australians, beach bands, the careers of the world, there is tremendous capacity in our allies and partners. i think the pacific islands are absolutely important and you will see us continue to engage various countries in the region and to make sure that where we can we are increasing our capacity and accessibility and strengthening the relationships. but we've far and away exceed any capability that china would have in terms of partner or ally capability and we're going to continue to strengthen what we have. >> what are your thoughts on expanding those relationships that we currently have or deviously had for example. >> the senate about the gavel in for the day. lawmakers are starting their session later than usual to

give members time to travel to washington national cathedral to attend john warner's funeral senator warner died lastmonth at the age of 94 . today lawmakers will be working on judicial nominations at 3:45 easter. they're expected to vote on a limited on the nomination of donald horton to the us district court of maryland. live coverage of the senate is here. >> .. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. gracious god, today accept the love and loyalty of our hearts. we are grateful for your loving

kindness and tender mercies. lord, we desire to please you by living for your glory. continue to bless our lawmakers. may they seek guidance from your holy word, permitting sacred precepts to provide lamps for their feet and light for their path. may this light also illuminate the road ahead for others who walk in darkness so that your will for our nation and world may be done. we pray in your merciful 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 23, 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, leadership time is reserved.

the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. schumer: yesterday, madam president, the senate was given an opportunity to begin debate on a subject that by all rights should be beyond debate. protecting the right to vote. as we all know, republican legislatures across the country are passing some of the most draconian restrictions on the right to vote in decades, a throwback to jim crow. every single democrat yesterday voted to begin debate on legislation to fight back against this assault, and that's what it is, an assault on our democracy. every single one. it was the first time in this congress that we have united all 50 democrats on moving forward

with strong and comprehensive voting rights legislation. senate republicans to the very last member voted against allowing the senate to even have a debate on voting rights. not a single republican voted to move forward with a simple debate. in fact, the republican leader went so far as to say that, quote, regardless of what may be happening in some states, voter suppression laws, phony audits, or the partisan takeover of election boards, he believes the federal government should not intervene. who said that? southern senators. from the civil war all the way through said states' rights used as a tool to prevent particularly people of color from voting and to invoke that in 2020, the majority leader. way off, way off base.

disgraceful that he would even invoke that. yesterday's vote was another piece of evidence that voter suppression is now part of the official platform of the republican party. i want to be clear about one thing. as i said last night, the fight to protect voting rights is far, very far from over. yesterday's vote was the starting gun, not the finish line. as the senate majority leader, i reserve the right to bring up this issue for debate again. yesterday was the first time we tried to consider major voting rights legislation, but it won't be the last. democrats will explore every option available to us for reconsidering legislation on this topic. we'll leave no stone unturned. voting rights are too important. the fight against modern-day voter suppression is just beginning. and one other point. some of them like to make this point, oh, this is just a partisan fight. bull. this is a fight for the soul of

america, and it shouldn't be partisan, and it never was in the past. when legislatures try to prevent poor people, people of color, urban people, young people from voting, that's not a political fight. that's what america is all about. so don't try to hide under that guise. it is republican legislatures doing this, but in the past, when legislatures, usually in the south, tried to do these things, and in other places, both parties united to stop it. no more. sadly. shame, shame, shame, shame on my republican colleagues. this is a very bad day for them that history will recognize. now, on another matter. this week, the senate will continue restoring balance to the federal courts by considering more of president biden's judicial appointments. over the next two days, we'll

consider deborah boardman to serve as district judge in maryland, and cim -- todd sunhwae kim to -- and can last jackson acume to serve on the court of appeals. together, they have had over 20 years of experience as federal defenders. i believe that bringing professional diversity as well as personal diversity to the bench should be a top priority. there are plenty of former prosecutors and corporate lawyers wearing black robes. it's time that voting rights attorneys, civil rights attorneys, former federal defenders like these two nominees bring their perspective to the bench. a final vote on ms. boardman's nomination will occur this afternoon. then we will proceed to miss

jackson-akiwumi at the end of the week. the senate will not recess until we finish considering these judges. the democratic majority in the senate will continue to swiftly fill judicial vacancies. on a related note, today chairman peters will ask the senate to approve two critical cybersecurity nominees, jen easterly to be the head of the infrastructure security agency, and robin carnahan to be the administrator of the g.s.a. both of these agencies play a critical role in our nation's cybersecurity. the threat of ransomware attacks and other cybercrime is on the rise from state actors as well as cyberbandits who are given sanctuary by our adversaries. we need people at the helm of these important agencies to focus on the helm of cybersecurity. this should be a completely nonpartisan issue, and my republican friends should not object. infrastructure. in addition to our important

work on judicial appointments, the senate is moving forward on multiple legislative proposals to make historic investments in our nation's infrastructure. we have a chance in this congress to get something big and bold done on infrastructure, something we haven't managed in a very long time. if we want america to prosper in the 21st century, we can't do it with infrastructure that's stuck in the last century. this is our chance to update, modernize, repair, and rebuild for another century of american economic growth, creating thousands upon thousands of good-paying jobs in the process. so later today, speaker pelosi and i will meet with representatives from the white house to discuss the next steps on this very topic. here in the senate, democratic members of the budget committee continue to build on the fruitful conversations we had last week. in fact, earlier today, i spoke with all of our committee chairs

about a forthcoming budget resolution. as i have said, discussions about infrastructure are progressing along two tracks. the first is bipartisan, and the second incorporates elements of the president's american jobs and families plan. the second track is something we must support, even if it doesn't get any republican support. for several weeks, trains have been chugging down both tracks quite well. when the senate returns after the july 4 work period, it will be time to take the next step forward. this summer, the senate will begin considering the fiscal 2022 budget resolution and a bipartisan infrastructure bill on the floor. and it's my hope to have both a bipartisan infrastructure bill and a budget resolution for the senate to consider this summer. i believe the progress we've made in recent weeks will ultimately produce a result that will set our economy on a path to prosperity for generations to

come. one final matter. student loans. today i join senator warren and a number of my house and senate colleagues to urge the biden administration to extend the pause on payments in interest for the vast majority of federal student loans. for millions of student borrowers, one of the most difficult challenges is balancing their debt with their dreams, of starting a career, starting a family, buying a home. when the pandemic hit, these challenges were magnified 100-fold. job opportunities disappeared. our economy came to a halt. the pause on interest on student loan repayments came to a halt. that allowed tens of millions of young people to escape financial ruin. right now the current pause on repayment of student debt is set to expire on september 30. i believe that's too soon.

our economy is still recovering. americans are still pulling themselves up and dusting themselves off after one of the greatest economic crises in our history. the october 1 conspiracytation date could risk putting millions of student loan borrowers back into financial hardship. so very simply, i'm urging the biden administration to extend the pause on student loan repayment by another six months until march 2022. even as the economy recovers, young people, borrowers with a load of debt will struggle more than most to get back on their feet. why not give them a little more breathing room? i urge the biden administration to extend the pause, and i will continue working with senator warren on ways to provide even more comprehensive, life-changing student loan forgiveness, a policy i believe will expand opportunity for millions, millions of young americans. i yield the floor. and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. mcconnell: madam president. the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: for the fist time earlier this month, president biden traveled to europe. the primary purpose of his trip was to engaging with some of america's closest friends and allies, but the agenda also included a one-on-one meeting with a staunch adversary, vladimir putin. the president took office armed with a great deal of tough talk on russia. he called his counterpart a

killer and a k.g.b. thug and warned he would pay the price for interference in u.s. elections. the world wondered whether this rhetoric would be underpinned by tough action. i certainly hoped it would. back in january, i made it clear that if the biden administration was serious about imposing really costs on moscow, it would find willing partners on capitol hill. but so far there have been few encouraging signs for those of us who take russia threats very seriously. remember, after less than a week in office, president biden agreed to russian requests for a full five-year extension to the new start treaty, no strings attached. he gave it up for free, undermining our leverage to extract concessions in future

negotiations. then his administration rolled out a budget proposal that would cut investment in defense in real terms, short -- shortchanging the modernization we need to keep pace with both russia and china. and two weeks ago the president left for europe having already given the kremlin two other gifts, a high-profile summit that experts predicted putin would use to help legitimatize his regime hat home and abroad and a waive on sanctions on the russian-owned company behind a lucrative gas pipeline project. so, madam president, i repeat, with president biden the same warning i of offered to the previous administration, the kremlin is not our friend and it's high time our actions started reflecting that. back home, of course, the biden administration has proven it knows perfectly well how to crack down on energy pipeline

projects when it wants to. in fact, on the day he left for europe, the firm behind the keystone xl pipeline project announced that the president's revocation of its construction permit would be fatal. that's the end of it. what a striking image the president of the united states hands overseas -- heads overseas and meets with a major adversary whom he just handed a major geopolitical win and here at home the last nail goes in the coffin against reliable north american energy that he said on day one was a priority. it's a tale of two pipelines, the decisive rejection of thousands of american jobs here at home and the empowerment of america's adversaries abroad and it's only the latest sign that the biden administration's strategic priorities are simply

out of order. recall this administration rushed to rejoin a climate agreement that failed to hold major significant -- signatories even as the u.s. recorded multiple years of reduction on our own. this administration made it harder to tap our abundant energy even as we are greater reliability on other countries. they squandered years of economic pressure on iran in exchange for no meaningful concessions on its nuclear ambitions or regional aggression. so when president biden elected to pass on another opportunity to check with the influence of a major adversary, we heard this story before. here in congress opposition to the completion of nord nord str2

pipeline has been vigorous and bipartisan. last year's defense authorization, which earned 84 votes here in the senate, expanded the scope of sanctions against critical entities involved in its construction. we're talking about a project that would give putin a new artery of influence in western europe and rob ukraine over critical leverage over the way that russian energy flows throughout the region. the biden administration's own opposition to the project was just rhetorical. when the chips were down, the president used a waiver to avoid having to put sanctions on the biggest company behind the project and its c.e.o., a putin crony. according to reports, his decision even overruled the objections of senior diplomats and the concerns of his very own secretary of state. oddly enough the administration's decision to snuff out union jobs in the

energy sector here at home didn't seem to prompt as vigorous an internal debate. president biden's administrative action of the keyline pipeline shows how deep his administration is enthralled to the environmental fringe. under the guise of infrastructure, they pitched trillions of dollars in federal spending, allowing so close -- aligned so closely with most common interests in office, that the authors boosted that they had their manifesto's d.n.a. all over it. unprecedented spending on electric vehicles, huge amount of funds, and plans to pick winners and losers in the market for affordable reliable american energy. so, madam president, american

workers know what a thriving energy sector looks like. it's exactly what republicans spent four years working to encourage here at home. as a matter of fact, -- as a matter of fact, if you hit pause on washington democrats' radical climate rhetoric, you will notice that smart energy policy isn't limited by political stripe. for years the liberal government up in canada has recognized pipelines as a safe and efficient way to connect people with affordable, reliable energy and grow what is already the largest sector of u.s.-canada trade. so it was hardly surprising to hear one canadian official greet president biden's decision to sink the keystone xl pipeline as, quote, an insult, an insult or to read that they are

pursuing legal action to recoup its investment. so capitulation to our rivals, painful blows to our neighbors, legitimatizing corrupt foreign leaders and jamming hardworking americans, whatever his motives, the consequences of president biden's actions are already clear. it's not too late to impose real costs on rubio's pipeline -- russia's pipeline windfall and provide support for ukraine and other vulnerable estates on the front lines of putin's aggression, it is not too late, that we need in order to compete with china and russia. it's not too late to recommit to bipartisanship on infrastructure and on energy and show radical climate activists the door. i hope the biden administration

changes courses sometime soon. mr. durbin: madam president. the presiding officer: the majority whip. mr. durbin: madam president, what's the weather like in las vegas? what's it like in reno? i'm not sure, but i'll bet it's hot and the reason i'm sure that it's likely to be hot is the weather forecasts. i looked at that map and it was solid red in the western half of the united states with extreme high temperatures at a level never recorded. they said in the city of seattle it's been a handful of times they've had temperatures over 100 degrees in that city. it's going to happen again this weekend. at least that's the prediction, that's the weather forecasts and it's not just confined to the blue coastal states, as some

call them, we have a drought in the midwest, i hope it ends soon. but when it comes to corn country, iowa, illinois, indiana, we're worried. i hope it doesn't happen, but it could. in the southeastern part of the united states, extreme storms, rains they haven't seen before. i just say that after listening to the republican leader describe the situation with the environment wondering if he reads the papers or talks to people back home. because extreme weather is happening all over the united states and it isn't just in republican areas or democratic areas, it's virtually everywhere. and so when president biden comes in and says shouldn't we do something about this for the good of our children and our grandchildren? shouldn't we be willing to sacrifice a little bit? shouldn't we be willing to change some if it means that they are going to have a planet that's worth living on?

about ten years ago, i started asking my farmers, who come and visit me from illinois, a couple of questions. these are good people. they never vote for me, i know that, but i still like meeting with them. they are good people. they bring their wives, dress up in their suits, they take it seriously, they are coming to washington, this is before covid-19. and there would be 20 or 30 of them from the farm bureau or the corn growers or soybean growers and i would say to them, ten years ago, how many of you believe what we're doing on earth that we're changing the environment we're living on and the activity we're having something to do with it. and i would ask for a response of hands and not one hand would go up. and i would say, things are changing, what do you think is behind all of it? one fellow and he did this seriously and i believe he did

it from the heart, senator, some years godsends me a drought, sometimes it's a flood, i have to deal with whatever godsends me. i respect him for that. it's his deep-hearted belief. now when i ask these farmers the same question, i get a different response. the illinois corn growers, looking around thinks something's happening here in this wonderful bountiful state that i live in, the crops that are grown traditionally are not producing what they did traditionally unless some hybrid seed and fertilizers are being used. there are new weather conditions and it is not better, it is getting dryer and hotter. so when joe biden starts talking about the next generation of energy in america, i think about my granddaughter, little jo, i think about jo and what kind of world she's going to live in and what i'm going do about it. one thing that president biden

said is we're moving toward electric vehicles. you would think this is a federal mandate bringing this on. if you read the papers, you know it isn't. general motors has accelerated the time period to go to electric vehicles. ford is as well. they see the writing on the wall. what we currently use for transportation will not be what we use in 10 or is a is a -- 15 years. we will change, there are fewer emissions, greenhouse gas emissions. the country of norway just announced last week that over 50% of their vehicles are electric vehicles. if you had been there in where in the recent past, you see teslas in every direction, electric vehicles in every direction. i spoke to the ambassador from norway and said, how did that happen? how did you move to a point where more than half the vehicles are electric vehicles? she said, tax breaks.

we gaifl them tax breaks -- we gave them tax breaks. and all of a sudden everyone had a new lifestyle with electric vehicles and they think that protects them in the future at least holds the possibility of reducing the pollution that they are dealing with i think they're right. so does joe biden. but when we get into an infrastructure debate with republicans, the first thing they say is take electric vehicles off the table. we don't want to talk about it. no subsidies, no encouragement for those. traditionally, we admit encouraging oil companies with all sorts of tax breaks throughout their history to continue to explore and grow in size and make a lot of money. but the notion of encouraging electric vehicles is somehow heretical to our friends on the republican side. i think it's very shortsighted. i think we should look at the obvious. i tell this story, and it's worth repeating. six years ago we had an auto

plant in normal, illinois. yes, that's the name of it -- normal, illinois. six years ago mitsubishi closed their auto plant. there were 1,it 200 people working there. it was off highway 55. every time you looked out there you thought that's going to be there forever. guess what? a year after they closed, the mayor of normal, illinois, his name is chris coos, wonderful mayor, he said senator, i think i've got a buyer for the mitsubishi plant. he said there is a man who wants to build electric vehicles. he liked that plant. he said it is way too big and his purposes but he's thinking of building electric vehicles in the old mitsubishi plant. the company is called rivian, r.

they bought that plant and started building electric vehicles. how many workers will they have? up to 4,000, maybe even 5,000. will they be able to use the whole plant? is it a viable company? is it going to last? obviously amazon thinks so because they invested $1 billion in rivian. companies are coming from all around thinking this is the future. so i say to the senator from kentucky, yes, there will be transitions in jobs, but there are job opportunities at rivian and places just like that. allian is another company, came from canada. they build electric buses. one of the things we're envisions is moving toward electric school buses across america. that's a big move. this is a company that builds them. we need more just like it, and there are going to be good-paying boxes associated with it. e.v. box, a company out of the netherlands, located in my state again. they build the charging stations. close your eyes to the opportunities here is very

shortsighted. things are changing and changing for the better. and because there is change, it doesn't mean it's bad for everybody. there are transitions that we ought to help -- educating people, preparing them for the new jobs. but if you look around at this world and what's happening with the weather patterns and the environment, how shortsighted it would be for us to say to our kids and grandkids, well, we had a chance back in 2021 to do something about it, but we decided it just might make people uneasy to think about that much change. well, i feel uneasy about the changes coming if we do nothing. it's going to be a dramatic change for the worse for our kids. and another topic, this notion that joe biden is being pushed around by vladimir putin, is not who made that statement on the floor or one just like it, has he ignored what happened over the last four years? every time the president of the united states, donald trump, would meet with vladimir putin, they would ask the translators to leave the room, the people from the intelligence agencies to leave the room, and they

would just play patty-cake. we know what was going on there. there was some sort of political bromance between the president and vladimir putin. i don't think that will happen with joe biden. he's a realist. he made it clear he went to that meeting with putin to lay down the law in terms of infiltrating our elections in the future and the activities we've seen in the hacking and cybercrimes. that's the kind of leadership we need in dealing with vladimir putin. madam president, i ask the statement i'm about to make be placed in a separate part in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: i want to speak about two highly qualified nominees the senate judiciary committee came up with through the white house. the first is candace jackson-akiwumi who has been nominated to the illinois seat on the seventh circuit, with the qualifications, temperament and range of experience she is outstanding. she is the daughter of two judges. her father is a federal district court judge and her mother is a

retired state court judge. she went to princeton and then yale law school -- not bad -- and clerked for judge david core for the northern district and roger gregory on the fourth circuit. after clerkships she worked for private practice. and then she made an interesting career decision, and not many people make it. she decided to stop practicing in the private practice of law and become a staff attorney at the federal defender program for the northern district of illinois, representing people who couldn't afford counsel. ms. candace jackson-akiwumi spent ten years as a federal public defender. she defended hundreds of indigent clients at every stage of the legal process. she is a real lawyer. she knows that courtroom inside and out and she knows the legal process as well. ms. jackson-akiwumi's experience will be an asset in the seventh

circuit. if approved she will be the second woman of color to be in that circuit. it's about time. her skills and legal expertise will be invaluable. she received a well-qualified rating by the a.b.a. she has a great temperament. one of our senators on the judiciary committee tried to trap her with a question to see whether she knew enough about the law. when it was over, i think he was satisfied that she did. she spoke to the fact that her mother taught her how important it is for judges to listen and for litigants to be brief. this is a fundamental principle in our system of justice. she is going to devote her life to defending the rule of law in the future as she has in the past. i really think she's going to be extraordinary. the second nominee the senate will vote on this week has my strong support as well -- judge deborah l. boardman nominated to the u.s. district for the district of maryland, serves as

a u.s. magistrate judge in the maryland district court. like candace jackson-akiwumi, she has received a well-qualified rating from the a.b.a. she too will bring diversity to the courts. she spent 11 years as a federal public defender herself. she's bringing a perspective which is often not found in these court cases with sitting judges. i have nothing against former prosecutors. i named a lot of them to the bench, but we ought to have diversity in background, experience and the like. she has experience in private practice. she's a dedicated public servant and i hope my colleagues will support her. madam president, i ask that one other statement be placed in a separate part of the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: i watched television sunday night with my wife. there was a movie called "selma." and oprah winfrey had something to do with it because she was in it. it was, as you might expect, a quality production. it told the story of what happened in 1965 in selma,

alabama. it showed the horrific images of americans being beaten and brutalized in selma for daring to protest peacefully. for what? for the right to vote. fewer people know about turn-around tuesday. that was the day two days after bloody sunday when many of the same people who had been beaten on the edmund pettus bridge on bloody sunday wint back to that bridge to make it plain that they were going to come back again and again until every right of every citizen to vote was secured. that was turn-around tuesday. i had a lucky experience. john lewis, the late john lewis, who marched across that edmund pettus bridge and almost gave his life in the process, took me one foggy sunday morning for a walk across the edmund pettus bridge, and he told me what he remembered from that day. i've seen pictures over and over

again. there he is in his white raincoat with a backpack marching at the front of the line and how he was bashed in the head by either a trooper or someone who came along trying to stop him from marching. he almost died as a result of it. it was something i'll never forget. i feel blessed that i had that experience. and then there was a vote on the floor yesterday. what a disappointment. today i want to say it's welcome back wednesday. welcome back to the fight to be preserve voting rights that has never ended. it didn't start on that bridge in selma and it won't end in this chamber in washington. this battle is going to continue because there are those people who know that if you want to control america politically, you've got to control those who vote. we saw it after the civil war when we ended slavery, and african americans initially had the opportunity to lead -- to vote and lead in southern states, and then, sad to

report, my political party, the democratic party at that time, was part of initiating the jim crow laws which made it difficult if not impossible to vote, and the battle was on, and it wages, is being waged to this day about whether or not african americans will have a right to vote. make no mistake, when republicans come to the floor and go through these long, elaborate explanations of why a coordinated effort by republican legislatures in 20 different states is just good government, i think they know better. it is not good government. and it's not good for the people in those states, particularly if you're a minority. well, this fight to prevent billionaires from buying elections, root out corruption in government didn't end with that filibuster yesterday. republicans succeeded in delaying this debate for a time, but they're not going to derail it. this is too important. our democracy is on the line. five months ago, i'm sure

you'll never forget it as i won't, a murderous mob -- five people died. a murderous mob attacked this capitol and tried to overturn a presidential election. who sent them? it's clear to me who sent them. a vain, self-pitying former president who couldn't accept defeat or the will of the american people. donald trump created a big lie that the election was stolen. he used that lie to incite that mob to attack this capitol. he continues to peddle the big lie from his exile at some country club. now the party that coddled that failed president when he was in power is weaponizing the big lie and using it to justify a horrendous attack on voting rights in america. three weeks ago senate republicans used a filibuster to kill a bill creating an independent bipartisan commission to investigate who was behind this january 6 ?e. they killed it with the

filibuster, just as they tried to kill the voting rights bill yesterday. that filibuster being used for that purpose, is an echo, sadly, of how it's been used in the area of civil rights for as long as it's been in the senate. this big lie is me tass at that sizing -- is growing. and instead of stopping it republicans are using all their leverage to prevent us from confronting it. the filibuster yesterday was day one to fight. it wasn't the end of the story. welcome to day two. we need to keep marching until we cross that bridge and stop the assault on democracy and put an end to the big lie once and for all. i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: will the senator suspend. you under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. morning business is closed.

a senator: thank you, mr. president. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate will proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the following nomination, which the clerk will report. the clerk: nomination, the judiciary. deborah l. boardman of maryland to be united states district judge for the district of maryland. mrs. blackburn: thank you, madam president. i ask that we suspend the quorum and that i be allowed to finish my remarks before the scheduled vote. the presiding officer: the senator has been recognized. mrs. blackburn: thank you, madam president. it seems that for the past month senate republicans have watched as our democratic colleagues send up one partisan test balloon after another. they threatened a battle over a so-called equal pay bill, which turned out to be charming the water for the trial lawyers but really not much else.

then they once again threatened the second amendment, but they couldn't find a friend across party lines to join them in that fight. so that trial balloon was popped. and who could forget their promise to bring the improperly named equality act to the floor for a vote. well, that balloon didn't take flight either. and yesterday the democrats democracy-destroying election takeover bill almost survived. but it too came crashing back to earth after failing to clear a procedural hurdle. still they made the most of their time over the past month, holding up their string of failures as evidence that it is the filibuster and not the radically partisan nature of their agenda that is thwarting their progress. as the republican leader said at the beginning of this month, it

was an agenda that was designed to fail. it failed to bring them the power that they're craving to have over the lives of millions of americans. it failed to kill the filibuster. and it certainly failed the millions of americans who have been forced to watch dumbfounded as this circus played out in real time on their television screens. it was a complete waste of our time. that's what one of my tennesseans said this weekend. talking about these trial balloons, talking about this lurch to the left. and, madam president, this was a friend of mine who is a democrat. as he said, it was a complete waste of our time, the american people's time, and as he added,

it was a complete waste of my dime. for the tax dollars that he sends to washington, d.c. and he went on to say think about the problems you could have solved if you had been focused on making some progress instead of creating chaos. now, yesterday, the commerce committee held a hearing on achieving broadband resiliency, and, madam president, as you well know, this is one of the most important infrastructure problems that not only faces our committee but also faces this body, and we had a great discussion, and i thank chairman lujan for this hearing, and i can't help but wonder how much more progress we would have been able to make on this issue if

the 14 million unserved rural americans -- and yes, unserved. they have nothing. think about the progress we could have made if these 14 million unserved americans had taken precedent in the minds and in the agenda of our friends across the aisle. it would have been great to focus on that. and speaking of infrastructure, perhaps we could have focused more energy on giving the needed authority to our local officials so that they can fix crumbling roads and bridges and getting regulations out of their way so they can go to work, helping people get to work, helping children get back to school, and certainly i know a few officials

in memphis who would love to see us start thinking long term about practical infrastructure support that doesn't include the green new deal fantasies that are favored by this white house. the american people have noticed this lack of focus and this free-wheeling attitude when it comes to spending taxpayers' money. when they look around, they see real needs. there are businesses and families that are still struggling to pull themselves out of the ashes of the pandemic. policies that are favored by the democrats would be policies that would bankrupt their businesses, that would drive up the debt, that would cause massive inflation. and tennesseans know these policies are not going to help them.

what it does do is to frustrate them. neither would the democrats' continue -- border protection apprehended 178,000 people, attempting to illegally cross our border. 14,000 of these were unaccompanied alien children. it's a record year for drug runners, for the cartels, for bootleggers, for human traffickers, for sex traffickers. we caught the department of health and human services actually finishing the work of the cartels. trafficking many of those unaccompanied minors through the chattanooga airport without the knowledge or the involvement of local officials. meanwhile, my democratic colleagues are treating this humanitarian crisis as if it's

nothing more than a logistics challenge. but perhaps if we had spent more time on this in the past month, we could have convinced them that until they get this crisis under control, they have to admit in this country right now every town is a border town. every state a border state. just ask your local law enforcement. they will tell you. perhaps they didn't want to put the time there because they had been busy putting a show on for the cameras and their friends on the left. tennesseans noticed what went on here this month. they're not happy about it. they have been reaching out. they don't have the lux rif of playing political games. they don't have the spare resources to gamble on woke politics. they're trying to keep the doors

of their businesses and their churches and their schools and their factories open. we did a lot of talking this month, but the friends on the left chose not to take action to solve problems. i would encourage them to do a little soul searching over the next couple of weeks and address the agenda that the american people would seek to have addressed. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: 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 172, deborah l. boardman of maryland to be united states district judge for the district of maryland, 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 deborah l. boardman of maryland to be the united states district judge for the district of maryland shall be brought to a close. the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. and the clerk will call the roll. vote:

freewheeling test. free-wheeling test. vote:

vote:

vote:

vote: vote:

the presiding officer: has every senator voted? does any senator wish to change his or her vote? if not, the yeas are 52, the nays are 48. the motion is agreed to. mr. durbin: madam president? the presiding officer: the democratic whip. mr. durbin: madam president, last week i told a story of a mother who received critical support from an organization called life span in chicago, after her daughter was sexually assaulted by the mother's

husband. the services provided by life span were paid for by the victims of crime act, voca. this week i want to tell you another story that is even more troubling, but it drama tices the need for -- but it drama tices the need for us to act today, this afternoon. i'm going to use the name sasha, not the real name of the woman involved. she was in chicago. she is a mother of three kids. and she was living with a man who was unpredictable and dangerous. he got so drunk that he tried to kill her -- not once but three times. he tried strangling her the first two times and she ran away. the third time she passed out. when she woke up with the kids

nearby, she knew that was it. she couldn't take it anymore. so she went to a hospital hoping to get some help there. she was scared to death. she brought her kids with her because she didn't want to be around the man that did this to her. she heard about a group called harbor house in chicago. harbor house is basically a domestic violence survivors' center. i would tell my colleagues in the senate, if you have ever visited domestic violence survivors centers, and met with any of the victims, you'll never forget it. i swear you'll never forget it. i can remember the first time i met with one of the victims in one of the shelters. she was crying. her eyes were red. and one eye was blackened. and she choked back the tears and told me the story which she

lived through. for some reason -- and i'm not a psychologist; i can't explain it -- she blamed herself. and it happened so often. what happens to these women who are the victims of domestic violence and abuse? where do they go? some of them can't find anywhere to go and end up dying as a result of it. what happens to their kids who witness these acts of violence in the home when mom is getting strangled by this man? what happens to them? well, luckily we care enough in america to do something about it. through voca, the victims' fund, we send money to harbor house and life span and other agencies and say, do your best; help them put their lives back together again; protect them. well, i want to fast-forward and tell you six months after sasha's experience, things are much better. she lives safely in an apartment that's provided by this agency. she still works with adult

counselors and youth counselors to get herself and her kids through this. and she knows that she's not alone. these voca-funded advocates stepped into her life at just the right moment and saved her life. they may have saved the lives of her children, too. so when we cut back on funding for whenever reason, we're jeopardizing the services that i just described that are so critical. with decreased voca funding, if we do nothing today, with decreased voca funding, harbor house will have to cut through of its staffers. exactly the type of professionals that help sasha and her family. the executive director said, if voca is cut, imagine being sasha and having to go through this alone. that's why you've got to pass this bill. that's why it's so critical. as i noted last week, voca passed in 1984 to establish the crime victims' fund.

we can't even count the number of people who have been helped over the years. 3,000 applicants come through my state attorneys general office in illinois and every state has a similar story to tell t thousands of victims helped by service providers, victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, child abuse, trafficking, and drunk driving. the victims fund doesn't receive a dime of taxpayers' dollars. how about that? what i just described for you doesn't come out of the treasury. it's funded through fines and special assessments collected by the federal government. historically, most of the money comes from criminal fines. but in recent years deposits have dropped off significantly. that's why we're here at this moment. they need help and they need it now. monetary penalties from deferred prosecutions and non-prosecuting issuing agreements are currently deposited in the treasury instead of the fund. as a result, the shift has had a

devastating impact on the fund. that's why a bipartisan, bicameral group of members of congress working with advocacy organizations have come up with this voca fix. our bill would stabilize the depleted fund by redirecting penalties from deferred prosecution and non-prosecution agreements to the victims and service providers that need the help. the reduced deposited in the funds have already had a devastating impact. victims assistance grants have been reduced bid more than $00 million in this -- $600 million in this year. and more cuts are coming if we don't do something today. like harbor house, advocates across the state and across the country are begging for help. we don't have any time to waste. every day that goes by, we miss an opportunity to help replenish the fund and put these services on the street. so far this year the fund has already miss out on a total of nearly $550 million in deposits

that could be helping these agencies and we're not even halfway through the year. that's why it's imperative that we pass this bill. the house already did it in march, three months ago. broad bipartisan support. here in the senate west a broad bipartisan coalition of senators. we all get it. we're all for crime victims. but we've been stopped because of an objection on the floor. let's end this today. whatever the merits of any budgetary argument, for goodness sakes, lives are at stake here. unfortunately, this objection about moving forward was made last week, and it probably will be made again today. it involves a senator, senator toomey's concern about a budgetary issue. it's a complicated issue about something called chimps, for goodness sakes, which he can explain, and i'm sure he will. but after last week's argument on this it i went to the

advocates who are telling us that we should send this money as quickly as we can and said, is he right? is this designed without his amendment so that this money will not go to the people who need it? they said, he's wrong. this is not going to happen. and here's their statement. during floor remarks for the unanimous consent last week it was represented that the voca fix act fails to correct certain structural issues that prevent the funds from reaching victims and their advocates. underlined -- the president obama illiteracy of this statement that these structural issues impact the distribution of voca funds to survivors and advocates is not accurate. this is from the actual agencies themselves. while the use of chimps as budget offsets continues to be a contentious issues, this he said, the claim that appropriators hoard money rather than releasing it to victim service providers is false -- inaccurate and false. in reality, appropriators have substantially decreased the size

the budget offset by releasing far more than required by the budget substitute and the proposed substitute intend is incredibly controversial. in other words, we're going to dive into the deep end of the pool on budget process and budget rules and budget regulation while people are literally drowning in violence, victims of domestic abuse. for goodness sakes, isn't there a better time and place and a better group to hold hostage. it shouldn't be these domestic violence victims. i yield to the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: i won't speak long but i wanted to echo the comments of my distinguished judiciary chairman because i have had a similar experience.

as we were going through covid, i was hearing from our domestic violence groups in rhode island that two things were happening at once. instances were going up. people were trapped together, very difficult to find sanctuary houses to go to, and the experience of domestic violence was soaring. and while that was going on, the funding coming into these agencies through voca was declining. now, there's a pretty simple -- first, let me thank the rhode island coalition against domestic violence and sojourner house which provides sanctuary services and progesso latino which works in the latino community for their great work. there are a lot of great organizations and i want to start by appreciating them. the problem has nothing to do with domestic violence or domestic violence victims as to the money. the problem is that more and more of these cases are resolved by deferred prosecution and

nonprosecution agreements. but the funding for voca comes out of criminal sentences, criminal prosecutions. so because of that change in the way these cases are treated, which is actually a good thing generally, the money is diverted and as a result, the crime victims fund has reached its lowest level in ten years. the victims assistance grants in rhode island fell 50%. 5-0 percent, cut in half from fiscal year 16 to fiscal year 2021. $7.6 million to $3.8 million, which means that many of these local organizations that put their heart and soul into protecting these victims at the worst time of their lives have to deal with 50% cuts. this is simple. it will allow monetary penalties in those deferred prosecution and nonprosecution agreements to

flow the same way they flow when traditional transactions take place. this is as noncontroversial as you get. more than 1,700 local tribal state, regional, and national advocacy government and law enforcement organizations. just this year 545 million -- $545 million has been lost to the voca fund because we haven't corrected this. so i would echo my chairman's remarks and urge my friend, the senator from pennsylvania, find another point of leverage, another fulcrum for his efforts to solve unrelated problems, but let this problem be solved and let these victims be served. i yield the floor. mr. durbin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois.

mr. durbin: i thank the senator from rhode island. as if in legislative session i ask that we proceed to h.r. 1652 which was received from the house and is at the desk. further, the bill be considered 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: mr. president, reserving the right to object. i've got good news for my colleagues from illinois and rhode island and that is that the modification that i'm suggesting to the unanimous consent request proffered by the senator from illinois is not complicated. it's got nothing to do with budget rules. in fact, it's the simplest thing in the world. now, the senator from illinois wants to put more money and money from a new source into the crime victims fund. i completely agree.

i fully support it. i've liked this idea from the first time i heard of it, and i've supported it. but there's something that's important to note here. the crime victims fund is a federal government account and the senator is very determined that more money go into that account. so what do we disagree on? well, it's very simple. the senator from illinois seems to be equally determined that there can be no requirement that the money actually come out of that account and go to crime victims and their advocates. that's the only thing that i want to do differently is to insist that money going into that account actually comes out and goes to the victims of crimes and their advocates. now, if my concern that this

money is not going to end up going where it's advertised to go is not valid, then i don't know why my colleagues wouldn't agree to my very narrow amendment which, by the way, doesn't have a thing to do with budget rules. i don't attempt to change budget rules in this effort. we should change them but this isn't where i'm trying to do it. what i'm simply trying to do is make sure that the money that goes into the account, the increase too actually goes where it's supposed to go which is the victims of crimes and their advocates. you have to ask yourself why would somebody oppose the proposal that this money actually be required to go to victims and their advocates? why would somebody oppose that? maybe it's because there's some other place that some of this money is meant to go. and that's -- that's at the heart of this. you see, under the ridiculous rules we operate under, if the

money doesn't end up going to crime victims and their advocates, then it frees up additional money to be spent on whatever anybody else wants to spend it on. the money that is withheld from the people who are supposed to get it, crime victims and their advocates, creates the opportunity to spend more on who knows what. now, would anyone actually do this or is this just a theoretical construct i've made up? well, let's take a look at the recent history. the fact is since 2000, in the year 2000, over $80 billion that could have and should have gone to crime victims and their advocates was intentionally withheld so that more money could be spent in other categories. what this chart shows is the apartment of money year in and year out -- it starts in 2000. you see these low bars, well under a billion dollars was actually allocated to crime

victims. there was much more money going into those account, much more money. because, you see, how much going into the account isn't the only thing that matters. what's actually ultimately much more important is how much comes out of the account and goes to the -- and only when i and some of my colleagues started raising hell about this, the dishonesty of it, the deception, the fact that crime victims and their advocates weren't getting nearly what they were supposed to be getting, only then -- this is the red line that represents when we started doing this. that's when the allocation started to change. this represents the huge surge in funds that we've been sending to crime victims and their advocates in recent years because some of us were no longer also to tolerate this and we were raising cane about what had been going on. now what i'm simply trying to do is prevent us from going back to what was routine around here,

what was in standard operating procedures, which was to deceive people, pretend that money was going to end up going to crime victims fund when everybody knew it wasn't. now, why would i be concerned that we might be going back in that direction? well, i'll tell you why. president biden has been very instructive about this. in his budget that he released just months ago, he actually specifies that in his budget he wants money to be diverted from the crime victims fund, which is mentioned by name and one other fund so that more money can be spent on other purposes. this is my concern. this isn't something that's been made up. this is president biden in his budget asking us to go right back to what we used to do. so then when i come down here and i suggest one modification top the very constructive idea that we add this settlement

money to the fund and the modification is that the money actually has to go to crime victims and their advocates, that's objected to. people are insistent that we not have a requirement that this money actually be allocated. so someone might think that that's pretty strong body of evidence that suggests maybe all of this money isn't going to end up where it's supposed to go. 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 a third time and passed, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. durbin: mr. president, reserving the right to object. if you listen to this explanation, there's one thing missing and it's critical. there's a suggestion that this money for the crime victims fund is being spent for another

purpose. you never heard that, did you? it could be. maybe it will be. it might be. but it hasn't been. listen to what they say. these people in the advocacy groups who believe me are jealously watching every penny. they want every dollar just as you do and i do. and what do they say about your argument? the premise of your statement that these structural issues impact the distribution of victims funds to survivors and advocates is not accurate. it goes on to say the claim that appropriators hoard the money rather than releasing it to victims services is false. various agencies are receiving the money. are they in on the deal, senator in i don't think so. they're desperate for these funds and without them they're going to have a serious cutback in services. the proposed substitute intended to restructure the entire appropriations process is incredibly controversial and you know it and i know it as a member of the appropriations

committee. yet you're tangling up this entire appropriation for the victims of crime, victims of domestic abuse, women who are seeking shelter and hospital care and trying to care for their children and what they're going through, you want to hold back on the possibility, the possibility somebody is going to spend this on something else even though you have no proof take it's been done, none. and the people who are the advocates for these groups are saying -- what you're saying is inaccurate and false and you won't give it up. i'd suggest pick another target. find some other group to make your budget point of order. please don't take these people who are in the most desperate situations in their life. this is not the time and place to raise this budget debate. i sincerely hope that you'll think about them for a moment. i object to your modification. the presiding officer: is there objection to the original request? mr. toomey: reserving the right to object. this is an amazing argument, the

senator from illinois is making. he's saying don't worry. we would never do what the senator from pennsylvania is suggesting might happen, which by the way always used to happen and which, by the way, the president is asking us to do. we would never do it. ah, but i'll object to a requirement that the money actually go where we say it's going to go. i think that tells us all we need to know. so i object. the presiding officer: the objection is heard.

mr. scott: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. scott: mr. president, it's been a trying year for our nation. thankfully the vaccine has brought so much hope and a semblance of normalcy back tots lives of many americans. as families and businesses in florida and across the u.s. continue to work hard to recover from the devastation of covid-19, travel is critical to getting our economy fully reopened. from the beginning of the pandemic, i encouraged everyone to wear a mask as we learned more about this virus. but now the scientist -- science is clear that broad mask mandates aren't necessary. unfortunately the c.d.c. has decided to buck the science when

it comes to travel and is still requiring face masks on public transportation. we've all heard the stories of how this mandate impacts families. a mother and her six children traumatized by being kicked off a flight after their 2-year-old daughter refused to wear a mask. in unusually, a 2-year-old wouldn't wear a mask. a california mother booted off a flight over fears that their son who has a disability wouldn't wear a mask. an orthodox jewish family kicked off a flight because the 15-month-old baby was not wearing a mask. it has made traveling with children nearly impossible. after a year of hardships and being apart from loved ones, these families were denied the ability to reconnect. it is awful and unnecessary. i hear stories all the time about parents with young children deciding i'm not getting on an airplane because i know i'll get kicked off -- or i might get kicked off. and to make it even more

confusing, you're allowed to remove your mask to eat and drink. the c.d.c. itself has been clear, mask mandates aren't needed. you don't have to wear a mask in a restaurant. don't have 0 wear a mask in a hotel. you don't have to wear a mask at a school. you don't have to wear a mask at a stadium. so why is the c.d.c. singling out airlines and public transportation? it doesn't make any sense. this isn't a political argument. in fact, during our commerce committee markup of the surface transportation measure last week, both democrats and republicans expressed frustration at the continuation of the mask mandate. republican and democratic governors and mayors across the country have followed the science and lifted mask mandates. just like the federal government should not be in the business of requiring americans to turn over their vaccination records, the federal government should not be mandating citizens wear masks on public transportation. that's why i've introduced the stop mandating additional requirements for travel, or

smart act, would revoke the requirement to wear masks on public transportation. americans should be free to make choices they feel are in the best interest of their own health and health of their loved ones. if someone wants to wear a mask, they are absolutely free to do so. but the government has no right to tell them what to do. if an airline or other private company decides it wants to implement a mask policy, so be it. this does not prohibit them from doing so. i've been clear -- private companies should somebody able to make decisions that they feel are appropriate for their employees and their customers. and then their customer gets to make a decision. this bill is pure common sense and i am glad to be joined my senator lee and he'll be speaking after i ask for the consent. the science doesn't support keeping the mask mandate in place. we have to listen to the science and work together to move america forward. i know americans will do the right things to stay safe and i hope my colleagues join me in pass this important bill. as if in legislative session, i

ask unanimous consent that the committee on help be discharged from further consideration of s. 2084 and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. i ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: is there objection? mrs. murray: madam president, reserving the right to object, right now experts at the centers for disease control and prevention are continuing to update their mask requirements based on the latest developments, including requirements related to travel. they need us to be reinforcing their science-based work to keep people safe, not overruling it. we cannot pretend this pandemic is over. this virus is still spreading. it is still mutating. it is still costing lives, and it is still leaving survivors are long haul symptoms. the new delta variant is more contagious, more likely to send them to the hospital, and

already in our country. we've made great progress on vaccinations, but there are still people who are not vaccinated, as well as people who cannot yet get vaccinated we know masks remain a simple, effective way to protect everyone, especially in small crowded spaces -- in an airplane, on a bus or a train. getting rid of mask requirements for travel before the experts tell us it is safe to do so is not going to get people to their destinations any faster, and it is not going to end this pandemic any faster. instead, it will draw things out, it will cost time, and it will cost lives. mr. president, to get everyone safely through this pandemic, we need to listen to the experts and let them do their jobs. therefore, i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard.

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. lee: mr. president, i'd echo the remarks presented by my friend and colleague, the junior senator from florida. i agree wholehearted lid with his analysis. i don't think -- i think it's unfortunate that we missed this opportunity to enact meaningful change today, change that's backed up by science. it was in january of this year that the centers for disease control ordered the mandatory use of masks on planes, trains, buses, and other modes of public transit of every kind everywhere across this country. if americans failed to comply with this mandate, they risked being find or even criminally prosecuted. six months later, the coronavirus continues with the c.d.c. refusing to recognize its own research that the mandate is no longer defensible. it's now june. the vaccine has been available for months. covid cases are plummeting, and

the country is anxious to return to the way things once were. the y.d.c. has -- the c.d.c. has even said that vaccinated americans don't have to wear masks and can get their lives back to normal. nearly 65% of americans are now vaccinated. restrictions are being lifted across the country. it is no longer required, mercifully, to wear a mask. if americans still want to wear one, they can make that decision for themselves. but the c.d.c. requires individuals to wear masks. it now contradicts the agency's own policies and the agency's own scientific research. it needlessly promotes fear and plays politics with the lives of the american people. not to mention it's imposed absurd expectations and serious

consequences on children and families, especially families with children, trying to travel. you see, after the january mandate, the c.d.c. issued a corresponding mandate that exempted only children over the age of two, in keeping with their original mask-wearing guidance, guidance that is among the most stringent in the world -- and, i would add, the most unrealistic in the world when you consider that they require it up to and including children as young as two years old. so what have been some of the results of this guidance? parents have been kicked off and banned from flights if their small children refuse to wear a mask. for parents of kids with disabilities and many parents of especially small children, compliance has been nearly impossible. we already know that children, especially young children, are unlikely to contribute to the spread of the virus.

what we do not know, however, is what scientific studies, if any at all, the c.d.c. happens to be relying on in reaching this guidance. in reaching the conclusions underlying this guidance. in fact, several of my colleagues and i sent a letter to the agency with this very question more than two months ago, on april 22 or, 2021. now more than two months later, we have yet to receive an answer. it is a very simple question, and we have yet to receive knit shred, any semblance, any scintilla of an answer. i find that unacceptable. mr. president, if the c.d.c. actually believes its own research, then it should act like it. and if it believes in its vaccines, then it should act consistently and instill confidence in the american people. rather than fear. and with the vaccine now free

and widely available, americans should be able to weigh the cost of the options before them and choose for themselves whether to receive the vaccine, whether to wear a mask, or whether to take their own precautions free of any mandates imposed by their government. but if the federal government is going to have a say in whether or not there should be a mandate, it should be up to congress, the sole branch of the federal government empowered to enact law and not, coincidentally, the branch elected by and held by people at the regular intervals, it should be up to the legislative branch to enact such a mandate. to the extent that the c.d.c. issued this mandate, it did so using delegate -- using

authority delegated to it from congress. we in congress did not pass the mask mandate, and we do not have to defer to those bureaucrats who did. the science, mr. president -- the science shows that wearing masks should not be federal law. and we should act accordingly. we should, moreover, give americans some reason to want to be vaccinated. when there is light at the end of the tunnel, when they can see there is some tangible, immediate benefit to getting vaccinated, they're more likely to do it, if they can enter a place of mass transit without wearing a mask. if we at least allow the operators of the modes of transportation to allow people to do that. we can assert our rightful authority and promote sound science and common sense by supporting the bill introduced by my friend and colleague,

senator scott of florida. we need this to pass. the american people have suffered through a very, very long covid winter. it's time for them to be able to make their own choices. that is what we do best as americans, because we believe in freedom. we also believe that whenever the coercive power of government, especially the coercive power of the federal government is exercised, it must do so with the authority of congress. we should never tacitly acquiesce to the authority of over-lords within a bureaucratic agency who are elected by no one and ultimately accountable only to themselves. we are in charge here. we make the law. we shouldn't blindly defer to anyone, certainly not the c.d.c., when the c.d.c. ignores its own science. thank you, mr. president. mr. scott: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. scott: mr. president, i want to the thank my colleague

from utah for his comments. i want to thank his continued commitment always to make sure that we, congress, handles everything we can, we don't defer constantly to the executive branch in making decisions that we should be making. it is a simple example of why we should be making this decision. this is following the science, and i'm actually shocked that my colleague from the state of washington does not with aens to follow the science. -- does not want to follow the science. i don't understand why my colleague from the state of washington wants government to be dictating things. i mean, had ho wants -- why do we want to dictate to americans how they live their lives? why has government lifted mandates in states all across the country and why is the c.d.c. fine with every place but public transportation? it doesn't make any sense. americans will do the right thing. it is not our job to dictate, to tell them how to lead their lives. if someone wants to wear a mask, so be it. they should do it. but the government has to right

to tell them that they have to wear a mask. if an airline or other private company wants to implement a mask policy, have at it. we shouldn't prohibit them from wanting to do that. but we should not be dictating this. so i'm disappointed that my colleague from the state of washington didn't go along, but i think it's important for us to always make sure we're doing the right thing for the american public and right now the right thing is eliminating mask mandate on public transportation. thank you, mr. president.

mr. peters: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. mr. peters: mr. president, i rise today in support of two critical nominations, jen easterly's nomination to be the director of the cybersecurity and infrastructure security agency, commonly referred to as cisa, within the department of homeland security, as well as robin carnahan at the g.s.a.

our country is under attack. nation-state actors and criminal organization are relentlessly targeting our government, critical infrastructure, and key industries to infiltrate networks, steal information, conduct espionage, and demand ransom payments. these cyberattacks pose a serious threat to our national security. as we saw from the solar winds hack as well as the colonial pipeline and g.b.s. ransomware attacks, cybercriminals are constantly looking to exploit cybersecurity vulnerabilities and find the weakest link. we must be vigilant about preventing these attacks and we need a strong, coordinated approach from across the federal government to better secure america's networks. that means the senate needs to confirm qualified cybersecurity

nominees so that they can get to work immediately. cisa is the lead domestic agency for cybersecurity in the federal government. it's responsible for ensuring that federal departments and agencies are private-sector critical partners and the american people have the resources to detect, to withstand and to respond to cyberattacks. g.s.a. provides a wide range of support to ainches across the government. one of g.s.a.'s job is to provide funding and expertise to help agencies both modernize and secure their i.t. systems and their networks. we need senate-confirmed leadership at the top of these critical agencies, and, mr. president, we need it today. ms. easterly has served for over three decades in the federal government and private sector. since 2017, ms. easterly has led operation center for morgan

stanley's cyber defense strategy. she was a critical member of the cyber solarium. prior to joining the private sector, ms. easterly served as a special assistant to the president and senior director for counterterrorism, the deputy for counterterrorism at the national security agency and was instrumental in the design and creation of the u.s. cyber command. on top of all of these incredible accomplishments, ms.e recipient of the brown star and retired from the u.s. army after more than 20 years of service and intelligence in cyber operations. ms. easterly is more than qualified for this position, and this body needs to confirm her nomination today to lead cisa. every day, every day that this

body delays confirming critical leaders like ms. easterly and mrs. carnahan leaves our federal system and our nation vulnerable to cyberattacks. we have already seen the damage and the chaos from these attacks. the colonial pipeline attack disrupted the lives of millions of americans, created fuel shortages and saddled customers with high gas prices for weeks. the next major breach could be even worse. i urge my colleagues to join me in supporting ms. easterly's nomination to lead cisa and to take on the vital mission of strengthening our defenses and fighting back against the persistent cyberattacks that threaten our nation each and every day. cybersecurity and strengthening our federal networks are not partisan issues. cyberattacks put each and every one of us at risk, and i would hope my colleagues will allow these nominees to be confirmed today so they can keep us safe.

and with that, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding rule 22, the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar number 176, jen easterly of new york to be the director of the cybersecurity and infrastructure security agency, department of homeland security, and the senate vote on the nomination without intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: is there objection? a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. scott: reserving the right to object. i want to make one thing very clear. i am here today to ensure accountability to the american people. i voted to support ms. easterly's confirmation in committee last week. and if senator schumer filed for cloture like he has done for dozens of other nominees, this year i would vote to support her confirmation here on the senate floor. this isn't about ms. easterly. this isn't about cybersecurity. remember, we just unanimously confirmed the national cyber

director just last week. i'm here today because families in my state of florida and across our nation deserve accountability and president biden has shown a total lack of accountability when it comes to addressing the border crisis. that's why i announced last month that i would be holding all of president biden's nominees for the department of homeland security from being approved through our expedited process until he and vice president harris visit the border and they see for themselves the crisis that their failed policies of open borders and amnesty have created. i understand the white house just announced that vice president harris will be visiting the border later this week. i hope that's true. the administration has made a lot of promises that they haven't kept like not raising taxes, reopening schools quickly, being tough on communist china. the list goes on and on. trust me, i'm glad the vice president seems to be taking my advice and finally listening to the american people. i truly hope that she gets down to the border to see the crisis firsthand, that her administration and their failed

policies have created. i hope she meets with the national border patrol council, hear from them what our brave c.p.b. eights are going through every day to keep us safe. i hope she meets with sheriffs. i hope she meets with i.c.e. and c.p.b. section chiefs. i hope she takes an aerial tour and sees the gaps in the wall. i hope she sees where the lights and cameras are sitting powerless without electricity unable to be used to monitor our border. i hope she meets with families who have been the victims of trafficking and hears the horrific stories they have of what they have been through because of this crisis. i hope she visits border communities that have been put in the position for house and care for the historic number of people illegally crossing our border. i hope she talks with families who have tragically lost loved ones from the massive amounts of fentanyl the cartels are moving across our borders. i hope she talks to the ranchers impacted by people illegally

crossing their land. more than anything, i hope this isn't a political stunt. if she truly goes to see this crisis i will lift all my holds to d.h.s. nominees. it's that simple. what's happening at the border is a crisis. there is no other word for it. it's been three months since i traveled to the southern border to see exactly how president biden's open borders and amnesty policies are wreaking havoc. i took a tour with governor ducey. what you see is a wall and then all of a sudden these openings. they intentionally opened gates. my colleagues said we don't need a wall. we can have lights and cameras. they're out there, they're just not hooked up to electricity. intentionally. you can't make this stuff up. it's been three months since i made clear that president biden and vice president harris need to get to the border and see the crisis that their administration has created. it's been three months since they pledged to visit the border. as you all know, you look at

the numbers. apprehensions at our southern border are at a record high. more than 180,000 illegal aliens tried to cross our southern border last month and were apprehended, the highest in 21 years. this is a crisis. it threatens our national security and the safety of american families, and we don't know how many people we didn't apprehend. president biden's immigration policies are putting unaccompanied minors at risk of human trafficking, violence, sexual abuse and separation from their families. they are leading to an alarming increase in human trafficking and drug smuggling. the f.b.i. director wray said there is no question that smuggling from mexico is spilling into the united states. we're seeing it in florida. i talked to sheriffs. they said unbelievable amounts of fentanyl are getting into our state putting florida families in danger. i was down at one lab and they were telling me two people died that week from fentanyl. but instead of securing the

border and finishing the wall construction projects, president biden is terminating all of the wall projects. why would you be doing this? the inaction by president biden and vice president harris is inexcusable. i don't know what they're waiting for. why can't they acknowledge that a secure border is the best thing for our nation. if you talk to people around our nation they want us to secure the border. why can't they stand up against the radical left to say that open borders are dangerous to american families? two weeks ago the vice president went to guatamala and mexico. while she was there, she was asked by lester holt when she was going to go to the border and she laughed. this is not a laughing matter. i mean, this is a crisis, and people are dying because of this crisis. it should make all of us furious. people are dying, children are being exploited and they're being abandoned in the desert. earlier this year two ecuadoran children, two little girls were dropped over a 14-foot section of the border wall. we all saw the pictures. they were abandoned there in the

middle of the night. two innocent little girls three and five years old. can you imagine how terrified they were? when i think of my daughters, i think of my grandchildren. we all do. we all think how would our family deal with that. it breaks your heart. the vice president claims the vice president's trip was, down to guatamala, mexico, was to talk about the root cause of immigration. i don't believe that. the vice president's trip wasn't anything more than a political stunt. president biden and vice president harris need to stop avoiding the crisis, stop laughing off this threat, get to the border,s take real steps. as i said, once they actually go to the border and actually see the crisis, i'm going to lift my hold. this is all to make sure they go to the border. as long as they refuse to help those risking their lives every day to keep us safe, as long as they refuse to visit the border and put an end to the humanitarian crisis that they created i'm going to keep my hold on. those two little girls and all the people that have been trafficked, they deserve better. the millions of immigrants in

our country going through a legal process, they deserve better. our border patrol agents, they deserve better. all american families deserve better. therefore, i object. the presiding officer: the objection is heard. the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. mr. peters: mr. president, i'd like to discuss mrs. carnahan's qualifications further before asking for consent on her confirmation. mrs. carnahan has an extensive career spanning federal and state government as well as the private sector. during the obama administration, she founded leand the state -- and led the state and local practice at 18th-f, a technology consult ancy within g.s.a. in this role, mrs. carnahan worked with state and local government agencies to improve and modernize their digital services. prior to her tenure there, mrs.

carnahan served as missouri's secretary of state where she focused on modernizing i.t. infrastructure to improve service for hundreds of thousands of customers. mrs. carnahan is a nationally recognized government technology leader, and in 2017 was named one of the federal government's top women in tech. i urge my colleagues to join me in supporting mrs. carnahan's nomination to lead g.s.a., from modernizing and securing federal networks to strengthening supply chain security, g.s.a. plays a critical role in bolstering our national security. so with that, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding rule 22, the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of the following nomination, calendar 175. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, the clerk will report. the clerk: general services

administration, carnahan of missouri to be administrator. mr. peters: i ask the senate vote on the nomination without intervening action or debate and if confirmed the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table all without intervening action or debate, that no further motions be in order to the nomination, that any statements related to the nomination be printed in the record, that the president be immediately notified of the senate's action. the presiding officer: the question is on the nomination. all those in favor say aye. all opposed no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the nomination is confirmed.

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: mr. president, after months of unnecessary hand-wringing, vice president harris has finally announced that she intends to visit the u.s.-mexico border. she was, as you will recall, tapped by the president to lead the efforts to stem the current humanitarian crisis back in march, but three months in she spent more time trying to figure out how to support central american countries than how to help american law enforcement and community leaders in texas. in the absence of any action from the administration, in fact, any acknowledgement of the crisis at all, the humanitarian crisis has gotten nothing but worse. in march, the first month of her heading up the administration's response, there were 173,000 migrants that crossed our southern border. then in april, the number went up to 178,000.

and in may, 180,000 migrants. we're now on track to see the highest number of total yearly border crossings in if two decades, according to the secretary of homeland security, mr. mayorkas. at the center of this crisis are unaccompanied children who are brought to this country by cartels and human smugglers. we know that the migrant children endure a long and dangerous journey to our border, often arriving malnourished, abused, and in critical health. some of the young girls even arrive pregnant, and we know that many of them have been sexually assaulted en route by these human smugglers who care nothing for their welfare. all they care about is the cold, hard dollar. i've talked to a number of these children and heard them retell their horrific stories about

their journey from their home to our border. since january, since the time that president biden and vice president harris were inaugurated, more than 65,000 unaccompanied children have entered our country with no parent and no adult guardian, an absolutely devastating figure. these children are then placed with sponsors in the interior of the united states, sometimes a family member, sometimes a complete stranger. 30 days after these children are placed with their american-based sponsor, not necessarily even american citizens, a full 20% of them don't respond to a phone call or a wellness check when a person associated with the u.s. government knocks on the door, and we have no idea what happens to these children once they are lost to the system. the border patrol's rio grande valley sector is the epicenter

of this human crisis. between october and april, that's where nearly half of all unaccompanied children were encountered. in the three months since the vice president has been in charge of this crisis, i have visited the rio grande valley sector twice. i've spoken with law enforcement, elected officials, nongovernmental organizations that try to be of assistance to the migrants while they are in the country, and a long list of other people who are trying to do everything in their power to manage this overwhelming number of humanity coming across our border. on friday, president harris won't get to speak with these men and women. why is that? well, she will be more than a thousand miles away down the border from the border patrol sector experiencing the worst of this crisis. i know there are probably folks who are not from texas who think that the whole border is exactly

the same, but that's not true. i had the chance to travel to tucson with senator sinema, the senator from arizona, and i got a chance to observe how different the border is in the tucson sector from the rio grande valley which she traveled with me to see after she left tucson. but since october, the rio grande valley sector has encountered nearly three times as many unaccompanied children as the el paso sector, and more than seven times more family units. the situation along the entirety of the u.s. border is challenging, to be sure. el paso has suffered during the crisis, too, no doubt. law enforcement, nongovernmental organizations, and community leaders in every border sector are struggling to manage the massive surge of migrants. when asked why she hadn't visited the border yet, the vice president said she wasn't

interested in grand gestures, yet here she is planning a trip in a way that reflects again she doesn't really fully come helped the magnitude of the crisis and where it really exists on steroids, which is the rio grande valley. it's not even fair to say that she is a day late and a dollar short. she is nearly 100 days late and a thousand miles short. by ignoring the rio grande valley, the busiest border patrol sector along the u.s.-texas-mexico border, the vice president is shifting the focus away from the most serious problems of the crisis that she has failed to solve or even contribute any constructive ideas to. it won't surprise you to know that during my time in the senate because my state does have a 1,200-mile common border with mexico, i have spent a lot of time listening to and learning from folks who live and work along our border.

our border is a beautiful part of our state, rich and unique culture and a rich sense of community that you can't find in many parts of the country. through no fault of their own, these border communities are being overwhelmed by the sheer number of migrants crossing the border, and the local leaders are beyond frustration with the failures of the federal government to live up to its obligation to provide security along an international border. the president and vice president have, i have to acknowledge, verbally encouraged migrants not to come to the united states, but those words mean nothing. they are hollow rhetoric indeed, when somebody can simply pick up a phone and call a family member of the united states or watch the evening news and see how easy it is to make your way across the border, not to mention the fact that the human smugglers, the cartels who

charge thousands of dollars per head are whispering in their ear, saying we can get you across the border if you just pay us our fee. the reality of the situation is we are nearing a breaking point, and the vice president and president could see that if they are only willing to join me and others who would be more than happy to host them by visiting the rio grande valley. the administration has wasted valuable time that could have been spent addressing the crisis. this is a crisis in policy. this is not where building an additional physical barrier would stop many of these migrants. some of that would, and the border patrol said it has a part to play. but the truth is many of these migrants are turning themselves over to law enforcement authorities. they are not running away because they have figured out the gaps in our law better than we have. the administration has wasted valuable time that could have been spent addressing this

crisis, and instead it's just gotten worse. now the question is what are they going to do about it? if they are looking for ideas, i'm happy to offer a suggestion. there is already a grassroots plan out there that is built from the bottom up by senators and congressmen most familiar with this crisis. last month, senator sinema, the senator from arizona, and i introduced the bipartisan border solutions act, a straightforward, commonsense way to address this crisis. we have been proud to work with two house members. the presiding officer knows congressman cuellar from laredo, text, and congressman gonzalez. they are cosponsors in the house. a bipartisan, bicameral bill to address the very crisis that president harris and president biden have been trying to avoid learning more about, at least until now.

this legislation has support, as i said, of members of both parties and in both chambers, as well as a diverse change of well-respected organizations. the u.s.-hispanic chamber of commerce, the national border patrol council, the national negligence forum, and more than a dozen other organizations support this legislation. i would be more than happy to sit down with the president and the vice president to discuss our bill which includes the input of leaders who are dealing with the brunt of the crisis along the border. if the administration truly wants to address this crisis, they need to get serious about how to do so and a photo op simply will not get the job done. the vice president i think would be well served and would be serving the people of this country well if she would visit the rio grande valley and listen to the law enforcement, elected officials, and n.g.o.'s and other men and women who are doing their best to try to deal with this crisis without much

help from the administration. mr. president, the administration has wasted too much time already. now is not the time for another empty gesture. mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. mr. cardin: thank you,

mr. president. i rise this afternoon in support of the nomination of u.s. magistrate judge deborah boardman to be a united states district judge for the district of maryland. judge boardman was favorably reported by the judiciary committee on june 10. i have recommended judge boardman along with senator van hollen to president biden, and i strongly support her nomination. judge boardman was nominated to fill the future vacancy created when judge richard bennett, appointed by president bush in 2003, announced his intentions to take senior status upon the confirmation of his successor. president biden nominated judge boardman for this position on march 30, and the judiciary committee held her confirmation hearing on may 12. shortly after the november, 2020 presidential election, i worked with senator van hollen to establish a judicial selection committee in maryland. we used an open application

process with public advertisement and communicated closely with the state, local, and specialty bar associations in maryland. in particular, we sought out highly qualified and diverse applicant pool. our committee interviewed everyone who submitted an application, which involved several dozen interviews. senator van hollen and i personally interviewed several finalists before making our recommendations to the white house. i strongly agree with president biden's request that senators consider nominating individuals whose legal experiences have been historically underrepresented on the federal bench, including those who are public defenders, civil rights, and legal aid attorneys, and those who represent americans in every walk of life. judge boardman fits that request. judge deborah boardman was born in silver spring, raised in frederick, and lives in

baltimore. she received a b.a. from villanova university. after graduating from college, she accepted a fulbright scholarship to study in iman, jordan. she received her j.d. from university of virginia school of law. after law school, she clerked for a federal judge in the eastern district of virginia known as the rocket docket for the speed of its caseload. judge boardman brings tremendous experience to the courtroom as a sitting u.s. magistrate judge in maryland since 2019, which is the same federal judicial district in which she would become a district judge if confirmed by the senate. she already handles a heavy caseload in our federal court. as a magistrate judge, judge boardman presides over civil cases by consent while the parties resolve civil discovery disputes, conducts settlement conferences and presides over preliminary criminal proceedings. additionally, she administers the district of maryland's

social security appeals docket. in civil cases before her by consent with the parties, judge boardman rules on motions to dismiss, resolves discovery disputes, decides whether a case should proceed to trial, and presides over bench and jury trials. these cases have involved claims of unemployment discrimination in violation of title 7 of the civil rights act of 1964, the americans with disabilities act, the rehabilitation act, claims under 42 u.s.c. 1983, the fair labor standards act, the fair debt collection practices act, qualified and sovereign immunity defenses and state law stemming from contract disputes and personal injury. as you can see, mr. president, she has broad experience in regards to her tenure as a magistrate judge. she has previously served as the first assistant federal public

defender of maryland. during her 11-year tenure with the federal defender's office, judge boardman represented individuals in both the greenbelt and baltimore courthouses that were charged with federal crimes. she also has experienced private practice as she served as litigation associate at hoeing ann and hartson in washington, d.c., from 2001 to 2008. during those years, judge boardman worked exclusively on civil matters. she has experience both on the civil side and criminal side. she represented a wide range of corporate and individual clients in state and federal courts. specifically, she counseled insurance companies, universities, health care, and pharmaceutical companies, among others in business in account dispute. as a fifth year associate, the firm selected judge boardman to serve as the senior pro bono associate in its nationally recognized pro bono department. she managed the firm's largest pro bono cases full time and

appeared in federal and state courts as lead attorney in several of these pro bono cases. she tried a wrongful eviction action before a d.c. jury, she was lead counsel in a three-day evidentiary hearing on habeas corpus petitions in the circuit court for the city of norfolk, she argued numerous discovery motions before the u.s. magistrate judge in the district court for the district of columbia, and then unemployment discrimination class action lawsuits. madam president, the american bar association standing committee on the federal judiciary gave judge boardman its highest unanimous well qualified recommendation after evaluating her integrity, professional competence and judicial temperament. as judge boardman said at her confirmation hearing, she's the daughter of the american revolution on her father's side and a first-generation american

palestinian descent on her mother's side. her father was born in new york and drafted to serve in the vietnam war and went on to be a successful businessman of her mother was born in a palestinian city in the west bank, she immigrated to the united states with her parents, eight, brothers and sisters when she was just 13 years of age. she spoke no english and when she began attending public school in suburban maryland, she learned english and had a successful career as a biew tition. she has -- biew tition. she said that her family taught her the value of hard work, the importance of education, the value of family and the need to be generous to those who are less fortunate in life. in my meetings with judge boardman, i have some impressions that stand out. she is committed to public service through her diverse

career as a public defender and now u.s. magistrate judge. she regards being a sitting judge as the ultimate and highest calling of public service in the legal profession. she wants to inspire the public's confidence in the judiciary and to hear parties' concerns compassionately while upholding her duty to fairly apply the law. now as a u.s. magistrate judge, judge boardman told me she understands the importance of adjudicating disputes neutrally and fairly. she surely has the temperament for this position. she has told me she is naturally curious and tries to avoid making assumptions. judge boardman shared with me that her internal compass directed her to service. judges hold certain powers over individual lives. she understands that. in her view, a district court judgment is more than an

achievement, it is a -- it is a serious responsibility which requires the judge to put the public first as they uphold the rule of law. numerous individuals wrote to me on her behalf including several sitting judges, law firms and her colleagues. they unanimously praised judge boardman's courtroom skills as a litigator and praised her analytical skills in written and oral advocacy, excellent temperament and unfailing courtesy to saul parties. -- to all parties. i have been told by those who know her well, she is the best kind of person to be a journal, she is smart, patient, kind, and tough when she needs to be. she's a hard worker and she sees all sides of an argument and is always fair and professional in her treatment of others.

i was delighted to recommend the nomination of judge boardman to president biden along with senator van hollen. usual nominees must meet the highest standard of integrity, competency and temperament. judge boardman will safeguard the rights of all marylanders and all americans, uphold the constitution and rule of law and faithfully follow the judicial oath to do equal right to the poor and to the rich. i'm confident that judge boardman will serve the people of maryland very well once she is confirmed. madam president, i urge my colleagues to vote for the confirmation of judge boardman who is an outstanding judicial nominee for maryland. she's already a sitting united states magistrate judge on the u.s. district court for the district of maryland where she has served the district judges. i look forward to her continued public service to maryland and to the nation. with that, madam president, i yield the floor.

mr. inhofe: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: thank you, madam president. i ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business for such time as i shall consume. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. inhofe: all right. madam president, last year the federal communications commission approved an application by la la goto networks to repurpose spectrum in a way that will drastically interfere with g.p.s. and satellite communications. this is a big deal. there's so many people who understand this situation. there's a list of companies behind us that grows every day. almost every company in america that you know of or have heard

of is -- name is on this list. the decision that was made was -- threatened g.p.s. and satellite capability for millions of americans who depend on it. the reliability of g.p.s. and satellite communications is necessary for the safety of life and operations and national security and economic activity and i'm -- i'm going to pause here for a minute to drive home what this -- what this actually means to every american. people don't know .this they don't know how important g.p.s. is. yet there isn't an american who isn't using it every day. if something happens to it, there's a serious problem. here are some of the day-to-day activities that would be difficult when experiencing g.p.s. problems with lageto. using hur -- using your debit

card or those who rely on g.p.s. timing in order to work. another one, making a phone call, a cellphone networks rely on g.p.s. synchronized cell towers so calls can be passed seamlessly. if they have interference, you could be dropped when moving from one tower to another. another one that most people are not aware of and don't expect is energy, whether that is filling up your tank with gas at the pump or electrical grids to light our homes, we rely on g.p.s. timing to safely operate underground lines. farmers an ranchers, this is -- and ranchers, this is something that people are not aware of

they rely on g.p.s. when planting crops, when applying fertilizer and to use large and critical machinery with precision. working out, a lot of people -- i don't do as much as i used to do, they say that one-fifth of the population, 20% of the population of all americans use fitness tracker or smart watch or the majority use g.p.s. to count steps when they track a distance, we all know that we see them out there every day. they are always using it and they depend on g.p.s. taking a flight, i've had an occasion, i've been involved in aviation for over 70 years now and had occasion to fly with friends in 1991 using g.p.s. and at that time, it may be the first equipment that i used was a tremble2,000, i was using the

t.n.l.2,000, we are checking to see if that was the first time it was used for private aviation. again, that was g.p.s. and that was 1991. driving around each day, countless americans rely on google maps, waze, apple maps and any other navigation system to get them from point a to point b. no one hopes to need a fire truck or ambulance or the 911 operators, they use g.p.s. on a daily basis. there's more. weather forecasting, the movement of good on our highways, serving maritime harbors and channels and everything else. the list goes on and on. how do we know that lagoto will

cause interference? the f.c.c. told us. i will read it now because people will need to understand that i guess we could say we were warned. the f.c.c. said in their document, that was the document they used on their a approval order, they said, quote, lagato shall expeditiously repair or replace as needed any u.s. government g.p.s. devices that experience or likely to experience harmful interference from lagato's interference. that's what the f.c.c. said at that time. over 21 organizations and companies and industries have filed petitions for reconsideration after the order was released, documenting the damage that they face from the lagato interference. this -- this thing behind me is now up to 82.

it was 78 this morning. and that list goes on and on. you can hardly think of a corporation in america that isn't on this list. and so it's something that is it a very serious problem and widespread. there's one way to put interference into perspective because g.p.s. travels from satellite in space. by the time those signals get to earth's service, they are low power. because the f.c.c. order allows lagato to repurpose spectrum to operate a terroristal-based network, lagato's signals will be more powerful than g.p.s. causing substantial and harmful interference. while the f.c.c. required lagato to repair damage to federal agencies, congressional action is needed because the f.c.c.'s

lagato order fell short in two important ways, first, the order did not provide an adequate description of costs to the federal agencies that would result from lagato's interference. we took bipartisan steps last year with the ndaa. ndaa is the largest's bill. and the ndaa is the national defense authorization act. it does all the things that we do in the military and so that's a bill that we're talking about so we included in that bill a provision, directing the department of defense to produce an estimate of damages and costs associated with the harmful interference to g.p.s. we also directed d.o.d., department of defense, and the national academies of science to conduct an independent technical review of the harmful interference that lagado could

cause. secondly, the f.c.c. failed to require that lagado take the costs or pay for devices owned by individual users. we're talking about all americans out there now, not just government, not state government, not federal government, but everyone else. these individual users, and i talked already about how many ways we rely on g.p.s. in every day life. none of that would be protected from interference under the existing lagado order and that's why i'm introducing legislation, that's a long name, but i will say it anyway, it's call the recognizing and ensuring taxpayer access to infrastructure necessary for g.p.s. and satellite communications act of 2021. got that? all right. that's -- i call it the retain

act. it's a little more accurate and easy to understand. now, my legislation ensures federal agencies, state governments, and all other negatively impacted by the actions of a private actor are not left holding the bag when it comes to costs, the amount of money it would cost. and worse aren't put in a position where they have to push the cost on to the american consumers. now why is this legislation necessary? the reliable g.p.s. and satellite communications important to everyone in the world and drives. of the nation's economy -- and drives much of the nation's economy. i ask my colleagues to embrace, endorse, and cosponsor this legislation. otherwise the others may be forced to pay for damage that is done by the -- the system. so anyway, we're going to ask

our colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this legislation. if we don't do this and something happens, then it will be paid for by not those responsible parties but by the taxpayers. with that i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from new york. mrs. gillibrand: as if in legislative session, i ask unanimous consent -- the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call. mrs. gillibrand: i ask unanimous consent for a vitiation of the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. gillibrand: as if in

legislative session, i ask unanimous consent that at a time to be determined by the majority leader in consultation with the republican leader the senate armed services committee be discharged from further consideration of s. 1520 and the senate proceed to its consideration, that there be two hours for debate equally divided in the usual form and that upon the use or yielding back of that time, the senate vote on a bill with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. inhofe: reserving the right to object. the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: and i object. the presiding officer: the objection is heard. gamrs. gillibrand: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from new york. mrs. gillibrand: i rise for the 14th time to call for every senator to have the opportunity to consider and cast their vote on the military justice improvement and increasing prevention act which would ensure that service members who have been subject to sexual assault and other serious crimes get the justice they deserve. for nearly a decade, the d.o.d. has argued that removing convening authority from command

as our bill does would undermine military readiness and good order and discipline. but yesterday our secretary of defense, secretary lloyd austin, endorsed the independent review commission's recommendation that sexual assault and related crimes be moved from the chain of command to trained military prosecutors. it is historic. it's historic that we have for the first time ever a secretary of defense agreeing that good order and discipline does not rest on a commander deciding whether a case goes forward or not. but we have to remember that the limited changes he's endorsed come from a panel that was only asked to look at one type of crime. they were specifically asked to look at ways to solve the problem of military sexual assault and harassment. they drilled down on those issues of sexual assault, sexual harassment, domestic violence,

and child abuse, and they agreed that all of those crimes must be taken out of the chain of command and put in the hands of specialized, highly trained military prosecutors. they see no conflict with making those changes and retaining command control. i remind my colleagues the mission we are tasked with is larger than the mission that the i.r.c. was tasked with. our job is to provide our service members with a military justice system that is worthy of the sacrifices they make for our country every day. that's why our bill addresses the fundamental flaw in the military justice system that's put the fate of our service members in the hans of command -- hands of commanders who often know both the accuser and the accused and are not trained lawyers. our reform draws a bright line and moves all serious crimes which can lead to serious consequences to independent

military prosecutors. secretary austin's endorsement of the i.r.c.'s reforms makes it clear that he understands what we understand, convening authority is not necessary for maintaining command control or for maintaining good order and discipline. right now 97% of commanders maintain good order and discipline without having convening authority for general court-martial. only 3%, level 06 and above have that unique authority. our allies have drawn the similar bright line. they decided that in their military, serious crimes should be taken out of the chain of command and given to trained prosecutors. they have told us through letters and testimony that they saw no diminution in command control or good order and discipline. good order and discipline rests not on the commander's ability to act as a judge and jury but

on their ability to do their job, their job of instilling a culture of respect between service members and instilling a command climate where these types of actions aren't tolerated. there's no reason to continue to subject service members to assist rather than trained prosecutors are deciding which cases go to trial. we must move decisions about whether to move forward on cases dealing with serious crimes to the most qualified, most highly trained person. that would be trained military prosecutors. that's all that our bill does. that is what the military justice improvement and increasing prevention act does. in addition to having a filibuster-proof support in the senate, this is now a bipartisan, bicameral piece of legislation. this morning i stood with congresswoman spier, --

congresswoman speier, speaker pelosi, congressman turner and a bipartisan group of members in the house as they introduced this version of the legislation. the bipartisan support we have in the house includes republicans with years of military service, former j.a.g.'s, former commanders. we had a general from the republican party stand up and support this bill -- that bill this morning. not only do they understand the importance of having a military justice system that is impartial and highly trained but also the importance of command and what their role is. so we have a great deal of bipartisan support. this type of bipartisan, bicameral support is rare. it speaks to the importance of this reform, the importance of us meeting our obligation to provide oversight of our military, and the importance of serving those who serve our country in uniform.

this morning we were also joined by the sisters of vanessa guillen, her youngest sister lupei talked about what happened to vanessa. she said quote, the system we have now failed my sister, and it's up to us to change it, to change the system that failed vanessa, moving sex crimes out of the chain of command would not be enough. she was murmded. -- she was murdered. we must move all serious crimes, including murder to independent, impartial military prosecutors. this morning lupei said someone will always have to suffer for someone to care. but that stops now. that stops with us. it's time for us to do the job right, to prove lupei right.

our service members as secretary austin did deserves -- as secretary austin said, deserves nothing less. madam president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call. a senator: therefore, madam president, i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. a senator: thank you, madam president. earlier this week, in fact yesterday, the senate democrats teamedded an unprecedented power

grab in the senate that clearly would have affected the sanctity of our elections and violated our constitution. mr. moran: s.r.1 was one of the most monstrous bills i've seen during my time in congress and it certainly didn't meet my standard of doing things that are constitutional. in doing so yesterday the senate democrats underscored for me something i thought i knew well and they reaffirmed it. and that is the importance of maintaining the legislative filibuster, the 60-vote threshold for legislation. i'm sorry we went down the path of changing the rules for judges and then for supreme court and now potentially for legislation. 60 votes is a good thing. 60 votes allows -- people say they want us to work together. 60 votes requires us to do that.

in the absence of 60-vote rule, everything becomes political. in the absence of 60-vote rule, there's no certainty. a party in power, one that's the majority of the senate, the president, the election changes and there's a new majority, then we change what we just passed two years before. there's nothing good for job creation and economic security. there's nothing good for families and trying to figure out what's next in their life when the law can change every time a new -- a different party has the majority in the united states senate and house or there's a new president. my view is that what happened yesterday was not by design. as a matter of fact, the vote among others was designed to fail in order to pressure democratic senators into altering the rules of the senate and render this place a majority-run institution.

democrats have achieved control. the voters gave them control of both chambers of the congress and the white house and are convinced that they have a mandate to erode the governing norms of the senate. by my count the senate stands at an evenly divided 50-50 and the majority by a slight number as a democrat tick in the house of representatives. surely this is hardly a mandate for a radically progressive agenda, much less changing the threshold for which minority rights are protected and bipartisan corruption is promoted. should the legislative filibuster meet its demise at the hands of this senate because democrats decide on a majority vote, that the rules that have been in place for decades should be changed overnight on a whim,

the august united states senate will be condemned to a partisan spectacle. the idea that everything should be decided by one vote means that everything here becomes political. and the american people become even more partisan. if every vote in the united states senate, every outcome is determined by one person, then politics becomes the passion of the american people -- by necessity. the 60-vote rule is designed to moderate both sides of a question, to bring us together, to pull us to the middle in something that is more acceptable to the american people than anything we might decide if we could decide it on our own, republican or democrat. it means that every citizen

would have the need, feel the need to lobby us. the normal course of life becomes much more about politics and while politics is important to the country, and while it's important for the american people to be engaged, they send us here to make decisions, and that 60-vote rule allows us to make decisions that are more acceptable to them, so they can spend their lives, living their lives; not worrying about what on any given day the united states senate might pass. i don't think the motivation by the senate democrats is what it may seem to some. and the suggestion is that we can't seem to pass any legislation here. i read in "the wall street journal" an editorial, an op-ed piece by mike sullivan and bill green this week, and this was a

comment that stood out to me. the movement to end the filibuster is less about a senate that doesn't work than it is to sell a socialist agenda that doesn't sell. the idea that everything is decided on the margin of one means that we become politicians. politics rules in this country, and freedoms and liberties that the american people enjoy every day because they can rely on not radical change but modest change, on improvements day by day, not improvements overnight, means that we have a different country. we certainly would have a different senate. but a consequence of having a different senate means america is not what it is today. and, again, i say this in a way that i hope would a. mind my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, i stand ready to work on many issues that we can bring

ourselves together. i hope this week, tomorrow, today that we learn there is an infrastructure agreement, a bipartisan agreement. this isn't a belief that i have the ability to dominate the agenda of the united states senate or that one party should. it's a reminder that america is better when we work together, and eliminating the 60-vote rule, ending the filibuster changes america for the worst. madam president, i yield the floor.

mrs. gillibrand: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from new york. mrs. gillibrand: i ask unanimous consent that the scheduled vote proceed immediately. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. the question is heard on the boardman nomination. mrs. gillibrand: i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be a sufficient second. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote: vote:

vote:

vote: