budget director nominee and a vote to advance the nomination to be u.s. surgeon general. we take you live now to the senate floor. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the senator from michigan. a senator: madam president, i ask unanimous consent to speak for one minute. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. peters: madam president, i rise in support of shalanda young as director of the office of management and budget. ms. young is exceptionally qualified for this role. her budget experience and extensive record of bipartisan results are what o.m.b. needs to guide our nation through the current pandemic and through the current economic crisis.

during her 14 years as a senior staff member for the house appropriations committee, ms. young developed a deep understanding of the budget process and government operations. and she has been instrumental in negotiating bipartisan agreements on many critical issues. she's a proven leader who is ready to get to work at o.m.b. and i urge my colleagues to join me in supporting her confirmation. and with that, madam president, i yield the floor and request the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. all postcloture time has expired. the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change his or her vote? if not, the yeas are 63, the nays are 37 and the nomination is confirmed. the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22, do hereby 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 surgeon general of the public health service. the presiding officer: the mandatory quorum call has been waived, the question is, is it the sense of the senate that the nomination of vivek hallegere murthy to be a medical director in the regular corps of the

public health service and to be surgeon general of the public health service shall be brought to a close? the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change their vote? if not, the yeas are 57. the nays are 43. the hoation is -- motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: public health service, 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. the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. merkley: i ask with respect to the young nomination, the motion to be considered be considered made and laid on the table and the president be immediately notified of the senate's action. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. merkley: thank you. madam president, today i am proud to join a number of my colleagues to highlight the importance of senate bill 1, the

for the people act. the ballot box is the pulsating heart of our government of, by, and for the people. president linden b. johnson said, the vote is the most powerful instrument ever devised by man for breaking down injustice. think about that. the most powerful instrument ever devised for breaking down injustice. it's robert kennedy who observed that each citizen's right to vote is fundamental to all the other rights of citizenship. you know, the opportunity to cast a ballot is not just an opportunity. it is not simply a responsibility, but it is a right, the right, the right that embodies all it means to a republic when which the power flows from the people.

our nation however imperfect in the beginning has worked toward this vision of citizens through the ballot box, driving the vision of our nation for over 200 years, overcoming barrier after barrier. we overcame some of the barriers of race with the 14th and 15th amendments. we overcame the barriers of gender with the 19th amendment. we overcame barriers that denied native americans the right to vote with the indian citizenship act of 1924. and we overcame the barriers of jim crow with the voting rights act of 1965. but now as we stand in this chamber, the central right of each citizen's opportunity to participate in the election through the ballot box is again

under attack. right now as we speak, there are 253 bills in 43 states assaulting the right to vote. these efforts are designed to make it harder for students to vote, for low-income americans to vote, for native americans to vote, for seniors to vote, and most insidiously, for black and brown americans to vote. and i say most insidiously because blocking access to the ballot has been a massive form of systemic racism throughout our history for black americans. but all of us in this chamber have taken an oath to the constitution. all of us have a responsibility to defend the ballot box. it is our responsibility to knock down the barriers that others would put up to prevent

citizens from having the opportunity to participate in our elections. and that is exactly what s. 1 for the people does in the face of the greatest attack on voting rights in this nation since jim crow. this legislation puts the power back where it belongs in the hands of the people. this bill said if you believe in the vision of our democratic republic, then you believe in voter empowerment, not voter intimidation, not voter obstruction, not voter suppression. this bill says that the people should choose their politicians, not the other way around. gerrymandering attacks a very notion of equal representation that is so important in the

social contract of the citizens with their government. and so this bill says we'll have an independent commission in each state to draw the boundaries of the districts so that we put an end to partisan gerrymandering. this bill says that government of, by, and for the people means you can't have a stadium sound system turned up to full volume drowning out the voice of the people. and would is that stadium sound system? it's the dark money, hundreds of millions of dollars of unidentified funds racing and coursing through our elections across this country doing attack ads with citizens having no idea where that funding is coming from. and that is simply wrong. and this bill says that public servants should work in the

public interest, not to line their own pockets, not to serve simply the wealthy or the powerful or the privileged. these points are straigh straightforward. we have been fighting to improve and guarantee the vision of government of, by, and for the people over our entire history. and now to protect our system of voting, the foundation of our republic, we have to get this bill over the finish line. and we have an extraordinary teamworking to make that happen. senators with sturdy, clear ideals and excellent ideas and grit and determination coming together to save our republic. senator klobuchar who will be speaking next, author of several of the key provisions of this bill, including bipartisan provisions who tomorrow will be chairing the first ever senate hearing on this landmark

legislation. senator padilla who knows exactly what it's like to be secretary of state and has been an amazing champion for voter empowerment in his home state. senator van hollen who led the empower act and the restore integrity to america's elections act. senator whitehouse who authored the disclose act portion of the bill and it's a -- and is a tremendous leader on campaign finance reform. today our nation is at a crossroads. are we going to be a nation for we the people or are we going to be a nation for we the powerful? we must pass the for the people act to save our democracy. as our leader said last week, failure is not an option. so let's get it done and let's ensure as abraham lincoln declared that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from

this earth. i yield to senator klobuchar. ms. klobuchar: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota. ms. klobuchar: madam president, i come to the floor today to join my colleague senator merkley and so many others in speaking in support of the critical democracy reforms in the for the people act, legislation that i'm honored to lead with senator merkley and majority leader schumer, representative sarbanes over in

the house which passed this bill very recently through their entire chamber. this bill will in short make it easier to vote, not harder to vote as sadly some of our colleagues have proposed over the years. but it will make it easier to vote, end the dominance of big money in politics and ensure that public officials work for the public interest. and it includes provisions as senator merkley noted from 15 bills that i lead to strengthen our democracy. i appreciate my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who have contributed to the ideas in this bill. it represents the combined work of so many people in this chamber who are dedicated to improving our democracy. nine bipartisan bills are part of the for the people act, bills like the honest ads act which i

originally introduced with senator mccain of the great state of arizona, the presiding officer's home state. and now lead with senator graham and senator warner. what does that bill do? well, it improves disclosure requirements for online ads. disclosure requirements that aren't in law. it's not right, and that's why this is just one of the many provisions with bipartisan support. these election security reforms that so many of us worked on, including senator lankford and senator burr, those are in this bill. these are reforms that have broad support among the american people. according to a pew research center poll, 65% of the respondents said the option to vote early in this bill or absentee in this bill should be available to any voter. and a poll from the campaign

legal center found that 83% of likely voters support public disclosure of contributions to organizations involved in elections. of course they do. people want to know who's paying for these ads they see on tv. they want to know where the money is from and then they could follow the money. many of the provisions in had the bill have already been adopted across the country. and democratic and republican officials and governors have supported them. as the chair of the senate rules committee, the committee with jurisdiction over federal elections and campaign finance law and the committee to which this bill has been referred, i believe we must get this done. tomorrow, as noted by senator merkley, we will be holding a hearing on the bill. i'm pleased that every single democratic member of that committee is a cosponsor of the bill, and i intend to move quickly to a markup to send the

bill to the senate floor for a vote. the for the people act is critically important. it's important because it would improve our democracy by protecting voting rights, getting dark money out of our elections and putting in place anticorruption reforms. it's important because every one of the things that we want to get done from rebuilding our economy to fixing our immigration system to investing in infrastructure to tackling the climate crisis to reforming our criminal justice system, they all depend on a democracy that works for the people. last november, in the middle of an unprecedented pandemic, nearly 160 million americans voted, more people than ever before in the history of america. think about that. in the middle of a pandemic.

and we know -- we saw the pictures on tv. we sought people at the very beginning before we knew what safety protocols should be in place, when things were getting mixed around, those people in garbage bags in the rain standing in line to vote. why did so many people vote in the middle of a pandemic? both sides of the aisle, both democrats, republicans, independents -- why did they vote? well, they were interested in the election, we know that. but it was more than that. in part, they voted because they had more access to voting because of the changes that were made in the states. vote by mail that was available and easier for so many more people to do than ever before. we think about those people that suddenly had new means to vote in states where they suddenly didn't have to get a notary

public or two signatures or this or that just to exercise their right to vote. and they voted, and they voted in droves. and even though the overwhelming majority of americans have made it clear they want to sea policies that continue to make -- to see policies that continue to make it easier to vote, sadly, there are those on the other side of the aisle who have real estate been doubling down -- who've been doubling down to find ways to make it harder to vote. as senator merkley noted, over 250 bills introduced in states across the country, including my home state of minnesota that had the highest voter turnout, once again, in the country, people frying to make it harder to vote, including in arizona where they had such a record turnout, including in georgia. why? well, as senator warnock said so beautifully and succinctly in his maiden senate floor speech just last week, some people

don't want some people to vote. well, that's not how this country was founded. that's not what our constitution says. we cannot just sit back and let our democracy be undermined. as i said from the inaugural stage on that beautiful blue-sky day at the very place where you could still see the splay paint at the bottom of the columns and the makeshift windows that we had in place after the january attack, this is the date our democracy picks itself up and brushes off the dust and goes forward as a nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. for decades, there are those who have been trying to chip away at the fundamental right to vote. we can't just keep taking it. we have to ensure that right to vote. what is this about? one, making it easier to vote.

that's exactly what for the people does. it includes provisions that i've championed and so many others have, like automatic voting registration, ending purges of voting rolls, independent redistricting commissions, and requiring all states to allow same-day voter registration and voting by mail. these are commonsense policies that are already in place in many states. in the 2020 general election, 45 states didn't require an excuse to vote by mail. this will ensure that in every state you don't need to make an excuse. 21 states have same-day registration, including states like idaho, wyoming, and florida. 43 states have early voting. just last month kentucky's republican secretary of state praised a state bill that would make early in-person voting permanent. and certainly we need to ban purges of voting rolls. as my friend stacey abrams said, if you don't go to a meeting every year, you don't lose your right to assemble under the

constitution. if you don't go to church or synagogue or a mosque or temple, you don't lose your right to worship. so if you haven't voted for a few elections and you decide you want to vote because you care about a candidate or an issue, you should not lose your right to vote. but in too many places, that is not the case. 20 states already have automatic voter registration laws, including west virginia, alaska, and georgia. this bill simply says they all should. the second major reform we need is to get the big money out of politics. the for the people act brings transparency so people are informed about who is paying for the ad. it also tightens regulation on super super pacs. the third major reform in the for the people act is restoring trust in our government. democracy isn't just about what happens on election day; it's

also about making sure that our elected officials are accountable once they take office. the for the people act ensures that members of congress and other federal officials are truly working for the people. it expands conflict of interest laws and codifies ethics rules for the executive branch. most importantly, why does the highest court of the land not have any ethics rule for the supreme court when every other court in the nation does? this bill answers that question. three simple ideas -- making voting easier, getting big money out of politics, and strengthening ethics rules. 2020 marked the 100th anniversary of the ratification of the 19th amendment, which granted women the right to vote. and a century after that ratification, we elected our

first african american, first ashouldn't american and first woman vice president in vice president kamala harris. as we celebrate these firsts, we are reminded that throughout our country's history had the right to vote has been hard-fought and hard-won. as congressman john lewis, who we sadly lost, once said, your vote is precious, almost sacred. it is the most powerful, nonviolent tool we have to create a more perfect union. when we reflect on the sacrifices and strides that have been made for the right to vote, one thing is very clear -- the fight isn't over. the best way we can honor the countless americans who have risked and in some cases given their lives, given their lives to protect our freedoms, given their lives to protect our democracy here at home, the best way is to make sure that that democracy continues unfettered

and that everyone has the right to vote. because we know, as senator warnock reminded us, that there are some people that are trying to make it hard for some people to vote. that's not how america works. and the for the people act is all about making sure america works for everyone. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor, and i see we're joined by two senators who are going to be speaking, senator padilla, the senators from california, as well as whitehouse from rhode island, and senator van hollen from maryland. thank you. mr. padilla: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from california. mr. padilla: madam president, i rise at that to speak today on the for the people act. but before i do, i want to take a moment to honor the lives of the -- of those tragically lost

in colorado yesterday by yet another senseless mass shooting in our country. my heart breaks for their families, but the sobering and harsh reality is that in many parts of the united states, it is easier to buy a gun than it is to cast a ballot. in 25 states voters must be registered and have specific forms of identification in order to cast a ballot. but those same states allow people to buy rifles without permits and require no background checks for some sales. think about that. it seems to me that we have our priorities entirely backward when it comes to -- it makes it easier to buy a weapon than we do to cast a ballot.

madam president, as we work to rebuild our economy for all people, we must acknowledge that to build an inclusive economy, we need an inclusive democracy. just as the pandemic has put a spotlight on the inequities in our economy and our health care systems, so too has the pandemic put a spotlight on the inequities in access to the ballot. the 2020 election held in the midst of the covid-19 pandemic demonstrated once again that we have made it easier for some citizens to vote than others. this is not an accident. depending on where a voter lives, they may or may not have the ability to register to vote

online. they may or may not be able to participate in same-day registration. they may or may not be able to vote early. or vote by mail. all this varies state by state. this patchwork has a direct and dramatic effect on whose voices are heard in our democracy, and too often it's working-class communities, communities of color, young people whose voices are silenced. for voters who -- whose work schedule does not allow them to wait in line to vote, the denial of vote-by-mail or early voting denies the opportunity to vote altogether. for voters who do not have that specified form of state identification, even though they're american citizens of

voting age and otherwise eligible to vote, lack of an i.d. can mean that they will not be given a ballot, even if they can verify their identity some other way. for voters who want to vote by mail and may have access to some form of vote-by-mail, unreasonable ballot receipt deadlines, a scarcity of ballot return locations, and/or slow, unreliable postal service delivery can mean that their ballots won't be counted. for young voters and for those who move frequently, antiquated registration systems and unreasonably early registration deadlines can leave them unable to register to vote or to update their registration record in time to exercise their fundamental right to vote. all of these voting restrictions

have a disproportionate impact on communities of color. just like the poll taxes and literacy tests of the jim crow era, the truth is plain for all to see. voter suppression laws are rooted in white supremacy. the for the people act presents an opportunity for us to establish a baseline of voting rights and ballot access for all voters. now, i know that the for the people act will improve voting rights in america because, as california's secretary of state, i helped adopt and implement these best practices. these include automatic and same-day voter registration, online voter registration, expanded access to vote-by-mail, extended early voting periods,

in-person early voting periods, and convenience access to secure ballot dropoff locations. these policy help ensure equitable access to the ballot and in so doing strengthen our democracy. while california has led the way in making our elections more accessible to all voters, the policies we implemented are not unique to our state. states like maine and alaska have also adopted automatic voter registration policies. states like utah, iowa, idaho, and wyoming also permit same-day voter registration. states like florida and ohio allow no-excuse vote by mail and provide voters with early voting options as well. the election reforms within the for the people act are not

partisan. these reforms are not democrat or republican. they are common sense, and they are proven to work. all voters deserve equal voting rights and equal access to the ballots. colleagues, we are a stronger democracy and a better nation when we hear all voices from all corners of our nation and when those voices are not just heard but they are counted by passing the for the people act, we can assure that more voices are heard and more voices are indeed counted. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. mr. van hollen: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. mr. van hollen: thank you,

mr. president. first i want to thank my colleagues who have gathered here on the floor to help pass and urge the passage of this very important piece of legislation, the for the people act. our constitution begins with three words that ring in the minds of each and every american. we, the people. 76 years after those words were written, president lincoln resolved in 1863 that those who had lost their lives on the battlefield at gettysburg shall not have died in vain and that government of the people, by the people, and for the people shall not perish from the earth. 102 years after gettysburg, our beloved former colleague, congressman john lewis, then a civil rights activist and leader, together with nonviolent marchers, were beaten bloody by

alabama state troopers as they crossed the edmund pettus bridge, demanding voting rights in 1965. later that year in 1965, congress acted and did pass the voting rights act, and it was reauthorized regularly thereafter. most recently in 2006 by a vote of 98-0 here in the united states senate, and 390-33 in the house where i served at that time. then in 2013, in the case of shelby county versus holder, the supreme court, in a notorious 5-4 decision, stripped away a key enforcement provision from the voting rights act. the requirement that the department of justice approved changes to voting rights laws in states that had a history of discriminating against african american voters and others in their past laws. almost immediately, it was like within 24 hours, you saw states

that have been covered by that act begin to move to erect barriers at the ballot box, making it more difficult for people of color to vote. indeed, in the case of north carolina state conference of the naacp versus mcquarry, the united states court of appeals for the fourth circuit said the voting provisions passed by the north carolina legislature in the aftermath of the rollback of the voting rights act were designed to, quote, target african americans with almost surgical precision, unquote. now we come to 2021. on january 6, we witnessed a violent mob incited by the former president of the united states attack this capitol in order to overturn the results of a democratic election. the mob came because of the big lie, the big lie told by donald trump and fueled by some of his allies here on capitol hill that he had been cheated out of an election victory.

it is a pernicious and insidious lie that has caused republican state legislatures across the country to try to build up barriers to voting, limiting vote by mail, ruing the number of days for early voting, even making it illegal in georgia for anyone to provide water to someone waiting in line to vote. a real provision that's already passed the georgia house and is on its way to the senate. all measures designed to make it harder for american citizens to exercise their right to vote. mr. president, we needed the for the people act before january 6, but we need it more than ever now to establish some minimum national standards to ensure that every american's right to vote is secure. in addition to the barriers being erected around the country to voting, our democracy faces another real and president

danger, the flood of cash and big money from special interests invading the airwaves, invading the internet that seek to drown out the voices of everyday americans. in 2010, in another notorious 5- 4 supreme court decisions, citizens united, the court opened the floodgates to unlimited amounts of special interest corporate money flooding into our elections. over $14 billion were spent in the 2020 election cycle, much of it secret. in fact, one of the consequences of that decision, coupled with already existing laws, was that more money flowed secretly into our elections, the dark money, the dark money trying to hijack our democracy for the highest bidder. mr. president, as my colleagues have said, the american people have a right to know who is spending all this money to try to influence their vote. that's why back in 2010, i

authored and the house passed the disclose act to require that that information be available to voters and the american people. in fact, had that law become -- had that house bill become law, we wouldn't have secret money today. and while it was overwhelmingly popular in the country and history, the death of ted kennedy, the senate was not able to secure the 60 votes necessary to overcome a filibuster. ted kennedy passed away. his replacement was a republican. this senate voted 59 votes, a big majority, to pass the disclose act. but because of the filibuster

rule, they couldn't get over that hurdle. mr. president, the disclose act is part of s. 1. senator whitehouse and all the senators here have been part of that effort. it's part of s. 1. we cannot afford to repeat the history of 2010. we cannot allow a minority of senators who represent a minority of the public in this country and the people of this country to stop the for the people act. mr. president, we have a duty to every patriotic american who has worked hard, many spilled blood for the right to vote. we have a duty to pass the for the people act. and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: mr. president, i pick up where senator van hollen left off. when he was fighting for the

disclose act in the house, i was the manager of that bill on the floor here of the senate. it would do something very simple. if you're spending more than $10,000 in an election, we ought to know who you are. that's pretty easy. it's not going to rope in lots of small donors. it will get the big interests who are out there trying to control our democracy and hide who they are while they're doing it. as senator van hollen said, this started with citizens united, a wretched decision that unleashed unlimited money to our politics but, but it says that unlimited money was going to be transparent. that was this predicate. it's going to be transparent. you won't have corruption because you will be able to see. the ad will say we're exxonmobil and we paid for this message.

well, of course the dark money forces have achieved that victory at the supreme court went right out and violated that predicate. right out. they have built an entire architecture of deception around their campaign finance since that. it's the 501-c corporations that don't have to report their donors. it's the donor-advised trusts that are money identity laundering devices for simple donors. it's even as simple as phony baloney shell corporations. the money goes to phony shell corporations and the shell corporations launders it through donors trust and they give it to the 501-c and they dump it into the super pac. and they all know what's going on. this is orchestrated stuff. so we have a real battle on our hands. we have passed the billion-dollar in dark money threshold a long time ago. and when people are spending a

billion dollars in dark money to influence what goes on in this country, you can bet they're winning. you can bet they're winning. they wouldn't keep spending money by the billion if they weren't winning. so we have got to put a stop to this. the american people are with us. the polling is unbelievable. it's in the 90's. whether you're a bernie bro or a tea partier, you hate the idea that there is big dark money in politics pawlg the tune for congress to dance to. but that's the fact. look at the outcomes. look at climate change. there is no dispute about the science. we all know what needs to be done. but one big special interest, the fossil fuel industry has shut down one political party, and my strong bet is that if you looked at all the dark money funding the republican party in congress, you would find that it is 80% the fossil fuel industry. they have become the political wing of the fossil fuel industry, and they specialize in

fake climate denial for that reason, and it's going to cost us. the lost decade on climate is going to cost us. so dark money is not just a plague to the integrity of american democracy. it's a plague that harms our ability to deal with the other problems that are coming our way wherever there is a big special interest that can play the game of hiding the money and moving it around. let me say one last thing. dark money, not really. not dark to the candidate who's the beneficiary. do you think that when a big dark money donor sets up a shell corporation and gives that couple of million dollars and then has that shell corporation launder the money through donors' trust and then has that money go into a super pac to be spent for a particular candidate or against his opponent, do you think they don't find a way to let the candidate know what they did and why? the only people who are not in on the joke are the american

public, and we have got to put an end to this. so democracy behind masks isn't democracy at all. let's get rid of this stuff. the american public will be with us. it will provide health and hygiene to our democracy again and will start to see results for the american people in a way the dark money had prevented. so thank you very much, senator murkly, for leading us in this enterprise. this is public service. this is why we came here. this is the democracy that needs defending, and by god, we're going to defend it. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: mr. president, i am happy to join in this block of time that members are coming forward to talk about the for the people act. i want to thank senator merkley for being our leader and inspiration for many aspects of this. and chair amy klobuchar of the rules committee who will have the honor of bringing this

matter before her committee for discussion. tomorrow's going to mark 11 weeks, 11 weeks since we set in this chamber late into the night and debated the certification of the electoral college vote from the november 3 election. it was an experience none of us will ever forget. hours before, we were told to rush out of this chamber as quickly as possible because the insurrectionist mob was just a few feet away. we had been told that they were going to keep this place safe for us, we could sit at our chairs, we could gather the staff around the walls, you will be safe, you will be just fine. ten minutes later, they said run as fast as you can. it's an experience that none of us ever expected in the united states capitol building and one that we will certainly never forget. we had been rushed out of the chamber as this mob attacked the capitol in an effort to stop us from fulfilling our constitutional duty in recognizing joe biden as

president of the united states. if that were in a novel 20 years ago, i would have said it's preposterous. it will never happen in america. but i saw it. i lived it. many of us did. this mob had been fueled by weeks of lies, disinformation, and baseless allegations of fraudulent votes of a stolen election. i couldn't get over that yesterday a lady named paula, the big defender of the big lie said do you think people actually believe me? how could they possibly believe me? well, that's how far it's come. the preposterous statements being made by the pro-trump forces about stealing the election now are so laughable that people are trying to escape legal liability by saying surely you didn't take that seriously. well, an awful lot of people did across america and many of them marched on this capitol. despite this horrific attack on the capitol and our democracy,

some of our colleagues shockingly continued and continue to this day to amplify these wild claims. they continue to object to the electoral vote count and claim that congress needed to do more to assure the voters that the 2020 election was legitimate. a few of those colleagues -- and this was a beautiful piece of history relived. a few of those colleagues even proposed a sham commission to audit the election. they were relying on an 1876 precedent that was responsible for the end of reconstruction and the beginning of the jim crow era. a precedent that established rank discrimination against african americans for decades and invited brutal voter suppression efforts that sadly, amazingly we're still fighting today. here's the reality. if those colleagues were serious about protecting democracy, they would be standing on the floor with us right now.

they would have stayed in their seats when the electoral college vote was certified. they wouldn't have spent weeks challenging and questioning the legitimate results of an election that their chosen candidate actually lost, and they would be on the floor with us, as i said, in support of the for the people act. anyone who truly believes that we need to strengthen the integrity of our elections and democratic process should be cosponsoring this bill. the for the people act ensures that all eligible americans can cast a ballot without burdensome barriers that suppress the vote. in 1890, there was established something called the mississippi plan. the mississippi plan was state legislation ceaflly crafted to make -- carefully crafted to make certain african americans didn't have the right to vote. other states looked at it carefully and said this is the answer. literacy tests, poll taxes, every obstacle they could dream

of became part of the mississippi plan with the expressed purpose of disenfranchising african americans recently emancipated. that plan, unfortunately, lived out its days for decades and performed as expected, suppressing the vote. again we face this kind of challenge. the bill that we're talking about here invests in election infrastructure, provides state and local officials with the resources they need for safe and secure elections. the bill reforms a broken campaign finance system that elevates the voices of wealthy donors today and special interests and it strengthens and enhances ethics and transparency requirements. i'm proud to be here today because this bill also includes the -- the for the people act also includes the fair elections now act. i think i've introduced this almost every year i've been in

the senate. it says here in my notes, since 2007, pretty close. and occasionally, just occasionally i would get a republican cosponsor. the idea behind it is simple. public financing and campaigns. a voluntary small donor public financing system for senate candidates who agreed to raise small dollar contributions, not big money. the fair elections public financing system would elevate the views and interest of the diverse spectrum of americans rather than just the wealthy. i'm lucky to have a house sponsor, john sarbanes, his father and i served in the senate together, and he really has done a remarkable job promoting the bill in the house. we would pay for these campaigns, public financing without spending a dime of taxpayers' dollars. we would be financed with assessments on wealthy bad actors and industry lawbreakers. voluntary small donor public financing of congressional campaigns would mean more candidates with more ideas and a congress that works for more than just the top 1% in america.

i thank senator merkley for once again including this act in your bill. i thank congressman sarbanes for his leadership in the house. the fair elections now act is just one of the many critical reforms in this bill that will empower voters to combat corruption. after months of the former president and his allies undermining faith in our electoral system with their unjustified claims, we immediate to take immediate concrete steps to repair our battered democracy. i urge all my colleagues to join in this mission and support the for the people act. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. merkley: i thank my colleagues who have come to the floor to speak so powerfully to the essential task of defending the ballot box, of stripping

dark money out of our elections, of honoring the vision of equal representation by ending the practice of gerrymandering across this countries. senator klobuchar who chairs the rules committee and who will host and direct the committee hearing, the first ever for s. 1, for the people act, made a powerful representation of how vote by mail gives every citizen a full opportunity to participate in elections without the manipulations that can occur on election day, when different people who do not want you to have access to the ballot can put all kinds of hurdles and obstacles in your way. senator van hollen, who authored the disclose abt in the house -- act in the house, reminded us of john lewis and his fellow protesters being

beaten bloody on the edmund pettus bridge to secure the right to vote, as so many other americans had fought for the right to vote since our founding. senator padilla, who implemented so many reforms in california as secretary of state, gave us a sense that this can be done anywhere in the country in time for next year's elections. senator whitehouse, who has championed disclose act in the senate, noted that there is a scheme of 501-c-3 corporations and donor advice trust, and phony baloney shell corporations, as he put it, all working to corrupt our campaigns, and that the amount of money that has been used to secure power for the powerful by manipulating the elections now exceeds $1 billion.

and senator durbin, who has championed year after year after year the fair elections now act, presenting a powerful remedy for the role of big money donations in our campaigns through public financing, public financing not with government funds, but with funds that come from corporate malfeasance. so i appreciate so much these colleagues who have been all involved in so many different ways in this battle to save our republic. there is always a powerful force seeking to manipulate the election process to their favor. and as one of many tools that that powerful group brings to bear, there are the dozens of lawyers who work night and day being paid hundreds of dollars an hour to secure power for the powerful. there's a public media campaigns that take tens of millions of dollars to frame issues to try

to persuade americans of their particular viewpoint or to drive a wedge between different groups of americans. there is that dark money. there is those efforts in state legislatures to block the vote. i want to just close by reminding us all that the constitution clearly states that elections for senators and house members, this body -- congress o pass laws to make sure those elections are fair across this country, because every american of any state has a clear stake in the legitimacy of the elections in other states because it is the collective voice here that makes decisions. so this is not only a responsibility provided to us, it is a responsibility that we

must fulfill to defend the ballot box, to end gerrymandering, violating equal representation, and clear that dark money polluting and corrupting our campaigns out of the system forever more. let's get this essential bill, this essential defense of the pull sating -- pulseating heart of our democracy, the ballot box, let's get this bill passed. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cornyn: mr. president, i'm an unabashed optimist. i'm a glass-half-full, not a glass-half-empty kind of guy.

i tell my staff that i'm like the little boy that goes down on christmas morning and looks under the christmas tree and finds a pile of manure and wonders where my pony is. that's how much of an optimist i am. so i'm optimistic about our progress made in the war of covid-19 after this long year that we've all inare diewrd. so far endured. more than two-thirds of people over 65 have gotten their first shot. in my state they had recently said everybody 50 and up can get a shot and now very soon any adult over the age -- person over the age of 16 will be eligible to get the vaccine. that translates into good news

across the board. new cases, deaths, and hospitalizations are all declining. over the last week, the seven-day positivity rate in texas dropped to the lowest point since last may. while we continue to follow the public health guidelines to slow the spread of the virus, it's clear we're moving closer and closer to an eventual end to this pandemic. and there are a million reasons to be optimistic. despite the narrative pushed by some, all of this hope isn't the result of just the last couple of months, and it certainly not the product of partisan bill that was passed just two weeks ago. these efforts have been under way for more than a year now and we owe a great deal of credit to operation warp speed, the initiative setup by the trump administration to accelerate the development of vaccines,

treatments and therapeutics. last summer, when president trump speculated that we would have an effective vaccine by the end of the year, he received some serious blowback. one media outlet published a fact check saying it would require nothing short of, quote, a medical miracle. well, thanks to the leadership of the previous administration, thanks to the great scientists, pharmaceutical companies, and others, that so-called miracle has come true not just once but twice. both the pfizer and ma me derna vaccines received authorizations last year and johnson and johnson received authorization last month. the biden administration has embraced a different approach, an associated press headline in january evaluated the situation

pretty well when it said that biden's early approach is to under promise and over deliver. in december, president biden announced, at that time president-elect biden, announced his administration's vaccine goal, 100 million shots in the first 100 days. that was before the vaccine doses were distributed, before we had a world test of the processes that had been in the planning stages for months. it quickly became obvious we were on a pace to meet that goal before president biden took the oath of office on january 20. the week of the inauguration we had one million shots a day. 1.5 million americans received the vaccine. one public health expert described the president's goal as a disappointingly low bar.

the administration met the goal well ahead of the deadline and last week the president claimed a victory for hitting 100 million vaccines in 58 days. well-- so did he follow up with a new goal, a truly ambitious one that would get us shots in the arm even faster? did he shet up a new benchmark to encourage states to make their vaccination efforts more efficient and effective? well, not yet. maybe he will. maybe he will announce a new goal this week for the sake of our country. i hope he sets the bar high. given the fact that we're now vaccinating about 2.5 million americans per day, a staggering number, really, it's time for the administration to take a truly bold step. the goal here isn't to set a target you're almost certain to meet. after all, if you -- you didn't

see the previous administration set a antarctica of a vaccine by the summer of 2021, which is what many experts believed at the time. unfortunately the under promise, over deliver strategy doesn't end with vaccinations. just look at the president's latest comments about small outdoor gatherings. in the same speech where he tried to take a victory lap for the disappointingly low bar set for vaccinations, he made a rather confusing promise to the american people. he said if you keep your guard up, stick together and stick with the science, we can look forward to a 4th of july that feels a little bit more normal with small groups able to gather for cookouts in back yards. that was a little bit of a head scratcher when president biden said that he anticipated anyone who wanted the vaccine could get it by may and now he's talking about having outdoor gatherings

on the 4th of july. and i can tell you, these small outdoor gatherings have been a part of many texans' routines for almost a year now. family and friends have spent time in driveways, back yards, open-airspaces, parks, they followed the public health guidelines to keep them and their loved ones safe while managing some sense of normalcy. the centers for disease control had said it's safe for fully vaccinated individuals to gather not just outdoors but indoors as well. but based on the president's remarks last week, he's trying to frame these gatherings as a reward if things go well over the next few months if you do everything right, then you might be able to hang out with your family in the backyard in three months. well, the administration's own centers for disease control has already told us that these gatherings are safe.

your current public health guidelines can't also double as a goal for three and a half months from now. and then there's another big inconsistency between what the experts are telling us and what the administration is doing, and that has to do with reopening schools. some children have hit the anniversary mark of virtual learning. studies have shown consistently that this is having a huge negative impact on america's kids academically, mentally, socially, and emotionally. we need our schools to reopen, and, of course, we need that to happen safely, which they can. back in december, then-president-elect biden seemed to share that goal. he promised to reopen the majority of schools within his first 100 days in the white house, another 100-day goal. the experts tell us it's not

only possible but it's already been done across the country. the centers for disease control and prevention published a report in january that said, quote, there's been little evidence that schools have contributed meaningfully to public transmission. close quote. in short, the schools are not a breeding ground for covid-19, and as long as proper precautions are taken, schools can open safely. in fact, it's already happened across most of texas. nearly two-thirds of texas schools are fully in person and more than 3% -- just 3% of districts are still fully remote. two-thirds fully open, 3% fully remote. unfortunately in this case the science is at odds with a key -- a see supporter of our democratic colleagues, and that is the teachers unions. for years now and in recent

months, -- i should say for months teachers unions have fought a safe return to in-person instruction, even though real-world evidence has told us it is safe. it has gone so far that now they've gotten into pretty sticky situations. a leaked post from a private facebook group from the los angeles teacher's union warned teachers not to post pictures of the spring break photos because it makes it difficult to argue that it's unsafe to return to school. it's tough to tell parents it's not safe to go to school but then turn around and tell teachers it's fine to go on vacation, just don't post pictures. trusting scientists an experts means -- and experts means it is something we can do all the time. we are experiencing a light at

the end of the tunnel for covid-19 and the question is not if we get there, but when? how quickly can we get more vaccines into arms? when will our children -- all our children return safely to the classroom? how long until families can hug one another without fear of spreading the virus to someone they love? we all know this is a community effort. it's a team effort. it's a personal responsibility effort. each of us have a role to play in stopping the spread of the virus. but leadership matters too. the goals and benchmarks set by the administration will determine how quickly all of these things can happen. now is not the time to walk back goals, set low bars, or bow to unions and political supporters. the administration needs to set clear metrics and targets for how we reopen and find our new normal and these goals should be

based on the science and the advice of the experts, nothing less. so, mr. president, we're getting close to safely crossing the finish line and we shouldn't let politics or any other consideration slow us down. mr. president, i yield the floor and i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator there 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 but before i do so i want to make some brief observations. earlier this month, democrats passed their extreme partisan reconciliation bill, a bill that president biden signed into law. when the senate was considering the bill, i introduced an amendment to ensure that illegal aliens would not receive the $1,400 taxpayer payments provided in the bill. every single democrat in this body voted against that amendment. is failed by a single vote. if even one senate democrat had voted for that amendment, it would have passed. at the time senator durbin

incorrectly told this chamber that no illegal aliens would receive stimulus checks under this bill. it was clear then and it is now been even more clear now that that statement was very much in error, as even senator durbin has admitted. last thursday i gave my democratic colleagues a chance for a do-over once it became clear that there was a very substantial number of illegal aliens who would be receiving these checks. unfortunately the democrats objected again and put themselves on record that they are just fine with millions of illegal immigrants getting taxpayer stimulus checks. there's been some debate as to the exact number but just this week, the center for immigration studies released an economic report that catalogued we are indeed talking about millions of illegal immigrants who are receiving these checks.

at the same time we were debating this partisan reconciliation bill, the senate considered another amendment which i had introduced and senator cassidy introduced to prevent the payments from going to criminals currently incarcerated in prison. again, unfortunately and astonishingly, every single democrat in this chamber voted against it. it failed by a single vote. if even one democrat had demonstrated the common sense to say violent criminals who are currently in prison right now, today shouldn't be getting $1,400 taxpayer stimulus checks, that amendment would have passed. but every democrat lined up at a party-line partisan vote to say no. today i'm going to give democrats another chance at a

do-over to recognize that that extreme position is a position frankly none of us could go home and explain to our constituents without being laughed at, even in the bluest of states. and i'm going to give an opportunity in this instance for democrats to vote on stopping the funds going to criminals currently incarcerated and sending those funds instead to the crime victims fund, a program that is run by the department of justice to compensate victims of crime. so this is a choice the democrats have. do you want $1,400 checks going to criminals in prison or do you want instead to direct those funds to the victims of crime that have suffered at the hands of those criminals?

mr. president, as if in legislative session, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of s. 928 introduced earlier today. i further ask that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion be considered made and -- the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. wyden: reserving the right to object. the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: mr. president, just two quick points. first, this is not really about prisoners. this is about disrupting payments to families all across the country who need the money to make rent and pay for groceries. here's why. the i.r.s. administers the tax system for millions and millions of americans, the cruz amendment has the practical effect of

keeping these folks who are hurting from getting that check that they're going to use to pay for essentials. that's because their check would be on hold while the i.r.s. sets up the system envisioned by this amendment. now i guess that's what my colleague from texas wants. after all, he opposed the bill. he opposed these payments from the get-go. so he passes this amendment. he gets what he wants but all those folks who are hurting, their checks are on hold. last point i want to make, it wasn't always this way for republicans and our colleague from texas. republicans were for these payments before they were against them. they voted for two rounds of relief checks going out to all the people that are being discussed here when they

controlled the white house and senate. senator cruz voted for the cares act passed unanimously 44 republicans for the december relief bill. no exception like the senator from texas wants. donald trump was so happy with the checks going to prisoners that he put his name on them. the only difference between the cares act relief checks that republicans unanimously supported and america's rescue plan relief checks is the party in the white house. mr. president, i object. the presiding officer: the objection is heard. mr. cruz: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cruz: the senator from oregon i guess demonstrates the principle that hypocrisy is the tribute that advice pays to virtue. because the senator from oregon subjects that somehow payments to people who are not criminals will be delayed if we don't pay criminals in prison. that claim on the face of it is absurd. the federal prisons are administered by the bureau of

prisons. government may not be good at everything but i feel quite confident the federal government can produce a list of currently incarcerated prisons. i know the states can. the i.r.s. likewise is perfectly capable of recognizing whether it is mailing checks to prisoners in prison. this is not whether you've ever been convicted of a crime. it's if you are sending the check to sing sing. if not, don't send it. joe six-pack at home is not getting his check because we don't want to send checks to prisoners is demonstrablely untrue. the senator from oregon also claims republicans oppose stimulus checks when he knows that is simply not the case. as he noted this body overwhelmingly passed bipartisan covid relief five times last year. it is only when senate democrats took the majority that bipartisan legislation ended because the democrats decided to

push a hard partisan bill instead. a clean bill providing relief checks would have passed with an overwhelming bipartisan majority in this body, and the senator from oregon knows that. we've now discovered, though, that given a straight-up choice between sending checks to criminals in prison versus sending checks to victims of crimes, senate democrats stand with the criminals. i'm going to suggest an even their ower -- narrower situation. prps we can agree on victims of crime. how about murderers? we just had a hearing in the senate judiciary committee on gun violence. we saw a horrific mass murder in colorado. can't we agree that murderers shouldn't get checks, $1,00 stimulus checks from the taxpayers? let's take the money going to murderers and put it in the crime victims task force

instead. so, mr. president, as if in legislative session, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of s. 929 introduced earlier 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? the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: reserving the right to object. the presiding officer: the senator is recognized. mr. wyden: thank you very much. mr. president, there isn't information about this crime or these crimes at the federal, state, and local level. so again we're back in exactly the same place. the senator from texas wants to hold up the checks to millions and millions of people in spite

of the fact that he voted -- he voted earlier for a system that got the checks to everybody in a timely way. and when you don't have the information about these specific crimes at the federal, state, and local level, it becomes impossible to carry out what the senator from texas seeks to do and the net effect is again millions and millions of americans aren't getting the funds that they need to pay for essentials, rent, and groceries. i object. the presiding officer: the objection is heard. mr. cruz: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cruz: you know, it can be hard in these partisan days to know what the truth is. both sides yell at each other. they insult each other. it's hard to know who's telling the truth. i asked the folks at home who are listening to this debate to exercise a little bit of common

sense. the senator from oregon just told you the federal government has no idea who our murderers currently in prison. i'm going to suggest that doesn't make any sense. i feel quite confident the department of justice could produce a list of currently incarcerated murderers in federal prison within 24 hours. i'm absolutely certain the state of texas could produce that list. i'm confident the state of connecticut could produce the list of the murderers currently in connecticut prisons. i'm even confident the state of oregon could produce a list of the murderers convicted of homicide currently incarcerated in the state of oregon. the claim that he we don't -- that we don't know who the murderers are serving time in prison for murder, it doesn't pass the laugh test. so let's see if we can agree in a different area. rapists, those who committed sexual assault.

again, these are public records that the department of justice in every state, criminal justice authority has a list of all the rapists. how about let's not send $1,400 checks to rapists. take the money and give it to the crime victims fund so it can go to victims of rape. here's a choice for democrats. do you want to send money to the rapists or the victims of sexual assault? this ought to be 100-0 choice. mr. president, as if in legislative session, i ask for unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of s. 930 introduced earlier 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. mr. wyden: research -- reserving the right to object. the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: mr. president, i want to read specifically what the i.r.s. has told us. because i gather my colleague

would like to just continue this for some time, but here's what the i.r.s. says. in the information the i.r.s. receives from the bureau of prison and state prison systems, we do not get the crime for which the person is incar incarcerated. so we can have a host more of these amendments if my colleague wants to do it, but i get why he is so anxious to have his amendment passed. because he was always for keeping people from getting checks and his amendment if passed would put those checks on hold. so that is why i've objected and we will put this into the record as well, mr. president. i object. the presiding officer: the objection is heard. mr. cruz: mr. president, once again the senator from oregon has said something that is

demonstrably false and knows is false. which is he suggested i oppose sending stimulus checks to law-abiding citizens. i not only didn't oppose it, i support -- voted for it. republicans supported it. he knows that. that's a red herring. he just read a statement from the i.r.s. agency saying they get a list of prisoners from the bureau of prisons. but he said, but we don't know the crime. mr. president, the first unanimous consent request i put before this body is everyone on that list in the bureau of prisons. don't send them a check. ha doesn't -- that doesn't delay your check. if you're not looking at bars, if you're not in a jail sell that is five feet by ten feet, this doesn't affect you. this only affects criminals currently in prison. let's try one more time. the democrats have objected to not sending checks to criminals in prison. the democrats have objected to not sending checks to murderers in prison. they have objected to not sending checks to rapists in prison.

let's try a group that i think may be the lowest of the low, which is child molesters. i spent a lot of years in law enforcement. i think there is no more horrific offense than those who commit crimes of violence and sexual assault against kids. when i was solicitor general of texas, the cases where people sexually abused kids, i thought should be in dante's ninth circle of hell. can't we all agree that the federal government shouldn't send $1,400 checks to the child molesters in prison right now for molester kids? and before the senator from oregon says who knows who the child molesters are, well, the department of justice and ever state department of justice knows who the child molesters are in their prisons. let's take the mo enthat the democrats want to -- let's take the money that the democrats want to send to child molesters and give it to the victims of crimes, the kids who have been

molested. this is as simple a legislative choice as i can imagine. mr. president, as if in legislative section i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of s. 931 introduced earlier 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. wyden: reserving the right to object, mr. president -- the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: once again, mr. president, our colleague from texas is offering an idea that would disrupt the system in a way that would keep millions and millions of americans who are hurting from getting help in a timely way. he has come back with essentially one version after another because he thinks that somehow this is the kind of

sensational idea that will cause people to rally to his side. i believe what he has been proposing -- now, i gather four times -- is so disruptive, so unworkable that it is going to hurt the millions of people who this congress wanted to help, and that is what the senator from texas has sought to do from the very beginning. i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. cruz: mr. president, there's an old saying that you don't learn anything from the second kick of a mule. the first time the senator from oregon said that i sought to disrupt stimulus payments, perhaps he did so because he didn't know my views on that topic. but he has since been corrected that i vote for stimulus payments to american citizens in the time of economic crisis and didn't oppose them. so he's now repeatedly stating falsehoods, knowing that they are false.

you know, all of us were there when joe biden gave his inauguration speechmaking a call to unity, making a call to healing. there is a chance we could have done that. on covid relief, you don't have to ask theoretically, last year when republicans had control of the senate, we passed five bipartisan covid-19 relief bills coming together with overwhelming bipartisan majorities. the democrats decided when they took control, they didn't want to do that. you want to know just how far out of touch and how radical today's democratic party is, we have seen the democrats now say we will send taxpayer stimulus checks to millions of illegal immigrants. we have seen democrats say we will send the taxpayer stimulus to criminals in prison. we have seen the democrats say we will send the taxpayer stimulus checks to murderers in prison. we have seen them say we will send the checks to rapists in prison and we now just saw them say we will send the checks to

child molesters in prison. it should be the essence of common sense to say, don't give this money to violent criminals. give it to victims of crime instead. in a sane world, that would be a 100-0 proposition. i challenge any one of you in the brightest of blue states, go home and explain to your constituents that you refused to take the money from child molesters and give it to the victims of that crime. that is the position of every democrat in this chamber, because every single democratic senator was the deciding vote rejecting the amendment on the floor. it is unfortunate just how extreme the hard left is right now. but it is far out of touch with the american people. and it has long abandoned any semblance of common sense.

i yield the floor. mr. wyden: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: here's what is we're for. we're for making sure that needy people get help, payment for groceries, make rent, rather than have one of our colleagues come out with something that is unworkable and disruptive and is going to keep those people from getting help. that's what this debate is all about. something that is unworkable. i read the direct comment from the i.r.s. with respect to not having the information or getting help to people who are hurting. i yield. the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cruz: the senator from oregon suggested that the concern of the democrats is to get taxpayer funds to needy people. people currently incarcerated are not needy. the senator from oregon said we need to help americans struggling with representative. you know what? people currently incarcerated pay zero in rent. they don't have rent costs.

so the argument of the democrats is, we don't know who the criminals are who are currently in jail. that does not comport with reality. and any fair-minded person watching this knows that. i yield the floor. mr. kennedy: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. mr. kennedy: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i'm sure you have been to paris. the architect, as you undoubtedly know, mr. president, who designed the louvre's iconic glass pyramid was actually an american. he was an asian american. his name was iam pac.

emigrated to the united states in the 19 thirst. by the at the same time that he -- in the 1930's. by the time that he passed at the age of 102, he had designed a number of famous buildings. he'd done that all across the world, including on united states soil, mr. president. including the john f. kennedy presidential library. america is proud of mr. pai. he is just one of millions of asian americans whose talents have helped america continue to be an exceptional nation. a nation made up of exceptional people who take advantage of all of the opportunities that these united states have to offer. the contributions of individual

asian americans have helped our country pioneer -- and you know this, mr. president -- pioneer advances in architecture and medicine and art and technology. but more than that, asian americans are our friends, and they are our neighbors. the recent murder of asian american women in an evil assault in atlanta was an assault not just on the atlanta community but on the united states of america. president biden has correctly denounced these attacks, and he is not alone. i know you join me in this, mr. president. i condemn these evil murders in the strongest possible terms. no one can justify -- no one --

the brutal theft of eight lives. every community, every single one across our country, is grieving for the victims and is grieving for the families. these victims are all made -- they were each made in god's image, and americans know that. and i also feel the same way, mr. president, about the shooting in boulder. we all do. america pioneered government that is based on inalienable rights that god gives each person. god has imbued every man and woman with dignity, and americans answer that dignity with respect. respect for each individual and their right to make the most of the manifold opportunities our

country offers. unfortunately, mr. president, president biden's rhetoric in defense of the asian american community is not altogether matched by respect for the right of asian americans to reap the reward of their talent and grit. the biden administration thus far, it has time to correct its course, thus far has shown and did show right out of the gate, mr. president, a determination to stick its head in the sand of some of america's top universities actively discriminating against asian americans. last year, as you know, mr. president, the justice department sued yale university. the justice department contended that yale rejected many

qualified asian american applicants on the basis of race, not on the basis of qualification; on the basis of race. the decision by the justice department came two years after several asian american organizations filed a complaint with the department of justice and the department of education. it accused yale of what agues described -- of what i just described. racial discrimination. yet only a few weeks -- only a few weeks after president biden set up shop in the oval office, the department of justice withdrew its own lawsuit based on racial discrimination against yale university. and that is a natural fact.

-- and that is an actual fact. watch what we say. not what we do. unfortunately, mr. president, harvard university also seems determined to discriminate against asian american applicants. in 2014, students for fair admission sued harvard claiming that the school was using an application system that intentionally reduces the number of asian americans through evaluations that are subjective and potentially racially biased. you see, mr. president, harvard apparently believes it knows how to discriminate in the right way. it believed the same thing a number of years ago when it limited the number of jewish people who could attend harvard.

when harvard considers an applicant, mr. president, the school doesn't just look at their grades or their test scores or their academic awards. in fact, the admissions team at harvard often looks past these objective indicators to a student's -- this is what harvard calls it -- a student's personal ratings, personal ratings. which is an unfair,ry -- which is an unfair,ry dick us are standard. these student ratings take into account character tax rates like humor, sensitivity -- character traits like humor, sensitivity it and courage. for years -- for years harvard

has consistently granted lower personal rating scores to asian americans than it has to other applicants, and that, too, is a fact, mr. president. the judge in the students for fair admissions the lawsuit wrote the following -- i'm going to quote. the data demonstrates -- these are the judge's words, not mine. the data demonstrates a statistically significant relationship between asian american identity and the personal rating assigned by harvard admissions officers. holding constant any reasonable set of observable characteristics. i didn't say that, mr. president. the judge in the case did. now i want to be fair, it may look smart or wise for harvard

to look for well-rounded applicants. i get that. until you realize and think about it that these personal ratings are not just subjective subjective, they're subversive. if you think about it, the scores, these scores, they're not objective like test scores or grades or extracurricular activities, these personal ratings are value judgments that can easily be tainted by racial bias. and it's clear that the personal ratings minimize the accomplishments of asian americans in particular. just look at the numbers. harvard's admission scores work like this. they use a scale of one to six.

one is the strongest possible rating. when it comes to personal ratings, remember this is the subjective analysis of the personhood of the applicant by harvard, not the test scores, not the grades, not the extracurricular activities. when it comes to personal ratings, only 17.6 of asian americans applicants receive a score of one or two. 17.6 for asian americans. for african americans that number is 19.01%. for hispanic americans it's 18.7%. in fact, -- and these are the numbers -- harvard gives asian americans the weakest personal ratings of any ethnic group,

bar none. harvard admissions officials have reportedly handed out these scores without even interviewing all of the candidates in question. personal ratings without interviewing the applicants. this happens now despite the fact that asian americans have the highest grades and test scores. so on the objective criteria, test scores, grades, asian americans have the high scores. what pulls them down? the personal ratings. harvard officials admitted, mr. president, in 2013 that if harvard only considered academic

achievement, then proportional asian american representation that year would have doubled. think about that. if harvard went on the objective criteria, extracurricular activities, grades, test scores, twice as many asian americans would have been admitted to the university. why weren't they? because of the personal ratings. they call it personal, even though many of the applicants are never even interviewed. the department of justice has historically supported the students for fair admissions lawsuit. in 2018, mr. president, the justice department filed a statement of interest in the

case, and last year the justice department filed an amicus brief in the case. a federal judge has ruled against the plaintiffs in 2019 in the case. the u.s. court of appeals for the first circuit upheld that decision last november. this despite the fact that the federal district court judge in the case openly acknowledged that harvard grants lower personal rating scores to asian american applicants. so the fruits of harvard's policy are pretty clear. you don't have to be mensa material to figure this out. the ivy league school has repeatedly rejected highly qualified asian american candidates because of their race but there is still hope, mr. president, for justice for our asian american students. the supreme court may well take up this case, and the white

house could defend the cause of merit against harvard's alleged racial discrimination. so let me say this, mr. president, as clearly as i can. if president biden, if the biden time are committed to fighting racial discrimination against asian americans, if president biden and his team want to lift up asian americans as they say they do, it's not hard to see how countering racist policies within the privileged halls of harvard, a school that receives federal dollars, it's not hard to see how supporting that litigation must be part of president biden's commitment. so today, with all the respect i can muster, mr. president, i

am calling on president biden and his justice department to support the asian american students who have brought their case against harvard. mr. president, harvard's an extraordinary school. nothing i say is meant to denigrate the quality of that great university. but being a pillar of higher education doesn't mean that harvard is above the law. i.m. pei attended harvard in the 1940's. who knows if they would accept him today because of his personal rating. you know, that's a shame, mr. president. and it shouldn't stand. president biden should stand up for the rights of asian americans to be treated fairly by america's schools. his justice department should support this lawsuit.

to be is to act, mr. president. all we are is the sum of our actions. everything else is just conversation. don't just talk about supporting asian americans, mr. president. do it. do it. please don't be selective in the reality you choose to accept. mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from montana. mr. tester: i ask the quorum call be viscerated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. tester: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the remaining cloture motions filed during this session of the senate on thursday, march 18 ripen at 11:30 a.m. tomorrow, wednesday, march 24. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. tester: i yield back all time and ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: without objection, all postcloture time has expired. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators remaining to vote or wish to change their vote? if not, the yeas are 57. the nays are 43. the nomination is confirmed. the senator for vermont. mr. sanders: i ask that the motion to be considered be considered made and laid on the table with no intervening action or debate and the president be immediately notified of the

senate's action. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. sanders: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to legislative session and be in a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sanders: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of h.r. 1868, an act to prevent across-the-board direct spending cuts which was received from the house and is at the desk. 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 with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: is there objection? a senator: i object. the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, democrats have just passed a $1.9 trillion

spending package. they filled the bill with lots of partisan priorities. they refused to work with members of this side of the aisle. almost all of what we're doing here and have done there is going on a credit card. that's going to have to be paid for by our children and their children. democrats also ignored the medicare sequester as part of that $1.9 trillion bill. as a doctor, i have cared for patients in wyoming for more than two decades. i cannot ignore this decision. there are more cuts to health care providers serving seniors. that's what these have done. they go into effect starting april 1. they're coming. congress must help those working on the front lines fighting the covid-19 pandemic. it should be our highest priority. ignoring cuts to medicare while spending $1.9 trillion on other things to me is irresponsible. instead, just a few days after their partisan spending bill was signed into law, here we have the chairman of the budget

committee back asking for additional money. now, he knows the right thing to do is to help these medicare providers on the front lines, and i want to do exactly the same thing. once again, instead of working on a bipartisan basis, senate democrats are rushing through another partisan spending package. there is a better way. senator cotton and i have introduced the protecting seniors access to health care act. our legislation takes a small amount of the money from -- for state and local government as part of that $1.9 trillion bill. instead of billions going for gaven newseum, instead of billions going for andrew cuomo, our legislation gives a small fraction of that money to help our health care providers around the country. instead of a blank check, our bill gets the money to where it's needed the most, the health care providers on the front lines of this pandemic. our bill also includes commonsense provisions to ensure that taxpayer money is not given to illegal immigrants or

prisoners. our bill simply says if you're here illegally, you don't get the payments in the democrat spending bill. so, mr. president, senator cotton and i know we can't hand out taxpayer dollars to illegal immigrants. that's why our border is being flooded right now. because president biden offers benefits for illegal immigrants. we also shouldn't be cutting checks to people sitting in jail. the question is whether washington democrats are interested in solving problems or just playing politics. i think we can provide much-needed relief for medicare heroes, and we should. it is completely irresponsible for the democrats and the administration to spend $1.9 trillion and fail to help the health care providers who are working to serve medicare patients. therefore, mr. president, i ask that the senator modify his request to instead take up h.r. 1868, with my substitute amendment at the desk and ask if the bill as amended be considered read a third time and

passed and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: does the senator from vermont so modify his request? mr. sanders: i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. is there an objection to the original request by the senator from vermont? mr. barrasso: mr. president, i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard.

mr. inhofe: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator for oklahoma. mr. inhofe: i understand we are not in a quorum call. the presiding officer: correct.

mr. inhofe: i'm down here today to talk about something i've talked about many times before, an that's the need to have a strong defense budget so we can deter our adversaries. you know, it's not like it used to be in the old days. it's for real. these guys, china, for example, is in a position they have never been in before. i think it's important we talk about this -- this budget that's coming up again. it's more important now than ever. over the past few weeks, the senate armed services committee has been having hearings where we've heard from top military leaders, defense experts, and the pentagon officials. what we have heard has been grim. general h.r. mcmaster told us since the 1990's, china has undertaken the, quote, largest peacetime military buildup in history, unquote. averil davidson, who leads the

united states indo-pacific command said, quote, i think our conventional deterrent is actually eroding in the region. last week, admiral fowler who leads the united states southern command said, quote, now more than ever, i feel a sense of urgency about global threats that we face in our neighborhood. i agree. i thawed the cold war was bad, but the threats we're facing now, especially from china, are more complex and more dangerous than they ever have been before. in fact, i look back sometimes wistfully at the days of the cold war when things were predictable. we had two superpowers. we knew what they had, they knew what we had. mutual assured destruction meant something. it really doesn't anymore. times have changed. i agree that the cold war is bad, but it's worse today. i'm glad to hear president biden and members of his administration say china is our

top facing threat. both secretary austin and deputy secretary hicks told the armed services committee that during their nomination hearing that was the situation. what concerns me is i haven't seen the biden administration take any action that backs up these words. instead we're hearing rumors that the biden administration is considering a flat defense budget, which is actually a 2% cut when you adjust for inflation. at the same time, china is increasing theirs by 6.8%. it kind of reminds me of the last four years of the biden administration. that would have been from 2010 to 2015. during that five-year period, the budget for the military was reduced by 25%. at the same time, that was reduced by 25%, china was increasing theirs by 83%. this is happening out in the

real world. people are not aware of this. something tells me the administration isn't serious about pushing back on china. you know what? it also tells china the same thing. talk is cheap, but defending our country is not. if we rea -- if we really want to send the right signal to beijing, we need sustained investment in our defense. we've seen what happens when we cut defense spending before. look no further than the obama administration's 25% cut over five years. if we just increased defense spending with the rate of inflation over the past decade, we could have invested another $400 billion in mod shallizing our -- modernizing our military. instead we're playing catchup with china which added at least $200 billion, we know of, we

never know for sure with china, to the defense budget. chinese military modernization has been nothing short of astonishing, their ability to move fast and increase production rates is leaving us in the dust. we have advance capabilities, like quantum computing, we've -- we're already spreading our military too thin. our service members have been asked to do too much with too little for too long. but we know how we can put our military on a better track. we've got a blueprint, the 1918, national defense strategy. this strategy actually has been very effective. it was put together back in 2018 by six democrats, six republicans, and they all had the expertise in the area where it has not been questioned.

so we actually have a document here that shows us what we can do and if we had to increase the chinese -- the military modernization has been nothing short of astounding, their ability november fast and increase production rates is leaving us in the dust. here we have something that we can follow. it's been successful so far. we all agreed this is what we should have been doing but we have not been doing it successfully. we know the strategy is right when it comes to priorities and the long-term nature of this, secretary austin, secretary hicks said as much in our committee hearings. so why are they talking on adding more missions, including the department's role in climate change and pandemic response and not countering china? so we know what the strategy needs to be, and that tells us what the demands on our force look like. those demands keep growing.

now we need to match the budget with the strategy. we know what it looks like. and that's at least a 3% to 5% real growth above inflation. that was determined some time ago in 2018, and that's what we really need to be doing, but we're not doing it. and, yet, we know what should be done. and so, you know, this new administration, i'm going to do all i can. i already met with the president and with the administration and i know they are concerned but we're going to have to get down and actually get it done. it means in real dollars, an increase of at least $175 billion each year, that would be if we stuck with the 3% to 5% increase as predicted as necessary in this book. this kind of investment for five years in a row would completely close the difference between u.s. and chinese defense spending.

what does the investment get us? it allows us to keep our commitment to our service members, to not only take care of them and their families, but also to give them the tools and training to do their jobs. you know, often we hear about the fact that we're spending too much on the military. we talk about we spend more on the military than both china and russia put together. but there's a reason for that. the most expensive line that we have in our military is taking care of the troops, their families. you know, in the communist country they don't have to do that. they give them a gun and say, go out and kill people. they don't have to spend the money that we do, but we do it and we do it right but we need to continue to increase so we can get dug out of the hole that we dug over decades of insufficient funding and overuse of the force. the bills have been piling up for years. this is a down payment to get the united states military healthy for decades of strategic competition. now i'm hesitant to be even

entertain this idea but i think it's important to talk about it. i know that there are some out there who would like to see the president go even further an cut defense spending by 10%. now, this is wrong and congress has already flat rejected it on a bipartisan basis. last year in the senate it was defeated by 77-23, even in the democrat-led house it was defeated on a 3-1 margin. take it from the president's own deputy secretary of defense, captain hicks, who said that a 10% cut would turn the nuclear powers and weaken our allies and this is completely opposite of everything president biden says he wants to do. it would preemptively surrender the 21st century to the chinese communist party.

a strong defense department is the first step. it helps when it comes to diplomacy and economic technology. china is going to slow its military investments any time soon? no, it's not. in fact, we know there -- their actual level of spending is a lot larger than it looks. economics, yes, but the chinese communist party lies about its economic budget. no surprise. we know they lied about the covid-19 and they continue to lie about their human rights atrocities against the uighurs. so if we don't properly resource our military and put our right forces in the right place at the right time with -- with the right stuff, we're going to fall further behind. so it's kind of early right now and this is the time, though, that we need to be talking about and need to be preparing for the future. the bipartisan 2018n.d.s.

commission report already said the u.s. military could very well lose the next state-on-state war it fights. we need the biden administration to lead her, to walk the walk, not just -- here, to walk the walk, not just talk the talk, when it comes to china. and if the biden team doesn't lead i will make sure we use our role in congress to send the message. it's not just showing beijing we're serious, but our allies and partners need to see this as well. the best thing we can send is a strong defense budget, top line. this can't wait any longer. this is common sense and this is something that we will, on a bipartisan basis, recognize that we need to do and prepare for immediately. and that's what we intend to do and -- and that is what i -- is expected of us at this time. with that, i will yield the floor and suggest the absence of

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

quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. king: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding rule 22, following morning business, on

wednesday, march 24, the senate proceed to executive session and resume consideration of calendar number 40, rachel levine, to be assistant secretary of health and human services, and calendar 38, david turk, to be deputy secretary of energy. en bloc. further, at 11:30 a.m., the senate vote on cloture on calendars number 40 and 38, in that order. further, that if cloture is invoked on either of these nominations, all postcloture time be considered expired at 4:45 p.m., and the senate vote on confirmation of the nominations in the order upon which cloture was invoked. further, that if either nomination is confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the president be immediately notified of the senate's action of the senate's action. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered.

mr. king: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the appointments at the desk appear separately in the record as if made by the chair. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. king: s. res. 123, national women's history month. i ask unanimous consent that the judiciary committee be discharged from further consideration and the senate now proceed to s. res. 123. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. res. 123, designating march, 2021, as national women's history month. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the motion? to the measure? without objection. the c is discharged and the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. king: i ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without

objection. mr. king: s. res. 123, american indian alaska native and native hawaiian women in the united states. i ask unanimous consent that the indian affairs committee be discharged from further consideration and the senate now proceed to s. res. 125. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. res. 125, recognizing the heritage, culture, and contributions of american indian, alaska native, and native hawaiian women in the united states. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection, the committee is discharged. and the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. king: i ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection.

mr. king: i understand that there is a bill at the desk, and i ask for its first reading. the presiding officer: the clerk will read the title of the bill for the first time. the clerk: s. 937, a bill to facilitate the expediteed -- of covid-related hate crimes, and for other purposes. mr. king: i now ask for a second reading, and in order to place the bill on the calendar under the provisions of rule 14, i object to my own request. the presiding officer: objection is heard. the bill will be read for the second time on the next legislative day. mr. king: i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10:30 a.m. wednesday, march 24. that following the prayer and pledge, the morning business be deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and morning business be

closed. that upon the conclusion of morning business, the senate proceed to executive session to consider the nominations as provided under the previous order. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. king: 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 sullivan. the presiding officer: without objection.

mr. sullivan: mr. president. the presiding officer: the chair recognizes the senator from alaska. mr. sullivan: mr. president, it's not often i come down to the floor to say i have a lot in common with the senate majority leader, senator schumer, from new york. in fact, in my six years in the senate, i don't think i've ever done that. but after reading his remarks prior to the vote on the secretary of labor, marty walsh, that we took yesterday, i thought i would come down and

make a few points on that nominee, that vote, and some issues that i have in common with the majority leader and now-secretary walsh, and maybe some issues i don't have so much in common with the majority leader, but i think i do have with secretary walsh, which is why i voted for him. first, as i mentioned, mr. president, i, too, supported our now-secretary of labor, marty walsh. for some of the reasons that senator schumer did. let me explain. secretary walsh started in the laborers' union, local 223 in boston, aged 21, following in his father's footsteps. now, as many people know, the laborers are the biggest building construction union in the country. they build things.

pipelines, roads, oil wells, bridges. they have made america strong. i'm a big fan of the laborers and leaders like joey americorps back home and terry sullivan who i'm going to talk a little bit about. so secretary walsh followed his father's example, joined the laborers in boston. he's also the son of irish immigrants. this is something that is near and dear to my heart. and now senator schumer said he had something very much in common yesterday when he spoke about secretary walsh with secretary walsh because his grandfather was an immigrant from eastern europe who also when he came over to america got very involved with the labor movement. that's really a very common, powerful story of the american dream, common to millions.

senator schumer's family, secretary walsh's family, and, mr. president, it's certainly a story that i have in common with those two. you see, my great grandfather was from a family of irish immigrants, and he was also very involved in the labor movement. in fact, he was one of the original co-founders of the international brotherhood of electrical workers, the ibew. he was its first grand marshal. i have something that i'm quite proud of here, a page from the history books of the ibew talking about my great grandfather's great work for the ibew when it first got off the ground, and i'd like to submit this for the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sullivan: so i look forward to working with secretary walsh on helping the men and women in

america, certainly in my state, who build things, who build things. they succeeded. they rise up and help others rise up, other working men and women, the way secretary walsh's father did, the way senator schumer's grandfather did, the way my great grandfather did. it's a great american story. but now, mr. president, i must say that my views and senator schumer's diverge on some of the other things he may have been speaking about when he talked about secretary walsh's nomination yesterday. one, he was critical of some of the trump administration's department of labor's policies as it related to the men and women who build things, the working men and women, despite prior to the pandemic with some of the policies that we implemented here the united states having the strongest

economy in decades, the lowest unemployment rate in 50 years, wages are finally going up after two decades of stagnation, and very importantly for the working men and women of this country, a huge expansion and boom in the american energy sector. all of the above energy -- oil, gas, renewables, important to the presiding officer as it is to alaska. let me describe one other narrative that i believe certainly is true that i have seen in my professional life in alaska, in america, but certainly back home in my state. and that's the narrative that i'm not so sure my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to highlight, but i'm going to highlight because i think it's really important, particularly now. and it's this -- when national

democrats, whether during the obama administration or now during the biden administration are set up with the choice where they have to choose between the interests of the working men and women in this country who build things versus the interests of the extremist, radical environmental groups who want to kill jobs and shut them down, they almost always, always side with these groups who kill jobs. not the working men and women of america, not the working men and women of alaska. this is true. my colleagues sometimes don't want to admit it, but it's true. and you know who else has seen it and you know who else i

believe knows it's true? secretary walsh, as a laborer, he's seen it. that's another reason why i voted for him. he and his fellow laborers, whether in boston or alaska also know that this issue is true. the choice between the working men and women of america who build things versus the extremists who want to shut things down, way too often my colleagues on the other side of the aisle go with the extremists, not the men and women who build things in this country. now, this narrative is not only continuing under the biden administration, it is accelerating and it's been bad for alaska, bad for america, bad for working families. and to be honest, mr. president, it's a bit surprising. president biden came into office

talking about his blue collar roots, but right now the record is anything but supporting the men and women who build things, a snapshot of what's going on in my state. first four weeks of the biden administration, eight executive orders focused on alaska -- eight. no other state's had that many executive orders focused on alaska's working families. day one, anwr, also killed the keystone xl pipeline, 10,000 jobs, laborers job, marty walsh knows a lot about that. it goes on and on and on, mr. president. executive orders right now that from my state's perspective are focused on hurting working men and women. there's another one i'll talk about a project we have a big

energy project in alaska called the willow project. this has been permitted by democrat and republican administrations for 25 years to finally get it going. the clinton administration, the obama administration, the trump administration, everybody. it's in the national petroleum preserve of alaska, a place set aside by congress. over 70 years go for oil and gas development and good jobs. not controversial at all. the biden administration has put a hold on that. here's the estimate, a $7 billion project, it will produce american energy, estimated 2,000 direct jobs on the willow project. this isn't some pie in the sky project. we were starting it this winter, 2,000 direct jobs, 75% of which are union jobs, and they are

saying we're going to put a hold on that. thousands of additional supporting jobs. they are going to put a hold on that. why? why? well, we know why. because in the ninth circuit court of appeals, some of the most extreme radical environmental groups in the country sued to stop it. and they were successful. so guess what happened in alaska this winter during a recession. the 200 men and women who were working on this project were given pink slips and were told to go home. that's what happened. that's what happened. so, mr. president, don't just take my word for it. i want to quote again from terry oh, sullivan -- o sullivan, he is the head of the laborers, the biggest construction union in the country, and this was his reaction after day one of the

biden administration, a choice, working men and women who build things like pipelines or the radical extremist environmental groups who want to shut down and kill american jobs. choice, day one, the radical environmentalists win. here's what the head of the laborers -- and remember marty walsh, secretary walsh is a laborer from boston. here is what the great laborer terry o'sullivan said, the decision to kill the keystone xl pipeline on day one of his presidency is both insulting and disappointing to the thousands of hardworking union members who will lose good-paying middle-class family supporting jobs. by blocking this 100% union project and panneddering to --

pandering to environmental extremists, this is terry o'sullivan talking, a thousand unit union -- a thousand union jobs will be vanished and 10,000 additional jobs will be gone. unquote. that's terry o'sullivan. remember, choice, men and women who build things and made our country great, extremist groups like the center for biological diversity, it they go for extremists. here is mark mcmannis, with the union pipe fitters, they were going to build the keystone xl pipeline as well. the biden administration has chosen to listen to the voices of fringe activists instead of union members and the -- the american consumer on day one of the biden administration. let me be clear, this is mark

mcmannis still talking. when built with union labor with the pipelines like keystone xl is the most efficient mode of energy transportation in the world the sadly the biden administration has now put thousands of union members and workers out of work, unquote. so, mr. president, this is why the secretary of labor that we just confirmed, and i was glad to support him because he's a laborer, he knows how to build things. he knows these politics. this is why it's important to have his voice because the voice of the extremists is much stronger in this administration and it's not just policies of killing union jobs, the men and women who will build things for america, but if you listen it's

how the new members of this administration talk about these jobs. listen. you've got to listen, and what you hear is a condescending tone as it relates to these jobs. you may have heard john kerry, gina mccarthy, the climate change czars in the white house who said in one of their press conferences, we need to, quote, help people make better choices on their jobs. that's pretty condescendling -- condescending. they are talking about laborers, they are talking about my oil and gas workers in the great state of alaska or in colorado. the secretary of energy in her confirmation hearing talked about how some jobs might have to be, quote, sacrificed. even in the environment and public works committee -- and i'm a very bipartisan guy, but some of my senate colleagues on the other side of the aisle recently were talking about we

need to encourage people to get more, quote, relevant jobs -- relevant jobs. mr. president, what is more relevant than pouring america -- powering america? until recently, the men and women who built america, pipelines, oil and gas rigs, roads, bridges, men and women with dirt under their fingernails, were celebrated, as they should be. they built this country. they powered this country. they won wars for this country. by the way, they often fought in wars for this country. then they came home, they got good jobs in the building trades, laborers, operating engineers, pipe fitters, teamsters, i.b.w., like my great-grandfather helped start. not so much anymore. the new secretary of energy is now calling them, quote, fossil

fuel workers -- fossil workers from fossil communities. listen, don't use that term. it's condescending. you're talking to workers as if they are some kind of dinosaurs that should be put in a museum. communities, fossil communities. really. madam secretary, if you're listening, ditch that language, it drips with an attitude of being condescending toward these great americans. well, i was just home in my state with a bunch of these so-called fossil workers this past weekend. these are some of the best, most patriotic americans anywhere. they are tough, they are hardworking, they love their country, but i will tell you, mr. president, they are concerned. they are concerned.

why? because they know exactly what i've been talking about here is happening. the radical extremists environmentalists, these groups who want to kill and are killing jobs -- by the way that lawsuit i talked about on the willow project, 200 alaskans were sent home during a recession. men and women who have to pay mortgages, pay tuition, sent home. so my workers in the great state of alaska are concerned. they know that these groups have a beeline into the white house that they are sending and that they want to kill jobs -- energy jobs. in my state and in america. and they are worried that the majority now, the senate majority, has similar views.

so they are nervous. but i'm hopeful on one thing. given his background and his heritage -- now i'm talking about the secretary of labor, secretary walsh -- i believe that when the decisions are made, and i hope that when the decisions are being made in the biden administration to kill more good-paying energy jobs that built this country, when those are coming before the biden administration, that the new secretary of labor is going to stand up for the working men and women, stand up for the laborers in boston who he knows so well or the laborers in alaska who he knows so well. and look at the other cabinet members and say, not on my

watch. we're not going to kill anymore of these jobs. that's what i'm hopeful for. that's what he committed to me to do and that's why i voted for secretary walsh as the new secretary of labor. mr. president, i ask that the following comments that i make can be made in a different section of the congressional record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sullivan: mr. president, i have one more topic i'd like to talk today. it's another important one and its one that many have been talking about here on the floor of the united states senate, many who have spoken very eloquently about this topic, and depending on when they've spoken about it, this year, this week, last year, a decade ago, a

century online, it's a -- century ago, it's a topic that's really fundamental to this institution and it looks as if members are trying in this institution to change the institution forever and now i'm talking about the filibuster. mr. president, as you know, there's been much talk recently about the possibility of getting rid of the filibuster. this is an action that will fundamentally transform this institution, certainly, but i believe, frankly, it will transform our country. and i don't think this is a wise move at all. in the -- and the irony is, and i'm going to talk about it, until very recently, the vast majority of my colleagues,

republican and democrat, were in agreement on this topic, that getting rid of the legislative filibuster is not a wise move for the senate, not a wise move for america. now, mr. president, this might seem like an insular issue, something that people in washington, d.c. get incensed about, wound up about, but the people back home might not necessarily care because it might not impact them. but i don't think that's the case at all. this rule, the filibuster, is at the very heart at what keeps extreme legislation pushed by a small minority of the public from passing. it's a rule that in the senate certainly encourages if not

demands compromise and bipartisan work both when one's party is in or out of power. now look all of our instincts as senators is to get things done for our state, for our country. but what's good for alaska isn't always good for colorado. and what's good for colorado isn't alleges good for new york -- isn't always good for new york. what's good for the majority isn't always good for the minority and vice versa and isn't always good for the nation. that's the heart of federalism. and it's also why the majority can't wield unfettered power in the u.s. senate. with the exception of a few l laws, what is required here is typically 60 votes on legislation. and it's what separates this body, the senate, from the ho

house. for the good of the country, if you look at our history, we must work together, find compromise, find consensus, find solutions, particularly on major legislation to get it broad based and buying from all americans or most americans. and this is what the filibuster has required. now remember, the framers understood that here in the senate we would be a different -- would be different from the house. we would be the bulwark against what james madison called an anchor, a necessary fence against the fickleness and passions that pervade the house. no offense to our members in the house of representatives. but as george washington has said -- george washington is said to have told thomas

jefferson the framers created the senate to cool house legislation. it was the cooling saucer you had with regard to the tea and the cup. indeed the senate often referred to as the world's greatest deliberative body from its earliest days was founded on the right of unlimited debate. that's what the filibuster is. even in the first session of the senate in 1789, senators used this right to debate and debate and debate in order to delay consideration of legislation. now, it wasn't until the mid-1800's that this tactic was coined the filibuster, but the point is this procedural rule in the senate has been here in one form or the other since the founding of the republic.

and when you hear my colleagues talk about it as some new, recent procedure, it's just not factually accurate. before the 1900's, there was no formal procedure to even end debate if a senator chose to talk a bill to death. it wasn't until 1917 during a debate about arming merchant marine vessels during world war i that the senate established the, quote, cloture tool giving the body the ability to end debate by a certain margin -- by a certain margin of senators. now, as some of my colleagues have been debating recently and have mentioned throughout its history we've seen the filibuster cloture used for good. we've used it to stop legislation. and its aalso -- and it's also been used for il to delay much

needed historic reforms like civil rights legislation during the 1950's and 1960's which was filibustered, that legislation, by democratic senators until the filibuster was finally broken in the 1960's. it has also been used for many other purposes, but members of both sides have used it for centuries. in fact, one scholar's account was at the very first senate filibuster was over a bridge across the potomac river. not sure why but i guess it was an important issue back then. so slowing things down, cooling passions, that's what this body was designed to do. and that's what this procedure has done for decades. and that's why my friends on the other side who are undertaking a push to get rid of this need to think. they need to stop.

they need to think. and the american people need to understand the consequences. and our good friends in the media covering the senate, they need to write some real history about this. now, mr. president, as my friends on the other side of the aisle know, this is one of these issues that actually when the shoe is on the other foot, we did not take action. what am i talking about? well, recently republicans held the majority in the senate. and recently, with president trump we had a republican in the white house. and there was frustration and they wanted to move things quicker. and the president, president trump, was pressuring many senators. let's get rid of the filibuster. we didn't. we didn't. we told the president it's not a good idea for the senate and that's not a good idea for the

country. that's what we did when the shoe was on the other foot. we said no. not good for this body. not good for the country. the republican president was pushing. we need to get things done. we've got to get rid of it. no. let me just read a few of the things that were said recently about the necessity of keeping the filibuster. my friend from delaware in 2018 said, i am committed to never voting to change the legislative filibuster. now they said that when a republican president was in the white house. my friend in 2009 from new jersey, my colleagues and i, everybody i've talked to believe the legislative filibuster should stay here and i will personally resist any efforts to get rid of it.

my democratic friend from montana said, not just a little over a year ago, i'm a no on changing the filibuster. the move to make the senate like the house i think is a mistake. i could go on, mr. president. i don't want the senate to become like the house. the consequences of getting rid of the filibuster are too great. these are all words spoken by my colleagues very recently on the other side of the aisle. now, mr. president, even more impressive, just a few years ago we had 61 senators, 33 republicans, 25 of whom are still here, and 30 democrats, 27 of whom are still in the senate today. they sent a letter. i have it right here. i'd like to submit this letter for the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sullivan: they sent this letter to the senate majority

leader mitch mcconnell, and the democratic leader, senator schumer. and they said we have to maintain the 60-vote threshold for filibusters involving legislation. this was sent in april 2017. what was going on in april 2017? republicans had the majority and president trump was pressuring us to get rid of the filibuster. we said no. this is what the letter said. regardless of our past disagreements on that issue, we are united. remember, 61 senators, 27 democrat senators who are still here. just three years ago said this. we are united in our determination to preserve the ability of members to engage in extended debate when bills are on the senate floor. we are mindful of the unique role the senate plays in the legislative process, and we are

steadfastly committed to ensuring this great american institution, the u.s. senate, continues to serve as the world's greatest deliberative body. therefore, we are asking you to join us in opposing any effort to curtail the existing rights and prerogatives of senators to engage in robust, full, extended debate as we consider legislation before this body in the future. that's the letter. 27 of my democratic friends said don't get rid of the filibuster three years ago. where are they now? why is it when this topic only comes up that senators manchin and sinema are the only ones that the media focuses on? how come they're not asking the questions of the other 25, one-quarter of the entire body who wrote this letter. what happened?

where is there conviction? when the shoe is on the other foot, we say we're not doing it. but they now want to do it. nobody is asking. i think the media should take a look at every senator who signed this letter three years ago and say hey, why did you change your opinions so quickly 689 three -- quickly. three years ago you were adamantly against the filibuster, getting rid of it. what happened? could it be now you have power? but we didn't do that when we had the power, when we had the white house. it's a really important question, mr. president. actually, it's so important i would welcome any of my colleagues who signed the letter, democrat or republican, come on down. explain to your constituents. explain to the american people. why did you switch so quickly.

what do you think it's going to do to the structure of the united states senate and literally to our country. mr. president, what strikes many of us is how on so many issues, people change their side -- it happens on both sides -- when people are holding power from different perspectives. let me -- let me provide another example that even hits our media friends. in 2004 when george w. bush was president and republicans had the majority, they were evidently considering to get rid of the f filibuster. they didn't. "the new york times" wrote the following. quote, the republicans see the filibuster as an annoying obstacle, but it is actually one of the checks and balances that the founders who worried greatly

about the concentration of power built into our system -- this is "the new york times," saying the founders built the filibuster into our system. people who call themselves conservatives should find a way of achieving their goals without declaring war on one of the oldest traditions in american democracy, the filibuster. unquote. that's "the new york times." so republicans heeded the advice of "the new york times." it doesn't happen a lot but it did. so let's see where "the new york times" is on this one just about a month ago. quote, the filibuster is a centuries' old parliamentarian tool that has been transformed into a weapon for strangling functional government. the filibuster must go. well, so much for "the new york times'" convictions. i wonder why they're changing their tune. i wonder why they're changing their tune. probably the same reason, mr.

president, that some of my democratic colleagues are changing their tune after signing this letter. so i'll end with one final quote. this is from a politician we all know well, all very familiar with him. it's from a speech on the senate floor by u.s. senator in 2005, u.s. senator barack obama. spoke about how the american people expect their politicians to work to create a more perfect union. what they do not expect is for one party, be it republican or democrat -- this is former senator, former president obama speaking right here on the floor -- to change the rules in the middle of the game so that they can make all the decisions while the other party is told to sit down and keep quiet. sounds a little bit like what's going on with this filibuster debate. i understand the republicans are getting a lot of pressure to do

this, this meaning get rid of the filibuster from factions outside this senate chamber. but we need to rise above. the ends justifies the means mentality because we're here to answer the people, all of the people, not just the ones who are wearing our particular party label. that was senator obama, former senator obama, former president obama, saying 2005, don't do it, republicans. you have the power, you have the presidency, you have the senate. don't get rid of the filibuster. well, i couldn't agree more with our former president. and, again, mr. president, when we had the ability to do this, just three years ago, we said no. i hope our friends in the media will write about this. don't hold your breath. but here is one instance when the shoe was on the other foot because it was so important to

america, so important to this institution, we declined to make the power move. it would be really good, whether it's president obama who has spoken out about this now or "the new york times" who has changed their tune or all 25 of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who signed this letter three years ago, saying don't do it. come on down, speak to the american people, tell them why you have had such a drastic change of heart. but i'll tell you this. if we do have it it, you're going to regret it, we're going to regret it, the american people are going to regret it. and you know what, mr. president? in my discussions with some of my democratic colleagues -- and i'm not going to name names -- they know that. they know that. they're getting a lot of pressure. majority leader schumer is getting a lot of pressure from the far left. don't let the far left ruin this

institution. don't let the far left bludgeon you guys into changing america. because i think deep down in your heart of hearts, especially all of you who signed this letter three years ago, know what the right thing to do for the u.s. senate is and the right thing to do for the united states of america is, and it's to continue to keep what the founding fathers devised for this body. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: under previous order, the senate stands adjourned until 10:30 tomorrow morning. senators approved the

nomination of murphy to be u.s. surgeon general. upcoming nominations to be considered in the senate are living to be assistant health and human services secretary david to be set deputy secretary of energy. live coverage of the u.s. senate always here on c-span2. ♪♪ >> c-span2, unfiltered view of government created by america's cable television company. today brought to you by these television companies to provide c-span2 to viewers as a public service. ♪♪ thursday, president biden holds his first official news conference since taking office. live coverage 1:15 p.m. eastern c-span online at c-span.org or listen on the free c-span radio app.