this afternoon at of the office of personal management. prior to the break, majority leader she worked on us with several senators absent, for the consideration of the nomination to be postponed. lift to the senate floor now he spent two.

mr. cornyn: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: madam president, we are not in a quorum call, are we, madam president? the presiding officer: we are not. mr. cornyn: thank you very much. madam president, the american people are counting on congress to act on some of the biggest issues facing our country. for starters, there's a border crisis. since january, more than 630,000 migrants have come to our southern border, including more than 65,000 unaccompanied children. in may, customs and border protection had their busiest month in 21 years with more than 180,000 encounters in may alone and were on -- we're on track to see some of the highest numbers in yearly border crossings in decades.

well, the alarm bells are sounding, but amid this crisis, the senate judiciary committee held a hearing this monger on a partisan -- this monger on a partisan bill that has nothing to do with the border crisis. make no mistake, i believe congress should absolutely take action to allow current daca or deferred action for childhood arrivals, to remain in the united states, but a partisan bill that would provide a pathway to citizenship for 4.4 million adults and other unrelated issues has simply no chance of passing in -- in the senate. now, if senator durbin, the chairman of the judiciary committee whose long been an advocate for the dreamers, if he really were serious about that issue, he now has the authority, as chairman of the judiciary committee, to put a bill before the committee to allow senators to offer and vote on amendments and to markup a bill.

and if he were able to get a majority of the committee to vote for a bill, he could then ask majority leader schumer to put the bill on the floor. but so far most of our discussions on immigration have been just that, all talk and no action. at the same time, madam president, america's roads and bridges are in dire need of attention by congress. every year the american society of civil engineers evaluates the state of our infrastructure and issues a report card to let us know how we're doing. well, america is barely passing with a c-minus. texas is faring slightly better than the rest of the class with just a c. i believe republicans and democrats alike think that rebuilding our roads and bridges is important. we even share the same goal of

expanding the definition of infrastructure to include broadband because we saw during the current pandemic that broadband is no longer a luxury, it's an absolute necessity, whether it's for telehealth or whether its for our children learning remotely or for people working remotely from home. even as bipartisan negotiations continue, though, the majority leader is eyeing the prospects of a partisan bill that would circumvent the normal legislative process and would be entirely a partisan product, but we know in a 50-50 senate, bipartisan work on shared priorities is not impossible. in fact, we did it just last week. last week we saw a great example of what could be accomplished if we all work together to achieve an outcome. in recent years china has emerged as one of the greatest

competitors to america, both republicans and democrats recognize the need to take action now to confront the growing threats posed by china. and so that's what we did last week. last week the senate passed a sweeping bipartisan bill to invest in strategic competition with china and in large part by funding the chips for america program to shore up this vulnerable supply chain of advanced semiconductors coming from primarily asia, pry mierl taiwan -- primary taiwan. there is a lot of work we can and should do on a bipartisan basis, because not every issue is or should be a partisan issue. i have to tell you, madam president, old habits die hard around here, despite the need to move critical legislation through a 50-50 senate, the majority leader is resisting any

progress on issues that we can and should be addressing. instead he's trying to drum up a scenario where somehow we decide to eliminate the 60-vote requirement, otherwise known as the filibuster. it is that 60-vote requirement that requires both parties to roll up their sleeves and do the hard work and build consensus. in a country of 330 million people, we need to have the continuity and the planning and the stability of bipartisan work products, not just a partisan bill that can be undone after the next election for congress or after the next presidential election. well, over several months, our democratic colleagues have been asked about the fate of the filibuster, whether they'd be willing to eliminate the filibuster in pursuit of partisan goals. senator schumer, for one, has repeatedly said that all options

are on the table, whatever that means. and a number of our democratic colleagues have par rotted the same -- parrotted the same line. now, they have looked for examples of republicans filibustering bills just like they have done over the last six years. they assumed this would be the golden ticket to rid themselves of the bipartisan filibuster requirement and escape blame. only things haven't quite worked out that way. the roadblock to bipartisanship isn't on the republican side, but rather on the democrat side. after passing five bipartisan covid-19 relief bills last yearor support the american people through the pandemic, our democratic colleagues kicked off this year with a different approach. they made no attempt to try to negotiate another consensus package, as we had done five times before last year, and insisted on skirting the normal

legislative process so they could pass a purely partisan, $1.9 trillion spending bill. well, the problem with that is that it was really mislabeled. one, it vastly overshot the target. and it spent less than 10% of the money that purportedly was for covid-19 relief on covid-19. and less than 1% of that was related to vaccines, which was clearly the most urgent need. but the money that we had appropriated last december hadn't been spent yet, but apparently the biden administration wanted to demonstrate they could get things through, but in the meantime appropriated $1.9 trillion threatening us with something we haven't seen rear its head in a long time, which is inflation. but the bill, as i said, included a lot of unrelayed and unnecessary partisan priorities,

ranging from blank check ps for mismanaged pension union funds, funding for climate justice, backdoor money for planned parenthood and a leave program for federal bureaucrats. where did that land us? well, as i said, the department of labor said that inflation had climbed to the highest rate since 2008. core inflation surged to the highest level in nearly three decades. families are feeling the pinch of higher prices as they pay higher prices for everything from housing to cars to gasoline to groceries. this is really sort of a silent and hidden tax on their income when it's the dollar that they earn is worth less and less as prices go higher and higher. but unfortunately this is the exact scenario economists expected when our democratic colleagues rolled out this $2 trillion spending bill at the

beginning of the year and they are currently proposing to spend trillions of dollars more. even larry summers, who once served as treasury secretary under bill clinton and director of economic counsel under president obama, warned about inflation. he penned an op-ed in "the washington post" in february cautioning the administration about the risk of inflation, making himself persona persona a among democratic colleagues. he said that the inflation risk is real. you might think that would serve as a cautionary tale, that partisan legislation does not give way to sound and stable policies, but that's not the case. when the majority leader said all options are on the table for eliminating the filibuster, he didn't menges the fact that he would be setting the table and setting the agenda trying to

make that case. absent republican obstruction, he and other members of the media forecasted, the majority leader is now teeing up a series of design to fail votes so he can explain or try to justify why the filibuster should be eliminated. we kicked things off last week with a vote on a bill that would exploit the cause of pay fairness, when that is already the existing law, but in this case to line the pockets of trial lawyers. senator schumer said this month the senate will vote on s. 1, the partisan federal election takeover bill. so just as our democratic colleagues went on a spending spree in the name of covid-19, this bill hijacks the constitutional authority of the states in the purported name of increasing voting access. but this bill too is choke

through of unnecessary and unconstitutional election proposals. it makes it much easier for partisans to effect our elections through fraud, in part by removing requirements for the most basic safeguard, which is voter identification. that was one of the main recommendations in 2005 of the commission on federal election reform, a bipartisan commission he could chaired by former -- cochaired by former president jimmy carter, a democrat and former secretary of state, james baker, a republican. that commission back in 2005 recommended that voters be required to present a photo i.d. card and the states should provide free cards to voters who for some reason didn't have a driver's license or other identification. in order to vote in person, most states require voters to present some valid form of

identification. matching the name of an eligible name with a name on a valid form of i.d. is a commonsense safeguard against fraud. but one our democratic colleagues apparently want to eliminate. in fact, their legislation would stop the states -- actually would prohibit the states from requiring proof of identification in order to vote. just sign a piece of paper saying you are who you say you are and no further questions can be asked. on top of that, this bill would require the states to awdmaticly -- automatically register anyone in their databases for everything from the department of motor vehicles to public assistance. we know these programs are not limited to eligible voters and could include noncitizens and others who are not eligible to cast a ballot, not to menges the fact that those who are registered to vote would be

registered again, potentially. even if there are duplicate registrations or someone passes away or moves, states would not be allowed, by this law, to clean up their voter rolls within six months of an election. just when you think things can't get eye crazier, they do. our democratic colleagues want to provide taxpayer funding for political campaigns and elections. that's right, they want you to pay for political candidate's campaign, whether you want to or not, whether you support the policies of that candidate or not. a lot of companies have matching programs for charitable giving. if an employee donates to the charity of their choice, the company often will match the donation a dollar for dollar. well, that same principle applies here in part except instead of the charity getting money, it's now a political candidate. instead of the company footing

the bill, it's, you've got it, it's you, the taxpayer. i could go on and on. this proposal, s. 1, that we will be voting on in the near future, changes the basic structure of the federal election commission, which is currently a bipartisan commission which is forced to obtain a bipartisan majority before they can act. to split 3-3. but this bill would eliminate that bipartisan requirement and simply allow a partisan federal election committee to work its will. this bill also legalizes something called ballot harvesting, which is susceptible to widespread fraud. in other words, it lets a campaign worker go around to nursing homes, neighborhoods, union halls, wherever, and collect your ballot and then to take them down to the clerk's office and cast that ballot.

well, the opportunities for fraud are pretty obvious. this bill would also implement a new financial disclosure policy that even the american civil liberties union says could interfere directly with the ability of many to engage in political speech about causes that they care about. but above all this, this bill undermines the trust and accountability that is so important to elections. the judiciary committee recently had a hearing where the secretary of state, who happens to be a democrat from new hampshire, said the single-most important thing in providing a big turnout for elections is public confidence that their ballot will be counted. it's not how many days before election day you can vote, hock vote by mail. it's the public's confidence that their ballot will be counted, no matter how and when cast. so, madam president, s. 1 is not a serious attempt at

bipartisanship. it's the opposite. it's not an honest effort to pass legislation. right now we know that democrats don't even have 50 votes on their side of the aisle. but the majority leader is trying to prove that partisanship apparently has a death grip on the senate. but, unfortunately for him, it's not the party he thinks. madam president, i yield the floor. and i'd note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. durbin: madam president. the presiding officer: the majority whip. mr. durbin: i ask consent that the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: madam president, last friday, "the new york times" said that during the trump administration, subpoenas were given to family members. it is highly unusual for the justice department to investigate members of congress.

the reason it's unusual is clear, our founders created three separate branches of the federal government with a separation of power so that each branch could serve as a check and balance on the other and no branch would have too much power. when the justice department investigates a member of congress, typically it's for corruption charges. that's understandable, but that's not what happened here. this was an investigation into a leak of information and the use of subpoenas to investigate members of congress is extremely strange territory. these are kerntion are heighten -- concerns are heightened when the president has attacked those same members of congress, that's what former president trump did when he repeatedly and without any evidenceaccused adam schiff about leaking information.

even trump's own white house counsel were included in the leak investigation raised serious questions about the justice department's and its former leaders. the senate judiciary committee has a constitutional responsibility to oversee the department of justice on behalf of the american people. so yesterday our committee sent a letter to the attorney general, merrick garland, asking for more information, but yesterday senator mcconnell, the republican minority leader in the senate, came to the floor and warned us off. he warned the judiciary committee against exercising our statutory oversight responsibility because it could become, quote, a partisan circus, close quote. this came on the heels of senator mcconnell's personal veto of a bipartisan commission to investigate the deadly january 6 mob action on the u.s. capitol. but now the minority leader is

warning us against even looking into the targeting of trump's perceived political enemies by the justice department. the minority leader claimed that the senate does not need to look into this matter because, get this, the department of justice, inspector general, has already announced he would investigate. that's a pretty decent argument if you have no memory whatsoever. for over 13 months during the last congress, under a republican majority, the senate judiciary committee conducted an expensive -- extensive oversight investigation into the f.b.i. opening of the cross fire hurricane investigation, even though the department of justice inspector general had already investigated it. the department of justice inspector general had already completed a 19-month investigation of so-called cross-fire hurricane involving over 100 witnesses and reviewing over a million documents. that wasn't good enough for the republican majority. they persisted in conducting the

investigation nevertheless even though the inspector general's investigation concluded that cross-fire hurricane had a basis. those were the very issues the republican majority reexamined in their own investigation. so in that instance the department of justice inspector general satisfied all the criteria of inspection investigation and yet the republicans rejected it and proceeded forward. in this case the republican leader in the senate is arguing that the work of the inspector general should be enough. quite a difference. throughout the course of that investigation, the senate judiciary committee held extensive hearings but it wasn't enough. the republican-led senate judiciary committee was so focused on investigating a conspiracy theory about obama that they didn't hold a single hearing on the trump administration's department of justice in four years. if they had, maybe they would

have discovered this latest revelation rather than "the new york times. " senator mcconnell did not warn the judiciary committee that the d.o.j. inspector general's investigation was sufficient or that its investigation into cross-fire hurricane would become a partisan circus. he saw it completely different in those days. importantly, it seems that the minority leader does not speak for his entire caucus, the minority whip said obviously this warrants review and investigation and, quote, he assumes the committee will work through that, and that there is further investigation, congress's place in our constitutional order is too important to simply look the other way. madam president, i'd like to make one other short statement in a separate place in the record with unanimous consent. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: it was nine years ago today after a year or more of writing letters to my friend and colleague president preside,

he agreed to an executive order known as daca. he made it an executive order and he said to those who were brought to this country as children, infants who really had nothing to do with the family decision on coming to america, we're going to give you a chance since you grew up undocumented to be part of this nation. so every two years you can apply for renewable status, be protected from deportation and be allowed to legally work. we'll do an investigation, national security investigation, and if you believe you're no threat to this country, we'll give you two years to prove yourself. 780,000 young people stepped forward and made a life in america and did extraordinary things for this country. they proved that given a chance to be part of america's future, they would make it a better nation. two of them testified today.

one of them is a doctor from the city of chicago. i'm so proud of him. dr. mahia. he grew up, born in mexico, grew up in memphis, tennessee, struggled, scrapped, clawed his way into an amazing undergraduate seation, summa cum laude and hoped to go to medical school. before daca, that dream was way too distant. then came daca and he looked around to see if any medical schools in the united states would let someone who was protected by daca apply for medical school, it turned out there was one and it turned out to be loyola university in chicago. they didn't create a new category of students. they said we'll let you compete. if you're good enough, we'll let you be admitted as a student. over 30,000 students were

admitted. he is about to finish, his third year of residency in emergency medicine. he has spent the last year and a half in emergency roops saving -- rooms saving the lives of so many victims, particularly those with covid-19. how many times are have we thanked them and how many of them would be someone -- the dream act does not become the law of the land and so we had a hearing and discussed his situation and the bill that was sent to us by the house. i believe there is some bipartisan sentiment in favor of that and i'm trying to work to develop that into legislation that will finally give to dr. maia, and so many others across the country, the future in america they all prayed for. they worked hard to earn it, they deserve it and i'm glad that the doctor came and told his story.

it's an inspiration to me and to all of us that we should have justice when it comes to immigration. madam president, i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call: the presiding officer: the senator from new york. a senator: i ask unanimous consent to have the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without

objection. mrs. gillibrand: madam president, i have ten requests for the 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: madam president, i rise for the ninth time to once again call for this entire body to have the opportunity to consider and to cast their votes 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 and other serious crimes get the justice they deserve. i've been calling for a full floor vote on this bill since may 24. that was 22 days ago. since then an estimated 1,232 service members will have been raped or sexually assaulted. two in three of those survivors will not even report it because

they know they're more likely to face retaliation than to receive justice. tonight i want to share the story of just one of these countless survivors of sexual assault in our military who bravely shared her story with me. a husband and a wife both served in the marine corps. when the wife was assaulted by another marine. her commander concluded that she deserved ill treatment for wearing running shorts and makeup. her husband said that when he read the opinions of the command-appointed investigator, he found that he compared rape to prostitution or marrying a rich man. the wife said of the retaliation after she reported the assault that, quote, the humiliation of the retaliation was worse than the assault because it was sanctioned from those same leaders i once would have risked

my life for. end of quote. i asked my colleague -- i ask my colleagues, madam president, to imagine living through the worst day of your life and knowing that nothing would happen to your assailant. imagine knowing that there was a bill that could change this system that failed you, knowing that senators from both sides of the aisle have come together to advocate for it, knowing that if it were allowed to be voted on, it would pass. now imagine the vote getting denied night after night after night watching the government that you volunteered to serve and defend continue to fail you. we have to do better. we can start by bringing this legislation to the floor. i ask unanimous consent that at a time to be determined by the majority leader in consultation with the republican leader the

senate armed services committee be discharged from further consideration of s. 1520 and the senate proceed to its consideration, that there be two hours for debate equally divided in the usual form, and that upon the use or yielding back of that time, the senate vote on the bill with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: is there objection? a senator: madam president, reserving my right to object. mr. reed: the legislation that the senator from new york proposes, particularly with respect to the issues of any crime involving sexual misconduct is something that i support. but without a thorough, careful review in the armed services committee which is the traditional means of making decisions, particularly when they affect the entire uniform code of military justice is something that is necessary in my view and will be done. and i hope promptly so that we

can move forward with this legislation. and also not only ensure that it passes but that it works for the benefit of the soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen in our armed forces. passing something that sounds good but has not been thoroughly reviewed and thoroughly vetted and will be implemented effectively for the benefit of soldiers, sailor, marines, and airmen is something i don't think we should do. i think rather we should wait for the committee hearings. i am confident that this legislation with respect to the sexual misconduct local emerge. there are other issues that we'll consider. with that i would reaffirm my objection. mrs. gillibrand: madam president. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mrs. gillibrand: i respect the chairman and his need to carefully review this legislation. but we've been reviewing this legislation for eight years. and we have been having hearings on this legislation and the issue of sexual assault in the military for eight years.

we've been passing legislation through the committee for eight years. but this vote has been denied every time. in fact, when don't ask, don't tell repeal was being filibustered by the armed services committee chairman and other members of that committee, we ultimately took that vote to the senate floor. it was an up-or-down vote to repeal don't ask, don't tell. in this case the committee has been considering this thoroughly and carefully for eight years. and even if the chairman believes that he hasn't fully vetted it or reviewed it or have the careful consideration, many of the members of the committee have. we've been diligently looking at this issue for eight straight years. it is time to bring this to the floor. i am confident that if we bring this to the floor, we'll be able to reform how we deal with these cases. we'll be able to change the system for the better, and that we'll be able to finally begin

to overcome the scourge of sexual violence in the military. i yield the floor. and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from mississippi. mr. wicker: are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: we are. mr. wicker: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. wicker: i also ask unanimous consent that lieutenant samuel crack dls kauer, a united states coast guard fellow with my staff be granted floor privileges for the remainder of this congress. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. wicker: i rise in strong support of our united states coast guard. for more than 230 years, theist coast guard has windchilled over our shores, protected against foreign threats, lent a helping hand, those in need of rescue and enforced the rule of law. the coast guard lives by its motto always ready and has

earned the trust and admiration of the american people. america could not do without this uniquely capable branch of our military. the coast guard is so effective and so versatile that it is tasked with 11 statutory missions spanning the entire globe. one of the best-known coast guard missions is search and rescue. the coast guard carries out 45 search and rescue missions on an average day, saving the lives and property of americans in dire need. the coast guard also protects our ports and inland waterways, facilitating billions of dollars in trade and maintaining the navigation aids that make sea commerce possible. in today's global economy, 80% of international trade travels by sea. the coast guard plays a crucial role in screening commercial vessels, patrolling mayor a time

infrastructure, and servicing aids to navigation such as beacons and buoys. each of these functions contributes to our nation's prosperity and security. the coast guard is also increasingly involved in homeland security. it is largely the coast guard's job to deter potential threats before they arrive in u.s. ports. coast guard men and women can be found in every major port in america, conducting security boardings and escorting passenger and cargo vessels into our waterways. the coast guard also helps enforce u.s. migration laws and saves the lives of those who foolishly risk everything to travel on unseaworthy vessels. beyond this, the coast guard plays a crucial role in blocking narcotics and illegal weapons from entering our country. it is not uncommon for americans to open their news feeds and read a report about the latest

multimillion-dollar drug bust carried out at sea by the coast guard. in one recent example, three coast guard cutters joined efforts to intercept more than 11,000 pounds of cocaine valued at $220 million. that was a remarkable feat but not unusual for the united states coast guard. as the polar regions attract more interest from congress, it should be known that the coast guard is america's surface presence in both the arctic and the antarctic waters. coast guard icebreakers carry out a wide range of operations, allowing us to have a sustained presence in antarctica and conduct research in some of the most remote corners of the earth. if all of these roles were not enough, the coast guard is taking on greater responsibilities in national security, partnering side by side with the navy, today's coast guard conducts freedom of navigation operations in the

south china sea, provides mayor a time security in the middle east, and deters illegal fishing in international waters. this long list of responsibilities should make two things very clear. first, the coast guard is indeed capable and adept, and secondly, it is being stretched increasingly thin. today the coast guard is being asked to carry out almost every maritime task imaginable, but coast guard funding has not kept up with these increased demands. this, the fifth branch of our military, needs the certainty, predictable funding and authorities necessary to accomplish all of its missions. congress has the ability to meet these needs, and i'm asking my colleagues to do so by supporting a new bill, the unwavering support for our coast guard act. this legislation would essentially do five things.

number one, it would protect pay and allowances for coast guard members during a government shutdown. during the latest government shutdown, the coast guard members went without pay, yet continued to serve admirably. this should not be allowed to happen again. we need to safeguard coast guard pay and allowances from failures here in washington. number two, the legislation would provide full funding to eliminate the shoreside facility maintenance backlog while building resilience into these facilities. number three, the bill would enhance the diversity of the coast guard. four, it would support needed renovations at the coast guard yard in maryland. and five, the bill would require the coast guard to tell us the assets and facilities it needs to complete all of its missions. for too long, the coast guard has been asked to do more with

less. congress needs to understand the true costs of modernizing and recapitalizing our coast guard fleet to meet its mission requirements in the increasingly complex maritime domain. madam president, i'm proud of my state's role in supporting the coast guard fleet recapitalization efforts. mississippi is building two of the vessels that will be the vanguard of our coast guard for years to come -- the national security cutter and the cutting edge polar security sut cutter. the national security cutters have already proven themselves to be the most capable and versatile ships the coast guard has ever used. they can deploy all around the world and work seamlessly with our nato allies and use next-generation technologies like unmanned drones to extend their reach. these cutters are especially

effective at countering drug smuggling, illegal fishing, and the illegal movement of migrants. america will also benefit significantly from the new polar security cutters which will be the first heavy icebreakers built in america since the 1970's. our current fleet of icebreakers is aging and shrinking. we have fallen far beyond russia and our icebreaker fleet and the arctic is quickly becoming a critical national security domain. a fleet of new polar security cutters will allow us to maintain a heavy presence in polar regions and keep our adversaries at bay. madam president, america needs a capable and growing coast guard, and the coast guard needs the support of this legislation. i look forward to working with my colleagues to provide the coast guard with the resources it needs to continue its

exemplary service to our nation. thank you, madam president. and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. cruz: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cruz: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cruz: madam president, i rise today to recognize the 156th anniversary of juneteenth. on saturday, we mark 156 years

since june 19, 1865, when major general gordon granger announced in galveston, texas, that the civil war was over and that enslaved people were now free. in his announcement, general granger said, quote, the people of texas are informed that in accordance with a proclamation from the executive of the united states, all slaves are free. this involves an absolute equality of personal rights and rights of property. in commemoration of this momentous day, june 19 became noun as juneteenth. in the years following the civil war and in the early 20th century, juneteenth has been celebrated as a holiday of

independence. while juneteenth has been celebrated in states across the country, it carries a special significance in texas, where juneteenth celebrations began. in 1872, four men in houston, my hometown, purchased the land for eman payings park -- emancipation park, the oldest park in texas, as the site for juneteenth celebrations. and in 1980, the state of texas became the first state to make juneteenth a state holiday. today 47 states recognize juneteenth. i'm a proud cosponsor of the senate resolution designating june 19, 2021, as juneteenth independence day to honor the

historical significance this day has in the united states. juneteenth is an important day. it's a somber reminder of the original sin of slavery that our nation inherited from colonial powers. still, it is also a celebration of the fact that our country strives each and every day to make good on its promise to protect the inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all men and all women who are created equal. our country was founded on that revolutionary idea, that revolutionary belief that all men are created equal, and that means no matter where we come from or what we started with, any one of us can live freely

and achieve great things. the story of america, the story of juneteenth is a story of freedom. and while we've had many troubled chapters along the way, i for one agree with dr. dr. martin luther king jr. that the arc of history is long and that it bends towards justice. and we've made significant progress on that arc. so on saturday, as we commemorate the long overdue announcement of emancipation made in texas 156 years ago, let us together remember the god-given freedoms we all cherish as americans. madam president, i would ask unanimous consent that the following remarks appear separately in the record from my prior remarks. the presiding officer: without objection.

mr. cruz: madam president, on sunday, june 20, joe biden will have been president for exactly five months. and in these five months we've seen crisis after crisis after crisis. we've experienced a gas crisis where we had gas lines and skyrocketing energy prices. we're on the verge of an inflation crisis, where everywhere we look prices are rising on food, on housing, on lumber. we've already had a war in the middle east, and we've got a border crisis that has been raging so intensely that we're on pace to see two million illegal immigrants come through our unsecured border this year. just last month 180,034 illegal grents crossed the border.

to put that in perspective, that number is a 674% increase over the number of illegal immigrants that crossed the border last may. a 674% increase. and that number is a 21-year high. the reason for this is simple. the crisis that has unfolded is the direct result of political decisions made by joe biden and kamala harris. number one, the first week in office, president biden immediately halted construction of the border wall. number two, that same week president biden reinstated the failed catch and release policy. and, number three, more inexplicably, the biden administration ended the remain

in mexico international agreement, an historic agreement negotiated by president trump with the government of mexico, whereby the government of mexico agreed that those who crossed illegally into mexico would remain in mexico while their asylum proceedings were pending in the united states. that agreement was a tremendous success. it produced last year the lowest rate of illegal immigration in 45 years. let me repeat that. just six months ago our country had achieved the lowest rate of illegal immigration in 45 years. joe biden and kamala harris come into office, they rip to pieces the international agreement that produced that success, and today we have the highest rate of illegal immigration in 20 years. meanwhile as the crisis rages,

joe biden is no where to be found, and kamala harris is nowhere to be found. in five months in office, joe biden couldn't be bothered to go down to the border and see the humanitarian disaster his policies have created. vice president harris who was, quote, in charger of the border, seems determined to go anywhere she can but the border. in the 84 days since she's been tasked with handling the border crisis, do you know how many press conferences she's given? not even one. not a single press conference in 84 days. she can't be honest about what's causing the crisis, so she hides from questions. the one time she saw questions

was with nbc's lester holt, where he asked her about going to the border. she responded with that now characteristic and, quite honestly, creepily laugh, where she said we've been to the border. i'm not sure who the royal we was, but that doesn't include president biden, that doesn't include vice president harris, and to nbc's credit, lester holt asked a followup question and it was a simple question, you haven't been to the border, to which she responded oddly, well, i haven't been to europe either. mr. president, we're not facing a humanitarian crisis, a border crisis, a public health crisis, a national security crisis in europe. we're facing it on our --

southern border, we're facing in texas, and the vice president can't seem to be bothered and can't face the failures that president biden's policies are causing. i want to tell you about one thing that greatly affects border communities and that is our land ports of entry. while joe biden has repeatedly encouraged this crisis of illegal immigration, he is at the same time preventing lawful border crossing. border communities are suffering immensely because borders of entry in laredo and rio grande city in mccallen and farr and brownsville remain closed to every one except those deemed essential traffic.

basically mexicans who have a visa to enter the united states legally cannot do so through the land ports of entry unless they are going to school, working or somehow considered essential. nonessential travel to the united states for shopping, for visiting family and friends, for casual visits are not allowed by the biden administration. instead the biden administration has decided to keep our land port of entries closed for nonessential travel until at least june 21, ostensibly because of the covid-19 pandemic. this decision makes no sense when americans have access now to effective vaccines and the biden administration is just fine with allowing hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens to stream across the border and be released into our communities

despite being positive, at a covid positivity rate of 10%, the biden administration has no problem with that and they perpetuate the policies that continue that disaster and yet at the same time they shut down trade and legal tourism through our land ports of entry. for a long time i've summed up my immigration views very simply in four words, legal, good, illegal bad. i think the overwhelming majority of americans agree with that proposition. and, yet, as we look at the first five months of the biden-harris administration, it seems for president biden and vice president harris, their immigration policy is legal bad, illegal good. that makes no sense. it's exactly backwards.

we should open up our land ports of entry to legal tourism, which would greatly benefit the border communities, especially in my home state of texas. and we need to end this heartless inhumane policy that is resulting in tens of thousands of children being trafficked in by human traffickers, which is resulting in thousands of children being physically abused and sexually abused, being thrown into the biden cages packed in larger and larger numbers, ignoring this problem won't go away. behaving like an ostrich, joe biden and kamla can't plunge their heads into the sand and hope this will disappear. they don't want to be go to the border because they know that tv cameras will follow them to the border and their only hope is

that people don't notice the crime that is coming in, the vandalism that is coming in, the public health threat that we're seeing .this is not compassionate. it's not humane. this chaos is wrong. and it's time to end. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from arkansas is recognized. mr. cotton: eight short months from now athletes will gather for the olympic games, usually

americans await this you a inspiring event with enthusiasm. this year we the way it with apprehension an frankly dis -- and frankly disgust, because it will be held in the people's republic of china, a nation that enslaves workers and puts women and children in concentration camps, and unleashed a global pandemic that killed millions and upended the global economy. the 2022 games will be located in beijing, a five-hour train hour ride away from the wuhan lab where the coronavirus originated and from the wuhan -- where there has been herded more than a million innocent souls into concentration camps. the chinese communist party may believe that this will distract us from the reality of what

they've done but no amount of rushed urban cleaning can wipe away the moral stain that permeates the capital city of china. no moral torch can redeem them. no fireworks display can make us forget that beijing is the epicenter of evil in the world. it is no exaggeration to state that the chinese communist party is the purest, most powerful and most pervasive force for evil in the world. locating the games in beijing will ensure and embolden the chinese communest party and strengthen the their on their captive people. that's why the international olympic committee should immediately rebid the 2022 games and award it to a free democratic nation. i will note that this is entirely feasible. if the tokyo summer games can be

postponed a year due to an event that was no fault of japan's government, we can certainly rebid the winter games on short notice if china is perpetrating crimes against humanity. i would observe that winter games are far smaller and easier to move than summer games. the winter games include fewer than half the number of sports, nearly 4,700 fewer medals, only one-quarter the number of events and less than half the competing country. there are many -- many western democracies that could easily -- easily accommodate a relocation of the games on short notice.

some of our european partners like france, switzerland, sweden, and italy have more than enough winter sporting venues and hotel capacity and transportation capacity to host these games with eight-months notice. many have hosted modern games before, many of them host national and international winter sporting competitions. if the ioc fails to bid the games, the united states should fully embrace an economic and diplomatic boycott. no u.s. official, company, or spectator should participate in and legitimatize china's despotic and totalitarian actions. american companies should not profit off genocide or

oppression or line the pockets of the chinese communist officials who are part of the crimes against humanity, these grotesque atrocities. if we can keep our athletes safe, they should compete in the spirit of the great jesse owens and stare tyranny in its eye. and the only americans, and i mean the only americans, who should step foot on chinese soil are the athletes, their coaches, their essential support staff, and the necessary personnel to ensure their safety. if the games remain in china, it will pose unique challenges to the safety, security, and privacy of those limited number of americans who do attend, though. the united states government must be fully prepared for the dangers to which these athletes

and supporting personnel will be exposed. first, the chinese government operates the most extensive sophisticated and invasive police state anywhere on earth. members of the american delegation should expect the chinese authorities to bug their hotel rooms, their vehicles, and to hack all of their electronic devices. second, china has a history of arbitrarily detaining american visitors to gain -- placing exit advance on foreign nationals. members of the dpel gaition could be detained during their visit. former assistant secretary of state said that, quote, spectators have good reason to

be wear of -- beware of the beijing olympics. and houston rockets general manager darrell morey who has spoken out against the china party's abuses in tibet and many other places. third, the chinese communeist party knows no limits and our nation's representatives should prepare our athletes and staff accordingly. and they look at it a vital objective, and want to use the data to -- has reportedly conducted research on biologically enhancing its soldiers of during the olympics, of course, the d.n.a. of thousands of world-class

athletes could prove to be an irresistible target whose evil seems to verge on science fiction. whether through testing for performance enhancing drugs, china will have the opportunity to steal the very d.n.a. of our elite athletes, young men and women, in many courses young boys and girls who deserve our protection. for all these reasons, and many more, president biden should forcefully call on the international olympic committee to rebid the 2022 winter games. we must be ready if they fail to do so. that is why i sent the president a letter urging him to prepare for the various challenges that our athletes will confront if they compete in beijing and asking if the communist authorities are cooperating with u.s. efforts to protect our

athletes. if the estate of our athletes cannot be -- if the safety of the athletes cannot be assured, we should boycott the olympics, no one should be put in harm's way for the sake of a sporting event. president biden ought to make these terms absolutely clear to the communist in beijing and we should not compromise on them. the athletes we send are not democrats or republicans. they do not wear donkeys or elephants on their uniform. they have no party insignia. they are americans wearing the stars and stripes, bearing the standard of our great nation. it's the responsibility of our government to protect these champions. i hope this is an area in which our divided government can unite. mr. president, i ask that the following remarks be included in

a separate portion of the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cotton: you know, the democrats want to call their voting bill the for the people act. but i suggest you not be fooled by the marketing. this bill has nothing to offer the people of our country. this so-called for the people act is in fact a partisan takeover of our election that seeks a government of the democrats by the democrats and for the democrats. so it's no wonder that it's their very top priority that's literally the first bill filed in both the house and the senate this year. if this bill passes, it will shatter our nation's faith in the fairness of our democracy, weaken the security of our elections, and attempt to entrench democratic rule in the swamp unchallenged for decades to come. senate bill would ejournal of proceedings the constitutional

prerogative of the states in remain didding what the constitution calls the times, places and manners of hold elections. while our constitution has always given the power to determine how elections are conducted, the founders envisioned that this power would be exercised in it the words of standard hamilton only under extraordinary circumstances and only as a last resort. for example, congress could intervene if states were simply refusing to hold federal elections in an attempt to deprive congress of the members needed to operate under the quorum rules of the constitution. of course we face no such extraordinary circumstances today. no matter the outrageous claims of hysterical journalists and politicians, almost every story you hear and every democratic claim you hear about state election law reforms misrepresent those reforms or don't put them in proper

context. the democratic party, the very head of the democratic party, president joe biden, referred to georgia's election reform, for instance, as a new jim crow, even though it has far -- far more access to the ballot than democratic-run states like new york and, yes, joe biden's own delaware. i might also note that kentucky passed a fairly sweeping election reform bill earlier this year. it still doesn't go as far as georgia's bill did in providing early access to the ballot. yet there's no condemnation of kentucky's bill. i wonder why? could it be because kentucky has a democratic governor? the democrats want to use these kind of misrepresentations to pass senate bill 1, which would give all power of our nation's elections to democrats in congress.

if you think should be able to vote at any time in any place and in any manner without regard to the basics of integrity, such as establishing the inlegality of the -- the legality of those casting the ballots. it would laws that simply require individuals to present valid photo identification in order to vote. democrats like to pretend that vote i.d. laws are racist, just as they like to pretend that anyone who opposes them is also racist. that would be a surprise to most of the american people, though. according to recent polling, three-quarters of americans support photo i.d. requirements, including 70% of black voters who support photo i.d. requirements. that's a pretty big claim of false consciousness by the

democrats. after all, it's no great burden to present a driver's license in order to vote. it's not some devious tactic to suppress any group of voters. if it was, maybe we'd need to ask some of these politically correct airlines like delta why they require passengers to present photo identification before boarding flights. are they engaged in some nefarious racist practice of traveler suppression? i don't think so. i think voter i.d. laws are a basic means of securing the vote, just like three-quarters of all americans think. yet senate bill 1 would still eliminate them all, allowing into register to vote under any identity without presenting proof that they are who they claim to be. the democrats' bill would also make permanent many of the vote-by-mail expansions that were rushed through during the

pandemic last year. the free-for-all of ballot harvesting and mail-in voting caused many americans to doubt the integrity of that vote. removing guardrails against fraud will only convince more voters that the electoral process is rigged. responsible elected officials should be trying to assuage voters' fears by implementing adequate safeguards. after all, many of these practices were unheard of before the 2020 election. now, the democrats like to say that they have to pass senate bill 1 in respoons to the state -- in response to the state election reforms. i would point out, this bill was introduced in the house two years ago before the states passed any of the election reforms. oftentimes these state election reforms are being passioned by legislatures who were appalled

by their governors' sweeping power grabs. so no matter what the conditions, the democrats think it's always time to nationalize our elections. another provision of the democrats' election bill would repeal donor privacy laws that keeps the i.r.s. from harassing nonprofit organizations about the identities and addresses of its donors. democrats claim that this change is about dark money, megadonors. but it a ply to any middle-class family that donates a few hundred dollars a year to a cause they care about, like a church who are a charity. yet if the democrats have their way, bureaucrats at the i.r.s. will be able to force nonprofits to name their donors or risk losing their tax-exempt status. this should is alarm anyone familiar with the i.r.s.'s track record of unfairly targeting conservative groups. after all, just last week, we

saw a conveniently timed leak of legally protected tax returns that came out right before the senate finance committee had a meeting to justify higher taxes. what a coincidence. now, niece are just a few of the proposals -- now, these are just a few of the proposals in the democrats' funding bill. i haven't mentioned transforming the federal election commission into a partisan weapon to be used by the president's party against the opposition. all of these provisions and many more encourage fraud, harassment, and corruption in our campaigns and elections. not coincidentally, they all seem to work to the advantage of the democrats or at least to the democrats' perceived self-advantage. it's little surprise then that this partisan bill is supported only by democrats, not even all

democrats for that matter, not all the democrats here in the senate, not all the democrats in the house, which passed it earlier this year by the thinnest of margins. so i'm proud to be a part of the bipartisan majority in the senate that is opposing the democratic party's attempted takeover of our states' election processes. political office in america is is not a birthright of any party or any politician. the democrats should try winning their elections fair and square instead of taking them over in a centralizing powerplay. mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from montana. mr. tester: thank you for that recognition, mr. president. mr. president, i would ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations en bloc -- calendar number 151, 152, is a

p, and 154. that those nominations be confirmed en bloc, the motions to reinquire be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, that no further motions be in order to any of the nominations, that the president be immediately notified of the senatest's action and the senate then resume legislative session. the presiding officer: is there objection? mrs. blackburn: mr. president, i reserve the right to object. and i rise to object to this unanimous consent request. the v.a. for years has made promises that they have year after year failed to meet. for years, veterans and their family members have called my office, whether i was in the state senate or over in the

house or here in the senate. they are distressed by the lack of service that they receive from the v.a. my caseworkers would work tirelessly with these constituents only to end up frustrated by a very unresponsive v.a. this is unacceptable. it has become the culture of the v.a., and this is something that has to change. now, for weeks the committee has been asking for feedback on legislative proposals which have the potential to affect the work flow and the compass toys of the v.a. the v.a. has been silent on this. even though we have asked for their views and have asked them to weigh in. the reason we've asked them for this is the v.a. has a backlog -- a backlog -- of over 180,000

cases. their wait times this year have continued to escalate. they are not going down. so yesterday i had a call with secretary mcdonough expressing my concerns with the lack of feedback that the committee has received on what is shaping up to be the most consequential legislative effort in the veteran space in an entire generation. the formal response that i received today was incomplete, but it contained a promise that they would have more fulsome feedback by july 30. i will continue to keep my hold on these pending v.a. nominees until i receive the official views on the cost of war act, --

on the toxic exposures bills. we owe our veterans, weight owe it to them, to get this right. therefore, i object to the unanimous consent request, and i will continue my hold on these nominees. the presiding officer: objection is heard. the senator from montana is recognized. mr. tester: i will rephrase this one more time. i would ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to executive action to consider the following nomination, calendar number 153. for those who want to know, that is matthew jenna quinn of montana. that the nomination be confirmed, the the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, no further motions be in order to any of the other nomination, that the president be immediately notified of the senate's action, the senate resume legislative session. the presiding officer: is there objection? mrs. blackburn: i object. reserving the right -- the presiding officer: objection is heard.

mr. tester: okay, mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from montana is he can ared. mr. tester: last month four well-qualified, none controversial nomination were unanimously voted out of the veterans' affairs committee. unanimously vote out of the veterans' affairs committee which senator blackburn sits on. here's who they are. don recommendy, a veteran. nominated as v.a. deputy secretary, v.a. deputy secretary. that's second in command. if senator blackburn wants quicker action from the v.a. on toxic ex-sporure, maybe senator blackburn shouldn't hold that nominee to the number-two position of the department. the nominee is specifically tasked with carding the v.a.'s work with the defense department, which includes issues like, guess what, toxic supposure. but that's all right. we'll leave him sitting at home. we've leave the veterans out in

the cold. then there's patricia ross, nominated to be assistant secretary for congress affairs. so if senator wants more information for the v.a. legislation on how much it costs, maybe the senator shouldn't hold the nominee tasked with getting that information from the v.a. to congress. but she is. and then there's maryann donaghy nominated for qibl protection. whistle-blowers regularly come to us with waste, fraud, and abuse. folks love to condemn the v.a. we heard a little bit a second ago, when it failed to hold its work frs accountable, i would recommend that if senator blackburn wants accountable at the v.a., maybe she shouldn't hold -- then there's matt quinn. he know very well because he

comes from the state of montana. so when people die, nobody there in the v.a. to take care of this issue. once again, all four people, critically important people, that the senator voted for to get out of committee is now being held by the senate. i'm going to tell you that if we want to hold the v.a. accountable today, and a situation where we're going out of a pandemic, this is not the way to do it. the bottom line is that if you want a v.a. that can function, this enwe've got to have that v.a. staffed up. -- then we've got to have that v.a. staffed up. don't talk to me or anybody else in this body about distressed veterans and then say, you know what? we're going to stop the number two. we're going to stop the v.a. person that's supposed to talk to us. we're going to stop the cemetery person or the whistle-blower person. that is really helping veterans.

quite frankly, just the contrary. i pride myself on running a committee that is very bipartisan. and the v.a. committee may be the best. not because of me. because of people like jerry moran and john boozman, people like patty murray. those people step up to the plate every day and they do what's right for veterans. and let's talk about the toxic exposure bill. let's talk about that bill. if world war i we had mustard gas, all right. the v.a. had no capacity to deal with those veterans. in world war ii we had radiation. the v.a. had no capacity. in vietnam war we had asian orange. by the way, they've died. they've died, and they've died again. because this body refuses to give the v.a. the tools they need to take care of our veterans. and now we're doing the same thing with burn pills.

i'm here to tell you. i had a veteran stand up my very first year on the v.a. committee, a screet familiar veteran stood up in the back of the room in a town hall and said you are not going to treat this generation of veterans like you treated ours. the vietnam veterans. well, i'm telling you what. if we want to close the door and we want to delay and we want to push back, what's going on with burn pits? then let's have them die. you were at the hearing, the lung transplant guy was at. we had to juggle that hearing so he could even be at it because he was on medication. the bottom line is people are dying every day. and by the way, we're still not done with agent orange. hyper tension which is in this bill. they'll die. some more of them will die. we send our young people off to war. they come back changed. and we don't have the guts to step up and debate the bill,

when i give the ranking member the authority to stop that bill from coming to the floor, we're still going to make excuses? give me a break. i'm going to tell you what. i've been in this body for probably too long. we turn around and we try to do the right things and we've got people that say, you know -- you don't send people off to war, the drop of the hat. send them off to war. send them off to war. then they come back and they're changed and we say we're not going to take care of them because we need information right now, this very minute when it's not even on the floor. we need information, when i've already made a commitment to the ranking member that we're going to have this information. no, what we're going to do is stop the v.a. from having a slate of candidates so they can do their job in service of veterans. guess what? i'm not a veteran. this doesn't impact me. but impacts the veterans in my state, some hundred thousand of them, one in ten montanans and in fact, veterans all across

this country. and we can sit here and we can play these games of holding up nominees to fill critical agency departments, we can play them and play them and play them again and say we're doing it on behalf of veterans. that is bull -- you got it. total bull. we've got a job to do here, folks. if we don't want to confirm well qualified folks, why don't we shut down the v.a. why don't we tell he's out of luck. we're not going to send any help and then start making demands. the bottom line is this, folks. all the things senator blackburn is concerned about i made a commitment with the ranking member that we're going to get those questions answered and get them answered with good information. and then if the ranking member consents, we'll have a vote. and we'll have debate. and we'll make a determination whether this is the right thing to do. but just to say no, we're stopping everything right now,

no more toxic exposure bill until i get this information because we're not going to send you the staff to do your job. doesn't make a lot of sense to me. doesn't make a lot of sense to me. and in the process, our veterans suffer. and that veteran that has hyper tension dies. one less problem for the v.a. because we created the problem right here today. i would ask senator blackburn to reconsider her hold so we can give the v.a. they staff they need so they can do their job. i yield the floor. mrs. blackburn: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mrs. blackburn: thank you, mr. president. you know, it is truly an honor to work with the veterans in tennessee and we have hundreds of thousands of veterans in our state. and i know that the chairman says he prize himself in work -- prides himself in working with the veterans. i can tell you quite frankly i

consider it a humbling experience to work with these veterans. and whether they're from world d war ii or korea or vietnam, whether they are from any of our recent wars, the middle east, whether we're dealing with agent orange or burn pits, to me it is heart-wrenching to hear their stories. and the v.a. has not done their job. so what we're doing is standing up for these veterans and saying to the v.a., get your act together. provide this information. how do you deal with this backlog? do you have the capability to deal with what we are discussing? do you have that capability? what is your capacity?

how do we best handle these issues? now, the v.a. for years, decades, decades, decades has not done their job in a timely manner, in a responsive manner to our nation's veterans. so, therefore, let's say let's get this right. let's get it right. excuse me. there's a fly in this chamber. let's get it right now. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that my following statement appear in a separate place in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. blackburn: thank you, mr. president. last week's conversations about our own government's role in the covid cover-up reflected over a year of refusal on the part of my democratic colleagues to accept that the novel coronavirus may not have spread

via natural transmission from a chinese wildlife wet market. as the theories of the pandemic's origins evolved, one remained until very recently off limits. this is of course the lab leak hypothesis or the theory that the virus somehow was -- to lab in wuhan china. now, this theory did not come out of nowhere. in early january 2020 alarm bells were already ringing at the c.d.c., the state department, and in the scientific community over problems with the natural origin theory of transmission. virologists and public health officials studying the disease were quickly coming to the conclusion that the way the virus was spreading suggested this theory was flawed. officials also knew that the wuhan institute of virology was

conducting controversial and dangerous research with the help of repackaged u.s. government grants. yes, that is correct. in april of last year i joined many of my colleagues in publicly demanding a thorough investigation into the lab leak theory. what followed was nothing less than moral panic. activists, journalists and even our own democratic colleagues accused us of racism, xenophobia, and science denial. major media organizations refused to report on the hypothesis except to decry it as a racist attack on chinese scientists. facebook banned accounts that posted about it. youtube deleted videos that dared contradict the world health organization.

rather than scaring us off, though, these attacks left us with another question to answer. why did the very idea of investigating the wuhan lab inspire such a bizarre panic? or perhaps the better question is, why did ninid director dr. fauci and the rest of the powers to be publicly insist that the idea of a lab leak was completely preposterous? even n.i.h. director francis collins hadn't ruled it out. in a march 2020 better view with the atlantic -- interview with the atlantic, he said while natural transmission was the likely culprit, and i quote, the possibility that such a naturally evolved virus might have also been under study at the wuhan institute of virology and reached residents of wuhan and ultimately the rest of the

world as the result of a lab accident has never been adequately excluded. end quote. we certainly have evidence to show that mistakes happen, even in a professional lab. who could forget that back in 2015 we saw reports that d.o.d. personnel at a military facility in utah accidentally shipped active samples of anthrax to labs in nine states. yes, a 2015 lab accident. n.i.h. has also had problems keeping track of things. according to a memo prepared in 2016 by the majority staff of the house, energy, and commerce committee, a 2009 department of health and human services o.i.g. audit found an inventory discrepancy at the n.i.h. caused

in part by mislabeled envelopes containing unregistered vials of plague and other antibiotic resistant bacteria. in 2012, n.i.h. researchers found vials of anthrax spores in the wrong place. what's worse, the scientists in that particular lab weren't registered to possess them. in 2014 an f.d.a. researcher working at the n.i.h. campus in bethesda discovered vials of live smallpox virus stuffed in a cardboard box in an unsecured cold storage room. mistakes were clearly made. lab accidents happen. it's also clear that while a leak from the wuhan lab could have happened due to human error, this cover-up we're now

lorneing about -- now learning about certainly did not happen by error. we now have an emerging picture of what did happen behind the scenes to create so much resistance to the lab leak theory. on june 3 of this year, that right-wing insanity known as vanity fair magazine published an investigative report exposing the deranged political gamesmanship that prompted public health officials to paint the lab leak theory as a conspiracy. the report confirmed just about everything those officials wanted to keep hidden. namely, that the lab leak hypothesis was suppressed at multiple levels of government by officials looking to protect their own interest and to

distance themselves from president donald trump. so much for following the science. they were following emotions. the report confirmed conflicts of interest concerning grant awards that supported function research at where? the wuhan institute of virology, the same people who knew that chinese scientists were performing these dangerous experiments on the taxpayer dime also knew from verified intelligence reports that three wuhan-based researchers fell ill with covid-19-like symptoms in november 2019, well before the first reported outbreak. still state department officials warned investigators to abandon their inquiries into the origins of covid-19 because it would,

and i quote, open a can of worms, end quote. the internal coverups bled into this year until finally five days before president biden took the oath of office, the state department put out a fact sheet on the wuhan lab that confirmed the november outbreak and revealed that scientists working there had collaborated with the chinese military on classified research. the biden administration has yet to walk any of this back. we're also finally seeing some interest in the world health organization's beijing-controlled investigation into the wuhan lab. on march 1 of this year and again on may 24, i laid out my concerns to the white house about the w.h.o.'s reliance on the chinese communist party for funding and support.

i explained how this reliance drove their initial support for beijing's response to the outbreaks and ruined the integrity of their investigation. the white house has yet to respond to my concerns, and they're not going to be able to avoid responding because the american people are demanding the answers. i think it's important to state for the record that what we're seeing in these news reports is not entirely new information. the foundations of the lab leak hypothesis remain much the same as they were a year ago. so why pop open that can of worms right now? because there's no way to sweep this thing back under the rug. we have the sudden interest of the media. imagine that. we also have an entire body of published statements and investigative reporting from

inside china. facebook and youtube have reversed their content policies which means they couldn't stop people from sharing this information unless they pulled the plug on the entire internet, which obviously that isn't, that isn't an option. we also have the magic of foia on our side. we learned from dr. fauci's published e-mails that he knew about the dangerous research happening in china. he was aware. we know he allowed inquiries into the wuhan lab leak theory to go unanswered. we also know he worked with mark zuckerberg to determine what covid-related information flowed into the public timeline and when that information went out. now i stand by my criticism of dr. fauci. his dystopian comments equating

attacks on his job performance with attacks on science are unacceptable. but i want to encourage everyone to not make this about one person. we now have evidence that public officials were eating each other alive over political disagreements and that these disagreements derailed investigations into the origins of covid-19. this is more than just political failure. it is a moral inversion that empowered one of the globe's most violent authoritarian governments. the chinese officials that hid the existence of the novel coronavirus from international bodies are the very same chinese officials who gunned down freedom fighters in hong kong, who unleashed political violence in inner mongolia and tibet and

who continue to commit ongoing genocide against the uighur muslims in xinjiang. it's time for do think get serious about cleaning up -- time for congress to get serious about cleaning up this mess. i renew the demands i made more than a year ago for a full and unbuy p -- unbiased inquiry and a broader investigation into the origins of the covid-19 pandemic. last week i joined senator cotton in reintroducing the liwinyang global accounting ability. it would call for the government to sanction officials who suppress information about international public health crisis, including covid-19. i encourage my colleagues to sign on to the bill. but most importantly, i would

implore my democratic colleagues to engage in a little introspection. the officials implicated in this cover-up swept science under the rug, orchestrated a relentless smear campaign, throttled the flow of public information and allowed the chinese communist party to exonerate itself at the expense of truth and accountability. you don't have to defend this, please. have the moral courage to make the right choice and join us in our demands for unbiased investigations into the origin of the pandemic. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the referenced articles, reports, and letters accompany my remarks in the "congressional record." the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. blackburn: i yield the floor.

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from nebraska. mrs. fischer: thank you, mr. president. i would like to speak for a moment about s. 1. this bill says that politicians and elected bureaucrats who spend their time in the same miles near washington, d.c. know how to run their elections better than nebraskans. i was glad to see the senior senator from virginia come out against s. 1 and provide much-needed honesty about what democrats' true intentions are with this bill. i think he summed up this issue well when he wrote in his op-ed that, quote, today's debate about how to best protect our right to vote and to hold elections, however, is not

about finding common ground but seeking partisan advantage, end quote. and as i said at the rules committee markup for s. 1 a few weeks ago, i simply cannot understand why so many of my democratic colleagues would like to hand over control of our elections to the federal government. to take one example, this bill would allow candidates for the senate to receive federal funding for their campaigns through a new program supported by federal dollars. that would include a six to one match for contributions up to $200, meaning that if a donor gives $100, federal dollars coming from taxpayers would match that with $600 more. during the bill's markup i offered an amendment to prevent sitting members of the senate from benefiting from this windfall, but it was rejected

by all of my democratic colleagues on the committee. this does not help voters make informed decisions. this only helps those of us who are already here in congress. the changes s. 1 proposes only get more radical from there. this bill would effectively turn the bipartisan six-member federal election commission, the agency that oversees the financing of federal elections, into a five-person panel subject to partisan control by giving the sitting president the power to appoint an independent fifth commissioner to the agency. because only a slim majority would then be needed to make a decision, this commissioner could act as the deciding vote on issues that have historically been bipartisan.

if senate republicans were still in the majority, around i told you that -- and i told you that our leader wanted to pass a bill that would tip the balance of the f.e.c. toward our party, the other side would object, and they would be right to do so. this commission must remain truly bipartisan, and that is done by having equal democratic and republican membership. s. 1 would also repeal an appropriations amendment that helps ensure the i.r.s. does not infringe on the first amendment rights of taxpayers who contribute to nonprofits. allowing the i.r.s. to possess this information when it is not a campaign finance enforcement agency only empowers bad actors at the agency to target groups

that they dislike. this is especially problematic given the recent lick of sensitive -- recent leak of sensitive taxpayer information and the i.r.s.'s history of targeting tax-exempt applicants solely based on their political leanings. also this bill would not only allow people to register to vote at a polling place on election day without presenting any form of identification, it would tell the 36 states that have some form of voter i.d. laws on the books now that those laws would be illegal. this is despite the fact that a majority of americans support requiring photo i.d. to vote. and it flies in the face of the practices of other democracies like germany, the united kingdom, norway and france,

which all require voters to verify their identity before casting their ballot. but, mr. president, despite all of the revolutionary changes this bill proposes, the most disheartening thing might be that it was introduced to solve a problem that doesn't actually exist. more people voted in last year's elections than ever before, including a record 76% of voters in my state of nebraska. in the middle of the pandemic, voters turned out in historic numbers to make their voices heard. defenders of this bill can't say that that turnout was an issue, so they have tried to scapegoat states like georgia and florida that have recently passed new election laws. president biden went as far as to call georgia's bill jim crow

in the 21st century before admitting that he was speaking about a very early draft, not the bill that actually became law. reality gets in the way of that narrative. georgia's bill is less restrictive than the laws of more liberal states like new york and delaware. reasonable people can disagree about the best way to conduct elections, but it is disingenuous to say that something is voter suppression or undemocratic just because you may not agree with it. i hope we can agree that we all want to make sure that every american voter is able to make their voice heard in our elections. to see that in action, you only have to look at states like

nebraska. we have been a no-excuse state for absentee and early voting for years, which means that anyone who has already provided an i.d. when they register to vote can vote by mail for any reason whatsoever. in fact, a bill that originally allowed for male-in voting in -- for mail-in voting in alaska was -- in nebraska was the first bill i passed as a state legislature in 2005. many other states go out of their way to make it easy to vote regardless of which party is in power and regardless of whether they are red states or blue states. that is the beauty of the american system. each state can do as it sees fit and respond to events like covid-19 pandemic while still producing positive reforms.

by keeping states free from federal mandates, we are allowing them to innovate and introduce the changes that work best for them. washington, d.c. isn't what makes america great. our 50 states, each with its own history and its own needs, are what make this country so unique. this bill jeopardizes that diversity, and it would do away with a system that works well and replace it with one that would be partisan, divisive, and frankly chaotic. i think we would be making a terrible mistake if we pass s. 1 as it is currently written. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor.

mr. schumer: mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. schumer: i move to proceed to executive session to consider calendar 123. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. all opposed no. the ayes appear to have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, department of the interior, tommy p. beaudreau of alaska to be deputy secretary. mr. schumer: i send a cloture

motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: cloture motion. we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of executive calendar 123, tommy p. beaudreau of alaska to be deputy secretary of the interior, signed by 18 senators as follows -- mr. schumer: i ask consent the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: i move to proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. opposed no. the ayes appear to have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. schumer: i move to proceed to executive session to consider calendar 157. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. all opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, department of homeland security,

john k. tien of georgia to be deputy secretary. mr. schumer: i send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: cloture motion. we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of executive calendar number 157, john tien of georgia to be deputy secretary of homeland security, 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: finally, i ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum calls for the cloture motions filed today, june 15, be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: i move to proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. all opposed, nay. the ayes appear to have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. schumer: and, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the judiciary committee be discharged from further m further consideration of s. 475 and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. the presiding officer: the clerk will report.

the clerk: s. 47 5, a bill to amend title 5 united states code to designate juneteenth national independence day as a legal public holiday. the presiding officer: without objection, the committee is discharged. the senate will now proceed to the measure. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent the bill be considered read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: mr. president, i ask consent the senate proceed to the consideration of s. res. 269, submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 269, designating june 19, 2021, as juneteenth independence day, in recognition of june 19, 1865, the date on which news of the end of slavery reached the slaves in the southwestern states. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will

proceed to the measure. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: thank you, mr. president. that was the juneteenth resolution, which we'll talk about more tomorrow. mr. barrasso: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i come to the floor today to talk about the need for integrity in our elections. as i stand here, prices are

rising at the pump. prices are rising at the grocery store. inflation is the highest it's been basically since the financial crisis 13 years ago. the number of unfilled jobs is at a record high for our nation. small businesses certainly in my home state in wyoming and all across the country have help wanted signs up. they can't find workers. some are worried they may have to shut down forever. we also have a crisis at the southern border. there is a lot happening in america today. half a million illegal immigrants have crossed our borders since joe biden took the oath of office to become president of the united states. now, these are just the illegal immigrants that we know about. since joe biden became president, we have seized over 3,200 pounds of fentanyl at our southern border. that's enough fentanyl to kill every man, woman, and child

living in america today. that's just one category of drugs, and these are the drugs that we know about. just imagine what's come into the country that we don't know about. yet, despite the critics and the crisis, president biden has created a crisis, and democrats certainly in this body refuse to raise a finger to bring the crisis to an end. instead, it seems that the democrats are focused on only one thing and one thing alone, and that is seizing more power. we're told democrats are going to bring a bill to the floor next week when -- on election takeover in america. the majority leader already knows that this bill cannot pass the united states senate, it will not pass because he doesn't even have the support for the

votes in his own cause, and that's because the bill is radical, it's extreme, it is dangerous, and it is scary. it is actually a federal takeover of elections in america. now, under the constitution, the times, place, and manner of holding elections is generally up to the states. this bill would flip the constitutional order and flip it upside down and put congress and washington in charge of elections, not each of our individual states. it would effectively repeal the election laws in all 50 states. now, this democrat takeover attempt is over 800 pages in length, over 800 pages of mandates. every page of the bill has one thing in common. it makes it easier to cheat. makes it easier to cheat in

elections. for example, the bill would register people to vote automatically, whether they wanted to be registered or not. automatic registration. take everyone they have in databases throughout a state, sign them up. now, under this bill, anyone who interacted with a state government would then be registered to vote. well, this includes a lot of people who aren't legally entitled to vote because they are not u.s. citizens. so these are obviously people who would not be eligible to vote. it doesn't matter with -- if they are democrats. register them anyway. they are pushing this election takeover where everybody on a database in a state is registered to vote, maybe it's not a coincidence. the bill also endorses something called ballot harvesting. that's where paid political operatives can go door to door and collect hundreds, thousands,

tens of thousands of ballots, other people's ballots, and then they get to decide which ballots they are going to turn in. no supervision, no accountability, none. these activities could destroy, tamper, or lose ballots. these activists could do just that. no one would ever know. additionally, the bill would force taxpayers to pay for political campaigns. for every small political donation, taxpayers would pay and kick in additional $6. $6 kicked in by the taxpayers for every one dollar of small dollar donations raised. much of it is raised online. this is an invitation to money laundering. activists can spread out donations to get free taxpayer money. one of my colleagues in the senate on the republican side of the aisle looked at this and

said gee, based on fundraising that he's done online, he would be entitled to a check from the government for $30 million. taxpayers don't want to put that kind of taxpayer dollar behind any candidate, whether they are republican or democrat. democrats sit here and they claim they want less money in politics, yet every several years, every two years, they outspend the republicans. now they want taxpayers to add to the money that they are spending. well, political activists have plenty of money already. they don't need additional taxpayer dollars. finally, this bill would vote -- would ban voter i.d. that means when you go to vote and you ask for a ballot -- this is what voter i.d. is. you go to vote, you ask for a ballot, you have to show an

identification card that proves that you are who you say you are. democrats have been trying to eliminate that one for a long, long time. democrats claim that asking for identification is racist. the idea that people can't get an i.d. is absurd, it's condescending. i.d. is required to check into a hotel. it's required to order a beer at a bar. it's required to buy a pack of cigarettes. it's required to get on an airplane. any airline in america. voting is a lot more important than any of these things. it's the foundation of our entire system of government. we ought to make it safe and we ought to make it secure. now, during the committee process, democrats had a chance to fix the bill. senator hyde-smith from mississippi, she said that she would like to take a look at this bill and use the campaign's

funding instead to help rural hospitals. instead of this matching money of six to one to candidates. oh, no, democrats didn't want any part of that. they want the money. senator fischer and senator hagerty said we should delay the day the bill would go into effect. in sense, the democrats who vote for it would be getting the money themselves. democrats say no, no, we want the money. senator hyde-smith and senator cruz also tried to remove this ban on voter i.d. from the bill. democrats said no, people can show up, say they are whoever they want to say they are and get a ballot. democrats deny the existence of voter fraud. they claim no irregularities ever happened, not in their elections. so then why are they trying to repeal or eliminate or take over

every state voting law in the country? it seems there is a problem with our elections today, yet the democrat bill would make these problems even worse. now, a majority of the public says they don't want future elections to look like the last one. a special situation, a pandemic, they don't want future elections to look like the last one. the american people want security and they want integrity. we want to trust that our elections are fair. that's why i have joined senator scott of florida, senator hyde-smith, senator lummus to introduce a bill to give people more confidence in our elections. it's called the save democracy act. our bill bans vote harvesting,

it bans automatic registration. it requires at least a social security number to register to vote. under our bill, states can't just send out ballots in the mail based on old information. people could still vote by mail as they do in my home state of wyoming. they -- they wouldn't get a ballot automatically in the mail. they would have to request a ballot so we would know their information is up-to-date. these are the commonsense protections that our elections need. our bill makes it actually harder to cheat, not easier. the democrat bill makes it easier to cheat. mr. president, at a time like this when prices are too high, hiring is too low, the united states senate has important work to do, the things that we hear about when we go home on weekends, what's it cost for gas, what's it cost for

groceries, what's it cost to fill up your car? the american people want us to work on these bread and butter issues that affect their daily lives. they don't want the partisan power grab that will be voted on in the senate next week. they don't want the senate to waste time on bills that cannot pass. it's time for the democrats and the democratic leader to focus on what the american people are asking us to focus on, bringdown flakes, stop paying people more to not work than to make if they are working, secure our southern border, leave our elections alone. that's what i hear at home, and i know many of the members are hearing the exact same thing as we work here to focus on what should be the future of a better, more prosperous america, not a one-sided america with a domination of elections based on a law to make it easier to cheat. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the senator in iowa. mr. grassley: thank you, mr. president. it's no secret that this senator has been a leader in promoting renewable energy sources. iowa has don't even more to lead

the nation in biofuels production. this leads to a cleaner environment and really increases america's energy independence. last week reuters reported the biden administration is considering ways to allow u.s. oil refiners to not meet their biofuel-blending requirements. this same administration has proposed hundreds of billions of dollars in subsidies in electric vehicles, but failed to include any support for biofuels infrastructure which play a vital role in our nation's transportation sector as well as our efforts to reduce greenhouse gases. need i remind my colleagues

president biden promised in his campaign, quote, to promote and advance renewable energy, ethanol, and other biofuels to help rural america and our nation's farmers. president biden is not keeping that promise. unfortunately despite the administration's emphasis on the environment and climate, their recent actions contradict that and undermine their entire credibility. the biofuels industry has proven that ethanol reduces greenhouse gas emissions from motor fuels by almost half. almost every vehicle on the road can run on at least e-10 ethanol. many retailers are now selling

more e-15 ethanol and other higher blends like e-85 if you have a vehicle that can use e-85. whether it's 10%, 15%, or 85%, it's cleaner than 100% petroleum. according to the energy information administration, by 2050, 81% of new vehicle sales will still be gas powered or flex-fuel. in my introductory telephone conversation with e.p.a. administrator regan, when he was nominated, he told me that biofuels are a major tool in the biden administration's plan to

combat climate change. i stressed to him at that time the importance of the biofuels industry to both agriculture and energy and iowa happens to be the number one producer of ethanol. no matter what the e.p.a. or big oil says about the impact of its waivers to oil companies making billions in profits, farmers and biofuel producers know and feel the negative impact. any attempt to exempt oil refiners from their biofuels obligation is a blatant bailout. the law is simple. blend biofuels or buy krets from those who -- credits from those who do, by blending more

biestles we can re -- biofuels, we can reduce immersions from dirty oil and keeping expenses low for working families. unfortunately, despite the administration's emphasis on environment, it seems like biofuels don't appear to be much of a priority and well short of what nominee at that time, now e.p.a. director regan said that it would be. and now it looks like labor unions have been co-opted by big oil and we're doing their bidding in the white house. president biden is now faced with a decision. he can lower greenhouse gases with biofuels or he can side with big oil to destroy biofuel demand by illegally tampering with the renewable fuel standard

just as we had problems with previous administrations, both republican and democrat, referring to the obama and trump administrations did with the small refineries exemption. whether it is labor unions or big oil, i won't tire in standing up for homegrown clean biofuels. i did that whether we had democrat or republican administratoins -- administrations. i will continue to advocate for iowans and biofuels because it strengthens u.s. energy independence, makes for a cleaner environment, and creates jobs in rural america. i encourage president biden,

e.p.a. administrator regan, and my colleagues from across the aisle to keep it clean. does president biden want to be knowns big oil biden? i don't think he does. i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum.

mr. lee: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. lee: for more than 1 should years, throughout times of change, tumult and unsent, there has been a constant -- the special relationship between the united states and the united kingdom. the u.c. has been one of our -- the u.k. has been one of our staunchest and most loyal allies. we've stood beside each other through two world wars and the cold war. in the 21st century, the u.s. and u.k. have become even stronger friends and partners, both in the fight against global terrorism and for freedom, peace, and prosperity. now an opportunity lies before

us to strengthen the relationship more than ever by securing a free trade agreement between our two nations, which is the purpose of the resolution before us today. the trading relationship between our countries is already really strong. for hundreds of years it's been a force for economic prosperity and security for us both. in just 2019, the total trade in goods and services between our two countries totaled $273 billion. and the u.k. was the united states' seventh-largest trading partner in goods. figures from that same year show that u.s. trade with the u.k. resulted in a $21.8 billion trade surplus. the united states and the united kingdom share the single biggest

investment relationship in the world. and now with the u.k.'s newfound ability to negotiate independent free trade deals, we have the opportunity to grow that relationship even more. a free trade agreement would allow even more goods and service to flow even more easily between our two countries. it lou for expanded commercial partnerships and greater investments in emerging industries. it would serve as an even greater engine of prosperity and economic liberty on both sides of the atlantic ocean. mr. president, this is a no-brainer, and it would be a tremendous asset in the midst of the economic and geopolitical challenges we face today. the pandemic and supply-chain turmoil has proven that friends are invaluable in a pinch. while many global relationships have been unsteady and many governments don't know what

their future trading relationships will look like, the u.k. has been a stalwart and secure partner with the united states. furthermore, it would -- it would not be a better move in the age of great power competition with china. we will not beat china by trying to be like china in imposing centralized command-and-control grips on the economy that will strangle trade and trample free enterprise. instead, we should do what we've always done best -- prioritize free, open, and fair commerce with friendly nations, as the g-7 this past weekend confirmed. at the conclusion of the summit, the group as a whole agreed to, quote, secure our future prosperity by championing freer, fairer trade within a reformed trading system.

close quote. and the u.s. and the u.k. signed a new atlantic charter in which both countries committed to take actions, quote, enabling open and fair trade between nations. securing a mutually beneficial trade agreement with one of our oldest and closest allies would be in the best interests of us all. as president biden himself recently said, quote, america's alliances are our greatest asset. and leading with diplomacy means standing shoulder to shoulder with our key allies and partners once again. close quote. on this point, i could not agree with president biden more. congress can seize this opportunity by supporting the resolution before us today. it's a simple, straightforward

resolution declaring the sense of the senate that the u.s. has and should have a close and mutually beneficial trade relationship with the u.k. without interruption and that the president, with the support of congress, should lay the groundwork for a future trade agreement between the u.s. and the u.k. borrowing a phrase from prime minister boris johnson, after his first face-to-face meeting with president biden at the summit this past weekend, the u.s.-u.k. relationship is indestructible. no two nations have work more closely together. no two peoples have done more to expand and defend liberty or to achieve peace and prosperity. throughout history, this partnership has steadied the world through some of its greatest perils. it can continue to do so today. if only we let it. the american and british peoples have the opportunity to once again join forces and emerge

from the challenges we face stronger than ever for the benefit of our countries and nations across the globe. to that end, i urge each of my colleagues to support this resolution. and i ask unanimous consent that the finance committee be discharged from further consideration and the senate now proceed to s. res. 134. i further ask 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: is there objection? mr. wyden: reserving the right to object -- the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: mr. president, first, this resolution -- and i'm just going to make a few key points here -- is son a trade agreement with the u.k., and it is a question of international trade which falls under the jurisdiction of the finance committee.

the committee has not been consulted on the resolution, so senators have not had adequate time to consider it. needless to say, the prospect of reshaping the american economy with sweeping trade deals is not something that should just rocket past the committee of constructionddiction. i have serious concerns about blessing a trade agreement with the united kingdom when the contents of such an agreement is still unknown. i have stated a number of times there are serious issues that need consideration with respect to our economic relationship with the u.k. that cannot happen if the debates play out in a slapdash process on the floor of the senate. for example, the u.k. has not only proposed but implemented a discriminatory digital service tax since entering negotiations with the united states. what they are doing is opportunistically looting

american technology companies before these measures are shut down by an f.d.a. or another agreement. the u.k. is also considering other discriminatory policies. the u.k. must commit to abandoning these unfair policies which are serious barriers to trade, a detriment to the special relationship, harmful to american workers as a precondition of honest and worthwhile negotiations. otherwise, if senators are going to rush to hand out big promises on trade talks, they risk surrendering america's negotiating position on these key issues without getting anything in return. so i don't see the wisdom in undermining good-paying american jobs and american businesses with a trading partner that has thus far seen no reason to back away from jim in atory measures -- from discriminatory measures

a. for those reasons are i object. mr. lee: mr. president? the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. lee: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. lee: i appreciate the comments, the insight provided my by friend and colleague, the distinguished senator from oregon. as to the point regarding our relative negotiating power and the wisdom of approaching this task right now, it's important to remember that this resolution doesn't purport to offer the details of any such deal. it calls for a free trade agreement. there's nothing surrendered by that. there is, however, a lot for gained by that. in signaling that we want to continue to have an open, free, and fair relationship with the united kingdom. as to the process concerns articulated by my friend and colleague, while he's expressed some concerns about the process,

i must provide some evidence to the contrary. over the past year, my staff has communicated with the senate finance committee staff, staff on both sides of the aisle, upwards of half a dozen times. they've also pitched changes to assuage concerns about language multiple times but never received any definitive responses. furthermore, i've worked with colleagues on the other side of the aisle to craft almost identical draft language on u.s.-u.k. trade that was included in s. res. 117 on the good friday agreement, which passed before this body without objection. there's no reason why we can't reach a similar compromise on this legislation. and i stand ready and willing to work with my colleague from oregon to do so. mr. wyden: mr. president? the presiding officer: norm oregon. mr. wyden: i ask unanimous

consent that when the senate completes its business today, it ajourneys until 10:30 a.m. wednesday, june 16, that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and morning business be closed. further, upon the conclusion of morning business, the senate proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the fox nomination. furthering that the cloture vote on the grigsby nomination occur immediately following the cloture vote on the fox nomination and that if cloture is invoked on either nomination, the confirmation votes occur at 3:15 in the order that cloture was invoked. finally, that if any of the nomination can confirmed or, 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: is there objection? without objection. mr. wyden: if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask it stand adjourned under the previous order.

the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until senate stands adjourned until

the committee on banking and government affairs will come to order. a few reminders as you begin once you start speaking there'll be a slight delay before you run the screen. please push the new that until