new jersey and filling current -- votes at 11:30 a.m. eastern a limiting limiting debate on both nominees. confirm he would be the countries first muslim federal judge and the third of presidential biden's nominees approved by the city. now lie to the floor of the u.s. senate here on c-span2. the chaplain: let us pray. the chaplain: let us pray. od, you are our god, and we earnestly desire to be energized by your presence. thank you for your promise that you will always be with us, enabling us to find peace in the

midst of life's storms. lord, as our lawmakers reflect upon our power and glory, fill them with confidence that they can catapult the obstacles ahead. continue to help our senators upholding them with your strong right hand and surrounding them with the shield of your divine blessings. we pray in your great 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 10, 2021. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable jacky rosen, a senator from the state of nevada, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: patrick j. leahy, president pro tempore.

mr. schumer: madam president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. schumer: late last night, madam president, a giant of the legal world, judge robert katzmann passed away at the age of 68. he was the former chief justice of the second court of appeals in new york, one of the nation's foremost jurists and a kind,

humble, compassionate human being who was deeply admired by everyone who knew him. the son of immigrants. his father was a refugee from nazi germany. robert katzmann was an amazing intellect attending the nation's top schools. he worked for daniel patrick moynihan, wetting his chops working on the confirmation of ruth bader ginsburg to the supreme court. the rest of his life he was maybe the most important writer on the topic of legislative judicial relations. later in his life, even when he had obtained one of the highest judgeships in the country, judge katzmann never lost his passion for helping those who were just starting their careers. he taught at n.y.u. at scwhrornlgtown and -- n.y.u. and run an acclaimed course. he also lectured widely for the cause of proper legal representation for the poor,

especially the immigrant poor. just so happens that yesterday morning i was able to introduce a nominee to the second circuit, judge katzmann's circuit who dedicated her career to providing topnotch legal counsel to those who couldn't afford it, ms. eunice lee, a former federal defender. it's a fitting reminder that his legacy lives on through the principles he advanced. we send our deepest condolences to his wife, his brothers and sister and the innumerable number of students and colleagues who judge katzmann inspired over the course of his life. now on the subject of our business here on the floor, the senate has had a very productive week. we began the week by passing landmark bipartisan legislation to supercharge american innovation and lay the groundwork for another century of american leadership on the world stage. it passed with nearly 70 votes,

an overwhelming and rare display of bipartisan support. as i mentioned yesterday, we're going to work with speaker pelosi and the relevant committee chairs in the house to move this bill forward as quickly as possible. it's vital to our nation's future that the house and senate must come together to send president biden a bill that will he can sign into law. the senate also confirmed the first judicial appointments of president biden's tenure, two district court judges, and we will confirm a third today, the first muslim american to serve as an article 3 judge in our history. on monday the senate will confirm president biden's first circuit nominee, first circuit court nominee, the amazing judge ketanji brown jackson. and next week this chamber will take up additional highly-qualified nominees to the executive branch, including lina kahn to the term trade commission and several others.

the senate democratic majority will move swiftly to perform our constitutional duty to advise and consent on the president's nominees. on another matter, ransom ware. over the past few months, there have been a number of high profile cyberattacks against the u.s. government. american businesses and critical infrastructure. from the cyberwinds attack last year to a ransomware attack on the city of baltimore and the colonial pipeline, cyber crime is a real and growing threat. just last week, the m.t.a., our vast subway system in new york, was victim of an attack. while the attorney general has announced intensified effort to combat this scourge of ransomware attacks, we in congress have a responsibility to conduct oversight and determine whether our government needs an additional authority and resource to take the fight to cyber criminals and foreign intelligence services. congress must ensure that

federal agencies like the cybersecurity and infrastructure security agency, have the necessary resources to take on this growing threat and support state and local governments under assault. so this week, earlier this week, i called for congress to increase cisa's budget by $500 million to fight this growing threat, and today i am asking chairman peters, gary peters of our homeland security committee, and the other relevant committee chairs to begin a governmentwide review of these attacks and determine what legislation may be needed to counter the threat of cyber crime and bring the fight to the cyber criminals. one final matter. i want my colleagues to be aware of the number 29%. that's the percentage of republican voters who believe that president trump will, quote, be reinstated, unquote,

as president later this summer. 29%. almost a third of republican voters believe he'll be reinstated as president. according to that recent poll by morning consult, nearly a third, nearly a third republican voters believe donald trump will be reinstated. of course, the idea of reinstatement comes from disgraced former president trump himself and is nothing more than the deluded ramblings of a defeated politician, but it's a glaring warning that the big lie has created fertile ground for all sorts of insane conspiracy. it's a depressing fact of our times that there is an audience out there who will literally believe anything the former president says, no matter how unrealistic or untrue. they believe him when he just abjectly lies. the blame here, however, does not rest only with the former president. the blame falls heavily on washington republicans and the

political right who have not done enough to stand up to the big lie. after making a few brave nerves in the wake of january 6, republican leadership here in washington now seems to have traded political coverage and truth for appeasement. the republican minority leader in the house called donald trump morally responsible for the attack on january 6. he empowered his deputies to take part in painstaking negotiations to establish an independent commission to study those events, and then promptly voted against it. he convened his entire conference to deliver a pink slip to the one member of his leadership team who dared repeat the truth that president biden is the president. here in the senate, the republican leader gave a strong speech on january 6 and was willing to hold donald trump responsible for what happened that day. several months later, however, the republican leader whipped

his members into a partisan filibuster of an independent commission which he called a purely political exercise. the republican party is now wrapped around the axle of the big lie, and a big reason why is that republican leaders are unwilling to move on from trumpism. we are watching the results play out in state after state where republican legislatures have swallowed the big lie whole and are rapidly constricting the right to vote and fumbling through old ballots for traces of bamboo. the truth is the big lie has consequences. it erodes our trust in elections, faith in our democracy, and it's gnawing away at the very right to vote in america. after four long years during which the republican party foolishly tried to ride the tiger of donald trump, it seems as though many of them wound up inside. i yield the floor. and note the absence of a

quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. thune: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican whip. mr. thune: is the senate in a quorum call? the presiding officer: yes. mr. thune: i would ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. 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. thune: mr. president, last night the air force announced some historic news for south dakota, and today i'm proud to share that ellsworth air force base in western south dakota has been officially named main operating base one for the future b-21 bomber, home of the raider. this designation not only means that ellsworth will be the first base to host the b-21 raider but it will also hold the first formal training unit and squadron. those who heard me talk about the importance of this know that the outlook for the base wasn't so rosy 16 years ago. i had just aride here when

ellsworth was placed on the base realignment and closure -- or brac list -- in may. ellsworth and state and community leaders made the case to the bush administration and to the brac commission to remove ellsworth from the closure list. many thought south dakota might not have the clout to make this stand, that we didn't wield enough influence. we were only given about a 12% odds of pulling through. but we were determined, mr. president, that we weren't going to lose ellsworth. we started by challenging the cost savings assumptions of the brac commission, which began to unravel under scrutiny and we proved that it would actually cost money to close ellsworth. we highlighted the organizational risk of consolidating all of our b-1's at one location.

the outlook was grim, but we stood our ground and we won the day. and we were removed from the brac list that august. but, mr. president, we didn't stop there. we got right to work on building up the base so that we would never again find ourselves in the same position. in 2007 we saw the air force financial services center open at ellsworth. 2011 you is the arrival of the 89th attack squadron and its command and control station for the reapers. and in 2015, a decade-long mission paid off with a quadrupling of the air base. it is now the largest training air base in the continental united states and can be used for large-force exercises that draw combat aircraft from across the country, and it's well-suited for b-21 training. this is just one of the efforts we took to put ellsworth in the

best position to secure this new mission. and it is wonderful to see this pay off with yesterday's announcement. i know while south dakota is celebrating today, others are disappointed in this decision. for those who were seeking to have the main operating base one in their states but will now follow ellsworth and wait a little longer for the b-21 mission to arrive, know this -- my support for the b-21 enterprise will not lessen because we are at this lessen. as i said, we argued 15 years ago that the united states should not put all of its eggs in one basket when it comes to strategic assets. i stand by that to this day a under the current bomber road map, every bomber base will keep a bomber mission well into the future. the stealth b-21 will eventually replace the b-1's and b-2's at bases around the country. meanwhile, our fleet of b-52's will be given new, modern

engines through a service life extension program. all of our bomber bases, which have played and continue to playen a essential role in our national security, will continue to do so. long-range strike will remain a team effort. mr. president, the core of our military strength is our men and women in uniform. they volunteer to lay down their lives, if necessary, in the service of our nation, and it is incumbent on us in congress to ensure that they have the tools they need to succeed in their missions. the b-21 is an essential part of that equation. i remind my colleagues that the united states is one of only three countries in the world that operate a strategic bomber. the other two countries are russia and china. and they're both working to develop their own next-generation bombers. we cannot afford, mr. president, to cede any ground. the b-21 is scheduled to take its first flight in 2022 and

should enter service on the one hand 2027. it'll replace our aging b-1' which have proven a workhorse over the last several decades. but the our small bomber fleet is growing smaller. 17 of the most structurally fatigued b-1's are being retired this year which is actually permitted maintainers to concentrate resources on the remaining aircraft. flight hours are up and the b-1 has been a key component of the new missions. but that doesn't mean, mr. president, a smaller bomber force is sustainable in the long run without reinvestment in modernization. in our national security -- and our national security requires that the b-21 program move full-speed ahead. fortunately, public reports indicate that the program is on budget and on time. b-21 speeds to i.o.c. -- or initial operating capacity --

read a headline here recently from june 3. commander general timly ray detailed the agile and adaptive b-21 development process. he noted that adding certain capabilities to the bombers could take one-tenth of the time it has for previous airframes. the ability to incrementally add new capabilities and upgrades instead of being forced to make wholesale bloc upgrades should keep development moving quickly. and congress -- congress can do its part by providing stable funding for the b-21. and now with the record of decision for main operating base one signed, we also need to start in earnest on the investments necessary to prepare ellsworth for the b-21. we can now get to work at building the height-end maintenance facility for the stealth coding, training, and operations buildings for the new

missions and a secure weapons facility for the nuclear mission. mr. president, ellsworth has come a long way, a long way since it was placed on the chopping block 16 years ago. i'm grateful to the air force for this decision and the hard work by so many to get us here today. from brac to b-21. i'm humble to have been a small part of this effort, and i remain steadfast in my support for the mission and the men and women of the 28th bomb wing. i can't wait to get to work on this new chapter of ellsworth's story. mr. president, i yield the floor and i suggest 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 consent that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: this morning the labor department announced that it had observed the largest uptick in prices since the

depths of the great recession back in 2008. and core inflation had reached a nearly three-decade high. the latest data reinforced what too many americans have already beenen experiencing firsthand. divided administration's partisan spending bill has blooded our nation's economic recovery. higher prices at the gas pump and the grocery store, a you toker time for small -- tougher time for small businesses trying to staff up and unemployment policies that incentivize too many americans to simply stay on the sidelines. republicans and outside economists warned that the worst of these conditions actually could have been avoided. but democrats chose to go it alone. as recently as a few days ago, it appeared that president biden was open to a new, more -- approach to major legislation. he and the leading republican on a committee of jurisdiction were

engaged in what appeared to be good-faith bipartisan negotiations on infrastructure spending. but then the president decided to walk away. now at the white house direction, democrats in congress are making preparations to muscle through a bloat the spending bill on a unilateral partisan basis. and it's becoming clear that the sort of united bipartisan action ranking member capito has made possible within the e.p.w. committee is getting harder and harder to replicate. the bipartisanship that is defined infrastructure policy for years is becoming the exception to democrats' new partisan rule. it might have something to do with the fact that our democratic friends have taken to using infrastructure as a code for a growing wish list of unrelated liberal spending. the biden administration's first infrastructure plan made that much clear from its rollout back

in march. remember this was a multitrillion dollar bill that proposed to spend more on electric vehicles than on actual roads and bridges. it contained so many left-wing pet projects that the authors of the green new deal boasted about just how much of their manifesto's d.n.a. had actually rubbed off. well, the administration's approach clearly influenced a number of democrats right here in the senate. last month on the same day that chairman carper and ranking member capito were guiding a surface transportation bill to a unanimous vote, the finance committee was busy marking up a partisan plan to pick winners and losers in the market for reliable domestic energy. and just this week, we watched their go it alone approach replicated by democrats over in the house. the transportation and infrastructure committee had a perfect opportunity to reach

consensus on surface transportation. our colleagues on the e.p.w. committee had left a clear road map on exactly how to cut a consensus deal. but instead the house chairman forced the committee to mark up a $547 billion littered, littered with green new deal policies. compared to the last multi-year highway bill, it nearly doubles the share of resources for mass urban transit projects while upping the road and bridge funding middle america relies on by not nearly as much. and in contrast the smart permit streamlining steps taken by our colleagues' senate bill, it largely neglects to help the communities and builders who spent years waiting -- wading through federal red tape before they can even break ground. so, mr. president, the recent history of investment in roads, bridges, waterway, airports and broadband tells us that smart,

targeted solutions are capable of earning overwhelming support, but until democrats get serious, the road ahead for consensus action on our nation's infrastructure will only get steeper. now, on another matter, unfortunately the administration's radical left turn touches much more than just infrastructure policy. in fact, it includes an unprecedented new threat to the basic dignity of human life. on the campaign trail last year, president biden announced that he would abandon a mainstream position he had held literally for decades. that taxpayer dollars should not be used to fund abortions. it was an alarming reversal. but under immense pressure from the far left, president biden kept his radical campaign promise, shrugged off a commonsense precedent upheld by administrations of both parties for more than 40 years, and proposed a budget that entirely erases the protections of the

hyde amendment. when asked about it at a hearing yesterday, the secretary of health and human services confirmed that the president's change of heart was not a mistake. quote, the budget is a reflection of what the president has said, end quote. this new french stance on taxpayer-funded abortions aligns much more closely with the secretary's own views as our colleagues may recall from his confirmation process. it's no secret the democratic party has been hurdling to the left on abortion in recent years. here in the senate our colleagues have repeatedly blocked efforts to limit lect tif e-- elective abortion after the 20th week. their opposition keeps the nuns a rather -- keeps the unction in -- alongside career and four other countries that fail to offer this basic protection to

the unborn. so president biden's decision to abandon the hyde amendment aligns him with an increasingly radical consensus among elected democrats. but it puts him way out of step with the clear majority of americans who oppose taxpayer funded abortion. so, mr. president, the administration's budget request continues to make headlines for all the wrong reasons. but its plan to sell out on long-standing protections for the most vulnerable americans might just be the lowest of the low. now on one final matter, the latest data from customs and border protections shows the current fiscal year has seen the highest number of migrant apprehensions since 2006.

let me say that again. we're eight months into fiscal year 2021, but the c.p.b. has already apprehended more migrant the at -- migrants at our southern border than any full year since 2006. the security crisis has unfolded this year. monthly arrivals of unaccompanied minors reached their highest levels on record, higher border traffic concealed an alarming rise and flows of deadly drugs like fentanyl, c.p.b. recently announced its apprehensions even included individuals who are on the terrorist watch list. the origins of this crisis are certainly not a mystery. the democrats who spent the last few months in the white house focusing on what to call it instead of how to fix it are the same democrats who spent last year sending potential migrants dangerous mixed signals from the campaign trail. quote, you want to flee, you should come.

that was future president biden. quote, no, they should not be deported. that was then-senator kamala harris. sure enough c.p.b. officials are reporting that many migrants they encounter believe that, quote, there's been a change in immigration laws, a gap in enforcement on the u.s. border under the new administration. but if you ask now vice president harris the administration's point person on the border, there's apparently blame to be found everywhere but her own party's rhetoric on immigration. and there's value in going just about anywhere but the border itself. this week the vice president's investigation of the root causes of migration brought her to guatemala and mexico. the administration's delegation was apparently keen to talk about factors like corruption and climate change. but the president of guatemala

had a different agenda. as he put it, quote, we asked the united states government to send more of a clear message. sound familiar? of course one place vice president harris did not stop on her trip was the u.s.-mexico border. and bizarrely, when she even plans to -- plans to do that remains completely unclear. when asked about it in an interview this week, the vice president responded with a laugh, i don't understand the point that you're making, she said. so, mr. president, for months the biden administration has assured the american people that when it comes to our southern border, vice president harris has it covered. and they are betting on it. the white house budget request proposes no increase in funding for d.h.s. whose agents are working overtime to contend with the crisis on the ground. well, there are a lot of folks on both sides of the border who are still waiting for the point person to actually take charge.

the president pro tempore: the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion. we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of executive calendar number 131, zahid n. quraishi of new jersey to be united states district judge for the district of new jersey, signed by 17 senators. the president pro tempore: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is, is it the sense of the senate the debate on the nomination of zahid n. quraishi of new jersey to be united states district judge for the district of new jersey shall be brought to a close.

the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. and the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators wishing to vote or change their vote?

if not, the yeas are 83, the nays are 16. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion. we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of executive calendar 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. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is, is it the sense of the senate that debate on the nomination of ketanji brown jackson of the district of columbia to be united states circuit judge for the district of columbia circuit shall be brought to a close. the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

pre-covid test. post-covid test. vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing it to vote or change his or her vote? if not, the yeas are 52, the nays are 46, and the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: the judiciary, ketanji brown jackson, of the district of columbia to be a united states district judge for the district of columbia circuit. the presiding officer: the democratic whip. mr. durbin: this week the senate

will decide the nomination of zahid n. quraishi. zahid n. quraishi has had an amazing public service career and since 2019, he has served as a u.s. magistrate judge. once confirmed, mr. zahid n. quraishi, of new jersey, will be the first muslim american in u.s. history to serve as an article 3 federal judge. the son of pakistani immigrants, he was born in new york city, grew up in fanwood, new jersey. he graduated from rutgers law school and joined the law firm in his home state of new jersey, but his time in the private sector was cut short by a strange tragic twist of fate. his first day of work was september 11, 2001. those events of that day inspired judge quraishi to work in public serve. -- service. he was a commissioned officer and was twice deployed to iraq

in 2004 and 2006, for his service he was awarded the combat star and combat action badge. he continued to work be in public service, first as an assistant chief counsel in the department of homeland security and then in the u.s. attorney's office. before becoming u.s. magistrate judge, judge quraishi served as a partner as well as chief diversity officer in -- at a law firm in new jersey. he was recognized as a new leader of the board by a new jersey law journal and awarded the professional achievement award by the asian pacific lawyers association. he received a unanimous rating of well qualified from the american bar association. he has strong support from his home state senators, senators booker and menendez, and received broad bipartisan support in the judiciary committee, with eight republicans joining all democrats in voting to advance

his nomination. i urge my colleagues to join me in voting in favor of this historic nomination. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. marshall: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator for kansas. mr. marshall: thank you, mr. president. i come to the floor following vice president harris' border tour this week. i had an opportunity to do multiple mission trips.

i've seen the crisis first hand which is why it was so concerning to me that in the earliest days of this new administration, they follow through campaign promises related to opening our border and curb control measures put in place by the previous administration. the current administration had multiple executive orders, including halting the construction on the border wall and reaffirming the white house's commitment to have blanket amnesty to 11 illegal immigrants in the united states. with the massive influx of migrants, this was a predictable hult. -- result. as described by the president of guatemala, once the message from the white house changed to, we're going to reunite families, we're going to reunite children, the next day coyotes were there

organizing children to take them to the united states. end quote. after months of resulting escalating crises on the southern border, vice president harris was to serve as the border czar. the situation at the border has continued to worsen. in april customs and border protection officials made more than 148,070 apprehensions, this is the third straight month with that figure. these are 20-year records. as demonstrated in an interview with lester holt, vice president harris considers this a laughing matter. if she would visit the southern border, she would realize that those who live there are not laughing, they feel their lives are in danger. the origin of these migrants has expands as the crisis has drawn on. in weeks of months, there were

migrants from exwith ecuador, va and cuba. the majority come from mexico and the northern triangle countries of guatemala, hondouras, and el salvador. this is a trend we've seen growing in recent years. since 2018, border patrol announced has encountered 5% of hondouras population, 3.5 of gawlt malla and -- guatemala and now vice president harris is proposing $3 billion in aid, however, as this graph shows, there's little evidence to show that this type of cash injection will reduce migration and the biden administration officials acknowledge that even if the efforts were successful, it would takes years or possibly

decades to truly make an impact. this is not what is needed to address the raging crisis on the border. this is throwing good money after bad money. let's take a look at how policy impacts the border. this graph proves the cause of the crisis is policy and aid has been ineffective in making the economies of the northern triangle. these economies need more than intermittent aid infusion. i like the phrase trade, not aid. the united states has increased trade between the united states and the other six countries in the immigration reform, costa rica, the dominion republic, el salvador. the trade included in the pact increased by 62%. by working to expand trade, the united states could boost capital investment and

prosperity. this could result in further good job opportunities and encourage individuals in the northern triangle to remain home rather than pouring across our southern border. it has the potential to are reconfigure trades away from china and bolster -- i've seen the empty warehouses and jobs leaving central america first hand in honduras. a result of china entering the world trade organization. through stronger trade agreements, we can bring jobs back to our hemisphere, such as making medical gowns, masks, and gloves. these could be made in central america. it is absurd that this administration cannot chew gulf of mexico and walk at the same time. proposing $4 billion of taxpayer funds in an -- in an apacage when their request does not

including funding increases for the missions carried out for homeland security. a final point. vice president harris keeps saying she wants to get to the root of the problem. while white house policy created the crisis at the border, the true problem is a lack of law and order in central america. the policies first put in place by president obama further encourage violence and harm central american economies. by not addressing the roots, their policies continue to encourage migrants to make the journey north. we must continue to build the wall, increase funding and must reinstate through a made in mexico program and our vice president, acting as border czar, must visit the border communities and the officers overwhelmed by this

self-inflicted crisis. thank you, mr. president, i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. menendez: i ask the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection.

mr. menendez: mr. president, thanks to my new jersey colleague for allowing me to go first, i have one of our country's foreign ambassadors in my office. we have the chance to make history by supporting the confirmation of zahid n. quraishi to the u.s. district court of new jersey where he serves as a magistrate judge. as i mentioned many times in the past, the vacancies of this court have been declared judicial emergencies by the judicial conference of the united states. the u.s. district of new jersey is one of the busiest courts in the entire country with 46,000 cases pending before it. yet, being short staffed has left our judges with mind-boggling caseloads more than three times the national average. fortunately we in the senate have an extraordinary nominee before us this week. judge zahid n. quraishi has devoted his career to serving our country in the rich

diversity of new jersey and the promise of america as a place where anything is possible. he was born in new york, grew up in fanwood, new jersey, with his parents, both immigrants from pakistan who came to this country to build a better life. in 1997 he graduated from the john j. college of criminal justice in new york, and in 2000 earned his j.d. from rutgers law school, my alma mater, after a clerkship with the new jersey superior court, mr. quraishi accepted a position with a new york law firm. his first day on the job was september 11, 2021, and the -- september 11, 2001 and it forced him to change the trajectory of his career. in 2003 he earned the rank of captain and be served two deployments in iraq in 2004 and 2006. for his service, mr. quraishi was awarded the bronze star and

combat action badge, a recognition by the u.s. army for noninfantry soldiers who engaged in ground combat. after leaving the army he continued to work in public service first as a trial counsel with the department of homeland security and then as a federal prosecutor in the u.s. attorney's office for the district of new jersey. in 2013, he joined the law firm of reicher dansick, and was appointed a magistrate judge. now, mr. quraishi is poised to break barriers once more. if confirmed, he will become the first muslim american in u.s. history to serve as an article 3 federal judge. my colleagues, zahid n. quraishi is a man of integrity, a trailblazer for asian americans and muslim americans across this country who dream of one day presiding over a court of their own. we should all draw our

inspiration from his story because it is a story that could only take place in the united states of america. i urge my colleagues to support this historic nomination to the u.s. district court of new jersey without delay, and i want to thank my distinguished colleague from new jersey, senator booker, for bringing judge quraishi's nomination to the president, to myself, and it is an example of the power of having someone sitting on the judiciary committee knowing the importance of diversity so that any american who comes before a federal court can think that someone like them is sitting in judgment of them. so thank you, senator booker. with that, i yield the floor. mr. booker: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. booker: i want to thank my senior senator who himself has a story, son of immigrants coming up in new jersey, being born in

a way that he knows struggle, knows poverty and the fact that he's on the senate floor speaking about someone else shows the greatness of america. i'm grateful for my senior senator and the chairman of the foreign relations committee for taking time. he shows the importance of this moment. this is history here. america has never before had an article 3 judge that also happens to be a muslim. never before happened. think about this. 200-plus years in american history, a country that was born, our founders enshrined in our very founding documents in the bill of rights, this ideal of freedom of religion. we celebrate religious plurality and religious diversity. and so this is an extraordinary moment. now i am thrilled that it's a bipartisan moment. in committee, during this time of heightened partisanship, in the judiciary committee, judge quraishi passed out 19-3.

19-3, which is a further testimony not just to the gravity of this historic moment, not just to a man's religion, but to the man himself, the core of who he is. senator menendez said this. many people after 9/11 felt the deep, agonizing grief in this country. we are not defined by a nation by what happens to us. we are defined by how we choose to respond. from the attacks at pearl harbor to the attacks on 9/11, those horrific moments, you saw how this nation showed who it is. our grit, our guts, our grace, our greatness. that is the tradition of judge quraishi, a man that had a glide path towards a career of comfort and private-sector success, made a decision,

those horrific tragedies, he would not let them define our nation. how we defined ourselves was by people like him. he joined the army. he became a u.s. army judge advocate. he attended, attained the rank of captain. he was deployed to iraq, first in 2004 and then again in 2006. and after his service in the military, judge quraishi continued his service to the nation, like so many of our veterans do. first as the assistant chief counsel in the u.s. department of homeland security and then as a federal prosecutor in the u.s. attorney's office for the district of new jersey. do not define a person by what they say simply, do not define them by their faith, do not define them by the color of

their skin. but by the content of their character and in the actions that they take. in a time that our nation was crippled with grief, he stood up and he served, and he has been serving every single step since. he is well qualified. that's what the american bar association says. but i tell you, he is well qualified on a higher standard than that. he is a patriot to this country. patriotism is love of nation, but love is not a being verb. it is a doing verb. it is action. his actions have shown his love for america, and now he is up here in this chamber to make history. i urge my colleagues, as we saw

in judiciary committee in a 19-3 vote to vote in a bipartisan way. this is a chance for the annals of time to show our commitment to great people, to a great man, to a person of character, to a person of commitment, to a person of conviction, to a person of patriotism, who happens to also be muslim. and for the first time in american history, achieve something. it should have been achieved a long time ago. mr. president, i'm going to conclude by saying something. judge quraishi and i are relatively in similar age, and we share another painful life happening that i know many of my colleagues have shared as well. during covid-19, during this pandemic, the judge's father died. i talked to him during this

time, and he's a man that was clearly grieving but kept a lot of that emotion under his jacket, in his heart. i just want to say for the record, judge quraishi, you and i are both people of faith, and i want to tell him right now and say into this record, as your father who also loved this country, who brought about an american dream for his family, he is watching right now this happening, thesing deliberations on the -- these deliberations on the senate floor. he, i pray, will see his son make history. and judge quraishi, i'm telling you right now, your father is proud of you. mr. president, thank you. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding

rule 22 it be in order to move to proceed to and file cloture on executive calendar numbers 119 and 107. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: i move to proceed to executive calendar 119. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all those in favor say aye. opposed no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, federal trade commission, lina m. khan of new york to be a federal trade commissioner. mr. schumer: i send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the cloture motion. 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 the debate on the nomination of executive calendar number 119, lina m. khan of new york to be a federal trade commissioner, signed by 17 senators as follows. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous

consent the naming of the -- the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: i move to proceed to legislative session session. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all those in favor say aye. opposed no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. schumer: mr. president, i move to proceed to executive session to consider calendar 107. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all those in favor say aye. opposed no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, office of personnel management, kiran arjandas ahuja of massachusetts to be director. mr. schumer: i send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion. 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 the debate on the nomination of executive calendar 107, kiran arjandas ahuja of massachusetts to be the director of the office of personnel management 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 ask unanimous consent the mandatory quorum qum callses for -- calls for the cloture motions filed today, june 10, be wavered. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from arkansas. mr. boozman: thank you, mr. president. across the country the school year is winding down and students will be on summer break. we know that when school is out, many students who receive free and reduced price meals throughout the school year are not getting the nutrition that they need. the pandemic required us to

explore innovative options for getting food and nutrition, getting that assistance to children in need, especially those who are in rural and hard-to-serve areas. that is why i along with senator leahy have reintroduced the hunger-free summer for kids act. i'm pleased that we have 12 bipartisan cosponsors and the support of national organizations like feeding america, share our strength, tusk philanthropyies, bread for the world and safe the children. when i served as a school board member many years ago, i saw how important the national school meals program is to providing many children with healthy meals, helping them to learn and grow. i also saw that many kids are left without nutritious food during the summer months. seeing this reality is in part why ichted to serves -- why i

wanted to serve as cochair of the senate hunger caucus. it's the reason why i care about these programs ensuring we have a bipartisan child nutrition reauthorization process that can include this bill that senator leahy and i are introducing. before the pandemic, we had data that showed the traditional summer foods service program was not serving all of the kids who needed these meals. only one in seven children receiving free or reduced price meals during the school year were receiving meals from the current summer meals program. big gaps exist, especially in rural areas. according to feeding america, 86% of counties with children most at risk for food insecurity are rural counties. the current program requires children to come to a feeding site and eat their meals with other children. this concept has its benefits as it builds a sense of community,

provides a safe place for kids to go, and then offers them a chance to participate in other physical and enrichment activities. however, we know that getting kids to a feeding site can be a real challenge. buses take children to school, but the buses don't run in the summer. during the pandemic, congress gave the u.s. department of agriculture the authority to waive the requirement that kids had to eat meals together at feeding sites. this exibilityy has -- this has spurred innovation with private-public partnerships. our county did fabulous jobs of packing lunches and thanks to the meal to you program, that was coordinated by the baylor

collaborative, more than one million meals were delivered directly to the doorstep of almost nine million children living in arkansas. according to share strength, there was 167% increase by allowing offsite consumption of meals and another way is through the summer electronic benefits program. each child receives a set amount of money that is loaded on to an e.b.t. card. families can shop for kids to make sure their kids get the nutrition they need. this program has been tested for a number of years by the usda. the results have shown that providing a $30 monthly benefit for a child was effective in preventing food insecurity during the summer and can lead to positive changes in children's nutritional outcomes

through the consumption of healthy foods. this way we can ensure children receive healthy foods throughout the summer. the pandemic has shown the success of this program and the offsite and e.b.t. can use to feed children. i want to commend the volunteers and staff on the front lines that are there each and every day ensuring that children receive the nutrition that they need. they work tireless being true heroes to so many families during the pandemic. i thank them for their hard work, innovation, and dedication. i look forward to working with my colleagues in the weeks and months ahead to see this bill become part of a permanent bipartisan child nutrition reauthorization law. it's posh that members of the ag committee work together in a bipartisan manner through regular order agreeing on the policies and offsets that will be required to provide schools,

states, and families greater certainty into the future. i'm committed to a bipartisan forward path and this bill is just the fing. with that, i -- just the beginning. with that, i yield the floor, mr. president. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator for utah. mr. lee: mr. president, women make invaluable contributions to our families, communities, and workplaces. thankfully the opportunities for women in the workplace have grown tremendously over time and in recent decades. and there is no doubt without exception or qualification they should always be treated equally and receive equal pay for the same work as their male counterparts. this week the senate considered proceeding to a bill called the paycheck fairness act, one that was directed at achieving this goal by addressing the gender pay gap. but if we truly care about supporting and empowering women

in the workplace, it's important that we understand what the pay gap is and what exactly it can tell us about women's experiences. so what is the pay gap? well, first, here's a crucial distinction that we have to make between the unadjusted pay gap and the adjusted pay gap. when most people refer to the gender pay gap, they mean the unadjusted pay gap where the comparison between the median man's pay and the median women's pay based only on sex. according to this measure, the median earnings of women are 18% lower than men. but the unadjusted pay gap leaves out key pieces of the puzzle. in reality there are many other factors that influence pay for individual men and women, such as industry, occupation, experience, education, performance and in particular

family decisions. the adjusted pay gap does take these factors into account and turns out to be a much smaller number, a very different number than the unadjusted pay gap. when controlling for these factors and thus comparing men and women with the same jobs and qualifications, the pay gap falls to just 2%, which can arguably be explained by nondiscriminatory factors like performance that other studies have not yet addressed. the pay gap before and after parenthood tells us something else that's key too. this measure suggests that women are paid less, not simply because they are women, but because of the family decisions they make, typically after having children. women are far more likely to take on more of the caretaker responsibilities within their families and thus make

work-related tradeoffs that allow they'll to do so. one study in denmark found that average women's earnings are comparable to men's earnings before parenthood, but drop after the birth of their first child when hours worked and participation rates tend to fall for women. another study by the harvard business review found that women are more likely to make decisions to limit work-related travel, choose a more flexible job, slowdown career pace, make a lateral move or leave a job in order to accommodate family responsibilities. ultimately the pay gap seems to show in large part the particular choices and preferences of women in their career and family paths. so in light of this information, what would the paycheck fairness act do? this bill would allow employees to sue businesses that pay workers different wages even if

the differences have nothing to do with the sex of the employee at issue. as a result, businesses would be forced to ignore the rest of the factors that increase pay, which is merit which should be the main determinant of earnings, it would have pay scales that would reduce flexibility in benefits or hours, the very thing employees want in the workplace. if this legislation were to become law, instead of receiving higher pay, women would likely find it harder to get their foot in the door. employers could be more reticent to hire women in some circumstances, especially those entering the workforce, since they would be included in race-based class action lawsuits. it would raise costs for businesses and hurt wages across the board. in short, it is a federally mandated one size fits all

approach it pay that would only take away choice, opportunity, and flexibility for women, the very things that congress ought to ensure are allowed. indeed, surveys show that workplace flexibility is incredibly valuable to women. one survey estimates that 60% of female job seekers, say the greater work life balance and personal well-being are very important to them when considering a job, and 46% of female employees say flex time is the most important benefit a company can offer employees. further research shows productivity can be improved by as much as 50% when flexible options are available to workers. if we're to empower women and make it easier for them to increase their earnings, we should not be getting in the way of flexible options that can help. thankfully, the rejection of the

paycheck fairness act this week prove that it's not the right approach. there is, indeed, a better path forward, mr. president. the bill i'm proposing, the working families flexibility act would help provide it. for decades federal labor laws have unfairly restricted private sector employees from choosing either traditional overtime pay or paid time off as compensation for overtime hours worked while granting a special exemption for government employees. this legal disparity between private sector employees and public sector employees, unfairly discriminates against working men and women in the private sector and it's long overdue that it be addressed. there's no reason that these working moms and dads in the private sector should be prevented from receiving the flexibility of employees in the government are able to receive. my bill would amend the fair labor standards act to allow private sector employers to give

their employees the option to choose either traditional overtime pay or time off, both accrued at 1.5 times of the hours worked. it is a voluntary proposal for both employers an employees. employers are not forced to offer it and employees are not forced to take it. in addition to offering safeguards to ensure the choice to use comp. time is voluntary, it retains all existing labor law protections for employees, including the 40-hour workweek and overtime accrual protections. if we truly seek to empower women in the workplace, we ought to give them the freedom and flexibility to pursue the careers and the families they desire. the working families flexibility act would do that and i urge my colleagues to support it. this is something that we ought to adopt now. it is something that the

government allows and we ought to eliminate the discripple -- discrimination. i request ha that the health, education, labor and pension be discharged from further consideration of s. 47 and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. i ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed than had that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: is there objection? mrs. murray: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: mr. president, reserving the right to object. let me say that over the last year, we heard constantly that you should, quote, stay home when you are sick. it's good advice, of course, and the right thing for public health and i certainly encourage people to do it. but what i thought about every single time is what about the workers who can't just stay home because there is a lot of them. right now 32 million american workers do not have access to a

single paid sick day. let me repeat that. 32 million people in the united states will lose pay if they stay home because they are sick or because they have to care for a sick loved one, and only 20% of private sector workers in the united states have paid family leave through their employer. meaning millions of workers will lose pay if they give birth or have a sick child for just a few examples. what i hear from workers in these situations is they need to know they have the table the to take time off without worrying about losing their paycheck and without worrying about whether their boss will allow them. that's why i'm on the floor today to object in the strongest terms to the misleading titled bill the senator from utah just proposed. his bill will allow employers to offer workers comp time instead of time and a half pay when workers put in overtime. here's why this won't work when

it comes to taking paid leave. under this bill, the so-called working families flexibility act, workers would have no guaranteed right to use the comp time they've earned even when there's an emergency and it gets worse from there. under this bill, if a worker's claim is denied, their only option to fight back is to request their comp time be cashed out and the employer has a whole month to comply. mr. president, as of march 20, 2021, more than half of americans said they were living paycheck to paycheck. a month is not going to work for them. anyone who is serious about making sure that workers can support themselves and can care for themselves and their families should reject this bill and work with our colleagues to pass senator gillibrand's family act. our legislation would actually truly give workers flexibility and a weight off their shoulders

as they navigate the kinds of tough times we all encounter in our lives. look, when this pandemic struck, we saw how costly not having paid leave has been for our workers, for our families, for our businesses and our country. millions of workers were forced to choose between the well-being of themselves and their coworkers and their families or their paycheck. millions were infected and millions more, especially women and workers of color, were forced out of their jobs in large part due to lacking paid leave or quality affordable child care options. this pandemic has really made it more clear than ever. it is far past time we make paid leave a right for all, not just a privilege for some. now is not the time for more false choices and stress for our workers. it is a time to get real solutions over the finish line. so i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. lee: mr. president. the presiding officer: the

senator from utah. mr. lee: mr. president, it's unfortunate that the senate won't choose to make available to private sector workers options that are already available to government employees. just to reiterate here, under this legislation, employers are not required to offer it. employees are not required to take it. this just eliminates the vestige well remains of labor laws passed decades ago that deny workers and employers this option. they keep that open for government workers. that's discriminatory, it's unfair and it ought to end. the presiding officer: the senator from washington. under the previous order, the question occurs on the quraishi nomination. mrs. murray: i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer:? a sufficient second? there is. the clerk will call the roll.

vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: the yeas are 81, the nays are 16. the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order, the motion to reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table, and the president will be immediately notified of the senate's action. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from new york is recognized. mrs. gillibrand: mr. president, i have seven 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 seventh time to call for this entire body to have the opportunity to consider and cast their vote for the military justice improvement and increasing prevention act. this commonsense reform would ensure that people in the military who have been subjected to sexual assault or other serious crimes get the justice they deserve. in the eight years that i've spent advocating for this reform with many other senators, i've heard some criticism from those who would rather not see change to our military justice system. i want to take this time to briefly respond to a few of those criticisms. first, i've heard that the bill will add bureaucracy to the process. the fact is this bill actually

cuts red tape. instead of needing to find time on a commander's busy schedule for a military prosecutor to brief them on the case, the prosecutor's recommendations instead become the prosecutor's decision. under this law, prosecutors who understand complex military justice concepts like unlawful command influence and evidentiary standards make the decision rather than a command whose time is better spent focusing on war-fighting than on learning the evidentiary rules. i have to wonder if these critics have actually read the bill since it specifically requires the services choose existing resources that we've already provided to accomplish this reform. second, detractors worry this law will result in fewer prosecution. the opposite is true. under the current system, only about one-third of survivors are willing to even come forward to

reporting a crime. when 64% of victims are retaliated against for coming forward and less than 1% of victims actually sees a conviction, who can blame them? when we put complex cases in the hands of impartial professional prosecutors, both victims and the accused will have more faith and more confidence in the system. the more confidence survivors have in the system, the more they are likely to come forward, and the more survivors who come forward, the more offenders we can prosecute. third, those who would rather push off this reform and to maintain the status quo sometimes say that there's a lack of data to support the policy and worry that it would somehow collapse good order and discipline. there is no lack of data on justice systems to pull from. our major western allies have implemented systems like this,

and in country after country this type of reform, just like other military justice reforms has approved good order and discipline. in israel, for example, this system brought survivors out of the shadows and gave them confidence to report from 2012 to 2017 the israeli military saw a 91% increase in willingness to report crimes. during that same period the u.s. military saw an increase of only 33%. despite the success of the me to movement, we are still -- me too moving we are lagging behind in fostering a military climate where victims feel safe to come forward. year after year detractors have had the same dogmatic response. commanders will be unable to maintain good order and discipline if we make this change. well, i've talked to commanders who have seen the need for the change, and i encourage my colleagues to do the same. they could start with my

cosponsor, senator joni ernst. if commanders feel this authority is essential to their ability to lead, then they have a lot more to learn about leadership. and last, we have the argument that is developing that if we do make this change, let's just make it a little bit, let's just do it for one crime, let's just do it for the crime of sexual assault. well, we have an editorial today that has been published in "the hill." it has the headline military justice reform, pink court and unit cohesion. these are four military experts who wrote this article, this dollar. i'll read a quote from it. president biden, secretary austin, and members of the house and senate may be tempted to settle on a compromise under which only sex offenses would be subject to prosecution decisions made by lawyers rather than nonlawyer commanders. after all, they may believe it's those offenses that have given rise to the entire

controversial. so let's just fix that. that may be the way the process unfolds from here, but it would be a mistake and a tragic one given the difficulty of getting congress to focus on military justice in a sustained way. it would take years for the military justice system to recover if congress takes the wrong path at the current fork in this legislative road. it goes on to talk about two reasons why this would be harmed. the first lays with the fact that there is bias in the system and that that bias cannot be eradicated by just taking out one crime, that it should be for all serious crimes. and second, i'll read from the text again. even though men and women -- even though men as well as women in uniform are victims of sexual assault, public concern is chiefly focused on women. it is concern over them and their willingness to come forward without fear of retaliation that's given the

reform issues such potency. as a practical matter, if a parallel system is created for the disposition of sex offenses, that system will be understood as having been created chiefly for the benefit of women in uniform. congress will in effect have created pink courts for women. creating pink courts will destroy unit cohesion. it is difficult to imagine a surer way of turning back the clock on the progress our country has made in integrating women in uniform, including opening occupational specialties, admission to the service academies, qualification of pilots and warplanes and commanders of naval ships and coast guard cutters and promotion to flag and general officer ranks. congress should transfer the charging powers for all felony level offenses by military personnel to informed -- to union formed prosecutors independent -- to uniformed prosecutors independent of the

chain of command. one argument that was not included in here is that if you do limit it to just one crime, you don't address the issue of defendants' rights, and now with so much data we have available about racial biases in prosecution and conviction and punishments, it is right that we care about both plaintiffs' rights and defendants' rights and reform the entire system. these unfounded arguments are nothing more than delay tactics. every day we delay this vote, we deny justice to our service members. the people who do so much for us and so much for this country. there is no reason to wait any longer. as if in 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 yield back of that time, the senate vote on the bill with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. reed: mr. president, i object. we look forward to a very healthy and serious debate in the armed services committee on this issue, which we can resolve many claims by both sides about the best way to deal with this issue. i think through senator gillibrand's great efforts, we have moved a long, long way in terms of addressing the issue of sexual assault with the usmj but there are still significant issues that have to be thoughtfully discussed. in the context of that discussion, i would object. the presiding officer: the objection is heard. mrs. gillibrand: i would suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. sullivan: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from alaska is recognized. mr. sullivan: is the senate in a quorum call? the presiding officer: we are. mr. sullivan: i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sullivan: mr. president, it's thursday, and it's that time of the week. i know a lot of our reporters in the senate like this because it's a signal of kind of the end of the workweek here, and of course it's also a signal that i get to come to the floor and do

what is one of my favorite elements about being a u.s. senator and talk about someone who makes alaska what i believe is the greatest state in the country, and we call this person our alaskan of the week. and before i get to talk about our alaskan of the week, an extraordinary young man named michael martinez, let me tell you a little bit about what's going on in alaska right now. today in anchorage, the sun rose at 4:44 a.m. and will set tonight at 11:00 o'clock p.m. light almost all day. blackout curtains are up. midnight sun celebrations are abounding. it's a great time of the year to be in alaska. you can't believe the energy you feel. we were recently able to pass a cruise ship bill.

i appreciate the presiding officer doing that a couple of weeks ago. it enabled cruise ships to come back to our state this summer. so we're going to have tourists coming, and you should, too, america, if you're watching on c-span. come on up. alaska is safe. it's beautiful. if it's on your bucket list, make it happen this summer. you will love it. you will see breath-taking scenery, some of the most generous, innovative people in the country. you will not be disappointed. so come on up. and you will be in a state where 21-year-old michael martinez, our alaskan of the week, was born and raised. one of the many, many reasons i remain optimistic about the state of our ■state and the stat of our country. so let me tell you a little bit about michael. his mother mary is from the

village of cutlick in the yukon coskaquim delta. she is yumik. his father, euphemio, is from central america. those two met and married in anchorage, and that's where michael was raised. as i said, he's 21 years old now and has one more year to go before he receives his bachelor of science degree in chemistry from the university of alaska in anchorage, a great university. and although he has been very successful so far already, already winning many awards for his research, he plans on going to graduate school. there is so much for him to study, after all, and his interest in science runs very deep, as it has since he was a young boy when he began winning science fairs.

an alaska reporter wrote a story in 2016, so five years ago, already documenting then young michael's successes. the first award was an experiment demonstrating how weight and length affected the throwing distance of traditional hunting spears, hunting spears used by alaska natives. isn't that a cool research topic? in eighth grade, he won an award for designing a robot. eventually, he moved on to bigger and better things like trying to find a cure for cancer at the tender age of 16. getting mentorship from his high school teachers at service high school in anchorage, and, very importantly, the alaska native science and engineering program, what we call ansep in alaska. he won the emperor science

award, a prestigious science research award offered through the pbs learning media and stand up to cancer. michael worked with his mentor, dr. holly martinson, ph.d., from the university of alaska anchorage to make a database for alaska natives suffering from cancer. it was his introduction to the world of research, and he fell in love with it. he entered ansep. mr. president, let me talk to you a little bit about ansep. it's a program that attracts young alaska native students from all over alaska and provides extraordinary educational opportunities for them in science, in the stem fields. and ansep students have been enormously successful and have gone on to do incredible, incredible things. i can't say enough about this tremendous program.

so eventually, michael was introduced to another mentor, dr. brandon briggs, a professor of by logical sciences -- of biological sciences and director of advanced instrumentation biostudies program. it was his work at dr. briggs' lab that led him to his current passion, finding better, more environmentally friendly ways to extract much-needed, even critical, materials from the earth. mr. president, increasingly both here in congress and across the country, we have been focusing on metals and minerals that are needed to power our future, particularly rare earth elements and critical minerals. so much of our economic future, our national defense depends upon these minerals. the problem, although we have many of these minerals, rare

earths included in our country, particularly in alaska, our mining industry has had incredibly difficult times in terms of being able to access them, whether it's permitting delays that take years, larry-left environmental lawsuits to extract them to stog them, the lack of production capacity, and the results -- and the result is that china, like it is in so many other areas, is dominant, controlling up to 90% of some of these critical minerals. like. of the challenges we face and confront with china, we need the best minds in america working with on these things. our young minds hold the promise of our future. that's one of the reasons, mr. president, we recently passed a bill right here in the senate -- this week -- to fund research institutions so we can unleash this talent and

creativity. and this is where our alaskan of the week, michael, comes in. mr. president, it was recently announced that michael won first place in the high north young entrepreneur award at the high north dialogue, an international pitch competition for arctic-related business ideas. and here's what he won it for -- forming a company with his advisor and mentor, dr. briggs, called arctic biotech oath, which is working on sustainably extracting rare earth elements -- as i said, which are in abundance in alaska. so how does this work? what is the science and chemistry that he is already working on? in a lab they're using microorganisms, fungi, which dig into the ore, breaking this up and releasing the rare earth

elements into a solution, which is a more natural and sustainable process to extract these rare earth elements. this process is still in research and development, but it has incredible potential for our nation, for our states, and he's founded a company that's doing this. and michael is just 21 years old. so michael could be anywhere doing this, but he's staying in alaska because alaska is home, and he is committed to contributing to our state. quote, that's why i'm still here, he said. and that's why the company will be here and will be based in alaska. i was born and raised here. i am trying to improve our state and see alaska soar and thrive within the next couple of decades. i want to see a green energy

sector evolve in alaska, unquote. so that's michael, mr. president. he wants to be part of this. he is part of this. at the tender age of 21. so to michael, thanks for all your hard work. by the way, thanks for all the mentors in michael's life and ansep, and auaa, who have helped him along the way. good luck in your endeavors and congratulations, michael, for being our alaskan of the week. mr. president, i ask that my following remarks be inserted in a separate place in the record. the presiding officer: without objection.

mr. sullivan: mr. president, since this administration, the biden administration, came into office, i and a number of senators -- democrats and republicans -- have been trying to work with them on a number of important foreign policy issues, particularly as it relates to china. the president is now in europe, and a couple days ago he wrote an op-ed in "the washington post" where he stated that the united states must lead the world from positions of strength. by the way, his national security advisor, jake sullivan, also has made this argument. it's actually a really good argument, that the united states needs to lead the world, particularly competition with countries like russia and china, from positions of strength. now, mr. president, i couldn't agree with that more.

but let me just talk about two areas where we have strength relative to any other country in the world and where this administration is not reinforcing that but is undermining it. and i really, really hope that they change. let me begin by the obvious one in terms of our foreign relations and national security -- the united states military. we have a position of strength. there's no doubt about it. we have the finest fighting force in the world, maybe in the history of the world. we need to continue to lead with strength and value the men and women who raise their right hand and volunteer for this incredible fighting force. not with words, mr. president, but, most important, with actions and with funding. and here's where this

administration is clearly missing the mark. this is a breakdown of the biden administration's slow-out $6 trillion budget -- blowout $ trillion budget. and as you can see, mr. president, it lays out priorities, and i think we can all agree that if you look at this chart, the military and national defense are simply not priorities. to the contrary, they are dead last in terms of this administration's priorities. look at this. every agency you can imagine -- commerce, h.h.s., e.p.a., interior -- they're double-digit, 20% or more increases in their budget. where are the two national security agencies in the biden administration's priorities?

they're down here. actually, we say 2% increase in defense and .2% increase in homeland security, but inflation is now estimated at 4.2%, so the numbers here are actually declines. inflation-adjusted decreases in the department of defense's budget and homeland security's budget. dead last. now, mr. president, we had an armed services hearing today with the secretary of defense and the chairman of the joint chiefs. two gentlemen i have a lot of respect for. they have a tough job because they had to come up to the hill and pitch this budget when i believe they didn't agree with that budget. i don't think secretary austin and general milley want to cut defense spending.

but guess what? that's what they had to pitch today. and in the hearing, i asked them this question. budgets are a reflection of an administration's priority. if you look at this chart, it is clear that the biden administration prioritizes defense spending in our military, in our national security, last, dead last. so my question to them was, how can you tell our troops that we are prioritizing their mission, defending america, when it is clear -- again, from this document and from the biden administration's budget -- that it's dead last? to be respectful to general milley and secretary austin, they didn't have a very good answer because there's no good answer. there's no good answer. but we know that one country is

prioritizing their defense spending. i also, mr. president, showed general milley and secretary austin this chart. this chart, if thank you look at it, is where the united states and -- the united states' annual change in defense spending is -- that's the blue -- and where the china's party annual defense spending is -- that's the red. if you take a look. these big declines, that's the second term of the obama administration where they cut defense spending in the united states by 25%. not good, not food for our troops. the increases when the republicans had control of the united states senate, they're in the trump administration era,

when we were congratulating our defense spend -- we were increasing our defense spending. now we're starting to go back to the previous obama-biden era. what have the chinese been doing? every year at least 6%, sometimes 12%, 13%. again, mr. president, this is not being from a position of strength for the united states, as the president of the united states says we must. let me just make one final point in another area in terms of a position of strength. one of the other areas our country's strength right now -- and nobody disagrees with it -- is in the area of energy. in the last ten years, we've had an energy renaissance in our countryiing it up us into a -- in our country, turning us into

a true, global superpower of injuring. largest producer of natural gas in the world, bigger than russia. largest producer of oil in the world, bigger than saudi arabia. largest producer of renewables in the world. all of the above. our country has been trying to get to this point where we are the world's energy superpower -- again, we were in this position during world war ii -- for the last several decades. and, mr. president, this has always been a bipartisan endeavor. jimmy carter wanted energy independence. so did every other president before and after him. and we're there. but, mr. president, we are on the cusp of seeing an enormous -- this enormous strategic advantage to our nation, to working families, to our environment disappear.

why? because the biden administration is restricting energy production in america, is having senior officials like john kerry and gina mccarthy go to "washington post," telling them don't invest in the energy sector and they're stopping the permitting of pipelines, where we need to move our energy. in fact, the president is fine with killing the keystone pipeline and the 10,000 jobs that go with it. but he is approving the russian nord stream pipeline. that is a gift to president putin. there was a wall street editorial today entitled america's energy gift to dictators. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sullivan: here's how this excellent editorial begins. quote, the u.s. is barreling towards one of the greatest self-inflicted wounds in our

country's history. mr. president, i could not agree more. the editorial goes on to list the different actions that i just mentioned -- restricting energy production in america including in alaska with anwr, reinstructing pipelines, encouraging defunding of the energy sector -- and it's not good for the run country. and the editorial also notes that this will have no impact on global greenhouse gas emissions -- none. none. it's virtue signaling at the expense of working families, working americans, and our national security. right now we are beginning to import more oil from russia than eever have. how does that make any sense? how does that help a working family in alaska or maryland or

anywhere? it doesn't. it does one thing -- it empowers countries like russia and putin and saudi arabia at the expense of the united states. this is a fact. and yet every day you hear a new action, you read a new quote from someone in this administration focused on killing the energy sector of the united states. again, as "the wall street journal" just mentioned, this will be recognized in history as one of the greatest self-inflicted wounds with no up side, no up side. we have the highest environmental standards in the world in alaska when we produce oil. the highest in the world. the russians have the lowest. and yet we're now preferring russian oil over american oil. can anyone tell me how this

makes sense? it doesn't. here's how the editorial concludes. quote, progressives want to surrender one of america's most strategic economic advantages in the name of so-called saving the climate but banishing fossil fuels in the united states won't eliminate carbon emissions, which will just be produced elsewhere. so will jobs and economic growth and the geopolitical advantage that comes with our energy dominance. mr. president, let me conclude by saying this -- as i mentioned, i agree with president biden, national security advisor jake sullivan. we need to address challenges, particularly with our adversaries like china and russia, from positions of strength. in two of the most prominent

positions of strength, the u.s. military and our energy dominance right now are being undermined by this very administration. they need to change course, and if they do, we will support their actions. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana is recognized. mr. kennedy: mr. president, thank you. mr. president, i rise today to say thank you. i rise today to say thank you to president biden and to secretary of secretary of state blinken. they have both announced today, although it's been rumored for several days, that the united states of america is about to make available 500 million doses of the coronavirus vaccine to our friends and neighbors across the world. and i hope the president and the secretary are willing to offer even more, if necessary. we've learned a lot about the

virus and the disease that it causes. i'll mention three things. number one, we've learned that the virus came from china. number two, we have learned that the best vaccines for the virus came from the united states of america. and number three, we have learned, madam president, that the pandemic is not over. yes, things are better in the united states, and we're so blessed in that regard and i am so thankful. that's a combination of americans receiving the vaccine, it's a combination of americans being careful in their behavior. our low coronavirus rates are a combination of people who have contracted the disease and therefore have the antibodies, and that's why our numbers are going down. we're also thankful for that, but that's not the situation in other parts of the world.

if you go to south america, if you go to central america, if you ask india, if you ask sub-sahara africa about how things are going in terms of the pandemic, it is alive and well and raging. and our friends and neighbors need the help. and i am grateful today that president biden and secretary of state blinken is going to make that help available, for a couple of reasons it makes sense. to show the world what u.s. leadership really means. number one, it's the right thing to do. it's the moral thing to do. we developed a vaccine. we need to share it. that doesn't mean we have to require pharmaceutical companies to share their patented and protected information. i think that's a real mistake. we can accomplish everything with licensing agreements. but we do need to share. number two, this makes sense in terms of our national security.

it's not the most important reason to do this, but in terms of national security and the rest of our neighbors throughout the world understanding that the american people are generous and that we help other folks when they are down. number three, it makes sense for the president and the secretary to do this in terms of geopolitical terms. china is trying to do the same thing that we are going to do in terms of making vaccine available throughout the world, and i thank china for that. and i thank the chinese people. the chinese people are wonderful people. their leadership, not so much. the chinese people, i will say it again, the people of china are wonderful. the leadership and the communist party of china is a bunch of pirates. but i -- i am thankful they're willing to make vaccines available. the problem is they're making their own vaccine available, which is inferior to the

american vaccine, and number two, in many cases, their vaccine diplomacy -- their meaning, of course, the chinese communist party's vaccine diplomacy -- is tied to conditions. yes, say the chinese communist party, we will share our vaccine with you if you will help us take over taiwan. yes, we will share our vaccine with you say members of the communist party of china if you will join with us in saying that the communist party of china does really nothing wrong in hiding the origin of the coronavirus. that's not what we're doing. our gift as americans to the rest of the world is unconditional, it is firm, it's categorical. it is the moral thing to do. it is the smart thing to do in terms of our own national security.

we can't completely recover until the world recovers. and number three, it makes perfect sense, in my judgment, in explaining to the rest of the world the difference between communism and the free enterprise system and the hearts that lie behind both of those systems. it's also -- and i'll close on this point, madam president. it's necessary. there are very few countries in the world. we are blessed to be one of them, that have the ability to manufacture, to store, and to distribute the vaccine. and yes, it's wonderful to talk about we're going to help other countries with their -- let's say their manufacturing. we could do that, but we just don't have enough time, because in the developing world, they

just -- when time is of the essence, they just don't have the ability that we have to manufacture a vaccine, which is only part of it, to store that vaccine. vaccines require very careful protocol in terms of storage. and number three, to distribute. we can do all three. and president biden over the last several days, along with secretary of state blinken, said we're about to show the world what american leadership looks like. we're going to share our innovation and our vaccines with our world's neighbors, and there are no strings attached, and we're doing it because it's the right thing to do. i think all members of this congress are joined with the president and should join with the secretary of state in this effort. if they need the resources, i think we should provide them. let's all get back on our feet together as a world. thank you, madam president. i suggest the absence of a

quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. lankford: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. lankford: i ask the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. lankford: i come to the floor today to give an update on what's happening on our southwest border. it seems a lot of the national media has stopped focusing on that area. and i talk to people in oklahoma and they say what's going on on the border. days ago president biden and his team released out what's the current status of what they call the border challenge. they talked about -- here's the upday. this comes from the white house itself and their update. they stated this. there's improved processing of unaccompanied children. the second thing they list is the administration has reduced the average amount of time children are in customs and

border protection facilities. the third thing they list is the administration has reduced the number of unaccompanied children in the care of health and human services. then they move and say, they've removed barriers to unifying children with parents and sponsors in the united states. and they go through the -- they give the details on how much better they are at unifying parents and children in the united states. when you read through this and look at the language, you say, gosh, the numbers are going down. what they're really saying in this report is we're moving people across the border faster than they used to. they don't spend as much time at the border as they used to. they're now in the interior of the country. why do i say that? because the information came out strikingly enough the day after this was released, the update of what was happening on the border in may. in march of this year, we had the highest number of

interdictions that we've had in 20 years -- in march of this year, 173,000-plus. only to be beaten in april by the highest in 20 years, with 16 -- 178,000-plus. only to be beat non-may with 180,000-plus. the surge continues to accelerate while the administration puts out their notice and saying we're getting so much more efficient at moving people from the border into the interior of the country. this is why the president of guatemala spoke to the administration this week in a public setting, strikingly enough, saying you're giving mixed signals to the people of central america. for the vice president to come to guatemala and say, don't come, don't come, but then for the administration to say, but if you do come, we're a lot

faster at getting you into the country than we used to be -- this is the mixed signal problem. and it's why coyotes continue to be able to move record numbers of people through central america into the interior of the country, and it's not just from central america. we've had this year a more than 400% increase in migration from nations outside of the northern triangle and mexico because the coyotes are learning, we know how to move people and the world is seeing, if you want to be able to come to america illegally, now is the time to do it. so if you go back to march, we had all these individuals that were coming from guatemala, honduras, and el salvador. now there is a 400% increase of people from outside those areas that are coming in those same trafficking networks moving into the united states. we've now had this year 23,000

that we know of, individuals that when they were brought across the border under the new biden proposal to be more efficient at moving people across the border. that if the line was too long to be processed at the border, they would be released into the united states and told, whatever city you go to, turn yourself in to i.c.e. and start what's called a notice to appear process. to be able to request asylum. literally, this hags never happened under any -- this has never happened under any administration. no administration has done this. if the line is too long at the border when you're crossings illegally and it backs up there to be able to check in with the border patrol or c.p.b., then they're released into the country, as we know of by the end of march -- we don't know the numbers yet for april and may. but by the end of march, 22,242 people that have been released and told, turn yourself in whatever city you get to t i've

asked the question, how many people have actually turn themselves in? how many people have actually do that? the latest number we have is about 1 serks 800 people. i was great surprised it was that high. that's almost 8% of the people that have actually turned themselves in when arrived at the city. meaning 29% of the -- meaning 92% of the people we have no idea where they are. worse still, i've asked the basic question, what's happening with i.c.e.? why should i ask that question about interior enforcement in the united states? because the first we can president biden was in office, he announced a moratorium on any deportations, even deportations that a federal court has ordered removed. he was going to do no deportations at all, he was goings going to stop for 100 days. a federal court interceded and

responded, if a federal court has ordered what's called a final order of removal, they have to be removed. the biden administration responded with, okay, we will do that. we will remove people if there's a final order removal. so i asked the simple question, what's happened since then? here's what's happened since then. the biden administration has changed the policy for i.c.e. into a policy we have never done as a country. if an individual is going to be removed by i.c.e. now, they have to contact regional leadership and ask permission to be able to remove that person, regional leadership will go through a whole set of criteria established by the biden administration, and if they don't qualify, they cannot be removed. regardless of their status. what has happened since then? last month there were only 3,000 people in the country removed. 3,000. that's the lowest number we've

had on our records. to i have go thank you an example of this, we have -- to give you an example of this, we have 6,000 i.c.e. agents in the country but yet only 3,000 deportations in a month. we're on record to be at a number we have never experienced before as a country for deportations of any president. because we're not enforcing the law. not only do we have record numbers coming across the border, we have a record low number of deportations that are happening. what do i mean by that? well, we contacted the i.c.e. council and we asked specifically, what does it mean when we learn that people are not being deported? who is not being deported? when i talked to i.c.e. leadership two weeks ago, i asked very direct, specific questions. are criminal aliens, all criminal aliens being deported? they are answer back to me was, no. we're making a case-by-case decision on criminal aliens.

my next question -- are all sex offenders being deported? the answer was, no. we're making a case-by-case decision on sex offenders on whether they should be deported. met me give -- let me give you a few examples. these come from the i.c.e. council of things that have happened the last month. the first option, this person was in local custody pending charges for aggravated assault. the detainer was carried over from a -- from the previous administration, the trump administration, once the biden administration took leadership, the i.c.e. detainer was removed. they ordered a reevaluation of the case and said that they have to be actually convicted of aggravated assault charges before you can put a detainer. a detainer doesn't actually remove them. that's just ideatesser to say, don't -- that's just a detainer to say, don't release them if

convicted. that dealter was removed d.d. shall that detainer was removed. case number two, this person had been deported four times before. they've had intelligence committee requested for evatting arrest, domestic violence and multiple d.u.i.'s. they also had a pending d.u.i. charge right now again. i.c.e. officers requested permission to place a detainer on this person and they were instructed that they could not. even though they had been deported four times, domestic violence conviction in the past, evading arrest in the past and multiple d.u.i.'s, they were told they could not put a detainer on them. case number three -- this is actually an i.c.e. fugitive that has a court-ordered final order of removal. remember when i mentioned that earlier? that a federal court said, you do have to deport these individuals? well, guess what? that's actually not occurring.

i.c.e. officials made a request for someone who had an aggravated assault and they were told that they could not do it unless they went through a lengthy, long process. they started through the process and by the time all the paperwork was done, that person had already bonded out and they are gone. they're at-large. case number four -- this individual had illegally entered the country. they had a local charges for rape of a child. i.c.e. officers were prohibited from placing a detainer on them saying that they hadn't been convicted yet. so they couldn't even put a detainert pending their conviction -- detainer pending their conviction to remove them. case number five -- this person had already been deported before, had a conviction for a sex offense against a child in sexual battery. i.c.e. officers requested permission to make an arrest on this individual. but i.c.e. management denied the request based on the new biden

priorities. that person is on the street right now. case number six -- this person has been deported twice already. there are pending chance right now, though they have been deported before. they have pending charges on them right out in for distribution of heroin, aggravated assault, endangerment of a child, and failure to stop or respond to a command of police. here's what happened. a criminal informant advised police that this individual had arranged to sell him a quarter pound of heroin. by the way, that's a lot. when the subject appeared at the designated location, the police attempted to arrest the individual. but instead, the individual attempted to ram the police with his car. almost hit a police officer, who was standing outside of his vehicle. the person was arrested.

the subject did have a quarter pound of heroin in their possession. they admitted also to selling heroin just moments before, and they had a child and an adult in the back seat of the car during the heroin sale and when that person had rammed the police vehicle. i.c.e. officers requested permission to place an i.c.e. detainer on this individual, and i.c.e. management denied that request. denied that request. though they had been deported twice, though they had attempted to ram a police officer's vehicle, though they were currently in the act of selling a quarter pound of heroin, they said -- and here's my quote -- police work is inherently dangerous. officers now the risk. no detainer is warranted. what are we doing?

3,000 people have been deported in our country in a month, and individuals literally selling heroin and attacking our police officers. i.c.e. is not allowed to deport individuals in this country that are currently pending charges on sexual abuse of a child are not being deported, not even a detainer to be able to hold them. is this what america wanted? it's certainly not what the people of oklahoma want. it certainly does not strengthen the morale of our i.c.e. agents who currently cannot make an arrest or a border patrol and our customs and border patrol individuals that function more like hotel check-in staff than they are law enforcement. this is not creating a stable environment in america. it is unstable.

this has got to stop. this is not a radical request of the administration. it is a simple statement. follow the law. article 2 of the constitution, the president of the united states is the individual that is given the responsibility to enforce the law of the united states. the law is clear in all of these areas. and you can't just say i have prosecutorial discretion. i'm not going to deport sex offenders and people who try to ram their car into police officers and people with multiple d.u.i.'s. what in the world? these are not possible cases. these are recent cases that are real cases happening in the country right now, and it's why our i.c.e. agents are so incredibly frustrated, because they want to enforce the law and protect our country. they have kids as well, and they don't want someone with

multiple d.u.i.'s driving on the street. this needs to be addressed by this administration. and stop just making brief statements in guatamala saying don't come, but having doublespeak here at the border saying but if you do we'll move you through quickly. and if you get into the country, we will not deport you. , even for sexual battery. now in the haven't i seen this movie before category, i notice a couple other things this week that came up. there's a new leaked document that came out that was released by the press of tax documents that have been leaked out of the i.r.s. that somehow miraculously got to individuals in the press who ran the extensive story about tax documents. we can all have our different perspectives on how people pay

taxes and how much taxes they pay, but one thing should be clear for every person in this body. it is against the law to release tax documents. it's against the law to do that. but somehow mysteriously tax documents start getting released in the last couple of weeks. this reminds me so much of a few years ago when the i.r.s. was weaponized for political purposes and lois lerner was shutting down conservative nonprofits getting access to nonprofit status but left-leaning nonprofits were expedited through and we all expressed our frustration that the i.r.s. was being politicized. the i.r.s. should not be politicized. and now suddenly in the beginning of this administration, just as we saw in the obama-biden administration, now we see in the biden-harris administration the politicization of the i.r.s. again. interestingly enough in the president's budget that he released this week he wants to

give additional authority to the i.r.s. that's not been talked about much. he wants every bank transaction in america, credit union or bank, $600 or more to be sent to the i.r.s. so the i.r.s. would have every time you go to your bank or credit union, deposit or withdraw $600 or more, that transaction and all the details of it would have to be sent to the i.r.s. not by you, but by the bank or the credit union. when i asked the i.r.s. commissioner about that earlier this week in my conversation with him, he said they literally do not have the capacity to handle that much information. they don't have the technology to do it. they don't have the manpower to do it. but the biden administration wants every bank transaction that you do of $600 or more of any type to be able to go to the i.r.s. to be kept there. interesting that that proposal comes out the same week that information comes out that the i.r.s. is now suddenly leaking tax information to the press. i've seen that movie before. i've seen the movie before on

the keystone pipeline. that was news again this week. we saw that during the obama-biden administration as well and now we're seeing it in the biden-harris administration that suddenly pipelines are bad news. when the colonial pipeline went down for a couple of days, the east coast panicked because they couldn't get fuel, when one pipeline went down. we shouldn't be talking about how to not build pipelines. we should be talking about how to build pipeline redundancy to make sure if a pipeline goes down we're not trapped as americans with no fuel, in the situation that we're in right now. but in the middle of this to be able to please the environmental left, the president of the united states shut down the keystone pipeline and the company finally gave up and said we're not going to invest any more money in something we can't finish. will that change? america's use of oil by one drop? no, it won't. america will use the exact same amount of oil that it used before. but what it will do is make it more expensive to be able to move oil from the northern part

of the united states to the southern part of the united states to raise prices on all consumers. we'll still have a use of oil. it just raised prices. and the oil that moves will now move on a train or on a truck, which uses more carbon, which is more dangerous than using a pipeline. i've seen this movie before. in the middle of canceling out the keystone pipeline, the president lifted sanctions on a russian pipeline, the nord stream 2, which will cut off the united states from selling natural gas to western europe because that was western europe's alternative. they can either buy natural gas from us or buy gas from russia. the trump administration put sanctions on that pipeline, and so the pipeline had stopped construction. president biden lifted sanctions on that, so now we won't sell american natural gas. now western europe will be dependent on russian natural gas.

how does that help the stability of europe? how does that help american jobs? how does that help our future? i have no idea. in the i've seen this movie before, i was fascinated this week to be able to see president zelensky of ukraine find out about this pipeline shift which, by the way, dramatically affects ukraine when he read about it in the press, because the state department and the administration didn't notify him that the pipeline that skips ukraine and cuts them off, our administration, the biden administration, approved. president zelensky stated to the press, he has reached out over and over to president biden to get a meeting with him and can't get a meeting with him. when i read that, i had to laugh. i sat in this seat during an impeachment proceeding on president trump because he wouldn't give a meeting to

president zelensky. president zelensky is screaming in the media, i'm trying to get ahold of president biden, and he won't meet with me, and he's benefiting russia and cutting off ukraine, and everybody just yawns. it's quite remarkable to see the difference in how our media and how individuals treat everyone. and in the category of i've never seen this movie before, let me give you one. today i had the opportunity to be able to meet with our secretary of h.h.s., xavier becerra. we were talking about the budget that he's presented out for h.h.s., which is enormous. in fact, the president's budget is larger than any budget any president's ever given, not even close, in the overspending. the deficit total in it is epic, almost $2 trillion in deficit just from the budget, not including everything else this year.

but in my conversation with xavier becerra, i asked him a simple question. i notice in your budget proposal you've changed a term that i'm not familiar with. you've added a term, and the term that you put in your budget is you refer to some people as a birthing person. i said i have to tell you, i don't know that term birthing person. what does that mean? and he said, well, i think it describes itself, is what he said. i said what is that? is that a mom? and he said, well, yeah, that describes itself. it describes the function. i thought the function? that's a woman that's a mom. that's not a birthing person. my simple question was, it sounds like you're trying to be politically correct here to be able to appease someone but do you think it might possibly be offensive to some women and some moms to not be referred to as a woman or as a mom, to be referred to as a birthing person

instead? and he just said, i'll look into it. just when i think it can't get weirder around this town, and that terms can't get stranger, that's a new one on me. i look forward to next may when i walk down the aisle at a hallmark store to look for the happy birthing person day card that i can send to my mom. what an odd statement to make. what a demeaning statement to make to moms, to refer to them as a birthing person. what's wrong with just calling a mom a mom? that's a pretty great term that americans are most certainly used to. and if it's the intent of xavier becerra to retrain americans to stop calling their mom a mom, to call them a birthing person, i hope he loses that one big time.

with that, i yield the floor. a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from texas is recognized. mr. cornyn: thank you, madam president. madam president, last year our friends across the aisle painted a picture of doom and gloom of

what governing with a republican senate majority might look like. they forecast unprecedented obstruction, endless stonewalling, and the inability to get anything done. now there's nothing more popular than the myth that congress is unable to get anything done. it's pretty popular. the press uncritically reports it, even when it's demonstrably false. but it's safe to say the vision painted by our democratic colleagues of doom and gloom with a republican senate minority of unprecedented obstruction, endless stonewalling and inability to get things done, that hasn't come to pass. actually, i feel like i'm doing a "washington post" fact-check, but over the past few months republicans and democrats have actually worked together to make progress on a number of issues.

one, i'm sure the biden administration would confirm that we've been able to confirm a number of nominees for high-ranking positions in the federal government with broad bipartisan support. we extended the popular paycheck protection program that was part of the cares act which was a major covid-19 relief bill that passed overwhelmingly last year on a bipartisan basis. we did that because we all recognize the importance of small businesses continuing to take advantage of this lifeline until they could safely reopen. we took action on a bipartisan basis to combat the increase in hate crimes against asian americans. we provided the states with additional resources to upgrade their drinking water and wastewater infrastructure. and this week we passed historic legislation to improve the way we counter the threat from the

chinese communist party, the so-called endless frontiers act that included a $52 billion emergency appropriation to make sure that we weren't dependent on imports of semiconductors, which are so essential to our economy and to our national security. and that's not all. the environment and public works committee advanced a surface transportation reauthorization bill. that is the second time. first under a republican leadership and now under the democratic leadership that the environment and public works committee has passed a unanimously supported surface transportation reauthorization bill. the judiciary committee, that i serve on supported legislation that supports our men and women in blue. and two committees, the rules committee and the homeland and governmental committee, released

a report on the events surrounding january 6. you'd be hard pressed to count the number of bipartisan bills that have actually been introduced in the last six months, legislation to bring down prescription drug prices, enhance cybersecurity, which is an increasingly scary and frightening -- frightening issue, especially with the colonial pliens that j.b.s. hacked the solar winds hacked by the russians. we also know we need to improve our electronic infrastructure grid structure and we also have a bipartisan bill to address the humanitarian crisis on the southern border, bipartisan,

bicameral. these are some of the bills i introduced. and when you add to it the work done by other members of the senate, you have a long list of opportunities for us to work together on behalf of the american people. i believe this is the type of results and consensus that the american people had hoped for after the last election. because the truth neither party got a mandate after the last election. i know president biden won the election, but we have a 50-50 senate and a slim -- speaker pelosi has a very slim majority in the house. and we had a president who i think inspired all of us when he talked about healing the separations in our nations and appealing to a promise of unity. i can tell you one thing, that 2020 wasn't a mandate to pass a

radical agenda. it was a call for us to work together. i don't know any other way you can interpret a 50-50 senate, and i believe there is no better time for us to get work done on behalf of our constituents in the senate. there's perhaps the story of george washington who told thomas jefferson that the senate was meant to be the saucer to cool house legislation. like how a saucer apparently was used at the time to cool hot tea. there certainly is a lot of hot tea in the house these days and the filibuster, i believe, and the 60-vote requirement to cut off debate is core to the senate's ability to perform its constitutional function to cool off the debate and to talk about the greater good and to force us to do something that maybe we don't do naturally, which is

force us to work together. because the founders understood that if you pass legislation on a purely partisan basis, well, the next two years after the election, the next four years after a new president, the new majority, the new president can simply undo it and we've seen a lot of that, unfortunately. admittedly on both sides of the aisle. but when you've got to the get 60 votes in the senate to pass legislation that impacts the lives of 330 million americans, it strikes me that's a pretty commonsense way to force us to do, again, maybe what might seem unnatural to us, but we have to do for the benefit of the american people, it forces us to pass bipartisan bills and makes passing partisan bills impossible. now, i know both parties --

there's a reason why people are democrats and a reason why people are republicans. they have different ideas, different priorities, different ways of going about doing things, perhaps to achieve a result we can all agree on, a different means to an end. but the fact of the matter is, notwithstanding having our policies succeed over those of our democratic colleagues, that's not always necessarily in the best interest of the american people. what is in the best interest of the american people is to have us work together. just four years ago, it's amazing how time flies and how much people's positions changes depending on where they sit. well, four years ago, now majority leader senator schumer, the senator from new york, he said we should build a firewall around the legislative filibuster. believe me that 60-vote

requirement looks a lot better when you're in the minority than it does when you're in the majority. as a mart of fact when president trump was in the white house and we had a republican majority in the senate, i can't tell you how many times he pressed on leader mcconnell to eliminate the filibuster because it was an impediment to him getting what he wanted done, but he wasn't looking at the long game or the long-term consequences of doing that. senator mcconnell, on the other hand, having been in the senate a long time, understood that short-term gain was not worth the long-term pain. but senator schumer called it the most important distinction between the house and the senate, this consensus-building mechanism known as the filibuster. but today senator schumer perhaps has succumbed to the temptation, once you're in the majority to say, anything that gets in my way, any impediment

to getting what i want, lake the 60-vote requirement, we need to do away with it. so he's done a complete 180. clearing the way for a radical agenda is priority number one. i understand the political pressures that come from within our political parties and it's pretty clear to me that the pressure on our friends in the democratic party is from the progressive left who want to push the party farther and farther to the left. but that's not a reason for us to give up our previous convictions or principles. apparently our democratic colleagues, including -- not all, but some of our democratic colleagues apparently have abandoned the long-held belief that the filibuster is a vital, stabilizing force and they are on the warpath to eliminate it.

you can tell by the language that's being used, some have called the filibuster a weapon of mass destruction, a death grip of democracy, and here's perhaps the most despicable description when i think it was president obama himself who spoke at onlewis' fiewn -- john lewis' funeral when he called the filibuster a jim crow relic, essentially suggesting anyone who supported this vital, stabilizing mechanism was a racist, and he gave tacit permission for other people to play the race card when it comes to the filibuster. well, it hasn't even been a year since our democratic colleagues used this, quote, jim crow relic, to block an antilynching bill. this is part of the police reform bill that senator tim scott led that was filibustered

by our democratic friends. i still remember being on the floor when functions.

our democra a within their rights when they use the filibuster to kill thousands of pieces of legislation, whether it's pro-life legislation, police reform, the list goes on and on. again, i don't particularly like it when the minority filibusters legislation i'd like to see passed. but what that means is an invitation and really a command to us to roll up our sleeves and work harder to find common ground. really, if you think about it, eliminating the filibuster is a lazy way of legislating because it means you don't have to do the hard work. you don't have to build bipartisan consensus. you don't have to -- you don't

have to worry about stabilizing our laws so that they don't change dramatically every two years or every four years, depending on who's in charge. so we don't have to wonder how our democratic colleagues felt about the filibuster when it was a benefit to them because they made countless statements an even put their feelings in writing. when republicans held control of the house and the senate and the white house, our democratic colleagues were afraid the filibuster would be eliminated. they were afraid we would do what we did not do but which leader schumer and others are advocating now, which is to eliminate the filibuster so we could -- they would worried we would eliminate the filibuster, get what we wanted rather than have to work togethe the shoe ie other foot now that democrats have a nonmalmajority in a 50-50

senate but with a tiebreaking vote of the vice president, that's why senator schumer gets to be the leader even though he doesn't command a majority of the senators. back then when the democrats were in the minority and worried about eliminating the filibuster, 33 of them -- 33 signed a letter insisting the filibuster be preserved. among them was the now-vice president then-senator kamala harris. senator mcconnell, being an institutionalist at heart agreed and never wavered to pressure from anyone, even president trump, to eliminate the filibuster. now the tables have turned and so have many of our colleagues' views on the filibuster. instead of resisting pressure to blow up the rules of the senate and perhaps change it forever,

leader schumer has gladly accepted his marching orders from the radical left and he's trying to dismantle the longstanding rules of the senate. what makes it exceptional, as he said, different from the house way back when. senator schumer banked on republican obstruction to justify going nuclear. he's trying to set up a series of votes in order to justify going nuclear to change the senate into the house, to eliminate the bipartisan command of that 60-vote requirement. so he engaged in a lot of doom and gloom forecasting to predict that republicans would will really nilly -- willy-nilly filibuster democrat legislation, but it hasn't come to pass so he's trying to orchestrate a series of votes that are designed to fail and they are just that, designed to fail

because they don't represent the kind of hard work that goes into building bipartisan consensus in the senate. we kick things off -- kicked things off earlier this week with a vote on bail that would exploit the cause of pay fairness to line the pockets of trial lawyers. we'll soon vote on the democratic party's attempt to seize authority from the states to run elections. this is a bill so extreme that a number of democrats have said they will not vote for it. who knows what might be next, whether it's packing the supreme court, making puerto rico or washington, d.c. a state with two democratic senators each, or whether they'll try to use this to erode the constitutional rights of american citizens, for example, under the second amendment. but blocking these bills isn't an example of republican

obstruction. it's a destructive act of political theater. well, thank goodness there are enough democrats who are opposed to eliminating the filibuster apparently, so it appears that democrats don't have the votes to make this horrible, horribly miscalculated rules change. two of our colleagues have made clear their statement that they have the courage to stand up for what they believe is right despite the pressure they're receiving from the far left. senators manchin and sinema have repeatedly said they will oppose efforts to eliminate the filibuster. they won't accept the short-term gain for long-term pain. unlike the rest of their conference, their caucus, they recognize the inherent dangers of making this strictly a 51-vote majority institution.

they seem to be following the advice of then-senator barack obama back in 2005 when then-senator obama said if the majority chooses to end the filibuster, then the fighting and the bitterness and the gridlock will only get worse. mr. president, the american people deserve better than that. chipping away at the rights of the minority may seem expedient now, but democrats would be sure to regret those changes one day just as they now regret the day that harry reid eliminated a clear and easy path for hundreds of conservative federal judges. in two years republicans could win the majority in either/or both of the chambers. in four a republican could win the white house as well. how would our democratic colleagues feel then when their rights as members of the minority are disparaged and

ignored? would our democratic colleagues support the rule changes then? would they then believe the senate minority should be silenced and made irrelevant as apparently some believe now? i find it hard to believe that that would be the case. the thing about power in washington is it's never permanent. majorities and presidents change. and there's a reason why the rules should stay the same. if democrats had the votes to eliminate the filibuster, our country would face a tidal wave of changes, defunding the police, election law hijacking by the federal government over the states and local jurisdictions, tax hikes as high as you could, the mind can conceive, restricted rights under the constitution. you get the picture.

but when the tide inevitably turned, which it will at some point, then the temptation would be on the part of republicans to reverse all of those changes. the economy, the government, the average american family would be in a constant state of whiplash. the requirement to get 60 votes to close off debate in the senate is designed to protect our country from the relatively rapid changes of majorities and presidents, and eliminating it would do serious irreparable harm as much of the comments by distinguished democrats have stated in the past, if not today, at least in the past. so i agree with what senator schumer said four years ago. we should build a fire wall around it. but in the meantime, there's still a lot of bipartisan work being done here in the senate,

even under the current rules, without the thermonuclear device of blowing up the 60-vote cloture requirement known as the filibuster. but every day that the democratic leader wastes on political theater, which he knows is not going to succeed is a day we've wasted in passing bipartisan legislation that will benefit all of the american people, not just a partisan majority. this is the world's greatest deliberative body. it may be the one of the last ones in existence. i don't know any other place in our country or around the world where individuals can come down to the senate floor, senators, and express their views no matter how unpopular, no matter how politically incorrect, but engage in actual debate and exchange of views which ultimately give the american people the best opportunity to

make up their own mind about what policies they agree with and who they trust to protect their welfare. mr. president, if this is the world's greatest deliberative body there are far more important ways to spend our time than on political theater. i yield the floor. ms. cortez masto: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from nevada is ms. cortez masto: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate consider the following nominations en bloc -- calendar number 118, 125, 126. the presiding officer: without objection. the senate will proceed to the nominations en bloc. the clerk will report.

the clerk: nominations department of commerce, leslie b. kiernan of maryland to be general counsel. department of of housing and urban development. adrianne todman to be deputy secretary. department of transportation, nuria i. fernandez of california to be federal transit administrator. ms. cortez masto: i ask unanimous consent that the senate vote en bloc on the nominations without intervening action or debate and if confirmed the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table all without intervening action or debate, that no further motions be in order to the nominations, that any statements related to the nominations be printed in the record, that the president be immediately notified of the senate's action. the presiding officer: without objection. the question is on the nomination en bloc. all those in favor say aye. all opposed no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the nominations are confirmed en

bloc. ms. cortez masto: i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to legislative session and be in a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. cortez masto: i ask unanimous consent that the committee on judiciary be discharged from further consideration of s. 1511 and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. 1511, a bill to amend the omnibus crime control and safe streets act of 1968, and so forth and for other purposes. the presiding officer: without objection, the committee is discharged, and the senate will proceed without objection. ms. cortez masto: i ask unanimous consent that the grassley amend at the desk be agreed to, the bill as amended be considered read a third time and passed and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. cortez masto: i ask unanimous consent that the committee on rules be discharged

from further consideration of h.j. res. 27 and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: h.j. res. 27, providing for the appointment of barbara barrett as a citizen regent as the board of regents at the smithsonian institution. the presiding officer: without objection, the committee is discharged. the senate will proceed to the measure. ms. cortez masto: i ask unanimous consent that the joint resolution be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. cortez masto: i ask unanimous consent that the help committee be discharged from further consideration and the senate now proceed to s. res. 254. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. res. 254 expressing support for the designation of may 2021 as mental health awareness month. the presiding officer: without objection, the committee is discharged. the senate will proceed to the measure. ms. cortez masto: i ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the

preamble be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. cortez masto: i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today it adjourn until 3:00 p.m. monday, june 14. that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour 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 the senate be in a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each. further, that at 5:00 p.m., the senate proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the jackson nomination, that all postcloture time expire at 5:30 p.m. further, that the cloture motions filed during today's session ripen following disposition of the jackson nomination. and finally, that if any nominations are confirmed, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the president be immediately notified of the senate's action.

the presiding officer: without objection. ms. cortez masto: 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 senate stands adjourned until senate stands adjourned until president biden's pick for u.s. district court judge new jersey. senators voted to limit debate on an appeals court judge for the d.c. circuit as the seat held by merrick garland before he became her attorney general floating confirmation of the brown jackson expected later. live coverage when senators return here on c-span2. ♪♪ >> c-span, unfiltered view of government wanted by these television companies and more including now.

>> the world has changed today, fast reliable internet connection is something no one can live without so out there for our customers for speed, reliability, value and choice now more than ever it all starts with great internet. >> supports c-span as a public service along with these other television providers giving a front row seat to democracy. >> national security agency director general paul is among the witnesses testifying friday on the 2022 defense intelligence enterprise posture and long rain emerging threats. watch house armed services subcommittee hearing live 11:00 a.m. eastern on c-span2 online at c-span.org a listen live on the free c-span radio app. ♪♪ >> book tv on c-span2 has top nonfiction books and authors every weekend saturday 9:00 p.m. eastern best-selling author

john, author of the innocent man murder and injustice in a small town on his work with the innocent project and wrongful conviction and sunday 9:00 p.m. eastern on "afterwards". former nypd commissioner bill on his book the profession, the more of community, race and policing in america integrated by charles, former philadelphia police commissioner and metropolitan police chief and sunday 10:00 p.m. eastern yale university history professor elizabeth with her book, america on fire. the history of police violence and black rebellion since the 1950s. watch book tv on c-span2 this weekend. ♪♪ >> u.s. government officials talk about global vaccine distribution efforts before house florida affairs subcommittee. >> since the start of the pandemic, nearly 4 million