the presiding officer: on this vote, the yeas are 95, the nays are 3. the amendment is agreed to. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota. mr. inhofe: i call up my amendment and ask that it be reported by number. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from north dakota, mr. hoeven, proposes amendment number 3243.

mr. hoeven: -- to support policies that make our country and economic powerhouse as well as keeping heating and cooling costs low for americans. that means protecting access -- the presiding officer: the senator -- will the senator withhold. the senate will come to reasonable doubt 0. -- the senate will come to order. mr. hoeven: thank you. the north american reliability corporation recently warned that numerous areas of the country are at elevated or high risk of experiencing blackouts or brownouts. this warning is not limited only to california and texas. it also included most of the west, new england, and the upper midwest. my amendment promotes more baseload power from coal-fired to natural-gas power plants. we should be expanding access to power generation from resources available 24/7, regardless of

weather conditions. we are the world's leading economy with vast energy resources and blackouts and brownouts are simply not acceptable. i urge my colleagues to vote yes on this amendment to keep the lights on. energy costs low, and harness our abundant baseload resources with improved environmental stewardship. voice vote would be fantastic. the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: mr. president, just yesterday -- just yesterday -- the world's scientists offered an unequivocal warning to us about the condition of our planet. and every single one of us has a home state university that teaches climate science, and if we ask them, will confirm that

warning. and yet we relentlessly subsidize the fossil fuel industry. which floats already on a $600 billion annual subsidy in this country, according to the international monetary fund. enough is you have in. -- enough is enough. our grid operators almost everywhere do a good job with relatability -- reliability and we have just added billions of dollars to improve grid reliability. there is no reason whatsoever to put another thumb on scales for this already heavily subsidized industry when most of these blackouts and brownouts are driven by extreme weather caused by the climate change from their pollution. i urge a no vote. mr. hoeven: mr. president, i would note that the referenced carbon capture as well as other environmental practices that we're taking to lead the world with producing not only

abundant, affordable baseload energy but also with the latest, greatest technologies and environmentally friendly way. i would note that the good senator has actually joined on this legislation to do just that -- i urge a yes vote on the amendment. a senator: i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: the question is on the amendment. is there a second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

the presiding officer: the yeas are 52, the nays are 47. the amendment is agreed to. the presiding officer: the senator from kansas. a senator: mr. president, i call up my amendment and ask that it be reported by number. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from kansas, mr. marshall, for himself sand others, proposes amendment number 3797. mr. marshall: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from kansas. mr. marshall: as we all work to address vaccine hesitancy and await full approval of the covid-19 vaccines. open border policy oz undermine these efforts. americans can travel to mexico city but not return to america without a covid test. while an illegal immigrant has no test requirements. in just a few days it will be easier to cross our southern border than go to a restaurant or bar in new york city. some estimates would suggest

hundreds or perhaps even thousands of covid-positive illegal immigrants in our republic every day. that means we have a super-spreader event at our southern border every single day. and americans are watching this public health care crisis. in mcallen, texas, almost 1,500 migrants were released into their community this past week alone. there is a health care crisis at our southern border and it is unacceptable for the government to be transporting illegal migrants who pose a grave risk of transmitting covid across our nation. my amendment would ensure resources are provided for testing and treatment of migrants at the border and for quarantining those who test positive for covid as well and the transportation of migrants who have not received a negative test. the presiding officer: time has expired. mr. marshall: i yield back. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: imagine it is 3:00 in the morning in the desert on our border and the border patrol

is out and finds a family -- a mother hand a father and two small children. what do they do when they're 50 miles away from any port of entry? they obviously take them to that port of entry. but according to the marshal amendment, they can't do it. listening to his language. prohibiting migrants who have not received a negative covid-19 test from being transported. they can't be transported out of the desert because they don't have a negative covid-19 test? and what if they show up at the detention center -- and i have mentioned this to dr. marshall already. and there is a a mother who is in labor and needs to go the hospital immediately. do, to your language they cannot be transported unless they have a negative covid-19 test. that is not good medicine. that is not humane. i asked you to change those providing provisions. i gave you language to do that. i'm sorry you didn't. the presiding officer: the

question is on the amendment. mr. marshall: 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:

the presiding officer: is the yeas are 8, the nays are 11. the amendment is agreed to. the senator from louisiana. the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. mr. kennedy: mr. president, i take it back. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. schumer: now, mr. president, we have come to an agreement here. i'm going to read it in a minute. and i just want to say that we

are going to try to have everyone sit in their seats. there are one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten amendments. if we all sit in our seats is and try to stick to the ten minutes or as close as we can get to it, we can finish -- ten minutes -- we can get this all done quickly. if we all finish voting by 5:00, we can do it quicker than ten. [applause] >> mr. schumer: thank you, that's the most republican applause i've got nona while. i appreciate that. okay. i ask unanimous consent that following the kennedy amendment, the following amendments be the only amendments remaining in order, that the amendments be reported by number and that the senate vote in relation to the amendments in the order listed. lee 3141, lee the clerk. inhofe, 3331, daines 3292,

hagerty, 3742, hyde-smith 3568, grass lay 5650. cruz, 3681, lee, 3815, kennedy 3753. further, that on the disposition of the kennedy amendment, the last kennedy amendment, the senate vote on the adoption of s. con. res. 14 as amended with no further intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. schumer: thank you, mr. president. thank you, my colleagues. let's cooperate and finish this up. the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana seek recognition? mr. kennedy: mr. president, i call up my amendment 3758 and ask that it be reported by umin.

the presiding officer: the clerk will report the amendment by number. the clerk: the senator from louisiana, mr. kennedy, for himself and others, proposes an amendment numbered 3758. mr. kennedy: mr. president, after 20 weeks of gestation, medical science has determined that children in their mother's womb feel pain. to channel my good friend and the distinguished senator from rhode island, you can go to the appropriate professor at any of the universities in your state and they will tell you that is so. this amendment would allow for penalties for those who perform elective -- elective abortions on unborn children who are at least 20 weeks in gestation. this amendment would not apply to abortions in the case of

rape, of incest, or when the life of the mother is in danger. the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: mr. president, even in the midst of a pandemic, a climate crisis, a child care crisis, so many issues facing our working families, it is so disappointing -- but not surprising -- to see republicans continue to focus on restricting access to abortion care. let's be perfectly clear about this amendment. it is a clear attempt to undermine roe v. wade. it would impose a 20-week abortion ban with no exceptions for rape or incest and it would harm women and countries across the country. in fact, leading medical groups like the american medical association and the american college of obstetricians and gynecologists oppose policies like this because they interfere with doctors and patients' ability to make decisions based

on science and based on what's best for their patients' health care. everyone has the right to make their own decisions about their own reproductive health care. i urge a no vote on this amendment. mr. kennedy: mr. president? the presiding officer: question is on the amendment. mr. kennedy: do i have additional time, mr. president? the presiding officer: you do not. no time remaining. mr. kennedy: i ask for the yeas and nays, mr. president. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

the presiding officer: the yeas are 48. the nays are 15. the amendment is not agreed to. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. lee: i call up my amendment number 3141 way ask that it be reported by number. the presiding officer: the clerk will report by number. the clerk: mr. lee proposes an amendment numbered 3141. mr. lee: mr. president, states and localities are not allowed to tax land held by the federal government. as a result of this, congress created the pilt program to reimburse states for that lost revenue. the payments are determined by a formula that is far lower than it would be under a tax equivalency. 21 years ago the usda concluded that pilt payments needed to be increased by three and a half times. on certain federal lands the number is much larger.

a utah study showed that for lands held in utah cities, it needed to be 262 times larger. my amendment would help correct this inaccuracy. it would direct the secretary of the interior to conduct a study on the true taxable value of pilt land and treat it as if it were owned by anyone else other than the federal government and, therefore, subject to taxation. it would reform the program to more accurately compensate states for the revenue that they lose simply by virtue of the fact that they have federal land in them. the presiding officer: who yields too i am in opposition? a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from west virginia. mr. manchin: senator lee's amendment set up a deficit-neutral reserve fund to change the payment formula for the payments in lieu of taxes program. i sure desire to ensure that payments to counties are fair, i have concerns with this amendment. the administration has testified that trying to incorporate a system into the pilt formula that involves appraising every

parcel of federal land and tracking every local tax rate would prove nearly impossible to administer. i urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment of. the presiding officer: question is on the amendment. mr. lee: i call for the yeas and nays. officers. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there is. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

the presiding officer: the yeas are 15,the nays are 48. the amendment is agreed to. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: mr. president, i call up my amendment number 3331 and ask that it be reported by number. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the amendment by number. the clerk: mr. inhofe for himself and others proposes an amendment numbered 3331.

mr. inhofe: my friends, my amendment is designed to protect a very small population, a very significant population. they're babies with down's syndrome. over two-thirds of the unborn babies diagnosed with down's syndrome in the united states are aaborted. some countries like iceland are eradicating their entire population of individuals with down's syndrome through abortion. now, i think we agree that an individual should not be discriminated against due to his or her chromosome count. it is not partisan. it is not extreme. 70% of americans, including 56% of pro-choice americans, oppose abortion on the basis of down's syndrome diagnosis.

this amendment uses the budget mechanism to help protect the most vulnerable among us who are being systematically targeted through abortion. the presiding officer: gentleman's time has expired. mr. inhofe: i urge my closing to lay aside their party differences and think about the little lives. the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. who seeks time -- mr. blumenthal: thank you, mr. president. the stated purpose of this amendment is a pretext, a pretext for restricting reproductive rights and interfering with women's decisions about whether to have an abortion. for all of us who care about people with down's syndrome, we ought to listen to the national down's syndrome society and devote more resources to research at n.i.h., to funding better settings and care for

people with down's syndrome and better opportunities for their employment. there are ways to serve that community without this protectionual restriction of reproductive rights. i urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment. the presiding officer: question is on the amendment. mr. inhofe: i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there is. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

the presiding officer: there

are 49 yeas, 50 nays. the amendment is not agreed to. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from montana. mr. daines: i call up my amendment 3292. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: mr. daines proposes amendment number 3292. mr. daines: montana's small businesses are critically important for jobs, four local economies and really bringing our communities together. through no fault of their own, many were hit very hardly the pandemic. unfortunately, some members on the other side of the aisle have put forth some very misguided efforts to raise taxes on these small businesses, attempting to redefine what constitutes a small business. thankfully we already have an agreed-upon definition that was set by the small business administration which defiance a small business as one with fewer than 500 embryos.

-- 500 employees. efforts such as to end the small business tax deduction passed in the tax cuts and jobs act based on arbitrary income thresholds should be called out for what they are. these are small business tax hikes. for this reason, mr. president, i'm offering an amendment to create a deficit-neutral reserve against prohibiting tax increases on small businesses as defined by the small business administration. i urge my colleagues to -- who believe in the importance of the small businesses to join me in vote something for this amendment. mr. wyden: our core belief is that taxes should not be raised on small businesses and that the wealthiest and the biggest corporations should pay their fair share. this amendment is consistent with that. i'm going to support it. i hope we can do this on a voice vote. the presiding officer: question is on the amendment. all those in favor, say aye. those opposed, say no. the ayes appear to have it.

the ayes do have it. the amendment is agreed to. mr. schumer: madam president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. schumer: to my colleagues, the clerk is no longer going to recount to save us a little time and so -- but i just urge my colleagues to please stay in their seats so we can move this along.

and speak up when you're called. is that what you mean? i have no trouble speaking loudly as everyone knows here. mr. hagerty: madam president? the presiding officer: the junior senator from tennessee. mr. hagerty: i call up my amendment 37 # 2. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from tennessee mr. hagerty proposes amend number 3742. mr. hagerty: thank you, madam president. my amendment provides for ensuring that u.s. immigration and customs enforcement which is charged by congress with enforcing immigration in the -- laws in the united states has sufficient resources to deport illegal aliens convicted of crimes in the united states. 92% of the illegal aliens that i.c.e. deports have been convicted or charged with crimes. yet despite the border crisis and record border crossing, the

biden administration has drastically reduced deportations to roughly one-quarter they were last fiscal year reaching the lowest levels this spring. from over 28,000 in october 2019 to less than 3,000 in april of 2021. that means the administration is allowing thousands of criminal illegal aliens per month to remain in american communities and potentially commit more crimes. i ask for your support for enforcing our immigration laws and deering illegal immigration and illegal activity by providing the resources necessary to remove criminal illegal aliens from our streets. thank you. i ask for the yeas and nays. mr. durbin: madam president? the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there is. the yeas and nays are ordered. the democratic whip. mr. durbin: madam president, we all agree on one basic thing. no one who is dangerous to the united states should be allowed to come to this country and those who are here and not citizens who are guilty of

serious crime should be removed from this country. that is the highest and law enforcement priority not only of those gathered here but also of the biden administration. the hagerty amendment, though, makes it clear that he's seeking to increase funding for detention and deportation of more undocumented immigrants who have been convicted of any crime in the united states. not a serious crime. not a violent crime. any crime. including nonviolent misdemeanors. the i.c.e. agency has sufficient funds to carry out its law enforcement function with a total budget of over $8 billion. this overly broad amendment does not distinguish between the crimes committed by individuals, the serious ones versus those that are not. it would divert i.c.e. from focusing its resources on the truly serious public safety national security threats. i urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment. the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. the yeas and nays were

previously ordered. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

the presiding officer: the yeas are 53. the nays are 46. the amendment is agreed to.

mrs. hyde-smith: madam president? the presiding officer: the junior senator from mississippi. mrs. hyde-smith: i call up number 3568 and ask it be reported by number. the clerk: the senator from mississippi mrs. hyde-smith proposes amendment number 3568. mrs. hyde-smith: madam president, our nation's communities and small businesses have had it rough these past 18 months as they struggle with the lasting effects of the pandemic. today they are also being victimized amid surging violent crime rates, progressive prosecutors who adopt nonprosecution policies, and as a result, small businesses are left vulnerable and unassisted as they are burglarized, defaced, and destroyed. it is understandable for victimized small business, law enforcement and the public to be despiritted as they are left to pick up the pieces as rogue prosecutors ignore their

constitutional duty by refusing to prosecute violent crimes that affect the health, safety, or economy of our communities. define the rule of law and endangering the public has mississippians and americans across the country saying enough is enough. my amendment is simple and straightforward. any city that purposely obstructs the rule of law by refusing to -- the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. mrs. hyde-smith: certain violent crimes will not be subsidized by the american taxpayers. i urge my colleagues to vote yes. mr. durbin: madam president? the presiding officer: the democratic whip. mr. durbin: madam president, the senator from mississippi has stated her case explicitly. if a prosecutor fails to prosecute a case, the town or community that he represents as prosecutor, the town or community will be denied federal

funds. think about this. under the senator's amendment, if a district attorney decides not to charge a certain. th-- a certain --even in one can will lose its eligibility under federal funding. like the violence against women's act. we know what that is. or the bulletproof vest grant act to protect law enforcement in that same community. they'd lose their opportunity for federal grants under the senator's amendment that she's offering. i think we ought to think carefully about this. prosecutors decide whether to proceed with the case or not proceed based on the amount of evidence, the likelihood of conviction, the possibility of securing a plea bargain for lesser offense. to deny a community funds or the police, i hope my -- all of my colleagues will oppose this amendment. the presiding officer: the

question is on the amendment. mrs. hyde-smith: i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there is. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

the presiding officer: on this vote the yeas are 47. the nays are 52. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. grassley: madam president? the presiding officer: the senior senator from iowa. mr. grassley: i call up my amendment 3650 and ask that it be reported by number. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from iowa mr. grassley proposes an amendment numbered 3650. mr. grassley: this amendment creates a deficit neutral reserve fund for legislation that would prevent illegal immigrants with criminal records

from obtaining lawful permanent residence status in our country. pretty simple. prohibiting illegal immigrants with criminal convictions or pending criminal charges from receiving legal status in the united states should be a very easy call. it shouldn't be very controversial. i urge my colleagues to support it. reserve my time. mr. durbin: madam president? the presiding officer: the democratic whip. mr. durbin: madam president, the grassley amendment would exclude from a path to citizenship any undocumented immigrant who's been convicted of any crime or who has been merely charged with a crime. this is a broad exclusion. it applies to any criminal conviction no matter how long ago it took place, how minor the crime, and to my criminal charge, even if the individual is ultimately exonerated. this exclusion is also unnecessary because every legalization bill pending in the senate requires a criminal

background check and excludes individuals convicted of serious crime. for example, the bipartisan house-passed dream and promise act would bar an immigrant from receiving legal status if they have been convicted of any felony, any drug offense, or any crime of domestic violence. and also we have to accept the obvious. crossing the border illegally can be a crime if one wants to -- be charged with that. this amendment is inconsistent with due process and would do nothing to increase public safety. i urge my colleagues to vote no. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there is. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

the presiding officer: the yeas are 49. the nays are 506789 the amendment is -- 50. the amendment is not agreed to. the presiding officer: the ?rn senator from alaska. mr. sullivan: madam president, i call up my amendment 3626 and ask that it be roshted by number -- reported by number. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from alaska mr. sullivan proposes an amendment numbered 3626. mr. sullivan: madam president, my amendment would withhold american taxpayers support to the united nations human rights council until the department of state certifies that no members of the organization are state sponsors of terrorism and the treasury department reports on the prevalence of american-sanctioned countries within the organizations. right now cuba which is designated by the state department as a state sponsor of terrorism serves on the u.n. human rights council alongside authoritarian regimes and human

rights abusers russia and communist china. recently the biden administration asked this very flawed international organization to investigate our own country's record on human rights. this is an outrage and the congress should respond by defunding the human rights council until all of its member countries actually respect human rights. i urge my colleagues to support my amendment. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senior senator from new jersey. mr. menendez: madam president, it's past 3:00 a.m. and we are dealing with another messaging amendment. like the junior senator from alaska, we all oppose terrorism. we condemn state sponsors of it. but this amendment goes well beyond that and is drafted so broadly, whether intentionally or not, that it signals a cutoff of funding to every

international organization, every single one, including the united nations because some members are bad actors. now, our republican colleagues are well aware that adversaries such as china are expanding their influence at some of the most important international organizations. they're calling the shots because we're not there. this amendment would seed the field to the chinese so we can sit on the sidelines and watch them make the rules. when israel is wrongly signaled out at the u.n. human rights commission, we will not be there to defend her. and when international standards are being created for high-tech issues, we will not lead the world as we should. that's why this amendment should be defeated. the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. mr. sullivan: do i have time to respond? the presiding officer: there's no time remaining. the question is on the amendment. mr. sullivan: i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there is. the clerk will call the roll.

vote:

the presiding officer: on this vote the yeas are 49. the nays are 50. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. cruz: madam president? the presiding officer: the junior senator from texas. mr. cruz: i call up my amendment 3681 and ask that it be reported by number. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from texas mr. cruz proposes an amendment numbered 3681. mr. cruz: madam president, i rise today to urge my colleagues to support this amendment to create a point of order against any legislation that would fund or subsidize the import of

electric vehicles with supply lines that run through then jong. right now the chinese communist party is committing genocide against million, of uighurs. they're being tortured, murdered and forced into slave labor. the ccp has exploited take slave labor to ensure that much is made . or nation is in perilous risk in becoming complicit in these atrocities as part of the massive rush to import e.v.'s. this would prohibit our bringing in e.v.'s that are made with slave labor. we cannot and should not fund slave labor in communist china. the presiding officer: the senior senator from oregon. mr. wyden: i've been advised that inclusion of this amendment in the budget resolution would be corrosive to the privileged status of the resolution. since this amendment contains material inappropriate for inclusion in the budget resolution, its adoption could

jeopardize the privilege of this resolution which would completely halt our efforts to consider a reconciliation bill later this year. additionally, this amendment is not germane as required by law. accordingly, i raise a point of order that the pending amendment violates section 305-b 2 of the congressional budget act of 1974 and i would urge a vote against a motion to waive. the presiding officer: the junior senator from texas. mr. cruz: pursuant to section 904 of the congressional budget act, i move to waive and i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there is. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

the presiding officer: on this vote the yeas are 50. the nays are 49. three-fifths of the senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted in the affirmative, the motion is not agreed to and the amendment falls. the senior senator from utah. mr. lee: i call up my amendment

number 3815 and ask that it be reported by number. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from utah mr. lee proposes an amendment numbered 3815. mr. lee: madam president, inflation is out of control. and very few seem to be willing to talk about it much less address it. now, look, it hasn't been this bad since the great recession. and even then only two months out of that entire crisis were as bad or worse than inflation is right now. and it's showing up in every consumer product americans buy. everything from groceries to gas, from housing to health care is getting more expensive. every dollar that we churn into the economy, that we print out when we don't have it makes these and all other products more expensive. let's be clear. the spending is facilitated by a budget resolution and that same spending will exacerbate inflation and worsen the pain that americans are feeling as they're filling their gas tanks,

stocking their pantries and refrigerators. when inflation is surging, we can't be piling on to the problem. we're not elected to make life worse. we need to get inflation back under control. this simple amendment would empower congress to do just that by making it harder for congress to increase spending whenever inflation is above 3%. the presiding officer: the junior senator from vermont. mr. sanders: this amendment is a poison pill that would defeat everything that many of us are trying to accomplish tonight in this historic budget. no reduction in childhood poverty, no expansion in child care pre-k or medicare, no investment in affordable housing or home health care, no paid family and medical leave. no effort to combat the existential threat of climate change, no creation of millions

of good-paying jobs. using an arbitrary inflation number, it would end all of that. this amendment must be defeated. the presiding officer: the question is on the amendment. is there a sufficient second? there is. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

the presiding officer: on this vote the yeas are 49. the nays are 50. the amendment is not agreed to.

the presiding officer: the junior senator from louisiana. mr. kennedy: madam president, i call up my amendment number 3753 and ask that it be reported by number and while they're doing that, for someone to check on senator tillis. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from louisiana, mr. kennedy, proposes an amendment numbered 3753. mr. kennedy: thank you, napt, this -- thank you, madam president. this amendment will prohibit any changes to the tax treatment of like-kind exchanges. mr. wyden: madam president? the presiding officer: the senior senator from oregon.

mr. wyden: madam president, it's my understanding that after 15 hours or so, this is the last amendment of the night. and i recommend we do it by voice vote. the presiding officer: the question is on the amendment. all those in favor say aye. all opposed nay. the ayes appear to have it. the amendment is agreed to. mr. schumer: madam president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. schumer: madam president, we're about to vote on the budget resolution. i remind my colleagues we will have a vote very shortly thereafter on voting rights. thank you, madam president. the presiding officer: the question occurs on s. con. res. 14 as amended.

is there a sufficient second? there is. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: on this vote, the yeas are 50, the nays are 49. and the concurrent resolution as

amended is agreed to. the majority leader. mr. schumer: now senate democrats have just took a massive step towards restoring the middle class in the 21st century and giving americans, more americans the chance to get there. teddy roosevelt said nothing in the world is worth doing unless it means effort, pain, and difficulty. what we're doing here is not easy. democrats have labored for months to reach this point, and there are many labors to come, but i can say with absolute certainty that it will be worth doing. the democratic budget will bring a generational transformation to how our economy works for average americans. it will cut taxes for american families. it will lower costs for everyone. it will create good-paying jobs while tackling climate change, and it will be paid for by

making our tax code more progressive and more fair, asking corporations and the wealthy to pay their fair share. it will help middle-class americans stay in the middle class, and it will build ladders into the middle class. it will restore the basic social contract in america. if you work hard, you can do better and pass on even greater opportunities for your children, and in doing so, my friends, it will restore something in the american -- i ask for order, please, madam president. the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. mr. schumer: and in doing so, it will restore something in the american character that we have nearly lost. that hopeful optimism, that can-do attitude, that frontier spirit, eyes fixed on the horizons, the kindness, decency, and faith in the future that is

fundamental not only to the american spirit but to american democracy. i can think of no more worthy pursuit. now, madam president, at this late hour, -- even at this late hour and before the conclusion of this session, this chamber is going to take one more step in the fight to protect voting rights in this country. in a moment, i will move to discharge the rules committee from further consideration of the for the people act, a vehicle for the senate to have a debate on voting rights. it is my intention that the first amendment to the bill would be the text of a compromise bill that a group of senators are working on. let me be very clear. this is a debate the senate must

have. in america today, we are witnessing the most sweeping and coordinated attacks on voting rights since the era of jim crow. reactionary republican legislatures are making it harder for poorer, younger, and nonwhite americans to vote, while at the same time making it easier for partisan actors to steal an election. senate democrats are not going to stand by while this happens. we're going to fight to protect the sacred right to vote. now, before i make my motion, i-year-old to my colleague and friend from west virginia. mr. manchin: madam president. the presiding officer: the senior senator from west virginia. mr. manchin: i have made it crystal clear that i do not support the for the peoples act. over the past few months, i have worked to eliminate the far-reaching aspects of that bill and amend the legislation to make sure our elections are fair, accessible, and secure. in june, i voted to begin debate in this senate on my amended voting rights legislation, not

for the peoples act. tonight i am again voting to move that process forward because i believe that we need to come together to restore people's faith in the integrity of our elections, but i do make it very clear that i will not support the for the peoples act. for example, i firmly believe that we need commonsense voter i.d. requirements just like we have in west virginia that strengthen the security of our elections without making it harder for americans to vote. i also firmly believe that we shouldn't politicize the federal elections commission, prohibit any guardrails on vote by mail or prevent local election officials from doing basic maintenance of voter rolls. the compromise bill we voted on in june included all of these important provisions, and i urge my colleagues, democrats and republicans, to allow us to debate this critical issue and come up with a bipartisan solution that protects every american's right to vote. mr. schumer: i thank my friend for his dedication to finding a way forward on this critical issue. and now, mr. president, pursuant

to rule s. res. 27, the rules committee being tied on the question of reporting, i move to discharge the rules committee from further consideration of s. 1, for the people act of 2021, and for the information of the senate, it is my intention the first amendment to the bill would be the text of the compromise bill that a group of senators are working on. the presiding officer: under the provisions of s. res. 27, there will now be up to four hours of debate on the motion equally divided between the two leaders or their designees, with no motions, points of order, or amendments in order. mr. mcconnell: madam president. the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: well, here we go again, colleagues. we have seen this once before. and i think it's fitting that after passing this budget resolution full of reckless taxing and spending, we end the

evening with an effort to federalize, take over all elections all across america by the federal government. now, we're hearing there is going to be a substitute, but what's technically before us is as follows -- after ramming through this reckless taxing and spending spree, here in the dead of night, they also want to start tearing up the ground rules of our democracy and writing new ones, of course on a purely partisan basis. i suppose the timing actually makes sense, given the terrible votes that every democratic senator just cast here tonight. i can understand why their thoughts have turned so quickly to their next elections. and why they might be feeling especially anxious to tilt the playing field in their direction. this ridiculous, go-nowhere bill

is stuck in the rules committee would let washington democrats take over 50 state election laws. completely federalize how we handle elections in this country. it would attack popular safeguards like voter i.d., it would turn the federal election commission into a partisan body. it would even spend public funds on our political campaigns. $4 trillion plus in new spending actually wasn't enough tonight. it wasn't enough. the preference of at least 49 out of 50 of them is to spend public money on our own elections. public money to finance attack ads of people you disagree with. so look, my view is that maybe this is just concluding the night with a little comic

relief. s. 1 is an absurd and clumsy effort by one political party to literally rewrite the ground rules of our democracy to try to advantage them and disadvantage the other side. it's always a temptation when in the majority to want to write the rules to make it more likely you can get the outcome you want. this isn't going to work. it isn't going to work tonight, and it isn't going to work when we get back. mr. schumer: madam president, i ask consent all remaining time on both sides yield -- all -- i ask consent to yield all remaining time on both sides. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. all time is yielded back. mr. schumer: i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second?

there is. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

the presiding officer: the yeas are 50, the nays are 49. the motion to discharge is agreed to, and the bill will be placed on the calendar. mr. schumer: and now, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to immediate consideration of s. 2093, for the people act of 2021. the presiding officer: is there objection? seeing none, so ordered. oh, the senator from texas. mr. cruz: reserving the right to

object, this bill would constitute a federal government takeover of elections. it would constitute a massive power grab by democrats. it would disenfranchise millions of americans. and it would do precisely the opposite of its nominal title for the people. it is instead for the politicians because it entrenches politicians and ensures that the people cannot vote them out of office. it would strike down virtually every reasonable voter integrity law in the country, including voter i.d. laws supported by the overwhelming majority of this country, including prohibitions on ballot harvesting, again widely supported by people in this country. it would mandate that felons be allowed to vote. and it would automatically register millions of illegal aliens to vote. it would profoundly undermine democracy in this country, and for that reason, i object. the presiding officer: the objection is heard. mr. schumer: mr. president.

the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. schumer: the republican minority has just prevented the senate from even having a debate, a debate, just that, on voting rights in this country. i understand my republican colleagues don't approve of every aspect of the democratic bill to protect voting rights, but surely there are areas where our two parties can find some agreement. partisan gerrymandering, for instance, have plagued our country for too long. it excuse our democracy towards the extremes. it strips the american people of their right to have a truly representative government. voters ought to pick their politicians, not the other way around. but in so many states, partisan legislatures -- legislators draw maps that artificially maximize the number of seats that the majority party will win. some districts are so safe that the most extreme candidates can run and win with hardly any competition. surely my republican colleagues would agree that partisan

gerrymandering deserves a debate on the senate floor. it's a small part of s. 1, but one that has broad universal support. so i ask unanimous consent and the support, by the way, of all 50 of my colleagues -- 49 of my democratic colleagues. so i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of s. 2670, calendar 119, the redistricting reform act of 2021. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. cruz: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cruz: reserving the right to object, the text of the constitution explicitly assigns the power to engage in redistricting to elected state legislatures in the states. there is a reason for that. that ensures that redistricting is controlled by the people. we have an unfortunate pattern in today's congress, which is today's democrats no longer believe in democracy.

their bill, s. 1, what many call the corrupt politicians act, is designed to prevent the voters from voting democrats out of office. this bill, the bill to remove the state legislatures from their constitutionally appointed responsibility of being in charge of redistricting would instead assign that to commissions and ultimately to the federal courts to unelected federal judges. now, redistricting and gerrymandering can lead to ugly consequences. this is not new. the founders were well aware of the ugly consequences of gerrymandering. indeed, the very word gerrymander comes from eldridge gerry, one of the founders whose district was so contorted it looked like a sal a mannedder. that's -- like a salamander. they knew if you gave

redistricting to elected politicians, they will act on political concerns. the reason the founders did so is even with those downsides, it keeps the process accountable to the people. if you instead hand it over to unelected commissions or to unelected federal judges, the people are disenfranchised. that is a serious mistake. i would note over a decade ago, i defended the constitutionality and the constitutional assignment of that responsibility to the state legislatures before the united states supreme court in the texas redistricting case, and we won a landmark 5-4 victory where the supreme court upheld the clear constitutional authorization of legislatures to engage in redistricting, even if they engage in political concerns because the check on that is not unelected judges secondguessing the people. rather, the check on that is democracy and the people engaging in their own check and

balance. accordingly, i object. mr. schumer: mr. president. the presiding officer: the objection is heard. the majority leader. mr. schumer: so the american people should understand republicans just blocked the senate from even debating legislation to end partisan gerrymandering and make our congress more representative of the people. surely our republican colleagues, however, would agree that billions of dollars in anonymous campaign donations every year is not a function of a healthy democracy. surely they must agree that america's representatives should have only one boss, the people, not the special interests. so i'm going to ask the senate now to debate a simple measure, to bring a much-needed transparency to campaign donations. just transparency, not even limits, although i would certainly support those. at the very least, the american people deserve to know who is trying to influence their representatives and how strenuously. so i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the immediate

consideration of s. 2671, calendar 120, the disclose act of 2021, which has the support of our entire caucus. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. cruz: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cruz: reserving the right to object, i would note there is a long history of government trying to force the disclosure of the identity of political contributions, and much of that history is sordid. indeed, in a landmark case before the united states supreme court, racist southern democratic politicians tried to force the naacp to hand over their donor list, and they wanted to do so for reasons that were not difficult to discern because they intended to persecute those who dared contribute to the naacp, and the supreme court in a landmark decision concluded that the constitution protects against that forced disclosure. but i will say the majority

leader said just a few minutes ago that surely there must be some area of common ground, and indeed there is on this issue. i think all of us, if we were speaking in a moment of candor, if we were not engaged in our typical partisan battle on the floor, would acknowledge the current system is stupid. the current system makes no sense. super pac's make no sense. why is that? because in all of our elections -- every one of us has run for elections -- there are spax, which are independent groups. they are -- it is illegal for us as candidates to speak with those independent groups, and in every one of our races -- i see the senator from arizona. he is going to have a hotly contested race. it wouldn't surprise me to see $100 million or more spent in his race, perhaps on both sides. much of that will be spent in super pac's. it is illegal for us as candidates to community with those super pac's, and so we are left with the bizarre situation

where there is millions or sometimes tens of millions of dollars being spent on behalf of us. millions, sometimes tens of millions of dollars being spent attacking us, and we can't communicate with them. we hope it has some bearing or relevance to what we believe. every congress since i have been here, i have introduced legislation to end this. this is legislation called the super pac elimination act. this act does two very simple things. number one, it allows unlimited individual contributions to federal campaigns. not from unions, not from corporations, but from real human beings, from people unlimited contributions. i would note this is the way the state of texas handles state elections. number two, my legislation, the super pac elimination act, requires immediate 24-hour disclosure. so if an individual writes a check to a campaign, that gets disclosed immediately, and you can debate about whether that

contribution was corrosive or not. this legislation would not prohibit super pac's, but as a practical matter super pac's would fade from relevance because every candidate would much prefer money given to their campaign where you can spend on your own message. it would make far more sense to have an open, transparent system. accordingly, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of a bill at the desk that would protect free speech in america's electoral process and ensure transparency in campaign finance. i ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and a motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. mr. schumer: mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. schumer: i object to the senator from texas' legislation. it's obvious to just about every american, it would make a bad situation even worse. so i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard.

is there objection to the original request from the senator from new york? mr. cruz: i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. schumer: mr. president, in conclusion, before i turn it over to some of my colleagues. so democrats have tried to do something very simple. we ask the senate to start debate, just debate on legislation to protect voting rights and strengthen our democracy. republicans said no. democrats asked to debate a measure just to prevent partisan gerrymandering. and frankly in my colleague's response, he was all over the lot. it's good to have politicians do it, it's not good to have politicians do it, it's good to have judges do it, it's not good to have judges do it. we would set standards to make sure that in a state like wisconsin where 53% of the people voted for a democratic member of the state assembly, only a third of the districts were democratic drawn by a republican legislature. so republicans have said no,

they don't even want to debate these issues. democrats asked to debate the measure to bring much-needed transparency to campaign donations and get special interest dark money out of politics. republicans still said no. so let there be no mistake about what is going on here. we have reached a point in this chamber where republicans appear to oppose any measure, any measure, no matter how common sense to protect voting rights and strengthen our democracy. let there be no mistake, both inside this chamber and outside of it. republicans have formed a wall, a total wall of opposition against progress on voting rights in the united states senate. even on an issue as sacred as the right to vote. senate republicans refuse to allow even a debate. they're afraid to debate it. yesterday morning, we saw what it looks like when the senate comes together.

this is what it looks like when it doesn't. apparently, there are very serious and important limits to bipartisanship. there are some issues where republicans refuse to join us in good faith to make progress for our country. i never thought i'd see the day when voting rights, which used to be supported in a bipartisan way as recently as 2006, would be one of those issues, but that's what we have come to, total republican intransigence when it comes to simple measures to make our democracy more perfect and strengthen the hand of the individual voter. now, let me be clear. republicans refusing to support anything on voting rights is not an excuse for democrats to do nothing. in recent weeks, i have met with a number of democratic senators. senators klobuchar and merkley, manchin and warnock and padilla, kaine, king, and tester and

manchin to discuss a compromise voting rights bill. we have made a great deal of progress on that legislation. we had a very good meeting as recently as yesterday afternoon, and we intend to rally around it. so tonight i am filing cloture on a vehicle to allow the senate to take up the compromise voting rights bill. voting rights, voting rights will be the first matter of legislative business when the senate returns to session in september. our democracy demands no less. i yield the floor. mr. schumer: i yield to my colleague from oregon and then my colleague from rhode island. mr. merkley: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. merkley: we have the privilege to come to this floor and examine issues important to

every american, and what could be more important than the fundamental right to participate in the guidance of our country? to be able to cast a ballot at that ballot box. it's the pulsating heart of our republic. in fact, it's 56 years ago, just a couple of days ago, that president johnson signed the voting rights act of 1965. and what did he say? he said it's wrong, deadly wrong to deny any american the opportunity to vote. what was deadly wrong in 1965? it is deadly wrong in 2021. it's hard to believe that over 50 years, over half a century has passed, and we're reverting

to that period before 1965 where there was a systematic effort to target specific groups of voters and prevent them from going to the poll. and we all know how this worked. on election day, there would be fewer precinct voting locations in those areas you didn't want to vote, and they would be understaffed so there would be long lines or their voting machines would be out of order or they would change the location every two years so people would be confused about where to go or they would locate them where there was no parking. all of these things deliberately aimed at preventing black americans from voting and preventing other communities of color from voting. well, today we're seeing in state after state after state an expanded version of this, not just targeting black americans and other communities of color

but also targeting poor communities and college students. and we see these laws unfolding in just the recent months. i would expect 100 of our colleagues here to stand up and defend the ballot box. aren't we long removed from those days of that racist past? but apparent but apparently not. so some of us have to stand up and say we are going to stand up for the vision of our constitution. we're all men and women -- where all men and women are created equal and every man and woman has the right to participate in the guidance of this country. we know in the founding of our country, we had a beautiful vision imperfectly formed, that black americans, native americans, women were not allowed to vote. and we fix those things over time. we've progressed in an arc to full opportunity. and that's what we're fighting

for now, full opportunity of every citizen to have a full measure of what it means to be a participant in a republic. oh, there's much more in this bill to mend the assault on equal representation through the diabolical gerrymandering denied to bias, the outcome from one party to the other. and certainly to keep billionaires from buying elections. and when we ask people around the country, independents, democrats, republicans, they all say we do not want billionaires to buy elections. we do not want equal representation destroyed by diabolical gerrymandering. and we want every citizen to have access to the ballot box. but in this chamber suddenly the views of the republicans across this country are forgotten by my republican colleagues across the aisle. in that thirsty quest for power, they're willing to violate the fundamental principles that inspire our nation.

and it is wrong, deadly wrong today as it was in 1965. thank you, mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: a word on dark money. when the republican justices on the supreme court opened the floodgates of unlimited money in the disgraceful citizens united decision, that suddenly made something new very important. and that was to hide who you are when you're spending the money. if the biggest check you can write is $5,000, there's no great premium in hiding who you are. when you can write a $5 million check to back a candidate, suddenly hiding who you are becomes extremely valuable and salient.

so suddenly this became very real. but those justices who had opened the door to unlimited money, when they made that decision in order to justify that decision, they had to say that the spending had to be transparent. otherwise the citizens united decision would not have worked in the constitutional scheme. they had to say that. but for the next decade what did they do about it? case after case came before them where the dark money problem was raised. we rode through a billion dollars of dark money being spent in our elections. this was on the front page of the newspaper. this was being done in plain view. and what did the republican justices on the supreme court do enforce their own stated requirement of transparency? not one thing. and so we have had a decade of

corruption of government by billionaire interests who can hide who they are and operate through an enormous phalanx of phony front groups whom they have stood up. if you want to know how real this is, look at what we have had to do in the reconciliation measure to address climate change. because when i got here, there were republicans willing to address climate change. we had bill after bill in the senate that were bipartisan and serious and sincere. that stopped dead in january of 2010 when citizens united was decided. the dark money spigots opened. the fossil fuel industry behind them enforced compliance across the entire republican party. if you crossed the fossil fuel industry on climate change, you were out, you were done. if you lined up with them and did what they said, in came tens

of millions of dollars in dark money to support you. it was a devil's bargain and it cost us a lost decade on climate change. and now we have to go forward sadly in a partisan way to solve this problem. that is the pressure of dark money in our politics. it is behind the capture of the supreme court. it is behind voter suppression. this is demonstrable stuff. and we've got to put an end to it and it is a tragedy and a disgrace that we can't go to cleaning up the dark money mess. my republican colleagues and their dark money groups are actually at the point now where they're accusing us of taking dark money. they're accusing democrats of being dark money party. well, we just settled that question tonight. democrats want to clean it up. they want to protect it. it's as simple as that. that's all you need to know.

i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. schumer: i must do a couple of procedural things. to my colleagues from georgia and california want to speak on voting rights? i'm sure the senators from new jersey and connecticut are very grateful as well. i'll be brief. i move to proceed to executive session to consider calendar 64. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. those opposed no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, department of education, james richard k val of massachusetts to be under secretary. mr. schumer: i send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate do hereby move to

bring to a close debate on the nomination of executive calendar number 64, james richard k val of massachusetts to be under secretary of education signed by 18 senators as follows. mr. schumer: i ask consent the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. i move to proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. any opposed nay. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. mr. schumer: i move -- the presiding officer: the motion is agreed to. mr. schumer: i move to proceed to executive session to consider 252. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. any opposed nay. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, the judiciary, david g. estudillo of washington to be united states district judge for the western district of washington. mr. schumer: i send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: cloture motion, we,

the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of executive calendar number 252, david g. estudillo of washington to be united states district judge for the western district of washington signed by 17 senators as follows. mr. schumer: i ask consent the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: i move to proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. any opposed nay. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. schumer: i move to froad executive session to consider calendar 260. the presiding officer: is there objection? the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. any opposed nay. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, the judiciary, angel kelley of massachusetts to be united states district judge for the district of massachusetts.

mr. schumer: i send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of executive calendar number 260, angel kelley of massachusetts to be united states district judge for the district of massachusetts signed by 17 senators as follows. mr. schumer: i ask consent the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: i move to proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. any opposed nay. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. schumer: i move to proceed to executive session to consider calendar number 251. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. any opposed nay. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, the judiciary, veronica s. rossman of colorado to be united states circuit judge for the tenth

circuit. mr. schumer: i send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of executive calendar number 251, vary an came s. rossman of colorado to be united states circuit judge for the tenth circuit. mr. schumer: i ask consent the readin -- reading of the names be waived. i move to legislative session. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. any opposed, nay. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. schumer: i move to proceed to calendar 77, s. 2093. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: motion to proceed to calendar number 77, s. 2093 a bill to expand americans' access to the ballot box, and so forth and for other purposes. mr. schumer: i send a cloture motion to the desk.

the presiding officer: the clerk will report the cloture motion. the clerk: cloture motion. we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to proceed to calendar number 77, s. 2093, a bill to expand americans' access to the ballot box, reduce the influence of big money in politics, strengthen ethics rules for public servants, and implement other anticorruption measures for the purpose of fortifying our democracy, and for other purposes, signed by 17 senators as follows -- mr. schumer: i ask consent the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: finally i ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum calls for the cloture motions filed today, august 11, be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: i move to proceed to executive session to consider calendar 64. oh, that's page 1. thank you, mr. president.

i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. mr. menendez: mr. president, i know the hour is late, but we have nearly 30 highly qualified foreign affairs and development nominees who are languishing on the senate floor. we have to confirm these nominees to fully equip the united states to pursue our foreign policy objectives, and i will be asking unanimous consent to confirm each one. my distinguished colleague from connecticut, senator murphy, a member of the committee, is here to join with me in this effort. i know the presiding officer is also a distinguished member of the committee. in the nearly 30 years that i have been working on foreign policy, we have never faced such a confluence of global challenges, a once in a century global pandemic, climate change threatening stability, health and safety across the world, fueling displacement and

resource-driven conflicts, great power competition from an increasingly emboldened china and russia. we have the tools to confront these challenges, to promote american values and interests around the world to advance the safety, health, and economic well-being of all americans, but we cannot do that when we do not have empowered diplomats and development professionals in place to do so. so i call on this body to confirm these nominees, all of whom the foreign relations committee has moved with bipartisan support. to put the united states in the best position to advance our foreign policy, development, and national security priorities. i'm calling for confirmation of all of these nominees, those up for ambassadorships, senior state department and usaid positions. we need them in place. now, the trump administration had its first ambassador confirmed on day 62 of the trump

presidency. the obama administration had its first ambassador confirmed at day 73. the george w. bush administration had its first ambassador confirmed at day 75. for the clinton administration, it was day 75. for the george h.w. bush administration, it was day 83. we are now more than 200 days into the biden administration, and as of this moment, there is not a single confirmed state department country ambassador, not one. and going back four administrations, there is a precedent of moving a pane of nominees before the august recess. under george w. bush, the senate confirmed a package of 81 nominees. during the obama administration, the senate confirmed a package of 104 nominees. and during the trump administration, we confirmed a

package of 75 nominees. we should be ashamed of holding the record for the longest delay in fully equipping the state department and usaid to pursue the foreign policy, development, and national security interests of the united states. now, some members of this body call on one hand for assertive american leadership on the global stage and at the same time they hold up these critical positions. many of these nominees are career diplomats, public servants who have dedicated their lives to advancing u.s. interests. they served in the trump administration in the same way they will serve in the biden administration, on behalf of the american people. many of my colleagues are readily focused on effectively confronting chinese maligned influence while a fundamentally critical element of confronting china is empowered leadership in our diplomatic corps across the world. so let me be clear.

holding up diplomats to posts across africa and the western hemisphere is effectively ceding influence to china and actively undermining u.s. national security interests. i recently heard an anecdote from a diplomat in cameroon whe. when he travels outside the capital city, cameroonians will greet him with a nihau, assuming he must be chinese. meanwhile, we haven't had an american ambassador in cameroon in more than a year. a career diplomat was approved for the post by voice vote nearly a month ago. what could possibly be the rationale for holding him up? lastly, look at the department itself. critical leadership positions remain held up. i know many of my colleagues have dedicated a significant amount of their time over the past few years to combating the flow of fentanyl into the united

states, but here we have a hold on a career foreign service officer nominated to be the assistant secretary for international narcotics and law enforcement who would be leading the department's efforts to combat the flow of fentanyl. so which one do you want? the american people deserve better than this. now, i know we're all tired of being here, and i want to salute and thank the different -- the reading clerks, the parliamentarian, the democrat and republican staff who are still here, but we feel compelled to go to and ask u.c. for each of these nominees. they all deserve to be confirmed tonight. so let me start off. i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations -- calendar number 233, larry edward andre jr. of texas a career member of the senior

foreign service to be ambassador to the united states of somalia, that the motion to -- that no further motions be in order, the nominations, that the president be immediately notified of the senate's action, the senate then resume legislative session. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. cruz: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cruz: mr. president, reserving the right to object, the senator from new jersey, and indeed all of the senators in this chamber know precisely why these nominees have not moved forward, and the reason is because the biden administration is currently engaged in open defiance of the united states congress and is doing so in a way that is working serious and material harm to the united states national security. over a year ago, in december of 2019, this senate and indeed the full congress passed legislation imposing strong sanctions on the nord stream 2 pipeline. the nord stream 2 pipeline is a

pipeline between russia and germany designed to carry natural gas. it's a deep sea pipeline. vladimir putin desperately wants this pipeline completed. if the pipeline is completed, it will give billions of dollars to putin to use for malign efforts in europe and throughout the world. this congress is overwhelmingly convinced that completing the nord stream 2 pipeline is terrible policy. it is bad for the united states. it is bad for europe. it is good for russia and putin. accordingly, the congress passed overwhelmingly bipartisan sanctions legislation that i authored, along with democratic senator jeanne shaheen, and that legislation proved tremendously successful. how successful was it? when the president signed it into law, if my memory serves correctly, at 7:00 p.m. on a thursday, construction on the pipeline halted at 6:45 p.m. on

that thursday, 15 minutes before the sanctions went into law, they ceased building the pipeline. for a year, the pipeline lay dormant. it lay as a hunk of metal at the bottom of the ocean. we we had succeeded together. this body had won a bipartisan national security victory for the united states. then in november of last year, joe biden was elected. when joe biden was elected, president and his foreign policy team immediately began signaling weakness on nord stream 2 to putin, and that signal was heard. putin commenced preparatory efforts to begin building the pipeline again within days of the presidential election in november and russia began building the pipeline again in january, just days after joe

biden was sworn in. existing laws that this body has passed not once but twice mandates sanctions to stop the nord stream 2 pipeline. unfortunately the biden administration decided to waive those sanctions. waiving those sanctions, i believe, will prove to be a generational geopolitical mistake. if we continue on the current pace set out by president biden, putin will complete the nord stream 2 pipeline. if that happens, for decades putin and the next dictator in russia and the next dictator in russia will get billions of dollars every year from this pipeline. they will use it for military aggression. they will use it for spying on america. they will use it for attacking their enemies. not only that, europe will be captive to russian natural gas.

it will be subject to energy blackmail. we don't have to hypothesize that because putin demonstrated his willingness to use energy blackmail on europe going forward. this undermines the interest of europe. it undermines the interest of america. by the way, it also hurts jobs in the united states of america. i made clear to every state department official, to every state department nominee that i will place holds on these nominees unless and until the biden administration follows the law and stops this pipeline, imposes the sanctions. as the senator from new jersey knows well, and he and i worked together closely on these sanctions legislation that the biden administration is refusing to follow, i have been negotiating with the biden administration in good faith for months laying out a path to move these nominees forward. but unfortunately to date, president biden has insisted on giving a multibillion-dollar

gift to joe biden, benefiting russia, hurting america and hurting our national security interests. that being said, there is a path where i would readily lift these holds, and it is a path i am in a moment going to to propound a unanimous consent request to take up and pass legislation that i've introduced that would impose the sanctions that are already required by law but the biden administration refuses to follow. this legislation is legislation that both of the democratic members of the foreign relations committee have voted for substantially similar legislation in the past. if this legislation passes the senate, if it passes the house and it's signed by the president, the day it is signed by the president, i will lift these holds. but given that the president and the white house have indicated they intended to defy the law, i'm not going to to lift the

holds unless and until they relent in their effort to give this gift to vladimir putin. accordingly, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of a bill at the desk that would require the imposition of sanctions with respect to nord stream 2. i ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: is there objection? a senator: mr. president, reserving the right to object. mr. menendez: and i'll be brief for the sake of everybody here, there's a lot more to be said. look, first of all, this legislation was just introduced today, today. it has not been brought before the committee. it has not had a full vetting. and it's not, i think, quite fair to say that it's exactly the same. it isn't. i was just looking through it. secondly, i know that the senator believes that he can dictate to the president of the united states, duly elected by

the american people, what the foreign policy should be. i believe we should have a role in foreign policy. i share that with the senator. but you can't say if it passes the senate, if it passes the house, signed by the president, then i will release my hold. i mean, i guess that would be nice if the senator could accomplish it for his goals, but it's not the way this system ultimately works. i would just say president trump for the longest period of time did not issue the sanctions that were necessary because he was so cozy c vladimir putin, and the result was that the pipeline was almost finished by the time president biden came to office. had he done what the senator wishes, we wouldn't be in this position today. so for all of those reasons, i object to this senator's unanimous consent request. the presiding officer: objection is heard. is there objection to the

request from the senator from new jersey? mr. cruz: reserving the right to object, i will respond briefly to the senator from new jersey. the talking point from the biden administration as to why they have given this gift to vladimir putin is they say the pipeline is almost completed, is over 90% complete. the problem with that with argument is it's demonstrably false because it was equally true in december of 2019. in december of 2019, the pipeline was over 90%, and indeed at that time there was a massive russian disinformation campaign throughout europe where the russian government was putting out these sanctions will never pass. and if they pass, they will never work. why? because the pipeline is over 90% complete. well, mr. president, a pipeline that is 90% complete is a pipeline that is zero percent complete. ness it will 100% complete, it

transmits zero natural gas. the pipeline doesn't work until you finish it. and that russian disinformation, we discovered the day the sanction legislation was signed, was exactly that, was utterly false, nonsense. why? because the day it was signed, they stopped construction, and they stopped it for a year, and putin only began construction after joe biden was elected, after he was sworn into office, and after his team indicated weakness that they wouldn't enforce the sanctions against russia. so their talking point that it was 90% complete, that was true a year ago and we knew we could stop it then. we can stop it now. the only reason putin is building this pipeline is because the biden administration is unwilling to stand up to russia. accordingly, i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. menendez: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey.

mr. menendez: one thing that is demonstrably true is that donald trump did nothing as it relates towards this pipeline and there wasn't much effort to try to get him to stop the pipeline at the time. and while i disagreed with president trump on a whole host of foreign policy issues, i did not hold up all his nominees just to get my view to be the order of the day. therefore, i ask that it be in order to make the same request that i made previously with respect to executive calendar number 234, elizabeth moore aubin to be ambassador of the united states to algeria. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. cruz: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cruz: ing reserving the right to object, i pressed president trump vigorously on this topic, engaged aggressively with the trump administration, state department, with the national security council, and we prevailed in those battles. the trump administration issued a series of sanctions, and they

worked. they stopped the pipeline. so i have demonstrated a perfect willingness to stand up to a president of my own party on this issue, and we succeeded in stopping the pipeline. now when there's a democratic president, we have yet to see democratic members of this body willing to stand up as vigorously to their own party's president who is actively and eagerly facilitating the building of this pipeline. i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. the senator from new jersey. mr. menendez: mr. president, thank you. i would just simply say the senator from texas did not hold up any of the nominees of president trump as it relates to this. i ask that it be in order to make the same request with respect to executive calendar 235, maria e. brewer to be ambassador of the united states to the kingdom of lesotho.

the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. cruz: mr. president. -- the senator from reserving the right to object because it is a mistake to strengthen russia and undermine international security, i object. the presiding officer: objecti -- objection is heard. mr. menendez: i make the same request for executive calendar 256, christopher john lamora to be ambassador from the united states to cameroon. the presiding officer: is there objection? the senator from texas. mr. cruz: reserving the right to object, because it is a massive strategic error, one that weakens our allies, that endangers our allies and makes russia more dangerous, more aggressive, more willing to attack and undermine u.s. national security and because joe biden and the biden administration is defying u.s. law passed with overwhelming bipartisan support from congress, i object.

the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. menendez: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. menendez: i ask that it be in order to make the same request with respect to executive calendar 237, tulinabo s. mushingi, a career member of the senior foreign service, to be ambassador for the united states to angola and to serve concurrently as the ambassador to the democratic republic of sao tome and principe. mr. cruz: mr. president, reserving the right to object, because the biden administration should not be given a massive multibillion-dollar gift to putin, strengthening russia and weakening merge and u.s. national security interests, i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. the senator from new jersey. mr. menendez: mr. president, i ask that it be in order to make the same request with respect to calendar number 238, eugene s. young, a senior member of the senior foreign service to be ambassador for the united states to the republic of congo. mr. cruz: mr. president, reserving the right to object,

because i think it is a generational mistake, one that will harm u.s. national security interests, will endanger u.s. service men and women, will weaken america, will weaken our allies and strengthen our enemies and our adversaries, because i believe that joe biden giving a massive multibillion-dollar gift to vladimir putin to make him stronger and more aggressive, he is enormous harmful to america, i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. the senator from new jersey. mr. menendez: mr. president, i ask that it be in order to make the same request with respect to executive calendar 239, michele jeanne sison, a career member of the senior foreign service to be assistant secretary of state for international organization affairs. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. cruz: mr. president, reserving the right to object, because joe biden should not be giving a multibillion-dollar gift to vladimir putin, strengthening russia, and undermining u.s. national security, i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. the senator from new jersey.

mr. menendez: mr. president, here is one where it's a monumental mistake to not permit this person to be confirmed when we want to stop fentanyl from coming into our country. i ask that it be in order to make the same request with respect to executive calendar 240, todd d. robinson of new jersey, a career member of the senior foreign service to be assistant secretary of state for international narcotics and law enforcement affairs. the presiding officer: is there objection? the senator from texas. mr. cruz: mr. president, reserving the right to object, because joe biden has made the decision to give a massive multibillion-dollar gift to putin putin, because that weakness towards russia empowers our enemies, endangers our service men and women, weakens our national security and destroys jobs here at home, i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. the senator from new jersey. mr. menendez: mr. president, i ask that it be in order to make the same request with respect to executive calendar 241, daniel

j. kritenbrink, a career member of the senior foreign service to be the assistant secretary of state for east asian and pacific affairs. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. cruz: mr. president, reserving the right to object, because joe biden should not be defying u.s. law, disregarding the overwhelming bipartisan consensus of both houses of congress, because joe biden should not be giving a massive multibillion-dollar gift to vladimir putin that constitutes unilateral surrender to russia in a way that strengthens russia, weakens america and endangers our nation, undermining u.s. national security, i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. menendez: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. menendez: i ask that it be in order to make the same request with respect to executive calendar 317, mark evans knapper, a career member of the foreign service to be ambassador to vietnam, and that

the senator from texas' remarks which he has made repeatedly be inserted each and every time after the motion that i have made. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. cruz: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cruz: reserving the right to object, i appreciate my friend from new jersey's attempt to abbreviate this, and i am endeavoring to be concise, but nonetheless lay out the factual predicate. because it was a mistake for joe biden to be a multibillion-dollar gift to vladimir putin to disregard u.s. law, to weaken u.s. national security interests and to strengthen russia at our expense, i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. menendez: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. menendez: now, here is one where we heard a lot even during the debate we just had about the united nations and the need for reform. well, here's an opportunity. ski that it be in order to make the same request with respect to executive calendar 318, christopher p.lu to be representative of the united states of america to the united

nations for u.n. management and reform with the rank of ambassador. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. cruz: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cruz: reserving the right to object, because joe biden's giving a multibillion-dollar gift to vladimir putin, in defiance of u.s. law, in contravention of the overwhelming bipartisan consensus of congress, hurts america, strengthens russia, and endangers the people of this nation, i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. menendez: mr. president, i ask that it be in order to make the same request with respect to executive calendar 319, christopher p.lu to be an alternate representative of the united states of america to the sessions of the general assembly of the united nations. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. cruz: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cruz: reserving my right to object, because joe biden's giving a multibillion-dollar gift to vladimir putin weakens america, strengthens russia, and endangers our national security, i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard.

mr. menendez: mr. president, i ask that it be in order to make the same request with respect to executive calendar 320, rufus gifford to be the chief of protocol with the rank of ambassador. the presiding officer: is there objection? the senator from texas. mr. cruz: reserving the right to object, because it is a generation algae owe political mistake for joe biden to give a multibillion-dollar gift to vladimir putin, because that mistake weakens america, strengthens russia, and endangers our national security, i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. the senator from new jersey. mr. menendez: mr. president, now here is a generational mistake if we do not confirm the next person. we are in the midst in latin america and the caribbean of turmoil all around. we have the challenges of venezuela, the cuban people crying out for change, the situation in haiti after the assassination, nicaragua becoming a new dictatorship.

we need to have the assistant secretary of state for western hemisphere be out there, helping us in the hemisphere. so i ask that it be in order to make the same request with respect to executive calendar 322, brian a. nichols, a career member of the senior foreign service, to be assistant secretary of state for western hemisphere affairs. the presiding officer: is there objection? the senator from utah. mr. lee: mr. president, reserving the right to object, i can't agree to move forward with this nominee today. i think this is really unfortunate. we could have avoided this. this could have been avoided altogether. if the senate foreign relations committee would simply disclose the responses to the questions for records to members directly, then senators could review the nominees more quickly. unfortunately, the senate foreign relations committee has refused to do that. and so i have been forced to go to the state department to get that information. now, i have received those

responses on monday evening. just a few hours ago, i sent some additional questions to the nominee. they would have been easy to respond to. i still await those responses. i expect that i will receive them soon. but until then, i can't do my job right, my advice and consent role can't adequately be performed without having the information. i'm not going to relinquish that duty to represent the people of utah on all matters, and not just on those matters as to which i enjoy a seat on a committee. there is one type of constitutional amendment that is preemptively unconstitutional. all senators are equal. you can't treat them unequally. i deserve to have access to these answers, and they're not giving them to me. that is why we are here. that is why i can't agree to this tonight, and i'm not going to do that. i'm not going to be bullied into it. they need to share this

information. i therefore object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. menendez: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. menendez: i don't get to serve on every committee, and i don't have the questions for the record of every committee hearing. eventually they get printed and they are available to all senators, but the suggestion that senators being denied something when he is not a member of the committee is -- is a unique one, to say the least. nonetheless, i think there would have been another objection. i ask it be in order to make the same request with respect to executive calendar 323, marcela escobari. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. cruz: mr. president, reserving the right to object, and i would note something to my friend from new jersey. as the senator from new jersey knows, with respect to the previous nominee, i do not have a hold on the previous nominee. i've lifted my hold pursuant to discussions and negotiations.

the same is true with respect to former senator ken salazar who has been nominated to be ambassador to mexico. my understanding is he's going to be confirmed momentarily. i don't have a hold and i don't believe there are any other holds or blocks to his confirmation. that will occur momentarily. indeed there have been several other nominees at the state department where i've lifted the holds and negotiations, including at the request of the senator from new jersey. i have worked with my colleagues, but at the same time used the leverage that we have as senators to try to pressure the biden administration to follow the law and to defend u.s. national security interests. with regard to this particular unanimous consent request, because joe biden is giving vladimir putin a multibillion-dollar gift is a generational geopolitical mistake because it strengthens russia at the expense of america and it undermines u.s. national security interests. i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard.

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. menendez: i ask it be in order to make the same request with respect to executive calendar 324, monica p. medna to be assistant secretary of state for oceans. the presiding officer: is there objection? the senator from texas. mr. cruz: reserving the right to object, because it is a generational geopolitical mistake for joe biden to give vladimir putin a multibillion-dollar gift that will continue for decades into the future, because that mistake strengthens russia at the expense of america and it undermines u.s. national security, i object. mr. menendez: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. menendez: before i yield to my colleague from connecticut, a member of the committee. i want to say in 30 years of doing foreign policy between the house and senate sitting on both the house and senate foreign relations committee, god forbid that something happens in one of

these countries or in these regions that we do not have a confirmed ambassador, assistant secretary of state, development official to promote our interests, to respond to it, to be able to deal with it, i wouldn't want to be a senator who held up that person when that happens in some part of the world. with that, i yield to the senator from connecticut. mr. murphy: thank you very much. i'm going to continue to propound these unanimous consent requests in the same form as the chairman of the committee, but before i do, just a few brief remarks. i know the hour is late. first of all, it is wonderful to hear this revisionist history about the trump administration's disposition towards russia. everybody knows what was going on. this was an administration that was practically sycophantish

towards the russian regime, refused over and over again to stand up in any meaningful way. that's why the pipeline got so far along. it was the 11th hour when the trump administration at the very last minute decided to move forward on sanctions. and so we're not here to paint the merits of the decision making, but suffice it to say russia did very well expanding influence around the region during the four years that donald trump was in office. second, the effect of holding up all of these nominees is to kneecap american national security. never ever before has a president had so few nominees confirmed to key national security posts than this

president. it's never happened before. and it is true that there's a history in this body of individual senators placing a temporary hold on one or maybe two officials relevant to the policy over which they are having a disagreement with the administration. probably many members of this body have done that. but at least in the time that i have been here, and from what i have heard, never before has an individual senator held up this many nominees for key national security posts over a disagreement on one specific policy. and if every single senator did that, because every senator here has a policy disagreement that they believe is significant with the secretary of state, with the secretary of housing and urban development, with the secretary of defense, then the business of nominations and

confirmations would grind to an absolute halt in this body. i had deep disagreements with president trump, but never did i endeavor to hold up every single nominee to state department posts because i came to the conclusion that that would do much, much more harm to american national security than whatever concession i might get from the administration would provide a benefit to american national security. and so i share this just really paralyzing fear that senator menendez expressed that something awful is going to happen without the kind of personnel that every president needs on post to do the job. we could probably get by if this was a hold of one or two or three individuals. we're talking about dozens of key national security posts that

are left vacant because of the decision of one senator. and so i will continue to propound these requests. i imagine the decision will not be different. i would ask that it be in order to make the same request as those that senator menendez was making with respect to executive calendar number p 327 anne a. witkowsky to be assistant secretary of state for conflict and stabilization operations. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. cruz: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cruz: reserving the right to object, the senator from connecticut spoke of revisionist history and perhaps it was fitting that he did so because we proceeded to hear quite a bit of revisionist history. the unfortunate reality is the democratic party in this chamber

has been reluctant to stand up to russia and reluctant to stand up to the soviet union before that for decades. the democratic party consistently has embraced weakness on russia and the soviet union. i'm old enough to remember president barack obama in a debate with republican nominee mitt rom knee when mitt romney said we need to stand up to russia and president obama said mitt, the 1980's called and they want their foreign policy back because the democratic party position was weakness to russia. i'm old enough to remember president obama leading over to medvedev caught on a hot mic saying tell vladimir -- that would be putin -- i'll have more flexibility after the election. it was only when donald trump was elected that the democratic party suddenly discovered russia is a menace. i welcome that. i welcome that sudden discovery.

i think russia was a menace before and after. but for too many senate democrats, it's purely political. russia, russia, russia was a stick to beat up on donald trump, and the substance of it didn't matter. and so the senator from connecticut said, well, gosh, donald trump, he thinks, was terrible on russia. here is a simple fact -- under president trump, we stopped the pipeline. the day this sanctions legislation was signed into law. under president biden, putin began building the pipeline again. those are facts. you want to talk about who's weak on russia, those are simple facts. and those facts are dangerous. because joe biden's giving a