legislating. needless to say, final passage of this legislation cannot be the senate's final word, final word on our constitution with china and it certainly will not be mine. as i have warned repeatedly, soft power is only as strong as hard power underpinning it. chinese, his party doesn't hesitate in investing the proceeds of its predatory trade adpractices and influence campaigns directly into modernizing these hard power arsenals. over the past two decades defense spending in beijing has increased astronomically. meanwhile, the biden administration proposal for defense spending looks for -- >> opening remarks from minority leader mitch mcconnell and we will leave it here is the u.s. senate is battling back in to continue debate on the district judge from colorado. later vote on the china competition bill. live coverage of the senate here on c-span2. the presiding officer: the

senator from maine. ms. collins: thank you, madam president. madam president, i rise today to applaud the swift unanimous senate passage last night of the helping american victims afflicted by neurological attacks act, the havana act. this bill will provide much-needed assistance to the employees of the intelligence community, the state department, and other federal agencies who have suffered from often debilitating brain injuries at the hands of our foreign adversaries. too often, madam president, these injured public servants have had to battle the bureaucracy to receive the medical care they desperately require. i'm very pleased today to be joined on the senate floor by

the chairman of the senate intelligence committee, senator warner. he has been relentless in his pursuit of care for these injured public servants who risk their lives for us, who serve in difficult and dangerous environments. senator warner and the vice chairman of the senate intelligence committee, senator rubio, and senator shaheen of new hampshire, worked with me to draft the bill that the senate unanimously cleared last night. we're very pleased that the following senators cosponsored our legislation -- senators cor be anyone, bennet, burr, gillibrand, blunt, heinrich, cotton, king, risch, durbin,

scott, menendez, blumenthal and hassan. madam president, i mentioned those cosponsors to show the breadth of concern in the senate about these injured employees. for several years american personnel serving our country in cuba, china, and elsewhere have experienced unexplained serious medical harm, including in some cases permanent brain injuries. their conditions are believed to be the consequence of a mysterious directed energy weapon used by an adversary. as we investigate the source of previous attacks and seek to prevent future ones, the bill that passed the senate last

night would provide additional medical care and financial compensation to americans who continue to experience debilitating symptoms as a result of these heinous attacks. madam president, the injuries that many of these victims have endured are significant and life-altering. i have talked with many of these victims. they have described debilitating headaches, a loss of vision, a decreased ability to hear, dizziness and many other symptoms as well, including a decline in their cognitive abilities. in some cases they have been forced to medically retire. in other cases they somehow

continue on while coping with these symptoms. i've spoken several times to c.i.a. director burns and the director of national intelligence about these attacks and i am heartened by the commitments that they've made to me and to other members of the senate intelligence committee to care for the victims and to identify the perpetrators and the weapon used in these attacks. we can speculate, we have our suspicions, but the fact is we do not know exactly what the weapon is nor who is wielding it. we need a whole-of-government approach to identify the adversary who is targeting our american personnel, and i am grateful to the chairman and

vice chair of the senate intelligence committee who i know are committed to getting to the bottom of these attacks. i hope that when president biden meets with president putin, that he will ask president putin about these attacks, that he will grill him about them to see if the russians are responsible. at this point we don't know. madam president, the public servants who work in our embassies and consolates overseas make many personal sacrifices to represent america's interests. they deserve our unwavering support when they are harmed in the line of duty, just as we care for soldiers who are

injured on the battlefield. last night, madam president, we took an important step in that direction. thank you, madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from virginia. mr. warner: madam president, i rise today to echo what my good friend and colleague, senator collins, has already said. let me be clear. she pointed out that virtual unanimous support this legislation has from members of the intelligence committee, both sides. let there be no mistake in terms of who was the relentless drivey persistent beyond belief driver -- of this issue. it was susan collins. and once again her service shows

that she is standing up for america's diplomats, the intel community serving our country around the world who, as senator collins already indicated, have been involved in dangerous incidents resulting in brain trauma and other unexplained illnesses. we call it the havana symptoms. for nearly five years we've been aware of these reports and we've seen u.s. personnel attacks in cuba, china, around the world. we have reports here in this country. and rather than disappearing or going down in number, they actually appear to be increasing. five years after the start of this effort, we don't know what

happened, whee -- we don't know who did it, and we don't know what kind of device was used. madam president, this is wrong. particularly i want to point out this is an area where we're again in bipartisan agreement. under the last administration, we didn't treat these victims from the state department community with the seriousness they deserve. i know the hard service and risks and other personnel serving overseas endure, often anonomously, often without recognition. in fact, some of these brave women and men have been subjected to these serious health issues by unknown attackers is unacceptable. that their own government did not believe them when they were injured or denied them proper medical attention and care is beyond the pale. these are folks who are injured while serving our government,

in some cases facing lifelong health consequences. and for awhile they just got blown off. it's inexcusable that they were treated this way, and it's outrageous that we still don't know who did it or what tools were used in these attacks. the country, after their service, needs to have their backs. it was senator collins' legislation now that passed the senate and i hope soon to pass the house we will show the country has their backs. i want to give p credit to the new c.i.a. director, ambassador burns, for making this a top priority. on the senate intelligence committee, there is complete bipartisan unanimity on this issue. we're going to assure the united states gets to the bottom of this, identify attacks on the american personnel, holds them accountable and ensure these attacks stop for once and for

all. let me echo what senator collins said. this should be one in an ever-growing list of topics that president biden ought to raise with president putin. we must protect our people around the globe. at the same time, it's more important than ever that the united states also provides those affected by these attacks with the medical and financial support they deserve. again, that's why senator collins' legislation, havana act, is so important. let me echo again what senator collins said and vice chairman rubio and our good friend senator shaheen, the fact that this passed this quickly unanimously is extraordinarily important, but it is just the first step in having the backs of our diplomats, our intel personnel, our d.o.d., and for that matter, anyone who has been a victim of this kind of action. again i want to thank senator collins for leadership on this issue. i can assure you, as senator collins said and senator rubio

and i have repeated a number of times, the intelligence committee of the senate is going to get to the bottom of this. we're going to to make sure we're taking a giant step on this by passing this legislation, that the personnel will get the medical and if necessary financial assistance they need, that we're going to find out who did it, we're going to find out what type of device, and then we're going to hold them accountable. madam president, with that, i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: madam president, i ask unanimous consent -- i

understand we're not in a quorum call, is that correct? the presiding officer: that's correct, sir. mr. cornyn: , thank you, madam president. as we all know in recent years china has emerged as one of the greatest competitors to the world order. unfortunately they don't play by the same rules that the rest of the international community plays by. the chinese communist party is aggressive and well resourced and made no secret of its intent to gain more influence an power. from everything to national security to economic policy, there's a need for the way our country views and responds to the chal exfrom china. i'm -- challenge from china. i'm glad that the senate is taking up an important step today through the u.s. innovation and competition act. the cornerstone of this legislation is to bolster semiconductor manufacturing so the united states can compete

with china and secure some of our most critical supply chains. nearly 70% of semiconductors made in the world are made in asia, with taiwan dominating the market with 63% of that 90%. in fact taiwan semiconductor company accounted for more than half of the total foundry revenues last year. as i said, companies in taiwan control 63% of the advanced semiconductor markets. if for any reason that supply chain was cut off, it would lead to very serious consequences across our entire economy. to address this, senator warner, the senior senator from virginia and i introduced the chips for america act to shore uf

semiconductor manufacturing and reduce reliance on other companies for one of our most critical products. semiconductors go into everything with an off and on switch. the united states is not the only country that spotted this blinking red light, this danger signal. other countries recognize the immense risk that exists and they are also pouring billions of dollars into new foundries. the european union, for example, is investing up to $35 billion, south korea is investing $65 billion and china is investing a whopping $150 billion in semiconductor manufacturing. so our competitors are pouring in tens of billions of dollars of boosting in supply of semiconductor and the united states needs to keep up and compete. the vast majority of our colleagues agree that this was an important and critical task.

it was carefully crafted in a months-long bicameral negotiation. in fact, this negotiation was adopted as an amendment to last year's defense authorization act by a note of 96-4. now, though, it falls to us to fund what we authorized in the defense authorization bill and there's just one issue standing in the way. during committee consideration of the endless frontiers act that would apply, controversial and unnecessary language to the chips for america life. the prevailing wage provision creates an obstacle to our funding the chips for america act and it confers zero benefit on anybody. because the manufacturing of semiconductors is a very sophisticated, well-paying business. considering the current wages of u.s. semiconductor manufacturing companies, there is zero impact

on workers' wages by requiring companies to pay an elevated to called prevailing wage. so it's really a nonissue. however these davis-bacon provisions represent an unprecedented expansion of a partisan labor policy and applying it to projects and sets a troublesome precedent. leaving this language in the bill has potential to weaken support for this essential broader legislation and i hope that we can all agree that the stakes are simply too high to let that happen. madam president, i've introduced an amendment to strike this unnecessary and divisive provision and to maintain the strong bipartisan support that the chips for america act has earned so far. this partisan provision has no impact on workers' wages and it should hardly be a reason to forfeit the strong bipartisan support the chips program has

previously received. it's important that we send a clear and distinct and unequivocal message to our competitors and rivals in china. republicans and democrats have worked together to bolster semiconductor manufacturing and to confront one of our biggest looming threats from china. now is not the time to sacrifice the progress that we made. i encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this amendment so we can maintain this strong bipartisan support for this essential program. madam president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: thank you, madam president. in january of 2020, when reports began to circulate about the

coronavirus, i instructed my oversight and investigation staff to get a classified briefing from the department of health and human services office of national security. around that same time i publicly said that there were signs that the virus could develop into a worldwide threat. i also noted at that time my concern that china may not be accurately reflecting the scale or scope of the problem and that china was failing to share information with global health organizations. unfortunately, my concerns proved to be true. from the beginning, my goal has been to ensure a robust federal response to the threat and to better understand the origins of the virus. today, as we emerge from the

pandemic, the focus has rightly shifted to understanding how the virus originated. we've lost over 500,000 of our american -- fellow americans, and this body has spent trillions of dollars to support the u.s. economy during the pandemic. we, the people, have an absolute right to know everything that the u.s. government knows about the origins of the coronavirus. on may 8 this year i wrote to the director of national intelligence and the secretary of health and human services requesting all intelligence, among other requests, relating to what the government knows about the origin of the coronavirus. i've received some intelligence product and that product causes

very serious concern and further supports my belief that the ongoing review of its origin can't leave any stone your untu. the effort must be a whole of government approach. in response to my letter, the national institutes of health, an agency within the department of health and human services, stated that it hasn't funded gain of function research on the coronavirus. recent reports have cast doubts on that position. dr. fauci, his unit, provided three-four tenths million dollars to a research organization called echo help appliance.

that group then issued sub grants to the wuhan institute of -- of urology. it's been reported from this $750,000, somewhere between 600,000 and 8$00,000 was sent to the wuhan institute technology. that money, by the way, was u.s. taxpayer money. it was spent researching bat coronaviruses. as the wall street journal noted last week, it's likely that the wuhan institute of urolegy was doing research. it's true that research could have strengthened the virus to the version that caused a global pandemic.

dr. fauci has said that chinese scientists are trustworthy, that -- and i quote him, we generally always trust the grantee to what they say and i can't guarantee that a grantee hasn't lied to us because you never know. end of quote. he also said, so i quote again, i can't guarantee everything that's going on in the wuhan lab. we can't do that. end of quote. what a complete nonsense and a mess that it is. well, dr. fauci, why can't you know what's going on inside the wuhan lab if you're going to send taxpayers to do it? for crying outloud, be aggressive, be accountable. we know the chinese government can't be trusted. we know the chinese government

is involved in risky and deadly viral research. we know that sending money to any entity affiliated with the chinese government is a risky proposition, which is why any sign of any taxpayer money sent to the chinese government should be subject to the most rigorous and comprehensive oversight. if dr. fauci and his team know that taxpayers' money is going to the chinese government, what steps did he and they take to oversee how that money was used? well, that question is exactly what i asked in my march 8, 2021, letter to the department of health and human services.

h.h.s. -- h.h.s. failed to answer what, if any, oversight was done. in my followup letter to the department of health and human services, on may 26 this year, i stated the following, so i quote, your letter failed to describe the steps the department of health and human services took to oversee the research done at the wuhan institute of virology in light of it being funded by the taxpayers. end of that part of my letter. the taxpayers expect the federal government to and at a minnow what their money is -- and at a minimum know what their money is buying. congress expects the federal government to perform aggressive oversight especially when the funded research involves highly infectious and deadly viruses.

furthermore, if no oversight was performed, then that would call into question the government's confidence that no gain of function research was supported by taxpayers' dollars, because that's what i was told by h.h.s. the people have a right to know what the government knows about the origins of the coronavirus. the people have a right to know if dr. fauci and other government officials were derelict in their duty to conduct oversight of the money that they knew would end up with the communist chinese government. dr. fauci is constantly going on television to talk about anything that he wants to talk about. he should start talking about what, if any, oversight he did with respect to taxpayers' money

that he knew was going to the communist chinese government. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from washington. ms. cantwell: i ask that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. cantwell: madam president, i ask unanimous consent to complete my remarks before the vote starts. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. cantwell: i also ask unanimous consent that there be up to three minutes of debate equally divided between the votes today. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. cantwell: madam president, i come to the floor, hopefully

today will be the day we wrap up debate on the america competes endless frontier legislation, now known as the usica, united states innovation and competition act of 2021. we come to talk about this today primarily because we know that the research dollars invested today are going to decide the jobs of the future, and we know that we all believe a significant increase in the investment in research and development dollars will help us spur innovation, continue to help us compete, and continue to be competitive in key sectors of our economy that are so important to us. we know that we've been having this debate literally now for more than a decade, starting with president bush's 2006 report saying america needed to invest more in the national science foundation office. and at the time i'm pretty sure we thought we were in a track meet where our competitor was, oh, i don't know, maybe a half a lap behind us.

i'm pretty sure now as the decade has moved on, we're looking over our shoulder and realizing that the competition is gaining. so we need to make this investment in research and development to stay competitive, to grow jobs for tomorrow, and solve some of our most pressing problems, whether that is climate change, national security on cyber issues or the advent and usage of artificial intelligence and what that will mean both for our opportunities and for our challenges. so we are making a renewed commitment to the national science foundation. i thank my colleagues, senator schumer and senator young for their innovative legislation. they are telling us a couple of things. they are saying, one, invest more money in research and development. so this bill not only increases and the agency funding as well

by $17.5 billion. so it is saying, yes, basic research is still very important. but it is it also saying for the first time we need to get more out of the research that you do and we need to have more tranin- transportational science. that is using the applications of that in a more robust way so we can translate more of that into actual science and manufacturing. why is this so important? because we know our competitiveness as a nation is suffering from the fact that people are looking at our own research and development. they are looking at our teachings and our publishings at universities and going and implementing this. so need to do better on tech transfer. this underlying legislation not only helps us do that by helping to help universities who are our number one research partner with federal dollars, it allows those

universities to help us with more tech transfer in innovative ways, that they not just do the reserve but help commercialize it. it helps to protect the patenting of that critical information so no longer having that patentable information used in other places around the globe but actually capitalizing on the jobs here in the united states. it also makes a huge investment in stem, the science, technology, math jobs. you can't make research if we don't have the workforce to carry it out. it not only diversifies our workforce by a major investment in stem going from an annual budget of about $1 billion in the year 2020 to about $4 billion a year by 2026. so we are going to get a more

diversified stem workforce with women and minorities participating. and we're also trying to distribute more of our engineering and science capacity around the united states. our colleagues, senator schumer and young, were adamant that we also look at innovation infrastructure happening in more regional places in the united states where they may not currently have the r&d capability of some of our major institutions. so this legislation promises 20% of the research and investment dollars go to those ep score states, established program for research and already identified landmark in how we distribute research dollars that tries to grow the regional infrastructure in more states. i thank my colleague senator wicker for leading the charge on that and helping us make that investment. it also triples the

manufacturing extension partnership program so that we get more out of manufacturing workforce training and resiliency of our supply chain for the future. as i mentioned before we left, it also includes an authorization for nasa and the artimiss mission, as china has made it clear, they are going to mars. we are going back to the moon to ready ourselves to go to mars and we think that it too deserves the funding and support to make us competitive. so, madam president, i think the bottom line here is that we know that american innovation drives the economy of the future. in a lot of ways of passing this legislation today, and just so our colleagues know we'll have a couple of votes here before we get to a final passage, we really are doing our part. people will hopefully support

this legislation enthusiastically, well past a majority of members, because you believe in the history of the united states research and development that we have achieved innovation goals, whether that's what we did with the internet, whether that's what we've done on biosciences, even on some of our issues as it relates to yrg, we have a -- energy, we have achieved big breakthroughs. so today's vote is about investing in that innovation economy of the future. i'm pretty confident because i've met some of these innovators across the united states. i don't know if everything we've done so far will be absorbed by universities, our researchers and our labs, but literally we are trying to dust off our r&d skills and make them more competitive for today. i guarantee you, though, that these dollars who reach

entrepreneurs who reach american entrepreneurs, they will willing to take up this challenge. give them the collaborative resources through innovations at universities, through tech hubs, through more collaboration on workforce training, through investments in semiconductors, and i guarantee these entrepreneurs in america will innovate the economy and create the economy of the future. and what's at stake in if my colleagues have a better idea, i'm willing to hear it. i know this. americans want us to lead on their regional economies, on the u.s. economies, and on global economies. they do not want to get left behind. they look at this time and era as a challenge to the leadership we provided in the past. settling for being the lowest percentage of g.d.p. in 60 years doesn't cut it. what cuts it is making an

investment in r&d and empowering entrepreneurs so they will create the future economies. i thank the president and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the question is on the nomination. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to voter change their vote? seeing none, the eyes are 72, the nays are 28. the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order, the motion to reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table, and the president will be immediately notified of the senate's actions. under the previous order, the senate will resume legislative session to consider s. is it 60, which the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 58, s. 1260, a bill to establish a new directorate for science and technology in the national science foundation and so forth and for other purposes. the presiding officer: under the previous order, there will now be three minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to amendment 1858

offered by the senator from texas, mr. cornyn. mr. cornyn: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: madam president, the senate not in order. the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. mr. cornyn: madam president, during the committee markup on this bill in the commerce committee, there was an amendment offered that was accepted that added davis-bacon prevailing wage protection to the underlying bill, which is now the bill before us. this is purely a gratuitous additional to this addition to this bill because the fact? constructing these major semiconductor fabs, they pay far greater than the minimum wage. but perhaps the most dangerous part is the fact that this now is being applied to the private construction. davis-bacon historically, statutorily has been applied only to public works.

but this is an unnecessary expansion and jeopardizes some of the support we are getting for the underlying bill, which we cannot afford to lose any of that have support particular will i when it comes to manufacturing semiconductors here on shore and shoring up of supply chain. i'd ask colleagues to vote for the amendment. mrs. murray: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: thank you, madam president. construction is hard, dangerous work, and too often when it comes to wages for workers we see a race to the bottom where workers and communities lose. prevailing wage requirements such as we have in this bill help make sure that construction jobs created by the federal government come with a fair wage that supports our local communities. prevailing wage requirements have long had bipartisan support, including in this bill. this amendment would strip those protections for construction workers.

at the same time we need to help rebuild our country's infrastructure. the workers and the communities who build our bridges and our highways and other critical infrastructure deserve the protections and benefits prevailing wage provides. i urge my colleagues to oppose amendment number 1858. the presiding officer: the question occurs on the amendment is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: on this vote the yeas are 42, the nays are 58. the amendment is not agreed to. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from florida. the senate will be in order. the senator from florida is recognized. mr. scott: thank you, mr. president. there is an urgent need for the united states to -- commitment we all made to american taxpayers to be responsible stewards of their tax dollars. america's in a merely $30 trillion debt crisis. we can't afford to spend $250 billion on a bill that doesn't pay for itself, it will

add to the deficit in dramatic fashion. which is what triggers the point of order. in 2018, we agreed not to pass spending bills without a way to pay for it. there is no plan to pay for this. spending beyond our means has consequences. there will be a day of reckoning. mr. president, this -- the pending measure, senate amend 1502, would violate the ongoing deficit. i raise a point of order against this measure, pursuant to section 410 # of house concurrent resolution 701. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from washington. twl cantwell pursuant to -- ms. cantwell: the waiver provisions of applicable budget resolutions and section 4g3 of the pay-as-you-go act, i move to

waive all applicable sections of those acts and budget resolutions for the purposes of the pending measure. i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the yeas and nays are ordered. the senator from washington. ms. cantwell: if i could to explain to my colleagues about this vote because it goes beyond the simplicity of the debate regarding the semiconductor chips. the way this point of order is drafted basically would gut the bill. it not only guts the provisions related to the chips emergency appropriations, but it strikes the foreign relations committee work, it strikes the homeland security committee's work, it strikes the banking committee's work, it effectively strike the help committee work and the judiciary and most importantly the finance committee work, which was the entire finance

committee insistent that the g.s.p. and insistence of preferences be included in the bill all those things that everybody wishes to be in the bill would no longer be in the bill, including the department of energy funding, so i ask my colleagues to waive the point of order, vote yes and let us move this legislation forward. the presiding officer: t the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. the yeas and nays were previously ordered. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: the yeas are 72, the nays are 28. three-fifths of the senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in the affirmative, the position is agreed to, and the point of order falls.

ms. cantwell: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from washington. ms. cantwell: we have been working for almost a month to view and vet hundreds of amendments filed by my colleagues on both sides. many of you followed the floor debate here where we agreed to numerous amendments and had discussion on many more. i think 20 to be exact. we've been working on a managers' package that was previously objected to before we left for the recess. since then, we've been working diligently with our colleagues, senator wicker on the commerce committee, to put forth a bipartisan package of amendments to improve the legislation -- the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the senator from washington. ms. cantwell: many of these provisions have been great bipartisan efforts. senators ernst and hassan an amendment to improve the transparency of the national

science foundation grant funding. senator blackburn had a technical fix on studying the possible threats to our communications network and fiber-optic transmission. senator warnock's amendments to clarify the definition of minority-serving institutions on stem grants. senator cortez masto worked on several bipartisan pieces of legislation to resolve issues on amendments dealing with crit icle minerals -- critical minerals in recycling. in total, we have 42 amendments, 23 led by republicans, 19 led by democratic, many of which, as i said, are bipartisan. these amendments would seek to improve the bill and accomplish a number of priorities. this is what happens when you negotiate on the senate floor in regular order. you vote on amendments, you have some voice-vote amendments, and you have a managers' package. so i happy hope did -- so i hope our colleagues will give our colleagues the chance to have

their amendments accepted into the panel. so i ask unanimous consent that the following amendments be agreed to en bloc. collins 1583, fisher 1638, johnson 1701, shaheen 1758, rubio 1777, thune 1851, wicker 1943, hagerty 1958, cotton 1964, blunt 1988, scott 2000, ernst-hassan 2017, romney-menendez 2025, lou hasn't 2082, rosen 1768, merkley 1823, warnock 1980, murray 1981, massen 2001, warren-rubio 2104, wicker 1801, leahy-tillis 2093,

blackburn 2085, cortez mass so 2083, lankford 1945, a baldwin-braun 2026, hyde-smith 1933 romney 2103, kennedy 2113, barrasso 2094, rubio 2106, cain 2090, barrasso cornyn, peters 2112, baldwin 2081, and cardin-wicker, as maddified, 1782. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. paul: this bills a over $250 billion to our debt. the additional debt will make us

weaker. the massive federal spending of the last two years is already causing inflation throughout the supply chain and will lead to economic stagnation. there is nothing conservative about this bill. the bill is nothing more than a big-government response that will make our country weaker, not stronger. i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. ms. cantwell: mr. president, i do believe our colleagues have worked hard to have their legislation considered. i want them to know i am going to continue to promulgate these ideas about competitiveness. i had a chance to lay it home. for me, it is a long way. so you get a lot of reading done. i read chris wallace's new book about 1945 and the number of days that our nation had to real estate spond to the threat of war, what it took them to go out and develop the manhattan project, to get them to go and not only, in my state, develop the hanford site, los alamos, develop that, develop what

happened at oak ridge in both a scientific and response to make our nation more secure. all we're asking for here is a little r&d dollars. so i can tell you that i wish we would find the lesley groves of today because those are the people that responded to our nation when we needed to respond in a competitive fashion. so i am so sorry that our colleagues' amendments aren't going to be considered. but if my colleague's underlying premise is you don't want to respond to the competitive threats of our nation, you have the right to vote no. but i think holding up our colleagues' good work i any is a mistake. i will commit that these important things on minerals, transparency, on moving forward in science, we will continue to work with you. i thank the president, and i think we now have a vote on the substitute amendment. the presiding officer: the question appears on amendment

1502. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote: vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: on this vote the yeas were 68. the nays were 32. the amendment as amended is agreed to.

under the previous order, the cloture motion is withdrawn. the clerk will read the title of the bill for the third time. the clerk: calendar number 58, s. 1260, a bill to establish a new directorate for technology and innovation in the national science foundation. and so forth and for other purposes. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from washington. ms. cantwell: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that myself, senator cantwell, senator young, senator wicker be allowed to speak before the vote. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. ms. cantwell: mr. president, i just wanted to take a moment to thank my colleagues and to -- the presiding officer: the senate will come to order and give attention to the senator from washington. ms. cantwell: thank you, mr. president. i just wanted to take a moment

to thank obviously my colleague senator schumer and senator young for their hard work on this legislation and thank my counterpart senator wicker for his tremendous effort in moving this bill. we've now been on this bill -- we reported it out may 12, i think it came on the calendar may 13 and literally been working on it since. this is very hard effort to produce something very important to today's economy. so i want to thank senator schumer's staff mike and john, megan tyra, gary patrell and john keys, crystal, stephen wall, james mazel, sherpy pasco of senator wicker's office. on my team david strickland, melissa porter and mary gunther but specifically want to thank richard james chambers who came to the senate from the defense authorization program agency. i think maybe like a week before

we started working on this bill. so literally since he joined the senate commerce committee has been just knee deep in the conversation of dusting off our r&d for the nation, making a new investment, making more translational science. so i really appreciate richard dwayne's effort. i also want to thank sean bone, john, ron, alex simpson, gerard, shannon smith, john beezer, tiffany george, jordan blue, kara fisher, niki tooshell, matt babink, kaitlin, alec, george greenwall, al, alexis gutierrez, brian mcdermott, lucy cox, and hunter blackburn and alex hall. so all of these people. i think my colleagues, they know

these bills don't come about easily. they come through a lot of hard work. we thank everyone for participating on a regular process order on the floor to produce a bipartisan result to something for our nation. the presiding officer: the senator from mississippi. mr. wicker: i certainly rise in up is port of this legislation and urge a yes vote. this is an opportunity for the united states to strike a blow on behalf of answering the unfair competition that we are seeing from communist china. it's an opportunity to have a game changer in terms of geographic diversity in our research efforts. this morning the armed services committee heard extensive testimony about the need to compete with china at the military level. this is an opportunity to compete with china at the research level. this bill will strengthen our country's innovation in key

technology fields of the future, areas such as artificial intelligence, robotics, quantum computing, and communications. and this bill also is a game changer in terms of giving universities all over the united states an opportunity to participate in game changing research which will help us compete. universities largely in smaller states such as mine have been left behind in the past. they will finally under this legislation have an opportunity to participate in research at a meaningful level. so two good reasons to vote yes. the distinguished chair of the committee has been gracious in thanking all of our staffs on the majority and the minority side. i appreciate her doing that as well as senator cantwell's admiral job of managing this bill through the committee. i congratulate the two authors

of this bill senator schumer and senator young, the sponsor of this legislation. this bill is headed toward passage with a fine bipartisan vote. and i'm pleased to support passage. thank you, mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from indiana. mr. young: mr. president, i want to begin by thanking my colleague, senator schumer, senator wicker, senator cantwell all showed exceptional leadership over the course of drafting this legislation. and ensuring it made it through the process. also i want to thank members of my team, lauren o'brien, my legislative director. brant anderson my national security adviser. dan chever, nancy martinez on my legislative staff. they went above and beyond. so this piece of legislation, yes, indeed, is related to countering the threat that the chinese communist party presents to this country. but it also is a piece of

legislation that we're considering at a time when so many of our citizens feel overlooked, when the intimate communities that they all -- call home feel hollowed out and when trust in our institutions is eroding. when allegiance seems increasingly to our political tribes and not to one another on behalf of the common good. so let's not kid ourselves. the chinese communist party aims to exploit all of these divisions. they aim to exploit the securities of global age. they aim to ensure that their power and their capabilities continue to grow and they are indeed locked in a global competition with the united states of america and with our partners and allies. so let's do what we've always done as americans in times like this. let's come together and let's use this as an opportunity to become a better version of

ourselves i'll end with this, mr. president. when generation after generation of immigrants have come into the new york harbor, they've seen that beautiful statue of liberty. at the base of the statue of liberty is a sonnet. everyone here in this chamber and so many across america are familiar with the words of that sonnet. give me your tired, your poor, huddled masses. there's also a line in there about in prison lightning. i'm not sure what is meant by the phrase but it refers, to me, to the untapped potential, the god-given potential of every human being. and this legislation, the endless frontier act, aims to tap into that imprison lightning, across the heartland to make sure they can stay part of the game.

outinnovate, outgrow the chinese communist party. we will win. we're going to get a great vote today. and i thank all of my colleagues for their attention to support this legislation. mr. schumer: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. schumer: first, i for, would like to thank senators cants quell and wicker. they did an amazing bipartisan job. senators menendez and risch, another great bipartisan contribution. all the members, just about every member has contributed to this bill. i do want to single out two of my staff members who just slaved over this bill relentlessly. and that is mike kyton and john cardinal. mike is thr. i don't know if john is here but they deserve tremendous kudos. without them i don't think we'd have a bill, to be honest with you. and everybody else, all the other staffs who worked so hard. now, this is a quote from dr dr. vanderveer bush. could we have order,

mr. chairman. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the majority leader. mr. schumer: without scientific progress, no amount of achievement in other directions can ensure our health, prosperity, and security in the modern world. that was dr. vanderveer bush, the head of the u.s. office of scientific research writing in 1945. his report to have president truman was titled science, the endless frontier. an inspiration to the legislation we consider today. in the wake of dr. bush's report, we created the national science foundation. we funded the national laboratories. we split the at tom. we spliced the gene, we landed man on the moon. we unleashed the internet. we generated 75 years of american prosperity and fostered an innate sense of optimism in the american spirit. now we face a challenge now in

this century to replicate the success of the previous one. but the federal government's commitment to science, unfortunately, has waned. as a percentage of g.d.p. we spend less than half as much as the chinese communist party on basic verch. -- basic research. we rely on foreign nations to supply critical technologies that we invented, like semiconductors. that sunny american optimism has flickered as well. the world is more competitive now than at any time since the end of the second world war. if we do nothing, our days as the dominant superpower may be ending. we don't mean to let those days end on our watch. we don't mean to see america become a middling nation in this century. we mean for america to lead it. passing this bill now called the

u.s. innovation and competition act is the moment when the senate lays the foundation for another century of american leadership. let me say that again. this bill could be the turning point for american leadership in the 21st century. and for that reason this legislation will go down as one of the most significant bipartisan achievements of the u.s. senate in recent history. around the globe authoritarian governments believe that squabbling dms like ours can't unite around national priorities. they believe that democracy itself is a relic of the past and by beating us to emerging technologies, they, many of the more ought to beeries will be able to reshape the world in their own image. let me tell you something i believe they are wrong. i believe that this legislation

will enable the united states to outinnovate, outproduce, and outcompete the world in the industries of the future. and i believe that the strongly bipartisan work on this bill has revealed that in this chamber, we all believe that another american century lies on the horizon. i urge my colleagues to vote yes. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the question is on passage of the bill as amended. is there a sufficient second? there is. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: on this vote the yeas are 68, the nays are 32. the 60-vote threshold having been achieved, the bill is

passed. the senator from washington. mrs. murray: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that i and senator schumer be permitted to complete our remarks prior to the next vote. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. murray: thank you, mr. president. you know, it has been more thans been more than half a century since the equal pay act became law, and 12 years since president obama signed the lilly ledbetter fair pay act, but women in the united states still on average earn 82 cents on the dollar compared to their male counterparts and the wage gap is far greater for women of color, because even though the equal pay act and the lilly ledbetter act were critical steps forward there is clearly a lot more we have got to do. right now an employer can brush aside reports of pay discrimination by saying things like, quote, well, he was a

better negotiator. or they work in different buildings. i mean, what does that have to do with it? and too often a woman's history of being paid less means she gets paid less in the future because her past salary can be used to determine her future salary regardless of what her counterparts are making or her new responsibilities. and that has real consequences for women and their families. today four out of ten mothers with children under the age of 18 are their family's primary or sole breadwinners. as families rely more on women's wages to make ends meet, the gender pay gap has an even greater impact on children. for example, over the course of just one year, the wage gap for latino women averages almost $30,000 less compared to what a white man earns. we are talking about women losing out on hundreds of thousands of dollars over the course of their working lives, and that is money that could go to pay the bills, put food on

the table, buy a house, start a business, save for retirement, get an education, and so much more. instead women struggle with lifelong financial effects, including higher poverty rates as compared to men. women are being shortchanged, plain and simple, and this pandemic, by the way, has made things worse. millions of women now, as we know, have left the labor force and many have fallen behind, just as care-giving responsibilities have disproportionately fallen on them. according to one study a woman who is earning about $47,000 a year before the pandemic could lose nearly a quarter of a million dollars over her lifetime, assuming she's able to return to work this year. the pandemic has set women, and in particular women of color, back even further and made clear just how urgent it is for us to act. because you know what? if women don't recover from this crisis, our economy will not

either, which is why we desperately need to close the wage gap. we've got a responsibility to finally make sure women are paid fairly for their work so women can build financial security for themselves, for their families, for their communities. and so our economy, so much of which is driven by women, by the way, can fully recovery from this crisis. we've been fighting for the paycheck fairness act for quite some time, but for those who need a reminder, he's what it would -- here's what it would do simply. it would close the loopholes that allow pay discrimination to continue and protect workers from retaliation for discussing their pay. it will limit the use of prior wage history in the hiring process so pay discrimination cannot follow workers from job to job. and it will increase transparency and accountability so workers know whether they're being treated fairly, and so they have the evidence to hold their employers accountable if they are not. these are commonsense steps, and that's why this bill already

passed the house with bipartisan support, and it's up to the senate now to get this done because the reality is each and every senator represents a state where half of the population earns less than they deserve, and that's ridiculous. it's past time we end this injustice. i urge my colleagues to join me in voting to finally put money women have earned fair and square in their pockets where it belongs and take an essential step towards ensuring our economy can build back stronger and fairer fromcovid19. there is nothing controversial about making sure every worker gets paid fairly for their work. women have been waiting long enough. they need the paycheck fairness act now more than ever. let's get this done. thank you, mr. president. mr. schumer: mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority leader is recognized. mr. schumer: i want to thank the senator from washington for her incredible leadership not only on this bill, but on this issue for pretty close to a decade.

it's long overdue. you know, we've been working in a very bipartisan way on numerous subjects, including the competition bill that just passed, but it appears there are real limits to bipartisanship here in the senate. we're about to vote just to start debate, just to start debate on a bill that's very simple -- provide equal pay for women. it's a modest proposal to address a real problem in our economy. women with the same jobs and same qualifications as their male colleagues often make less money. it's too hard for too many women to overcome that pay discrimination. this makes it easier for women to achieve pay parity and like the previous bill, will help unleash strong economic forces to help america go forward. because when women are not getting the pay they deserve, it impedes our whole economy and all of the human resources that we need. every senate democrat is ready to start debate on the paycheck fairness act, but senate

republicans seem to be mounting another partisan filibuster against this bill. it's ridiculous that senate republicans will not even allow the senate to debate a straightforward piece of legislation to help provide equal pay for working women in america, just like it was ridiculous for the republican minority to filibuster bipartisan legislation to create an independent commission on january 6. americans expect their government to make progress to improve our country, but senate republicans once again seem to be choosing obstruction. i yield the floor and ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: we, the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to proceed to calendar number 46, h.r. 7, an act to amend the fair labor standards act of 1938, and so

forth and for other purposes. signed by 17 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is, is it the sense of the senate that debate on the motion to proceed to h.r. 7, an act to amend the fair labor standards act of 1938 to provide for effective remedies to victims of discrimination in the payment of wages on the basis of sex and for other purposes, shall be brought to a close. the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: on this vote, the yeas are 49, the nays are 50. three-fifths of the senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted in the affirmative, the motion is not agreed to.

mr. whitehouse: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: i ask unanimous consent the senate be in a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: thank you, madam president. in my opening speech, about the right-wing scheme to capture the court, the supreme court, i described the secret strategy memo that lewis powell wrote on the eve of his appointment to the court. about how to deploy corporate political power. as a justice of the supreme court, powell had the chance to prove to the corporate world his secret memo's theory of what could be achieved by exploiting

judicial action, his phrase, particularly with, as he called it, an activist-minded supreme court. second, powell had the chance on the court to start laying the legal groundwork for precisely the sort of corporate political activity that his secret memo had recommended to the u.s. chamber of commerce. and powell did both. the first case that allowed powell to implement recommendations from his secret report came in 1976 in a case about the federal election campaign act. the case was buckley versus vallejo and the decision was a beast. 138 pages with another 83 pages of dissent and concurrence, cobbled together by the court with what one observer called

extraordinary speed. five justices in that case, including powell, were described as first amendment hawks who were wary of any portion of the federal election campaign act that could inhibit free speech and association. now, you have to understand that free speech and association were buzzwords for corporate political activity, precisely of the sort championed in powell's secret chamber memo. free speech meant corporate america having the right to be heard, even too -- even to, as the court said, equal time. freedom of association provided corporations the organization, careful long-range planning and implementation, and well-financed joint effort, all

those quotes, that powell had recommended be done in his report, quote, through united action and national organizations. the court's decision in vallejo did two noncontroversial things. it accepted that campaign contributions could be limited because unlimited campaign contributions could give rise to corruption, or at least the appearance of corruption. unlimited donations to candidates would even, quote, undermine representative democracy, the court said. no big deal. the court also decided that candidates may spend as much of their own money as they want on their own campaigns. it considered unlimited spending on one's own campaign protected by the first amendment as there was little danger of corruption from spending one's own campaign money on oneself. so both of those holdings are

unremarkable. what was remarkable was where powell and his hawks took the court when other interests like corporate interests wanted to spend money on a candidate. corporate political spending per se was not at issue in the case, but spending by special interests is precisely the kind of political influence which powell had recommended in his secret report to the chamber. powell and his hawks said special interest political spending, so long it was not in the form of a campaign contribution, was protected by the same principle that protected a candidate spending his own money on his own campaign. powell asserted that limiting the supposedly independent special interest

expenditures -- and i quote him here -- perpetrates the grossest infringement on first amendment rights, end quote. he did acknowledge the interest in purity of elections, but he used skeptical quotation marks around the word purity, just like he had used skeptical quotation marks in his report around the word environment. but powell dismissed those purity concerns as likely illusory, to use his word. powell's bench memo for the case critiqued the election laws, quote, attempt to lower barriers to political competition to increase the range of voter voices. in read the attempt to open access for the many necessarily involves limiting the power of the few to exercise rights of

speech and association protected by the constitution. this interest in protecting the power of the few aligns exactly with powell's secret chamber memo about corporate power. it aligns with powell's own notes which have more of his disparaging quotation marks, questioning some of the briefs filed in the valeo case that, quote, identify one of the evils as the power of the wealthy few few, undefined but obviously unworthy people to influence elections unduly, end quote. in tone and in import, that comes right out of powell's secret chamber report which counted on the power of the corporate few. powell's richmond history, his corporate law practice, his social position, his board room

experience and his anxiety about upheaval all align with a corporate world view that society's decisions should be made by the sort of people in corporate boardrooms. so the power of those few had to be protected to battle against what his report had called the broad attack both on the american free enterprise system and the american political system of democracy under the rule of law, end quote. particularly important it was to protect that power when, as he had written to the chamber, the trouble is deep and the hour is late. to accommodate that corporate perspective, the court had to reach judgments about politics. it showed itself helpless. the amateurish political outlook

of the court in valeo stood out in the late-added footnote 52, which in the interest of drawing clear lines, vagueness being a stated concern of the justices, exempted from disclosure particular advertisements that did not expressly advocate for the election or defeat of a candidate using magic words like vote for, vote against, elect, or defeat. in the court's amateur opinion, a hostile bombardment of tv advertising challenging a candidate's morals, decency or integrity, or attacking the candidate's alignment with the community's values and dropped on the candidate in the heat of election season with the intention of defeating the candidate was not deemed advocacy in the election unless it used those magic words.

the idiocy of that premise is obvious to anyone in politics. the court's amateurish folly about political spending extended to presuming that spending by a powerful interest for a candidate would create no risk of corruption, that the spending and the resulting influence could be kept separate and independent. that is idiotic in real life. when a powerful political interest starts signaling that it will spend enormous sums to support candidates, guess what? candidates will find a way to take advantage, perhaps by attracting the spending to their own side by the positions they take or perhaps by avoiding taking positions that would send the spending to their opponent's side. the court presumed that some etiquette would separate

interest from candidate, but that was folly. it's blindingly naive to think that politics would produce no work-arounds, that no coordination or signaling or intermediaries would violate whatever etiquette of independence the court had in mind. as we know, information travels fast in politics, never mind the etiquette. drop a rock in a stream, and the stream flows around it. put eager candidates and enormous interested spenders together, and trouble will follow. as it has. look no farther than the corruption of american politics on climate change by the fossil fuel industry. again, this was idiocy from amateurs, but the valeo folly accomplished one thing. it opened the lane for unlimited special interest spending to come into elections to support

or oppose candidates, just as powell's secret memo had recommended. the next opportunity for powell came two years later, and this time it involved not just the type of political be activity corporations would likely undertake, but corporations directly. massachusetts had banned corporate campaign contributions from state-wide political refer renda. -- referenda. the bank of boston sued. frank belanty defended. first national bank of boston v. belanty wound its way up to the supreme court. here the question was the very right of corporations to influence popular elections, in this case a referendum election. in a 5-4 decision, powell wrote for the republican-appointed majority that corporations had a

constitutional right to engage in that political activity. this outcome can't be found in the constitution which provides no political role whatsoever to corporations, but this outcome aligned precisely with the recommendations of powell's secret report to the chamber. indeed, it was the heart of his pitch to the chamber. his entire secret plan for corporate political power would fall apart if states could bar corporate influence from elections, even referendum elections. powell had urged in his secret report that corporate interests not have the slightest hesitation to press vigorously in all political arenas, end quote, and that corporations should show no reluctance to penalize politically those who oppose them, end quote.

corporations could never press vigorously or penalize politically if they could be kept out of elections. and so belatty was decided. paired with valeo, the bellaty decided corporations had a right to engage in elections, at least referendum elections with as much money as they wanted or as much as they could raise so long as election spending was not in the form of campaign contributions. ultimately this laid the framework for the infamous citizens united decision, another bare 5-4 republican majority that gave in this case corporate interests a full constitutional right to unlimited political spending and as a practical matter, to

unlimited anonymous political spending. how in belatty did they get around a corporation no political rights. the trick used was too focus on the message, not the messenger. completely overlook that it was a corporation, not a person. the court said that corporate political spending was actually speech that influencing a popular referendum was the type of speech at the heart of representative democracy, and that the public had a right to hear it. the fact that corporations are not people and indeed that they have advantages over real people in electioneering and indeed that they might even come to dominate popular democracy because of these advantages was overlooked. but directing attention to the

speech, not the speaker if the type of speech was relevant to the public debate, powell said, it doesn't matter whether a corporation or a person says it. except every piece of this is wrong. money is not speech, corporations are not people. and looking at the message, not the messenger, would allow any entity's message into our politics, even foreign ones. then add in anonymity and the problem goes toxic, as we know see in our country today. we the people becomes we the hidden anything with money. the last case for powell was federal election commission versus massachusetts citizens for life in 1986.

here the question was whether an advocacy group of precisely the kind powell in mind in the chamber memo was forbidden to spend its corporate treasury funds in a federal election. now the situation was that congress had blocked corporations from using their treasury funds in federal elections. they had to raise money from voluntary donations. hence, the corporate pacs that we've seen that had to raise and spend their own money. the court accepted that corporate treasuries might give corporate voices, quote, an unfair advantage in the political marketplace, given their vast corporate wealth and resources. but in the case before it, the court decided that nonprofits were different. they were designed for advocacy, and they didn't have

the same sort of treasury funds as business corporations. again, remember the powell memo. powell didn't recommend that corporations undertake their political work directly. he had pressed for organization, for joint effort. he had urged corporate america to pursue, and i quote, the political power available only through united action and national organizations. and guess what? the u.s. chamber of commerce, the national organization to which powell had delivered a secret recommendation, was a nonprofit corporation. in his years on the court, lewis powell made good on the secret recommendations that he had made to the u.s. chamber of commerce five months before joining the court. he showed that an

activist-minded supreme court -- his words -- could be that important instrument for social, economic, and political change -- his words -- that he had proposed. he opened a lane for unlimited money into politics, enabling what his secret report had called, and i quote, the scale of financing available only through joint effort, end quote. he bulldozed aside bars on corporate spending and politics, so corporations could deploy just as his report had urged, and i quote here, whatever degree of pressure publicly and privately may be necessary, end quote. and he allowed advocacy organizations to spend their treasuries in politics, opening the way for the organization

joint effort and united action he had called for in his report through national organizations. all the key pieces were in place to unleash the corporate influence machine that he had recommended to the chamber. influence that dominates much of american politics today, influence that controls much of what we do in the senate chamber today, and in which, of all things, the chamber that was his client for the secret report is today the apex predator of corporate influence, read in tooth and claw. everything was in line for what

powell had recommended, corporate political power, cultivated, used aggressively and with determination with no hesitation to attack, not the slightest hesitation to press vigorously in all political arenas and no reluctance to penalize those who oppose. it's a dark achievement, but it's quite an achievement. and, interestingly, powell's official biography frames out his judicial career without mentioning his role as the early orchestrator of corporate political influence in american politics. it is actually likely his most significant and lasting legacy. to be continued. i yield the floor.

mr. schumer: madam president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. schumer: i move to proceed to executive session to consider calendar 131. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. opposed no. the ayes appear to have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, the judiciary, zahid n. quraishi of

new jersey to be united states district judge for the district of new jersey. mr. schumer: i send a cloture motion to the desk. the clerk: cloture motion. we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of executive calendar number 131, zahid n. quraishi, of new jersey, to be united states district judge for the district of new jersey, signed by 17 senators -- mr. schumer: i ask consent the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: i move to proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. all opposed, no the -- no. the ayes appear to have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. schumer: madam president, i move to proceed to executive session to consider calendar number 129. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. opposed no. the ayes appear to have it.

the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, the judiciary, ketanji brown jackson of the district of columbia to be united states circuit judge for the district of columbia circuit. mr. schumer: i send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: cloture motion. we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of executive calendar number 129, ketanji brown jackson, of the district of columbia, to be united states circuit judge for the district of columbia circuit, signed by 17 senators as follows -- mr. schumer: i ask consent the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: i move to proceed to legislative session.

the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. opposed no. the ayes appear to have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. schumer: finally, i ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum call for the cloture motion filed today, jun. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that the judiciary committee be discharged from further consideration, the senate now proceed to s. res. 184. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 184, designating the week of may 2, 2021, through may 8, 2021, as tartif diconesia awareness week. the presiding officer: without objection, the bill is discharged and the senate will proceed. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection.

mr. schumer: madam president, i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of the following resolutions that were submitted earlier today en bloc. senate resolution 262, senate resolution 263. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 262, to authorize testimony, documents, and representation in united states v. dodd. senate resolution 263, to authorize testimony, documents, and representation in united states v. taylor. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measures en bloc. mr. schumer: i further ask that the resolutions be agreed to, the preambles be agreed to, the motions to be reconsidered be considered made and laid upon the table en bloc, with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that as if in executive session, the

nomination of arun ramon of the district of columbia to be assistant secretary of commerce and director general of the united states and foreign commercial service received in the senate on may 27, 2021, be jointly referred to the committees on banking, housing, and urban affairs and the committee on commerce, science, and transportation. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10:30 a.m., wednesday, june 9, that following the prayer and pledge, the morning business be deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and morning business be closed. further, upon the conclusion of morning business, the senate proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the quraishi nomination. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order. the presiding officer: the the presiding officer: the

these confirmations marked the first lifetime appointments president biden made since taking office. senators went on to prove a bill to expand science and technology research in the u.s. to better compete with china. the senate made some changes to the house passed bill so goes back to the house. live coverage of the u.s. senate when they return here on c-span2. ♪♪ >> unfiltered view of government. funded by these television companies and more including medco. ♪♪ ♪♪

public service, along with other television providers giving a front row seat to democracy. >> is with the head on c-span2. the conversation about healthcare in the u.s. in creating patient focused system. secretary of state anthony blinken testifies on poor foreign policy and the 2022 budget. ♪♪ >> c-span's "washington journal" every day we take your calls live on the air on the news of the day and discuss policy issues that impact you. wednesday morning, marty we carry, the price we pay about the u.s. healthcare system and then we'll talk about america's cybersecurity and recent ran somewhere attack on critical infrastructure with jamil, former senior counsel and senior vice president cybersecurity.

watch c-span's "washington journal" live seven eastern wednesday morning and joined the discussion with your phone calls, facebook comments, texts and tweets. ♪♪ >> next, liz phallic, new deputy administrator for the centers for medicare and medicaid services speaking about the biden administration's healthcare. this fertile event is just under an hour. >> editor in chief of health affairs. welcome to today's policy. in-depth confirmation of health policy experts in washington and around the country. we are thrilled totr have liz phallic as our first policy spguest. policies one of many changes health