vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: on this vote, the yeas are 66, the nays 32. the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, and the president be

immediately notified of the senate's actions, and the senate will resume legislative session. mr. schumer: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader is recognized. mr. schumer: it is my understand respecting the senate has received a message from the house of representatives to accompany s. 3373. the presiding officer: the senator is correct. mr. schumer: i ask the chair to lay before the senate the message accompanying s. 3373. the clerk: veal that the bill from the senate, s. 3373, an act to improve the iraq and afghanistan service grant and the children of fallen heroes grant, do pass with an amendment. mr. schumer: i move to concur in the house amendment to s. 3373. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: the senator from new york, mr. schumer, moves to concur in the house amendment to s. 3373.

the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: i move to done cur in the house amendment to s. 3373 with an amendment. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion with an amendment. the clerk: mr. schumer moves to concur in the house amendment to s. 3373 with an amendment numbered 5148. mr. schumer: i ask consent further reading of the amendment be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the yeas and nays are ordered. mr. schumer: i have an amendment at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from new york, mr. schumer, proposes an amendment numbered 5149 to amendment numbered 5148. mr. schumer: i ask consent further reading of the amendment be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: i move to refer s. 3373 to the committee on veterans' affairs with instructions to report back forthwith with an amendment. the presiding officer: the clerk will report.

the clerk: the senator from new york mr. schumer moves to refer the bill to the committee on veterans' affairs with instructions to report back forthwith an amendment numbered 5150. mr. schumer: i ask consent that the further reading of the motion be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the yeas and nays are ordered. mr. schumer: i have an amendment to the instructions at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from new york, mr. schumer, proposes an amendment numbered 5151 to the instructions of the motion to refer. mr. schumer: i ask consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the yeas and nays are ordered. mr. schumer: i have a second degree amendment terrific. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: mr. schumer proposes an amendment numbered 5152 to amendment numbered 5151h.

mr. schumer: i ask consent further reading of the amendment be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

in addition to the usual suspects at the sprays political candidates, there were a lot of groups just there in pure celebration, high school bands, veterans, all sorts of groups in a wonderful, wonderful suburban town in the chicagoland area of highland park. yesterday we held a hearing in the senate judiciary committee about the day of the july 4 parade in highland park. i i wish we didn't have to hold that hearing. i would rather it would've been

some other subject, some other place. but it was the tenth hearing during this congress, the tenth time that we held a hearing in the judiciary committee on gun violence, gun violence. the number one cause of death among children in america. let me repeat that. gun violence, the number one cause of death among children in america. yesterday we focus on highland park and the fourth of july parade, and with focus on the obvious mass shooting incident that took place, , and with focs on military style assault weapons. the fourth of july shooting in highland park illinois was the 309th mass shooting in america this year. what is a mass shooting? when four people are either injured or killed.

309 times that it happened before july 4. by the time of yesterday seating, 16 days after the fourth of july, that number of 309 had grown by 47 mass shooting since the fourth of july in america. 16 days, 47 more mass shootings. where else is this taking place? nowhere. right here in the united states of america is the only place on earth where mass shootings are happening on such a frequent basis. in many of the deadliest shootings, the attacker used an assault weapon, a combat weapon, a gun specifically designed to kill the maximum number of people in just a few seconds. the same weapon we saw in

uvalde, texas, where the kids in their classrooms were killed. the same weapon was sought in the supermarket in buffalo, new york, when early-morning shoppers on a saturday morning were killed. sadly, the same weapon that was used in highland park. during the fourth of july parade in highland park a deranged gunman perched himself on a rooftop using a smith & wesson assault rifle, killing seven people and wounding dozens more. he shot 83 rounds in less than a minute. let me say that again. 83 rounds in less than a minute. this is a mr. mccarthy. aidan is two years old. his mom and dad, took into the

fourth of july parade in highland park. i first heard about him just an hour or two after this terrible incident. i called my friend, nancy, who was the mayor mayor of hik and asked her, tell me what can i do. she said i don't know. things are happening so fast. we actually found a two-year-old toddler who was wandering on the street by himself. we don't know who he belongs to. his picture was being circulated in the community. the conclusion was fairly obvious. whoever brought him to that parade was not able to look for him and care for him. industry eventually unfolded. kevin and irena mccarthy brought aidan to the parade, his first parade.

and then when the shooting started, they shielded him with their bodies. in a matter of minutes, aidan lost both of his parents. largely, a grandparent was located and aiden isn't safe hands today. because of this assault weapon, being fired on the crowd, he lost his mom and dad. that's the reality, when a parent has to shield a child like this from a mass shooting. the rotary -- testified yesterday about the parade. she told us when shooting started she thought the sound of bullets was actually a drum cadence from the local marching band. that's how fast the bullets were being fired. when she realized it was an active shooter she began evacuating the crowd. she said the adults she confided

stared back at her. they didn't understand what she was saying. but the children, the teenagers, they understood. this was a shooter. this wasn't a drill. mr. president, did you hear that? the children and the teens at the highland park parade instinctively knew what was happening, because they had been trained in their schools to deal with mass shooting. that's how, this mass shootings have become. ..

>> and so many otheramerican communities it is the new normal . mister president, it can't be said enough mass shootings with assaultweapons are a unique americanphenomenon . they are devastating . so devastating. i want to show you another picture . hayden mccarthy. this iscooper roberts.

eight years old . cooper and his twin brother luke went to the parade with their mom and dad. and in the course of the shooting, he was shot, taken to the hospital immediately. he's gone through at least seven or eight surgeries now. touch and go for many days as to whether you would live. and sadly, in addition to the damage done to his body, his spinal cord was severed by this same bullet. you see, when you fire an assault weapon at the human body, is that body at three times the ordinary velocity of a regular firearm. it is so powerful it was originally designed by the united states army to achieve a single goal described to us in that committee yesterday. that goal was to be able to shoot one of these ar-15's

and here's a metal helmet worn by a soldier 500 yards away. five football fields, the ar-15. it's not another firearm. it's a coming weapon. and unfortunately cooper roberts was in the line of fire. we pray that he recovers his mom and dad have kept all of us posted as to his progress. but if you think about the devastation that a ar-15 combat weapon so i can do to the human body, imagine what it did to this poor little boys body. that's the reality of the issue we are discussing. many gun manufacturers like smith and wesson , bushmaster and daniel the fence have lost at campaigns marketing their assault weapons like

they are fashion accessories. let me show you a few of their advertisements. this is from most. engineer to the specs of freedom and independence. stand and salute the tactical rifle. we are at america's oldest family owned firearms manufacturers building dependable hard-working rifles and shotguns since 1990. american belt, american strong. arm yourself with a mossberg. s is the type of weapon that shot cooper roberts. it filled the parents of aiden mccarthy. how is being marketed? a symbol of independence and freedom. some of these other, one approve of your manhood?

consider your man card reissued says bushmaster. there are 15. want to make sure as i said in the hearing yesterday that these weapons are properly characterized? i'll tell you how i characterized. manufacturers of these weapons to the issues what's happening across the to suggest this is why the values of this country is just plain wrong. is it. it's time for us to name and shame these companies, a will for the devastation in a possible. how many ar 15? we don't really know best estimate, 20 million. 20 million. i wanted to dispel, the point we hear they claim our communities don't need no gun

safety laws. all they are good guys with guns. i wish it were that simple. is not the one survey 433 sugar attacks how many were stopped by the guy with the gun? 22. 33, about five percent and half of those 22 security guards trained law enforcement who were their presence off-duty. the sad reality is when the police come on the scene somebody a gun they don't know perpetrator works only on their side in many instances they should the wrong person, a split-second decision seeing a person holding a gun so this notion are going to come to the rescue of one another to stop mass shootings is another reality. five percent of active shooter attacks stopped by a

guy with a gun. five percent. imagine buying a car be being told there's a five percent chance that there would go off if you were in a crash. you wouldn't take the car out of the dealership for good reason . your testimony fromrand corporation firearms , doctor kyle and hunter told us assault weapons make mass shootings significantly more legal . the evidence is clear . it's time for us to have a national conversation about mass shooting . let me say that manufacturers shouldn't get all the are just selling a product. let me show you one thing is that is particularly outrageous. sadly this is my own state of the jr team. it's designed to look like the ar 15, the combat assault . it's lighter so it can be carried in.

here are the symbols incidentally of this gone jr 15. their skulls. their souls of children. each one of them as a pacifier and is not. it is just on this poster and on this. it's emblazoned on and on itself. this is the kids us all. think about that for a second in that we've reached a point where that is even thought of and led to the killing next in place. hearing yesterday showed outpouring of people from highland park in numbers i never expected. i believe there were 100 people there who on their own dime came up to washington to make sure all of us in congress new what happened in highlandpark . which their lives were changed on 4 july. what are we going to do about this? shrug our shoulders and wait

for the next mass shooting and sadly we can expect one to come? i listened to the defenses and frankly i can't understand peopletrying to defend the right to own an assault rifle in america . one senator argued is just an inanimate object don't blame the object or the results. i wonder if he feels the same way about grenade launcher. should people have theright to own grenade launchers ? i hope we all agree is an incredible lot. and why does this weapon into a similar category? combat army assault that's being used by individuals to kill so manyinnocent people in this country . it's coming in concert in las vegas. schools in texas. fourth of july parade in my home state. last month we could come

together and i want to salute senator murphy on the floor to pass a bill that was the most important gun safety law that we consider three decades. i voted for it. it didn't address this issue all except in background checks of those under 21 and i'm glad it did but it didn't address the issue of whether the signs should even be in america at thispoint , legal and is a critical threshold issue incidentally is sugar seems to have a pretty elevated life from the start managed to buy i see magazines so that he could clip in quickly 30 rounds here, 30 rounds there and fire off the three times what role does anyone need high capacity magazine? i don't understand. it doesn't have any practical value for sports. we need to address the

widespread serious problem of civilian access to military assault weapons, even for shooters as youngas 18 . i thank the people from highland park for coming yesterday all over a law enforcement first responders who i saw gathered that evening when i arrived at highland park. we owed them a lot for doing an amazing job and we should pay tribute to them and what they did but even they, being present aren't cannot stop this from happening. they were up against mighty weapon, when we trust for the military, that we trust for the police. a weapon which has no place in the hands of peoplethey should or as part of the fourth of july . are we going to continue this intrusion mass shootings? sadly we will bless this

design is for the fight. worth of political debate and after highland park. i want to be on the record saying it's time to present and these assault holes, these weapons of war which has sadly so many innocent lives like were aiding these parents and five others who died in highland park. i hope for our children see we don't run away from this problem. people in highland park to run away from the july parade now us to send a species where. mister president, ideals or. >>

quorum call: quorum call: >> thank you mister president

. i'm honored to appear with a group of my colleagues on behalf of the expanding access to familyplanning act . we're here to talk about this essential measure in the post row world. that's a phrase i never thought i would ever utter anywhere, not to mention on the floor of the united states senate but we are living in the post roe world where reproductive rights are under assault as never before . and critical reproductive health care services are more

necessary and also are more risk than ever before. that is why a consistent, strong source of funding for title x family planning programs are absolutely critical and urgent. that's the purpose of the expanding access to family planning act. what it means for the state of connecticut is in the past , $2.5 million in title x funding allowing patients, mostly women, 45,000 of them critical access to comprehensive family planning and preventative healthcare services. what we're talking about here is not only family-planning but also testing and

treatment for sexually transmitted diseases, life-saving cancer screenings , other essential health services and they are all now at risk. what they need is the strong and consistent source of funding this measure would buy. doubling, almost doubling the number of dollars but also guaranteeing over a 10 year period that clinics will receive this funding. in connecticut most of this funding has gone to planned parenthood ofsouthern new england . the cornell scott hill health center has received some. they have done absolutely extraordinary work. in delivering health services particularly to women who are uninsured, women who are of lower income and women who

are younger. under 30. and that is the primary patient pool that needs these services. let me be very blunt. if my republican colleagues ...

magnificent grandeur of alaska. so again, if you're watching on tv, you want to come up, have the vacation of a lifetime, do it. the fish are running. we are having a banner year for sock eye salmon. the rivers all across the state are choked with them. last weekend, actually, i partook in a particular alaskan, unique alaskan tradition with my wife and a couple buddies of mine. we went dip netting. on the kinay river.

that's when there's so much fish you put a pole with a net at the end, and just put it in the water -- boom! you start to catch them. people go, well, can you tell if there's a fish in your net. i'm like yeah, you can tell. my wife and i and our friends, we caught 36 beautiful sockeye salmon yet -- or last weekend, about five hours of fishing. it was great. we just loved it. so fishing, hunting, feeding our families from our lands and waters is a big part of our life in alaska. these traditions bind us. they keep us together as a state, as a community, as families. our long-standing businesses are also part of the fabric of our state, particularly the ones that have grown up with our state, when the state's done well, they've done well.

when the state's struggled, they've struggled. but they've hung in there. and we want to celebrate these businesses, and the families that have run them. madam president, the great alaskan we're honoring today as our alaskan of the week is betsy lour. she is part of an amazing family and an amazing business in alaska -- first national bank of alaska, which this year is celebrating its 100th anniversary. it was started in 1922, this amazing financial institution has been part of the landscape of alaska, good times, difficult times, for 100 years. betsy has been at the helm, a strong, sturdy force helping to

guide this incredible business, and by extension other businesses in communities throughout the state, part of her family tradition, the cuddy family, for 100 years. let's talk about betsy. and the family. she's the president of the first national bank of alaska, and also part of a really impressive family that has run this bank for decades in alaska. so, here's the beginning -- literally with a vault full of gold nuggets and untanned animal pelts. that was their original deposits. in 1922, first national was founded and was part of the rough-and-tumble tent city of anchorage. anchorage was referred to as a tent city. in the 1930's, the patriarch of the cutty family, warren cutty,

began buying stock in the bank. by 1941, he purchased controlling interest and warren became the bank's president. then one of his sons at that time joined the bank's board. this is dan cutty, the legendary dan cutty, betsy's dad. his service was remarkable. first, i'd like to talk briefly about dan cuddy's service as an alaskan veteran in world war ii. he served as a captain in the 112th 55th engineer combat battalion, which way as tached to general -- attached to general george patton's army. dan fought in the battle of the bulge in luxembourg and was one of the troops that assisted in the discovery and closing of the

buchenwald concentration camp. this is an american hero. by the way, throughout his entire career, i got to meet, was so honored to meet with dan cuddy before he passed away in 2015, throughout his incredible career one thing he talked a lot about was the unspeakable atrocities that he saw in world war ii, so it would never happen again. so dan cuddy comes back from world war ii, warrior, patriot, war hero. he becomes a lawyer, and in 1951 he becomes the bank president, and the cuddy flam's involvement, again -- family's involvement, again, throughout our state is legendary. the bank thrived after that, undan's leadership. it grew with the state. it helped alaskans rebuild after the huge 1964 earthquake.

by the way, you want to read about a huge earthquake? 9 about the 2 on the richter scale -- 9.2 on the richter scale. one of the biggest recorded. destroyed cities, tsunamis. lasted five minutes. think about that. the bank the whole time kept supporting communities. and it continues to do that. it was among the first in the nation to distribute check image statements to its customers in the 1990's. the only bank in america to welcome dog mushers through drive-thrus. yes, think about that image. and it's probably certainly the only bank in america that has a branch that's bilingual both in english and yupik. that's the branch in bethel, one of 19 branches across america. first national bank of alaska, a

hundred years of service has received so many accolades and award, including being named one of the top banks in america and it was recognized in 2013 as one of america's most trustworthy companies by "forbes" magazine. you can see the cuddy family integrity in this institution. but the most important thing about first national bank of alaska's mission statement is that it's what -- that's what drives the bank. success depends on taking care of the community, employees, and customers. if the community isn't strong, businesses won't be strong, the bonk won't be -- bank won't be strong. so betsy, one of dan's six children was raised on those tenets i just talked about.

she saw how they worked firsthand. on saturdays she would join her father dan while he went on his outings visiting customers. sometimes those visits happened in anchorage where she would politely listen to business being discussed and then grab a late breakfast at peggy's, a mainstay in anchorage. sometimes they would jump into their prop plane and head out to rural alaska where she learned so much about that part of our great state. betsy said she loved those visits and she learned in the way that children do that helping people realize their hopes and their dreams is what her father did, what their business did, and why it was so important to so many alaskan communities. jump forward to september 10, 1969. betsy was a college student at duke spending her summers as she

always did working at the bank. as a secretary at the bank. just down the street from first national and downtown an carrage, the -- anchorage, the prudhoe bay oil lease sale was under way. this is the giant oil field in alaska, oil and gas field, the first big lease sale by the state. it was a huge event for our nation. huge event for alaska. back then the country needed alaska oil and gas just like today our country needs alaska oil and gas. on that day, september 1969, betsy remembers looking out the window of the bank. she said the streets were completely empty like the twilight zone. everybody was huddled in front of their radios listening to the lease sale that would change alaska and in many ways america

forever. first national bank of alaska, the cuddy family's bank where she was working. her dad was president then, was assisting bank of america on the lease sale. after the sale -- get this image -- betsy got a ride back to the east coast on a jet with bank executives headed to new york to directly deposit the $900 million check that was made out to the state of alaska. that's about $7 billion in today's money that got our state up and moving. she was on that plane. depositing that money. imagine the excitement that she felt then. the first thing betsy did after that when she got back to duke was to change majors from interior design to economics was probably a good move for a

future bank president. two years later she didn't even wait for her graduate ceremony -- graduation ser mope. she came back to alaska and immediately got back to work. because of management programs back then were mostly for men, betsy started from the bottom up. teller, clerk, secretary which she said later in life gave her an advantage when she began processing loans for the bank because she knew exactly how it all worked. and the people at every level in that bank. she knew the bones of the bank and the banking industry. throughout the years as the bank has grown, our alaskan of the week betsy has grown with it. she became president of the bank in 2013, ceo in 2018, and she'sle the board president -- she's also the board president. she's a mother, a wife, an active member of community. she is a great community banker, and i will tell you this, during the pandemic there was no

financial institution that was more dedicated to getting the ppp loans out to small businesses in alaska than first national bank of alaska betsy lawer. they did an incredible job. she helps people in our state realize their hopes and dreams and for betsy it all comes down to having a deep understanding and caring for the community, the many communities that they serve. you can't automate those relationships, she said. so i want to thank betsy, the cuddy family. congratulate the first national bank of alaska on a hundred years of service to our great state. what an amazing record and i want to congratulate betsy on perhaps one of her most prestigious awards ever, being alaskan of the week. madam president, i ask that my following comments be set aside

in a different portion of the congressional record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sullivan: madam president, we have been discussing in the senate floor the usica bill, the american competes bill, the bill that's supposed to focus on our ability to outcompete the chinese communist economy. and i can think of very little legislation more important than this. this is an issue that since i have arrived at the senate in 2015, started talking about the importance of a broad based strategy as it relates to china, and outcompeting china and recognizing that they don't play fair, that they steal, that they subsidize, that they coerce and yet they're a huge entity in the

global economy. so we need a strategy to deal with them. and this bill that we're now debating on the senate floor, the united states innovation and competition act of 2021, usica is something that i with a number of other senators have worked hard on for literally over the last year and a half. and i want to thank a number of senators who have put their heart and soul into this legislation, commend them, senator young, schumer, wicker, cantwell. warner, cornyn. this is important legislation. as i mentioned, madam president, i've supported it and its senate iterations when we pass it out of committee, the commerce committee, but i have concerns. i have concerns. and i'm going to mention a few of them briefly and then one concern that permeates so much

of what's been happening here in the u.s. senate over the last year and a half, that's really important to me and my constituents. and i'm asking my senate colleagues, my democrat senate colleagues, to help me on something that i don't think a lot of them maybe even know that they're doing. but let me get to the concerns. first on the chips provisions, this isn't a concern. this is what senator warner, senator cornyn, and many others have focused on. really important to shore up semisemiconductor manufacturing in america. now look, my state unfortunately is not one that's competing right now. hard for big fabrication plants. i understand that. we have other assets like energy that i'm going to talk about here in a minute. but wherever this government support for the chips industry is going to go in america i think is really important because this industry is like energy. it is so important to america, and we can't let china

outcompete us in that area. but let me talk about a couple of concerns, madam president. first on energy, one of the biggest areas that we can compete against china that they're scared about competing with us is our incredible natural resources. all of the bof resource -- all-of-the-above resources, all of our energy. if you read the intel and you see what china's leadership is worried about, one thing they're worried about is american energy dominance. so i have worked hard on this legislation for a year and a half to make sure that when we are looking at research, advanced research, that this legislation is going to fund, it needs to include all energy. it's been a struggle. i will admit. some of my democratic colleagues, certainly the biden administration have this thing where they don't like certain areas of energy. oil and gas in particular. they've targeted it. they want to put it out of business. it makes no sense.

it's probably the biggest strategic blunder of the biden administration across so many areas. targeting and unilaterally disarming american energy when it's one of our greatest comparative advantages. unfortunately, some of the language coming back over from the house continues this trend. and i am very concerned that we would have a bill that could give federal bureaucrats the opportunity to continue to target american energy as opposed to help bolster it in our competition with china. so that is one concern. it wasn't in the senate bill. i made sure of that. but now after some of the far-left members in the house got to put language in, it came back over here, it's a concern. it should concern every single american and every single senator. we need all of our strengths to compete with china. and to not use the strength of

american energy, all-of-the-above energy is nuts. hopefully this administration is waking up to that. but it hasn't been a great record at all in terms of that. there's another provision, something that built on a provision that i tried to get that i did get in the original usica bill that senator portman is now put forward with democrats and republicans, a provision to make sure that all of these federal dollars that are going to be in this bill do not go to chinese researchers working in our facilities, in research facilities, in university facilities, and then take them back to china. at a recent hearing, fbi director wray said this is one of the biggest threats our country faces. the counterintelligence perspective with regard to the chinese communist party. he said, quote, they are targeting our innovation, our

trade secrets, our intellectual property on a scale that is unprecedented in history. so if we're going for spend -- to spend all this federal dollars on american research, at american research institutions and american universities, we need strong guard rails to make sure it doesn't fall into chinese hands. senator portman has done a great job on this. it's a commonsense amendment. apparently some have had concerns that this amendment would be, quote, racist. that's ridiculous. we need to prevent china from stealing our intellectual property, period. it's not racist. it's common sense. i hope we can make sure that amendment gets in. but, madam president, i want to go into a little detail on the final issue that i have with

this bill. and to be honest, it's kind of shocking that a bill focused on competing with china once again from the democratic side of the senate or the house, i don't know where it comes from, has provisions that actually target in a negative way alaska natives. this is an issue that, to be honest, i'm kind of flabbergasted. it comes up everywhere. it's discrimination. it's racial discrimination. good ole fashion racial discrimination that i thought we tried to get rid of in this country a long time ago and it keeps popping up. and i'm tired of it. remarkably, it popped up in the anti-- the bill to compete against china. i'm sure a lot of you are saying jeez, how did that happen. i want to explain because i want many of my colleagues, many of whom i'm convinced have no idea

this is going on, to understand what's happening and it happens again and again and to be honest, it shouldn't. i hope some people in our media finally write about this. i think it's shameful, but i'm going to explain it here right now. here's the issue. in alaska, we have a very big indigenous population, wonderful people, incredible people, amazing people. it's almost 20% of the population of my state. they bring culture, heritage, values. by the way, they have been there for tens of thousands of years. really important to me, to senator murkowski. congress, congress -- not the

native people -- the congress of the united states over the course of many years essentially has classified -- we in the u.s. senate -- have classified alaska natives into kind of two broad categories. there are tribal members, which is this circle here, and there are members of alaska native corporations. they're in this circle here. now a lot of the indigenous people of alaska are both, tribal member and an anc member. some aren't both. some are just tribal members. some are anc members. but we're talking about tens of thousands of indigenous people. so whenever we work on legislation that benefits the alaska native people, but american indians writ large, what we always try to do is say, hey, remember, congress did this.

the native people didn't do this. so let's make sure that we cover everybody. let's make sure everybody is included. you wouldn't want to discriminate against one of these groups. they're all indigenous people. so that is what me, senator murkowski, ted stevens, every senator, every congressman, our great congressman don young who we just lost, we've been doing that for decades. all of a sudden this has become controversial to some members, to some groups -- this group, the anc members. these are indigenous people of alaska designated as anc not by themselves -- by the congress. so here is what happened. here's the beginning, and it's sad, and i'm going to talk about it. it shouldn't happen. and i really want my democratic colleagues to help me stop this because if you put another minority group in and talked

about what's happening to the native people of alaska, people would be shocked. "the new york times" and "washington post" would write front-page stories about official discrimination by the u.s. senate. forever reason it seems to be okay to do it against alaska natives but it's not okay. so here's what happened. in the cares act we had this historic funding, $8 billion for the native people of america. we wrote a definition. i was involved with it. everybody cleared on it -- indian affairs, majority, minority -- that included all indigenous people of alaska. okay, just like we include all indigenous people of nevada and new mexico. we wanted to cover $8 billion cares act, these very vulnerable populations, all the native people.

unfortunately, unfortunately, as opposed to being viewed as $8 billion, the biggest historic investment in indian communities in history, there was a dispute , and certain groups said we've got this $8 billion, but we don't want this group to get anything. we don't want this group, anc members, to get any of that $8 billion. remarkably, the majority leader in a tweet attacked the assistant secretary of interior, an alaska native woman of impeccable integrity, saying somehow that these members getting any of that money was corrupt. of course that was ridiculous. one of the senate democrats here, senator udall, launched an investigation of this incredible assistant secretary of interior, alaska native woman, on this charge. it was refuted. it was ridiculous. it was sad.

by the way, senator udall apologizeed to her, our ambassador to new zealand. he appolgd to this -- he appoll jiezed to this woman saying it was bad. it was bad. what happened, you had a group saying let's exclusive this group of tens of thousands, by the way, alaska natives from getting any cares money. look, we wrote the language. we knew that the language was inclusive of everybody. so that, unfortunately, went all the way to the u.s. supreme court. the trump administration, and to its credit, the biden administration said no, the language of the cares act would include all alaska natives. why would we discriminate against one and not another? so we won that. that was the way it was written. it i -- i had a lot to do with writing it so i know. but that's just fair. so that's what happened. then my democratic colleagues write the american recovery

act, $2 trillion relief package, $20 billion for american tribes. but you know what came out of that package? expressed language written by my democratic colleagues saying the $20 billion, every native group in america gets some of that money, but this group, tens of thousands of anc members in alaska, we're going to make sure they don't get anything. that happened right here on the senate floor. i have no idea why. let me just pose a counter factual. imagine you had congress say there's two groups of minorities. let's say, not two groups but asian american minorities in new york, group a, group b. congress categorized them, not themselves. or african americans, a, group a, group b.

or hispanic americans, group a, group b. the state of new york, just the state of new york. and a republican congress said we're going to do a giant relief package for that minority group across the country, but group b in new york, we're going to expressly exclude you from getting any money. what would you call that? i would call that good, old-fashioned racial discrimination. and if that happened, a republican congress did that, to say a group of african americans or hispanic americans or asian americans, "the new york times" and "washington post" would be going crazy, rightfully so, by the way. this happened. this happened. okay? i don't know why. i would love it if one of my p senate colleagues came down to say, hey, dan, here's why we went to great lengths to exclude tens of thousands of alaska native indigenous people from getting relief. here's why we did that to you. i'd love for somebody to tell me that.

they haven't. i think it's wrong. i think most people who know about it probably would be like, i didn't know we had $20 billion for tribes but we specifically excluded this group. was it because we were mad about the supreme court case? i don't know. but here's the thing, madam president. back to the usica bill. there's a lot money going to universities --. a senator: i ask my colleague if he would yield for one moment? mr. sullivan: i'm finishing up so i'm not going to yield. this is important to me. to my colleague from maryland. a lot of money from universitiey important to me and i've been wanting to give this speech for a long time. a lot of money going to institutions for research to compete against china. there are specific provisions that say there's going to be money that goes to native american groups. that's great. they have a lot of to bring to this battle against china.

but that provision came over from the house. guess what it did? it said not to this group. not to this group. so, madam president, you see where i'm going with this? i have no idea why democrats in the house and senate want to keep targeting this group of indigenous people. imagine if republicans did this to a minority group in maryland or new york. but it's happening, and it's happening even in this bill. so that is another bibbing -- big concern i haveth bill, this continuation. i have no idea. i would love for someone to come and say here's why we discriminated against tens of thousands in your state, indigenous people. but it's happening. i sure hope my colleagues listen to this. maybe "the new york times" or "washington post" will write about it once. bust just to cease-fire. when we're trying to help native

american people in america. in alaska, we want to help them all. remember this is how congress set up these groups, not the people. all i ask is let's keep trying to do what we did in the cares act, for all legislation. but i and senator murkowski are going to scrub every darned piece of legislation that comes out here and we're going to start calling out people and going why are you discriminating against tens of thousands of people in my state who are indigenous? it's wrong, it's inexplicable, and it's even in the darned bill to compete with china. and i sure hope my colleagues will work with me to start making sure this doesn't happen anymore. i yield the floor. mr. cardin: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. mr. cardin: i ask unanimous consent that senators cortez masto, hickenlooper be allowed to sign bills from july 21,

2022 until july 25. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cardin: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. mr. cardin: thank you very much, madam president. for the past six months i have been pleased to work with a bipartisan working group of about a dozen senators on potential reforms of the

electoral count act and some related matters. i particularly want to thank our leaders of that bipartisan group, senator collins and manchin, for organizing the group, keeping us focused on getting results, and leading to a process that has resulted in a positive outcome. this week we are unveiling our proposed legislation. our legislation, the electoral count reform and presidential transition improvement act of 2022, will reform and modernize the badly outdated 1887 eca. 1887, the electoral count act was passed. it's in bad need of reform. on july 18, 2022, "the wall street journal" ran an editorial authored by former president jimmy carter and former secretary of state jim baker who had previously served as chief of staff to president reagan.

in this editorial, they wrote, we stand on opposite sides of the partisan divide, but we believe it is better to search for solutions together than to remain divided. this is particularly true of a vexing problem that could wreak havoc during the 2024 presidential elections. the inadequacy of the electoral count act of 1887. the act is an antiquated, muddled and potentially unconstitutional law that allows uncertainty during a critical step in the peaceful transfer of power. weaknesses in the law started to become apparent after the 2000 election. the editorial continues. in 2021, the ambiguities of the law helped lead to the violent assault on the u.s. capitol as efforts were made to toss out several states slates of

electoral votes. fortunately those efforts failed and the rightful winners took office, but the threat of confusion remains. left unclosed, loopholes in the act could allow a repeat of the same destructive path that occurred in 2021. end quote. "the washington post" has written several editorials on the subject as well. in the june 19, 2022, editorial in the post entitled fix the electoral count now before trump tries to exploit it again, reviewed the recent house committee hearings on the january 6 insurrection. the editorial wrote, quote, quo the house committee investigating the january 6, 2021, capitol attack heard damning testimony detailing how president donald trump and partisan lawyers advanced the dangerous argument that the vice president had the legal authority to overturn a presidential election when congress meets to count electoral college votes. trump officials, after trump

officials testified that they knew it was wrong, john eastman, a lawyer who advocated for the theory, acknowledged as much in front of mr. trump on january 4, according to testimony from greg jacob, who was vice president mike pence's generally counsel. but mr. trump waged a potential -- belief in the anti-democrat nonsense spurred the jake mob which -- january 6 mob which chanted hang mike pence. the post editorial continues. americans went most of their history without having to worry about the arcane electoral college procedures. even in closely fought elections, many sought grace

instead of the vulnerabilities. congress should have no higher priority than fixing the electoral process. end quote. mr. president, the recommendation lings that's coming out of this bipartisan group would do just that, fix the electoral count act. i want to thank the work of the american law institute who convened a bipartisan working group to consider a possible rch ca reform. i want to thank cochairs bob bower and mike goldsmith and the staff at protect democracy for their suggestions and their work here. our legislation aims to ensure that congress can accurately and correctly tally the electoral votes cast by the states which should be consistent with each state's popular vote for president and vice president of the united states. our legislation clarifies some of the ambiguities in terms of

the appropriate state and federal roles in selecting the next president and vice president of the united states as set forth in the united states constitution. in our constitutional system, election laws, like many other areas of law, involves shared powers with the federal government on one hand and state and local governments on the other. article 1, section 4 of the constitution shall be prescribed in each state by the legislatures there of. the clause of the constitution continues by concluding, congress may at any time above all make or alter such regulations. we have the power here and that's what the electoral count act was about. article 2, section 1 of the constitution provides that each state shall appoint in such manner have equal number of

electors. congress may determine the time of choosing of the electors and the date in which they shall give their votes which shall be the same throughout the united states. the 12th amendment to the constitution ratified in 1804, sets out a framework for congress to tally and count the votes from the states. congress passed the electoral count act in 1887 after a contested election of 1876 in which states sent competing slates of ee locators to congress. our legislation takes several key steps to modernize the eca and stop constitutional mischief when it comes to congress counting the electoral votes of the state. first, the legislation helps to make it easier for congress to identify a single conclusive

slate of electors. it requires each state's governor as responsible for identifying the states electors. a state may designate another individual besides a governor to carry out this function, such as the secretary of state, if such individual is named before the election date itself. again, the executive official reporting their electoral vote to congress must do to pursuant to the law of the state provided for such -- prior to election date. it is to avoid circumstances in which the states attempts to change the rule due to political pressure that may arise if a particular candidate loses the election. congress could not accept a slate of electors from an

official not authorized to do so. our legislation provides that states following these rules will have their appointment of electors as conclusive by congress, subject to federal judicial date. our legislation states that the determination of the federal courts shall be conclusive on questions arising under the constitution or laws of the united states. second, the legislation modernizes the failed election language of the eca, that the state could modify the election date only due to catastrophic events as provided under the law the state enacted prior to the election day. this provision makes it clear that a state legislature that tries to override a popular vote in their state, that that would not be allowed. third, the legislation provides

for an expedited judicial review of certain claims relating to at state's certification identified by its electors. we have limited this special judicial review in our legislation to only be available to agreed presidential candidates. this special procedure allows for challenges made under federal law and the u.s. constitution to resolve efficiently using a special three-judge panel with a direct and timely appeal to the united states supreme court. fourth, the legislation makes clear that the vice president has purely -- in particular our legislation states that the vice president does not have the power to solely determine, accept, reject or otherwise adjudicate disputes on electors. that includes the objections to the list of electors and the

votes of the electors. president trump pressured the vice president to use this illegal method to overturn the 2020 election results, but this was objected by vice president pence in his capacity in the senate. our legislation increases the threshold needed to lodge an objection to electors from one senator and one representative to one-fifth of the duly chosen and sworn members of both the house and senate. article 1, section 5 of the constitution provides the yeas and nays of either body shall at the desire one-fifth of those present be entered on the journal. this will reduce the risk and likelihood of frivolous objections lodged, which require lengthy debate and vote, the house has a vote in the house and the senate votes separately,

takes a lot of time. on january 6, 2021, the senate voted to reject by a vote of 6-93 against the electors of arizona to 7-92 on objections raised as far as the electors to pennsylvania. if electors are not lawfully appointed or objection is sustained by congress, rejecting electors as not lawfully appointed, they will not be included in the whole number of electors appointed. that means we can reach a decision on the day we count the votes. the main focus of our work over the past six morntszs has -- months has been the sorely needed reform in the eca, but our cowering group came -- our working group came up with bipartisan frorms. -- reform. this will help with the orderly transfer of power.

as we saw in 2020, the failure of a timely ascertainment by the u.s. service administration and the trump administration led to a delay of resources to the incoming legislation. this provides clearer guidelines for candidates, president and vice president, to receive federal resources to support their transition, including during the time period when the outcome of election is in reasonable doubt. the postal service election improvement act seeks to improve the handling of mail-in ballots and provides guidance of best practices for the mail-in ballot processes. the election system reauthorization act would reauthorize the election commission for five years. it administers grants to states

and has besting practice it's, including -- practices, including election audits and voting accessibility. what this legislation does not include is any substantive provisions to strengthen voting rights in this country which is desperately needed. i'm sorely disappointed by that. our nation has a long history of bipartisan work on voting rights issues. i have repeatedly raised voting rights issues on voting practices. let me take a moment to remind my colleagues of our voting right history. the voting rights act of 1965 was approved by a broad bipartisan vote, 328-74 in the house and a vote of 79-18 in the senate. and congress had a long bipartisan track record of clarifying its intent in response to restrictive supreme court decisions.

that is until recently. in 1982, congress amended section it of the voting rights act after the mobile v. bodden decision in which the supreme court determined section 2 as only purposeful discrimination. that was restrictive. making the voting rights act much less effective. congress responded by clarifying that section 2 bans any voting practice that had a discriminatory result irrespective whether practice was enacted or operated for a discriminatory purpose. the 1982 amendments, the amendments that corrected the supreme court corrective decision, passed the house by a vote of 389-24 and the senate by a vote of 79-8 and it was signed into law by president reagan. bipartisan action. over 20 years later, congress

overturned section 5 of the voting rights act. this passed 390-33 in the house and 98-0 in the senate. it was signed into law by president george w. bush. again, bipartisan action. so after the supreme court's decision in shelby county v. holder in 2013 and vernvich, congress should have clarified the intent of the voting rights act. but it didn't. and now we are faced with a partisan gridlock on voting rights many we saw it play out in january when the senate refused to take up a debate, the freedom to vote john r. lewis act. let me mention one section of the vra, section 2 of the voting rightsle act protects against discriminatory voting laws. it prohibits any jurisdiction

from implementing a voting qualification or standard practice or procedure in a manner which results in a denial or abridgement of the right to vote on the count of race, color, or language or minority status. for nearly 40 years case laws have interpreted section 2 to combat racial discrimination without partisan favor. prior to the vernevich case, the supreme court had adopted a standard to ensure the effective implementation of these provisions consistent with the text and purpose of the act as amended in 1982. the decision deviated from congressional intent. the court adopted a duly narrow reading of section 2 when it went beyond the statutory interp medication by did -- interpretation by outlining nine new guideposts, it is inconsistent with the statute's

purpose and historical usage. it wasn't the first time the court narrowed our -- our law, but in previous efforts, we came together, democrats and republicans, to make sure that the voting rights act was effective. some i'm disappointed that we could not make progress in our working group to make the needed fix to section 2. we should have also looked at the issue of private action, since the voting rights act enacted in 1965, congress has intended that voters be able to sue directly to enforce the voting rights act rather than to depend on the u.s. department of justice and use finite resources in protecting voting rights. i want to thank senator murkowski for consistently raising this issue. this is settled law as congress repeatedly noted in its voting rights amendments. even though the private right of action is clear and settled law, our group should have removed

any ambiguity about its intent by proposing language making it more explicit for the statute's existing right for -- for right of action. we should have done the same with this critical right of private action under the voting rights act. a missed opportunity. as a recent report from the brennan center points out, state legislatures have been working to make it harder to vote after the 2020 elections, even after witnessing record turnout during the pandemic. the brenner center rote in 2022 and i quote, state lawmakers who spent 2021 passing laws to make it harder to vote have focused more intently on elections interference passing nine laws that could lead to tampering with how elections are run and how results are determined. election interference laws do two primary things. they open the door to partisan interference in elections, and they threaten the people and

processes that make elections work. in many indications these efforts are be -- cases these efforts are being justified as measures to combat baseless claims of election fraud and a stolen 2020 election. end quote. in many of these state legislatures, lawmakers have continued to introduce or enact laws that restrict access to the vote. legislation is characterized as restrictive if it would make it harder for eligible americans to register, stay on the rolls, and to vote as compared to existing state law. mr. president, free and fair elections are fundamental to who we are as a nation. for this reason i strongly support the bipartisan working group's proposal to reform and modernize the eca. as we saw in the 2020 elections, different interpretations of the electoral count act can lead down a dangerous path to another january 6 style insurrection when former president donald

trump and his enablers attempted to overturn a free and fair election won by joe biden. congress' work will not be complete when we pass this bipartisan proposal. we still must take up and pass voting rights legislation in order to safeguard the right to vote. we should be a right -- it should be a right guaranteed to all americans regardless of the race, wealth, or social status. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. cardin: mr. president. the presiding officer: yes, the senator from maryland. mr. cardin: i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations en bloc, calendar number 1045, 1046, 1047, 1049, 1057, 1058, and all nominations on the

secretary's desk in the foreign service, that the senate vote on the nominations en bloc without intervening action or debate, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, that any statements related to the nominations be printed in the record, that the president be immediately notified of the senate's actions, and the senate resume legislative session. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. the question occurs on the nominations en bloc. all in favor say aye. those opposed no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the nominations are confirmed en bloc. mr. cardin: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. mr. cardin: i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar 411, s. res. 568. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 411, s. res. 568, resolution

supporting the goals and ideals of countering international parental child abduction month and so forth. mr. cardin: i know of no further debate on the resolution. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. cardin: i know of no further debate on the resolution. the presiding officer: all in favor say aye. those opposed no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the resolution is agreed to. mr. cardin: mr. president, i further ask take the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cardin: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar 412, s. res. 589. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 412, senate resolution 589 recognizing, honoring, and

commending the women of ukraine who have contributed to the fight for freedom and the defense of ukraine. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection, the senate will proceed. mr. cardin: mr. president, i further ask that the committee-reported substitute amendment to the resolution be agreed to, the resolution as amended be agreed to, the committee-reported substitute amendment to the preamble be agreed to, the preamble as amended be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cardin: mr. president, i have five requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. the presiding officer: duly noted. mr. cardin: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 3:00 p.m. on monday, july 25 and that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date,

the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and morning business be closed. that upon the conclusion of morning business, the senate resume consideration of house message to accompany s. 3373. further, that the cloture motion filed during yesterday's session ripen at 5:30 p.m. and that the mandatory quorum call be waived. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. mr. cardin: mr. president, if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until 3:00 p.m. on monday.me.

>> "washington journal" continues. host: we are joined this morning by congressman john curtis, republican of utah. you are the chair of the conservative climate caucus. what is that?