because it's the most environmentally but i'm propellant that you can choose, when you burn hydrogen oxygen you get h2o, h2o is water and for tourism mission, that was really important as well. that's why we chose architecture you see behind me in the engineering team did an incredible job and they built two vehicles, what you see is not really a vehicle because i can assure you the escape system was at least as a complicated hard to design. >> we will leave this here because the u.s. senate is bound to return. part of the 40 year commitment to bring you gavel to gavel congress the senate working on biden the administration nominating enter nominations, boats to replace the crime victimwi fun. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll.

vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: on this vote, the yeas are 56, the nays are 44, 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. the majority whip. mr. durbin: i have ten requests

for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. the presiding officer: duly noted. mr. durbin: i ask unanimous consent that the senate resume executive session and the senate begin consideration of h.r. 6152 under the previous order. the presiding officer: without objection. the clerk: an act to waive matching requirements and for other purposes. mr. durbin: i ask unanimous consent the toomey amendment be called up as inside with changes at the desk and that it be reported by number. the presiding officer: without objection, the clerk will the clerk will report. the clerk: mr. durbin, for mr. toomey, proposes amendment numbered 2121, as modified. mr. durbin: i ask unanimous consent that at 5:15 that the senate vote on the toomey amendment, as provided for under the previous order. the presiding officer: without

objection. a senator: mr. president . the presiding officer: the senator from montana. mr. daines: mr. president, today i rise to bring attention to new revelations about president biden's nominee at the bureau of land management. tracy stonning-manning. i would have welcomed having a nominee with such strong ties to montana to be the director of bureau of land management and until recently, i believed as did most montanans that based on her testimony before the montana state legislature back in 2013, that her role in the tree-spiking crime was minimal, her actions were helpful and she helped bring criminals to justice. unfortunately, new information

has revealed that this simply was not the case. in fact, rather than bringing criminals to justice, ms. stone-manning assisted and helped them evade justice for years. i'm going to lay this out because there are certain facts that i want to share before this body. first, it shares she withheld the truth from investigators for several years. second, it reveals that she harshly criticized federal law enforcement at the very same time she was refusing to tell them the truth. and, third, it reveals that she has not taken responsibility or expressed remorse for not speaking the truth much, much sooner. i nome of my colleagues are probably just tuning into ms. stone-manning's involvement in a tree-spiking crime committed in 1989 while she was a member of a echoterrorist

group called earth first. the picture she and her advocates painted about her involvement in this crime is that she was the innocent hero who helped put bad people in jail. well, in recent weeks we learned there's a lot more to this story. it's very alarming, it's very disturbing on many levels. ms. stone-manning stated to the montana state legislature that a rather frightening man approached her with a letter while she was on campus. come to find out that man wasn't a change your, it was her -- wasn't a stranger, it was her roommate and someone she described to the court during a 1993 trial as someone in her main circle of friends. ms. stone-manning stated that she mailed the anonymous letter,

that she mailed it. in reality and as we've since found out and explored court records in idaho, this information had not come out. this investigation later revealed that this letter had not only been collaboratively composed but after waiting for a few days, it was typed by ms. stone-manning on a rented typewriter, which according to her very own testimony was because she wanted to avoid having it on her own deputier and -- deputier and avoid any fingerprints that could be traced back to her. the words she taped and mailed are explicit. it is not what you type to protect people. they are what you to frighten people. i'm going to read this letter that ms. stone-manning typed on a rented typewriter and personally mailed. it says to whom it may concern.

this letter is being sent to notify you that the post office sale -- if i can add the post office sale was a timber sale in idaho. she described it -- they labeled it the post office sale in idaho has been spiked heavily. the reasoning for this action is that this piece of land is very special to the earth. it is home to the elk, deer, mountain lions, birds, and especially the trees. the project require that 11 of us spend nine days in god awful weather conditions spiking trees. we unloaded a total of 500 pounds of spikes measuring 8 to 10 inches in length. the sales were marked so no workers would be injured and so that you assholes know that they are spiked. the majority of trees were spiked within the first ten feet, but many, many others were

spiked as high as 150 feet. i would be more than willing to pay you a dollar for the sale, but you would have to find me first and that could be your worst -- in all caps -- nightmare. sincerely george heyduke. then it says p.s., you bass tarreds -- bastards go in there anyway, and a lot of people could get hurt. the text of that letter was never made public until very recently, just in the last 45 days. and montanans never had the opportunity to read what ms. stone-manning typed on the rented typewriter and sent until just a few weeks ago. the letter is chilling. and it makes you think that if ms. stone-manning was really concerned about the tree -- the tree spiking, she could have gone to the norths immediately

in 1989 when this occurred. we also now know she had firsthand knowledge about the perpetrators. she knew who did it. she knew all of the details about the crime. she knew who spiked the trees. now, by the way, why do you spike trees. why do they put the great big spikes in the trees. that's because if a logger comes in with a saw and their blade hits it, they can be severely injured. if one of these logs comes through a sawmill, the u. sawmil operator can be severely injured as has actually happened. we had some severely injured individuals because of tree spiking. this was the ecoterrorism that was going on several years ago. but she withheld this information from law enforcement in 1989 even after she was subpoenaed by a grand jury for her hair, her handwriting and fingerprint samples. she didn't report it to law enforcement in 1990, not in

1991, not in 1992. in fact, she condemned the f.b.i. for investigating her in the first place despite the fact she knew all the details of the crime. in fact, she claimed being investigated by the f.b.i. was, and i quote, degrading and that the, quote, government does do bad things. she compared her treatment to how the government of panama would treat someone. ms. stone-manning said all of these things and played the victim despite knowing all the details and players of the crime, despite having had the opportunity for four years to put bad people behind bars. what ms. stone-manning did was actively obstruct an investigation. and no time, by the way, did ms. stone-manning ever come forward from her own volition. now, she only came forward after there was a break in the

investigation. this is now in 1993. after another suspect identified her involvement. and after her attorney struck an immunity deal, not before she was caught. in fact, one of the men who had the opportunity to be put behind bars during the time, she remained silent. she went on to commit an act -- this man that she remained silent on went on to commit an act of domestic violence. her cooperation with law enforcement could have prevented this. none of her actions show any kind of remorse. they didn't then and they still don't know. ms. stone-manning has not expressed regret for her false and disparaging characterization of federal investigators. this misrepresentation of her involvement coupled with her clear violation of ethic rules while she served as a u.s. senate staffer leave the public with no reason to trust her

judgment, her leadership capabilities, or her ability to remain pragmatic when making decisions on behalf of the bureau of land management. ms. stone-manning has last her credibility and to move forward with her nomination would cause more controversy and distrust for the leadership of the bureau of land management, for the united states senate, and the biden administration. there's 10,000 employs that report to the director and they need to have that trust as well. president obama's former director of the bureau of land management bob abbey has concluded that stone-manning's questionable past, i quote, brings, what he said, needless controversy to the agency. obama's very own director of the bureau of land management said that her involvement in the tree-spiking crime should disqualify stone-manning and the biden administration needs a new nominee. i agree with mr. abbey. because in montana and the west

and all-america, we need a director of the bureau of land management that can garner public trust, bring folks together, and lead with integrity. throughout the confirmation process, i've given ms. stone-manning a fair shake, an opportunity to answer questions about important policies that impact our montana way of life. however, over the course of the last few weeks, this new information has come to light and has led me to now actively and publicly oppose her nomination. the controversy surrounding this nomination is not and should not be about partline politics. montanans care about trusting those in public service, about integrity. the public trust surrounding ms. stone-manning has been wrecked. her ability to be the director of the bureau of land management needs -- has been compromised beyond prepare. so this nomination draws more attention and some continue to contend that her actions were

commendable. i hope my colleagues will give full consideration to the facts i laid out here today. i urge my colleagues, especially those that represent western states, to join me in opposing this nomination. i would urge the biden administration to pull ms. stone-manning's nomination. nominate someone to lead the agency that can garner public trust and one that can lead the agency without the significant controversy. mr. president, i yield back my time. mr. durbin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority whip. mr. durbin: mr. president, when the pandemic began last year, americans across the country were faced with more than one public health crisis.

while we all feared contracting covid-19 outside of our homes, the most vulnerable members of our communities feared a danger lurking within the home or certainly in the neighborhood. violent crime. during the past -- pardon me. during the first several weeks of the pandemic, police departments across america reported a significant increase in arrests or calls related to domestic violence. and reports of hate incidents and crimes increased as well. particularly those targeting asian american, pacific islander, or what is known as the aapi community. nearly 4,000 of these hate incidents were reported during the first year of the covid-19 pandemic. and aapi women comprised the majority of the victims. in my home state of illinois, some of these victims of violent crime have an indispensable

resource they can turn to. it is known as can win, a nonprofit that supports survivors of violence, particularly women and members of the immigrant community. can win offers a 24-hour hot line, legal advocacy, transitional housing, sexual assault services, and many more resources to survivors of violent crime. they also offer programming to support children who have grown up in a traumatic environment. during the pandemic organizations like can win have been a beacon of hope for some of the most vulnerable members of our community. but these beacons of hope are at the risk of going dark unless we in this senate today take immediate action by passing the voca fix to sustain the crime victims fund act. this legislation which i'm proud to introduce with republican senator lindsey graham will replenish the crime victims fund

which congress established in 1984 with the passage of the victims of crime act known as voca. the crime victims fund helps abused children, survivors of domestic violence, and other victims of violent crime access the professional services they desperately need. it also assists victims with expenses like medical bills, counseling, funeral costs, loss of wages, and importantly, the crime victims fund supplies grants to thousands, literally thousands of victims of victim service providers across the nation, like can win. in came win's case, the crime victims fund pays for the salary of their children's advocate. that advocate reached out to my office and wrote the following. the entire children's program at can win faces elimination. unquote. if the voca is fixed to sustain

the crime victims fund does not pass the senate. without this legislation, quote, linguistically and culturally sensitive services and counseling, education assistance, economic assistance, medical assistance, art activities that help regulate children's emotion, parent-child relationship assistance, and other case management services will be cut. and the kids who receive help from can win are far from the only people who would be hurt if the crime victims fund runs dry. children's advocacy centers in illinois report that a significant cut in voca funding would result in more than 1,500 children being deprived of services they need to overcome trauma. the chicago children's advocacy center writes, and i quote, one of the most important uses of voca funds for mental health therapy for sexually abused children is at risk. without that funding they will

have to, quote, cut the number of children we provide therapy to and more children would go without life-changing treatment to heal from their abuse. even a small cut in voca would mean up to a hundred children would go without healing services. madam president, we have a serious problem across america, and i've seen it in illinois, particularly in the city of chicago of gun violence. there's so many guns. the city is awash in guns. too many young people get their hands on them every day. on the 4th of july weekend, 104 people were shot in the city of chicago. 104. 19 died. last weekend 50. the numbers are staggering. we have a mass shooting in the city of shooting every weekend. it has become sadly expected, breaks your heart. i went to the juvenile facility of cook county several years ago and talked to the counselors who

are meeting with the adolescents who have been charged in these gun crimes. some of these adolescents spend a year or two in that facility waiting for trial. and i ask these counselors, who are these kids? what has happened to them to the point where they can take a gun and just shoot wan donly into -- wantonly into a crowd killing children, grandmothers and innocent people. the counselor said to me there are many things. there are hardly any serious mental ills ins that you can think of that we don't find in these kids. but one thing we find consistently is that they are the victims of trauma. now, by classic definition, trauma is some physical injury, but trauma today is viewed in a much larger context. it goes back to a temp platt that was established by -- temp platt established by the human that corps called adverse childhood -- most psychologists

and child counselors know exactly what i'm talking about. these adverse childhood experiences can be as simple as witnessing a violent crime or returning to a home where the parent is not a positive force, perhaps the only parent is drug addicted or alcoholic or not home at all. having a situation where you're never sure where home is. so many kids in school talk about moving back and forth from one relative to another. all of these things take their toll on little kids. it's part of the traumatic experience. these counselors of these gun-toting adolescents say over 90% of them are victims of trauma. you stop and think is that possible, that that simple thing that happened in a child's life could have that kind of impact? well, i'm afraid it is. for many of those, just to think back on your childhood of the most memorable moment in your childhood, i hope it's a good

memory, one that you smile with, but it could be a terrible memory, too. a loss of someone you love or some other tragic be event. well, that's what's happened to these kids. this trauma in their lives runs the risk of changing them and making them dangerous to innocent people that they live around. and that's why when we talk about the victims of crime act and giving these kids counseling. a child who witnesses a domestic violence incident in a home where their mother is being beaten or worse, how in the world do you erase that from your memory? you only hope that you could find someone, some mentor, some counselor who can talk you through it. that's what voca does. the victims of crime have an opportunity to access those professional services before they do the damage that they do. so how do we get to this point where we're even debating whether to fund this? why is a crime victims fund so dangerously close to running out of money when we know we need it so much? well, it comes down to how the

fund is funded. see, the money for victims of crime doesn't come from taxpayer dollars. traditionally, it comes from criminal fines, penalties, forfeited bail bonds, and special assessments collected by the federal government. historically, these criminal finds have accounted for the largest portion of the funding, but in recent years, deposits in the crime victims fund have dropped significantly, as the justice department has increasingly used deferred prosecution and nonprosecution agreements. monetary penalties from these deferred prosecutions and nonprosecution agreements are currently deposited into the general treasury, not into the crime victims fund. as a result, this shift in sentencing has resulted in a devastating impact on the fund. that's why a bipartisan, bicameral coalition of lawmakers have worked with advocacy organizations to write a fix to the voca law to sustain the

crime victims fund act. our bill would stabilize the crime victims fund by redirecting monetary penalties from deferred prosecutions in nonprosecution agreements to victims and service providers that desperately need the financial support. if you think that is an easy and obvious fix, you don't understand congress. to have all the different committees of jurisdiction take a look at it and all the members take a look at it and to come up with a solution doesn't happen every day. and one of the reasons it happened here in the senate is because of one of my colleagues who i want to put in the record as a major positive force. senator tammy baldwin from the state of wisconsin. took a real personal interest in this, and i thank her for it. she brought us together and came up with a solution and worked out the details, and there were many, until we could all agree. i thank her personally and specifically in the course of this opening remark. the reduced deposits into the fund have had a devastating impact. she knew it. i do, and everyone does.

as of this year, victim assistance grants have been reduced by more than $600 million nationwide. and even more catastrophic cuts were looming if we don't fix it today. so far, in 2021, this crime victims fund has already missed out on nearly $550 million in deposits which they could be -- which they would see coming their way if our fix is in place. we're not even halfway through the year. imagine how much more money this fund is going to lose if we don't pass this bill. so there is no time to waste. every day that goes by, we miss an opportunity to help replenish this fund. more importantly, we miss an opportunity to help a crime victim. it may be a medical bill. it could be a funeral cost. it could be counseling for that child that i described earlier. missing that opportunity may mean that the life of that child will never quite be the same. the senate must immediately pass this bill. the house already did it in march. it's time for us to get around

to it. so with br broad bipartisan support in the house, we should be inspired in the senate by our bipartisan coalition backing the bill. 63 senators, 42 democrats, 21 republicans. not bad. we have all come together for the voca fix. over the past few months, an objection has prevented us from moving forward on this legislation. we have been literally waiting for weeks to pass this bill. today we have a chance to do it and to send it to the president's desk. that's why this afternoon, we're going to take two votes. the first is on an amendment from senator toomey. it doesn't address the substance of the programs that i mentioned. it addresses the budget process. there is mention, of course, of this bill, but his change would reach far beyond any signal piece of legislation. we'll consider it, i will be opposing it. others will get their chance to vote, and then we face final passage on the house-passed bill. a broad coalition of victims

rights advocates, service providers, and law enforcement organizations are urging the vote i just described against the toomey amendment before the final bill. they recently wrote to us the voca fix act is a narrowly tailored, negotiated, technical fix bill to address the immediate needs of survivors. and the senate must act now to pass this critical legislation without amendment. every day of delay allows potential funds that should be dispofted in the crime victims fund to serve victims instead of the general treasury. the house-passed voca fix act more than four months ago with overwhelming bipartisan support. we urge the senate to similarly pass the house-passed voca fix act immediately. more than 1,700 national, regional, state, tribal, and local organizations are begging us to do this and do it today, so we can send it to the president and ensure that the victims are able to maintain access to services they desperately need. we owe it to the victims to get this done.

i see my colleague on the floor who cosponsored this bill with me. he was the senate judiciary committee chairman in the previous congress, and i had that honor in this congress. i'm glad that we can get together, democrat and republican, again. we have cosponsored things before and will continue to. i want to thank senator graham for his leadership in joining on this effort. i think it's a good one, and we need more of them. i yield the floor. mr. graham: thank you very much. yes, it has been a pleasure working with senator durbin on this to hopefully get it over the line this afternoon. i think most americans if they understood what we're trying to do would been truce a.c.c. particularly behind the effort -- would be enthusiastically behind the effort. these nonprosecution agreements, the revenue for those procedures, for lack of a better word, goes into the general treasury, not the crime victims fund, and we're fixing that. you have had a reduction of funds available. in south carolina, we have lost

$3.2 million for voca crime victims funding for the south carolina network of children's advocacy centers, 27 members, and because of this quirk in the law, the crime victims fund is at an historic low and it's affecting operations in the field, and attorney general allen wilson has been great to work with. senator feinstein and grassley, we have been a team on this on the judiciary committee. so senator durbin went through the ins and outs of what we are doing here. i just want to add this. this was not easy. there are a lot of stakeholders in this, right. there are a lot of committees of jurisdiction. i want to thank senator baldwin who has been a driving force behind it. that's absolutely true. but all of the committees could have easily said no, but this is one time we wanted to get the yes because the lack of funding is beginning to affect operations of groups that are just indispensable when it comes to providing relief to crime victims. so i would urge a yes vote. this has been a bipartisan

process from day one. it's been going on about a year. it's now time to correct the quirk in the law to get these funds over to the crime victims fund from the general treasury. senator toomey's amendment i will oppose. i appreciate senator toomey very much, but i think it will -- most of the groups and all the law enforcement groups are proofed to the toomey amendment, and i will reluctantly do so. i hope we can get a really big vote on final passage because we need to prove to the american people we can do things together. and there is nothing that should bring us together more than helping victims of crime and making sure this fund has the resources it deserves to provide the treatment needed, and this rise in crime has made this more relevant, not less. senator durbin, as always, i enjoyed working with you. we will continue to find common ground where we can. i would urge a yes vote on final passage here in a couple hours. thank you. i yield the floor.

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

quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from indiana. mr. braun: i understand we're in a quorum call. would you lift it, please. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. braun: thank you, mr. president. i rise today because in a practical place like the state of indiana, believe it or not, we actually balance our budgets every year. we have commonsense things in place that if you're going to receive some benefits of some sort, maybe you do something where we can help to get you to where you do not need the

benefits. in this case, this is again something that was not broken and is now being fixed in a way that takes enterprising states like the state of indiana, like texas, like arizona, places that wanted the ability in administering their share of medicaid to have ways to try to get folks into a position to where they could get back on their feet, seek work and do things that would make sense for trying to maybe earn your way into that benefit somewhat. do we believe washington has all the answers? i think that's what you believe when you get rid of something that was working in many places. i'm in the camp that as much as i know the federal government

has to weigh in and do things, but if the argument is that we've been knocking it out of the park here, we've been getting things done that really work, if it wasn't done in the context that of every dollar we spend here, we borrow 23 cents, and in the time i've been here -- two and a half years -- have been probably the loudest voice on trying to fix health care. part of that issue is in my own party where i think we're apologists for a broken health care industry. the other side of the aisle wants to just spend money to try to fix it without fixing the underlying issues that drive so many of the problems in this country where we fix -- we deal with them in a sustainable way in our state governments, in our local government. we take away that flexibility. then we're defaulting to a

system that has not been solving the problems. today we're here specifically talking about the medicaid program, the way it works currently, the federal government pays for half the benefits, states pay for half the benefits. social security act authorizes a framework of flexibility. enterprising, innovative states can maybe do something to bring down the cost of these programs and wean us off the need for them primarily in the long run. since president biden has taken office, several state waivers that were preex approved under the -- previously approved under the trump administration have been revoked. it's happened in texas, it's happened in arkansas, it's happened in arizona, and now they're coming after a place like indiana that has got a system that works so well that

we are even in the process of giving some revenues back to our citizens this coming years, where revenues were so far above forecast, we're still taking care of issues at the state level and doing what we ought to be considering, returning resources to the taxpayer. this isn't even that. this is trying to retain the flexibility where it's been working. called the gateway to work program, and it's not like it's overbearing. it just requires 20 hours per month of work, job searching, school or community service. and it was designed in a way that engages the individual needing the benefit that can improve their quality of life over the long run. it's had a long history. the pilot was first approved by c.m.s. in 2007. it's been renewed as recently as

2018. and yet, the biden administration right now, by taking these actions, these flexibilities would have been in place until 2025. it's stopping prematurely what i think is essential if we're going to ever live within our means here of finding better ways to do it, more sustainable ways to pay for it. we should have that flexibility. with this in mind, i will introduce the let states set medicaid requirements act. this legislation will empower states to have the flexibility that they have had, that has been making progress. it will encourage behaviors that will improve health care outcomes. and it has precedents in other federal programs when it comes to earning unemployment benefits

or food assistance. this bill is commonsense policy that i think needs to be put into place so that flexibility cannot arbitrarily be taken away. i yield to my colleague. the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: mr. president, for everything from emergency room visits to mental health care medicaid funding is vital to the health of our citizens. more than four million of my constituents, including half of all children in the state, depend on the stability of the state's medicaid program. unfortunately, the biden administration has put the health care of these individuals in jeopardy by rescinding a previously approval of texas' 1115 waiver extension. basically that waiver would allow the state to manage the program in a way that maximizes the benefit and save money where

possible, mainly through managed care. now those are some pretty bureaucratic terms, the 1115 waiver but here's the short of it. texas stands to lose $1 1 billion to provide health care for underserved patients as a result of this unilateral and unjustified rescission by the biden administration. all this was done for an unconstitutional purpose, to force texas to accept the affordable care act's medicaid expansion, something the supreme court of the united states has said they cannot constitutionally force. two anonymous federal officials in a "washington post" story reported as much in a recent story. i said that earlier when this happened to texas, that if the administration can do it to texas, they can do it to anyone, any state in this

chamber. my friend, senator braun's home state of indiana and senator young's state of indiana now is the latest victim, and i appreciate their commitment to ending this game of political chicken. these actions not only unjustifiably jeopardize the health of millions of vulnerable people, they also erode the trust states have when they negotiate with the federal government, where apparently a deal is not a deal. states will never view their federal partners as working in good faith if these agreements are invalidated by a successor administration. if we don't stand up against these reckless actions now, which state will be next? it may not be a medicaid 1115 extension. it may be some other policy by the biden administration. but how far in this case will the administration go to commandeer state resources into forcing a medicaid expansion? i'm proud to stand alongside of

senators braun and senator young in the fight to protect the health care of the most vulnerable americans in my state and across the country. i'd yield to the junior senator from indiana. mr. cornyn: i beg your pardon, mr. president. maybe the senior senator. never mind. the presiding officer: the senator from indiana. mr. young: i thank my colleague very much for his reflections on what's really at stake here, mr. president. last month the biden administration center for medicare and medicaid services notified the state of indiana that it was withdrawing approval of the state's gateway to work program. so what does this actually mean

to rank-and-file hoosiers? it means that the center for medicare and medicaid services has decided to revoke indiana's ability to determine appropriate work requirements and appropriate community engagement expectations for medicaid recipients in our state. it means that this administration regards work as some form of punishment, and efforts to transition to a position of self-reliance are somehow inappropriate. now we republicans, we believe in people. we believe in people. we believe in self-reliance. we belive that the vast majority of americans, americans with modest means, don't want to be trapped in government programs. medicaid should ideally be a service which is a temporary support for people who really

need it. the goal should be to prepare individuals for a life of dignity, and that includes securing a vocation, finding a measure of self-reliance in life. now, indiana wasn't the only state to receive this bad news. arizona officials also received word that their medicaid work expectations were being revoked. just a few months ago this administration likewise pulled all work expectations from the states of arkansas, new hampshire, michigan, and wisconsin. indiana's gateway to work program, again, revoked by c.m.s. would have merely asked medicaid recipients to report 20 hours of work or volunteer or school or other activities every month. now this is really important. these community engagement

activities are designed to improve quality of life, to improve the quality of the recipient's life over the long term. and to help hoosiers transition from medicaid to full employment. this is what people want. when we think of the american dream, we think of the ability to go out and start a family and be part of a larger community and to be able to meaningfully participate in a nation civic life and to secure a vocation. most would regard the goals of indiana's gateway to work program as commendable. however, according to c.m.s., this program would result in significant coverage losses and harm to beneficiaries. harm to beneficiaries, a misleading statement that

ignores the extensive list of individuals exempt from this requirement, students, pregnant women, the medically frail or the incapaciated, those with disabilities and a bunch of others. now, luckily for hoosiers, the state of indiana had not yet implemented the gateway to work program at the time of c.m.s.' notice because of the unique challenges presented by the pandemic, meaning that medicaid recipients will not face immediate disruption of their benefits. unfortunately the same cannot be said for other americans across the country, and we're here to fight for them. this includes texas where the administration's decision to revoke that state's waiver put into jeopardy health care for four million americans. that doesn't sound very compassionate to me.

now, up to this point medicaid waivers have allowed the states the ability, the freedom -- the freedom under our federalist system to test new policy approaches within the medicaid program, allowing them to design and improve their programs in the ways that best fit their populations and maybe serve as models for other states where successes are elicited and proven. but with the biden administration's recent actions, with their one-size-fits-all mandates anded mind-set, states will now need to be on guard. c.m.s. may decide to revoke its waiver authority at any given time. so this means any attempt by a state to improve its medicaid program carries a serious risk of disrupting health care for

the program's beneficiaries if that innovation could ultimately be revoked. god forbid we try to improve a government program, but i guess medicaid's perfect and we can't find room for improvement. certainly we can't rely on the states to come up with improvements, any improvements that might be made would have to come from washington, d.c. this is the sort of mind-set we seem to be dealing with. look, for a nation that's always valued quality and innovation in health care, for americans who believe we should empower all of our citizens, and for leaders who believe we have a responsibility to provide the least among us the necessary tools to be stand on their own two feet, this is an unsustainable situation. so i urge my colleagues to act now and stand up for their state's ability to set their own

medicaid requirements that meet the needs of their own citizens, and with that, i yield to my esteemed colleague from indiana who has been working very hard on this issue, senator braun. the presiding officer: the senator from indiana. mr. braun: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of my bill, which is at the desk, further, i ask that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the the motion to reconsider be considered made. the presiding officer: is there objection? wyden which i reserving the right to object. the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: first i want to say i very much enjoyed talking health care with the senators from indiana, the lead sponsor of this, we have had a lot of very

productive discussion about the role of health care in america. i strongly support the proposition that the federal government doesn't know all the answers here. sometimes my friends say i'm the senator for innovation because i'm always trying to promote innovation, that's what section 1332 is all about. my other colleague from indiana is a very valued member of the finance committee, so i want it understood that i think indiana senators, they are 100% straight shooters who i enjoy talking health care with. let me say respectfully why i have a difference of opinion with respect to this issue. my sense is that what my colleagues from indiana want to do is based on a premise.

it comes from the trump administration, which i think is flawed. the premise is that those on medicaid really don't want to work and having run the legal aid program for the elderly before i came to the senate and was codirector of the oregon gray panthers, again, it is a good discussion, people have difference of opinion. i think those on medicaid overwhelmingly -- overwhelmingly would like to be able to work and that is what the difference of opinion is here. as i understand it, senator braun wants states to have the authority to condition access to medicaid on work.

now, his colleague from indiana noted some exceptions and the like, which sounds like it is of some value, but the basic proposition is conditioning access to medicaid on work, and it's been my experience, and i've made a practice of it over the years having been in public life to go back and talk to people on medicaid, i think overwhelmingly they want to work. and it seems to me as we emerge from the economic effects of the covid crisis, and my colleague and i are going to work, for example, on unemployment insurance where i hope again to bring flexibility to the states. for example, my colleague on the finance committee knows that we've certainly had a lot of serious technology issues with

respect to the unemployment insurance programs of the states. so one of the areas i'll propose, as we continue our work this year, is the 53 systems should have a uniform baseline, and i think we're going to have good support, democrats and republicans, on it. the key feature will be, of course, giving states the flexibility to innovate consistent with having a uniform baseline. so i want my colleagues, both of them, to understand, senator braun, who i've had some good conversations with with respect to health care, and senator young, who is on the finance committee, i very much look forward to working with both of them on these health care issues and for the reasons that i am describing today, i'm objecting at this time, but i think there are a lot of areas where both parties can come together with

respect to health care. and for these reasons, i object. the presiding officer: the objection is heard. mr. braun: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from indiana. mr. braun: so my friend from oregon, we've had a discussion not only on this particular issue. i respect his point of view, and i think we both agree though that when it comes to health care, it's something that is breaking the bank in this country. when it's 20% of our g.d.p. and it's 10% to 12% in most other developed countries, it's got to be a problem with the underlying industry and the way government has gone about trying to address it. i'm one in my own business, 13 years ago, declared that no one should go broke if they -- because they get sick or have a bad accident, and then took the

tools that were out there with a system that didn't give you many to work with had found a way to make it sustainable, to put skin in the game from my own employees to get them to take better care of themselves and to do things that weren't the same things we had been doing which has not improved the situation. medicaid paid for half my by states, half by the federal government, i think it does entitle states to have more flexibility on account of it, but i would ask my colleagues on my side of the aisle to look at holding the industry more accountable by being more competitive, transparent, engaging the health care consumer, and on the other side of the aisle, doesn't just push through for spending more federal dollars where the proof is in the pudding, neither approach has been working. it's a tapeworm on the economy.

warren buffett has got it correct. we need to put our heads together. thank you, mr. president. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. ms. murkowski: mr. president, just about a month ago i was on the floor, senator durbin, from illinois, was here. we were on the floor at that time to ask for unanimous consent to pass legislation to fix a technical issue with the voca deposit. as colleagues will remember, voca is designed to -- to help sustain the crime victims fund act, or that's the legislation that we had introduced at that time. and just to refresh memories,

i'd like to reiterate why this fix to -- to the victims fund is so essential. effectively what we're talking about here is stability, sustainability and really certainty. i had an opportunity in late june to host a roundtable with members from the victims' services groups from around the state. we were focused on the impact of the voca deposit issue specific to -- to alaska and what it meant for those who provide for the services for victims, whether these are the child advocacy centers, whether they are the domestic violence shelters and centers, abused women networks, but i was really

blown away, mr. president, by the testimony from so many in these organizations. they were facing a 36% cut to their voca funds in just this past fiscal year. and so when you think about what an impact of cuts at 36% mean to any organization, it -- it is obviously very, very limiting, but for some of these organizations, we're talking about a quarter of their budget -- a quarter of their annual budget could be lost just like that. and what they shared with me was that this was -- this was everything for them. this was the difference of being able to answer the phone from somebody who has been abused, is in an awful, tragic situation, doesn't know where to go and

they phone that number and there's nobody to take that call, nobody to respond, nobody to save those lines. it is -- it is -- it is a matter of not just having the individual there to -- to answer the phone, but, again, when we think about the types of services that -- that are provided by these victims services organizations, they are -- they are there for truly the most vulnerable at an exceptionally vulnerable moment in their lives. i was able to hear from -- from those who were gathered at this roundtable to hear first hand on the increases in victimization that we've seen in my home state of alaska during this past year as we've seen this impact from covid. but the impacts of this increase on our providers has -- has really been astounding.

alaska cares, for example, saw a 173% increase in children hospitalized in the pediatric i.c.u. for serious physical abuse and fatal neglect. think about that. they had 173% increase in these kids that are being hospitalized. and what they said they were seeing significant brain trauma, significant brain injury. i heard about unprecedented increases that we're seeing in child torture, which our child advocacy centers are witnessing firsthand really. when you think about that, it has to haunt you to the core. the alaska chapter of america which receives voca funds to provide at-risk youth and children with vital mental health services, they shared a

story, introduced me to alice. alice is a teen who experienced numerous traumatic events in her young life, including sexual -- child sexual assault and neglect. and by receiving services through voca, she's pulling her life together. she is learning coping skills, learning to make those positive choices. so when we think about the role that these victims services, these providers who again are there for truly the most vulnerable at the most vulnerable times that they may face, it makes you o -- owe it should make us do everything we can to ensure they have the resources available for them. mr. president, the longer the congress delays this inevitable fix, the larger cuts victims services in alaska and in every state in our nation are going to face. i think we all recognize that this has been a difficult time, but for those who are trying to serve victims through a global

pandemic, it's really been so much harder. it's been ten times harder. our providers are exhausted. they're burned out. and now they're faced with massive cuts. now, my colleague from pennsylvania has some legitimate budget concerns that he hopes to address through an amendment that we will take up later today. his concerns with changes in mandatory spending are valid, and i respect that. but this voca fix legislation is not the mechanism to address these concerns. i fear that if his amendment should pass, it will delay and perhaps derail this much needed fix. we again we're hearing from victims. we're hearing from survivors. we're hearing from victims service organizations. they're asking us, they're asking us, they're begging us for a fix now to the voca

deposit. i'm not hearing too many of them ask for chimp reform, the use of chimp is controversial. our legislation which would fix the voca deposit is not. mr. president, we cannot fail the many who dedicate their lives to serving victims and survivors. there was an alaska organization at the voca round table who said very neatly, she said it is a representation of our values as a society, how we help those who are most vulnerable. and, mr. president, we have the ability today to do what's right. so i would urge my colleagues to vote aye on the voca fix act. with that i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from mississippi. mr. wicker: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that senator hyde-smith and i be allowed to

use a prop or two during our next presentation. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. wicker: thank you very much. and my first prop is a front-page story from the northeast mississippi daily journal, mr. president, on thursday, july 1, 2021. it says hail state, bulldogs are national champions. and it says mississippi state celebrates after winning the college world series 9-0 against vanderbilt after the deciding game three on wednesday in omaha. see full coverage, sports 1b. that's my other prop, mr. president. and that headline also says best in show, decisive win delivers first national title for the mississippi state bulldogs. mr. president, senator hyde-smith and i could not be more delighted to rise this

afternoon and recognize mississippi state university and their baseball team on their first national championship in school history in any sport. the bulldogs had been to the college world series 11 times in the past, and that in itself is a remarkable achievement. and they even got to the championship series once in 2013. but this year was the year it all finally came together under head coach chris lamonis. they say good pitching wins baseball games, and in this case it certainly helped mississippi state win the college world series. the hype had been building around m.s.u. by the time they arrived in omaha in mid june. after beating texas and then virginia and then again beating texas in a walk-off hit, bottom of the ninth, the dogs advanced

to the championship round to face vanderbilt. the bulldogs dropped the season opener. but the next day on the streak of pitching from houston harding and preston johnson who combined to three a four hitter, the state bounced back with a 14-2 victory. they carried that momentum into game three where will bednar and lan don simms took the mound and held vandy to one single hit. the bulldogs won in a 9-0 shutout to bring the national title home to -- for the first time ever to start -- i want to offer my congratulations to mississippi state head coach lamonis who was named head copy of the year eowe coach of the year. also congratulates to will bednar who one outstanding player at the college series and

the s.c.c. player of the year named the american baseball coach's association's national player of the year. in addition, six bulldogs were named to this year's college world series all tournament team, logan, ken, lake, tanner allen, rowdy major don and will bednar. i want to commend the mississippi state bulldog team for their tireless work throughout this season and for their outstanding achievement. they have made mississippi state and the entire magnolia state of mississippi proud. in the words of the late jack crystal, the voice of the bulldogs for many, many years, you can wrap this one in the maroon and white. i yield to my colleague from mississippi. hide. mrs. hyde-smith: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from mississippi hyde

thank you. i'm pleased in congratulating mississippi state university baseball team on its recent 2021ncaa world series championship, the first ncaa championship in school history. mississippi state capped off its extraordinary season by defeating an incredibly talented vanderbilt university team 9-0 in game three. my house was full. we were all cheering. their impressive and remarkable run through this year's college world series is a testament to the rich tradition of the m.s.. baseball program which has now appeared in 12ncaa college world series in its history, including most recently three consecutive series. the inspiring performance of this baseball team continues to be celebrated all over our state, maroon is everywhere. i truly appreciate the hard work, skill, and dedication that earned these athletes the first

ncaa device one baseball championship for mississippi state which are aptly described in the accompanying resolution. we take pride in the legacy and inspiring example pal of these -- example of these young mean and coaches. thank you for such a wonderful and historic season. hail state. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: thank you, mr. president. i come to the floor today to oppose this democrats' latest multitrillion dollar spending spree. it's only been four months since the democrats passed the $1.9 trillion spending bill and it was done through congress on a

party-line vote. not a single republican voted for the bill. democrats put the whole thing on a credit card. the bill is going to be paid for by our kids and our grandkids and they're going to have to pay for it with interest. to me that bill was completely unnecessary. it was a big payoff to the people who run the democrat party. $86 billion for union bosses, hundreds of billions for bankrupt blue states and free vacation time for d.c. bureaucrats. it was a big expansion of medicaid, an even bigger expansion of obamacare, and millions of dollars went for so-called climate justice. the bill flooded the country with cash and it did so without adding goods or services to the country. so what happens? well, prices go up. it is no wonder that prices have gone up since joe biden took office. experts from both parties warned that the so-called stimulus bill

would actually cause inflation. and that includes obama's -- president obama's economic adviser larry summers. critics also included former obama economic adviser jason furman. he said -- i want to make sure i got the quote right. i don't know any economist that was recommending something that the size of what we passed. didn't know a single economist that recommended it. the nonpartisan congressional budget office said, we don't need any stimulus funding. didn't stop the democrats. the congressional budget office said our economy would be back to normal, they said, this summer without a dime of additional spending. democrats, of course, ignored the experts. they got their hands on america's credit card and they just couldn't resist using it. one measure of inflation is now the highest it's been in nearly 30 years. filling up a pickup truck in my home state of wyoming, i was

there again this past weekend, is now about $25 more expensive than it was the day that joe biden was inaugurated. for three months in a row, prices have gone up for faster than wages. in effect, the american people because of the inflation exceeding wages and growth, the american people have taken a pay cut. two things i hear about every weekend in wyoming. one of -- one the cost of things and i hear from small businesses trying to hire people, trying to get people back to work. we know nationally nearly half of all the unemployed people have been making more money by staying at home than they would have by going to work. that's because washington democrats continue to pay them unemployment bonuses on top of the unemployment bonuses that they -- the unemployment earnings that they make in their own state. states have unemployment programs to compensate people who are out of work, but washington democrats said not

enough. we're going to pay everybody a big bonus on top of that. the end of june a poll estimated 1.8 million people were staying home from work because they were making more money not working than they would make by working. these people aren't lazy. they're logical. they see what the incentives are. democrats are printing money and people are not going to work because they're getting paid to stay home. no wonder that we have inflation combined with a record number in this country of unfilled jobs. both inflation and worker shortages were created by this democrat spending bill. it seems democrats still haven't learned basic economics, and now the democrats are getting ready to make the same mistake all over again. this time it's even on a bigger scale. the democrats are spending taxpayer dollars like it's

monopoly money. democrats are getting ready to cram another bill through congress on another party line vote ignoring all the warning signs, even the treasury secretary, the secretary of the treasury janet yellen admitted last week, she said, quote, several more months of rapid inflation. seven more months of rapid inflation. democrats see the inflation and say, don't worry about it. we'll just send you another government check. democrats seem to want the entire country getting a government check. the latest spending spree massively expands obamacare just like the last one. this new spending spree would lower the age of ed care even though life expectancy has gone up since medicare was created. this reckless spending spree would also give amnesty to millions and millions of illegal immigrants. the amnesty includes nothing to strengthen our borders. that's where the work needs to

be done. it just creates more incentives to come here illegally. no wonder we're seeing the highest numbers of illegal aliens in 20 years right now. many illegal immigrants have admitted they came here because democrats promised to give them government benefits. free health care plus the aneurons that -- assurance that they could stay in this country. the spending free has giveaways that includes funding, taxpayer funding, for full-time professional climate activists. so this morning, this very morning, representative acasio cortez of new york and 80 other members and democrats cent letter to senator schumer demanding funding of these activists. senator schumer went straight to the floor and said he would include it. these full-time government

activists would get a paycheck, free tuition, free housing. part of the democrats' goal of replacing middle-class jobs with government checks. the majority leader came to the floor and talked about hiring hundreds of thousands of climate activists, a climate corps. think about all the activists against the keystone pipeline, against drilling in the arctic. they would now be paid by the federal government. this bill that we're going to be considering, the budget that the democrat party is bringing forth, also includes super-sizing the internal revenue service. in total, the bill is the single-most expensive spending bill in the history of this nation. it costs almost as much as america's entire role in world war ii. might not be infrastructure, but it is a bullet-train to socialism. it gives carve-outs to rich people in blue states and owners

of electric vehicles. let me be very clear, not one republican is going to vote for this budget bill, not one in the house, not one in the senate, not one for this bloated, reckless spending spree with all the taxes included. that's why all it takes is one democrat in the senate or a handful in the house to stop this freight train to socialism. this means all eyes will now be on the democrat caucus. chuck schumer and nancy pelosi went -- want absolutely every one of them to walk the plank. one democrat could stop this sprint to socialism, stop this massive amnesty, stop these crippling tax increases a. if none do, every single democrat will be held responsible for the consequences of their actions. the consequences mean more inflation with higher costs of gas, goods, groceries, more

worker shortages, and more debt for our nation. democrats did enough damage with their last spending blowout. the new spending spree is twice as big, and the timing is even worse. i yield the floor. mr. toomey: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. mr. toomey: mr. president, i rise this afternoon to speak about the legislation we're going to be voting on later today, including an amendment that i have, and it has to do with the crime victims fund, and i just want to explain and remind my colleagues just how important the crime victims fund

is. this is a very, very major funding source for people who do some of the most important work in america. i know. i've met these folks. i have toured their facilities all across pennsylvania. and i'm referring to the advocates for victims of crimes, and these advocates -- my goodness -- the heinous and horrendous crimes that they guide people's recovery, i'm at a loss of words to describe what these folks do for often children, often very vulnerable people who are victims of these heinous crimes. well, thank god there are people who dedicate their lives, professionals who dedicate their lives to helping people with their recovery, to helping people who are victims to cope with what can be horrific reliving of the experience when they have to recount it to law enforcement or go through physical exams and on and on.

it is very, very difficult work, and it's very, very important to help completely innocent victims get through what is undoubtedly about the worst experience in their lifetime. so the crime victims fund provides resources for the people who help the victims of crime and for victims themselves. it's important to point out that the fund is funded entirely by the proceeds from criminal penalties. there's no taxpayer money in this fund, never has been. it's entirely from criminal penalties, and there is a statute that created this account at the federal government that requires the money that goes into it, these criminal penalties, to go to the victims and their advocates. but it doesn't say when the money has to go. and so that gave rise to a serious problem that developed. for years, it turns out, money

that was put into this fund, money from criminal penalties that went into the crime victims fund, didn't go to the victims, didn't go to the advocates for victims. it was intentionally withheld because we had these crazy budget rules that created an incentive to withhold it. the way the budget rule worked is if there was money in the fund that did not go to the victims of crime and their advocates, as it's supposed to, under the budget rules, you could pretend that that was a savings and it would therefore allow you to spend more known in other areas. it was effectively a way to circumvent spending caps. us that how it was used, year in and year out money was systematically withheld from victims of crime and their advocates, and it was a big problem. i will give you a sense of scale. in 2014, only $748 million was

advocated despite a balance of $9 billion. over $8 billion in funding that was supposed to go to crime victims and their advocates intentionally withheld. 2013 is only $730 million was octobered out of a little over $8 billion balance. there was over $7 billion intentionally withheld. from 2001 to 2014, the value of the fund, the money going in, increased by almost 600 beer funding for victims of crime and their advocates. that increased by 39%. mr. president, this was wrong. it was an abuse, based on an arcane and ridiculous budget rule, and it had a very, very deleterious effect. it was brought to my attention

by the people who serve victims of crime. these groups came to me and asked me to help them in the struggle for them toest go the resources they need -- to get the resources they needed to meet the unmet needs of victims of crimes, all over my state and i am esure all over the country. in 2015 the national a lines sent me a letter and they said, i quote, the crime victims' funds caps have been set too low. deposits -- meaning the criminal penalties going into the fund -- deposits have skyrocketed while disbursements have remained almost flat. we look forward to further working with you to make all the statutory changes needed to update the voca crime victims fund and in turn better meet the needs of all victims and survivors of crime. in 2016 the court-appointed special advocates wrote, and i quote, since 2000 when congress began capping disbursements from

the crime victims fund to prevent fluctuations in deposits, funding has not kept pace with the needs of victims, including the growing population of child victims in america, end quote. in 2015, i got a letter from the pennsylvania coalition against domestic violence and they said, and i quote, the most frustrating thing for someone who has done policy work is that there is money available for these unmet needs, end quote. that's all trusion mr. president. there was money available -- that's all true, mr. president. there was money available. it was just being systematically being withheld from the victims of crime and their advocates. but i got the message and i think these folks were exactly right. and so in response to these groups, i began working closely with appropriators on both sides of the aisle to address this problem. worked extensively with senator shell i band his staff and the

-- with senator shelby and his staff and since about 2015, appropriators, the folks who control the effective allocation of this, have voluntarily obligated appropriate levels of disbursement since 2015. the chart illustrates this very clearly. prior to 2015, the green line -- everything to the left of the green line is prior to 20 is a. you see -- is prior to 2015. afterwards, starting in 23015, large, large increases in disbursements from the fund. very, very important. this is -- this has changed the circumstances for advocates of crime. they've grown enormously. i know this. in pennsylvania they've been able to hire more counsel letters. they have a been able to open more facilities to treat and to help these victims of crime. this is tremendous progress. but there's no guarantee that

it's going to continue. so i've sought to make this simple principle. the idea that the money flowing into the fund should also throw out of the fund to the victims, i've tried to make this a permanent arrangement. now, let me be very clear. this is not -- i'm not trying to change budget rules, not trying to, you know, reopen some general budget that -- this is one egregious example of a category of budget flaws, and i'm not trying to change that. i'd love to change that. i should qualify that. i am trying to change it in other venues, but not here. today all i'm trying to do is something very, very narrow and specific. that is make sure that victims of crime and their advocates get the money they're supposed to get. it's really and truly as simple as that. i've introduced legislation to do just this repeatedly, legislation that would simply require that we appropriate the

appropriate dollar amounts each year. it was reported favorably out of the senate budget committee in 2015. it was unanimously adopted in a bipartisan congressional budget act of 2019. so there's broad bipartisan support for this idea. but we've never been able to get it across the finish line. again, i'm not trying to change all the budget rules, just this one fund. i just want to make sure that crime victims get the money that the statute says they're supposed to get. the senator from illinois, i believe, is the senator who has introduced legislation that would create a new category of resources for the crime victims fund. and that is specifically to add deferred and non-deferred prosecution agreement payments to the crime victims' fund. so it wouldn't just be criminal judgments is. it would also be these prosecution agreements. i fully support that money going

into the crime victims' fund. it's a new important source of revenue that can help to serve these victims of crime. there's no tax dollars involved. i support this goal. i support this legislation. i just want to make sure that we don't go back to these days. they weren't so terribly long ago, when money going into the fund stayed in the fund because it served people's purposes. and that's a problem i have with the underlying legislation in its current form. that legislation dis-- has no requirement whatsoever that any increase in funding will actually be matched by an increase in outflows for victims and their advocates. you see is making the fund bigger doesn't by itself guarantee there will be any more money for victims of crime or their advocates. ensuring the money that goes --

ensuring that money goes into the fund is just not enough. we saw this. we need to ensure that more money is actually leaving the fund and going to victims, not remaining unspent so as to offset some other category of spending, who knows what. i was appreciative back in 2018 for the endorsement from the national organization for victim assistance, who wrote -- and i quote -- a permanent solution is needed. there is no mechanism to stop congress from diverting money from victims in the future, should it choose to do so, end quote. well, my amendment solves this problem. it's very simple. it would just require a reasonable minimum level for victims and advocates based on the amounts that have been deposited into the crime victims' fund from both of the sources. as i say, congress has been adhering to this voluntarily since 2016. what my amendment would do is it would simply create a point of

order. if legislation came to the floor that violated this principle and that went back to these days of withholding, intentionally withholding money that should be going to victims of crime, that legislation would be subject to a point of order. now 60 senators could override that point of order, but at least it would create the presumption, an incentive for appropriation legislation to actually provide the funding to victims and their advocates that it would -- that it's supposed to. and i should also be clear, the policy only creates a spending floor. it would be at the discretion of the appropriators first and congress as a whole later to decide if they want to disburse more money than what the floor contemplates but the floor would at least prevent the worst of these abuses. so you can imagine my surprise when some of the folks who are big advocates for putting more money into the fund are adamantly opposed to my language that would actually require that

money to also come out of the fund and go to the intended beneficiaries. you have to ask yourself why would someone oppose such a requirement. and it's hard not to think that maybe one of the reasons that some people are adamant that they not be required to actually disburse this money is maybe they're thinking about going back to what used to happen routinely around here. remember, if the money is withheld from victims, if we go back to when the money didn't make it out the door to victims, why that amount that is withheld can be spent on other things, and that is a powerful incentive for a lot of folks around here. you can see how it was done. now i've heard people say, some of my opponents say, don't worry, we have no intention of

diverting any of this money. trust us, they say. if they have no intention of diverting the money, why are they so adamant that they not be required to disburse it to its intended beneficiaries? well, we don't really have to speculate any more because the president of the united states, president biden, has been very clear about his intentions. in his budget he's explicitly called for withholding this money from victims. it's right here in black and white. this isn't -- you don't have to be creative here. you don't have to be conspiratorial. the president has declared to the world in a published budget that he wants to withhold the money from crime victims. in fact, he's laid it out there. it's in table s-8 of his budget. so i think this is a well-founded concern that we might go back to that practice.

and in any case, if nobody wants to go back to that practice, then why wouldn't they agree to a requirement that this money actually be disbursed? over the course of debating this, much has been made of a letter that's been signed by some victims organizations. let's look at this for what it is. organizations that depend overwhelmingly on congressional appropriations are asked to sign a letter by the very people who control whether or not they get funding, and the letter is advocating against codifying a stable increased funding that would benefit those folks. i think we know what's going on there. i want to thank the many groups that are supporting this amendment -- the committee for responsible federal budget, heritage action, freedom works, the r street institute, taxpayer protection alliance, americans for prosperity, and others. but, folks, this isn't complicated and it isn't about overhauling budget rules, and it isn't about anything that's

terribly complicated or arcane. it's about ensuring that crime victims and their advocates get the money they're supposed to get. so i urge my colleagues to stand with me, support this amendment, and make sure that the neediest and some of the most vulnerable among us, victims of crime, receive the increased funding they deserve. the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: mr. president, i will oppose this amendment. i base it on my experience as an advocate for victims of crime. it began when i was a prosecutor. it certainly was during the time when i was the vice president of the national district attorneys association and on their executive board.

i look at the victims of crime act fixed bill, it's passed the house. it would deposit the procedures of deferred prosecution agreements and nonprosecution agreements into the crime victims fund. and i mention this because in recent years deposits into the fund have shrunk significantly. they've actually threatened the ability to sustain payments to crime victims. senator toomey's amendment would create a point of order that the expenditures from the crime victims fund fall below the three-year average. the current three-year average is $583 million, assuming the c.b.o. estimate of collections in f.y. 2021, which is $750 million. the commerce, justice, science, related agencies subcommittee appropriations has

worked to ensure the release of the fund is more than the three-year average. for example, in f.y. 2021, the c.j.s. bill allows spending of $2 billion, $2.015 billion out of the fund. that was $1.5 billion unfortunate three-year average of fiscal years 2018, 2019 and 2020. i mention all this because i support the crime victims. i spent a career supporting and advocating for them. i did that, as i said before, i was in the senate when i was a prosecutor. but this amendment offered by senator toomey impinges on the ability of the appropriations committee to do its job. if it was adopted, here's what would happen. it would create a point of order. it would delay the movement of

any appropriations bill that the crime victims fund is part of. i just put over about the average. we've been releasing more than the three-year average of the fund over the last several fiscal years. but then there could be a time when there's not enough funds to keep us sustainable. that's why we're here to vote on the underlying bill, the voca fix act. that would direct deposits from nonprosecution agreements and deferred prosecution agreements to go into the crime victims fund so we can continue to spend out of the fund at or above current levels and without it, spending would continue to fall. victims groups like the national alliance to end sexual violence are asking for clean passage of this act.

i went down through and looked at the various states. i mention a couple -- the pennsylvania coalition against domestic violence, the children advocacy centers of pennsylvania, the pennsylvania coalition against rape authored an opinion piece on july 5. they asked for clean passage of the voca fix act. it's probably why this bill has 60 cosponsors, including a number of my republican colleagues like senators murkowski, graham, cornyn and grassley. and the senate bill is identical to the one before us, h.r. 1652. now, if we don't include amendments, if we pass this bill, we can get it to the president for signature immediately. we can help to ensure deposits into the crime victims fund.

that means all crime victims are going to be helped. i want to have passage without an amendment. i'd also ask consent to place in the record a letter from the association of prosecutor attorneys, the national network for healthy families, council of state governments, futures without violence, and numerous others be placed in the record at the conclusion of my remarks. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. leahy: so i urge a no vote on this amendment. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire. mrs. shaheen: mr. president, i join senator leahy and others who have come to the floor this afternoon to urge clean passage of the voca fix act so that we can secure greater deposits into the crime victims fund and

ensure continued support for crime victims. i'm currently the chair of the commerce, justice, and science appropriations subcommittee. senator moran from kansas is my ranking member. before that, senator moran was chair of the committee and i was the ranking member, and together we have committed to a target of spending from the fund at a minimum of the three-year average of collections. that's a practice that was started by former appropriations committee and c.j.s. chair, senator mikulski, along with senator shelby back in 2015. all deposits made into the crime victims nund -- fund should stay in the fund. our subcommittee directs the amount that is released by the justice department from the fund from victims services. but every dollar stays in the fund and is available in future years if it is not used for victims services.

if senator toomey's amendment passes, if appropriations bills contain less than the three-year average, either the entire cap falls, depleting the fund in one fiscal year, or more likely, the appropriations bill would be stopped from moving forward on the floor. now i appreciate what senator toomey's trying to do. he wants to address budget reform and the impact of mandatory spending. but this is not the way to do that. that means a thoughtful process that goes through the committee that there is debate on. shshed -- this should not be done as an amendment to a bill that is at, a process that is critical to help the victims of crime. victims groups and direct survivors are asking for clean passage of this act, the voca fix act, asking us to vote no

on senator toomey's amendment. we've all heard from victims group requesting clean passage of this bill. i've heard from individuals and organizations from across new hampshire. as senator leahy said, organizations like the new hampshire coalition against domestic and sexual violence and the granite state children's alliance, who both are benefits of the crime victims fund because they get funding for those people who are injured. this bill has already passed the house. if we pass this legislation today without amendment, it can be quickly signed into law and we can get these much-needed changes to shore up collections into the fund so that the victims of crime can get the help that they need. it will make a meaningful impact to ensure there's adequate funding for survivors now and in years to come. so i would urge a no vote on the toomey amendment. thank you, mr. chairman. i yield the floor.

mr. durbin: mr. president, is there a scheduled vote? the presiding officer: to the gentleman from -- to the senator from illinois, it's scheduled for 5:15. mr. durbin: thank you, mr. president. the first vote is on the toomey amendment? the presiding officer: it is. mr. durbin: followed by a vote on passage of the bill amended or unamended? the presiding officer: that is correct. mr. durbin: i would say in conclusion i thank the senator from new hampshire and the senator from vermont for their comments on this measure. if you listen carefully to the senator from pennsylvania, there is one thing he did not say. he did not say that any surplus in this fund was spent for another purpose. he seems to worry about the allocation of the balance each year on the fund. i would think a fiscal conservative would want to make certain that the money spent is spent properly, not overspending in some years and underspending in some years, and that is exactly what the appropriators are asking for here, the ability to moderate and to regulate the amount of money as it is spent as it is

needed. that seems like a pretty fiscally conservative point of view and a responsible one. so i'd urge my colleagues to follow the advice of the senators from vermont and new hampshire and to oppose the toomey amendment and support the passage of the bill. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. mr. toomey: mr. president, my understanding is that i would have one minute to close out debate on this. is that correct? the presiding officer: there is one minute. the senator is recognized. mr. toomey: can i claim that minute now? the presiding officer: yes. mr. toomey: thank you. it is clear we have broad agreement on a provision that will dramatically increase the money that goes into the fund. what my colleagues on the other side of the aisle object to is the requirement that the money actually go out of the fund to the victims and their advocates. and we know in a systemically

money was withhold from this fund for years, and we know that president biden has stipulated in his current budget that it must happen again. i'm simply saying if we all agree that this nontaxpayer money coming from criminal penalties and nondeferred agreements, if it's supposed to go into this account, the crime victims fund, which i support, it should actually have to go to the victims of crime and their advocates. if my amendment passes, this bill could be passed by the house later that day or the next day and on the president's desk before the end of the week easily. if it were to pass and signed in a law, then we would be sure that appropriation bills would be brought to the floor with the proper allocation done. i urge support of my amendment and then adoption of the underlying bill. mr. durbin: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: mr. president, i'm not going to read the lengthy statement by the coalition of

victim rights advocates opposing the toomey amendment and the many organizations that asked us to vote no on the amendment and yes on the victims -- victimless crime act. i ask consent the entire statement be placed in the record and yield the floor. the presiding officer: without objection. the question occurs on amendment 2121 offered by the senator from pennsylvania, mr. toomey. mr. toomey: i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: on this vote, the yeas are 40, the nays are 60. the amendment is not agreed to. the question is on the passage of the bill. nor senator i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there is a. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote: the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to change his or her vote? if not, the yeas are 100, the

nays are zero, the 60-vote threshold having been achieved, the bill is passed. mrs. gillibrand: i ask unanimous consent that the senate be in a period of morning business be senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. gillibrand: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from new york. mrs. gillibrand: i rise once again to call for every senator to have the chance to vote on the military justice improvement increasing prevention act. it's time for us to move 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 to do this, independent, impartial, highly trained uniformed prosecutors. i want to first acknowledge and express my gratitude to my

colleagues in the armed services subcommittee on personnel who recognize the importance of this legislation and this morning voted to include it as an amendment to the senate armed services personal subcommittee markup of the ndaa. the reason we are calling for this reform is because our current system is just not working for our service members. it's not delivering justice on the values of justice and equality that they have sacrificed so much to defend. we are here to serve them. any reform that we should make should be made with their best interests in mind. so while i'm glad that so many of our colleagues are looking for ways to help survivor of sexual assault in the military, we must help them by starting to listen to them and what they are saying about the justice they want delivered. if we move just sexual assault

and related crimes out of the chain of command, we're ignoring the voices of the very people that we are trying to help. survivors have asked for all serious crimes to be taken out of the chain of command. they've told us time and time again they do not want to be further isolated, further diminished by being given special treatment. they do not want to have a separate judicial system. the request is clear. do not create a pink court, a court that will be perceived by other service members as only serving women while we know that many sexual assault survivors are men. the perception in the military will be reality and it will be seen as marginalizing and minimizing women service members. mr. president, it is our obligation to listen to the men and women we are serving and to do our job.

creating a bifer indicated -- bifur indicated system will silence the voices of the enlisted service members who have asked us to provide basic fairness. our service members have recognized that intentionally or not a commander who knows both the accuser and the victim cannot remove bias from decision-making. our service members have told us that they lack faith in the current system which leaves serious crimes and potentially serious sentences with commanders who are not trained lawyers. we have to listen to the men and women in uniform who have asked us to ensure that their cases will be decided by an independent, highly trained military prosecutor if they are going to face prosecution that can lead to more than a year of confinement. i ask my colleagues in favor of moving just sexual assaults and

related crimes out of the chain of command why should some crimes be handled by lawyers and others? don't we want all crimes to be given serious consideration by a jag with serious experience. don't they all deserve a federalized judicial system. as senator hawley said, a former prosecutor in the hearing said, quote, with when we have service member and women who have had serious crimes against them, felony crimes as addressed in this bill, it is absolutely imperative that justice is done of these men and women is done for them, that the procedures and standards they can expect are uniform and predictable. and that trained military prosecutors make the final call as to whether or not these cases will go forward to prosecution and the reason for this is we want the evidence to be weighed by a prosecutor, an individual, the man or the woman, who is

going to be presenting this to a jury, to a judge in the system, that's a predictable system. i think it is one that both defendants and victims can support because the rules are uniform. it's across the board. it's analogous to our civilian system but still, of course, stays within the military system of justice. end of quote. many of our colleagues brought renewed attention to the need for military justice after the tragic murder of specialist vanessa guilliam, her case shows us that a system that leaves some crimes with prosecutors and some crimes with commanders will not deliver justice. specialist guilliam was sexually harassed by one service member and then by another. her murder's case would not. it would be left in the hands of

the same command that so deeply mishandled her case that her murder was -- her murderer was able to flee the base and end his own life. her family, as a consequence, will never have juvment we've heard from voices inside the fentanyl gone -- inside the pentagon who have resisted this change for far too long. we cannot allow them to drown out the voices of the people in military justice system. we must listen to the voices of the enlisted. they have asked us to put crimes in the hands of professional military professionals. that's what this bill would do. every day this is delayed is another day our service members' voiced are silent. it is time that we listened to he'll them and bring this bill to the floor for a vote.

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 s. 1520 and the senate proceed to its consideration, there be two hours for debate divided in the usual form and upon the use or yielding back of that time, the senate vote on that bill with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. sullivan: reserving the right to object, mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. mr. sullivan: reserving the right to object, i first want to begin by complimenting my friend and colleague senator gillibrand, of new york, who has been working diligently, and we all know it, for ten years, a decade on this issue, particularly the issue of sexual assault and the related crimes in our military. there's been nobody who has been more focused on it and i applaud

her for her relentless efforts, relentless, and i have a lot of respect for her. she's been coming down to the floor every night here for the last three or four weeks, and trying to move her bill. and i'm going to talk about her bill a little bit more and why i and others, in a bipartisan way, chairman of the armed services, ranking member of the armed services, and others have been coming down to object. but i also want to say that i care deeply -- deeply about this issue for two very important reasons. number one, the issue of sexual assault, domestic violence is an enormous problem in america but is a huge problem in my state, the great state of alaska. since my time as attorney general and now my time as a u.s. senator, i have been very focused on these issues and i think, again, senator gillibrand

has done an outstanding job not just on the military ones but on a whole broad based number on these kind of bills that focus on domestic silence and sexual assault and i've been proud to work with her on a number of them, some of which has become law. as an alaska senator, i have been 100% focused on this issue for american society, certainly for alaska, which is a big, big problem that continues to impact millions of americans and tens of thousands of my constituents. so we need to do something about it, i agree, not just for the military but for the country i'm committed to continuing the work on a select series of bills that we have in the u.s. senate that i'm working on with senator gillibrand. the other reason i care about this issue -- and there is no

monopoly on the people who care about the troops -- is that i have a 28-year career in the u.s. marine corps, still serving, and i have been a commander and i care deeply about every single member of the military, the challenges of sexual assault that we have, which are very real, which, again, senator gillibrand has done such a good job to highlight and to have good order and discipline in our military, which is part of the ucmj, which is one of the reasons why this issue has taken so long and has been a challenge. now, the issue that senator gillibrand is talking about right now, we will be debating in the full committee in the armed services starting tomorrow. actually it was starting today, as she mentioned in the personnel subcommittee today. this, again, a lot of the credit -- most of the credit i give to senator gillibrand on this issue. we will have a fulsome debate

probably all day on this issue tomorrow. and if her bill, which is often understood as removing these issues of sexual assault and violence every violent crimes relating to sexual crimes was the bill that is passed tomorrow, i will be supportive, moving that out of the chain of command. that is what many, many senators -- and i've had discussions with them -- believe that the primary focus of her legislation is and has been. she is convinced now that the president of the united states and the members of the joint chiefs and if that's what the bill was, she would have very, very broad-based support and i applaud her for that. that victory would be hers more than anyone's in terms of legislation, of course, i think it's going to help our troops. will it ultimately solve this problem, which is a problem in

our country and in our military, a huge problem? i think it will help. my view, as someone who understands the military well, is that it's not going to be solved until we have leaders who take this issue very seriously. that's what we need more than anything and i think our leadership in the military is starting to do this, but more needs to happen. so that would be what most of us think has been the focus of her legislation for ten years and what would be the result likely could come out of committee as early as tomorrow. carving out these issues, not creating pink courts but creating a professional class of prosecutors and defense attorneys who know these issues which are often challenging. senator gillibrand knows this, he said, she said kind of

accusations that often have at heart of these horrible crimes and to have that for men and women so there's no pink court there, by the way, to have that class of cases removed from the chain of command for all the reasons she and others have been arguing, if that's the result tomorrow, i think it's going to get strong bipartisan support and support from the administration. unfortunately, mr. president, that is not where the bill is as she is now indicating this bill would remove all crimes -- all felonies. one year in jail, anything, a bar fight, anything in -- in terms of the commander's ability to have good order and discipline, all of that under this legislation would become a

one-year felony. and this is, in many people's view, in my view certainly, the chairman of the committee's view, the ranking member's view and many others, this is a hugely broad reworking of the ucmj, probably one of the most dramatic reworkings of the military code of justice ever. now, why is senator gillibrand and others making the argument? she didn't come down here today, but i have been reading her speeches. she has been essentially saying we need this broad carveout, every crime, every felony in the chain of command because of racial problems in the military. this is a new argument. she and i have talked about it. this is a dramatic argument. this is essentially saying what she said in a recent speech, it

is necessary, one year more, because the current military justice system is simply not delivering justice, especially not service members of color. this is a big claim. in what senator gillibrand has been doing with her previous legislation, eight to ten years of data to back it up on the sexual assault issues. and again, i applaud her on that. she has been dogged. she has gotten data. she has searched for data herself. but this new argument, basing this whole broad-based revamping of the whole ucmj, based on the fact that she is now claiming the military justice system of the united states cannot serve minority members has not been backed up by data.

has not been backed up by data. she cites three studies, recent studies. again, this is a new argument. a lot of my colleagues say whoa, i didn't sign up for that bill thinking it was based on some kind of broad-based systemic racism in the military, but that's the new argument. we need to get that right before we claim that every member of the military, every commander is somehow a racist. even the studies that she is now focused on are saying that disparity is not proof of racial discrimination. the u.s. air force, one of the studies she has talked about, quote, says while the presence of disparity alone is not evidence of racism, discrimination or disparate treatment, it presents a concern that requires more in-depth

analysis. i fully agree with that. last year when we were debating the ndaa, there was an issue that came to my attention about how we had very senior military members, four-star generals who are not making the rank. we have a service chief right now, general brown, who is the first african american service secretary in any of the services. when i talked to him, that was disturbing to me. i put forward to legislate and say why is that? what's going on with our military? let's figure that out. what i am saying to senator gillibrand is and what the air force is saying, if this is a problem, let's figure that out. the g.a.o. study that she cites, it says this -- these findings so an association for a disparity of a particular stage of the military justice process but are inconclusive regarding

other stages. however, g.a.o.'s findings of racial disparity taken alone do not establish whether unlawful discrimination has occurred, as this -- as that is a legal determination that would involve other corroborating information and supporting statistics. so again, is there a challenging disparity right now that senator gillibrand has been highlighting? i believe so. is it proof that the ucmj is somehow systemically racist, that needs this broad-based change? that is what she has been arguing on the senate floor. and unlike her other argument on sexual assault and the crimes that we have seen over the years where there is decades -- or i'm sorry, eight to ten years of data that we have all been looking at. again, a lot to her credit --

this is something that needs much, much more data before we make broad-based claims that, for example, some of those who are supporting her bill sent out this supporting blog post that they said was supporting the legislation, the broad-based legislation. it was from the harvard civil rights and civil liberties law review. this has been put out by staff to support her broad-based legislation. it says, quote, almost all military disciplinary action occurs at the discretion of military officers, and with over 75% of the officer corps being white, systemic bias is not just a function of military justice, it's a foregone conclusion, unquote. that's a pretty broad statement. that's a pretty broad statement. where is the data to back that

up? in essence because you are a white commander, you are not going to give justice to minorities? i find that offensive as a commander. who has commanded all kinds of alaska native, african americans, hispanics, whites. so we can't base this broad-based legislation, all felonies, on this relatively new claim that does not have data supporting it, that somehow we need to revamp the entire ucmj because white commanders are racist. and i don't think we should do it. so i want to work with senator gillibrand on these and other issues. tomorrow will be an important debate. i'm hopeful that the years of her hard work and data on this issue is going to result in a carveout for sexual assault and

related crimes of violence that will be bipartisan. it will be supported by the secretary of defense, the service secretaries, and again, i think that senator gillibrand will deserve an enormous amount of credit for her determination over a decade to make that happen. but with regard to the broader legislation that she has asked for unanimous consent on, mr. president, for the reasons i just discussed, i object. mrs. gillibrand: mr. president. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mrs. gillibrand: mr. president, my colleague has made some serious misstatements and allegations in his remarks. i have never said white commanders are racist, nor would i ever. in fact, all i have done is cite three years of evidence published by the department of defense about disparities in

sentencing and punishment. with the marines, for example, having 2.61 times more likely to be punished for black service members versus white service members. it's d.o.d. data, it's d.o.d. information. but as the senator knows, this bill was written eight years ago, and the reason it was written with a bright line was for three reasons. the first is that our allies already have done this. they created a bright line of felonies for both plaintiffs and defendants' rights. the u.k., israel, canada, germany, netherlands, and australia. they did this because they believed service members deserve basic civil liberties that commander is not a trained lawyer. they thought a trained military prosecutor should make those decisions for serious crimes. we were told by every military

justice expert available that to do anything less than a bright line would be a terrible disturbance to the ucmj, that bright lines work, that bright lines are necessary, and that having the bright line be a punishment of more than a year would serve the service members better. second, we heard from service members, particularly female service members, and i know there is a lot of mansplaining in this body, but joni ernst is the only female combat commander republican in this body. tammy duckworth the only female combat veteran democrat in this body. they helped to write this legislation, and when they wrote it, they said this -- they said women in the military are often marginalized. and the perception, dear colleague, that although men are sexually assaulted, more often than not, it is the women who come forward. more often than not, they will

associate a sexual assault procedure and process that's unique to be specialized treatment. joni ernst is not only a combat veteran, she is also a sexual assault survivor. so i don't think you can put yourself in her shoes, nor should you try to. and this is legislation that she worked hard over the last six years with me on to tailor it, to narrow it. bar fights are excluded, specifically, because joni ernst knows as a commander bar fights are prevalent, and we don't want to have to deal with bar fights while we're talking about serious felonies. they are carved out. they are carved out, as are all military crimes. the reason why this bright line of felonies protects service members is because you know this, dear colleague, you know that in domestic violence cases, often other serious crimes are at play. we have a case where a boyfriend

and girlfriend, the girlfriend breaks up with the boyfriend, and he shoots her dead. her case would not be taken to a special commander -- excuse me, a special prosecutor because she was murdered. vanessa guillen, her case would not have the benefit of a special prosecutor because she was murdered. we have another case just published last week where a domestic violence case, the service member is beating his wife. a neighbor hears the screams, intervenes to try to protect her. the service members shoots the neighbor and is killed. the commander decides that that is a stand your ground case and he decides not to prosecute, and all that happens is that service member is moved. he's moved. and so the next time he's beating his wife and she finally reports that evidence of the murder isn't even in his case file, it's nowhere to be found. and so they don't protect her. she doesn't get special review.

so you need other serious crimes to be part of this. otherwise they won't necessarily get the proper review. i know that you don't want to include serious crimes like check fraud or stealing or arson because, like, what does this have to did with sexual assault? but the truth is many cases of domestic violence, arson is used to cover up the crimes. many cases when you have domestic violence victim, 99% of them, their spouse or their partner used money as a way to isolate them. they use it to create dominance. they will steal their money. they will steal their credit cards. and if you don't have a specialized prosecutor look at the case, the commander mate just say oh, you took her checkbook, stop doing that. that's ridiculous. he won't even know that this is something that happens in domestic violence cases all the time. so there is a lot of reasons, and we wrote it this way because the military experts told us. the issue of race has come up recently because the d.o.d.

started taking data, but the air force, you must know, started taking data about 20 years ago. in 1972, the knicks administration had -- the nixon administration had a task force specifically about this issue and found disparity. all we have done is cited the disparities as confirmation, that if you fix the whole system, maybe you could fix other problems, too. but make no mistake, it was written this way initially specifically to end sexual violence. and this commission that president biden asked for and secretary austin supports, every crime they looked at, every single one they took to being saying they had to be taken out of the chain of command. not just sexual harassment, sexual harassment, domestic violence, child abuse, trafficking of children. they looked at these and said all these kinds of cases all need to be taken out. they didn't look at murder. they didn't look at the other serious crimes, because it wasn't their mission. so i stand ready to work with

you, senator sullivan, on a bipartisan commonsense solution, but to say that just because you have the chairman and the ranking member, that somehow you have the moral authority here, i disagree. and i disagree because we have 66 members on this bill and another five or six who would vote for this. so that's about 70 members who have stated they want to do this bright line. i have been very forthright with every senator that i've spoken to about why this bill is written in the way it is. we don't want to marginalize women. we don't want them to be perceived as getting special treatment. and we just want to professionalize the whole system, because i can tell you when we talked to commanders who are fighting wars in iraq and afghanistan and they have to do the analysis of a highly complex crime, did dis-- it distracts them from the work of training troops and winning wars. so why not give these hard issues, just the felonies, to the smartest military prosecutor

we can find? why not fix the system for all plaintiffs and all defendants? why just draw out just one set of plaintiffs and one set of defendants? and i just -- i know this will not undermine good order and discipline, because secretary austin said taking out sexual assault-related crimes does not undermine good order and discipline, it does not undermine command control. when asked the chairwoman of this commission would undermine command and control, she said absolutely not. so i believe this is the right answer. i believed it was the right answer for eight years. every year i've asked my colleagues to look at the bill, study the bill, give me questions on the bill. when colleagues have wanted to shave off crimes because they thought they didn't rise to the level of a serious crime, like a bar fight, we've taken it out. we took out all military crimes because the commander has unique understanding of those crimes. so we have worked so hard for

eight years to do this one solution and to imply that it is all new or it's only about this one set of data is so inappropriate and wrong. i yield the floor. mr. sullivan: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. mr. sullivan: i just want to again compliment my colleague from new york who's worked this issue hard. it's an emotional issue. i think we all have good intentions on this issue. we all want to get to the right answer for men and women in the military as it relates to these crimes and still have a force, as she said, that's the best military fighting force in the world. i think we're going to have a good debate on this tomorrow, and i certainly am committed to continuing to work with senator gillibrand on these issues as they relate to the military, as they relate to civilian world.

they're enormously important. i take them very seriously. again, i want to applaud her, her passion, her focus, her commitment. we wouldn't be this far in this debate at all if it weren't for her. i have a lot of respect for that. mrs. gillibrand: madam president , i just want to thank the senator and my colleague for his tireless work on this issue, and i do stand ready to work for him because i know how much he cares about the issue. he led great reforms in his state of alaska. and i believe if his voice was lent to this issue, it would be unanimous. so, thank you, madam president, and thank you to my colleague from alaska. i suggest the absence of a quorum. i ask unanimous consent that the commerce committee be discharged from further consideration and the senate now proceed to s. res. 291. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. res. 291

congratulating the university of oklahoma sooners softball team by winning the 2021 national collegiate athletic association women's college world series. the presiding officer: without objection, the committee is discharged. the senate will proceed to the measure. mrs. gillibrand: i ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be laid, be made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. gillibrand: i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the consideration of s. res. 306 submitted earlier today. 307 submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. res. 307 congratulating the mississippi state university baseball team on winning the 2021 national collegiate athletic association division one baseball championship. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will

proceed to the measure. mrs. gillibrand: i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. gillibrand: i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the consideration of s. res. 3088 submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. res. 308 commending and congratulating the hutchison community college blue dragons football team for winning the 2021 national junior college athletic association football national championship. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. mrs. gillibrand: i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. gillibrand: i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today it adjourn until 10:30 a.m., wednesday, july 21. that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to

date, the time for two leaders to 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 jenkins nomination. further, that 11:30 a.m. the senate vote on confirmation of the abruzzo nomination, that the cloture vote on the jenkins nomination occur immediately upon disposition of the abruzzo nomination. if cloture is invoked on the jenkins nomination all postcloture time expire at 2:30. if any nominations are confirmed, the motions to reconsider be made and laid upon the table, and the president be immediately notified of the senate's action. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. gillibrand: if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order following the remarks of senator rubio. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. rubio: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator for florida. mr. rubio: we've heard more about cuba in the last week than probably the ten years i've been

here combined, and yesterday we heard from the white house, and the white house after having some sort of meeting or conference call came out and said they're going to be looking at remittances and increasing and making it easier to get money to relatives in cuba. that's not surprising that the people in charge of cuba policy at the white house, that the national security council and the state department, the people in charge of cuba policy have long been advocates for dialogue with the regime and an economic opening to the regime. they have been for getting rid of the embargo and that sort of thing. i think it's important given the fact that i recognize that most people in this country and in the senate don't follow this issue on a regular basis that we address that because the fundamental question being put to us is so the people of cuba are suffering, the people of cuba are going through a difficult economic time. they have done so for 62 years. why don't we get rid of the embargo? it would make life easier for them. and i want to address it, i want to address it especially to

those that are not as familiar with this issue. first of all, let me begin by saying there are no american ships blockading cuba, surrounding the island of cuba. in fact, cuba, frankly, does not have an embargo in the way people think. cuba trades with the whole world. for example, cuba every year exports $1.2 billion, which doesn't sound like a lot but it's a lot for an island of 11 million people. they export $461 million to china, $127 million to spain, $65 million to the netherlands, $64 million to germany. this is not a country that's isolated. they trade with every country in the world. they export $5.3 billion a year. with spain alone they export, they import $1 billion from spain. now there's $790 million from china, $327 million from italy. from canada and from russia. they importover $5 billion,

export over $1.2 billion. cuba is not isolated. this regime trades with virtually every country on the planet. you know who else they trade with? the united states of america. cuba trades with the united states of america. they import almost $280 million a year, almost as much as they do with canada and russia. and no one accuses canada and russia of having a blockade on cuba. 66% of the chicken that's eaten in cuba, which is the staple protein in cuba comes from the united states. half their soybeans comes from the united states. there is only one blockade in cuba, and it is the blockade that this regime has imposed on its people. yesterday the president announced or the white house announced they're going to stand up some remittances group to try to figure out how do we make it easier for relatives to send money to their relatives on the island of cuba.

well, that work group is not going to have a lock time to meet -- long time to meet because u.s. law allows that now. it is not illegal to send money to your relatives in cuba. the only thing that is prohibited is you can't send the money, you can't send the money through this bank that the cuban military set up in panama. that's the only thing that's prohibited. and to the extent money can't reach the people of cuba is because they refuse to allow anyone other than that bank to do these remittances. and, by the way, they prohibited depositing dollars. here's how it works for them. you send your relative $100. they take 10% of it. then they take the dollars, they don't let them deposit it. they pocket the dollars, and they give them this worthless cuban currency. they have the dollars so they can buy things for themselves and on the global market. the blockade, to the extent there is something preventing remittances to the cuba people, it's not u.s. policy. it's regime policy. they are the ones that need a

work group. how about this argument there is a blockade on travel? if only more american tourists could go to tourists. cuba is already filled with canadian tourists, italian tourists that enjoy five-star accommodations. many of them go there, sick, disgusting men that go there to hook up with a 16 or 17-year-old girl. with that said, they talk about travel to cuba. let me tell you something, travel is allowed now. an american can go to cuba. you just can't stay at a military-owned hotel or eat at a military-owned restaurant or shop at a military-owned store. you can stay at the private homes of people that rent them out on air bnb. you can do that. you can eat at a restaurant that's owned by a private person. you can shop at stores that are owned by private people. the reason why they have nowhere to stay, nowhere to eat and nowhere to shop is not u.s. policy. is that the cuban regime won't allow privately owned hotels, l privately owned shops,

privately owned stores, privately owned restaurants. they are the ones that have a blockade on travel, not the united states. what about medicine? that is another thing they put out there. this is so cruel. you know what the cuban regime announced last week on their national television? we are going to lift the ban on the importation of medicine. what? you mean there was a cuban ban, a regime ban on importing medicine? yes, there was. they are the ones that weren't allowing medicine in. and to the extent they were allowing it in they were putting a tariff on it. there is no blockade on medicine. you can donate medicine, unlimited amounts under u.s. law. if there is a blockade on medicine it is the regime's blockade. the other one i hear is the internet. i support the internet. why don't we allow american companies to provide the internet. these people don't know what they are talking about. they literally are parroting

stupid, ridiculous talking points because the law on the u.s. and trade with cuba specifically exempts telecoms. at&t, verizon, sprint, every american telecom can go into cuba tomorrow and offer tv and internet service. uch know why they can't? not our law. it's the cuban regime because they want to control that. you see a pattern here. blockade on travel, blockade on private ownership of business, blockade on bringing in medicine, blockade on bringing in money. why? because the cuban regime wants to control people. they don't want individual cuban to have a paycheck that they earned for themselves. they want what little you have to come from them because if you don't do what they tell you, they can take it from you. that's what they want. they don't want you to have internet companies offered by at&t and sprint and verizon, anybody else because they want to be able to shut it off when you're saying things they don't like and things against them. the same with medicine.

they use all these things as a tool. it's hard to fathom because we live here, but they use all of it as a tool. you want medicine? are you posting stuff on the internet? are you saying things against the regime? are you speaking out? are you not participating in these acts of repudiation that we force people to do? if you don't, you're not going to get your medicine. they certainly don't want cash flowing around, don't want independent ownership. they don't want the people of cuba to have liberty. this is all about control, all about control. by the way, in the law, they codified the embargo. it has a clause that automatically triggers the end of the embargo. you want to know what this tough standard is that's in the law. free the political prisoners, free press, free and fair elections, multiparty elections. the regime does those three things. the embargo ends automatically. automatically. there is no embargo on cuba.

there is an embargo on the cuban regime, an embargo on the companies they own. because what they wanted to do is they wanted to take the obama opening, funnel all that money through their companies. people say spanish companies own hotels. they don't own holtzs -- hotels in cuba. these hotel chains in cuba, they don't pay their employees. they pay the cuban government. the cuban government pays the employees. control. the bottom line is this -- anybody who stands up and says there's an embargo, there's a blockade by the united states and it's cruel and causing all these policies, it's one of two things. they don't know what they're talking about and they're just parroting some talking point, or they're liars. that's the only two options. this is not about an embargo. the people of cuba did not take to the streets, did not have their head cracked open, did not have their kids arrested and put in jail, mothers who tomorrow plan to march in cuba because they don't know where their children are arrested, they don't know where their kids are. they broke into homes, they

grabbed 16-year-old boys, gave them a bat and said you're going halfway across the country to beat people up in the street. they didn't stand up against all those things because of an embargo or because they wanted remittances. they stood up because they wanted liberty. the u.s. dollar. that's what they wanted. that's what they are telling us. why don't we listen to them? they told us what they want, they want liberty and if there are any people on this earth that should understand that, it should be americans. madam president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until senate stands adjourned until the senate today approved the assistant attorney general for the criminal division and also passed a bill to replenish the crime victims fund which the

house approved in march. that legislation now goes to the president's desk for his signature. on wednesday, centers hold a final vote on the nomination of jennifer to be general counsel for the national labor relations board to be also expect a vote on whether to begin debate on an infrastructure package, more on that now from senate majority leader chuck schumer from earlier today. quest mr. president, for decades both parties have shared a desire to invest in our nation's infrastructure. it is one of the few issues here in washington where our two parties can consistently work together. and it has been years since congress passed a significant standalone investment. we are hoping to change that this year. nearly a month ago, a month ago a bipartisan group of senators came together along bwith the white house and agreed on a framework for bipartisan infrastructure bill. so, las