vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: any senator wishing to vote? if not, the yeas are 68, the nays are 30. the motion is agreed to.

the president pro tempore: the senator from louisiana. a senator: thank you, mr. president. a senator: i want to talk about mental health for our kids. i think many americans have known and unfortunately some americans have loved some of our fellow citizens who suffer with dw -- depression, anxiety and thoughts of suicide. mr. kennedy: it's a particular problem for our young people. c.d.c. reports that one in four young americans have actually considered suicide. and in fact, the second leading cause of death for young people is suicide. i'm sure there are a lot of reasons for this. i think it is harder to be a young person today.

many of our kids see things that those of us who are older didn't have to deal with until we were adults -- drugs, of course, alcohol. also social media. you can, you can still find kindness in america, but unfortunately you have to go off-line to do it. some of our young people, many of our young people just need someone to talk to. some of them, when their anxiety and their depression is acute, need medical treatment. and this bill will simply provide a mechanism for our young people to receive it. the bill, as i said, is called the improve mental health access for students act. it would provide that schools, our universities would be

required to print phone numbers for the national suicide prevention lifeline. the crisis text line, and a campus mental health center or program on the student i.d. cards. this bill would not require our schools to tear up current i.d. cards. it would be phased in, and if a school doesn't use an i.d. card, they don't have to start using an i.d. card. my bill would simply require that the schools put the information on their website. this bill passed unanimously by u.c. in our last congress, but unfortunately the house ran out of time to take it up. toward that end, mr. president, as if in legislative session, i'm going

to ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of s. 1585, introduced earlier today. the president pro tempore: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. 1585, a bill to add suicide prevention resources to school identification cards. the president pro tempore: is there objection to proceeding to the matter? the chair hears none. without objection, the senate will proceed. mr. kennedy: i apologize, mr. president, for interrupting. the president pro tempore: the senate will proceed. mr. kennedy: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time. the president pro tempore: is there objection? without objection,so ordered. mr. kennedy: mr. president, i know of no further debate on the bill. the president pro tempore: is there further debate? hearing none, the question is on passage of the bill. all those in favor say aye.

those opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the bill is passed. mr. kennedy: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection,so ordered. mr. kennedy: thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. the president pro tempore: the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, united states postal service, ronald stroman of the district of columbia to be a governor. the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. mr. peters: mr. president, i rise in support of the president's nominees to serve on the u.s. postal service board of governors. i would like to thank senator portman for working with me to swiftly advance the nominations of ronald stroman, amber

mcreynolds and anton lazar to fill the vacancies on the postal service board of governors. today we're voting on the nominations of mr. stroman and ms. mcreynolds and expect to take up mr. hajjar's nomination soon. one of the oldest and trusted american institutions, the postal service. for nearly 250 years the postal service has served communities all across our nation. countless americans rely on the postal service to deliver critical medications and financial documents, to run their small businesses, to cast their ballots, to stay connected with family and so much more. but the postal service continues to face enormous challenges from

long-standing financial constraints to the impact of the epidemic, the postal service has struggled to provide timely deliver and plan for its future. our dedicated postal workers have shown time and time again that they can get the job done when they are given the right tools and measures. the board of governors will be responsible for guiding the postal service through its current challenges and working with congress to ensure that americans can rely on the postal service to deliver their mail each and every day. mr. strman, ms. mcrendle and mr. hajjar are each highly qualified to serve as governors. they are accomplished leaders who bring diverse experience and backgrounds that are currently not represented on the board. most importantly, they each understand the public service mission of the postal service and are committed to improving

and preserving reliable delivery service for americans all across our country. ronald stroman is a lifelong public servant who served as post master deputy general for nearly ten years. he has deep operational knowledge of the post service and extensive working on working across the aisle on postal issues. amber faye mcreynolds is the chief executive of the nonpartisan, nonprofit national vote at home institute and a former senior government official for denver, colorado. she is a proven leader who drives in her innovation and understands how the postal service impacts both state and local governments. anton hajjar is an accomplished lawyer who understands the unique challenges faced by the postal service's large and diverse workforce. he has worked extensively in labor management relations,

including forging compromises between postal service workers and management. and prior to his decades of legal experience, as a high school student, he spent a summer as a substitute letter carrier. each of these nominees will each bring a fresh perspective to the board, and i look forward to work with them to strengthen this vital public service for years to come. mr. president, i urge my colleagues to join me in supporting each of these highly qualified nominees to serve as governors of the u.s. postal service. mr. president, i yield. the president pro tempore: the senator from iowa. ms. ernst: mr. president, washington has been on a dizzying spending spree over the past couple of months passing

trillion-dollar bills right and left. it's nearly impossible to calculate the total cost, and now president biden and the democrats in congress are proposing several trillion dollars and even more spending. with tax day approaching on may 17, the time has come to pay the bills for all of these government giveaways, and guess who will be forced to pay for it? well, of course, it's the american people. right now democrats are hoping to finance their ongoing spending splurge by increasing taxes on hardworking americans across this country. one of the key tax hikes included in the president's so-called american families plan would hit farm families especially hard.

thed biden proposal would -- the biden proposal would eliminate a protection that allows iowa farm families to pass down their assets to the next generation without a tax penalty. the farm bureau says the end result would be a significant tax increase on our farmers and ranchers. mr. president, this is the last thing the ag sector needs as they continue on their economic recovery. while hiking taxes on our farmers who help feed and fuel our nation every single day, my democratic colleagues also want to give a tax break to high-income coastal elites. and don't just take my word for it, congresswoman alexandria ocasio-cortez, the leader of

the socialist squad in the house, says the democrats' proposal to repeal the cap on the state and local tax deduction is, quote, a gift to billionaires, end quote, and, quote, a give-away to the rich, end quote. never in a million years did i think that i would agree with a.o.c., but there is no arguing on that particular point. those aren't the only parts of the democrats' tax strategy that make no sense. according to recent reports, their demand to raise taxes on capital gains could actually cost the government money. the calculation is that if rates get too high, people will just stop selling their assets. well, here's an idea. rather than taking more of iowans' hard-earned dollars to pay for their plans, maybe

democrats could stop their reckless spending. but let's be honest, that probably won't happen. they are the party of tax and spend, after all. rather than raising taxes, my friends across the aisle could start by collecting the $380 billion in taxes that is already owed but not paid every year. current and retired government employees alone owe over $3 billion in delinquent taxes. why should iowans be paying the salaries and benefits of those who aren't even paying their own tax bill? they shouldn't. and that is why i am helping

lead an effort that would collect the billions in back taxes owed by federal employees. another solution -- we can bring in billions of dollars by closing a tax loophole that literally goes all the way to china. if the communist regime was treated the same as a u.s. citizen, it would be required to pay taxes on interest from our debt to china. but as a result of a three decades-old treaty, communist china is exempt from paying taxes on these profits. instead of increasing taxes on farm families and working americans, the biden administration should collect the hundreds of billions of dollars that is already owed to us and close the loophole that

treats communist china better than our own united states citizens. right now to pay off your annual federal tax bill, you would have to set aside every penny you earn from january 1 until mid-april, every single penny. folks, washington should be working for you, but it turns out you are working for washington, and you can't even claim the government as a dependent on your tax return. this plot to pickpocket taxpayers to pay for the left's unpopular progressive policies is bad for our nation's economic recovery and even worse for working americans who get stuck with the bill. and with that, mr. president, i

yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: first i'd like to associate myself with the remarks from the -- by the senator from iowa. i love the line that we can't claim the government as a dependent because the government truly is dependent upon the people of this great country. tax day is just a few days away, so i come to the floor to oppose the tax hikes proposed by president biden. today tax revenues in america are at near record high of all times. we don't have a revenue problem, mr. president, we have a spending problem. yet, president biden wants to take more money out of the wallets of america's hand working men and women. how much is he calling for?

astonishingly $3 trillion in additional taxes. this is on top of the taxes already being paid. it's the biggest tax increase in over half a century. it's supposed to pay for a lot of liberal spending ideas. it's a big liberal agenda that this president is promoting, yet even with these historic tax increases being proposed, our nation will still need to continue to borrow money from china. in just over 100 days, president biden has already put $1.9 trillion on our nation's credit card. now he wants more. in total president biden's agenda would cost more than america's total commitment to world war ii. are these liberal spending proposals as important to our nation as was our victory in world war ii?

of course not. as i've said before, our economy was already on track to be back to normal this summer. that was before president biden passed his spending bill on a partline vote -- party-line vote crammed through the senate after a middle of the night debate, crammed through on a direct party-line vote using budget reconciliation. president biden said it's interesting, astonishing and amusing to listen to the president when he says only the rich will have to pay these taxes. mr. president, the american people have seen this movie before. when we know as americans and when we hear politicians say, only the rich will pay, it is time to hold on to your wallet because they are coming for you. working families are going to pay in the form of higher prices, lower wages and fewer job opportunities. we're already seeing higher

prices. we're seeing significant inflation since the day president biden has taken office. we see it again today in the newest economic statistics that have come out and we hear about it at home on the weekends as we talk to folks at home as they talk about their day to day lives and their expenses. experts say that president biden's tax hikes could kill a million jobs. when republicans cut taxes in 2015, and it's good to be here with one of my republican colleagues from ohio, who put that proposal together, revenue from the federal government actually went up. it's the same thing that happened when taxes were cut under president coolidge, and kennedy, and reagan, and george w. bush. when you cut taxes, there's more money in people's hands and they can do what they want with the money.

i think it's important for people to keep their hard earned money. they make better decisions than washington, d.c. people decide what they want to spend, save, invest and donate and all four of these are very good for our nation. that means more jobs, more growth, and ultimately more tax revenue with more people working even though each is paying less in taxes individually. i have much more confidence when money is in the hands of american people than when i do when it's in the hands of politicians in washington, d.c. i would urge all of my colleagues to say, stop these tax hikes, stop this reckless spending, let people keep more of their hard-earned money and make decisions for themselves. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. portman: first i'd like to congratulate my colleague from wyoming for his thoughtful remarks. he's absolutely right. this is not the time for us to

be raising taxes. it is tax day coming up next week, and senator ernst, of iowa, put together this colloquy to focus us all on this issue and the fact is here we are coming on to tax day and yet there are proposals out there saying you're not paying enough tax. so all of you who think you're paying too much tax, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle and the administration would like to increase taxes substantially and it will hurt the economy and workers and that is my concern about this proposal and so-called infrastructure package. our economy is kind of limping along still in part because we have spent so much in stimulus that it's overheated the economy and you can see the inflation that's hitting us. you can see it in the gas prices when you go to the pump, or in the food costs, or when you check out the lumber, check out the cost. democrats are going through stimulation that wasn't really

needed after hearing from the non-congressional budget office and the former secretary of the treasury, larry summers predicted, this was a democrat legislation, two of them. i'm concerned about the spending, but to pay for the spending, these tax cuts are really a mistake. what i'd like to do is go back to the economy we had before covid because that economy was really helping everyone. it was an inclusive economy. two years ago just before covid, we had some significant economic growth, which most people know about. what folks might not know about, february a year ago, just before covid hit, was the 19th straight month of wage growth. think of that, 3% or more of wage growth. we hadn't had that in ohio, in my home state, in a long time. probably a decade and a half. and that kind of wage growth was

primarily focused on low-income and middle-income workers. so the benefit wasn't just to the people and the people at the high end. the benefit was primarily to those at the lower end of the economic scale. we had a study by the congressional budget office as we looked at these corporate tax cuts made in 2017, and they said 70% of the benefits was going to go to workers in terms of higher wages and benefits. that's exactly what happened. i think they were right. we tied the 50-year low of unemployment at 3.5%. we also had historically low unemployment for some groups, hispanics, blacks, asian americans. before the pandemic, we reached the lowest poverty rate. we started keeping track of it in the late 1950's and we had the lowest unemployment rate

before the pandemic than we ever had. it was not just a growth economy, it was an inclusive economy. importantly, the tax reform put in place in 2017, didn't just stimulate this kind of inclusive growth but also stopped companies why are from -- from going overseas. companies were inverting. they were switching and becoming foreign companies to get out from under our tax code. we had three companies in ohio did this. probably companies in your state did too. we were losing jobs and companies. this was not a good situation for american workers. in addition there was a lockout effect where companies said, i'm not going to keep my cash at home, i'm going to invest over there. $1.6 trillion in overseas earnings came back to our country after the 2017 tax reforms.

companies no longer had incentive to keep money overseas, $1.6 trillion. as a result of the u.s. changes, the largest u.s. companies increased their research and development spending by 25% to $707 billion. they increased their capital spending to $26.4 trillion. before the pandemic, we had a good economy, but importantly to me it was an opportunity economy, creating jobs, increasing wages right here at home. all that progress could be thrown away through the tax increases that are being proposed -- proposed. president biden would raise the federal tax rate from 25.5%, plus the state income tax, 21%, by the way is above the average of -- of the oecd. when we put it back in place, we did it at 21% to get right at

the average. so we wouldn't be noncompetitive. since then, other countries have come below us. the biden administration would like to take this rate from 21% up to 28%, and add the state taxes, to 32%. we put america as having the highest corporate tax rates in the entire world and give us a much higher tax rate than many of our competitors like china. why would we want to do that? based on analysis by the joint committee on taxation, these combined corporate tax hikes are actually five times as big as the corresponding tax cuts were in 2017. let me repeat that. it's fascinating. democrats are proposing, they say to get rid of the 2017 tax cuts. that's not what they are doing. they are going back and adding fiefl times more tax -- five times more tax increases that were cut. the committee on taxation says

the tax cuts were about $300 billion over ten years and the proposed tax increases are about $1.5 trillion. that just makes noes sense -- makes no sense for our workers. c.b.o. said that 70% of the benefit went to the workers. who will be hurt? the workers. the foreign derived intangible division, that incentivizes companies to bring their companies back here. companies that did that were google, sis com, facebook, some pretty big companies and a lot of others. we wanted them to bring the valuable i.p. back here because it creates high-skill jobs here the a home. why would we want to stop that? that was the carrot to bring it back. it makes it more costly for u.s. companies to work outside the united states, american punishing american workers here. studies by the congressional

budget office have shown again it's workers who will bear the brunt of this. that's what many seem to miss when we talk about how the proposal makes us less competitive, we're really saying it makes american workers less competitive, it ties their hands behind their backs. in ohio, we have protecter ond gamble, -- and gamble, they make a lot of products, including diapers, they have diaper plants overseas. that's the only way to be competitive. these tax increases would punish companies like that dare to do business overseas even though they are creating jobs here in america by doing that. there are about 13,000 people who work for procter & gamble in southwest ohio where i live, 47% of them have their jobs because of international sales. you're talking about losing thousands of jobs in america if they can't be competitive globally. we want our american companies to be competitive glowingly. this will hurt our competitiveness. the biden administration knows all of this is going to happen. they know that increasing the

corporate rate to make us noncompetitive, taxing international -- overseas earns, taxing companies more that want to bring their i.p. back will make us less competitive. we know this because when janet yellen announced this these proposals, she said, help us, other countries of the world, raise your taxes too to make a more level playing field. it's a plea by america to say, please raise your taxes too so we can do this together. other countries have lowered their taxes. the irish minister of economy or finance minister said right after that when he was asked at a press conference, are you going to raise your taxes? he said no. we want to be competitive. we wrant to bring jobs. of course they want to bring jobs to their country. other countries are saying, america is showing the white

flag. that's the real world so it may sound good to raise taxes on business but it's going to hurt workers and it's going to make us not competitive. i really hope that the biden administration is not successful in this effort. i don't want to see the workers i represent in ohio hurt. i want to see it get back to the economy where it was one where we not only had low unemployment, but rising wages, low poverty rates. there are other issues here and i know my colleague from iowa is probably going to talk about some of those like the estate tax and capital gains tax. there are all storts of things being talked about. just the corporate taxes alone is going to be damaging to our economy. instead of pursuing these partisan tax hikes, let's focus on getting back to where we were pre-covid, back to the strong growth, the wage growth, back to that competitive opportunity economy. i yield back. the presiding officer: the

senator from iowa. mr. grassley: we're now in the final week of tax filing season. while filing season typically ends on april 15, this year taxpayers have until may 17 to file or request for an extension. this is also the third filing season under the tax cuts and reform republican enacted in 2017. for the vast majorities of americans, this means that they're paying significantly less in income taxes than they were under the prior law. moreover, thanks to nearly doubling of the standard deduction, most americans are paying less without the headache of itemizing their taxes. more importantly, prior to the pandemic, tax reform contributed to the best economy america had seen in decades.

unemployment reached a 50-year low and was at or below 4% for 24 consecutive months. family income, workers wages, experienced robust gains. in fact, wage growth was strongest for low-wage workers. as a result, we actually saw income inequality decline. unfortunately, the current administration's ambitions to use the pandemic as an excuse to pass a big government anty growth agenda -- antigrowth agenda threatens our return to a thriving economy. first came their $2 trillion untargeted covid relief bill that focused more on enacting a liberal wish list rather than a

pandemic relief. a lot of my colleagues have referred to only 10% of that $1.9 trillion bill actually being related to problems caused by the pandemic. the dangers of passing this untargeted and largely unnecessary spending are already beginning to weigh on our economic recovery. throughout the -- throughout the economy, prices are soaring. job growth sf tepid -- growth is tepid. the data fell short of expectations by more than 700,000 jobs. this is deeply concerning and it ought to be to every one of the members of the senate.

i've heard firsthand from business after business in my state of iowa that they're desperate for workers, but job applicants are scarce. as my republican colleagues and i have warned our democrat colleagues for months, this is the natural result of the democrat policies that pay people more not to work than to work. yet, despite the obvious overreach of their liberal agenda, my democrat colleagues are preparing to double down with an additional $4 trillion big government spending spree. and then in turn, to finance their progressive dreams they're proposing trillions of dollars of job-killing tax hikes. and i just heard it from my

colleague from ohio, senator -- from ohio senator as he went into that very deeply how these tax policies are going to hurt our economy and the workers in our economy. their proposal to roll back critical reforms to our corporate tax system would result in the u.s. once again having the highest corporate tax rate among our major trading partners and incentivize companies to move headquarters abroad. small businesses are also in their crosshairs. family businesses and farms could be decimated by proposals to hike capital gains taxes and subject pay-only gains in -- paper-only gains in family business assets to tax immediately upon the transfer of that farm or that business at

death. my democrat colleagues' tax proposal would make the u.s. a less attractive place to invest. it would erode american competitiveness, and it would slow our nation's post-pandemic economic recovery. that means fewer jobs. it means lower wages for middle-class americans. postpandemic prosperity won't be achieved through higher taxes and big government spending programs. it's going -- or the government itself which consumes and doesn't produce wealth. the real wealth of america is created by the working men and women of this country.

so this is going -- if we're going to have this growth, it's going to be achieved through pro-growth policies and unshackling our economy and pandemic-era restrictions as we move towards a vaccinated world. i yield. the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. a senator: thank you, mr. president. mrs. blackburn: i was on the floor earlier this week and i made a point that's really relevant to the discussion that we are having today as we are now looking straight into these proposals coming from the administration that would end up totaling $6 trillion, $6 trillion in new spending. now that's not the annual appropriations. that is new spending.

and the point that i had made was that we have to go back precovid and remember what was going on in this economy. everything was thriving, really thriving, and people kept talking about how great the economy was. in tennessee i had so many people that would say, you know, i have more money at the end of the month. and before during the obama years, i had too much month left at the end of my money. you know what? they liked having some money left over at the end of the month. and that economy that we have precovid that came about because of the tax cuts and jobs act and

because of republican-led house and senate and indeed support from some of our democratic friends. this gave us our country the most robust economy we had seen in decades. unemployment had hit 3.5%, historic lows. wage gains were at a record h high. pro-growth policies like that tax cuts and jobs act had set a new standard. we proved we don't have to tax and spend ourselves into oblivion to make a difference in the lives of struggling families. it's a legacy that my democratic colleagues wish the american people would forget. because that memory is getting in the way of their work on behalf of big spending, big government, big programs that take big bucks right out of the

american taxpayers' pocket. and the democratic agenda is not cheap. it is going to take a lot of taxpayer dollars. so how does president biden intend to pay for this? it's called a $2 trillion tax hike that targets all of the usual supposed villains but that in reality would harm the very people that my colleagues across the aisle insist that they are trying to help. let's look at the proposed corporate tax hike. corporations are the left's favorite villain, and they would certainly suffer under this scheme, but it's not the c.e.o.'s and the high earners that would feel the pain. as it stands, the proposal would impose a combined corporate tax rate higher than any other developed nation.

higher. puts us at the top of the heap in tax rates. the only way american corporations would maintain their competitiveness is if other countries set aside their advantage which of course we know would never happen. not only will the amazons and the apples bear the grunt of this -- brunt of this decline, so will a million small businesses. we call them mom and pops. and they're organized as c corps. workers won't escape the fallout either. when the cost of doing business goes up, growth and investment stagnate, wages fall, and the people driving the economy suffer. that is right. this is going to hit main street in local communities where you're going to see small businesses that cannot afford to

keep up with inflation, that cannot afford these high taxes, cannot afford increased regulation. it is your friends and neighbors who have these small businesses. they are the ones who are going to suffer. and why will they suffer? because the democratic majority never ceases to have an outsized appetite for the taxpayers' dollar. even conservative estimates from the nonpartisan joint committee on taxation show that workers will bear a quarter of that new cost of doing business. the worker, the laborer, they're going to have this on their shoulders. think about it. think of what you're doing to families. the view doesn't look any better from the owners' side.

anyone taking advantage of an i.r.a. or pension plan will see a bigger tax bill, too. watching this white house make fiscal policy is like watching reruns of the obama administration. the formula is the same. pitch a big idea. sound compassionate. make a big promise. you're going to help all these people. and then send the bill to hardworking taxpayers. they do it every time. increasing taxes is bad enough, but now they're demanding a bigger payout from struggling families and small businesses on main street in your community, and they're doing this in the middle of a pandemic recovery. they locked you down and now they're going f -- going to push

you down. they're going to shut the doors of your small business. your version of the american dream. do they give a ripping flip? probably not. it's all about getting the money to pay for what they want to do. it's a power grab. i would encourage my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to stop the madness because we know this will cause irreparable harm to our nation's already fragile recovery. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. tuberville: mr. president, i join might colleagues today during police week to honor the work of our nation's law enforcement officers. being a law enforcement officer is one of the toughest jobs that there is, but it's also foundational to a functioning society. we rely on these brave men and women to protect and serve our

country every day. unfortunately, many officers are being driven out by a wave of antipolice rhetoric on the heels of bad actors who operated outside of their training. we need to have trust between law enforcement and citizens without it our society frays and decays. over the course of this week, my completion are sharing many stories of law enforcement officers stepping up to help their fellow citizens in times of need. and build the trust with the communities that they serve. we're luckicallyiy to -- we're lucky to have many brave officers in alabama and around that country. i think about officer jonathan espino, from the decatur police department. last year he responded to a medical call. a man was trying to bring his mom back to life, trying to

perform c.p.r. officer espino took over for the man after he arrived and began c.p.r., just before medical personnel arrived, the woman's heart started beating again and she was gasping for air. he saved is her life. i think of officer wesley harrison from abbyville police department. officer harrison received a call that a woman was in a burning building. officer harrison arrived on the scene minutes later and was able to carry the elderly woman out of the structure with help of another investigator. these police officers went above and beyond the call of duty and lives were saved because of their heroism. but we know such an important job comes with great risk. just last week, alabama honored 11 law enforcement officers who gave the ultimate sacrifice the last two years. in the last two days alone across the united states of

america, four law enforcement officers have been killed. we are forever grateful to each of these officers who have laid their lives in service for their community. how would you like to every day wake up, put a uniform on, a badge on your chest, a gun on your side, leave your family, walk out the door knowing if might be the last time you ever walk into that home or see your family? that's what happens to these law enforcement officers every day of their career, which is why i firmly believe we need more support for law enforcement, not less. they need more training so they can be better at handling difficult situations. this is especially true as we see an uptick in mental health issues all across this country. they need targeted resources so they can recruit the best and brightest for these important

roles in the community and across our country. let's invest in the resources that they can assure all law enforcement officers are true, good for all people across their state and across this country. part of keeping communities safe is making sure our law enforcement officers have the authority they need to enforce compliance with our current laws. this is especially necessary as we see a flood of immigrants coming into our country illegally. right now, unless state and local law enforcement agencies have an agreement with immigration and customs enforcement, if an officer encounters an illegal alien in the course of performing their normal duties in their hometowns, they cannot arrest or detain that individual for immigration purposes. right now i.c.e. arrests are low

even while illegal border crossings are historically high. under president biden's enforcement of our immigration laws, which has fallen dramatically, arrests by i.c.e. for the last four months has fell 66%. under the biden administration, i.c.e. has released at least 3,700 inmates, alarmingly 1,800 of those were charged with -- convicted of crimes, including homicide, rape, assault, child abuse, and more. secretary mayorkas recently limited the places where i.c.e. and the c.b.p. can enforce the law. many federal law enforcement officers fear that the biden administration will further restrict where they can do their jobs. if the federal government will not enforce the immigration laws our state and local law enforcement should be empowered to do so. that's why today i introduced

the empowering law enforcement act which grants inherent authority to state and local officials to enforce our nation's immigration laws. additionally, my bill will give federal authorities the flexibility to extend the amount of time they can detain criminal aliens. if a state or local law enforcement entity is detained, an alien in this bill would be required by homeland security to take that illegal alien into custody upon request from that entity. and the bill ensures state and local authorities can get reimbursed for the costs related to the incarceration and transportation of the alien. the empowering law enforcement act is about common sense. if the biden administration won't enforce the law, let's empower those that will. i think urge my colleagues to

support this -- i urge my colleagues to support this practical solution to a very real and serious problem. i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senior senator from utah. mr. lee: madam president, as i offer these remarks on the senate floor, tensions between israel and palestine continue to escalate to levels that we haven't seen in years. innocent lives have been lost and hundreds face injuries. while the global media reports largely paint israel as the instigator of violence, this portrayal is patently false. it's simply not only not backed up by fact, it's contrary to the facts. hamas, a u.s.-declared,

u.s.-designated terrorist organization, purposely exploited a nonviolent point of tension as justification to trigger a violent set of conflicts. on monday night, hamas launched thousands of rockets into israeli cities. the intended targets -- well, the intended targets were any israeli person, civilian or not, residential or commercial. the goal? just to create destruction and terror. so to paint this action of armed aggression as anything other than offensive terrorism is disingenuous, and we in the united states -- and the united states government itself -- must acknowledge and affirm israel's right to take proportional action to defend itself against these attacks. let's perhaps -- what's perhaps

even more disturbing and distressing than the media's portrayal of these ongoing events is the biden administration's ongoing nuclear conversations in vienna with hamas' number-one supporter, the iranian regime. iran, of course, is is a well-known state sponsor of terrorism, and it's a major funding source for hamas. and, you know, their leaders continue to heap praise on hamas, specifically for its attacks against israel. so, madam president, israel is undoubtedly our strongest democratic ally in the middle east. and, together, the united states and israel have made great strides, tremendous strides, historical, unprecedented strides towards peace and

stability through the region, through the abraham accords. the biden administration's nuclear talks with iran, as well as its posture of willingness to concede on sanctions relief to iran without any meaningful corresponding gains to u.s. security, undermine both the u.s.-israel relationship and the new partnerships formed by the abraham accords. madam president, we really must stand with our strongest democratic ally in the region, and we need to do that by recognizing israel's right to self-defense against terrorism. u.s. policy really ought to be geared towards strengthening and not undermining this valued relationship. we certainly undermine that

relationship when we legitimize a regime that's funding these very same terrorist activities. i've gotten updates -- some of them are difficult to come by -- sometimes it's hard to find real-time, accurate facts on what's happening on the ground. in addition to relying on u.s. media, i've relied on media sources from throughout the world. i've also spoken to people familiar with the area and in some cases people who have lived or currently live in israel. my friend, ruth lieberman, a joint citizen of the united states and of israel, recently commented, just noting the ex-aspiration that's in the air,

noting the genuine source of frustration that she feels. she said, quote, my kids are sitting ducks and the world thinks we're the aggressors. ruth is one of many israeli citizens, one of countless israeli citizens, subjected to these attacks. it's ruth and her husband and their children who are among the many whose lives are put at risk every single day as a result of these cowardly acts of aggression. so we can't hesitate to condemn violence when we see it, nor can we, nor should we ever step back and pretend that this is something that can be perceived as a situation where language of

moral relativism or even world neutrality can fairly be applied. on some days that would truly be a good day if you could look at both sides, if the mainstream media could look at both sides with language of moral equivalence. but they don't. they don't even do that. instead, they largely refuse to blow the whistle on the aggressor and heap only blame and vitriol on our ally, which is not the aggressor. there are others who, regardless of whether they use terms of moral equivalence wrongly or even unfairly heap blame on israel and on israelis, some will resort to a different tactic, explicitly or in some

cases implicitly saying, yeah, i know this is bad. i know this is bad when hundreds and then thousands of rockets rain down on israeli citizens, innocent victims, civilians, often in residential neighbors. yeah, i know that's bad. but then again, israel has a strong military, in part because the u.s. supports the israeli military. let's think a little bit about the flawed logic there. how truly messed up that is. you know, it's cold comfort to the men, women, and children whose lives are put in danger every single day when they have got rocketed raining down on them. it is cold comfort to them when their loved ones die or are afraid to go outside even when they haven't done anything wrong. it's cold comfort to them to say, a well, at least israel has

a strong military. irondome and david sling, these great technologies with the support of the united states, they provide a great source of security and comfort and safety to the israeli people, and these same technologies benefit the american people as well. but let's remember ... those technologies are not foolproof. they can't catch every single rocket. and the more rockets that fire, the more difficult it is to protect the citizenry from casualties. so let's never make that mistake of saying it's not that big of a deal because israel is well fortified and has a strong military infrastructure and israel has sophisticated top-of-the-line,

state-of-the-art equipment. that doesn't excuse nor can it negate the terrorists to which they are subjected. look, whenever someone agresses and starts firing on someone else, they're opening up a whole can of worms. we can't be good allies, we can't be good citizens unless we're willing to call out acts of unprovoked aggression, acts of violence, acts even of terrorism. unless we're willing to step out and call those evil and unprovoked and unwarranted, unless we're willing to do that, we won't have the credibility that we need, not just with our allies but with their enemies. we have to make sure that hamas doesn't enjoy our support. not directly, not indirectly,

not through our acquiescence or otherwise. my thoughts and prayers go out to the people in israel. everyone gets hurt. the israelis and palestinians when hamas engages in violence and then tries to pass that violence off as somehow defense on their part. nor can we allow israel to be castigated as the aggressor, as the instigator of these acts of violence when it is plainly, clearly not true. i hope our friends in the media and in the biden administration will acknowledge that. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. mr. carper: i ask unanimous consent to complete my remarks before the vote. the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. mr. carper: thanks so much. i rise today in support of two u.s. postal service board of

governor nominees that are before the senate this afternoon as well as a third nominee under consideration later this month. like our presiding officer, i had the privilege of serving our country in time of war, in time of peace, three tours in southeast asia, a good deal of time in the cold war. after that, my dad many years in the navy and my uncle, my mom's youngest brother was a -- an enlisted man, third-class petty officer on his aircraft in 1944, the u.s.s. kamikaze attack, never recovered. i know how important it was to my uncle, to my dad, to myself, when we would receive mail. whether it was in southeast asia, whether my uncle was deployed on his aircraft carrier or my dad deployed around the world, how important to me it was, postal service. i know how important the postal service was to tens of millions of people who voted last fall in multiple elections, in state

elections, in federal elections across this country. more than ever, ever in the history of our country. and there are some people who think that the postal service is irrelevant, not something we need. ask the people who received not just their mail today, not just the things that they have ordered to come and delivered by the postal service, all kinds of stuff, but also the people who receive medicine, whether they are veterans or other people from all walks of life. the postal service today has a profoundly challenging year -- has had a profoundly challenging year. a global pandemic, drastic reforms are made without full knowledge of their service, and a busy holiday season created tremendous challenges for this venerable institution. delays in mail and package delivery increased last year while employees struggled with the effects of the pandemic on themselves and their families. at a time when reliance on mail

and package delivery was perhaps higher than ever, the u.s. postal service struggled to deliver mail and packages in a timely and a predictable way. delays in the mail service have real-world impacts. mr. president, in communities large and small. in delaware, veterans of our armed forces had to wait longer for lifesaving medications and delayed packages. our delaware congressional delegation has heard from literally hundreds of constituents from one end of our state to the others of missed paychecks, credit card bills, and court notices. mom and pop shops in my state and i guess in arizona, the home of our presiding officer, may have suffered from delays that mom and pop shops in my state and across the -- across the country have suffered. from delayed deliveries of important supplies to run their businesses. to sustain businesses. listen to this. many poultry farmers, particularly in more rural parts

of delaware, del marva, were shocked to find that baby chicks had died in the course of delayed postal deliveries to their farms. these impacts are unacceptable. they were driven by the pandemic and by misguided decisions largely made at the very top of the postal service. for postmaster general dejoy released in march a ten-year strategic plan that doesn't do enough to address the significant operational challenges being faced right now at the u.s. postal service. the plan limits operating hours and lowers service standards which would harm many seniors and rural delawareans up and down our state and across the country. if implemented, such a plan would make it harder, not easier, to restore confidence in the postal service. fast forward to today. by selecting these nominees for the postal service's board of governors, it has become clear that president biden recognizes

the dire need to get the postal service back to its core mission or missions. reliable, affordable and on-time mail delivery service for americans across this country. these well-qualified nominees -- and they are well-qualified nominees -- also make clear president biden's desire to drive innovation at the postal service that can keep costs low while boosting revenue opportunities and protecting the livelihoods of the men and women who work tirelessly to deliver our mail. ron stroman who i have had the privilege of knowing for more than a decade is himself a former deputy postmaster general, a role he served in from 2011 to 2020. a long-time federal servant -- and he is a servant. mr. stroman has intimate knowledge of this institution of how to make long-lasting and positive changes in large organizations like the u.s. postal service.

amber mcreynolds. she is currently the c.e.o. for the national home institute and coalition. they make it easier for americans to vote scurrile, to vote safely, and to vote conveniently. delivering ballots by mail is one of those solemn obligations that the postal service has. it's the underpinning of our democracy in this country. and finally, mr. anton hajjar is the third nominee whose nomination we are considering later in this work period, not today. but mr. hajjar is the former general counsel of the american postal workers union, afl-cio, where he fought to make sure that our mail carriers and other postal employees get the support that they deserve. at a hearing that we had last month in the homeland security and government affairs committee, mr. president, i was thoroughly impressed with each of these neams and their knowledge of the needs of the postal service -- of these

nominees and their knowledge of the needs of the postal service. all of these nominees exhibit the professionalism, the expertise, the leadership, and the commitment, the commitment that we need at the postal service board of governors. think of the board of governors almost like the board of directors for a company. they don't run the postal service every day, but they help set the tone, policies, and oversee the operation. further, each of these three nominees agree that the postal service has tremendous opportunities ahead. the postal service is currently in the midst of a once in a lifetime update to the postal delivery vehicle, which is -- with the prime opportunity to be a leader in the fight against climate change. the postal service will replace up to 165,000 vehicles. every now and then -- we see postal vehicles probably every day. you probably look at them sometimes and think that looks like an old vehicle. the reason why it looks like an old vehicle is because it is. many of them are over 25 years

old. they run on gasoline, they run on diesel, they pollute, and they break down. we have the opportunity here to replace them with a new fleet of low-emission or no-emission vehicles powered by battery, or powered by hydrogen with fuel cells. the nominees we are considering today and later this month also agree that the postal service has an obligation to work with congress to enact important postal reform legislation which would help the agency save tens of billions of dollars over the next ten years. how might that happen? one, by better integrating postal retirees' health care with the medicare program and by repealing a burdensome retiree health benefit obligation. most other large companies don'. i often refer to a saying made popular by albert anne stein. i'm not smart like albert einstein, but i'm smart enough to quote albert einstein. albert einstein used to say in

adversity lies opportunity. think of that. in the bible, it says something like in all things give thanks. i think it was henry ford who said if you think you can or you think you can't, you're right. but einstein said in adversity lies opportunity. the postal service has faced considerable adversity over the last decade or two. this has been perhaps one of the most difficult stretches in his long and storied history. the postal service was actually not an idea that somebody dreamed up 30, 40, 60 years ago. it's in our constitution. the first postmaster general was a guy named ben franklin. after that storied history, we have an opportunity facing the adversity the postal service faces today, an opportunity to confirm three well-qualified postal board of governors, public servants at their heart who will be ready on day one, not a month from now, not a year from now, but day one to ensure that this invaluable institution is able to meet its vital

mission. i'm proud to support them, proud to say i know them, and i urge my colleagues to support them as well. later today -- two of them later today. another one probably later this -- this month. mr. president, with that, i yield the floor and i'm not going to ask to begin a quorum call because i think we need to vote. is that correct? mr. carper: mr. president, i'm happy to yield the floor.

a senator: i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: 69

yeas, 30 nays. the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order, the motion to reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table, and the president will be immediately notified of the senate's action. 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 109, ronald stroman of the district of columbia to be a governor of the united states postal service, signed by 18 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 ronald stroh man of the district of columbia to be a governor of the united states postal service shall be brought to a close? the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll.

vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change their vote? seeing none, the yeas are 67, the nays are 32, the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: united states postal service, ronald stroman, of the district of columbia, to be a governor. mr. grassley: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: today i'd like to address the national plague of targeted violence whether it's

in our schools, houses of worship, restaurants, businesses, or even our city streets, these senseless killings are impacting all of us. i woke up friday morning, april 16, to learn of another tragedy, this time in indianapolis where a 19-year-old walked into a private business and proceeded to kill eight innocent workers, including four members of the sheikh community. my heart breaks for another set of family and friends newly devastated at an unthinkable happening to them. while it's still early in the investigation and an exact motive remains unclear, all signs indicate that that young killer suffered mental illness. the killer's own mother contacted authorities just last

may for fear that he was going to commit what she called suicide by cop. the date of april 16 is, unfortunately, significant as it's the solemn anniversary of the virginia tech massacre. 32 students and educators lost their lives at the hands of a 23-year-old who had a well-documented record of mental illness, despite clear homicidal warning signs, school authorities and counselors provided failed to intervene and help the troubled young man. earlier this april tragedy struck when a 25-year-old man rammed his vehicle into a security barricade just steps from this chamber.

fortunately for those inside, u.s. capitol police officers courageously intervened when the man brannished a large -- bran dished a large knife. as all of us know, this attacker tragically took the life of u.s. capitol police officer billy evans. officer evans was a hero and we mourn his loss. while the capitol attacker's motive is unknown, social media indicates that the man was a devout follower who holds racist, anti-semitic, and lgbtq beliefs -- anti-lgbtq beliefs. it's too early to tell if these

beliefs motivated this man to commit an act of terrorism but what is clear is this man struggled with depression, ha liewtion nations, -- hallucinations and suicidal thoughts. if someone correctly identified these symptoms as warning signs, perhaps this tragedy could have been avoided. i could highlight tragedies from the last several years from all over the country. post-incident investigation show that all of these violate violent actors often suffered from variations from mental health concerns, including depression, anxiety, delusions, para knowa, bi -- para noaaa.

homicidal thoughts and adherence to bizarre conspiracy theories. many of the -- of those that are closest to these attackers were ware of their -- were aware of their conditions and some even expressed concern about their propensity for violence ahead of their times of killing. the eagles act of 2021 is a bipartisan, commonsense piece of legislation. this bill carries the namesake of the parkland, florida, morning ri stone -- marjory stoneman mascot, the eagles, and it's a tribute to the 17 eagles who tragically lost their lives 12 years ago at the hands of a former student struggling with severe behavioral problems and

severe mental health illness. this will reauthorize and expand the u.s. secret service's national threat assessment center, which also goes by the acronym endtac approach is squarely focused on research. after several instances of mass violence, their team of social science experts canvass the circumstances and the attacker's behavior to determine the facts. endtaks, 2019, called mass attacks in public scarce, the report found that during the previous year 93% of the attackers engaged in threatening or concerning communications

prior to caring out violent actions. another 2019endtak study entitled protecting america's schools maybe it even more definite. this study concluded that all -- in other words every one of the school attackers exhibited concerning behaviors prior toll engaging in an act of violence. a family member, a teacher, a coach, a fellow employee, or a neighbor's ability to observe someone's behavior, home life circumstances, work life factors, and other political stressors, coupled with entak's threat assessment training can

prevent harmful outcomes from occurring. but in order for this to be effective, we need to increase entak's ability to continue research and get much-needed training to their communities. the result will be increased opportunities for early intervention and referrals to mental health services for those in need and also get names to the f.b.i. database so they can't buy a gun. just recently, the eagle's act got a sounding endorsement from the national association of attorneys general. 40 attorneys general from all over the united states believe that entac's proactive approach is critical to violence prevention and its training programs are urgently needed.

these attorneys general are responsible for ensuring safe communities and are urging our quick action to pass this legislation. we cannot afford to ignore or delay their explicit plea for assistance. so now, as a bottom line, i ask all of my senate colleagues to consider the commonsense practical solution provided in the eagles act, the more research and assessment training we can provide, the more violence we can prevent. now, madam president, on another matter, i have come to the floor i think monday, tuesday, and today because this is national police week, to honor our men and women in blue. so it started way back in 1962,

our nation has annually celebrated the lives and memory of men and women of law enforcement who were killed in the line of duty. the origins of national police week goes back nearly 50 years to president john f. kennedy's proclamation that each may 15 be designated as national peace officers memorial day. over the years, this single day has grown into week-long opportunity to honor the sacrifices of our law enforcement professionals throughout america. normally tens of thousands of police officers, deputy sheriffs, state troopers, and other sworn to uphold the rule of law would have gathered here in our nation's capitol.

they would be participating in a host of events that both honor their fallen colleagues and celebrate their camaraderie. unfortunately, the global virus pandemic continues to take its toll on nearly every aspect of life with national police week events being no exception. so it's very disappointing to lose the opportunity to celebrate, as we have every year before last year, our communities heroes in this public way. maybe next year it will be back to normal. rather than gathering in person along the national mall, this year's events will include a virtual candlelight vigil. so on thursday, may 13, americans will come together

online to pay tribute to our fallen protectors. the name of each man and woman who gave their last measure of devotion during the previous year will be read allowed. i en -- out loud. i encourage everyone to honor me in this. despite covid-19 and their risk of individual safety, men and women of law enforcement continue to steadfastly uphold to serve and to protect. pandemic or not, the national law enforcement memorial remains a focal point of national police week. it is here where cops come to remember their departed friends and honor those families of the lost one.

at the time of its dedication in 1991, the names of 12,000 local, state, and federal law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty, dating back to 1786, were engraved on to that memorial. each year, the curve stone walls are updated with the names of the recent fall marten today over -- fallen. today they are commemorated in those three acres. in our declaration of independence, our founding fathers spoke of inalienable rights, those specifically mentioned were life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. none of these rights are

possible without every citizens most basic level of security. and while the united states has layers of safety built into our system of government, none is more critical to our foundational rights than local law enforcement. maintaining a free, safe, and civil society is squarely dependent on someone who is willing to answer the call without regard to time or circumstance and put themselves in harm's way to ensure the innocent are protected and the law is upheld. this call to service was embodied by sergeant jim smith of the iowa state patrol who courageously gave his life on april 9, 2021. sergeant smith was tragically

killed during an attempt to apprehend a violent suspect. sergeant smith, a 27-year-old iowa state patrol veteran and tactical team leader, put himself in harm's way on behalf of his fellow iowans last month and it cost him everything. as his colleagues remembered sergeant smith during his memorial service, he was described as a completely genuine man who loved his family and loved being a civil servant on behalf of his community. sergeant smith found his life's purpose as a dedicated law enforcement officer, and i know i speak for many iowans when i say that we are forever grateful for his service. while i mourn the loss of

sergeant smith along with his family and fellow troopers, friends, and the entire independence, iowa, community, i'm pleased his sacrifice will not be forgotten. his memory along with the 306 officers we tragically lost in 2020 will live forever in their names as their names will be inscribed on the stonewalls of the national law enforcement memorial. iowans for generations to come will be able to visit washington, find sergeant smith's name, and be reminded of the high cost of preserving our precious rights. earlier this week i introduced a resolution to commemorate national police week. this resolution honors the brave men and women who put themselves in harm's way to make their communities a safer place.

as in years past, the measure has significant bipartisan support and gives tribute to those who despite knowing the inherent risk chose to serve their fellow citizens. thank you to my many senate colleagues who have signed on as cosponsors of this resolution. in closing i want to encourage everyone to visit the national law enforcement memorial. as you enter the memorial grounds in northwest d.c., you pass a statue of an adult lion keeping close watch over a pair of cubs. it's a telling illustration of the role undertaken by our cops vigilantly defending us 24 hours a day. underneath this statue is a quote from vivian cross, the

wife of a fallen u.s. capitol police sergeant christopher sherman eney. the quote reads, it is not how these officers died that made them heroes. it's how they lived. end of quote. despite the uncertainties of our nation currently faces, i'm sure of one thing. the sacrifices of american law enforcement will never be forgotten. i yield the floor and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from arkansas. mr. boozman: thank you, madam president. i ask that the quorum call be rescinded. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. boozman: thank you, madam president. i rise today to recognize the national police week and honor the law enforcement officers who

selflessly serve and protect our communities. law enforcement professionals at all levels, from local police forces to sheriffs departments to state police and federal law enforcement agencies leave home each day not knowing what challenges they will experience but ready to face danger head-on. the national police week is a solemn occasion to honor those who tragically lost their lives while performing their duties. sadly last year proved to be particularly dangerous for officers. 2020 was one of the deadliest years for law enforcement officers in recent memory. and the covid-19 pandemic certainly played a part in that unfortunate reality. this year the names of 394 officers killed in the line of duty have been etched into the walls of the national law enforcement memorial. the deaths of these 185 of those

individuals were covid-19 related, including sergeant james dancy of the north little rock police department. sergeant dancy was a 35-year veteran of the police department who helped mentor young officers at the department. he contracted covid-19 while performing his job. first responders like him were on the front lines of the pandemic and kept working and going to work every day despite the added risk to their own health. we are grateful they did. sergeant dancy's heroism and dedication are reminders that the coronavirus took not only vulnerable populations but also dedicated public servants from us. we also reflect on the other heroes from arkansas who lost their lives in the course of their service to our communities this past year. officer travis wallace gave his

life while attempting to apprehend a suspect wanted in connection with a violent crime. detective kevin collins had a lifelong dream to serve as a police officer. he made the ultimate sacrifice in the line of duty while conducting and ongoing investigation. corporal brent scrimshaw had earned recognition at the arkansas southwest region officer of the year in 2016. sadly he lost his life while conducting a traffic stop. we honor the service and sacrifice of these arkansans and law enforcement officers all across the country who courageously gave their lives while upholding law and order. their deaths are tragic and call us to acknowledge their tremendous heroism and selflessness. they also invite us to appreciate the reality that the stakes of this occupation are a lot higher than most others.

their life and death, the perilous nature of policing and law enforcement is something we simply can't underestimate or fail to respect. i'm a proud cosponsor of the senate resolution making national police week because we must always remember the brave officers whose lives are cut short because of their service and their sacrifice. we also pray for the recovery of those injured in the line of duty, like police officer tyler franks who was shot while responding to a domestic disturbance last week. frankly his condition is improving but we know he has a long road to recovery. by supporting policies to improve law enforcement training and resources, we can recognize the dedication and heroism so often displayed by these public servants and help make them more effective and safer at the same time. over the past year we've

witnessed increased calls for defunding or abolishing police forces across the country. instead of this misguided approach, we need to improve investments and resources for the men and women in blue. that's why it's important congress fund programs like the justice assistance grant program who is proving vital to helping states and local law enforcement agencies purchase equipment and support much needed training for officers. we know there are more ways to ensure officers have the tools they need to enhance community safety and protect themselves so they can go home to the families they love and the support systems they rely on. that's why this week i will join senators inhofe, brown, and tillis to introduce the law enforcement training for mental health crisis response act. this legislation will help provide police with better strategies and procedures to respond to calls involving a

mental health crisis. we also need to hold those who perpetrate attacks against law enforcement accountable. so i urge my colleagues to pass the protect and serve act. i am proud to support this legislation that will create federal penalties for individuals who deliberately target local, state, or federal law enforcement officers with violence. on behalf of all arkansans, i thank all of our law enforcement officers for making sacrifices to keep us safe. i will continue advocating for improved tools, resources, and training for officers so they can prepare for unpredictable circumstances. our safety and peace of mind come at a cost, and our police officers need our support and our gratitude for being the first ones to pay it. we honor them this week and every week for what they do and for what they represent.

and with that, madam president, i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from indiana. a senator: i rise here today -- i think we're in a quorum call. the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call. mr. braun: would you please lift the quorum call please. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. braun: i rise here today. i have about opinion in the senate a little over two and a half years and never imagined that you'd have to drift -- i'd have to drift back to my days of wabash college as i graduated to an economics major. in that time, i never in my

wildest dreams thought i'd be able to talk about macroeconomics because back then there were a couple points of view. you had milton friedman, who was a disciple of monetary theory, that if you get too much out there circulating, your currency devalues, you get inflation. then there was k eynes, who was a big disciple of the government, either through tax policy or spending. my goodness how either one of them could react to what we're contending with today. i think it would give them some pause in terms of where we're at. this has nothing to do with the underlying policy goals. and i, as someone that comes

from a state legislature in indiana where we tackled things like infrastructure, defined there and then roads and bridges, we came together. we actually paid for it through user fees, which we haven't done that here since 1993. that's fuel taxes, which generally would be at least one thing you'd look at when you want to spend a lot of money on infrastructure. so here we are today, and we had a hearing a couple weeks ago, and i'll cite him in a moment, robert reich was in there. and i threw that question at him as how could we have come so far from keynesian economics, milton friedman that has controlled the

dynamic of this country, its monetary policy and its fiscal policy until just recently. comes along, the modern monetary theory, a new approach to macroeconomics. this theory proposes that governments can spend however much they want, go into debt as much as they want, have these structural trillion-dollar deficits that would work nowhere else, only works now because we're the only reserve currency. being the only reserve currency, people come to us with their currencies, it gives our interest rates down. it doesn't acknowledge that there are places like china who will be a larger economy than ours, lends us money currently,

places like china, most other places across the world -- unless you are greece, italy, maybe spain and portugal, who kept the euro from being a prominent currency because they lived beyond their means. you cannot -- just because you can get by with it in the short run -- continue to do things into the mid- and long-term without consequences. this fanciful theory has found its way out of the faculty lounge into the halls of congress. considering that president biden has proposed another $4 trillion in spending, $1.the -- $1.9 interesting that -- $1.9 trillion that we've recently done. we haven't raised taxes.

with the amount of taxes that we could raise, you wouldn't even cover part of our day-to-day deficit. when i go to here, i think it was around $20 trillion. soon it's going to be over $30 trillion. and listen to this -- world war ii was the highest debt we ever had as a country. we were savers and investors then. now we're consumers and spenders. they paid that off. we had basically no debt until the wars came along that we financed by borrowing, not paying for it. 2008, 2009 came along, and that looks like chump change compared to what we're doing now. now we have an approach to one of the biggest challenges we've ever had as a country -- navigating through covid -- and of course we did things that basically needed some new idea

how to justify it. modern monetary theory. it is a recipe for hyperinflation, continued higher deficits -- by the way, the trillion-dollar deficits, without any covid, just in its own momentum forward, is is going to be $1.5 trillion in four to five years. i'm not surprised the big spenders in d.c. had a latched onto a theory that tells them it's okay to spend irresponsibly and hike taxes, and may not acknowledge that pre-covid we were in a pretty good place. we were raising wages. senator sanders and i would share that we need to raise wages in places, but you can't do it through the government. that's not the productive economy. everything that the government gets comes from the productive economy. i'm surprised there has not been more pushback because it is a

flawed economic theory. when i asked robert reich about it, he dismissed it. well, it's too new, it's too novel. i can't really talk about it. that shouldn't be the foundation upon which you're having your spending plans laid out currently. but it is -- what it is in my opinion is a bunch of malarkey. brace because we want to spend like drunken sailors. coming through a crisis, we can't do that. we've already done that. what we did in a bipartisan fashion in 2020 probably made sense. continuing that forward, you can't base it upon this new idea that debt, deficits don't make any difference. kind of like a kid coming up with a modern diet terry theory that -- dietary theory that says

you can eat cookies without milk. wouldn't work. implementation of the modern monetary theory will pose a danger to the economy. and this wouldn't be center and right economists. let's listen to a few of them. secretary of the treasury and director of national economic council lawrence summers back in the clinton years, federal reserve chair jerome powell, who's been okay with accommodating some of it, he said that's not a new theory that you can rely upon. even paul krugman, who we know that generally he would be eating this up -- he has reservations, not to mention a host of others. and i just told you what robert reich said when he dismissed it as something too new to comment on.

now, secretary janet yellen discussed the modern monetary theory that interest rate payments can be handled by the central bank buying the debt. back in 2019, calling it a very wrongminded theory, because that's how you get hyperinflation. joel griffith, a research fellow at the heritage foundation, summed it up well when he wrote, there is no free lunch. we will pay either through the visible burden of direct taxation, the hidden tax of inflation, or higher borrowing costs. said earlier, we are the only reserve currency. interest rates are starting to go up. the chinese could do things that could knock interest rates up two to three points quickly, if they decided to take a different point of view. there's a lot of danger in living in the moment because you don't feel any of the pain that

will inevitably come in the future, and it's not far out. the acceptance of modern monetary theory would lead to higher deficits and higher inflation. the underlying policy in terms of higher wages, trying to do things to improve the lot of americans, that is fair game for discussion. just don't mislead them. putting all that debt on our kids and our grandkids -- that would be like running a business, running it into the ditch, going to your banker and thinking you could get a loan. you would be laughed out of the office if you tried to do it two years in a row. that is now standard operating procedure with trillion-dollar deficits built into the system, not to mention this. senate must abandon this fundamentally flawed, irresponsible economic model in favor of mainstream fiscal and monetary freedomworks that work

everywhere -- frameworks that work everywhere else. the european union a recent example. even greece, spain, portugal, and italy have found that they can't do that and get by with it. madam president, as if in legislative session, i ask unanimous consent that the committee on banking, housing, and urban affairs be discharged from further consideration and that the senate now proceed to s. resolution 136. i further ask that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. sanders: reserving the right to object -- the presiding officer: the senator from vermont.

mr. sanders: madam president, i find this resolution somewhat odd, if i may say so. there are enormous crises facing our country and the world. the fact that we are spending time on the floor of the senate to condemn a proposition or a theory does not seem to me to be the best way to be spending our time. and the implication -- and i think the senator from indiana made this implication that the president of the united states is objecting to raising taxes is simply not factual. the president has come forward with some very specific tax proposals, but his proposals are not meeting much support on the other side of the aisle because

he is saying that a. doesn't want to raise -- that he doesn't want to raise taxes on anybody in this country earning less than $400,000 a year, but he does want to raise taxes on some of the wealthiest people in america and some of the largest corporations who today may be paying zero in federal income tax. and he shares a concern that many of us share, that warren buffett reminds us that the effective tax rate for the billionaire class is actually lower than it is for working families. and the president's view, which i share, is this congress must address the enormous crises facing working families, and that is rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure, making sure that our kids have quality child care and pre-k, that we have got to address the existential threat

of climate change, and that we have to address many of the other problems facing working families. and one way we don't -- and one way we do that is demanding that the wealthy pay their fair share of taxes. when we talk about resolutions condemning something -- i'm not sure why we are here condemning a particular theory -- we might be today thinking about condemning the actions of the republican party in the house of representatives today. they got rid of a member of their leadership for the crime of suggesting that that party should not maintain a big lie, implying that donald trump won the election. shall we condemn that? i think that's worth condemning. i think we might want to condemn the fact that we have more income and wealth inequality today in america than any time

since the 1920's. let's condemn that. maybe we want to condemn the fact that every scientist who has studied the issue tells us that climate change is a threat to our nation and the world, and we have done virtually nothing to lead the world in addressing climate change. let's condemn that inaction. let's condemn the fact that in the richest country in the history of the world, we have the highest rate of childhood poverty of almost any major country on earth. how about could condemning that? let's condemn the fact maybe that half of our people are living paycheck to paycheck. let's condemn the fact that we live in a country which has institutional racism. we can go on and on. there are a lot of things to condemn, but i don't know that it is in the best interests of the united states senate to be condemning a particular economic

theory. if you don't like it, argue against it, that's fine, but i don't know that we have to spend our time condemning it. so with that, madam president, i object. the presiding officer: the objection is heard. a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from indiana. mr. braun: so don't -- i don't disagree with what senator sanders said in terms of policy that needs to be debated, but a classic tactic when you're focusing on how you're going to pay for something is to change the subject, and whatever you think about what happened over in the house of representatives, whatever you think about the other issues, this is about being honest with future generations. and where has that worked and been a good end result? when it comes to some of the taxation part of it, that's a smoke screen because even if you

raised all the revenue they're talking about with those taxes taxes -- and i'm a believer that corporations should pay their fair share. multinationals that flatten their tax rate, that's different from many ccorps -- many corporations. but the dishonesty in that argument is that you couldn't cover even 20% of our existing structural deficit. so you need to be honest. if you want to do this, ask your kids, ask your grandkids if they're willing to put that burden on them, and there's no theory out there other than this which is being used as a current rationalization that would make that ever have a pleasant outcome. mr. sanders: madam president, if i can respond? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont.

mr. sanders: i am not sure the nor from indiana suggested a moment ago that the president was not interested in raising taxes, and of course he has a very specific proposal to raise taxes, and i would suggest to my colleague from indiana that if we want to talk about the burden on our kids and our grandchildren as a result of the national debt, maybe we should also be discussing the fact that under the last administration, a massive tax break was given to the very wealthiest people in this country and the largest corporations. we were told that that tax plan would pay for itself, but in fact it will result in almost $2 trillion in additional national debt. and virtually all of those benefits went to the people on top. so all that i'm saying, madam president, is we can argue

taxation, we can argue economic policy, we can argue why we are the only major country on earth not to guarantee health care to all people. we can argue why we are paying by far the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs. we can argue why we have a political system that allows billionaires to buy elections. there are a lot of things that we could be talking about, but i'm not sure that it is in the best interests of the senate to be condemning a particular economic idea that some economists have brought up. mr. braun: madam president, i know we have a vote coming up, and i won't belabor it. i think the basis for maybe a good conversation because we're not going to solve it today. when it comes to the tax package that was put through in the jobs

act and tax cut act of 2017 -- and i would have some authority on this, senator sanders. i spent 37 years in the trenches running a small business that ended up being a larger company. three of my kids run it, with a good young executive team. the american dream. and my observation was that we had kind of hit the sweet spot. and the c.b.o., who actually put that original cost of $1.5 trillion, $150 billion per year over ten years said that we were actually generating record revenues pre-covid-19 and that they could have revised and still might that trajectory. i think that if we're going to go forward, you have got to realize that there is a limit to anything can you do through government. and when you try to raise taxes, you have got to be honest about it over 50 years regardless of

what the tax rate has been, the economy has generated about 17% of our g.d.p. with tax revenues, because when they are high, there is less economic activity. you actually find a sweet spot like we did with the tax cut and jobs act of 2017, and the economy was proving it pre-covid. mr. sanders: madam president, i snow of no further debate on the stroman nomination. the presiding officer: is there further debate? hearing none, the question is on the nomination. mr. sanders: i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll.

vote: vote: