congress. you can watch on c-span.org. two biden nominees. andrea palm to be the next deputy of health and human services and cynthia martin to be education secretary. the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. eternal god, thank you for the joy you give us when we follow your guidance. lord, you have provided us your holy word as a light to illuminate life's journey, and your precepts inspire us with

confidence and delight. as our lawmakers daily receive your wisdom from devotional time with you, permit your peace that exceeds anything we can understand to guard their hearts even during turbulent seasons. lord, use our senators for your glory, empowering them to stay productive throughout days of their lives. we pray in your merciful name. amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to our flag. 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., may 11, 2021. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable raphael g. warnock, a senator from the state of georgia, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: patrick j. leahy, president pro tempore. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate will proceed to legislative session. under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved.

the presiding officer: morning business is closed. under the previous order, the senate will proceed to executive session and resume consideration of the following nomination, which the clerk will report. the clerk: nomination, department of health appeared human services, andrea joan palm of wisconsin to be deputy secretary.

the presiding officer: the republican whip is recognized. mr. thune: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, infrastructure, court packing, crisis, jim crow, bipartisan -- all words that we recognize. all words with fixed, long-established meanings. and all words whose meanings are currently being twisted unrecognizably. in the brave, new world of the biden administration and the democratic congress, the plain meaning of language is no longer so plain. take the term infrastructure. ask anybody what they think of when they think of

infrastructure, i can guarantee you what they will tell you -- roads, bridges, waterways, maybe airports. i can also tell you what they won't think of -- medicaid expansion, support for big labor, free community colleges. why? because none of those things have ever been part of the definition of infrastructure -- until now. now democrats are claiming that infrastructure is pretty much whatever they want it to be. one democrat senator tweeted -- and i quote -- paid leave is infrastructure. child care is infrastructure. caregiving is infrastructure. end quote. well, actually you mr. president, no, they are not. those are policy proposals, proposals that could be discussed -- but they are not infrastructure. saying something is infrastructure doesn't make it so. and, unfortunately, democrats'

redefinition of infrastructure, oregonwellian as it is -- as orwellian as it is. take court packing. everyone who has ever sat through an american history class knows exactly what court packing refers to -- expanding the number of justices on the supreme court so that you can get the supreme court decisions that you want. president franklin delano roosevelt proposed it in the 1930's and it was defeated by a bipartisan majority of senators. and most thought the idea had been consigned to the ash heap of history -- until democrats resurrected it during the trump administration. upset by the court's current makeup and worried that the court might not rubber stamp democrat policies, a growing number of democrats are getting behind the idea of court packing. but, of course, they're eager to

escape the negative conknow nations of the term. after all, the attempt is not exactly regarding as a shining moment of the roosevelt presidency. so in a move worthy of orwell's 1984, democrats are asking us to accept the faunists particular cal notion that -- fantastical notion that republicans pack the court -- indeed, pack the entire judiciary, and that democrats are merely seeking to restore balance. yes, in democrats' brave, new world, a president performing his constitutional duty to nominate judges and justices and a senate duly confirming them is now defined as a nakedly partisan power grab to secure a favorable outcome for his policies from the supreme court. i should say, every republican president fulfilling his constitutional duty and a republican senate confirming his nominees.

because we all know -- we all know that if it were president biden who had filled multiple seats on the supreme court his actions would not be regarded as court packing. they would be regarded correctly as business as usual. that's what we do around here. they would be regarded correctly as a president doing his job and performing his constitutional duty. then, mr. president, there's jim crow. americans know what jim crow means. it refers to the reprehensible period of segregation when black americans were forced to live as second-class citizens and denied the equal protection of the laws. jim crow is one of the great stains on our country's history, and it is a term that should not be used lightly. but that's exactly what democrats are doing. they've decided that it suits their purposes to call to mind

the history of this word, and so they've applied the term to an ordinary mainstream election reform bill in georgia. in fact, the president went so far as to call the georgia law jim crow on steroids. as if it would not only bring us back to the era of segregation but return us to something even worse. and all this for an election law that is squarely in the mainstream when it comes to state election laws is in some ways more permissive than election laws and presumably utopian democrat-led states like new york. i could go on. democratic attempts to redefine bipartisan from something that is supported by both parties in congress to something that is maybe -- maybe supported by some republican voters in some poll, no matter how dubious its reliability. or there's the white house's contorted refusal to call a situation on our southern border a crisis, as if by refusing to use the word they could somehow change the reality of the

situation. but met me ask a question -- but let me ask a question. why is the plain meaning of language under assault by the democratic party? why are democrats dramatically redefining ordinary words and concepts? mr. president, maybe it's because reality isn't so pretty. take court packing. the truth is that democrats are afraid that the current supreme court is not going to rule the way democrats want on cases they care about. so they want to expand the supreme court and let president biden nominate new justices so they can guarantee the outcomes that they want. but saying that doesn't sound so great. in fact, it sounds more autocratic than democratic. so democrats are attempting to disguise the real reason behind their partisan court-packing plan by applying the word court packing not to their own attempts to pack the court but to it the ordinary work of the president and the congress. or take infrastructure.

pretty much everybody supports infrastructure. it would be hard-pressed to find anyone who doesn't think the government should maintain our roads and bridges. it would be a lot easier, on the other hand, to find people who think that maybe government shouldn't be in the business of substantially increasing spending or expanding into new areas of americans' lives. so democrats have chosen to discries their plans for massive government spending and government expansion under the heading of infrastructure. after all, everybody supports infrastructure. so if they can sell their plans for government expansion as infrastructure, then they might be able to implement a lot of proposals that otherwise might not make it through congress. or take jim crow. with h.r. 1 and s. 1, democrats are pushing to pass an election law that would federalize elections, inject a massive dose of partisanship into our election system and gives democrats what they hope will be a permanent advantage in elections going forward.

but obviously they can't say that. they can't suggest that we pass h.r. 1 to improve democrats' electoral chances. so they've will to find another reason -- so they've had to find another reason to pass this bill. they've manufactured a crisis. states are passing dangerous election laws that hearken back to jim crow and we need the about toil save the day. -- to save the day. i sometimes wonder when the president is bashing the georgia election law if he remembers that the legislature that passed a that law was elected by the same voter whose gave him the victory in georgia and sent two democrats to the united states senate. does he really want to call those voters racist? mr. president, ultimately democrats' ataught on language is about -- assault on language is about power. change the language and you can change the outcome and secure your political control. it's no coincidence that oppressive regimes have cracked down on speech and redefined it

to suit their purposes. or that they've manufactured crises to keep the people in need of government. the problem for democrats, mr. president, is that there is no mandate for democrats' far-left agenda. democrats' radical socialist candidates couldn't even make it through the democrat primary, let alone the general election. president biden won the democrat primary and the election in large part because he campaigned, perhaps disingenuously, as a moderate. and as for congress, democrats lost seats in the house and have a paper-thin majority in both chambers. if there is any mandate to be gathered from november, mr. president, it was a mandate for moderation. democrats aren't interested in moderation. they are increasingly enthralled with the far-left wing of their

party. they have a radical agenda to push and possibly a very limited window in which to push it. since there is no mandate for that agenda, they have to create one. and that is why we see democrats redefining the very plain meaning of common words. say that you don't like the makeup of the supreme court, most americans would say tough. that's the way the ball bounces sometimes in our democracy. claim that republicans engaged in court packing, on the other hand, and all of a sudden democrats' radically partisan supreme court power grab seems a lot more acceptable. mr. president, i get democrats' passion for their politics. i feel pretty strongly about my political principles. but their manipulation of language to advance their politics is deeply disturbing. instead of trying to pursue a radical agenda cloaked in misleading language, i would suggest democrats turn their efforts to bipartisan

cooperation. as the november election made clear, that is what the american people are looking for. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the majority whip is recognized. mr. durbin: mr. president, i listened carefully to the statements by my friend from south dakota. about radical socialism, radical socialism. i think what he is categorizing as radical socialism is the suggestion by department -- the president of the united states, joe biden, that we should really care about providing safe, affordable, quality day care for women who want to go to work. radical socialism? i'm concerned about some trends that we're noting. the census report that birth rate in america is going down. fewer children are being born in

this country. and i ask a basic question what does that say about our country and about our future? what it tells me is that raising a family for many is a struggle. they have to work to bring money home, and they want to have the peace of mind when they go to work that their kids are safe. that's not a radical suggestion, and the solution isn't socialism. the solution is just caring, whether you care about it. president joe biden does. he has suggested as part of his plan for american families that the wage earners don't have more than 7% or 8% of their income dedicated to day care. i don't think that's radical. i think it's realistic. it says they have some skin in the game, some investment in their own part, but they have

affordable day care to them. the republicans say we're all about infrastructure. we want to build the best highways, i do, too, the best bridges, the best airports and such, so that americans in business can move from one place to another. that's basic infrastructure, and i agree with it. but if i have the best highway from my home to a good place of employment and still can't find affordable day care, many people, especially women who are out of work, can't buy in to this infrastructure investment. that's not radical. socialism to give a mother a helping hand so that she has a safe place to leave her child during the course of the day. and how about the other suggestions of president biden. is it radical socialism to suggest that we have available for all families in america, all

families in america two additional years of training and education for children before kindergarten? i don't think it's radical. i have the best little granddaughter in the world who is going to be 2 years old in just a few days. she started her school experience already. we're proud of her. i think it's going to help her socialize with other children, learn in a classroom atmosphere, and i'm glad she is there, and i wish every family in the city of chicago and the state of illinois had the same option, but many cannot. president biden thinks that's a good idea. so do i. who would characterize that as radical socialism, two additional years for children before kindergarten? and here is another thing he suggests. let's have two additional years after the 12th grade. the president said two years of

community college. and is that radical socialism to expand the offering of education, an additional two years? if you visit community colleges and see what's going on there, you realize that many young people are making really life-changing decisions about their careers and their future. radical socialism, i don't think so. i think most families would say it's just common sense. it's not radical. and it's not socialism that the government gives a helping hand. we've done that since the 1950's when it came to college loans. we do that today when it comes to helping school districts across this nation. not radical, not socialism, just commonsense commitment to the american family. so they can make the speeches all they wish, but that is the reality. there has been an awful lot of talk on the senate floor about infrastructure, as i mentioned.

many of my colleagues across the aisle think it's just roads and bridges and nothing more. i think that's a priority, but i don't think that's the entire challenge. when we consider infrastructure, we ought to look to the future. we should ask important, challenging questions. what kind of infrastructure and investment would help us for decades to come? what does the next generation in economy need? what tools do our grandchildren children need to lead productive, satisfying lives. tough questions, but president biden's american jobs plan and the american families plan faces these questions honestly. broadband, clean energy, paid family leave, electric vehicles, day care. the president's plan envisions all of these things and more as the future of infrastructure.

and what does that future look like in practice? i had a visit last week which was amazing, and i wanted to share it just a little -- share just a little bit of that visit with you. last thursday, i visited a town in central illinois called normal. during my visit, i toured a new manufacturing plant, the rivean plant, where production will begin in a few weeks on brand-new electric trucks, s.u.v.'s, and delivery vans. this is not a small-scale operation. amazon has already placed an order for 100,000 emission-free delivery vans from rivean. 100,000. not long ago, six years ago, in fact, another car company, mitsubishi, occupied the plant where rivean is today, and they left town, putting a thousand people out of work in the process.

we were pretty down on our luck at that point and despondent about the future of that facility that sits out by interstate 55. guess what happened. a year later, thanks to the leadership of many people, including the leadership of my friend, the mayor of normal, illinois, he found a buyer for the old mitsubishi plant. by the end of 2021, that plant will be back in business full-scale with more than 2,500 employees, producing the next generation of electric vehicles. it's a manufacturing and jobs boom in northern illinois. i couldn't be more happy for people who live nearby. it was made possible by leaders and investors for people who refused to hang onto the past. here was this young c.e.o. who decided that electric vehicles with our future. he came up with that idea five years ago. he has created a large class of

believers. folks in this town will tell you infrastructure is about more than roads and bridges. for them, it's about taking transportation in america to the next generation. and the president of the united states, joe biden, understands it. his americans jobs plan includes a $174 billion investment in electric vehicles and charging stations. is this some big, radical, socialist government idea? no. listen to the major producers of automobiles in america today talk about where they think the market's headed. every one of them is talking about electric vehicles. the funds that president biden proposes would support the growth of companies like rivian and accelerate the installation of charging stations throughout the country. i went in normal, illinois, to a multimodal facility, amtrak, cars, buses. they all gathered downtown in a building which i helped them build, and we went to several

levels of parking in this facility, and at each level, there were electric charging stations. that's the future. imagine a future where you drive from normal to chicago or spliews or anywhere in this country without burning a drop of gasoline. this is the new normal, a place where hardworking illinoisans produce next-generation vehicles and companies come together with local leaders to move us toward a cleaner, stronger economy. normal, illinois, is stepping up to the plate to ensure the united states continues to lead in the global economy, even as competitors like china ramp up their own electric vehicle production. make no mistake, if we follow the lead of the republicans and step away from investing in electric vehicles and the training and the other elements that are necessary to develop them, the chinese are not going to drop out of the competition. they are going to unfortunately be very successful at our expense.

normal isn't going it alone. all around my state, i'm proud to say we see efforts to create this electric vehicle future. last week, governor pritzker and lion electric announced plans to open a new electric manufacturing plant in joliet, illinois, an investment that will create 700 new jobs. beginning in 2022, the plant will produce 20,000 zero-emission, medium and heavy-duty vehicles. that means electric school buses and trucks built right in my home state. e.v. box set up its headquarters in libertyville, illinois, this past summer, and it plans to produce more than 200 fast-charging stations a week. the electric transportation industry and the surrounding infrastructure already employs more than 5,000 people in my state of illinois. one recent report projects electric transportation employment in illinois will grow to more than 9,500 workers in

2024. that's an 83% jump in three years. illinois is poised to have a national -- a nationally important role in the development of electric vehicles. why are the companies coming to illinois? i have a theory. illinois has been setting the stage for this electric vehicle revolution for years. look at our labs. federal labs. scientists and engineers in oregon national labs have pushed the boundaries of vehicle and battery technology for decades, always looking ahead. today their pioneering work will produce batteries that last longer, charge faster, and can be recycled safely. and look at our universities. university of illinois -- urbana-champagne, produces some of the best engineers in america. at normal, you can find illinois state university and heartland community college which produce a direct pipeline of new talent to companies like rivian.

illinois recognizes that science and research are the backbone of the economy. our labs and universities prove it time and again. this research drives the electric vehicle industry forward and companies want to be right in the middle of that environment. beyond batteries, illinois leads the way in researching clean energy technology, quantum computing, artificial intelligence, and many other technologies we need to be part of the economy of the 21st century. president biden understands that we need research, too. his american jobs plan proposes $180 billion investment in research and development for things just like electric vehicles. we have the opportunity to not only electrify but to supercharge our future. federal funding that matches the president's bold plan could transform for towns like normal or joliet into powerhouses of american manufacturing. i listened to the republicans on

the other side say we shouldn't spend so much, we shunned spend it on so many things that might affect our future. we ought to take it easy, take it slow, wait and see what happens. i couldn't disagree more. the republican plan is a solid strategy for second place in the world. i don't want to be part of an effort to bring the united states second in any competition in the world. we may not always be first, but we should always strive to be first. stepping away from president biden's plan for manufacturing and jobs and families is unfortunately a easily predicted outcome. we will not be able to succeed and create the jobs of the future. i will continue to support robust, sustained functioning for interest vehicle infrastructure and innovation. i hope my colleagues will join me in thinking in a big way about the future of america when

it comes to the economy and infrastructure. i've seen the kind of future this thinking can create in normal, illinois, last week, and it's a bright one. mr. president, i ask consent the statement i'm about to make be placed at a separate part in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: thank you. the american rescue plan was the biden threshold initiative to bring to america what it desperately needed after this president was sworn in on january 20 of this year. unfortunately we didn't have a single republican to support it, not one. not a single republican senator or house member would support the american rescue plan of president joe biden. what did the plan do? well, it bought more vaccines. it invested dramatically in the distribution of these vaccines across america. it turned around and kept the president trump promise of a

cash payment of $1,400 for each individual. it extended unemployment benefits so that people could continue to keep food on the table and pay their rent, mortgage payments until they found good jobs. and it basically said to small businesses, we're not giving up on you. we're going to help you, whether it's the restaurant industry or other businesses. we want you to be back in business. we invested that money as a nation, and it was a critical time to do it. president biden believed, and all the democrats supported him in this belief, that we should move forward now or run the risk of falling behind in developing our economy. the american rescue plan was successful. it's given assistance across the board to families and businesses, delivered resources where they were needed the most. it really matched the crisis with an initiative that was significant in scope. but if my republican colleagues had had their way, the american

rescue plan would look a lot more like the giant corporate giveaway because all throughout 2020 they were clamoring for a massive handout to big businesses in the form of liability immunityty. i'm glad my colleague from texas is on the floor because it's an issue that he's been interested in and spoken on the floor many times. all last year we heard from the other side of the aisle that congress needed to give sweeping federal liability immunity to corporations when it came to their conduct during the pandemic. we heard some dire warnings. the number of lawsuits that were going to be filed because of the covid-19, it was called a tsunami of lawsuits by the republican leader of the senate. one year ago today, on may 11, 2020, senator mcconnell spoke on the senate floor and raised fierce of, quote, a second job-killing epidemic of frivolous lawsuits. the next day he came to the floor and kept the attack on.

he called it, quote, a tidal wave of medical malpractice lawsuits. that's from senator mcconnell on the floor of the senate. senate republicans rallied behind a bill introduced by senator cornyn that would give corporations immunity from accountability both in court and from regulation for conduct that could be considered negligent under current law. i argued against these corporate immunity proposals. granting corporations legal immunity gives them an incentive to cut costs and cut corners when it comes to the health and safety of workers and consumers. it gives a pass to unreasonable, irresponsible behavior and puts people at greater risk. i don't think that's the right approach. as i kept pointing out to my republican colleagues, they couldn't show statistically why this was necessary. the data never justified their proposals. that tsunami of lawsuits never arrived. we are now over a year into this pandemic. over 32 million americans,

sadly, have been infected, and nearly 600,000 tragically have died. so how many lawsuits have been generated by all of these terrible outcomes? well, there's a law firm, hut ton, andrews and kirth, that has tracked all the lawsuits filed in the united states over covid-19. i checked the totals over the weekend. you may be asking how many medical malpractice cases have been filed in the united states over the last year related to covid-19. the number -- 20. 20. and how many cases alleging personal injury from exposure to covid-19 in a public place have been filed? 60. in the entire united states. that's not a flood. that's not a tsunami. it's a trickle. in fact, the main litigation we've seen involving covid has one business suing another business. for example, 1,831 lawsuits

involving insurance disputes. 640 lawsuits involving business closures, stay-at-home orders. 772 lawsuits involving contract disputes. not what was predicted on the floor over and over again by senators from the other side of the aisle. i'm always troubled how the republican immunity proposals try to block infected workers and families from suing corporations from negligence. but let corporations continue to file their own covid related lawsuits by the hundreds whenever they feel like it. how is that fair? i believe america deserves a chance to have a day in court when these families believe their loved ones have been harmed due to misconduct. for example, when a senior citizen in a nursing homes died because the virus spread i believe the families can go to court and seek justice.

those cases are traditionally conducted by state law. as it turns out more than half the states changed liability laws either through legislativee action or legislation. in my views some states went too far in shielding negligent behavior by corporations, but that was their call to make, since this is a state law issue. i find it surprising my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want congress to step in and impose sweeping federal corporate immunity that would override the laws of all 50 states. there was no justification for doing so, and i'm glad we didn't. it would have made us less safe. i hope the next time we hear calls for sweeping federal liability immunity during a national crisis, we remember this experience and hire the dire predictions of tsunamis and floods of lawsuits never came to pass. let's continue to address this virus with targeted relief much

like the american rescue plan did and as we emerge from the pandemic let's invest in the areas that actually need support. that's why democrats support president biden again with the american jobs plan and the american families plan, targeting investments and help the american economy. like president bush -- pardon me. like president biden said last month, we've got to build our economy from the bottom up and the middle out, not from the top down. giant corporations don't need another handout like immunity. they already have all the help they need. i hope we can work together to deliver real relief to the american people, and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: mr. president, i'd ask unanimous consent to be able to complete my remarks before the vote occurs. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cornyn: thank you, mr. president. listening to my friend, the democratic whip, reminds me that there is one type of business that our democratic friends always support, and that's the lawsuit business.

as he pointed out, about half of the states have taken steps to protect their citizens from frivolous litigation and other litigation that would arise out of their good-faith following of the guidelines laid down by the c.d.c., the centers for disease control. that is what we proposed here in the senate. and my friend, the senator from illinois' view did prevail because i found out that there is one, the most powerful lobby here in washington, d.c. is the trial bar. and unfortunately, it's not just big corporations. i'm sure big companies can take care of themselves. they've got lawyers, they've got compliance officers, they've got people who can help them figure out how to deal with the pandemic. it's the mom and pop businesses, the music venues, the houses of worship, the

schools, the universities, those were the ones that were reluctant to reopen, even complying with the c.d.c. guidelines, because they were afraid of being sued into oblivion. so my colleague's views did prevail here in the senate, unfortunately, but thankfully states like mine, texas, that's currently in legislative session is taking appropriate steps to avoid this sort of frivolous litigation which would be like a wet blanket on our economic recovery and on job creation. again, this is not a get out of jail free card. this is citizens, american citizens trying to do the best they can under very difficult circumstances, who have in good faith complied with the centers for disease control guidelines. but, mr. president, i'd like to rewind just a little bit to 2019 before the pandemic hit and recall that the american people

were reaping the benefits of one of the strongest economies in american history. the driving force behind that economic boom, i think was in significant part the tax cuts and jobs act which we passed in 2017, which sought to help american families and the economy thrive by keeping more of what they earn and turning over less to the federal government. in my opinion, there's no question that it was one of the biggest contributors to our booming economy. our national unemployment rate had reached a 50-year low, and we saw record unemployment rates for hispanics and african americans, asian americans. unemployment among women fell to the lowest rate since the early 1950's. that was prepandemic. the benefits did not stop there, though. wages were on the rise. the poverty rate hit an all-time low. and millions of new jobs were being added to our economy. families were bringing home more of their hard-earned paychecks

and median household income reached a record high. but then the pandemic hit, as we know, and things took a very sharp turn downward. businesses closed their doors, workers lost their jobs, and the unemployment rate skyrocketed from 3.5% to nearly 15% in april. fortunately this dark economic picture is gradually brightening, thanks to the investment we made in therapeutics and vaccines in a historically short period of time. thanks to the ingenuity and persistence of workers and business owners combined with the help congress has given them and advances in modern science, we have made steady progress. the unemployment rate steadily declined over the past year reaching 6% in march, but the new data from april is a cause for concern.

the unemployment rate increased by a tenth of a percentage point. it didn't go down. it went up, a bump that wouldn't have raised any red flags before the pandemic, but this single data point is not the only indication of how our economy is faring. last month only 268,000 -- excuse me 266,000 new jobs were added to the economy. that's a quarter, 25% of what economists predicted. now again, 266,000 new jobs would not have been a bad jobs report before the pandemic, because we were literally at nearly full employment. but we are not currently in a build mode. we are digging our way out of a hole, recession, to be specific. we're still missing eight million jobs that existed prior to the pandemic. i don't think anyone expected all those jobs to come back overnight, but we did expect to

be faring far better than this. as i said, the economists said this is a quarter of what they anticipated. well, this is the first full month of data since our democratic colleagues passed their $2 trillion so-called rescue plan on top of the trillions of dollars that we spent in 2020. if things continue to go the rate we're on now, we're in for an extremely long recovery. in other words, sometimes policies that emanate from washington actually make the recovery harder, not easier. unfortunately, the administration is doing more to slow down the recovery than they are to solve it. last year republicans and democrats worked together to provide unprecedented assistance to workers and their families hit by this economic downturn. bolstered unemployment benefits were continued to provide laid-off workers with the money they needed to support their families until they could return to work.

and over the last year many of those workers have fortunately gotten back on the job. these benefits were a lifeline for millions of families, and today there's still workers unable to find a new job. but there are, unfortunately, also people abusing the system, the generosity of the american people and the american taxpayer. the partisan relief bill our democratic colleagues pushed through earlier this year extended supplemental unemployment benefits through september of this year, far beyond the amount of time anyone would have expected that those benefits, the supplemental benefits to the state unemployment benefits, would be needed. even as vaccinations were on the rise, our democratic colleagues insisted on extending these benefits through september, and many of us predicted the outcome. last spring workers couldn't find jobs. now businesses can't find workers.

between bolstered unemployment benefits and a steady stream of stimulus checks, many people who lost their jobs can't be convinced to return to the workforce. one restaurant owner in texas said he'd had plenty of applicants. people just won't show up for the interviews. one day when he had scheduled eight interviews for potential employment, only one applicant showed up. the next day the same thing happened. five scheduled interviews. one person showed up. he said, it makes you wonder, are they just filling these applications out to collect unemployment? because of course most unemployment benefits require you to apply for work and to accept it if it's offered. but apparently here whatever the incentives are, they're simply persuading some people to fill out applications but then not to seriously pursue work. in a year's time, we've gone

from the strongest economy in a generation to the government paying people to stay home. this reminds me of the discussion we had a couple of years ago when the green new deal was launched. an overview of the bill was listed on the website of one of its authors and said that the government would foot the bill for any person who is, quote, unable or unwilling to work -- unable or unwilling to work, that the government would foot the bill. that was the proposal initially when the green new deal was rolled out. unwilling to work. don't like your job, don't want to get out of bed in the morning? don't worry. hardworking americans who are getting up and going to work every day will foot the bill so you can stay home. i'm sure it comes as no surprise that this received a great deal of criticism and even ridicule two years ago. unfortunately for the taxpayers who actually do get up every morning and go to work, we're

seeing this play out in real time. folks who lost their job and who are now able but unwilling to return to work can continue to reap the bolstered unemployment benefits that our democratic colleagues provided for them through september. another restaurant owner in texas said between the stimulus checks and the unemployment -- enhanced unemployment benefits, it's tough to find people who want to work at all. he said, i believe our biggest competition in the job market is the government. and this isn't an isolated problem. in texas, the average unemployment benefits equal more than $36,000 a year. in washington state, you can receive $39,000 a year in unemployment benefits. in massachusetts, it's $41,000 a year. a few governors have said their states will stop offering the bolstered benefits because it's a disincentive for workers to

get back on the job. if you're able to stay home and bring in as much money or maybe even more than you were earning while you were actually working, what is the incentive to go back? this poor job report isn't a surprise to anyone who's spoken to employers, as i have, who have said repeatedly that no one wants to return to work when they can get paid to stay home. another factor that likely contributed is the slow reopening of schools. despite the fact that in many states teachers are among the first individuals to get vaccinate add, the return to classrooms has been incredibly slow. less than half the school districts throughout the country are operating fully in-person. the nearly $2 trillion that our democratic colleagues rammed through congress in march did little to get us back on track. it sent more than $120 billion more to k-12 schools that were

already flush in cash but attached no requirement that the money be used to actually get children back in the classroom where we know they will learn best. if it leaves one parent -- if at least one the parent needs to be home with their children for even part of the week, that makes it incredibly difficult for them to return to work. for single parents, it's virtually impossible. if we're ever going to get our economy back on track, we need to get our children safely back in school. we need to get people who are able but who are currently unwilling to work to get back on the job, and we need to supply the businesses that managed to survive this past year with a reliable workforce. right now the biggest hurdle to our economic recovery is the government itself. that needs to change. if you ask the president or a number of our democratic colleagues in the senate, they'll say the solution is

easy. the american jobs plan. let's spend more money. this proposal is part social safety net, part infrastructure, part taxpayer-funded spending spree. it's really designed to transform america into europe. a social safety net economy. it spends more than $2.5 trillion on things like electrical vehicle chargers and home health care. what we real lie need is a jobs plan to -- what we really need is a jobs plan to get america back to work. not another trojan horse currently being advertised under the guise of being an infrastructure bill. senator to finance this bill, our democratic colleagues want to the -- want to enact the largest tax hike in a

generation. contrary to what we did in 02017, by lowering the tax burden and giving people more of what they earn and we've seen those tremendous economic results as a consequence, our democratic colleagues want us to, while we're still at 6% unemployment, they want to raise taxes, which will further retard the economic recovery. so to recap what the plan for economic recovery is to make it more expensive for businesses to operate and nearly impossible for them to find workers. no wonder the economy isn't rebounding like we hoped. that's what happened it the million jobs that were projected to be in the latest jobs report when it was, unfortunately, a disappointing 25% of those million jobs. so instead of building on the successes of 2017 and the prepandemic economy, the administration wants to double down on the old, tired belief

that america can tax and spend and regulate itself to prosperity. we don't need dramatic tax increases or sweeping social safety programs to get our economy back on track. we need to replicate the same factors that led to our banner prepandemic recovery. we need to get our children safely back in the classroom so their parents can return to the workforce, and we need to stop paying workers to sit on the sidelines. and we need to give the job creators the ability to drive our economy forward. democrats don't have an american-something plan for every problem. sometimes all the government has to do is get out of the way. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: under the previous order, all cloture

time -- postcloture time is expired the question is on the nomination. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

ses

vote:

the presiding officer: the yeas are 61, the nays are 37. the nomination is confirmed. the motion is reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table and the president will be immediately notified of the senate's actions. the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture.

the clerk: cloture motion: we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of executive calendar number 65, cynthia minettemarten of california to be deputy secretary of education. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waive add. the question is, is is it the sense of the senate that the debate on cynthia minette mar ten of california to be dependency equity of education shall be brought to a close. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change his or her vote? if not, the yeas are 54, the nays are 44. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination porks department of education, cynthia minette marten of california to be deputy secretary. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate the previous order, the senate

>> watch live coverage of the senate here on c-span2. >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government. we are funded by these television companies and more including medco. >> mr. coats spo