this chance at a better life. when you look at the refugee numbers from 125,000 his big increase for millions of refugees in the world so in some ways, they are able to create a solution for immigrants they think couldfo be immediate and t them on a better path and instead they are leading them to a difficult situation the u.s. senate. what your commitment to bring coverage of congress. the senate is about to gavel bakken for weekly party caucus at 2:30 p.m. eastern time lawmakers will vote on whether to confirm u.s. district court judge for us-mexico. live coverage here on c-span2.

mr. hagerty: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. hagerty: the senate is in a quorum call. i ask unanimous consent that it be vitiated. the presiding officer: the senate is not in a quorum call. mr. hagerty: thank you. madam president, i've come to the floor of the senate today on behalf of myself and the senior senator from tennessee marsha blackburn to honor the life and legacy of an heroic tennessean. u.s. army staff sergeant ryan knauss who was killed in a terrorist attack while serving the country he loved so in afghanistan on april 26, 2021. staff sergeant knauss served with the army's ninth psychological battalion, eighth

psychological group from fort bragg. he was from a small rural community where love of country and volunteerism runs deep. corryton is known for being the hometown of country music star kenny chesney and now it will be noun forever as the home of our hero staff sergeant ryan knauss. ryan was 23 years old when he laid his life down for his nation. i've spoken with staff sergeant knauss' widow alena and his father greg. through our conversations i got to know a little bit more about staff sergeant knauss and i'm here today to share with you all and with the american people just who staff sergeant knauss was. he was a devoted husband. ryan met alena when they were in high school working at a local pizza parlor.

i sensed her deep love for ryan when we spoke and i'm certain that alena feels blessed to have had the opportunity to be loved by someone like ryan. he was a loyal son. after speaking with ryan's father greg, it was clear the love and the commitment that staff sergeant knauss had for his family and his fellow sol gears -- soldiers was unwavering. madam president, i can only tell you that after hearing of ryan's dedication to his family and his country, it's the hope and prayer of every parent to have a son as honorable and principled as ryan. as a father i told greg i couldn't fathom his grief. ryan had hoped to soon become a father himself. he and alena had plans to try for their first child when he came back from overseas. and building a nursery was at the top of their to do list when he was to arrive home. staff sergeant knauss was a

steadfast friend. his own friend spoke of his charm and intelligence at a memorial service at his former high school in corryton. he was a charismatic person to whom people were instantly drawn. staff sergeant ryan knauss was a proud and honorable soldier and when his country needed him in such a dire time, he fiercely answered the call. even as a child ryan knew his calling was to serve. in a friend's elements are i school yearbook, ryan wrote that i wanted to serve in the u.s. armed forces and as a freshman in high school he signed up for the rotc program. as one of his fellow soldiers explained, this was his dream job and he ran with it. ryan's unit detachment ten described it as follows. ryan knew the dangerous situation he was going to, but protecting innocent civilians is one of the values that drove

him. it's been said that life is not important except in the impact it has on other lives and ryan had an incredible impact on his family and friends. and thanks to his actions, thousands of children will have the joy of knowing a childhood free from danger and depression. the bible teaches us that no one has greater love than this. than to lay down one's life for one's friends. staff sergeant knauss did just that. he died a hero's death. he made the ultimate sacrifice for his nation, for all of us. ryan will be remembered as a selfless and heroic man, a tennessee volunteer who with a servant's heart, gave everything of himself at just 23 years old for the country that he loved so dearly. i ask that each. you here today join me in continuing to pray for the knauss family and uplift them in

the coming days and months as they lay their soldier to rest at arlington national cemetery. madam president, i ask unanimous consent that the following remarks be printed in a separate part of the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. hagerty: thank you. madam president, from the moment that president biden announced the withdrawal of u.s. troops from afghanistan in april, the people of the united states after two decades of war had hoped to mark the end of our presence in afghanistan with a secure and orderly exit and with our honor intact. as we know, what ensued proved to be the opposite. hubris fueled the administration to proceed with a flawed exit plan from afghanistan. they allowed a calendar to dictate our withdrawal rather than the conditions on the ground. loss of life and humiliation

have been the result with our allies and our partners openly questioning the resolve and the competency of the united states. those harrowing images of afghan teenagers falling from the sky after clinging to u.s. military plane as it took off from the kabul airport. the utter chaos at the gates of the kabul airport and the loss of 13 u.s. service members, including staff sergeant knauss would compel any reasonable person to ask why events had to unfold in this manner. against the operational failure in afghanistan and this loss of credibility abroad, we're fortunate in knowing that the people of the united states still retain their unique spirit, that american desire to come to the aid of others in need. those americans stranded in afghanistan, the former afghan interpreters who stood with our military, afghan women and children who worked with our aid organizations, these people needed our help and our service

members, our diplomats, our workers and journalists all deserve recognition and credit for their sacrifices they attempted to help. i want to take this opportunity to highlight another group of americans who rarely receive the public recognition that they deserve. the staff right here in the united states senate. these sta staffers shone the spotlight and dedicate the craft to represent our constituents. when it became clear -- staffers from across capitol hill and both parties in washington, and state offices and district offices around the country rose to the challenge. these staffers helped with the modern day digital dunkirk. they were united in the common cause of helping stranded americans in afghan -- and afghan allies. many of them sprung to action instinctively and in an instant almost as if they had been on call like a doctor or a

firefighter. immediately ready to help mitigate the damage of this disaster. some of those who did this work serve on my staff. bobby ziratto, my national security adviser, spent countless hours engaging with counterparts in the state department communicating with active duty military veterans and some on the ground in afghanistan. of course fielding requests from all corners to expedite cases of american citizens and allies in afghanistan. kevin kimm, a fellow in my office from the state department. rachel leon, a legislative consultant and bonny, a case worker in my cookville office. they were all right there, too, every step of the way. for their work on behalf of folks in need, i want to thank them for all that they do and all they continue to do. i imagine many of my colleagues here in the senate have similar stories. their own bobby, their own kevin, rachels and bonnies helping those in need and for

the totality of their work. we, the members of the senate, owe our staff a great thanks. madam president, i'm honored to describe the role of my -- that my office played and is continuing to play in rescuing americans from after dan stan but it -- afghanistan but it didn't have to be this way. i hope for the sake of our government and our country that it will never be this way again. madam president, i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. thank you. the presiding officer: would the senator withhold his request. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from arkansas. a senator: i ask consent that senator murphy and i be allowed to complete our exchange before the next scheduled vote. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cotton: madam president, after joe biden's disastrous retreat from afghanistan, the country has fallen to a medieval band of degenerate savages known as the taliban. despite its depraved behavior, you won't hear anyone in our

government call the taliban what it is, a terrorist organization. instead secretary of state blinken has said, for example, that the taliban, quote, does not meet the test of inclu inclusivity. it's as if the biden administration is more concerned that the taliban is led by men than it's led by terrorists. this administration has refused to declare that the taliban is a foreign terrorist organization perhaps because the president outsourced the security of american citizens to the taliban last month and stood by as it took over a country of nearly 40 million. once again the biden administration is putting image and public relations before everything else. it refuses to acknowledge that the afghan retreat was anything but an extraordinary success as joe biden has called it and now it's refusing to call terrorists terrorists. but the truth is obvious. if the taliban isn't a foreign terrorist organization, what is? the state department's terrorism list includes groups like

shining path, the mar marxist guerrillas owe gorillas in peru. if the state department can go to the trouble of designating those groups as terrorist organizations, surely it can do the same for a band of jihadists whose hands are dripping with american blood. indeed the taliban matches to a t the definition for foreign terrorist organizations under u.s. law. that la sets out three criteria. first, it must be a foreign organization i would assume the biden administration would even concede that point about the taliban. it must engage in terrorist activity. has the taliban engaged in terrorist activity? countless victims of taliban suicide -- suicide bombing, i.e.d.'s and acid attacks would surely answer yes to that question if they survived those heinous crimes.

consider the following as well. at least 14 of the taliban's 33 so-called cabinet ministers are on the united nations sanctions list for terrorism. no fewer than five were once held with terrorists at guantanamo bay. one of the most powerful factions of the taliban is the murderous network, a twisted clan that was designated a terrorist organization under the obama administration. the taliban has put the leader of the network in charge of the secret police and yes its immigration system which is currently determining which persons can leave the country. one of america's most wanted terrorists for attacking the u.s. embassy in kabul and hotels full of civilians among other crimes. it's also worth noting that the son of the taliban's leader so-called emir blew himself up in a suicide attack against the afghan government in 2017.

evidently he thought the taliban was a terrorist organization, even if some around washington shrink from that label. finally, the third criterion for a foreign terrorist organization is that its terrorism must threaten the security of americans or our national security. with an estimated 100 americans and thousands of green card holders currently trapped in occupied afghanistan, i'd say the answer to that question is also obvious. it would still be obvious even if we didn't face an active hostage situation since the taliban still provides a safe haven to al qaeda who murdered thousands of americans on september 11, 2001. and despite the taliban empty promises that it would never again help al qaeda, a recent united nations report found that, quote, the taliban and al qaeda remain closely aligned and showed no indication of breaking ties. al qaeda continues to pledge

allegiance to the taliban and its regional affiliate even operates under the taliban banner in kandahar. that's a national security threat to america if there ever was one. so to summarize, the taliban is run by terrorists, associates with terrorists, and engages in terrorism. the biden administration's refusal to call a spade a spade is a grave insult to the memory of the taliban's victims and the tens of thousands of americans who fought against it. it's worth remembering how many american lives the taliban took, how many american warriors they maimed and how many families they shattered. that's terrorism. so i will be asking for unanimous consent for my bill which would require secretary blinken to call the taliban what they are -- not a potential partner for joe biden, not a threat to inclusiveity, but a terrorist organization. therefore, madam president, as if in legislative session, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of s. 2770 which

is at the desk. i further ask that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: is there objection? the senator from connecticut. mr. murphy: madam president, reserving the right to object. how quickly my colleagues forget that it was president trump that entered into negotiations with the taliban. it was president trump that entered into an agreement with the taliban that committed the united states to withdraw our forces. it was president trump that sold out women and girls in that country by refusing to put their interests first at that negotiating table. it was president trump that elevated the taliban in the international community by putting them face to face with our negotiators. it is important to note as to the specific request that is being made by the senator from arkansas that right now the taliban is already designated as a designated global terrorist entity under executive order

13224. so they are already designated as a terrorist entity. there are specific problems with this designation. first, i don't think it's a great idea for us to be designating the f.t.o.'s by statute. there's a reason why we generally allow the administration to do this. but maybe more importantly, what comes with an f.t.o. is the withdrawal of the humanitarian organizations from the country at hand. we know that because we saw it in yemen when president trump designated the houthis as an f.t.o. for about a week, humanitarian organizations started pulling up their stakes. right now there are 18 million afghans that are in need of lifesaving humanitarian assistance. this is not the moment to take a step that will cause afghans to starve. the second reason not to do this this way is because whether we like it or not, we are in communication through intermediaries with the taliban to get our people out, to get our partners out.

there are flights leaving on a regular basis. and to designate them as an f.t.o. in addition to the existing designation that the taliban has as a specially designated global terrorist entity is to risk our ability to continue to bring our people out. we should be joined together as a senate, despite the views we have on whether we should have stayed or left in afghanistan, in our support for the afghan people by making sure we do not take steps to cut off humanitarian assistance to people in need and our belief that we should be supporting this administration in their effort to continue to get our partners out. this designation done this way will risk both of those initiatives, and for that reason, i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. the senator from arkansas. mr. cotton: i chair my colleague's grave concerns about the humanitarian disaster in afghanistan. i share his concerns about the fate of americans and green card holders and their families and

afghans who fought alongside our troops who are also left behind in afghanistan. both of these crises, the humanitarian crisis and the crisis of americans left behind taliban enemy lines are the responsibility of joe biden for his hapless, disorganized, chaotic execution of the withdrawal from that country. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the question occurs on the strickland nomination. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: the yeas are 52, the nays are 45.

the nominations is confirmed. under the previous order, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the president be immediately notified of the senate's action. a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: thank you, madam president. madam president, i come to the floor today to talk about the growing list of disasters occurring in this country and around the world as a result of president biden. the most recent is president biden's surrender of afghanistan to global terrorists. for two decades americans have fought and died in afghanistan and they did it to keep our country safe and free. on thursday, august 26, the united states lost 13 service members in kabul, afghanistan. it was the deadliest single day for our military in more than a decade. now, one of those fallen heroes, 20-year-old rylee mccollum was

from wyoming. despite their heroic sacrifice, the taliban are stronger than ever. they control more territory than they did on september 11, 2001, 20 years ago, afghanistan is once again a safe harbor for terrorists. this disaster happened because president biden paid more attention to the calendar on the wall than the conditions on the ground. president biden wanted symbolism. well, madam president, we got symbolism. we got the symbol of terrorists, the one they wanted. it's the symbol of helicopters flying, leaving the roof of the u.s. embassy in afghanistan. something that president biden promised the american people they would never see, but there it was for the world to see. the entire world also witnessed

desperate afghan citizens. they were plummeting to their death as they tried to hang on planes that were leaving from the airport. president biden was so eager to pull our troops out of afghanistan by an arbitrary date that he left hundreds, if not thousands, of american citizens trapped, hostages behind enemy lines. president biden abandoned the strategically located air force base. the biden administration gave the taliban a list of american citizens. can you imagine that, the administration gave the taliban a list of american citizens, green card holders, afghan allies, people we wanted to get out of the country. madam president, to me and many americans who heard this happen, we saw it as a kill list, a list that the terrorists would use

against american citizens and our allies on the ground. and we may never know how many are captured or tortured and are killed. we could have left afghanistan in honor and with our honor in tact. instead our enemies are now emboldened and our friends are furious, furious at us. billions and billions of dollars of army military equipment and military -- secrets are in the hands of the military. the taliban has seized more than 600,000 american weapons, including 2,000 armored vehicles, american tarntion and m-raps, we have black hawk helicopters and drones. now, the biden administration has no plan to either get the

weapons back or destroy them where they sit on the ground. president biden has surrendered america to the terrorists and now i believe they are coming for us. yet, afghanistan is just one of president biden's many failures. on issue after issue this president has displayed complete incompetence. for instance, president biden has displayed gross incompetence and mismanagement at our southern border. on president biden's first day in office, very first day, he flipped on the green light at the border and laid out the welcome mat. he illegally ended the very successful remain in mexico policy. he stopped all deportations. and ever since then, ever since that day one in his administration, illegal immigration has been at an all-time high.

over the last week, we have seen more than 10,000 illegal immigrants crowding under a single bridge in del rio, texas. since president biden became president, more than a million illegal immigrants have crossed into our country. but that's nearly -- that's nearly -- that's more than twice the population of wyoming. some of these illegal immigrants carry deadly disease, others carry illegal weapons. since joe biden became president, our border agents have seized enough fentanyl, it's a deadly drug, enough to kill every american man, woman, and child. and the joe biden crisis is, and the word is important to hear here, unprecedented. and that's not my word. that's a direct quote from the secretary of homeland security.

joe biden's secretary of homeland security a few weeks ago was caught on tape. he told our border patrol officers said could not continue. he went on to say if our border is our first line of defense, he said then we are going to lose this. this is unsustainable. again, this is coming from president biden's secretary of homeland security. yet democrats in washington want to double down on this open border policy. senate democrats have tried to gain and give amnesty to over eight million illegal immigrants. now, they failed, but if they had been successful, it would have been the largest amnesty for illegal immigrants in our nation's history. well, that sends a very loud message to people all around the world. it says if you come here illegally, the democrats are sure going to try to give you

government benefits and maybe even citizenship. this message from this white house and the democrats only strengthens the magnet for people to come here illegally. under president biden, we have chosen chaos on the border and we have chaos also in democrat-governed cities. over the past year and a half, we have seen an unprecedented rise in murders and violent crime in democrat-run cities. last year the murder rate went up by a third, it's up again. nearly all of it is in cities run by democrats. last year, democrat cities, what did they do? they cut more than $1 billion from our police, from law enforcement, from people that are there to keep the city and the state and the streets safe. as a result, crime is out of control.

working families are scared. there's also something else that's worrying families all across america and that's the skyrocketing cost they have to pay every time they fill up their tank or go to the grocery store. at a time when the economy should be booming, the purchasing power for our families is getting eaten away. a gallon of gas is $25 more now, it costs $25 a week more for a weekly trip at the grocery store, $25 for gas, $25 for grocery, that's over $500 a year in lost buying aibilitydy -- ability for american families. inflation is happening because of excessive democrat borrowing and spending. gas prices are also rising because president biden is

restricting american energy. he's killed thousands of good energy jobs, took an ax to the keystone xl pipeline, he stopped all new oil and gas leases on federal land. no surprise to americans that the price of energy is going up. and what's president biden's solution to this? well, he wants to raise taxes on energy produced in america. he doesn't want americans to explore for energy and oil in the united states. no, his national security advisor last month actually asked foreign oil-producing countries including saudi arabia and russia, this is the national security advisor, asked saudi arabia and russia to pump more oil to lower the price of gas. you say, how do you know that? well, it was on the white house website, right there, for the world to see. the president would prefer for us to buy energy from our

enemies rather than produce it here at home. under the last president in the previous administration, the united states became energy dominant. president biden seemed very determined to make us energy dependent once again. madam president, i could go on, there are so many failures of the president biden to discuss -- of the biden administration to discuss, every single one of these crisis could have been avoided, each one is predictable and would be preventible. could have been avoided with competent leadership in the white house. it could have been avoided if democrats stopped their mad dash to the left. the american people gave us a 50-50 senate. they didn't ask for a left-wing agenda. no wonder recent polls show americans overwhelmingly say the country is headed in the wrong direction. the american people know what they want, safe communities, secure border, higher wages,

lower prices. that's what i hear in wyoming, that's what i heard this past weekend. the incompetence of this administration over the last eight months cannot be allowed to continue. madam president, the american people deserve better. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. schumer: madam president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: madam president, pursuant to s. res. 27, the committee on banking, housing and urban affairs being tied on the question of reporting, i move to discharge the senate committee on banking, housing

and urban affairs from further consideration of the nomination of row hit chopra of the district of columbia to be director of bureau financial protection. the presiding officer: owrd 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, point, of order or amendments in order. mr. schumer: for the information of all senators, we expect the vote on the motion to discharge to occur around 5:40 p.m. p.m. madam president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. schumer: i have nine requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. the presiding officer: duly noted. mr. schumer: thank you, madam president. i yield the floor. i simply yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. mr. cassidy: madam president, i rise as i have before to explain the urgent need to pass a supplemental disastrous assistance bill. but this time it is not just for hurricane laura who hit southeast louisiana over a year ago. it includes hurricane ida, the fifth most powerful storm to hit the united states which hit southeast louisiana last month. and here, for example, is some of the flooding that was related to hurricane ida. i should point out this was not considered a flood event. if it's not considered a flood event, that looks like pretty bad flooding. this is considered a wind event. even when it's not considered a flood event, you see almost this entire community flooded. so i guess my statement, madam president, is we can't afford,

we should not allow the impact of an entire year, now almost two years set of natural disasters go unaddressed for fellow americans. i mentioned it's over a year since hurricane laura wreaked havoc on lake charles. we're only a couple weeks shy of the one-year anniversary of hurricane delta, a category 2 storm that followed on almost the exact same track to hit southwest louisiana. those who were trying to recover once again subjected to tremendous rains with flooding. and then hurricane ida. but before i go to ida, let me also point out there are also unprecedented winter storms which unleashed catastrophic damage to livestock, crops, and buildings for the louisiana farmers. the same storms that got more publicity in texas hit us as well. and then ida and tropical storm

nicholas. in light of these storms, i must speak about the national flood insurance program or nfip which is set to roll out risk rating 2.0 in october, october 1 while many policyholders are still recovering from hurricane damage. fema said the risk rating 2.0, fema said policyholders are supposed to be able to get the information of what their new premiums would be by august 1. fema missed that deadline. they only recently made the information available less than one month with advanced notice. but despite the lack of transparency, we know risk raitting 2.0 will increase costs. in louisiana 80% of policyholders will see increases in the first year. for some premiums may become unaffordable and could collapse the value of their home. now, these aren't rich people. the criticism of the program is that some rich person with a home on the beach gets

subsidized flood insurance. that's not true. these are middle-income families and working families whom the president, by the way, pledged not to increase the cost on those earning less than $400,000 a year. these folks don't make $400,000 a year. they make far less. they have a hard time paying their gasoline bill or their food bill with the inflation we've had recently. and now their aabout -- they're about to be socked with a risk rating 2.0. by the way, congress never passed the bill requiring that fema implement this. president biden can stop it. he alone is responsible. he should ask fema to delay implementation of risk rating 2.0 or reconsider all towing. -- altogether. at the end of the day flood insurance must be affordable for the homeowner, accessible for the homeowner, accountable to the taxpayer and sustainable.

i propose with senator menendez and before senator menendez, senator gillibrand, reforms to accomplish that. we can achieve that. but risk rating 2.0 is not the way to do so. it is time for congress to conduct thorough oversight. and, of course, i represent the people of louisiana. but i can speak of any place in the nation which is flooded. speaking for the people of louisiana but for all those fellow americans who flooded, when you flood you've been pounded. and my job is to help my fellow americans no matter where she or he lives to get back on their feet. and right now i speak to the people of louisiana. it is my commitment to you to attempt to do so. and we're strong. we're resilient. i drove through south louisiana. there are people cleaning up -- cleaning up their house by taking water-logged beds out and they gave a thumbs up when you went by. they are resilient. we are resilient people. on the other hand, when you see

on a map of power outage and we're four weeks out and there are still people who don't have power back and this is the united states of america. they don't have homes and they don't have electricity to their home. they can't run the refrigerator. their home is probably destroyed. it is a tough situation. so i ask my colleagues to pass a clean, separate disaster assistance bill. the formal request from the white house includes $2.3 billion for the community development block grant disaster recovery program, $275 million for the emergency watershed protection program, $9 billion for the wildlife and hurricane indemnity program, $100 million for reclamation projects to address western drought, and $2.6 billion for the federal highway emergency relief. this request includes initial though informal estimates of what maif also be needed -- what may also be needed for damage inflicted by hurricane ida.

specifically they expect the cost and needs stemming from ida to likely exceed an additional $10 billion in the form of cdbg disaster relief, federal highway emergency relief, federal transit emergency relief, small business administration disaster loans, and the disaster relief fund among other programs. and of course this is not just to benefit our fellow americans in louisiana. but also those in the northeast. more people died in the northeast related to hurricane ida than died in louisiana. so this is not just for my state. it is for our country. different regions, different neighborhoods, but all fellow americans. so i ask that we pass this bill for the people of lake charles, pass this bill for the people of terrebonne, lafourche parishes in louisiana, pass this bill for people impacted by ie do in northeast and pass the bill for people impacted by wildfires in

the west. it's really simple. let's not let politics hold up a supplemental disaster relief bill or put differently, let's not leverage the pain of our fellow americans in a political game. pass the disaster relief bill. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor and notice the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from idaho. mr. crapo: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. crapo: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i'm here today with a number of my colleagues from the finance committee to discuss in the next hour the partisan $3.5 trillion reckless tax-and-spend bill that the democrats are trying to cram down on the american people. the united states is experiencing unprecedented economic pressures, including significant inflation and record price increases, significant friction in labor markets, and

intense international competition -- all while the pandemic continues to threaten americans' health and our economic recovery. yet the democrats with a tonight move forward with this reckless $3.5 trillion tax-and-spending spree that will stunt our economic recovery, further impede labor markets, and punish low- and middle-income workers with higher prices for goods and services. the democrats are currently debating just how high they want to increase taxes on american businesses and workers. house democrats have proposed to hike the corporate tax rate to 26.5% from 21%. this would return our combined corporate tax rate at 31% to one. -- one of the highest among developed countries. hiking the rate indisputably hits the middle class. estimates suggest that workers shoulder up to 70% of the burden

of the corporate tax. and a recent analysis performed by the nonpartisan joint committee on taxation says the burden on over 98% of americans who make less than $500,000 a year increases over time. let me that i can that clear. 98% of the increase that is felt by labor falls on those making less than $500,000 per year, and the vast majority of that on those making less than $400,000 per year. our democratic colleagues argue that these increases do not violate president biden's pledge since they are not specific higher individual tax rates. but hardworking americans do not care about the distinction between a direct or indirect tax. they care about how taxes hit their pocketbooks. a higher corporate tax rate would result in lower wages and

reduced benefits, hit the nest eggs of everyone saving for retirement and force consumers to pay more for everyday necessities. this plan would also impose hundreds of billions of dollars in tax hikes on u.s. businesses operating across the globe, overwhelmingly rewarding our foreign competitors and making the united states again one of the highest taxing countries in the developed world. these pro-china tax hikes would raise the relative cost of doing business in america and punish businesses selling products or services overseas, reigniting inversions and foreign acquisitions, again putting america's business climate back into trouble. democrats also want to increase the top individual tax rate from 39.6% -- to 39.6% from 37%, a rate that kicks in at $400,000

for individuals and $450,000 for married couples. this includes a supercharged marriage penalty as unmarried couples can earn almost $1 million a year without being subject to increased taxes. democrats have also proposed increasing the number of americans subject to the original death tax, including farmers and small business owners. others are pushing for a double death tax by eliminating the step up in the basis entirely. rather than be given time to grieve their loss, families could be forced to sell farms, businesses, and homes just to pay uncle sam. less noticed are plans that drastically expand the powers of the internal revenue service and turn banks and credit unions into private investigators for monitoring law-abiding

americans. this financial dragnet will force financial institutions into reporting deposit and withdrawal flows on as little as $600 in their customer's accounts exposing sensitive data to future breaches. whether the cutoff for monitoring transactions is $600 or $10,000, americans of all income levels would have their private financial activities reported to the leaky i.r.s. the threats to privacy and invasion of compliant taxpayers' personal financial affairs are staggering. moving on, the democrats are also proposing sweeping government price controls on the very innovators in our health care system who helped to battle the pandemic by developing lifesaving vaccines and therapeutics. under the guise of negotiation, government bureaucrats would have the power to set prices for

medications, devaluing the lives of the most vulnerable among us, including older americans and those with disabilities. their proposals could prevent scores of game-changing prescription drugs from coming to the market in the years to come. with one recent study projecting as many as 342 fewer medication approvals in the next two decades in addition to driving up the launch prices for new products. this even went too far for some of the house democrats with three members at least voting against this legislation in committee. as i've indicated, this reckless tax and spend plan comes just over a year after we were experiencing one of the most prosperous economies in decades. before the pandemic, a combination of reduced regulatory burden and pro-growth tax policies helped to create one of the strongest economies in our lifetime, and all in the

period of a short few years we've seen that evaporate. we should be focused on policies that will get us back to this this -- past this pandemic and back to the strong and inclusive economic growth we were experiencing rather than taking advantage of a prolonged pandemic to reimagine america as a welfare state. this is the wrong time to raise taxes. excuse me just a moment, mr. president.

mr. crapo: i'm joined by the senator from from nebraska. i will now yield more of my time to the senator from nebraska. mr. sasse: thank you, senator crapo. thank you, mr. president. i know that senator grassley is going to join us momentarily, so i will cut in line until he arrives. but, senator crapo, i'd like to thank you for your leadership in organizing this. it's a little odd to be doing this on the senate floor when we should be having markups and hearings in the senate finance committee, but the senate finance committee has not been considering any of this proposed legislation, despite the fact that we're dealing with new deal -size level legislation, and yet the finance committee is not considering it. so ranking member crapo, thank r bringing this to the floor. i want to talk about some of these taxing and spending issues, but i want to make it clear that i'm not here to talk about this because i'm obsessed

about the marginal tax rates for the top 1% of americans. i'm not. it's not why i ran for office. but i am here today to talk about this because as a china hawk, i am obsessed with the fact that the american people, the american government, american technology companies, and lots of companies that aren't today thought of as technology companies but will increasingly be technology companies operating in different verticals, i am obsessed with the fact that our firms and our people are going to need to be able to compete with the chinese communist party. the future of everything from technology to trade to global security and defense issues is going to go one of two ways. it's either going to be led by the chinese communist party or it's going to be led by the united states and our allies and western values. the future of not just global economics, but global security policy over the next three and five and seven and ten years is going to be radically shaped by which direction we go.

failure isn't an option. this next century is going to be defined either by oppression, censorship and brutality, the sort of things we're seeing in xinjiang as the uighurs are brutally oppressed by the chinese communist party or we're going to see a world led by open navigation of the sea ways and transparent contracts and the rule of law. that's the proper context in which we should be considering this taxing and spending debate. and it would be helpful for the american people if we would discuss president biden's tax and spending spree in the context of that global technology and diplomatic competition with the c.c.p., because these dangerous policies in this $3.5 trillion or whatever price tag it's going to end up at, this piece of omnibus legislation, it's going to hurt our ability to compete against beijing. spending is out of control.

the american people last november, just ten months ago, elected an evenly divided senate, and yet somehow progressives believe they have a mandate to radically remake america. you actually hear a lot of them use language about radically transforming america as if an american public that voted for a 50-50 senate was voting for some sort of radical remaking of american policy as a newer, new, bigger big new deal. they spent trillions of dollars that we don't have already this year, and now they're looking to add another $3.5 trillion to expand cradle to grave government propositions about how government should interfere and interact with the average american's life. what is government? what a government is supposed to be is a compact for the common defense, the first and most fundamental principle that government exists to do is make sure that everyone is free from violence and chaos and tyranny

so that they can organize their lives in local communities. that's the first thing government is supposed to be. and yet we also believe government has social safety net responsibilities. in a summary fashion you might say government is supposed to be the army. and we also have social safety net insurance programs attached to them. it seems like when you listen to senator sanders speak, he thinks of it exactly the opposite. the government is a giant insurance company that happens to own a navy. sometimes it sounds like he doesn't care if we own a navy. he concedes of the government as a giant insurance program where everything is compulsory and government decides what programs people need to have and what services they want. the vast majority of the american people don't want that and they didn't vote for that. and a 50-50 senate shouldn't be trying to deliver that. this year the president and my democratic colleagues have increased spending in every area, social, environmental and economic policy related.

if there's an opportunity to spend over the course of the last eight and a half months they have taken it. now it's the time to pay the piper, and my colleagues are talking about raising taxes. but this is not just any tax hike we're talking about. when you look at the corporate rate that we're being laoing at, we would be -- looking at, we would be talking about the highest corporate tax rate in the industrialized world. these are just the new taxes. yet even that doesn't pay for all of the new spending. so we're talking about new legislation that would radically raise taxes to the highest corporate tax rates in the industrial earth, and yet still not pay for all of the new spending they're talking about. when deficits grow forever, opportunities shrink. we have a member of the house of representatives who in her super telegenic way figured out how to get attention last week by wearing a dress that said tax the rich on the back on it.

what the dress should really read is tax the young because history tells us very clearly when you deficit spend at the level they're talking about doing here, this is a tax of current, older, and wealthier people against younger people. that's how inflation works. that's how debt and deficit work. the dress should have read tax the young. these are tax hikes that make communist china a much better business environment than the united states. under the president's plan, americans would have a 32% combined rate compared to a much smaller chinese tax rate at their baseline nominal level, but it's important to recognize that the chinese tax code currently incentivizes high-tech businesses with an even lower 15% rate. so we're talking about north of a 30% rate against the chinese communist party trying to make sure they attract investment by taxing their technology and digital companies at a 15% rate. this is the definition of shooting yourself in the foot. my friends on the other side of

the aisle are a lot of smart folks, and they know that tax rates actually matter for international investment and for competitiveness. and one of the ways you know they know is because for months the treasury secretary janet yellen has been out seeking a global minimum tax arrangement. she's admitting the obvious truth that a new tax increase, that a new tax increase will saddle american firms with a burden that other companies across the globe don't have. the c.c.p. is not going to bail us out as we would potentially raise taxes to the highest rates in the world by also raising their tax rates to bail out president biden's domestic agenda. beijing looks at our endless debt, at our entitlement crisis, at our tax hikes, at our disunity, and they see a strategic advantage. these china-friendly tax hiects would raise the cost of doing business in america. these china-friendly tax hikes would drive innovation overseas, lead to more

corporate inversions. these china-friendly tax hikes will hurt american american r&d. reckless spending doesn't steward a great nation. super tax hikes do not promote innovation. competition with the chinese communist party is the defining national security issue of our time, whether my colleagues in this body want to admit it on a regular basis or not. while the chinese communist party plunders american intellectual property, steals american ingenuity and pours investments into their state-run technologies, washington is debating whether or not we should punish innovative firms and innovative americans. this isn't strong, this isn't smart, and the american people know better. i yield the floor to senator grassley. mr. grassley: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: in 2017, republicans reformed the tax

code in a traditional sense. we broadened the tax base by reducing tax preferences for special interests in favor of lower overall tax rates. we also had several other goals, including maintaining the progressivity of the tax code, cutting taxes across all income groups, predominantly for the middle class, and making our business tax system globally competitive. we were able to accomplish each of these goals in that 2017 tax bill. on average, taxpayers on all levels saw a tax cut, middle-class taxpayers saw the largest percentage decrease in their tax bills. also we not only maintained the

progressivity of our tax code, we made it more progressive. moreover, the bill brought our business tax system and rates in line with the rest of the world. you just heard senator sasse speak brilliantly about that point. it put an end to the practicef corporations moving headquarters offshore to avoid paying the highest tax rate in the developed world. in the process it incentivized american businesses to invest here at home and made america a more attractive place for foreign companies to locate. now, pre-pandemic these reforms resulted in the highest economic growth, the lowest unemployment and the biggest wage gains that

we'd seen in decades. so when you talk about what the democrats are proposing through reconciliation, it's kind of like they are ready to kill the goose that laid the golden egg. now we're post-covid, democrats assert a massive expansion of government is necessary to, in their words, build back better. but that is exactly backwards. america will build back better post-pandemic but it won't be because of the government. in fact, it's already happening due to the perseverance of the american people and the ingenuity of the american entrepreneurs and job creators. unfortunately the tax bill unveiled by ways and means last week will only hinder our path

back to the prosperity that we had prior to february 2020. their bill is the exact opposite of tax reform. it would raise marginal tax rates on individuals and small businesses to a level not seen since before the 1986 tax act. moreover, our corporate tax rate would once again be the highest among our major trading partners. these tax hikes will slow our recovery from the pandemic and it will reduce capital investment and it takes capital investment to create jobs. so it will result in fewer jobs and it's also going to be -- result in reduced wages beyond the reduced wages that's already happening because inflation is

heating up. it will -- corporate inversions. in conjunction with raising tax rates, they narrowed the tax rate base in favor of social and corporate welfare handouts. i say handouts because the majority of their bills, $1.2 trillion in tax cuts aren't reductions, but turn out to be pure spending. according to the joint committee on taxation, $689 billion or 57% of their so-called tax cuts are actually outlays. that's a fancy way of saying treasury is going to write the

individual or businesses a check that may exceed their taxes that they'd otherwise pay. this is turning our tax laws and the mission of the internal revenue service on its head. no longer would the tax code primarily be raising revenue necessary to fund essential governments. in fact, it would be about dolling out cash to those that democrats consider worthy. given their rhetoric, you might think that these types of cash payments would be reserved for low to income individuals and families but even very wealthy individuals buying electric cars, millionaires investing in green energy products, and

multibillion-dollar corporations will be in line for federal checks. this is astonishing coming from a party claiming to be outraged by wealthy individuals and profitable corporations making zero tax -- paying zero tax. as recently as march of this year president biden castigated amazon for not paying, quote a single solitary penny in federal income taxes. if he finds that unacceptable, then he should be beside himself about this democrat tax proposal. under their tax bill, a company such as amazon would have an effective tax rate of not just zero but negative.

in other words favored companies could receive a check from the government in excess of any income taxes owed. meanwhile, disfavored groups would be left to pick up the tab. this includes iowa family farmers who could see their years of hard work taxed away as a result of the death tax exemption being slashed in half. what i've outlined here is a small sample of concerns that i have with the house proposal. their bill is so chock-full of tax giveaways, counterproductive tax policies and punitive tax hikes, that former democrat staffer is public indicated in -- pub indicated in

"politico" as the house approach as laughable. i hope my senate colleagues do better. it will be hard for them to do any worse. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from indiana. mr. young: mr. president, in 2017, senator sanders said the function of -- not to enact major changes in social policy. fast forward to 2021 and senator sanders and many of my democratic colleagues have changed their tune. you see, democrats in congress are doubling down on their efforts to -- on the socialist policies in senator sanders budget with a $3.5 trillion spending plan it would be the most significant expansion of our social safety net program

since the 1960's. democrats are seeking to enact these sweeping changes through reconciliation, a partisan process, which senator sanders himself said is not meant to be a vehicle for major policy changes. from job-killing corporate tax hikes to small business money grabs and hidden tax increases on the middle-class, this will punish job creators and workers and make us less competitive on the global stage. now, perhaps that is are part of their plan to remake the united states of america in the image of western europe. it's as if they want to punish businesses while rewarding unemployment and dependence on the federal government. republicans want to empower americans to be self-sufficient, to unleash their god-given potential. that, after all, is the promise at the heart of the declaration of independence. it's that promise that has led

generation after generation of people to our shores so that they too could realize the individual liberty, the promise at the heart of america's declaration of independence. republicans want to provide employment opportunities and a strong economy. we don't want to make people beholden to the government for their livelihood. it's not healthy. that's not freedom. it's not american. as a young man, i visited the soviet union as part of a junior high school soccer exchange trip. i still remember what i saw there. food was -- was scarce, water was too. there were public water stations where russians drank from a communal cup. they were desperate for every day items that americans take for granted, blue jeans, for example, and chewing gum too.

for years russians were denied this because it was a symbol of american culture. now, think about that. a government that gives you everything can also take things away, even chewing gum, socialism creates an environment where citizens progressively give up the right to decide how they spend their earnings, how they educate their children, how they get better when they are sick. a system where citizens are frozen on the lower rungs on the ladder of life's opportunity, where up ward mobility is unknown. that's why the democrats' tax and spend proposal goes against everything we believe in this nation. among its many defects, their proposal picks winners and losers, it increases our dependence on foreign oil and allows blatant double dipping.

all of this is, of course, incredibly misguided. it simply makes no sense when gas prices have jumped 40% since january. directly harming middle-class americans who can't a ford a cent more -- a cent more. many of which have -- will have disastrous wide reaching effects. a 100% renewable energy grid will result in blackouts and will make power delivery less reliable for millions of families. not to mention the job losses for the ten million americans employed by these industries. democrats are also proposing sweeping changes to medicare. this is a program that is incredibly popular among our senior citizen and it's already on shaky financial ground.

it's projected to reach insolvency within the next four years, prior to any changes by the democrats that will undermine it. but democrats are determined to add benefits that private plans already cover more efficiently, adding hearing, vision, and dental. this is duplicative under the coverage through medicare advantage. seniors enjoy their medicare protection plans which come at little to no additional costs. expanding medicare is unnecessary, duplicative and will come with high costs, less access and harm the quality of care that providers are able to provide. these are a couple of examples, but this would have harmful consequences across the board for our country and the freedoms we enjoy. americans should be outraged. i know hoosiers are.

not only by this radical expansion of government but by the process democrats are using to ram through their liberal agenda. possibly ramming it through a 50-50 republican democrat equally divided in the united states senate. now, republicans have stood up to socialism again and again. and we must continue to do so by opposing this reckless tax and spending boondoggle. we must protect the american promise and ensure this remains the land of the free. mr. daines: mr. president. the presiding officer: the the senator from montana. mr. daines: mr. president, i join my colleagues today in speaking out against the democrats very reckless $3.5 trillion, that's with a t,

tax and spending spree that chuck schumer and nancy pelosi are rushing through congress. they are going to make history if they get this passed. this will be the largest spending bill in our nation's history. let me say that again. this will be the largest spending bill in our nation's history. and through this bill, congressional democrats are trying to reshape the very foundation of our great nation. they're trying to pass their far-left policies and push the united states of america down the path of socialism. i don't say that lightly. i don't like to use a lot of hyperbole but what is what is going on. this reckless tax and spending spree bill is packed through of tax increases, new spending programs that will kill hundreds of thousands of jobs. it will reduce economic growth.

and it's throwing more fuel on the inflation fire that we see burning right now across this economy. in fact, according to the tax foundation, it would reduce take-home pay for low and middle-income americans. it will expand and insert the federal government into every aspect of montanans in america's lives and it is going to bankrupt our country. i'm not actually sure the congressional democrats understand the impacts of their efforts and what burden this tax and spending will put on montana families. montana small businesses, montana farmers and ranchers, and the future generations of montanans. in fact, a few weeks ago i heard one house democrat actually say -- and i quote -- we can't go bankrupt because we have the power to create as much money as we need to spend, end quote.

these are the actual words of a democrat in the united states house of representatives who will soon be voting on this legislation. it's baffling. montanans and the american people know that money doesn't grow on trees, and i would hope the congressional democrats know that as well. frankly, this mindset is terrifying as we think about the future of our country. the democrats' reckless spending bill comes at a time when montanans are already facing skyrocketing prices on everything, gas to groceries. montanans are feeling the pain in their pocketbooks every day because of these record high inflation numbers. that is a direct result of the democrats' and president biden's tax and spending problem. you see, the democrats already flooded the economy with nearly $2 trillion in new spending earlier this year on a purely partisan basis, and now we see

inflation at a 13-year high. think about it. even if we experience no, in other words zero adivisionel -- additional rise in inflation the next year, montanans would still be hit in almost a 5% increase in costs for the year. it's interesting. a few months ago we heard the words, well, this is all tran sis toar. it's transitory. this is going to go away in a few months. many of us were skeptical and didn't believe it. you're not hea hearing transitoy anymore. the federal reserve are telling us that inflation is here to stay, north of 5% certainly this year and numbers certainly greater than that, quote, 2% threshold that's talked about probably in the 4%, 5% in the out-years. if you spend any time at all speaking to leaders, every day looking at supply chains, price

of goods, they're telling you there are inflationary pressures in every part of this economy. the last thing we should be doing is spending trillions more taxpayer dollars on top of that $2 trillion partisan spending package the democrats have embarked on just this past march. we know that in doing so will send the inflation much, much higher. you see, inflation is a tax on all montanans, on all americans because as prices go up, paychecks shrink. and democrats have many more tax hikes planned as they look to pay for this spending spree by asking montana families, montana small businesses, our farmers and ranchers to foot the bill. now, i've heard some of my democratic colleagues suggest this bill must be, quote, paid for. well, what is paid -- what does paid for mean? what does that mean? it's very simple.

it means democrats' reckless taxing and spending spree will be paid for by massive tax increases. let's go over a few of these tax hikes that montanans will face if democrats continue down this reckless path. for starters, this bill is absolutely an assault on small businesses. by the way, the small businesses create most of the jobs in this economy. it would gut the 20% small business tax deduction placing small businesses at a disadvantage. this deduction benefited more than 21 million small businesses in 2019, and it generated $66 billion in tax savings that these businesses could then reinvest, grow their business, create more jobs, pay their employees more. these savings help small businesses expand, allows them to compete in this global market, to offer raises as well as bonuses. removing this tax benefit would

make it harder, make it harder for them to expand and succeed against larger competitors. the democrats' reckless tax and spending spree bill would also increase the top income tax rate to nearly 40% and drastically lower the income thresholds for the top tax bracket. some ask what is fair? what is fair share? paying 40% of your income to the federal government, that is where the democrats want to take the top rate. since most small businesses are structured in what is known as a pass through, meaning business profits are taxed as income, this tax hike would devastate our small business owners. in fact, these two provisions alone would hurt montana small businesses drastically. over 99% -- let me say this again. over 99% of montana businesses are small businesses. we can't let this happen. this would destroy livelihoods, harm local communities, and

local economies. in fact, the combined tax rate for pass-through businesses would rise above 50% in 40 out of 50 states, including the state of montana. this reckless spending bill will also supercharge marriage penalties in the tax code. you heard that right. you see, buried in the democrats' massive tax and spending spree is also an attack on marriage. married couples could be facing higher taxes simply because they're married. democrats have also proposed the elimination of what's known as stepped-up basis. this is a backdoor death tax that will hit montana family farms and ranchers particularly hard. you see, in montana agriculture is a way of life. our farmers and our ranchers work hard to put food on the table for their families, for our great state, for the country, and the entire world.

the last thing that montana farmers and ranchers need are more taxes. and that's what the democrats are trying to do. in fact, senator thune and i wrote a letter to president biden which was signed by every member of the republican conference urging the president to reconsider this proposal. and as of now, this is not currently in the house demo democrats' bill. but unfortunately the president and many of his -- and many of my colleagues here in this chamber on the other side of the aisle have continued to insist on this being included in their bill. this reckless proposal will also damage our international competitiveness. this is about a global economy. this is about winning the global race because they want to raise the corporate tax rate to 26.5%. if you combine that with state corporate tax rates, the average corporate tax burden would rise to about 31%.

there's a startling piece of information here. you take 31%, guess what? that rate would be higher than communist china. in fact, it would be one of the highest corporate tax rates in the entire world. the democrats don't understand why jobs leave our shores. i'll tell you one reason why is because of tax policy. and when you raise the rates higher than communist china, it's going to have a direct effect on jobs here in the united states. mr. president, do you know who's cheering about this tax increase in this provision? i'll tell you who is cheering about it. china is. they know the democrats' tax increases will force american businesses to send american jobs overseas. that's the last thing we need. because we need to be supporting american businesses, supporting the american worker, the american family, the american farmer, the american rancher, and the hard work they do every day. sadly, the democrats' reckless

tax and spending spree does exactly the opposite. sadly, it will put china and our global competitors first. mr. president, for all these reasons and many more, i'm very concerned about what will happen if this dangerous proposal becomes law. i intend to fight vigorously along with many of my colleagues here against it every step of the way. mr. president, thank you, and i yield back my time. the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. portman: i want to thank my colleague from montana who talked about the impact of this tax and spend bill on his constituents in montana. i will say the same is true in 49 other states, including my state of ohio.

this is, we're told, the biggest tax increase on america in over 50 years. so this is a big deal. in terms of the spending, we've been hearing today it's the largest spending package ever. i think in inflation-adjusted terms, it's probably the largest social spending package since the new deal. that's what we're talking about here. this would fundamentally change our country in so many ways. and so it's good that the top republican on the finance committee asked us to come on the floor today to talk about it because our constituents need to know what's going on. need to understand what the impact of this would be on them and their lives, their futures. there are new taxes being proposed on this on pretty much everything. small business that we just talked about. most businesses in ohio and around the country are not what they call c corporations. they're pass-throughs like subchapter s or sole proprietorships. that's about 80% to 90% of the

businesses. it's the smaller businesses. but they get hit. there's actually taxes on marriage because of the marriage penalty. there's taxes on death because of the increased in the estate and gift tax. there's taxes on capital gains which, you know, that's the part of our code where you try to give people a little lower rate on a longer--term investment to try to encourage risk taking and investment so you can grow the economy and create jobs. there's also a bunch of other taxes on here, but the one that i want to talk about today is the tax on corporations because it gets less attention. people think oh, gosh, those big corporations, you know, they can handle more tax increases. some of them aren't paying taxes. well, they use the tax code sometimes that we've set up here to avoid paying the full amount of taxes, but they play plenty of taxes. and when you increase the taxes, everyone says the same thing, whether it's the congressional budget office which is a nonpartisan group up here in the united states senate or whether

it's the joint committee on taxation, which is a nonpartisan group up here in the united states senate and house. or whether it's outside groups looking at it. you increase those taxes on these companies, who pays it? workersprimarily. and second, consumers. we talked about inflation. all this new stimulus spending because that's what it is will add to inflation. but so will the higher taxes because part of what happens is, you know, if you have a higher tax on you and you're trying to sell something, you've got the same costs, maybe higher costs coming in, you're going to charge more. therefore, when you go to t the store to buy something, there's going to be more inflation. all of this encourages more, not less inflation at a time when inflation is already unacceptably high. i think everybody agrees with that. you know, when the democrats did the $1.9 trillion package back in march, $1.9 trillion, that used to be a lot of money. we just sort of say $1.9

trillion. but when they did that everybody said oh, my gosh, that's too much stimulus spending. it's going to cause inflation. and the promoters of that said no, it won't. it won't do that because it's -- the economy is so weak. it will be good for the economy. well, it overheated the economy. and larry summers at the time who was a former secretary of the treasury and democratic administration and an economist on the other side of the aisle, he warned about it as did others. he said look, this is going to fuel inflation. and boy, has it. so, yes, people are getting some wage gains right now, higher pay. i like that a lot. i think it's great. before 2019, before covid hit, thanks to the tax reforms of 2017 primarily in my view, wages were going up. february of 2020 was the 19th straight month of wage gains of over 3% annually. my gosh, that was great. mostly lower and middle-income workers, by the way. some of that is happening now.

guess what? it's all being eaten up. if you got a 5% pay grade -- pay wage raise this year, you probably got nothing because you're going to have about 5% inflation. so your dollar is not going as far. these are all issues that we have got to make sure the american people understand. in terms of the corporations and what the problem is there, remember before the tax reform in 2017, we had a lot of companies that were leaving our shores, literally. they were saying, you know what, our tax code is so bad in america, we're going to invert is the name the economists gave it, literally move their headquarters overseas to escape our uncompetitive tax code. i hated that. and i hope all americans did. i hope all members of the senate did. i think they did. they said why would we want to encourage companies to go overseas? that way their investment and their jobs are tending to go

overseas as well. but it wasn't just that. we had a lot of companies in the united states being bought by foreign companies. when you think about it, that made all the sense in the world. the foreign governments had a much better tax code for them so they could buy a u.s. company and make more money on it than a u.s. company could under our tax code. again, that's not what we wanted. we had a situation where the -- the companies were going overseas in every sector of our economy. i'm a beer drinker, so i was particularly concerned about the beer companies. every single one of them went foreign. they were big. the largest u.s. beer company was sam adams which had about a 1.4% market share. the rest of them all went overseas. so that's what was happening. there is some new data out showing that since the 2017 tax reforms were put in place, there was a 50% increase in american companies buying foreign companies, and a 25% decrease in foreign companies buying our

companies. that was good. that was good. now we're talking about going right back to the bad old days. one significant factor in companies going overseas and u.s. companies getting bought out by foreigners was our high tax rate, 35%, the highest in the developed world. everyone heard about that. but also there was a lack of enticements to keep valuable intellectual property here in the united states whereas other countries provided that. also, unlike other countries, we were in what was called a worldwide tax system where we were requiring u.s. companies to pay taxes on their foreign earnings at the high u.s. rate, the 35% rate. almost all of our competitors don't do that. they use the so-called territorial system where you only tax on -- in the foreign jurisdiction where you did the business. you're not taxed twice. so that was one reason we were losing. so we changed that. the 2017 tax cuts and jobs act took bold steps to reassert our

competitiveness as a country. we lowered the corporate tax rate to 21%. we went to a territorial type system. not entirely territorial. we still had a minimum tax. but we traded incentives to stay here, create your jobs and investments here. we lowered the corporate rate, but we also had other incentives to create more intellectual property here in america. as a result, by the way, the corporate inversion stopped. they stopped. instead of losing companies overseas, again we started to buy more companies overseas and bring that investment to america. the foreign derived intangible income provision which provided a reduced tax rate for u.s.-based businesses on highly returned foreign market incomes served by foreign operations resulted in companies like cisco , google, facebook, and others bring back intellectual property that was overseas.

so it actually worked in the way we hoped it would. it brought i.p. back here. that means jobs. others retained their intellectual property here in the united states like intel and disney and general mills and others because of these tax laws. these were coming to us saying why are we here in america doing this? we could do it overseas based on what congress has provided as a tax environment for us. the large u.s. companies during that time period increased their domestic research and development spending by 25% to $707 billion, increased their capital expenditures by 20% to $1.4 trillion. that's all good. again, workers saw real benefits. 50-year low in unemployment, strong wage growth, particularly for lower and middle-class workers. the lowest poverty rate in the history of the country since we started keeping track of that back in the 1950's. that follows an earlier study by the nonpartisan congressional budget office or c.b.o. that

found that 70% of the tax cuts ended up going into workers' wages. workers' wages and benefits. so workers and businesses both benefited in this opportunity economy that was driving a lot of promising growth in the united states. the democrats' tax plan would systematically dismantle so many of these pro-growth tax cuts and reforms that congress put in place in 2017. under this new proposal, the corporate rate would be raised from 21% to about 28%. when combined with the average state and local corporate taxes in america, u.s. businesses will be on the hook for an average tax rate of about 32%. once again giving us the highest rate of taxation in the developed world. democrats would also increase the global intangible low-tax income rate and another tax rate

that would punish u.s. companies to serve the foreign markets. we should want companies to create jobs here to support their international sales. the proposal would modify this gilti calculation on a country by country basis to make it more difficult to compute and attract tax liabilities for companies located overseas. again a disincentive that discourages investment in new and emerging markets. why would we want to do that? through these policies, democrats would be creating a tax environment hostile to businesses and harmful to workers. according to the international tax competitiveness index, democrats' plan would cause the united states to drop steeply down the rankings from 21st to 28th in the world among developed countries, the same ranking we had, by the way, before the 2017 tax reforms. many businesses will make what is unfortunately a completely rational decision to move their headquarters again. we'll see inversions again. taking with them thousands of good-paying jobs and millions of dollars in assets.

others that choose to shy here will nonetheless become prime targets for acquisition as they were before like businesses in other countries like china that would have a lower tax rate than us. but who ultimately bears the brunt of these democratic tax hikes on businesses? again, it's the workers. just as the congressional budget office found that 70% of the corporate tax cuts go to workers' wages and benefits, the tax foundation found that 70% of taxes increased are borne by workers. it's no surprise then that the nonpartisan joint committee on taxation right here in this congress found that two-thirds of the democrats' corporate tax hikes would fall on lower and middle-class taxpayers. let me repeat that. the j.t.c., nonpartisan committee here in congress found that two-thirds of the democrats' corporate tax hike would fall on lower and middle-class taxpayers. by the way, that's about 100 million taxpayers who make less than $400,000 a year.

so much for the pledge that no one under $400,000 in income would possibly be affected. but when i look at these facts, i just can't understand why we would want to move to this kind of a tax plan. why would the american people support tax hikes that are going to be bad for workers and bad for our competitiveness as a country? why are we punishing workers? they are the ones that get the short end of the stick here. let's focus on what works. on encouraging investment and growth here in the united states of america. that helps workers. let's not go down a path that will once again send u.s. jobs and u.s. investment overseas. i yield back. the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana.

mr. cassidy: mr. president. the democratic party's reckless $3.5 trillion tax and spend reconciliation, their spending spree, will be a disaster for the american family. the committee for a responsible federal budget warns that this spree could increase the deficit, not by $3.5 trillion but $5 trillion, a little bit of a bait and switch. it's only $3.5 trillion. turns out the independent committee for a responsible federal budget says no, more like $5.5 trillion. now, today my colleagues have shed light on the many costs of this economic, this -- i don't know what to call it, potential catastrophe. here are just a few speaking from the perspective of my state. if our goal is to get back to the prepandemic economy which by the way was the best economy of my lifetime, an economy in which

there was record low unemployment, which is to say record high employment for women, african americans, hispanics, the disabled, high school dropouts, record high employment, veterans, you name it, then this is not the way to go. by the way, the wage growth in this prepandemic economy was disproportionately in those in the lower quintile of our nation's economy. so those were lower wage to begin with and were seeing the greater growth in their wages under the previous economy. why does this matter? a lot for my state. louisiana is a hub of innovation for energy and other technologies. innovation creates jobs, raises wages, puts food on the tables of working families in my state. congress should encourage that. these are not the ph.d.'s in solar energy. these are the people that produce the oil and gas or use

that oil and gas to make the plastics that matter so much to a modern economy. by the way, you can't help but notice the height in gas taxes -- excuse me, in the price of gasoline that has just occurred, and now they are using the term energy poverty because there is a hike in the price of electricity. this is hitting the families as a hidden tax. but this bill squashes that innovation. it is the new taxes and the increased taxes as to how this spending spree is financed. as once said, the power to tax is the power to destroy, but these taxes are destroying the job and wage increases that have been so important to these working families over the last four years. and the rhetoric, of course, is that this is about a few tax hikes on the wealthiest of

americans, but what we learned from the joint council of taxation is that two-thirds of these tax increases will fall upon lower and middle-class families. one example. again, house democrats propose hiking the corporate tax rate to an uncompetitive 26.5%. the wealthy will still be wealthy. studies show that when you raise corporate tax rates, it translates into lower wages for the employees and lower dividends and stock escalation for the shareholders. okay. so that's the employee, the operator in the refinery who shows up to make sure that it runs safely, goes home and helps pay the rent or pay off his mortgage, and it hurts the retiree who is hoping that her stock portfolio will allow her to live a better life when she retires. so it is billed as a massive --

as a hike to the corporate -- the corporations, the greedy corporations, but that hike is felt by the workers and the retirees. so when the family begins to figure out how they pay their higher electricity bill, how to pay their increased cost of gasoline, the inflation that has been eating up their budget, they have to pay more for food, their children are going back to school, we hope, so they are buying those supplies, they will not get the wage increase that they had previously hoped for. this hurts the entrepreneur who is trying to start a small business. and by starting that small business employs other people. rolling back the 2017 tax cut and jobs act, raising taxes on working families will not help them. president biden has proposed nearly doubling the capital gains tax, raising it to 39.5%. again, who does that hurt?

it hurts again the retirees saving for their entire lives so they can have a good life when they retire. democrats are really earning the title of the tax and spend party with this monstrosity. these taxes will stunt our economy and the needless trillions in spending will skyrocket an already increasing inflation, further impacting working american families. mark my words. this will be president biden's economic afghanistan. with that, i yield. the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: thank you, mr. president. i come to the floor to join my colleagues in opposing the democrats' reckless tax and spending spree. the bill that we're talking about is the centerpiece of bernie sanders' socialist plan for america. the democrats' plan does play favorites, however, and what they really focus on doing interestingly is hurting the working folks in rural america to give tax breaks to wealthy families in big cities in

liberal states. the reason i tell you this is that this bill includes huge subsidies for people who buy and drive electric vehicles. you don't see a lot of that in rural states with long distances between community to community. well, of the government is already giving billions of dollars. nearly 80% of the tax credits go to household making at least $see,000 year. so what happens happening now? the thing is right now roads are being used, chewed up, vehicles on the road, and how is this paid for? well, the highway trust fund. how does that get paid for? people paying the gas tax. people useing electric vehicles pay nothing in terms of a use fee to use the highways as they do.

so they're paying nothing in, using the services, use the roads free and now they want subsidies. that's what the democrats are offering. this bill would give up to $12,500 to married couples to buy electric vehicles. $12,500. what kind of income? maybe there is an income limit. so the democrats said, objection, if you are a single person earning up to $400,000 a year. you can get a subsidy. if you are a married couple earning up to $800,000 a year, still get the subsidy because, boy oh, boy, we are going to push those electric vehicles for the big cities and for our democratic colleagues. the democrats have gone so far as to even want to spend $7 billion to subsidize luxury electric bicycles. astonishing. these giveaways have a price tag. that's why democrats want to

pile enormous new taxes on the american people. they propose more than $2 trillion in additional new taxes. this would be the largest tax increase in half a century, but it's still not enough to pay for all the new spending they want to do. that's why they're trying a backdoor tax increase. what the democrats are proposing is putting the i.r.s. on sterile roids, super-sizing the i.r.s. they want to increase funding for the internal revenue service by $80 billion. the i.r.s. says, hey, give us a lot more money, we can hire a lot more agents and they can clegg more money, even more than the $80 billion that you give us. so last week secretary of the treasury, janet yellen said, said they wants to make banks report every transaction that's over $600. see didn't just say it. she wrote it in a letter to the chairman of the house budget committee. so they can watch and look at,

investigate, spy on families all across the country. i've heard more about this letter from the secretary of the treasury than other issues over the years. every time somebody pays their rent, the i.r.s. will now know about it. make a car payment, the i.r.s. will know about it. pays a plumber, the i.r.s. will know about it. the amount of power that the i.r.s. has will now be more than ever before. democrats are going to send the i.r.s. to shake down people for every last time they can. it is too much power. it is too much of an invasion of privacy. the american people find this dangerous and scary. the i.r.s. is already one of the most powerful and unaccountablations in the federal government -- and unaccountable agencies in the federal government if not the most powerful and unaccountable agency in the federal government. now the democrats want to unleash it even further i just

want to take r. -- i just want to talk about one last tax that hits the poor, a tax called inflation. inflation is happening because democrats borrowed and spent too much money already. if they pass this, price are going to continue to rise. people going to the grocery stores, they're paying more. people going to the gas station, they are a paying more. but the priorities are backward. under the democrat party today, prices are going up. yet they're giving kickbacks to the wealthy, their powerful friends. this is heading america toward bankruptcy. the american people don't want higher taxes. they want higher wages, lower prices, more jobs, more opportunity. they don't want this reckless tax-and-spending spree. no, not one bit. thank you, mr. president.

i yield the floor. mr. lankford: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. lankford: why are we approaching government shutdown and on top of that, we can't seem to get any of the 12 appropriations bills done. exactly zero of them have gone through committee because this body is so consumed with focusing on a $3.5 trillion new entitlement package. $5.5 trillion. -- $3.5 trillion. a straight partisan package that would create a whirlwind of new entitlements. to give you a effect of how big it is, $3.5 trillion is about the total revenue that the

federal government brings inin an entire year with all taxes, all fees, all everything is about $3.5 trillion. this is an additional package on top of that of entitlements of $3.5 trillion new dollars in entitlements. now, if i go back to 2017 when we were trying to be able to supercharge the economy and to be able to create more jobs, we pass the tax cuts and jobs act and in 2017 beesed the tax cuts and jobs actment, it did exactly what we wanted it to do. it simplified the tax code for the vast majority of individual filers, it reduced taxes for just about every single filer, and it increased wages across the country, and it increased revenue coming into the treasury. because it stimulated our economy, which created more jobs, which created more opportunity for more people to make money. when more people make more

money, they pay more taxes and it covers it. that's what we did. my democratic colleagues are now proposing $2.1 trillion in tax increases. tax increases not to cover our deficit, tax increases to create new entitlements and to spend even more money. and the several ways they do it are very, very painful as i read through their proposal. one of those is they're proposing to change the corporate tax piece. we're going to change the corporate tax piece so only corporations are pay this. the problem being 1 .4 million c corporations in the united states, 84% of those corporations that are out there have 20 employees or less. so they can throw around the big corporations and everyone thinks it's conoco and apple, i.t. the vast -- the vast majority it's

small businesses designed as c corpse. how are they go to make them more competitive? by raising the tax rate for all those corporations to make their tax rate higher than china. let me run that past you again. to make us more competitive globally, they'll make our tax rate higher than china's tax rate while we're trying to be able to compete with china on the world stage. not only that, there's a global minimum tax that's already out there that's a small tax that's out there for every corporation. you know who has that already? the united states does. it was created in the tax cut and jobs act in 2017 to make sure companies couldn't scam out and couldn't move their money into other places. it would be here. if they decided to move into a tax have an, it wouldn't be there. we set is it at a rate to be competitive. they want to take that rate and is remain charge it and make it one of the top rates in the world. now, the statement from janet

yellen is that she's already talked to all of the other countries about this global tax and they've said, yes, we're on board with a global tax. you go first. can i tell you something? i remember being a middle school boy -- any male does. i remember being a middle school boy and hanging out with my friends and all of us were talking about doing something dumb, and it always ended with someone saying, let's all do it; you go first. that's what's respecting proposed right now by janet yellen saying, let's have the highest tax rate in the world and other countries will come and match it and they'll be competitive with us. you go first. i can assure you, that didn't work out well as a middle school boy. that is not going to work out well for our companies, and it will not work out for our economy. there's this statement that should be ringing in the back of

everyone's head. the simple statement that was made years ago called inversions. arer that old statement when we used to talk about corporate inversions. thatthat was a common conversatn during the obama administration. that term went away because in the 2017 tax cut and jobs act bill, that stopped and now american companies started buying foreign companies and moving them here, and everything shifted. this $3.5 trillion monstrosity of new entitlements will flip that again and we will start hearing the word inversions because american companies will be moved overseas. it's going to happen when we have a really bad, uncompetitive rate. now, people may again say, well, we're just going to stick it to

rich people, but everyone kind of quietly knows the prices will go up, fewer people will get raises in those companies, and there'll be -- and they'll be less competitive for the united states long term. everyone knows that. this $3.5 trillion bill of new entitlements is also funded by giving the i.r.s. billions of additional dollars to do more enforcement. and to allow the i.r.s., as janet yellen also asked for over and over again, to be able to track transactions of americans of $600 or more, either deposited in your account or out of your banking account. i can assure you, banks all over my state in oklahoma are already saying, don't make us turn in the transactions of every one of our people to the united states. why does the i.r.s. need this? interestingly enough, i've actually asked the commissioner of the i.r.s., can you manage

that much information? and his answer was a very straightforward no. we can't even manage the information we have now, much less the amount of information that would come at us in transactions of $600 and more. this is the wrong direction. i could go on and on. in fact, i can give you 3.5 trillion reasons why this is the wrong direction. this is the wrong policy. it is the wrong policy coming out of covid, long-term for our policy. it discourages work and what we're facing right now in workplaces all over the country from small to large companies. they're all saying the same thing. it's tough to get workers. well, if you think it's tough to get workers now. wait until there's $3.5 trillion in new entitlements dump in the economy and see how hard it is to be able to hire workers then. this is the wrong direction for

our country. with that, i yield the floor. mr. crapo: mr. president? the presiding officer: senator idaho. mr. crapo: mr. president, that wraps up the presentations that we have for today. i want to thank my republican colleagues on the finance committee for coming and helping to explain the dangers of this incredibly reckless taxing and spending spree that is being proposed here in congress. as we get more details, as this package gets played out, we will be back to explain further the dangers that there are. but i think we've shown very clearly today that not only is the spending going to be sedanning in this country -- so damaging to this country, but the tax plan that is accompanying it will make us less competitive, if in fact not completely back into last place in terms of competitiveness globally and will impact people all across this country in their

own tax burdens and their own inflationary cost pressures. not just those who make over $400,000 per year. this tax-and-spend spree must be stopped. with that, thank you, mr. president. i yield back our time. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from virginia. mr. warner: mr. president, i'm going to speak, make a unanimous consent request in a moment. and i am so anxious to -- i remember being in middle school as well. you don't want to be the first, you don't want to be the last. unfortunately, that's where we rank right now in terms of comparing son to the oecd in terms of raising corporate revenue. i don't think that's fair to hardworking americans. and the ranking member on the senate finance committee is someone that i have huge, huge respect for, and have worked with on many, many items. and we're going to have a chance

to debate part of these components. i think going forward. but i would say this because when i first got the note, well, the senator from idaho -- it was one of my first times i was a gang member. the senator from idaho and i were part of something called the gang of six, and we were audacious enough to think that a proposal put forward by the so-called simpson-bowles commission to take on the debt and deficit issues in our country was worthwhile and worth us both frankly offending folks in each of our respective parties. we were astonished that in the 2010-2011 time frame the country was looking at trillions of dollars in debt. we obviously were not successful because we're now at about $20 trillion in debt and i would argue both sides bear lots of

responsibility. i believe we cut revenues way too much. in the last year or so alone we've jointly added $5 trillion-plus in terms of spending around covid. but the one thing i think we both realized was what we shouldn't do is ever mess with the full faith and credit of the united states of america, because that's like giving a politician, an irresponsible politician a hand grenade and saying let that politician pull the pin out at any moment in time. well, there may be some folks now that are prepared to pull the pin out and put in jeopardy the full faith and credit of the united states of america. if that happens over the next 30 days, the one thing that we can be guaranteed is it will rock the bond markets, it will rock how the rest of the world views america's ability to honor its

commitments. i fear, as somebody, and again my friend from idaho, i know, realizes as well, that we mess with this, if we were to see -- pull that hand grenade and have it explode on all of us, the american people aren't going to decide whose fault it was or whose responsibility it was. all they're going to end up saying i believe is that interest rates are going to go up. because we've not dealt with the debt and soviet at $27 trillion -- if interest rates go up 1%, that is the equivalent, call it a tax or spending obligation of $200 billion of additional interest payments. those interest payments come before medicare, come before social security, come before payment to our soldiers. so i know we are rallying against spending. but let's make sure -- and we both ought to bear responsibility on this -- we don't mess with the full faith

and credit of the united states. if we do that, in addition to all the things you're making criticisms of this reconciliation plan, you've just added another $2 trillion of spending, mandatory spending over the next decade. so we can agree or disagree on the reconciliation pieces or what parts, but let's guarantee one way or the other we don't mess with the full faith and credit of the united states. i thank my good friend from idaho and all the good work we've donnelly together and will continue -- we've done together and will continue to do together. some parts of your critique i agree with. many of don't. i know i'm holding up my colleague and friend from the intelligence committee, the senator from texas. mr. president, i rise today to seek unanimous consent to confirm mr. matthew g. olson, president biden's nominee to be the assistant attorney general for the national security division at the department

justice. america recently marked the 20ths anniversary of the september 11 attacks. as part of committee we set forth what america continues to face at home and abroad. the senator from texas is aware of those threats as well. our ability to counter these threats and ensure our national security is dependent on having, is dependent on having qualified individuals nominated by the president in place so they can do their jobs and importantly be held accountable through the confirmation process. prior to the attacks of 9/11 -- and this was one of the things that were pointed out by the commission afterwards -- literally 57% of the federal government's senate-confirmed top national security jobs remained vacant. 57%. and one of the key

recommendations of the 9/11 commission was to accelerate the process of national security appointments. if we fast forward 20 years, mr. president, today, you'd think we've learned the lesson, but today the situation is actually worse than it was prior to 9/11. of the 170 confirmable national security-related positions, only 44 have been filled. that's just 26%. my math shows that that means we've got about 74% that are unfilled. we've got to do better. that's why it is essential for the senate to swiftly confirm every single qualified national security intelligence professional whose nomination is pending on the senate floor. that's why i strongly support the swift confirmation of matt olsen. the national security division or n.s.d. at the d.o.j. remained without a confirmed single

leader for several months. created in 2006, the n.s.d. consolidates the department's primary national security operations and serves as a key link between the department and the intelligence community. its mission is to carry out the department's highest priority -- protecting the united states from threats to our national security by pursuing justice through law. mr. president, matt olsen is eminently qualified for this position, given his years of service at the d.o.j., as general counsel for the n.s.a. and as director of the national counterterrorism center or nctc, in which capacity he regularly briefed our intelligence committee. matt is a consummate intelligence professional and an effective leader of the highest caliber and personal and professional integrity. the n.s.d. needs a confirmed leader in place. so i'm urging my colleagues to confirm matt olsen immediately.

so, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to consideration of the following nomination, calendar number 347, matthew g. olsen of maryland to be assistant attorney general, that the nomination be confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, that no further motions be in order to the nomination, and that the president be immediately notified of the senate's action. the presiding officer: is there objection? a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: mr. president, reserving the right to object. it's ironic that i come to the floor to be with my friend, the chairman of the intelligence committee with whom i proudly serve and with whom i have worked on many different projects within the intelligence community and the jurisdiction of that committee. but this is one where we clearly see things differently. mr. olsen, for most of his career -- and it has been a

distinguished career -- has operated as a nonpartisan public servant, but as senator grassley, ranking member on the judiciary committee said at the time he had his hearing there, once the previous administration took office it was like a fhlbb got switched and he turned into a partisan warrior. over the last few years mr. olsen has made a series of ultra partisan statements prior to the 2016 election he said that isis supported donald trump for president. following the election, he claimed that the electoral college should be abolished because it's a national security threat. he signed on to a number of letters, hysterically criticizing then-attorney general barr and the justice department, and he failed to

disclose these writings and other critical information to the judiciary committee during the hearing on his nomination. i believe now more than ever it's absolutely critical that the justice department and our intelligence community operate free from political influence and bias, but i have no confidence that if confirmed mrl get flipped back off. i fear he'll continue to pursue his political objectives from within the department, using the powerful tools of the department of justice to pave the way for his partisan political agenda. mr. president, lest anybody think this is, these concerns are unprecedented or groundless, let me just point out that we now have a former lawyer with the f.b.i. that has

pled guilty to falsifying an application to the foreign intelligence surveillance court in the process of investigating an american citizen. he's now pled guilty and is now serving probation, a lawyer with the f.b.i. who erroneously communicated information to the court with which they relied upon to issue a warrant to surveil an american citizen using the powers of the foreign intelligence surveillance court. and then just recently, just this last week another lawyer has been indicted by mr. mr. durham, the special counsel, somebody who has a distinguished career as a former federal prosecutor, has worked at a prominent firm that typically represents democratic, the democratic party, he now has been indicted for lying to the f.b.i.

and it rises out of a conversation he had with a general counsel at the f.b.i., suggesting that there was some link between the trump administration or trump organization and a kremlin-linked russian lender called alpha bank. the indictment says michael u.s.s. man lied about the -- sussman lied about the capacity in which he was giving this information to the f.b.i. what he did was prepare white papers, using confidential information obtained from a technology client and fed that to the f.b.i. while he claimed to be just a good citizen wanting to pass this information along, when he was actually on the payroll of the clinton campaign. and obviously then talking to the press, leaking this

narrative to the press, this is, i think, contributed to this false narrative of somehow that the russians colluded with then-candidate trump in order to win the election. there's been no evidence at all, whether you look at the inspector general report, inspector general horowitz about the now debumpinged steel dossier which posedly was the basis upon which the f.b.i. opened their investigation. what we're talking about is people in positions of trust and confidence in the u.s. government abusing their power, lying to the f.b.i., lying to the foreign intelligence surveillance court in order to pursue a partisan political objective. now i have no idea what mr. olsen would do, but i don't think we can take any risks

given the fact he has now turned into a partisan warrior. we've got ample examples of people who perhaps, against their better judgment, have thrown in to this resistance attitude and simply forgotten their professional responsibilities. and when it comes to the intelligence community and national security, we don't need any more partisan warriors in these positions of trust. these should be nonpartisan professionals. so i don't think mr. olsen has certainly satisfied me or many of my other colleagues that he can flip that partisan warrior switch off, and for that reason i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. warner: mr. president, i want to make a couple of quick comments in response to my friend from texas. the presiding officer: the senator from virginia. mr. warner: we have worked on a number of important items and

will continue to work on a number of important items. but i think it is curious that he is citing a couple of lawyers that have either been arrested or have not gotten through the whole judicial process yet. i don't have the whole list in front of me, but i'd be happy for the record, the list of individuals affiliated with the trump campaign who have been arrested and convicted and pled guilty because of lying to the f.b.i. or involvement with russia. i think our investigation, of which i'm quite, quite proud, bipartisan, successful, clearly showed russian interference in the 2016 elections. we've seen the results of the mueller investigation.

i can't recall the exact number of convictions that arose out of that. i agree with my friend, the senator from texas, that we don't want -- the last thing i want is any more partisanship between the intelligence community. that's why i want to cite for the record the individuals -- yes, mr. olsen joined a lot of intelligence professionals in raising concerns about the way the previous administration ran the intelligence community. 6 frankly i think they ran it in many ways disrespectful to the folks there. i've got a letter here that's got literally hundreds of intelligence and d.o.j. professionals that support mr. olsen. let me cite a couple of them who

served republican president. michael chertoff, subsequently head of t.s.h., the united states district attorney, kenneth waynestein, u.s. attorney for the district of columbia, charles rosenberg, served under president bush in the southern district and eastern district, paul mcnaulty, again, served under president bush, michael casey, attorney general under president bush, jesse lu, a u.s. attorney under president trump in the district of columbia. the tillis goes -- the list goes on and on. all i hope is that we get a chance to debate his qulfications -- qualify indications, -- qualifications,

we have it put on hold and i think mr. olsen's career deserves a free debate. those who don't want to vote for him, have it -- at it. the senator from texas did not take holds. i'm afraid mr. olsen will not have his day in court which is something that he deserves. mr. durbin: if the senator would yield for a question. ms. warren: of course. mr. durbin: we have joint committee jurisdiction between the intelligence and this is an extraordinary individual. i have to raise the most basic question and that is in this moment in history is this the right moment to leave this spot vacant to not have someone in leadership, a gentleman whom you noted has bipartisan support for

his intelligence c.e.o. demings -- credentials, you mentioned a few names of those supporting him that you did not mention, former n.s.a. director keith alexander, mike mcconnell, senator saxby chambliss who served on the intelligence committee as vice chair all in support of mr. olsen's nomination and i would say at this moment in history without going into graphic detail or classified information but to have this kind of vacancy in this spot, do you believe this has an impact on our security as a nation? mr. warner: i say to the chairman of the judiciary committee, we all reflected recently where we were 20 years ago on 9/11, one of the astounding things that came out of the report after 9/11 was that at that moment on 9/11 in

2001, 57% of the senior officials in the intelligence community had not been confirmed. they weren't -- those positions weren't filled. the amazing thing is 20 years later 74% of those top positions are not filled. i think that is a disservice to the memory of those who perished on 9/11 and i think it is unfortunate, to say the least, that members -- if members have in good faith concerns about mr. but a large block of law enforcement, and we have this sitting unfilled on an issue not related to their qualifications put on hold does not make our nation safer. mr. durbin: thank you. the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: mr. president, what

i was referring to earlier are examples of abuse of power by people in the united states government who have -- who are in a position to do things to average citizens that, frankly, if they can do them to powerful individuals like candidates for president or sitting officeholders, what's the -- what's the little guy supposed to do? if people so -- are so blinded by their partisanship or their desire to get somebody that they violate their oath, they violate the law, and abuse power, what is -- what's the average man and woman supposed to do? you know, it reminds me a little bit of the hearing that we had just a couple of days ago in the judiciary committee where this monster named larry nassar, an

olympic physician for 18 years systematically and routinely assaulted and abused young female olympic athletes. and for years these olympic athletes tried to get the f.b.i. to investigate their allegations against dr. nassar and it took an extended period of time -- i think it was a year and a half before the f.b.i. actually undertook the investigation. but it took a couple of our colleagues, people like senator blumenthal from connecticut, senator jerry moran, from kansas, stay on this issue until finely this monster, dr. nassar was charged with crimes and convicted and now will serve in prison for the rest of his life.

if these elite olympic athletes whose names are known all around the world couldn't get the government to respond to their assaults and to do them justice, what chance do the rest of us have? what -- i'm not worried about members of congress, i'm worried about my 29 million constituents. and so the examples of gave of mr. kleinesmith who thried to get -- lied to get a warrant to illegally surveil an american citizen is a power that causes me concern. when i read the indictment of michael sussmann lying to the f.b.i. about his connection to the clinton campaign while he compiled information that was confidential, gave it to the

f.b.i., claimed to just be a good citizen and not representing any client when, in fact, he was on the payroll of the clinton campaign and he was systematically leaking this information to the press to feed this narrative about russian collusion which has obsessed congress and the country for years. and now we know there is no factual basis for the allegations against then-candidate trump or then- later president trump. the russian collusion narrative was not true, but it was fed by partisans who abused their power in order to gain politically. so i don't know mr. olsen that well. like i said, i know he has had a

distinguished career, but something clearly snapped when he became a partisan warrior. and i simply do not have confidence that he will not abuse his power in pursuit of his partisan aims. there are better people that the president could nominate to serve in this sensitive position and i will not in good conscience agree to simply allow somebody with this sort of track record to be confirmed, and as my colleagues know, the majority leader has all the tools he needs at his disposal to have a vote on the senate floor on this nomination. but it shouldn't be done by unanimous consent, it shouldn't be done outside the public attention because there's so many things competing for

people's attention, i think this is a debate and conversation we need to have about powerful public officials abusing their power for partisan political gain. what chance does the average american have if they will use that power -- abuse that power to go after powerful public figures like a candidate for president or an incumbent president of the united states? mr. president, turning to another topic, -- mr. president i ask consent to complete my remarks before the vote. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cornyn: thank you very much. mr. president, our friends across the aisle are moving full steam ahead with what i think is a reckless tax and spending

spree which is cholg full of -- chock-full of unwarranted policies. remember, we had to spend a lot of money, borrowed money, during the covid crisis which we did on a bipartisan basis, which was an international and global emergency. but as we continue to get people vaccinated and put the pandemic in the rear-view mirror, our colleagues simply want to continue spending money that we don't have to pursue their ideological and political agenda, to grow the government, to intrude more in people's lives and to take more of what they earned rather than let them spend it as they see fit. our colleagues want to impose crippling tax hikes on job creators at a time when many of them are still digging out of the recession that was part of the pandemic. they want to dole out permanent

welfare without requiring able-bodied men and women to work, they want to discourage medical innovation through price fixing and implement a range of the items from their far-left wish list. after charging nearly $2 trillion on the taxpayers' credit card earlier this year, our democratic colleagues are back at it for round two and this time they are going all out. that's especially true when it comes to the energy sector. over the past few years we've seen no shortage of unrealistic and down right harmful policies to reduce carbon emissions. now there's a smart way to do it and there's a self-defeating way to reduce emissions. one is to reduce the use of coal and increase the use of things like natural gas, which has much

lower carbon content than coal. and we're doing that and we've reduced emissions as a result. but our colleagues have proposed everything from the socialist paradise, that is the green new deal, to more targeted but no more realistic net free zero bills. the tax and spending spree compiles the most outlandish proposals in one of the greatest hits album, which is a hit on the fossil fuel industry which has ultimately passed along to the consumers and contribute to inflation and the increased cost that they have to pay in order to fill up at the pump. whether we're talking about energy, agriculture, or any

other industry, higher taxes always mean higher prices for consumers. it's inevitable. businesses can't just take the increases as a hit for their bottom line. they might raise prices, lay off employees, postpone expansion plans or implement all of the above, but that's exactly what this proposal would spur when it comes to the energy sector. it increases taxes already paid by energy companies on income earned in the global marketplace and subjects energy employers to double taxation of their foreign income. it also adds a brand-new tax, the superfund excise exact which was ee limited 25 years ago -- eliminated 25 years ago all in pursuit to grow revenue and the size of the government. our friends across the aisle

want to force energy companies to pay more on every barrel of crude oil that's sold. once again, the ultimate burden won't be on companies, it will fall to consumers who are already struggling to keep up with inflation. gasoline prices are up 42% over last year. natural gas is up 21%. families in texas are paying more on everything from electricity to groceries to vehicles. this smorgasbord of higher taxes will only drive up costs for working families and hurt the very job creators we have been trying to help over the last year and a half dig out from under covid-19. you have to wonder if these policies are going to hurt working americans and the economy, who benefits? well, for starters, our geopolitical adversaries will

benefit. the higher cost of domestic crude would once again make the u.s. reliant on imports of oil and gas from overseas, from countries like russia and saudi arabia, iran, venezuela, perhaps. president biden unintentionally demonstrated the hypocrisy of this approach when he pushed earlier this year to beg opec, the organization for petroleum exporting companies, to increase production overseas to bring down oil prices here in the united states. in other words, he doesn't want american oil and gas producers to produce oil and gas. he wants the russians and the saudis to do it to help us bring down prices here in america. it's just crazy. it makes no sense. if the president was worried about affordable energy, he needs to quit pushing policies that will drive up the cost for

consumers at the pump. other big winners include wealthy electric vehicle drivers, the sort of subsidies that are contained in this proposed package include the tax credit for electric vehicle purchases, even if these cars are made in -- you guessed it -- in china. and it's subsidizing, it's taking middle-class taxpayers money and giving it to people who are buying expensive cars because they are incentivized by the tax credit. meanwhile, we have 280 million cars on the road. in america, we still depend on oil and gas in order to function because they have, yes, an internal combustion engine. on top of that, a bigger tax credit is given to electric cars built in union shops. now, why would you favor a political supporter like organized labor?

well, i think the answer may be pretty obvious. maybe union-built electric vehicles are more green than other electric vehicles, or maybe it's a favor doled out to a special interest group by my friends on the other side to a political constituency. as a reminder, unlike gas-powered vehicle drivers, e.v. drivers don't even pay anything for the highways that they drive their car on. they don't pay into the highway trust fund which comes out of the cost of a gallon of gas to help maintain our roads and bridges. so our friends across the aisle just keep on coming with tax breaks for the well-off and the well-to-do in a way that will burden hardworking texans and americans. i support efforts to reduce carbon emissions to preserve our air, land, and water for future generations, but these efforts

shouldn't pick winners and losers, especially when wealthy americans are reaping the benefits at the cost of blue-collar workers. like the rest of the reckless tax and spending spree proposal, the cost of this energy proposal far exceeds any benefit. it would drive up costs for american families, hurt our global competitiveness, ultimately hurt our allies that depend on exported l.n.g. to provide energy diversity, and it will empower our adversaries. so there's no reason to stick taxpayers with the bill for these unnecessary policies when there are better ways to keep costs for consumers low while protecting our environment. a senator: mr. chair.

mr. chair, i yield back our remaining time. the presiding officer: all time is expired. the question is on the motion. a senator: i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote: vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: the yeas are 49, the nays are 48. the motion to discharge is agreed to. and the nomination is discharged and will be placed on the calendar.

mr. schumer: madam president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. schumer: i move to proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. opposed no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. schumer: i move to proceed to executive session to consider calendar number 244. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. 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, executive office of the president, sarah bianchi of virginia to be deputy united states trade representative, asia africa investment services, textiles, and industrial competitiveness. mr. schumer: i send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. 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 244, sarah bianchi of virginia to be deputy united states trade representative, signed by 16 senators as follow- mr. schumer: i ask unanimous 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. all opposed no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. schumer: i move to proceed to executive calendar to consider calendar 241. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. all opposed no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, department of state, daniel j. kritenbrink of virginia to be an assistant secretary. mr. schumer: i send the cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. 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 241, daniel j. kritenbrink of virginia to be an assistant secretary of state, each asian and pacific affairs, signed by 18 senators as follow- mr. schumer: i i ask -- i ask unanimous 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. all opposed no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. schumer: i move to proceed to executive session to consider calendar 333. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. all opposed no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, department of state, karen erika donfried of the district of columbia to be an assistant secretary. mr. schumer: i send the cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. 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 333, karen erika donfried of the district of columbia to be an assistant secretary of state, european affairs and eurasian affairs, signed by 18 senators as follows -- mr. schumer: i ask consent the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: i move to proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. all opposed no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. schumer: i move to proceed to executive session to consider calendar 324. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. all opposed no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, department of state, monica p. medina of maryland to be an assistant secretary for oceans and international environmental and scientific affairs. mr. schumer: i send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. 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 324, monica pz medina of maryland to be an assistant secretary of state for oceans and international and environmental and scientific affairs signed by 17 senators as follows -- mr. schumer: i ask unanimous 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. all opposed no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it the motion is agreed to. mr. schumer: i move to move to executive session and consider calendar 331. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. all opposed no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. mr. schumer: i send a cloture motion to the desk. the clerk: nomination, department of state, mary catherine phee of illinois to be an assistant secretary. mr. schumer: i accepted the cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk

will report the cloture motion. the clerk: cloture motion. we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of executive calendar number 31, mary catherine phee of illinois to be an assistant secretary of state african affairs, signed by 18 senators as follows -- mr. schumer: i ask unanimous 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. all opposed no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. schumer: i move to proceed to executive session to consider calendar 240. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. all opposed no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, department of state, todd d. robinson of new jersey to be an assistant secretary. mr. schumer: i send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. 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 240, todd d. robinson of new jersey, to be an assistant secretary of state, international narcotics and law enforcement affairs, signed by 18 senators as follows -- mr. schumer: i ask consent the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: i move to proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. all opposed no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. schumer: i move to proceed to executive session to consider calendar 334. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. all opposed no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, department of state, jessica lewis of ohio to be an assistant secretary. mr. schumer: i accepted a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. 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 334, jessica lewis of ohio, to be an assistant secretary of state political military affairs, signed by 18 senators as follows -- mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to legislative session and be in a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the consideration of senate resolution 376, submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. res. 376, designating the week of september 19 through september 25, 2021, as gold star families remembrance week.

the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and that the mions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: madam president, i understand there are two bills at the desk, and i ask for their first reading en bloc. the presiding officer: the clerk will read the titles of the bills for the first time en bloc. the clerk: s. 2788, a bill to reauthorize the national flood insurance program. s. 2789, a bill making continuing appropriations for the fiscal year ending septembed providing emergency assistance, and for other purposes. mr. schumer: i now ask for a second reading, and i object to my own request, all en bloc. the presiding officer: objection being heard, the bills will receive their second reading en bloc on the next legislative

day. mr. schumer: and finally, madam president, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it recess until 10:00 a.m. wednesday, september 22, that following the prayer and the pledge, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day. further, that following the cloture vote on the batchelder nomination, that notwithstanding rule 22, the senate immediately vote on cloture on the white nomination. further, that if cloture is invoked on either of the nominations, all postcloture time expire at 2:45 p.m., the senate vote in the order in which cloture was invoked. finally, if any nominations are confirmed, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the president be immediately notified of the senate's action. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask it stand in recess under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands in recess until senate stands in recess until clicks and the u.s. senate has finished up for the day.

during today's session lawmakers voted to confer margaret strickland to be a u.s. district court judge for new mexico but they also voted to discharge the nomination to be the director of the consumer financial protection bureau of the senate banking committee. for the remainder of the week the senate plans to work on a handful of nominations and voting rights legislation. when the senate returns, watch live coverage here on cspan2. ♪ ♪ c-span is your unfiltered view of government. funded by these television companies and more including media come. >> the world change in an instant hit but meeting comp was ready internet traffic sort and we never slowed down. schools and businesses went virtual and we powered a new reality. because at media, we are built to keep you ahead. >> media, support c-span as a public service along with these other television

providers giving a front row seat to democracy. >> earlier today senate majority leader chuck schumer spoke about federal spending, immigration policy and voting rights legislation. following his remarks mitch mcconnell talks about federal spending and tax policy. this is about 20 minutes. text yesterday speaker pelosi and i put in motion to pass a continuing resolution that in one fell swoop would accomplish for theory important things. it would keep the government open through december 3 of this year end avoid a needless and dangerous shutdown. it would provide emergency funding to help resettle evacuees. it would prove tens of billions of dollars in disaster aid funding. and it will suspend the debt ceiling until december