ought to answer for the fact that his family was and possibly still is financially connected to chinese nationals with links to the communist party and the people's liberation army. indeed, hunter biden reportedly admitted that he was well aware of some -- that some of his business associates were connected to the communist chinese government intelligence services. now, double standard. where's the media in asking serious questions about that? it's also been report that e-mails show that joe biden and

his brother were, quote, unquote, office mates with the very same chinese nationals with links to the government regime. where is the media in asking questions about that? and yet they are reporting this very day about things that johnson and grassley did about disinformation which i have told you so many times we never received. now, there's this interview on television with tony bob uleski publicly stating that joe biden was aware of and possibly involved in hunter biden's business deals. talk about a double standard. where's the media asking serious questions about that? the biden family's transactions and associations in our september 20 report raised

criminal counterintelligence and consortium concerns, and yet the liberal media has ignored all of it and has failed to ask any legitimate questions. now, don't you think that we, the people, have a right to know answers? the media certainly seems to think so. in all the doings of the trump administration, if the story i just laid out here was about trump, i'd guarantee you, it would be all over the news. it's perfectly legitimate and reasonable for congress and the news media to question the biden administration about these global transactions and associations. it is legitimate to ask how they could impact biden administration's foreign

policies. that's especially true as it relates to china given the links to the biden family and its country. let's see if anyone dares to ask questions at the president's first news conference. now, on another subject. i want to discuss national security threats facing our country. a recent poll showed 45% of the americans acknowledge that china is the greatest threat to the united states. a year ago that percentage was half that number, thinking that china was a threat, the greatest threat to the united states. frankly, this year no other nation came close to what they think about china being a

threat, not russia, not north korea, not iran. these were all far behind. half of americans believe china's the world's leading economic power, a record 63% say the economic power of china is a critical threat to the united states. now, we all know the american people are smart. they are perfectly -- they were perceiving exactly what is -- has happened the united states vis-a-vis china or china vis-a-vis the rest of the world. china wants to supplant our country as the greatest nation and the greatest economy in the world and china will do it if we are blind to that danger. everywhere i see the threat of

china's rise minimized. on tuesday i saw a very curious thing in the declassified community assessment of foreign threats to the 2020 u.s. elections. intelligence community determined that china did not engage in pervasive election meddling but noted that that was in part because china saw the risk associated with doing so. the intelligence community determined that china would not be excited if president trump had won the 2020 election because he would, and i quote, challenge china's rise, end of quote. the national intelligence officer for cyber issues in particular found that the

government of china wanted former president trump to be defeated in the general election preferring, and i quote, the election of a predictable member of the establishment instead china took at least some steps to determine, undermine former president trump's reelection chances. primarily through social media and official public statements and media, end of quote. yet, some in the news media read this very same report that i read and declared triumphantly and falsely that there was nothing to fear from china in terms of influencing our elections. it's pretty clear why china would not want a president

unafraid to assert american national interests. that means demanding reciprocal trade, secure borders, and a defense policy focused on american national interest. we all know that china's been playing us for suckers. china continues to try to expand its influence slowly, including in international bodies like the world bank and the world health organization. it doesn't seek to play by the rules, but to exploit its influence for its own advantage at the expense of the united states and probably any free country because they don't like democracy. in this same assessment, i saw that iran, another enemy, also

wanted to defeat a strong american president and sow division. many others, lebanese hezbollah, the government of cuba, venezuela, they all had the very same idea. they all wanted to defeat president trump. only russia seems to have preferred trump, but just according to that assessment. although i remember reading a year ago during the primaries that senator bernie sanders was also a favorite of russia. he had to have a defensive briefing, senator sanders, because russia wanted to help his campaign. also remember it was then-vice president biden who first

announced the disasterus bawm reset -- obama reset policy towards russia. this coming in the wake of russia's ally georgia arguably giving putin the idea that he could get away with invading crimea and ukraine. let's also take this moment to recall that when the justice department and the f.b.i. saw threats from russia during the 2016 election, that they didn't do what they did for sanders. they didn't defensively brief trump an his team. in -- and his team. instead, do you know where they went? they opened crossfire hurricane and outrageously used briefings to trump and his associates as intelligence gathering prayses and ultimately -- operations and ultimately wasted years of taxpayer money and time.

abraham lincoln once said, quote, america will never be destroyed from outside if we lose our freedoms it will be because we have destroyed ourselves from within, end of quote. in fact the goal of what the k.g.b. calls active measures like disinformation since soviet times has been to pit americans against each other to cause us to destroy ourselves, which brings me to another related point. as i see this seat of democracy fortified with walls and barbed wire while the people, the citizens and the taxpayers are kept out, i can't help but think about where we will go from here. yet the democrats can only speak of destroying the filibuster during these difficult times. when i hear talk of destroying

the filibuster, the very tools that force bipartisanship and ensure that those representing all americans are heard and that america act as one being abolished forever, i'm worried. if the slimmest of majorities is about to impose its will on the other half of the country from inside an armed bunker, the russians will have achieved their ultimate goal. we are not our own enemies to be silenced and to be fenced in. we are one nation but we must pull together and acknowledge what it means when countries like china and iran, our enemies and adversaries don't want us to put our country's interests

first. and then on my last point, i want to bring up another few remarks on the first amendment as i have spoken a couple times before very recently. i come to the floor over the last few weeks to talk about the first amendment, one of america's most cherished pillars of freedom. ultimately -- i shouldn't have said ultimately. unfortunately in recent years we've seen a corrosive culture undermining sacred civic freedoms americans risk taking for granted. too often we don't think about the freedoms we have because we were born here. we can learn a lot from immigrants that come to this country and appreciate america's -- america for our freedoms. when i go to these citizenship

ceremonies we have for immi immigrants, i always tell them that i wish you would tell -- when you hear some american complaining about what's wrong with america, i hope you know from your experience in other lands that you came here for freedom, remind us of how lucky we are to have what we were born into. silencing the free exchange of ideas has infiltrated college campuses and even the american workplace. it's even affected journalism, traditional media, and all across our social media platforms. we all know that not all speech is protected by the first amendment and occasionally we in the united states fall into a discussion about the technical boundaries of the first

amendment when we talk about the meaning and the merits of free speech. now, the health of our democracy depends on free speech to foster an informed public, something that i think thomas jefferson made very clear. if democracy is going to work, it's going to have to work with an educated public. the rigorous exchange of ideas, informed debate on issues affecting our lives and enables individuals to challenge power, also to challenge orthodoxy. in theory the institutions of the fourth estate should be the staunches defenders of the first amendment. i think i've said it before but you can't say it too often. and this is probably a hundred

different ways you can say it, but i always like to say that journalists are the police of our constitutional system to make sure that everybody and all follow the rule of law. what they bring to the people of this country about how our government functions is -- makes everything very transparent. and when things are transparent, you have accountability. so as i think about these things, it's been baffling to watch over the last year as some editors and executives, even at storied institutions crumble under pressure to police speech, to conform to orthodoxy and to stifle the exchange of ideas instead of what they should be

doing, promoting the contest of these ideas. in other words, speech, orthodoxy and exchange of ideas when they're under attack. it's now old news but last summer, a long time opinion editor of "the new york times" was pushed out of his position. for what? for having the audacity to publish an opinion piece written by senator tom cotton. apparently a group of readers and employees found senator cotton's ideas so upsetting as to warrant the removal of the editor who had the guts to publish them. the paper also issued a several-hundred-word editor's

note, even expressing regret for publishing the piece in the first place. if those readers and employees at the "times" disagree so strongly, the public could have learned something by publishing a counterargument instead of reading about their regret. i myself have publicly disagreed with senator cotton about policy idea or two. and i make my points here on the senate floor. i don't ask for senator cotton's resignation like they had to expunge his -- or give all sorts of excuses why they published that and they shouldn't have published it. instead what do we have? we had executives at a paper of

reference -- a paper of record scapegoat a colleague for failing to confirm to some yet unexplained orthodoxy versus a rational decision to engage in public debate on their papers. in january "politico" invited a slate of individuals to guess edit their widely-read newsletter, playbook. among those guest editors was ben shapiro, a conservative commentator. his name alone was enough to spark a backlash among sta stafs and even outside commentators. to their credit the editors of "politico" did not apologize. but according to "the washington

post" media writer, some "politico" employees who privately support the choice to publish shapiro were, quote, unquote, afraid to speak up on staff calls fearing backlash among colleagues. now, that's only two episodes i give you, but these episodes represent a very unhealthy environment where too many think it's prudent to give voice to those with whom they agree or whose views are deemed acceptable. while the editors did the right thing at one outlet, they didn't at the other. either way it probably means that there will be more selective -- they'll be more selective about what is acceptable.

what's acceptable in the future as we do the businesses of our newspapers. now, when you worry about what's acceptable, it certainly doesn't serve those principles that i mentioned earlier that ought to be encouraging dialogue, dispute, learning from each other, educating each other. now, these may be fairly obscure controversies i just gave you, but they're indicative of a yet wider problem. expectations of acceptability and a preference for unchallenged ideas, this all chips away at the most sacred civic freedoms in america. no one learns more by less

debate. neglecting then to defend free speech and champion the free exchange of ideas creates a pathway for censorship. democracy doesn't thrive on censorship. the institutions of the new media ought to defend the fundamental principles behind free speech and free press. at the top of their lungs, the first amendment is the oxygen of their own existence. if they were doing their work, there shouldn't have to be a single senator here in the united states senate giving speeches about why they don't want more free speech, why they want less free speech. last fall "the new york post"

had a story censored on twitter a short time before the election, regardless of what one thinks about the contents of that story, the method of reporting or even the tone of the writing, the suppression of information like that should alarm both news writers and news consumers. they ought to be more a protector of freedom of speech and freedom of press than a senator here on the united states senate talking about it. many outlets went to work fact-checking or reporting on the topic in their own way. that's all well and good. it's their job. but the public conversation about the censorship devolved into a question of whether twitter had the legal ability to do what it did instead of a discussion of whether it was the right thing to do.

because it wasn't right. even twitter's c.e.o. sees that now. however, there were no fiery defenses of free speech and free press from the mainstream outlets, and those mainstream outlets ought to be the ones talking more about freedom of speech and freedom of press than having senators on the floor of the united states senate bring it up and say why aren't you doing your job? why aren't you practicing your profession as it ought to be? why aren't you being the policemen of the system the way you ought to be? not even media with caveats were reporting about that twitter event that i just spoke about. this was the perfect opportunity for journalistic institutions to

weigh in and they should have weighed in. they have a dog in the fight. it should be bread and butter issues for every editorial board across the country and not just the editorial board but the reporters. the lack of this kind of pro-free press, pro-free speech advocacy also contributes to the unhealthy environment that shuns debate and silences dissent. so what will be the consequences of a media environment where conformity and comfort take precedent over the free exchange of ideas? the first and most obvious is a less rigorous and less informed public discourse and the citizens less informed.

opinions and preferences, especially on matters of public interest, are always improved after being challenged. if you disagree with "the new york times" editorial board or a pundit for the fox news, that's fine. it w -- it would be better if the public heard all about it. broader discussions means broader understanding. without a broad, vigorous public debate, we lose empathy that results from engaging with somebody else's ideas. in these divisive times in society, empathy is in low supply. the last thing that we lose in in -- the last thing we lose in a media environment ruled by compliance and conformity is the grand american tradition of

dissent. free speech and free press have centuries-long history in america. from thomas payne's pamphlets to the tweets spreading across the land this very minute. the revolutionary contest of ideas might take a different shape but remain critical for civic culture and the continued growth of our nation and the strengthening of our democracy. i hope more institutions in the fourth estate will take an aggressive approach advocating free speech. now, i wasn't around when thomas painee published "common sense," but history and my own experience teaches me two important lessons. the free exchange of ideas strengthens representative government and will then help

preserve our democratic republic for generations to come, and that's what this generation should be all about. making it better for the next generation. both from the standpoint of the economy but also for an understanding of our democratic institutions. i yield the floor and 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: i ask unanimous consent the senate consider the following nominations en bloc -- calendar 28, and 36, that the senate vote on the nominations en bloc without intervening action or debate, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, that any statements related to the nominations be printed in the record and that the president be immediately notified of the senate's action.

the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, the clerk will report en bloc. the clerk: nominations, central intelligence agency, william joseph burns of maryland to be director. department of state, brian p. mckeon of the district of columbia to be deputy secretary for management and resources. the presiding officer: the question occurs on the nominations en bloc. all in favor say aye. those opposed nay. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the nominations are confirmed en bloc. mr. schumer: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that the postcloture time on the walsh nomination be considered expired and the senate vote on the confirmation of the nomination at 5:30 p.m. monday, march 22. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. mr. schumer: madam president, i

move to proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. schumer: i move to proceed to executive session to consider calendar number 32. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, executive office of the president, slawnd d. young of louisiana to be deputy director of the office of management and budget. mr. schumer: i send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the cloture motion. the clerk: cloture motion. we, the the undersigned senators, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of executive calendar

number 32, shalandad. young of louisiana to be deputy director of the office of management and budget, signed by 18 senators as follows. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent the -- where are we? i ask unanimous consent that the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: i move to proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. all opposed no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. schumer: i move to proceed to executive session to consider calendar number 39. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. all opposed no. the ayes appear to have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination.

the clerk: nomination, public health service, vivek hallegere murthy of florida to be medical director in the regular corps. mr. schumer: i send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the cloture motion. 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 39, vivek hallegere murthy of florida to be medical director in the regular corps of the public health service, and to be surgeon general of the public health service. signed by 19 senators as follow- mr. schumer: i ask consent the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: i move to proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. those opposed nay. the ayes appear to have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. schumer: i move to proceed to executive session to consider calendar number 40. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. all opposed no.

the ayes appear to have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. mr. schumer: i send a cloture motion -- the clerk: rachel leland levine of pennsylvania to be assistant secretary. 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 calendar number 40, rachel leland levine of pennsylvania to be an assistant secretary of the department of health and human services, signed by 17 senators as follow- mr. schumer: i ask consent the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: i move to proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. schumer: i move to proceed to executive session to consider calendar number 38. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. all opposed no. the ayes have it. the motion is agreed to.

mr. schumer: i send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, department of energy, david turk of maryland to be deputy secretary. mr. schumer: i send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the cloture motion. 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 38, david turk, of maryland, to be deputy secretary of energy, signed by 19 senators as follows -- mr. schumer: i ask consent the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: i move to proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes seem to have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. schumer: i move to proceed to executive session to consider calendar number 30. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, department of the treasury,

adeweale o. adeyemo of california to be deputy secretary. mr. schumer: i send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the cloture motion. 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 30, adeweale o. adeyemo, of california, to be deputy secretary of the treasury, signed by 17 senators as follow- mr. schumer: i ask consent the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: i move to proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. those opposed nay. the ayes have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent that it be in order to move to proceed to calendar number 11, h.r. 1799. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. mr. schumer: i move to proceed to calendar number 11, h.r. 1799. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: motion to proceed to h.r. 1799, an act to amend the small business act and the cares act to extend the covered period for the paycheck protection

program, and for other purposes. mr. schumer: i send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the cloture motion. 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 motion to proceed to calendar number 11, h.r. 1799, the p.p.p. extension act of 2021, signed by 16 senators as follows -- mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent that the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: finally, i ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum calls for the cloture motions filed today, march 18, be waived, and there be a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. schumer: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 3:00 p.m. monday, march 22, that following the prayer and the pledge, the morning business be deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, 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, resume consideration of the nomination of martin joseph walsh to be secretary of labor as provided under the previous order. further, that if confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, the president be notified of the senate's action. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: for the information of senators, on monday, after the senate convenes, we expect to swear in karen gibson to be senate sergeant at arms. if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order, following the remarks of senator cornyn. the presiding officer: without objection.

mr. cornyn: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from fairfax is is recognized. mr. cornyn: madam president, are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: we are not. mr. cornyn: thank you very much. madam president, whether the administration wants to call it a challenge or a mess or pick your word, a calculated word choice does not change the magnitude of what's currently happening on our southern border. hundreds of unaccompanied children are being detained on a daily basis, completely overwhelming the capacity of the border patrol and health and human services to deal with it. witness the two new centers

opened up in midland, texas, and another one at the kay bailey hutchison convention center in dallas that will house approximately 3,000 young men. at one point there were more nan 4,200 children in custody. nearly 3,000 of them set beyond the time. 2,600 now to 4,200. in many cases these children don't make the dangerous journey north with their parents, but in the care of human smugglers, coyotes, as they are called, parents pay these smugglers thousands of dollars to bring their children to the united states. in some cases along that long,

treacherous journey, whether it is from central america or from mexico or anywhere else, because these children are not just limited to mexico and central america, in some cases these children are kidnapped by the smugglers on their way to the border because they know, having a child in their custody will give them preferential treatment and allow them to stay in the country. sadly, we know that too often children are mistreated, abused, or even sexually assaulted on the way to the united states. there is a lot of work that has to be done the moment the border patrol first encounters these children until they're transferred into the custody of health and human services. but the border patrol lacks the space, the physical space, or the personnel or the resources to provide this number of children with the care and support they need and also to carry out their duties, especially during a deadly pandemic. on monday, i spoke with the

border patrol sector chiefs and the office of field operations from across texas. we talked about the surge in unaccompanied children and the cascading consequences this crisis has had on our other border missions. as border patrol often -- officers encounter transporting care for these children, they are invariably diverted from their job securing the border, and so security gaps are left along the rest of the border. this is not an accident. this is really part of the strategy that the human smugglers and drug smugglers have -- flood the zone, preoccupy the border patrol taking care of children, leaving gaps that can then be exploited either by the more human smugglers or by drug smugglers. we all know that large amounts of heroin, cocaine, methamphetamine, fentanyl and the like come across our southern border.

92%, according to the d.e.a., of all the heroin in the united states comes from mexico. so these smugglers and they're really criminal organizations that apply in different commodities and different things, they flood the system to distract the border patrol and then exploit the vulnerabilities to bring people, drugs, and weapons and money across. one of the border patrol chiefs told me that customs and border protection needs to be able to identify and classify the migrants they meet, and it's being strained, which is impacting national security. for example, in -- last friday, when i was in carrizo springs and laredo, with my friend henry cuellar, a democrat representing a border district in texas along the rio grande, the sector chief

told us that just so far this year migrants from 54 different countries were detained coming across the border in the del rio sector. i think that sort of gives you a better idea that this is not just a localized phenomenon. these are criminal networks with really connections all around the world. and if you want to come from mexico, for example, it'll cost you a few thousands bucks. if you want to come from central america, you pay a little bit more of a premium. if you want to come from europe or a middle east country, it'll cost you even more. but it's only a matter of money because that's the only thing that these smugglers and these criminal organizations care about. but then people from 54 different countries, some of which are countries of special interest to the united states for national security purposes, 54 countries represented just so far this year in one sector, and i am a.m. sure the other -- and i'll sure the other border

patrol sectors have similar stories. what's more, since october, the border pa droll has encountered more than 4,000 criminal aliens, nearly double the amount from the previous fiscal year in less than half the time. in order to qualify as a criminal alien, you have committed significant crimes like assault, battery, domestic violence, sexual offenses, even manslaughter and homicide. of course, these are just the ones we know about and who were actually detained. many more -- we don't know how many more, but many more get through unobstructed across the border. while border patrol is overwhelmed by the sheer number of people crossing our border, including the alarming number of children sent by themselves, the border patrol isn't able to properly surveil or apprehend potentially dangerous individuals and substances. we've experienced migration

surges in the past, most recently in 2014 when president obama called it a humanitarian crisis, and then again in 2019. we know how dangerous the journey to our border is for migrants, especially children, and we know that spring and summer is often the busiest time period. in other words, what we're seeing now is just a foreshadowing of what we expect to see in coming weeks and months. we also know, madam president, that these criminal organizations pay attention to what our leaders are saying here in the united states. congressman cuellar and i, when we were in carrizo springs, were able to talk to a number of young men, teenagers, and ask how they heard about the border and their ability to get across. they said, well, they saw it on

tv or heard from family members here in the united states or saw it on social media that now is the time to come with the new administration that's not committed to border security, and so this was the time to make their run across the border. but these organizations do pay attention. and, unfortunately, the actions of the biden administration not only contributed to another surge this year, but it also made likely that it would be bigger than any other in recent memory. the president campaigned on policies that would lead to this very outcome. after all, when you send a message that migrants can come to the u.s., even with the filmiest asylum claims, and stay for years until it's resolved, and don't even really have to show up for your court hearing because of the backlog of 1.2 million cases in our immigration

courts, what do we expect to happen? what the border patrol tells me is that this is a combination of push factors and pull factors. the push factors we're familiar with. who wouldn't want to come to the united states for a better life? who wouldn't want to avoid the violence and crime associated with some of the gang activity in central america? we all understand that. but the pull factors are the sense that you can actually successfully get into the united states through illegal means or by making a false asylum claim and then overloading the system and basically navigate your way into the united states without any negative consequences. i believe that we need to set up a system that honors and respects all legitimate asylum claims, but this isn't it. we need to find way to move the children and other people claiming asylum to the head of the line so they can present

their claims to an immigration judge. but, as you can male, only about 10% to 12% of the asylum claims are actually grant. and if your only concern is making it into the united states, maybe you don't want to go in front of an immigration judge. but then again, those who don't and the immigration judge when their appointed court date comes issues a valid -- so if if you had an asylum claim that would have been granted, you've lost that by your non-appear seniors. secretary mayorkas said we're on track to see the highest number of border crossings in 20s years. there's simply no way to rewind and present this crisis from happening but it's absolutely urgent, first, that the administration acknowledge it and then work with congress to

address it. i would encourage the president to follow his own advice, which is to listen to the experts. the experts i listen to when i travel to the border are border patrol, health and human services, and the office of refugee relocation. those are the three federal government agencies that deal with this crisis. i'd be glad to welcome him to my state and introduce him to the dedicated men and women on the border that provide -- who provide valuable services but who simply are underwhelmed and undersourced. the communities in which they live along the border are beautiful, vibrant communities with outstanding local leader. s. but they also feel like they've been abba p donned by the federal government. been abandoned by the federal government. they try their best through nongovernmental organizations or just out of simple human mercy

and sympathy for the plight of these migrants to help them in any way they can, but they, too, are overwhelmed. they're doing everything they can to manage the crisis, which they had no hand in creating, and they should not be expected to manage it without help from the federal government. that is indeed responsible for our border. law enforcement, mayors, county judges, nongovernmental organizations -- i have a long list of folks that tideway -- that tideway be happy to share with -- that i'd be happy to share with the administration, if they would be willing to listen. one of the most significant things president biden could do it like he did after the polar vortex, the big freeze we had in texas, the 120-year weather event -- he was good enough to come to our state and talk to the first responders. i think he would benefit greaterly if he came down to the border so he could come down do

and talk to the experts on the ground who understand this crisis and have some very constructive ideas about how to deal with it. madam president, on another matter, nearly 20 years ago i took my first trip to israel. i had a good stroke of fortune. i met a brilliant, hilarious, opinionated, larger-than-life man named roger sofer. roger was simply unlike anyone i'd ever met before or anyone i've met since. he could captivate a room with anything from a serious discussion of national security and israel-u.s. policies to stories from his childhood to jokes that -- well, they probably shouldn't be repeated here on the senate floor. roger cared deeply about his family, his jewish faith, and the many friends he earned throughout his life. i consider myself fortunate

enough to be among those friends, and i'd like to share a few words about my friend roger, who passed away last week. as the old saying goes, roger wasn't born in texas, but he got there as fast as he could. the incredible story of his life began in queens, new york, that led him to the university of tampa on a baseball scholarship, then to fort dix with the army. he then went back to florida where he worked as a cabdriver, home to a new york -- home to new york as a sales representative, and then final lay to houston, texas, where he lived when he and i met. clearly, young roger was an enterprising guy. he understood the value of hard work and even more importantly learned about the value of relationships. roger and his friend, dansteiner, started their own financial planning and insurance firm and quickly found success.

roger truly cared about everyone that he works with -- his clients, his employees, and their families. that personal attention translated into a thriving business and a lot of awards and recognition to go along with it. but roger never let work consume his entire life or take away from the people and causes he cared most about. roger grew up in a religious home and inherited a deep appreciation of his jewish faith. his father hyman was his hero and instilled in him a love of our country as well as a love of israel. he would say don't worry about business, roger, because if there is no israel, there will be no business. that thought stuck. throughout his life, roger fought to secure a brighter future for our friends and

allies in israel. in the 1980's, melvin dow and stanford alexander, two giants in the aipac community, the american israel public affairs committee, asked roger to help grow the pro-israel committee in houston. well, i know roger never did anything halfway. he poured his heart and his soul into outreach efforts. when you have somebody as outgoing, passionate and likable as roger, you're bound to get good results. roger's work in houston was so successful that in 2002 he was asked to serve on aipac's national board, a position he would hold for nearly two decades. lucky for me, that's how roger and i ended up on the same trip to israel in march of 2002. we visited israel during the second intifada, a time of

serious violence and unrest. little did i know at the time, i wouldn't just look to roger for insight during our trip, he would become a trusted friend and source of advice over the next two decades. and make no mistake, i wasn't the only one who learned from roger. as a member of aipac's national board, he would make almost monthly trips to washington,d.c., often with a group of texans to advocate for a strong future and a strong u.s.-israel relationship. teddy roosevelt once said nobody cares how much you know until they know how much you care. it only took a few words to realize how much roger knew because you also saw how much he cared. he cared deeply about israel, its people, and its success, and became a respected voice on the importance of a strong u.s.-israel relationship. he didn't care if you were a

democrat or a republican, if you're willing to listen, he was happy to talk. but meetings with roger weren't limited to conversations about the middle east or ongoing political tensions. in typical fashion, he peppered every conversation with a lot of fun too. it wasn't uncommon for roger to walk into a meeting with a senator or a congressman and show them pictures of his beloved dog ginger. it was even less surprising for that person to ask roger the next time they saw him, so roger, how's ginger doing? he was a big animal lover. along with dogs, his other great love, interestingly enough, was horses. he loved the animals themselves as well as the atmosphere and energy at horse tracks. he was such a great handicaper that rice university sent a statistics class with him on a horse track so they could see

how he did it. last year, just days after being diagnosed with a rare form of leukemia, roger was able to witness the moment every horse enthusiast dreams about, a horse he co-owned named tis the law qualified for the kentucky derby. that horse would go on to win the belmont stakes and place second in the run for the roses, one of roger's proudest accomplishments. yes, roger was a man of many talents, a left-hand pitcher, an expert handicapper, an amateur comedian, a skilled story teller, and an effective advocate. above all, though, roger's greatest skill was his ability to live fully and authentically. he valued his relationships above all else, and he could turn a complete stranger into a friend with just a few words. i believe our friendship was proof of that.

so, madam president, sadly i along with my wife sandy send condolences to roger's beloved family including his wife linden , children nicole, scott and rebecca as well as his grandchildren, elizabeth, sam and beau. roger lived an extraordinary life and leaves behind an extraordinary legacy. i'm grateful to have known this man. madam president, i yield the floor and i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: will the senator withhold. mr. cornyn: yes. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate previous order, the senate

senate returns live coverage here on c-span2. we take you live to a news conference with president biden, we join the progress. >> keep social distance. we are going to beat this. we are way ahead of schedule. we got a long way to go i just want to bring you up-to-date, thank you very much "god bless america", may god protect our troops. thank you so much. [inaudible]