>> ♪♪ >> the u.s. senate is about to gavel in. nominations continue to be the focus this week. today a pair. tommy beaudreau to be interior secretary and the homeland security secretary. a final vote on mr. beaudreau.

now, live to the senator 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, although we cannot see you with our eyes or touch you with our hands, we have experienced the reality of your might and majesty. every time we hear a newborn baby cry or touch a leaf or see the sky, we know why we

believe. lord, send your spirit to fill the hearts of our senators. as they journey toward eastern, may they walk, lord, this day on the path you have provided. give them a passion to glorify you in their thoughts, words, and deeds. provide them with the wisdom to embrace truth, honor, gentleness, and humility. we pray in your righteous name. amen. the presiding officer: please join me now 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 17, 2021. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable jacky rosen, a senator from the state of nevada, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: patrick j. leahy, president pro tempore. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved.

mr. schumer: madam president. the presiding officer: the meeting leader. mr. schumer: ever since democrats passed the affordable care act, expanding health coverage and access to tens of millions of americans, we have had to fight tooth and nail to preserve the law from partisan republican attacks. for more than a decade, the assault on health care law -- for more than a decade, the assault on our health care law was relentless from republicans in congress, from the executive branch itself, and from republican attorneys general in the courts. in a landmark vote, we in the senate prevented the republicans from repealing the a.c.a. in 2017. each time, in each arena, the affordable care act has prevailed. and once again today, the united

states supreme court in a 7-2 ruling upheld the affordable care act in the face of another legal challenge. so let me say definitively -- the affordable care act has won. the supreme court has just ruled the a.c.a. is here to stay. and now we're going to try to make it bigger and better, establish once and for all affordable health care as a basic right of every american citizen. what day. on another issue, infrastructure. despite a consensus in washington that america needs more investment in our infrastructure, it's been decades since congress passed a stand-alone bill to address the issue. this congress is working hard to remedy that fact. as i have repeated, discussions about infrastructure are moving

forward along two tracks. one is bipartisan. the second deals with components of the american jobs and families plan, which we will consider even if it lacks bipartisan support. although i would note a recent poll showed that president biden's infrastructures and families plan is broadly popular, nearly 70% of americans support president biden's infrastructure plan. more than 60% support additional support for american families. now, despite some overdramatized punditry, the truth is both tracks are moving forward very well and both tracks need each other. so we want to work with our republican colleagues on infrastructure where we have common ground, and democrats believe we have other priorities that the senate must consider above and beyond a bipartisan infrastructure bill, not the least of which is addressing the

urgent challenge of climate change. yesterday, i convened all 11 members of the senate budget committee to discuss the reconciliation track, and today i will convene the group of democrats negotiating with republicans to discuss the bipartisan track. we set up the two tracks about a month ago. each is proceeding along. and the two tracks are parallel, working in concert, progressing well. on voting rights. now we're here on the precipice of a momentous debate here in the senate. last night, i began the process to consider voting rights legislation here on the floor of the senate next week. the process i used will allow the senate to consider s. 1 or compromise legislation that's currently being discussed. in either case, our goal remains crystal clear. protect the right to vote.

strengthen our democracy. and put a stop to the tide of voter suppression flooding across our country. we will not consider legislation that does not achieve those objectives. the issue is too important. republican state legislatures are conducting the most sweeping attack on the right to vote since the beginning of jim crow. what is their stated reason for vicious assaults on voting rights? they say it's election integrity. but listen to these policies and tell me if you think they are about election integrity, reducing polling hours in polling place. what does that have to do with election integrity? mandating that every precinct, no matter how large or how small, have the same number of ballot drop boxes. what does that have to do with election integrity? it is saying urban areas should have less ability to vote than rural areas. no after-hours voting. no 24-hours voting. no drive-through voting.

requiring absentee ballots to be approved by a notary public. making it a crime to give food and water to voters waiting in long lines at the polls. allowing a judge or panel of judges to overturn an election. allowing a partisan state election board to replace a duly elected county election board if they are, quote, underperforming. removing student i.d.'s from the list of valid forms of i.d. moving the hours of sunday voting into the evening, which coincidentally makes it harder for black churches to sponsor voter drives after services. are any of these policies, i would ask a single republican on this senate floor to get up and say any of these policies are dealing with election integrity. we know what they're doing. they're making it harder for people to vote. and if this so-called voter fraud, election fraud which we see none of in 2020, if they cared about that across the board, why did they aim almost all their proposals at people of

color, at poor people, at young people, at urban people? we know why. this is an -- this is not about voter fraud. it's about suppressing the vote, particularly of democratic-leaning voters. it's despicable, it's antidemocratic, it's what they do in dictatorships. manipulate the vote instead of counting it accurately. georgia, iowa, montana, florida, alabama, utah, arizona, nebraska, oklahoma, indiana, kentucky, kansas, arkansas, this is where some of these policies that i just mentioned are now law. they would be also in effect in texas had democratic lawmakers not walked out of the chamber in protest. since the beginning of the year, 14 states have enacted 22 laws, 22 laws to make it harder to vote. now, i know what the republicans

are saying. they are saying oh, we're making it easier to vote but harder to cheat. but when you look at what they are actually doing, it's perfectly clear that republicans across the country are making it harder to vote and making it easier to steal an election. they are targeting all the ways that poorer, younger, nonwhite and typically democratic voters access the ballot. are they giving new tools to partisan election boards and are they giving new tools to partisan election boards and unelected judges to interfere with the results of the democratic election. interfere with the results of a democratic election. does that sound like a democracy? no. it sounds like an autocracy, a dictatorship. when you lose an election, you're supposed to try to win over more voters, not try to stop the other side from voting. these laws are un-american, autocratic, and against the very, very grain of our grand

democracy, which for immediate partisan advantage, our republican friends are trying to undermine. so the senate's going to debate what to do about these laws at the federal level next week. in an ideal world, this debate would be bipartisan. voting rights shouldn't be a democratic issue or republican issue. in the early days of this -- in the early days of the second half of the last century, that's just what it was, bipartisan. but unfortunately now it's become totally partisan. donald trump, his big lie, has enveloped to the republican party, -- has enveloped the republican party, and they run away from truth, honesty, and fairness to just appease someone with authoritarian instincts, donald j. trump. and for all -- and for all the shame that republican state legislators have brought upon themselves, washington republicans have not covered

themselves in glory either. here in washington, republicans have failed to forcefully and repeatedly stand up to the big lie that the last election was stolen from donald trump. that same big lie is fueling these voter suppression laws from one end of the country to the other. house republicans are comparing january 6 to a tourist visit. i was within 20 feet of these awful insurrectionists. they were not tourists. they were brandishing sticks and guns and this and that. house republicans also fired congresswoman cheney for what? telling the truth that joe biden is president. just yesterday, 21 house republicans voted against awarding a congressional gold medal to the police officers who withstood the attack on the 6th.

republicans are becoming antipolice? some of the same republicans who falsely accused democrats of wanting to defund the police are actively refusing to defend the police. i wish i could say the senate was totally different than the house, republican house, but here we have a senate republican saying there really wasn't -- it really wasn't a violent insurrection. we have senate republicans refusing to include any mention of the causes for january 6 in committee reports. and the republican minority mounted a partisan filibuster against an independent bipartisan commission. that's what's happening in the present-day republican party, a hornet's nest of conspiracy theories and voter suppression in the states and a washington republican establishment that's too afraid of donald trump to stand up for our democracy with conviction. so look, we democrats wish a voting rights bill would be

bipartisan. by all rights, it should be. but the actions in state legislatures were totally partisan. none of these voter suppression laws were passed with bipartisan support, not one. and washington republicans seem dead set against all remedies, whether it's s. 1, some modified version, or the john louis voting rights act which senator mcconnell has recently opposed. so the idea that we can have some kind of bipartisan solution to this partisan attack on democracy beif you hadless me. regrettably, the democratic party is the only party standing up for democracy right now. next week the senate will have this debate. democrats will bring forward legislation to protect voting rights and safeguard our democracy, and we are going to see where everyone stands. everyone. i yield the floor. and i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call: the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. schumer: i ask that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: madam president, i understand that -- i understand i don't have my microphone on. i understand there is a bill at the desk due for a second reading. the presiding officer: the leader is correct. the clerk will read the title of the bill for otosecond time. the clerk: s. 2093, a bill to expand americans' a section to the ballot box, reduce the influence of big money in politics, strengthen ethics rules for public servants and implement other anticorruption measures for the purpose of fortifying our democracy and for other purposes. mr. schumer: madam president, in order to place the bill on the calendar under the

provisions of rule 14, i would object to further proceedings. the presiding officer: objection having been heard, the bill will be placed on the calendar. mr. schumer: thank you, madam president. and now i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. mcconnell: madam president? the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: next week, as the democratic leader has indicated, the senate will finally get the opportunity to vote on the bill that house and senate democrats have both made their number-one priority for the entire congress. s. 1 is a bad bill filled with bad ideas. i've been crystal clear will opposing it from the very beginning. but for democrats themselves, coming up with a compelling rationale for this unprecedented political power grab has been a

long and winding road. it started back in 2019. then our friends on the left were still trying to wrap their heads around a stunning defeat in the 2016 presidential election. so the speaker of the house billed h.r. 1 as a major overhaul for what her party concluded was a profoundly broken democracy. then 2020 changed everything. a democrat actually won the white house. i guess our democracy wasn't broken after all. this time apparently federal authorities just needed you are urgent protection -- urgent protection from state legislatures running their own elections. so, madam president, we're talking about fundamentally the very same bill, and one thing is for certain -- a major overhaul doesn't even begin, begin, to

describe it. the awful guts are all in there. there's the plan to forcibly rewrite large portions of the 50 states' respective election laws and plan to create new publicly fund accounts, not for building roads or bridges, expanding rural broadband or fighting the opioid epidemic. just piles of federal dollars going to yard signs, balloons and tv ads for candidates at least half of americans disagree with. there's a plan to trash a decades' old bipartisan consensus on the right with a to call balls and strikes on elections and turn the even split of the federal election commission into a partisan majority. and the one could give -- and s. 1 could give broader tools to engage in political speech. such a radical proposal that

even prominent voices on the left have urged caution. one liberal expert said if democrats think their bill is, quote, essential to secure democracy, they are self-deceived or deceitful. and voters themselves are hardly convinced. when asked about election policies like voter i.d., large -- large -- majorities consistently come down on the opposite side of washington democrats. and the bill is so transparently opportunistic, the democrats' spin has failed to even unite their own party here in the senate. it's a massive takeover of our election system with a fill-in-the-blank rationale. nobody is fooled and next week the senate will reject it. now, on another matter entirely, the house of representatives will vote today on a bill from

representative barbara lee to repeal one of the key authorities behind nearly two decades of u.s. efforts to fight terrorism -- the 2002 authorization for the use of military force. house democrats claim this vote is an urgent act of congressional oversight and the democratic leader has indicated the senate will take it up with similar zeal. the right way to address ongoing terrorist threats is a debate certainly worth having. i would have welcomed that debate before the biden administration began its hasty retreat from afghanistan without a plan to sustain counterterror missions or support our friends. and it's one we should have before we vote to repeal these authorities. reality is more complicated, more dangerous, and less politically convenient than its supporters actually believe. the fact of the matter is, the legal and practical application

of the 200202 aumf extends is fr beyond the defeat of saddam hussein's regime. tossing aside our own efforts in the region is wreckless. let's clear up some facts. the 2002 aumf has been understood for years -- years -- toa variety of threats emanating from iraq. both sides have cited it as an important legal foundation of our fight against isis. it's been used precisely because the isis caliphate that stretched into syria emanated from iraq after president bush's withdrawal in 23011. the aumf is important in iraq because it provides authorities for u.s. forces to defend themselves from a variety of real exigent threats.

it's arguably even more important in syria where our personnel are present against the wishes of the brutal assad regime supporting local kurdish and arab forces and conducting strikes against isis. and because isis and quaid -- and al qaeda have sometimes diverged, the 2002 aumf may be insufficient to authorize operations against isis. so do supporters of this repeal fully understand the ways it might limit counterterrorism missions? how about cyber ops? how about support for kurdish and arab forces in syria? how do they propose we respond to growing attacks against our forces and interests in iraq? and what about the prospects for robust congressional oversight if the president is left to rely

on unilateral article 2 authorities or even less transparent ones? we're learning a lesson in real time about withdrawing from afghanistan without a plan. we shouldn't make the same mistake here. so i suspect this isn't really about reasserting congressional oversight. after all, when the last administration announced plans to withdraw from syria and afghanistan in 2019, two dozen democrats joined my amendment opposing the decision and reassuring our role in foreign policy. but now many our colleagues no longer want to talk about what we should be doing to confront these ongoing threats. a lot can happen in two years, i guess. the political winds have certainly changed. but one thing hasn't changed, madam president -- the grave threats posed by isis, al qaeda, and other terrorist groups are as real as they've ever been.

and repealing aumf's without agreeing montana a set of new authorities -- without agreeing on a set of new authorities up front will only lead to more your honor certainty about what we're -- about what we're going to do about them. for years u.s. forces have been carefully handling more of the primary responsibilities for counterterrorism to brief local partners. this allowed our military footprint in iraq and syria to shrink dramatically. but the only reason that worked is because our partners have been able to trust that the u.s. military is still authorized to back them up, and today house democrats intend to rip out one of the key authorities underpinning that trust. as i understand it, democrats don't even intend to stop there. they're also planning to take aim at the 2001 authorities that allow us to keep some of the most dangerous terrorists live from taking more innocent

american lives. the administration says it's looking into how best to close the detention facility at guantanamo bay, cuba, that houses the absolute -- absolute -- worst of the worst, including khalid sheikh mohammed, the mastermind of the september 11 attacks. but thus far, the administration is rather short on details. how does the president plan to do this? does he intend to break the law and bring terrorists to the united states? give them expanded legal rights? further radicalize our prison population? talk about domestic violent extremism. or does the president intend to send k.s.m. and his terrorist cronies to pakistan or saudi arabia before they face justice? so, madam president, closing guantanamo bay will not make

americans safer. it will not bring solace to the victims of terrorism. it will not make america more respected in the world, and it won't solve the terrorist threat anymore than repealing aumf's will end their war against us. the presiding officer: under the previous order, 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, department of the interior, tommy p. beaudreau of alaska to be deputy secretary. mr. mcconnell: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. mr. carper: are we in the midst of a quorum call? the presiding officer: yes, we are. mr. carper: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. carper: thank you, madam president. hope you're well today. good to see you, and staffer. i rise this morning to applaud the nomination of colonel john k. tien. he's been selected by our president to serve as the deputy secretary of the department of homeland security, a very big job, an important job. i have the honor of currently serving as the senior member and former chairman of the department of homeland security and governmental affairs, responsible among other things of overseeing the operation of the department of of homeland security. madam president, very sadly,

our chairman, gary peters, chairman of the homeland security, lost his mom this week and cannot be here this week. normally he would be here speaking on behalf of the nomination. his mother whom i have known personally, she is a huge detroit tigers baseball fan as am i. i have had the pleasure of going with her to baseball games and consider her a kindred spirit. i want to, as we think about senator peters and his family this morning, i just want to ask maybe for a moment of silence to remember her and the peters family. thank you. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. carper: madam president, as many of our colleagues know, the department of homeland security is still a fairly young agency created in response to the attacks on september 11, 2001. i vividly remember the tragic events of that day, a day as beautiful like today --

sunshine, blue skies -- and then the world changes. i was riding the train from wilmington to washington, d.c. i recall also how vividly, how the members of this body pulled together that day. our country pulled together that day. we, with the united states house of representatives, we with the president, george w. bush, set aside partisan pliks pliks -- politics and we created the 9/11 commission and adopted the great majority of its recommendations. my recollection was cochairs of the 9/11 commission, former governor of new jersey, tom kean, republican, my neighbor across the river; and lee hamilton, congressman from indiana, chairman of the house foreign relations committee, a congressman years ago, they led a group, the 9/11 commission. i think they came to agreement unanimously on 42 recommendations and passed them

off to what would become the homeland security and governmental affairs. we adopted almost every one of them unanimously and did a lot of good for our country and a lot of protection for our country, for our homeland. among the recommendations that they made was the creation of the department of homeland security and the expansion of our committee's jurisdiction to include homeland security. before that, we were the committee on governmental affairs, which is important as an oversight committee, but with the addition of the department of homeland security, that responsibility grew enormously. but since then our committee has taken on a very different purpose. i'm proud of the work that we've done and how it's made americans safer today. someone who is very much involved in helping us stand up and assemble the department of homeland security, proud of the way it has grown and matured over the last 20 years. in large, the leadership provided by the nominees we

confirmed in this chamber enabled the department of homeland security to carry out successly its many missions. the department of homeland security is an agency with a budget of over $50 billion and a staff of almost a quarter of a million men and women who are collectively responsible for protecting our nation from many of the threats that we face. from the clear and present threats of the foreign and domestic terrorism to responding to cyberattacks on our critical infrastructure to helping distribute relief and assistance in the face of natural disasters, there is no shortage of work to be done by that agency and the men and women who work there every single day. i often say leadership is the most important agreement for the success of almost any organization on this planet -- in sports, in business, in

government, leaders set the tone at the top. they lead by their example and are the ones to guide their team to its mission. in the case of the department of homeland security it's many missions. that is why it's crucial that the department of homeland security have the senate confirm qualified leadership at its helm. after years and multiple administrations leading key senate-confirmed posts vacant or held on an acting capacity for far too long, this department needs qualified leaders now more than ever. it has been without a senate-confirmed deputy, mr. president, for over three years. let me repeat that. this vital agency has been without a senate-confirmed deputy secretary for more than three years. that has to change. confirmation of colonel john ten

to serve, this body -- john tien, this body can do something about it and do something about it. the responsibilities of the deputy secretary are daunting. responsible for the day-to-day business of the agency and the management of its operations and 250,000 men and women. colonel tien is a proven leader and dedicated public servant. he's a retired u.s. army colonel. his 24-year career includes three combat tours in iraq, national security roles in the clinton, the george w. bush and the obama white houses. he's worked hand in glove with people from different perspectives and commands the respect of republicans and democrats alike. for the past decade colonel tien has been a leader in the private sector where he's held senior

executive roles in our nation's financial sector and managed complex organizations and operations. his nomination has strong bipartisan support. dozens of national security leaders and experts, including several former military and civilian government officials who served under democrat and republican presidents have expressed strong support for colonel tien's nomination. just a week ago the committee on homeland security governmental affairs, on which i served to advance his nomination by a wide margin, bipartisan support. given colonel tien's past leadership experiences, i am hopeful that the department will finally get the senate-confirmed leader that it needs and deserves in this critical post. the american people are counting on seasoned leadership, but the department of homeland security, after too many years of vacancies.

i describe those vacancies as swiss cheese. executive branch swiss cheese, and it needs to end. i applaud president biden for nominating colonel tien. i encourage my colleagues to confirm him. let me say on a personal note to colonel tien and his wife, tracy, they got a couple of daughters -- amanda and rebeccae did in the military for 24 years, rising to the rank of colonel, you don't just serve that as an individual. it's not just the officer or enlisted person who is serving. if they have a family, and we almost all do, the family serves as well. if you have a spouse, if you have children, they serve as well. and we don't often acknowledge that, not often enough at least. i just want to take a moment to say to colonel tien's wife

tracy, to their daughters amanda and rebecca, we're grateful for your service as well. and we're honored and privileged that you would share a good man in this new role for our country. and to colonel tien whose mother passed away i understand a few months ago from covid-19, let me say that i know your mom must be looking down from on high today feeling very proud of her son on this day and every day. with that, mr. president, i note, i note the absence of a quorum. quorum call:

quorum call: mr. thune: is the senate in a quorum call? the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call. mr. thune: i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection, it is. mr. thune: thank you, mr. president. at the end of may, facebook announced it would no longer censor claims that the virus was man made. the mainstream media which had savaged the story during the previous administration suddenly started back pedaling. and the biden white house which canceled the previous administration's investigation into whether the novel virus originated in a wuhan lab announced a 90-day inquiry into the origins.

all this was reported in "the wall street journal" that three researchers who worked at the wuhan institute of virology sought long-term care for symptoms consistent with the coronavirus. in the wake of that report, it became impossible for the president or the mainstream media or facebook to deny what had always been a plausible theory, that the virus came from the virology lab in wuhan. journalists moved to explain their previous rejection of this theory, and some of them openly admitted what had been obvious, that they rejected the theory not because of flaws in the theory itself but because of those who had advanced this hypothesis. mr. president, we don't know what these revived investigations will ultimately show, but the wuhan reversal illustrates multiple issues. one, of course, is the need to remember that our social media experience is heavily curated. the posts and ads we see are

selected first by complex algorithms that companies have collected on each of us and curate our experience accordingly, on top of that as the past year or two has illustrated, social media companies actively censor certain material meaning there are polls we will never see. as chairman and ranking member of the senate commerce committee communications and tech subcommittee, i have pushed for transparency requirements for social media companies. and i have introduced two bipartisan bills that would increase internet transparency while preserving the light touch approach to regulation that has allowed the internet to flourish. my filter bubble transparency act would allow social media users to opt out of the filter bubble, in other words to opt out of the filtered experience tailored for them biobake algorithms and instead -- by opaque algorithms and instead

see search results. the platform accountability and transparency act which i introduced with senator schatz would increase transparency around content moderation. sites would be required to provide an easily digestible disclosure of their content moderation practices for users, and importantly, they would be required to explain their decision toss remove material to consumers. under the act, if a site chose to remove your post, it would have to tell you why it removed your post. the act would also require sites to have an appeals process. if facebook, for example, removed one of your posts, it would not only have to tell you why, but it would have to provide a way for you to appeal that decision. mr. president, let me be clear. private entities are free to have their own opinions and viewpoints and should not be compelled by the government to publish alternative views, but that's not what we're talking about with these large social

media platforms. most strongly deny that they are publishers and instead hold themselves forth as neutral platforms for the free exchange of ideas from all corners. that's the promise that they make to consumers. mr. president, the wuhan reversal is more than a reminder that our social media experience is actually a heavily curated one. it also raises serious questions about censorship and the maintenance of the marketplace of ideas that is a hallmark of a free society. mr. president, there is no free society without the free exchange of ideas. free speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, freedom to speak in the public square, all of these are essential elements of a free society. the more government or other entities crack down on free speech and the free exchange of ideas, the more we move away from a free society and towards

tyranny. i say other entities or other entities because the responsibility for protecting the free exchange of ideas extends beyond the government. government, of course, has an absolute obligation to defend our fundamental freedoms, but other institutions in society also have a role. you can't have a free society without free institutions. i'm thinking here particularly of the press, universities, and in this day and age, social media companies. if the press or social media companies only sanctioned one narrative, the narrative preferred by the government or by social elites or by any other group, the marketplace of ideas shrinks substantially. and if multiple groups that should be fostering the free exchange of ideas combine to limit or advance a particular narrative, they start to control public opinion instead of

allowing individuals to form their own opinions based on a free flow of information. unfortunately, as the wuhan story illustrates, today we're seeing a real movement to restrict the free flow of ideas. whether we are talking about speech codes or social media censorship, more and more we're seeing a preferred narrative being advanced and opinions outside of that preferred narrative being censored or marginalized. we see government with bills like s. 1 which would, among other things, allow the i.r.s. to consider an organization's views before deciding whether or not to grant it tax-exempt status. or the equality act which would crack down on free speech and freedom of religion in unprecedented ways. we see it outside government when media outlets engage in selective reporting to highlight a selective narrative instead of reporting the news and the facts, whatever they are.

or when social media censors legitimate stories or when universities crack down on free speech. in the wake of the wuhan lab story, we saw widespread censorship across government, social media, and the press for political reasons. president biden seemingly shut down the former president's investigation into the virus' origin because it was the former president's investigation. democrats in congress pressured social media companies to censor information that contradicted the narrative that they were embracing. the mainstream media savaged the lab origin story. social media sites censored it. and all of this happened because of the political affiliation of the people advancing this reasonable hypothesis. mr. president, you can only have

a marketplace of ideas if ideas actually get out there, which is why censorship, as i said, is antithetical to a free society. it's also important to note -- and this is a critical, critical point -- having a free marketplace of ideas means allowing some ideas that might be wrong, that might seem offensive, that might seem silly. we're not talking about content that, for example, promotes violence, but ideas that are provocative, debatable, or out of the mainstream. the alternative is allowing the government or some other entity to decide what information we see and what we believe, and it's important to remember that sometimes ideas that seem silly are wrong initially turn out to be right. more than one widely accepted scientific theory started out as a fringe position. a prevailing opinion may turn

out to be wrong. and political or social power doesn't necessarily equal truth. mr. president, i hope that their abrupt reversal on covid's possible origins makes media organizations and social media platforms think twice the next time they consider censoring a story. i hope it reminds them of the dangers of restricting the free flow of ideas. and of their obligation to separate their politics from their jobs. in a speech he delivered in 1967, ronald reagan, marveling at our government by the people, said this, and i quote -- perhaps you and i have lived too long with this miracle to properly be appreciative. freedom is a fragile thing, and it's nevermore than one generation away from extinction. it is not ours by way of inheritance. it must be fought for and defended constantly by each

generation, for it comes only once to a people, end quote. i fear that long acquaintance with the blessings of liberty, with the blessings of a free press and free speech and freedom of religion sometimes made us careless about the preservation of these freedoms. we are used to them, and we assume that they will always be with us, but as ronald reagan pointed out, freedom has to be actively safeguarded or it will be lost. i have seen too many instances lately where our cherished first amendment freedoms are subordinated to a political and social agenda, and i hope, i hope, mr. president, that the wuhan story reminds us of the responsibility that each us of us have to safeguard these freedoms lest they slip away from us.

mr. president, on tuesday, the commerce subcommittee, of which i am a ranking member of the subcommittee on communications and broadband, will hold a hearing on building resilient broadband networks. my hope is that this hearing will help inform discussions of broadband funding in any infrastructure legislation. i'm particularly looking forward to hearing from denny law, the c.e.o. of golden west telecommunications in south dakota who will speak on the challenges of deploying reliable and resilient broadband in rural areas. mr. president, the pandemic provided the most significant test to date of the resiliency of our broadband networks. overnight, quite literally, our networks faced huge new demands. as the nation locked down, demand for broadband shot up. our phones and tablets and laptops became our main way of communicating with friends and family, and for many of us, our main way of doing our jobs. videoconferencing exploded. staff meetings, strategy meetings, virtual happy hours,

telemedicine. and how did our networks stand up to the demand? mr. president, they exceeded expectations. and vindicated the united states' light touch regulatory approach to broadband policy. while networks in europe and elsewhere showed streaming speeds and i should say slowed streaming speeds in order to keep their networks up and running, u.s. networks maintain both their speed and quality. it was a real american success story. mr. president, the success of american networks during the pandemic was the result of sustained investment by u.s. telecommunications companies who have made network reliability a priority. congress should continue to encourage this kind of private investment and maintain a regulatory regime that allows companies to make the kind of choices and investments that resulted in strong and resilient u.s. networks. mr. president, going forward, one of our priorities here in congress has to be supporting the continued development of 5g.

u.s. companies are already building out 5g networks, but there is more work to be done. we need to remove regulatory and permitting hurdles for deployment and ensure that companies have access to the spectrum that they need to build strong networks. increasing spectrum availability will spur 5g deployments, and we need to build on previous efforts to make spectrum available like my mobile now act, legislation that we passed a few years ago. i've also repeatedly introduced legislation called the streamlined small cell deployment act to address another key part of the 5g equation, and that's infrastructure. 5g technology requires not just traditional cell phone towers but small antennas called small cells that can often be attached to existing infrastructure like utility poles or buildings. the federal communications commission under the chairman modernized its regulations for the approval of small cells but more work can be done to expedite small cell deployment. the streamline act focuses on updating current law to better

reflect emerging technology and to speed up permitting while respecting the role of state and local governments in making deployment decisions. mr. president, adequate spectrum and the ability to efficiently deploy infrastructure are essential for building out strong u.s. 5g networks. but there is another key part of the equation, and that's having a sufficient workforce to meet the demands of 5g deployment and later 5g maintenance. that's why i have introduced the telecommunications skilled workforce act. my bill would help increase the number of workers enrolled in 5g training programs and identify ways to grow the telecommunications workforce to meet the demands of 5g. mr. president, as a resident of a rural state, expanding broadband access in rural areas has long been a priority of mine here in the united states senate. we have made a lot of progress in recent years, but there is more work to be done. i recently introduced the rural connectivity advancement program act along with senators hassan,

moran, and cortez masto. our legislation would set aside proceeds from spectrum auctions conducted by the f.c.c. to build out broadband in unserved areas. it's essential that we expedite the deployment of fixed broadband in rural areas because this technology is necessary groundwork for 5g deployment. without reliable deployment, rural access not be included. reliable internet is an essential element of our nation's infrastructure. like roads and bridges and railways and airported, strong internet networks keep our economy strong. and any infrastructure package should make an investment in broadband and 5g as well as including regulatory relief like that in my streamlined act to expedite 5g deployment. however, we need to make sure that any federal money is allocated in the most efficient

manner possible and distributed with coordination by expert agencies like the federal communications commission to prevent waste. we don't want another situation like what happened in the wake of the 2009 recovery and reinvestment act which provided that are than $7 billion to multiple agencies for rural broadband deployment, a majority of which was wasted, resulting in just a fraction of the access that was promised. mr. president, i'm looking forward to tuesday's hearing, and i will continue to work to advance nationwide 5g deployment and ensure that our rural communities receive the full benefits of the 5g revolution. mr. president, i yield the floor.

mr. durbin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority whip. mr. durbin: rewould in a quorum call? the presiding officer: we are not. mr. durbin: thank you. as if in legislative session, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration -- i'm sorry, i want to make a statement before i do that. thank you. mr. president, in the city of chicago, which i'm proud to represent, there's an organization called life span. this is an incredible group of people who dedicate their lives to providing comprehensive services for the survivors of domestic violence and sexual assault. every day they respond to horrifying cases of abuse. they help thousands of women and children access the support they need to address trauma and to rebuild their lives.

for example, lifespan recently assisted a woman after her teenage daughter was sexually assaulted by the woman's husband. lifespan was able to help the mother and daughter navigate the overwhelming challenges of pursuing justice against the abuser and offer support to the daughter throughout this horrible process. when the mother pursued a divorce from the abuser, lifespan filed a petition and is representing the mother as she navigates issues of child support and allocation of custody. the three lifespan staffers that the mother and daughter have interacted with all provided critical bilingual and bicultural support. they have provided this crucial service for this family during an incredible traumatic experience. and all three of these staffers are funded by assistance provided through the victims of crime act, or voca. lifespan told me that without very aca funding be -- without

voca funding, none would have been able to do this job. congress passed the victims of crime act to establish the crime victims' fund. this provides grants to state victim compensation and assistance programs which assist victims with expenses like medical bills, funeral expenses, and the loss of wages during recovery. how often i have heard members of congress come up to the floor and in committee speak about the plight of the victims of crime. this is an effort, an overt effort by congress, to make sure we are there when they desperately feed us. the fund also provides funds to thousands of victim service providers. the crime victims fund doesn't receive a fund of taxpayers' dollars. how about that? it is funded through criminal

fines, penalties, forfeited bail bonds and special assessments collected by the federal government. historically, most of the money in the fund comes from those criminal fines, but in recent years deposits into the fund have dropped significantly. as the justice department began relying more on non-prosecution agreements. monetary penalties from these non-prosecution agreements are currently deposited into the general treasury instead of this fund. as a result, this shift has had a devastating impact on the fund and the services available to crime victims in america. that's why a bipartisan, bicameral coalition of members of congress worked with the advocacy organizations on a fix to the voca law to sustain the crime victims fund. our bill would stabilize the depleted fund by redirecting monetary penalties from deferred

prosecutions and non-prosecution agreements to the victims and service providers that desperately need help. the reduced deposits into the fund have already had a devastating impact. victim assistance grants have been reduced by more than $600 million in 2021 and more cuts are looming if we don't do something. the executive director of lifespan in chicago told me that voca funds 44% of the agency's services, about $1.6 million annually, a substantial loss in vovaca fund -- voca funds would mean they would have to cut back staff 0 who provide legal services an estimated 880 clients. advocates across the state of illinois and across the country have reached out and shared what these cuts would mean for their agencies and the victims they serve. the center for prevention of abuse in peoria illinois noted, we never want to be in a

position where we have to turn away people who need our services and dedicated care. our teams are already stretched thin, as they live the promise of our mission day in and day out. fewer voca dollars means fewer staff and a lessened ability to help those who need safety, food, shelter and freedom and peace. there's no time to waste. every day that goes by, we miss an opportunity to help replenish this fund. in 2021, the fund has already missed out on approximately $400 million in deposits. we're not even halfway through the year. imagine how much more money the fund may lose if we don't do something. that's why it's imperative that the senate immediately pass this bill. the house already did it in march with broad bipartisan support. whoer in -- here in the senate we have a coalition of 56 senators cosponsoring legislation. we can send this bill to the president's desk today. we should have sent it to him weeks ago.

unfortunately, there's an objection that has prevented us. in a recent letter to leader schumer, victims' rights from law enforcement organizations says the objectors are holding victims' services hostage in an ideological quest to overhaul the appropriations process by eliminating budgetary offsets. what a target to choose, if you want to change the procedure of the committee -- crime victims? i agree with the national coalition against domestic violence and so many other groups. more nan 1,00 -- more than 1,700 are begging us to do something. don't we owe to them after the promise of help to come through? at this point he'd like to turn to my colleague, senator murkowski. i had ask unanimous consent that senator murkowski, toomey, and i be able to complete our remarks prior to the votes. the presiding officer: without objection. the senator from alaska.

ms. murkowski: i want to acknowledge and thank my colleague and friend from illinois for his leadership on this issue. he's outlined well the situation in front of us with regards to the status of the crime victims fund. again, this is a non-taxpayer source of funding, which is designed to help the millions of victims of crimes, those who have been violated, those who are extraordinarily vulnerable, and we are -- we are at a place where, as he's indicated, we've got a proposal here that could help address how this fund is replenished to, again, ensure that those who have been made victims can receive some level of compensation. and we're kind of stuck here this morning, which is

extraordinarily unfortunate. folks back home in alaska are just starting their day, and they're looking -- they're looking with anticipation and hope and, quite honestly, prayers that today might be the day that they get good news on this because right now i've got about 30 organizations in alaska, including our domestic violence shelters, our child advocacy centers, our victim advocacy organizations, they've all been notified that they're going to expect a 35% cut to their funding effective the first of july. so just in a couple weeks here. and because of this broken voca deposit issue, this cut is set to affect their funds for not only this year but for next year going forward. so think about it. you're the shelter in kodiak,

where i was just six, eight weeks or so ago. when you're told you have a 35% cut to your budget coming, you have a small community. where are you going to find those resources? because, believe you me, the individuals who still require those services, they're not staying at home and saying, well, i guess we don't have the services here on this big island of kodiak, so i'm just going to stay put. the need is still there. in fact, the need is more enhanced or exacerbated than ever before. we've seen this as a follow-on from covid. we've seen those aftereffects, that aftershock when you have been in an isolated situation where you have been forced to kind of shelter in place, if you will, but your home is not a safe shelter.

it is not a shelter in that sense of the word. but you don't have services, and so where do you go? you stay with your abuser, you stay in a situation that is unsound, unsafe because you don't have anyplace to turn. so the need out there is considerable. we had a situation last summer, a devastating loss. five village residents in different villages who'd died in domestic violence murders over a course of ten days. these are small villages where everybody knows everybody, and the loss of one person -- an elder, a child, or a victim -- is extraordinary. and so we looked at that and we said, well, that's exacerbated and what has happened. but, no, this has been a situation long prior to covid in terms of, unfortunately, the

levels that we see of domestic violence. sexual assault, the victimization that we see. see being there to provide funding for services to help prevent these deaths, the trauma that children experience when they are in the room, the murders that affect families for generations. there is a story in the news just today, a domestic situation. the husband and the wife -- the husband took the wife's life, and then he took his own. and it was a 6-year-old with an ipad who notified the authorities. so i think -- i think about -- i think about the reality of what a 35% cut means, what it means when you say, your service providers are faced with a $6 million less in funding for

victim services. the shelters are calling out to us for help. one domestic violence shelter in the state is facing the reality of laying off six full-time jobs within her organization. this is unacceptable. i understand that there are concerns. senator too many economy is going to speak -- senator toomey is going to speak to them. but this legislation doesn't change how federal tax money is spent. it provides a technical fix by directing additional non-taxpayer dollars from criminal monetary penalties into this fund. so we're setting at a point where the longer that congress delays this fix, the larger cuts that victim services in my state and all around the country will face. this has been had a hard time for us. i think we recognize it. but for those who are trying to serve victims, those who are trying to serve the most vulnerable at an exceptionally

vulnerable time in their lives, it makes it ten times harder. our providers are exhausted. that's right burned out. they are burned out and now they're faced with massive cuts. we cannot fail them. so i would urge us, can we look past the politics on this? this is what victims' advocates are saying. please don't use us as the political lever here. and so i join not only with senator durbin but with the many in this body who would urge that we pass this technical fix to voca. mr. durbin: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: i want to thank senator murkowski for her heart-felt remarks. there are innocent people who are victims of domestic violence whose fate depend on what we do

here and now. this is an important budgetary debate that the senator from pennsylvania is debating. i ask please don't use these people in this desperate situation as a pressure point. let's try to reconcile this on a rational basis without jeopardizing them. as if in legislative session, i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of h.r. 1652, which was received from the house and is at the desk, that the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. toomey: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. mr. toomey: reserving the right to object. let me say i think i agree with 98%, 99% of what i just heard from my colleagues. i -- in the 11 years that i've been in the senate, i've lost track of how many rape crisis i

visited. they have gotten additional resources from congress and do some of the most important work i know of, painful work, helping a child through an appalling experience when there is law enforcement that can -- that can further traumatize the child. the work these folks do is amazing and the senator from alaska is exactly right, there is a real need here. the good news is there's a real and very clear path forward here. what the legislation that the senator from illinois is proposing does is it creates a new source of money for the crime victims fund. it's a new category. it's substantial. it's going to be new resources for the advocates for crime victims to better be able to continue to do their very, very important work. and i fully support that. so where do we disagree?

here's where we disagree, mr. president. the legislation does require lot of money, new money, to go into the crime victims fund and the senator from illinois is exactly correct. it's not taxpayer money, it's money from the settlement for criminal and civil penalties. i fully support that. what their legislation doesn't do, however, it doesn't require a dime of that money to actually get to the advocates of crime. it's very nice to put a lot of money into an account that has a name on it that is the crime victims fund. that's very nice and i support that. but i'd like to take one more step and make sure the money actually gets to the victims of crime and their advocates. now, there's a little bit of budgetary information that explains why if we don't adopt my approach here, this money will not get to the victims of

crimes and their advocates. you see, in the appropriations process, the spending process around here, it always operates under some limit. it could be a statutory limit or a limit passed by a budget resolution. but there's a limit. there's no limit to what people spend around here, but there's a limit to how much they actually can. but we've got a very perverse budgetary rule and that rule says that in any given year, if there's money in this cripples victims -- crime victims fund, if there's money in it and congress doesn't give it to the crime victims as it is supposed to, you can pretend that that is a savings and it allows you to spend more than you would otherwise be able to spend on any other number of things, on anything, tanks, buildings, roads, whatever. that's the dynamic. that's what happens here. so it actually creates an

incentive, however perverse this is, it creates an incentive for congress not to allocate this money to the victims of crime and to advocates. because by not doing so, they get to claim a savings, which isn't rule, but that's the way the budget rules work, and spend that money elsewhere. you would say, who would do a thing like that? oh, well it used to happen all the time. 2014 there was $9 billion available in the crime victims fund, but in order to spend more money elsewhere, less than $1 billion was allocated to victims of crimes and their advocates, so they got $8 billion, the difference, to spend money on whatever they wanted to. this went on routinely until i and my colleagues said, wait a minute. this isn't right. this money is supposed to go to crime victims. it is the first objectionable

problem and it is also dishonest. there is no savings of taxpayer money. this is just not giving crime victims the moneys they are giving to criminals. they did less of this, in other words, more of the money that was supposed to go to crime victims for a while did go there. i've very concerned. i've been concerned since 2015 that at any point in time we'll go back to this. i introduced legislation, the fair crime act, it requires that the money that goes into the fund goes to the victims of crime and their advocates. there are various mechanisms for doing it. the bill was reported out out oe senate budget commission in 2015, it was unanimously adopted by the bipartisan congressional budget act of 2019, i have been working as closely as i can with appropriators to address this so

that we will actually send to crime victims the money that is supposed to go to them. since 2000, it is over $82 billion of money has not been allocated to crime victims as it should have precisely because of this mechanism. some might say, has it gotten better yes. how do i know we'll go back to this? all i have to do is read the president's budget. president biden's budget, if you look at table s-8, explicitly calls for withholding money from victims of crimes and advocates for those victims from the crime victims fund and also the children's health insurance program so as to spend more money in other areas. it's here. changes in the offset says that the limitation enacted will come from the crime victims fund

program and cancellation in the children's health insurance program. so this is not like wild speculation. this is president biden's budget saying, oh, here's what i want to spend and part of how we'll get there is by withholding money that should be going to victims of crime. so i'm fully in support of this new allocation of money into the account, but money in the account doesn't solve the problem. we need one more step; that's all. the step that says we're going to send it to victims of crime instead of whatever spending people in this town decide they prefer. so that's what this is about. that's what the difference is. we have developed a process, we worked with people on both sides of the aisle, we passed legislation in committee to do it. we want to simply require the money that is meant for victims of crimes and their advocates to get to them and we're being told

it won't all get to them under the status quo. so there's a simple solution here. there's a simple path forward. i think there's a genuine, sincere agreement among everybody who's spoken about the need for this service. all i'm asking is that we actually have a mechanism to get them the money rather than do what we all know is coming, pretend they are going to get all this money when in fact it will be diverted to other purposes. so therefore i ask that the senator modify his request to include my amendment, which is at the desk, that it be considered and agreed to, the bill, as amended, be considered read read a third time and passed, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. mr. durbin: mr. president. the presiding officer: is there objection to modification? the majority whip.

mr. durbin: i'm disappointed that the senator from pens spence is adamant in his decision even though we are dealing with victims of crime and domestic violence and child abuse. like illinois, pennsylvania has experienced nearly a 70% cut of voca funding since 2008 and more cuts are -- are on the horizon. if you listen carefully to what the senator from pennsylvania said, he is not suggesting that the money is being spent for other purposes, but that it could be. the appropriations subcommittee makes sure that if all the money is not spent in one year, enough is sustained for future years. that's thoughtful. that's what we like to here, we're in a desperate moment now where we need the money at this moment. i understand my colleague's concern about score keeping in the budget. it's an important issue even

though it is esoteric, but to do it with the crime victims fund is entirely displaced. it is a budgeting gimmick he's suggesting. this isn't the right place or time to do this when thousands of people across the united states are in desperate need of shelter to get out of an abusive home, of help for their children who have witnessed murders, of dealing with court proceedings that may be unintelligible to the average bern to try to protect their families and themselves. to think we are engaged in this high-level budget debate at this moment at their expense is just not right. i urge my colleague to withdraw his amendment and allow the legislation to proceed. we can debate the budget in the appropriations process but not at the expense of crime victims across america. if he will not withdraw his amendment, i must object. the presiding officer: the

objection is heard of the modification. is there objection to the original request? mr. toomey: reserving the right to object. i would say briefly, clearly and certainly this is not a score-keeping debate, this is not about budgets, this is whether victims of crime and their advocates will actually get the money that we say they are going to get. it's not about what could be, it's about what has been. this money has routinely been raided for other purposes until we brought a stop to it recently and it's about what will be, because the biden administration is telling us they intend to do this. so in order to ensure that crime victims and their advocates actually get the money that we say they are going to get, i object. the presiding officer: the objection is heard. under the previous order, the question is on the nomination.

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

vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any members wishing to vote or change their vote? the yeas are 88, the nays are 9. the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order, the leadership time -- under the

previous order, the motion to reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table, and the president will be immediately notified of the senate's action. the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion. we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of executive calendar number 157, john tien of georgia to be deputy secretary of homeland security, signed by 17 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is, is it the sense of the senate that debate on the nomination of john k. tien of georgia to be deputy secretary of homeland security shall be brought to a close. the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. is

vote:

vote:

vote: the presiding officer: on this vote the yeas are 63, the nays are 33, and the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: department of homeland security, john k. tien of georgia to be deputy secretary. mrs. gillibrand: i ask unanimous consent --. the presiding officer: the senator from new york. mrs. gillibrand: i ask unanimous consent that i be allowed to complete my remarks prior to the recess. the presiding officer: without

objection. mrs. gillibrand: mr. president, i rise again to call for this entire body to vote and consider the military justice improvement and increasing prevention act. this commonsense reform would ensure that people in the u.s. military who have been subjected to sexual assault and other serious crimes get the justice that they deserve. i began calling for the full floor vote on this bill on may 24. that was 24 days ago. since then an estimated 1,344 service members will have been raped or sexually assaulted. two and three of those survivors will not even report it because they know that they are more likely to face retaliation than receive justice. this is a scourge that we have been looking at for over eight years. we've passed nearly 250 measures to address sexual assault in the military, to address retaliation, to address prevention, and none of them

have dented the numbers. in fact, our estimated cases is about 20,000 cases, and among those only about 200 have gone to courts-martial and ended in conviction. it's not enough. we aren't moving the numbers in the right direction. they shall in fact going in the wrong direction. we also have a reform that we have looked at for eight years. it creates a bright line in all serious crimes to handle two issues. one, the bias we see in sexual assault in the military that if you are a service member who reports sexual assault, it is unlikely that you will get justice and it is likely that you will be retaliated against. and after we made retaliation a crime three times in a row, we've only seen one court-martial for retaliation. that's outrageous. and so now is the time that we bring this measure to the floor. it does not cost a lot of money. it is something that uses the existing infrastructure, the existing lawyers, the existing

infrastructure around the lawyers. two, it does not take a long time to implement because in fact after the military police complete their investigation and have their recommendation, basically they send that recommendation to the prosecutor as opposed to the commander. and so after the review by the prosecutor, it goes right back to the commander if that prosecutor declines to prosecute. so ultimately it changes the system in a very small but powerful way. and the reason why this change is recommended by all military experts is three reasons. one, the bright line creates a justice system for all plaintiffs and all defendants. and since we have bias with regard to women in the military and we have bias with regard to black and brown service members, this change will remove bias and professionalize the system for everyone. second, our allies have done this. our allies have done it. u.k., israel, germany,

australia, netherlands, they've done it over the last 40 years for defendants' rights to make sure we have a system that is fair to everyone. when they put this change in place, they reported to our panel that, number one, they saw no diminution in command control and number two, they saw no undermining of discipline. for those reasons is why we need to pursue this legislation, a bright line. and then last, the question that the chairman always raises that this must go through the committee, the committee has been looking at this for eight years. we've had multiple hearings on this topic. we've had the data. we talked about it with every service secretary for the last decade i've been on the committee. we've talked about it with each of the services for the last decade that i've been on the committee. and we have tried to get a vote on this measure unsuccessfully for the past five years. we have been denied a vote every time the last five years. so to say now only the committee can have jurisdiction is is not

true. they had their chance and they've passed close to 250 measures. those measures have not moved the needle. those measures are ones that d.o.d. was comfortable with. they have never wanted this measure. now we have agreement by the chairman, by this panel, by many of the service secretaries that, okay, fine, we're with you. we will take sexual assault out of the chain of command. while that is good, it is not enough because it will create two systems of justice, and you should not privilege just one set of plaintiffs to have a positive, professional, unbiased system. and given all the data we have about race and bias against black service members and brown service members being punished up to 2.5 times more than white service members, you need to fix the system for everybody. so back to the argument of our allies, that's why they did their bright line at serious

crimes, the equivalent of felonies so that they could have a justice system that is worthy of the sacrifices that the men and women in our armed services make. so i ask once again that we could have a vote on this floor. we now have 66 cosponsors of this legislation, widely bipartisan. how many bills in this chamber are supported by liz warren and ted cruz at the same time? how many pieces of legislation have been voted on by both chuck schumer and mitch mcconnell? very few. but the reason we have such bipartisan support is we have two female command veterans in this body. one is a republican -- joni ernst. one is a democrat, tammy duckworth, and they are both on this legislation, and they have served as commanders and they understand the importance of commanders' role. but they also have seen that nothing has gotten better. they saw the report from fort hood that said the command

climate was so toxic that it was permissible for sexual assault and sexual harassment. and so they have said enough is enough. and so when you have so many former commanders and sexual assault survivors from this chamber supporting this legislation, it is time that it does not need to go through the committee. more than half our committee supports this. but when we take issues like this to the committee, they have been taken out in conference. despite winning the vote in the senate, despite winning the vote in the house, our bill in 2019 to make sure that a service member could come forward and not be prosecuted for minor related offenses like drinking or being off base, that bill passed in the senate, passed in the house, taken out in conference because the d.o.d. didn't like it. so i promise you, if we pass this bill in our committee, in the house and senate, i promise you it would be narrowed just down to sexual assault because that is what the d.o.d. will agree to.

i am tired of doing only what the d.o.d. will agree to. it's not our job to defer to the d.o.d. it is our job as u.s. senators to provide oversight and accountability over the administration and over the entire department of defense. when we abdicate that responsibility, what we have is what we had for the last ten years -- failure. failure in the committee because we only put forward items that d.o.d. was comfortable with. i just don't know how much longer we want survivors to have to wait. we have considered this legislation with mr. -- mr. president, we have considered this legislation together. we have every year sat down, discussed it, pros, cons, are other reforms working. i've done that with every 100 senators in this chamber every year for the last ten years. it's been intensely considered. and i spent an extra amount of time with committee members because they are interested. so this is not new.

it doesn't need to go through the committee. we have been denied a vote and filibustered a vote for eight years and denied a vote the last five years. so i don't know why the committee gets sole jurisdiction. i don't understand. and again, how many measures does this chamber have that have 66 cosponsors? it is also a generational shift. and when you have something of such import, it comes to the floor. we appealed don't ask, don't tell on the floor. we had two floor votes and the majority leader at the time gave us those votes and it passed on the floor. it did not go through the committee. it is time to bring a justice system that is worthy of the sacrifice that the men and women make every day. and you need to have that bright line so it's a justice system that works for women and service members of color, because right now we have data and evidence that there is bias against those individuals.

as if in legislative, i ask unanimous consent that at a time to be determined by the majority leader, in consultation with the republican leader, the senate armed services committee be discharged from further consideration of s. 1520 and the senate proceed to its consideration, that there be two hours for debate equally divided in the usual form and that upon the use or yielding back of the time, the senate vote on the bill with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: is there objection? a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. reed: once again i object to the request from the senator from new york for reasons i previously stated. i support removing prosecution of sexual assault and sexual crimes from the chain of command but p we must make sure we do it thoughtfully, in a manner that does not stress the military system or distort it in a way

that would affect the efficiency and operation of the military. the best way to do that, in my view, is to consider these matters in the context of the annual defense bill which we will be marking up in a month. mr. president, i would also point out that this week jeh johnson, who served under president obama as the department of defense generally counsel and then secretary of homeland security wrote an article addressing the scope of the bill urging caution that we focus on legislative session solutions tailored to address the problems we are trying to solve. secretary johnson oversaw all legal services performed within the department of defense. he advise the secretary and all government officials and oversaw the annual review of the manual for courts-martial. he is an informed and expert voice on these matters. during his tenure as d.o.d.

general counsel, he was no stranger to momentous change. leading the implementation of the repeal don't ask, don't tell. as he states in his article, he has long supported moving, charging decisions with sex offenses out the chain of command. mr. president, i would ask unanimous consent to place this article in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reed: i think given the wise comments of not only mr. johnson, but also the pending recommendations by the department of defense with respect to the advice concerning this issue that, again, the best place to have a thorough, lively debate and amendments, by the way, which are precluded in this unanimous consent, would be in the armed services committee in the context of the national defense bill. that is where we have confronted

and decided these issues historically. with that, i would reiterate my objection to the senator from new york's request. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mrs. gillibrand: mr. president, two issues. first, the op-ed by jeh johnson was not in reference to my legislation. in fact, he conflated my legislation with recommendations from the i.r.c. he mentioned lawyers in virginia having to make the decisions. that is not what my p bill says. it has never said that, and that is not how it is organized. my bill is organized by services to adjudicate these cases as they are doing today. right now prosecutors prosecute these cases, and the decision-making of whether to proceed to trial would be given to them in the first instance. if they declined to prosecute, it goes right back to the commander. so, for example, if there wasn't enough evidence to prosecute the case, it would go back to the commander who could then use special court-martial

or he could use nonjudicial punishment for related or lesser offenses. that is typically what the commanders do in these cases. so very little changes. but what does change is the perception of the victim who is asking for unbiased review by someone who is highly trained to do that review. it also gives assurance to defendants' rights that the person making the decision is unbiased and is highly and professionally trained. those changes change everything. it changes the perception that our military justice is blind, fair, and professional. and that is not the impression of service members today. both women and men and survivors of sexual assault do not believe that justice is possible for them, and black and brown service members do not believe the justice system is fair to them either. this solution makes sense, and i do not think that we should defer again our responsibility

to do that. that is not our job and that is not how we should be responding. mr. president, i have nine requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. the presiding officer: duly noted. mrs. gillibrand: i suggest -- the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate stands in recess until 1:45 p.m.