. >> guest: >> thank you all. >> thank you so much. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> the senate's about to gavel

in for the day. senators will be voting on nominations for state interior and homeland security posts. they may also take up legislation to extend funding past the midnight tomorrow deadline to avert a government shutdown. now live to the senate here on c-span2. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. eternal god, who rules over deep waters, hear our cries for help. lord, protect and defend this land we love. guide our nation through the

night with your light from above, using our lawmakers to do your work on earth. lord, stand close to our senators. be their shepherd in these challenging times. give them strength for life's marathon, as you bless them with your peace. mighty god, we will not be defeated because we place our hope in you. we pray in your powerful name, amen. the presiding officer: 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 presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington, d.c., september 29, 2021. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable elizabeth warren, a senator from the commonwealth of massachusetts, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: patrick j. leahy, president pro tempore. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved.

mr. schumer: madam president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. schumer: now, madam president, on the c.r. the senate could take action as early as today to address a concern that demands the immediate attention of this chamber. funding the federal government beyond september 30. to prevent a government shutdown, senate democrats will be introducing a continuing resolution that keeps the government open until early december, while also providing long-sought emergency funding to help americans still reeling from natural disasters from this summer, as well as funding to help resettle afghan refugees.

we can approve this measure quickly and send it to the house so it can reach the president's desk before funding expires midnight tomorrow. with so many critical issues to address, the last thing the american people need right now is a government shutdown. this proposal will prevent one from happening, and i want to thank my colleagues who are working quickly to prepare this legislation. now, on debt limit. now, of course, once we fund the government, we still need to address the urgent matter of extending the debt ceiling and preserving the full faith and credit of the united states. to paraphrase the economist austin gouldsby who just met with our caucus this morning, throughout history, there have certainly been governments that have defaulted on their debt, but never has there been a default caused by pure stupidity. in this case, republican stupidity. well, democrats are working to prevent such an outcome from happening now. over the past week, our caucus

has tried to find a workable solution to avoid default on our sovereign debt, but the republicans have stymied us at every opportunity. on monday, we considered a continuing resolution which, among other things, would have extended the debt ceiling until the end of 2022, allowing us to pay for the debt incurred by the previous administration. republicans unanimously voted in favor of default. so on tuesday, we gave republicans another chance. we offered to solve the debt ceiling impasse by doing exactly what republicans claimed they wanted all along -- raise it with only democratic votes. we gave them a chance to oppose it like they said they would and allow democrats to solve this problem ourselves. again, it was precisely what they asked for. and leader mcconnell cited this precedent several times in the last few days as how to get out of the debt crisis. but once again, republicans

blocked that proposal in favor of default and, quite frankly, no republican provided a good answer as to why. when leader mcconnell came out to rebut, he didn't discuss the merits of our proposal. he said we don't want democrats going forward and doing other things. well, this is about debt that we already incurred, debts from the past, spending from the past. not about the future. if we never did debt ceiling, if we always let the debt ceiling lapse because one party or the other didn't like some future action that the other party would take, we would never do it. it's an absurd argument, an absurd argument because they had no real arguments because we were doing exactly, exactly what republicans have asked for. pass it with your own votes. so, mr. president -- madam president, democrats have offered republicans multiple entirely reasonable ways to get out of the mess they have created, but instead of stepping aside and letting the

responsible party address the debt limit, republicans have chosen to actively obstruct. again, we're not asking for republicans to support raising the debt ceiling. if they want to stop payments from going to veterans and social security recipients, be our guest. we're just asking for republicans to get out of the way. get out of the way and let us do what they say they wanted us to do -- raise the debt ceiling without their votes. time is short. the danger is real. yesterday the treasury secretary wrote that if the debt ceiling is not addressed by october 18, the government could enter a catastrophic default, catastrophic for the first time in history. secretary yellen's warning was unmistakable. a default would, quote, be disastrous for the american economy, to global financial markets, and for millions of families and workers whose financial security would be jeopardized by delayed payments, unquote. and yet every day, the outcome

grows more and more likely because of republican intransigence, because republicans are deliberately preventing the government from being able to pay these bills. now in solving this crisis, this body cannot and will not go through a drawnout unpredictable process sought by the minority leader. it risks the full faith and credit of the united states. to do this through reconciliation requires ping-ponging separate bills back from the senate and the house. it's uncharted waters. individual senators could move to delay and delay and delay. it is very risky and could well lead us to default, even if only one senator wanted that to happen. that's very possible. so you can't do it this route. everyone who has studied it knows it is risky, and it's simply a political gambit by leader mcconnell who has changed his tune several different times. when he said over and over again, just you democrats vote for it. we have given him that chance.

now he has backed off that and moved into this untenable excuse. it's not a real answer. if the republicans really wanted to prevent a default like they claim they do, they should step aside and let democrats do the responsible thing. as default gets closer and closer to becoming a reality, our republicans colleagues will be forced to ask themselves how long they are going to keep playing political games while the economic stability of our country is at risk. at stake is the well-being of millions of americans who did not ask for any of this and who would suffer immensely because of republican obstruction. if republicans choose to keep making this harder, if republicans choose to drag out this process, they will own the consequences of their default. i yield the floor. oh, one more thing.

mr. president, i understand that there are three bills at the desk due for a second reading en bloc. the presiding officer: the clerk will read the titles of the bills for the second time. the clerk: s. 2868, a bill to temporarily extend the public debt limit until december 16, 2022. h.r. 375, an act to protect a person's ability to determine whether to continue or end a pregnancy and to protect health care providers' ability to provide abortion services. h.r. 5323, an act making supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending september

other purposes. mr. schumer: mr. president, in order to place the bills on the calendar under the provisions of rule 14, i would object to further proceeding en bloc. the presiding officer: objection having been heard, the bills will be placed on the calendar. mr. schumer: i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: the presiding officer: mr. presi

dent. the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: the american people continue to hear about about a steady stream of really bad ideas that washington democrats are packing into their next reckless

taxing-and-spending spree. there's one clear thread that sort of ties it all together. paying for -- pain for the american families and profit for our adversaries, hurting families, and helping china. it's the perfect policy storm that would stick working americans higher prices, higher taxes, fewer jobs, and less freedom, while also putting america at a gloability -- be global disadvantage. that's true about the radical environmental policies as i explained yesterday. it's true about the big-government health care provisions that would leave us with fewer new drugs and fewer cures. it was true about the democrats' efforts to stuff a big amnesty for illegal immigrants into the

bill. and it's especially true about the tidal wave of huge tax hikes and i.r.s. snooping that democrats are putting together behind closed doors. taxes on small businesses, taxes on family farms, double taxes on the ones who pass the reins to the next generation, new taxes that would make america one of the least hospitable places in the world to invest, grow a business, or create jobs. nonpartisan analysis have confirmed that it would be new taxes or big chunks, big chunks of the 98% of americans who make less than $400,000 a year, shattering president biden's pledge to leave their wallets alone. and then there is the bizarre, unpopular new plan to give the

i.r.s. big new power to snoop into all of america's personal financial transactions in excess of a few hundred dollars. currently the government has special authorities to demand information on citizens' transactions in excess of $10,000. in theory, this is a targeted tool for sniffing out things like money laundering, terrorism, or massive tax fraud. the democrats want to create a new reporting requirement not for $10,000 transactions but anything over a few hundred becomes. if americans are receiving a few hundred dollars from their checking accounts, democrats want the i.r.s. to snoop through it. a massive new dragnet that would sweep up all kinds of ordinary transactions that normal,

law-abiding americans make all the time. in effect, democrats want to let the i.r.s. systematically snoop through normal families' checking accounts as though they were all potential financial criminals until proven otherwise. and then there was the latest fascinating statement from the authors of this awful plan. president biden recently tried to suggest that because they want to pair their reckless spending with their biggest tax hike in half a century, that somehow makes the entire package free. the president said it's free. democrats want to jack up americans' tax rates, drain money from people's pockets, spend it on socialism and then say the whole thing nets out to zero dollars? this might be the best encapsulation of washington democrat thinking i've ever

heard. they want to print and borrow trillions of dollars and then set it on fire. but as long as they send your taxes skyrocketing at the same time, it's all a wash. heads, they win. tails, you lose. heads, democrats waste your money. tails, they hike your taxes. this silly magical thinking rightly earned our president multiple, multiple pinocchios from fact-checkers and democrats' reckless taxing-and-spending spree will earn zero votes from senate republicans. on a different matter, yesterday general mack kennedy and general -- general mackenzie and -- confirmed they voted to keep troops on the ground. these generals gave president

biden exactly the advice the president told the american people he had not received. to be very clear, mr. president, the commander in chief gets to make the final decision no matter what the advisors suggest. but he needs to own his decision. the president publicly misstated what advice he got from his top generals is corrosive to the civilian, to the military dynamic that keeps america safe. the military did their job. they gave their best military advice. it was rejected. so they saluted and executed the order of the commander in chief. that's the way it's supposed to work. but having rejected their advice, the president doesn't get to claim he never received it, nor does he get to claim, as he has since tried to pretend that the only alternative to his

botched retreat was sending 10,000 soldiers back to afghanistan. that's a false choice. we've heard directly from the two senior military officers in the chain of command as well as the president's principal military advisor, the chairman of the joint chiefs. everyone, everyone with an ounce of common sense knows president biden's botched retreat was not the extraordinary success the president claimed. that general milley acknowledged. it is more accurate to describe the withdrawal as a strategic failure. we've now heard confirmation from our top military officers that the terrorist threat in afghanistan is already growing. i'm relying on over-the-horizon counterterrorism leaves us with less ability to do anything about it. what a debacle. we face a greater terrorist

threat from afghanistan than we did before we withdrew. we have less intelligence about that growing threat and we have fewer tools with which to combat it. this administration gave our enemies in afghanistan everything they wanted and got less than nothing in return. so, mr. president, i know some of my colleagues want to unilaterally declare an end to the war on terrorism. ahhh, if only it was that easy. but the terrorists aren't through with us. i hope my democratic colleagues will think twice before they compound the failures in afghanistan by trying to narrow or repeal the 2001 authorization for the use of military force. i, for one, will strenuously oppose any further efforts by the democratic administration or this democratic congress to take

away anymore tools or authorities that our military service members and intelligence professionals need to keep our country safe from our enemies. at some point we'll have a different administration that will better understand how to protect america for the long term. at this rate, they will need all the tools they can possibly get. the presiding officer: 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, jessica lewis of ohio to be an assistant secretary. mr. mcconnell: i suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

the presiding officer: the senator from nebraska. a senator: i ask that the quorum call be a rescinded. the presiding officer: without objection. under the previous order, the question is on the nomination. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: the yeas are 70, the nays are 27. the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order, the motion to reconsider is considered made and laid upon table, and the president will be immediately notified of the senate's action. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, department of the interior, robert t. anderson of washington

to be solicitor. mr. cardin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. mr. cardin: mr. president, in a few moments i'm going to make a unanimous consent request in regards to delwar siwad to be the deputy administrator of the small business administration. met me give you a little bit of background about his nomination. and why i'm using this unusual process to advance the nomination to the floor for floor consideration. we all know the tremendous need at the small business administration as a result of covid-19. we worked together, democrats and republicans, and created many new programs to help small businesses. we created the paycheck

protection program, both the first -- we modified it -- and then the second round. we created the economic injury disaster loan advance program and targeted loan program. we provided for the shuttered venue operator grant program. we established the restaurant revitalization fund. and the list goes on and on and on. all this created, new programs, and responsibilities, for the small business administration and we did this together, democrats and republicans, in order to advance the needs for small businesses during covid-19. over $1 trillion of funds were administered by the small business administration as a result of our initiatives. and our constituents had tremendous needs. it was tens of millions of small businesses have benefited from what we did to help them through

covid-19. and i know that every one of our offices have gotten numerous inquiries from small businesses as to how these programs were stood up, whether they would qualify, concerns about their applications being filed properly, the lack of funds and need to replenish funds. the list goes on and on and on that put tremendous demand on the small business administration, and we were pretty tough on the small business administration to get these programs up and running because p we knew how desperate it was for our small business community. now the deputy administrator's job is to oversee the day-to-day operations of the agency. that's the position we're talking about for mr. cyad, the deputy administrator of the small business administration. over five months ago the small business committee under my leadership as chair had a hearing of his appointment, and

we discovered during that nomination process that he's extremely well qualified to assume these responsibilities. he has spent decades building and developing and scaling successful small businesses as well as his advocacy for underserved small businesses. the hearing i thought went extremely well and we would have no difficulty advancing his nomination to the floor of the united states senate. but after his hearing, my republican colleagues requested information from the small business administration about his loans that he took out as a small business owner. it was a reasonable request. on june 8, i helped arrange to supply that information to the members of the committee, and they reviewed his small business

loan applications, mr. cyad's small business applications. there was one thing that was pretty unusual about that in that even though he was qualified to receive forgivable 7-a loans under the paycheck protection program, he decided to repay the loans because he said he didn't need the government to pay on a forgivable loan. he took exemplary action. and after the review i believe all my colleagues were sadz fied that his arrangements with the s.b.a. were exemplary. next the scins decided to move to a different topic, they ak cueded mr. syed of being anti-israel, biased which was completely unfounded. the american jewish committee wrote our committee to say the

unsported accusations that somehow -- unsupported accusations that somehow the ties to israel may not fare as well under syed's leadership and the small business administration has no factual grounding. indeed he has specifically disavowed the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement which seeks the dissolution of israel. a. j.c. goes on to say it is un-american, the charges that have been made, and i agree. my colleagues have asked to request questions for the record. and they did. mr. syed responded, reapings reapings -- repeating he has been be against the anti-israel movement and in fact visited israel. we thought now at last we'll be able to move mr. syed's nomination, but now republicans found a new reason to block his

nomination. the republicans announced that they would withhold a quorum on the vote because planned parenthood affiliates received loans under the paycheck protection program. as one of the negotiators of the cares act -- and this was democrats and republicans again working together, negotiated this with senator rubio, senator collins and senator shaheen, let me explain how patrons are treated under the paycheck protection program. when the s.b.a. considers whether or not a business qualifies under a small business it considers affiliation. generally affiliation exists when one business controls or has the power to control another or when a third party controls or has the power to control both businesses. control may arise through ownership, management or other relationships or interactions between the parties. the cares act requires that nonprofits eligible for p.p.p.

loans abide by the same affiliation rules that are applicable to small businesses. the fact is that the planned parenthood federation of america does not exercise control over member organizations because it does not have common management. each member organization is its own independent, not-for-profit, at that -- tax-t organization with its own board of directors responsible for the hiring and retention of its c.e.o. planned parenthood federation does not have the power to remove c.e.o.'s or directors or its individual member organizations. this type of federated structure is common in the nonprofit world and is the reason why nonprofits such as the ymca, boys and girls clubs also qualify for p.p.p. loans. the s.b.a. must apply its

affiliation rules in a uniform way, and it's wrong to ask the s.b.a. to do otherwise for political or ideological reasons. there is no reason why planned parenthood should be singled out for receiving a p.p.p. loan, which i must remind my colleagues were created to help keep americans in their jobs during the pandemic. that's the reason for it. that's why we included nonprofits. partisan, unnecessary, inaction of our republican colleagues show no concern for millions of small businesses still relying on s.b.a. support to survive covid-19 and rebuild their future and would benefit greatly by having a confirmed deputy administrator to work on the day-to-day operations at the s.b.a. one last point if i might, the small business committee-reported out mr. syed's nomination by a bipartisan vote, but due to a

technicality, another vote was required and the republican members at this time decided to block the quorum. mr. president, as a matter of fairness, as a matter of the needs of the small business community in our states, as a matter of the integrity of this body to have a process that has some degree of respect for the nominees that go through the nomination process, i'm going to make a u.c. request that the nomination be put on our calendar like any other reported nominee subject to the action of this body. and before i make that unanimous consent request with senator paul's endurance, i know that senator padilla would like to make a comment, if he would be willing to allow senator padilla to speak next and then i'll make my unanimous consent request. i yield the floor.

mr. padilla: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from california. mr. padilla: mr. president, i want to join chairman cardin in calling attention to the unacceptable obstruction by our republican colleagues who are doing nothing other than playing political games with the confirmation process. dilawar syed is a qualified nominee. mr. syed brings decades of experience as a business leader and entrepreneur in a number of fields. he is a dedicated public servant who helped guide president obama's support of asian american small business owners in the wake of the great recession, and he has served as the founding chair of the california entrepreneurship task force. he has earned support from business groups and on both sides of the aisle.

notably, the united states chamber of commerce enthusiastically announced their support for his nomination, citing his very impressive background. in june of this year, two of our republican colleagues joined the democratic members of the small business committee and voted to send mr. syed's nomination to the full senate for confirmation. but today republicans are refusing to allow the senate to vote on his nomination. in so doing, they are also obstructing the work of the s.b.a. itself, work that has never been more critical. as the u.s. chamber of commerce wrote back in april, it is essential for s.b.a. senior leadership team to be in place to deliver on the agency's covid-19 small business emergency relief responsibilities.

again, critical. mr. syed is ready to serve with dedication and skill as the s.b.a. pursues its mission of supporting economic growth for entrepreneurs and working families. he's also ready to make history as the highest-ranking muslim official in any presidential administration. in our nation's small business owners urgently need his leadership. my republican colleagues were playing these political games to obstruct this nomination, are also blocking resources needed by their own constituents. let's end this. i urge the senate to swiftly confirm mr. syed. thank you, mr. president. mr. cardin: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. mr. cardin: i ask unanimous consent that the committee on small business and entrepreneurship be discharged from consideration of pn-231,

the nomination of dilawar syed. that at a time to be considered by the republican leader and minority that there be one hour divided from the usual form, that upon the use or yielding back of time the senate vote without intervening action or debate, that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate and the president be immediately notified of the senate's actions. the presiding officer: is there objection? a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from kentucky. mr. paul: reserving the right to object, this motion is an attempt to get around the ruling that the s.b.a. has that planned parenthood is indeed a small business. this would allow illegal funding of planned parenthood affiliates through the paycheck protection program. let's be very clear, planned parenthood is not a small business. planned parenthood is a big business. this is not my allegation. this is a ruling from the small

business administration. the small business administration ruled in may of 2020 that planned parenthood was a big business, not a small business, and ineligible for the p.p.p. program. the program was intended for small businesses. the current ruling from the small business administration is they are ineligible because they are a big business. this program was intended to support small businesses across the country that were forced to lock down during covid-19. however, the small business administration, despite having previously ruled that they were ineligible, that they were a big business, has now unlawfully approved nearly $100 million in taxpayer funds to planned parenthood. on june 30 alone, the small business administration approved four new loans to planned parenthood despite a clear determination by the small business administration that these entities are ineligible. so we have a great contradiction here. they say they're ineligible.

that is the existing rule from the small business administration, and yet they're still giving them money. this nomination is for the position of deputy administrator of the small business administration, which is responsible for the agency's day-to-day operations and involved in all policy decisions including the p.p.p. program. the l biden administration has continued to obstruct congressional oversight of the illegal planned parenthood loans, and the nominee has refused to provide to the committee a commitment that he would take action to recover the funds that are being dispensed illegally. the republican members of the small business committee have continued to make it clear that we will not allow a vote on this nominee to occur until the small business administration takes action to recover the illegally disbursed funds to the big business known as planned parenthood. i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. a senator: mr. president. mr. cardin: mr. president.

the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. mr. cardin: let me just repeat a comment. i know senator hirono is on the floor. i'm going to give her an opportunity to speak on this but let me make this clear. affiliate rules used by the small business administration are exactly the same of a for-profit or nonprofit. and there a -- and there are lots of small businesses that have a big name next to them that are eligible for the programs under the small business administration before covid-19 and after covid-19. the affiliation rules have been with the s.b.a. a long time and id read them into the record -- and i read them into the record a little bit earlier. what they cannot do is pick and choose who they like and don't like. that's not how you administer a program. i gave an example of the ymca, pretty big name, but the truth is they are all independently

operated and one ymca cannot pick someone for another ymca. the same is true for a lot of affiliates on for-profit companies, big chains that are independently owned, they are not controlled, they can qualify for these funds. i can tell you a lot of organizations that are related on -- in the faith community through an umbrella, but they are not controlled so therefore the affiliate rules allow them to apply independently for these funds for as long as they can qualify. we knew that developing this program. we didn't want to change the affiliate rules because that would have been wrong. so what my colleague is requesting is just -- would be illegal for the -- the administration to say that we're not going to select a particular group because we don't

particularly agree with what they are doing or how they operate. that's not how the rules work. that's not what you're allowed to do. so i regret that my colleague has raised these objections, i think it diminishes our credibility to tell our administrators to administer these programs fairly for all constituencies and to deny small businesses of america a confirmed deputy administrator during these extremely challenging times for small businesses does not hurt mr. syed, it hurts the small business community. i thank mr. syed for his willingness to serve and i hope we can find a path forward because this debate has nothing to do with his qualifications or his being confirmed. with that, i will yield the floor. ms. hirono: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from hawaii.

ms. hirono: mr. president, i rise today in strong support of dilawar syed's nomination. ii have a strong support for my delegation caucus i would like to enter into the record. what is generally a small business community, republicans are blocking mr. syed's nomination. mr. syed is exceptionally qualified to hold this position and is widely sptd by business groups and communities across the country. in fact, let me read a paragraph from the asian-pacific caucus letter. mr. syed has support of more

than 150 civic, government, higher education, and business leaders and organizations, including endorsements from the u.s. chamber of commerce, u.s. black chamber, u.s. asian-pacific chamber of commerce, antidefamation league, american-jewish congress and many others. upon confirmation, mr. syed would become the highest-ranking muslim american in the biden administration to date as well as one of the highest ranking aapi's. republicans have continued to block this nomination for months. earlier this summer they disputed the results of a meeting the committee had to advance the nominations. since then, they have refused to show up for three other meetings, including one we held last week, denying the necessary quorum for a vote to be taken.

the reasons for blocking mr. syed's nomination has changed over time. first, they were concerned about s.b.a. loans his company received during the pandemic even though these loans were lawful and fully repaid before he was nominated. then they insinuated he was somehow anti-jewish and senate israel. note the groups that i have read that have supported him despite his widespread support in these communities, and now they are concerned about lawful s.b.a. loans to health centers, something that mr. syed had no control over. throughout the last few months, mr. syed has repeatedly made himself available to address any concerns my colleagues might have about his background or qualifications, things that clearly mattered in his able to do the job. it boggles the mind that republicans are blocking someone who is the very picture of the

american dream, an entrepreneur and job creator who was born in pakistan and educated in america, who understands first hand the challenges businesses have faced during this pandemic. mr. syed would be an asset to s.b.a. and the businesses they serve, our own constituents. every day that republicans continue their obstruction, they are doing a disservice to these businesses who can least afford this uncertainty and turmoil in this moment. mr. syed deserves fair consideration. republican efforts to block not just this nomination but so many others for the simple reason that they want to slow the process so that this administration can have people in place who can actually do the job to help the american people.

enough is enough. i just say to the republicans, you know, put your -- put your votes where your mouths are. you say you support small businesses, you support this, that, and the other thing, and, yet, you will not let this administration get on with their jobs to do a -- to do what's necessary to help small businesses, to help our communities in the midst of an ongoing pandemic. it boggles the mind. i say act like the senators you are who are sent here to do your jobs and let's get on with this nomination. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. cardin: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. mr. cardin: let me thank senator hirono for her comments and i also thank senator padilla for his comments. this is -- i've never gone through something like this before where they -- the republicans are breaking a quorum after they already voted

a nominee for reasons unrelated to the nominee. it makes no sense and the reasons that they are using makes no sense at all since they are asking the s.b.a. to violate the law. we're going to continue -- as chair of the committee, i'm going to look for every conceivable way we can get mr. syed confirmed. i think he's an extraordinary person who will serve our nation with great distinction and i know our small business community needs a confirmed deputy administrator. you know, what surprises me is that our republican colleagues talk about their support for small businesses, and i said we worked during covid together to create these programs. president trump never filled the position of deputy administrator, so this position has been vacant for a long time. we need this position. the small business community needs this position.

so it's my hope that we will find a path forward as quickly as possible to get this nomination confirmed. i am confident that we will get a strong bipartisan vote from mr. syed, nomination confirmation. i talked to republicans who tell me they think he's well qualified. so let's stop using these parliamentary procedures to obstruct. let's get on with the business of the senate. and, with that, mr. president, i would suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: mr. thune: mr. president. the presiding officer: the republican chip. mr. thune: is the senate in a quorum call? the presiding officer: we are. mr. thune: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. thune: the senate armed services committee gave us disturbing new information on the president's afghanistan debacle. thanks to yesterday's hearing,

we now know that president biden pulled troops from afghanistan against the advice of his military commanders and was less than truthful after the fact whf asked about -- fact when asked about their recommend nations. general milley and general mckenzie's testimony had been clear that the united states leave a small u.s. contingent of troops in the country, advice the president ignored. mr. president, thanks to president biden's ilconsiderred withdrawal from afghanistan, here's the situation we find ourselves in. the taliban is once again in control of afghanistan. and just in case anyone thinks this is a kind letter and gentler -- kindler and gentler taliban, let's look at the facts. the taliban has stocked its government with terrorists, including former inmates of guantanamo bay and republicans of the haqqani network, a u.s. foreign designated terrorist organization with a number of members on the u.n. security council's sanctions list. many of the members of the new

taliban cabinet are on the u.n. security council's sanctions list. and the government is well stocked with pre-9/11 taliban leaders, the same leaders who allowed afghanistan to serve as a refuge for al qaeda. so that's the new taliban government. what is it doing? well, in mid-september the taliban announced that secondary schools would reopen for boys. there was no mention of girls. the taliban official announced that women would not be allowed to play any sport that might show their bodies. women are being excluded from the workplace. in hillman province, barbers have been barred from shaving or trimming beards. and one city the body of an alleged criminal was hung from a crane in the city square while in kabul, taliban members brutally flogged a man accused of stealing a phone. a senior taliban leader

announced the return of executions and the cutting off of hands as punishment. a kindler, gentler taliban this is not. and this formerly somewhat ragtag group is the possessor of a significant amount of u.s. military equipment, including weapons, combat vehicles, aircraft, and surveillance equipment, much of it acquired from the afghan national security forces. and while the president might like to blame the afghan forces for disbanding, he bears responsibility for their collapse. for years the u.s. trained and equipped afghan troops to fight the way that we do, including a reliance on air support and sophisticated intelligence gathering operation. and the limited number of u.s. troops still in the country were playing an essential role in providing the intelligence,

logistics and air support the afghan military needed. then the president pulled all remaining u.s. support almost overnight. it's no surprise that in the wake of that, the afghan military quickly collapsed. there's no question that there were preexisting problems in the afghan forces, including fraud and corruption. but the afghan military was playing a key role in combating the taliban and terrorist activity in afghanistan, and it was the abrupt withdrawal of u.s. support that precipitated its collapse. mr. president, thanks to the president's withdrawal, our ability to combat terrorist activity in afghanistan in the region has been significantly degraded as general milley's testimony yesterday made clear. as "the washington post" reported, and i quote, al qaeda remnants are in afghanistan and interested in growing, milley said, but the united states no longer has military or intelligence assets on the

ground to keep tabs on the militants. the withdrawal makes it much more difficult for us to conduct intelligence surveillance, reconnaissance, milley said, including missions to locate militants. end quote. that again from "the washington post." in short there is every reason to expect that afghanistan will once again become a haven for terrorists. in fact, because of the huge number of weapons and equipment we left behind, it's probable more accurate to say afghanistan will likely become a terrorist superstate. meanwhile, as i said our ability to effectively and defend against threats has been significantly diminished. there is no intelligence or counterterrorism strategy that will fully offset the loss of american boots on the ground. u.s. military and intelligence personnel still in the country in coordination with our local partners were playing a critical role in providing intelligence on evolving terrorist threats in afghanistan throughout the region. that intelligence network is now

gone. we no longer have human intelligence on scene and we no longer have any basis -- bases in country from which to conduct operations. future missions will have to be staged from distant bases or sea born assets complicating the mission and significantly increasing our response time. that's not just an inconvenience, mr. president. by compromising our ability to respond to terrorist activity, this withdrawal is endangering our country. for 20 years we've managed to prevent another major terrorist attack on u.s. soil. how long is that going to last when afghanistan is once again a haven for terrorists in our intelligence and response capabilities have been permanently weakened. mr. president, i haven't even mentioned the damage that the president's bungled withdrawal has done to the relations with our allies. the president who is supposedly set to restore america's

standing in the world has instead presided over a national embaresment that has left our allies wondering if we'll keep our commitments. we've damaged our commitment with our allies and it's clear russia and china are enjoying our humiliation on the world stage. not to mention the ways that our withdrawal has empowered our terrorist enemies. creeding afghanistan to the taliban and its terrorist allies has not exactly made us look like an intimidating foe. it wouldn't be surprising if terrorists are thinking that all they have to do in future battles is wait us out until we give up and withdraw. mr. president, i'm sure the president would like to put his chaotic afghanistan withdrawal behind him. but there's a big problem with that. namely, the fact that his administration still has u.s. citizens left behind in afghanistan. the administration has been hazy on the details either because

it's not sure how many american citizens are left or because administration officials don't want to give a number, but it's clear that there are still a number of americans stuck in afghanistan. and then there are the tens of thousands of afghans we abandoned, afghans who were affiliated with the united states government or worked with the united states military and whom we promised to protect. these individuals and their families are currently in grave danger. my office continues working to evacuate a number of green card holders and at-risk afghans to safe countries in the region and several of the individuals we're working with have received death threats from the taliban. and while there are dedicated state department and defense department personnel coordinating with veterans-led groups to evacuate afghan citizens, the administration is still, still struggling to develop a clear path for getting them out of the country. mr. president, we still need to

learn more about the chaotic u.s. evacuation which resulted in the deaths of 13 u.s. service members and scores of afghan civilians. but one thing is very clear. president biden made an ill-considered and disastrous decision when he chose to withdraw troops in an arbitrary timetable. and the afghan people are currently suffering the consequences. and should afghanistan once again become a terrorist haven as seems likely, our country could also pay a deadly price. we have to make sure it doesn't come to that. mr. president, i yield the floor. and i suggest 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 iowa. mr. grassley: i ask that the calling of the quorum be suspended.

the presiding officer: without objection. mr. grassley: more than three months ago, propublica began publishing a series of stories. these stories were based on what they have described as, quote, a vast drove of internal revenue service data on the tax returns of thousands of the nation's wealthiest people covering over 15 years, end of propublica quote. i have spoken about this apparent leak or hack on i.r.s. data before. during the august recess "politico"'s prose writing about propublica noted that, quote, it's been almost two and a half months since it ran its first

story on of that leaked tax data and though the leak is perhaps the worst in i.r.s.' history, the government has yet to say anything publicly about how it happened. end of quote. as absurd as this statement is, it is also accurate -- and i'll speak about the accuracy of that. the biden administration has not said what happened regarding perhaps the worst leak or hack in the history of the i.r.s. doing my constitutional duty of congressional oversight, i've sent letters to the i.r.s. and to the attorney general and to the f.b.i. who have provided an embarrassingly small amount of

information in response to my letters. the first propublica story was published on june 8 this year. on june 11, i joined leader mcconnell, finance committee ranking member crapo on a letter to the attorney general garland and f.b.i. dir director wray. days later on june 16, i sent a letter with other judiciary committee members asking more detailed questions. it took almost two months for the department of justice to respond to these letters by sending me two copies of the same form letter in response to my letter dated august 10. one of the letters contained an apparent typo in that it purports to be in response to a

letter dated june 6, 2021. given that propublica began a publishing -- began publishing stories about this on june 8, if i was clairvoyant enough to write a letter on the leak two days earlier, i would already know what really happened. the fact the department responded to two different letters with the exact same form letter and couldn't correctly refer to my letters shows a lack of diligence that is not unique to this matter. in response to a different letter, i sent with senator crapo to the commissioner of the i.r.s. reddick, i received a recent response that states, quote, we do not yet have any

information concerning the source of the alleged taxpayer information published by propublica. end of quote. now, the i.r.s. commission -- commissioner's advocating for congress to pass an expansive new reporting requirement for the i.r.s. every bank account over $600 is going to be sent to the i.r.s. for their review and use if they want to go after the taxpayers. if commissioner reddick disfntle even -- doesn't even know if propublica information came from the i.r.s., how can he assure us the i.r.s. can properly protect this new information that they want the congress to pass? i don't think he's going to be able to convince anybody of that.

i ask unanimous consent that the response i received from the department of justice and the i.r.s. be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. grassley: i call on attorney general garland, f.b.i. director wray, and commissioner reddick to take the apparent leak or hack of taxpayers' information very seriously and cooperation with our constitution mandated responsibility to conduct oversight to see that the laws are faithfully executed. the protection of taxpayers' information provided to the i.r.s. is of critical importance to the basic functioning of government. determining the source of the information published by pro publica should be a top priority

for our nation's tax enforcement agency and allegedly premier law enforcement entity. i intend to continue working with ranking member crapo of the finance committee and anybody else to continue looking into this matter. i hope that we're able to resolve how any confidential taxpayer information was obtained from the i.r.s. and those responsible are held accountable. on another matter, mr. pres president, president biden and congressional democrats have repeatedly pledged not to raise taxes on anyone earning under $400,000. they've said it so many times it's begun to sound like a broken record. the thing is when someone feels the need to repeat a claim over

and over, it's likely that they're trying to pull the wool over our eyes. that's exactly the case with the democrats' tax pledge. according to analysis by the nonpartisan joint committee on taxation, there isn't a single income group completely spared from the public -- spared from the democrats' tax hikes. in other words, it's going to hit a lot of people with incomes below $400,000 a year. and i know my colleagues know what the joint committee on taxation is. it's an expert group that studies the tax code and the impact of tax changes. but for the public at large, this is a nonpartisan group of people that do a very fine job of saying how changes in the tax

code will affect whoever they're supposed to affect. now, not those making under $400,000, not those making under $100,000, and not even though making under $10,000 will be guaranteed not having their taxes increased as the president promised. so going back to the joint committee on taxation analysis, over 12% of the taxpayers with incomes between $50,000 and $100,000 will see a tax inc increase. and 35% of those he were between

$100,000 and $200,000 would pay higher taxes. you can't raise taxes on small businesses and other job creators, these entrepreneurs, without hitting the middle class. economic studies show that when you raise taxes on businesses anywhere from 20% to 70% of that tax increase falls on the workers. now, the joint committee on taxation assumes it's about 25%, and whatever doesn't fall on backs of workers falls on shareholders. and then you need to remember that when it falls on shareholders, there's millions of middle-class americans trying to accumulate a nest egg for retirement.

so, yes, when you hike taxes on small business from the top rate of 37% to over 46%, including the democrats' surtaxes, you, president biden, hit the middle class. when you increase taxes on corporations from 21% to 26.5%, returning our corporate tax rate to one of the highest in the developed world, once figuring in estate taxes as well, you, president biden, also hit the middle class. yet democrats contend their proposal includes tax cuts for the middle class. more accurately, they cut taxes for a chosen group of middle- and lower-income americans and a

select few millionaires. unlike the 2017 tax law that was passed by a republican senate, that tax cut, it cuts taxes for the vast majority of the middle class. the democrats' tax-and-spending bill leaves most -- over 70% -- of the taxpayers with either a goose egg or a tax hike. the democrats' tax bill is about picking winners and losers. it's not about sound tax policy. if you don't have the right family composition or spend your money how democrats want, you don't get a tax cut. but you may get a tax increase. on the other hand, if you're wealthy and on a waiting list for a $69,000 all-electric 2022

s.u.v., you're in store for a $12,500 tax credit financed in part on the backs of the middle class. moreover, if you're a multibillion-dollar company with a preexisting commitment to go net zero emissions by 2040, you're in toker a multimillion-dollar -- you're in for a multimillion-dollar tax windfall. once again, that tax windfall, financed in part on the backs of the middle class. so i hope the american people won't be fooled by my democrat colleagues' rhetoric. their tax hike -- their bill hikes taxes on millions of middle-class taxpayers, and their narrowly targeted tax cut

leaves most out in the cold. i yield the floor. and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call: is is

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. the senate is in a quorum call. a senator: thank you, mr. president. the federal reserve board of governors will soon be releasing a discussion paper -- mr. president, i ask that the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. lummis: thank you, mr. president. the federal reserve board of governors will soon be releasing a discussion paper on a potential central bank digital currency. additionally the president's working group on financial markets is expected to release a

set of recommendations relating to the supervision of stable coins in the coming weeks. mr. president, i want to lay out my views on central bank digital currencies and stable coins in advance of these coming discussions. financial innovation has the potential to bring new prosperity to the new generation of americans, reduce systemic risk and promote inclusion for many who are, unfortunately at the periphery of our financial system. america's leadership and global financial services is a heritage our country can rightly be proud of, but our country must not become complacent about because this leadership is a privilege, not a right. i am supportive of the federal reserve board's efforts to study how a central bank digital

currency, or cbdc, may be appropriate in the united states. i want to lay out what i believe to be the key tenets of a consumer focused digital currency. including legitimate need, financial influence, private ability, privacy and avoiding systemic risks. my comments on only focused on a consumer focused central bank digital currency or a wholesale digital kim -- currency. in order to move forward with the central bank digital currency, one that cannot be rely -- reliably met.

the united states dollar is already dij advertised. that is it has been reduced to electronic form. most americans predominately use electronic means of banking every day, inner bank also takes place through electronic panels. this is generally electronic bank money. a cbdc would be central bank money which represents a direct claim on the federal reserve system. so we must ask hard questions about whether there are other means of accomplishing the goals of a central bank digital currency and identify opportunities, risks, and costs. second is financial inclusion. about 5.4% of households in the united states do not have a bank account as of 2019 with a

further 18.7% of the population being underbanked. a cbdc should meaningful reduce these statistics. a cbdc also has the potential to reduce the cost of payments for both depository institutions and consumers by removing existing frictions in sending money. the program ability of a cbdc would also likely promote financial inclusion by giving consumers more control over their money allowing those from disadvantaged backgrounds access to the latest technology features. this would allow consumers to auto mate payments of bills, assist with monthly budgeting, reduce or eliminate overdraft

fees and allow hardworking americans to receive their paychecks earlier. some additional factors that must be considered as part of the inclusion are the reduction or elimination of minimum balance requirements, ease of access to a cbdc, and convert ability into physical cash. third is the concept of program ability. money represents value but it is not programmable today. programability at its core is the technological means to specify the behavior or control logic of money in the manner that is tied to the actual value itself. program ability focuses on the characteristics of money, including the identity of the owner, the amount of money being

transferred and the conditions under which the outside world can inner act with that money. a cbdc should contain robust accountability allowing users to easily specify conditions with respect to that money, such as interest payments, payment versus payment, which is, i only pay you if you pay me, delivery versus payment, which is i give you a security or a commodity only if you pay me, escrow or preventing your child from buying ice cream except on fridays, and, of course, avoiding overdraft fees. a central bank digital currency should also be future proofed with a core code that can be adapted to fully meet future

demands and contains room for value-added services based upon the cbdc architecture. fourth is the critical role of privacy. a cbdc must have the same level of privacy as physical cash today. appropriate transactional anonymity is a public good. americans must have confidence that a central bank digital currency is not being used for surveillance and that their personal financial data is either not being collected or is subject to rigorous technological or legal controls, including the fourth amendment to the constitution. we cannot allow a cbds become an panopticon or all-seeing eye

which will soon be the case with china's digital currency. fifth is avoiding systemic risk and disruption. a cbdc should not cause systemic risk or undue disruption to the united states economy. transitional arrangements for a cbdc may be necessary and physical cash must remain legal tender as long as americans desire it. with congress having the final say on the future of physical cash. mr. president, these are the five principles that i consider essential to any central bank digital currency proposal. congress must have the ultimate say on whether the united states adopts a central bank digital currency. i encourage my colleagues to think deeply about these issues and to develop their own rubric

for the future of money. finally, i want to say a few words about stable coins in advance of the president's working group report that will be coming out shortly. stable coins are a claim on commercial bank money or treasuries or other securities that are freely tradeable on a distributed ledger or block chain and that are intended to be redeemable at par with the u.s. dollar. stable coins are highly liquid and have higher monetary velocity than other forms of the u.s. dollar. stable coins also enable faster payments between individuals and businesses and that is possible today. for these reasons stable coins are a very important private sector innovation that have the potential to promote financial

inclusion and new market opportunities. however, stable coins also present certain novel risks to the united states economy. in particular, stable coins must be 100% backed by cash and cash ee qif learns -- equivalence and this should be audited regularly. some stable coins are not always fully backed by appropriate assets in a transparent manner. i'm also concerned that some stablecoin designs could become a silo for high quality liquid assets including treasuries which have an important and independent role as collateral in capital markets. additionally, stablecoin issuers should comply with antimoney laundering and sanctions law and should exhibit a high degree of resiliency. this includes operational risk,

cybersecurity and liquidity and redemption management consistent with the federal reserve's payment system risk policy. some issuers of stablecoins and stablecoin-like instruments including synvato bank and trust are already inside the regulatory parameter. properly supervised stablecoins are not tantamount to the so-called wildcat banks of the 19th century. it may be the case that stablecoins should only be issued by depository institutions or through money market funds or similar vehicles. we must do more to ensure stablecoins are subject to right size regulation and supervision, but at the same time we must ensure that these rules enable innovation that can make payments faster, cheaper, and more inclusive.

properly supervised, stablecoins have an important role to play moving forward. i look forward to continuing the conversation around financial innovation that we began a few months ago as we consider the future of money in our country. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. mr. cassidy: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. mr. cassidy: mr. president, the difference between medicine and politics, because i'm a doctor, is that medicine you're forced to look at reality as reality is. where as in politics we can make up reality as oh, my gosh, i want it to be this way so let's assume it is. i think it's a time for at least

-- one, i think it's always better to look at reality but particularly right now, let's talk about it as regards inflation. inflation is really hurting middle-income families. they're seeing higher prices in the grocery store, electricity bills, gasoline pump. eating up their budgets. president biden has repeatedly said he would not raise taxes on those making less than $400,000 a year. but rising inflation as a result of harmful and economic energy agenda is effectively a tax. this is predictable. democrats leftist center economists like larry summers warn about inflation and predicted a sharp rise in prices. he sounded the alarm at $1.9 trillion american rescue plan. he said that could overheat the economy. it did. this summer used car prices were up 45%. gasoline 45%.

whole milk 7.5%. american families are paying higher prices for goods and services that are essential and it continues to go higher. the u.s. department of labor reported that consumer prices in june increased 5.4% relative to a year ago, the largest increase since august 2008, more than double the target rate of 2% the federal reserve establishes. now, president biden and his administration, his treasure department, have reassured that this inflation is transitory or temporary. just last week "the wall street journal" reported the federal reserve sees inflation lasting quite a while given their recent and upcoming actions. so if you will beline the reassurances of the administration, looking particularly at energy is not surprising that electricity and gasoline prices are soaring.

and the average price of gas has now gone over $3 a gallon since may. the national average $3.19, $1 more per gallon than a year ago. now, again, predictable. one of the first things president biden did when he took office was cancel the keystone xl pipeline killing 11,000 jobs that went with it. by the way, not jobs or bureaucrats in washington, d.c. doing quite well during the pandemic because they continue to get paid. jobs for construction workers who if they don't have this job, don't have another job. and have less ability to take care of their family to better provide for their child's future. he stopped domestic and gas leases and only does that which the court tells him he has to do oddly, since he did all of this in the name of addressing issues of carbon emission, the administration then removed

sanctions so that russia can complete the construction of the nord stream 2 pipeline going from russia to germany and now is asking opec which includes iran, venezuela, saudi arabia to increase oil production so we can import their oil. so much for the energy independence our country, researchers, and companies worked so hard to develop. and now we see with every draft of the democrats' reckless tax and spend bill, the democratic party seems intent on driving prices higher, increasing our energy dependence on other countries, and hurting our domestic workforce. and i think if we're going to go back to reality, the american people would ask not to describe these actions as being done for the good of the environment or the climate. i totally believe we must address climate. but the stark truth is that

president biden's energy policies prioritize shutting down domestic production and domestic jobs in favor of using dirtier russian gas. why do i say dirtier? there's a national lab that recently reported that if natural gas produced in louisiana exported to europe compared to gas coming to europe from russia, that over the 20-year horizon, the carbon intensity was -- is 43% less for gas that comes from the united states to europe than to -- for russian gas coming to europe and 10% less over a hundred years. if you really cared about lowering greenhouse gas emission, creating jobs for the american worker, strengthening our economy, our national security, you would encourage the production of u.s. natural gas and ship it around the world displacing that which would come from countries such as russia.

it seems as if the administration is more interested in virtual signaling than pursuing a low carbon solution. i would love for someone to explain why the administration is so hell-bent on shutting down production in the u.s. with the good-paying jobs, the economic opportunity, especially in louisiana but not only in louisiana, and it's done in a cleaner, more environmentally friendly way than almost every other part of the nation. it is as if they would rather the u.s. be dependent on foreign sources, those who are often not allies, than to produce energy cleanly creating american jobs in the united states of america. the united states is a global leader in decreasing greenhouse gas emissions entirely almost because of the increased production of u.s. natural gas. as we -- as production increased and price fell, natural gas

replaced coal so that now off the top of my head, i think i know that absolute amounts, greenhouse gas emissions in the united states are less now than they were in 2004. and if not, they are almost there. our economy is a lot bigger. we've got a lot more people. and yet we've managed to hold grgreenhouse gas emissions at a declining rate because we produce natural gas. we need to encourage exploration and production in our country. we should not be shutting it down, and we should not be shutting down the good jobs that go with it. the administration's backwards and disastrous energy policy is plain out -- playing out before our eyes. it is not good. destroying american jobs, contributing to inflation, and strengthening the geo political position of our geo political rivals. the administration's actions

directly relating -- directly leading to higher gas and utility prices. there is a way out of the inflation but it's not empty virtual signaling. it's not putting american workers out of jobs. it is to restart american energy production, hold lease sales in the gulf of mexico, get american energy in our country back on track, recreate the jobs that have been destroyed, and, by the way, increasing a greater ability to export to other countries around the world helping to lower global greenhouse gas emissions. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. and i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. a senator: thank you, mr. president. are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: we are. mrs. blackburn: i ask we dispense with the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. blackburn: thank you, mr. president. right now we're all very familiar with the toll that covid-19 has taken on the american people. if there is cause for encouragement coming from all of this, it's that our collective experience has helped to destigmatize mental health problems. the downside is that now we tend to look at everything through the lens of the pandemic. but the fact of the matter is that for million, of americans, -- millions of americans, their private battles with mental health began well before march of 2020. it is from that perspective that i want to examine "the wall street journal"'s truly

excellent ongoing investigation into facebook's refusal to address the serious and at times threatening failings of their platforms. on september 14, the journal published an article revealing that facebook incorporated executives know that their popular intake gram photo-sharing platform is toxic, especially for young women and girls. they know for a fact that 32% of teen girls said that when they felt bad about their bodies, instagram made them feel even worse. they knew that instagram makes body image issues worse for one in three girls. they knew that teens blame instagram fornc