have solved this? there was certainly a demand? i there was certainly a need for it? i would argue that people probably would've paid whatever it took to get their hands on a vaccine in new treatments. >> and today's entire debate on the science research bill is available online at c-span .org. debate on that bill is expected to go through the week. the senate is back in session after their weekly party lunch meetings and we return now to the senate floor.

the presiding officer: the assistant democratic leader. mr. durbin: i ask consent the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: the senate is not in a quorum. mr. durbin: thank you for notifying me of that. yesterday marked the deadline for filing personal income taxes in america. i'm sure many people spent the last weekend surrounded by 1099 forms, shoe boxes full of receipts hoping to claim a well-deserved tax refund after a year of financial stress due to the pandemic. it's another reason why the american rescue plan that congress passed earlier this

year was such a major accomplishment. it included that plan -- that plan included the largest single year tax cut for middle and low-income earners in the history of the nation. let me repeat that. last year's american -- this year's american rescue plan included the largest single-year tax cut for middle and low- low-income earners in america's history. but for a privileged few those tax cuts are pennies compared to the di deduction -- deductions that they enjoy every year because of republican tax proposals. proposals like the trump tax plan that republicans signed into law in 2017 just four years ago. over the next few years it's estimated that more than 80% of the benefits from this trump tax plan will go exclusively to the top 1% of american earners the top 1%.

it's nothing more than welfare for the wealthiest. perhaps the most egregious aspect of the trump tax plan is the billions of taxpayers' dollars it will give to the world's wealthiest individuals and corporations over the next decade. we're already feeling the devastating impact this corporate giveaway has had on america's economy. listen to this now if you just turned in your taxes. last year 55 of the largest companies in america paid zero -- zero dollars in federal ttackers despite making'd 40 billion in profits. $40 billion in profits. zero in taxes. that's a glaring example of the imbalance in our tax system. i don't think there's any rational explanation for having schoolteachers and janitors pay more in taxes than the largest corporation. but it seems the folks on the other side of the aisle

disagree. when senator mcconnell met with president biden last week, he said that raising taxes on corporations -- the same corporations that paid zero last year in taxes -- is, quote a red line -- a red line when it comes to funding the president's infrastructure package. that means senator mcconnell the republican leader in the senate would rather cut taxes for the ultra wealthy than repair america's crumbling roads and bridges. did you see that picture in the news about the bridge -- i think it was in tennessee -- on one of the interstates cracked so badly they had to close it, close an interstate bridge? we remember just a few years ago in minnesota an interstate highway collapsed taking american lives. it can happen and will continue to happen unless we do our part. that's not just bad policy, it's dangerous. i guess this is a picture that they brought to show what was happening with this bridge in tennessee.

you can see the crack in the steel girders there and the reason that they closed the bridge. god forbid some other bridge is in that same shape and we haven't discovered it or we won't discover it soon enough. we need to put some money in our infrastructure. and we count on it every day. people rely on the safety of these bridges and other facilities, and it's our job to make sure that they're kept up. that's not just bad policy, saying no tax increases for corporations if it means paying for infrastructure that way; it's dangerous. taking a look at what happens when we fail to adequately invest in our infrastructure. that photo tells it all. structure crack they called it. that was found in a bridge in memphis, tennessee last week. thousands of vehicles drive over that bridge every day. it connects commuters and commercial traffic between arkansas and tennessee.

if not for a scrupulous engineer who caught the crack local authorities said it would have led to a catastrophic result. luckily, the catastrophe was averted. but now the people of memphis and across america have a different problem -- repairs take time. that means the economic damage caused by the bridge's closure is going to last for months, and it means that shipping and transportation networks will have to reroute for the foreseeable future. so it has a national impact on the economy -- one bridge. is this what we've come to in terms of infrastructure in america? are we supposed to accept bridges hanging by a thread? this closure happened the same week that cybercriminals shut down one of the largest petroleum pipelines in the united states. did you see the newscast? did you see the lines of people and their panicked buying? they didn't know if there'd be enough gas to get to work, to

school in an emergency. so they filled their tanks and we had a real mess on our hands. we saw the chaos cars lining upping in every direction. people actually filling -- and this is dangerous -- plastic bags with gasoline. while it may be been a bridge, what's next? 43% of our public roadways are in poor or mediocre condition. maybe that just means potholes that are banging up your car or slowing down traffic. but it could be worse. all of these signs point to the same conclusion -- we're living on borrowed funds from a previous generation. we're using the infrastructure that they paid for because we don't want to create our own infrastructure. cutting corners is simply not an option. that's not exactly where we're going to end up if senator mcconnell's red line becomes the standard for deciding if we have infrastructure and it's

predicated 0en a failed economic theory. the republican approach, the so-called aptly named laffer curve, believes if you cut taxes on the wealthiest people, they'll take care of the whole economy. everybody will get wealthier if the wealthiest have more money. i don't buy it. it's time to wake up from the trickle-down fevered dream. look at where 50 years of cutting taxes on the ultrawealthy brought us. the most unequal economy since the gilded age in american history. the economic census is clear -- tax cuts on the wealthy have never created jobs and created economic growth. the benefits rise all the way to the top of the economic ladder and stay there. if we want to rebuild america would end to invest in america. to do that, we need the wealthiest americans and massive corporations to step up and pay

their fair share. if you think you paid your fair share or more yesterday how about the corporations who paid zero on $40 billion in profit? president biden understands this. that's why he's proposed the american jobs plan. it's going to grow our economy by putting millions of people to work rebuilding roads and bridges like the hernando desoto bridge and it would make our -- president biden also has a plan to pay for these investments, unlike the trump tax plan. to start the president's plan would raise tuns of billions of dollars by holding tax cheats accountable. and rolls back the tax breaks that encourage corporations to ship jobs overseas. this is something that boils my blood. here is a corporation -- and many of them have been located in my state -- doing well, making a handsome profit, expanding their business. they sit down with their accountants and lawyers and come

up with a brand new idea. let's move our headquarters out of the country and put it in some foreign country. we get all the benefits of this country, we use its infrastructure we locate here, we actually live here. but we take a post office box in some faraway place and skip paying taxes to america. what a grand idea that is for some. to me it is deception and fraud. the only people who would see their taxes increase under president biden's proposals are those making over $400,000 a year. if you're making that amount of money and don't want to announce it publicly but you're sick and tired of durbin's speech, get up and leave. but if you're under $400,000 a year stick around. president biden has made sure these tax increase will not affect you. we can fund president biden's infrastructure plan without raising a single tax on actual working families in america. how about that?

frankly, it's about time we balanced the scales of our tax system. during the pandemic, how did the richest one percent of americans do? what was their struggle during this crisis? they saw -- the one percent saw their net increase, their net worth increase by $4 trillion. not a bad year. if we want to get serious about creating jobs in america everybody has to do their part. and this just isn't about rebuilding our country. it's a next century of global leadership at stake. this week the senate will consider the endless frontiers act, introduced by senator schumer and senator young. it's primarily focused on investing in earthquake -- in investing in earthquake in's leadership -- in america's leadership. i'm sure there are some worth while amendments that should be voted on but i think it is an

excellent example of the legislation at work. with the act republicans and democrats are coming together to recognize that we need to invest in our capacity to compete with china and the rest of the world. this is one of our highest priorities. while this bill is a promising starting point remember -- it's just a starting point. i hope it is the beginning of a new, bipartisan agenda for the future. we can't afford to stand still. while we might not agree on every solution, i'm sure we share the same goal -- put america on a track to win in the 21st century. i listened carefully to many of my republicans who say president biden is too ambitious. wants to invest too much money. has too many big ideas. these republicans have a solid second-place strategy for america. i don't want to be part of that. this country can prosper and lead with the right inspiration. president biden is bringing that to the table. that's what the american jobs plan is all about and with it

president biden is calling on everybody -- everybody -- to play a part in building that future. let's invest in america and create millions of good-paying jobs in the process. i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. lee: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. lee: madam president, i rise

today to oppose the nomination of kristen clarke to be the assistant attorney general for the civil rights division. as i've said multiple times i'm not here to call into question ms. clarke's motives nor am i here to call into question whether she's a good person. in fact, i'm willing to assume and even concede for purposes of our conversation today that she is a good person and that her motives are good. it's not my job as a member of the senate to go beyond that, but i do have some very serious concerns reflected in ms. clarke's record, concerns that regrettably she has failed to rebut. first, given the importance of the civil rights division to the enforcement of our nation's antidiscrimination laws, i'm concerned about past instances in which she has publicly pushed

the department of justice to not pursue egregious instances of voter intimidation. ms. clarke criticized the department of justice's decision to prosecute ike brown for voter intimidation and suppression. as a reminder, in that case, the case involving ike brown a mississippi democratic official engaged in rampant vote manipulation and absentee ballot fraud rather than praising the justice department's successful prosecution of the case, she criticized the decision, stating that some of the claims were, quote-unquote, weak. when asked point-blank whether she agreed with the d.o.j.'s decision to prosecute two members of the black panther party, who by the way showed up to a polling place wielding a billy club, she demurred, saying quote i believed the leadership of the justice department had the prerogative to bring the cases that it

deemed appropriate to bring close quote. well that's a completely nonresponsive answer. it's a little like saying congress has the prerogative to pass the legislation that it deems appropriate to pass. in short ms. clarke was unwilling to decry outrageous voter suppression and intimidation when democrats were implicated. now, she has shown no corresponding hesitancy in challenging commonsense election security laws like voter identification requirements passed by republican state legislatures. indeed she has frequently challenged state election laws, attempting to paint ballot security measures as categorically racially discriminatory, which raises the question does ms. clarke, in fact oppose all voter intimidation or just voter intimidation against certain groups? when the position the nominee is

applying for involves being the head of the civil rights division of the u.s. department of justice the very division that's responsible for overseeing voting rights laws. it's not a question that you want to have to ask. second ms. clarke has shown a troubling disregard toward certain constitutional rights. a few years ago she decried the trump administration's creation of a religious liberty task force, saying that the goal was quote, to make it easier for people to use religion to mask their discriminatory goals. shameful, close quote. now, i would remind ms. clarke that the very first sentence of the bill of rights safeguards the very religious freedoms that she accuses of masking discriminatory goals. again, late last year, ms. clarke attacked the supreme

court's decision in roman catholic diocese versus cuomo claiming that the court's ruling wrongly privileged, quote religious freedom above all else close quote. now, by way of reference here, just to set the context straight that decision the supreme court's ruling in roman catholic diocese versus cuomo simply stated the commonsense proposition, one that's in my view unremarkable, the government must treat mosques and synagogues and churches the same way that it treats liquor stores and acupuncture clinics. statements like these give religious americans like myself pause. why should we believe that she'll defend the civil rights, including the religious rights, of all americans not just those with whom she happens to agree? finally, i'm worried about

ms. clarke's failure adequately to address her troubling history of inflammatory statements and irresponsible activism. in college she wrote an article stating that, quote melon in-- melanine endows blacks with other attributes, that isn't be measured. not surprisingly, she was asked about this at the senate judiciary hearing. when she was asked about it at her hearing, she claimed the statement was meant to be satirical. but at no point not during the hearing, not in connection with follow-up questions for the record did ms. clarke ever acknowledge the obvious that the statements were unacceptable, regardless of whether she intended them to be satirical. likewise rather than express regret for her decision to participate and assist in -- in

a conference defending cop killers and domestic terrorists in law school, she merely said that she provided logistical support. that contradicts the statements made by numerous speakers at the conference who personally thanked her for her efforts. in preparation for that same conference ms. clarke recommended that an article entitled quote lumia lynch law and imperialism be included in the conference newspaper and discussed as one in connection with one of the panels. that article contains some of the most inflammatory antipolice rhetoric i have ever seen. here is a quote from it, an actual quote. the klan is now the police, with blue uniforms replacing the sheets and hoods. the corrupt racist judges are petty klan administrators, close quote. when asked about her promotion of this article in her questions

for the record before the judiciary committee ms. clarke stated that she had no independent recollection of that e-mail. now, once again, we have here a complete nonanswer. ms. clarke declined to explain much less take responsibility for, associating herself with extraordinarily obscenely dangerous rhetoric. moreover if ms. clarke were to be confirmed she would be responsible for overseeing pattern and practice investigations of law enforcement agencies, which makes her unexplained inexcusable involvement with antilaw enforcement activities all the more troubling. i'd also point out that the article's author, amiri baraka was, like professor martin mentioned a moment ago famously anti-semitic.

on one occasion, he wrote in reference to jews that he had quote, the extermination blues close quote. so again we have ms. clarke casually associating herself with a virulently anti-semitic thinker. ms. clarke also decried -- ms. clarke also denied on the record that she had served on the editorial staff of a college journal with amiri baraka. but a simple google search of kristen clarke and amiri baraka shows that when she was an assistant editor of that journal, amiri baraka was a contributing editor. her denial of this easily verifiable fact is hard to understand. now, let's be perfectly clear. i don't bring any of this up to suggest that all of it is -- is unforgivable.

everyone has from time to time said or done things that they later come to regret, but let's keep in mind what we're looking at here. ms. clarke herself is asking us to asupply a very different standard to her than we have applied to others, a different standard in many ways than she has be applied to others. in 2019, her name appeared on a letter sent by the leadership conference on civil and human rights where she sat on the board of directors of that organization opposing the nomination of a lawyer named ryan balance who had been nominated to serve on the u.s. court of appeals for the ninth circuit. that letter stated that, quote while bounds recently apoll -- balance recently apologized for those comments, comments that had come up in connection with his confirmation proceedings the timing of that apology

suggests it is one of convenience rather than remorse offered in a last-ditch effort to salvage his nomination, close quote. in her hearing testimony ms. clarke provided no explanation for why we should overlook her extraordinarily controversial activities and statements while she was a student. rather, she attempted to minimize or in some cases even evade her actions. ms. clarke's history of irresponsible actions and words didn't end with law school. in 2019, she signed a letter defending tamika mallory a woman who stated that, quote white jews uphold white supremacy, close quote and had associated herself with louis farrakhan. when pressed on this point she gave no explanation for her statement of support other than saying that the letter denounced anti-semitism. now, i'm confused.

how can a letter defending a woman accused of making anti-semitic statements actually be a letter that is denouncing anti-semitism? either anti-semitism is bad or it's not. you can't have your cake and eat it too. and the way i read that letter, i don't see the letter as saying yes, that statement was bad but there are other circumstances that should be considered. instead, i see a wholehearted defense of the individual herself. likewise just last year, ms. clarke wrote an article titled i prosecute police killings, defund the police, but be strategic. when pressed about this by my colleagues on the judiciary committee, ms. clarke once again sought to evade responsibilities saying that she has quote developed a practice of being deferential to

editors on title selection close quote. i don't think that's how this works. the article does, in fact, have her name on it. even if she was deferential, the fact that she is describing herself as deferential here suggests that she did in fact, make a conscious decision to defer. she didn't say i had absolutely no choice in it. i didn't see the title. she just said that she had adopted a practice of being deferential. in any event you can hardly blame the editor for the title that he or she chose. ms. clarke wrote three times in that piece three times quote we must invest less in police. close quote. in short ms. clarke's record reflects a consistent pattern of inflammatory statements and actions followed by a disclaimer of responsibility and a lack of

candor and remorse. moreover her record gives us reason to doubt that she will defend the civil rights of all americans, not just her political allies. for these reasons i regretfully cannot support her nomination. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the assistant majority leader. mr. durbin: i ask consent the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: madam president, very shortly we will be voting on the kristen clarke nomination to the department of justice. this week is an apt time to start the discussion about her nomination because it marks the anniversary of two of the most important supreme court decisions in the history of america. the infamous plessy vs. ferguson decision in 1896 where the supreme court established a standard of separate but equal. that was the standard that was used to justify legally

justify racial discrimination throughout america. 60 years later, in a landmark decision of brown vs. board of education, the supreme court unanimously, unanimously rejected that shameful doctrine and blazed a trail for the modern civil rights movement. this year, 2021, the senate has a chance to continue america's long march toward equality and racial justice by confirming principled, experience experienced leaders to the department of justice. the senate should work expeditiously to consider and confirm these nominees. we've already confirmed attorney general merrick garland deputy attorney general lisa monaco and associate attorney general sanjay --

vanita gupta. the next one is kristen clarke. president biden nominated her to lead the civil rights division. ms. clarke is the right person to restore credibility to the civil rights givings. -- civil rights division. under the previous president attorney general sessions and barr, that was used as a tool to discriminate against margin margin --al -- marginalized americans. they abandoned the long-standing principle of defending americans' right to vote. now we have an opportunity for a course correction in the civil rights division by confirming a proven civil rights leader to head that division. as a former trial attorney in

the division's voting section and a prosecutor in the criminal section, ms. clarke has clearly played in the big leagues. she personally understands the role that the division's line attorneys play on a day-to-day basis. ms. clarke knows that these career attorneys must be independent from political pressure in order to carry out the mission to defend the civil rights of all americans. and her diverse background as a legal expert will serve her well. as a former codirector of the naacp legal defense fund voting rights group clarke confronted assaults on voting rights and ballot access like those we're seeing in state legislatures across america today. as the former chief of the new york attorney general's civil rights bureau, she helped establish the office's religious rights initiative, defending

the first amendment rights of workers throughout the state. you would find it hard to believe, based on some of the earlier statements made on the floor about ms. clarke and the issue of freedom of religion and then learn that she established the office's religious rights initiative in new york. today as president and executive director of the lawyers committee for civil rights under the law ms. clarke has spearheaded new initiatives to address civil rights issues created by new technologies. she is singularly qualified to head the civil rights division at this moment. she brings with her a wealth of expertise and experience needed to lead this division at this moment in history. and she also boasts broad enthusiastic support from the law enforcement community. if you were on the floor and heard the statement previously made by the junior senator -- senior senator from utah, you would find it hard to believe

that law enforcement would support this woman. some of the things they say about her in criticizing her record suggests that the law enforcement community are her natural enemies. the opposite is true. throughout her decades of civil rights work, 20 years of working in civil rights that included several years as a prosecutor she has partnered closely with law enforcement. many of them have publicly endorsed her and i'll get to that in a moment. but if you would listen to the arguments from the other side of the aisle we heard them in committee, you would think this amazing woman must be so gifted that she can engage in the practice of law for 20 years in the same theater including law enforcement leaders from all over america and somehow they never caught on to the fact, according to them, that she was virulently against law enforcement. in fact, they came out and said the opposite.

she was fair, she was objective, she was a good partner in trying to resolve difficult issues. they would have us believe that she has this mist cal power to take -- mystical power to take people in law enforcement and delude them because secretly she is a radical socialist radical. not true. the partnership she's had with law enforcement began when she prosecuted hate crimes in the civil rights division and continues to this day through her work on the lawyers committee jamesburg jr. center to stop hate. that center provides community resources, training, and support for law enforcement to better identify, investigate prosecute and report hate crime. in each of these roles throughout her history as a professional prosecutor, at the highest levels in the united states of america ms. clarke has earned the respect and trust of members of law enforcement reflected in their strong support for her nomination.

listen to some of the groups that openly support her and then reflect on some of the charges that were just made against her on the floor by the senator from utah. thisshe has support from the major city police chiefs association. she has the support of the national organization of black law enforcement. she has the support of women in federal law enforcement the hispanic american police command officers association over 40 prominent police chiefs and sheriffs. and sheriff david mahoney who just this month stepped down as president of the national sheriffs association. ms. clarke's critics would come to the floor and have you believe she deluded all of them. despite the work they have done with her she secretly can't stand them. it's not true. they know it. i think the senators on this side of the aisle should know it as well. ms. clarke has the support of a bipartisan group of former

justice department officials who wrote to the committee and said ms. clarke's experience in addition to her high character made her a supper choice to lead the civil rights division. people who work with her have endorsed her for promotion. although ms. clarke's record demonstrates that she has devoted her life to advancing the civil rights of all americans, in recent weeks she has been the target of an incredible amount of baseless vitriolic attacks. i don't understand what's going on around here sometimes. when i look at these nominations and wonder how people like her kristen clarke, vanita gupta and others really enrage people on the other side of the aisle to the point where organizations are making concerted efforts to really twist and distort their life's work, their values, and the talents that they bring. listen to one of these attacks that was just made again on the

floor of the senate. the attack is that she personally defended mamia al-jebal who was convicted in 1982 in the murder of david faulkner, a police officer. the attack is missing one key point. ms. clarke never never worked on the al-jebal case. the most vicious attack against her is the false accusation of anti-semitism. now, i am not jewish, and the senator who suggested that she was anti-semitic in some of the things that she had said and done is not jewish either. but those who are of the jewish faith have considered the charges made against her. let me tell you what they found. they found these accusations couldn't be further from the truth. ms. clarke has spent much of her

career defending the rights of jewish americans. at the new york state attorney general's office, she repeatedly defended jewish employees' right to observe the sabbath in the workplace. does that sound like someone who is negative on the issue of freedom of religion or anti-semitic? she has also been to the forefront of confronting the growth of anti-semitic hate and harassment online through her work with the lawyers' committee. for instance, she helped shut down a virulent white supremacist and anti-semitic website called storm front. several groups have emphatically denounced the baseless attacks which continue to be made even to this day against this woman. notably, the union for reformed judaism, the nation's largest jewish denomination, wrote to the judiciary committee to voice unwavering support for ms. clarke's nomination. let me tell you what they said. we've heard the voices who have

hurled accusations of anti-semitism at ms. clarke, and we reject them. they do not comport with the career and record of this colleague we have worked with throughout her career. these attempts to smear ms. clarke's record are a last-ditch effort to discredit a nominee with exemplary qualifications. the bottom line is this -- ms. clarke is the right person to lead the civil rights division. it's a difficult assignment. at any time in our history it's difficult. probably more so today than ever. she is the person for the job. at this moment in history our country needs her combination of expertise experience, skills, and thoughtfulness to ensure the civil rights division will again work for all americans. if she is confirmed to be part of merrick garland's team at the department of justice ms. clarke would certainly make history, being the first black

woman confirmed by the senate to lead the justice department's civil rights division, the first. i look forward to supporting her nomination on the floor as we continue this process and i urge all my colleagues to vote to discharge her nomination from the committee and ultimately confirm her to this critical position at the justice department. my assignment on the senate judiciary committee is a challenging one. the committee is evenly divided 11-11. they are some of the fiercest and strongest partisans from the other side of the aisle as part of this committee structure. i marvel sometimes at things that are said in that committee when i look at the evidence. certainly when it comes to ms. clarke her actual life, her career her experience and what she has done, it belies some of the baseless criticism that is made. i just wonder what is it about this woman that drives some

members into a rage. i have met her, i have heard her question in the committee. i believe she has proven throughout her life she is the right person to move up into this critical position at this moment in history and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. mr. cassidy: madam president, i rise to bring attention to an ongoing situation in southeastern louisiana. heavy rains are hammering our communities. a state of emergency exists across the area with more rain expected today. it has been a difficult two years, pandemic aside. two months ago lake charles was devastated by hurricanes delta and laura one of the few times

in history in which a hurricane followed upon a hurricane almost identically tracking. yesterday, areas got anywhere from eight to 15 inches of rain in 12 hours. it was heart breaking to see lake charles hit again by a natural disaster. this is 18 to 15 inches in 12 hours. there you can see the impact of cars flooded up almost to their window. there is a home in the background. can you see where the water level is relative to that home. and here we have another example of vehicles flooded. to give you an idea of how much rain occurred in a short period of time. now, other floods and disasters in parts of the country -- often floods and disasters in other parts of the country other than the west and east coast gets overlooked. i am here to make the case to not overlook. we cannot ignore the pain and destruction left in the wake of these storms. overnight, 80 people were

rescued from flash flooding in lake charles. on top of the rain and submerged roads, there are warnings of possible tornadoes prompting shelter in place precautions. i heard from constituents that students were kept in schools until late into the night. now, it's not just lake charles. baton rouge flooded as well. in baton rouge more than 250 people were rescued after the city got a deluge of over 13 inches of rain on monday night. and this is baton rouge. not as bad as lake charles in that picture but even more people had to be rescued. this morning, at least 15,000 homes and businesses were without power in east baton rouge parish. the number of homes and businesses flooded in lake charles and baton rouge combined is not known but i promise we will continue to hear distressing and saddening stories about the loss of both life and property throughout south louisiana in the coming days. now, through firsthand account

social media posts and news coverage, we have already heard emotional stories. in lake charles a resident and their newborn had to swim to safety as water levels rose. in baton rouge a body was found submerged in a vehicle that had gone into a canal. whitewater rescues and emergency evacuations have been under way for the last 24 hours. but americans are at our best when we help those in need, and folks in louisiana are resilient. so i give thanks to all the brave men and women of local fire and police departments for their work in saving lives. we will get through this together. when i was in lake charles after the last hurricane hurricane delta, i picked up a bracelet that read lake charles strong. we are lake charles strong, we are baton rouge strong, we are louisiana strong. while some outside of our state have already forgotten about the natural disasters of 2020, louisiana has not. many have yet to return to their homes. just two weeks ago, president

biden visited lake charles talking about infrastructure in front of the calkasee river bridge. when i met him i raised the issue of a disaster relief package. our state was hit by hurricanes and winter storms, as well as a pandemic. a record five named storms made landfall last year in my state. the strongest was laura a category 4 hurricane hitting lake charles followed by hurricane delta a category 2 just a month later. louisiana farmers were also hit with catastrophic damage to livestock, crops and structures during an unprecedented winter storm. we need a disaster supplemental. legislation to help communities struggling to recover. we cannot afford to allow the impact of an entire year's worth of natural disasters to go unaddressed. our best line of defense for these natural disasters is coastal resiliency which in our state is funded through what is called gomesa.

that is revenue from offshore oil and gas development. folks wonder why i fight so hard to reserve that funding for gomesa. it allows louisiana to rebuild our coastline so if it is a hurricane coming on shore, there is the resiliency from a coastline which is built out with wetland to absorb the strength of that hurricane. we need to preserve gomesa to continue having dollars flow not just to louisiana but to other gulf coast states to protect against natural disaster. it will be raining today maybe longer but to those -- one more thing to mention. there are -- there is the portion of the president's -- a portion of the president's infrastructure bill which has not attracted a lot of notice but which i would agree with. it's called nature resiliency. using the natural structures of our coastline in order to increase resiliency against

water events and other events. and in a spirit of bipartisanship the -- i see the necessity of, i support that provision as i now understand it. for all those in south louisiana, please stay safe, listen to local officials for further instructions. i will continue to monitor the situation and help as possible with recovery efforts. my office is in contact with the white house ensuring the full support of the federal government is there to help now and then to help recovery. our prayers are with those experiencing flooding and other hardships. we thank the american people for their support. i yield back. mr. cassidy: madam president, i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk

will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. portman: mr. president i'm here tonight floor --. the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call. mr. portman: i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection, the senator is recognized. mr. portman: i'm here to talk about the economy how to get it on the track and how to deal with the job crisis we face right now. it's a different kind of crisis than we normally talk about. there are a lot of jobs open and the workers needed are not coming forward. washington needs to change direction to get the economy on the right track. current law provides that at least until labor day -- that's in september of this year --

that there will be a federal supplement payment of $300 per week added to the state unemployment benefits. so if somebody is on unemployment insurance they get their normal state benefit which in ohio is about half of whatever your income was. on top of that there is a $300 federal supplement put in place during covid-19 but it continues until at least september. by doing so, adding that $300, it nearly doubles the unemployment insurance benefit on average. it also results in about 42% of those people who were on undeployment insurance making more -- unemployment insurance making more on u.i. than they were making at work. it has the effect of in moment states more than doubling the amount of unemployment insurance, and it also doubles the minimum wage. you can imagine why this is a disincentive for some people to go back to work if they can make more not working.

on top of that,democrats here in congress during the covid-19 legislation added another benefit to people who are on unemployment insurance compared to people who are working. and that is to say that your first $10,000 of unemployment insurance is tax-free. if you're a truck driver making $35,000, $40,000 a year you don't get that tax benefit. if you're on unemployment insurance, you do get that benefit, again another disincentive to go back to work. people are logical. if the government is going to pay you more not to work than to work it creates a problem and you can see that problem. we have a record number of job openings right now. 8.1 million jobs are open in america today. and the economic recovery we all are looking forward to is being hampered about what? a lack of workers. and if you go down your main street wherever you live, you'll see the help wanted signs up. if you go by your restaurants you will see instead of the marquee saying come and check

out our great apple pie or our hamburgers they say we're paying signing bonuses $500, $200. i went by a big boy on the way to the airport on monday and that's what i saw mcdonald's offering a $500 bonus. manufacturers, i know, in the state of ohio i represent offering much more in terms of signing bonuses. i've talked to a woman last week who is a friend of mine, who runs a manufacturing company great little company got about 200, 250 employees she's looking for 60 people right now. she's offering a $1,000 signing bonus plus other benefits, benefits to be able to come to work and she can't get people to show up to apply for work. this is a real problem in terms of our interest in getting this recovery going. it is time to end the supplement by keeping in place the $300 a week on top of this u.i. benefit and not taxing this benefit

president biden and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are putting us in a tough position and i think on the verge of a real jobs crisis because some of these jobs will end up going away. some permanently if we don't do something about it. i believe that the federal unemployment insurance was necessary, the federal supplement when we were at the heat of the covid-19 crisis, let's say a year ago now. people were losing their jobs through no fault of their own. their businesses were shutting down in part because the government was putting in place social distancing guidelines or otherwise saying businesses had to temporarily close. and a lot of people lost their jobs. in my view, congress rightly put in place expanded unemployment benefits to help those families get by when the economy was largely shut down. but we are in an entirely different place now entirely different place. again, 8.1 million jobs are open right now. it's an historic high. we've never had this many jobs

open in america. thanks to the hard work of a lot of our researchers and scientists this vaccine got out there at record pace. we now have had vaccinations at levels that we'd all hoped for earlier. and as a result, with more than half of americans already having had one vaccination -- in my state of ohio it's even better than that -- restrictions are easing. businesses are opening up, fully open again. in my home state of ohio there is no longer a mask mandate, in the united states senate as an example. things are opening up. with that reopening has come all these job openings that can't be filled. the economic recovery you would expect right now is not happening because people are not getting back to work. we just had the jobs numbers from last month. the country added 266,000 jobs in april. this was alarming because it was only one-quarter of what the economists predicted. only 25% of what people predicted. it's an early warning sign that

should not be ignored. these disappointing monthly jobs report typically tell bad news on two fronts. one is that there haven't been as many new jobs added as you would want, and that is certainly true, but second it says there are not enough available jobs out there there aren't enough open jobs out there. that's not the problem now. adequate number of jobs is not the problem. the jobs are available. but if the president and congress don't change course, that could become a problem. if steps aren't taken to dismantle some of the disincentives to work, some of these record number available jobs we talked about are going to go away. let me give you an example a restaurant called jordy's in ohio has closed down. they can't find workers. that's the reason. the owner was quoted as saying something like, you know, covid-19 didn't take me down. he got the p.p.p. loan, he struggled through. he was staying open. he said my own government has taken me down because he can't

compete with unemployment insurance at that level. we have lots of other businesses in ohio. here's some. your pizza shop, muddy's denato's, all told me they are closing down one day a week or more because they are understaffed. facing no alternative other businesses are figuring out ways to permanently move forward with fewer employees. this concerns me. in some cases they tell me they are just downsizing their business. if you can't buy the 60 employees and you are the manufacturer right now what do you do? you're restricting your business. you're not opening new markets and closing down some existing customers because you can't serve them, so these jobs are going. others are figuring out ways to do it with fewer people. and again some might say that's a good thing using technology, using automation to displace workers. i don't think it's a good thing. i would rather have more people working. that's what they want to do, too. but they can't afford it so they are going to more automation, they tell me. going to anything they can do to do with fewer workers. this is the problem.

and again washington is creating this problem. why would we do that? again, i understood it and supported it when we had the covid-19 crisis. people losing their jobs through no fault of their own. but the opposite is happening now. we've got to change gears. we're at a crossroads. we can continue to have this economy stagnate, continue to hurt working families, or we can get people back to work and create robust and sustained economic growth. i would take the $300 a week, by the way and shift it to a six-week temporary bonus of $100 a week to go to work, a work bonus. you would do that immediately. even while keeping the $300 in place for a short period of time because right away, you could help people to get back to work. it would happen. by the way some states have decided on their own just to get rid of the $300 because they know it's not working for the small businesses, it's not working for the economy it's not working for individuals who are not getting back to their career track, who are losing training and losing the ability

to keep up with what's going on at work because they are again given this disincentive to go back. and it's working. there was a hotel i'm told, in the first state that decided to do this which was montana. did it about two weeks ago. a hotel where they were offering every week to hire more employees, they are looking for more employees. they were getting one person a week to show up. last week, 60 people. 60 people. because they're not offering the $300 anymore. they're giving the money back. the biden administration, as you know would like to spend a lot more money on a lot of different things. the total is about $6 trillion when you add it all up. to prime the pump, more stimulus, get the country back to work, as they say. what's happened is a lot of this stimulus money particularly in the $1.9 trillion covid package has overheated the economy, and you can see it in the higher inflation numbers, which is what a lot of people predicted including democratic economists and former secretary of treasury

larry summers and a lot of us on the republican side were concerned about this. well, it's happening and we are seeing more and more proposals for more and more stimulus. inflation is not what we need. by the way that spending of $6 trillion is about six times what the government spent during the new deal in the 1930's. that's inflation adjusted. so this is a lot of money. instead, what we ought to do is help get people back to work, encourage them, and let this economy grow on its own which it's going to do. during the covid-19 discussion, the congressional budget office, a nonpartisan group here in washington and in congress, told us that the economy is going to recover to its pre-covid level by midyear if we do nothing no more stimulus. and yet people insisted on more and more stimulus and we can see what's happening. part of that stimulus, part of that spending was $300. until labor day, $300 per week in expanded unemployment benefits from the federal government, on top of the fact that you don't get taxed on your

first $10,000. and again that $300 is on top of whatever the state benefit is. are there other factors that are leading to this labor problem that we have now in our country? i think there are. i think there are. one is that we have a situation now where some people just can't afford child care. so they are not only getting more money on unemployment perhaps than they are getting at work if they go to work, they have to pay for child care. child care is too expensive, and i'd like to work on that. one of the reasons we're hearing is that schools are not open so they have to use child care because their kids are not in school. with only 54% of k-8 schools actually being open today -- that's the latest number we have -- that's a real problem. again, that's one we can solve. and c.d.c. is playing a role in that by saying get kids back to school. they can do so safely. there certainly should not be any reason for this now given the fact that so many people have been vaccinated and thank goodness the infection levels are going down so much. so i know that that's an issue child care is an issue. the other issue i think that we

have to know is that some people are concerned about still getting infected at work. and what the virus might -- might lead to in terms of an unsafe workplace. but i will tell you that concern is a lot less now again that so many people have been vaccinated and the c.d.c. again has responded to that and said you can have a safe workplace you can have a safe school. it's not hard to do. so let's get back to work. and particularly, let's deal with this unemployment insurance issue, because that is the main reason that people are not returning to work, i'm told, by the employers out there. with more than 40% of workers making more with unemployment insurance and that supplement than they would in their jobs, businesses just can't compete. think how tragic this is. a small business owner works tirelessly to keep the lights on through covid-19, again maybe uses the p.p.p. or otherwise stays in business. finally after more than a year we reach this point where the virus is going to retreat, we are doing all the things we should be doing to make our workplaces safe, and now they

might have to close because they just can't find people to work. the same story is being told all over the country, certainly all over my state. again, this is why 21 states now as of this afternoon including my home state of ohio, have decided to give the $300 back. but we shouldn't here in washington continue to provide that $300 to everybody else. governors in these states understand that encouraging workers to return to the job market is essential to the economy, but it's also good for that work force to get back to work get back to what happens when you go to work, when you have that sense of fulfillment and dignity and self-respect that comes with work and you're keeping up with whatever the technological changes at work and getting back on your career track. guidance from the biden administration c.d.c. says we can move forward with getting back to normal. it's time for president biden to follow that advice and to end the disincentive to work that's holding back the economic recovery. these are simple steps that we can take. again, i would do $100 bonus to go back to work for six weeks

but the most important thing is to end the $300 and to let people once again have the opportunity to pursue their american dream, which is not unemployment. it's getting a job. with 8.1 million jobs being offered, an historic number, the most ever, it's time to make that change. i urge my colleagues and i urge the administration to change course. i yield back my time. mr. grassley: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: i will not be voting to discharge the nominee kristen clarke, to run the civil rights division of the department of justice, so i come to the floor to explain to my colleagues why i feel this way. while ms. clarke may be a very good attorney -- in fact, i don't think there is any doubt that she is -- she continues the trend of politicized nominees to the justice department under this president. while i disagree with her strongly on some of her views

especially when it comes to defunding the police, my issues with ms. clarke go beyond that. the justice department and especially the civil rights division needs to be committed to impartial and equal justice. in the wrong hands the civil rights division can be used to target and harass the president's political opponents. it can threaten law enforcement school choice advocates religious schools red states, and pro-lifers. this is a hypothetical. under ms. gupta the civil rights division defended an effort to take over louisiana's school choice program. now, can you imagine luckily a group of african american mothers stopped them in the fifth circuit. just think.

african americans stopped an obvious injustice by the justice department. in fact, the fact is that our civil rights laws are broad and the mere threat of their enforcement can chill legitimate political opposition. because of that, i think that the head of the civil rights division needs to be above reproach when it comes to partisanship. unfortunately, ms. clarke is a liberal partisan. she has opposed the enforcement of the law against ike brown a mississippi voter suppressor, either because of the color of his skin or because he was a democrat. neither answer is acceptable. she has disparaged religious freedom groups like the alliance defending freedom.

she is opposed -- she has opposed important supreme court decisions protecting religious liberty, individual supreme court justices, and even some of my colleagues. she has held republican nominees to a standard that she didn't want to apply to herself. ms. clarke has run away from her record. i asked her at the hearing whether mumia abu-jamal the country's most notorious cop killer was a political prisoner. like someone said at a conference that she helped organize. she wouldn't answer. telling me she was unfamiliar with the case. given her youthful activism, i find this very hard to believe. last summer, she wrote an article in "newsweek" advocating for defunding the police, but

she insists the words on the page aren't what she meant. i'm sorry. but if she is -- if it's not what she meant then she shouldn't have said it. i don't think she is the right person for this job at this time. a nominee to lead the civil rights division should be nonpartisan, should be independent, and should be up front about her beliefs. unfortunately i think ms. clarke misses all three marks. as i have said, i don't want to return to the eric holder days, so i will vote no. i yield the floor.

mr. schumer: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. schumer: good afternoon. the presiding officer: good afternoon. mr. schumer: we're adding a little civility and friendship to these august proceedings i hope you realize. i know of no further debate on the motion. the presiding officer: if there's no further debate, the question comes on the motion to proceed. all in favor say aye. all opposed no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the bill. the clerk: calendar number 58, s. 1260, a bill to establish a new director for technology and

innovation and so forth and for other purposes. mr. schumer: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to withdraw the committee-reported substitute. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: mr. president i call up amendment 1502. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: the senator from new york mr. schumer proposes an amendment numbered 1502. mr. schumer: i ask to dispense with further reading of the amendment. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: now, mr. president i'm going to speak on this amendment for a minute and then we will move to -- we will go to the motion to discharge clarke. mr. president i just filed after substitute amendment to the endless frontier act that will pull together bipartisan legislation from across the senate committees into a single

comprehensive bill to restore america's competitive edge. this new bill will be called the u.s. innovation and competition act and it will include bipartisan legislation from the foreign relations committee to strengthen our alliances and hold china accountable for predatory trade practices. bipartisan legislation from the homeland security committee to invest in a.i., cybersecurity and policies to make sure american taxpayer money is used to buy american products. bipartisan legislation from the help committee to protect our research and invest in stem. bipartisan legislation from the judiciary committee to bolster an ti trust enforcement. bipartisan legislation from banking to sanction predatory behavior from the chinese communist party. and very importantly, mr. president, the substitute amendment will now include a historic $52 billion investment

to make sure the united states stays on the cutting edge of chip production, semiconductor chip production which is essential for this country's economy, including our auto industry our tech industry, and our military. again, this legislation will now include a historic and immediate infusion of federal money in the semiconductor industry to boost domestic production and shore up critical supply chains. this is a very big deal. it fits in with the concept of the endless frontiers act and i'm very pleased it will be in the bill. across -- american manufacturing has suffered rather dramatically from its ship shortage. we've all heard about auto plants in our states that are closed. they're operating at reduced capacity because they can't get the chips. the shortage in our tech industry shows how vulnerable ow

supply chains are. we simply cannot rely on foreign processors for chips. this amendment will make sure we don't have to. america invented the semiconductor chip. we're sill at the cutting edge of research. but fewer than 12% of them are made in america. if this bill doesn't pass, it will go down to six. other countries notably china will become the leaders not just in chip manufacturing and chip production but in the many industries that depend on chips. we cannot let that happen. and the best way to do that is to add this amendment to the bill which i have just done, and make sure it passes. so the substitute amendment is dramatic. not only in terms of chips but in terms of american investment, in research, in science in innovation. when we invest in research and science and innovation, millions

of good-paying jobs follow. and the american economy leads the world. our failure to invest will displace us from that position and all too soon. all told, the substitute amendment will mean that legislation we're about to debate is the product of half a dozen senate committees with input from just about every member of the senate. this legislation, i am proud to say, is thoroughly bipartisan, and it shows when our colleagues will work with us, we want to work together whenever we can. now, these policies may sound complicated, but they're propelled by a simple motivation -- making sure the united states stays the global economic leader. in the 21st century american prosperity was anchored in our unmatched capacity for innovation and invention. researchers at american

universities and laboratories fashioned marvels that changed the way we work, communicate and live. american workers and businesses brought those innovations to a global market, producing the largest middle-class in the world -- and an almost inate optimism about the future. but here, unfortunately, in the 21st century america is falling behind. other countries are investing more in their economies and training their focus on beating the united states to the key technologies of the future. if we don't step up now -- now not two years from now now -- and if we don't step up in a big and bold way, we risk missing out on a generation of good-paying jobs, millions and millions of them. we risk ceding the mantle of global economic leadership to our adversaries we risk losing the sunny optimism that has defined the american character for generations.

this is an issue where we can unite our country behind the goal of keeping america number one in science and in technology, and this bill puts us a giant step closer to keeping america one step ahead for decades to come. mr. president, i move to proceed to executive session. we're now on the motion to discharge. the presiding officer: the request he is on the motion. all in favor say aye. those opposed, say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. schumer: so, pursuant to senate resolution 27, the judiciary committee being tied on the question of reporting i move to discharge the senate judiciary committee from further consideration of the nomination

of kristen m. clarke of the district of columbia to be an assistant attorney general. now, i ask unanimous consent that all the time be yielded back. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: and 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:

vote:

the presiding officer: on this vote the yeas are 50 and the nays are 48. the motion to discharge is agreed to. pursuant to senate resolution 27 and the motion to discharge having been agreed to, the nomination will be placed on the executive calendar. mrs. murray: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: mr. president, i move to proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. the senator from washington. mrs. murray: mr. president, i move to proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion to proceed. all those in favor say aye. all opposed no. the ayes appear to have it. and the motion is agreed to. mrs. murray: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from washington.

mrs. murray: mr. president right now democrats -- the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. mrs. murray: thank you, mr. president. right now democrats are hard at work building back an economy that works for everyone, not just those at the top. and we're committed to fighting for workers and we've got big bold ideas to do that, like establishing a national paid sick family and medical leave policy, rebuilding our child care infrastructure, raising the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour ending the wage gap and strengthening our nation's labor laws. but after four years of nonstop attack on workers' rights, it is also critical that we undo the damage done by the trump administration. so i'm urging my colleagues to join me in voting to overturn a trump administration rule that imposed strict limits on the equal employment opportunity

commission's ability to address workplace discrimination. the eeoc is a critical agency. it is responsible for holding employers accountable for following workplace discrimination laws. and when they don't it is one of the few places a worker can go to make sure they get a fair hearing, accountability, and justice. but in january the trump administration's republican commissioners voted to finalize a rule that tipped the scales in favor of employers in eeoc's process to settle discrimination cases. that rule gave employers access to information about the workers' case, but not the other way around. it made it easier for employers to demand the identity of victims and witnesses increasing the risk of retaliation. and set to worsen the backlog of cases at the eeoc forcing

workers to wait longer for justice. put simply, that rule was designed to make it easier for employers to delay or deny justice to workers who have experienced discrimination on the job. we cannot accept a system that is designed to let employers get away with violating workers' rights so we absolutely cannot let this rule stand. let's overturn this rule and restore a fair settlement process for the tens of thousands of workers who filed discrimination charges with the eeoc each year. this is a small but important step in the fight to build a more fair and inclusive economy for all workers. and i believe every one of us who thinks workers deserve to do their jobs free from harassment and discrimination can support this. thank you, mr. president. and i move to proceed to s.j. res. 13. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 33, s.j. res. 13, joint resolution providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of

title 5, united states code of the rules submitted by the equal employment opportunity commission and so forth. mrs. murray: i ask -- the presiding officer: the question is on the motion to proceed. mrs. murray: i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there sufficient second? there is. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: on this vote the yeas are 50.

the nays are 49. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 33, s.j. res. 13 providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, united states code of the rules submitted by the equal employment opportunity commission relating to update of commissions conciliation procedures. mr. schumer: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new york. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent that the senate be in a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: and, mr. president i have ten requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. the presiding officer: duly noted. mr. schumer: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the appointment at the desk appear separately in the record as if made by the chair. the presiding officer: without

objection. mr. schumer: and, mr. president i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the consideration of senate res. 222 submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 222 recognizing and supporting the goals and ideals of national sexual assault awareness and prevention month. the presiding officer: is there any objection to proceeding to the matter? without objection the senate will proceed. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the consideration of senate res. 223 submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 223 congratulating the city of columbia heights minnesota on its 100th anniversary. the presiding officer: is there any objection to

proceeding to the matter? without objection, the senate will proceed. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today it adjourn until 10:30 a.m. wednesday may 19. that following the prayer and pledge the morning hour be deemed expired the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day and morning business be closed. further, upon the consideration of morning business, the senate resume consideration of calendar number 33, s.j. res. 13. finally, that all time on the joint resolution be considered expired at 12:00 noon. the presiding officer: is there any objection? without objection. mr. schumer: if there's no further business to come before the senate, i ask it stand adjourned under the previous order. the presiding officer: the

senate stands adjourned until 10:30 a.m. tomorrow. well the senate today is been working on a bill to create new science and technology programs in an effort to compete better against china. senators are lining up amendments expected to be offered this week. also awaiting act and repeal of a trump administration eoc rule doing with settlements and advancing the nomination of kristen clarke for assistant attorney general. live coverage and senators return here on cspan2. ♪ ♪ maxi spanish unfiltered view of government funded by these television companies and more including media come. >> the world change in an instant meeting was ready internet tracking sword we never slowed down. schools and businesses i we

powered new reality. because at media come we are built to keep you ahead. select media comps supports these as a public service along with these other television providers. giving it a front seat to democracy. >> listen to c-span's podcast book notes a plus. this week with wall street journal editorial board member and columnist pullman jenkins. book notes plus new episodes are available every tuesday morning. subscribe where you get your podcast and there's more about all of the c-span podcast at c-span.org/podcast. >> now a look into it