will you work with us to find ways to ease some of the regulatory burdens on frontline humanitarian ngos to make sure they are on sound legal footing in carrying out humanitarian assistance funded by the u.s.? >> thank you so much, and my gratitude to our partners work if it is difficult environments and my gratitude to usaid staff who do the same at great risk. i think part of the reason juicing humanitarian access denied is a a sense of impunin the part of various actors, , ad it does create immense challenges for our partners on the ground -- >> we believe this hearing. you can watch all of our programs online at c-span.org. the u.s. senate this about to gavel in. today lawmakers will be working on the nomination of dr. rachel levine to be assistance health and human services secretary and david turk to be deputy energy

secretary. procedural votes set for later this morning. and now live to the floor of the u.s. senate here on c-span2. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. almighty god, our source of strength, we magnify your name. guide our lawmakers during this challenging season. inspire them to stay on your

path without wavering. lord, give them such confidence in you that after you have tested them, they shall come forth like gold. help them to understand that your thoughts and ways are higher than theirs and to trust you to bring them to your desired destination. empower them to run without limping or stumbling because they are guided by your wisdom. we pray in your holy name, amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting

the pledge of allegiance. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington, d.c., march 24, 2021. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable ben ray lujan, a senator from the state of new mexico, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: patrick j. leahy, president pro tempore. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved.

mr. schumer: mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. schumer: are we in a quorum? i understand there is a bill at the desk due for a second reading. the presiding officer: the clerk will read the tietlez of the bill for the second time. the clerk: s. 937, a bill to expedite review of hate crimes and for other purposes. mr. schumer: in order to place the bill on the calendar under the provisions of rule 14 i would object to further proceedings. the presiding officer: objection having been heard the bill will be placed on the calendar.

mr. schumer: now on to my remarks, mr. president. a week ago the nation reeled in horror as a deranged gunman shot and killed eight people at three different locations across the atlanta area. six of them were asian american women. just six days later another shooting. ten people shot and killed by a gunman who entered a grocery store in boulder, colorado. some were customers, some were employees. one was as young as 20 and one as old as 65. one of the victims was merely walking through the parking lot after fixing the coffee machines at a nearby starbucks, the son of serbian refuges, shining hope of his family. one was a fallen police officer, eric talley, an 11 year veteran, a boulder police and father of seven. you look at each of their faces -- young, wise, older, you ache, gone.

you think of their families who you don't know, never will see them again, taken so cruelly, so quickly. today flags around the capitol will remain at half-staff in honor of the victims, and we all grieve with their families. we also grieve with the community of boulder, the people of colorado, and we grieve with the people of georgia and all people across the united states whose lives have been forever marred by the playing of gun violence. covid-19 is not the only epidemic claiming innocent lives in america. last year alone 20,000 americans were killed by gun violence, the highest number in almost two decades. most of these incidents never reach the headlines, but we cannot allow ourselves to become numb to their devastation. after one of the most difficult years in american history, we all want our lives and our country to return to normal,

but not this normal. oh no, not the normal that accepts everyday gun violence as a matter of course, an incidental risk to leaving in these united states of america. we cannot, we must not accept that as normal. we must not shrink from our moral obligation to act. two years ago the republican leader, then in the majority, promised this chamber would have a real debate on gun violence in this country. it never happened. even the former president made some noises about supporting commonsense gun safety measures before quickly retreating, a result once again of bitter repleksive option by -- reflecksive opposition by the n.r.a. well, now we don't have a republican majority. we have a democratic one. this time is going to be different.

a democratic majority in the senate is going to act. i have committed to put legislation to expand background checks on the floor of the senate. we will debate it. we will vote on it. just yesterday my colleague, senator durbin, led the judiciary committee in hearing from scores of witnesses about proposals to reduce gun violence that this senate might take up. i have started the process to make legislation to combat hate crimes against asian americans, led by senators hirono and representative mung in the house available for action on the floor. i have been told by so many asians in new york that they're afraid just to walk down the streets, something they used to do easily. i've seen the pain and fear in their faces as i've attended the rallies in new york. make no mistake, under the democratic majority, the senate will debate and address the

epidemic of gun violence in this country. now on the levine nomination, today the senate will confirm the nomination of racism -- of rachel levine. the biden administration has brought many historic firsts into its ranks including the first openly gay cabinet secretary at any agency. the confirmation of rachel levine represents another important milestone for the american lgbtq community. she will be the first openly transgender official ever confirmed by the u.s. united sts senate. the arc of history is long but keeps bending in the direction of justice. as transgender americans suffer high rates of abuse, homelessness and depression more than any other group it is important to have national figures like dr. levine who by virtue of being in the public spotlight will help break down

barriers of ignorance and fear. pennsylvania's political leaders say dr. levine forced people in the state to better understand the transgender community. one state legislator said, quote, she has robbed people of the false premise that they don't know any trans people and therefore don't need to be respectful of trans people. the historic nature of her nomination should not be lost on anyone, but dr. levine thoroughly deserves to be confirmed on the strength of her qualifications. despite several attacks on her gender identity over the past year, dr. levine has stayed laser focused on helping the state of pennsylvania manage and respond to covid. the quality of her public service is reflected in the fact that she was confirmed not once, not twice, but three times by the republican-led state senate to serve as -- serve first as physician general and then as health secretary. the u.s. senate should follow

suit today and ma dr. levine -- and make dr. levine the assistant secretary of health and human services. now, mr. president, one more issue. i was just over at the rules committee hearing. it's the first hearing i attended as majority leader because it was about s. 1, so important. and there, i showed, i showed my anger and frustration at what republican legislatures are attempting to do throughout the country -- take away people's right to vote, particularly aimed at people of color. you know, mr. president, it's more than 160 years since the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments abolished slavery but jim crow is still with us. when a state says you need a notary public to cast an absentee ballot, it is no different than asking african americans to guess the number of jellybeans in a jar before they voted. certainly no different in intent to deprive them of their right,

their constitutional right to vote. and here we have republican senators making excuses for these vicious and often bigoted deprivations of the right to vote. they say the -- this is a the state issue. no. congress has passed numerous laws dealing with federal voting rights, and in fact the constitution explicitly says that congress has the ability and right to do it. and yet, republicans who lost the election, instead of doing what we should be doing in a democracy, when you lose you're supposed to figure out why you lost and win over the voters who didn't but they will just deprive the voters who voted against them of the right to vote. that is eerily reminiscent of what dictators like erdogan in turkey would do. our republican party has sunk so low that the republican leader

is over in the it rules committee defending these actions by state legislatures. i asked him and all the republicans to give us a reason reason, why did the georgia legislature only pick sundays to say there should be no early voting on sunday? we know why. it's because that's the day african americans vote in the souls to the poll operation where they go from church to vote. it's despicable. every time you think the country has moved a long way, you see steps taken backward. and let's make no mistake about it, the shadow of donald trump, his big lie, his incessant focus on doing anything that benefits him, no matter if it's the truth or not, if it's constitutional or not, if it's racist or not, has now fallen over this party, and they're not even standing up

to protect the sacred right to vote. shame, shame, shame on all of them. shame. how can you defend these actions throughout legislatures which the "washington post" could amount to tens of millions of people losing their right to vote? are we a democracy? are we? the shadow of donald trump falls dark and large over this caucus when they act like that, and it happens far too often. we will not let this stand. we will not let this stand. s. 1 will pass this body. i yield the floor. i suggest 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 republican whip. mr. thune: is the senate in a quorum call? the presiding officer: it is. mr. thune: i would ask unanimous consent the quorum call be

lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. thune: mr. president, i come down to the floor -- i have come down to the floor multiple times in the past week -- the presiding officer: morning business is closed. under the previous order, the senate will proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the following nominations en bloc, which the clerk will report. the clerk: nomination, department of health and human services, rachel leland levine of pennsylvania to be assistant secretary. nomination, department of energy, david turk of maryland to be deputy secretary. the presiding officer: the republican whip. mr. thune: mr. president, i have come down to the floor multiple times in the past week to talk about the filibuster. i have talked a lot about the dangers of eliminating the filibuster from the loss of bipartisanship to the loss of meaningful representation for senate minorities and the constituents that they serve. one thing i haven't mentioned yet, though, is the fact that democrats are increasingly calling for eliminating the

filibuster, despite the fact that republicans haven't actually filibustered any legislation yet this congress. in fact, the democrat leader was just down here, mr. president, talking about attacking the republicans for opposing h.r. 1, s. 1, or whatever it is, the election bill the democrats have put forward, but there hasn't been any effort that i'm aware of to reach out to republicans to talk about things that they might want to be involved with in terms of elections reforms or reforming our election system in this country. in fact, this last election, we saw record turnout, millions of people more than the previous election came out and voted. it was run by the states across the country. and the proposal that's before us, the h.r. 1 proposal, now i guess s. 1 would attempt to

federalize that election process. to nationalize the election. to take the power away from the states who currently administer and run elections and have that run out of washington, d.c. it seems to me, mr. president, that a lot of people across this country would rather deal with state leaders, state governments when it comes to administering our elections than having it run on washington, d.c. there are lots of other provisions in that bill that many of us would object to. i think frankly it's a good thing to have a photo i.d. to vote, that something my state of south dakota has. i think it makes sense that when people come in to vote to be able to prove who they are. obviously, it's a voter fraud prevention measure that's been adopted by many states across the country, upheld by the courts, and it just strikes me that there are a lot of provisions in that bill that would need to be fixed honestly, and frankly just the very

premise to have the federal government running elections in this country, essentially taking over something that's been historically handled by the states. it strikes me that that would be something that the american people would have a lot of issues with. now, i'm not sure exactly, given the fact that we had millions more voting in the 2020 election than in the previous presidential election would suggest that we need to do -- make changes to election laws across this country. the states, in my view, when they certified the election like they typically do in the 2020 election did it on time and in accordance with the law, and the system, i believe, worked pretty well. but the democrats seemed to believe that there needs to be changes to our elections. but my point simply, mr. president, with respect to their arguments about that and about the need to eliminate the filibuster in order to do it is that we haven't filibustered anything yet.

now, democrats, when they were in the minority the last six years, filibustered most things that we brought up that were of major consequence, legislation that they objected to. they have used the filibuster prolifically, prolifically, you could say, in the last six years. but it seems a little bit odd to have them getting up and talking about eliminating something that has been a part of senate history, senate rules, senate traditions for a really long time and arguing that the reason they need to do that is because republicans have been abusing it when we have been in the majority. we have been in the majority for the last six years. the filibuster is a tool employed by the minority and employed, i would say, very freely by the minority in the past six years. we haven't filibustered, republicans haven't filibustered anything yet, legislation, in this congress. and yet democrats are talking about eliminating the filibuster. and frankly, mr. president, without attempting to reach

across the aisle and engage in talk with republicans about areas where we might find common ground. so that's what i want to talk just a little bit about today because i think republicans have shown a genuine commitment to bipartisanship and unity, something that's not been on display from the president or the democrat leadership. the senate confirmed president biden's cabinet nominees faster than those of both president trump and president biden, thanks in no small part to republicans' willingness to move the process along, and many if not most of those confirmations with bipartisan. i voted for a number of president biden's cabinet nominees, not because they were the individuals i would have picked but because i believe that absent serious red flags, the president deserves to have his team around him. so i have a suggestion for democrats. why not try bipartisanship? and by that, i don't mean holding republicans hostage the way the democrat leader has

threatened the, quote, support our legislation or we will talk about eliminating the filibuster. i don't mean passing a few pieces of bipartisan legislation for show and then showing through the rest offer agenda or trying -- or trying i should say shoving through the rest of your agenda through reconciliation or abolishment of the filibuster. i mean genuine bipartisanship, sitting down at the table, identifying big issues that we need to address, and then looking at proposals from both parties, both parties and negotiating until we can find agreement. there is a lot of room for that. while the focus often tends to be on the areas where we disagree, there are plenty of areas where democrats and republicans either already agree or could easily reach middle ground. i'm a conservative, mr. president. but i have introduced 14 bills so far this year and 11 of them have had democrat cosponsors. there is a lot of room for us to work together. why don't democrats try that? we could start with american economic competitiveness and

global leadership, legislation, or infrastructure legislation, both issues that democrats and republicans see a pressing need to address. the democrat leader mentioned his desire to bring up legislation regarding america's competitiveness vis-a-vis china. and the republican leader has agreed it's an issue ripe for bipartisan regular order process. there are a lot of areas where we could find bipartisan agreement on these issues. investing in our domestic manufacturing capacity so we don't have to rely as heavily on china or other countries for essential products or technologies. promoting the development of 5g technology here at home to ensure that the united states wins the race to 5g. supply chain security. protecting our taxpayer-funded research intellectual property from theft, and even more. i recently introduced the bipartisan network security trade act with senator fischer and democrat senators stabenow and warner. currently one of the biggest suppliers of 5g equipment

worldwide is a chinese company huawei which is supported by the chinese communist party. american security officials have raised concerns of much of huawei's equipment is built with back doors, giving the chinese party access to global communications networks. our bill would address this potential security risk by making telecommunications security a key objective when negotiating future trade deals. it's important that we encourage our trading partners and allies to keep suspect technology like huawei out of their networks. the bipartisan network security trade act would be a strong candidate for inclusion in a thoughtful bipartisan measurement meant to enhance our measurement with china if democrats are willing to engage in truly bipartisan legislating. i believe a strong china policy is a national priority, mr. president, and i hope we'll consider a bill that addresses the many threats china poses in the near future as long as democrats don't simply turn it into a means to promote their

partisan priorities under the guise of competing with china. mr. president, there is also a lot of bipartisan agreement to be found on infrastructure. in fact, there is a history of bipartisan collaboration on infrastructure legislation. our last major infrastructure bill, the fast act, was supported by both democrats and republicans and was a remarkably successful bill. last congress, the environment and public works committee here in the senate developed bipartisan infrastructure legislation, and there is no reason, no reason at all, mr. president, that we shouldn't reach bipartisan agreement on a substantial infrastructure bill. i know a lot of us senators from rural states, both democrats and republicans, share a number of the same priorities for infrastructure legislation like expanding broadband access in rural communities and ensuring that farmers and ranchers have a transportation system they can depend on to get their goods to market. investments in rural infrastructure benefit our entire economy.

the vast majority of agricultural and industrial commodities originate in rural areas. speeding the passage of those goods to market benefits everyone. those who produce these commodities and those who rely on being able to sell them or purchase them. i have introduced two pieces of legislation with democrat colleagues that i would hope to see included in potential bipartisan infrastructure legislation. i recently introduced the railroad rehabilitation and financing innovation act with my democrat colleague, senator hassan. our bill takes important steps to improve the accessibility of the railroad rehabilitation and improvement financing loan program for smaller railroads like those farmers and ranchers rely on to get their goods to market. i also recently introduced the tribal transportation equity and transparency improvement act with my colleague, democrat colleague senator sinema. tribes across the nation have struggled to build and maintain roads and bridges within their reservations which connect tribal members to critical services. this is especially true for large land-based tribes who must

maintain vast road networks in sparsely populated areas. our bill would help tribes address these challenges by taking steps to make the allocation of funding through the tribal transportation program more equitable and transparent. mr. president, if one thing is for sure, it's that a 50-50 senate is not a mandate for one side to force through its agenda unchecked. it is absurd for senate democrats or house democrats to pretend they have a mandate for a partisan revolution. i'm not sure that the democrat leadership realizes this, but i think there are a good number of rank-and-file democrats who do, and i hope those rank-and-file democrats will encourage their leaders to move away from their liberal fantasies and try for real bipartisan cooperation. there's a lot we can do together on a lot of issues if democrats

will come to the table. mr. president, i hope they will, and i yield the floor. mr. durbin: mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority whip. mr. durbin: mr. president, first let me salute my colleague and friend from south dakota. i hope that we can achieve what he's asked for, bipartisanship in the united states senate. hed like to amplify that they have not even used the filibuster. republicans have not invoked the filibuster so far during this senate session. well, there is a reason. because the three things that we have done in this session are not under the rules of the senate subject to filibuster. and let me note as well, i ask unanimous consent that i be given ten minutes to speak before the roll call begins. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: thank you. there are three things that are not subject to the filibuster -- an impeachment trial which we've accomplished so far this year. the nominations, which the senator from south dakota alluded to. and the reconciliation bill.

it is true republicans did not apply the filibuster to that, but it wasn't that goodwill that motivated it. the senate rules demanded it. the question is can we reach a point where we do things on a bipartisan basis or will it be stopped by a filibuster? so let me pause at that moment and say to those following the debate what a filibuster is all about. it is a time-honored tradition in the senate going back to aaron burr serving as vice president that people can speak on an unlimited fashion on the floor. there's nothing to stop them, until there came a cloture vote which didn't appear until the earlier 20th century. bfers that a senator -- before that that a senator could hold the floor indefinitely to a crawl or stop if necessary. the filibuster allowed them to continue that, but then came the cloture motion which stopped the filibuster. it initially took two-thirds vote, 67. eventually 60 votes. but that's what it boils down to. if you want to get anything done

on the floor, you don't want one senator to stand up and say i refuse to accept the vote, then you have to have 60 votes. so in a majority senate, 51 would clearly be sufficient. under a filibuster, 60 is required. there are 50 democrats, 50 republicans. vice president kamala harris can be the tie-breaking vote, the 51st vote. so the republicans, by applying the filibuster rule, could require 60 votes, which of course the democrats by themselves, even with the vice president, couldn't come up with. there was a statement made by senator mcconnell, the republican leader, yesterday which is nothing short of amazing. at a press conference he said of the filibuster, and i quote, it has no racial history at all. none. amazing that he would say that. if you go back and study the history of this body, john caldwell calhoun, the senator

from south carolina, starteds starteds -- started in early parts of the 19th century of using this debate to protect slave states, to protect the interest of the southern states. and that progressed in history to the point where in modern times, at least in the 20th century, the filibuster was used consistently to stop federalizing the crime of lynching. i don't know who would argue in kentucky or anywhere else that the crime of lynching has nothing to do with race. but the filibuster was used to protect federalizing that crime. and it was used in an effort to stop the bills that were trying to outlaw a poll tax. a poll tax, that meant you had to pay to be able to vote. it was used in the south to try and discourage african americans from voting. it clearly was racial. and the filibuster was used over and over again to protect a vote

on the senate floor, this senate floor, from taking place on the poll tax. then fast forward several decades to the 1960's. richard russell of georgia, he was the legislative architect of the filibuster that stopped the civil rights bills in the 1960's. certainly senator mcconnell, who was working in the senate at that time as an intern, if i'm not mistaken, must remember the filibuster being used against the civil rights bill. and to say that the filibuster has no racial history at all, none, is to ignore the obvious. here's the point we're getting to. senator schumer said it on the floor. others have said it as well. we've got to be productive in this session of the senate. after the last four years, we've seen the senate really break down to the point where they weren't productive at all. we weren't productive at all. 29 amendment votes in the last year of senator mcconnell's reign as the republican leader,

29 amendment votes in one year. the previous year under senator mcconnell, 22 amendment votes. no activity on the floor of the senate. we can't let that happen. there are things that need to be done. let me mention too, one of them that certainly needs to be done is to protect america's right to vote. the senator from south dakota comes and says, well, we had this big turnout on november 3, 2020. and now the democrats are meeting, talking about changing the voting laws. why would we want to change if we had such a big turnout? he ignores what happened in between. after the election returns of november 3, 2020, republicans across the nation in 40 different states introduced hundreds of bills to limit people's right to vote. that's why we're responding with this federal response that's now being considered in the senate rules committee. he missed part of the equation. it went from november 3's big turnout to efforts in state legislatures to restrict turnout

to limit the rights of people to vote across america, especially african americans and latinos and those who are not wealthy, to limit their right to vote. and then came this response on the federal basis. that's an important point. and if we believe that the filibuster would not be used against it, if there was some promise that it wouldn't be, we certainly could bring that bill to the floor for debate, and we should if we're given that kind of assurance. the final point i want to make is a hearing we held yesterday. it was a hearing before the senate judiciary committee on guns and gun violence. i scheduled it last week, and i didn't know as i scheduled it the tragedy that was occurring in atlanta, georgia, with eight people who were murdered. we heard about that. it was an outrage. these poor innocent people killed, coincidentally a majority of them asian americans at a time when we know hate crimes against asian americans are on the rise. that was the day that i

announced hearing that occurred yesterday. but little did i know as we prepared two days ago for that hearing what would happen in boulder, colorado, just two days ago when ten innocent people were killed at a super market. we had a hearing yesterday. it was an important hearing. members all attended. sadly, one of the members on the other side came in, the junior senator from texas, and characterized our hearing on gun violence in light of what's happening in america as ridiculous theater. those were his words. ridiculous theater. there was nothing ridiculous about the hearing that we held yesterday. it was a matter of life and death, and the grief that is being felt in boulder, colorado; atlanta, georgia, and all over america is a grief that is shared on a daily basis. 40,000 americans each year lose their lives to gun violence. 40,000, a record-breaking

number, and nothing we should be proud of as a nation. and when we address gun violence and the measures that should be taken to reduce it, it is not ridiculous. it is as serious as it gets. and furthermore, it's not theater. theater is a depiction of reality. the senate judiciary committee is reality. we are empowered as senators to change the laws of america and make it safer. that is not a theatrical performance. that is discharging our duties as united states senators. so i would say to that senator and others, i agree completely with senator schumer. we need to bring bills to the floor that will reduce gun violence in america. keep firearms out of the hands of people who should not have them. convicted felons and mentally unstable people should not be having guns and buying them and able to kill innocent people who are just stopping by at the super market to pick up something to take home. that's what happened in boulder, colorado. and as the stories are printed

in newspapers across america about those lives lost, it is a grim reminder that this is not ridiculous, it is not theater. it is a life-and-death issue, which we have the power to change. i hope that we can bring this measure to the floor, the one that passed the house of representatives, and others to bring sanity to our second amendment to make sure that we have constitutional commonsense gun safety that is consistent with any constitutional right. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of calendar number 40, rachel leland levine, of pennsylvania, to be an assistant secretary of the department of l health and human services, signed by 17

senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is, is it the sense of the senate that debate on the nomination of rachel leland levine of pennsylvania to be an assistant secretary of health and human services shall be brought to a close. the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: yeas and nays are 52, the nays are 48. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion: we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of executive calendar 38, david turk of maryland to be deputy secretary of energy, signed by 19 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is, is it the sense of the senate that debate on the nomination of david turk of maryland to be deputy secretary of energy shall be brought to a

close. the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: the yeas are 98, the nays are 2. the motion is agreed to.

mr. inhofe: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: thank you, mr. president. it's obvious to just about everyone outside of washington that the situation on our southern border is a crisis. i can't believe that anyone wouldn't believe that it's a crisis. but there are some who would answer that it isn't a crisis. president biden and the d.h.s. secretary refuse to call it a crisis. it's not just a challenge. they call it a challenge. this isn't a challenge. this is a crisis. ask anyone you see on the street if it's a crisis. people lined up coming in illegally. you don't have to take my word for it. look at the facts. we've had a 173% increase in border apprehensions compared with one year ago. 173% increase.

this past february apprehensions were the highest total for february in 14 years. d.h.s. admits we're on track for the most illegal migrants in more than 20 years. this is on the border. this is today. this is what's happening. last week main street media news reports found the administration is restricting information border patrol agents are allowed to share with the media about the crisis. the border agents claim they're under an official gag order. these are the border agents, these are the ones who do this for a living. they're down there protecting our laws stopping illegals from coming in. yet they're under a gag order. they don't want the media to find out. and they're being told to deny media requests for ride-alongs the border. that's so that people, the

media, can tell the people of america what is going on down there, and they're being denied that opportunity. the d.h.s. secretary claims that he's committed to ep 0ness and -- to openness and transparency. this is not openness and transparency. this is hiding from the people what is going on. maybe this administration is doing this and refusing to call it a crisis because their policies have invited this surge. this surge is coming as a result. president biden has frozen funds from congress directed for the building of the wall. he entered the remain in mexico as asylum policy put there by the previous administration. it is a crisis. illegal aliens know biden is opening our borders up, and they intend to take advantage of it. and the illegals are wearing the biden t-shirts. you see this over here?

there they are, biden, we're coming in. i know a lot about the southern border because i've been there countless times seeing firsthand the problems on both the mexican side and the american side of the border. i was a builder and developer for 30 years down there, mr. president. i know that border. for 30 years, all the way from brownsville to mcallen, texas, on both sides. and i know the individuals that are down there who are the career people protecting our borders. i'm disappointed that the administration is reversing the progress we've made over the past four years and shocked that they simply won't acknowledge it's a crisis. the border security should not be a partisan issue. and i'm glad there are a few senate democrats that share my concern about this crisis. i applaud them for speaking out. it took guts to do it. well, i've got a resolution, mr. president, and i'm going to

introduce this resolution. i introduced it actually already. i think every senator will agree with, it's a simple resolution. i think this -- we haven't checked this out yet, but i think this might be the shortest resolution in the history of the united states senate. i'm going to read it to you. it simply states, quote, it is the sense of the senate that the current influx of migrants at the southern land border of the united states constitutes a crisis. that's it. nothing more. so with that, mr. president, it's obvious to -- with that, mr. president, i will make this

a, as if in legislative session, this is a unanimous consent request, mr. president. i'm making it right now. as if in legislative session, i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the consideration of s. res. 132, submitted earlier today. i further ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to 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: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from california. mr. padilla: mr. president, reserving the right to object. colleagues, what is happening at the border right now is not just another policy matter to me. it is personal. when i see the young latino children alone in an unfamiliar

setting, being spoken to by law enforcement and other authorities in a language that they don't understand, you can't help but think of my three boys. my boys are the same ages as many of the kids presenting themselves at the border seeking asylum. they look just like those kids. i see the fear and desperation in the eyes of the children at the border, and i don't have to imagine how my boys would look and feel under such circumstances. i've tasted that already. in 2018, we were on a family trip in arizona, june of 2018. it was the height of trump's cruel family separation. we took a detour to texas to

demand humane treatment of the children who were being intentionally separated from their parents by the previous administration. on the way there, i tried to prepare my boys mentally and emotionally for what they were about to see, and it was my youngest son, diego, who was three years old at the time, who turned to me and said, dad, donald trump is putting kids in cages. we've got to go help them. my heart broke. imagine how the children on the border today are feeling. imagine how scared they must be. consider how traumatic their young lives have already been and how anxious they are for the basic safety and comfort that so many people take for granted.

let's think of their parents' anguish, to be so desperate to protect their children, to be so afraid for their safety, let alone their future, that they make the heartbreaking decision of sending them on a dangerous 2,000-mile journey to the u.s. border all alone, knowing that as risky and as dangerous as that journey is, it is safer than to stay in their own community. let's be clear, these are children, these are families not that are well off, trying to game the system. these are families that are desperate. their communities have been ravaged by hurricanes, the

covid-19 pandemic, in so many cases decades of violence. they are families that are threatened by gangs with torture and murder if they stay home. asylum seekers aren't just seeking a better life. many are simply just trying to stay alive. too many policymakers act like asylum seekers are just choosing to come here, but there's really no choice at all. and so i'm deeply disappointed to see so many members of congress, both in the house and in the senate, depicting desperate young children at the border as some sort of threat to our nation, as the 15,000 practically orphaned children trying to assimilate into our country of 330 million is some

sort of existential crisis for our nation. the real crisis is the immigration laws that are so broken that children have to make a treacherous 2,000-mile journey to seek asylum here. the real crisis is that this situation distracts us from the more than 11 million undocumented immigrants who have been living in the united states for years, working and paying taxes in communities all across america while living in constant fear of deportation. they are our neighbors, our teachers, our nurses, our grocery store workers, our child care providers. they are the essential workers that we have all thanked each and every day throughout this pandemic, who live in constant fear that their lives will be upended and their families ripped apart at any moment,

depending on the politics of the day in washington. the real crisis is that we strayed so far from our founding pridges as a -- principles as a nation of immigrants, that we strayed so far from the emblazoned, of the very statue we have to welcome immigrants into new york harbor. quote, quote, give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to break free. the -- send these, the homeless, i lift my lamp beside the golden door. and so i am disappointed, mr. president, but sadly not surprised that this resolution is nothing more than a cynical attempt to perpetuate the semantic nonsense of the day.

our constituents didn't just -- didn't send us to the senate or to congress to identify problems. they sent us here to develop and enact solutions. i'm more than willing to sit down with my colleague here to try to come up with some solution to address what's happening at the border, solutions that address the lack of resources and the broken processes left by the previous administration, solutions that recognize the fundamental humanity of these desperate children and families that simply want to live to see their next birthday. solutions that stay true to the values of this nation. and, so, mr. president, i have an amendment to the resolution at the desk to strike the text of the inhofe resolution and to insert the following. resolved, that it is the sense of the senate that our outdated

immigration laws and a path to citizenship for the 11 million undocumented immigrants who form the backbone in the united states constitutes a crisis and that the united states senate must take up immigration reform this year. i ask that senator inhofe's request be modified as follows. that the padilla substitute amendment at the desk to the resolution be considered and agreed to, the resolution, as amended, be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: is there objection to the modification? mr. inhofe: i object. the presiding officer: the objection is heard. is there an objection to the original request? mr. padilla: i object.

the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. inhofe: mr. president, i hope everyone heard this. i haven't met the senator from california real well yet, but i look forward to it and i look forward to serving with him. but i hope that everyone heard what is going on now. just open the borders. you know, people in other countries, i won't mention some of them because i don't want them to be put in an awkward position, they say, why in the world don't we have strong borders in the united states of america? and we don't. and our previous president, i talked to him this morning, i talked to former president trump this morning and i talked to him about what is going on down there at the border. and the reason i'm familiar with this, much more familiar than the senator from california or anyone else is because i worked down there for 30 years on that border all the way from brownsville, texas to macalla.

i know the border patrol agents down there. for them to tell me not to talk to the media about what's going on, i hope everyone knows what's going on right now, today, this is going on. you know, i -- president trump was all for legal -- people coming into america the legal way. he made that very clear over and over again. he spent time down at the border, both borders, making sure that we can have a legal -- one of the most gratifying things in my job as a united states senator, and i've been in these chambers since 1994, one of the most enjoyable things is to go to the naturalization ceremonies and you talk to these people who have come and worked to come across legally to our country. i defy you to find any one of those individuals who's come here legally and gone through this naturalization process that -- they know more about the

history testify this country than people on the street, people who were born here, people who are serving here if the united states senate. they know the language. they learned the language. they did it the hard way. how do you tell them you've gone through all of this, you're in the process of becoming legal, but you didn't have to do that. you just march right in, they are inviting you, they want you in. put it back up. yeah. that's what's going on right now. that's what's going on the border. so i want everyone to know what is happening now. and while we can be sympathetic to a lot of people, but the idea of saying that we have a president who is putting the kids in cages, come on, let's get real. we don't want to do that. we don't have to do that. we want to make it very clear to the american people, we have borders, we ought to be protecting these borders. a lot of the people that come in, they aren't necessarily from central america or from mexico, these are a lot of terrorists

coming over, they are coming from the middle east, coming from all over the world, coming into our porous borders, is that what the people want? no, it's not. overwhelmingly they have rejected the idea of open borders letting everyone come in. well, we're going to stay with this and -- and i -- i'm going to resubmit this -- this very simple resolution. it is the sense of the senate that the current influx of migrants at the southern land border of the united states constitutes a crisis. mr. president, it is a crisis. i yield the floor. and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk

will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. murphy: i ask that we dispense with the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. murphy: thank you very much, mr. president. mr. president, republicans are going to be on the floor today taking a sudden 100% sincere

interest in immigration reform. they are going to propose that the senate take up a handful of bills to address what they call a crisis created by president biden on our southern border. forgive me for being blunt, but give me a break. republicans suddenly care about the border because they don't want to talk about the real crisis that president donald trump created and that president biden is fixing, the covid crisis and the nation's economic crisis. republicans don't want to fix our broken immigration laws, they want to distract americans from the real story right now, which is the implementation of the very popular american rescue plan, $1,400 checks are arriving in people's bank accounts right

now, schools have resources to catch up, childhood poverty is about to be cut in half, more production of vaccines. that's the real story. you know how i know the republicans are less than sincere in this interest in immigration policy? first, because they controlled the senate for six years and not once during the roughly 2,100 days that they were in charge did they try to honestly bring a comprehensive immigration reform proposal to the floor. i checked two of the bills that they are going to ask for unanimous consent for today were brought up for show votes in the middle of the 2016 presidential election as a means of helping donald trump's candidacy, but in neither instance was there anything to find common ground to actually pass something. go back further, 2013, when democrats ran the senate, that

was when there was a comprehensive immigration bill. republicans didn't vote for it. not all. it was the house republican majority that refused to even consider the bill. that's where it died. so spare me this sudden concern for immigration policy. but, since republicans are now newly concerned about what's happening on the border, it probably makes sense for us to level set the facts -- the facts. so here are four of them. the first is a pretty simple one. republicans will tell you that joe biden created this crisis, that his policies are the reason why we have seen an increase in migration to the border. but here's the chart, and i want

you to zero in on the end of it. as you can see, apprehensions at the border -- which are a pretty decent indication of the number of people that are crossing without documentation. apprehensions at the border started going up in the middle of 2020, precipitously. all that is occurring now is a continuation of these increases. apprehensions and crossings at the border didn't start increasing on inauguration day. they started increasing back in the middle and end of 2020. so you can't say that this was a creation of joe biden's policies if what we're witnessing now is a continuation of a trend that began at the end of last year.

in fact, as you can see here, the ten-year high for apprehensions at the border happened right in the middle of the trump administration, a time during which the president was crowing that his policies at the border were the toughest ever. here's the second fact. the border is not open, as republicans falsely claim. here's what's happening right now on our southern border. since the pandemic began, the administration invoked something called title 42. that allows temporarily during a public health emergency the border patrol to turn everyone back around, send them back into mexico, regardless of whether they have an asylum claim that's legitimate or not. under law, that is a temporary authority that is only allowed to be used during a public health emergency.

and president trump was using that authority. the problem was that for these kids that were showing up at the border who had legitimate asylum claims, right, whose lives were in danger in the places they were coming from, when we turn them around and sent them back to the mexican border, they were essentially is leaving them to die. their parents weren't there. the smugglers who brought them to the united states had already left. this is -- this was a disastrous, inhumane policy to turn these kids around to the border and leave them to the smugglers, to the sex traffickers, with no one to help. so the only change that president biden made was to say, these unaccompanied minors, they need to be protected. we need to process their asylum claims. but president biden is still turning around, under title 42

authority, every single adult, every group of adults, and every family that comes to the border under title 42 authority. the border is not open. all that has changed is that the prior law that was applied before the pandemic began is being applied selectively to unaccompanied minors. and let's be clear. the authority to expel everybody -- being applied now to everybody except unaccompanied miles per hour -- that's a temporary authority, an authority that donald trump didn't invoke until the pandemic began. third, it's not even clear that what's happening now is anything other than a natural increase in migration during the winter combined with the buildup of demand from title 42 enforcement in 2020.

"the washington post" data analysts took a look at the recent data on border crossings year-to-year and month-to-month. and here's what they said. they said, we looked at data from the u.s. customs and border protection to see whether there's a crisis or even a surge, as many news outlets have characterized it. we analyzinged data from 2002 to now and we found no surge that can be attributed to biden administration policies. it fits a predictable pattern of seasonable change in undocumented immigration, combined with a backlog of demand because of 2020's coronavirus border closure. what they're essentially is saying is that because of conditions on the ground in central america and mexico, you saw an increase in crossings and apprehensions in 2018 and 2019

that vanished only in 2020 because of title 42 authority that is now starting back up again. and, again, the data backs this up. this year, from january to february, there was a 28% increase in crossings. january to february 2019 there was a 31% increase. go back to 2018. february to march, 25% increase. for the last three years, outside of the pandemic environment, during the winter you will see a routine 25% to 30% increase in presentations at the border. this is when people normally cross, during the relatively colder weather months of the winter. second, these numbers are really deceiving because these aren't unique individuals. this is just total number of apprehensions. so what's happening under title

42 is that adults are being immediately removed right back to mexico, but then they are immediately attempting to recross. and so many of these numbers look high because you have individuals who never got the chance to make an asylum claim who are crossing multiple times at the border. the fourth fact is that there is little evidence that american policy at the border has much to do with migration rates. the evidence, the facts show that it's conditions on the ground in the origin nations that are what determines whether people pack up their home and leave for america. and, again, this chart is a good indication of that fact. because donald trump would tell you that his policies were

tougher than anybody's, but the ten-year high in crossings, a apprehensions, happened in the middle of donald trump's inhumane border policies. why? because during this time, conditions are abysmal, violence is spiking in many places from which these migrants are coming. and just, as a matter of, sort of, further explanation, if we brought this chart back into the bush administration, you'd find that crossings were much higher, at a much higher rate during the bush administration than at any time during the obama administration. people come to the united states because they are fleeing violence, they are fleeing economic desperation, not because of some message they get from the u.s. government. one study i was looking at the other day, a comprehensive study

of rationales for crossings, data on the times that people cross, says this -- quote, tougher border controls have had remarkably little influence on the propensity to migrate illegally, unquote. these are the facts. these are the facts. republicans need to stop looking at immigration as a political opportunity. we need to start dealing with the truth. the number of migrants showing up at the border today is large, but the winter increase isn't bigger than either of the last two winters prior to the pandemic, with respect to percentage increase. it didn't start when joe biden became president or because of joe biden's policies. the increase started last year when donald trump was president. and to the extent that republicans oppose president biden's lifting of the title 42 removal proceedings for kids, what's your alternative?

do you support just dumping these kids, these 10- and 11-year-olds on the other side of the border, scared an alone, and leave them to die, or to be forced into the hands of drug cartels in mexico? that's un-american. i'm glad my friend decided to end that inhumane temporary policy. but even if president biden had continued the policy for a few hormones oz, removal can't last forever. the law doesn't allow it. so once again, pretty soon every migrant is going to be able to have the chance to apply for asylum. as they should. and herein lies an opportunity. let's work together to fix what is a legitimately broken system. i will give you an example. people should be able to apply for asylum in the united states.

we built this nation by allowing people to come here from very dangerous places. but the asylum process, it takes too long -- years between when you present yourself at the border an when you get a final decision on whether or not you can stay in the united states. let's fix that. that's within our ability as members of congress to fix that. the administration can't do it. they need resources. they need new law and new authorities. republicans and democrats could choose to instead of plying politics, instead of offering up motions today that are sure to lose, we could sit down and try to do something about it. but for six years republicans had the opportunity to bring together a conversation around comprehensive immigration reform, and they didn't. hopefully we'll have the opportunity to do that now. lastly, mr. president, behind every single one of these individuals coming to the border is a story, is a real human

being. ask yourself if your child was being rue created into -- recruited into vicious drug gangs with a high likelihood of serious harm or death, would you not take steps to keep your child safe? would you not bring them to a place like america that was safer for that child? i visited on friday the southwest border. i was in el paso with a group of bipartisan colleagues and secretary mayorkas, who's doing a good job, who is managing this emergency with skill. and i met a little girl about 13 years old who was in one of these processing facilities waiting to be moved into the asylum process. and she was truly scared.

she was truly scared. she knew she was going to have a chance to reunite with her family in the united states, but these detention centers, they're better than they were in 2019, but they're no place for kids. that little girl was coming from guatemala, a place where there are certain neighborhoods that are more violent than any war zone in the middle east. a place where murder rates eclipse anything we can even imagine in the united states. and so that little girl, she needs america to survive. but i'd argue, america needs her more, because without her and the thousands of other children arriving at our border, hungry for a better life, we're going to risk abandoning the entire original idea of this great one-of-a-kind nation, a nation

that opens its arms to those that are fleeing violence and desperation. it is not just our tradition. it's our definition as a country. more reason for those of us in the united states senate to resist the temptation to play politics with these kids' lives and with the very complicated, nuanced, important issue of immigration and instead find ways to be truthful about what's happening at the border as a means to come together and do something about it. 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:

mr. cardin: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from maryland.

mr. cardin: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cardin: mr. president, i rise todays to urge swift passage of the p.p.p. extension act, which will extend the marce paycheck protection program two months to may 31 and give the s.b.a. an additional month through june 30 to process any backlogged applications. this saturday, march 27, will be the one-year date since the cares act was enacted. in that time, s.b.a. has approved 8.2 million p.p.p. loans worth more than $715 billion. these loans have saved small businesses throughout our nation. they would not be here today but for this program. it also saved the stress on our unemployment insurance system by

keeping small business employees on the payroll, and as i'm sure the presiding officer knows, for a small business, it's difficult to find a workforce and to keep a workforce, and the paycheck protection program allowed small businesses to maintain their workforce so that when the pandemic is over, they're going to be ready for a growing economy. the world feels a little different today than it did a year ago. the american people are finally beginning to see a light at the end of the tunnel. more than 124 million vaccine doses have been administered, public health officials nationwide are beginning to ease restrictions on public gatherings. we can see a lit at the end of the tunnel, but we're not there yet. small businesses are struggling, but in spite of those struggles, small businesses are still showing up for our communities. the "baltimore sun" recently published a story about a restaurant in my hometown of baltimore that captured the

essence of the value of small businesses -- that small businesses bring to our communities. steve chu and efrin abey, coowners of a popular restaurant in baltimore, recently drove six hours from baltimore to vermont to prepare a meal for a long-time customer who was on her deathbed. they did this at their own cost because that's what small business owners do. they're part of our community. afterwards, mr. chu and mr. abey called the decision a no-brainer and viewed their trip as a way to say thank you to a customer who has supported them over the years. that's what makes small businesses special. they are more than places we go to buy products or enjoy a meal. they're vital pillars in our community. mr. president, that story and countless others like it are why we passed the p.p.p. program

initially and why we must pass the p.p.p. extension act so p.p.p. can continue to be a lifeline for small businesses in the coming months. congress and the biden administration have implemented significant improvements to the p.p.p. in recent months that have made the program more equitable and useful, so we must now extend the deadline to allow small businesses and nonprofits to take full advantage and receive the help that they need. in december, congress passed the bipartisan economic aid act which provided an additional $284 billion to p.p.p. and made second-round p.p.p. loans available to small businesses that have spent their initial p.p.p. loan and can demonstrate a 25% loss in revenue. the bill also expanded eligibility to p.p.p. to include certain local newspapers, tv stations and radio stations, as well as 501-c-6 nonprofits. i must remind my colleagues that

while the s.b.a. was beginning to implement the improvements we made in the p.p.p. program in the economic aid act, the agency was also upped going the transition from the trump administration to the biden administration. transitions even under the best circumstances can be disruptive to an agency's work. on february 22, the biden administration took strong action to get funding to small businesses that were either left out or underfunded during prior rounds of p.p.p. the administration implemented a 14-day exclusive window for small businesses with fewer than 20 employees. it updated the maximum loan calculation formula for sole proprietors, and eliminated rules prohibiting small business owned by formerly incarcerated individuals and individuals with delinquent federal student loans from securing a p.p.p. loan. it made it possible and much more worthwhile for small businesses to apply for p.p.p. loans, but it takes time.

p.p.p. is a forgivable loan, but you have to have a financial institution to make that loan. it's got to be processed. it's got to be approved. and it can't be done by the end of this month. during the exclusivity period, the s.b.a. approved p.p.p. loans for more than 400,000 small businesses and nonprofits with fewer than 20 employees, nearly half of which were first-time borrowers. we're reaching the hard to serve, the most needy of the small businesses. they finally got help. earlier this month, we passed the historic american rescue plan. the plan expanded p.p.p. eligibility even more to include more nonprofits as well as digital news platforms. the plan provides overdue aid to the local chapters of large nonprofits such as the ymca and goodwill that have not had prior access to p.p.p., due to having multiple locations totaling more than 500 employees. the plan makes these nonprofits eligible for p.p.p. loans worth

up to $10 million as long as each location does not exceed the employee limit. that makes sense. during a hearing examining p.p.p. last week, the small business committee heard testimony from john huyer who leads the ymca chapter that serves the baltimore region. john urged us to extend the p.p.p. to give nonprofit leaders more time to understand the program. he said i can tell you that colleagues of mine who run large around the country and large nonprofits around baltimore are still trying to understand the program and figure out if they qualify. i think a three-month extension is not only warranted but owed to all of us after what we have been through this past year. we also heard testimony from lisa mensa who leads the opportunity finance network, which is the national association of cdfi's, our mission lenders. she warned us that thousands of business owners who will not receive access to p.p.p. without

an extension. she told us about a cdfi in jackson, mississippi, that estimates that 1,300 loans from small businesses that apply for p.p.p. will not receive funds if we do not extend the deadline of these 1,300 applicants, 98% are businesses are fewer than 20 employees, 95% are minority owned, and nearly 100 of them are veteran or veteran spouse owned small businesses. mr. president, this is only one cdfi out of hundreds nationwide. the story will be repeated, those that have been left out. the committee has also been urged to extend the deadline by the business community. on march 15, more than 90 chamber of commerces trade groups and business organizations sent a letter urging extension, and they said nearly one year into the covid-19 pandemic, the continued liquidity challenges of small business sectors are acute.

mr. president, it's clear that there is still an overwhelming need for p.p.p. loans, which is why the p.p.p. extension act passed the house of representatives by a 415-3 vote. this is bipartisan. the bill that we're talking about is sponsored by senator collins and senator shaheen and i are also on that bill. the good news is that the resources are there. we have been informed by the s.b.a. that the extension of the deadline could work within the funds that have already been made available by congress. the money is there. this is not the first time we have done this. i must remind my colleagues that last year as p.p.p. was approaching its deadline, i brought a bill to the floor of the senate and worked with senator rubio to give small businesses more time to get their applications filed. i must also remind my colleagues that we passed that extension to preserve access to p.p.p. while we continued negotiating on broader changes to the program.

we need to do the same thing again. i note that there are other modifications to the program that we will have an opportunity to discuss, and i am committed in conducting those discussions in the same bipartisan manner that i have approached the development of these programs. in fact, later today, just in 45 minutes, there will be a ■hearin in the small business committee where we will be doing oversight on the programs that we made available during covid-19 and we'll have representatives from government responsible for those programs, including the s.b.a. but the bottom line, we first need to extend the program. we have to make sure it doesn't expire next week. we must get this done. the need is there, and the funds are there. mr. president, i would ask consent that my following comments be separated in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cardin: mr. president, i rise to celebrate women's

history month and support s.j. res. 1, legislation i introduced with my partner in this effort, senator murkowski, of alaska. our bipartisan legislation would remove the deadline for the state's ratification of the equal rights amendment, the e.r.a., and i am pleased that the house adopted the companion version of this legislation, s.j. res. 17 last week. i now urge the senate to take up and pass this legislation. ratification of the e.r.a. would expressly prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex in the united states constitution. the amendment simply reads equality of rights under law should not be denied or abridged by the united states or by any state on account of sex. in january, 2020, virginia became the 38th state to ratify the e.r.a., which was first proposed in 1972. congress has the authority under article 5 of the constitution to

set and change deadlines for the ratification of constitutional amendments and has done so on numerous occasions. recall that in 1992, the 27th amendment of the constitution prohibiting immediate congressional pay raises was successfully ratified after 203 years. that amendment was initially proposed as part of the initial bill of rights in 1789. thrshtd -- there should be no time limit on equality. even as we celebrate america's first female vice president, america is held back as the only modern constitution that fails to enshrine full equality for both men and women. this is unacceptable. most americans are surprised to learn that the e.r.a. is not already part of the u.s. constitution. the states have done their job to make this happen. now congress must finally do its job and remove any legal obstacle to certifying the e.r.a. women were indeed left out of

the constitution intentionally by our founding fathers. american women, however, did demand equality as our country was being founded. in a letter in march 1776, abigail adams wrote to her husband john adams urging him and other members of the continental congress not to forget about the nation's women. the future first lady wrote in part, i long to hear that you have declared an independence, and, by the way, in the new code of laws which i suppose it will be necessary for you to make, i desire that you remember the ladies and be more generous and favorable to them than your ancestors. do not put such unlimited power in the hands of the husbands. remember all men would be tyrants if they could. if particular care and attention is not paid to the ladies, we are determined to foment a rebellion and will not hold ourselves bound by any laws in

which we have no voice or representation. sadly, the founding fathers did not heed abigail adams call. most notably, women were denied the right to vote for 150 years. more broadly women were treated as second class citizens throughout our nation's history and denied rights such as being able to own property or work in their chosen occupation. women compose a majority of the american population but continue to be underrepresented in government, elected office, the courts, and the business world. without the e.r.a. and the constitution, the statutes and case law that produced major advancements in women's rights since the middle of the last century are vulnerable to being ignored, weakened or reversed. congress can amend or repeal constitution laws by a simple majority. a new administration can fail to vigorously enforce statutes. the supreme court can introduce a lower standard of intermediate scrutiny to prevents forms of

sexual discrimination. indeed even today women do not receive equal pay for equal work. the e.r.a. would provide a needed constitutional basis for legislation advancing women's equality. historically the equal protection law clause of the 14th amendment has been used to fight discrimination on the basis of gender. however, without language in the constitution specifically espousing that there shall be no denial or abridgement of rights on the basis of sex, the supreme court will likely continue to apply a lower level of scrutiny in cases related to discrimination against women. by contrast, the supreme court uses the strict scrutiny test in revealing cases of racial and religious discrimination. as former supreme court justice anthony scalia, a fervent originalist once stated, certainly the constitution does not require discrimination on the basis of sex. the only issue whether it

prohibits it. it doesn't. former supreme court justice ruth bader ginsburg stated, every constitution written since the end of world war ii includes a provision that men and women are citizens of equal stature. ours does not. if i could choose an amendment to add to the constitution, it would be the equal rights amendment. i would like my granddaughters when they pick up the constitution to see that notion, that women and men are persons of equal stature. i'd like to see them -- i'd like them to see that in the basic principle of our society. public polling indicates that the country is ready for the e.r.a. today nearly half the states, including maryland and alaska, have a version of e.r.a. written into their state constitutions. in the era of me too, there have been renewed energy for adopting the e.r.a. as society finally addresses the long-standing problems of violence and sexual harassment against women and demanding justice and accountability. just a few weeks ago we

celebrated international women's day worldwide on march 8, with the 2021 theme, choose to challenge. it is now far past the time we bring the conversation of women's equality and empowerment to center stage. the united states of america is one of the most developed, wealthiest and admired countries in the world today, and immigrants from all over the world continue to travel to the united states to pursue their dreams and make a better life for themselves and their families. however, to this very day, the constitution of the united states, our nation's supreme law of the land, still does not declare that men and women are of equal stature. the passage of this historic amendment would truly never be more possible or needed as it is today. let me quote from president biden's statement on the e.r.a. upon the house passage of this legislation last week. gender equality is not only a moral issue, the full participation of women or girls across all aspects of our

society is essential to our economic prosperity, our security and the health of our democracy. this is especially critical right now as the coalition of public health crisis, the collision of public health crisis, economic crisis and care-giving crisis have erased decades of women's economic gains and pushed more women out of the american workforce than we've seen in more than 30 years. president biden concluded, it is long past time that we enshrine the principles of gender equality in our constitution. let me address one other issue regarding a recent decision on the e.r.a. and the validity of the state ratification under previous congressional deadlines. in this case decided by judge koteras in united states district court for the district of columbia, it is just as important to discuss what the judge did not hold in his decision. notably, the judge in this case wrote equality significant as the court's holding -- excuse

me. equally significant as the court's holding is what it does not hold. congress has not tried to revive the e.r.a. despite both deadline expirations, so the court is not confronted with that difficult issue. lastly, the court does not express an opinion on the merits of the e.r.a. as a matter of policy. it merely enforces a procedural time limit that congress set when proposing the amendment. in my view, this decision makes the need for decisive congressional action clearer than ever on this procedural time, using the power of congress under article 5 of the constitution. it is far past time for congress to take up and pass this legislation that would remove the time limit for the e.r.a. ratification which will remove any remaining legal ambiguities about congressional intent. let us take up and pass this legislation without further delay and finally write equality

between men and women into our constitution. with that, mr. president, i would yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. ms. ernst: mr. president, it's become all too easy for pundits and politicians to reduce the security of our borders to a bumper sticker or billboard slogan. as someone who appreciates the value of human life, as a survivor of sexual assault, and someone who cares deeply about the safety and security of women and children across the globe, i am horrified that we continue to put border security at the bottom of our policy to-do list. on january 31, 2016, the same

day as her college graduation, iowan sarah root was killed by an illegal immigrant named edwin mejia. he was drag racing with a blood alcohol level more than three times the legal limit. despite repeated requests by local law enforcement, immigration and customs enforcement failed to detain mejia because of a catch-and-release policy that ultimately allowed him to escape the country. unfortunately, this is the same policy that president biden supported during the obama administration.

still, more than four years later mejia remains a fugitive, denying sarah's loved ones any sense of justice and closure. after today, i will have now live u.c. this bill twice, and i expect the same thing to happen today as it did last time, that it will be objected to by my democratic colleagues. as a mother, i cannot fathom the grief that sarah's family, her mother and father, michelle and scott, her brother and her friends continue to feel after such a devastating loss. sarah had her whole future in front of her, but her opportunity to make her mark on the world was tragically cut short. at the same time while sarah

root's mother and father grieve grieve, a child without a parent continues to make the par rillous -- the perilous journey at the hands of a smuggler. many arrive here dehydrated and malnourished and subject to unspeakable atrocities, from rate -- rape to assaults. since inauguration day we have seen record numbers of children at the border, a heartbreaking humanitarian crisis. before then, the migrant protection protocols or the remain in mexico policy was in place and helped keep migrants safely in mexico until the united states had a chance to process them. this policy single handedly reduced the need for bed space

in the u.s., protected migrants from that treacherous journey through mexico, and kept our facilities from being dangerously overcrowded. border patrol agents were able to return to their originally assigned duties of patrolling for drugs and human traffickers. but as we've heard time and again, and something that's very true, elections have consequences. president biden, before he even had the chance to unpack, made serious changes to immigration policies, changes that have resulted in the national emergency at the u.s.-mexico border. first, he rolled back the remain in mexico policy, and that's a big reason why we have a crisis at the border today. instead of keeping migrants in

mexico and deterring those from making the dangerous journey north, the vacancy sign is on. but the reality is we are out of space. it feels as if the biden administration is starting to see the reality of the disaster they created at our are southern border. they're now walking this reversal back and asking the mexican government to reinstate the previous administration's policy. on his first day in office, president biden signed an executive order suspending all domestic deportation proceedings. if sarah root's story played out today, immigration and customs enforcement would not pick up

her killer, and the same tragedy could happen again and again. although nothing can bring beautiful sarah back to her family, we can ensure that the federal government never makes this mistake again. today i rise to call upon my senate colleagues to help make that happen, to stop another tragedy like sarah's from happening with a simple and clean fix. i am asking the senate to join myself and 22 of our colleagues and pass my bill, sarah's law. sarah's law is simple. it requires that i.c.e. take custody of a person who is in the country illegally, and if they are charged with a crime

that seriously injures another person. it also mandates a better victim notification system that lets victims and their families, like the root family, know what happened to their loved ones. sarah's law is about as common sense an effort as there is. it recognizes the simple fact that all criminals should be held accountable for their actions, all criminals and not simply allowed to slip back into the shadows. if sarah's law is passed, people who are in this country illegally and murder another person would be prioritized for deportation if released. who could be opposed to this?

in fact, a previous vote on this bill in the form of an amendment was supported by the majority of the senate and was bipartisan. no family should ever have to endure such a tragedy, especially one that could have been prevented. mr. president, as if in legislative session, i ask unanimous consent that the judiciary committee be discharged from further consideration of s. 80 and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. further, i ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. durbin: madam president, reserving the right to object. the presiding officer: the

democratic majority whip. mr. durbin: madam president, the senator from iowa tells us a compelling story of sarah root whose death at the hands of a drunk driver is a tragedy. however, i respectfully suggest this legislation is not the answer. this bill that she is proposing would require the mandatory detention of immigrants charged, not convicted, charged with certain crimes. the mere allegation of criminal conduct would result in months, possibly years of detention before conviction. indefinitely detaining immigrants regardless of whether they actually committed a crime, regardless of circumstances violates a principle that is deeply embedded in the american legal system, innocent until proven guilty. under this bill someone wrongly arrested wouldn't be eligible for an individualized bond

determination. this is not consistent with the basic tenets of due process in our constitution. creating a new category of immigrants subject to indefinite detention for being charged also could be harmful to the survives -- survivorrors of domestic violence. over 20 years ago i was introduced to a group in chicago. the name of the group -- and i'm sorry if i don't pronounce it correctly. is latinas axion. this is a group that came together to try to protect undocumented mothers and wives from domestic abuse. and the reason why they came together was these poor women were being victimized and abused in ways unthinkable and were so afraid to report it to police because of their undocumented status. so this group of women in the

community came together and said we have to build a shelter. these women have to get away from their abusive husbands who many times were also abusing the children. and that's what happened. and today it's still there and still needed. these survivors of domestic abuse many times in desperation would finally strike back at the abusive husband, and some of them were even subject to arrest for assault against the abusing husband. under the proposal today that's being suggested by the senator from iowa, that woman having been abused by that husband for so many years finally striking back and assaulting the husband and being charged would automatically be incarcerated. there wouldn't be a judge to consider the reality of the circumstances in her life. survivors of human trafficking, sexual assault, and domestic violence are often at risk of arrest initially, but many times in court when the circumstances

are explained, a different conclusion is reached. in one study nearly half of the incarcerated women in the study described assaults they had committed in their own defense. this bill has no exception for immigrants who are charged with crimes that resulted from their defending themselves against violence. let me add to this bill -- too this bill is not necessary. the authority to detain people who are deportable, in fact there are thousands of people detained right now using this authority. there is no question that our immigration system is far from perfect and is a broken system. we have a responsibility and we have an authority in congress to reform our immigration law. if the senator from iowa is interested in working on bipartisan immigration reform, i welcome the opportunity to ask her to join us, to try to find

pragmatic bipartisan solutions. an initial meeting today, bipartisan meeting of senators, open the conversation. but trying to pass this bill by unanimous consent is not the way to approach this very complex problem. we need to roll you our sleeves and say let's, as senators, on a bipartisan basis do it. i stand ready to do so. i hope the senator from iowa does, too. as tough as it may be, we need to tackle these issues and not ignore them as they were for the last four years under the previous republican president. for those reasons i object. ms. ernst: madam president? the presiding officer: the objection is heard. ms. ernst: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. ms. ernst: i appreciate my colleague's comments on the senator from illinois, but there is no doubt that we have a problem in the united states today. our immigration system does need to be reformed, but it does need

to be done in a bipartisan manner. this when presented as an amendment on the floor of the senate was a bipartisan supported amendment. and it deals with those that are charged with bodily injuring another person or of murder. that's what happened in sarah's case. i.c.e. has given the opportunity to detain an individual, but in this case i.c.e. chose not to, even though a young woman was murdered by a man operating under multiple assumed names with no familial ties in the area. the man was allowed to slip back into the shadows and sarah root's family will likely never ever see justice. so the pendulum swings both waifs. i would much rather see eswin

mejia face justice than allow the family of a young murdered woman to go without. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor. mr. cornyn: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: madam president, as we all know, over the last year covid-19 has taken center stage as the number one public health crisis facing our nation. no community has been spared from the devastation caused by this virus which has claimed more than 540,000 american lives. but beneath the surface the problems we're facing before the

pandemic still exist, and in many cases they're getting worse. a year of stress, isolation, and loss has taken a serious toll on america's mental health. and has led to increasing rates of anxiety and depression. these same factors have led to an increase in domestic violence as families have spent more time at home often while battling the stress of job losses, financial difficulties, and virtual learning. and of course there's the opioid epidemic which continues to destroy communities across our country. in 2019 there were more than 70,000 overdose deaths in america, 70,000. we're still waiting on the complete figures for 2020, but preliminary data shows that things are trending in the wrong direction. from june 2019 to may of 2020,

more than 81,000 americans have died from overdoses. we know a significant portion of those deaths involved heroin, roughly 20% of those who overdosed in 2019. according to the drug enforcement agency's national drug threat assessment, the vast majority of that heroin comes from mexico, a staggering 92%. as we've discussed the crisis at the border, i've talked about ways the surge in unaccompanied children affects customs and border protection's ability to carry out its other missions, including stopping the flow of these illegal drugs. time spent processing and caring for children means less time on the front lines, catching or deterring the cartels from moving their poison across the

border into the united states. a bloomberg report last year brought another aspect of this epidemic to light. the fact that chemicals made in the united states by u.s. companies were key ingredients in the manufacture of heroin in mexico. one of those companies is after vin -- avin torre be a fortune 500 company which supplies lab materials and services across a number of industries. it produces millions of products including everything from medical masks to high quality chemicals for pharmaceuticals to kits for science labs in schools. but the focus here is on one particular chemical, acidic and

hydrid. this is an 18-liter jug of acidic hydrid and you can see avintor's name on the label. it sells through a subsidiary mean as j.t. baker into mexico. now there are legitimate uses for hydrid. it's made -- used to make cigarette filters and photographic films but this wasn't taken in a chemical lab or manufacturing plant here in the united states. this was taken by a bloomberg reporter in mexico who was able to purchase this chemical on online, no questions asked. this should never have happened. why? because hydrid is a highly regulated chemical, at least in the united states and actually around the world. some countries even bar the

importation of it because of its use in manufacturing illegal drugs. but the reason it's regulated is because it's a precursor in the production of heroin. that's why many countries ban the importation outright. without this chemical, it's virtually impossible to transform opium from a poppy seed, even into the more lethal drug of heroin. acidic hydride is one of the most tightly controlled chemicals world wield and has been for -- wide and has been for some time. the narcotics control board has been sounding the alarm on this dangerous chemical since the 2000's. in fact its annual report has described horrific examples of the dangerous precursor chemical being diverted from legitimate uses to illegitimate uses like making heroin.

but the fact is mexico did not sign on to the international narcotics board protocol for this dangerous chemical until 2018 and even then the enforcement, oversight and control of this precursor was lax at best. even notice given the controls that the cartels exert over large swaths of mexico, i have no confidence that any controls on this chemical are effective in stopping illicit uses in that country. the bloomberg investigation brought to light how easy it was for the cartels to get a hold of this chemical. the reporters were able to purchase this 17-liter jug online or a medical supply store. didn't take any special requirements. so you can imagine how easy it was for the cartels to get their hands on this chemical.

while the controls, oversight and enforcement of this chemical are much tighter in the united states and have been for years, it presents a constant challenge when mexico does not have the same standards and enforcement. 'presents an addition -- it presents an additional hurdle for the safety of our communities when u.s. companies like avintor avail themselves of foreign subsidiaries to create and manufacture the precursor chemical in the cartel's own backyard. thereby facilitating the manufacture and sale of the deadly drug known as heroin. of course the winners of all this are the cartels. in addition to the smugglers, the losers are our communities here in the united states and our loved ones who have been tragically affected by the opioid epidemic.

madam president, this is an open-air drug lab, the home of el chapo's drug empire. cartels can use this single jug of 18-liters of chemical to make heroin in this drug lap concealed in mexico. they can make out of that one jug about 80 pounds, or 90,000 hits, of heroin out of one jug. of course one hit is enough to destroy a life. but think of the pain that one 18-liter jug can inflict on an entire community.

and avatar knows that these jugs can be easily concealed inside a car. one container of this chemical costs $324. the street value of the heroin it will yield is at least $3.6 million. one jug, $324 can produce $3.6 million worth of street value in heroin. well, if this doesn't make your blood boil, you're not paying attention. after all, it's simply impossible to believe that avantar, a fortune 500 company, publicly traded here in america, it's impossible to believe that they were selling large quantities of this chemical which is banned in many countries in the world because of the illegal use of drug manufacturer, but it had no idea that it was being used for

illicit purposes in new mexico. i don't think anybody would believe that they didn't know. bloomberg reports that this has been going on for at least the last ten years when photos like this surfaced in drug busts by the mexican authorities. but, unfortunately the bad news doesn't stop there. the nominee for the third highest-ranking position at the department of justice has profited to the tunes of millions of dollars from avantor stock. be vanita gupta has been nominated to serve as attorney general and she is a shareholder and owns millions of dollars of avantor stock and in various trusts she has identified in her

financial disclosures. this isn't just a blind investment in a mutual fund, this is the family business. ms. gupta's father is chairman of the board. following ms. gupta's hearing in the senate judiciary committee, senators submitted questions. one question was submitted by senator grassley, the ranking member, he asked ms. gupta if avantor was selling chemical precursors in the heroin trade in mexico? she said i'm aware of the allegations. the next question from senator grassley was about her financial holdings since she owns upwards of $55 million of avantor stock, he asked if she profited financially of this drug.

ms. gupta said i have, with no role in avantor, i'm not able to say whether or if i have profited from avantor's business. i believe witnesses who testified at the judiciary committee hearings, if there's no reason not to believe them. but it pains me to say this. but ms. gupta had already established a clear pattern of deception or flat out lying during her confirmation process. 2012, ms. gupta wrote a op-ed piece in the huffpost, november 4, 2012. at that time she said that

states should decriminalize possession of all drugs -- all drugs, not just marijuana, all drugs for personal use. the articles said that the states should decriminalize possession of all drugs, particularly marijuana and for small amounts of other drugs. it that would include criminalizing fentanyl, methamphetamine and other highly addictive drugs, including, of course, heroin. well, that wasn't her answer at her confirmation hearing when asked whether she advocates for criminalization of all drugs, she didn't mince words, she said, no, senator, i do not. i know people can change their mind especially in light of new information or new experiences. ms. gupta's case she noted that her experience at the department of justice and with addiction of

her own family has led her to evolve her position on these issueses. in responding to senator grassley's written questions, she said i have never -- i have never advocated for the decriminalization of all drugs, and i do not support the decriminalization of all drugs. madam president, that is false. it is not true. she obviously held the view and felt so strongly about it at the time that she penned an on piece in a national paper and advocated for the decriminalization of all drugs. when a person has been nominated for a leadership position at the department of justice, that person has a duty to be honest and forthright. if you learned any new information or changed your mind, that's fine, but you can't flat out mislead about not

having held beliefs that you clearly held in the past, especially when those beliefs could interfere with your ability to do the very job for which you've been nominated. it's not just decriminalization where ms. gupta has misled the judiciary committee. on qualified immunity, defunding the police, the death penalty, ms. gupta has had misleading statements on each of these issues. policy differences i can accept, but a lack of candor is disqualifying, especially for the office of associate attorney general. so when ms. gupta said that she was unaware that avantor was profiting and she was profit rg from illicit manufacturing of heroin in mexico, i do not find that credible. it's another example of saying whatever you need to say to get

confirmed by the senate. madam president, the department of justice is the highest law enforcement agency in the country and ms. gupta has been nominated to serve as third in command. if confirmed, she would oversee the civil division, which will make major decisions about who will be investigated, who will be charged and who will face punishment. some of those potential targets include opioid companies, drug manufacturers or perhaps even companies diverting precursor chemicals to the cartels. if you look at the work of the civil division of the department of justice at the moment, you will see a number of civil actions already related to the diversion of opioids and companies involved in illegal schemes. so what does this say about her ability to supervise those kinds of cases? the department requires professional detatchment from

even the appearance of impropriety and this conflict of interest of ms. gupta's goes far beyond simple appearance. ms. gupta has financially benefited from the sale of this chemical to cartels in mexico. she's financially benefited whether she knew it at the time or not, but she won't even admit it. as a result, any case that has a nexus of drugs while she's at the d.o.j. at the helm will have a giant cloud cast over it. finally, madam president, what i find most troubling in addition to her lack of candor, is ms. gupta has shown absolutely no remorse for the harm done by avantor and facilitating the manufacturing and sale of heroin here in the united states. i estimated in the last ten years more than 100,000 americans have died of drug

overdoses associated with heroin. so, madam president, i cannot support the nomination of ms. gupta to serve as associate attorney general and i would urge all of my colleagues to oppose her nomination as well. mrs. blackburn: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mrs. blackburn: thank you, madam president. last month alone more than 100,000 migrants crossed our sowrn boredders. -- southern boredders. our facilities are packed and our border patrol agents are absolutely exhausted. they are exhausted. this isn't just a logistical challenge, it's a tragedy made worse by the biden administration's disastrous open

borders policies. the crisis is escalating, especially for the tens of thousands of children who have arrived in this country very much alone. unaccompanied minors accounted for nearly 10% of all migrants who crossed our border last month. that's roughly 10,000 children a month walking into chaos. anyone paying a bit of attention knows what's going on here, cuss comes and border protection has been sounding the alarm on the connection between children and human trafficking for years. the coyotes, the cartels and the gangs use children as drug mules. they use them as sex slaves. if you don't believe me, ask anyone with the c.b.p. why they administer pregnancy tests to little girls as young as 13 as soon as they arrive at the

border. this is a heartbreaking situation. these children are living in hell, and it's getting worse. false claims of family ties have fueled a rise in fraudulent asylum claims and in human trafficking. adult migrants are making arrangements with cartels and smugglers to borrow children. they claim kinship and use that relationship to bolster a fraudulent asylum claim. and what do they do when they've gotten what they want? they send the child back across the border to start the entire nightmarish process with another stranger. that is correct. this is called child recycling. but i think recycling is an odd choice of words to describe one

human being treating another human being like a piece of garbage. again, this is heartbreaking. if you want to get an idea of how big a problem we have, consider that the department of homeland security says that over the past decade, they've seen a 1,675% increase in asylum cases. in 2019, immigration and customs enforcement implemented a pilot d.n.a. testing program to try and stop this rampant exploitation. they found that 20% of all kinship claims they were able to screen were alive -- 20%. this is a humanitarian crisis, an environmental crisis, and a health and safety crisis, and