senators will be considering several executive nominations today, including robert santos to serve as census bureau director. and michael connor, and votes 11 eastern this morning. live to the floor of the u.s. senate here on c-span2. 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. almighty god, your glory endures through the seasons and your divine majesty sustains us. lead our lawmakers to a

faithfulness that fulfills your purposes. lord, keep them steadfast in the faith that you are at work in our world, guiding their steps and preparing them for victory. use our senators to create laws that will extend your kingdom in the hearts of the people of this land we love. guide the deliberations, debates, and decisions of this day. we pray in your loving name, amen. the president pro tempore: please join me in 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. 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 commerce. robert luis santos of texas to be director of the census. the president pro tempore: the senator from nevada. ms. rosen: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the president pro tempore: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the president pro tempore: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: i ask unanimous consent that the call of the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so moved. mr. leahy: madam president,

we're now four weeks in the fiscal year. the federal government, of the most powerful nation on earth, is running on autopilot. and we only have four weeks until the government shuts down unless congress takes action. it's not a theoretical exercise. the actions we take or don't take in this chamber with respect to the fiscal year 2022 appropriations bills affect people's lives but also the direction of this nation. these bills provide for our national defense, help educate our nation's children, provide medical care for our veterans, ensure that we have clean air and water, invest in science, and provide a social safety net for our nation's most vulnerable populations. now, we can and we should do our

job and finish these bills in the coming weeks. and we should be ready to go. i mean, two weeks ago i made public nine senate appropriations bills. when you combine this with the three bills the senate appropriations committee marked up way back in august, all 12 bills have been released. the house has passed -- marked up all of their bills, and all but three of them have already passed the house. in order to finish our work, we need to have an agreed-upon top-line that has been worked out in a bipartisan and bicameral basis, something that's been done so many times in the past. we can't finalize bills until we know how much we're able to spend. and i've been calling for these negotiations for months, but we need all the parties to come to the table. it takes both republicans and

democrats to strike a deal. now, democrats have already made a fair offer. my republican colleagues made clear to us that they believe the president's proposal for for a 1.7% increase for defense programs was inadequate. i thought it struck the right balance, as did many of my colleagues. in this institution is built on compromise, so in the senate-posted bill, i included a 5% increase for defense instead of the 1.7% the administration had proposed. the 5% increase is based on the funding level included in the national defense authorization act, the ndaa. now, the senate armed services committee voted on that, and you know what the vote was?

25-1. -- in favor of that 5% increase. every single senate republican on the committee supported this level of funding. the house bill contains the same 5% increase, and it passed the house chamber 316-113. in order to increase the defense number and stay within the top-line established in the fy 2022 budget resolution, i reduced the amount for nondefense programs from president biden's proposed 16% increase, which i would have preferred, but i reduced it to a 13% increase. that's how negotiations work, each side has to give some. now, having offered the republican-endorsed spending level for defense, have they taken yes for an answer?

no. have they taken time for a counteroffer? no. instead, they seem intent on driving us toward a full-year continuing resolution. if i had been here a long time and was a cynical person, which i'm not, i'd be worried that delay was a political calculation to tie the hands of the biden administration and thwart its agenda governing under long-term resolution is difficult. and they know it. but this vermonter tries not to be cynical. but i would remind from a practical point of view that the stakes are too high to play politics with the federal budget. this is not something we should play politics with because the consequences for the american people are too great. the impacts of a full-year c.r.

are too onerous for the country to bear. that is unquestionably true for those who claim to care about defense programs and national security, and you'd think that fact all by itself would bring all parties to the negotiating table. a full-year c.r. would not only reduce defense spending by $37 billion compared to the senate bill i posted, it would actually cut defense spending below last year's levels. since a c.r. freezes programs at last year's levels, certain programs would be overfunded but others would be underfunded. the department of defense would be unable to shift enough money around within their transfer authority to correct the amounts that would result in billions of unspent dollars, even more unmet

priorities, and you can only imagine the waste and confusion that would occur. with money tied up in outdated priorities, the united states will struggle to meet the challenges and threats of today. while the u.s. is no longer in afghanistan, a c.r. would revive the overseas contingency operations, o.c.o., to the tune of $65 billion in d.o.d., and that's the account of course meant to fund wartime activities. it would also provide -- just think of this for a moment -- $3.3 billion to train and arm the now-defunct afghan security forces. in other words it a continuing resolution would have $3.3 billion to train and arm a no-longer-existing afghan security force.

now, while we're paying for a war we're not actually fighting, d.o.d. may be forced to reduce the ability to pay our troops and civilian personnel, the pay raise they so rightly deserve set to go into effect on january 1, 2022. in other words, the pentagon may have to lay off soldiers to find the money for a pay raise under a continuing resolution while money is tied up in a war we're not even fighting. that makes no sense. that makes no sense. just think of this. we lay off soldiers so we can pay for a pay raise because we have our money tied up in a war that we're not fighting. it -- it -- i mean, kafka couldn't think of something this

crazy. now, most members in this chamber would agree that china is one of our biggest threats. reflecting that reality, the president proposed over $66 billion in military investment to counter the growing influence of china. none of the new capabilities included in the defense motions to appropriations bill would be funded under a continuing resolution. so we can say, boy, we're going to gear up with china. however, the senate can't get around to vote on it. now, many senators have come to the floor in recent weeks to ask that we provide additional billion dollars for iron dome. i wonder if they're aware that if we have a c.r., iron dome doesn't get a billion. it gets $73 million. given these facts -- and they're

only a few of many examples -- i'm mystified why there doesn't seem to be urgency on the other side to solve these problems. republican members have been quick to criticize democratic leadership for not bringing the ndaa to the senate floor for consideration more quickly, but that's an authorizing bill. and when it comes to actually funding defense, not just authorizing but actually putting the money there, they won't even come to the table. on the very same day that i was told the republican leadership wants to have a full-year continuing resolution, they would cut defense funding. they're out here saying, why aren't you passing an increase in defense funding, but oh, by the way, we want a bill that would cut defense funding. so i'd ask them, which is it? is one aim for the tv sound

bites? if the rhetoric doesn't match the reality, let's start being honest with the american people. if we fail to get a deal on full-year appropriations bills, our veterans also lose out due to increased demands for community care, under a continuing resolution, the v.a. would not have sufficient funds to cover medical care for veterans. these are men and women who served our country. think of all the praise we've had,s all the greetings when brave men and women come back from wars, many suffering all kinds of injuries. we'll never forget our veterans. oh, yes, we will, because we won't stand up and cast the money, pass the money they need. veterans deserve better than this. our list of priorities will also suffer under our continuing

resolution. the fiscal year 2022 bills include historic increases to care for our nation's children, combat climate change, build and renovate affordable housing, improve our infrastructure and continue to combat the pandemic which is still with us. none of these increases, none of them occur under a full-year c.r. we'll be forced to operate at last year's levels in a country that has now been transformed by a global pandemic. how irresponsible is that? for example, in our bills, we provide critical funding increases for mental health and substance abuse. these funds are desperately needed in every state in this country as rates of anxiety and depression have soared during

the covid-19 pandemic, drug overdose deaths are expected to reach their highest levels to date. but in the continuing resolution, we say tough, you're on your own. we don't have the money. under a continuing resolution, funding at the national institutes of health will stagnate, leaving us behind in critical advancements and medical research at a time when i think we need it more than any time in my life. and then the fiscal year 2022 senate bills include critical investments to combat climate change. that would disappear under a c.r. a c.r. says we will have complacency, not bold action. so in the next few days are critical. i hope the american people realize what's at stake. and i ask our colleagues on the other side of the aisle to join us in negotiating a path

forward. it's not an exaggeration to say the choice we face with these appropriations bill are the very heart of why we're here. we can either come together the way we used to, the way democracy is supposed to, and make our government work for the american people, or we can become the branch of government where instead of governing, the minority defines its role as preventing congress from doing its job so it can blame the majority party. there's been around 2,000 senators who have had the privilege of serving this country since it began. i served with over 400, more than 20% of all senators in the nation's history. i remember when republicans and democrats could work together not for their party's interest, but for the country's interest. there's only 100 of us.

we should be the conscience of the nation. we should be working together to protect the nation. but i fear that we have political gamesmanship. it's not just about these bills, but the relevance of congress itself today and for the future, whichever party is in the minority. if that becomes the norm, it's going to be impossible to turn the clock back. so we need a top-line deal. republicans need to come to the table and make a comprehensive offer. those of us on this side of the aisle are ready to work on behalf of the american people. i ask our republican colleagues to join us in working for the american people. i ask that my full statement be made part of the record, and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: without objection. the senator from rhode island.

mr. reed: thank you, madam president. i rise to join chairman leahy on calling on our republican colleagues to negotiate a final agreement on our fiscal year 2022 appropriations bills. just as we need to complete work on the national defense authorization act, a position i've been urging repeatedly on our leadership, we need to complete work on the appropriations bills. they are complementary, to say the least, and they have to be done. under chairman leahy's leadership, democrats have put forward a responsible top-line number and subcommittee allocations that address our defense and nondefense funding needs alike. the defense funding levels in the appropriations bills are consistent with the bipartisan national defense authorization act bill that we passed in the armed services committee in july. i'd like to point out that the defense spending level in the

senate ndaa bill, which is pending floor action, was set by an amendment offered by my colleague, the ranking member, jim inhofe from oklahoma, and supported by every republican on the armed services committee. and i was pleased to work with senator inhofe and to cosponsor the amendment which provides an additional $25 billion in funding for specific items, most of which are unfunded requirements submitted by the services and the combatant commanders. republicans report all of this good work and all of this goodwill we established up -- in jeopardy if they refuse to negotiate on the 12 appropriations bills. a year-long c.r. would be shortsighted and damaging to our national defense. first, defense spending will be about $36 billion lower than the

level set out in the senate's ndaa and appropriations bills. and i must also point out that following our lead, the house armed services committee passed a bill with the same top line, an additional $25 billion. that was brought to the floor of the house. it passed. in fact, an amendment to reduce those funding level was defeated. there is a strong bipartisan commitment to vigorously funding the department of defense. if we do not do that, if we fall into the trap of a c.r., as i've indicated, we'll be taking money away from the department of defense. and, second, we will be tied, as senator leahy pointed out -- chairman leahy pointed out to funding priorities from a year ago, even though circumstances have changed remarkably. as he pointed out, we have funding in the last year's

legislation that would provide support to afghan forces who have been dissipated by the events of august. we would have a situation where there was significant amounts of money intended to assist afghan security concerns that could not be effectively used and would detract from the current needs that we have. third, a c.r. will prevent d.o.d. from effectively modernizing and reinventing and reinvesting in its programs. since new starts aren't allowed under a c.r. -- new programs -- d.o.d. could be forced into funding legacy systems that are outdated and inefficient. that is simply a congressionally mandatessed waste. meanwhile, important new additions and acquisitions could be delayed. for example, we may not have

the ability to fund the three additional ships and the seven more joint strike fighters in the navy's 2022 budget. as we shift our focus to the pacific, as we deal with potential contingencies involving taiwan and other areas, it becomes a shift to the navy. they need these platforms. they need as soon as we can get them, and they won't be able to get them if we're stuck into a c.r. and c.r.'s are also terribly disruptive just to the normal operation of the department of defense and also to their partners in private sector and academia, since c.r.'s inject uncertainty, instability, and costs to r&d and acquisition process. the impact is not just felt on defense, though, as chairman leahy pointed out.

nonpriority -- i should say nondefense priorities have been neglected for over a decade. this year we finally have a chance to make up for lost time. for example, we have a chance to double the federal commitment to public education under the title 1 program, make important investments in adult education and job training. at a time when the american people are complam morgue for more -- clamoring for more mental health services we have training for more pediatric mental health services. we have funding to help establish a national suicide prevention lifeline and a three-digit phone number that congress approved last year. and we are in the midst, sadly, of an epidemic of suicides throughout this country. and they particularly effect, as has been pointed out, veterans who have served their country with great valor and sacrifice, and yet are plagued by mental health problems. and as the chairman of the legislative branch committee --

subcommittee, i should say, of the appropriations committee, i'll note that we have funding to help the capitol police who have been stretched to their limit in the aftermath of the january 6 assault on this capitol. in the senate bill, we have funding for new officers, overtime, and retention payments, as well as resources for officer wellness and mental health support. and after what they've done for us, literally saving us, we owe it to the men and women of the capitol police to provide this assistance. it cannot be done under a continuing resolution. chairman leahy has bent over backwards to engage our republican colleagues, and we have to engage. we have to move forward. he is willing to do that, but we have not seen a comparable response on the other side. it's time to get down to business, the business of the

american people. it's time to provide our military with the resources and the priorities for today, not for last year. it's time to recognize the emerging problems in this country of this moment, not of the past. we need our colleagues on the republican side to come to the table, not with preconditions and red lines, but a willingness to negotiate on behalf of all the american people. otherwise, we will risk a continuing resolution that will harm everyone. we'll all lose. the american people will lose. with that, madam president, i would yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. lay --.

mr. leahy: [indies -- indiscern able] the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. the clerk will call the roll. is is quorum call:

mr. schumer: madam president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: now,

madam president, democrats are closer than we've ever been to finalizing and passing legislation to achieve president biden's build back better agenda. we made great progress since the president announced this framework last week, including by coming to an agreement that will for the first time ever empower medicare to directly negotiate prices in part-b and part-d and lower prices for millions of seniors and american families. we will also cap out-of-pocket expenses at $2,000 a year. and our agreement will make it so americans with diabetes don't pay more than $35 per month on insulin. one of the great confounding mysteries over the last several years is how did insulin, a drug that's been on the market for years and years and years, there is no patent, how did it end up costing $600 a dose to people who could barely afford it, and diabetes is such a -- a large --

affects so many people, and yet they had to pay all this money. so as the house prepares to move forward, the senate continues to achieve progress in our goal of passing build back better before thanksgiving. that's our goal. we are moving forward because the challenges american families and workers are facing are enormous, and president biden's agenda has many things that will lower costs and help families pay the bills. lower costs and help families pay the bills. take child care, for instance. families sometimes pay more than $10,000 a year per child just to take care of them. a truly back-breaking expense. secretary yellen warned that the slack in the labor force is connected to child care. well, the president's framework provides the largest investments ever to help families afford child care services. i believe of the 27 oecd nations developed in semi developed

countries, we're 36th in child care. once build back better passes, that awful statistic will be gone. or take pre-k. the president's framework will for the first time ever provide universal pre-k for 3 and 4-year-olds. millions of kids will be able to get on the right track early in life because of this investment long overdue. we will also extent the child tax credit. this will help millions of parents better afford things like groceries and diapers and utilities and other daily essentials. and of course there are bold steps we are taking to fight climate change. our country has had too many homes destroyed by hurricanes and flooding. entire cities in the west are breathing toxic air caused by extreme wildfires. heat waves and droughts endanger millions of americans who make their living working outdoors or who don't have air conditioning. these disasters cost us tens of billions each year. so build back better's investments will help us reach

our climate goals and represents bold steps in the right direction. all the while, the president's plan will be fully paid for and help our country reduce inflationary pressures, as no less than 17 nobel prize-winning economists have affirmed. we're going to keep -- we're going to push to keep these great policies -- we are going to keep pushing to get these great policies over the finish line. as we have said repeatedly, nobody is getting everything they hope for in the final deal, but build back better will have things that everyone wanted. passing transformative legislation is not easy. it's hard, very hard. but the long hours we're putting in, the discussions we have had, some of them quite pointed, will be worth it when we produce a very good result for the american people. so we're going to keep working, keep working until we get this done. now, on voting.

well, mr. president, this is another sad day because -- or yesterday was a sad day because for the fourth time this year, when the senate -- the senate had an opportunity yesterday to begin debating on the right to vote, but yet again, virtually every senate republican denied the senate a chance to act as the world's greatest deliberative body. they filibustered the mere opportunity to debate an issue that has a long bipartisan history in the senate. there was one bright note, one brave, courageous exception, and i want to thank my colleague, the senator from alaska, senator murkowski, for voting in favor of beginning debate on the john lewis voting rights advancement act, and i thank my democratic colleagues, particularly so many, but particularly senators leahy and durbin, for spending weeks working with her to find a compromise. senate democrats want to find a bipartisan way forward on the issue of voting rights.

that's why we worked with senator murkowski. but ultimately, it's up to republicans to come to the table and join us. we have been trying to convince them for months, for months. this has not been a rush. we have offered four reasonable proposals in an attempt to merely begin debate -- in june, in august, in october, and now here in november. at no point did we call on republicans to support our policies only. just agree to deliberate, say what you think. maybe we could have come to an agreement on something so important as the senate has always done in the past on this issue, bipartisan. off the floor, we held public hearings, numerous group discussions, and countless one-on-one meetings with the other side, including talks led by no less than seven democrats -- manchin, kaine, tester, king, durbin, klobuchar, leahy. and there were more, i'm sure. at virtually every turn, we have met with resistance. what has happened to the party

of lincoln? what has happened to that noble, noble view that voting rights is important on both sides of the aisle? mr. president -- madam president, the senate's capable of far more than what we have seen from our republican colleagues on voting rights. throughout our history, our predecessors used regular order, debate, and compromise to pass transformative legislation. social security, medicare, medicaid, the civil rights act, and of course the voting rights act. but anyone who has served in this chamber over recent years knows that the years of the -- the gears of the senate have become stiff and slow to turn. who thinks that the original social security act would have passed in this partisan chamber today or any new deal legislation? if we were trying to create medicare from scratch in 2021, who thinks that it would have survived the filibuster? the same chamber responsible for those great, noble accomplishments in the past must be restored so it can take

action in the modern era. as i said a few weeks ago, i believe the senate needs to be restored to its rightful status as the world's greatest deliberative body. debate is essential to this chamber's character, but so is governing. so is taking action when required after debate has run its due course. the fight is far from over. democrats will explore alternative paths to restore the senate so it does what its framers intended -- debate, deliberate, compromise, and vote. just because republicans will not join us to defend our democracy doesn't mean democrats will stop fighting. it's too important. even if it means going at it alone, we will continue to fight for voting rights and find an alternative path forward to get the senate working again to protect our fundamental liberties as citizens. now on nominations. madam president, today the senate is going to confirm mr. robert santos to serve as the director of the census

bureau. a native of san antonio who grew up in a mexican-american family, mr. santos in his 40-year career has become one of the top statisticians for the country -- in the country. if confirmed, santos would be the first hispanic and in fact the first person of color to become a permanent director of the census bureau. he's exactly the kind of person our country needs overseeing our census -- impartial, highly experienced, someone from outside politics. we must and need to protect our census from the pressures of partisan politics, and santos is the perfect fit. president trump, true to form, spent years trying to politicize and weaponize our country's census, going as far as maliciously trying to include citizenship questions and have counts of undocumented immigrants. mr. santos will restore trust and integrity to one of the most important agencies in government. and on mr. syed.

of course there are too many other qualified and uncontroversial nominees that are still awaiting their confirmation because of shameful republican delay. mr. mohsin syed is a particulary egregious example. he has been nominated to serve as second in command at the s.b.a. he is the definition, definition of a qualified, uncontroversial nominee. his nomination has been praised by no less than the u.s. chamber of commerce, hardly a liberal crowd. he would be the highest ranking muslim in our government. but our republican colleagues on the small business and entrepreneurship committee have not just blocked his vote, they even refuse to give him a markup. their justification keeps changing from one explanation to another, which is another way of saying there seems to be zero legitimate grounds for opposing him. today he has been scheduled to have a markup, but because of republicans, it's been pushed back again on account of their ridiculous concerns. the political right seems to

relish in trying to score political points by connecting far too many of president biden's nominees, many of whom happen to be individuals of color. it's hot-button partisan issues whether or not they have any relevance. it is shameful, acceptable, and ridiculous for republicans to keep stalling on syed's nomination. he is eminently qualified to serve in the s.b.a. why are senate republicans opposing syed's nomination? let me ask the question again. why are senate republicans opposing mr. syed's nomination? i urge my colleagues to drop their resistance and allow this excellent, straightforward nominee to receive confirmation. i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. mcconnell: madam president. the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed

with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: this week, voters delivered a clear message to the democratic party. you were not elected to radically change america. you were not elected to radically change america. period. the message was clear. on inflation, on economics. the message was clear on keeping woke propaganda out of public schools. the message was clear when even the citizens of blue new york, blue new york voted down left-wing changes that would weaken elections similar to what's been proposed here multiple times. and the message was clear when citizens pushed back on antipolicing and on antilaw

enforcement attitudes. even in the most liberal cities and the most liberal states, americans told democrats leave their extreme campaign to defund the police behind. let's take minnea -- let's take minneapolis, for example. one local woman called the police department, quote, rot ton the root, end quote, and insisted, quote, no one is saying that the community is not going to be kept safe. well, what happened? homicides are on a pace for the highest annual count in decades. so this week minneapolis voters rejected a ballot measure that would have removed the police department -- listen to this -- from the city's charter. or take new york city, where violent crimes like robbery and auto theft have seen 10% to 15% jumps just in the last year. this week voters chose for their

mayor a former police captain whose platform declared, quote, if we're for safety, we need the nypd. that's the new mayor of new york. upstate in buffalo, a socialist challenger had won a primary against the incumbent mayor promising, in part, to defund the police. but even though prominent new york democrats endorsed the radical who won the primary, the incumbent won the race on a write-in -- on a write-in. our people just lived through the biggest nationwide jump in homicides in more than a century. in my hometown louisville, murders have already doubled the annual total from just two years ago. so, look, americans do not want less public safety. they actually want more. no wonder that over the summer one survey found that a majority

of americans, including majorities of black and hispanic respondents, called crime a major crisis, ahead of any other issue. but it remains to be seen whether democrats here in washington are getting the message. after all, just a few days ago the attorney general still seemed more focus on intimidating america's parents out of their first amendment rights. for the sake of public safety across our country, let's hope that the tuesday election results compel our friends across the aisle to come back -- back -- into the mainstream. now, on another matter, president biden spent much of the past week participating in a u.n. summit on the so-called paris climate accords. the event was billed as an event aimed at taking action on climate policy. more than a thousand v.i.p.'s

arrived in no more than 400 private jets, a mode of transportation that some say is up to 14 times more polluting than commercial aviation. hypocrisy was on full display at that meeting. the topic of discussion was a bad deal that after six years has failed to hold any of the major signatories to their commitments on reducing emissions. but, of course, that hasn't stopped president biden from rejoining it. the president went as far as apologizing -- apologizing -- that the previous administration had let the u.s. reduce its emissions from outside the deal. he pledged that, quote, the u.s. will do our part. not exactly what that means. the united states succeeded in cutting its emissions more from outside the paris deal than any

other major country managed from inside the deal. so president biden apologized for outperforming the deal and his counterparts welcomed america's new commitment to reduce u.s. emissions 50% by 2030 without a single specific on how to achieve it. now, while america's emissions have fallen, the world's leading carbon emitter apparently has a free pass to keep on increasing its emissions until 2030. according to china's own representatives, their massive and thriving economy is still in a, quote, special development stage. special development stage. we're talking about a country that built more than three times as much new power capacity as the rest of the world combined in 2020. meanwhile, one outside analysis indicates that getting america

even close to net zero emissions by 2050 would mean cutting our own g.d.p. by nearly 12% annually. that's trillions of dollars shipped out of this country every year. competitors like china are licking their chops. and what would this self-flagellation get us 39 years from now? according to that same outside analysis, based on the u.n.'s own model, this economic hemorrhage would purchase us a reduction of .3 of one degree in global temperatures. meanwhile, the same washington democrats who think that this nightmare sounds like a good deal are pushing a reckless taxing-and-spending spree that would harm american families and the affordable energy they need to power and to heat their homes and to drive their cars. after less than a year with democrats in power, america has

already more than doubled imports of russian oil from december 20 levels. double the dependency on russia in less than 12 months. america's future as imagine bid our colleagues on the left. -- as imagined by our colleagues on the left. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. thune: madam president? the presiding officer: the republican whip. mr. thune: madam president, i would ask unanimous consent that

the quorum call be suspended and that i be allowed to speak for up to is a minutes and that senator carper -- up to 15 minutes and that senator carper being allowed to speak up to two minutes at the conclusion of my remarks prior to the vote. the presiding officer: time is reserved. mr. thune: madam president, just in the last day or so, the ever-evolving taxing-and-spending spree bill proposed by the democrats, it continues to change because they can't seem to figure out how to put together something that might pass in the house and the senate and are finding it increasingly difficult, i think, to try and contain the cost of all the things they want to do, which is why they continue to build in gimmicks and phony math to try and accommodate all the crazy spending in this bill and then also the massive run-up in

taxes. this bill is the largest spending increase we've seen in history, largest tax increase in history, and we're finding out now is also going to add significant will toy the federal debt because there's a recent study by penn wharton that suggests that the overall cost of the bill p when fully implemented would be $3.9 trillion and that the revenues that are proposed to be raised to pay for it only generate about $1.5 trillion. so that leaves you with a $2.4 trillion delta that obviously would be added to the deficit and put on the debt. so not only does this spend enormous amounts of money, unprecedented amounts of money, it raises unprecedented amount of revenue. but even at that level, the revenue is totally inadequate and insufficient to cover that spending, and, therefore, it will add massively to the federal debt. that according to an

whistleblowing analysis done by -- an economic analysis done by penn wharton. but this is the most recent addition to that bill in the house of representatives. they would raise the salt cap, the state and local tax deduction cap, from $10,000 to $72, 500. and it would also extend that higher cap through 2031 beyond its scheduled expiration after 2025. so they're still trying to come up with a way, if you can believe this -- the massive amount of spending, massive amount of taxing is now added to that a tax cut, a huge tax cut for rich people. according to the committee for a responsible federal budget, if you look at how this distributes proportionately across income changes, those making less than $100,000 would receive 2.5% of

that tax cut, a tax cut that would cost $300 billion just through 2025. so if it'sfully implemented for the window for the full ten-year window -- you're talking about hundreds of billions of dollars more in tax cuts to rich people. so just think about that, mr. president. from the side that always says that our side is looking out for rich people, trying to cut taxes for the rich. they are proposing and have included, have included now in the house version of the reckless tax-and-spending spree bill a provision that would provide tax cuts to rich people. in fact, 80% of that tax cut, 80% would go to people who are making more than $200,000 a

year. 2.5% would go to people making less than $100,000 a year. so much for looking out for the little guy in this bill. this is a huge part of the bill. in fact, this is the most expensive provision in the bill, and that's up against all the other spending that the democrats want to do on new government programs and expanding government, the biggest expansion of government in decades. but included now in the bill, not only is that massive extension of spending on lots of crazy new ideas and trillions of dollars in new taxes that will be imposed upon the economy, but now there is a provision in there that will cut taxes, 80% of that benefit going to people making more than $200,000 a year, and cut taxes on a scale that makes this the largest, most expensive provision in the

entire reckless tax-and-spending spree bill. that's what we're talking about with this particular provision, mr. president. so i just want to point that out because this is an evolving bill. we're seeing new language every day, new ideas every day, and some really horrible ideas that have come out in the last few weeks, some of which have gone away simply because there aren't any democrats who will vote for them. but this is one obviously that will benefit rich people across this country on a level unlike anything else in the bill, as is suggested by the overall cost of the provision, and the way that it distributes among income categories. 80%, let me repeat, 80% of the benefit of this tax cut in the tax-and-spending spree is going to go to people making more than $200,000 a year. 2.5% of this tax cut will go to people making less than $100,000 a year.

mr. president, i think a lot of times when people think about the government paying for health care, child care, college, or the like, they tend just to assume that they are going to be able to continue on with or get their preferred health care or child care, and the only difference will be the fact that the government is now picking up the tab. if you listen to democrats talk about it, that's certainly what you might think. but the reality, mr. president, is a lot different. because with government money comes government control. government money rarely comes without strings attached, and nowhere is that more obvious than with the child care provisions of the so-called build back better tax-and-spending spree democrats are contemplating. to hear democrats talk about it, you might think that the child care provisions amounted to nothing more than government cutting you a check to help with your day care costs. the reality is a lot different. mr. president, a 2020 bipartisan policy center survey found that 53% of working families who used center-based child care used a faith-based child care center.

53%. parents select faith-based child care for a variety of reasons. some choose it because they share the faith of the provider. but many choose it for other reasons. as the bipartisan policy center study made clear. some opt for a faith-based center because they like the quality of the facilities, the quality of the instruction. others because they feel the faith-based facility will provide a safe setting or because they -- they just don't share the belief system of the providers, they do like the values that the belief system represents. well, for many of those families, their days of choosing faith-based child care may be numbered because democrats' new child care provisions deliberately set up to put faith-based child care providers at a disadvantage. for starters, the language of the legislation would likely exclude many faith-based child care providers from participating in the program. that means that even if you as a parent prefer to choose your local faith-based child care

center, you may not be able to do so. on top of that, mr. president, the bill provides funding to assist with renovation or remodeling at day care facilities, but it specifically prevents these funds from going to child care centers that share space with facilities for worship or religious instruction. now, that means that the child care program at your local catholic church or your local lutheran church or your local mosque will most likely not be allowed to take advantage of government assistance for renovations, although the secular provider down the street will. and, mr. president, these policies are likely to have profound consequences. obviously, many parents are likely to find themselves prevented from choosing their preferred faith-based child care provider. but beyond that, beyond that, this legislation could start crowding faith-based child care providers out of the child care market entirely. child care providers unable to participate in the government child care program may find themselves struggling to stay in

business or being forced to raise their fees to the point that only the most well-off families can afford faith-based care. the result -- a shrinking number of faith-based providers. which i'm afraid is probably some democrats' goal. it's hard to imagine why else they would restrict parents' ability to choose a faith-based provider for their children or exclude religious child care providers from receiving government renovation assistance. mr. president, democrats' legislation is representative of growing -- a growing tendency in the democrat party to treat religious people as second-class citizens, something that is completely out of step with the robust idea of religious freedom we traditionally have in this country. the first amendment was not intended to keep religion out of the public square, as many democrats seem to think, nor was it intended to privilege secular belief systems over religious ones. no. its purpose was to prevent the government from establishing a

national religion or infringing on the rights of religious individuals to live out their faith. today, however, it's become apparent that many democrats think at least some forms of government discrimination against religious people are perfectly acceptable, and there is no question that their child care program would place faith-based child care providers at a disadvantage. mr. president, steering parents away from faith-based child care is not the only choice democrats are going to be making for parents under this new child care benefit. democrats' child care program will not only make it more difficult for parents to choose faith-based care, it will make it more difficult for parents to choose any private child care provider. under democrats' legislation, only public -- in other words, government-run dk child care providers will be guaranteed sufficient reimbursement to cover their operating costs. this is a deliberate choice that will make it much more difficult

for private providers to stay in business, serving democrats' goal of pushing children into government-run child care programs. and that still isn't the end of the child care decisions democrats will be making. the democrats' legislation also gives the federal government full control over approving child care curricula and performance standards. providers will be measured not by how well satisfied parents are with the child care they're providing, but by whatever washington bureaucrats determine to be appropriate measures of performance. i'm not sure why washington bureaucrats are better suited than parents to identify quality child care providers, but as the democrat candidate for governor of virginia recently made clear, democrats do not seem to think that parents are best suited to make decisions for their children. mr. president, i could go on. i could talk about the confusing government bureaucracy parents will have to navigate under the democrats' new child care program, or i could talk about the fact that this new child

care benefit could drive up child care costs for middle-class families over the next three years by a staggering $13,000 a year, according to one estimate. yeah, $13,000 a year. but today, mr. president, what i really want to emphasize is something democrats conveniently omit from discussions of the new government programs. that is, as i said, that with government money comes government control. democrats are setting the stage for a government takeover of child care where you can choose your provider only as long as democrats agree with your choice. mr. president, before i close, i want to mention one other aspect of the democrats' bill, and that is the bill's commitment to taxpayer funding of abortion. mr. president, while the democrat party has long supported an abortion agenda, there has at least been bipartisan agreement when it comes to appropriations bills that were not going to use taxpayer dollars to fund abortions. for decades, decades going back

to the 1980's, the hyde amendment and other riders have helped prevent taxpayer dollars in paying for abortions. no longer, no longer if democrats have their way. in the democrats' tax and spending spree, taxpayer funding abortions is the order of the day. restrictions on the use of taxpayer dollars for abortion funding are omitted, and in at least one case, democrats actively require funding of abortion and would override state laws on insurance coverage of abortion. mr. president, let's be very clear. this bill is a slap in the face to every american who believes in the sanctity of human life and doesn't want his or her tax dollars going to pay for killing unborn human beings. you would think that if we can't agree that the human rights of unborn children be protected -- should be protected, we could at least agree that taxpayers shouldn't be forced to pay for killing unborn children.

well, apparently even that is too much to ask of democrats. even though nearly 60% of americans oppose having their tax dollars go to abortion. that's right. almost 60% of americans do not want their tax dollars going to pay for abortions. but that doesn't seem to matter to the democrat party which is squarely in the pocket of the radical abortion lobby. and so the democrats' legislation contains a radical commitment to government funding of abortions against the wishes of a majority of the american people. it is just one more reason why the build back better plan is a bad deal for the american people. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. mr. carper: how much time do i have? the presiding officer: the senator has two minutes. mr. carper: thanks very much. i don't have enough time to

respond to everything that my colleague from south dakota has said. if i did, it would take a long while. i would -- i would say this, that a couple of years ago when we were passed with only republicans in the senate signed by president trump, a tax cut bill that was supposed to pay for itself. it didn't. it increased our deficit by hundreds of billions of dollars. i think as most of us know with respect to abortion, the law of the land for many years, over 30 years has been roe v. wade and essentially after a certain point, viability in the womb, abortions cannot be performed, except in very limited cases, rape, incest, the life of the mother. the legislation that we passed and considered in the senate -- in the house, rather, does not provide for changing that -- those limitations, and that needs to be made clear. the other thing i would say,

with respect to reconciliation build back better legislation, that the house is considering today in the rules committee, it is paid for. it is actually paid for, and it is paid for largely by making sure that everybody's paying their fair share. folks in my state and other states don't mind seeing their taxes raised, but they want to make sure everybody else is paying their fair share. it turns out a lot of wealthy people in this country and a lot of wealthy corporations who don't pay their fair share, in some cases nothing. that's just wrong. and the legislation actually cuts taxes for most americans. now, the issue here. we are about to vote today on the nomination of michael connor to serve as assistant secretary of the army for civil works.

as we all know, this is a critical position for the u.s. army corps of engineers. the corps of engineers civil works program is the nation's primary provider of water, resources, and infrastructure. with the increasing impacts of climate change, having someone of mr. connor's caliber at the core is critical. he has the experience and character to be successful in this role. during the obama administration, he served as deputy secretary of the interior and he proved himself to be a capable leader. he will bring that experience to the corps. confirming will connor will be efforts that will dramatically affect every corner of this country. it is critically important that we get mr. connor confirmed. now today i urge my colleagues to support his nomination. i think my time is expired. i yield back. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate will proceed to the connor nomination which the clerk will report. the clerk: nomination, department of defense, michael

lee connor of colorado to be an assistant secretary. the presiding officer: the question is on the nomination. the yeas and nays have been called for. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: the yeas are 92. the nays are 5. 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 motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of executive calendar number 312, robert luis santos

of texas to be director of the census signed by 17 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is, is it the sense of the senate that debate on the nomination of robert luis santos of texas to be the director of the census shall be brought to a close. the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: the yeas are 61. the nays are 36. the motion is agreed to.

mr. tillis: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from north carolina. mr. tillis: thank you, mr. president. over the last year america's economy has faltered and the american people are struggling. families have been confronted with rising inflation, which is essentially a tax on their paycheck every time to they go o the grocery store, every time they fill up a gas tank, and every time they go out and buy clothing or essentials for their family. america's small businesses after suffering from the covid-19 shutdowns last year are facing supply chain issues and labor shortages. it's no surprise that the majority of americans believe our economy is in poor health, and they fear things are getting worse. and the democrats' answer to the growing economic anxiety --

double down on big government policies. president biden and democratic leaders are pursuing a $2 trillion tax-and-spending spree that offers americans more debt, more government, more taxes, and more inflation. they think that government is the answer to all our problems. this $2 trillion bill is an attempt to fundamentally transform from an opportunity-driven society built on the american dream to a dependency-driven society powered by the federal government. the biden administration has put a lot of work into trying to market their plan, their tax-and-spending spree. they claim it will bring down costs that help the middle -- and help the middle class. but what are their top priorities? tax cuts for their wealthy donors in new york and california and other blue states that have state and local taxes. giving them a deduction on those

taxes imposed by state legislatures and democratic governors. they want to raise the salt tax from $10,000 to $72,000. a move that mainly benefits wealthy americans. 97% of the tax cuts would go to americans making more than $100,000 a year. millionaires would get a $23,000 tax cut. and as rich donors get richer, middle-class families get poorer. although democrats are touting their child care costs entitlement program, the devil really is in the details. while a single parent stands to receive thousands of dollars in child care payments, married parents at the same income level would receive no assistance at all. and once the regulations in the bill are factored in, the costs of unsubsidized child care will

skyrocket. millions of middle-class families won't get subsidies because they make more than $67,000 a year. and they will be on the hook for rising cost of health care that their proposal will create. according to one analysis, parents making more than $67,000 a year could see their child care costs skyrocket by more than $13,000 in the first year of the program. how many middle-class families can afford that? democrats also want to meddle with our nation's economy under the guise of promising that they just want to combat climate change. the democrats are proposing a new electric vehicle tax credit which would subsidize high-cost electric vehicles for affluent americans who can already afford them. and to make matters worse, democrats are offering a second tax credit only if you purchase an electronic vehicle constructed by their big labor

union allies. that's right. a car built in a nonunion shop doesn't get the tax subsidy. a car built in a union shop does. look, i support clean energy, and i have got a record of supporting it here in the senate and back in my time in the house of representatives in north carolina. but i don't support having the federal government unfairly pick winners and losers in the private markets. democrats also hope to create a civilian climate corps to give young liberal activists paid jobs, jobs paid by the american taxpayer. that's an outrageous concept, considering that we already have a record number of jobs that private employers can't fill. the government's going to create jobs to compete with these businesses that are desperately looking for labor. but this isn't about jobs. it's about the socialist wing of the democratic party having their own army of government-funded social justice warriors.

it's no surprise that the civilian climate corps is championed by the radical and anti-semitic sunrise movement. their activists have protested climate policy in the past by blocking traffic during rush hour and chaining themselves to boats. they also frequently go to homes of elected officials, including me just back in august, to trespass on property and to harass and intimidate us into supporting their extreme socialist demands. these activists would be at the top of the list to get taxpayer-funded job at the civilian climate corps. and by their own admission, progressives see it expanding well beyond the scope of climate change to anything the left considers social justice. these are just some of the provisions of the democrats' big government spending spree. the next logical question is how do they intend to pay for it? they will do it by raising

taxes, shaking down the middle class, and adding more to our debt. they propose doubling the size of the i.r.s. the i.r.s. already has about 85,000, 83,000 people. they are proposing hiring another 80,000 people, doubling the size of the i.r.s. democrats want to expand the size of the i.r.s. in order to monitor bank accounts for hardworking americans in the hopes of squeezing more money out of them. while millionaires and billionaires have tax lawyers and accountants to handle an i.r.s. inquiry, hardworking middle-class americans don't, and there is nothing more chilling than getting a call from the i.r.s. or a letter saying that you're about to be audited, or we just have a few questions for you. they're going to have to take on the i.r.s. themselves when they get accused of not paying enough. my friend, the senator from west virginia, spoke out against the plan to double the size and the

scope of the i.r.s., and i agree with him. he's also warned democrats on the dangers of creating massive new social spending programs at the same time that social security and medicare are on the verge of bankruptcy. focus groups -- focus group-approved slogans and new promises the government can't keep might be good politics for democrats, but it's horrible policy for americans. americans can't afford more inflation, more taxes, more child care costs, and more government. the democrats' tax-and-spending spree won't build back better. it will only make life harder for americans already struggling to get by. thank you, mr. president. mr. durbin: mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority whip. mr. durbin: i have five requests from committees to meet during today's session of the senate.

they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. the presiding officer: duly noted. mr. durbin: mr. president, my friend from north carolina expressed his point of view. i'd like to express mine. if you think that those who are making incomes in america in the highest levels should pay their fair share of taxes? i do. do you think those who got a tax break from the trump tax plan of four years ago which added $2 trillion to our deficit should pay more in taxes? i do. do you think we should help families who are struggling with the costs of living to defray those costs, for example, for day care? well, i do. i can tell you from my family experience, so do my kids. well, what do you think about the possibility of starting kids in school and the possibility of three -- 3 years of age, 4 years

of age, if that's the parents' choice? is that a good idea? i think it is. so do educators. if kids get a flying start at education, they have a much likelier chance to succeed, to graduate, to progress to a point in life where they are making a living and more. that's part of it. so do you support, as i do, cutting the rate of childhood poverty in the united states in half? well, i think we ought to at least do that, maybe more. if your answer was yes to these questions, what i have described is the mechanism which we are taking into the reconciliation process. it's a long senate word for a bill that we're going to consider in about ten days or two weeks. what we're trying to do is to alleviate and reduce the costs that families face. now, it's a legitimate question raised by the senator from north carolina. well, who is going to pay for all this? it's paid for by people in the highest income categories. if you are making less than

$400,000 a year, your taxes will not go up. that's what biden said in the campaign. that's a standard that we have been governed by. for those who are not paying their fair share of taxes, they may have to. and i am not nervous about the idea of putting more auditors from the i.r.s. into looking at how much tax people pay. because i know what the numbers are. working families, particularly those who with withholding, are paying their fair share within a few percentage points, but at the highest income level, these folks are finding ways to avoid their taxes, so working families are paying their fair share and the wealthiest americans, some of them, are not. so these new i.r.s. auditors will make sure that everybody pays their fair share. how is that for a starting point? we shouldn't be afraid of hiring more cops on the beat if you are not violating the law, and that i think is a reality that most

of us realize in life. and in terms of other payments, corporations that are profitable declaring millions of dollars in book gains and profits, don't you think they ought to pay something? i sure do. there ought to be a minimum tax that these corporations pay if they are profitable beyond person million-dollar ranges. that's reasonable to me. average americans are paying their fair share. small businesses are paying their fair share, but some of these folks have found ways to avoid their taxes. i think we ought to put an end to that. what's the goal here? the goal here isn't socialism. however the senator wishes to define it. the goal is to have the government give families, working families in particular a helping hand by reducing the cost of day care, by making more education available, by providing a child tax credit to some of these families, by providing home health services for their parents and grandparents who need a helping

hand. now, there is a very popular idea because a lot of folks who are raising small children have to also worry about grandma and grandpa, how are they doing, are they in a place where they feel safe and secure and are taken care of? or if they can stay home, that's even better. that's what this bill does, the reconciliation bill provides additional assistance for those people who want to live in the independence of their home to have home health care services. i can't think of a better outcome than if that is part of what we do. and it involves government getting into the picture. for some of my colleagues, that is reprehensible. that is just pure socialism. but i might remind those who are following my remarks, when social security was created to give fiscal solvency to families once retired, it was branded as communism or socialism. then same the idea of medicare,

health insurance for seniors in america in the 1960's. do you know what the american medical association called it? socialized medicine. socialism. every time the government steps in to solve a problem which the economy can't solve by itself, the critics will also say it's socialism. it's too much government. well, we have got to take care that the amount of government we give to this country is adequate to meet the needs of families who are struggling with the costs of living today. i believe these are steps in the right direction. now, mr. president, i'd like to make a statement to place in a separate part of the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: how does going from zero to 60 in three seconds sound to you? well, how about traversing through terrains of unimaginable challenge? or having an entire kitchen stowed away in your car wherever you go? these are just a few of the innovations being pioneered by the minds of riveon, a company that is leading the electric

vehicle revolution in my home state of illinois. the company recently released the r-1-t which "motor trend" has described as the most remarkable pickup we have ever driven. and that truck won't be built in china and it won't be built in europe. it will be built in the heart of illinois, in a town aptly named normal. the story of normal is a story of revival and opportunity. six years ago, a local mitsubishi plant shut down, leaving thousands of local workers unemployed. today that once-shuttered factory has sprung back to life, manufacturing the first mass-produced electric truck in america. and even better, lawmakers in illinois are now positioning normal to continue leading the industry. earlier this year, the state of illinois provided more than $7 million to a community college in normal, illinois, to launch a program training electric vehicle technicians. graduates of that program will be fully prepared to land

good-paying jobs at riveon or one of the other companies that are suppliers in the electric vehicle industry. why is this good news, not just for illinois? each additional riveon truck on the road will help confront the threat of climate change. transportation accounts for more than 1/4 -- let me repeat that, 1/4 of total greenhouse gas emissions. if every vehicle on the road were electric we would be on our way to a green future. what's happening in normal proves that what's happening in sustainable innovation drives for economic growth. it is a look at the future under the build back better, a future in which every american can gain the skills they need to be competitive in the 21st century and american innovators have the incentive they need to pioneer new technology. the story of normal's revival will be on the front of my mind tomorrow as i depart for the united nations 26th cmps of

parties climate summit in glasgow. this gathering is an opportunity for the united states and our allies to come together for the first time in years around a shared goal, taking bold steps to address the climate crisis. one of those steps is the build back better world partnership, an initiative that will bring together the world's major democracies to support sustainable development in low- and middle-income countries. this partnership will help coirnt -- counter china's rising development in the world. on the note of china, xi jinping's absence in scotland should be an alarm bell for the international community. china is the world's birth producer of greenhouse gas emissions. they emit more than every other

developed nation combined and the country is headed in the wrong direction. over the next decade the chinese communist party plans to build dozens of new coal plants throughout their country. china's leaders insist they're committed to addressing climate change but the commitments they made are inadequate. carbon neutrality by 2060 is too little too late. fortunately over the past two weeks president biden has shown the world that if you want to partner in saving the planet, follow america's lead. work together across borders. and already the strategy is working. yesterday a coalition of more than 40 countries, including the united kingdom, poland and vietnam, announced they will phase out coal power over the next two decades. there is no doubt the international commitments we agreed to in glasgow are crucial to combatting climate change, but the question i hope to ask our foreign allies is what will you do the moment you return home. climate change isn't a far-away threat. the extreme weather events over the past year have shown it's

already here. over the summer one storm alone -- hurricane ida -- caused $100 billion in damages. one storm $100 billion, twice as much as democrats proposed to spend each year to reduce the harm of climate change, and these costs are only getting worse. last month our nation's intelligence community released a landmark national intelligence estimate on climate change. the report illustrated how a changing climate is one of the biggest threats to national security and economic stability. it warns that over the next two decades climate change will increase global poverty and instability and could lead to conflicts and wars and dwindling supplies of food, water and habitable land. hundreds of millions of people are likely to be displaced by 2050. among the 1 1 nations at greatest risk from collapse from climate stress by this estimate, five are in our own hemisphere and two possess

nuclear weapons in other places in the world. these humanitarian crises could give rise to antidemocratic populists. we've seen it in hungary. we've seen these same politicians rising in france and germany peddling fear and xenophobia after an influx of refugees. the n.i.e. warns that current policies and pledges are insufficient to meet the goals of the paris climate conference. that's why the question for anyone in a position of power is what are you doing about climate change today. between the bipartisan infrastructure bill and the build back better package, democrats are proposing roughly $900 billion toward the climate change threat. this would be the largest investment in climate action in history. proposals will accelerate our nation's transition to clean energy future, upgrade our power grid and the rest of our physical infrastructure and establish america as a global leader. this could pave the way for every state to attract job

creators like rivian or lion electric and jill yet which announced an electric vehicle plant earlier this year. i heard the previous speaker criticize the idea of a climate corps. it's modeled after the conservation corps of the new deal that goes back at least 80 years. i can't understand why we would criticize an effort to put young people to work so that they would have jobs that would improve the world we live in, the nation we live in, and make a decent income in the process. for many of these kids, this will be their first chance to really understand what life should be like. why wouldn't we want that? i don't know about north carolina, but in illinois, we can certainly use their good, hard work. i got a call yesterday from the president of the cook county board who said we have forest preserves all over cook county, and they are a beauty to behold. but they need basic work. and if the climate corps members can do it, we want to hire them locally and engage them in that

process and give them a good life experience. what could be wrong with that that these kids might otherwise not have a chance at a job gets a decent job and get rewarded with a check when it's over. for many of us it's it was formative experience we'll never forget. there's a lot to be done by this effort. i want to say at this point as i close that we cannot wait when it comes to climate change. there are people who want us to be in the back of the pack, for america to come in second when we're talking about changing the climate for the better in this nation around the world. i think american leadership is needed. it has always been an inspiration to many other countries and can be again today. i thank the president for his leadership, and i yield the the presiding officer: madam pre sident. the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: thank you, madam president. i come to the floor today to oppose the biden administration's agenda which is anti-american energy. that's what we're facing in this country today.

president biden just got back from a trip to europe. he went there to attend the united nations climate change conference. i noted the previous speaker said he was jetting off to there this weekend, heading to scotland. he also made reference to the climate corps which is part of president biden's agenda. he said who could criticize it? i'm happy to criticize it, madam president. that legislation is asking to hire one million americans -- one million americans to protest, to wage war on oil, gas, and coal jobs, energy jobs in this country. this is at a time we have ten million open jobs in this country. help wanted signs all around my state and the state of all the members on the floor today. and yet, the biden administration's answer to rising energy costs is to hire a million people to protest

american energy and american jobs as the prices continue to go up and inflation continues to ravage the paychecks of the american people. so, yeah, they're flying off to scotland, so many of the members of that side of the aisle are joining john kerry. nancy pelosi is heading there, many in this body from the democrat side of the aisle will be joining them, heading there soon. back at home, people are struggling with inflation that's at a 30-year high as a result of the policies of this administration. one in five of american families have cut their spending this year. why? to pay for the energy bills that are being brought forth by the policies of this administration, which is anti-american energy. the cost of a gallon of gasoline has gone up $1 a gallon since president biden has come to office. it means the cost of everything else is up as well. because higher prices aren't

just prices you pay at the pump. they're prices you pay at the grocery store. at the same time the cost of natural gas has doubled, and it is now at a point where it is at the highest price it's been in seven years. half of the homes in this country are heated with natural gas. winter is succombing and it's going to -- winter is coming and it's going to get worse. this leaves less money in people's paychecks, less money for their family. that's why the "new york times" front page story last week talked about thanksgiving and how it was going to, the cost of walloping the wallet of american families. people are soon going to have to decide whether they will have the money to heat or to eat. that's what we're facing as a result of the agenda of this administration. so what's the president doing about it? well, he went to europe and astonishingly he apologized to the world for america.

he made unrealistic pledges to cut emissions. he said he was going to cut a billion tons in the next eight years and went so far as to say the u.s. would reach zero emissions in 28 years. that would be a most dramatic change in the history of the american economy. it is a reckless promise. yet, the president did get the applause from the global elite. well, the american people aren't applauding. the american people are wringing their hands today. the average european doesn't have reason to applaud either. joe biden left out a few important facts in his speech in europe. he forget to mention he had given vladimir putin the green light to build the nord stream 2 gas pipeline to germany. he failed to mention that putin can now hold half of europe hostage with natural gas. he failed to mention that

today, today in america we are using more oil from vladimir putin's russia than we are from the state of alaska. listen to the senators from alaska who follow these figures every day. the president failed to mention that he's actually asking vladimir putin to sell more oil to the united states, pump more oil because he doesn't want it produced in the united states when he's willing to kill american jobs in the process. well, due to the policies of this position and -- of this president and his radical attacks on american energy, vladimir putin has hit the jackpot and he's going to cash in for years to come. working families all across europe know better. they've seen this movie before, and that's why, madam president, this morning i released a report -- i have it here -- it's called europe's energy crisis: a warning to

america. the subheadline, democrat plans to mimic europe's energy and climate policies will lead to sky-high prices, less reliability, and shortages. that's where president biden is leading the united states. it is no wonder that the national poll released last sunday by nbc news showed only 22% of the american people believe the country is heading in the right direction under the democrats and under this president. this report details how europe has tried many of the environmental policies that the democrats are proposing and want to pass today. the consequences have been devastating to families there and will be devastating to families here. because of the policies, europeans are paying some of the highest energy prices in the world. and much of the energy that they use is undependable and unreliable.

prices are really high in america right now, but they're even higher in europe. this spring gasoline prices were at least 65% higher in europe than they were in america. from 2005 to 2020 the cost of energy in france, germany, italy, spain and the united kingdom increased between 28% and 71%, depending on the country. european industries pay at least 90% more for natural gas than american industries do. this is a major competitive advantage for american companies, yet president biden is doing everything he can to throw our competitive advantage away. this president is trying to pass legislation that will make it worse here at home. the largest piece of the president's spending bill is over $500 billion for the heavily criticized green new deal, includes high payoffs for

electric vehicle owners, an army of full-time climate activists that i just talked about. it includes higher taxes on american energy and higher prices for consumers. it would ban exploration for oil and gas off our shores and in the arctic. all of these ideas will raise costs additionally for working families. my new report shows that europe already tried the democrats' environmental policies. the results were disastrous for europe. they will be disastrous here. i urge my democrat colleagues don't make this same mistake, don't subject the people of the united states to the same punishing pain of the high cost of energy that people are sustaining right now in europe. stop raising prices. stop making life harder. the american people and american producers and american families deserve better.

i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from -- from mississippi. mr. wicker: when we look at the news this evening, when we saw the evening news last night, when we tune into the cable channels, when we hear the radio, we hear the astounding news of the voices of the voters on tuesday of this week, not just in virginia, not just in new jersey but in the state of new york and throughout the midwest and on over to the west coast, the american people sent a strong message of disapproval to the biden administration this week. and i hope our democratic friends and the biden administration will heed the message of the voters. i see today -- i normally don't bring "the new york times" to the floor and -- and quote it with approval, but it says here

"the new york times" this morning, bruised at polls. democrats look at their missteps. i hope that's true. i hope our democratic colleagues and our friends in the biden administration are looking at their missteps because there are many and they have been harmful. "the washington post" this morning, november 4, says a sharp turn looms in virginia. yes. virginia went from the three constitutional statewide offices all being held by democrats to a republican sweep not only there but in the state general assembly. but then i see this other headline at the top of the page. democrats race ahead on fiscal proposals. presumably our democrat friends are not hearing the message that the american people in state after state after state sent

just tuesday of this week. even vastly underfunded gop candidates like the candidate for governor in new jersey came within a hair's breath of being elected. vastly underfunded g.o.p. candidates for legislative positions actually prevailed over candidates with millions and millions of dollars on the democratic side. the american people have sent this administration and this democratic majority in the house and this tiny democratic majority in the senate a very unmistakable message. they are rejecting the malaise that we are under and the biden administration must understand that this election was the direct result of the president's failed agenda.

by all measures, our economy should be roaring by now. we're -- we're coming out of the pandemic, we should be back to the good news of february 2020, the month before the pandemic hit. the trump and republican tax cuts were in place, the unemployment rate was an astounding -- astoundingly low, 3.6%, something that we were told in our economics classes was impossible in the united states of america. when i was taking kiddie economics, they said it couldn't go below 4%. the unemployment rate in february of 2020 was 3.6%. employment was up among women, employment was up among minorities, employment was up among veterans. our economy was roaring and then the pandemic came and we acted

in a bipartisan way, but we are coming out of the pandemic now and the administration acts as if we need a huge dose, $4 trillion, $5 trillion worth of socialism. the pandemic is in full retreat and from the beginning of the administration this year, the biden administration blew it. on day one, the president canceled the keystone xl pipeline, killing thousands of jobs and almost in the same breath he told the russians to go ahead with their pipeline. can americans even grasp that? i think they sent a message tuesday about that sort of thing. with the stroke of a pen, the president declared war on american energy. the result has been that fuel

has become scarce and, of course, because of its scarcity, it has become more expensive. after four years of relief under the last administration, u.s. energy producers are once again looking down the barrel of a hostile e.p.a. this is a self-inflicted energy crisis. coal and nuclear plants are shutting down as reliable natural resources are taken off the table, replaced by this administration's fantasy dream of a green only energy. taxpayers are being told to stomach higher gas prices while at the same time being asked to pay billions of dollars to subsidize wind, solar, and electric vehicles. there's a place for that, but they are all three unreliable

and predictably gas prices have soared. instead of reevaluating his own policies, it seems that the president is attempting to double down on them and he's even gone to questionable governments across the sea in the middle east asking them to produce more oil because we won't do that in the united states. it makes no sense at all. perhaps this administration should listen to the election results and hear the voices of the people from tuesday. but the economic damage is hardly limited to energy. inflation, spurred on by the administration's reckless spending, is burning a hole in the wallets of americans and we simply can't get around it. the consumer price index shows one thing that prices have gone up 5.4% over the last 12 months.

i will tell you, mr. president, i was speaking to a manufacturer from my home state of mississippi yesterday, and he said that figure is understated quite a bit. he said his costs have gone up around 20% in being able to -- to manufacture goods for american people and hire americans and hire mississippians. meanwhile, the gears of our economy are slowing down, causing fears of stagflation, something we have not seen since the 1970's. i do want to agree with my friend from wyoming about the gentleman from illinois' point about the climate corps. this manufacturer in mississippi said he's got 2,000 positions that need to be filled. perhaps some of these people that the senator from illinois would like to employ in the climate corps can come to manufacturers like ours in mississippi and take a

good-paying job manufacturing things for americans that we can sell in our country and all around the world. g.d.p. growth just slowed to 2%. employers still cannot find enough workers just like the manufacturer from mississippi told me yesterday. our supply chain is jammed up with endless delays, causing concern. but, to me, one of the most serious and dangerous policies of this administration is the biden administration's unprecedented and unconstitutional vaccine mandate on two-thirds of the private sector workforce. we're being told that every employer over 100 employees must comply with a washington-mandated and unconstitutional vaccine mandate.

this is exactly what the president said 11 months ago he didn't want to do. joe biden was askinged in december of 2020 -- asked in december of 2020, should vaccines be mandated. he said, no, i don't think they should be mandatory. the president was right when he said that to the press and he's 180-degrees wrong today and taking his cues from the most radical advisors that he has. and as a result, the american people on tuesday have said enough. now, i know a little about american workers. i know a little about american service men and women. i was one. we have been raised in a free country, in a free land and we are not accustomed to being told by washington, d.c., by the chief executive of the united

states of america what we must put in our bodies. and i can tell you this is a looming economic crisis for this country. millions and millions of hardworking american taxpayers are going to be forced to leave their jobs because they will refuse, as free americans, to be told that they must take a vaccine that they do not feel good about. madam president, the chief executive of our land has grossly miscalculated the american people on this issue, and a looming economic crisis because of a lack of workers and mass layoffs and mass fiergs is about to -- firings is about to occur. the biden administration should pause, do what "the new york

times" said this morning, and as examining their bruises look at their missteps because there are many and they are hurting the american economy. i would urge the biden administration to let these tax cuts stay in place, to let meese soft- -- in place, to let the soft-touch regulations stay in place and to pause and listen to the voices of the american people as they voted in strong numbers this past tuesday. i yield the floor. mr. toomey: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. mr. toomey: madam president, on tuesday the president of the united states officially nominated cornell law professor saule omarova, she would be the

comptroller of the currency -- the comptroller is the lead regulator of all of our national banks. now twice before today i addressed her nomination on the senate floor, her then-sper -- perspective nomination and now she has been nominated. i have described her views as radical. professor omarova wants to redefine the role of a bank, and has said that she has a radical departure of what we have been conditioned to view as the normal state of play. end quote. madam president, probably all of the -- the only thing i can think of is her views of radical. let me be clear about her whole approach. it is radical because she has a clear and obvious aversion to

american society, that we would be a free society and that would include economic freedom and economic decisions can be made by free men and women pursuing their own understanding of their self-interest. instead of that, she has a clear preference for an administrative approach where decisions are not made by free men and women engaging voluntarily in exchanges by technically by technicrats who know better than we know for ourselves. in my 11 years of congress, i don't think i have seen a more radical nominee in any spot in our federal government. i know that's a bold statement, but i stand by that. last month i spoke about professor omarova's plan to set

prices for our economy and she wants government to decide what to pay for food, gas, and groceries. today i want to talk about her radical proposal to nationalize the banking system. ms. remove rova's plan wasn't something that she wrote decades ago or even years ago, in fact, i believe she wrote it last year and it was published in the vanderbilt law review just last month. professor omarova's radical plan to nationalize banks was published last month and the paper was titleed the people's ledger, how to demock ra

advertise -- in the paper she outlined her plan to and i quote, effectively end banking as we know it. end quote. that's a very strong statement. so what exactly does she mean by this? well, she lays this out for us. in her proposal, the federal government would become the retail bank for every american. that's right. essentially two features. she would have the creation of retail deposit accounts at the fed for yearn american citizen and the digital currency to manage this in various ways. the objective of this plan -- these are her words, and i quote -- the objective is to, quote, reimagine the role of the central bank as the ultimate public platform for generating, modulating, and allocating financial resources in a modern economy, end quote. think about that. we want the central government

to be allocating financial resources in a modern economy. those are not my words. those are her words. in its role as the, quote, ultimate public platform, end quote, according to professor omarova, and i quote, central bank accounts would fully replace rather than uneasily coexist with private bank deposits. end quote. these are her words. she wants to fully replace the private accounts we have. in other words, if you have a bank account with a local community bank, no more. couldn't have that uneasily -- what is her word? uneasily coexisting. that would be replaced. your money would be with the federal reserve instead. so professor omarova's view is to put the fed in charge of handling all of our bank deposits, all of our bank accounts, so when a hardworking

american receives a paycheck every week, doesn't go on direct deposit to the community bank to which you're accustomed to doing business. it would go on a bank account with the fed. professor omarova's vision would envision a complete fed with the balance sheet. these are her words. the complete migration of demand deposit accounts to the fed's balance sheet. why does professor omarova propose we destroy banking in america and shift them from the innumerable private institutions we all use and do it all through the fed? one reason she cites is to empower the fed to directly distribute fiscal stimulus and aid to worthy beneficiaries. i kind of wonder who the radical left would consider to be sufficiently worth to be a

beneficiary, but that's another whole topic. another justification she offers for the fed to control all retail banking, really for the fed to be america's sole retail bank is so that the fed can more easily control the money supply. this is very interesting. she provides a little insight into how she envisions this because she says the, this would include, and i quote, implementing a contractary monetary policy by debiting consumers' accounts. she allows that this could, and i quote, be perceived as the government's taking away people's money, end quote. why would people perceive it as the government taking away people's money? because that's exactly what she's saying should be an option available to the fed. specifically what she's saying is all americans' deposits must

be at the fed. there can be no private banks. that would be an uneasy coexistence we shouldn't tolerate. and then if the fed causes inflation, which is the usual source of inflation, no problem, the fed can solve the problem by confiscating a little bit of the money from everybody's accounts. imagine this. that's exactly what she's advocating. the fed can create inflation, but that's all right, we'll give it a new tool to solve the inflation problem. just confiscate the money from the american citizens who are forced to put their money with the fed. you can't make this stuff up. this is what she's advocating. that's not the only reason she wants the fed to be everyone's bank. she have says it is to, and i quote, maximize the fed's capacity to channel credit to productive uses in the nation's economy, end quote. mr. president, this is the definition of socialist hubris. this is the definition of

socialism, the idea that we have the government allocate tht decide what is the productive way to use the resources of our society rather than individual men and women by virtue of the exchanges they voluntarily choose to engage in. she wants to substitute a centrally managed plan socialist economy for the free society that we have today. there is no other way to characterize it. where has this ever worked? this is unbelievable. and how does the fed even, if it were possible, which it's not, how would the fed decide which are the productive and nonproductive uses? what about loans to energy companies? gee, i don't know, is that productive or is that not spruskt? -- is that not productive? let's leave it to the fed to decide. what could go wrong? there's another reason why it's a bad idea to force americans to

do retail banking with the federal government. it's the end of privacy for americans' financial transactions. that's over. we remember just weeks ago the tremendous backlash against the idea that banks would be required to report an aggregate transaction information to the i.r.s. i know i got buried with phone calls and letters. i think we had 16,000 pennsylvanians who reached out to my office alone urging congress to reject that proposal. can you imagine what people would think of professor omarova's plan to force you to have your whole bank account with the fed? americans don't want the federal government monitoring their bank accounts. i should think that would be obvious. and they certainly don't want the federal government having control over this. so, mr. president, let me conclude with this. it's perfectly okay for academic

institutions and think tanks to have people espousing these socialist ideas and spinning all different variations on these collectist and centrally planned and socialist themes. perfectly fine. that should be debated. i'm not in the camp who thinks you cancel someone who has a different point of view from being able to articulate what they believe in. but the idea that we would take someone who holds these socialist views, who is so strongly anti-capitalism, and put that person as the chief regulator of america's banks, that makes no sense at all. i urge my colleagues to oppose this nominee, and i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. lee: mr. president, i introduced 12 bills against president biden's vaccine mandate. most of these bills should have been supremely noncontroversial. some of the bills would have

made sure that the exemptions president biden announced were actually efficacious in the final mandate. another bill would have made sure that the government didn't vaccinate children without the consent of their parents. and yet another would have provided transparency to the american people on exactly how their tax dollars are being used in this area. lamentably each time i asked that one of these bills pass this body, one of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle objected. they determined that legislation protecting religious, medical, and moral exceptions to the mandate were not helpful. they decided the american people do not deserve to understand how their tax dollars are funding research or covid relief. they declared that laws protecting parents' rights to make the best decisions for their kids were somehow unnecessary. on each of these issues, the

american people of course beg significantly to differ. americans don't appreciate it when their government takes decisions out of their hands. and as elections this week showed, parents want a voice in their children's education. and they certainly want to be respected when it comes to medical decisions involving and affecting their children as directly as this one does. crippling inflation in polling data on americans' economic outlook shows that people want government to be more responsible and more transparent in how it oversees their tax dollars, on how it spends them. those on the other side of the aisle who have objected perhaps aren't getting that particular message. and how tragic that is. i've heard from hundreds of utahans in recent days who are at risk of losing their livelihoods under the mandate. many of these individuals are

military service members and first responders. others are key workers. many have legitimate medical or religious reasons not to be vaccinated. but each one of them is an everyday american. these are mothers and fathers. they live in our communities, they're people we call friends and neighbors. and in today's economy, all too many of them are struggling just to get by. forcing them out of work will put an unimaginable strain on them, on their families and on their economy -- and on our economy. at a time when they can't afford to face additional strain, certainly not one imposed by the federal government. additionally, i've learned from countless businesses that are worried about keeping their doors open should the mandate require them to fire key members of their workforce, that this

just isn't tolerable. these businesses are already under tremendous strain due to the supply chain crisis and inflation and the labor shortage. they fear that they'll be unable to operate should the mandate take effect. every american, every single american would suffer if these key industries were to shut down. some might say these impacts are far away. others still might claim that because the mandate has not yet taken effect, these impacts aren't real or worth worrying about today. i don't think that is true. in fact, nothing could be further from the truth. it is true that president biden's vaccine mandate is yet to be officially published in the federal register. however, it will be tomorrow. the unpublished version of the mandate can now be found as of a few hours ago, and here's some of what it entails.

if employers have 100 or more employees, it must ensure that their workers are either fully vaccinated against covid-19 by december 5 or that the workers test negative for covid at least once a week by january 4. if an employer has an employee that has yet to be vaccinated, president biden is requiring the employer to pay workers for the time it takes to get vaccinated and provide sick leave for workers to recover from any side effects. and what happens if businesses don't comply? president biden has threatened them with a nearly $14,000 fine per violation, per person, per day. this is an administrative nightmare, and nothing short of it. if h employees don't want to be vaccinated against covid-19, they must pay for the testing. american workers will be on the hook, and it's not something

most americans can afford. mr. president, seeing that we have a vote scheduled, approaching, i ask unanimous consent that senator peters and i be able to speak for at period of time not to exceed an additional five minutes to complete our remarks. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. lee: today i'm offering a bill that would help with this situation. my no forced vaccination for covid-19 act would prevent the president of the united states or any executive branch agency from issuing a general vaccine mandate, including a mandate that requires an individual to be vaccinated or undergo periodic testing. it would end this extraordinary nightmare for millions of americans and key businesses. it would put this sorry, mean, cruel saga to an end. mr. president, the people of utah and the united states will rest easy if this bill passes.

we would be able to focus on encouraging vaccination and reasonable, acceptable, constitutional ways. i think this is what we all want. because ultimately i believe in these vaccines. i'm fully vaccinated. i encouraged everyone around me to be vaccinated. i believe they are helping millions of americans from the harms of covid. what's not helping americans is president biden's mandate. we can fix that today. that's why i'm encouraging my colleagues to support this bill. to that end, mr. president, as if in legislative session, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of s. 3170 which is at the desk. i ask further that the bill be considered read a third time and passed, and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: is there objection?

a senator: objection. the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. objection is heard. mr. peters: mr. president, i reserve the -- i reserve the right to object. this bill would be a step backwards in our country's fight against the covid-19 pandemic. across this country, we've seen over 45 million cases of covid-19 and almost 750,000 deaths. communities and particularly communities of color have been hit hard by this virus. but luckily we have a safe and effective way to help prevent the spread of the virus -- vaccines. so far almost 60% of the u.s. population has been fully vaccinated. however, the virus continues to spread. ed the centers for disease control and prevention can classify over 70% of our counties are having high transmission rates. less than 2% are classified as low transmission. in order for us to beat this

virus, we need to reach higher levels of vaccination rates and put a stop to community spread. this bill would bar executive agencies from being able to mandate the individuals receive the covid-19 vaccine or mandate individuals undergo periodic testing for covid-19 in lieu of a vaccine. the science is clear. vaccines are safe, they are effective, and they save lives. rather than wasting time on partisan bills that make our country less safe, we should be finding ways to ensure an equitable recovery for all of our communities and preparing for the next public health emergency. with that, mr. president, i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. the senator from utah. mr. lee: this isn't about whether we're against the virus. we are. it's not about whether we're for the vaccine. we are. it's about the fact that only 14% of americans p believe that it's fair, just, and proper to

fire someone because they refuse to get the vaccine. it's not appropriate for the president of the united states or this government to be ordering everyone to be fired, removing someone from their ability to put bread on the table for their children. it's immoral, it's wrong, it's without foundation and law. it's contrary to the constitutional order. this is shameful. i'll be back, and i won't stop until we're finished. thank you, mr. president. mr. peters: mr. president, i rise in support of the nomination of robert l. santo to be the director of the census bureau. mr. santos is uniquely qualified to lead the census bureau as it carries out its important work serving as the leading source of quality data about the nation's people and economy.

he brings over 40 years of experience in both the public and private sectors, as a manager, an expert in the field of survey, design, and statistical research. throughout his his career, mr. santos has acted closely as a researcher, stakeholder and expert adviser serving on the census advisory committee and national academy panels on federal statistics. he has a deep understanding of the census bureau, its data, and its stakeholders. throughout the nomination process, mr. santos has demonstrated a firm commitment to upholding the bureau's mission of producing the essential high-quality data that our communities, our businesses, and people all across our nation rely on. as the census bureau completes the 20/20 -- 2020 seen tuesday, plans for -- administers the

bureau's crucial demographic surveys, it's absolutely critical for the agency to have a qualified senate-confirmed leader at the helm. i would urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the confirmation of robert santos as census bureau director. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the question is on the nomination. the yeas and nays have been requested. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote: