we've seen the backsliding to describe and we know there's challenges ahead. to really engage i think we're doing a a couple things. so first is recognizing our own democracy hasf been tested throughout our history and that we must in partnership with other countries who share our values, shore up our own democracy. it's also important that we utilize assistants programs that aid to strengthen governance and institutions to protect the gains we've seen across the continent and prevent further backsliding. >> we will leave this here in order to fulfill our 40+ year commitment to congressional coverage. you can finish watching this@c-span.org. the u.s. senate is about to gaveled in for the day. more executive and judicial nominations are on the calendar. lawmakers will consider and vote on radical fox to be assistant epa administrator for water as

well as lady at great speed to be a u.s. district court judge for maryland. first vote expected around 11:30 a.m. eastern with another round later this afternoon. now life to senate floor on c-span2. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the chaplain dr. barry black will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. eternal god who rules the raging

of the sea, thank you for being our constant source of strength. lord, you know our limitations and how our weaknesses can distoward the clarity with which we should see your providence unfolding. continue to lead our senators. direct their steps to the destinations of your choosing. open their ears, o god, so that they can hear your voice calling them to attempt great things. though your path may take them through the night, empower them to persevere until the morning

comes. we pray in your great name. amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington d.c., june 16, 2021. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable alex padilla, a senator from the state of california, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: patrick j. leahy, president pro tempore.

the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. morning business is closed. under the previous order, the senate will proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the following nomination which the clerk will report. the clerk: nomination, environmental protection agency, radhika fox of california to be an assistant administrator.

mr. schumer: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. schumer: are we in a quorum? the presiding officer: no. mr. schumer: okay. so, mr. president, senators are moving forward this week on two major legislative initiatives, infrastructure and voting rights. bipartisan infrastructure talks continue in our senate committees and among our members. remember, discussions about infrastructure both physical and human are proceeding along two tracks. the first track is bipartisan and i understand there's been some progress. the second track pulls in elements of president biden's american jobs and families plan and will be considered by the senate even if it does not have bipartisan support. today we're going to start moving the trains down the second track. i will convene a meeting with

all the members of the majority party on the senate budget committee to begin the important work of producing a budget resolution for the senate to consider. this is something we planned for quite a while but we're moving forward today after having individual discussions which i have had with many members of the budget committee. and it it's a diverse committee. senator sanders is the chair. senators warner and kaine are on it as well. there are many items to discuss, but one subject is not up to debate. i will instruct members to ensure that any budget resolution puts the united states on track to reduce carbon pollution at a scale commensurate with the climate crisis. we need significant reductionses in emissions -- reductions in emissions through clean energy, electric vehicles, as well as funding to help manufacturers and farmers be part of the solution inviting climate change. the american families plan as well is essential to the

forthcoming budget resolution and must be robustly funded. the senate will also vote on major voting rights legislation before the end of june. yesterday, the democratic caucus hosted a group of democratic lawmakers from texas who led the dramatic walkout to prevent the texas republican legislators from passing one of the most draconian voting laws in our country. it was a powerful meeting. we heard moving testimony from five different lawmakers about the vicious, nasty, even bigoted attacks against voting rights in their state. the actions taken were totally partisan, just like those in all the other legislatures, so the idea that this can have some kind of bipartisan solution befuddles me. because every action taken in the legislatures is done just with republican state senators, republican assembly members, with no democratic participation or input. in fact, the texas legislators

told us they were deliberately excluded from certain meetings and conference committee meetings. speaking for our caucus, we were all taken by the courage of the texas legislators, their fortitude, and most importantly by their mission to defend the right of every american to be able to access the ballot, not just in texas, but across the country. these lawmakers in one state put everything on the line to protect voting rights in their state. the senate should put everything on the line to protect voting rights in this country. now, tomorrow, senate democrats will hold another special caucus meeting to continue discussing the best path forward to achieve voting rights legislation. aumf. two days ago, the biden administration became the first administration since the beginning of the iraq war to support repealing the authorization for the use of

military force in iraq passed in 2002 and now in effect for 19 years. the iraq war has been over for nearly a decade, and authorization passed in 2002 is no longer necessary in 2021. it's been nearly ten years since this particular authorization has been cited as a primary justification for a military operation. it no longer serves a vital purpose in our fight against violent extremists in the middle east. so, mr. president, i strongly and fully support repealing the 2002 authorization for the use of military force in iraq. this is the first time i'm formally announcing my support for repeal. i want to be clear -- in no way will america abandon our relationship with iraq and its people as they rebuild their country after years of war and our shared fight against isis,

but there are very good reasons to repeal this specific legal authority. for example, it will eliminate the danger of a future administration, reaching back into the legal dust bin to use it as a justification for military adventurism. at the beginning of last year, we saw that danger become frightfully real when president trump ordered an air strike against an iranian target in iraq without transparency, without proper notification to congress, and without a clear strategy. president trump cited the 2002 aumf as partial justification ex post facto, a claim that legal scholars and foreign policy experts resoundingly rejected. there is no good reason to allow this legal authority to persist in case another reckless commander in chief tries the same trick in the future. tomorrow, the house of representatives will vote on whether to formally repeal the

authorization. next week, chairman menendez and the senate foreign relations committee will mark up a resolution led by senators young and kaine which will repeal the iraq war aumf. it is my intention as majority leader to bring this matter to a floor vote this year, and i will discuss the precise timing with chairman menendez. judicial nominees. now, sometimes good news comes to those who wait. other times, it comes rather quickly. earlier this year, i recommended to president biden a prominent voting rights attorney for a key position on the federal bench in new york. yesterday, president biden agreed with my recommendation and announced his intention to formally nominate myrna perez for the second circuit court of appeals. i'm very pleased that the president has chosen her, and i'm proud to have championed her candidacy.

ms. perez is not only an accomplished attorney who has dedicated her career to equal justice under the law, she is one of the nation's foremost experts on voting rights and elections. with a national focus on voting rights now, it is a significant step to elevate ms. perez to the federal bench. beyond that important exercise, she would also be the first latina to serve on the second circuit since now-justice sonia sotomayor, who incidentally i suggested to president obama that he put her on the supreme court. ms. perez is a perfect example of democrats' desire to bring balance, experience, and professional and personal diversity back to the judiciary. so far this year, i have made two recommendations to the second circuit in new york -- miss eunice lee, and now ms. perez, a voting rights

attorney. the federal judiciary has long been stopped with former prosecutors and corporate lawyers. it's about time that civil rights attorneys, voting rights attorneys and federal defenders like these two outstanding nominees join the ranks. so again, i applaud president biden's decision. it's a very bright day for the future of the federal bench in new york. i yield the floor. and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. mcconnell: mr. president. the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: key economic indicators continue to show -- the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call. mr. mcconnell: i ask that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: we economic indicators continue to show that our nation's recovery is still facing significant head winds. last week, we learned that inflation has logged its steepest increase since the 2008 financial crisis. there are more unfilled jobs in america than at any point on record. and when asked, more than 90% of the small business owners trying to fill them say they are having trouble finding qualified candidates. so how did we get here? when covid-19 arrived last spring, emergency shutdowns put the brakes on what had become a roaring economy.

the pro-growth agenda enacted by republicans had helped drive unemployment to its lowest level in a half a century. take-home pay was rising and rising fastest for lower earners, and millions of new workers were coming off the sidelines to join a competitive market for american talent. the past year presented harsh new challenges, but thanks to the bravery of frontline workers, the genius of scientists, and targeted bipartisan relief measures passed here in congress, our nation was beginning to turn the corner. the biden administration actually inherited the conditions for success. it had a bipartisan road map of how best to support our economic recovery. alas, but instead, the democrats chose to ram through trillions of dollars in liberal pet

projects, a relative pittance for actual pandemic relief and a massive expansion of federal unemployment benefits that has made staying home the most sensible financial decision for literally millions of american workers. as one pair of economists put it recently, quote, the stimulus bill stimulated unemployment, not employment. to be specific, the analysis found it created conditions in at least 19 states where a family of four could claim the equivalent of a six-figure salary by staying out of the workforce. so let me say that again. one recent study found that in 19 states, a family of four with two working parents would have to earn at an annual rate of more than $100,000, working for it, to make financial sense

not to stay home. in 19 states it made more sense to stay home than to go back to work. but burying american workers in incentives to stay home hasn't just hurt rehiring. it has magnified supply shortages. a few months back, mr. president, the recovery made possible by bipartisan action last year had our economy geared up for a rush of consumer spending, but today short-staffed producers are having to pass the rising costs on to their households just as this rush was set to ramp up. a tough year forced american families to put off some big purchases, but now they're facing some of the worst sticker shock in a generation. used car prices, 30% higher than last year. and the cost of some home appliances has spiked nearly as

much. everyday essentials are getting pricier too. milk is up 7% and gas has jumped by more than 50%. consumers are feeling the real cost of what white house chief of staff called the most progressive domestic legislation in a generation. but it didn't have to be this way. these are exactly the conditions economists have been writing about and warning about for months. back in march "the washington post" ran an ominous line. for policy experts and even members of biden's own party, the improving picture is raising questions about whether the stimulus bill is mismatched, mismatched to the needs of the current moment. sure enough, not just any member of the president's party but a top economist under both the last two democratic administrations, larry summers, cautioned even earlier

that a massive spending plan like the ones democrats are proposing could, quote, set off inflationary pressures of the kind we have not seen in a generation. pressure, to say the least. that's exactly what's happening. these exact fears have been realized and experts are still clear about the source of the problem. quote, labor shortage are the last thing that we need with inflation on the rise. until very recently, the white house has been unwilling to connect these dots. states have been on their own to turn off the perverse incentives driving the shortages, and to date 25 states have done so, announcing suspensions of excessive federal unemployment supplements. but across the country, main street has already been feeling the pinch. in my state of kentucky, the

consequences of democrats' misguided spending are growing more serious. small business owners in particular are nearing a breaking point. one restaurant owner in clark county wrote to me to say that, quote, each week it gets harder to create a full schedule. restaurants are already reducing hours of operation. next will come closing. i've heard the same story from constituents all over the commonwealth. a sign manufacturer had to ask his staff to work as many as ten hours of overtime each week just to keep up with demand. an outdoor supplies maker in mccracken county saw shipping costs quadruple in the past year. he can't find a prospective employee that will even show up for an interview. he can't even find a prospective employee who will show up for an interview. after 25 years of production,

he's facing the prospect that his company may not be able to stay afloat. the commonwealth still has 90,000 fewer workers than we did before the pandemic. in the past year the consumer price index and kentucky's surrounding states increased by 7%. the tee up has been buried under an ill-advised self-inflicted avalanche of spending. folks in kentucky know all too well what happens when democrats get carried away here in washington. they know who ends up footing the bill back home. higher prices at the gas pump and the grocery store just as families were hoping to put a year of sacrifices in the rear-view mirror. these are the real-world effects of the biden administration's

multitrillion-dollar economic debacle. these are the effects that republicans and nonpartisan experts have warned about literally for months. the american people are nevertheless resilient. job creators, innovators, and skilled workers are ready. but as our economy slowly gets back up to speed, it certainly won't be because democrats stroked an outsized check. it will be in spite of it. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the majority whip. mr. durbin: i ask consent the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: mr. president, today president biden had the first of his meetings with russian president vladimir putin. he certainly has many important messages to convey to mr. putin about ongoing cyber attacks

against us and our allies, the murdering of peaceful political opponents and potential where we still be able to work together to deal with nuclear proliferation. the important discussion comes after several days where president biden reaffirmed our relationship with our most important allies, those in the g-7 and nato. there were important announcements about leading the global covid vaccine effort and standing up to the outrageous outrageous -- outrages perpetrated by nations around the world. perhaps what was most important was that president biden reasserted america's role as a leading champion of democracy, security and international norms. i hope this spells an end -- and i believe it does -- of the unimaginable events that occurred in the previous administration. coddling a foreign dictator such as putin, dismissing our

closest allies, and threatening the critical north american -- pardon me -- north atlantic treaty organization. president biden knows that america's leadership time is reserved -- america's leadership is critical to tackle climate change, push back on rogue nations and maintain global norms of behavior. president biden also knows that how we manage our democracy here at home affects our ability to lead abroad. the last administration bullied our allies and we watched in disbelief as they cozied up to the autocrats around the world. i've often said a great deal of america's influence around the world comes from the power of its ideals and values, critical and precious assets we must nurture and never take for granted. our historic peaceful transfer of power has been abmarvel for generations -- has been a marvel for generations for much of the world. i'll never forget the power and

emotion felt walking with my friend, the late senator john mccain through the ukraine's midon square looking at makeshift memorials to those who lost their lives hoping for a free and democratic ukraine. john mccain once said america's greatest sense has always been its hopeful vision of human progress. i couldn't agree more. i couldn't be more proud that president biden is reaffirming this belief on the world stage this week. so let me take this moment to commend the president and his team for a timely, critical, important visit with international allies and adversaries in recent days. it won't solve all the problems we face, but we can be proud of this example of american leadership, generosity, and decency. mr. president, i ask consent that my next statement i make be placed in a separate part in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: thank you, mr. president. this saturday is juneteenth,

the oldest nationally celebrated commemoration of the end of slavery in america. our founders were brilliant and brave about many, many things, but they lacked the wisdom, perhaps the courage, maybe even the resolve to face a poisonous contradiction at the heart of our new nation. how could this nation, founded on the belief that all people are created equal, condone and allow human slavery? many of our founding fathers owned slaves themselves. 85 years after our founding, that unresolved contradiction plunged america into civil war. halfway through that war, president lincoln issued the emancipation proclamation declaring that all persons held in bondage in the rebellious states, quote, arrest and henceforth shall be free. his action meant little to the

enslaved people in america. most of them held in bondage didn't gain freedom for another two years after the civil war ended. and for the 250,000 men, women, and children enslaved in the state of texas, the wait was even longer. they learned of their freedom on june 19, 1865, two months after the civil war ended. army major general gordon granger and 2,000 union troops marched into galveston, texas, with orders to enforce the emancipation proclamation. one year later african americans in galveston held america's first juneteenth celebration to commemorate that moment when they knew of the end of slavery in america. formerly enslaved people wore their finest clothes, read the emancipation proclamation and prayed together. later as african americans from galveston and other parts of the south joined the great migration north, they carried that

juneteenth memory with them, giving the celebration new roots in chicago and los angeles and scores of other cities. today juneteenth is celebrated as a state holiday or day of observance in 47 states, including my state of illinois and in the district of columbia. yesterday this senate approved unanimously a resolution honoring juneteenth as a national day of reflection and celebration. in this moment in time in our divided nation, that unanimous recognition of the importance of juneteenth is a bomb to our national soul. as america prepares to celebrate juneteenth 2021, we must also remember that absolute equality promised at that first juneteenth in 1865 has too often been denied to african americans. just a year after the civil war ended, southern states enacted the black codes. state laws meant to preserve white supremacy. in response congress passed the

civil rights act of 1866 and the 14th and 15th amendments to the constitution guaranteeing african americans due process of law and black men the right to vote. unbound southern states invented jim crow laws creating new hurdles to voting and participation that made it nearly impossible for many african americans to exercise their voting rights and other basic rights of citizenship. as the great activist w.e.b.dubois wrote in his essay black restriction in america, quote, the slave went free, stood a brief moment in the sun and moved back down again towards slavery. this betrayal of the promise of freedom for african americans was possible in part because of misguided court decisions by the supreme court, especially the infamous 1896 plessy v. ferguson ruling which enshrined the concept, quote, separate by equal. that odious decision stood for

more than 50 years as the law of the land making racial discrimination both legal and enforceable. the betrayal of equality for african americans also was -- by southern segregationist senators who wielded the filibuster as a weapon for decades to stop civil rights measures in congress. i know our senate north leader and some of his colleagues on the other side gets up set when anyone utters filibuster and jim crow too close together. they insist the filibuster has nothing to do with race. well, history and facts prove otherwise. historians sarah binder is a leading expert on the filibuster. according to her analysis of the 30 measures between 1917 and 1994 that were killed on this senate floor by the filibuster, exactly half addressed the issue of civil rights, including measures to authorize federal

investigation and prosecution of lynching, banning the imposition of poll tax, and prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race and housing. that total doesn't count other major civil rights measures, the civil rights act of 1967, 1964 which passed only after lengthy filibusters by segregationist senators. today senator mcconnell is vowing to use the filibuster if necessary to protect the flood of new state voting laws that are as racially discriminatory as we've seen since the voting rights act of 1965 officially barred jim crow from american elections. after a record -- record numbers of americans braved a deadly pandemic to vote in the 2020 elections, republican-controlled state legislatures are rushing to pass new laws to make it harder, not easier, harder for millions of americans to vote, especially people of color. supporters of these new voter suppression laws cite the big

lie as their justification. donald trump's dangerous discredited claim that the 2020 presidential election was somehow stolen from him. that big lie has been rejected by state election officials of both parties, by our nation's top election security experts, and every federal judge it's faced, including several appointed by president trump himself. 60 times president trump went to federal courts with his big lie and 60 times he lost. despite all of that, senator mcconnell and many of our republican colleagues have vowed to filibuster our measures known as for the people act that are designed to protect voting rights, defend the integrity of elections, prevent billionaires from buying the elections, and strengthening ethics. their opposition to protecting the right to vote doesn't end there. senator mcconnell has also said he will oppose the john lewis voting rights advancement act, a bill that senator leahy

and i are working on in the senate judiciary committee that would restore and strengthen the protections of the voting rights act. i will say this in all fairness to the minority leader. his use of the filibuster is not limited to matters of civil rights and racial justice. senator mcconnell has transformed the filibuster from a rarely used tactic to a weapon of frequent mass obstruction. when barack obama was elected president in 2008, our nation was teetering on the edge of the second great depression and senator mcconnell said his top priority was to make president obama a one-term president, not to rescue the economy. no, that wasn't his top priority nor to help people who lost their homes or business. senator mcconnell's number one priority was to make president obama a one-term president. wee do that by dramatically increasing the use of filibusters in order to deny the new president every possible achievement. fast forward to this year.

president biden has sworn -- is sworn in during a epidemic that has killed hundreds of thousands of americans and sent our economy into deep recession. and senator mcconnell was quoted again sa saying 100% of r focus is on stopping this new administration. not stopping the virus, nor the economic devastation we are facing. but stopping the new administration. and their weapon of choice for senator mcconnell is the filibuster. three weeks ago 42 republican senators stood with senator mcconnell and filibustered a bill to create an independent bipartisan plan to investigate the deadly january 6 attack on the u.s. capitol. the commission -- this independent commission's mission would have been to examine it and the events leading up to t. 56 senators, a clear majority supported creation of the january 6 commission. it wasn't enough. we needed 60 votes. senator mcconnell's filibuster

prevailed again. for those who argue the filibuster encourages bipartisan cooperation, let me tell you the january 6 commission bill was a result of intense bipartisan compromise. negotiations were worked out by top republicans and democrats in the house. and it was filibustered by senator mcconnell regardless. the commission would have been more comprehensive and less political than the inquiries of insurrection being conducted by congressional committees. like the 9/11 commission, the january 6 commission would have subpoenaed to get to the truth. for a short while, senator mcconnell said he would keep an open mind about whether to support the bill. the night before the house voted to create the commission, however, former president donald trump posted a screen on his blog denouncing the commission as a, quote, democratic trap. that was all senator mcconnell needed to hear. the president, former president demanded that republicans reject the commission and added, quote,

mitch mcconnell and kevin mccarthy, i hope you're listening. well, it turns out they were. the next day after 35 house republicans joined democrats to create this january 6 commission, senator mcconnell announced he was going to filibuster it and oppose it. he asked members of his caucus as a personal favor to support his filibuster of the january 6 commission. this is where the abuse of the filibuster has brought us. we aren't able to break through the partisan gridlock, even to investigate the worst attack on the capitol of the united states of america in more than 200 years. how can anyone believe after that shameful vote that protecting the filibuster as it is currently misused is protecting our democracy? cynical, overuse of the filibuster imperils our democracy. there's got to be a better way. contrary to senate myth, the filibuster is not in our constitution. just the opposite.

the men who wrote that constitution knew well how requiring super majorities for routine bills doom the article, of confederation. they deliberately rejected a super majority requirement for common legislation when they wrote the constitution. defenders say the filibuster encourages bipartisan compromise. look around you. does anyone really believe for a minute that this is the new golden age of bipartisan compromise in the senate? their proposals to amend the filibuster. we could bring back a talking filibuster. we all remember the movie mr. smith goes to washington where he withered and fell to the floor at his desk carrying on an endless filibuster. it isn't that way any longer. senators now can start a filibuster with a phone call and head home for the weekend. that is not what the filibuster was designed for. if a senator feels strongly enough about an issue to grind the senate to a halt, they should be willing to stand up and speak their mind and stay on the senate floor.

some have proposed changing the number of votes needed to end the debate, possibly lowering the 60-vote requirement for cloture to 55. that's a precedent that at least is consistent with modern miss tore cal trends -- historical trends but leaders of both parties need to agree on it. i'm willing to consider any plan that promotes genuine bipartisan cooperation and ends the tyranny of the minority. what we cannot do is nothing. after a north of senators used the filibuster to prevent now the creation of the january 6 commission, we all went home for a long memorial day weekend. on my flight home and all that weekend i thought of the young men who stormed the beaches of normandy on d-day running straight into enemy fire knowing well that they might die to preserve democracy. and many of them did. now we see the members of the senate routinely abusing the filibuster because they're afraid to face an unpleasant vote or an angry insult from

donald trump. surely we are better and braver than this. mr. president, i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: s. the presiding officer: without objection. the clerk: cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate do hereby move to

bring to a close the debate on the nomination of executive calendar number 148, radhika fox of california to be assistant administrator of the environmental protection agency signed by 17 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent the question has been waived. the question is is it the sense of the senate that debate on the nomination of radhika fox to be assistant administrator of the environmental protection agency shall be brought to a close. the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: is there any senator who would like to change their vote on the matter before the body? seeing none, the yeas are 55, the nays are 43. the motion is agreed to.

the clerk: cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22, do hereby bring to a close debate on the nomination of executive calendar 173, lydia kay griggsby, of maryland, to be united states district judge of the district of maryland. the presiding officer: the mandatory quorum call has been waived. is it the sense of the senate that debate on the nomination of lydia kay griggsby, for the direct of maryland, shall be brought to a close. yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: on this vote, the yeas are 57, the nays are 41. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination.

the clerk: the judiciary, lydia kay griggsby of maryland to be united states district judge for the district of maryland. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. mr. cardin: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i have 14 requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have been approved -- had the approval of the majority leader and minority leaders. the presiding officer: duly noted. mr. cardin: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent, notwithstanding rule 22, the cloture vote with respect to the nomination of tommy p.beaudreau be confirmed. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cardin: for the information of all senators, this means there will be three roll call votes beginning at 3:15 this afternoon. mr. president, today i rise to speak on the nomination of u.s. court of federal claims judge

lydia griggsby to be united states district judge for the district of maryland. we just invoked cloture and will be voting on that nomination this afternoon. judge griggsby was favorably reported by a bipartisan vote of the judiciary committee on june 10. i had recommended judge griggsby along with senator van hollen to president biden, and i strongly support this nomination. judge griggsby has been nominated to fill the current vacancy created when judge katherine blake, appointed by president clinton in 1995, announced her intentions to take senior status on april 2. president biden nominated judge griggsby to this nomination on march 30, and the judiciary committee held her confirmation hearing on may 12. shortly after the november 2020 elections, i worked with senator van hollen to establish a judicial selection committee in maryland. we used an open application

process with a public advertisement and communication, and worked closely with state, local, and especially bar associations of maryland. in particular, we sought out a highly qualified and diverse application pool. our committee interviewed everyone who submitted an application, which involved several dozen interviews. senator van hollen and i then person personally interviewed several. mrs. feinstein: -- -- mr. cardin: including those based on the race,eth in additionty, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, religion, status and disability. i would call my colleagues' attention to a recent "washington post" article entitled "president biden has nominated as many minority women

to judges in four months as trump had confirmed in four years." having judges with a broad range of backgrounds, experiences, and perspectives makes our federal bench more diverse and better representative of the communities they serve, which builds greater public trust in the judiciary. instead of giving a formal flukes to my colleagues of judge griggsby today, we should really say welcome home to judge griggsby. when i first was elected to the senate, i served on the judiciary committee and my staff and i were pleased to would, with then chief counsel griggsby. she was born in baltimore and went to high school in baltimore. at that time she served when she was here with chairman patrick leahy's judiciary committee staff as his expert on privacy and information policy. judge griggsby went on to serve for seven years as a judge on the u.s. court of federal claims, which mass a national

jurisdiction to -- has a national jurisdiction to hear complex monetary damages against the federal government. judges griggsby was confirmed to her current position by a voice vote of the senate in 2014. judge griggsby is a lifelong marylander who was born in baltimore, a graduate from the park school and has been a mentor at the baltimore leadership school for young women. she received her b.a. from the university of pennsylvania and her j.d. from georgetown law school. she was an associate at d.l.a. piper before beginning her government service as a trial attorney in the civil division at the u.s. department of justice. she then became an assistant u.s. attorney in the district of columbia. she later transitioned to capitol hill serving as a counsel on the senate select committee on ethics before beginning her work with senator leahy on the judiciary committee. i was so pleased that judge griggsby brings such a wide array of professional experience from the first two branches of

government as she prepares to assume a new role in our third branch of government. in particular, i would note that as an assistant u.s. attorney, she helped secure a $20 million settlement against toyota for selling vehicles that violated the clean air act. she also held two of washington, d.c.'s largest property managers accountable for faming to disclose lead-based paint hazards in the buildings. if confirmed by the senate, i would note that judge griggsby would be the first black woman and first woman of color to serve as a federal judge on our bench in maryland in our state's history. and it's about time. the american bar association standing committee on the federal judiciary gave judge griggsby its highest rating, unanimously well qualified. after evaluating her integrity, professional experience, and judicial temperament. i was delighted to recommend the nomination of judge griggsby to president biden along with senator van hollen.

judicial nominees must meet the highest standards of integrity, competency and temperament. judge griggsby will safeguard the rights of all, uphold the constitution, and rule of law, and faithfully follow the judicial oath to do equal right to the poor and to the rich. so, mr. president, i urge my colleagues to vote to confirm judge griggsby who i believe will be an outstanding member of the federal bench. she's already a sitting federal judge on the u.s. court of federal claims, and i look forward to her continued public service serving all the people of our nation as a federal district judge. with that, mr. president, i would suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota. a senator: i ask consent that the quorum be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. a senator: thank you, mr. president. thank you to my colleague from maryland. ms. smith: i rise today in

gratitude because last night the senate put us one step forward to finally making juneteenth a federal holiday. juneteenth is our nation's oldest celebration of emancipation and it should have been established as a federal holiday long ago. so i'm glad that yesterday the senate passed our bill with senator markey and senator booker, the juneteenth national independence day act by unanimous consent. the end of slavery in this country is a central milestone in our history. and juneteenth should be commemorated nationwide as a detail of celebration and reflection and rededication to the cause of racial justice in this country. i am forever grateful to the generations of activists who made this possible, and in particular, i want to thank miss opal lee who at 89 years old walked halfway across this country to rise in support of juneteenth as a federal holiday. yesterday i had the opportunity

to call ms. lee now in her 90's after this bill cleared the senate. and, mr. president, i wish you could have heard the sound of joy in her voice when i told her the good news. this is a memory that i know i'm going to treasure for the rest of my life. so to ms. lee, if you're listening here today, i want for tell you that i have been honored to support your moral cause here in the senate, and i hope to celebrate juneteenth as an official federal holiday with you soon. ile want to thank my colleagues, especially senator markey and senators booker and warnock for their leadership on these efforts as well as senator cornyn and representative sheila jackson lee for their work to get this over the finish line. when it passed last night, we had over 60 bipartisan cosponsors, and i'm grateful to all of them, all of you for your support. so commemorating juneteenth as a federal holiday is an encouraging and meaningful step,

but we have so much farther to go on the path towards justice. let's use this victory as momentum to build momentum for the systemic change that we need, protecting voting rights and safeguarding our democracy, passing meaningful policing and criminal justice reform, pursuing economic and environmental justice, and working towards a more just and equitable world. there will be plenty of times when this path seems impossibly long because the scale of the injustice is overwhelming. but when this happens, i will be thinking of ms. opal lee, of her long walk to washington, d.c., and the joy in her voice when she heard the news that the senate had taken one more step towards her dream of juneteenth. may we all draw inspiration and strength from her example. i'm proud to walk this path with you, ms. lee, and with all of you. let's keep this going. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor.

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from west virginia. mrs. capito: thank you, mr. president. i rise today to oppose the nomination of radhika fox to be assistant administrator for water at the e.p.a. i certainly appreciate her willingness to serve. and i have found her to be quite personable and friendly. so this is not a personal statement. but even though she is not yet confirmed, she's already in place as the lead political appointee in the water office at e.p.a. in that capacity, her recent announcement of overreaching regulatory proposals under the clean water act cemented my opposition to her nomination. ms. fox' position on the appropriate yacht scope of the clean water act was not clear last month when i voted on her nomination in the e.p.a. committee of which i am the

ranking member. at that markup in may, i noted that i could not support ms. fox at that time because she would not commit to maintaining the and a half gabl water -- navigable water position rule. she also would not state that the 2015 waters of the u.s. rule was overreaching. so i really couldn't pin her down on any opinion on this very important rule. i now know why she would not commit to maintaining the navigable water rule which she testified before the committee and avoided providing direct responses. the administration did not support the rule, and apparently the e.p.a. opposed it completely. last week ms. fox and e.p.a. administrator regan as well as the u.s. corps of engineers announced their plans to repeal and replace the rule in its entirety. e.p.a. and the corps of

engineers are going to completely rewrite the regulations that determine whether a business, a farm, or citizen needs to obtain a federal water permit. the federal agencies announced they had decided they're not going to keep any part of that rule, and that they're going to start from scratch. that was at odds of what ms. fox conveyed to me in a phone call that she did make the previous day to inform me they were going to make an announcement. she was incomplete. it was extremely disappointing me and the many states and businesses that support the water protections rule which unlike the 2015 waters of the u.s. rule, it replaced, that the law presently is the navigable waters protection law is the rule -- law of the land in all 50 states. and that made it clear when

federal permits would be needed. and it gave states more control over how to permit water bodies in their borders. throughout her nomination process, when i asked ms. fox about the administration's plans, she expressed a desire to hear from stakeholders in order to create a durable rule. ms. fox did not conduct any formal public stakeholder process before announcing the decision that was made to repeal the navigable waters protection rule. the administration has said it plans to repeal the rule and then put in place guidance from the 1980's while we wait and while they come up with a replacement. changing the regulations three times in a short period of time, 2015, 2020, and now 2021 simply does not make -- meet her commitment to develop a durable definition. instead ever changing rules create a game of regulatory ping pong across administrations.

these are big, far-reaching rules. that permitting uncertainty hurts our economy in a -- at a time when we need growth and does so without additional environmental protection in my home state. we often forget the clean water act allows states to regulate their waters as much as they like. the definition of waters of the u.s. only determines federal jurisdiction. in fact, that is the keystone of the clean water act. the administration's promises of transparency and creating regulatory certainty simply are not reflected in these actions. and their goals stated to a briefing of congressional offices during a briefing call are particularly troubling. they pointed to the prior converted cropland exemption and treatment of ditches under the current rule as, quote, unquote, implementation challenges that they want to address. it doesn't take much to understand what that means.

the administration intends to require more federal permits for prior converted cropland and ditches on private land. that is a gross overreach of the federal government's authority under the clean water act. and it is questionable whether the e.p.a. and the army corps of engineers could even vet the sheer volume of permit applications that will come their waip. -- their way. i encourage ms. fox to engage with stakeholders from agriculture to mining to construction to home building before issuing the official proposed -- proposal to repeal the navigable waters protection rule. and i urge ms. fox to make that engagement meaningful. simply checking the box that these stakeholders and had the opportunity to talk to members of the administration is not meaningful engagement. if officials of the administration truly engaged in transparent process where they took stakeholder feedback into account, they would learn the

best way to provide regulatory certainty is to keep that navigable waters protection rule in place. i cannot support ms. fox' decision to undo such a foundational rule without public engagement to do so in a way that appears to be more expansive than the overreaching obama era rule called the waters of the u.s. rule. so i urge my colleagues to vote against ms. fox' nomination on the basis of what she's already done and in most probability will do in the future surrounding this very, very important topic. thank you. and i yield the floor. mr. kennedy: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. mr. kennedy: thank you, mr. president. mr. president is one of my colleagues, mr. elod vida.

also, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that mr. boatner calhoun who is an intern in my office be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the congress. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. kennedy: thank you, mr. president. i want to talk, mr. president, for a few minutes about nuclear energy. president biden, of course, -- called climate change, quote, existential threat. he says it is, quote, the one -- number one issue facing humanity today. secretary kerry who as we know is president biden's climate envoy has said that climate change is a, quote, life and death issue. president biden's national climate adviser, the honorable

mccarthy believes that saving the environment is, quote, the fight of our lifetimes. but, mr. president, if you ask many members of congress, not all of them -- i don't want to paint with too broad a brush -- but if you ask many members of congress what they think the solution to our environmental issues is, they will probably respond renewable energy. but if we're really worried about the climate -- and i know we all are. we all want clean air. we all want bright water. i'd suggest that we also embrace nuclear energy. nuclear energy is not only safe, but it is clean. and frankly, it can produce more power than renewables. nuclear energy, mr. president, as you know crits little --

creates little or no carbon emissions. let me say that again. a lot of people don't realize it. nuclear energy creates little or no carbon emissions. it also creates very little waste, an extraordinarily small amount of waste. all the nuclear waste that america's commercial nuclear industry has ever produced, ever, in the history of ever, can fit into a single football field to a depth of fewer than ten yards. now, you compare that with solar panels, for example. solar panels create 300 times more toxic waste than nuclear plants in order to yield the same exact amount of energy. or compare the waste from nuclear power production with wind turbine blades. wind turbine blades are very hard to recycle, mr. president,

and they usually end up in landfills. these facts are underreported, but the fact is that solar and wind power do have their own harmful impacts on our environment. there is no free lunch, mr. president, as you know, and you don't get one now. there are pros and cons of everything. solar and wind can't hold a candle to nuclear power when it comes to efficiency. that's just a fact. it takes more than three million solar panels or more than 430 wind turbines to produce the same amount of energy as the average nuclear plant. let me say that again. three million solar panels, 430 wind turbines to produce the same amount of energy as the average nuclear power plant, and

these numbers do not take into account that solar panels, as we know, are useless when the sun doesn't shine and wind turbines are nothing more than expensive paper weights when the wind doesn't blow. also underreported, in my judgment, mr. president, is how safe nuclear energy is. despite what some people may think, homer simpson does not run america's nuclear power plants. the industry is constantly evolving to make nuclear power plants safer, to make them more efficient. in fact, we have all read a lot about small modular reactors. i will just use that as an example. they are the small modular reactors are part of a very promising new generation of advanced reactors that can automatically, automatically

prevent overheating. and frankly, they produced even less nuclear waste. now, mr. president, i want to be clear. i still believe in fossil fuels. i'm an all of the above energy advocate. but leading that pack is fossil fuels. america's economy is largest in all of human history, and it can't run on oil and gas. louisianians know this and most americans know this. the people of louisiana serve our country pretty well by contributing to our energy independence, and i'm very proud of that. last year, louisiana supplied 9%, 9% of america's marketed gas. and louisianaians understand, as do i think most americans that giving up on fossil fuels would not only destroy jobs, it would ruin the economy. but i want america to use every

advantage that it has. i want america to u.s. every energy tool at its disposal. that's why nuclear energy -- i see nuclear energy as supporting oil and gas, not replacing it. i want to be clear about that. as supporting oil and gas, not replacing it. since nuclear energy holds such promise -- and it does, mr. president -- i'm hoping that my democratic friends in congress and my republican friends in congress, because i see this as a bipartisan issue, will lend their full-throated support to nuclear energy. i'm not saying that renewables don't have their proper place in america's energy policy. they certainly do. i'm not saying we should get rid of them. i'm certainly not. but we need to acknowledge that renewables have limitations. they have limitations and

nuclear energy does not. there are disadvantages to renewables. as i said, there is no free lunch, and you don't get one now. now, that -- for some people, that's a lesson that needs to be repeated. i take note. i say this gently, but the democratic party platform, for example, calls for installing 500 million solar panels, 500 million solar panels, and 60,000 wind turbines. over the next five years. this will occupy a lot more land and actually create less energy than building new nuclear reactors. that's fact. some small modular nuclear reactors are roughly twice the

length of the average school bus. twice the length of an average school bus. wind farms, on the other hand, can eat up more than 19 square miles. that's about half the size of walt disney world. half the size of disney world compared to twice the length of the average school bus. if we succeed in blanketing our land with solar panels and wind farms, it's going to create more waste, occupy more green space, and ultimately weaken our economy. again, i'm not saying no to solar and wind. i'm not at all. i'm saying yes to exploring the possibilities of nuclear energy. president biden, as we know, has a $2 trillion infrastructure plan, and i think, if nothing else, his infrastructure plan establishes the biden

administration's priorities. his plan does call for $61 billion in initiatives that includes investments in advanced nuclear technology. i'm not sure i agree on the amount, but i like the concept, and i find that to be prudent, but it also asks for three times that amount, $174 billion, to support electric vehicles, electric cars. i suggest that -- i suggest that nuclear energy has more place in energy future, and it's something that we ought to talk about. other spending bonanzas in president biden's plan include a $213 billion investment to give two million buildings a green new deal makeover. and $100 billion to make our schools greener. these are not going to have a more meaningful impact on our

environment than exploring nuclear energy. they're just not. i know, mr. president, that nuclear energy sounds too good to be true, and i don't want to oversimplify the circumstances. nuclear energy has its drawbacks. but nuclear energy is powerful. nuclear energy is safe. nuclear energy is clean. and by building up our nuclear power capabilities, the united states can create more jobs, the united states can strengthen its economy, and the united states can ensure its place as a world leader on energy. and we can do all that without reducing -- or we can do all that while reducing carbon emissions. i hope my colleagues will come to embrace nuclear energy as the efficient green energy source

that it is and that the united states congress can work with the white house to improve america's standing as an energy juggernaut. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. menendez: mr. president, i rise today to express significant concern about the biden administration's decision to file an amicus brief in the case of ramonna matos rodriguez et al. versus pan american health organization. this case involves serious allegations that the pan american health organization facilitated human trafficking and regrettably places the administration in a position in which it is undercutting efforts by the victims of the cuban

dictatorship's forced labor schemes. now, let me be clear. i'm a strong advocate for the pan american health organization and its mission-strengthening health systems across latin america and the caribbean. given the significant impact of covid-19 on the region, paho's efforts are needed now more than ever. i want to ensure that the pan american health organization has the resources to carry out its lifesaving work during the pandemic and throughout a good period of time throughout my congressional career. however, i also firmly believe that the pan american health organization must be held accountable for its past transgressions, including the unacceptable role that it played facilitating a program that subjected more than 10,000 cuban medical professionals to force labor conditions in brazil.

from 2013 to 2019, the pan american health organization profited from its participation in brazil's masmedicos program, an initiative that allowed cuba's dictatorship to earn income from trafficking doctors. the cuban regime's so-called foreign medical missions are nothing more than human trafficking. in november of 2019, the united nations special on trafficking in persons raised concerns that the cuban regime's trafficking of medical professionals constitutes forced labor and modern slavery. in fact, the department of state's last trafficking in persons report found the cuban regime garnishes the wages of its medical professionals that serve overseas, surveils them, confiscates their passports so

they can't leave anywhere, and retaliates against family members in cuba if they leave from the program. so if you send me abroad, don't pay me. get money from the country that you send me from. take away my passport, and retaliate against my family. that's the ultimate forced labor. cuba's dictatorship generated more than $6 billion in profit from its forced labor schemes in 2018 alone as it trafficked tens of thousands of cuban medical professionals to some 60 countries. the pan american health organization's participation in the cuban dictatorship's human trafficking programs cannot be overlooked, and accountability is urgently needed. it is against this backdrop that i have reviewed the biden

administration's amicus brief in rodriguez versus pan american health organization, and while the brief addresses some of the technical aspects of the case, it effectively does nothing, nothing to condemn cuba's dictatorship for human trafficking or the pan american health organization's participation in those programs that were human trafficking. for over two decades, the united states has led the international community in combating human trafficking. in 2000, the united states enacted the trafficking victims protection act which has set a standard for something i was involved with in the senate foreign relations committee. we should set a standard for countries around the world to strengthen efforts to prosecute traffickers, increase protection for victims, and expand foreign assistance programs. we have built a range of financial tools to combat the

human trafficking industry and its illicit profits. we have spearheaded efforts to ensure that slavery-free supply chains, slavery-free supply chains that respect workers' rights and prevent against forced labor conditions around the world becomes more and more a reality. the biden administration squandered an opportunity in this brief, an opportunity to support cuban trafficking victims and an opportunity to advance our extraordinary american leadership in combating all forms of human trafficking and modern slavery. it's a major disappointment. and i urge the president and the secretary of state to redouble efforts to pressure cuba to end this medical trafficking program and the many other abuses it perpetrates against the cuban people. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor and observe 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 alabama. mr. tuberville: i ask unanimous consent to vitiate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. tuberville: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that will taylor, an intern in my office be granted floor privileges for the remainder of this congress.

the presiding officer: also without objection. mr. tuberville: thank you. mr. president, today i want to discuss an issue that many folks may not be fam with, -- -- but they should be. when i first heard about this, i couldn't believe it was true. just when you thought you've heard and seen the worst, the swamp will always surprise you. one of the many important roles of the lg -- department of justice is to represent -- pretrial monetary settlement for a lawsuit is the best route to take. the d.o.j. directs the money from the settlement to the victims or that's the way our system is supposed to work. but during the obama administration, the d.o.j. took a different course.

rather than direct settlement money to victims, the d.o.j. pushed the defendants to give money instead to a third-party organization favored by the department. this was a slush fund for groups chosen by the d.o.j. what's more, the d.o.j. would count the amount of any donation as double toward the settlement. money paid to the victims or the treasury would only count dollar for dollar. so as a huge incentive for these defendants to pay a third party, and these third parties often had nothing to do with the lawsuit. so when companies like j.p. morgan, bank of america or citigroup had to pay settlements based on mortgage lending practices, the d.o.j. unintentionally directed millions of dollars to activist

groups. so you don't have to take my word for it. here's an e-mail from the office of the associate attorney general in 2013 talking about the d.o.j. settlement with j.p. morgan. quote, can you explain to tony the best way to allocate some money toward an organization of our choosing? those are the key words there. of our choosing. let me continue to quote. we have been discussing how the agreement provide that j.p.m. agreed to pay $9 billion with that if by the time we sign the settlement agreement, j.p.m. has given $60 million to x, they will have to pay only $$8 billion. i think that's okay.

we understand that we would not have control over what x organization does with the money. the tony referred to there is tony west, an associate attorney general who was at that time number three in the department of justice. two days later the leadership conference of civil and human rights wrote to the office of the associate attorney general to lobby on behalf of a group called voice. the leadership conference on civil and human rights includes the biggest activist arm of the political left, including the aclu, planned parenthood, big labor, afl-cio, and the teachers union. number three here, but when the leadership conference on civil

and human rights contacted the d.o.j., it was because voice wanted funds from the j.p. morgan settlement. not surprisingly voice ended up receiving $1 million from j.p. morgan. they had a listening ear in the obama administration. here is what tony wrote -- this is what he wrote to tony about the settlement with citigroup. chart four. they were concerned with the possibility of citi picking a group like, quote, the pacific group legal foundation which is a free rights legal services. the d.o.j. was clear, conservative groups couldn't have the access to the same funds that liberal groups could. it was obvious. here was the result. chart number five.

from bank of america alone, the national council of laraza received $1.5 million. the national urban league received $1.2 million. voice got another million dollars on top of the first million. this won't shock you but both laraz and the urban league with a big supporter of president obama, and a big leader on human civil rights. laroza, the urban league was a routine cheerleader of the obama administration's big government approach to public housing. they were rewarded for their advocacy with millions of dollars from the d.o.j. in total across the federal government, the money directed

to third parties added up to a total of $668 million according to the nonpartisan regulatory transparency project. on chart number six, out of that $668 million that could -- that at the end of the day could only locate $9.5 million, which is 1.4% of the total money given. we don't know -- even know exactly where or how the rest of the money was spent. folks, i've got one word for you on this, this is called corruption. this is the swamp. the fact that this practice ever existed should make americans' blood boil. political appointees at one of the most powerful departments in the country used their position of power to extract money from corporate companies and then

they gave that money to their like-minded friends. that's what's wrong with washington, d.c. we've grown used to hearing about this type of behavior from dictatorships around the world like russia or venezuela. we should not, we cannot accept this type of behavior here in the united states of america. well, president trump didn't. his administration, very early in his tenure, put a stop to this practice. they were right to do so. it should never have happened in the first place. but now with a new president in office and with so many high-profile obama administration retreads throughout the administration and in the white house, this corrupt practice could and probably will return. congress cannot allow this to happen. i don't care if it's a republican or a democrat or an independent in the white house,

the power of the purse lies with us, the folks in this building. it's called the 117th united states congress, elected officials, not bureaucrats. we need a permanent fix. if the federal government is diverting settlement funds away from victims and to politically connected groups, they are undermining congress's role. there's a way to stop this. earlier i introduced the stop settlement slush funds act. this would ensure that all settlement funds would go first to the victims and then to the treasury, no third party, no administration should be allowed to force donations to politically connected groups at the direct expense of victims. i urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this commonsense solution. let's ensure our federal

government works on behalf of all of its citizens, not just the ones with connections to people in power. mr. president, i notice the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

gracias mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: i ask that the calling of the quorum be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. grassley: we've been told by the majority party that soon

we will be having a vote on an 800-page bill to change 50 state voting laws for one federal law. this bill is called the for people act. it was compiled after the 2018 elections to call into question legitimacy of democratic elections for partisan political purposes. if it had been a serious attempt at legislating, there would have been some outreach to some republicans because it takes 60 votes, a bipartisan vote, to get anything through the united states senate. in that process, there would have been consultation also with

local elected officials. the election officials that conduct the state elections, to make sure it was workable. there would have been hearings in the congress. there would have been revisions from the bill originally introduced. the fact that back in 2018 when it was introduced is the fact that it was intended as political propaganda, and that's betrays the absurdity of the title -- the for people's act. also despite senator schumer's using senate rule 14 in the last congress to bypass the committee and put the bill directly on the senate calendar, senator schumer

never used his right to force a vote on moving to the bill. at that time, the democrat narrative was that republicans were not doing enough to secure the election so the results might end up being in doubt. now, what we know from having -- from happening in the last election, that argument is out of the window now. since the democrats got the results they wanted, they endlessly quote the trump administration's top cybersecurity official declaring that the 2020 elections, the most secure ever in history. i assume -- i assumed last congress that senator schumer

would wait until right before had the 2020 election to force a vote so he could accuse republicans of blocking an election bill for their campaign narrative questioning election security. instead, they repeatedly dishonestly blamed the republican leader for blocking the bill, ignoring the fact that the democrat leader had reserved the possibility of forcing a vote. the for the people's act is a messaging bill. the bill has now been reintroduced and recast as a response to a few state election security laws, a handful of

relatively minor reforms at the state level have been shamelessly and falsely characterized as voter suppression, even considering the fact that in the last election the winner got the highest number of votes of any winner for president in the history of the united states and the loser got the highest number of votes of any candidate for president of the united states throughout our history. as i mentioned before, the claim by some trump supporters that a certain brand of voting machine switched votes, i pointed out that that was lifted entirely from the democrats' 2004 playbook. and president trump's questioning of his loss in

georgia was simply following in the footsteps of the losing candidate for governor of georgia two years before. well, georgia democrat lost by over 50,000 votes in 2018 and has never even bothered to try to prove voting irregularities on that scale. foreign adversaries like russia and china cast doubts on the soundness of our democratic system, both to weaken us from within and to justify their own repressive regimes. american politics should not do these repressive regimes' propaganda jobs for them.

but too often we tend to be doing that. this bill is being called democracy reform. i support our american democratic system. all americans should be proud of it. we can and should have confidence in our elections. our democracy does not need a fundamental rewrite because our democracy works. let's stop casting doubt on american elections, stop casting aspersions on the commonsense election security measures supported by americans of all backgrounds. let's work together to boost the confidence of all americans in our elections. this bill would register illegal aliens. it would do away with voter i.d.

-- state voter i.d. laws. it would have taxpayer-funded elections. i remember what our colleague, senator cruz, said in the first quarter of this year. he raised -- it must have been in the neighborhood of about $5 million from contributors of under $200. so if you get that kind of money under this bill from people under $200, for every dollar you get, you get six dollars from the taxpayers. so senator cruz, i'm told, would get about $34 million of taxpayer funds to use for political purposes. we don't need to replace 50 state voting laws as this 800-page bill would. i yield.

mr. blunt: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from missouri. mr. blunt: mr. president, you and i, as we set on the rules committee, saw the debate on this bill, the bill that the sponsors call the for the people act. i really think it more accurately could be called the for the politicians act, s. 1, marked up in the rules committee last month, at a markup that i certainly raised a number of concerns about the bill and others did, too. it's more than 800 pages. it has policies related to campaign finance, redistrictings and much more. we don't know what bill will come to the floor because this

bill couldn't get ow of committee. and apparently we're going to nottous the committee process but in fact we'll bring a different bill to the floor that nobody has seen yet. but this bill seems to get bigger over time, not smaller over time. it includes the overwhelmingly bad idea that congress should impose a federal takeover of elections and force a one-size-fits-all approach on the more than 10,000 voting jurisdictions in the country. there are very few things that you can develop a formula that works just right in 10,000 places. in fact, in our states and in the district of columbia, we have a pretty significant problem coming up with 51 different structures that work for everywhere in every jurisdiction that's impacted by that. this bill also has some deadlines that are so short that if it became lurks it would

create -- became law, it would create chaos in next year's election and make the election process less trust, not more trusted. we should be focusing on federal laws and state laws that make it easier to vote and harder to cheat. i think this bill makes it easier to cheat and harder to figure out whether anybody cheated or not. s. 1 undermines the popular state voter identification laws. the majority of our states now require some kind of identification, and an overwhelming number of voters believe that voter identification at the polls is a good thing. this bill allows operatives -- political operatives to fan out across a community and collect an unlimited number of ballots. in fact, it says states can't even stop that process of ballot harvesting. they can -- those ballot harvesters can collect ballots

from you. they can collect ballots from your neighbors, from vulnerable voters like people in nursing homes, and frankly who knows if they turn them in or not? who knows if they put them in the post office box or not? if they never show up, the ballot harvester, who may very well know that your ballot is a ballot they don't agree with, just says, well, i don't know what happened. must have been lost in the mail, and who would ever know whether it was lost in the mail or not? in addition to undermining voter identification laws and making it possible for complete strangers to take your ballot, s. 1 disrupts states' long-made efforts to maintain an accurate list of eligible voters. voter rolls, madam president, are the foundation really of election administration.

i was the chief election official in our state. i was a local election official in our state. an accurate list of who can vote, that people can look at before the election, during the election, and after the election, create great confidence in the process. accurate lists ensure that voters are able to cast a ballot and the ballot they should cast in the districts they actually live in, and that can be pretty complicated sometime and really only the election authority can be aware of that when they know exactly where you live. election officials when you have accurate lists know who's voted and frankly they know who hasn't voted. so if the same person comes in or at least a person pretending to be the same person a second time you know that. accurate voter lists that allow voters to check in more quickly, to get that efficient and quick exercise of democracy done.

one of the things everybody constantly talks about is will we have -- make it too hard to vote. if you really want to make it hard to vote, make it hard to figure out who the voters are that are supposed to be voting at a given precinct. the right to vote is a bedrock principle in our democracy. the right to vote wherever you want to vote is not a bedrock principle in our democracy. you can't just decide well, this year i think it's going to be pretty competitive in some other state. i'll just drive over there on election day and vote. or, frankly, you can't just decide you know that congressional district next door, the one i live in looks more competitive than the one i live in. i think i'll go over there and vote this year instead of in the district that the census track would have put me in. the right to vote is a bedrock principle. the right to vote wherever you want to isn't. now, some of our great local administrators have figured this out. in st. louis county, the biggest

single election jurisdiction in missouri, you can vote anywhere in the county. buff the place you go vote, the ballot for you individually is generated at the place you go vote, and it's counted in the races that are generated for you to vote in. that's pretty innovative. i don't think we could probably ever have figured that out at the national level. but the point is you're voting for the people that you're living in the districts that that person will represent, whether it's on the local school board or in the congress or in the state legislature. that's a very complicated set of things that benefit totally from voter rolls and benefit from you voting where you live. this bill prohibits states from putting in place really just reasonable election security measures that have been upheld by court. it takes away the guard rails

that prevent fraud from happening and ensure that when you do have fraud, you'll have ways to figure out that that fraud occurred and what to do about it. so you pile up all the way this legislation actually increases the likelihood for fraud and you think about whether you really need a strong reason to change the system when, as senator grassley said, the system appears to be working pretty well. democracies ben fits from -- benefits from local responsibility. one political party, however, thinks this bill will give it an electoral advantage. and they have thought that for about 20 years. this is the compilation of 20 years of democrats in the congress thinking what could we do to change the election law that would be helpful for us. and that's where we are in this legislation. it was written by one party alone. it's been steered through congress by one party alone. it's not actually been seen by

anybody on the other party yet. and the majority leader says this bill that probably is still going to be about 800 pages will come to the floor next week. both chambers of the congress, there have been bipartisan opposition to the bill and no bipartisan support of this bill. the danger of those kind of sweeping changes really can do a lot to negatively impact our election system, but it doesn't stop there. it would turn the federal election commission into a partisan tool where the party of the president has a majority. there's a reason that that six-member commission was equally divided when it was set up just like there's a reason the senate ethics committee is equally divided. this bill would send federal money to campaign coffers at the rate of $6 for every dollar raised for every contribution of under $200.

and i think the number that my friend chairman grassley was talking about was if you raised $5 million of under $200, you'd get $30 million from the federl government. $30 million of government money that could clearly be used for something else. in fact, the current members of the senate would be eligible under the total restrictions of the bill to get $1.8 billion in federal money. talk about a conflict of interest when you vote for this bill. the bill also changes redistricting established in the constitution for the states, and basically assures that all congressional restricting would be done by federal courts. now that doesn't affect the senate much, but it affects the government a lot. it places heavy burdens on free speech and impacts every branch

of the federal government. i've heard proponents of this bill say that it's necessary to push back recently-passed state voter laws and protect the voting rights of americans. this bill has nothing to do with voting rights. it doesn't protect the right of a single american to cast a ballot. it doesn't bring new people into the system as the constitutional amendment did on women and other people who have been added, people who had been held in a terrible way in slavery, people who had been prevented from voting because of their sex or race, people who were prevented because of age at one time. this bill does nothing about that. this is a federal takeover of elections. it should be rejected by the senate. i believe it will be rejected by the senate. we look forward to seeing the other side defend this bill next

week. and i would yield. mrs. capito: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from west virginia. mrs. capito: thank you, madam president. i thank my colleague from missouri, senator blunt, for his leadership on this issue. we had the hearing in the markup in the rules committee. i think that we could tell from the debate that the amount of holes and misinformation that's contained within s. 1 is the reason that i call it the so-called for the people act. ronald reagan famously said the nine most terrifying words in the english language are i'm from the government and i'm here to help. well, this can be applied to many examples of what we do here. what seems more pertinent, i think now, is this latest partisan attempt to federalize one of america's most sacred functions and that's our

elections. advocates claim that the sweeping effort which comes in the form of legislation ironically called for the people act is to get more people to vote. well let's be clear. everyone, republicans, democrats, independents, we all want to see more people voting. and the good news is that we've already been doing that across the country and in my home state of west virginia. remember last year we were voting under a pandemic, under incredibly difficult situations for everybody. our state of west virginia ran a very successful election suited to our state. we had thousands more people vote in 2020 than they did in 2016. in fact, the total number of ballots cast in 2020 was more than any other election in west virginia's history with the exception of the 1960's election -- 1960 election and remember that was the presidential election that president kennedy won after he had a very

successful and a pivotal victory in the primary in west virginia as the first roman catholic running for president. more than 158 million ballots were cast in 2020. that's a 7% increase since 2016. this is under a pandemic. every state decided the best way to get the maximum participation. last november every single state saw higher turnout rates compared to the previous presidential election. so if more people are in fact voting, what is this democrat proposed legislation really about? and that's -- that is where it's about the federalization of elections and election power grab. and i believe it lacks credibility. it's really about a way to implement downright un--

inserting downright un-american provisions in the bill that prioritize power over the will of the people. and i'm glad to say that some of my democrat colleagues are finally acknowledging the concerns with this bill. during a rules committee markup, republicans and democrats offered a number of amendments, some of which were adopted on a bipartisan basis. that's what we're supposed to do, work it through committee. the amendments have been heralded by some of my democrat colleagues as an example of how we can work together on this issue. despite this, bipartisan amendments this the rules committee, despite this, the version that the majority leader may bring up for a vote does not include any of the amendments that were adopted during the markup, even though they had bipartisan support. to me that is a clear sign that the majority is not trying to cooperate in good faith but rather trying to ram through a partisan bill that will encroach

on the states' abilities, my state's ability, to ensure a free and fair election and a well attended election at the same time. the legislation would strip states of their constitutional authority to run elections and allow the federal government to determine what's best. it would ban voter i.d. laws which are adopted in many states, mine included, which maintain the integrate of election -- integrity of elections in my state and a majority of others. quite frankly i haven't herd one -- heard one person complain wabout having to take an i.d. to the polls. the bill would also force states to administrationster same-day voter registration, a cumbersome mandate that many states wouldn't be able to qom ply -- comply with for many reasons. in my state, internet connectivity. many of our polling areas wouldn't be able to accept same-day registration because they can't connect,

unfortunately, to the bigger system to find out if this person is fraudulent or not. it would also require that states mandate the unpopular and dangerous practice of ballot harvesting, which is ripe for fraud. now, i'll tell you, some states have made ballot harvesting legal. some states have same-day voter registration. good for them. they've decided what's good for their state through the constitutional duty of states to run elections. speaking of fraud, this bill would mandate absentee ballot boxes, drop boxes, and force county clerks to accept regular ballots filed in the wrong precinct without proof of residency both of which leave the door open for voter fraud. and if that's not enough, if signed into law west virginian's e-voting system and others like it -- this is the e-voting system that allows our military, active military who are deployed overseas to be able to vote safely by mobile -- by their

mobile phone and the legislature opened that up to people with disabilities to be able to use an e-voting system. this bill would severely curtail that and negate it in many cases. that's an expansion of voting rights that this bill would take away. this legislation would allow government funding of congressional campaigns with small donations being matched with federal funds. now, we've heard our friend senator cruz is in our committee. he talked about if his contributions were matched for the first three months of this year, he would get millions of dollars, over$20 million of public financing for his campaign. while i highly doubt my democrat colleagues would want the federal government to help senator cruz in his financing of his campaign and as a matter of fact, he himself, senator cruz said he doesn't want that at all either. the bill also would make the

federal elections commission which oversees our elections and finances which is now a neutral, three republicans, three democrats on the commission as it always has been, it would make it into a partisan majority vote. if you're going to be making decisions on my colleague from florida's election or my elections from financials or, madam president, your elections, do we really want a political organization making those? not when we've had a nonpartisan f.e.c. for years. and have enforced our campaign laws and put it above party politics. but remember, this is only about getting people to vote. so don't worry. the disaster doesn't stop with politicizing the f.e.c. it would also remove the authority of states to draw up district maps. it would mandate how you do that. our states can figure out how best. some of them have commissions. some of them do it by the legislature. some of them do it by the

supreme court. let's let the states make that decision. i just think the biggest demonstration of opposition to this bill has come from the west virginia county clerks association. they adopted a resolution in opposition to s. 1 that 54 of the 55 county clerks in my state signed. these are republican and democrat county clerks. and i would ask, madam president, if i could submit that letter for the record, please. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. capito: thank you. they raised numerous grievances, many of which i have talked about. they talked about the voting machines that they have right now that they spent a lot of money on. they would all be taken off-line. you would have to fully replace all of that. and they fully reject what is their -- they fully reject the usurping of what is their constitutionally based responsibility to run elections safely, scurrile, and on time.

so i appreciate the letter from our clerks and certainly understand their deep, deep concerns. the right to vote is a constitutional right, and on that we are in agreement. i got to go to a citizenship where 20 new citizens joined -- joined our country, waiting to get into our country but also to become a citizen, and the best right and the most precious right they get is that right to vote. but s. 1 is merely a partisan power grab that includes all kinds of unrelated, harmful provisions, strips the states of their authority to run their elections. to put it simply, the states do not need the federal government to strip them of their authority and impose burdensome requirements to fix problems that do not exist. and that's exactly what this bill does. and it's why the for the people act does not live up to its

name. thank you. a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. scott: the united states is a beacon of democracy in the world. and our nation was founded on free and fair elections. but if the american people don't have confidence in our elections, we don't have a sustainable democracy. and right now, unfortunately, many people do not have confidence. people across the country are mad when they look at the blatant power grab by democrats to fundamentally change our democracy. and you know what? they should be mad. we're talking about the sacred right to vote. if we want to continue as a thriving democracy, we have to take action so americans trust in free and fair elections. that's why i have introduced the save democracy act to restore faith in our federal elections and guarantee the voters decide the outcomes of elections, not the courts. i've also introduced the

promoting election integrity by proving voter identity act to require voter i.d. it's pretty simple. if you want to vote in person, you need to bring your current and valid i.d. if you want to vote by mail, you need to provide a copy of your i.d. as i said, pretty simple and straightforward. if we want, and we do, we want 100% participation in elections, and we want zero fraud. we want it to be easy to vote and very hard to cheat. voter i.d. helps us meet that goal. of course the democrats will do anything to fight against these commonsense reforms. instead, the democrats are pushing s. 1, otherwise known as the corrupt politicians act. s. 1 is the most ridiculous legislation i have seen since i came to the senate. i would need hours to go through all of it. for our purposes here today, i want to highlight just one piece of this lunacy. using taxpayer dollars to pay for political campaigns.

the democrats want to use your tax dollars to subsidize their political campaigns. think about how antidemocratic this is to allow public servants to use the people's money to manipulate the people themselves. just to be crystal clear, here's what exactly is being proposed by the democrats in this antidemocratic bill. public officials. the government takes money from you. then they use that money to pay for their campaign ads in order to manipulate you. this bill is nothing but a political power grab by washington democrats. bill gardner said recently that s. 1 was a power grab by the federal government that would trample new hampshire's state constitution. under the democrats' plan, a candidate for senate in california could spend $80 million in taxpayer dollars to run attack ads and fund their

campaign. $80 million. in georgia, a senate candidate could get as much as $25 million in taxpayer money. candidates in arizona can get almost $19 million. new york candidates would get more than $44 million. that doesn't make any sense. what kind of return on investment are the american people getting when their hard-earned tax dollars are funding attack ads? why is the federal government in the business of funding campaigns? because my democrat colleagues want the government to take your money and spend it trying to manipulate your vote. only in washington would a bunch of politicians look at the challenges of recovering from the pandemic and decide the most important thing we can do is make taxpayers fund campaign ads. this is the most radical piece of voting legislation this nation has ever seen, a time when restoring confidence in elections has never been more important. i was sent to the u.s. senate to

fight for floridians and americans against corrupt politicians. here is my promise to every american family. i'm going to fight every day to make sure that democrats will not try to take your money to manipulate your vote. if we're serious about working together to move our country forward, restore public trust in our elections, and protect democracy, we need to reject the insanity of s. 1 and look to commonsense reforms like voter i.d. we will continue to fight the democrats' election power grab and combat those efforts to prevent measures that protect the integrity of our elections. with that, i yield the floor. a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mrs. blackburn: thank you, madam president. it's been so interesting to talk with tennesseans over the past couple of weeks, and it's interesting in the vein that they are beginning to really question some of the proposals that my democratic colleagues

are bringing forward and items that they are pushing from the left side of the aisle. i have to tell you i -- i honestly can't blame them. after all, when they promised covid relief, they delivered a blue state bailout which was something that was not popular in tennessee. they said that they were going to be all for some much-needed infrastructure projects. in tennessee, we like to talk about this in terms of roads and railways and runways and rivers. but what did people from tennessee hear? they heard all about a green new deal. and they heard about incentives for electric vehicles. they heard about alternative energy. and they looked at that infrastructure bill and said this is fantasy land, and then

when they promised to support families and children, what did you get from the left side of the aisle? you got support for expanding the welfare state. and now the senate democrats have promised a vote on legislation that they claim is going to make our elections more transparent. that's interesting. surprising no one, the bill that the democrats are trying to sell to the american people will do exactly the opposite. of course, in typical fashion of the house, what did they do? they give it a friendly-sounding name. the for the people act. but in actuality, this is a bill that would take away rights and responsibilities from the american people.

and they're saying well, this is going to be about transparency. well, when we think of transparency, we think of things that are going to be seen, things that are going to be easily understood. we think of things that the activity within is going to be made available so that people can see this. and it should follow then that a bill promising transparent elections would be there to help voters understand the rules. trust the people in charge and cast their vote of confidence. it would not be a bill that would seize control from local officials and place it in the hands of unelected washington bureaucrats. it would not be a bill that would make it literally

impossible to stand at polling places, and it certainly would not be a bill that would erode confidence in ballot integrity. but that is what we have. it just doesn't make sense what they're trying to do when it comes to voting. even with all of this, my democratic colleagues have spent most of this year trying to sell the american public on a bill that would centralize power, that would impose burdensome rules on state and local governments, that would take away constitutional responsibilities and rights and all but ensure rampant voter fraud. that is correct. a piece of legislation that would do what? make it easier to cheat. so in the interest of the transparency, my democratic

colleagues have promised let's take a closer look at the legislation they are pushing forward. like most proposals that they have tried to force through this year, this latest brazen political power grab is built on a foundation of unreasonable mandates. mandates from the federal government to the states and local governments. but rather than simplifying the process, these new rules would throw your local elections into chaos. if passed, the provisions in this bill would mandate the use of ballot-casting technology and voter registration systems that don't even exist yet. that is correct. what is being mandated is not in existence. but when it does come to exist,

you can bet that it will cost a fortune, it will come with a steep learning curve, and there will be buddies of the democratic party that will make a bucket of money. the same automatic registration procedures that failed voters in california and illinois will fail voters in every state in this country. it would force states to stand aside for activists running battle-harvesting schemes, and indeed ballot harvesting is a scheme. anyone who has ever watched one of these campaigns in action knows that forcing officials to tolerate them is an invitation for these activists to engage in a little sleight of hand, if you will. in fact, this bill truly out does itself when it comes to encouraging fraud.

its hallmark provision would ban meaningful voter i.d. laws and stop state and local officials from cleaning up their voter rolls. this bill strips away every common sense defense voter fraud. it would also inject fear into the process by mandating donor disclosure and weaponizing a partisan f.e.c. against minority political parties. the american people know there is only one reason why you would work this hard to remove transparency from elections. they are seeking to remove transparency from the voter. truth be told, many of my colleagues across the aisle know it, too, which is why this bill

has earned bipartisan opposition. madam president, i have spent the better part of two years coming to the floor to object to various iterations of this bill, and i will continue to do so until my colleagues abandon this partisan power grab. i yield the floor. mr. inhofe: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: madam president, i am joining others who have the same problem with what one of the majority party here in the united states senate is trying to do. it's something that surprises a lot of people, something that would completely revamp, completely change a system that has been in place since 1787. and i understand that they are soon going to be forcing a vote on a bill that they are