[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> this afternoon india's prime minister modi delivers an

address before a joint meeting of congress. watch on c-span, c-span now, or online at c-span.org. we take you live now to the u.s. capitol where the senate is about to gavel in on this thursday morning. today lawmakers will vote on whether to repeal an a.t.f. law and a chile. live coverage on c-span2. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the comap lynn, the reverend dr. barry black -- the chaplain, the reverend dr. barry black

will open the senate in prairp. the chaplain: let us pray. almighty and everlasting god, we bow in reverence before your glorious presence, praying that heaven's unity may fill our lives. lord, empower our lawmakers to make bipartisan progress, enabling our nation to meet the challenges of our times. bring to fulfillment the ancient prophet's dream. "how good and pleasant it is for people to dwell together in unity." make our senators vividly aware that beyond the appraisals of constituents, there falls upon their decisions

and actions the searching light of your judgment. save them from weak and expedient choices as you use them to heal and bind to build and bless. and lord, we thank you for the contribution, of the first phase of the summer 2023 page class. we pray in your sovereign name. amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington d.c., june 22, 2023. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable raphael g. warnock, a senator from the state of georgia, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: patty murray, president pro tempore. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. morning business is closed. under the previous order, the senate will proceed to the consideration of h.j. res. 44 which the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 100, h.j. res. 44 providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, united states code, and so forth.

mr. schumer: mr. president.

the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. schumer: very soon, mr. president, a.i. will reshape life on earth in very dramatic ways. it will transform how we fight disease, tackle hunger, manage our lives, enrich our minds, and ensure peace. but we cannot ignore a.i.'s dangers, workforce disruptions in a very serious way, misinformation and new weapons, threats against our elections, and there's the danger that we may prove imcapable of managing this technology at all. congress cannot behave like ostriches in the sand when it comes to a.i. yesterday i laid out my safe innovation framework for a.i. i call it that because innovation must be our north star. a.i. could be our most spectacular innovation yet, could lead to generations of prosperity, so congress must promote its growth here in the united states. but if people don't think

innovation can be done safely without danger, that will stifle a.i.'s development and even prevent us from moving forward. so my safe innovation framework balances both prioritizing security, accountability, protecting our foundations, and explainability as safeguards, guardrails we need to make a.i. work safely for us. yesterday i also announced that later this year, i'll invite the top a.i. experts to come to congress and convene a series of first ever a.i. insight forums for a new and unique approach to developing a.i. legislation. these insight forums are the first of their kind. they have to be the first of their kind because a.i. moves so quickly, will change our world so skiesly is so much deeper in its complexity than anything we've dealt with.

our jobs as legislators will be to listen to the experts and learn as much as we can so we can translate these ideas into legislative action, and we must work quickly but not precipitously because this issue is so complex. we will have no order official deadlines. we will come up with proposes in a matter not of days or weeks and not of years but months. these forums can't and won't replace the activity already happening in congress on a.i. our committees must continue serving as the key drivers for legislation we produce in congress. but the a.i. forums will give us lots more information and knowledge from which we can draw legislation. and i thank all senators from both sides who are already working on this issue. we are keeping it bipartisan as it must be. we must exercise humility as we

proceed, humility is a key word here because this is so overwhelming. success is not guaranteed. a.i. is unlike anything we've dealt with before and it may be exceedingly difficult for legislation to tackle every single issue. but if we can find some solutions and create some consensus, we must press ahead. as theodore roosevelt said, we are in the arena and there is no substitute for government being involved. because without government, there will be no guard rails. some companies may put them in, but they even won't put them in if other companies don't and gain an advantage. so government must be involved here. it's the only force powerful enough to impose guidelines on what could otherwise be an unfettered a.i. now, on the modi visit. later this afternoon, i'll join congressional leaders in welcoming prime minister narendra modi of india to the u.s. capitol where he'll speak

before a joint meeting of congress. i'll tell prime minister modi the same thing i told him earlier this spring when i led the largest senate codel to india. our two nations will need each other if we are to be back the forces of autocracy. when i visited india, i got to see the vibranty and future potential of that society. it's astounding. india will grow in power and strength over the next century. and if we want to hold firm against the chinese government and the chinese communist party, then the world's two largest democracies must work in unison to ensure peace. it means expanding trade, expanding opportunities for workers to come to the u.s. it means safeguarding our common defense which i know will be one of the big announcements during the visit. but i also told prime minister modi during our meeting that we cannot lose sight of the values that define us as democracies in the first place. like freedom of expression, minority rights, civil

liberties. i told this to him in person because without that, no democracy, no democracy can long thrive. so i look forward to meeting for the second time this year with the prime minister later this afternoon to stress the importance of democratic values and the urgency of our nation working together. on the chile tax treaty. for decades chile's been one of america's strongest partners in latin america, economically, diplomatically, scientifically. today the senate will take a monumental step to strengthen u.s.-chile relairgses by taking the tax treaty. it's been in the works for over a decade. it has strong bipartisan support and now is the time to finally get it across the finish line. the u.s.-chile treaty is consistent with other tax treaties we have with more than 60 countries which boosts american competitiveness on the global stage. chile is the home to the world's

largest lithium reserves. the precious metal used in emerging technologies like iphones, ev batteries and renewable energy storage. as the world races to advance clean technologies, chile will be a critical ally for anyone looking to lead the way. but without a tax treaty with chile, american companies could face double taxation and other barriers to investment and trade leaving them at a significant disadvantage against foreign competitors. if the united states is serious about remaining ahead of countries like china, it's imperative we pass this treaty today and put american business back on a level playing field with the rest of the world when it comes to chile. i want to thank my colleagues. so this is a very important treaty for our future and for our leadership in technology. and in clean energy. i hope it will get as close to unanimous support as anything can get in this body. i want to thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle,

especially senators menendez and risch for their work on this issue and i look forward to the senate finally getting this treaty passed later this afternoon. finally, on the pistol brace yra. later this morning senate republicans will force a vote on a bill seemingly designed to make america's gun violence epidemic even worse. here at a time with all this gun violence, the republicans are putting a bill on the floor that makes it easier, easier to conceal an assault-style pistol, something that's been used in mass shooting after mass shooting. shame on them. at issue is a commonsense rule released by the atf regulating the use of pistol braces widely available accessories that modify a.k.-style pistols so that they function accidentically to short -- identically to short barreled rifles. if you've ever seen a gunman

fire what looks like a machine gun with one hand, that's what pistol braces allow you to do. because they don't have a long barrel, it makes it much easier to conceal them. so people for bad purpose, particularly those who are involved and want to do mass shootings, love these weapons. and we're making it eetzier for them -- easier for them to get them. it's just some of the moves that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle make are just appalling. a legacy of gun violence has been made significantly worse because of pistol braimses. even a -- brailses. even a surface look at reese. mass shootings reveal gunmen were often aided by a pistol brace. in dayton, nine killed, 17 injured outside a bar. the gunman used a pistol brace. or consider the shooting in boulder, in 2021, ten killed, including a police officer. again, the gunman used a pistol

brace. and we cannot forget that tragedy in nashville. three teachers murdered. three 9-year-olds slaughtered. the photo from that day haunts me, and should haunt us. i think of it all the time. students ushered by police in a single file through the parking lot, parents frantically looking for their children. a little girl, that's the picture i think of, a little girl looking out the window of a school bus in tears, scared for her life. today's republican push to ease access to deadly pistol braces is an insult to countless families who have lost loved ones because of these enhanced weapons. this proposal is a shameful, shameful step backward in america's fight against gun violence, and it is just utterly confounding, perplexing that our

republican colleagues are pushing this kind of legislation. americans are tired of hard-right politicians who intentionally turn a blind eye to all the suffering in our communities, while they actively work to take us backward in the fight against gun violence. i will strongly oppose this cra and urge my colleagues to likewise vote no. now, finally, later this morning, i'll be meeting with general c.q. brown, president biden's nominee for the next chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. brown is -- general brown is exceptionally qualified to serve as the nation's highest plirlt officer and will -- military officer and will be an important adviser to the president. general brown's nomination would normally pass with concept, without cloture needed. i want to hear this morning from general brown about the damaging impact that senator tuberville's holds on senior military promotions is having on our

national security and military readiness. i yield the floor. mr. durbin: mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority whip. mr. durbin: mr. president, i want to follow the remarks of the majority leader. last saturday night, there was a juneteenth celebration in willowbrook,il. there was music, people gathered in the parking lot of a strip mall. they were having a generally good time. then gunfire erupted. at the end of just a few minutes, one person was dead, 22 had been wounded. saturday night. that wasn't the only gun violence in the region over that weekend. we estimate at least nine were killed and another 55 injured from gunfire. it's a common occurrence, sadly, across america. we felt it in illinois.

some estimate we've had over 50 mass shootings so far this month, and we're only at june 22. what is going on in america? it's a serious question. but what has happened every weekend in most of the major cities in this country is a reminder that americans cannot gather to celebrate a holiday, a graduation, or even a funeral without the ever-present threat of gun violence. mr. president, it goes without saying, but i'm going to repeat it -- gunfire is the number one killer of america's children. gunfire is the number one killer of america's children. many of my constituents beg me to do something. as chairman of the senate judiciary committee they say, can't you at least regulate the use of some of these guns so they don't get in the hands. hands of people who misuse them? i tell them i want to do that, and i share their sentiments, but i don't have the votes to do

it. you need 60 votes on the floor of this 100 00-member senate tot that passed. it's -- of this 100-member senate. it's hard to do. one in five americans have lost someone to gun violence. that's unthinkable around the world, yet it's the american way, sadly. today, we're facing an incredible effort by the senate republicans a little later this morning. they are trying to take a gun safety law off the books. it isn't something just done yesterday and is considered to be a rash move. it's a law that's been on the books for 90 years. 90 years. they want to overturn a restriction by the alcohol, tobacco and firearms agency that prevents people from turning pistols into short-barrelled rifles. this restriction is known -- pardon me, this restriction is on devices known as stabilizing

braces. they convert pistols into a weapon that can be fired from the shoulder, but they still only have a barrel 16 inches long. so they can be easily hidden under a jacket. for almost 90 years, short-barrelled rifles have been controlled under the national firearms act, along with machine guns and sawed-off shotguns. why? because they combine the accuracy of a rifle with the concealability of a handgun. it's a deadly combination. we all know, because of the ammunition magazines that can be strapped onto so many pistols, that these become automatic weapons, similar to ak-47's. pistols with stabilizing brailses have a reputation in this modern america -- stabilizing braces have a reputation in this modern america, though they've been forbiddened and regulated almost 90 years. the mass shooter who killed nine and injured 17 in dayton, ohio, in 2019 used one of these

weapons. by a mass shooter in boulder, colorado, in 2021 who killed ten people, including a policeman. and by another mass shooter he killed five and injured 19 in 2022 in colorado springs. the coive nationality school shoot -- covenant school shooting in nashville, tennessee, this mast march -- past march, children and teachers killed at school, that shooter had one of these weapons as well. a republican senator is going to come to the floor today and say that we should reconsider a safety measure that's been on the books for almost 90 years to make it easier for people to buy virtually semiautomatic and automatic weapons that have been used in mass killings in america. what are we thinking? the 4th of july is just around the corner. i remember the last 4th of july. my wife and i were vacationing in michigan and heard the news, there had been a mass shooting in highland park, illinois, at

the 4th of july parade. a gunman got on top of one of the downtown buildings, where the crowd gathered for this parade, and used an ak-47 and fired 83 rounds in 60 seconds, firing randomly into a crowd, killing seven innocent people who just came out for the 4th of july parade and wounding almost 55 p 55 others. think of that for a moment. in 6 0 seconds, that kind of daniel, those kinds of when -- that kind of damage, those kinds of weapons. here we have, leaving for of july -- for the 4th of july break, the republicans authorizing a piece of equipment for a weapon used over and over again in america in mass shootings, killing innocent people, including schoolchildren in nashville, tennessee. what are they thinking? at a time when gun violence is the number one killer of children, we read about it day

in and day out, they want to make it easier to have a weapon equipped for easy use by one arm, not two, that makes so many people vulnerable and kills them in such a rapid fashion. this makes no sense whatsoever. but it defines the republican party's attitude towards gun control. we have had one exception to what i just said, and that was last year after the uvalde incident. we finally did something. i think it was positive, and it was bipartisan. i salute the republicans who joined in on that. i hope today they come to their senses and don't overturn this 90-year-old law that makes it easier for people to use these weapons in a violent way and a deadly way. the atf rule gives law-abiding gun owners plenty of options to apply with the law. -- comply with the law. removing this brace, attaching a longer barrel to the gun, or registering the weapon like

other short barrelled rifles, because that's what it is. there are ways conceivably you can comply with the law, but they want to waive those requirements and make it easier to buy these weapons, equipment that can be used to make more deadly the weapon. the rule is common sense. the last thing we should do is wipe it off the books. i urge my colleagues to vote no on the resolution. on a separate issue, mr. president, this weekend cities around the globe, including chicago, will be hosting their annual pride parades. it will be a chance to join in celebrating the lgbtq community and honor the history of the pride movement. sadly today, even during pride month, extremist politicians throughout america are trying to rewrite that proud history. since the start of 2022 school year, republican lawmakers and more than 30 states have introduced bans banning or limiting access to books in libraries and classrooms. many of these focus in part on

lgbtq identity and history. this is not a coincidence. because these bans are not only an affront to the first amendment, they are shameful, dlinlt effort to erase the lgbtq community from the american story. well, try as these politicians might, the troot is you cannot -- the truth is you cannot erase history or progress when it comes to human rights. you cannot erase the courage and sacrifice of pride pioneers like marcia johnson and harvey milk, and you cannot erase our lgbt glbility colleagues who have -- glnt lgbt colleagues who have broken barriers and proving to young people they are vite tol -- vital to our history. i will ask the rest of my statement be placed in the record because i have to go to the appropriations committee. i salute the people who participated yesterday. it was a hearing that really i was proud of it at the end. i didn't know going in how it would work. there was a 16-year-old trans

gender girl from alabama with her father who appeared and did an extraordinarily good job testifying and answering questions. there was a dr. from texas who has been involved in gender-affirming care more than ten years. she talked about the difficulties in dealing with children who are searching for answers in their lives, looking for a place in this world and hoping they can find someone who they can talk to, parents and medical professionals. it struck me that there are decisions made every day across america by parents and families, life-and-death decisions and decisions that are critical. we say to these families, you make the best decision for your child, but when it comes to gender affirmation care many states have stepped in and said to doctors involved and the parents involved, stop the conversation, you're not going to discuss it with children who are troubled and need some help. that is wrong. medicine and science should

prevail, not prejudice, when it comes to transgender people. the hearing yesterday was good and an indication that pride month is taken seriously by the united states congress and particularly the senate judiciary committee. i ask the reed remainder of -- the remainder of my remarks be placed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: thank you. i yield the floor.

mr. president i will reshape life on earth and very dramatic ways. it will transform how we fight disease, tackle hunger, manage

our lives, and richer mind and peace. but we cannot ignore ai's dangers, workforce destructions in very serious way. misinformation and new weapons, threats against our elections, and there's the danger we may prove incapable of managing this technology at all. congress cannot behave like ostriches in the sand when it comes to ai. yesterday i laid i laid e innovation framework for ai. i called that because innovation must be our north star. ai could be our most spectacular innovation yet, could lead to generations of prosperity. so congress must promote its growth here in the united states. but if people don't think innovation can be done safely without danger, that will stifle ai's development and even prevent us from moving forward. so my safe innovation framework balances both prioritizing

security, accountability, protecting our foundations, and explainability as safeguards, guard rails, we need to make a i work safely for us. yesterday i also announced later this year i will invite the top ai experts to come to congress and convene a series of first ever ai insight forums for new and unique approach to developing ai legislation. these insight forms of the first of their kind. they have to be the first of their kind because they i move so quickly, it will change our world so decisively, is a much deeper in its complexity than almost anything else we have dealt with, and lacks the legislative history in corridors that other issues like the military or education or healthcare have. our jobs as legislators will be to listen to the experts and learn as much as we can so we can translate these ideas into legislative action.

and we must work quickly but not precipitously because this issue is so complex. we will have no artificial deadlines. we will come up with proposals in a matter not of days or weeks, and not of years, but months. these forums can't and won't replace the activity already happening in congress on ai. our committees must continue serving as the key drivers for legislation we produce in congress, but the ai forums will give us lost more information and knowledge from which we can draw legislation. and i think all senators from both sides who are already working on this issue. we're keeping it bipartisan, as it must be. we must exercise humility as we proceed, humility is a key word here, because this is so overwhelming. success is not guaranteed. ai is unlike anything we have dealt with before and it may be exceedingly difficult for legislation to tackle every

single issue, but if we can find some solutions and create some consensus, we must press ahead. as theater roosevelt said, , we are in the arena. and there is no substitute for government being involved. because without government there will be no guard rails. some companies may put them in by the even won't put them in if other companies don't and gain an advantage. so government must be involved here. it's the only force powerful enough to impose guidelines on what could otherwise be an unfettered ai. now, on the modi visit. later this afternoon i'll join congressional leaders and welcoming prime minister modi's of indiana to the u.s. capitol where he will speak for a joint meeting of congress. i'll tell prime minister modi's the same thing i told an earlier this spring when i let the largest senate codel ever to india. our two nations will need each other if we are to beat back the

forces of autocracy. when i visited india i got to see the vibrancy and future potential of that society. it's astounding, and india will grow in power and strength over the next, over the next century. and if we want to hold firm against chinese government and the chinese communist party, then the world's two largest democracies must work in unison to ensure peace. it means expanding trade, expanding opportunities for workers to come to the u.s. it in safeguarding our common defense which i know will be one of the big announcements during the visit. what i also told prime minister modi's during our meeting that we cannot lose sight of the values that define us as democracies in the first place like freedom of expression, minority rights, civil liberties. i told this to him in person because without that no democracy, no democracy will thrive. so i look forward to meeting for the second time this year with

the prime minister later this afternoon to stress the importance of democratic values in the urgency of our nation working together. on the chilly tax treaty, for decades chile has been one of america's strongest partners in latin america, economically, diplomatic become militarily and scientifically. today this it will take a monumental step to strengthen u.s.-chile relations by passing the chile tax treaty. this treaty has been in the works for over a decade. a strong bipartisan support, and i was a time to finally get it across the finish line. the u.s.-chile treaty is consistent with other tax treaties we have with more than 60 countries, which boosts american competitiveness on the global stage. children is home to the world's largest lithium reserves. the precious metal used in emerging technologies like iphones, easy batteries and renewable energy storage. so as the world races to advance clean energy technologies, chile

would be a a critical ally for anyone looking to lead the way. but without a tax treaty with the chile, american companies could face double taxation and other barriers to investment and trade, leaving them at a significant disadvantage against foreign competitors. if the united states is serious about remaining ahead of countries like china, it's imperative we pass this treaty today and put american business back on a level playing field with the rest of the world when it comes to chile. i want to thank my colleagues pics of this is a very important treaty for our future and for our leadership in technology, and in clean energy. i hope it will get as close to unanimous support as anything can get in this body. i want to thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, especially nor mendez and senator risch and a four to the senate finally getting this treaty passed later this afternoon. finally on the cra. later this morning senate

republicans will force a vote on a bill seemingly designed to make america's gun violence epidemic even worse. here at a a time with all thin violence, republicans are putting a bill on the floor that makes it easier, easier to conceal an assault style pistol. something that's been used in mass shooting after mass shooting. shame on them. an issue that at issue is a commonsense rule released by the atf regulating the use of pistol braces. widely available accessories that modify ak style pistol so that they function identically to short barreled rifles. if you have ever seen a gunman fired what looks like a machine gun with just one hand, that's what pistol braces allow you to do. and because they don't have a long barrel, and makes it much easier to conceal them so people forbade purpose, particularly those who are involved and want

to demand shootings, love these weapons. and we are making it easier for them to get them. it's just some of the moves that our colleagues on the other side of the i'll make are just appalling. a legacy of gun violence has been made significantly worse because of pistol braces or even a surface look at recent mass shootings reveal that gunmen were often aided by a pistol braces. a shooting in dayton 2019, 19, 17 injured outside a bar. the gunmen used a pistol brace. or consider the shooting and boulder in 2021, ten killed including a police officer, again the gunmen used a pistol brace. and we cannot forget that tragedy in nashville, three teachers murdered, three-nine-year-old slaughtered here the photo from day haunts me and should haunt us.

i think of it all the time, students, parents frantically looking for their children. a little girl, that's the picture i think of. a little girl looking out the window of a school bus in tears, scared for her life. today's republican push to ease access to deadly pistol braces is an insult to countless families who have lost loved ones because of these in -- this is a proposal that a shameful shameful step backward in america's fight against gun violence and is just utterly confounding, perplexing that our republican colleagues are pushing this kind of legislation. legislation. americans are tired of hard right politicians who intentionally turn a blind eye to all the suffering in our communities while the act of a

work his backward in the fight against gun violence. i will strongly opposed this cra and urge my colleagues to likewise vote no. now finally later this morning i would be meeting with general ceq brown president biden's nominee for the next chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. brown is exceptionally qualified to serve as the nation's highest ranking military officer and will be an important advisor to the president on military decisions and operations. general brown's nomination would normally passed with consent without cloture needed. i want to hear this morning from john brown about the damaging impact that senator tuberville hold on senior military promotions is having on our national security and military readiness. i yield the floor. >> mr. president, i want to follow the remarks of the majority leader. last saturday night there was a juneteenth celebration in

willowbrook illinois. there was music and people gathered in the parking lot of a strip mall and they're having a generally good time, and then gunfire erupted. at the end of just a few minutes, one person was dead, 22 had been wounded. saturday night. that wasn't the only gun violence in the region over the weekend. we estimate at least nine were killed and another 55 injured from gunfire it's a common occurrence saturday across america. we felt it in illinois. some estimate we've had over 50 mass shootings so far this month, and we're only at june 22. what is going on in america? serious question, but what has happened every weekend in most of the major cities in this country is a reminder that americans cannot gather to

celebrate a holiday, a graduation, or even a funeral without the ever present threat ofer gun violence. mr. president, it goes without mr. padilla: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i rise today just a few days ahead of the anniversary of one of the most devastating supreme court voting rights decisions in our nation's history. this coming sunday marks the ten-year anniversary since the supreme court's shelby v. holder decision when, surprise, surprise, a conservative majority of the supreme court voted to dramatically erode americans' access to the ballot. and undo 50 years of voting rights protections. now, at the benefit of hindsight and my six years serving as california's chief elections

officer, i can say that the decision in shelby was not just an anomaly in our nation's history. since shelby we have seen state after state exploit this decision and enact dozens of laws designed to make it harder for some people to vote. despite the proponents' claims, the effect of these laws is to make it harder and disproportionately for voters of color, voters with disabilities, college students, and senior citizens to register to vote, to stay registered to vote, or to actually cast their ballot. but unfortunately we've seen this before. while the 15th amendment to the constitution was ratified in 1870 guaranteeing all citizens

the right to vote regardless of race, that did not stop states from limiting access to the ballot. poll taxes, literacy tests, grandfather clauses coupled with the brutal violence of the jim crow south made it nearly impossible for black citizens and other minorities at the time to exercise their constitutional rights. yes, i know it's not pleasant to be reminded of this, but, mr. president, i think it's important to keep restating these facts for the record before they end up getting censored out of some history books in schools and different parts of this country. the times we're living, i'll tell you. now, these violations were so egregious and so pervasive that it would take congress nearly a century to address them.

congress only took action after the marches of civil rights leaders and the chorus of protests grew so strong that they could no longer be ig in other words. the country witnessed the civil rights movement in leaders like dr. martin luther king, and john lewis, who called out the fundamental hypocrisy of a nation who promised all men and women to be eerk wall, but whose professed principles stopped at the entrance to the pole place. the voting rights act of 1965 was a moment to freedom, but it certainly was never intended to be temporary, let alone a final chapter in the struggle for equality. the voting rights act was actually a reminder, a reminder

that america's democracy is imperfect and that it's each generation's job to bring us closer to being a more perfect union. so, in june of 2013, when the supreme court struck down section 5 of the voting rights act in that developby v. holder -- shelby v. holder provision, the provision that required states with a history of racially motivated voter suppression to prove any new laws would not adversely impact minority voters before they could be implemented, that decision undid 50 years of voting rights protections. in an instant, the supreme court scrapped section 5 of the voting rights act, which was a critical tool that successfully protected

us against a most egregious forms of voter suppression. as a result of the shelby decision, today too many eligible citizens, eligible citizens, have fallen victim to a new set of barriers put in place by republican-led state legislatures. now, modern-day voter suppression efforts might be a little bit more subtle than what we saw in the mid 20th century, but make no mistake, they are no less effective in suppressing the vote. purging voters rolls. ing vote -- limiting vote-by-mail opportunities. ing early voting opportunities, these are -- limiting early voting opportunities, making it harder for people to have their voice heard in our democracy. while we may celebrate the

recent supreme court decision in allen v.mill imp gan, which was vitally important in upholding section 2 of the voting rights act, and affirming desk aids of the supreme court's jurisprudence on the voting rights act, we must remember that the act as a whole is failing to function as it was intended, as it was originally adopted. and make no mistake, the right to vote, the precious right to vote, continues to be attacked. mississippi has passed one of the strictest voter i.d. laws in the country. georgia cut 10% of its polling places ahead of the 2020 elections, mostly around the atlanta metropolitan area, despite the fact that more than

two million new voters had registered. more voters deserve more opportunities to vote, not less. in fact, since 2020 alone, 33 states have passed at least 104 new restrictive voting laws. maga republicans continue to spread false claims of massive voter fraud to cynically justify their voter suppression agenda. it's these types of threats to our democracy that actually fueled my work as california's secretary of state prior to my joining the senate. as the chief elections officer for a state of nearly 40 million people, the most populus -- populous state in the nation and

most diverse in the nation, i worked to implement automatic voter registration, same-day voter registration, to update voting systems to meet higher security standards, and to expand mail-in voting and in-person early voting opportunities. we intentionally and aggressively worked to make our democracy both more secure and more inclusive, not less. that's why today, mr. president, there are more than 22 million californians on the voter rolls. that's right, there are more voters in the state of california than the population of the state of florida. the voter rolls are now the most accurate, up-to-date than they've ever been. that's good for election integrity. we've seen record turnout as a

result in four of the last six elections. that's the way democracy is supposed to work. now, california's taking a stand because our right to vote is worth fighting for, and because when it comes to defending and strengthening our democracy, california proudly leads. now it's time for congress to follow this example. mr. president, in the fight for civil and voting rights, a quote by dr. martin luther king is often invoked. i'll quote, the arc of the moral universe is long but it bends towards justice. too often in our nation's history it's been congress that has obstructed or path to justice. this body has not always upheld

the legacy of the americans who marched for the right to vote, who risked their safety for the right to vote, who gave their life so that we might all have a say in our democracy. mr. president, ten years after shelby it's clear that this decision has undermined the fabric of our democracy. so, it's time that we pass the john lewis voting rights advancement act, which would restore a requirement and help protect the voting rights of all americans. i believe what i learned in high school government class was right -- our country is stronger when more eligible americans participate. and so that's why we must also

pass and implement the freedom to vote act, to set a national baseline of voter protections and access to the ballot. our vote is sacred. it's how citizens exercise their voice in the political process. it's how we hold elected leaders accountable, and it's how we together shape our country's future. it is our sworn duty, colleagues, it's our sworn duty to protect the right to vote. so i urge all of you to join me in restoring these key components of the voting rights act. let's pass once again landmark legislation to protect our sacred right to vote, and let us live up to the legacy of the

civil rights movement. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor.

mr. blumenthal: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. sidney blumenthal, is the -- do we have a quorum? the presiding officer: the senate is not in a quorum. mr. blumenthal: mr. president, in just a very short time, we will be voting in this body on

whether to take a step backward in our efforts to stop gun violence. let's be very clear. the vote in just about half an hour will be to overturn a regulation that was final at the beginning of this year and went into effect at the end of may, just weeks ago. and yet our republican colleagues are all too ready to take that step backward on a regulation that would help prevent the kinds of tragedies that we've seen again and again and again in this great country. in a short time, this regulation will be before us in a way that

i hope we will defeat soundly. just last week we held a summit in hartford, connecticut, bringing together all of the major groups involved in trying to prevent gun violence, addressed by the president of the united states, who has promulgated this regulation that requires registration of pistol braces. perhaps seemingly a small matter to the vast majority of americans, but the fact is that in the past four years alone, pistol-stabilizing braces have been used in a number of mass tragedies. just to give you some example, ten people were killed and three injured at a grocery store in boulder, colorado. nine people were killed and 27 injured outside a bar in dayton, ohio. five people were killed and 25

injured at a club in colorado springs, colorado. six people were killed at a church school in nashville, tennessee. in each of these instances, people were killed using a pistol brace. they are so dangerous because they can convert pistols into short-barreled rifles. a brace attaches a pistol to a shooter's arm and allows it to be fired from the shoulder. the shooter thereby acquires the power and accuracy of a rifle with an easily concealed pistol. so today we're here to decide whether that atf rule supported by the president, to his credit, designed to keep americans safe

from these makeshift rifles were stand. what was so apparent in hartford when the president spoke to us there was the energy and spirit reflecting america's support for these kinds of commonsense gun violence prevention measures. all of those groups who attended representing the american people were, in fact, energized by a growing consensus in america -- the majority of americans support these kinds of commonsense measures. and more and more, the gun violence prevention movement is led -- not just supported but led by young people who see our future as stopping gun violence on our street that continues to take more than 100 lives every

day. these young people, some of them were actually in sandy hook, six years old at the time that their fellow elementary school students were taken from them. they are now graduating from high school. they are voting. they are supporting candidates, and they are running for office. this new generation is going to say, enough is enough. just as they did in hartford this summer, and just as the president in effect said when he addressed us. and so the president is taking action, under his present authority, even without new legislation, to try to confront and contain and stop gun violence. we need to be committed to new

legislation, and i have urged background checks applied universally, ghost gun bans, assault weapon bans, large-capacity magazine bans, and perhaps very feasibly and achievably in this congress a requirement for safe storage. much more is necessary as a matter of legislation, but the president is committed to take action under his president executive authority to require commonsense measures, and this registration requirement is one of them. let's be very clear. it doesn't ban pistol braces. it simply requires that gun

owners register them. the rule amends atf's regulation is require and clarify that when someone uses a pistol-stabilizing brace to convert a pistol into a short-barrel rifle, that person needs to reenlister the gun pass a -- to register the gun pass a short-barrel rifle. if somebody is is going to convert a pistol into a short-barrel rifle, it needs to be explicitly registered. so today we have a choice. either we allow shooters to turn pistols into powerful, accurate, easily hidden rifles with total impunity or we have the courage to protect our community. that's a choice that we have right here on the floor of the united states senate, every single one of us. whether to save lives or to continue to enable those pistols to be more lethal, more deadly,

and more intolerable. i have been working on this issue for a long time. when i first became attorney general of the state of connecticut in the early 1990's, i championed a ban upon assault weapons. i defended it in our state courts against many of the arguments made here. and at that point the number of advocates was a handful on our side. this movement has grown. it's been fueled by the tragedies that we confront, the ones that i mentioned where short-barreled rifles have been used with a pistol brace, lives lost because of this contraption that makes guns more lethal, more deadly. we don't need pistol braces for

legitimate uses of guns. and if they have legitimate uses, they can simply be registered. the movement that has built over these years, since the early 1990's, and most directly since sandy hook has been fueled by these tragedies that we can help prevent going forward. that's our obligation today. and the summit that came together just last week in hartford, where the president committed himself unequivocally and dramatically to these kinds of commonsense measures, can be advanced if we permit this kind of executive action to be taken. now is no time for a step backwards. now is no time to say to the

president, you can't take this kind of commonsense action under existing authority. now is the time to move forward with stronger legislation. all of those measures that i mentioned, and more, that will make america safer, that will help prevent the kinds of tragedies that these pistol braces simply aggravate and fuel. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor.

mr. murphy: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. murphy: first i'd ask that prior to the scheduled vote, i be avowed to speak for ten minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. murphy: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, america is crying out for this congress to do something about the epidemic of mass shootings. we average more than a mass shooting a day right now. kids are living in fear when they walk into school. people don't know where the next shooter is coming from. no place seems safe. and so what is senate republicans' answer to this paralyzing fear and anxiety that americans have about mass shootings?

their answer today is to put a resolution before the floor of the senate that would make legal a new class of semiautomatic rifles that has been banned for 100 years because they're too dangerous. so the answer to the mass shooting crisis in this country is more assault rifles, more dangerous weapons, taking a class of weapons that has been illegal fora century and putting them on the -- for a century and putting they will on the open market. that is outrageous and it is completely removed from the conversation that families and kids are having all across this country. instead of taking dangerous assault weapons off the streets, this resolution would put more of them into the commercial marketplace.

i want to talk for a a few minutes today about how dangerous this resolution is and to ask my republican colleagues to vote with us, to vote with us against this resolution so that we can protect our families and our kids from criminal acts and mass shootings. so, mr. president, for almost a century, the law has treated different types, certain types of firearms differently than others; namely, those that congress saw as more associated with violent crime. short-barreled rifles are in that category. they are more transportable and concealable than long rifles. they have longer range, greater accuracy, and more firepower than pistols. kind of the perfect recipe for

criminals. that's, in part, why they are more highly regulated than your standard handgun or your standard hunting rifle or even an ar or ak-style assault rifle. to own a short-barrel rifle in this country, you have to pay $200 for a tax stamp, up to undergo a background check, you have to register that firearm with the atf. you can have one, but you have to go through that process, that system that courts have agreed is consistent with the second amendment allows for a responsible, law-abading citizen to -- law-abiding citizen for acquiring these weapons while keeping them out of the hands of criminals or people who want to commit crimes with them. what's changed? recent decades, gun manufacturers have responded to the popularity of a r-15 rifles by selling a virginians that they call either a large for

format pistol. it is a shorter version of a an assault rifle. a shorter barrel that lacks a shoulder stock. these guns theoretically can be fired one in of handed but very few people want to do that. they're too large and heavy to control effectively. so they haven't been very popular in the marketplace. so the industry figured out a way to make them more popular. in 120, the first -- in 2012, the first stabilizing brace was created to help a disabled veteran shoot an ar pistol one-handed. it was sort of a rubber sling that slipped over the buffer tube at the rear of the weapon, then cinched down on the shooter's forearm. this original design solved a very specific problem for a

disabled shooter. but the gun industry saw an opening and it wasn't about to let that opportunity slip by. the large-format pistol really took off in 2014, says one article in the nra's own magazine, "shooting illustrated." what began as this rubber orthotic device turned into something that looked very different. it looked exactly like a shoulder stock. manufacturers started designing and marketing, stabilizing braces designed for disabled individuals that would enable firing from the shoulder, firing short-barreled rifles essentially from the shoulder, and resources popped up all over the internet showing gun enthusiasts how to use these pistol braces designed for disabled shooters to turn their large-format pistols, not very

useful, into short-barreled shoulder-fired weapons. outdoor life said the ar pistol of yesteryear is not the same platform shooters are enjoying today, for one reason -- the stabilizeing brace. to be clear, it has always been illegal for 100 years to modify a large format pistol by adding a stock or brace from firing from the shoulder without going through that process i mentioned, going through the background check. gun owners who modify their firearms in this way were creating short-barrel rifles. that's not allowed under the law. but manufacturers capitalized to expand their stabilizing brace designed for disabled shooters and selling it as something intended to be fired from the

shoulder by nondisabled individuals. their advertising sometimes says that they weren't intending it to be fired that way, but over and over you see marketing suggesting something very different. the gun lobby is going to tell you that this is a really -- here's what happened. the oo -- the atf stepped in to eliminate this ambiguity and make it clear that as you have not been able for 100 years to turn a short-barrel-rifle into something you can fire from youl and use one of these braces to fire from your shoulder, that that needs to be the rule and the regulation going forward. so the atf steps in with a pretty simple rule that basically says if a

brace-equipped pistol looks like a rifle, fires like a rifle, if the people who made it are trying to sell it as a rifle, then it's a rifle. there's no ban on these braces or on weapons equipped with them. even short-barrel rifles. you just have to abide by the law to acquire one, which means a tax stamp and background check and registration. all we're doing, all the atf is doing is essentially reaffirming what has been the law for 100 years. if you want a short-barrel rifle or you want to convert a pistol into a short-barrel rifle, you just have to go through that process. get the tax stamp, go through the background check, register the gun. and at the same time there's nothing in this rule to prevent a disabled veteran who wants to equip a pistol with a true stabilizing brace that is not

designed to fire the weapon from the shoulder from doing exactly that. tor prevent a manufacturer -- or to prevent a manufacturer from selling a stabilizing brace designed for the specific needs of the market. the gun strip hasn't been selling true stabilizing braces to disabled veterans. they have been selling an ability to convert a pistol into a short-barreled rifle. the opponents of this rule will tell you that it's an unconstitutional gun thing. they are not telling you -- the courts have upheld congress' authority to regulate some firearms more stringently than others because they are especially dangerous or unusual, which is why there is no unrestricted right to own a machine gun or a sawed off

shotgun or a short-barreled rifle, no matter how it becomes a short-barreled rifle. congress passed the national firearms act, it chose to regulate these dangerous firearms by taxing them and requiring registration. courts have agreed, possession of an unregistered short-barreled rifle poses a dangerous to the community. events have borne this out. over the last five years unregistered arms brace eqipted guns have been used in shootings in dayton, boulder and colorado swings. -- colorado springs. this is a good rule. it doesn't make any new law. it merely helps to enforce a law that's been on the books for almost a century. the atf is just doing their job to pass this resolution would

put on to the conventional commercial marketplace a new class of dangerous concealable assault weapons that for 100 years we have had consensus in this country, need to be regulated in a more comprehensive way. the atf is doing their job, and i'd urge my colleagues to oppose this resolution. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. i rise in support of senator kennedy's resolution of disapproval of the atf's stabilizing brace rule. this rule is a dangerous attack on every american's second

amendment rights. mr. marshall: i want to start by telling you why this is important. where i live in kansas, typically we'll have one sheriff or a deputy on call at a time and he's covering an area of 60 by 40 miles so the nearest law enforcement is often 45 minutes to an hour away. like many states, we're seeing an uptick in the rise of crime. with fentanyl flooding across our border, 20 tons of fentanyl have been seized, we can't imagine how much has come across this open border. along with the fentanyl and the open border, we're seeing crime on the rise. and more and more families feel afraid that they're not secure. even my own wife two weeks ago asked me to take her out to our family gun range and give her some lessons on how to handle a weapon as well. by the way, women's favorite weapon for self-protection is a

short-barreled rife. it's what they feel comfortable. it's not loud, it's easy to control. why are we trying to punish americans who want to defend themselves and practice their second amendment rights? the complete disregard for americans' constitutional right, president joe biden enacted an unlawful rule banning stabilizing braces known commonly as is follow braces allowing the atf full authority under the law to prosecute millions of americans for firearms they purchased perfectly legally. through biden's rule, millions of responsible gun owners suddenly have become felons. and as law-abiding kansans get the book thrown under them, the president's own son commits an actual gun violation felony and he walks away with a sweetheart deal. i ask you what type of message does that send to law-abiding

americans, gun owners across the country? this is wrong. americans realize this is a double standard. sadly, this egregious policy uniquely impacts our nation's disabled veterans who use a pistol brace to handle their firearms. for some of these individuals who risked their lives for freedoms, for our medz freedoms -- for our freedoms, a pistol brace is the only option for safe and effective firearm use but under this ruling the it is null and void if you use a stabilizing brace. that's why the president bypassed congress and carried out his gun-grabbing agenda through the regulatory state demanding his atf use a misguided interpretation of the national firearms act to enforce this heavy-handed policy. let me be clear, the national firearms act does not, does not give the atf authority to ban pistol braces. congress has not nor should it

ever give the atf this power. mr. president, this rule represents the largest gun grab in american history potentially impacting as many as 40 million responsible gun owners. we refuse to accept the super-sides atf's unconstitutional power grab, and i'm proud to stand here with senator kennedy and depend kansans and louisianians second amendment rights. i stand firm here with all of my colleagues and oppose this executive overreach by the atf. i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. mr. kennedy: thank you, mr. president. i ask unanimous consent to use a prop during my remarks. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. kennedy: mr. president, i'm going to spend a few minutes talking about senator marshall's

and my legislation to overturn president biden's squid-brained idea with respect to pistol braces. the second amendment to the united states constitution, mr. president, as you well know, gives private citizens the right to possess a firearm, including a pistol, and to use it lawfully. that's not a right of government. that's a right that each of us has as americans. justice scalia said it pretty well in d.c. v. heller, the american people have considered the handgun to be the

quintessential self-defense weapon. so many people who are opposed to the second amendment, they say they're not opposed to the second amendment. they say they just want to regulate guns. they don't. they want to abolish guns. and many of them wouldn't know a gun from a j. crew catalog. this is a handgun. this is what we're talking about now, our second amendment right is not unlimited. we know that. it's subject to reasonable, reasonable restriction by government, consistent with the constitution and the country's,

quote, historical tradition of firearm regulation. those aren't my words. those are the supreme court's words. i'm quoting new york state rifle and pistol association v. brewing by the united states court. for example, in many states you can't own a bazooka. that's a reasonable restriction. your right to own a gun can also be restricted if you suffer from mental illness. that is what we have concluded as a society as a reasonable restriction. the issue today is very simple. it's whether president biden's bureau of alcohol, tobacco and firearms new rule in effect banning or at a minimum severely

restricting pistol braces is a reasonable restriction under the constitution. that's what we're discussing today. trigger warning. this is a pistol brace. i know it's scary. this is a pistol brace. it fits on your forearm. like this. here it is right here. the pistol brace is added another piece that grips the handgun. that's what we're talking about here. a pistol brace is also known, this scary piece of equipment

here, is also known as a stabilizing brace or an arm brace. it's a simple device. it's mounted to the rear of the pistol. it's designed to anchor the pistol to the shooter's arm right here. it goes on the forearm. so the shooter can shoot the pistol with one hand. now why is that important? because some americans don't have two hands or the use of two hands or two arms. pistol braces were invented to help handicapped people. particularly handicapped veterans who don't have use of both of their arms. you don't have to be a handicapped person to use a pistol brace. some studies have shown that there are as many as 40 million

pistol braces in the united states that president biden wants to outlaw. not four million, 40 million, and most of them -- i would virtually say all of them are owned by law-abiding citizens. now this pistol brace, other than stabilizing the pistol, it doesn't change the pistol in any way. the pistol brace doesn't change the caliber of the pistol. it doesn't make it more powerful. the pistol brace doesn't change the number of rounds that the pistol can hold. the pistol brace doesn't make the pistol an automatic pistol. automatic weapons are forbidden in the united states. and the pistol brace doesn't

make the pistol fire any faster. the pistol brace also does not help the shooter load the pistol more quickly except for stabilizing the pistol, it doesn't change the pistol in any way. it just makes it easier to hold, which is important particularly if you're handicapped. as one of my colleagues alluded to, pistol braces were invented in 2012. they have been legal since. as i said, millions of americans own them. millions of americans use them, especially handicapped americans. the alcohol, tobacco, and firearms bureau has never had a problem with pistol braces. none, zero, glil zilc r --

zilch, nada until president biden became president. and now president biden and his of that have promulgated a rule. it says attaching a pistol brace to a pistol somehow magically stops a pistol from being a pistol and turns it into a short-barreled rifle. the atf has twended its pro -- defended its proposed new rule, as has president biden, by pointing to two mass shootings that were committed by individuals who used pistols with pistol braces. now, why does it matter? why is the atf trying to say a pistol is no longer a pistol. if you use a pistol brace, it's a short-barreled rifle. i'll tell you why. you don't have to be a latin

scholar to figure it out. because short-barreled rifles, once again which the atf says pistol braces turn pistols into to are heavily restricted by the gun control act of 1968. that's why they want to tush -- to turn a pistol into a short-barreled rifle by using a pistol brace. under these two federal statutes, if the atf can succeed, the atf can require the owner of the pistol with the pistol brace to register it within 120 days with the atf. they want to start a gun registry for law-abiding americans. hello. they want to start a gun

registry. if the atf pulls this off, this this is what they can do -- this is what you have to do if you own a pistol brace and you use it with your handgun, handicapped or otherwise. you've got to register it within 120 days with the atf, you've got to destroy the pistol brace or you've got to dismantle the pistol brace or you've got to surrender your pistol to the atf or you have to destroy your pistol. and violations, if you don't do what the atf says, violations of these two federal statutes are punishable by five-to-ten years in prison and fines of up to $250,000. stupidity should hurt more.

unless you self-identify as an idiot, you can see what's going on here. the american people may be poorer under president biden but they're not stupid. the atf is trying to keep americans from owning pistols and or they're trying to keep americans from owning pistol braces and or they're trying to use this rule to start an extensive national gun registry and the atf rule is just a backdoor way to subject pistols to more smothering regulations. i swear to god and all the angels, americans get so much government they choke on it. they choke on it.

neither the national firearms act of 1934 nor the gun control act of 1968 mentioned pistol braces. nor does the statute's legislative history. under recent unambiguous decisions by the united states supreme court in west virginia v. epa, an alabama association of realtors v. department of homeland security, in king v.burwell, all supreme court precedent, a regulatory agency like the atf does not have the power under our constitution to decide major questions like banning pistol braces unless congress says it's okay, through the text of the statute that the agency is relying on. the statute itself clearly and

unambiguously has to give the atf the authority to ban pistol braces, and it does not. the atf rule is unconstitutional. it's also unconstitutional under the u.s. supreme court decision in new york state rifle and pistol association v. bruin, which was handed down a couple of years ago because banning pistol braces is not part of our country's, quote, historical tradition of firearm regulation. the atf rule also violates, in my judgment, the americans with disabilities act of 1990. and, finally, the atf rule and president biden's rule are just -- the rule is just plain bottom of the barrel moronic.

attaching a pistol brace to a pistol, which doesn't change the pistol in any fundamental way except stabilizing it, does not stop the pistol from being a pistol. it doesn't. and it sure doesn't turn it into a short-barreled rifle. pistols are pistols. rifles are rifles. duh. all the pistol brace does is allow an american, especially a handicapped american to safely grip a pistol and control it in a safe manner. that's all it does. like i said, stupid should hurt more. this atf rule is -- is why some

americans -- so many americans wonder how so many governmental officials in washington, d.c., made it through the birth canal. mr. president, i yield. the president pro tempore: the senator from -- the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota. a senator: i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. schumer: mr. 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: mr. president, america's tragic epidemic of gun violence has been made worse by easy access to pistol braces. but today amazingly enough, with all of these mass shootings, republicans want to loosen safety rules regarding these accessories and take us backward in the fight against gun violence. it's hard to believe but that is what's happening. pistol braces make it easier to conceal and transport weapons that function as highly dangerous shorltd --

short-barreled riesms and in many instances have been accessories of choice in recent mass shootings of the some of these mass shooters and we're loosening the reins on them. it's hard to believe our republican friends are doing this. how on earth can republicans look at our nation's gun violence and think the right answer is to make these accessories easier to own? how can republicans look away from tragedies in dayton, in boulder, and in nashville, and in so many other places where pistol braces were involved and conclude we should reverse commonsense gun safety rules? it makes -- when you use a pistol brace, if you're up to bad purpose rntion -- it makes it easier to conceal a weapon with ar-15-like power. today republicans push to prevent -- today's republican push to prevent safeguards

against deadly pistol braces is an insult to families torn apart by these accessories. i think it's in my mind almost every day, when the shootings occurred in tennessee and the shooter used a pistol brace and three nine-year olds were killed as well as three teachers, and you saw the picture of the little girl crying on the bus leaving the school because she was so frightened. i think of that picture every day. this proposal would mark a horrible, horrible step backward in america's fight against gun violence. i urge my colleagues, i hope on both sides of the aisle, to vote no. i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the joint resolution is considered read a third time. the question occurs on the passage of the joint resolution.

the yeas and nays have been requested. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: on this vote the yeas are 49, the nays are 50, and the joint resolution

fails. under the previous order, the senate will proceed to executive session to resume consideration of treaty document 112 -- 8, which the clerk will report. the clerk: treaty dock 112-8. mr. sullivan: mr. president . the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. mr. sullivan: mr. president, i rise this afternoon to bring forward once again my bill, the u.s. hch russian fed -- u.s.-russian federation seafood spros act. this is -- res. reciprocity act. this is an important bill as it laits to sanctions -- relates to sanctions against russia and it is important as far as not letting russia and china evade sanctions that the president of

the united states has put on them, the russians in particular. and it should be, mr. president, a bipartisan bill with regard to unanimous consent. tried to move it last year, had an objection, worked through the objection, amended the bill to address the objection, been working with the biden administration to try to fix this from an administrative standpoint, but we're not getting anywhere. and once i explain what's happening, i think every person, every american watching, every alaskan certainly is going to go, what the heck? why on earth are we not passing senator sullivan's bill? what's the background? well, here it is, mr. president. you know, i often brag about the great state of alaska as the super power of seafood. over 60% of all seafood harvested in america comes from

alaska's waters. we have the most sustainable fisheries, best managed fisheries in the world, feeds americans, feeds the whole world. this bill is about that, certainly, but it's about all fisher fisherman -- fishermen, including those in massachusetts. this is about geopolitics and going after the russians, which is all what we think collectively we should be doing after their brutal invasion of ukraine. so what's the background? let me start with some explanation. in 2014, when russia invaded and an action -- an exed the crimea peninsula, there was a sanction on russia. the russians retaliated with their own sanctions and one of those sanctions was that russia ban the imports of all american

seafood into russia. it's a big market. it's certainly a big market for my fishermen. but, mr. president, what was crazy about that, is the russians banned the importation of american seafood into russia in 2014, so what is that? eight years ago, nine years ago. and we have kept our market open to russian seafood. you want to talk about an unlevel playing field. russian seafood pours into the united states pretty much duty free and alaskan seafood going into russia is banned. that is wrong. that is just wrong. russian seafood imports into the u.s. has increased by close to 200% -- 200%. and russian seafood companies are largely owned by russian

oligarchs who are supporting this war, putin's war of aggression in ukraine, and, of course, they've been stealing market share from american fishermen, undermining the markets for our u.s. fishermen that we have worked hard on in our own country. does anyone in america thinks this makes sense? it doesn't. it doesn't. much of this cash, the russian imports, we're talking hundreds of millions, up 200%, go back to the russian oligarchs, russian government help drive their war machine. so since i came into the senate eight years ago, mr. president, i have been trying with every administration to stop this unlevel playing field. again russia imports hundreds of millions of dollars of seafood into our market almost duty free, going after american fishermen and we can't export one fish to russia.

who thinks that is fair? so i tried with president obama. he wasn't help. president trump. he wasn't help. president biden. well, mr. president, it took a war, literally it took a war to get some administration to try and fix this. president biden, to his credit -- and at my urging -- when he issued his executive order targeting the russians with sanctions, part of that order included a prohibition of russian seafood coming into america. great. that's what we needed. that's only fair. it goes after the russian war machine, oligarchs. so that was welcome news. intended to isolate the russian economy. however -- however, mr. president, the biden executive order -- which, again,

we appreciated very much; took only eight years for our own government to say, wow, look at this unlevel playing field between russia and america with regard to fishermen and our seafood. but the biden executive order has a loophole, has a massive loophole that the russians are of course taking advantage of. they've harvested and frozen in simple product forms and, then guess what? it's shipped to which country? that other great dictatorship? the world -- i'm joking when i say great. it is a brutal dictatorship. china. so russian fishermen now send all their fish to china to get it all reprocessed, laundered, ceptionly. they fill it with phosphates and guess where they ship it to? the united states. hundreds of millions of russian -- of dollars of russian seafood now gets sent to china, another

dictatorship, and they send it back to the u.s., almost dutyfree. so that's a giant loophole. it's happening every day. it is an outrage. by the way you it's really bad seafood. it turns off american -- americans from eating seafood. they fill it with phosphates, plump it up, nasty, and then they send it back to the u.s. so now russian and china are colluding to avoid the biden executive order. it's hurting american fishermen once again and it's strengthening russia. the oligarchs, the government, the putin war machine. so i've been working patiently, mr. president, to patiently, mr. president, for a year, with this administration, the deputy secretary treasury -- supposed to call me back today. you better call me,

mr. secretary. the secretary of homeland security, let's close this loophole. let's close this loophole. it's only benefiting russia and china, for gadness sakes, and it's hurting our fishermen. so i'm not sure why this isn't happening, mr. president. again, i've been talking to the administration, the secretary of homeland security said, senator, we will take care of this. you are right. this is a loophole we can't abide by. cbp will enforce this. the deputy secretary of the treasury -- senator, we will work with ofac to close this loophole. the russian machine benefits from this. the chinese of course benefit from this. and american fishermen are getting screwed. why isn't our government helping? come on, mr. secretary. come on, mr. deputy secretary. call me today. let's fix this.

but we're not waiting a. we're not waiting. so what i'm trying to do now with my legislation is closing the loophole. it's going to broaden the application of the president's executive 0 you should to encompass seafood products harvested in russian waters or by russian vessels. that's it. that's what my bill does. who in america, who in the senate would be against that? this will capture russian-origin products, including those being laundered in china. that's it. that's all i want to do. -- with the u.s.-russian federation seafood reciprocity act. every american is cleared on taxpayer. pretty much every democrat has cleared on it. and who wouldn't want to?

because if if you're against this bill, you're for russian oligarchs who are still avoiding sanctions on seafood. you're against the american fishermen, whether in alaska or massachusetts because they're getting screwed by this uneven trade relationship, and you're helping the chinese. mr. president, i can't imagine anyone being against this. i'm frustrated, as you can tell. my fishermen have been hurt by this. the russian war machine keeps giving revenues to russian oligarchs who control these fishing companies and are getting richer. the chinese are getting richer and american fishermen are getting poor. by the way, american consumers are getting a pretty gross product from china. filled with chinese additives and phosphates. so i've told the secretary of the treasury, the deputy secretary, hey, i've had enough.

come on. you guys got to fix this. it's not hard. we do the russian origin. we do origins of seafood. buyers know where this is coming from. and i see my good friend -- and he is my good friend -- senator markey is on the floor, probably going to object, which would be really disappointing. but even that, a year ago when senator markey objected to this, i said, well, let's work together. so we did. one of the things we put in my bill -- it's in this bill now -- it's not a 90-day provision to enforce it. so if you're an american seafood company still importing russian seafood -- and you know it, by the way. so shame on you, i'm kind of addicted to this russian seafood that goes through china. i'm going to need time. this bill says, okay, we'll give you 90 days. i've talked to alaska fishermen.

they're like, hey, you need fish? get it from us. get it from america. get it from alaska. why getting if from the russians or the chinese? who could be for that? so our fishermen -- our importers know how to trace, so that's not a good excuse. this isn't about lost jobs. like i said, we can supply the seafood from americans, great alaskan and massachusetts fishermen. and -- so, mr. president, i'm down here frustrated. the biden administration won't close the loophole that they promised me they would. it's not that hard. come on, guys. really? you're okay with a loophole in the president's own sanctions that provide hundreds of millions of dollars to the russian government and oligarchs?

because you're cheating and going through china? you don't want to close that loophole? i bet if someone told president biden about this, he'd want to close that loophole. so i'm here on the floor, and i'm going to ask unanimous consent for my russian-u.s.-russian seafood reciprocityage of it's the right thing to do. everybody knows it. everybody knows it. and i hope my colleague, senator markey, is down here on the floor to say, i support this bill because it's the right thing to do for fishermen in alaska and massachusetts, and it's certainly the right thing to do to keep the screws tightened on the russian war machine. so, mr. president, as if in legislative session, i ask unanimous consent that the finance committee be discharged from further consideration of s. 2011 and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. i further ask that the bill be

considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. markey: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. mr. markey: mr. president, reserve be the right to object, and i have vigorously opposed putin's illegal and unjust invasion of ukraine and i have supported american aid to help ukraine defend itself. ment putin's war of aimmigration cannot stand, and i am perfectly willing to push back on russia, but we have to do it the right way. and i sincerely respect the senator from alaska's concerns. -- about russian seafood imports. and i believe it is unfair and improper that russia has banned american seafood imports since 12014. and i appreciate the senator's willingness toss work with me on his proposal last year that would have created an immediate

disruption to the seafood supply chain and to instead provide more time for our processors who purchase more than 80% of their seafood from alaska to be able to meet demand with supplies from other markets. however, the bill senator sullivan is trying to pass through live unanimous consent today, which has not yet been considered in the senate finance committee to which it was referred, has raised other questions from seafood processors and from my colleagues in new england in terms of workability. the senator was able, you know, to work were my staff to resolve the issues in this proposal last year. and i thank him for that. but this new proposal has new provisions that will need some time for us to work out. we actually succeeded last year, but now we need the time to do the same thing.

and we have to make sure that it has workability for new england. the bill would block the import of russian seafood that has been substantially transformed in another country. it's unclear if u.s. customs and border control has the full capacity to determine and enforce where seafood comes from before it has been substantially transformed, since this new proposal would go against how seafood origin has been considered under long-standing u.s. law and defined through the u.s. treasury department. so, as a result, while customs and border protection attempts this difficult enforcement task, processors could see major disruption. workers could lose their jobs, consumer goods costs for americans could rise significantly. with that in mind, and with a

sincere message that i want to send to the senator from alaska with regard to not only my by our entire new england delegation's willingness to work with him, i object to the passage of this bill at this time. and i ask the senator to continue to have a willingness to work with us so that we can resolve the new issues that are raised in this proposal. so at this time, mr. president, i object. the presiding officer: the objection is is heard. mr. sullivan: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. mr. sullivan: well, mr. president, i certainly will continue to work with my friend from massachusetts, and he is my friend, and i have a lot of respect for him. he and i have worked together on a lot of things. but with all due respect, that was a bit of a rope-a-dope tap dance you just witnessed here on the senate floor, because he pretty much made the same argument 16 months ago, mr. president. 16 months ago, same arguments

right here, the two of us. so let me -- let me address a couple of these. you know, the issue of it's tough on cbp to do this. it's not that tough. i've tucked to the head of cbp. health care h., i've talked to the head of homeland security. they can do this. the u.s. market has a high level of scrutiny on seafood food chains. we have systems in place that require the kind of information needed needed to enforce my legislation. and any seafood supplier who is serious about their job knows that they have this information. by the way, most seafood suppliers are getting off russian seafood, because they know what's happening. they don't want to support the russian war machine. now, unfortunately, we are seeing some certification efforts, such as the machine

stewardship council allowing them to be pulled into a profit-driven mindset that are focused on one thing -- money and benefiting russia. what do i mean by that? mr. president, you can hardly believe it when when i heard the msc supposedly an organization with a good reputation, the marine stewardship council, has recently certified russian fisheries as sustainable. this is a joke. it is ridiculous. shame on you, msc, helping fund the putin war machine. regardless, i am 100% certain that any companies in america now laundering russian product -- and you know who you are -- companies which unfortunately i worry my colleague from massachusetts is defending, they absolutely have the ability to trade and -- trace and certify exactly where the products are

coming from. that is a fact a so this argument which was made 16 months ago still doesn't work. on the job loss issue, we put into this bill a 90-day provision bill a to prevent the disruption. u.s. harvest of seafood are largely from u.s. citizens, including thousands of independent owners and operators of fishing vessels and small businesses in coastal communities, in alaska and massachusetts, all over this great country. and they're being hurt by this. there are massachusetts fishermen right now who want my bill to be passed, 100%. we know that. certainly thousands of alaskan fishermen. commercial fishing is the top employer in jobs in my state and is a big employer in alaska.

so to my colleague from massachusetts, what i offered last year i still offer now. let alaskan fishermen send their fish to you guys. don't rely on russian fishermen laundered through the chinese economy to go through a few processers in massachusetts. that's why you're blocking this. no offense, but that's why you're blocking this. i know you're supporting ukraine, and so am i, but this is a chink in the armor here. on this issue you are not. and we can solve this right now if you change your vote, my colleague, and say you know what, i'm not going to object. senator sullivan is right. my fishermen need this, alaska fishermen need this. let's clamp down on the russia war machine. 16 months ago my colleague from massachusetts made these same arguments.

16 months ago. it's outrageous. i'll continue to work with him. but the rope-a-dope tap dance isn't convincing. we need to move on this, mr. president. how you can be down on the floor of the united states senate defending this laundering and undermining of president biden's russian sanctions is beyond me. i'll keep working it. maybe the secretary of homeland security and the deputy secretary the treasury or maybe the white house, jake sullivan, you should carry about this. but for goodness' sakes, let's not come on the senate floor and make the same arguments that were made 16 months ago that we addressed in the bill that i just brought to the floor. the only benefit right now, this objection, the only benefit is the putin, the russian war machine, the oligarchs who own the russian

fishing industry and the chinese communist party leaders who are part of the laundering process in china. every american fishermen loses right now. so i'm going to keep working this, and i'm disappointed in my colleague who made these same arguments 16 months ago and is still not convinced. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. mr. markey: that you want. again -- thank you, mr. president. again, the senator from alaska and i are friends. his father is a sullivan, my mother is a sullivan. sul vance are very -- sullivans are very intelligent people my mother always said. so last year senator sullivan brought a bill out on to the floor. we had concerns coming from the massachusetts fishing community, new bedford, gloucester, famous fishing

ports still today competing with alaska for the title in the united states for the largest in the country. and there was some concerns, and so i objected. we called time-out on the field, and we worked out all of those issues. that was round one. now yesterday the senator from alaska has a new bill with new provisions in it in addition to the provisions from last year that we will worked out, there's all new provisions. and it's not a rope-a-dope, although obviously anything that uses a muhammad ali-created concept is a great honor to have attached to us, but we don't see this as rope-a-dope. this is more just round two. we finished round one, now we're on round two. a whole new bill, new language, and again, same thing, we're willing to work with you. but we can't solve it in 24

hours. my staff and yours sitting down with other members of the new england delegation, we can get together and find a commonsense pathway through it. but right now gortons of gloucester is very concerned about this bill. one firm has 450 workers. another one has 350 workers. we have dozens of other companies up in massachusetts with employees that are potentially jeopardizes by this bill. i'm objecting but i'm objecting by inviting the senator from alaska to again engage in a good faith negotiation and we're willing to do so. at the completion of that we can agree and move forward. but i'm objecting mainly because of this cascade of concerns that are coming from the food processing industry, the seafood processing industry in

massachusetts, all across new england, led by gortons and gloucester, but many, many others who he don't have the same kind -- who don't have the same kind of national and international reputation but who feel greatly jeopardized by the language in this bill. and that is the reason that i am objecting while simultaneously saying it's not a rope-a-dope. let's sit down, let's try to work out the differences. the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. mr. sullivan: i will take my colleague and friend from massachusetts up on his offer. round one, 16 months lairpt -- later round two. that's a lot of people hurting, including massachusetts nchl -- fishermen. they can import all they want to the united states now through china we can't import at all there. the new provisions are meant to trace the russian seafood being

laundered. so that helps. it still has the 90 days to help gortons of gloucester and others to address this. but at least my colleague is being honest. this is about gortons of gloucester. that's kind of what we knew. to gortons of gloucester, here's my message to you. continuing to import russian seafood is a bad business idea. it's a bad business idea. funding the putin war machine is a bad business idea. most american business companies have realized that. so gorton's of gloucester, here's my idea for you. buy more alaskan seafood. get off your addiction to russian war machine seafood that is laundered through china. it's an unsustainable business model, and at some point even your u.s. senator is not going to be able to defend you. i yield the floor. mr. markey: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts.

mr. markey: again, i thank you, mr. president. and to my friend, again, from alaska, we're not engaging in a rope-a-dope at all. at the same time we don't want to be a punching bag. we don't want the massachusetts fishing industry, its processing industry to get sucker punched with a bill on only 24 hours' notice. we're more than willing, again, to work with you in order to resolve these issues, and my friend knows that over the years that's what we've done. i yield back. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. 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, earlier this week we

commemorated the 158th juneteenth which celebrates liberation of the last remaining enslaved black americans at the end of the civil war. on this date in 1865, u.s. army major general gorton granger arrived in a confederate outpost in galveston, texas, where he delivered the news to 250,000 still enslaved texans that all slaves were free. though president lincoln issued the emancipation proclamation in 1863, the final emancipation of african american slaves was not reached until two years later with the end of the civil war and the ratification of the 13th amendment to the constitution. african american communities have celebrated juneteenth as emancipation day as far back as 1886 in texas, but it was not until june 2021 that congress voted to make juneteenth a federal holiday which president biden signed into law.

maryland has had its own complicated history when it comes to the abolition of slavery. indeed president lincoln limited the application of the emancipation proclamation only to states that had succeeded from the union during the civil war. maryland itself was divided on the issue of slavery in the civil war. according to the 1860 census numbers taken before the civil war, maryland's population contained almost an equal number of free and enslaved african americans. slavery had deep roots in southern maryland and eastern shore. as described by the university of maryland historian ira berlin, the free state even saw cases of its only household divided where brothers were fighting in battle on different sides of the civil war. baltimore was growing into a certificate of trade -- center of trade and industry. it was populated by a mostly free workforce with one of the

largest urban populations of free blacks in the united states, larger than in philadelphia or new york. professor berlin said that it was the political epicenter of maryland's abolition movement with the leading newspaper, "the baltimore american" instrumental in the push to southern maryland was sermt a southern state. it is an agricultural, plantation, and in some ways not much different from mississippi, both in size and their lucrative nature. slaveholders' determination do maintain their human property was a critical element in the white southern culture. he continued, let me go on and point out, other large swaths of

maryland, from prince george's to montgomery county, north to frederick and west, were also proslavery, though frederick was a divided community. after the civil war broke out, president lincoln called for soldiers to be raised from the militias of the states to put down the insurrection. according to an account from the national park service, these troops were to be transported to washington, d.c. so they might protect the capitol. at this time, the most efficient means to transport such large numbers of men was by rail. the only roots to washington passed through baltimore. marylanders were divided in their sympathies. while many disliked the idea of secession, they felt it was the state's right to secede from the union from it chose to. many also felt maryland should not permit troops to pass through the state to attack a sister state. others mistrupsed the president's -- mistrusted the president's intentions and

thought he would force maryland to stay in the union. april 19, 1861, five days after the surrender of fort sumpter, the situation in baltimore exploded into violence. the sixth massachusetts infantry arrived at the station and began the process of changing trains. cars were disconnected and pulled by horses down pratt street to camden station. that's a process that continued, and the crowd gathered, and with each moment it became more and more unruly why i. all but two of the carps had been transferred -- of the cars had been transferred. the two returned to president street station and soldiers disembarked to the howls and years of the mob. the troops marched back down pratt street, led by a man carrying a rebel flag, and followed by the mob. at gay street, some of the mobber to up paving stones, throwing them at the soldiers. other men were brandishing pistols and musk ets. someone fired a shot.

the fighting officers ordered the troops to fire into the crowd. this angered the mob further, and they began to attack the soldiers with considerable ferocity. citizens threw stones, bricks, and fired shot at the soldiers, who returned fire, soldiers and innocent bystanders fell dead and wounded. the mayor attempted to stop the battle without success, then the police arrived. police officers escorted troops to camden station where they boarded the train and left baltimore. pratt street riot was over. the riot resulted in the first casualties list of the war. eight rioters, one innocent bystander and three soldiers were killed, with 24 soldiers and unknown number of civilians wounded. the city of baltimore was later placed under military rule, with military positions strengthened in federal hill and fort mchenry. as you see, we have a divided

past in our state and in baltimore. maryland later, very narrowly, approved the constitutional amendment in 1864, which abolished slavery, by a vote of over 30,000 to just under 30,000. soldiers voted both in person and by absentee ballot, but marylanders supporting or fight, for -- or fighting for the confederacy who would not sign loyalty oaths were not permitted to vote. this took effect a few months before congress proposed the 13th amendment to the constitution in january 1865, which was ratified in december of 1865. on a holiday that celebrates our fundamental right to life, lint, and the pursuit of happiness for all americans, it is important to remember that those rights have not and are not always applied equally to every american. red lining, health disparities,

police brutality are relics of our nation's original sin and the jim crow laws that followed. these inequalities shape the african american experience today. celebrating juneteenth, or freedom day, means not only celebrating the victory, but also understanding and reconciling with the hard truths. this freedom day comes at a time where there has been targeted attacks on facts and truth, sensoring textbooks, banning conversations about race and gender, and misrepresenting the truth, trying to sanitize our nation's history. as the society, we must stand together to resist hiding from the darkest parts of our past, confronting a difficult past and having an uncomfortable conversation allows us to better address issues of inequality head on so we can move forward, creating a culture of inclusion and belonging. as we join the country in recognizing the importance of

this anniversary, we should also celebrate how far we have come. in my home state of maryland for the first time ever, the first black governor, the first black attorney general, the first black speaker of the house are all serving at the same time. the election of vice president kamala harris and appointment of scwort just jackson -- supreme court justice jackson shows this country wants to see diversity of america reflected in the highest levels of government. if embracing diversity is in the best interest of our country. it is how we get lapped mark legislation, like -- landmark legislation like the civil rights act, voting rights act, and president biden's historic executive order to advance effective accountable policing and strengthening public safety. my faith teaches me we have a responsibility to make the world a better place. that can only be done through civility, understanding and respecting each other. as we come together to participate in a long-standing tradition of celebrating freedom, let us also celebrate

knowledge, hope, and continuing to work towards a more perfect union and a better future for every american as promised by the preamble to our constitution. mr. president, with that i would suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from idaho. mr. risch: good morning, mr. president. the presiding officer: good morning. mr. risch: today, the senate is considering the chile tax -- the presiding officer: the senator will suspend? the senate is in a quorum. mr. risch: i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. risch: today, the senate is considering the chile tax convention. this treaty has been approved by substantial bipartisan majorities in the foreign relations committee in four separate congresses, and has been pending since 2012. it's past time to approve it, and provide needed relief to u.s. invests and businesses in chile. without ratification, chilan taxes on u.s. company operations in chile will raise to 44% in 2027 when the special waiver expires. meanwhile, our competitors with childan op -- chilean operations

pay a 35%, including in japan, canada, australia, britain and of course china. tax treaties help the business community by minimizing uncertainty and promoting a favorable business environment. a tax convention with chile eliminates double taxation, provides certainty, and is a natural counterpart to our free trade agreement with chile. this treaty provides tools to ensure u.s. taxpayers will be treated equally and fairly in chile. it allows them to invest and compete with the knowledge that they will not face discriminatory barriers. the treaty provides tools to help resolve tax disputes between the u.s. and our tax treaty partners. without such tools, u.s. investors would have limited ability to resolve these problems on their own. it's not just businesses that will benefit from this treaty. the convention imposes reasonable limits on the amount of tax chile can impose on u.s.

persons who might live or work in chile. finally, this treaty will help us prevent tax fraud in chile. the tax convention has been held up for a decade. i'm pleased that we're finally moving it forward today. i urge my colleagues to approve this chile convention. it is a treaty, of course, and it requires the two-thirds vote. thank you very much, mr. president. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. schumer: mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. schumer: this treaty -- the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent the quorum be disensed -- dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: this treaty is not getting much attention, but it's one of the more important things we're doing in the senate in the last month, in the last few

months. because it is very important for the united states leadership, in the things we care about in terms of climate change, clean tech, e.v. batteries, that we have this treaty. the treaty is going to have lasting benefits for the u.s. and chile. it expands investment in one of the most mineral-rich regions in the world, critical for making e.v. batteries and other clean tech. it will ensure that chinese competitors won't continue to have the edge over u.s. companies in the race for lithium and other minerals when it comes to chile. the chilean people want to be close to the united states. i see some of our chilean representatives in the gallery. this treaty makes us much closer, because there's no double taxation, for american companies, when they want to invest in chile. let's not forget that chile has more lithium than any other

country in the world, and lithium is one of those key chemicals, key elements that we need to make e.v. batteries and make solar panels and so many other things. so this chile tax treaty is very good news for american jobs, american clean energy transition, and we're strengthening our economic bonds with a crucial ally, a vital ally in south america. i just had the opportunity to meet with the representatives of the chilean government, the foreign minister, the ambassador. i want to thank you for being here on this wonderful occasion. i want to thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for doing this, chairman menendez, ranking member risch. this is a very important treaty that will serve the united states, chile, and the world economy very well in the years to come. i yield the floor. and i ask for the yeas and nays.

the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll.

vote clong -- vote:

test. vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: the yeas are 9 5, the nays are 2. two-thirds of the senators present, a quorum being presented having voted in the affirmative, the resolution of be ratification is agreed to.

mr. cruz: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cruz: mr. president, i rise today to honor an extraordinary texan and an incredibly dear friend. karen k. tinsley goulsbee passed away on monday, june 19, 2023. kay is someone who's been an incredible friend to me for two decades now. she lived in katy, texas,

married to the love of her life, gary, and her son greg, born in 19 8 1, she loved her family. she loved her grandkids. kay was a grassroots organizer unlike any other. kay was incredibly active in the texas federation of republican women and the national federation of republican women. i still remember when i first met kay. it was 2004. it was at the republican national convention, and i was a 3 3-year-old young lawyer. i was serving as the solicitor general of texas. i had hopes to run for office, but i didn't know a whole lot of people in politics.

and at that convention i met kay goulsbee. she lit up any room she was in. she had a personality that was incandescent. and as kay would later observe, for some reason this kid -- that would be me -- just followed her everywhere she went. and at the end of the day it wasn't complicated, kay knew everybody. and when i followed kay from one grassroots activist to another to another, kay would turn around and introduce me one after the other, after the other and say have you met ted? have you met ted? have you met ted? she had the energy of an atom bomb. it was unstoppable. & closest friends and most trusted

advisors. when i first launched a campaign for attorney general of texas, i remember sitting in kay's car for about three hours trying to convince her to come support our campaign that i needed her, and she quite rightly said are you out of your mind? you don't have the support, you don't have the money, you don't have the name i.d. how on earth can you possibly win? my answer was kay, with your support, we can do anything. after about three hours her husband gary, who is also a dear friend, he told her, he said, kay, just say yes. he's going to keep asking you until you do. and she finally laughed and said yes. that race for attorney general never ended up materializing. the vacancy we thought existed ended up not having. but two years later i launched a campaign for united states senate, and kay was my grassroots chairman.

i'll tell you, in that race i was supposed to have no prayer. my opponent in that race was the incumbent lieutenant governor personally worth $20 0 million, put $35 million of his own in the race and i had never been elected to anything. the last thing i had been elected to was the student council. but we had a weapon unlike anything else. we had kay goolsby. you have to understand, kay would be on three cell phones at once calling people relentlessly. she would greet them all the same way. she would go, hey sugar, and she could drag that second syllable out three sentences. and she'd be talking to people all over the state. early on in the senate campaign, we rolled out a list of republican women leaders and tfrw across the state who endorsed my campaign. we rolled out a list, and it was like a cannon shot.

it shocked everyone. that was 1 0 0% kay. that was kay on the phone with one after the other after the other saying trust me, this kid, he's going to do what he said. after that, a few weeks later we rolled out a second endorsement list, with over 8 0 leaders of the republican women's club all over the state. in response to that release, my opponent in that race fired his campaign manager. that's how big a deal it was. he had assumed that all the republican women's clubs across the state would be with him, but he did not understand that when you had kay working the phones and working the phones and working the phones -- and i would travel around with kay from event to event to event -- and she couldn't be stopped.

she'd take me to this person, to that person, to the next person. it was relentless. in 20 16 when i ran for president, kay was my national dpras roots chairman -- national grassroots chairman. kay and i spent hundreds of hours on the bus together in iowa, out on the ground in new hampshire, in south carolina, all over the country. and i'll tell you, kay would talk to republican women in every state. mr. president, you're from the great state of hawaii. i guarantee you, kay was on the phone with republican women in the state of hawaii. she had an energy that was fiery. and, boy, she could get mad. kay chewed me out probably more than my wife heidi has. she would get mad or this or

that or whatever you did and she would tell you exactly what she thought. i remembers once kay was really mad at me. i don't even remember for what. but i had to drive all the way out to her house in katy, texas, sit in her living room while she spent about an hour and a half explaining to me how i'd screwed something up she was mad at me for. she also made me eat some of her homemade brownies, which kay had a lot of wonderful gifts, but cooking was not one of them. and the brownies were pretty terrible, but i told kay they were delicious, and i appreciated it. and i took my medicine. kay and i, as we were talking to republican women's groups, i used to say all the time that

republican women are the heart and soul, and when i say that, kay from the back of the room would call out, and the brains, and everyone would laugh and i would say, and the brains of the republican party. it started off as an ad-lib joke, but it became something we said all over the state and eventually all over the country. kay had kidney disease and liver disease. she spent the last several months waiting on the list for a transplant. kay was a tiny lady. she needed a small liver. several times it looked like they were going to find a liver,

a kidney. just a few weeks ago i got a text from gary, it looks like we've got one, the surgery is tomorrow. that next morning i woke up praying for kaye until i got a text a couple of hours later that said the surgery fell through, the transplant wasn't a match. i've never known someone like kaye goolsby. kaye loved this country. loved it. she loved texas. and she was so fierce and so full of love. when kaye passed, i texted her

husband and i later put out on twitter -- i said the angels are weeping and so am i. but i'll tell you this, i have no doubt that right now up in heaven kaye goolsby is organizing and reorganizing everything. she's going to the angels saying, this isn't right, you need to change this, you need to move this over here, we can do better. after a long struggle with liver and kidney disease, kaye gone to be with the lord. those of us she left behind were hurting. we'll miss her. i'll still wonder when my phone rings if on the other end is going to be that limit --

lilting southern accent saying, hey, sugar, but we're going to have to wait a little while to hear it again. this is one of my favorite pictures. you can see the joy. she could laugh, and she brought that joy to everyone else. her grandkids called her kaye-kaye. my daughters called her kaye-kaye too. to kaye goolsby, my dear, dear friend, the heart and soul and the brains. i love you kaye. i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the senior senator from washington. ms. cantwell: mr. president, today is a very good day for one much washington's most famous products, and that is washington apples, and that is because tariffs put on apples affected growers in my state. i want to thank ambassador and second rad mannedo -- raimondo for making sure in the negotiations leading up to today's business by prime minister modi and discussions between the united states and india that removing these retaliatory tariffs on apples was included on the lists. today our growers can know they can market a grade worldwide

product, our washington apples that had access to at one point was a $120 million market. this retaliatory tariff being removed will help build sales to india and help the bottom line of farmers in washington state and be essential for the 1,400 growers that i recently visited along with my colleague senator stabenow in discussion of this year's farm bill to say these are important markets for washington products. we heard from george sanchez who said that, quote, india was a critical market for washington apples and tariffs hit read delicious especially hard. these growers are looking for an opportunity to rebuild this market be a -- market access, this also includes removing tariffs on chick pees -- chickpeas.

india was a market for chickpeas and this important crop is a very great product to see into the indian market. at its peak it was over 180 million and they -- in the last year with the retaliatory tariffs, over the last six years had dwindled down next to nothing. that is why it was so important to speak direct thri to prime minister -- directly to prime minister modi to ask him to consider more trade with the united states, to open up these opportunities for us, washington, and india, to work together and for the united states and india to work together. trade and investments are an essential part of our relationship with india. they are essential for all our allies and partners and they should be in tandem with growing our partnership on critical leading edge technologies. i know the discussions that will

happen today at the white house and in the future will be about marrying our technology economies as well. very important work to be done in the post chips and science legislation that was passed and working together on important national security issues. but today is also very good news because it shows that the partnership between the united states and india can get us off of these retaliatory tariffs, help our farmers grow new market opportunities, and produce and sell our product in india, a very growing market for our apples an lent ills -- lentils. i wanting to thank president biden, commerce secretary ra mannedo -- raimondo. i look forward to hearing prime minister modi's comments for continuing to see the work our two countries will do together.

i thank the president and i yield the floor. i ask unanimous consent that the motion to reconsider with respect to the treaty document 112-8, tax convention with chile be considered made and laid upon the table and the president be immediately notified of the senate's action. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. cantwell: mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. schumer: mr. president are. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: i move to proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all those in favor say aye. all opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. schumer: i move to proceed to executive session to consider calendar number 178. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion.

all those in favor say aye. all opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will reported the nomination. the clerk: nomination, department of agriculture, xochitl torres small, of new mexico to be deputy secretary. mr. schumer: i send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby bring to a close debate on the nomination of executive calendar number 178, xochitl torres small, of new mexico, to be deputy secretary of agriculture, signed by 17 senators as follows. mr. schumer: i ask that the reading of the names be waived are. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: i move to proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all those in favor say aye. opposed, say no. all those in favor say aye.

all those opposed, say no. the ayes have it. the motion is very much agreed to. mr. schumer: i move to proceed to executive session to consider calendar number 56. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all those in favor say aye. the ayes have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report. the clerk: nomination, department of justice, rosemarie hidalgo, of the district of columbia, to be director of the -- drerkt of the violence against women office. the presiding officer: i send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report can. 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 bring to a close debate on the executive calendar number 56, rosemarie hidalgo, to be deputy director of the violence against women office.

schumer. mr. schumer: i move to proceed to legislative session rsm. the presiding officer: all those in favor say aye. all those opposed, no. mr. schumer: i move to proceed to executive session to consider calendar number 336789. the presiding officer: the -- calendar number 33. the presiding officer: the ayes have it. the motion is agreed the clerk report it. the clerk: the judiciary, kimberly calgt run evanson of washington to be united states district judge for the western district of washington. mr. schumer: i send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of executive calendar number 33, kymberly kathryn evanson of washington to be united states district judge for the western district of washington signed by 17 senators. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous coe reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: i move to proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all those in favor say aye. all those opposed say no.

the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will do nothing. mr. schumer: i move to proceed to executive session to consider calendar number 8. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all those in favor say aye. all those opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. now the clerk can report. the clerk: nomination, the judiciary, interfere any m. cargt wright of washington -- cartwright of washington to be united states district judge for the western district of washington. mr. schumer: i send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of executive calendar number 8, tiffany m. cartwright of washington to be united states district judge for the western district of washington signed by 18 senators as follows. mr. schumer: i ask consent the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent the mandatory quorum calls for the cloture motions

filed today, june 22, be waived. 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: stevclipse21ó$óocalm

call: test: quorum call:

>> high-rise today a few days ahead of the anniversary of one of the most devastating supreme court voting rights

decisions inour nations history . this coming sunday marks the 10 year anniversary since the supreme court's shelby versus holder decision where surprise, surprise, a conservative majority of the supreme court voted to dramatically erode americans access to the ballot and 15 years of voting rights protection now with the benefit of hindsight and my six years serving as california's chief elections officer i can say that the decision in shelby was not just ananomaly in our nations history . since shelby we have seen in state after state exploit this decision and dozens of laws designed to meet you

folks despite the proponents claims, the point is to make it harder for disproportionately voters of color, voters of disability and senior citizens to register to vote, to stay registered to vote or to actually cast a ballot. but unfortunately we've seen this before. while the 13th amendment to the constitution was ratified in 1870, guaranteeing all citizens theright to vote regardless of race , that did not stop states from limiting accessto the balance . poll taxes, literacy taxes. grandfather clauses, coupled with the brutal violence of the jim crow south made it

nearly impossible for black citizens and other minorities to exercise their constitutional rights. yes, i know it is not positive to be reminded of this but it's important to keep restating these facts for the record before they end up getting censored out of the history books in schools and differentparts of this country . now, these violations are so pervasive that it would take congress nearly a century to address them. congress only took action after the marches of civil rights leaders and the core of the protesters grew so strong they could no longer be ignored. the country witnessed the civil rights movement and lights like doctor luke

martin luther king and john lewis call out the hypocrisy of the nation who promised all men and women to be equal . and who professed principles stopped to answer to the polling place. the voting rights act of 1965 was a monument to freedom. but it certainly was never intended to be temporary let alone a final chapter in the struggle for equality. the voting rights act was a reminder that america's democracy is imperfect and that it's each generation's job to bring us closer to being a more perfect union. so in june 2013, when the supreme court struck down section 5 of the voting

rights act in that decision the provision which required states with a history of racially motivated voter suppression to prove that any new laws or regulations work were not adversely impact minority voters beat before they could be implemented, that decision undid 50 years of voting rights protection. in an instant, the supreme court scrapped section 5 of the voting rights act which was a critical tool that successfully protected us against the most egregious forms of voter suppression. as a result of the shelby decision , today too many eligible citizens, eligible citizens have fallen victim to a new set of barriers put in place by republican led state legislatures.

and our modern-day's voter suppression efforts might be a little more subtle thanwhat we saw in the mid-20th century , but make no mistake , they are no less effective at suppressing the vote. urging voter rolls, limiting vote by mail opportunities, limiting early voting opportunities, these are all strategies designed to make it harder for people to have their voice heard in our democracy. and while we may celebrate the recent supreme court decision in alice versus knowing which was finally important and upholding action to of the voting rights act, and affirming decades of the supreme court jurisprudence on the voting rights act we must remember that that act as a whole is failing to function as it was

intended, that was originally adopted. and make no mistake, the right to vote, the precious right to vote continues to be attacked. mississippi has passed one of the strictest voter id laws in the country. georgia cut 10 percent of its polling places and head of the 20/20 elections. mostly around the atlanta metropolitan area despite the fact that more than 2 million new voters had registered. voters deserve more opportunity to vote, not less . in fact since 20/20 alone are the three states have passed at least 100 and four new restrictive voting laws.

republicans continue to spread false claims of massive voter fraud to cynically justify their voter suppression agenda . it's these types of threats to our democracy that actually fueled my work as california's secretary of state prior to my joining the senate . as the chief elections officer for a state that has 40 million people, the most populous state in the nation and most diverse state in the nation i worked to implement automatic voter registration and same-day voter registration to update california's voting system to meet higher security standards and expand mail in the voting and in person early votingopportunities . we intentionally and aggressively worked to make our democracy more secure and

more inclusive. not less. that's why today mister president there are almost 22 million californians on the voter rolls. that's right, there are more voters in california than the population of the state of florida. and though voter rolls are now the most accurate, up to date they'veever been. that's good for election integrity . and we're seeing record turnout as a result in four of the last six elections. that's the way democracy is supposed to work. now california has taken a stand is our right to vote is worth more and because accounts at strengthening our democracy california probably leads the way. and now it's time for congress to follow this example.

mister president, the fight for civil and voting rights, a quote by doctor martin luther king on the vote. i'll quote the art of the moral universe is long but it bends towards justice. too often, in our nations history, it's been congress that has obstructed our path to justice. this body has not always upheld the legacy of the americans who marched for the right to vote. who wrist their safety for the right to vote. who gave their life so that we might all have a say in our democracy. mister president, in 10 years

after shelby it's clear this decision has undermined the fabric of our democracy. so it's time that we passed the john lewis voting rights act commencement act. which would restore a requirements and help protect the voting rights of all americans . i believe our country is stronger when more eligible americans participate. so that's why we must also pass and implement the freedom to vote act. to set a national baseline of voter protection and access to the balance. our vote is sacred. and how citizens exercise their voice in the political process . it's how we hold elected

leaders accountable . and it's how we together shape our country's future. it is our sworn duty, our sworn duty to protect the right to vote. so i urge all of you to join me in restoring the components of the voting rights act. let's pass once again, landmark legislation to protect our sacred right to vote and let us live up to the legacies of the civil rights era. thank you mister president. i yield the floor

. >>. [inaudible]

>> mister president.

the senior senator from oregon. >> i ask unanimous consent to vacatethe quorum call . >> without objection. >> in a moment i'm going to put forward a unanimous consent to pass a trade bill cosponsored

relationship with taiwan and wants to ensure the recent agreement covering trade facilityation, anticorruption, and small business is durable and legally sound. not only is taiwan a critical market for u.s. exporters, it's also a democracy that shares our values and has strong ties with oregonians and americans across the land. next, this body wants to be clear that trade agreements, trade and trade agreements are within the constitutional authority of the congress. one of the ways the senate demonstrates this is by approving trade agreements, just like this one. finally, the bill requires

greater transparency in consultation as well as public review for future taiwan trade agreements. these ideas can sound little abstract, so i'll put it in real-world terms. in a few hours i'm heading to rural oregon to meet with my constituents and hold town hall meetings. farmers and ranchers in grant and harney counties care a lot about trade and want new markets to sell wheat and potatoes and the like. i'm never going to tell a farmer that they don't deserve the right to read a trade agreement. trade agreements that affect millions of americans can't be done in the dark. congress and the american people need to know what's in these details and how it benefits american interests. i look forward to working with ustr as it negotiates the bigger-ticket items with taiwan, issues like digital trade, labor, environment, and agricultural as outlined in the mandate. further agreements need to

bulldoze barriers for oregon farmers make it hard for exporters to sell their goods. involving the congress in the public is going to help the administration break down these barriers. this is a proposal that brings both sides together, as i said. every member of the ways and means committee, every democrat, every republican is on board. so the glide path to passage here was no accident, and my colleague, rank member crapo, as well as chair smith and ranking member neil worked with me. so my colleagues are eager to get back home. here is the bottom line. passing taiwan trade agreement bill is an opportunity for the senate to clarify congress' role in trade and call for more transparency and consultation. in a moment, i'm going to make a unanimous consent request, in

fact i'll make the first one to include my good friend from idaho, senator crapo's statement in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. wyden: and i am going to yield now to chairman men denies, the chair of the senate foreign relations committee, because he and i worked very closely together on all of these kinds of issues -- foreign reels committee, the finance committee, and we have the good fortune of having senator menendez ceptionly sit next to me in the committee. society we're going to be working together. i am going to make the unanimous consent request in a minute. but i want to yield to chairman menendez, thank him for the fact that we're working together. today we've got a loot to do in the future and we're going to work together. i yield the floor to my colleague. mr. menendez: thank you. mr. president. the presiding officer: the senior senator from new jersey. mr. menendez: mr. president, i love your booming voice. i just want to come to the floor very quickly. i look forward to working with chairman wyden so we can forge an even stronger economic ties between the united states and

taiwan. as chairman of the foreign relations committee and the democratic cochair of the senate taiwan caucus, i can tell you that such efforts are deeply important to u.s. businesses and our economic and national security. i've reviewed the u.s.-taiwan 12st century trade first agreement implementation act. it reasserts important congressional prerogatives with which i agree, and i appreciate chairman wyden's leadership in this regard. i want to just add this point -- if we truly want to help our businesses and if we are committed to taking our economic ties with taiwan to the next level, we have to pass the taiwan tax agreement. taiwan hasdchendoraicap@svc106 x agreement with the united states but there's a gap in the law that means no agreement unless there is new new legislation. this eliminates the grap, -- gap. it sets into motion an agreement

with taiwan and it does so consistent with our taiwan relations act. i know that chairman wyden has also another aspect of this and i look forward to working together so we can come to a mutually agreeable conclusion to achieve it. i yield the floor. mr. wyden: before i make my unanimous consent request, i want to reiterate that senator menendez and i are going to be working together on these issues, and he made in point with respect to taxes and we will find common ground, i believe, with senator crapo, who can't be here today but is very, very strongly in support of this effort. let me repeat that, colleagues. senator crapo, the ranking member on the finance committee, very strong for this effort. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of h.r. 4004, which was received from the house and is at the desk. i further ask that the bill be considered read a third time and

passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: is there an objection? a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from arkansas. mr. cotton: i object to bill. several of my colleagues and i are studying this matter, it's a highly complicated 70-page agreement. it only passed on the house last night barely on the floor of the senate for a day. the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. mr. cotton: we were supposed to have recess to go to a joint recess of congress. the senate should not ram through such agreements at the very last minute without time to review them. there is more than enough time for senators and their aides over the next two weeks of recess to review the 70-page complicated agreement and then address it in the month of july. so i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. wyden: i will be brief because i know my colleagues want to go to the other body.

i think this is very unfortunate. this is an extraordinary opportunity for our country. this is a great opportunity for the world and the fact is there has been extensive review of this particular proposal. the administration -- the presiding officer: can we have order in the senate, please. mr. wyden: the administration talked to a number of members of congress on both sides of the aisle, katherine todd, the ambassador, it went through the house of representatives unanimously, and that was after every member of the relevant committee, the house, ways and means committee cosponsored the legislation. they didn't just vote for it, they opioid -- they cosponsored it. and i think it is very unfortunate that my colleagues

on the other side of the aisle on something that the chair of the ways and means committee, congressman smith and the ranking republican on the finance committee, senator crapo, tall of us -- all of us have been working norths now on this particular proposal. i think it's very unfortunate that our colleague from arkansas has decided to object. it is his right, but i think it is very unfortunate for our country because this could have been a very, very special day with the passage of this, and we're going to be back here working together, as you heard chairman menendez of the foreign relations committee and me and senator crapo, we're going to work together with every member of this body to get this very important trade initiative enacted into law. and with that, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate recess subject to the call of the chair. the presiding officer: without objection. the senate stands in recess

subject to the call of the .ubject to the call of the

>> today fast rel