nomination of a u.s. district court judge for new jersey and if confirmed he would be the countries first muslim federal judge in the third of president biden's judicial nominees to be approved by the senate. this is one of several judicial nominations being considered this week in the senate. and now live to the floor of the u.s. 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. gracious god, without you our mortal flesh is but disappearing dust.

draw close to our lawmakers, for in your presence they discover their dignity and destiny. make your face shine with favor upon them today, as they strive to do your will. lord, give them the wisdom to seek your guidance, depending upon your redemptive power to direct their steps. lift them into the saving knowledge that they are your children made in your likeness. strengthen them to plant seeds that will bring a harvest of peace and purity. we pray in your righteous name. amen.

the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington d.c., june 9, 2021. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable ben 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. morning business is closed. under the previous order, the senate will proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the following nomination which the clerk will report. 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: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. schumer: thank you, mr. president. now, 68-32, that was the final vote tally last night for the u.s. competition and innovation act, usica, an overwhelming display of bipartisan support, a rarity on a major bill in this senate. the think the final vote reflects the importance of the bill, outcompeting our adversaries, especially the chinese communist party, to strengthening critical supply chains as well our alliances abroad. i believed that future generations will look back on this competition bill as the turning point for american leadership in the 21st century. i think the depth of the bipartisan support reflects the process we took as well.

the kernel of the bill is legislation i wrote with todd young, the frontier act. over three weeks the senate considered more than 20 amendments, the vast majority from republicans. in fact, the senate even accepted an amendment from senator paul by voice vote. that doesn't happen touch around here. -- too often around here. excluding budget resolutions, nearly as many amendments have received roll call votes on this one bill as on all the bills in 2017 when the republicans were in the majority. nearly as many amendment votes on this one bill as over that entire year. we are running the senate nadir way. so i want to thank -- we are running the senate in a different way. so i want to thank my colleagues for their efforts, senators cantwell and wicker, senator young for working with me from

the beginning until the end. senators menendez and risch as well as murray, durbin, peters, brown and wyden, who i am committing working with to put real teenage in the provisions in this bill. the job is not done until the legislation moves through the house and on to the president's desk. now that the bill has passed the senate, we're going to work with speaker pelosi and the relevant chairs in the house to move this bill forward as quickly as possible. of course the house can bring in additional priorities, but i am intent on seeing the major thrust of this legislation become law. the bill is so important to the future of america that the house and senate must come together and send president biden a bill he is very, very eager to sign. yesterday the senate took a bold, strong step towards boosting america's science and technology and innovation for

decades. we're going to keep at it -- keep at it -- until we cross the finish line. on paycheck fairness, almost immediately, however, we saw the limits of bipartisanship in the senate last evening right after we voted on usica, the united states innovation and competition act a mince after coming together to pass that sweeping competition bill, senate republicans mounted a partisan filibuster against a very straightforward piece of legislation to help provide equal pay to women. the vote was party line. not a single republican senator voted in favor of even debating the bill. sure, my colleagues might not like every aspect of democratic legislation. i understand that. but if you want to change the bill, you have to let the senate debate it and amend it. it's shocking that my republican colleagues believe that the senate has no role to play in defending the rights of women who are unfairly and illegally discriminated against in the workplace. for that reason, for a reason

that i can't understand, the issue of pay equity has become a partisan one, sadly. democrats in favor, republicans opposed. despite the fact that the issue isn't that partisan out in the country, a solid majority of voters see pay equity as a problem and believe congress has had a role to play in solving it. it reminds me of gun safety -- 90% to 95% of america supports expanding background checks so that people who shouldn't get a gun -- felons and others -- don't e the vast majority of republicans in the country, the vast majority of gun owners in the country support that policy. only in d.c. among republicans here in the senate and in the house is that issue remotely partisan, where washington republicans have traditionally opposed it. so before the press writes the latest republican filibuster of equal pay legislation is just another chapter in a typical partisan game, just remember

that the only place this issue is partisan is in washington with republicans way out of touch with what the american people want. americans across the country expect their government to make progress on big issues, even if we don't agree on everything. but yesterday, sadly, senate republicans once again chose the path of obstruction and gridlock. finally, on judges, yesterday the senate confirmed the first two judges of president biden's tenure, now judges neals of new jersey and rodriguez of colorado. these are only the first of judges to come. the senate going to move quickly to confirm biden's judicial ai want toes. so after the the two confirmations yesterday, we wasted into time in preparing the next slate of nominees. last night i took the necessary step to set up votes on two more judges -- zahid quraishi for the

district judge of nother, and ketanji brown jack isn't to serve on the d.c. court of appeals. democrats believe in bringing not only demographic diversity but professional diversity to the federal bench. in fact, this morning i had the privilege of introducing my recommendation to the second circuit court of appeals in the judiciary committee, ms. uniece lee. once confirmed, ms. lee would become the second african american woman ever to sit on this powerful and important second circuit and would be the only former federal defender among its active rooftree of judges. as i mentioned, we believe in demographic diversity but professional diversity as well. all too often the bench has been filled with a very narrow sec they -- sector. partners in bringing law firms, prosecutors. what about the rest? what about public defenders like

ms. lee? what about voting rights lawyers like mr. ho and ms. perez, whom i recommended toed president this week? -- whom i recommended to the president this week? we must expand not only demographic diversity but professional diversity, and i know that president biden agrees with me on this, and this will be something that i will set out to do not only in new york, along with senator gillibrand, but across the country. and the two other nominees i mentioned are powerful examples as well. mr. quraishi will be the first american muslim in united states history to serve sasse an article 3 federal bench. the third largest religion in if the united states, he'll become the first to ever searches an article -- to serve as an article three judge. and next up is the nomination of judge jackson. after a sterling career as a district court judge, a federal defender,a commissioner on the

sentencing commission and a clerk to justice breyer, ms. brown jackson is poised to take a seat on the d.c. circuit court of appeals, the second highest court in the land. she will fill the seat of now attorney general merrick garland. oftentimes nominees to the powerful d.c. circuit court are controversial, in spite of their qualifications, because the stakes are so high. but i am proud to say that ms. brown jackson came out of the judiciary committee on a bipartisan -- a bipartisan vote. and soon the entire senate will confirm this high will he qualified jurist to one of the most important positions and courts in the country. i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: so, mr. president, i was disappointed to learn yesterday that president biden had walked away from negotiations on infrastructure spending with senator capito. for several weeks the ranking member of the e.p.w. committee has been engaged in good faith

on finding common ground with the administration. she's led several of our colleagues in literally exhaustive efforts to put a bipartisan deal within reach. senate republicans proposed historic investments in the kinds of things most americans would call actual infrastructure. they met and exceeded the president's own threshold demands, and then they were left at the table. our colleagues weren't wrong to bet on bipartisanship. for one thing, it's what the american people actually deserve. for another, as i have neated before, infrastructure -- as i've noted before, infrastructure investments have historically featured overwhelming bipartisan consensus. but an agreement requires that actually each side is willing to give up some of what it wants.

and as we learned yesterday, president biden is unwilling to let go of some of the most radical promises he made to the left wing of his party. from the day the white house rolled out its first infrastructure plan in march, it's been clear that the left's definition of the word is evolving faster than even some democrats can actually keep up with. medicaid expansion is now infrastructure. paid leave is now infrastructure. and job-killing tax increases to hold the assortment all together. at every step of the way, republicans have focused on targeted investments in roads, bridges, airports, waterways, and broadband infrastructure the american people actually need. but yesterday president biden showed that his patience for the smart bipartisan approach was

wearing thin. he directed democratic leaders in congress to get ready to ram through more expansive, unrelated spending unilaterally. meanwhile, senator capito and our colleagues on the e.p.w. committee continue to demonstrate that bipartisan infrastructure investment is actually still within reach. in april, the senate passed a water infrastructure bill by a count of $-2 -- 89-2. and just a couple weeks ago, the committee reported out an historic investment in surface transportation and they did it unanimously. it's disappointing that the president has been unwilling to follow the senate's productive example. and now some of our colleagues have signaled that they intend to use this month to depart that example themselves. the democratic leader has laid how the a partisan agenda he seems to hope will illustrate that the senate is somehow

broken. remember, the senate is 50-50. 50-50. the american people do not hand the democrats a mandate in the senate. this series of radical proposals has no chance of becoming law, but every indication, every intention of justifying reckless changes to the way the body actually operates. plans to jam hospitals, schools, and small businesses with new high-stakes tests of wokeness, to dramatic curtail americans' rights to keep and bear arms and to tip the scales of our electoral system permanently in their favor. yesterday the radical -- it began with paycheck fairness as cover for placing unprecedented

legal burdens on employers. wage discrimination on the basis of sex has been illegal for 60 years. wage discrimination on the basis of sex has been illegal for 60 years. what democrats proposed yesterday was to kick down the -- keep down the carefully protections to leave even the smallest american business at risk of limited liability in workplace cases, listen to this, even where malice plays no part. their bill would force workers to opt-out rather than into class action suits. in other words, a gift-wrapped bonanza for the trial bar. unsurprisingly, that gamut not only failed to pass, it failed to even unite a majority of the senate. so if our colleagues intended to

actually earn support for consensus steps on paycheck fairness, they might have considered subjecting their proposal to scrutiny through the normal legislative process. perhaps a markup or even a committee hearing. well, apparently when your agenda is designed to fail regular order is just a waste of time. now, on an entirely different matter. i've been outspoken on the sponsors of sustaining america's support for local partners who are leading counterterrorism efforts in afghanistan and elsewhere. even when doing so put me at odds with presidents of actually both parties. when the previous administration considered precipitous withdrawals from afghanistan and syria, i sponsored a bipartisan amendment warning that doing so

could, quote, allow terrorists to regroup to the detriment of the united states interest and those of our allies. dozens of senate democrats joined the measure at that point. and last year the congress overrode veto threats and put explicit restrictions and reporting requirements in the defense authorization act. i and others voted to override the veto of a republican president. the qoal wasn't to tie the -- the goal wasn't to tie the hands of the commander in chief, but to seriously address the risk of u.s. interest opposed to any potential withdrawal. but the spring when president biden announced to abandon the battlefield in afghanistan completely -- completely, without a plan, there was a bit less outrage for some reason or

the democratic side of the aisle. and yesterday the president moved to waive the ndaa requirements senate democrats themselves had supported in order to proceed with this misguided retreat. the white house has yet to address the obvious risk of our departure. that the taliban will gain control, al qaeda will return to strength, and the people of afghanistan, particularly women and girls, will suffer. we don't have to wait long for these fears to prove prescient, the taliban has wasted no time to bring people under their oppressive medieval rule.

more killings of soldiers, journalists and activists, more oppression of women and more afternoon -- afternoon wishus -- ambitious operational goals. as one commander put it, when we arrive in kabul, we will arrive as conquerors. they are inching closer every day we withdraw. this is happening, as i indicated before our retreat, is even complete. experts are still unsure just how quickly the taliban's resurgence will accelerate as we depart. that's bad news for our partners in kabul. it's bad news for the afghan military that's losing its edge without coalition support on the ground. and it's especially bad news for

afghanistan's women and girls. i know many of our colleagues share my concern for our partners in afghanistan and for the many afghan women who have reclaimed so much of their freedom since 2001. so make no mistake, their future will be imperiled under taliban rule. rhetorical support for senate resolutions and hollow promises of assistance from afar might ease our conscientious, but cannot replace supporting our partners in vulnerable populations in afghanistan. that won't prevent the resurgence of al qaeda with whom a recent united nation's report found taliban militants, quote, show no indication of breaking

ties, end quote. so where is the plan? where is the plan to deal with these challenges? as we abandon our partners and leave them to the taliban. how does the administration intend to combat terror or support afghan forces if we're hundreds of miles away? how does it intend to encounter the negative influence of russia, china, pakistan, and others who might see our departure as a massive opportunity? have we learned nothing from russia's intervention in syria? so later this week president biden will meet in person with leaders of our nato allies, many of whom have expressed concerns about the risk of a per precipis withdrawal from afghanistan.

but, of course, as we withdraw, they will as well. because without us, there won't be a nato presence in afghanistan. so for the sake of america's security and the strength of our partnerships, it's time for the president to finally offer some clear answers. to advance our shared interest and combating terrorists who still mean us harm and to restore our faith to finish things that we start. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. thune: mr. president. the presiding officer: the republican whip. mr. thune: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. thune: mr. president, last week we learned that global meat processing company, j.b.s., responsible for more than 40% of america's beef processing, had -- it shuddered, leaving ranchers wondering once again whether they would be able to sell their cattle. mr. president, the j.b.s. attack highlights two important issues, the first is cybersecurity. the rise of ransom wear attacks on critical industries and infrastructure represents a serious threat. less than a month before the ransom wear attack, ransom wear criminals hacked the pipeline, which supplies gasoline and jet

fuel to the east coast. it caused fuel shortages and drove up gas prices with many consumers facing gas station lines that harken back to the oil crisis of the 1970's. in today's society where almost everything we do have a -- this could seriously disrupt our way of life. cybersecurity needs to be a top priority. companies need to invest in cybersecurity to keep their systems and customer data secure and the federal government has to invest in it as a matter of national security. we can't afford to let hostile individuals or hostile governments hack key government databases or functions. i was proud to be a lead sponsor of the hack act, which became law as part of the 2021 national defense authorization act. this legislation focuses on enhancing both public and private security development. it bolsters science education

and cybersecurity programs at multiple government agencies and enhances partnerships between universities an employers on cybersecurity workforce needs. mr. president, we need to continue to make cybersecurity training a priority. we also need to send a clear message to governments that harbor cyberattackers. it's obvious that russia remains a haven for cybercriminals, both the colonial pipeline and j.b.s. attacks were the work of russian-linked hackers and we need to make it clear to russia and other countries that we have no tolerance for this. the j.b.s. attack highlighted a second problem. the highly concentrated nature of the meatpacking industry. when one or more of the handful of companies controlling the meatpacking industry experiences a problem, whether it's a plant shutdown due to covid transmission or a cyberattack, that creates a potentially serious problem for the entire

u.s. meat supply. we remember seeing bare meat department shels during -- shelves during the pandemic. if it were less con traitd, it is likely we would not have seen so many shortages. it creates a problem for livestock producers who rely on meatpackers. if a meatpacker has to shut down a plant, that means that farmers an ranchers may lose out on getting their livestock to market. the highly concentrated nature of the meatpacking industry creates the opportunity for manipulation. serious concerns have been raised to the map nip laition owing to the ongoing gulf between meatpacker profits and rancher profits. i sent a letter to the chairman of the senate judiciary committee to hold an oversight

hearing in potential anticompetitive behavior in antitrust violations in the meatpacking center. i jurnlgd the justice department to disclose the results of its investigation into the meatpacking industry. my request to the senate aging a committee to have a hearing examining the challenges livestock producers have been facing. i will continue to work to make sure any anticompetitive behavior in the meatpacking industry is addressed. mr. president, i will continue to support efforts to increase competition in the meatpacking industry. like my legislation to support small meatpackers, the strengthing local processing act. i introduced this in february, with senator merkley, to strengthen meat processing capacity by providing resources for smaller meat processing operations. as i said, more than 80% of the

beef packing industry in this country is controlled by just four companies. encouraging more companies to get into this marketplace and encouraging small meatpackers to expand will dilute the power of these four companies and create more competition for ranchers cattle which will lead to higher prices for ranchers when they bring their cattle to the market. plus, spreading out and expanding our nairgs' meet processing capacity will make the meat supply less vulnerable to interruptions or other natural disasters or the j.b.s. ransom ware attack. cattle producers work hard every day to deliver top quality beep to our nation and to the world. i'm proud to represent them here in the senate. i will continue to fight to enhance competition in the meatpacking industry so that ranchers and all livestock producers can receive a

competitive price for their livestock. mr. president, i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call: mr. cornyn: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without

objection. mr. cornyn: thank you, mr. president. the right to vote is the most fundamental and essential feature of our democracy. as abraham lincoln said, the government of the people, by the people, and for the people would not be possible if it weren't for citizens who cast their ballot at every available election. from city councils to school boards to president of the united states, the american people have a right and i would argue a duty to make their voices heard. in 2020, a record number of voters did just that. nearly 160 million americans cast their ballot accounting for roughly two-thirds of all eligible voters. if you compare that to 2016, just four years earlier, 17 million more people voted in the last election.

this included higher turnout across all racial and ethnic groups. african americans, caucasians, hispanics, asians, each had a higher turnout this election. when congress originally passed the voting rights act in 1965, the goal was to eliminate common discriminatory practices that were in place at that time. it was and it is a landmark piece of legislation, and there's no question it has been an overwhelming success. and i think that's something we should celebrate as a nation. in 2012 for the first time on record, turnout among black voters was higher than for white voters. in 2020 both asian and hispanic voters turned out at the highest rate on record. we certainly have come along way

as the preamble to the constitution says in our effort to form a more perfect union. but we should not tire nor falter nor fail in our progress to make sure that everyone who has the right to vote has an opportunity to cast their ba ballot. before every election and 2020 was no different, there's a widespread effort to register new voters and encourage more citizens to participate. in texas we set new records in registering and turning out voters. we turned out 11.3 million voters, 66% of those registered. in years to come, i hope we'll set new records and get more voters to the polls. i think that goal should be shared by every american. but in addition to this work, we have a response to protect the integrity of the ballot.

this became a focus in particular after the 2016 election when we actually saw russia try to interfere with the presidential election that year. in response congress provided hundreds of millions of dollars to shore up state election security measures and to help local officials safeguard future elections. our intelligence community, in particular the national security agency and cyber command, made sure that there were not cyberattacks or minimize the impact of potential cyberattacks on election voting systems, including voter registries and the like. and the postmortem reviews were that they were pretty successful in deterring those sorts of attacks that occurred in 2016. but, mr. president, it's not just up to the federal government. across the country states are

also fighting to make sure that those who were legally entitled to vote can do so and ensure the integrity of their own elections. they're looking at ways to make it easier to vote and harder to cheat, which i think should be our goal. but those election security efforts have been mischaracterized unfortunately by many of our democratic colleagues and many in the news media who fallsly claim that somehow -- falsely claim that somehow there are efforts under way at the state level to suppress minority voters. we saw this play out in the case of the georgia election law, in particular. our democratic colleagues tried to frame this legislation as a way to suppress minority voters, but that was completely contrary to the facts. and it was completely contrary to the election laws in their own states. the georgia law, for example, set a deadline of 11 days before

an election to request a mail-in ballot. in the home state of the democratic leader, senator schumer, new york, voters only get a week. 11 days in georgia, a week in new york. and in new york you have to have -- make -- you have to give a reason for voting absentee. in georgia you don't even have to give a reason to vote absentee. georgia also expanded early in-person voting to 17 days. in massachusetts, represented by two of our democratic colleagues, early voting lasts only 11 days. the president's home state of delaware won't even offer early voting until 2022. in other words, you can't even don't it now. and it won't be available in 2022 and even then voters will have only ten days.

well, i think this demonstrates the hypocrisy of some of what -- some of the debates that we're hearing and seeing. in new jersey, represented by two democratic senators and a democratic governor, new jersey recently passed a law that example spanned in-person voting to nine days. as a reminder, georgia just expanded theirs to 17 days. but the new jersey governor had the temerity to criticize georgia for restricting the right of georgians to vote when it's more expansive than the voting laws in his own state. we've heard similar lines of attack from many across the aisle who have falsely tried to brand this law as a former of voter suppression. once you play the race card, it's hard for people to think clearly because it tugs at our emotions; it tugs at our

collective, frankly, guilt, emanating from the earliest days of our country that we've come a long way to try to rectify. but here's the bottom line -- each state has the authority to determine the, quote, times, places, and manner of holding elections, close quote. where does that come from? well, that's article 1 of the constitution of the united states of america. but our democratic colleagues insist on pushing for a one-size-fits-all mandate that turns federalism, including the constitution itself, on its head senator schumer, the senator from new york, has said that this month the senate will vote on a bill called s. 1, which is the democrats' effort to commandeer control of elections from the states.

the bill is so radical that members of his own party have lined up against it. and it's easy on superficial inspection to see why. in order to vote in person, 36 states require some form of voter identification. that was the recommendation of the commission that former president carter participated in along with james baker iii, a prominent president, a democrat, and a prominent republican. they made a recommendation for voter i.d., but this proposal, s. 1, would eliminate it. in my state, texas, there are several options to present voter identification. you can present a driver's license, a passport, a military i.d., a citizenship certificate, and you can get -- if you don't have you any of those, you can

get another one issued by the state at zero cost. those all work. our democratic -- this democratic proposal would stop states, would actually block the states from requiring voter identification, something you have to do when you buy a six-pack of beer or cigarettes for those who still smoke, or get on an airplane or even to enter a federal building. you have to produce an identification to do so. but s. 1 would prohibit the states from making that requirement when exercising your most sacred right as a citizen. what do they require? well, you sign a piece of paper saying you are who you say you are and nobody can ask you any questions. and the invitation for fraud doesn't stop there, because this proposed legislation also

legalizes something called ballot harvesting. that means that mail-in ballots could be collected by political partisansables whether it is paid campaign staffers or anyone who has a stake in the outcome of the election; not an impartial third party but a partisan who has a stake in the outcome of the election. they could harvest those ballots. it goes so far as to specify that the states, quote, may not put any limit on how many voted and sealed absentee ballots any designated person can return. so there are no limits on how many ballots a political operative could harvest and turn in this the election. well it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out how this could go wrong. maybe the ballots get turned in. maybe some of the ballots are altered, maybe some are

falsified. maybe some end up in the trash. it is a tough to know exactly what might happen. s. 1, this federal commandeering of state-run elections, is rife with opportunities for fraud. at that mandates things like automatic voter registration and drop-box ballots for ballots. while making it more difficult for the states to maintain accurate voter lists. it would even go so far to make it harder for states to remove dead voters from their rolls. my state, like many states, has an unfortunate legacy of having candidates and political parties cast a ballot on behalf of voters who are no longer alive. arguably, that's the way lyndon

johnson won, by beating the cemetery vote. and that's not unique. why would senator schumer and speaker pelosi be pushing this takeover of state-run elections? well, it's pretty obvious. they think that our democratic colleagues will reap the benefits of hijacking state election laws. that's really their goal here. they want to put a thumb on the scale of future elections. they want to take power away from the voters and the states and give themselves every partisan advantage that they can and those are just some of the features of senate bill 1, s. 1. there are others that would make changes to the federal election commission, which currently has six members, three from each political party. and this is intentionally designed to protect the commission from partisan politics.

regardless of which party controls the senate or the federal election -- or the white house, the federal election commission will always be fair and balanced. well, that doesn't serve the interests of our democratic friends, so they want to change it. the election takeover bill would remove one of the seats held by a republican and turn the federal election commission into a partisan body. no more equal representation, no more consensus building. why bother with that when you can steamroller an agenda with no opposition? and then, mr. president, there's the taxpayer funding of elections. instead of political candidates going out and making the case to prospective voters, instead of voters voluntarily backing their preferred candidates with their hard-earned dollars, this bill would force taxpayers to bear

the financial burden, even to the point of channeling dollars, your tax dollars, to candidates that you disagree with, who support policies that you do not support, and it's not hurricane katrina a dollar-for -- and it's not even a dollar-for-dollar match. i don't know who came up with the idea of $6 for every dollar raised by voluntary donations. that means if somebody gives a candidate $200, the federal government could match it up to $1,200. in bill could implement a new policy that the aclu says, quote, could directly interfere with the ability of many to engage in political speech about causes that they care about. well, mr. president, as bad as

this proposal is, s. 1,, if that doesn't work and it's looking like for a reading the news recently that it's not likely to work because of defections even among democrats, our democratic colleagues have a plan b. i want to remind you what way said at the outset, the voting rights act of 1965 was one of the most important laws passed in modern american history. it has been reauthorized a number of times over the years, most recently in to 06. i proudly -- in 2006. i proudly cast my vote in support of reauthorizing the voting rights act. but the new bill from the senior senator from vermont, sometimes invoking the name of that civil rights icon john lewis, his proposal would radically change the law as well. this time putting the federal

government, not the state, in charge of new voting laws. again, just a reminder, back in 1965, part of the voting rights act required states and jurisdictions with a history of discrimination to receive federal preclearance before they could put new laws into effect. in 2013, the supreme court of the united states struck down the portion of the law that set the formula for which states were included in that requirement. the court ruled that it was unconstitutional because the coverage formula was outdated. the court said history did not end in 1965 and indeed what happened when the bill -- when the voting rights act was reauthorized in 2006, the proponents of that bill made no accounting for the tremendous progress in minority voting turnout that we've seen since

that time. in other words, the voting rights act worked. it worked miraculously. and thank goodness it did. but the supreme court, in striking down the 1965 formula as opposed to the current-day rate of minority voting, the court said the congress based the law on 40-year-old facts. having no logical relation to the present day. here's an example. the formula in 1965 required states to receive preclearance but they could put their own voting laws into effect, if they had any test or device that restricted voting. that included such things as literacy tests or subjective determinations of moral character. but thanks to the voting rights act, those practices are nowhere to be found today. the bill introduced by senator leahy, the senior senator from

vermont, would change the formula with language so broad that virtually every state in the union and every local jurisdiction would have to get their election laws precleared by the biden justice department before they could put them into effect. the trigger for that is a vague number of voting rights violations that didn't -- even even require a finding of intentional discrimination. nevertheless, the state and local governments would be required to get the sign-off of partisan bureaucrats at the department of justice to exercise their own constitutional authority. i think it's important to keep in mind that the framers of the constitution wanted the states to chart their own course in elections, not washington bureaucrats. to quote the supreme court of the united states, the framers of the constitution intended the states to keep for themselves,

as provided under the tenth amendment to the constitution, the power to regulate elections. yesterday in any instance where our local election official wants to make a commonsense change in the way elections were actually carried out, you'd have to ask mother may i to the department of justice. based on this proposal, you'd think there had been countless numbers of voter discrimination that cry out for this sort of remedy. but you'd be wrong. the department of justice already has authority under section 2 of the voting rights act to prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, or membership in a language minority group. during the entire eight years of the obama -- the obama justice department, they filed only four enforcement cases in the whole united states.

under section 2, four. so the narrative of widespread voter suppression is nothing but a prop gang did a tactic -- propaganda tactic designed to support a political outcome. the push for a takeover of elections is not about suppression at all. it's about unconstitutionally seizing power and never letting go. mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: i come to talk about the crisis occurring at the southern border. joe biden has been president for about four months. at this time illegal immigration

at the southern border has more than doubled. we are now on a pace this year, this year alone, for the most illegal immigration in two decades. the numbers that we see based on last month were talking about two million people coming to america this year illegally. it seems to me that on the first day in office, president biden signed executive orders that flipped on the green light and said come to america. he rolled out the welcome mat and he sent a clear message that our borders are open. he shut down construction of the border wall, a wall that we actually paid to have done to be constructed. i've been there. the parts are laying on the ground and the workers stopped on inauguration day from putting up portions of the wall to close down the gaps. he topped all deportations for

100 day, he brought back the program known as catch and release and since he took these actions and i talked to the border patrol on the ground and they say the border has been overwhelmed. now illegal immigrants are coming from all over the world. people say it's an issue between mexico and the united states. the people coming here are coming from all over the world. the time i was there we heard that over 50 countries have been represented in the people that have been captured, including romania, armenia, bangladesh. people are flying to mexico, who can't come to the united states, because of paperwork, who they are, what their intentions may be. they are aren't allowed to get tickets to come to the united states and fly to mexico to come into the united states illegally. the entire world knows that the border is open because that's the message sent out by this administration and that, of course, includes criminals.

border agents have already arrested 95 convicted sex offenders, border agents have arrested 95 convicted sex offenders coming into the country illegally. and this includes the last number of months, and i will tell you the sex offenders cliewf a man from el salvador who was convicted of raping a child in washington state. we're talking about people who have been convicted in the united states who are now out of the country coming back in, conviction in washington state. also included a man from el salvador who was accused of sexually abbasing a -- abusing a 9-year-old girl. this took place in new york city, which is a sanctuary city. this is what happens when our borders are open and the message is sent out around the world. and for the open borders crowd

who likes this sort of thing, some of whom are members of the congress of the united states, this is just collateral damage. it's all part of a political agenda. it's been more than two months since president biden put veb harris in -- vice president president harris in charge of the border. she's had time to make it to the canadian border, but not time to make it to the border between the united states and mexico. this week, and right now the vice president has been on her first overseas trip in her role as vice president. she's going to central america and to mexico, but not to the border. she announced new gifts of american taxpayer dollars given to people from other countries. when reporters asked her and i saw the sit-down interview, if she was going to the border, she

actually laughed. she thought it was a joke. it was very disappointing, mr. president, to see the vice president acting in that way. she said i haven't been to europe either. like it didn't matter. she had not been to europe. a lot of places she hadn't been, the place the american people know she hadn't been is to the border between mexico and the united states. in reality she knows -- she knows if she goes to the border -- she knows if she goes to the border between the united states and mexico, she knows that the news cameras will go with her. she knows that the media would broadcast the crisis that they see at the border to the whole world. she knows that then more and more americans will see first hand the truth for themselves. that's why the vice president is not going to the border between

mexico and the united states. the white house refuses to say it's a crisis. they refuse to say those words. they just want to use the word challenge instead of the reality of the crisis that i saw when i was there at the border with a group of republican senators. and that's why they are doubling down on policies that caused the crisis. two weeks ago the president released his budget for the coming year. it's the biggest budget proposal by any president in american history. it would nearly double the federal spending over the next decade. yet the president's budget for the department of homeland security, the department that is supposed to keep our nation safe is flatlined. the president likes to say, and he said it time and time again, he said it when he was in the senate, he said it when he was vice president of the united states and now he says it as the

president, he says, if you want to know somebody's values, just look at their budget. well, we've seen joe biden's budget and we know his values and his values are not those of supporting and promoting the security of our nation through border security. the president's budget includes $800 million in aid for central america. i don't know if joe biden thinks you can bribe people with our own tax dollars to not cross the border. it is an absolute surrender and it leaves our borders wide open. our southern border is in crisis, but the crisis isn't limited to the border itself. president biden is -- has also tied the hands of our immigration officials all across america. "the washington post" came out with a story and they put it this way and i watt want to make sure i have it accurate so i

will read it to you. under president biden, it says, i.c.e., immigration and customs enforcement, is an agency on probation. this is "the washington post." says biden has placed i.c.e. deportation officers on a leash so tight some say their work is functionally abolished. that's "the washington post" on the president of the united states and what he has done with regard to our borders and our immigration authorities with his very flatline budget for the department of homeland security. the article goes on and it says, quote, i.c.e. carried out fewer than 3,000 deportations last month, the agency's 6,000 officers currently average one arrest every two months. one arrest every two months. mr. president, hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens have

court orders for deportation, yet despite the enormous numbers, deportations have never been lower. never been lower. no wonder the crisis is getting worse. mr. president, i heard about it all last week over memorial day as i traveled around the state of wyoming, people are very concerned about this disregard for our borders and for the support that our immigration custom enforcement officers need. so it's no wonder to me that the people of wyoming are concerned and i imagine people all around the country are concerned. my colleagues heard it as well as they travel the their -- traveled their home states just in the last week. the border really is one of the top issues i'm asked in wyoming. i'll being heading home tomorrow night for the weekend traveling the state and i expect to hear more and more about it this coming weekend. the american people want to keep the border secure and they want to be safe at home.

we know what to do. we know what works. the border agents told president biden's transition team before he was inaugurated what we needed to do to keep the border secure, what works, what wouldn't work. they say enforce the law, close the loopholes. the loopholes that encourage illegal immigration. they finish the wall. the wall that we've already paid for. and they say bring back the policy known as remain in mexico. until we take these basic steps, mr. president, the crisis is going to continue, the border's going to remain open and the american people will continue to succumb -- to come to us to say that there is more that can be done and should be done and must be done. because the american people know that when the border is not secure, the people of america continue to be at heightened

risk. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

mrs. gillibrand: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from new york. mrs. gillibrand: i ask unanimous consent that we vitiate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. gillibrand: mr. president, i have 13 requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. the presiding officer: duly noted. mrs. gillibrand: mr. president, i rise for the sixth time today to call for this entire body to have the opportunity to consider and cast their votes on the military justice improvement and increasing prevention act. this commonsense reform would ensure that people in the military who are subjected to sexual assault and other serious crimes have the opportunity to get the justice that they deserve. under the current system, less than one in ten sexual assault cases that are considered for command action are sent to

trial. and under the current culture, nearly two in three sexual assault survivors experience some form of retaliation for reporting that crime. that means that a survivor of sexual assault is far more likely to face consequences than their assailant. when a 2016 pentagon survey showed that 58% of survivors perceived retaliation for reporting their assault, commanders said it was unacceptable and that congress demanded action. but instead of working to change the system or the culture, the response was to make retaliation a specific crime. despite the fact that it already was a chargeable offense under title 10, section 1034 of the

u.s. code. it was nothing more than window dressing. we know that's true because in 2018, when the same survey came out again, the perceived retaliation rate went up to 64%. the d.o.d. estimates that 20,500 members are sexually assaulted each year, so you may wonder how many documented prosecutions for retaliation did we see in the most recent year. the answer -- one. only one person has been charged for retaliation in the last year, and there have been zero convictions reported. so to me, that seems more of a joke. under our bill, the ability to charge and prosecute retaliation would move outside the chain of

command, giving survivors more confidence to come forward knowing the prosecutors would be free to protect them. under the status quo and under the chairman's proposal, the ability to prosecute remains in the wrong hands. it's time to remove retaliation and other serious crimes from the purview of the chain of command. it's time to professionalize the military justice system to remove bias, protect our service members, and deliver justice. the numbers speak for themselves, and every single number represents a person, a survivor, a family member. we owe it to our survivors who have gone through this horrific experience of being assaulted only to experience retaliation from their fellow brothers and sisters in arms to change this system. the military justice improvement and increasing prevention act will make the changes that they need. every day we delay a vote on this legislation is another day

we deny justice to our service members, the people who do and give so much to our country. there is no reason to make them wait any longer. i yield the floor. mrs. gillibrand: as if legislative session, i ask unanimous consent that at a time to be determined by the majority leader in consultation with the republican leader, the senate armed services committee be discharged from further consideration of s. 1520 and the senate proceed to its consideration. that there be two hours for debate equally divided in the usual form and that upon the use or yielding back of that time, the senate vote on the bill with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. inhofe: mr. chairman, reserving the right to object. the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma.

mr. inhofe: mr. chairman, the chairman of our committee and i both have agreed that we need to be debating this during our markup, and we intend to do that. and for that reason, i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. ms. ernst: mr. president, i rise today to support my colleague and friend from new york in the call for consideration of the military justice improvement and increasing prevention act. this is an effort whose time is well past due. for too long our service members have faced the threat and traumas of sexual assault in their own ranks. we must act to prevent these attacks and hold perpetrators accountable. 65 other members of this chamber recognize the urgency of our service members' plight. it is time for debate and

consideration. i yield the floor, mr. president. mrs. gillibrand: mr. president, i suggest an absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. menendez: i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. menendez: i come to the floor in advance of the jean -- meeting in general knee have a. i'd like to share my view on the current state of u.s.-russia relations and how we must respond to the kremlin's continued aggression. i've spent years deeply engaged in efforts to hold russia accountable for its aggressive and destabilizing behavior under putin. during the obama administration i worked to hold russia accountable for its invasion of ukraine. i was sanctioned bid putin himself for taking up the cause of ukrainian freedom. i sounded the alarm over russian

efforts to sow chaos in our elections long before we knew of the extent and sophistication of the russian cyber campaign to undermine american democracy. and throughout the previous administration, i called out president trump for cowering to putin at every turn. trump's refusal to hold putin to account for attacking our elections was a key motivator behind the senate's passage of the countering america's adversaries through sanctions act otherwise known as caatsa. this comprehensive framework for oversight and accountability in u.s. policy towarded russia remains the law of the land and the guiding mandate for how the u.s. must respond to kremlin aggression. now, i appreciate the biden administration's desire for a stable and predictable relationship with russia, but sometimes we don't get to choose the circumstances of our engagement. and when we take stock of

russia's behavior in recent years, we see that every arena putin has chosen escalation over stability and predictability. next week in geneva, i have every expectation that president biden will be more assertive with putin than his predecessor. i urge him to seize this opportunity to call out the kremlin for its litany of aggressive actions and announce appropriate measures in response. the president can start with russia's growing aggression in cyberspace, starting with last year's solarwinds cyberattack. we know that putin's cyber intelligence service orchestrated this attack and that he must be held accountable for it as well as the latest attack of contractors and grantees. and while i'm unaware of any evidence that the most recent

ransomware attacks were orchestrated by the russian state, we know that criminal gangs operate on russian soil and we believe that it is those criminal gangs that did such attacks. the u.s. has to make clear that harboring criminals who seek a tack american businesses, hospitals, pipelines, city governments and other institutions is wholly unacceptable. let me move on to ukraine. i urge preyed to -- i urge president biden to reiterate our -- and a call for a serious return to negotiations to end the war in the dumb bass. the u.s. must make a concerted effort to end the war on ukrainian soil that has gone on for far too long. an acceptable resolution to this conflict will not come without robust u.s. engagement, the

likes of which we have not seen for years. and i'm glad that president zelinsky will visit washington in the next month or so. nato shares a month to take concrete steps next week in support of ukraine. the essential security assistance provided by the united states and others must be backed up by tangible progress towards nato membership for ukraine in georgia. the door was opened 13 years ago at bucharest summit. we've seen little progress since then. as these countries continue to pursue the necessary reforms necessary for ultimate entrance into nato, nato has an obstacles to start the membership action plan process. on nord stream, the administration shoos reconsider sanctions waivers if the

pipeline is completed, the u.s. should work to ensure that it does not become operational. this pipeline is a bad deal for europe and its energy security and strongly opposed by citizens across the european continent, and despite what some have said, it's not too late for the united states to make a tangible difference here. we can stop this maligned kremlin influence project if we act with resolve and real diplomatic strategy. last week putin said that ukraine must show good will -- ukraine must show good will -- if it wants gas to flow through to europe. so what's putin's definition of good will exactly? for the people of ukraine to cease defending their sovereignty? such bellicose statements tell us that putin is confident, he's emboldened. does anyone really believe that putin would not cut off gas flow

through ukraine once nord stream is complete? the united states cannot accept this insidious behavior. we need a real strategy with respect to nord stream. in syria, russia continues to aid and abet the brutal and criminal assad regime only to secure its own interests -- namely, military access to the mediterranean through which it can threaten the europeans' sovereign flank. indeed, last year the united nations accused russia itself of war crimes in syria for multiple incidents of launching indiscriminate attacks on civilian areas. in three years alone, the syrian observatory for human rights estimated that russian military activities in syria caused nearly 18,000 casualties. including 8,000 civilians. let me be clear -- these are war crimes, and there must be accountability. even as president biden looks

for limited ways to cooperate with russia in syria to try to promote some stability and humanitarian access, he must not overlook this grim track record and seek to hold putin to account. the world is watching, but the united states will stand up for the vulnerable and the voiceless. let me now turn to the ongoing and tragic repression of the russian people. earlier this year, the world drew inspiration from the courage of russian protesters who rallied in support of alexei navalny and a democratic future. we know that it will be the people of russia, not the united states or anyone else, who will steer their struggle for democracy and ultimately determine their own destiny. yet as americans, we must stand in solidarity with the russian people. i applaud president biden's commitment to make democracy and human rights the centerpiece of u.s. foreign policy. but what does that mean for our

approach to russia? first, we must respond to egregious chemical weapons attacks whenever and however they take place. the chemical and biological weapons act require the administration to announce a new round of sanctions by june 2 in response to russia's chemical weapons attack and the poisoning of alexei navalny. this deadline has passed. the trump administration regularly missed congressionally mandated deadlines. i think back to the skripal attack and how president trump delayed a decision for months. however, i expect better from this administration. president biden and his team must announce these sanctions this week, for putin has shown no remorse for these vial actions. and russia has taken no steps to rectify them. a democracy and human

rights-centered foreign policy also means countering corruption. so i welcome the white house initiative announced last week. since january we've seen the president back up this commitment by imposing sanctions on corrupt actors from bulgaria to albania to the democratic republic of congo. but moving forward, we must do more to focus this tool on russia, the primary source of so much of the corruption we see around the world. the most effective sanction on putin's inner circle of oligarchs is to deny them and their families access to the west. we must cut off their ability to travel and use the western financial system to funnel the assets they systematically have stolen from the russian people over the course of several decades. alexei navalny and others like the organized corruption reporting project have done excellent work exposing putin and his cronies. the u.s. treasury department and

the european union should evaluate their research and chart a course for action. we must also directly engage with the russian people and make clear that our problems are not with them but their government. i urge president biden to make a direct appeal to the russian people over youtube. communicate our concerns to the russian people and provide his vision for what a positive u.s.-russia relationship could look like. the u.s. should also increase exchange programs with russia, assuming the russian government would allow its people to participate. unfortunately, everyday russians' access to fact-based reports is dwindling in the face of crackdowns on journalism and pervasive propaganda. i'm especially outraged by the russian government's decision to label radio free europe, radio liberty, as a -- in russia as a

foreign agent, subject to fines and to be kicked out of the country -- all for supporting russian journalists who support on the truth, a commodity in short supply in russia these days. these actions are disgraceful, and it's worth noting that as legitimate news sources like radio free europe and radio liberty come under fire in russia, kremlin propaganda arms like r.t. and sputnik continue to operate freely here in the united states, and we allow them to freely operate. but they are russia state-sponsored enterprises. perhaps it's time we reconsider how easily the kremlin can disseminate dismodification to the american people. meanwhile, several americans remain unjustly detained in russia, including paul wayland and trevor reed. the kremlin's treatment of

americans must stop and president biden should make their return a priority of the visit. finally had our embassy presence in moscow grows -- faces increasing growing pressure from the russian authorities as they seek to restrict visas for embassy staff. this has to stop. in my view, if russian diplomats' visas expire here in the united states, then they must leave. extensions should only be granted when we see reciprocity on the russian side. no more games. we have tolerated kremlin abuse of this process for too long, and it has to stop. in the short time i've stood on this floor today, i've provided but a glimpse of some of the most challenging issues facing the u.s.-russia relationship, most which were ignored by the previous administration. president biden has to correct course and forcefully press these matters in geneva.

however, this is one area that demands real negotiation with moscow -- the issue of arms control. i supported the extension of the new start treaty. it advances u.s. interests, constrains russia's strategic nuclear forces, requires stringent information to ensure russia meets its commitments, and aaffords the flexibility to ensure a safe, secure, modern, and effective nuclear deterrent. the question is, with new start extended, where do we go from here? a strategic dialogue with a country capable of destroying the united states is essential. russia continues to pursue new destabilizing nuclear systems. however, we cannot view this challenge solely through a military lens. diplomacy must lead our efforts to reduce nuclear tensions going forward and this summit would be a good place to start.

last week in "the washington post," former ambassador to russia wrote that the biden administration, quote, cannot freeze u.s.-russia relations in place to focus on the greater challenge of china. i believe he's right. addressing one challenge come at the expense of other critical u.s. interests. whether we like it or not, the kremlin sees the united states as its primary adversary and remains intent on challenging us at every turn. past administrations have tried to ignore or minimize the threat. it doesn't work. we need an assertive and comprehensive strategy, one that holds the kremlin accountable and even puts them on their heels from time to time. the united states of america always aspires to have a stable, predictable relationship with every country around the world. but stable and predictable parties do not use chemical

weapons to whiep out their political -- whiep out their political opposition. stable and political partners don't commit war crimes in places like syria. vladimir putin has been president for 20 years now. after all this time, we know what we are dealing with. it is not a stable and predictable partner. we're dealing with a moffa state runed by a vicious authoritarian, not a normal country. we are dealing with a criminal enterprise, not a democratic government and as president biden knows, and has said, when it comes to putin, we're dealing with a ruthless killer. we should act accordingly. madam president, i yield the floor.

a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. ms. ernst: madam president, you might have missed it, but without much fanfare, the white house quietly released the president's budget on the friday before a holiday weekend. maybe we weren't supposed to notice the plan at all, but the contents make it impossible to ignore. president biden is proposing higher taxes on working americans and cuts to our national defense to pay for a massive expansion of the federal government and enactment of the radical domestic demands like parts of the green new deal. what can't be paid for is simply put on the nation's credit card, adding trillions of dollars of

red ink. president biden's budget can be summed up like this. higher taxes, higher spending, and higher debt. and don't take my word for it. "the new york times" wrote that biden's $6 trillion budget would, quote, push federal spending to its highest sustained levels since world war ii. end quote. under the biden budget, by 2028, washington will collect more tax revenue as a portion of our economy than at nearly any point over the last 100 years. this tax-collecting scheme even includes a retroactive tax increase. that's right, folks.

you may owe higher taxes on past earnings, plus the president would allow the tax cuts for lower-income and middle-class americans to expire in 2025, and the result will be higher taxes for most americans. higher tax bills will add additional burdens to iowa families and small businesses already struggling with the rising prices and inflation being caused by biden-nomics. so what do you get in exchange for all of these new taxes? for the first time in nearly half a century, taxpayers would be forced to pay for abortions. the biden budget contains $600 million for electric vehicles. that's a lot of money to

subsidize a product very few americans, other than upper-income individuals on the coasts, seem interested in purchasing. president biden would also spend your taxes to double the size of the i.r.s. over the next decade, adding almost 87,000 new employees at a cost of nearly $80 billion. you heard it right, folks, 87,000 new i.r.s. agents. but while the biden budget promises a bureaucratic buildup at the i.r.s., his proposal is far less generous to our armed forces. the air force would suffer a substantial cut in its number of aircraft. the small number of new ships

added to the navy will not keep pace with the growth of communist china shipbuilding. this is especially concerning since the c.c.p. now boasts the world's largest navy and is attempting to expand its naval presence in the atlantic. you heard that right, not the pacific, but into the atlantic. the army budget would be slashed by more than $3 billion. the resulting troop reductions would leave us with the same-sized army we had on 9/11. while essentially freezing defense spending overall, $617 million of the military's budget would be diverted to fighting climate change. folks, who does the president

think he will be able to call on should we need to fight off foreign threats? his new army of i.r.s. agents? we face new threats around the globe and lowering our defenses, as president biden is proposing, will only embolden our adversaries. americans may fear an i.r.s. audit but red china won't. when america last spent as much as president biden is proposing, we built, essentially from scratch, the world's greatest military force. and all americans were called on to play their part in the most noble of causes. the entire free world will forever owe a debt of gratitude to the greatest generation.

there is no denying that the sacrifices made by these americans and the resources committed to their mission forever altered human history for the better. the same cannot be said about what is now being proposed, which will leave america weaker in the world. and the debt will be paid by future generations. the biden budget is a bust for taxpayers and a boon for d.c. bureaucrats and tax collectors. with that, madam president, i yield the floor. a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: as my colleague from iowa just said, something mysterious happened just before the holiday weekend when the

budget was reduced. so just before memorial day, the administration released its long-awaited fiscal year 2022 budget proposal. having reviewed the proposal, it's obvious why they chose this timing to do it because they hoped most americans would be too distracted by their backyard barbecues and tributes to fallen heroes to even notice how outlandish this budget proposal is. thank god president's only dispose congress disposes because we have the power of the purse. i have bad news for my democratic colleagues about the release of this, that the american public won't have the wool pulled over their eyes as easily as this administration

thinks so by putting this out late friday before the holiday weekend. americans will see this budget for what it is, a very unserious political document containing a laundry list of liberal wish list policies -- unaware of economic or fiscal reality. it would be funny if not for the very serious issues we currently face in our country, and this budget makes them worse. in response to the pandemic, congress understandably took bold action to help individuals keep the roof over their head and to help small businesses keep their lights on. as a result, our national debt exploded because of the

pandemic. it now exceeds the entire output of our economy, and this budget is going to make that situation even worse. as we enter the post pandemic world, we need to address the very real issues about rising debt and deficits posing for our country over the long term. otherwise, to quote the nonpartisan congressional budget office, and i start the quote, a growing debt burden could increase the risk of a fiscal crisis and higher inflation as well as undermine confidence in the u.s. dollar, end of c.b.o. quote. the president's budget completely ignores potential fiscal and economic challenges that we all know are on the horizon.

taking the concept of never letting a crisis go to waste to a whole new level. the budget -- the biden budget would put our country in a permanent crisis mode in terms of spending and debt levels. in 2009, at the height of the financial crisis, the government spending peaked at 24.4% of g.d.p. now, spending proposed under president biden's budget would average even higher at 24.5% over the next decade. so what we had peaked in the

2009 year of the financial crisis is going to be just common for the whole next decade, and that is bad. moreover, the president's budget would set a new record for the debt as a share of the economy. according to the president's own rosy assumptions, debt as a percentage -- percent of g.d.p. would reach 112% next year, shattering the world war ii record of 106% of g.d.p., and by 2031, debt as a share of our economy would hit 117% of g.d.p. so how extraordinary step this budget takes at a time when

inflation has been rearing its head, proposing sustained spending and debt at these levels is playing with fire. like pouring gasoline on a fire. even long-term democrat economists and obama administration alums larry summers and jason furman have begun to sound the inflation alarm. the president would be well advised to start taking notice when leading economists like these two point to the dangers of inflation. as problematic as the spending side of the budget is -- and so far, that's the only part i've covered -- we now go to the tax side and the tax side is equally

dangerous. the president proposes enacting the largest tax increase in history. incredibly, even with the $3.6 trillion in new taxes he proposes, his budget still doesn't come close to putting our national debt on a sustainable path given the new spending. this shows his tax cuts aren't about fiscal responsibility. instead they're about punishing success and redistributing wealth. ultimately this will prove disastrous for the economy, and of course it's going to affect all americans. job-killing tax hikes will slow economic growth. these tax hikes will reduce

business investment, and these tax hikes will result in lower wages and fewer jobs over the long run. as a result then, the middle class is likely to suffer the most. higher taxes, excessive spending, and escalating debt are not a recipe for our economy to build back better, those famous words of this president's economic program -- build back better. instead, they're just a recipe for government build bureaucracy better. and at the expense of hardworking americans. i yield.

a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. portman: madam president, i'm here to join my colleague from iowa who just spoke and others to talk about the president's budget, and the budget is comprised of a couple of things. one is what the spending is going to be for the country. the spending is unbelievably high and unprecedented levels of spending at a time of unprecedented deficits and a long-term debt that is at the highest level ever is concerning. but second, a budget is about revenue. on the spending side, we all expected it to be a very high number, over $6 trillion in new spending. but on the tax side, we also have huge new tax increases. the senator from iowa said it's the largest tax increase in the history of the country. he's the former chairman of the

tax writing committee, the chairman of the budget committee here, and he's been through a lot of tax increases over the years, and this is the largest one in the history of the country. and it's coming at a time when you don't want to raise taxes because we are coming out of this pandemic trying to get the economy back on track. and one reason we were in good shape before covid-19 is because we actually put in place some tax reform and some tax cuts that really worked. and let's be very specific about that. in the months just before covid-19 hit, we had an economy that was hitting on all sill ders in every respect. february of that year, so february before the covid-19 crisis hit, we had the 19th straight month of wage growth of over 3%. that was great news in my home state of ohio because we had years of flat-rate growth and even declining growth when you

take into accounts the effects of inflation. guess who was made beneficiary of that wage growth? it was lower and middle-income workers which is something you would all think people would hope for in this chamber. and that was parliament because the tax increase, that was partly because the tax cuts government put in place from the 2017 republican bill provided tax relief to middle-class families, doubled the standard deduction, doubled the child tax credit, lowered the tax rates, put more money into people's pockets. and the 2017 reforms also spurred needed investment in our communities, growing economic opportunities particularly in low-income neighborhoods, and the reforms on the corporate side, on the international side and the corporate side generally meant that more companies were investing in america, creating more jobs and investment here rather than overseas. at the time the congressional budget office did an analysis of the lower corporate rate as an

example and said 70% of that benefit was going to go to workers in terms of their wages and salaries. that's exactly what we saw. again 19 straight months of wage growth of over 3% in february before covid hit. by the way, also in that time period, the year before covid hit, we had the lowest poverty rate in the history of the country. let me repeat that because i think it would be a surprise to a lot of people to hear this, who are so critical of the tax reforms in 2017 on the other side of the aisle saying this is not going to help, you know, ordinary people. of course it did. we already talked about the wage growth. but also the lowest poverty rate in the history of our country. we also saw a 50-year low in unemployment. we saw record low unemployment among certain groups of americans, including hispanics, blacks, asian americans. we also saw a situation where there were a lot of jobs being created that were higher-wage

jobs because wages were going up, and we had the kind of opportunity economy that everybody in this chamber should hope for. so what does this budget say? this is the budget, again, that president biden has just put out. he has said let's get rid of all that tax reform and those tax cuts. virtually every one of the 2017 tax cuts expires under his budget or is ended now before it would normally expire. let me repeat that. the budget that they put out wants to increase taxes, and that includes taxes on everybody, including the middle class. in only a few months in office, the biden administration has committed to spending about $6 trillion. again, just to put this in context, that's bigger than theage budget of the united states. when you add up all the plans the president put out there, it's $6 trillion in new spending. one of the problems with that has been that it has primed the

pump, in other words, put so much stimulus into the economy that it has created inflation, and that's something that was warned by republicans, including me and others, but also democrats like larry summers, who is a democrat. he's an economist. he's a former secretary of the treasury. and unfortunately, it looks like that prediction was correct because inflation is up. and if you ask folks back home about it, they will say, yeah, i went to the gas pump and it was $3.50 a gallon. that's what i heard last weekend. that's what i experienced myself. but also it's the price of food. certainly the price of materials. if you're trying to build something today and you want to buy some plywood, good luck. the costs have skyrocketed. so this inflation is real and it's happening, and people are feeling it. and in a way, that's a hidden tax, isn't it? because if everything costs more it's sort of a regressive tax that's built into the system, and that's what's happening when we have inflation. we're seeing pressure on

interest rates which is going to make it harder for people to buy a home, buy a car, to be able to get by. this $6 trillion has made a difference in the sense of sending a message out from the democrats who would like to spend much more, but they already did spend quite a bit that primed the pump, $1.9 trillion in a covid package, for example. that $6 trillion when you add it up, that's about six times mosht -- more than the government spent in response to the great depression. that's adjusted for inflation. inflation-adjusted terms, it's about six times more than the government spent in the 1930's in the great depression. it's a very radical budget really, both on the spending side and on the tax side. the philosophy of more and more spending at a time of record debt and record deficits isn't going to help our economy recover. i think it's simply going to continue to drive inflation, as we've talked about, put pressure on interest rates,

keep people out of jobs and put more financial pressure on everyday americans. what we ought to do is help people get back to work. covid-19, thank god is finally passing. in my own state of ohio, we are finally opening up again because our covid-19 rates are so low. the vaccinations are working, and i encourage people who haven't been vaccinated to step forward and do it because it helps you and your family but also our communities to help people recover more quickly. get people back to work, back to school. get our children back to school. get back to our churches and our synagogues. get back to our normal life. it's starting to happen, and it's exciting. one of the problems is, again, higher inflation, higher interest rates and also there just aren't adequate workers out there in part because the government is paying more and more for unemployment insurance, $300 federal supplement on top of the normal unemployment in the state. there's still 25 states who have that, and this means that people often are making more on unemployment than they would be at work.

on average, about 42% of people with the additional $300 are making more on unemployment than they were at work. that creates a little disincentive. there are other disincentives too out there to go back to work. as a result, there are 9.3 million jobs open in america. that's the latest figures from the department of labor. that's based on the april numbers. we don't have the may numbers yet. but 9.3 million, that is a record number of job openings in america. we've never had this many jobs open. this is a problem because if you don't get people back to work and filling these jobs, some of these companies are going to downsize, some will leave our shores for elsewhere wherever they can find workers. others frankly are automating. you can argue that may be a more efficient economic decision, but i don't like to see that. i don't like to see that. i think the technology and the automation where appropriate is great, but i want to see people getting jobs, where they get their dignity and self-respect that comes from, woulding, and they get the opportunity to have

a fulfilling life with work. 9.3 million jobs are open. let's fill those jobs. let's not do this incredibly high spending level talked about in this budget. let's not raise taxes at a time when we're seeing the economy start to rebound after covid-19. let's get back on track. we had a great economy, an opportunity economy before covid-19. that's what we want to return to. i yield back my time. a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from indiana. mr. braun: thank you. i come here probably more than any other senator on this topic of budgets, and it ought to be called the lack of budgets. and thank goodness, currently we've got the blueprint out there in black and white for

what we intend to do, the president intends to do, is going to try to sell it to the american public. we've been on this pathway for decades. the reagan years, we talked about enlivening the economy by bringing taxes down, letting people keep more of their own resources. that worked. i think that still makes sense. it works in most states. it was driving the economy with that dynamic pre-covid. but what we did lose along the way is that regardless of our revenues, which stubbornly average 17% to 18% of our g.d.p., because when you raise rates, people don't produce as much. there's not as much income to tax. when you lower them, you get more revenue to tax and you

actually are gaining more revenue for the government to boot. so we were there pre-covid. we only need to look to see what was working just a year and a half or two ago. it was the best the economy was doing. it was raising wages. we all should be interested in doing that, but not through government. through the productive private economy. it was raising it in places that we had never been able to do it before. so rather than throw that blueprint out the door and go with something like this that has never worked in the past, whenever you get government becoming that large a part of your economy -- and it used to be 20%, even though we were only taking in 17% to 18% regardless of the tax rates, in

our own government revenue we got used to running deficits. that's what happened somewhering decades ago, and we've all gotten used to it. and if you want to see a budget that takes that theory, that doesn't make any difference how much more you spend than you take in, this is it. if you like it, it's the best budget we've ever done. we shouldn't be calling it budgets again because budgets mean that you live within your means from year to year, like all other entities do. state governments do it. some that don't generally have issues in their own state economies. but we cannot take all these resources from the private sector, run it through government with the inefficiency that comes along with that, and expect to have a good