tempted t' say, you can't really hold the president accountable for wrong things he says because he says whatever comes into his head, there is no thought there, no consideration, no analysis. we and certainly everyone around him just in his own voice. >> he said he wasn't interested in policy, power a trait throughout his career -- >> we are going to keep our commitment to congressional coverage and you can continue watching fist at c-span.org. u.s. senate is about to gavel and. lawmakers today will work on the

nomination tiffany cunningham to serve as judge in this battle circuit court of appeals, final folk cap for 5:30 p.m. and if approved, she would become first african-american to sit on that court. now lift to the floor of the u.s. senate here on c-span2. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. gracious god, of infinite goodness,

confirm your past mercies to us by giving us strength to be faithful to your commands. help our lawmakers this day to use their understanding, time, and talents to do what you desire. may they desire to please you with faithful service, as you rule their hearts and guide their thoughts, words, and actions. lord, enable our senators to fulfill their duty to love you with all their heart, mind, soul, and strength. take possession of their hearts and order their steps by the

power of your loving providence. we pray in your holy 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., july 19, 2021. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3,

of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable mazie k. hirono, a senator from the state of hawaii, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: patrick j. leahy, president pro tempore. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, the senate will be in a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each.

mr. mcconnell: madam president? the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: runaway costs and surging inflation are a huge worry for middle-class families. every survey confirms it. every conversation confirms it. over the last 12 months during this economic recovery, the average american worker earned a 3.6% raise. but inflation has risen so

steeply that it's turned that into a nearly 2% pay cut. remember at the beginning of the year the biden administration inherited an historically strong economic trajectory. thanks to the smart, targeted, bipartisan policies we passed last year, our economy was primed to get millions of americans back to work with competitive pay while consumers unleashed pent-up demand. but, alas, that was before democrats decided to pour $2 trillion into a long list of liberal pet projects and insist on making it less appealing for workers to actually go back to work. today essentials like gas and groceries have gotten in order

and more expensive. bigger purchases consumers put off during the pandemic are getting even further out of reach. across the country work being families and employers alike are feeling the pinch. an effective tax increase on both the wages and savings of the middle class. now, our colleagues weren't flying blind. they weren't naive. they knew they were passing what the white house chief of staff said was designed to be the most progressive domestic legislation in a generation. and they knew the risk, which one liberal economist described as, quote, inflationary pressures of a kind we have not seen in a generation. sure enough, inflation just clocked the faster year-on-year increase since 2008. but partnersly according to president biden himself, the solutions is, listen to this, even more of the same.

today instead of deflecting attention from the fact that his administration's springtime approach was flat wrong, the president actually doubled down. he suggested the right way to shake this inflation was, listen to this, another $3.5 trillion in spending. this is the same reckless taxing and spending spree the democrats dreamt up when they assumed our economy would be having the opposite problem. but now all that same borrowing, printing, and spending is supposed to be what the doctor ordered to fight inflation? inflate our way out of inflation? let's hope the american people don't have to learn firsthand how that strategy would work out. another multitrillion-dollar reckless taxing and spending spree, believe me, is the last thing american families need. now, on an entire different

matter, a few months ago a group of democrats and left-wing advocates brought the state of georgia into the national spotlight. tremendous outrage, an air of crisis was cooked up, cooked up, out of nowhere. the state of georgia was passing a mainstream, commonsense election law. it combined widely popular integrity protections, protections like voter i.d. with a great deal of flexibility and availability to make voting easy. it codified more flexible early voting and more flexible mail-in voting than many democrat-run states offer -- for example, new york. americans want to make it easy to vote and harder to cheat. voter i.d., for example, is popular with blacks, whites and hispanics. but in their ongoing bid to

mount a washington, d.c., takeover, democrats seized on this mainstream law and decided to start shouting that the sky was falling down in georgia. the sky is falling down in georgia. unfortunately for the people of georgia, many people in the press and corporate america bought it. they got major league baseball to move its all-star game out of georgia, actual work opportunities, actual prosperity for working people were sacrificed to serve this faked hysteria. well today georgians got what you might call a very weak consolation prize. today a week after the all-star game was supposed to happen in atlanta, democrats themselves descended on the state to stage a bit of partisan theater. last week the traveling road show was texas democrats coming here to washington to beg senate

democrats to seize power away from their own citizens and local governments. this week was our own colleagues' turn to get on the jets, but the rhetoric was just as hysterical and the conclusion all the same. washington democrats need to gain unprecedented power and rewrite all 50 states' election laws. it's the same shtick we've been here in this chamber for multiyears. their sweeping takeover bill was written long, long before any of the state laws they now claim are prompting it. this phony outrage is wearing thin on the american people. citizens know it isn't attacking democrats to have things like commonsense voter i.d. and commonsense voter list maintenance alongside lots of early voting, lots of mail-inest have something and lots of election day voting.

that kind of combination isn't an attack on democracy. it is the definition of democracy. it's exactly what americans want. a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the majority whip. mr. durbin: madam president, in response to the minority leader's statement about the changes in voting laws across america, the record speaks for itself. i believe the number is 17, 17 states controlled by the republicans and the legislature

which have set out to specifically limit previous opportunities under law to vote. coincidence that 17 states would do these things? i don't think so. i think it's by design. that's why the senate rules committee was in georgia today to talk specifically about the measures that they took after the last election. remember, this is all being done in the context of a former president, the sorest loser in the history of the united states, and his big lie about what was wrong with the last election. well, i can tell you what was not wrong with the last election. in many states the turnout broke records. more americans eligible to vote turned out to vote, and that's a good thing in a democracy. and when it comes to allegations of fraud, all of the money that has been spent on lawsuits, all of the allegations of voter fraud that have been

investigated, it turns out to be a handful of cases. maybe a dozen out of millions of votes cast in the united states. so there's no argument for changing election voting laws based on fraud. there certainly is no argument when it comes to the outcome of the election. that was clear, and it has been to everyone except one former president for a long time. and yet the republicans when in control of state legislatures are by design trying to make it more difficult for people to vote. why? the answer is very simple. the demographics of america are not sont -- is not on the side of the republican party. the new demographics are moving away from donald trump, away from the party creed that they preach. instead they're moving to be independents or to even vote on the other side.

to argue and fight against that, the republicans in legislative settings are reducing and restricting the opportunity to vote. that's what it's all about. the senator from kentucky attributes it to hysteria. it is not. it is a genuine concern over whether in this country, where democracy is our creed and our goal in every election, we have the most participation, fair participation by eligible voters that we've ever had, and we continue to build obltions. -- build on that. madam president, on a separate issue, i cannot imagine what life would be like if i were a kid growing up in america, always wondering if something i said, something i did, some action that was taken by some member of my family would result in a knock or -- on the door wih

my family being torn apart, my father or mother being deported to another country. but for hundreds of thousands of young people living in america, that has been the reality of their childhood. most of them brought to this country at a very early age, infants and toddlers and young people, had nothing to say about the choice of america as home, but they always assumed it was their home. they grew up in this country, went to the schools, got up every morning in the classroom and pledged allegiance to that flag believing they were truly americans. and it wasn't for many of them until their teenage years that their parents sat down with them and very quietly and solemnly told them you've got a challenge in your life you didn't even realize. you're undocumented. you were brought to this country by us as a little kid, and you don't have any papers.

if you are challenged, if you are arrested, you can be deported. and the same thing just might happen to your mother or your father. i can't imagine with all of the stress of childhood and adolescence, having that worry as well. and yet, for hundreds of thousands of young people, through no fault of their own, that was part of their lives. that came to my attention 20 years ago, a case in chicago which i've spoken about on the floor many times, where a young girl finally realized at the end of high school the really stark choices she had in her life, and she reached out to my office, and we looked into the situation. she was brought here to the united states, born in brazil to korean parents, had no legal status in the united states, and grew up here, and she wanted to know what to do with her life, what was next for

her. the law was very harsh, but it was clear as well. at the age of 18, our law said to theresa li, a young korean girl in chicago, you have to leave the united states for ten years and petition to return. it didn't seem right or fair or just to her, and so i introduced the dream act. and that's when i came to realize theresa's story was not unique. there were thousands just like her. and over the last 20 years i've met a lot of them. an amazing group of young men and women who have done remarkable things with their lives with limited resources and always under the shadow of deportation. the dream act has been brought to the floor of the senate five different times and failed not because it didn't win a majority, but because of the filibuster.

so we've tried in those 20 years to get something done, and we've had our really troublesome moments. i think back to one of the worst. under the previous president, donald trump, daca, a program created by president obama for these dreamers, was really an issue from the start that we begged president trump to consider. president obama, a friend of mine and former colleague from illinois, told me that he spent an extra hour in transition with president trump in the white house while obama was still president. it was supposed to last an hour. it lasted two hours. and he said to me, he said i spent that last hour talking about daca and dreamers, telling him how important it was to get this right that these young people deserved a chance. and he listened very intently.

and president obama said i hope it will help you when it doms these dreamers. the first time i met donald trump was on his inauguration day at a luncheon. the first thing i said was i hope you give those dreamers a chance to become part of america and he said senator durbin, don't worry i'm going to take care of those dreamers. about halfway through his presidency he tried to abolish the daca program and subject these dreamers to deportation. it was a very dark period. for many of them, they are despondent. several of them said they couldn't take it anymore. the pressure they were under to create a life in america under the shadow of deportation, and now they have a president who is really determined to make them leave america. well, the courts took a look at

what president trump had to do, all the way up to the supreme court across the street. and it was chief justice roberts who wrote the decision which said the method that donald trump's administration use to eliminate daca was stricken as arbitrary and capricious. so there was a new lease on life and a new opportunity for them until friday -- thursday i suppose it was. friday night or thursday that the federal judge in texas made the most recent ruling. on friday night a federal judge in texas issued a ruling declaring that the deferred action for childhood arrivals, or daca, was unlawful. and the judge blocked the biden administration from approving new daca applications. a new setback for the dreamers. this decision was made in response to a lawsuit filed by republican state attorneys

general. it was the culmination of a long campaign which included the action of president trump by republicans to deport the demers. -- dreamers. what is it about these young people that infuriates these young people so much? i'll tell you what i've found as i've come to know them, some of the most amazing stories you can imagine, not just the threat of the shadow of deportation over their lives but what they've done anyway becoming doctors, lawyers, teachers and engineers, serving in our army, working for america in essential jobs in the midst of a pandemic. it's an amazing group of people. it's just the kind of people we want and need for the future of this country. but let me state this unequivocally. the cruel and misguided decision of this court will not stand. daca is a lawful exercise of

executive prosecutorial discretion by the department of homeland security. more than 800,000 young people in our country who receive daca protection, and they help save lives every day as nurses and doctors and first responders. they contribute to our economy and our future as business owners, engineers, and teachers. they are a vital part of our communities as friends, family members, and loved ones. america is the only home these dreamers have ever known, and congress has waited long enough, in fact it's waited too long to allow them to finally become american citizens. friday's ruling is yet another reminder of the hell that these young people put up with over the past two decades. under the trump administration, dreamers endured one attack after another. when former president trump

attempted to repeal daca, it put hundreds of thousands of young people at risk of being deported to countries they didn't even remember. and when the supreme court ruled that the former president's repeal of daca was unlawful, he simply defied the court's decision and stopped daca applicants from being approved. for months president trump refused to reopen the program for new applicants despite the clear direction of the united states supreme court. approximately 300,000 of these young people were unable to receive the protections they deserved because of president trump's unilateral hateful action. in response to a court order, daca was finally reopened for the new applicants in december. but now, just as the biden administration is processing these applications, the door was shut again in the federal court in texas on friday. in the words of one dreamer,

adonias, quote, it's such an uncertainty not to be able to plan my life. thankfully president biden has vowed to appeal this decision, but we need to prevent conservative judicial activists on the bench, politicians in black robes from striking down the president's lawful efforts to protect dreamers. congress cannot wait any longer. america cannot wait any longer. senate democrats need to provide a permanent legislative solution for the dreamers. we need to act swiftly. i hope that my republican colleagues with conscience will think long and hard about whether they're going to stand in the way of the dreamers at this moment in history. we need their help, and not just some halfhearted, symbolic attempt, but generally to give these young people a fighting chance to make america a better

nation. to all the dreamers out there, i promise you, we'll work as hard as necessary to get this job done and as quickly as possible. madam president, i'd like to speak on a different topic. i ask unanimous consent that it be placed at a separate point in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: madam president, on saturday night baseball fans at nationals park here in washington,d.c., not far from where we stand, were sent into a panic by a sound that has become all too familiar in american cities -- the sound of gunfire. in the middle of the sixth inning, the teams left the field when it was reported that three people were shot outside the stadium on south capitol street. that burst of gunfire reverberated throughout the stadium. it could be heard on television and radio in broadcasting the game.

it was bad. it could have been worse. thankfully nobody inside the stadium was harmed, and many thanks to the first responders for keeping the attendees safe. but the photos and videos from saturday night tell a clear story. we are a nation that has become traumatized by gun violence. the 4th of july weekend, the city of chicago, a city i dealer love and honored to represent, 104 gunshot victims that weekend, 19 deaths. we've come to accept, sadly, mass shooting as a possibility anywhere in america, as a baseball park, in a movie theater, in houses of worship, even in our schools. mass shootings happen on the streets of chicago almost every weekend. just this last weekend more than

50 were shot in our city, including seven children and teenagers. the sad reality is gun violence has become as american as baseball. the question before this senate again and again and again is, will we do anything about it? will we take minimum steps to reduce gun violence in america? steps like making it more difficult for convicted felons and unstable people to buy firearms. nearly every american supports that and yet the gaps in the federal gun laws continue. right now it is simply too easy for a convicted felon or person with a history of serious mental illness to buy a gun from an unlicensed dealer. a person, no questions asked, can easily buy a gun from an

unlicensed seller just minutes away from the city of chicago in the state of indiana and that gun will be sold and resold many times over in our city of chicago many times the same day. in march, the house passed h.r.8, a bipartisan measure to close the gaps in our background check system. senator murphy of connecticut and senator manchin have been leading negotiations to get bipartisan support. i am waiting for their signal that we're ready to move on that legislation. i hope senate republicans will join us in supporting this and other commonsense measures, like confirming a director for an agency that enforces the law like thetive for the -- a.t.f. it is time for us to come together and put an end to the senseless violence. madam president, i yield the floor and suggest the absence of

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

quorum call:

a senator: i ask unanimous consent to vitiate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. tuberville: madam president, i'm starting to feel a little bit like a broken record. i'm here on the floor again to echo the concerns of my constituents and so many folks across our great country. people across the country are cautiously checking their bank accounts and they are looking at the price of milk and bread and things that they have to buy every day. they're driving out of the way to see which gas stations even have gas, and when they do find that, they're looking for the lowest price. just as we're starting to come out of the pandemic, prices are starting to rise and our dollar

isn't going as far. why? because democrats want to spend their way out of a pandemic, and it really makes no sense. they're throwing trillions around like it's monopoly money. it's not targeted to those who need it most, but it's on policy items that only appease their base, far left, not even a majority of their party. they're flooding the zone with borrowed money like a credit card with no limit. they've done it with stimulus package early in the year, and it was disguised as a covid relief package, and now they're getting ready to try the same thing again. last week, leader schumer announced that the democrats reached an agreement on a budget reconciliation resolution which is like the pregame warmup for the next reconciliation package.

the price tag for that agreement has been set at $3.5 trillion. let me take a minute to highlight what i think is wrong with the bill. first of all, i'm not sure how anyone could call this an agreement. one democrat senator who doesn't appear to have been consulted on the so-called agreement in the first place said the package needs to be fully paid for. so let me translate that to you. that means we need tax increases. last week, we talked about the 30 new tax increases that will probably be in this bill. on the other hand, we've got democrat senators saying it's okay if this package adds to the deficit. $3.5 trillion. added to the $30 trillion that we're already in debt. we already know at least one senator wants the top line number to be as much as

$6 trillion, while others are calling for $2 trillion to $3 trillion, which, by the way, is still too much spending. it doesn't seem like everyone has fully committed to this so-called agreement. it appears the democrats are in disarray when it comes to agreeing to this. announcing that there is agreement when they still have members of their own party arguing over the final top line number and how it's paid for, that's a pretty interesting strategy. the only thing i can guess is that the strategy is really to pull the wool over all of our eyes, trying to sell the agreement of a top line number as a win is like anything that is saying that you won the game after the first snap. folks, you have to play the game. you can't go by the first quarter results.

you've got to play the entire game. second, i can't understand why some of my colleagues across the aisle are still trying to sell this tax and spending bill as human and soft infrastructure. most people have never heard of that. i haven't been up here long, but i know enough to know there is really no such thing as human and soft infrastructure. for some reason, we keep adding definitions to webster's dictionary. it appears that our democrat colleagues have once again duped a few members of the media. they can't stop parroting this human infrastructure phrase. let's just call the package what it is. it's a spending plan on progressive social justice policies paid for by the american taxpayers by 30 tax increases. it has nothing to do with

infrastructure, even if they could define what infrastructure of the human and soft variety it, i know reckless -- a reckless tax and spending spree is not as catchy as soft infrastructure, but at least it's accurate. but lastly -- and this is the most important part -- there are costs associated with the level of spending that democrats are laying out, real costs that hurt the american families. whether it is fully paid for by tax increase or whether it adds to the deficit, it all boils down to the same thing -- the cost to american families across our country. the small business owner, the operator, the manufacturing worker, the farmer, moms and dads, hardworking americans across the country will be impacted at the absolute worst

time -- when they are trying to recover from a pandemic. take the cost of tax increases on small businesses, for example. according to the job creators network, one million -- that's one million small businesses will feel the financial strain of tax increases. through this billion, one million. many of these small businesses are still struggling after being shuttered in place for a year, battling against government-induced shortages. with only 8% of small businesses on a solid economic footing after this past year -- only 8% of our small businesses are really actually getting back on their feet -- we should be working to help every small business see the light at the end of the tunnel, not increasing the heavy hand of government and keeping them in the dark. it makes no sense.

then there's the let's just keep spending and add to the deficit approach. the cost of spending so much and adding to the deficit means more inflation, more inflation means your dollar doesn't about near as far as it has in the past. in the june jobs report, we saw inflation up 4.5% and the consumer price index increased by 5.4%, the biggest monthly jump in over a decade. the rising cost of inflation means americans are making tough choices on what is most important to them, like filling up your car with gas or buying food for your family. there's no reason why we should have to be making these choices. in a nation as ours -- in a nation as great as ours, hardworking americans shouldn't

have to choose. american families are caught in the middle of rising prices, and the democrats' never-ending need to appease the far left. and then there's the democrats' view of america, the one where big government reigns supreme. well, let me tell you, the big-government approach does not work, and it never has. alabamians want big government to get out of the way because they know that big-government programs only tie their hands and stifle innovation and growth. we need to give folks an opportunity, not a handout, and right now democrats are on the wrong track with that. a government-subsidized economic recovery is not an economic recovery. it's an entitlement state. we need to get back to work.

prosperity is not purchased through the expansion of big government. how many times have we heard that? the expansion of big government safety net programs government does not make people prosperous. prosperity is found within the ideas of the american people. always has been, and it always will. democrats are signaling that they're okay with the cost to the american families if it means that they can pay for a whole grab bag of far-left policies like the expansion of medicare, free college, and amnesty for illegal immigrants. if all this wasn't bad enough, here's the worst of it -- our democratic colleagues have taken their priorities that are too radical to pass the senate in creating and if-then scenario

with infrastructure negotiations. far-left voices in their party, senator schumer and speaker pelosi have decided that a massive spending bill should hold actual infrastructure legislation hostage. if -- in their world, if we pass a partisan spending bill, then we can pass infrastructure. well, that doesn't sit right with a lot of folks. by linking a bipartisan proposal to a partisan reconciliation package, my democrat colleagues are showing their cards. the cards show that they really want this reckless tax-and-spend spree to pass, and they are fundamentally unserious about a true infrastructure package that would make needed improvements to roads, bridges, and broadband

possible. and that's a shame. by tying budget reconciliation to infrastructure, the american people are the ones who will be left out to dry. i've always said i would be in favor of infrastructure -- we all would be -- a great infrastructure deal where every parliamentary inquiry penny of every dollar -- where every penny of every dollar goes towards roads, bridges, and waterways and broadband. but the american taxpayer knows they have to pay for it. they know eventually they'll have to pay for it, but they need something they're putting their money into that they can get something back. but we cannot let a partisan tax-and-spend spree bog us down and hold back the american taxpayer.

this summer so many americans are traveling across the country. this includes most of us who travel across our state, me across alabama. as i have been on the road, i am reminded once again that we need improvements to our infrastructure. it's more than just fixing potholes on a city street. we rely on infrastructure every day. during our drive to work, trucks moving our goods up and down the highways; when a ship leaves a port with cargo or we just get on the internet. all those are infrastructure. good infrastructure allows people to move freely, it keeps our products flowing, and it maintains americans' competitiveness in the global economy. in alabama, we've got 100,000 miles of public roads, and we need them to be in good shape. driving on poor roads cost

alabama drivers a total of $4.2 billion every year. because of things like vehicle operating costs, traffic congestion and car crashes, we can tell our roads need work. we've got a thousand condemned bridges -- 1,000 -- just in the state of alabama. out of 16,000 bridges, we have 1,000 that have been condemned that need to be repaired in the worst way. and an increasingly outlying world, getting access to the internet is more important than ever, whether it is for work, health care, going to school, we need broadband. across our entire state. investing in our infrastructure is investing in our future success. it is way past time to step up on this act. the american people need help

with infrastructure, and that's what we should be concentrating on. but, despite that, our colleagues on the left still can't resist playing politics here. before the actual bill -- text of the bipartisan infrastructure framework could be written and before the pay-fors were negotiated, leader schumer has called a vote on the framework. i know it is pretty hard to get a majority of skeptical senators to vote on anything, much less something that's not even been written yet. we don't even have the bill written, but we're going to vote on it. these are serious times that call for serious actions, so we should be very careful considering this framework, not rushing towards arbitrary deadlines. as our country's economy is trying to recover from the pandemic, anything and everything we do has to be thoughtfully considered, especially when it comes to passing legislation that costs

money in the long run, and this is going to cost a lot of money. because this is the taxpayers' money, after all -- your money -- we owe it to the taxpayer to spend their money in the most efficient and effective way possible. firstly, i don't think it is ever a good time to raise taxes. but i can tell you the absolute worst time is when we're still coming out of an absolute global pandemic. there are commonsense ways to pay for some of this new infrastructure spending, chief among them is redirecting all that unused covid money that the democrats insisted on spending earlier this year, and there is a lot of it left. let me be clear -- raising taxes on the american people should be a nonstarter for any potential bill. it certainly is for a lot of

people. folks, simply put, a dollar spent on traditional infrastructure is a dollar well spent. but it's got to be done in a smart and targeted way. and we can't allow democrats to hurt americans by creating an if-then scenario. let's spend some time on the infrastructure bill and do it the right way. then we can turn to debating all the spending that our colleagues on the left have their sights set on. but we have to do the infrastructure bill first. hopefully congress can deliver the targeted results our country deserves, results that don't increase the tax burden on the american people. throughout this debate, you can count on a lot of us to be a strong voice for making infrastructure work. for three or hour things -- alabama, our neighbors, our

country's rural areas, and the american taxpayer. we can get this done. let's just do it the right way. madam president, i notice the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: the presiding officer: the senator from new york. mrs. gillibrand: i request unanimous consent to vitiate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. gillibrand: thank you, madam president. i rise again to call for every

senator to have the chance to vote on our bill, the military justice improvement increasing prevention act. it's time to move the most serious crimes like sexual assault and murder out of the chain of command and put them in the hands of the most capable people in the military, independent, impartial, highly trained uniformed prosecutors. this is an issue that deserves urgency. i began calling for a full floor vote since may 24. since that time an estimated 3,136 service members will have been raped or sexually assaulted and more will have been victims of other serious crimes. while i'm heartened to see after many years of pushing for reform the growing numbers of our colleagues, the department of defense, and the president have acknowledged that we must move sexual assault and related crimes like domestic violence out of the chain of command, but it's simply not enough. i ask my colleagues to consider

what it truly means to have a special victim prosecutor looking only at cases of sexual assault and related crimes. it means that all of the myriad crimes that are often linked with special victims cases will get left out and pushed into a system that is not trained to see them for what they are. let's just take a simple case. say a soldier takes his girlfriend's checkbook and forges her name. if a commander looks at that they're likely to take it at case value, a cut and dry case of someone stealing money from someone else and move forward with nonjudicial punishment. if a military prosecutor were to look at that same case they might see something different. that's because they are trained to see lynch linkages between crimes, taught to ask different questions. if they see a forged check they ask is there more happening here, and there usually is.

research has shown that financial abuse occurs in 99% of domestic violence cases. financial abuses can be the means by which an abuser gains control in a relationship and it's often the main reason a survivor stays with their abuser. while a prosecutor who worked on cases of both financial crimes and domestic violence would know, a commander wouldn't likely know. the truth is the realities of intimate partner violence go far beyond sexual assault and harassment. it can include forging checks and carrying out other forms of financial fraud as well as other serious crimes. we know that child endangerment can be linked to domestic violence and intimate partner violence as can kidnapping. arson can be the tool of someone attempting to cover up these crimes. and murder, manslaughter, and the murder of a pregnant woman can be and often are the final tragic culmination of domestic violence. when these types of crimes are

presented to commanders, they may just be the tip of an iceberg, the tip of an iceberg of cases we all agree should be handled by a special prosecutor. so if we truly want to have -- if we truly want to help survivors of sexual assault and domestic violence, we have to acknowledge that some of those crimes don't happen in a vacuum. we must remove all serious crimes out of the chain of command and into the hands of trained prosecutors who have the education, training, and experience that these cases require and that our service members deserve. the military justice improvement increasing prevention act does exactly that. and it's supported by the major veteran service organization groups as well as groups like the national alliance to end sexual violence and the national coalition against domestic violence who recognize the true impact of this reform. it's also a bipartisan filibuster-proof majority of

senators who should be allowed the opportunity to cast their vote. madam president, i ask unanimous consent that a time to be determined by the majority leader in consultation with the republican leader, the senate armed services committee be discharged from further consideration of s. 1520 and the senate proceed to its consideration, that there be two hours for debate equally divided in the usual form, and that upon the use or yielding back of that time the senate vote on the bill with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: is there objection? a senator: i object, madam president. the presiding officer: objection is observed. is the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: i've been to the floor several times is with senator gillibrand sr. not only to compliment her on the hard work she's put into this bill for so many years now, i think

going back to 2013, but also to give my support to this effort as well. she doesn't need the compliments. she doesn't want them. but i say she's entitled to the hard work that she's put into this bill, and it's time that we pass this legislation. we're told that the bill will be considered by the armed services committee as part of the ndaa. that's not a good reason to deny consideration as a stand-alone bill on the floor, which is what senator gillibrand has been to this floor numerous times to get done, and each time objected to. now the armed services committee serves this senate well for what it does on military policy, but

when it comes to this particular piece of legislation; it's unfortunate that the committee has a track record of gutting provisions that they don't like, even after the provisions receive the votes to be included. on another issue, i want to recall in a what the senate and house conferees did to a bill that cut, to prevent cuts to the international guard, the provision was included both in the house and senate ndaa but was quietly struck from the conference report, and bringing this bill up separately on the floor of the united states senate, getting it passed will prevent like things from happening to this sexual assault legislation. so this legislation is needed now. i think she, senator gillibrand has said it's got 66 cosponsors

cosponsors, and that's exactly right because there's far too many women and men in the armed forces being sexually assaulted; and most never see justice. the rates of retaliation are too high and prosecutions are too low. over the past month i've heard be -- heard be favorable comments about attacking this issue from president biden. i've heard an independent commission at the pentagon speak to it. i've heard secretary austin speak to it. now whether they specifically support this legislation or not, they at least have admitted that sexual assault in the military is a major, major problem that needs to be dealt with in some way, but i'm

saying it will never be dealt with until we get senator gillibrand's legislation passed. more importantly, it has the votes -- 66 votes in the u.s. senate for sure, and probably more when people have to put their vote on the line -- to be a stand-alone piece of legislation. it's time for the legislation to finally move forward, and i urge my colleagues to allow it to proceed. but as has happened before, we found out today is not that day. but that day should have been years ago, considering this problem getting worse from year to year. and more importantly, the fact that it's such a big problem and retaliation is such a big problem that you don't even get accurate statistics on the number of people that have been sexually assaulted because they know if they go forward and report it, they'll be

retaliated against. it's a situation we have accepted. it's a situation that we've, we dealt with for too long without the solutions that have been promised working. and so the only way to solve this problem is with senator gillibrand's legislation. i yield the floor. of. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: madam president, i'd ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cornyn: madam president, over the last 16 months no community has been spared from the devastation of covid-19. the virus itself has claimed the lives of more than 600,000 americans, including more than 50,000 texans. we're still gaining a fuller picture of the far-reaching consequences of the pandemic. we know that the mitigation efforts led to the closure of countless small businesses and up into the livelihood of millions of workers. the transition to virtual learning robbed children of valuable time learning alongside their peers in the classroom. and the emotional and financial stresses of the pandemic led to devastating consequences for our friends and neighbors who are

already in a vulnerable situation. as families spent more time isolating at home last year, we saw an increase in domestic violence. individuals already experiencing anxiety and depression faced even greater challenges during this difficult period. and those battling substance use disorders faced an even stearp steeper climb. many lost access to treatment facilities and outreach programs. no community has been spared from the wrath of the opioid epidemic. in 2019, there were more than 70,000 overdose deaths in america, a devastating number. now we have a much clearer picture of how this crisis worsened in 2020. last year more than 93,000 americans died from drug overdoses.

that's more than a 30% increase over the previous year. it marks the largest annual increase in at least three decades. following years of fighting to turn the tide on the opioid epidemic, this is a stunning blow and a deep disappointment. here in the senate, this issue is about as bipartisan as they come. as i said, every state, every community has been hit by the scourge of opioids and every person in this chamber, i believe, wants to turn the tide on this crisis. in 2016, thanks to the leadership of our friend, senator portman of ohio, and the hard work of a bipartisan group of senators, we passed what became known as cara, the comprehensive addiction and recovery act, to help end this devastating cycle of drug abuse and death. just a couple of years ago we celebrated some incremental

progress. in 2018, drug overdoses were down, or deaths from drug overdoses were down 4% from the previous year, the first decrease in nearly three decades. but unfortunately, that trend was short lived. overdose deaths increased in 2019 and they skyrocketed in 2020. now is the time for the senate to take further action and help the american people fight back. tomorrow the senate caucus on international narcotics control will hold a hearing on the federal government's response to the drug overdose crisis. we'll hear from experts, including the acting directors of the office of national drug control policy and the substance abuse and mental health services administration as well as dr. vora volkov, director of

the national institute on drug abuse. i hope we will learn more about what additional steps we can take to reverse this concerning trend as well as what more needs to be done. one of the most effective ways to avoid drug overdose deaths is to prevent the drugs reaching our communities in the first place, and, of course, customs and border protection play a vital role in protecting our country and it's seeming an alarming amount of drugs coming across our southern border as i speak. one of the most concerning, of course, being fentanyl, a synthetic opioid. depending on your body weight, two milligrams of fentanyl can be lethal. a kilogram which is 2.2 pounds could kill 500,000 people.

2.2 pounds of fentanyl, something you could put a couple of kilograms in a backpack and walk it over the southwestern border. in fiscal year 2021 so far, customs and border protection seized 500,000 pounds of fentanyl, that is a 70% increase. the amount of fentanyl we've interdicted in the past five months is just shy of the total weight of fiscal year's 2018, 2019, and 2020 combined. that's a dramatic increase and it has deadly consequences. nearly three-quarters of fatal overdoses last year were attributed to opioids, some synthetic and others like heroin

manufactured in mexico, 90% of which imported into the united states comes from mexico. the increase of supply coming across the southwestern border foreshatos even more statistics in the months and years to come. fentanyl isn't the only drug moving across our southern border, meth am debt fiend and cocaine are coming into our country as alarming rates. if people don't care about the humanitarian crisis at the border that's seen a million encounters were border patrol in the last year alone, if they don't care about the fact that we're not stopping illegal immigration into the country and what consequences that will have on our country for many years to come, hopefully they care a little bit about the drug overdose deaths that are caused by the illegal importation

across the southern border. according to the drug enforcement administration's national drug assessment, the vast majority of heroin comes from mexico, a staggering 92% to be precise. as we discussed the border on the crisis, i talked about the cascading consequences of this migration surge. when border patrol agents are pulled off the front lines to care for migrant children, as many of them are, it creates a huge gap in our border controls and creates huge security vulnerabilities. and it of course makes it more difficult for the border patrol to do the job that they signed on for, which is to interdict dangerous people and substances, including these dangerous drugs. until we can get the current humanitarian crisis under control, we're making it nearly impossible for the border patrol

to catch or deter the cartels from moving their poison across the border. and we're creating even more risks for americans already struggling with addiction and drug abuse. getting the border under control should be a top priority for the biden administration, but they seem completely oblivious to what's happening and they don't really seem to understand the dynamics. we know the traditional push factors, poverty, violence in your home country, but it takes a lot for people to want to leave their home country and take the dangerous trek to the united states. but, of course, they are having the coyotes, the human smugglers whisper in their ears and say for $5,000, for $7,000, we'll get you to america. but it's also the pull factors,

it's the perception that if you come to the border that you will successfully make your way into the interior and you will be allowed to stay. of course that's not what our laws call for, but that's exactly what the smugglers, the coyotes are planning on and what is attracting, like a huge magnet, hundreds of thousands, even a million people this year alone across our southern border. and it's the same chaos and confusion caused by this flooding of the border and the diversion of law enforcement that's allowing these drugs to come across the border which, as i said, have killed 93,000 americans in the last year alone. in addition to stopping these drugs from making their way into our country, we also need to identify more effective ways to break the cycle of addiction, and that's especially true for those individuals who have been

incarcerated. it's difficult to know the exact numbers but research shows that an estimated 65% of the u.s. prison population has an active substance use disorder. without access to treatment while incarcerated, these men and women face a steep, maybe an impossible judgment hill climb after they are released. in order to give an incarcerated individual the strongest possible opportunity after serving their time in our criminal justice system, we need to invest more in effective treatment options once they leave prison. the good news is there's already a bipartisan bill out there that does exactly that. earlier this year senator whitehouse, the senator from rhode island and i introduced the residential substance use disorder act to help incar rated individuals -- incarcerated individuals to break this cycle

of addiction. we know we won't be able to save everybody, but for those who will put in the hard work and effort and seek the counseling and treatment that's necessary, we believe we can save some lives. this updates the residential treatment program and expands access to treatment in jails and prisons across the country. the program, as it currently exists, already provides incarcerated individuals with access to treatment for substance use disorders. that treatment is coupled with programs to prepare these men and women for reentry into civil society and provide community-based treatment once they are released. because of these men and women who have struggled hard while they've been in prison and in jail to overcome their addiction merely are returning to the same conditions and friends and communities that they came from, without this kind of help, we

know what the results are likely to be. our legislation opens up even more opportunities for successful rehabilitation and continued recovery. it provides providers with more options to treat substance use disorders. it requires program staff to be trained in the science of addiction, evidence-based therapies and strategies for continuity of care. and it ensures programs are affiliated with providers who can continue treatment after incarceration. in short, these changes will give the formerly incarcerated men and women the best possible shot at living healthier, longer, and more productive lives. i'm sure it's no surprise that this kind of legislation has strong bipartisan support both here in the senate and among the various organizations that work in this field.

27 groups wrote a letter to whitehouse and me endorsing this legislation. this includes a broad range of criminal justice and behavioral groups such as the addiction policy forum, the national alliance on mental illness and the community antidrug coalitions of america. i haven't heard from be a single senator, republican or democrat, who's expressed opposition or even concern about the bill. this is an example of the bipartisan, commonsense actions that we need to be taking more often, and in this case to address a very serious and clearly growing problem. these commonsense policy changes can help people struggling with drug abuse to finally escape the cycle and build a better life when they return to their communities. i hope, madam president, that the senate will soon pass this bill and move it one step closer

to president biden's desk. the dramatic spike in drug overdose deaths last year should serve as a call to action for all of us. to secure our border, to help those struggling to overcome addiction, the tools and the training to do so, there's an urgent action that we can take and should take to address both. madam president, i yield the floor, and i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mrs. blackburn: thank you, madam president. there was such an interesting occurrence that happened down

the street a bit at 1600 pennsylvania avenue last weekend, and it is when white house press secretary jen sokey unveiled the scheme that they worked out with big tech. well, what they are setting about to do is remove -- and i'm quoting her -- problematic content from facebook and other digital platforms. that is right. they, the white house team, have decided that they are going to work with big tech and they are going to remove problematic, their term, content from facebook and other digital platforms. now, i am certain that the white house was very confident that the press would treat this rather bizarre administration like they have treated other

blatant oversteps coming out of this administration. after all, they, the press, have provided reliable cover for this white house since inauguration day, but here is the problem. it is no longer inauguration day. there is now a record to consider, and i'll tell you what, no matter what they do the mainstream media is not going to be able to turn the clock back on this overstep. in just six months the biden administration has done an admirable job showing the american people exactly who they are. we've seen enough at this point to take the administration of being in cahoots at big tech --

with big tech at face value. the administration has overwhelmed the airwaves with promises that are conveniently the light on details, and there's a good reason for that. what president biden and the democrats are trying to do would fundamentally transform this country into something that we, the people, would have a very difficult time even recognizing. they got off to a great start toward their goals by killing jobs in the name of climate extremism and opening the border to a flood of illegal immigrants with no plan at all to manage the influx. they just said, let's send them to the states and let local communities and states cover this cost. they tried to dupe the american people into getting behind a

so-called infrastructure plan that was anything but infrastructure, then they doubled down on a brazen attempt to extend the federal government's control over schools and homes. they labeled this spending spree the american families plan to provide cover for yet another attack on, what else, the nuclear family. then they launched an all-all war on the -- an all-out war on the ballot box in the name of the people and now we see they worked out a perfect system to force the opposition to shut up, just throw a flag on your opponents and watch their digital footprint and their freedom of speech evaporate. there is a way to shut them down. it is called government-approved

messaging. obviously somewhere in the white house they took away their realities are they alluded to back in january and now this is what we're seeing. i know we already have members of the mainstream media that are running defense on behalf of this little collaboration between the white house and big tech, but it's time to get serious about what is going on here. the president of the united states is using the full force of his administration to silence his political opponents. that is correct. this isn't dystopian. it also raises serious questions about how much pressure the federal government can put on a private entity to restrict

political speech. think about that. this administration, working with big tech, is going to deem certain messages government approved, and others as being open to censorship. it is indeed a complete violation of the trust the american people put in joe biden when they sent him to the white house, but as the new majority has made clear, to tear down and rebuild the united states in their own image is something that is a goal, and in order to do that, they attack the foundation. they have to get rid of all the things that make america so incredibly special -- our commitment to safety and security, the importance of the family, and the near sacrobe saingt promise of free speech

and open -- near sacrosanct promise of free speech and open debate. they have gotten off to a pretty good start, those democrats, but for their vision to take hold, the democrat majority must convince a critical mass of their countrymen to adopt their same narrow viewpoint. fortunately, the american people are not accustomed to doing what they are told simply because an authority figure said go do it. here is a quote, that former president reagan made regularly, and i know we have heard it and seen it on this floor several times so far this year. freedom is nevermore -- never more than one generation away from extinction. it has to be fought for and defended by each generation. that is so important for us to

remember. it is important because it is something that we are seeing really kind of lived out right now. we have to take this as something of a warning when you look at the steps this administration is taking. if anything, they are taking these steps to see just how far they can push the limits of democracy, how much will the people take, how much freedom are they willing to give up. just about every single policy coming out of this white house has been used by the democrats as a weapon to diminish freedom in the name of a preapproved socialist fantasy, and in that fantasy, there is no room for free speech or dissent.

censorship becomes normalized. it's expected. collectivism replaces individualism. the philosophies of democracy and self-determination fall victim to the moving goalposts of a living constitution, and freedom is reduced to an outdated trope that only the unenlightened cling to. madam president, i wonder how much people in this country do you think actually have that as a goal? how many do you think are wanting to give up their free speech and their freedom and hand it over to the government? and let the government decide what they're going to give back to them, how much freedom they're going to allow them to

exercise over their daily lives, over their children's education, over the education that they want to have or the job they want to have. are the -- or the home they want to live in or the car that they want to drive. do you really think that americans americans want to give their freedom up? since the 2016 election, the left has existed in a state of perpetual hysteria. it's been over the threat that our god-given freedom poses threats to their radical socialist agenda, but instead of taking the conventional route of persuasion, they chose to -- the high-pressure guilt campaign to force people into a prepackaged american experience. they want everyone marching in line with the daily talking

points because we want calm, they say. democracy is too messy. it's too unpredictable. no one wants to exist in that system, they say. but i differ in my opinion. yes, it's messy, but this big, beautiful, diverse mess is what sets this country apart. it makes us strong and successful and unites us under the common cause of freedom. and as we're all well aware, it has also turned this shining city on a hill into a magnet for criticism from nations foundering under the disastrous consequences of their great socialist experiments. i would implore my colleagues on

the other side of the aisle to stop trying to fit in with these failing systems, stop diminishing the cause of freedom because it inconveniences you. abandon your fear of open debate. this constant refusal to engage says much more about the strength of your policy positions than it does about ours. above all, stop ignoring the american people. they didn't vote for this. they do not want this. and it is so interesting to me. every weekend to go home and listen to tennesseans who talk about the changes that they have seen in the democratic party and

the policies that are coming forward, that they are rejecting because they do not want to give up their freedom. they are willing to fight for their freedom so that their children and their grandchildren know the promises of the american dream and have the opportunity to live their lives in freedom. i yield the floor.

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. tiffany p. cunningham of illinois to be united states circuit judge for the federal circuit. the presiding officer: the question occurs on the nomination. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: the yeas are 63, the nays are 33, and the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order, the

motion to reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table, and the president will be immediately notified of the senate's action.

mr. schumer: madam president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. schumer: now, madam president, for the past several months, both democrats and republicans have been hard at work putting together two major infrastructure bills to meet the challenges of the 21st century. we have proceeded along two tracks. the first track is a bipartisan infrastructure framework that has been agreed to by a group of democrats and republican senators and the white house. the second track is a budget resolution with reconciliation instructions that will allow the senate to take up the american jobs and families plan and make historic investments in jobs, family support policies, and initiatives to fight climate change. this week, the senate aims to make even more progress on these tracks. tonight, in a few minutes, i will file cloture on a shell bill which will act as a legislative vehicle for the bipartisan infrastructure framework.

that vote on cloture will take place on wednesday. again, that vote on wednesday will be a vote on cloture simply to the motion to proceed to a debate on a bipartisan infrastructure bill. i want to be clear about what these steps mean. there has been some confusion. what we're talking about this week is a vote on whether to proceed to debate on the bipartisan infrastructure framework. the motion to proceed on wednesday is simply about getting the legislative process started here on the senate floor. it is not a deadline to determine every final detail of the bill. all a yes vote on the motion to proceed simply means is that the senate is ready to begin debating and amending a bipartisan infrastructure bill. no more, no less. it's important to remember that even after the wednesday cloture vote, there are up to 30 hours of debate before we can adopt

the motion to proceed and offer amendments. so let me be very clear about what i am committing to the senate as majority leader. if the bipartisan group of senators reach a final agreement on legislative text by thursday, i will make that agreement the pending substitute amendment for debate once the motion to proceed is adopted. if for some reason the group does not finalize the legislative text of the agreement in time for thursday, then i will offer an amendment consisting only of the elements of the bill that have already been put through committee on a bipartisan process. this will allow the senate to begin debate and amendments on the bipartisan base bill which has four main components. the environment and public works committee report of the water bill. this bill passed by a voice vote in committee and then 89-2 on the senate floor.

second, the environment and public works committee reported the highway bill. this passed by 20-0. the commerce committee report on the rail and safety bill. this bill passed by 25-3. the energy and natural wrowrgses bill report of the energy bill. this passed 13-7. again, if the text of the bipartisan deal is ready on thursday, i will offer it as the first substitute amendment. if for some reason it's not, i will offer an amendment that consists only of the elements of the bill that have gone through committee with substantial bipartisan support. the four pieces that i mentioned just a second ago. now i've spoken with the five leading democratic negotiators -- senator sinema and warner and tester and shaheen and manchin.

they support this approach. i would remind my colleagues moving to proceed to a legislative vehicle, a shell bill, for bipartisan legislation, even while the negotiators finalize the text of that legislation is a routine process in this chamber. we've done it repeatedly. it's a sign of good faith from boagget sides -- both sides that negotiations will continue in earnest and both sides are committed to reaching an outcome. earlier this year the senate moved forward on a vehicle, a legislative vehicle for what became the covid-19 anti-asian hate crimes act. in fact, we went through the same process when the senate moved to proceed to the legislative vehicle for it ultimately became the united states innovation and competition act. in that legislation, our senate committees were working on various bills that all had to do with american innovation and competition. the commerce committee reported

out the endless frontier. foreign relations committee reported out the strategic competition act and the homeland security committee-reported out additional pieces of legislation. we put them together once we voted to proceed to debate on the topic. the same thing, the very same thing is happening on the bipartisan infrastructure bill. i understand that both sides are working very hard to turn the bipartisan infrastructure framework into final legislation, and they will continue to have more time to debate, amend, and perfect the bill once the senate votes to take up this crucial issue. but they have been working on this bipartisan framework for more than a month already, and it's time to begin the debate. we must make significant progress on both the bipartisan infrastructure bill and the budget resolution before the end of the work period. there is no reason we can't get the ball rolling this week on

both elements of the senate's infrastructure agenda. and on one final matter, tomorrow the senate will take up a desperately needed fix to the victims of crime act. survivors of violent crime often bear tremendous financial hardship, everything from medical costs to emergency housing to legal fees and mental health services. after suffering a violent crime, the last thing americans should have to worry about is being unable to afford the basic services they need to stitch their lives back together. so for over 35 years the justice department's crime victims fund has provided assistance to americans impacted by violent crime, such as domestic abuse, sexual assault, human traffic, d.u.i.'s and others. traditional most of the funding came flu penalties that paid -- came through penalties that paid for federal convictions but over time it has shrunk dramatically. next year the victims of crime

bill could fall to 1/20th of its former size. tomorrow the senate will vote on a measure to replenish the victims of crime fund and ensure it remains stable for the foreseeable future. this legislation passed the house with overwhelming bipartisan support, and here in the senate has at least 63 cosponsors. the legislation ought to sail through the senate tomorrow. the survivors of violent crimes deserve the peace of mind that they do not bear the burden of recovering from their trauma alone. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. schumer: i move to proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all those in favor say aye.

no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. schumer: madam president, i move to proceed to executive session to consider calendar number 142. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all those in favor say aye. those opposed no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, department of state, bonnie d. jenkins of new york to be under secretary of state for arms control and international security. mr. schumer: i send a -- i send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the cloture motion. the clerk: cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of executive calendar

number 142, bonnie d. jenkins of new york, to be under secretary of state for arms control and international security, signed by 17 senators as follows. mr. schumer: i move to -- i ask consent the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: i move to proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all those in favor say aye. those opposed no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. schumer: i move to proceed to calendar 100, h.r. 3684. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: motion to proceed to calendar number 100, h.r. 3684, an act to authorize funds for federal aid highways, highway safety programs, and transit programs, and for other purposes. mr. schumer: i send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the cloture motion. the clerk: cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators, in

accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate do hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the motion to proceed to calendar number 100, h.r. 3684, an act to authorize funds for federal aid highways, highway safety programs, and transit programs, and for other purposes, signed by 18 senators as follows. mr. schumer: i ask consent the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: finally, i ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum calls for the cloture motions filed today, july 19, be waived. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. schumer: madam president, i have two requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have approval of the majority and minority leaders. the presiding officer: duly noted. mr. schumer: madam president, i understand there is a bill at the desk and i ask for its first reading. the presiding officer: the leader is correct. the clerk will read the title of

the bill for the first time. the clerk: s. 2382, a bill to authorize the national cyberdirector to accept details from other elements of the federal government on non-reimbursable basis, and for other purposes. mr. schumer: i now ask for a second reading, and in order to place the bill on the calendar under the provisions of rule 14, i object to my own request. the presiding officer: objection having been heard, the bill will receive its second reading on the next legislative day. mr. schumer: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes is business today it adjourn until 10:00 a.m. tuesday, july 20, that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day and morning business be closed. upon the conclusion of morning business, the senate proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the polite

nomination. further, that the cloture motions on the polite and abruzzo nominations ripen at 11:30 a.m., if cloture is invoked on the polite nomination, the senate vote on the abr brew zoe nomination, national senate recess following the vote on the abruzzo nomination to allow for weekly caucus meetings. if cloture is ininvoke cloture on the polite nomination time expire at 2:15 p.m. and the president be immediately notified of the senate's action. finally that if the cloture motion is invoked on the abruzzo nomination the senate vote on the confirmation of the nomination at a time to be determined by the majority leader in consultation with the republican leader on wednesday, july 21. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. schumer: if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order. the presiding officer: the

senate stands adjourned until senate stands adjourned until the today confirmed tiffani cunningham to serve on the court of appeals for the federal circuit. the court hears cases on a patent law and is the only appellate level court other than supreme court that hears appeals and patent cases. mr. cunningham supports black person to serve on the court of appeals for the federal circuit. later this week in the senate the debate on the bipartisan infrastructure bill negotiated between the biden administration and senate republicans. when the senate is back in session we will have live coverage here on cspan2. >> c-span is your own filtered view of government. funded by these television companies and more including charter communications. >> broadband is a force for empowerment. charters invested billions in

infrastructure, upgrading technology, empowering opportunity, intimidation big and small. charter providers. giving you a front row seat to democracy. >> tonight on the communicators,. >> the reason my rant somewheres become such a problem it has become a huge threat, not only cyber criminal threat that same as you mentioned because of the implications for critical infrastructure like pipeline companies or the largest meatpacking supplier in the country, these are very significant targets and they have increasingly become something cyber criminals are targeting. ransom wears a target is an pulpit and forcefully defending against it has become increasingly complex.

>> oversaw the justice department's national security and cyber crime investigations during the trump administration. he discussed recent ransom ware attacks and other cyber threats. tonight on the communicators at 8:00 p.m. eastern on cspan2. >> earlier today on the senate floor, senate minority leader mitch mcconnell talked about inflation and democratic legislation on voting rights per he was followed by senator dick durbin who responded to the remarks and also discussed immigration. >> runaway costs and surging inflation arey huge worry for middle-class families. every survey confirms it. every conversation confirms it. over the last 12 months, during this economic recovery, the average american worker earned a 3.6% raise. but, inflation h