efforts and company with chen will eat our democratic friends to rethink president biden's intention to cut our defense spending after inflation. the single best thing we can do to stay competitive with china is to get on forces the resources they need to stay competitive with china. >> u.s. senate gaveling in now for more debate on the deal bill creating new science and technology research programs, also workplace discrimination. live coverage of the senate here on c-span2. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. precious lord, we praise you because you provide us with a lifetime of

blessings. you are the foundation of all that is good in our lives, keeping us from neglecting your plans for our future as you prepare us to stand in your presence without a single fault. lord, prosper the work of our senators. make their efforts as secure as the mountains. inspire them to strive less for success and more for faithfulness. guide them to hate evil, pride, arrogance, and corruption. remind them that their future is

in your hands. we pray in your loving name. amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flak. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington d.c, may 19, 2021. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable ray lujan, a senator from the state of new mexico, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: patrick j. leahy, president pro tempore.

the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved.

the presiding officer: morning business is closed. under the previous order, the senate will resume consideration of s.j. res. 13, which 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 process procedures.

mr. schumer: mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. schumer: thank you, mr. president. so the spanish philosopher horge

santiana is credited with the saying those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. when it comes to january 6, we would all do well to heed that advice, but right now there's an effort on the part of the house republican leadership to make sure we forget that that fateful day ever happened. later today, the house will vote on establishing an independent commission to investigate the events of january 6, a complement to the investigation in the house and senate committees. both sides negotiated for months. the house republican leader made three specific requests in february. all three were granted by house democrats. modeled after the bipartisan 9/11 commission, it will have equal representation from both democrats and republicans. subpoenas can only be issued if members from both sides agree. it appeared we had reached the

consensus with the support of rank-and-file republicans, and frankly i thought the speaker was being very generous because subpoena power is so important when you look into something. but she did that, and i salute her for it. but even when she went that far, at the 11th hour, the house republican leadership turned tail. through -- threw its own negotiators under the bus and decided to try to sabotage the commission. once again, they are caving to donald trump and proving that the republican party is still drunk off the big lie. just one week after house republicans fired congresswoman cheney for simply telling the truth about the election, their new leadership is trying to kill a bipartisan investigation, a very down-the-middle bipartisan investigation of the attack on our capitol. at the root of both efforts is

the shameful, shameful desire to protect donald trump and perpetuate the big lie, even though it undermines our democracy. because when people don't believe elections are on the level, that's the beginning of the end of a democracy. what the republicans are doing, the house republicans, is beyond crazy. to be so far under the thumb of donald j. trump. letting the most dishonest president in american history dictate the prerogatives of the republican party will be its demise. mark my words. whatever that means for democrats, it's bad for america. we know, we all know there needs to be a thorough and honest accounting of what took place on january 6. the greatest attempt at insurrection since the civil war. and we have to make sure that

such a despicable event never repeats itself. that's why we need the investigation. getting at the truth is more important now that some republicans are trying to rewrite history. it's just incredible what they are doing. how dishonest can they be? in be a general debate fear of the most dishonest president who has ever sat at the white house, donald trump who will tell lies at will. he doesn't care. it's only his own ego. we know that. here's what one member said. it was a bold-faced lie to sul it an insurrection and liken the mob to a normal tourist visit. give me a break. several members have spread the lie that it was actually an fief a that stormed the -- antifa that stormed the capitol and so have some commentators on one of our news networks. shamefully. shamefully. one republican went so far as to say the mob, not the police,

were the real victims of the violence that day. can you imagine being in the family of one of the police officers who died or just was injured, bad enough, and hearing that? how far will they go in obeisance to the lying president donald trump, how far? these are dangerous lies rooted fundamentally in the big lie that has seemingly enveloped the republican party. shame, shame on them. shame on the republicans for choosing the big lie over the truth. not all republicans, but the majority who seem to be doing it. shame on them for defending the mob over our capitol police officers, and shame on the house republican leadership for punishing republicans who tell the truth instead of those who poison faith in our democracy. here in the senate, we will have a vote on the january 6 commission. the only way to stop these lies

is to respond with the truth, with facts, with an honest, objective investigation of what happened that day. an independent commission can be the antidote to the poisonous mistruths that continue to spread about january 6, and that is what our founding fathers believed in. they believed in a fact-based nation. and they believe the facts will come out. people will have different views when they see those facts and assemble those facts. but they believed in the truth. and i can't think of a time where a political party has been so abjectly far away from the truth than the perpetuation of the big lie. so again, the senate will vote on the january 6 commission. it ought to gain bipartisan support. there are reports, sad, unfor fortunate reports that the republican leader here in the senate might be following his house colleagues down the rabbit hole and will oppose the

commission. i hope that isn't true. but the american people will see for themselves whether our republican friends stand on the side of truth or on the side of donald trump's big lie. now, on voting rights, the texas state senate recently passed a bill that repeals all requirements for carrying a handgun, including a valid license, registering fingerprints and four hours of training. texas would be the sixth state to pass a permitless carry law with louisiana waiting in the wings. if both texas and louisiana passed these laws, fully a third of americans would live in states where it was legal to carry firearms without training or a license. that happened just one week after the texas legislature made that law -- that advanced that law to make it as easy as possible to carry a handgun, advanced another law to make it harder to vote. you need stringent identification to vote and no

identification to carry a handgun. what the heck is going on in texas? just think about that for a moment. across the country, republican legislatures are removing all barriers to carrying firearms while at the same time putting up barriers around voting. the political right wants to make it easier for felons to get a gun but harder for younger, poorer, and nonwhite -- non-white americans to vote. it's hard to think of a more reactionary vision for our country, a more backward-looking vision, a vision that eventually will be repudiated, not only in the history books but in our nation's politics. sadly, as voter suppression laws sweep through republican state houses from florida, montana, and everywhere in between, the political right is actually bragging about how successfully

they are restricting the franchise. last week, a spokesperson for heritage action, the lobbying arm of a far-right think tank, told a group of republican donors that heritage action was drafting new voter restrictions and literally handing them over to state leg tours in order to give the laws, quote, the grassroots feel. she went on to crow about how quickly and quietly her organization managed to get new limits on voting passed in iowa. she told the donors that she looked at her team of right-wing lobbyists and said it can't be that easy. that's how the far right is talking about making it harder for americans to vote. behind closed doors with well-heeled donors, they are laughing about how easy it is to limit american voting rights. that's because republican legislators, from one end of the country to the other, are eagerly and willfully going along. it's despicable. it's despicable. in this country, in a democracy,

when your side loses an legs, you try to win more voters over. you don't try to stop the other side from voting. but seizing on that big lie that the election was stolen, republican leg tours are ork -- legislatures are orchestrating the greatest contraction of voting rights since the end of reconstruction and the beginning of jim crow. these laws cannot go unanswered. senate democrats are moving forward with legislation s. 1 to combat this rash of voter suppression laws. it has gone through the rules committee and it will receive a vote here on the senate floor. our republican colleagues need to decide if they are going to stand up for democracy or not. and one final matter, clean cars. yesterday, at an event in michigan, president biden declared that the future of the auto industry is electric. he is absolutely right. but even though the transition to electric vehicles has already begun, it's progressing too

slowly. china is outpacing the united states in the electrical vehicle market, and the only way we're going to meet our ambitious climate targets is to accelerate the transition to zero-emission vehicles. that's why i was so glad to hear biden -- president biden get into the specifics and talk about the many ways that government, industry, and labor can partner up to put more electric vehicles on the road and create more jobs in the process. at the heart of that effort is legislation called clean cars for america. it's a proposal i drafted and introduced several years ago, and now it has become a central component in the american jobs plan and president biden's build back better agenda. through a mixture of point-of-sale incentives for consumers, charging infrastructure investments, and support for american manufacturing of electric vehicles, it would make electric vehicles affordable for all americans and create thousands and thousands and thousands of

good-paying union jobs in automaking construction and battery manufacturing. we need a large-scale effort to achief a future for america. clean cars is the way to get there. i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. quorum call:

mr. mcconnell: mr. president. the presiding officer: the republican leader.

mr. mcconnell: i ask consent that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: mr. president, two years ago i spoke to a gathering of friends of israel. at the time i was working to advance pro-israel legislation to combat the b.d.s. movement. is this a far-left effort to create world-wide anti-israel boycotts. i was struck at the time by the opposition to the bill from the far left, and i said democrats had to stand up to the growing chorus of anti-israel voices in their own ranks or we'd all come to regret it. well, fast forward to today. our friends in israel are now in their second week of a difficult counterterrorism campaign. they are responding to unprovoked rocket attacks

raining down on their people. predictably the radical fringe has left to excuse the acts of terror and, of course, blame israel as usual. but now disproportionate pressure is not only being placed on israel by far-left activists, now sitting members of congress are actually joining in. one democratic house member has lightly called israel an apartheid state. another said it's guilty of terrorist acts. for a long time, republicans and democrats have stood together in standing with israel. i'm proud of all the work we've accomplished together like improving israel's iron dome defenses, providing precision-guided munitions and joint strike fighters and collaborating on countertunnelling technology to

thwart terrorists. these bipartisan efforts have paid dividends for israel and for the united states. as recently as 2014, during the last major conflict between israel and hamas, most democrats stood unhesitatingly with republicans to unequivocally condemn hamas and support israel. but now -- now rather than having israel's back, senior democrats have actually pressured israel to end its defensive operations. they've called for a cease-fire and urged leaders to strive for peace through a negotiated two-state solution. as if israeli prime ministers from across the political spectrum haven't made good-faith efforts in the past toward peace. of course in this case, israel's not fighting the palestinian

authority. they are not up against the palestinian authority. they are at war with the palestinian -- they aren't at war with the palestinian people. they are fighting hamas. now, everybody around here surely knows by now hamas is a terrorist group that opposes a two-stage solution. they want israel destroyed. that's who this fight is between, israel and hamas, not the palestinian authority, not the palestinian people, israel and hamas. israel versus terrorists. so let's just dispense with this both sides nonsense. only one side is taking credible steps towards peace and even when rocketed by terrorists, israel takes extraordinary pains to avoid harming civilians. this includes, now listen to

this, giving advanced warning to palestinian civilians in the places they are about to strike. call them up in advance and say, get out of there, we're about to strike. frankly, israel's taking more care to protect palestinian civilians than hamas is, which intentionally -- intentionally hides behind innocent people in violation of the laws of war and then exploit their deaths to advance the cause. hamas doesn't represent palestinians any more than it represents the rest of the region's arabs, which is to say, not at all. for decades, administrations mistakenly assumed the road to middle east peace led through agreement between israel and the palestinians, that nothing else

could be addressed until this was resolved. in reality, the previous administration facilitated the abraham accords an historic step that helped israel normalize relations with majority muslim countries like the united arab emirates, buy reign and sudan. -- bay reign and sudan. is this is progress towards peace, based on shared geopolitical and economic interests and it came in spite -- in spite of intransigence from leaders in gaza. but now the biden administration wants to deny this historic progress. a few days ago the president's spokeswoman argued incredibly that with respect to the prior administration, quote, we don't think they did anything constructive really regard rg the longstanding conflict in the

middle east. really? recognition between israel and four arab countries is not progress? give me a break. now as israel battles terrorists, the democratic chairman of the house foreign affairs committee indicated this week, he might try to obstruct the supply of precision technologies that help israel avoid civilian casualties. how does that make sense? and remember chairman mccaskill only -- meeks chairs the committee, a staunch democratic supporter of israel right out of its seat in congress. you can see where the far left is trending. this effort to block arm sales is basically the same play that some democrats ran with saudi arabia and the iran-backed

houthis in yemen. so let's just think about that. fortunately the latest reports suggest the chairman may be back in town for this. i certainly hope so. but the white house still can't give a straight answer on whether and when we'll help israel replenish the iron dome system that protects its citizens. leading democrats are even talking about easing sanctions on the iranian regime that helps fund the terrorist proxies like hamas and keeps its rocket arsenals full. they come from iran. and the administration still proposes to cut our own u.s. defense funding after inflation. so, listen, israel's enemies are watching. make no mistake, not just hamas, but hezbollah and iran's islamic revolutionary guard corps.

we cannot send the signal that terrorist attacks on american allies will be met with mealymouth attempts to blame both sides. now, mr. president, on a completely different matter. when president biden nom naitd xaif -- -- it was clear what we were getting. secretary bashara had a far-left social agenda. he fought in court to make religious nonprofits to pay for things that violate their beliefs, until he was finally creamed in the supreme court by a ruling of 7-2. before that, he fought and fought to force crisis pregnancy

centers to force abortion, trying to coerce a left-hand speech out of the supreme court. the supreme court slapped him down then. that was the resume that secretary xavier becerra, he either forget about the law on abortion or doesn't care about what the law on books. when a member of congress used the term abortion, he suggested -- partial birth abortion, he said he didn't know what that meant. he tried to get them to use verbiage that helps the far-left conceal this subject. when asked, xavier becerra said there is no term that deals with

partial-term abortion. the secretary may wish that be the case, but that isn't true. title 18, section 1351, is the ban on partial birth abortion. it uses that exact term seven times. it defines the banned practice in all its barbaric detail. back in 2003, i was proud to join with almost two-thirds of the senate when we passed this mainstream law. our federal ban on this awful procedure remains widely popular with the american people. it is the bear, bear minimum. yet president biden's h.h.s. secretary is either ignorant of the federal law or wants to pretend that it actually doesn't exist. remember the far-left has kept america just one of seven countries -- seven in the world

that allow elective abortions on demand after 20 weeks. countries across europe, france, spain, germany, norway and denmark all limit elective abortion before 20 weeks. the far-left wants america to be an outlier on the global fringe and president biden's h.h.s. secretary either doesn't know or won't admit that the phrase partial birth abortion even appears in federal law. a misstatement like that is embarrassing enough, the radicalism that lies behind it is even worse. now, mr. president, on one final matter, after careful consideration, i've made the decision to oppose the house democrats' be slanted and unbalanced proposal for another commission to study the events

of january 6. as everybody surely knows, i repeatedly made my views about the events of january 6 very clear. i spoke clearly and left no doubt about my conclusions. federal law enforcement have made at least 445 arrests and counting relating to crimes committed that day, hundreds of those people have been charged, law enforcement investigations are ongoing, and federal authorities say they expect to arrest at least 100 or so more. bipartisan investigations are also under way and have been for months at the committee level here in the senate. so there is, has been, and there will continue to be no shortage -- no shortage of robust investigations by two

separate branches of the federal government. so, mr. president, it's not at all clear what new facts are additional -- or additional investigation yet another commission could actually lay on top of existing efforts by law enforcement and congress. the facts have come out and they'll continue to come out. what is clear, is that house democrats have handled this proposal in partisan bad faith going right back to the beginning. from initially offering a laughably partisan starting point to continuing to insist on various other features under the hood that are designed to centralize control over the commission's process and its conclusions in democratic hands. i've been an outspoken critic about all of the episodes of

political violence that our nation has seen over the past year. i support the strong existing investigations. and justice for any american -- any american whose broken the law.

mr. thune: mr. president. the presiding officer: the republican whip. mr. thune: mr. president, is the senate in a quorum call? the presiding officer: we're not. mr. thune: mr. president, a couple of weeks ago president biden unveiled his so-called american families plan, which one might summarize as free stuff -- free preschool, free community college, lots of government subsidies. it sounds great, mr. president, but the problem of course is that none of that is really free. the government may not send individuals a bill for any of those items if that doesn't mean they don't have to be paid for by someone. and so president biden proposed

a raft of tax hikes to at least partially pay for his proposals, a hike in the capital gains tax, an additional new death tax to add to the one we already have, a hike in the top income tax rate. now president biden is selling these tax increases as tax hikes on wealthy americans whom democrats view as a bottomless source of funding for new government programs. but there are two problems with that, mr. president. in the first place, there's no question that some middle-class americans will be hit by president biden's new death tax. while he provides an exemption for gains of $1 million or less, the truth is that it's possible to die with an estate whose value is increased by more than $1 million over the course of your life while never breaking out of the middle class. we're not talking about individuals with yearly income of $1 million.

we're talking about the lifetime gains on assets an individual has at his or her death. and then of course there's a good bet that many of those individuals' heirs, the ones whose inheritance will be diminished by this tax, are thoroughly middle class. your parents might die with an estate that has gained $1 million-plus in value but you yourself might be earning just $40,000 or $50,000 a year. and all this is especially true in the case of family farms and businesses. farming is a cash-poor business. farmers might have land that has appreciated over decades by substantially more than $1 million, even though the farmers themselves may at times struggle even to break even. levying president biden's new tax at death could permanently destroy a family farm or business. now president biden has suggested that he will carve out an exemption for family farms and businesses if the next

generation commits to running them, but it remains to be seen what that exemption looks like and whether it truly protects family farms. he's not pledged to carve out an exemption for middle-class americans whose inheritance will be hit by this new tax. and then there's the fact that president biden's new income tax hike will also hit small businesses, many of whose owners pour a substantial part of their proforts back into the business -- proforts back into the business instead of raking in a large salary. even leaving all that aside and supposing president biden's new taxes will only be levied on wealthy americans, there's still a problem, mr. president. sure, if you're in the middle class, the government might not be sending you a tax bill, but that doesn't mean that you won't be negatively affected by these taxes. you see, mr. president, democrats operate under the entirely false assumption that you can tax higher earners without consequences, that you

can tax investment without consequences, that you can tax businesses without consequences. in democrats' world, you can heavily tax something, but no one will behave any differently. no one will reduce his or her investments. no business will flee high tax rates by moving overseas. no business will pass on higher tax bills to consumers in the form of higher prices at a time when inflation is already on the rise. but of course in the real world, people do respond to tax hikes. businesses raise prices on their products. they limit wage growth to their workers, and they create fewer jobs. in fact, studies suggest that 50% to 70% or more of the burden of corporate tax hikes is borne by workers in the form of lower wages and fewer job

opportunities. corporations also move overseas. before republicans lower the corporate tax rate to make american businesses more competitive in the global economy, a significant number of american companies were moving their headquarters overseas. small businesses hit with big tax hikes cut jobs or limit their creation of new ones. they raise prices. they decide not to expand. investors hit with major tax hikes decide not to invest as much. and since investment fuels jobs and innovation, both of those suffer as a result. and in every one of these cases, ordinary americans are affected. not just the rich, not just millionaires. ordinary middle-class americans. after all, most americans, if they are not self-employed or working for government are employed by businesses. and if the business they work

for isn't doing well, their prospects are going to be significantly affected. if businesses hold down wages to deal with the impact of tax hikes, for example, ordinary americans' long-term earnings potential will be diminished. these effects may not sound as concrete as being handed a tax bill, but they have just as real of an impact on americans' income and americans' lives. mr. president, democrats talk a lot about making the rich pay their fair share. we hear it constantly. from the way democrats talk, you'd think that rich people rarely pay any taxes. but that's not even close to being the case. the fact of the matter is that our tax system is highly, highly progressive, most progressive in the world. and the tax relief that republicans passed three years ago actually made it even more progressive. in 2013, individuals making over $1 million paid twice as

much per dollar in taxes -- i should say in 2018. individuals making over $1 million paid twice as much per dollar in taxes, individuals making between $75,000 and $100,000 are more than ten times, ten times as much per dollar as individuals between $20,000 and $30,000. it would be interesting to know what exactly democrats consider to be a fair share. when financially successful americans are paying half of their income in taxes, is that when it's fair? 75% of their income? 95% of their income? and when they are paying that much, what happens then? well, i've already indicated what happens. investment declines, wages stagnate, prices go up, job creation goes down, and

ordinary americans start feeling the consequences. but unfortunately democrats are so used to viewing the wealthy as an inexhaustible source of money that they refuse to admit that hiking taxes on wealthier americans will have consequences. and it even goes further than that. it's not just that democrats view wealthier americans as an inexhaustible source of money, it's that democrats are well on their way to a kind of marxist-style class warfare that demonizes success. and nowhere is that more evident than in the fact that democrats are proposing a capital gains tax hike on the wealthy that will fail to maximize government revenue. that's right. democrats could actually get more revenue to pay for their social programs if they raised the capital gains tax less. democrats are proposing a capital gains increase so

substantial that it will actually return less government revenue, thanks to the resulting decrease in investment, than a lower rate hike would return. at the level of tax hike democrats have proposed, the tax hike becomes less about raising government revenue and more about punishing more prosperous americans for being successful. , which is a pretty un-american way of looking at things. democrats like to portray the wealthy as a bunchl of billionaires sitting on inherited piles of money and not doing a day's work but the truth is that a lot of prosperous people in this country are, a, not billionaires, and, b, only wealthy because they worked hard, saved and made prudent financial decisions and took advantage of the opportunities that they were given. focusing on punishing successful americans for being successful instead of fowctsing on how we can create -- focusing on how we can create opportunity and

remove obstacles to success for everyone else is counter productive because it has a negative effect on our economy. it fosters an atmosphere of envy instead of possibility, hostility instead of determination. rather than focusing on how we can lift everybody up, the focus becomes how we can drag part of society down. mr. president, rather than counterproductively hiking taxes to punish the successful or pay for an ever-increasing array of government programs, we should be focusing on creating an economy that gives every single american the chance for success. that reduces the need for government programs by increasing economic opportunity for all americans. unfortunately for the american people, democrats' tax hikes will have the opposite effect. mr. president, i yield the floor.

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority whip. mr. durbin: mr. president, it's been my good fortune to serve in the united states senate for several terms, and the house before. i can remem -- remember this chamber, my first visit when i sat in that gallery as a college student and watched the proceedings of the united states senate. and i can remember so many historic days that i have been blessed to have a front row seat to observe. great memories. but in addition to those great memories, there is one sad memory. no, it was more than sadness. one memory that brings sadness and anger. and it related to january 6 of this year. i remember that day so well. the vice president of the united states, michael pence, was presiding over the united states senate. we were counting the electoral

votes to determine the official outcome of the previous election. and the president of the united states donald trump was holding a rally near the white house not far from capitol hill. the demonstrators who came to his rally then marched on this capitol, and what transpired after that was historic and shameful. i remember the moment when the vice vice president of the united states was spirited off the platform, yanked by his arms out that door. clearly, his security detail felt that his life was in danger, and they removed him. and i remember a member of the capitol hill police coming, standing on the podium in the front of the senate and saying that we should remain in our seats, that this was going to be a safe place, this room, the senate chamber. and then they started bringing

in the staff who were gathered around the chamber, to stand along the walls because of the safety of this circumstance. so we knew there was something happening in the capitol. minutes later, just minutes later, that same capitol hill policeman announced evacuate this room as fast as you can, as quickly as you can, move off this scene and go to another place. i never thought that i would see that in the united states capitol building nor in the chamber of the united states senate, but it was a reality. as we quickly moved out through the exits, all the senators and staff, i remember looking out the window and seeing hundreds of people descending on the capitol. that was the snapshot in my mind as we quickly escaped the danger in the united states capitol building. we know at the end of the day that at least five people lost their lives. we know that 140 law enforcement

were assaulted by this mob that tried to take control of the capitol during the electoral college count. and of course there is ample historic evidence of what happened. videotapes galore. videotapes from every angle. information gathered. that's why i was skeptical when they suggested creating a commission to chronicle what happened january 6. we saw it. we lived it. america watched it. many times on live television. and the videotapes have been played over and over and over again to dramatize what was happening as people were spreading so-called bear spray in the faces of law enforcement. beating them with poles. crashing through the windows of the capitol, breaking down the doors to come inside. we know what happened after we

evacuated this chamber. the mob took over. oh, they had their glory as they were taking pictures of one another, going through our desks here, acting like this was a holiday and that they were somehow patriots in that shameful moment. i questioned whether or not we needed a commission to establish this. it's there. but then last week, there was a vivid reminder that despite reality and despite the evidence, there are people who want to rewrite history. let me note one in particular. congressman andrew clyde, republican of georgia, at a house oversight committee hearing on the january 6 riot said the house floor was not breached but supporters of former president donald trump who stormed the capitol behaved, quote, quote, in an orderly

fashion. congressman clyde went on to say he looked at the videotapes and he could see there was an undisciplined mob, there were some rioters, some who committed acts of vandalism. and then he went on to say, watching the tv footage of those who entered the capitol and walked through statuary hall showing people in an orderly fashion staying between the stanchions and ropes, taking video pictures, you know. that's what the congressman said. and then he said if you didn't know the tv footage was a video from january 6, you would actually think it was a normal tourist visit, end of quote. congressman clyde. he went on to say -- this is a quote from congressman paul

gosar, republican of arizona. law enforcement people in the capitol were, quote, harassing peaceful patriots. so far, mr. president, more than 440 people have been charged by our government with participating in this attack. 440 of congressman clyde's orderly tourists. many have ties to right-wing extremist groups the f.b.i. has said, and they recounted that five people died in the events that led up to the attack. it is outrageous. we know president trump and his followers have been pursuing the big lie when it comes to the results of the election. the president has finally embarrassed even some republican followers with his extreme statements in that regard. but now his loyalists are

turning on the facts and the videotapes and the reality of january 6. this has to come to an end. the truth has to prevail. and this commission, which i understand senator mcconnell has now said he opposes, is absolutely necessary. a bipartisan commission to establish once and for all what did occur, as if we have to, but we do. otherwise, congressman clyde, congressman gosar and others will set out to rewrite history and blame other forces for being at work that day. i join senator schumer in calling for the creation of this commission and standing a vote on the floor of the united states senate for its creation so that we can establish once and for all what did occur on january 6 and must never happen again. mr. president, i ask that the next statement that i make be placed in a separate part of the

record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: mr. president, years ago, i traveled to israel with then-minority leader senator harry reid. we met with shimon peres and something happened that i have never forgotten. senator reid said what do you see as the greatest threat to the united states? that was a couple years after 9/11. i thought peres might site terrorism or loose nukes. instead he said china. don't you see that? economically, strategically, diplomatically, china was already focused like a laser on advancing its position as the world's most powerful nation, and that was 16 years ago. five days ago, china launched a spacecraft safely and landed it on mars, becoming only the second nation in history, after the united states, to land on the red planet. in 1957, at the height of the

cold war, the soviet union became the first nation to launch an earth-orbiting satellite into space. that launch shocked the world, caught us off guard. our response was an unprecedented commitment to reclaim americans' dominance in the world as a leader in scientific and technological discovery and innovation. the effort became known as america's sputnik moment. 12 years later, america put a man on the moon. you might say that now instead of a sputnik moment, america is going through a xudong moment. that's the name of the chinese mars rover. let me be clear. while china is our fastest growing competitor, the united states has lost some ground globally as many nations recognize the importance of r&d investments to their industrial innovation and competitiveness. in 1960, just three years after sputnik launched, the united

states accounted for approximately 69% of the world's r&d funding. by 2018, 58 years later, this percentage had dropped from 69% to 28%. others are joining the pursuit of technology and innovation at a record clip. the question is can we come together as americans did in the last century to make investments in science, technology, and competitiveness to guarantee that america's economy remains the world's largest and most innovative? some members of congress in the senate -- and we have heard their speeches on the floor -- say go slow, no hurry. well, i think they are committed to a solid second place finish for the united states of america, and i don't want to be part of it. the endless frontier act which we're going to consider gives us a reason for hope. it's broad based. it's bipartisan. and it shows leadership by

majority leader chuck schumer, senator todd young, republican of indiana. along with commerce committee chair maria cantwell of washington and ranking member roger wicker of mississippi. like americans' response to sputnik, the new era of scientific and technological discovery will be driven by seed money from the federal government, but this effort is not limited to the government spending. america is home to the world's best research colleges and universities and laboratories like oregon national lab in my state of illinois. they are part of this effort, too. we will harness the combined efforts of america's best scientific and technological minds in the public sector and the private sector. the endless frontier act and broader competitiveness package represents the largest investment in u.s. science and technology since the apollo era. it will authorize more than

$100 billion over five years to support breakthrough scientific discovery and technological innovation in ten key areas vital to building an innovation economy for the 21st century and creating good jobs in the process. the key areas include fields of advanced energy, semiconductors, artificial intelligence, biotechnology and genomics, quantum computing, robotics, material science, disaster prevention, and of course cybersecurity. if you need a reminder of why it's urgent that we improve u.s. cybersecurity, look at how the ransomware attack last week by russian cyber criminals on a major american oil pipeline caused long gas lines and panic buying throughout the eastern half of our country. investing strategically in these ten key innovation areas will enable the united states to protect america's position as a leader in the global economy and

our national security. it will reinvigorate and expand our industrial and manufacturing base, and it will create a stronger middle class in our country. the endless frontier act will also strengthen the security of essential supply chains and our ability to solve disruptions caused by crises. remember those fearless doctors and nurses working in covid-19 wards last year when they had to dress in garbage bags because of a nationwide shortage of p.p.e.? a nation as wealthy and powerful as ours should never be caught so dangerously unprepared. this bill will make sure that we aren't. here's another cautionary tale about supply line disruption. in belvedere, illinois, which is in the northern part of our state, workers at the stilantis plant are proud of their work assembling jeep cherokees. in late march, that plant was

forced to shut down because of a global shortage of microchips. the plant is scheduled to reopen as soon as the end of this month. but late last week, the company announced that the plant will be forced to shut down one of its two production lines in late july again because of microchip shortages. as many as 1,600 employees could be laid off. you can't build a prosperous economy and stable middle class if you can't secure your supply line. we know that american workers can build cars and trucks for the future because they're already doing it, and they're going to be launching it in many places around our nation. just this week, president biden visited a vehicle -- an electric vehicle assembly plant in michigan, and they're doing it today as well in normal, illinois, where a company called rivian, remember the name,

rivian, repurposed and expanded a former mitsubishi assembly plant to produce the company's first assembly plant for electric cars and trucks. is this going to work? will it actually have a demand for electric vehicles? remember this one, too. amazon has already ordered 100,000 delivery vans from this plant. by the end of the year rivian expects to employ 2,500 good-paying, middle-class jobs in america. the endless front tiers act and -- frontiers act provides the resources to make sure that america remains a world leader in the 21st century. on another critical issue, let me say, we need to get serious when it comes to combating security -- the endless frontier

act will impose tough sanctions on entities that violate u.s. intellectual property and trade protections. i'm working with the republican of louisiana and others on a bipartisan bill that provide additional safeguards to combat the sale of counterfeit goods, especially on the internet. as i said, the endless frontier act and competitiveness package will invest more than $100 billion over five years to support breakthrough technologies. $100 billion is a big investment. but it's dramatically less than what china is spending in the same area, far less when adjusted for inflation on what we spent on the race for space. if we contributed the same share to science and technology today as we did in the early 1960's, 1% of our overall economy, we would have to spend $

$900 billion. this will provide steady increases for so many funding research agencies for the federal government, but especially for n.i.h. they provided the lifesaving vaccines that allow us to take off our masks and resume our lives. yesterday i went out to n.i.h. with several of my colleagues. senator blunt led a group. we met with the n.i.h. director and scientists working on breakthrough discoveries. it was six years ago that roy blunt, the senator from missouri, and i made a pack, we worked together to increase the n.i.h. budget by 5% a year over and above inflation. with the help of patty murray and lamar alexander, we

increased n.i.h. budget more than 40%. because of those modest investments and the ingenious of n.i.h.-funded researchers we have a better chance for better treatments and cures for terrible diseases including cancer, sickle cell and alzheimer's. the race for the future isn't an either-ordeal. either we invest in science or break through technologies. we have to invest in both. i will continue to work with senators in both parties to provide steady predictable funding for increases in research. no one bill will cure national security or resolve our outstanding issues with china the we still have a lot of work to do, both in congress and diplomatically. we'll still have to strengthen our immigration system so that america continues to welcome immigrants who want to put their

genius to work for the good of america as nikola tess la and albert einstein, and the person who paved the way for today's covid's vaccines. strengthening america's role in science and technology is an essential piece to keep our leadership in the world. for that reason i support the endless frontier act. i urge my colleagues to do the same. 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 new minority leade. the presiding officer: without objection. the senator from wyoming.

mr. barrasso: on the way over to the floor, i received a cnn news alert. and it was, biden scales up the pressure on netanyahu. so i come to the floor to tell you, mr. president, and to tell the nation that i stand with israel. like millions of americans, i have been disturbed to see the biden administration make a false equivalence between israel and the terrorist group hamas. mr. president, there's no equivalence here. hamas is a terrorist group funded by iran. these terrorists have fired over 3,000 missiles into population centers in israel. israel has every right to defend itself. if hamas stopped fighting, there would be peace. if israel stopped fighting, there would be no peace. hamas would continue to attack israel.

president biden's readout was called this morning with prime minister netanyahu stated, quote, the president conveyed to the prime minister that he expected -- expected a significant de-escalation today on a path to a cease-fire. president biden doesn't get to tell israel what to do. we all want peace. we all want a cease-fire. a cease-fire happens when hamas stops its terrorist campaign. until then, israel has every right to the proportional response it is making right now. israel has every right to take out the terrorist leaders that are directing the attacks on its citizens. mr. president, i'd like to move now to a separate topic and the one in which i originally had come to the floor and i come to the floor to talk about our economy. in april the unemployment rate

went up. surprisingly it went up. it was supposed to go down, it went up. so have prices all around the country. the experts in the white house actually thought we were going to add a million new workers in america last month. in reality only about 266,000 americans went back to work. so the so-called experts at the white house were wrong and they were wrong by three-quarters of a million workers. now 40,000 of those people who went back to work went back to government jobs which means the cost of government continues to grow. the private sector was able to hire only 220,000 people rather than a million. it was the most disappointing job report in over 20 years. there's also been a slowdown in the middle of a recovery, which is surprising to many. you know, before joe biden took office, we saw the fantastic

economic recovery and it was the fastest one in american history. we're bouncing back from the coronavirus shutdown. it's a very different story now. it's no coincidence this is a direct result of president biden's policies. and the policies and, mr. president, the democrats all voted for this, the republicans all voted against it, the democrats, president biden, party-line vote, voted to extend a bonus payment for workers to stay at home. paying people to stay at home than paying people to work in many cases. people aren't lazy, they are logical. it's a perfectly logical thing to do that they took up the president's offer when they could make more to stay at home than to work. so as a result job openings are at an all-time high.

the president of delta airlines reported that they canceled 100 flights last month because they couldn't find enough people to work. they had people ready to fly, they didn't have people who were ready to work. people want to work. people want to be -- want to hire others. the incentives coming from government are absolutely wrong. joe biden and big government are getting in the way of people returning to work. there's another big problem i hear about, heard about it this past weekend in opening. i -- wyoming. i heard that businesses can't find workers because of this administration and from other people asking me, why are prices going up? why is inflation back? under the obama-biden administration, we saw the same thing. it's called the middle-class squeeze where prices are going up faster than wages are going

up. april was the worst month for inflation since the great recession 134 years ago -- 13 years ago. in effect, inflation means the money in your wallet buys less so in a sense you have a pay kut. recession is -- pay cut. recession means the fewer things you can buy for the money you have. the big donors and democrat elite, they are going to be fine. they won't even notice rising prices. they don't notice when gas prices go up. the silicon valley hot shots, the master of the universe in manhattan will be fine. it's working families in wyoming, new mexico and across the country who are struggling to get by. they are the ones that are going to get hurt the most. look at the cost of a trip to the grocery store. first you have to go to the grocery store. you get there, you have to driefl. the price of gasoline has dwon up -- gone up.

the price for gasoline is over $3 a gallon. since joe biden took office, it has gone up 70 cents a gallon. that hurts people when they have to fill up because they have to drive to get to work in wyoming and new mexico. people drive long distances, and we use more gas than most. so people in our states are paying more than people in many other places. i don't think it's a coincidence that the price of gas has gone up. joe biden's first action in office was to pull back on american energy and pull the trigger. he shut down keystone xl pipeline, he restricted the production of american energy. we need energy. we need it now. gas prices affect the price of everything else. it costs more and more to transport things across the country. and that's why we're seeing prices go up at the grocery store. working families are getting squeezed.

and this is a direct result of the policies of the biden administration. one reason it's happening is because president biden is flooding the country with so-called easy money. we're finding out it's not too easy. in the month of march, president biden signed into law a $2 trillion slush fund for basically liberal spending. it was described as a coronavirus relief package, but in fact when you take a look at it less than 9% of the money, a small amount of the money went to medical care. he crammed it through congress, partline vote, absolutely no republican support, put the bill on the nation's credit card and the federal reserve started to print more money. now, money doesn't grow on trees, it doesn't come from a printer, you cannot print your way to prosperity. the money has to come from somewhere. history is shows that this is a strategy that eventually

backfires. nations try to print free money and they end up poorer than ever. get rich schemes don't work, never have, and aren't going to this time either. inflation has gone up every single month since the election. now, the white house experts tell us not to worry. these are the same experts that predicted there would be a million new jobs and people working last month and that the unemployment rate would drop. much of the $2 trillion that president biden signed into law hasn't even gone out the door yet. and the president is asking for trillions and trillions more. the house of representatives the other night put out a proposal related to the infrastructure bill, one that i'm trying to work with the administration on, they are requesting $7.1 trillion. an astonishingly high amount of money.

if the president gets his way and keeps spending like this and the request from the house, inflation is only beginning. you don't have to make my word for it. listen to the liberal economist larry summers. he was in the clinton administration and the obama administration and had an economic role in the obama administration. he warned against president biden's spending spree. he called that $2 trillion slush fund the least responsible spending bill he's seen in four decades. the least responsible spending bill in four decades. that's before all this additional spending may be coming. this is what he said after april's inflation numbers came out. he said, i was worried about inflation and then he said, yet, it's moved even faster and sooner even though i had predicted. that's larry summers, clinton administration, obama administration, commenting on the biden policies. people who save money their

whole lives for retirement are now watching their hard-earned savings go down with a stroke of joe biden's pen. their buying ability is shrinking. people who did the right thing and saved their money are being punished by biden policies. under president biden, we seeing more government, more taxes more spending and as a result the american people are suffering, they are seeing higher prices and disappointing job creation wsm we see gas lines and people hording gas leans and president biden should represent those times because he was still a member of the senate back then. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to finish my remarks with an extra 60 seconds. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. barrasso: thank you, mr. president. president biden should remember by 1980 the american people had enough. we changed course. we thought it was enough of jimmy carter, and we elected

ronald reagan president. it's time to change course again. let's create more american energy. let's set down the taxpayers' credit card, put it away, cut up the credit card, stop the reckless spending. american families have been paying the price. the people in the middle are being squeezed. the american people expect and deserve better. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: all time is expired. the clerk will read the title of the resolution for the third time. the clerk: calendar number 33. s.j. res. 13, joint resolution providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8, title 5, united states code and so forth. the presiding officer: the question occurs on passage of the joint resolution. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll.

vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: the yeas are 50, the nays are 48. the joint resolution is passed. ms. cantwell: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from washington. ms. cantwell: mr. president, i call up amendment 1527. the presiding officer: the clerk

will report. the clerk: the senator from washington, ms. cantwell proposes amendment number 1527 to amendment number 1502. ms. cantwell: i ask consent the reading be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. cantwell: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, we come to the floor today after a lot of hard work by the commerce committee to pass out the endless frontier bill 24-4 last week, and i know my colleagues from the committee will be out here to speak on this important legislation, as will the majority leader, senator schumer, who authored this important legislation, and our colleague from indiana, senator young. so we thank both of them for kick starting what is a very important national discussion about how much we should be investing in research and development, or what i would say is american ingenuity. or put a little simpler, i just say american know-how. because we are a nation of people that know how to

innovate, who know how to use science to transform our economy, and we've done it over and over and over again. i don't know, maybe it came with getting in a boat and coming all the way across the ocean. you had to be an adventurer to begin with. if you had to settle the frontier, you had to be innovative in your own right. if you had to continue to expand our country, you had to have a great deal of the ability to take risks, to calculate, and to move forward. but somehow, somehow in the united states of america we are blessed with ingenuity in our d.n.a. and we as a nation are a nation that has figured out that if we continue to partner together with those creative minds, that the investment by both the public sector and the private sector and through our universities and now our community colleges and now research centers, that we can grow our economy, compete on an

international level, and protect opportunity for future americans. so it's been many eras of innovation. when i think about it, i think about thomas edison and the light bul about b. irng about henry ford -- i think about henry ford and the automobile. innovation is so much part of our d.n.a. that i don't think we sometimes absorb the littler things that we might not know about. people probably don't know about nay thon -- nathan stone stubblefield who in 1902 developed the first method of communication using magnets. in 1902 a kentucky inventor basically helped turn the page on a new generation of technology. or that a louisiana professor jay lawrence smith invented in

1850 the microscope. when you think about how much that led to the important discussions of science and health care for us as a nation. or that in indiana, a state police officer invented the breathalyzer test, a gentleman named robert borkstein who basically said we don't know what's happening here and he introduced and created the betting -- breathalyzer test. that is what america is. america is the spirit of know-how and getting things done. in fact, a report said, quote, americans prioritize being a world leader in scientific achievements more than other global communities. that is from a pew charitable research report done by cary funk and several other officers last september. the report goes on to say, quote, seven in ten americans believe that it is very important for the united states

to be a leader in scientific achievements, end quote. so clearly what makes us different than other nations is that we are willing to put significant american tax dollars on the table to ensure that that national investments in research and science and the development of our ecosystem takes place. that investment is matched with a good education system, capital formation, and as i said, private-sector investments in research and development, and all of that has continued to make us the world leader in science and technology innovation. it also helps us create job growth here at home. the question before us today is how much research and development should our government be doing given how important the practical sciences and engineering are to the next generation of americans.

and we're here to discuss this proposal by senators schumer and young who, as i said, have been working on this concept for years, because no doubt we have fallen off the pace. that is to say the pace of scientific research investment, at least as a percentage of g.d.p. even though president bush in his second term tried to signal the importance of this investment, he issued a report basically calling america's competitiveness initiative the leading world innovation agenda. that was in february of 2006. in fact, at that time president bush said, quote, the role of government is not to create wealth. the role of government is to create an environment which the entrepreneurial spirit can flourish, in which minds can expand, in which technologies can reach new frontiers, end

quote. so george bush had it right. he knew that this competitiveness issue was starting to challenge us from a competitive perspective, and he knew that we needed to make a bigger investment. unfortunately, the two attempts that we've had -- america competes in 2007 and america competes in 2010 -- really was a goal by us to basically double the n.s.f. budget within a seven-year window. and while we started out in the right direction, we had a huge economic downturn, and these goals were not met. if we had kept our promises to these science agencies, we would have invested $80 billion more in innovation investments over the last 14 years than we have done today. so the challenge that we face now is that after decades of not living up to what had been

outlined for america competes, we now know that it is an environment we are facing much more aggressive competition. we have to think about the lack of investment that we did not realize in the context of how long it takes to do technology breakthroughs. if you look at just one example, the internet as we know it today, literally in 196's, the arpa net was first talked about. it took us to the 1990's to really, with the university illinois and mark driesen to affect what we would later now as hypertext links and a browser. today what it means to us is more than $2 trillion annually to our economy. so when you think about the investments we're asking our colleagues to make today, we have to consider that in fact

federal dollars for r&d is near its lowest point in 60 years as a percentage of g.d.p. so i can't say that we are going to discover the next internet, but i can say that if we continue to underinvest in this, we will be shortchanging generations of innovation. it is no doubt that key investments in research and development in other parts of the world are certainly getting attention. since 2000, research and development in china has grown by 1,600 percent, taiwan and korea by 400 percent while the u.s. 150 percent. that's a 20-year window of looking at this issue. so americans believe that competition is good. we believe that competition helped drive innovation.

so you won't find me as one on the floor obsessed about other nations as much as a perspective here about what the world market opportunity represents. and if we're not making the investments here in science and technology and innovation, not only are we missing opportunities in our own country, we are missing opportunities around the globe. so the rest of the nation in an information age is not going to sit by idly, and we have to think about how we move ahead on critical technology that helps us in all sectors of our economy, helps us with supply chains and certainly helps us with national security. so what we're talking about here with this bill proposed by our colleagues, leader schumer and senator young, is more than a doubling of n.s.f. budget in five years. it is the start of trying to

catch up. it is also $17 billion investment in energy innovation, a key sector of our economy where we need to make continued transformation. that represents a 28% increase in some of the projects from the office of science and things like arpa-e that could see investment. what we're also investing in, which our colleagues were very adamant about and very convincing, is that we also needed a new tech directorate. that is to say that our research, very good with basic, very good with applied, that we actually had to get better with user implementation of our science and spur more innovation at a more rapid fashion. so we are investing between this new tech directorate and tech hubs nearly $39 billion to help stimulate the faster translation of our advancements in to real

innovation. this is something the committee thought long and hard about. we took testimony from experts who have worked on innovation issues for many years. in this bill we also increased the protection of intellectual property from our universities. we are helping our universities do better tech transfer, but also protect their intellectual property. in an information age when so much is published online, if other nations hungry for development can read our research and act and effect on it, because we haven't patented it, then we need to do a better job of patenting our innovations and helping our universities. our universities are unbelievable research institutions and helping them is something we've done in the

pacific northwest. a new program ushered in there literally led to 20 start-ups from research that had been done but just hadn't been translated into new areas. we also are trying to help get more regional diversity to our research and investment dollars. there's about 25 states in our nation that previously qualified for a program that says they should get a share of research dollars. this legislation says all the money being spent here should go to ep score efforts and for the first time we will have over -- we will have an office of diversity, an office to focus on the lack of women and minorities in science and to make real progress on this issue. people see the chart behind me

and, yes, it's no mistake the picture we picked. the point here is that we know from n.s.f.'s own research that we can't be passive about this. literally the university of washington got an n.s.f. grant that helped them study why we're not making more progress with women and minorities in science and innovation. and they came back with it can't be passive. you can't just put dollars on the table for stem. you can't just put a few programs in place that it has to be an active approach to changing many aspects to the way we educate in science. i'm very proud of the university of washington on this point because they made changes and now those who are teaching in what are considered stem sciences at the university of washington, 70% of them are

women or people of color. so we have changed what the face of teaching science looks like at the university of washington and now we have to change some of the criteria and curriculum so that we can continue to attract more people. this bill is a very good step in that direction. so what are we trying to achieve? we're trying to achieve what the n.s.f. director is saying. he's saying that we need in this next decade and decades to come -- we need innovation everywhere tied to opportunity everywhere tied to our universities. that is what we're trying to do in advancing this legislation. we processed over 100 amendments in committee and a broad range of input from our colleagues. we will, i'm sure, hear in

regular process many more. but hopefully these amendments and more of the substance of this underlying bill we'll go into in detail, we have to remember what our goals are with this investment to stay competitive, to create future jobs, to help our economy by unleashing innovation, to protect our national security and do what americans know how to do best, that is use that ingenuity to help create a better future. so, mr. president, i will see if my colleagues want to speak, but we will be coming back to expand on many other layers of this legislation. we will be back to talk about semiconductors. we will be back to talk about the new tech directive, we will be talk to talk about the new

nasa funding -- and that realize me, mr. president. if anybody at home is saying, okay, that was interesting. i don't really -- i don't really -- i don't know about this. what american innovation? just go and google two things. you can either look at space-x rocket return that they did in 2015 or blue origin and both of those, the new shepherd and the fall con., two -- falcon, two different approaches, literally engineers who said, if we're going to go to space or go to the moon or go to mars, we need to have two different rockets. google those two clips and you will see live and well the spirit of ingenuity when those engineers see that rocket returning from outer space and

reland because they have pulled off an incredible achievement. you will see jubilant joy over that accomplishment. i guarantee we will not see everything this bill will unleash, but i guarantee you it will unleash things that will deliver that kind of excitement for americans in the future and we will be very thankful that this congress set the level straight on this kind of investment to keep us competitive. so, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that upon repeat from the house -- receipt from the house, if the text is identical to the text of s. 593, that passed the senate, the senate proceed to its immediate consideration of h.r. 1318, the bill be considered read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: is there an objection?

without objection, it is so ordered. ms. cantwell: thank you, mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: thank you, mr. president. i want to give short remarks on three different subjects, probably for people wanting to speak, it will take me about ten or 12 minutes. thanks to operation warp speed, effective vaccines are available on demand to anyone who wants to take the shot. that means individuals and businesses are beginning to return to a degree of normalcy. we've all been waiting for it. however, as i made my annual tour through iowa's 99 counties, i heard from business after business that they are desperate

for workers, but job applicants are scarce. that those that do apply often don't show up for interviews. nationally the economy added over 700,000 fewer jobs than were expected last month. this is very concerning as a vibrant labor market is vital -- vital to a strong economy. i get that some individuals, even after being vaccinated, may be leery of returning to job market after a year of staying home to be safe, but the vaccines have been shown to virtually eliminate the chance of serious illness. hopefully the recent c.d.c. guidelines that reinforce this by easing mask guidelines will

reassure individuals that it's safe to return to work. however, iowan employers repeatedly inform me that the biggest impediment to finding workers is the over the top unemployment benefits extended as part of president biden's so called covid relief bill. i had 13 county meetings throughout iowa during our last senate recess, and all but one of them, this came up as a very important issue. the simple fact is this under partisan covid package, many individuals can earn more if they don't work than if they do work. that's wrong in principle and has proven disastrous in practice. and its effect of matter in

american society, a job is very essential and center to the quality of life. as my republican colleagues and i have warned for months, incentives matter. if you can earn more not working than working, it makes perfect sense not to work. i don't blame workers for taking that deal. i blame government policy that puts the individual workers in this predicament. even prominent liberal economists have acknowledged the problem with continuing to provide increased unemployment benefits. for instance, president biden's former chief economic advisor, jason furman, admitted if he were in a low unemployment state -- these are his quotes, thinking seriously about whether paying people more not to work

than to work was a good thing to continue doing. end of quote. this is the case in iowa, which has an unemployment rate of 3.7%. that's low even in normal times, but it should be even lower as iowa has more job openings than unemployed people. i stand firmly behind governor reynolds who recently announced that iowa would end its participation in the counterproductive enhanceed unemployment program and that will be effective june 12. president biden talks about the government creating jobs by spending trillions of borrowed dollars all while spending more borrowed money to pay people not to work. now that fails the commonsense test. in iowa, the private sector is

already creating more jobs than we can fill. the economy is poised to take off if the government just gets out of the way. politicians should live by the same principle as doctors, first do no harm. we shouldn't continue pandemic-era policies longer than they are necessary, and that will only slow our economic recovery. just as the c.d.c. updated its guidance based upon the new reality about masks and about the vaccine, it's time for congress to conform its policies to the conditions on the ground. on another subject. yesterday i participated on a call with canadian counterparts

that serve in canada's parliament. and just for a little background on these meetings, until the pandemic or until people got so busy they couldn't travel back and forth between the two countries over a period of more than a half a century, there's been meetings of canadian parliamentarians and members of the american congress on an annual basis. one time the united states congressman would go to someplace in canada, the next year the canadian parliamentarians would come down here. in the recent five-to-ten years, this has been done more like yesterday by zoom or by a few people from canada coming down here more often than we went up there. but over a period of my years in the united states senate, i presume i've participated in at

least 15 of those meetings where we travel back and forth, and i found them very helpful in talking about problems between the two countries. the problem is it's almost laughable that we have very many problems between canada and the united states, so we'd end up talking about two or three issues, but they were problems that had to be worked out. so we had this meeting yesterday by zoom, as i just said. we discussed issues of concern that impact both legislative bodies and -- in our respected countries. canada and the united states share the same values and are closely tied to each other culturally and economically. canada is our closest ally. we need to effectively work with canada and canadians on issues that impact both countries. on his first day in office,

president biden made a hasty decision to shut down the construction of the keystone xl pipeline, a decision that cost the united states and canada over $10 -- over 10,000 jobs. this decision by president biden sent a clear signal to other democratic countries across -- across the globe. that message is, it doesn't matter if it will cost your state jobs and raise gas prices or irritate an ally. you'd be better to listen to ideologues in your party who say something like this. pipelines that transport oil are bad. but while the keystone xl pipeline is better known, the canadians at our meeting yesterday were worried about the

current pipeline in use that goes by the name of the enbridge line five. the pipeline which has been in use since 1953 delivers the bulk of canadian crude exports to the united states and also applies fuel to ontario and question week. -- and quebec. in june 2019, the state of michigan filed a lawsuit to compel the decommissioning of the segment of line five that runs under lake michigan. the basis of the suit is that the pipeline is a public nuisance that could become a source of pollution if it leaks. this month the canadian government filed a request to stop the state of michigan from shutting down the pipeline. now, shutting down the pipeline would have an immediate effect

on crude oil supplies for refineries. and as a result, increase the price of gas for americans. we saw it over the past seven or eight days how the colonial pipeline being shut down has increased the price of gas, if you can buy the gas. so we ought to be thinking about these problems. for the sake of north american energy independence and for american jobs and amend relations with our closest allies, i'm asking the governor of michigan to reconsider this lawsuit. and for that matter, president biden ought to step in and the entire democratic party ought to reconsider their stance on the use of pipelines. take a cue from the former governor of michigan. now secretary granhold who said quote, unquote, pipelines are the best source -- the best way

to move oil, end of quote. now, my last comment which will be very short deals with the subject of the inspector general's act of 1978. when we passed that act, we required a president who wants to remove an i.g. to provide congress specific reasons why that i.g. was removed. when congress revised the idea act 30 years later, we amended that notification requirement and made it even stronger. we require presidents to tell us their reasons and do it in no less than 30 days in advance of the removal. neither of these provisions did anything to prevent the president from performing his constitutional responsibility to hire and fire people within the executive branch of government.

unfortunately, presidents from both political parties -- let me emphasize -- from both political parties seem to have a hard time following this simple notice requirement. when president obama fired i.g. walpin of the corporation of national community service early in his term, he sent a vaguely worded letter saying only that he had, quote, unquote, lost confidence in mr. w walpin. when president trump fired an i.g. last year, he sent letters to congress saying exactly the same thing. as i explained to both presidents when they sent those letters merely telling congress that you have lost confidence in an i.g. isn't enough expla explanation. the loss of confidence occurs only after something happens.

when announcing their decision to remove an i.g. in office, presidents need to tell us what that something is. they need to explain why they've lost confidence. failing to do so misses the point of the notice requirement entirely. the notice requirement isn't about a president's confidence in the i.g. it's about the public's confidence in the inspector general system across the board. i.g.'s are put in office to serve as government watchdogs. if i.g.'s are carrying out their duties as intended, they're likely going to make more enemies than friends. they may uncover things that make the sitting president and his political appointees very uncomfortable. so what. no president is going to like every investigation that an i.g.

understand takes -- undertakes or every report that an i.g. prepares. but i.g.'s should not be fired just for doing their jobs. or to prevent them from releasing findings that may be embarrassing to some administration democrat or republican. requiring the president to explain in advance why he or she is removing an i.g. gives congress time to evaluate those reasons. it helps assure congress and the public that determination isn't based on politics but on real problems with the i.g.'s ability to carry out their job. of course there has been no shortage of bad i.g.'s who are deserving of removal. in fact, i probably had something to do with removing five or six of them in the years i've been in the united states senate. and maybe some of these ought to be removed are still even in

office. recently for -- i called on the president, this president biden, to remove the federal housing finance agency i.g. due to an independent report by the council of inspector generals on integrity and the efficiency that verified long-standing claims to my office that she abused her authority. whistle-blowers originally came to my office in 2015 with concerning reports that the i.g. was personally and publicly demeaning their employees. she referred to them with demeaning names, such as weasel the i.g. also allowed her deputy to threaten employees who blew the whistle to my office. that was over five years ago. and can you believe it, the abuse is still happening today.

based on my investigations and c.g.'s findings, i firmly believe the i.g. needs to go. but i don't get to make that decision. only the president can make that decision. he gets to decide when to exercise his constitutional authority. he has a right to do so and will ultimately be accounted -- accountable to the people for a decision that he makes. all he has to do, all that is required for him to do under this law is to give congress proper notice. that's how things should work. that's how things were designed to work. but unfortunately that's not what's been happening. it's clear to me that we have to be even clearer than when we say we want reasons, we actually mean it. when making the decision to remove an i.g., presidents must send substantive specific reasons to congress in advance

explaining the actions that they're taking and why they're taking those actions. that's why i introduced s. 587, the securing inspector general independence act. in addition to making the notice requirement even more clear, my bill would limit who can be an i.g. as an acting capacity and require c.g. to provide guidance for annual whistle-blower training for all i.g. employees. my cosponsors and i have an interest in keeping our i.g. system strong and neutral, and that's what this bill does. i encourage all of my colleagues to support it and ask that the homeland security committee give it full consideration. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from michigan.

ms. stabenow: thank you, mr. president. before my friend from iowa leaves the floor, and he is my friend, i didn't come to debate the line five pipeline that goes under the great lakes of michigan but i will say this is an aging pipeline under a precious resource called the great lakes. 20% of the world's fresh water. and the governor is really balancing right now what our issues that relate to safety and trying to make sure that we don't have a spill in the great lakes that would just devastate. knowing our economy and way of life but the country as well. mr. president, i always say that the people in michigan can outwork, outbuild, and outimagine anybody. whether we're building the ford new all electric f-150 truck that president biden rode yesterday when he was in michigan, whether it's armored

vehicles that keep the military safe in war zones, whether it's wind turbines, appliances, furniture, or doll scandies strong enough to -- doll scandies strong -- dollies strong enough, their hard work makes our nation stronger. unfortunately, there are times when our nation hasn't returned the favor. each year federal agencies spend billions of dollars in taxpayer money on products from the private sector. everything from vehicles to office furniture to electronics. and the buy american act which was signed back in 1933 says the federal government should give preference to high quality products here in america. common sense, right? american taxpayer dollars should go to american manufacturers, american business, and american

workers. unfortunately, loopholes and waivers and outright noncompliance by federal agencies means that too many times american taxpayer dollars instead go to foreign companies that compete against american manufmanufacturers and american workers. back in 2018, i released a report that showed between 2008 and 2016, exceptions and waivers to the buy america act allowed federal agencies to spend about $92 billion on foreign-made products. that's $92 billion in missed opportunities for american businesses and american workers. and that's why senator braun and i introduced the make it in america act along with senator peters and senator portman and senator baldwin. and i'm grateful take chairman peters and ranking member

portman got this commonsense bill into the homeland security and governmental affairs committee as part of the bill in front of us today, the frontiers act. i also want to thank president biden. his administration reached out to me and asked to be briefed on the report we had done. and initiative executive orders that they put in place were very much in line with our recommendations. and i know they are very supportive of this bill. my legislation ensures that we're holding federal agencies accountable when enforcing buy american act activities. it adds new guard rails to the waivers. right now we've had waivers but there's been no transparency, no accountability. i think over the years no training, really, for how to administer these. sometimes it's just easier to do a waiver than it is to do an extensive search about whether or not there are businesses in america that could do this work

or provide a product. so it also calls on products purchased by federal agencies to incorporate more domestic content. the supply chain is so important. so much of our job creation is in the parts that go into the product. and it helps ensure that american companies aren't undercut by cheap foreign products. and of course rules don't matter if nobody enforces them. so again it's important that this legislation makes the made in america office a permanent part of the office of management and budget. it will ensure that american workers and businesses receive preference regardless of who's in the oval office. and it's important to emphasize that the legislation doesn't just benefit big businesses. and this is important. it calls for agencies to use a wonderfully successful entity

called the manufacturing extension partnership so that small businesses, medium size manufacturers have more opportunities to sell their products to the federal government or provide materials for federally funded infrastructure pro projects -- infrastructure projects. by the way, there's often when a company can tool pretty quickly, if they knew we were interested, if we were going to purchase and we should give them the opportunity if there's an american company that can step up and be able to create that for us. everyone says we need to make more things in america. and here's an opportunity to put those words into action. i urge colleagues to pass the endless frontier act, to get the make-it-in-america act signed into law and use our american

tax dollars to purchase great american products that support great-paying american jobs. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. menendez: i like calling the presiding officer mr. president. let me -- i appreciate the presiding officer's support about what which i'm going to speak about today, to address one of the most significant foreign policy challenges of our time, which is the u.s.-china relationship, a challenge that at senate i believe is ready to meet with bold, bipartisan

action. just weeks ago the senate foreign relations committee made history when we passed the strategic competition act of 2021 by an overwhelming bipartisan vote of 21-1. this historic bipartisan legislation is clear-eyed about the challenges we face, designed to meet this consequential moment in u.s.-china relations. over the past few years, china has accelerated its rise to power and sharpened its efforts to undermine the liberal international order that brought the american people and our allies so much stability and prosperity in the 20th century. we invited china to be engaged in the international order. we invited them into the world trade organization. we invited them into the international forum. we opened markets with them, all with the expectation that china, by being ultimately invited into

the international order, would be part of the international order. unfortunately, instead of playing by the rules, china under xi jinping has sought to challenge them. today china is challenging under every area and advancing an alternative and deeply disturbing model for global governance based on an old-fashioned military antagonism, predatory economic practices and digital authoritarian i am. the breath-escaping scope, scale, and urgency of these challenges demands a policy and strategy that that is generally- that is generally competitive. the national security and economic security of the united states depends on framing our relationship with china today through the lens of strategic competition. this is not about a zero-sum

relationship or erecting a cold war mentality. this is about recognizing that our strategic competition will revolve around the geoeconomics of the future and america's ability to successfully compete in new and emerging technologies and other hotly contested demans. this is about security a regional and international order for the 21st century built on progressive values, one that encourages healthy and fair economic competition, promotes global security and stability, and strengthens human rights around the world. so how do we achieve this vision? ranking member risch and i incorporated input from almost every member of the committee to build the strategic competition act. i believe the presiding officer had amendments as well, which mobilizes all of our strategic economic and diplomatic tools to real confront the challenges --

truly confront the challenges china presents to our national and the economic security. so i'm eager to see the strategic competition act move on the floor alongside the other pieces of this package, recognizing, as i have for years, that america's ability to compete with china begins at home, replenishing the sources of our national strength. that's why the investments in the endless frontier act provisions and the other domestic measures drafted by various committees are equally important. but even if we did all of those things alone, it would not meet our challenge with china because, first and foremost, china is a foreign policy challenge. that's why the strategic competition act reaffirms our alliances and partnerships. it prioritizes building functional, problem-solving regional architecture in our indo-pacific strategy. every witness we had before the committee, as we prepared for this legislation today, you have

to get your indo-pacific strategy right in order to be able to meet the challenge of china on under xi jinping. it promotes u.s. leadership with international organizations. it counters maligned efforts by the people's republic of china and the chinese communist party to influence those institutions. and it grounds our foreign policy in american values by authorizing a broad range of human rights and civil society measures to address abuses in xinjiang with ethnic uighurs and to demonstrate our commitment to the people of hong kong, tibet, and china's civil society. it counters china's predatory economic practices by addressing their rampant intellectual property theft and unfair state subsidies. it helps other countries work together to counter china's corrupt practices. china goes throughout the world

holding itself out as being generous to nations in africa and latin america and elsewhere, but what it ends up being is debt-trap diplomacy where these countries become hostage to china, not only economically, but then on a transactional basis, china says, well, you can't recognize taiwan anymore. or china says you have to vote with us at the u.n. in a way we want or at the u.n. human rights commission and a whole host of other international forums. and it bolsters u.s. economic statecraft, those economic tools we can invest to invest in supply chain security, digital connectivity, and cybersecurity. now, i do want to take a couple of minutes today to directly address an emerging line of criticism i have heard, that this bill is somehow seeking to ignite a new cold war.

nothing could be further from the truth. the relate at this time is is that for more than 30 years, the united states has sought to draw coal mine into the international community has a responsible stakeholder. but any clear and accurate assessment of china's behavior and in particular its behavior under the hyper nationalist leadership of xi jinping suggests that simply continuing down that path would only result in disaster for the united states, for china, and for the entire world. let's just review some of china's actions. china is committing genocide in jerry chun shing lee against the uighur people through -- china is committing genocide in xinjiang against the uighur people. in the south china sea it is militarily building up and trying to intercede in the rightful passage of nations in

the south china sea. china has walked away from the commitments it made to respect intellectual property rights. china has chosen to betray its legal lay bidening obligations and commitments to the people of hong kong, crushing one country, two systems and the vibrant democracy and our ton me of the people -- autonomy of the people. china refuses to respect the cultural and linguistic people. china is suing its belt and road initiative to exploit lesser developed economies to its own advantage. china threatens the efforts of the international community to deal with climate change by building more coal-fired power plants at a rate that outpaces the rest of the world. so we must empower americans, our partners, and our allies to

protect against these egregious efforts to undermine human rights, security, and our environment. we simply cannot turn a blind eye to china's actions or wish it into being abouting a better international actor. now, i realize that in discussing the strategic competition act, i laid out a laundry list of big structural policy issues with china that we will need to confront as a nation. but it's essential that the united states meets this moment if we hope to build a more perfect world. one that reflects our cherished commitment to free societies, free markets, freedom of expression, freedom of movement, and the dignity of all humankind. at the end of the day, that's what the strategic competition act is all about. so i look forward to a robust debate and discussion with my colleagues over the next week or two about how to restructure and rework u.s. policy towards china so that we can be, after far too

long, genuinely competitive. together we have to ensure the united states reclaims our place as a leader of nations and a force for good in a chaotic and increasingly complex world. mr. president, on another note, i know we have great challenges in the world. we're having a great challenge in the middle east. and i would just simply say that i am not a fan of having resolutions brought to the floor of the senate without the appropriate consideration of the committee of jurisdiction -- in this case, the senate foreign relations committee. so that informed, deliberate debate and consensus agreements comes together in the best pursuit of foreign policy. it is easy to get caught up in the passions of the moment. it is much more difficult to think about what is the right

policy and procedure and actions the united states should take in any given part of the world. so i know there's a bunch of resolutions that are being flown around, none of which have gone through the committee, some that have merit in each and every die mention but also that fall short of what would need to be done. and i would urge colleagues to particularly at this moment have the restraint, and i would urge the ability for the committee to be able to consider what is the appropriate course of action, whether it it be at this time or any other time as our nation faces global challenges. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. ms. ernst: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. ms. ernst: mr. president, during my recent travels across

iowa on my 99-county tour, i couldn't help but notice the number of help-wanted or now-hiring signs on the storefronts along nearly every highway and main street. in an era where we seem to live through one unprecedented occurrence after another, the dire job situation has become the latest extraordinary event, as millions of americans remain unemployed, despite an abundance of jobs that need to be filled. in fact, the number of available jobs has reached an all-time record high -- 8.1 million positions that need to be filled. 44% of all small business owners

have openings they cannot fill. another record. what makes this all the more stun something that the nation's unemployment rate increased last month to 6.1%. there are now more than nine million jobless americans, and nearly a third of those have been unemployed for a year or more. in iowa, the number of unemployed slowly inched upwards in february and march, and we continue to have more job openings than we do job seekers. there are more than 62,000 job listings posted on the iowa workforce development website, which exceeds the total number of iowans filing for

unemployment benefits. the jobs span a variety of occupations and locations in the state, and employers are desperate to fill them. the police department of iowa city is urgently trying to hire ten officers and is offering a $5,000 signing bonus to new recruits. and i should note another factor here could be the ongoing efforts to defund the police being pushed by folks on the left. the owner of the blind pig restaurant in cedar rapids is paying higher wages plus a $500 sign-on bonus, but even that isn't enough to attract workers. he says in the past he would get up to 50 applicants when he

placed a help wanted notice, but now he might get two. yup, that's it -- two, he said if he's lucky. so what gives? part of the problem is that the government pays folks more to stay home than to go to work. i've heard from restaurant owners in belleview who need about 36 employees between their two locations and can only find 20. they have been forced to suspend plans to expand, costing additional jobs and stifling economic development. similarly, the owner of a small business in cedar rapids that offers good-paying jobs that don't require a college degree was turned down by three

separate people because they chose to stay on unemployment instead. i've also heard from folks who run in-home care services in west des moines and cedar rapids about their difficulties hiring providers for their professional care teams. again, this is all due in large part to the federal government's excessive unemployment perks. this may have made some sense a year ago when there was plenty of uncertainty, but due to the success of operation warp speed, we now have vaccines and covid cases, hospitalizations and deaths are trending down. despite thousands being out of work in suland, local businesses can't find the

workers they need. the store manager of sam's mini mart says people come in here and say why work when i don't have to, when unemployment is going to pay me? he goes on to say we've even upped our wages, our starting wages, and nothing seems to work. paying people not to work is not helpful. it is delaying us from returning to normal prepandemic life. for our businesses in iowa, normal means operating at full capacity. if we're going to begin erasing the damages caused by the last year of the pandemic and getting our economy moving again, we cannot continue to let democrats disincentivize work. thankfully in iowa, our great

governor kim reynolds has already taken steps to curb the excessive federal unemployment that has kept iowaance on -- iowans on the sidelines and created these challenges for our employers. now we need to do more nationwide. as senior member on the senate committee on small business and entrepreneurship, i'm helping to lead a bicameral effort to end the enhanced perks at the federal level. the get americans back to work act, which i helped put forward, decreases the extra federal unemployment benefits to $150 per week at the end of this month and then fully repeals them at the end of june. it's time for congress, the biden administration, and state leaders across the country to do their jobs and help americans

get back to work. with that, madam president, i yield the floor. a senator: madam president. you. the presiding officer: the senator from missouri. mr. blunt: madam president, i was watching senator ernst give her speech and that help wanted sign, i thought i was back in springfield, missouri, my hometown where i was this weekend and there was occasions when i was driving down the block and i was looking to see if there was a place that didn't have a help wanted sign up. they were everywhere. help wanted signs, hiring bonuses, rates well above the minimum wage. and our minimum wage is $10.30 in our state. rates well above that being advertised out on the help wanted signs. you know, we all were disappointed by the job numbers

that were issued at the end of april, but obviously the job numbers didn't reflect the fact that there weren't jobs to be had. it was just that there weren't people taking the jobs to be had. we need to think about everything we can to create an environment where people want to go back to work, where people are encouraged to go back to work, where people who can't go back to work have that basic unemployment benefit. nobody is begrudging that, but i think it's clear that we've made some mistakes here. now many of us were concerned about this when it initially came up, and we were not able to turn back the additional bonus at the time. though the predictions were just too true about what might happen. you know, what small business in missouri are saying is pretty consistent all over the state. in st. louis, the manager of

mary anne's tea room said, quote, it's heartbreaking that the business is there but i can't hire anyone. and that restaurant was forced to just close down because they didn't have enough workers. in kansas city, the president of the big biscuit said we have never had a hiring drought like this before. and according to him, he said there's no doubt we are up against unemployment that's been artificially increased and stimulus payments give people the opportunity not to show up for work. in branson, just as the busy summer season is getting underway, the general manager at mel's hard luck diner says he's so short staffed that they have to close sunday evenings now, a time when they would normally be open, just to compensate for the fact that they don't have enough people to do the seven evenings and seven days of business that they were

used to doing. he says he can't even get people to show up for a job interview, let alone show up to work. just down the street in branson one of the great theme parks in america, the silver dollar city theme park, told me a couple of weeks ago that they could hire 150 people the next day, that would still be their view, by the way, if they could find 150 people. they've got 150 jobs. they have more customers than they have people, and so not everybody can get in the park that would normally be able to come to the park. in columbia, right in the middle of our state, the owner of just jeff's said there's not a person that i come into contact with as a business owner or manager or something like that that isn't in a terrible pinch right now for help. that's just a snapshot of all we're seeing. i talked to one person who runs

a family hotel chain. it's a big family hotel chain based in st. louis. he said we've got the customers now are coming back, but we don't have the help. we could fill more rooms than we're filling if we had people that could clean the rooms and get them ready the next day. businesses are ready to be back and be fully open, but they don't have the workers they need. we had an amendment in the cares act, one of the five bipartisan bills we passed last year, that would have prevented people from making more when they're unemployed than when they're working. i said at the time when i voted for that amendment that i was concerned that these enhanced unemployment benefits would really create a time when people didn't want to go back to work. and unfortunately, that's exactly what happened in missouri and around the country. it's been a tough year, we all

know that, for small business owners. we stepped up, tried to think of early ways to keep people on their payrolls rather than the unemployment rolls. by the way, even at that time many of those businesses were saying, well, it's a great idea, we'd like to keep them on the, on our payroll, but they can make more money on the unemployment roll. is that fair to them, to not let them go to this unemployment that the government and its policies made so appealing? trying to fight the worst public health crisis ever and trying to keep a business afloat, and now they're trying to figure out as we come out of the public health crisis, what did we do to make it hard to keep that business going? that misguided government policy that ronald reagan used to make is one of the scariest things you could hear -- i'm from the government and i'm here to help. this seems to be a case where that truly has become a scary

thing. the government trying to help, trying to reach out and do what at least a majority of our colleagues thought was the right thing, have created a situation that is different than it needs to be. 21 states have now either decided to stop participating already or announced they're going to stop participating. governor parson in missouri made that decision, as senator ernst mentioned the governor of iowa made and 19 other governors have made that decision. unemployment, the average unemployment in a state in america right now is $618 a week. that's the average. that includes the $300 that the federal government has put into every one of those checks that are still going out at that level. that's $15.46 an hour. that's certainly one way to mandate a $15 hourly pay rate,

is just to decide that's what you're going to make if you're unemployed. well, it hasn't worked. it won't work. our state of missouri and other states are moving away from this. in washington, we make policies, and one of our responsibilities is to be sure that we're keeping an eye on unintended consequences. and the law of unintended consequences is one of the great certainties of making law, and we need to watch out for that, and we've got a huge unintended consequence here. we saw what happened when now the biden administration is trying to explain why it's not their policies that appear to be slowing the recovery down, but p we all know that this is part of that problem. we've done something to cause this problem. we need to figure out how to solve this problem. this should not be something

that states one at a time reject. we need to get our economy back on track as quickly as possible. there is virtue in work, and i hope we make work more appealing again than not working. thank you, madam president. a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. lankford: madam president, in february of this year there was a bipartisan conversation about what's the next step dealing with covid. we knew we were coming out of it and vaccines were going in arms, states were opening up like my state in oklahoma was rapidly opening in february, and there was this dialogue about what would happen in the economy. in the middle of that dialogue my democratic colleagues determined we're going to go this on our own. we still stay engaged. one of the big issues though was unemployment. would there be additional unemployment benefits that would be done? now myself and multiple others raised the issue on both sides

of the aisle, how would this be handled. if it was a year before, literally in march of 2020, there was an extension of unemployment because unemployment was at 15% at that point, and there were no jobs to be had. but in march of this year, when the agreement was finally made and a straight partisan bill was passed, we weren't at 15% unemployment. it was at 6% and driving down to the floor. now we're below 4%. the challenge that we have is there's additional unemployment benefits that have extended all the way until september. that bill passed, a straight partisan bill in march. by the sunday after palm sunday when i was back in my state, i was already having business owners catching me and saying what in the world? i can't hire now because i'm competing for wages with someone in the federal government. what has that meant for right now, now in may, what does

that mean for us in oklahoma? in oklahoma there are 37% more jobs available now than there were a year and a half ago before the pandemic began, when we were at the best economy in 50 years. literally, there are more job openings in oklahoma now than there have ever been in the history of our records. let me run that past everybody again. there are more openings in oklahoma right now for jobs than ever in the history of our recordkeeping for our state. but we can't fill jobs. because people are making so much money on unemployment and they get the first $10,000 of that written off on their taxes. those two pieces together incentivize people literally to be able to stay home. our state has had to take a pretty radical step, quite frankly. we have stepped in with 20 other states and have ended the unemployment assistance, but we have had to take it the next step because we have so many job openings in our state.

we're literally giving a 12 hundred dollars bonus to anyone who will go back to work. for the first 20,000 people, that will actually get off of unemployment benefits and go back to work, we are paying a $1,200 bonus to those individuals to return to work. what in the world? why would we have to do this as a state? our state's taking leadership, and i'm grateful to the governor and his continued leadership to be able to help navigate the economy and our families, but why would we want to have a situation where we literally disincentivized work and encouraged people to not return to work? what governor stitt has set up is an encouragement to actually get back to work. that's better for families, that's better for children, that's better for our economy. right now in oklahoma, if you're going to build anything -- and i mean build anything -- good luck finding building supplies. and it's not because we don't

have lumber or it's not because we don't have bricks. it's not because we don't have windows and shingles and all those things. good luck getting it because they can't get enough labor to actually do the manufacturing, and so everyone's running behind, simply because there's a shortage of labor because we're incentivizing people to stay home rather than to be able to come back. shots are in arms. our rates of covid have decreased dramatically. it is time for us to return to work. now we're going to have a situation where we have right now where half the country is incentivized to stay home, and now you have got 21 states, slightly less than half the country that's trying to incentivize people to get back to work. we need as a nation to incentivize work and to encourage families to be able to be engaged in productive activities. it's right for families. it's right for our economy. it's certainly right for us as a nation. and i thank governor stitt for

his leadership in this area and for what we continue to do, but we have got to get back to basic policies that don't disincentivize work. with that, i yield the floor. a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. portman: madam president, let me say i agree with my colleague from oklahoma who just talked about the impact of the federal supplement on unemployment that was passed here in this chamber and signed into law by the president. it's time to end it because the situation has changed dramatically, hasn't it? back when the unemployment additional benefit from the federal government was put in place, we had people who couldn't go to work. thanks to covid, businesses actually were shut down. many by government edict. there were people who lost their jobs through no fault of their own, and therefore this chamber stood up and said okay, for those people, we ought to provide a federal supplement on top of the state unemployment insurance in order to make them whole essentially. so initially it was $600, now

it's $300. that's on top of the state unemployment. now you have a -- an exact opposite situation. you have all these jobs that are open. i just learned that in oklahoma, it's a record number. guess what? it's a record number nationally as well. 8.1 million jobs are being offered right now. that's more jobs than we have ever had open in the united states of america, and it's happening right now. at the same time, you have people on unemployment insurance who are getting the additional $300 on top of the state benefit. in ohio, the average is $360 plus $300, so $660 a week. plus the first $10,000 is not taxed. if you're a truck driver making 40,000 bucks a year, you are being taxed. if you are on unemployment insurance, your first $10,000 of u.i. is not taxed. how is that fair? it creates an additional dis incentive to not go back to work. if you talk to the small business folks in your state,

you will find it's one of the biggest reasons. i think it's the biggest one. another reason is people are having a tough time finding child care. i get that. child care is expensive. part of the solution to that of course is get the kids back to school. 54% of k-8 schools are back in business but the rest aren't. schools being closed makes it really tough for parents to go back to work. one parent has to be there to take care of the kids. that's true. finally there is an issue of the skills gap. i get that. the jobs that are available, some of them are skilled jobs. there are 720,000 manufacturing jobs in america open right now, right now. and yet a lot of them do require a skill level that unfortunately our system of education and training has not prepared people for. this is why our young people need to be given more opportunities to get those industry-recognized certificates to become a he welder or become a technician or become a coder in the i.t. world or become a truck driver because we need those skills badly. but the biggest reason again that i'm hearing all over my

state of ohio is the fact that people are saying, you know what? i'm making what i can make on u.i. that is more than i can make at work. for 42% of americans on average, that's true. 42% are making more on u.i. that's not even including the fact that the first $10,000 is tax free. in ohio, it's more than double the minimum wage what people are making. so this is a problem right now, and we should face it. and by the way, it's in the interests of everybody to resolve this issue. it's in the interests of the small businesses that can't find them. some of these businesses are literally shutting down. geordie's, a restaurant in columbus, ohio, is closed. they literally closed because they can't find workers. other restaurants all over the state of ohio are going five days a week instead of six or seven days a week or cutting a shift because they can't find workers. so it's definitely helpful for those small businesses and for all businesses. but second, it's great for the taxpayer not to have to pay that extra 300 bucks a week.

it's billions of dollars, tens of billions of dollars, even hundreds of billions of dollars, compared to what it would be under current law where the $300 supplement goes until labor day, labor day. with 8.1 million jobs open right now. but finally, i would argue it is particularly good for workers to get back to work, to get back to their careers, to get back to the training they need to keep up with what's going on at work. this is not in everybody's interest to have folks not back in the workforce. we should all want people to be back at work, getting the fulfillment you get from work and the dignity and self-respect that comes from work, but getting a paycheck and getting health care insurance again and getting back into their 401(k) plans, and again closing that resume gap so they are up to speed on the training. and i'll tell you what's happening. this is what concerns me and i think should concern every member of this chamber. businesses are adjusting. do you know what they're doing? they're not just shutting down. they're not just closed two days a week. not just cutting out a shift. some of them are changing the

way they operate in order to be more efficient. what does that mean? that means when you can't find workers, you turn to technology. you turn to automation. and it is happening. and i know there are members in this chamber who think that by giving more money to people, this is a very smart thing to do and it's helping everybody. it's not helping because those jobs are not going to be there in the future. there was a story in "the washington post" today about huntington bank shares. it's a bank in columbus, ohio. they are fielding literally dozens of calls from business owners who are trying to get financing to buy more equipment that will offset their loss in workers. in other words, more automation, more technology, that they would not have otherwise gone to, but because they can't find any workers, they are using their money they would have paid workers to go to more technology. those jobs are gone. and i know again some people maybe on my side of the aisle think that might be a good thing, a more efficient economy. i want people at work. i want companies to be hiring

more people. a good friend of mine who is a manufacturer, she has got about 200 people. she makes a great product, windows in ohio, southwest ohio, hamilton, ohio. she is looking for 60 people right now. 60 people. she is offering a bonus, signing bonus of a thousand bucks, offering other benefits. people aren't showing up. but when the $300 ends and when the additional $10,000 of unemployment insurance not being taxed ends, people will come back to work. the first state to decide you know what? we're going to unilaterally just say we're not going to take the $300 was the state of montana. my colleague from montana told me recently he has a friend who is a total owner. he was having a job fair every week trying to get people to come in to apply for jobs, he was getting about one applicant per week. the week after, the governor said no more $600 -- no more $300 benefit on unemployment insurance in addition to the state benefit, 60 people showed up. now, that may be an extreme example, but i've got to tell

you it's going to make a big difference. let's help get this economy going again. we're turning the corner on covid. we have a situation now where we can actually get started again, get the businesses reopened. i talked about the business owner in columbus, ohio, who was closed down. do you know what his comment was? he said i used the p.p.e. program, the paycheck protection program which we all passed here. i got through covid. we struggled but we made it through covid. we could make it through covid, but now we can't make it because of our own government. paying people more to work -- more not to work on unemployment insurance than we can pay them to work. he feels like his own government has turned on him. that's not helping anybody. it's not helping the small businesses, it's certainly not helping the taxpayer, and not helping those individuals who are not getting back to work, back to their routines, back to the training, back to the 401(k) plan, back to their health care plan, and having the opportunity to achieve their american dream. i hope, madam president, that we change our mind here and don't

continue this until september 6 and decide instead let's get people back to work. i would also be for a $100 a week signing bonus if people were to go back to work. i think that would be a good use of funding. let's say do that for six weeks. at the same time, stop the $300 federal supplement. by doing that, those eight million-plus jobs that are available right now would start to get filled. we could really get our economy back on track. i yield back my time. a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from mississippi. mr. wicker: madam president, my friend from ohio is correct. in many respects, it ought to feel like morning again in america. after all, covid-19 is finally on retreat. the vaccines have been a roaring success because of operation warp speed. 124 americans are now fully immunized, and another 30 million are halfway there. with the exception of a few holdout states, the mask mandates are gone. thank goodness.

by all measures, our economy should be firing on all cylinders, but america now has a workforce problem. people are not getting back to work. in february, the congressional budget office predicted our economy would return to its prepandemic size by the middle of the year without receiving any new stimulus from congress. regrettably, democrats in this chamber brushed off that optimism from the c.b.o. they decided to pass more stimulus to the tune of $1.9 trillion. this time, the money was excessive. it was poorly targeted and passed without bipartisan consensus. three months later, the results are unflattering for my democratic friends. last month, our economy produced a paltry 266,000 jobs when experts had predicted over a million jobs.

this at a time when our economy has a record eight million jobs available, jobs that need to be filled. small businesses are desperate to hire. restaurants, for instance, are having trouble finding people to become waiters and chefs. the national restaurant association reports that in january, 8% of restaurant operators said finding and keeping workers was their number one concern. that number doubled in february. it doubled again in march, then again in april. according to the latest survey, 57% of restaurant operators now say that finding and keeping employees is their biggest problem. the same problem exists across multiple sectors -- hotels, construction, lawn care, welding, tech, the list goes on. madam president, americans would be streaming back into the

workforce if not for the counterproductive policies passed by the majority. government is now paying millions of able-bodied americans to stay home, stay home when they could be back on the job. extended unemployment benefits have become a hindrance to our recovery rather than a help, just as many of us had warned. madam president, march, 2020, was a unique moment of emergency that called for urgent financial relief for the american people. this body passed it on a sweeping bipartisan basis. but it is now may of 2021. the hour of emergency has passed. americans need policies to help them reenter the workforce. fortunately, millions of americans have governors who are pushing back against washington's pay to stay at home policies. jofer tate reeves in my --

governor tate reeves in my state of mississippi is one example. i commend the governor for opting out of the extra insurance benefits to help our state in the recovery. nearly half of all our governors now share that state of mind and are saying no to the unnecessary funds. madam president, the american people do not want drastic changes or dramatic growth of government, they simply want to put this pandemic behind them and get back to providing for their families. americans need government to get out of the way and republicans stand with the american people and on the side of a full recovery. thank you, madam president. mr. barrasso: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: thank you, madam president. i would like to associate myself with the fine remarks of the senator from mississippi who sees whe