Floor Statements

Mr. President, I move to proceed to executive session to consider Calendar No. 341.

Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk.

Mr. President, finally, I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum calls for the cloture motions filed today, September 20, be waived.

Mr. President, I understand there is a bill at the desk, and I ask for its first reading.

I now ask for a second reading, and in order to place the bill on the calendar under the provisions of rule XIV, I object to my own request.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10:30 a.m., Tuesday, September 21; that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and morning business be closed; that upon the conclusion of morning business, the Senate proceed to executive session and resume consideration of the Strickland nomination; further, that the Senate recess following the cloture vote on the Strickland nomination until 2:15 p.m. to allow for the weekly caucus meetings; that if cloture is invoked, all post-cloture time expire at 2:30 p.m.; finally, that if any nominations are confirmed, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it stand adjourned under the previous order.

Mr. President, we have a busy day in store for the Senate as we aim to hold a number of important votes before the start of Yom Kippur.

Today, we will vote to advance four Presidential nominations. First, we will confirm James Kvaal to be Under Secretary of Education, and we will also confirm both David Estudillo and Angel Kelley to serve as district judges in Washington and Massachusetts, respectively.

This afternoon, we will also advance the nomination of Ms. Veronica Rossman of Colorado, who has been nominated by President Biden to sit on the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. Ms. Rossman has spent practically her entire legal career in public service as a Federal defender, giving a voice in the courtroom to those who often cannot afford legal representation.

She is also an immigrant, who fled Russia with her parents as a child after her family endured anti-Semitic persecution in their home country. She understands personally the damage faced by those who endure discrimination.

If confirmed, Ms. Rossman would be the only Federal defender to sit on the Tenth Circuit, and one of the few in the entire country. I am proud to have nominated Eunice Lee to the Second Circuit Court of New York. She, too, has been a Federal defender.

We also have plenty of prosecutors and corporate lawyers wearing black robes.

Like so many other of President Biden's judicial nominees, Ms. Rossman is going to bring a sorely needed perspective to our courts. The more we work to make our courts reflective of the diversity of this country, both demographic and professionally, the more we will strengthen the public's trust in our judicial system.

Now, secondly, today, the Senate Democrats will also continue work to turn President Biden's Build Back Better agenda into law. It bears repeating: This is a historic effort. This is not just another simple piece of legislation. We are laying a foundation for another century of American prosperity. Just like the Great Society and the New Deal before it, our legislation will bring transformational change to help build ladders so that those can climb up into the middle class, while making it easier for those already in the middle class to enjoy that middle class life and stay there. Too many in the middle class worry they are going to slip out with all the changes occurring in our society. We strengthen their ability to stay.

And too many who are trying to climb those ladders find the ladders steep and unavailable. We are providing those ladders so they can get there, too. It is strong, bold, important legislation, and it is really a privilege to be here in the Senate and consider something as strong and bold as this.

Later today, our caucus will discuss the latest elements of the reconciliation bill. Working with our colleagues in the House, we will have met the target date of September 15 set in the

budget resolution for producing text to review.

I expect our committee chairs will provide an overview of all the work that each of their committees have done over the last 4 weeks in drafting legislative text, and the entire caucus will have the chance to offer feedback so we can continue to move this process forward.

This will continue to be a collaborative process. Everyone-- everyone--is going to have input into this legislation. But, of course, our unity is our strength, and if we are not unified with 50 votes, we can't get anything done. So we all must come together.

Now, I am pleased to say, after working for weeks over the summer on our reconciliation bill, we are making great progress toward bringing the bill to the floor.

Now, while Democrats are fighting to strengthen the middle class, our Republican colleagues, unfortunately, are resorting to the same, tired, predictable objections they raise about practically any Democratic proposal. Rather than explain why they oppose supporting families or expanding healthcare or taking action on climate change, they spent the last several months recycling old accusations about ``liberal wish lists.'' And rather than engage our policies on the merits and have a real debate, too often they raised unwarranted and incorrect points about how these programs will impact inflation.

I remind my colleagues of a report released not long ago by the chief economist at Moody's Analytics, Mr. Mark Zandi. When Mr. Zandi examined the Democrats' two main legislative proposals, our infrastructure bill and our Build Back Better legislation, he concluded these packages would provide a massive boost to our economy. Specifically, he said our program would ``lift the economy's longer-term growth potential'' and would ``lift productivity and labor force growth''; that is, our proposal will do exactly what we said it would do, according to this impartial arbiter, Mark Zandi.

And as for the Republicans' overheated rhetoric on inflation, Mr. Zandi dismisses such concerns as ``overdone'' and said our two infrastructure bills are designed to ``ease''--his words--inflation pressures.

Let me repeat that. According to Moody's top economist--hardly a fervent liberal--the Democratic proposals would actually ease inflation pressures, not raise them.

When you strengthen worker productivity, when you increase supply chains, the push to inflation decreases--decreases. And he also said that, in the long term, it would help grow our economy so that more Americans can get to and stay in the middle class.

Compare that to the signature accomplishments that Senate Republicans forced when they were in charge: a massive tax break for corporations and the wealthy that did little to help everyday Americans.

That is the difference between a Democratic majority and a Republican one. We are fighting to strengthen American workers and American families. Republicans seem only worried about protecting those at the very top.

And, in addition, to those with inflationary concerns, we are going to pay for our proposal. The Trump tax cuts, which every Republican voted for, created a $2 trillion deficit.

So let's be realistic here. Let's be honest here. The charges of runaway inflation are just wrong, especially when you consider we are paying for it, when Republicans were so willing to give tax cuts to the rich without paying for them at all.

Mr. President, now, on another subject--one that the Presiding Officer cares about a great deal, among the many other things you care about a great deal--voting rights. All year long, Senate Democrats have committed to passing legislation to protect the most sacrosanct right in our democracy, the right to vote. On two occasions, Senate Democrats voted unanimously to begin debate in the Senate on this critical issue, and both times Republicans formed a wall of total opposition against any progress on voting rights in the U.S. Senate.

But Republicans' refusal to work with us is no excuse for not getting something done. So later today, my colleague, Senator Klobuchar, along with Senators Kaine, King, Manchin, Merkley, Padilla, Tester, and Warnock, will be introducing the Freedom to Vote Act, a compromise voting rights bill that I intend to schedule a vote on in the very near future.

To piece this bill together, I am proud to have convened and worked with eight Members of my caucus--four progressives and four moderates-- in bringing this bill to fruition. The compromise proposal contains many of the important provisions of previous voting rights bills championed by Senate Democrats, particularly by my colleague Senator Merkley. It will protect the right to vote and put a stop to partisan gerrymandering and the scourge of dark money in our politics. Critically, the legislation also incorporates important feedback from election officials and includes new measures to promote greater voter confidence in our elections while stopping partisan election subversion. This is a good proposal, one that nobody in this Chamber should oppose.

My colleague Senator Manchin is working with Republicans to secure support for the bill, and we look forward to hearing what changes they might make on legislation. I applaud Senator Manchin for his work here. He has always said that he wants to try and bring Republicans on, and now with the support of Democrats and this compromise bill that Senator Manchin had great input into, he can go forward in that regard.

The fact of the matter is that this legislation is critical for stopping some of the most egregious assaults against voting rights happening at the State level. A few weeks ago, the Governor of Texas signed one of the most sweeping voter suppression bills in the entire country. It comes on the heels of other restrictions sprouting across the country--from ending election day registration in Montana, limiting after-hour drop boxes in Florida, and even making it a crime to give food and water to voters at the polls in Georgia.

No one can look at these restrictions with a straight face and say they have a legitimate purpose. They have only one goal. It is a despicable goal. It is a nasty goal, making it harder for younger, poorer, non-White, and typically Democratic voters to access the ballot.

Republicans lost the election. Biden is President. I am majority leader. Instead of doing what you are supposed to do in a democracy-- win over the people you didn't win before--they are trying to stop the people who didn't vote for them from voting. That is autocratic, anti- democratic--small ``D''--and not what America is all about. It is a new phase of what used to be called ``Jim Crow.''

The Freedom to Vote Act is a necessary step to put an end to these assaults on the franchise. As majority leader, it is my intention to hold a vote on this bill as soon as next week, as I mentioned.

Mr. President, now, finally, on debt ceiling. In the long history of our country--the long, long history--the United States has never defaulted on its obligations to pay its debt. The full faith and credit of the United States has been the bedrock of our country's economic prosperity--a spotless record that both parties have, for years, worked together to preserve.

No matter who was President, Democrat or Republican, in the past, the other party always stepped up to the plate and said: We can't let the country default.

Until most recently, when President Trump was in office, Democrats stepped up on three separate occasions to work with Republicans to suspend the debt ceiling and continue to ensure that the U.S. was able to pay its bills, even when there was a Democratic majority in the House. We did not resort to hostage-taking or proclaim that it was the other side's responsibility. We simply knew that when it came to the debt ceiling, it was important to put aside political differences and act responsibly, no matter who sits in the Oval Office.

We know that failing to raise the debt ceiling would be--as the Republican leader has said in the past when

Trump was President and he was arguing that Democrats should join him, would be a disaster. Well, if anything, that is an understatement.

Just yesterday, one top forecaster said that ``a failure to raise the debt limit will have serious negative consequences.'' So in the immediate future, we need to raise the debt ceiling again. As in previous instances, it must, must, be a bipartisan endeavor, and the reason is simple: We have to get this done.

But much of the recent debt we need to pay for was incurred during the Trump administration. In fact, President Trump added nearly $8 trillion to the national debt, $5\1/2\ trillion of which was since the last time the debt limit was suspended until Trump's final day in office.

So, in other words, $5\1/2\ trillion of this debt is totally under Republican management, in a sense, because Trump was the President and Leader McConnell was the majority leader. Democrats think that we got that. That is when the debt was created, with Republican votes--lots of Republican votes. Both sides, led by a Republican Senate, as I said, incurred much of this debt. Senators from both parties overwhelmingly voted in support of the many laws that contributed to this obligation. So neither party can wash its hands of responsibility to pay the bills.

Leader McConnell keeps talking about the new spending the Democrats have done. That is not this debt. This debt, $5\1/2\ trillion, was all under Trump and when McConnell was the majority leader. Leader McConnell was the majority leader.

Some Republicans recklessly, irresponsibly, so overwhelmingly politically seem eager to push our economy to the brink of total catastrophe by suggesting they will oppose any effort to raise the debt ceiling. And rather than urging their colleagues to immediately drop this reckless idea, the Republican leader--shame on him--seems to be giving it his blessing, if not promoting it.

If the United States defaults on its debt, it will harm every single American in this country, including potentially those who rely on Social Security and the members of our military. The consequences will reverberate around the world and will cause irreparable harm to the global economy at a time when we are all working to lift ourselves out of a once-in-a-century pandemic.

So any efforts to play nasty, political games with the full faith and credit of the United States is reckless, irresponsible, and despicable. It could pose permanent damage to the U.S. economy and is a complete nonstarter.

In America, when it is time to pay the bills, we do it without exception.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I ask unanimous consent that the postcloture time on the Rossman nomination be considered expired, and at 5:30 p.m., Monday, September 20, the Senate vote on the confirmation of the nomination.

Mr. President, I move to proceed to legislative session.

I move to proceed to executive session to consider Calendar No. 231.

I send a cloture motion to the desk.

Finally, I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum call for the cloture motion filed today, September 14, be waived, and that the cloture motion ripen at 11:30 a.m. on Tuesday, September 21.

I move to proceed to legislative session.

Mr. President, I understand that there is a bill at the desk, and I ask for its first reading.

Mr. President, I now ask for a second reading and, in order to place the bill on the calendar under the provisions of rule XIV, I object to my own request.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be discharged from further consideration of S. 273, and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

I ask unanimous consent that the Feinstein amendment be considered and agreed to.

I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time.

I know of no further debate on the bill, as amended.

Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.