new mobile app. c-span highlights, listen to c-span radio and discover new podcasts for free. download c-span now today. the senate is about to gravel in. today, officials continue work on nominations. the president pro tempore: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. eternal god, accept our praise and thanksgiving. you have been better to us than we deserve, for your goodness and mercy pursue us each day. great is your faithfulness.

lord, increase the faith of our lawmakers. inspire them to believe that you can empower them to succeed in their striving to keep our nation strong. fill them with reverential awe as you thwart the schemes of the enemies of freedom. may our senators comprehend the fact that your intentions will prevail. we pray in your strong name. amen. the president pro tempore: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible,

with liberty and justice for all. the president pro tempore: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. mr. warnock: mr. president, i

suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding them -- the president pro tempore: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: without objection, morning business is closed. under the previous order, the senate will proceed to executive session and resume consideration of the following nomination, which the clerk will report. the clerk: nomination, department of state, karen erica don fried of the district of columbia to be assistant secretary, european affairs and eurasian affairs. mr. mcconnell: yesterday senate democrats blocked a vote on a claimed government funding piece of legislation. senator shelby and i put forward legislation that could pass the senate easily and keep the government open. we were ready to avoid a shutdown, get urgent relief to louisiana, help vetted afghans

who helped america, and continue supporting israel's iron dome which saves innocent lives. senate republicans were ready, and house democratic leaders say they'll act on whatever c.r. we send them. but democrats blocked the senate from even considering our legislation. instead the democratic leader held a vote that he knew would fail on a bill he knew was a nonstarter. game playing instead of governing. so look, mr. president, for more than two months -- two months -- republicans have explained that the unified democratic party government will not get bipartisan support for a debt limit hike while they write a partisan taxing-and-spending spree behind closed doors. it's as simple as that.

bipartisanship isn't a light switch that democrats can switch on when they need to borrow money and flip off when they want to spend money. if democrats want to use fast-track, party-line procedures to ram through trillions more in inflationary socialism, they'll have to use the same tools to handle the debt limit. they've known this for more than two months. i made it perfectly clear two months ago. the debt suspension that expired in august coverdict all the debt that had been accumulated by that date. this is an argument not about the past but about the future, a future that democrats have willfully decided they want to own on a party-line basis.

there's no constant tradition that says one one-party governments get bipartisan help with the debt limit. that's been said over and over by the press, by the democrats. let me make it clear. there's no constant tradition that says one-party governments get bipartisan help with the debt limit. just between 2003 and 2010, there were five, five occasions when the party in power had to get a debt limit hike through the senate by themselves. five times. interestingly enough, then-senators biden and schumer voted no on raising the debt limit under president bush 43 mained the unified -- and made the unified, the united republican government, do it by themselves. so look, it's time for our democratic colleagues to stop

dragging their heels and get moving. they have had more than two months to accept it. secretary yellen just announced a new estimate that action on the debt limit may be necessary as earl as october 18. democrats will need to handle the debt limit before then. but democrats in congress don't seem to be acting with any urgency. the senate spends day after day on midlevel nominations, and our colleagues spend all their time in backroom talks over partisan plans while their basic duties sit here in limbo. so far democrats' partisan ambitions have taken precedence over basic government. that, mr. president, needs to change. according to their own treasury secretary, they have a few weeks to finally get moving.

now on a related matter, while washington democrats neglect basic governance, they're still trying to write another taxing-and-spending spree behind closed doors. many details are still fuzzy, but one basic truth is very clear. their far-left wish list will hurt families and help china. new pain and new burdens for american families, and new advantages for competitors like china. take, for example, the democrats' radical anti-energy agenda that is downstream from the green new deal. this sprawling plan for more washington intrusion into families' everyday lives is set to upend the reliable and affordable domestic energy that literally drives our country.

the democrats' effort to enforce elite liberal fashions would directly target the jobs and the industries that support some of the hardest-working blue collar communities in our country. some families would lose their livelihoods all together. many more would face higher heating bills, hire electric bills and higher prices to put gas in their cars. democrats want to tear a big hole in americans' wallets right where they can least afford it. right now as we speak many of our allies in europe are preparing for major energy disruption this coming winter. here are a few recent headlines -- europeans brace for hard winter as energy price surge hits households. empty shelves, gasoline shortages and sky-high energy

prices: britain is facing a difficult winter. germans' green energy resolve faces pain in postelection winter. and from just yesterday, europe's energy crisis is coming for the rest of the world too. this is no time for america to declare war on our own independence on the affordable forms of energy that power our country. the rest of the world is battering down the hatches for a global national gas crunch that could leave entire countries rationing winter heat, and president biden wants to let radical progressives declare war on american fossil fuels. really? is this a joke? the latest taxing-and-spending spree would open multiple new fronts in the big government war on fossil fuels. it would make our electricity grid more like california's,

higher costs, less reliability, and more blackouts. it would slap countless new costs and fees on domestic production and ban important prospects for u.s. drilling. it would double down on the obama administration's hand-fisted efforts to police emissions. twa so legally -- twa so legally bizarre it couldn't get past the supreme court. americans benefit from energy that is affordable and abundant. washington democrats are pursuing far-left policies that would reduce supply and jack up prices. so democrats' plans would have american families hurting badly, but it's not even like all this sacrifice would buy us some national advantage. it's just the opposite. their proposals would be a huge gift, a huge gift to adversaries like russia and china. it would set the united states

back on the global stage. to give just one example, the democrats are drafting blunt mandates for more solar panels. somebody should tell our colleagues that china currently supplies about three-quarters of the world's solar panels. they have also largely cornered the market on some of the necessary raw materials and critical minerals. so look, if we're going to borrow money from china to send a windfall right back to chinese miners and manufacturers, is that the master plan? i'm not sure any of these ideas have received more than five minutes of thought. but in a matter of days they want to turn all these harebrained schemes actually into law, and the chinese solar bailout is just one example. look at the big picture.

let's look at the big picture. countries that wish us harm will be thrilled to see america make ourselves less competitive and more reliant on imports. they'll go roaring by us, increasing their prosperity and emissions no matter what we do. hurt families, helps china. the war on american energy just as the rest of the world is steeling for shortages. this is just one piece of the democrats' reckless taxing-and-spending spree, along with historic tax hikes, more intrusion into family lives, and new i.r.s. snooping in every citizen transaction over a few hundred dollars. hurting families and helping china.

i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. schumer: mr. president. are we in a quorum? i ask unanimous consent the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: now, mr. president, last night was a low point in the recent history of this chamber. with a government shutdown only days away and a default crisis coming in a matter of weeks, the senate was faced with a simple and urgent question -- shall the members of this chamber allow the federal government to pay its debt and

stay open, or will its members accelerate our country towards a shutdown and a first-ever default. yesterday we got our answer. republicans voted unanimously, unanimously to block legislation to keep the government open and prevent an unnecessary default on our debt. republicans are now the official party of default, the party that says america doesn't pay its debts, the party that runs up balance on the credit card, receives an invoice in the mail, and sends the bill straight to the shreder. no average family could get away with what the republicans are trying to do, that's for sure. but republicans here shrug their shoulders and say we incurred the debt, but we don't have to pay it. republicans would let the country default for the first time in history, and it will be the american people who pay the price.

now republicans have said for weeks, for weeks that the united states must never be allowed to default. they said the debt ceiling of course needed to be raised. they said to d -- they said to do so otherwise was to play with fire. but when given the chance to actually put the fire out, republicans chose to spray it with gasoline instead and now our country is staring down the barrel of two republican-manufactured crises -- a government shutdown hand a default on the national debt. but, mr. president, fortunately, there's an easy way to stave off disaster. last night the republican leader -- i believe he did again this morning. last night and this morning, the republican leader cited an example from the 2000's during which the republicans controlled

government and provided the votes for to extend the debt limit. the republican leader said that's exactly the situation we're in now. what he left out is that back then there was a consent agreement requested by the republican majority leader that cleared the path for the senate to vote to increase the debt limit at a majority threshold. only one party. allowing the minority party to vote no but also preventing a catastrophic default. let me be clear, i am still of the belief that addressing the debt limit, which includes debts incurred by both parties, should be done in a bipartisan way. but let's see if leader mcconnell truly wants what he's asking for, truly wants what he favorably looked upon as happening in the early 2000's to allow to happen again. later this afternoon i will ask unanimous consent for the senate

to hold a vote to increase the debt limit at a majority threshold. in other words, we would get consent that you only need 50 votes, not 60, on this vote to increase the debt limit and that's what happened if in the past. it would be very similar to the process that leader mcconnell cited yesterday favorably which allowed for the debt limit to be increased without the minority party providing any of the votes needed to do so. so if republicans want to object secondes from their -- abscond from their responsibilities, not pay for the debt they incurred, so be it. that's a bad thing, that's a bad precedents. but this is the way out. it is a way out. it is a straightforward prop significance. if the republicans really want to the see debt ceiling raised

without providing a single vote, i'm prepared to hold that vote. i can't imagine the republican leader would object to his own request, his own request. now, taking a step back, mr. president, we need to remember that we didn't have to be in this position at all. we could have been well on our way to resolving these avoidable crises last night. the debt ceiling has been raised 80 times over the past 60 years under both democratic and republican presidents, under both unified and divided government. ten years ago republican opposition to extending the debt creating was considered a fringe, a radical idea. the republican speaker at the time called the notion of holding the debt ceiling hostage to political ends, quote, insanity, unquote. the republican leader himself two years ago said we needed to raise the debt ceiling because, quote, america can't default;

otherwise that would be a disaster. his words. well, after last night, it's clear insanity and disaster are now the republican line and it is damaging the very bedrock on which our viability and financial credibility stand. i hope that our republican colleagues can walk us back from the ledge in a few hours. but it is a sad state of affairs to see one of america's two major political parties so casually, so gleefully playing with the livelihoods of tens of millions of americans. all for basically a cheap political goal. democrats, meanwhile, are not going to abscond from those core responsibilities. keeping the government open and preventing default is vital to our country's future, and democrats are going to make sure we do not lapse on either, in spite of the dangerous path republicans have chosen to take us on. i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: mr. president, i'm glad that the democratic leader came to the floor after the republican leader. he certainly clarified some of the statements that were made by senator mcconnell and brought a dose of reality into the picture. i listened carefully to senator mcconnell's speech, and i was waiting for one word. i knew he would say it at one point, and yet i don't think he did. i might have missed it. i don't think he ever used the word filibuster -- filibuster. the requirement of 60 votes to proceed with the business of the senate. the reason why that's essential is the democrats are prepared to accept the responsibility of funding the government and

dealing dealing with our national debt, acknowledging our debt ceiling, and if the republicans don't care to be part that conversation or to engage in it, that's their wish, that's what is they can have. but senator mcconnell has put in a filibuster, a requirement of 60 votes, which makes it literal lit impossible for the democrats on their own to accept their responsibility. he didn't mention that the entire time. i think we have reached a new low point in the united states senate, where the republican leader and his followers to a person are prepared to jeopardize the economy of the united states for purely political reasons. we know that this filibuster means we need republican votes to move this measure, and he's made it quite clear that he won't give those votes, at least as of yesterday. i can only hope that republican senators going home maybe this weekend hearing from their constituents a understand

businesses will shall -- from their constituents and businesses will change their minds. there is a second thing you had to listening very carefully to catch. he went on to say at great length that the last time we passed a debt ceiling extension was in august, and he said, incidentally had all the spending leading up to august was covered by that debt ceiling. well, that may have been true. what did at the fail to tell us? there was another bill that he voted for, trump-supported, the republicans supported, and the democrats voted for, too, in december for $900 billion in spending. that wasn't covered by the earlier august debt ceiling. he knows that. so to say all the debt of the trump administration has been taken care of just isn't the fact. and i'm glad we have a chance to clarify that. he seems to think that we're going to, quote, hurt families and help china if we press

forward with the reconciliation bill. does it hurt families to find an affordable way to have quality day care for their kids? i don't think so. does it hurt families when children get a chance for pre-k education so they're ready for school? does it hurt families when we extend education and say to our community colleges, prepare the workforce for the 21st century. give these americans the skills they need for a good paycheck and a home and a family and a future. according to the senator from kentucky, that hurts american families. i think he's just flat-out wrong. it helps them in critical ways. it addresses expenses and challenges they face and need a helping hand to succeed. and in a terms of helping china, a competitive american workforce, investment in

research and innovation does not help china. if we invest in this country, in its people and its ideas, we have always succeed and led the world. so i disagree with the senator from kentucky completely. his approach -- tax breaks for the wealthiest americans, corporations that frankly can escape any tax liability -- hasn't worked, and it won't work. it's fundamentally unfair, and it fails to invest in the people that need it the most -- working families, middle-income people, and their children. i ask that these remarks that follow be in a separate place in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: mr. president, coincidentally, last friday you and i made a trip to chicago. senator padilla, as chairman of the senate immigration subcommittee of the judiciary, joined me in visiting one of the most amazing neighborhoods in the city. we spent the day in little village, a neighborhood in the

southwest part of the city known as the mexican capital of the midwest. we walked down 26th street, the commercial heart of little village, lined with more than 100 family-owned shops and restaurants. people travel from all over the country to try their homemade tamales, stop for their quinciera dresses. families that enes abouts are proof that the american dream is alive and well. rather l.a. chiquita grocery? i think the founder took the venture of opening a grocery store and now has seven or eight of this emin the republican. they are so proud of their anchor store that we were a guest in to show us all thes things available to folks in the neighborhood. whether these folks arrived a few years ago or a few

generations ago, they provide to the economic vitality little village. that two-mile stretch of 26th street is the second-highest grossing shopping district in all of chicago. and those family-run businesses generate nearly $1 billion in sales each year. bilingual communities like little village make america richer and stronger. they're living proof that immigrants are still an essential part of the america's future and there are millions of people who have been contributing to our economy and our communities for years, but they've been left behind by our broken immigration system. that's exactly what the presiding officer and i along with many of our colleagues in the democratic caucus, that's exactly what we're trying to include as an immigration reform in the build back better package that will come before the senate in the coming days. let me tell you about one of these immigrants that we're

focused on. roughly ten miles south of where we toured little village there is a trauma center, advocate christ medical center, one of the busiest in chicago's south side. one of the doctors who recently completed his residency in that trauma center is dr. manuel bermwa. he cared for chicagoans at all stages of life, from delivering babies to providing comfort to patients during their last moments. he's cared ford more covid patients than he can count. it is in our country that dr. burnell works every day to take care of our friends and loved ones much it is in our country that a. graduated from college and medical school. and it is in our country that dr. burnell has lived since he was two years old. despite that, dr. burnell has

still been left behind by a broken immigration system and there are thousands more just like him. according to the definition established by former president trump, there are more than 200,000 daca i want is that have served as essential critical infrastructure workers during the pandemic. that includes more than 40,000 health care workers like dr. bur necessarily. some of them work in emergency rooms like him. others work as respiratory. let's ask a basic question. would america be bleater? would illinois be better? would chicago be better without dr. burnell? all of the dreams who are working every day to save american lives in our hospitals? i don't think so. for dreams like dr. burn. ll, daca has been a lifeline. it's given them chance to give back to the ohm home they've ever known. but we all know daca is not a permanent solution.

the reality is dreamers have been standing on shaky found for far too long. these young people are the best. they defend us as members of our military, care for our parents and family members as home health aides and they teach our children in school. but because congress has failed to fix our broken immigration system, dreamers are daca can only plan their lives in two-year increments. and every day they live in fear that the rug is going to be pulled out from under them any moment. it happened under president trump. he tried to eliminate the program. it was finally saved at the highest court in the land across the street, in the supreme court. dreamers and immigrants like them who give everything they can to our country deserve a path to legal status. the fact is, their future is our future. as i mentioned, the budget reconciliation panel, a the senate is expected to vote on soon contains president biden's build back better plan, a blueprint to mount an enduring economic recovery. the proposes included would

supercharge our economy by cutting taxes for work being families, making child care, health care, and transportation more affordable, providing a path to legal status for undocumented immigrants. let me say that another way. immigration reform will drive our nation's economic recovery for years to come. a pathway to legal status for dreamers, t.p.s. recipients and essential workers could boost our nation's g.d.p. by $1.5 trillion over the next ten years. $1.5 trillion. additionally, a path to legalization could create 400,000 new jobs and increase every american's annual wage by an estimated $600. how can that be? putting these immigrants to work on the payroll, how could that help other people? because we have a dynamic economy, and what we saw on 26th street in chicago can be replicated over and over again

if these new immigrants are given a chance to work hard, as they all do, show their skills and build the economy around them. our nation is leaving billions if not trillions of dollars on the table by failing to fix our broken immigration system. earlier this month, the white house published a report that found that providing a path to permanent legal status would, quote, allow currently unauthorized immigrants to pursue and accept jobs for which their skills are well suited. many of these immigrants are of prime working age, which means they can help grow our nation's tax base for the foreseeable future. that's money that can go toward shoring up social security, medicare, an funding our nation's priorities. in fact, leading economists have argued that america needs immigrants to keep these programs solvent. in the words of mark zandi, moody's chief economist, the united states is, quote, not going to be able to address our fiscal problems if we don't change our policy with regard to immigration. he's not alone.

other economists agree. douglas hotels eagle-- douglas holtz-eakin has argued in the absence of immigration, america will, quote, shrink in population, become older, less important on the world stage h. with the build back better plan, this senate is finally taking up the important work of investing in america's future. that means building railroads, transit networks, and connecting communities, providing funding for high-quality child care so every parent can have a safe place to leave their child during the workday. and it also means providing immigrant families a stable footing they need to contribute to our future. for these families, make no mistake, america is home, and every day they help to make our communities better and our economy stronger. that's the case we plan on making to the senate parliamentarian once again. this is the first opportunity we have had in a long, long time to begin building an immigration system that works for america and for our own sake i hope we

can get it done. mr. president, i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. thune: mr. president. the presiding officer: the republican whip. mr. thune: mr. president, is the senate in a quorum call? the presiding officer: yes, we are. mr. thune: i would ask unanimous consent the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. thune: mr. president, last night's vote was an exercise in futility as democrats knew would be the case. for months now, republicans have made it clear that we will not help democrats raise our nation's debt limit to finance democrats' partisan tax and spending spree. if democrats want to pass a massive partisan tax and spending bill without any republican input, they can raise the debt limit without any republican input. democrats of course have complained that they can't raise the debt limit by themselves. the truth is that they don't want to do it by themselves. democrats want the credit for their social policies and the government handouts they are planning, but they don't want to own the price tag. mr. president, democrats are talking about engaging in a

wild, reckless spending spree that will worsen our inflation problem, threaten economic growth, and substantially increase the government's control over americans' lives. republicans can't support that kind of legislation, and we're not going to help democrats increase the credit card limit to pay for it. the democrats want to raise the debt limit, they are going to have to do it by themselves. mr. president, i have come down to the floor more than once to talk about the reckless spending and the massive tax hikes that democrats are planning, and i could spend the rest of my time here on the floor today talking about the irresponsible amount of money democrats want to spend in the tax hikes that they are proposing, but today i want to look at things a little differently. mr. president, last week, house speaker nancy pelosi had this to say in reference to the democrats' $3.5 trillion spending bill. she said, and i quote, it's not about the price tag. it's about values, end quote. it's not about the price tag.

it's about values. well, mr. president, she is partially right, because while the price tag does matter, this is more -- this is about more than just the price tag. this is about values and visions. specifically, republicans and democrats' different visions of government. democrats' bill isn't just about spending money even though it does spend money, a lot of it. it's about a specific vision of government, one where the government is intimately involved in nearly every aspect of your life, from, to quote "the new york times" article on the democrats' bill, cradle to grave. mr. president, someone once said to me that the difference between democrats and republicans is that republicans believe in less government and more freedom. democrats believe in less freedom and more government. i think that's a pretty accurate description of what we are seeing here. republicans oppose democrats' tax and spending spree because it spends an irresponsible amount of money, but more than

that, more than that, we oppose it because it moves us further and further away from the american idea of limited government. our founders established a limited government for a reason -- because they respected individual liberty. and they knew that the heavier the hand of government, the less liberty americans would enjoy. that's why our constitution is as much about what government cannot do as what government can do. now, democrats might protest that they are not restricting individual liberty, that they are providing -- just providing a helping hand or redistributing wealth, but when you expand the reach of government, the diminishment of liberty is inevitable. when government gets involved in a new area of life, it rarely, if ever, just comes with the benefits. it comes in with rules and regulations and mandates.

take democrats' child care benefit. democrats are preparing to offer child care subsidies to parents around the country, but it's not as simple as just taking some money from the government and going out and purchasing child care because it turns out the democrats are changing decades-old child care funding programs to favor secular child care providers who provide care at day care centers. if you prefer to choose a faith-based provider for your child, you may be out of luck. mr. president, a 2020 bipartisan policy center survey found that among parents who use center-based child care, 53% used a faith-based center. 53%. and they reported that they chose these providers for a variety of reasons, from the quality of the caregivers to the

cleanliness of the facility and the values of the provider. that number may change if democrats' tax and spending plan goes into effect. not because parents are changing their child care preferences but simply because democrats have set up their benefit to favor secular, center-based child care providers. with government benefits comes government control. and government picking the winners and the losers. secular child care providers win under democrats' massive government expansion. faith-based providers and choice not so much. electric vehicle manufacturers win. the natural gas and biofuels industries not so much, despite the fact that both have been key to producing cleaner american energy. unions win under this bill. americans making charitable donations, not so much. democrats are allowing the charitable deduction to expire

but adding a new tax break to pay for union dues. when government is in charge, government dictates your choices and picks winners and losers. government also gets a lot more involved with overseeing the details of your personal life. democrats are planning to add a provision that would force banks and credit unions to report the details of your financial activity to the i.r.s., including certain deposits, withdrawals, and other transactions. democrats are apparently still discussing the amount that would trigger the new reporting requirement which has been proposed at $600, or $10,000, but whichever number they settle on, a lot of ordinary americans are going to end up having their bank or credit card -- or credit union forced to report their private information to the i.r.s. talk about big brother.

mr. president, probably the biggest reason that republicans believe in limited government is because we believe in individual liberty, and we know that the more government expands into your life, the more your choices and liberties are curtailed. but there are other reasons that we believe in limited government. one big reason is that we know that the federal government simply isn't the best way of delivering many services. there are some things that the federal government is well suited to do. handling our national defense, for example. if our country is invaded or attacked, it's a lot more effective for a national military to respond rather than for each state to respond on its own. but there are a lot of other things that are better handled at the state level or at a legal level, or in some cases not by government at all. our state government in south dakota is a lot more familiar with the needs of south dakotans than the bureaucrats at washington agencies.

and the city government in sue falls or rapid city or pierre or box elder is even more familiar with and more able to respond to the needs of individual residents. that's why a lot of things are better handled at the state or local level or, as i said, at times not by government at all. big government is impersonal and inflexible. it's not familiar with and can't take into account the particular and sometimes opposing needs of each state or each community. big government is one size fits all. big government is also inefficient. anyone who thinks the federal government would do a good job running americans' health care hasn't dealt with a federal agency very recently. and big government is unaccountable. think about it. if you have a company that offers a bad product, what's going to happen? people are not going to buy your product and you are probably

going to go out of business quickly. it doesn't work that way with the federal government. the federal government's not going to go out of business because it isn't doing a good job delivering the services it's promised. if the government is in charge of your health care and it isn't delivering quality health care, you have little recourse. sure, you can try to vote in new members of congress to reform things, but even then change can take a very long time. real reform of an existing government program is rare, and elimination of a bad government program, even rarer. as ronald reagan used to say, the nearest thing to eternal life that we will ever see on this earth is a government program. mr. president, i could go on. i could talk about how big government tends to stifle the innovation that leads to economic growth or ask why democrats think that a group of

bureaucrats in washington are the best decision-makers for american families, but i want to touch on one other point before i close. that is that democrats believe in government dependence as the goal. now, they might dispute that characterization, but you only have to look at the tax and spending package that they are putting together to know that that is their vision. they envision a future where americans rely on the government for everything from child care to education to health care and on and on. that is a vision with which republicans fundamentally disagree. our vision is not a future of government dependence. because government doesn't bring prosperity. government doesn't bring the american dream. at best, government is going to help you survive. it's not going to help you

thrive. yes, government can be an important backstop to difficult situations or national emergencies like the covid crisis, but the goal, the goal should always be to get people to a place where they don't have to rely on government. permanent government dependence robs people of perm achievement. as i said, it denies them the opportunity for prosperity. no one ever became prosperous on government benefits. mr. president, if you ask most americans what the american dream means to them, i'm pretty sure you would hear things like a good job, a rewarding career, the chance to pursue my ambitions, or the chance to improve my circumstances and make life better for my children. that's what americans envision, not a future of government dependence and government subsidies. people are looking to achieve

the kind of prosperity where they don't need government involvement in every aspect of their lives. they can choose their path for themselves instead of having to follow the rules and regulations that come with government benefits. mr. president, that's a fission republicans share -- that is a vision republicans share and it's what we're committed to fighting for on behalf of the american people. that, mr. president, is another reason we're committed to maintaining limited government, because the bigger government grows, the more that vision of opportunity and prosperity shrinks. and so, mr. president, speaker pelosi is partially right. she's wrong to dismiss the bill's price tag, because it is profoundly, profoundly irresponsible to mortgage our children's and grandchildren's future with a massive government spending increase. but she's right that it is about values. republicans aren't opposing

democrats' tax-and-spending spree simply because it spends a lot of money but because it advances a vision of government with which we disagree. we don't believe in an ever-expanding role for the federal government. and we don't believe that bureaucrats in washington are a good substitute for the judgment of the american people. and that, mr. president, that is why every republican in the senate will be voting against democrats' reckless spending legislation, not just because it spends too much money but because it fundamentally undermines the american tradition of liberty and limited government. it is about values, mr. president, and it's about

visions, and republicans do not share democrats' vision of a future of big government and big brother. mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cruz: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that i be able to conclude my remarks before the scheduled roll call vote. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cruz: mr. president, i rise today to continue the discussion that we have been having about the harms of nord stream 2. i'll discuss in this speech wft administration's legal responsibilities in particular to impose sanctions in a way that they are now defying those legal responsibilities. i do want to note, mr. president, that every day

brings new evidence of the incoherence of president biden's sellout and surrender to vladimir putin. since we last discussed this, elections have occurred in germany, and the government of angela merkel on whose behalf the biden administration claims to be acting, will now be replaced. so the entire surrender to russia by joe biden and kamala harris was for nothing. i'll discuss that further throughout the day and throughout the week. we've heard repeatedly from my democratic colleagues that my actions to block some of president biden's nominees are unprecedented. that accusation doesn't stand up to scrutiny. senators routinely use their prerogatives, and indeed democrats regularly engaged in massive obstruction over months and years of president trump's

nominations. what isn't unprecedented, however, is joe biden's open defiance and literal lawlessness in not imposing the sanctions mandated by multiple laws passed overwhelmingly by congress. right now i'd like to talk about one of the laws that the president is violating, caatsa, the countering american adversaries through sanctions act. before getting into the details of nord stream 2, i'd like to note a couple of things about caatsa. first, caatsa was explicitly designed for the purpose of taking away the president's discretion whether or not to impose sanctions on russia, in cases where congress had deemed it necessary to mandate them. and secondly, on that basis,

caatsa passed congress with nearly unanimous support. 419-3 in the house and 98-2 in the senate. as for the purpose of caatsa, i'd like to quote some of my colleagues from the other side of the aisle who were both clear and celebratory about the bill. senator murphy, who has been particularly loquacious in opposition to these holes, said about caatsa, quote, it is not often that congress takes away from the president discretionary powers on foreign policy. it's worth remembering. senator schumer has also had more than a little bit to say on these holds. he said that caatsa was necessary because of what he described as the president's, quote, seeming inability to deal

with the many transgressions of russia. gosh, senator schumer was right. we now have a president unwilling and unable to deal with, as he put it, the many transgressions of russia. what about senator menendez? senator menendez has stood on this floor, including at 4:00, 5:00 and 6:00 in the morning, railing about these blocks. but what did he say about caatsa? he said that caatsa sent, quote, the most powerful message in the world that the united states, democrats, republicans, and independents, stand together. those are really fine sentiments. i wish they held true when there was a democratic president as much as senator menendez believed them when there was a republican president. how about senator durbin? senator durbin is never lacking on opinion on any topic.

here's what he said, quote, we had to tell them enough is enough. and when it comes to sanctions and trusting the president, we basically said we want to make sure the president will not the lift these sanctions. you know what, mr. president? senator murphy was right, senator schumer was right, senator menendez was right, senator durbin was right. that's why congress came together to pass caatsa, tough legislation, to prevent a president from doing what joe biden is doing right now -- surrendering to putin, surrendering to russia, ignoring u.s. law, and giving putin a multibillion-dollar gift. and when my democratic colleagues didn't believe the trump administration was implementing the full breadth of mandatory sanctions under caatsa, it made the purpose of caatsa even clearer.

on january 30, 2018, senator cardin led a letter about caatsa to then-secretary of state rex tiller son, cosigned by 21 other democrats, almost half of the caucus. they said that the trump administration's failure to impose mandatory sanctions, quote, do not fully reflect the clear congressional intent described in the legislation. we expect the administration to provide a full explanation as to why it is not imposed mandatory sanctions under several provisions of caatsa. then on may 18, 2018, senator menendez led a letter about caatsa to several inspectors general, cosigned by two other democrats. they said that, quote, several mandatory provisions of the law have not been implemented.

despite strong evidence that actions taken by or on behalf of the russian government are in violation of the caatsa sanctions law. in fact, i'd like to read more of that letter because it is so abundantly clear about the purpose of caatsa. quote, in light of the apparent violations and the lack of corresponding sanctions actions, we are concerned about whether the sanctions implementation process within the administration is fulfilling caatsa's mandate and intent. in general, with respect to mandatory measures, the president is required to make a determination in the event he has established that sanctions behavior has taken place. and then either impose sanctions or exercise a waiver. so a binary choice, one or the other. that's what a president is

required. and you know what? senator cardin, senator menendez, although they might have meant it, they didn't say only republican presidents are required to do this. they didn't write that in their letters because of course caatsa doesn't say that. what they said is a president is required to make that choice. the law requires the president to make that choice. senator cardin was right, senator menendez was right, and joe biden is telling them go jump in a lake. he's telling the united states congress go jump in a lake. he's telling the american people go jump in a lake. he's cutting a deal with putin, and don't bring no stinkin' laws to get in his way. that brings us to nord stream 2. one of the provisions that my democratic colleagues cited in both of those letters was section 228. sanctions with respect to certain transactions with foreign sanction evaders and

serious human rights abusers in the russian federation. section 228 mandates the imposition of sanctions on any company that conducts any, quote, significant transactions, including, quote, deceptive transactions for russian companies that are already sanctioned. there is no doubt -- zero -- that the company nord stream 2 a.g., which is the company responsible for the planning, the construction and the eventual operation of putin's nord stream 2 pipeline, has committed acts that require the implementation and the imposition of those mandated sanctions under caatsa 228. indeed, that's one of the many reasons why the pipeline was halted for a year. and putin only began building it again on january 24 of this

year, four days after joe biden was sworn in. because joe biden has been so weak on this issue, because the pipeline exists only as a gift from biden to putin, this pipeline is in a very real sense the biden-putin pipeline. we know that the biden administration is defying the law because the biden administration told us so in may. the biden administration sent a report to congress describing how nord stream 2 a.g. had conducted deceptive transactions for sanctions russian companies. that's the explicit trigger in caatsa for sanctions. and yet, the biden administration has refused to meet its obligations on caatsa. and that leads, mr. president, to the reasonable compromise that i've offered. for several months i've had in

place a hold on all state department nominees and on several treasury department nominees as well. the reason for the hold has been simple, because joe biden is defying the law, is giving vladimir putin a multibillion-dollar gift that constitutes a generational geopolitical blunder, that puts billions of dollars into the russian coffers yeefer -- every year that putin will use for military aggression against america and our allies, and biden's surrender to putin weakens europe profoundly. it makes europe dependent on russia, even more so for energy, and subject to russia's energy blackmail. and it also, on top of that, destroys jobs here in the united states. for months i've had in place the blanket hold that has caused increasing cries of pain and

dismay from our democratic colleagues. interestingly, these same democratic colleagues all agree that what biden is doing with the biden-putin pipeline is terrible, almost to a person the democrats who are complaining about this have denounced joe biden for giving putin this multibillion-dollar gift. but they say they want to confirm his nominees anyway. so what i say is, all right, fine. if the biden administration wants to defy the sanctions law that i drafted, the cruz-shaheen sanctions law -- and it was two different bills that i drafted with senator shaheen, democrat from new hampshire; we passed into law, overwhelming bipartisan support from both houses of congress. if joe biden wants to ignore those laws, then there is another avenue to resolve much of this dispute, which is simply to follow the law under caatsa.

so i extended an offer to secretary blinken, to secretary yellen, to the white house that i would lift my holds on every career state nominee and on the treasury nominees where i placed holds in exchange for one of two things. number one, the best outcome would be for the biden administration to actually implement caatsa and sanction nord stream 2, to follow the law, to do what is mandatory. that would be the best outcome. if they did so, i would immediately lift my holds. but, secondly, mr. president, i get that the white house politically has decided they want to surrender to putin on this. my understanding is there was an interagency process. the state department argued to do the right thing.

the state department argued, impose the sanctions on nord stream 2a.g., stop this pipeline. which is what, by the way, tony blinken sat in my office and promised that state would do. state argued to do the right thing. but according to public reports, the political operatives at the white house overruled their own state department. they said, never mind the national security interests of the united states. never mind protecting america. never mind stopping putin and russia. never mind protecting europe's energy security. never mind protecting europe from blackmail by putin. we want to surrender bossing la merkel wants us do. i talked last week about how a friend of mine jokes that the white house political team sleeps with a votive of candles of angela merkel under their bed. what merkel wants, merkel gets, even if it's bad for america,

bad for germany, and good for russia. and this surrender, by the way, if it is completed, will hurt america for generations to come -- 10 years, 20 years, 30 years from now. the next russian dictator will be enriched by joe biden's surrender to putin on the biden-putin pipeline. two options. first, after imposing sanctions, they could leave them in place. but, secondly, recognizing that they don't want to do it, there's a second option i gave them. which is that they could impose sanction under caatsa but then they could delist nord stream 2

a.g. in other words, they could exercise the political option not to impose the sanctions. that gives them their policy -- preferred policy outcome. what it does also under caatsa is it triggered an automatic congressional override vote. so i told secretary blinken, secretary yellen, if you believe in this foolhardy policy of surrendering to putin, then put your money where your mouth is. follow the law, which is clear, unequivocal black-letter law, impose the sanctions -- and you do have a vehicle. you can delist it. the president can make a determination that even though the sanctions are mandatory, he wants to delist it. but here's what congress did. in caatsa it triggered an automatic congressional override vote. what i told the administration is, you know what? whether i win or lose that override vote, if you actually follow the law in such a way that it triggers that vote, i'll lift my hold whose. -- my holds, my holds on the

career state nominees, my holds on the treasury nominees. you have a path. simply subject yourself to congressional oversight. it is very clear why they haven't taken this offer, which has been in writing for months now -- because joe biden thinks if we had a vote in this senate, he would lose. he thinks if we had a vote in the house he would lose. he knows that republicans would vote against him, and if democrats had a modicum of consistency, virtually every democrat in this chamber and the house has been unequivocal that the nord stream 2 pipeline is devastating to u.s. national security. so the biden white house doesn't want to risk members of his own party voting against him surrender to russia. so instead they defy the law. that is an irresponsible course of action.

there is a very reasonable compromise on the table, and all of the perils that democrats are lamenting about these holds can be avoided if, if, if joe biden will simply follow the law, follow caatsa, the mandatory sanctions that democrats explained were designed to prevent a president from doing what joe biden is doing right now, which is surrendering to russia. there's a reasonable compromise on the table. all this requires is for joe biden to take it. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the question occurs on the nomination. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll.

vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: the

yeas are 73, the nays are 26. the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order, the motion to reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table, and the president will be immediately notified of the senate's action. the clerk will report the next nomination. the clerk: nomination, department of state, monica p. medina of maryland to be assistant secretary for oceans and international environmental and scientific affairs. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate stands in recess until 2:15 p.m.

>> c-span is your unfiltered view of government. we are funded by these television companies and more including midco. ♪ ♪ ♪ >> midco support c-span as a public service along with these other television providers using you a front row seat to democracy. >> jeff fortenberry has been represented first district in nebraska for nine terms now. welcome to "washington journal." thanks for being here. >> good morning. pleasure to be with you. >> let's start with the appropriations process broadly, the house last week passed that congealing in resolution. the senate last night, republican senators blocking consideration but your view as an approprias