Floor Statements

Madam President, last night, the Senate took a vote on whether to proceed to a debate on infrastructure. Unfortunately, our Republican colleagues blocked the Senate from taking this first entirely procedural step.

I understand that the effort to finish the text of the bipartisan bill has progressed since I announced this vote last week. The negotiators have made significant progress, but there are still some outstanding issues. Therefore, at the end of the vote yesterday, I changed my response to a no so that I may move to reconsider the vote at a future time.

My colleagues on both sides of the aisle should be assured, as majority leader, I have every intention of passing both major infrastructure packages, the bipartisan infrastructure framework and a budget resolution with reconciliation instructions, before we leave for the August recess. I laid out that precise schedule at the end of June, and I intend to stick with it.

A new report by the chief economist at Moody's, Mark Zandi, hardly a liberal economist, someone who actually served as an economic adviser to Senator McCain, concluded that both major infrastructure proposals are essential to maximize our economic potential--not just one, both. And, together, they would give a massive boost to the economy, ease inflation pressures, create jobs, increase productivity, and reduce income inequality.

These are incredibly worthy goals, and the Senate is going to keep working on both tracks of infrastructure in order to achieve them.

Madam President, now on another matter, today in the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, President Biden's nominee to lead the Bureau of Land Management, Tracy Stone-Manning, will receive a vote to advance her nomination to the Senate floor.

While it sometimes flies under the radar, the Bureau of Land Management is responsible for overseeing nearly 250 million acres of public lands and 700 million acres of mineral rights, a vast track of the United States of America. No Agency is more important to the maintenance of public lands for public use. BLM, the Bureau of Land Management, that is, will play a huge role in the fight against climate change as well.

Over the past 4 years under Donald Trump, the Agency abandoned its mission, shrunk public lands, targeted our national monuments, and opened up those beautiful landscapes for corporate industrial development. In short, the next leader of the Bureau of Land Management has a tall order in restoring and protecting America's public lands.

Ms. Stone-Manning is exceedingly qualified to take on this important job.

After serving on Senator Tester's and Governor Bullock's staff, she went on to lead the environmental agency in Montana, where she was respected not only by conservationists but by ranchers and fossil fuel interests as well. She developed a reputation as an honest broker, someone who is firm in their principles but always willing to try and build consensus.

Yet the members of the Republican minority on the committee are trying to turn this consensus-driven, well-respected nominee into another partisan flashpoint, dredging up a letter she forwarded while in graduate school and claiming it was evidence that she is ``an echo- terrorist.'' The claim is just as hysterical as it sounds.

Ms. Stone-Manning has the full support of the chair of the committee, the Senator from West Virginia; Mr. Tester, the Senator from Montana; and from me.

We need someone like Ms. Stone-Manning to manage our public lands, a staunch advocate for conservation but also an honest broker, someone who will repair the damage of the last 4 years and be a faithful steward of America's national treasures, someone who understands that conservation policy has a critical role to play in the fight against climate change. Ms. Stone-Manning has all of those qualities, and I look forward to moving her nomination to the Senate floor.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I move to proceed to executive session to consider Calendar No. 122.

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

Finally, I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum call for the cloture motion filed today, July 22, be waived.

I move to proceed to legislative session.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, on behalf of myself and the distinguished Republican leader, Mr. McConnell, I send to the desk a resolution authorizing representation by the Senate Legal Counsel and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. President, this resolution concerns third-party subpoenas to a Senate employee from Alfa Bank, the plaintiff in a lawsuit pending in Florida State court. The plaintiff, a large Russian bank, alleges in its lawsuit that unnamed defendants used cyber tools to create internet log data appearing to show communications between computer servers of the plaintiff and the Trump Organization, causing negative publicity. Alfa Bank is conducting third-party discovery to identify the unnamed persons it alleges conspired against it. As part of that attempted discovery, it has issued two subpoenas to a staff member of the Committee on Armed Services seeking testimony and Committee documents regarding his work for the Committee in examining the publicly-reported allegations about possible clandestine internet communications between plaintiff and the Trump Organization.

Because the subpoenas seek testimony and documents relating to information gathering activities the staff person undertook as part of his duties for the Committee, they request information that is absolutely privileged under the Speech or Debate Clause. In addition, sovereign immunity precludes enforcement of State court subpoenas against officials and employees of the Federal government. This resolution would authorize the Senate Legal Counsel to represent the Committee on Armed Services and its staff member and move to quash the subpoenas, at the request of the Committee.

In addition, to demonstrate to the court the applicability of the Speech or Debate Clause privilege in this matter, the resolution authorizes the Majority Staff Director of the Committee to provide a limited declaration in support of the motion to quash. By submitting this limited declaration solely to establish its privilege, the Committee is not waiving, and, indeed, continues to assert, its absolute Speech or Debate Clause privilege against being compelled to produce any information in this matter.

Mr. President, first, before I get into the substance of my remarks, I just heard Leader McConnell's statements on debt ceiling.

The leader's statements on debt ceiling are shameless, cynical, and totally political. This debt is Trump debt. It is COVID debt. Democrats joined three times during the Trump administration to do the responsible thing. The bottom line is that Leader McConnell should not be playing political games with the full faith and credit of the United States. Americans pay their debts.

Madam President, I enter a motion to reconsider the failed cloture vote.

Madam President, I just want to explain what happened on the floor very briefly.

At the end of the vote, I changed my response to a no so that I may move to reconsider this vote at a future time.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, for decades, both parties have shared a desire to invest in our Nation's infrastructure. It is one of the few issues here in Washington where our two parties can consistently work together, and it has been years since Congress passed a significant stand-alone investment. We are hoping to change that this year.

Nearly a month ago--a month ago--a bipartisan group of Senators came together, along with the White House, and agreed on a framework for a bipartisan infrastructure bill. So last night I moved to set up a process for the Senate to consider that bipartisan framework.

On Wednesday, the Senate will take the first procedural vote on a shell bill, merely a vehicle to get the whole process started. It is not a final deadline for legislative text. It is not a cynical ploy. It is not a fish-or-cut-bait moment. It is not an attempt to jam anyone. It is only a signal that the Senate is ready to get the process started, something the Senate has routinely done on other bipartisan bills this year.

All a ``yes'' vote on the motion to proceed means is simply that the Senate is ready to begin debating a bipartisan infrastructure bill--no more, no less. We have waited a month. It is time to move forward.

My colleagues have heard me speak for months about making progress on two different tracks of infrastructure. After the group of Senators reached a deal with the White House, I endorsed it and I announced I wanted to put their agreement on the floor of the Senate in July. This week's vote is an honest attempt to get something done, to get the ball rolling on the Senate floor.

That is why I am giving the maximum amount of flexibility to our Senate colleagues who are negotiating this bill. If the bipartisan group can finalize the text of their agreement by Thursday, I will offer it as the pending substitute amendment. If, for whatever reason, the bipartisan group isn't ready with their final text by Thursday, I will offer an amendment consisting only of the bipartisan infrastructure bills that have already gone through our Senate committees and are actually the core of the bipartisan infrastructure framework. They are the water bill, the highway bill, the rail and safety bill, and the energy bill.

All of them are bipartisan, all of them have gone through committee, and all of them received overwhelming Republican votes. Why wouldn't our Republican colleagues want to move to proceed to debate that bill, at the very minimum, even if we don't have agreement on the broader bipartisan bill?

Just to go over the record, the Environment and Public Works Committee reported the water bill, passed by voice vote, unanimous, in committee and then 89 to 2 on the Senate floor. The Environment and Public Works Committee reported the highway bill, passed by 20 to 0. The Commerce Committee reported the rail and safety bill, passed by 25 to 3. And the Energy and Natural Resources Committee report of the energy bill passed 13 to 7.

So once again, to repeat, this week's vote is an honest attempt to get something done, to get the ball rolling on

the Senate floor, after a month, after the agreement was reached by the bipartisan group and the White House. That is why I am giving the maximum amount of flexibility to our Senate colleagues who are negotiating the bill. If the bipartisan group can finalize their agreement by Thursday, I will offer it as the pending substitute amendment, as I mentioned before. I just wanted to repeat that so people hear it loud and clear.

The bills I mentioned are the lowest common denominator and the most agreeable starting point, a package of bipartisan bills that nearly all the Senators have already supported this year, a package of bills that the bipartisan group is using as the basis of their framework. And once it is on the floor, we can then debate, amend, and work from there. It is not the final word.

There will be no doubt many Senators would want to offer additional items from the bipartisan framework or other issues: from transit to broadband, to resiliency, and more. And, of course, if the bipartisan group finalizes their product over the weekend, Senators can offer it as an amendment at that point, and I will make sure that that amendment is in order.

Let me repeat. Even if the text of the bipartisan framework isn't ready by Thursday and we agree to make the package of bipartisan bills that I mentioned the starting point, Senators can still work on the bipartisan framework and offer it as an amendment later on.

The bottom line is very simple. If Senators agree to start debate, there will be many, many opportunities for the bipartisan group to make their agreement the base of the bill. But if Republican Senators refuse to start debate, they would be denying the Senate an opportunity to consider the bipartisan amendment.

And this is not a new process. We have used it regularly here in the Senate, on the anti-Asian hate crimes bill, the U.S. Innovation and Competition Act. On both of those, the Senate agreed to start debate, just to proceed on a base bill, a shell bill. It took several weeks of amendments before everyone was ready to move forward, eventually and successfully. Both measures passed with significant bipartisan support.

If we did it there--on the anti-Asian hate bill, on the U.S. Innovation and Competition Act--we can do it here. There is no reason we can't do it here with infrastructure.

Look, Senators of good will on both sides want to finish the bipartisan infrastructure bill before the August recess. That is certainly my goal. But in order to finish the bill, we first need to agree to start. Let me repeat that. But in order to finish the bill, we first need to agree to start. That is the first step.

Let's all agree to start. That is what this week's vote is about, and I hope my Republican colleagues will join us in beginning debate.

Mr. President, on another matter, right now, there is a fire burning in Oregon the size of New York City. A heat wave recently rolled through the Pacific Northwest that melted power lines and cracked roadways in two. Hurricanes and flooding in the East have battered one community after the other. Earlier this year, a snowstorm engulfed the typically scorching State of Texas and claimed the lives of hundreds--hundreds--of people. And, of course, we saw what happened in Europe with the flooding.

These extreme, once-in-a-century weather events are now commonplace. The dangers of climate change are here, and they are real. Fighting climate change will take not only new technologies and new ways of thinking but something more basic: It will take people--people, lots of people--working together to fight climate change from the ground up.

This morning, I joined with my Democratic colleagues from the House and Senate to push a bold, new approach to fighting climate change that will help create thousands of good-paying jobs in the process: the Civilian Climate Corps, CCC.

The idea at the core of the Civilian Climate Corps harkens back to the New Deal, when hundreds of thousands of Americans were put to work on conservation and infrastructure projects across the country. During the Great Depression, President Roosevelt needed ways to put Americans to work and to do it fast, and he found a way to do it while having those workers do something enormously productive for their country: building public works and dams and bridges and airfields and flood and forest-fire prevention.

The Civilian Conservation Corps, as it was called at the time, was a brilliant idea--a success--that should be harnessed once again, this time to fight climate change.

The bottom line: We need a CCC for the 21st century. We can put Americans to work on climate and resiliency projects. We can put Americans to work on clean energy initiatives across the country. We can put Americans to work helping poorer and more disconnected communities handle the challenge of climate change. And we can create hundreds of thousands of good-paying jobs, particularly focusing on the poorer communities, the communities of color that have been left out in the past.

The Civilian Climate Corps can be one of the largest employment projects and one of the largest environmental projects at the same time. I believe the Senate should work to make this a reality this year. I believe the CCC, the Civilian Climate Corps, should be one of the pillars of the American Jobs and Family Plan. As majority leader, I will ensure that CCC will be included in the upcoming budget reconciliation package in as big and bold a way as possible.

Mr. President, finally, later, the Senate will pass a long-overdue fix to the Crime Victims Fund to help Americans stitch back their lives after falling victim to violent crime.

As hard as it is to suffer the trauma of a violent crime, survivors almost always face enormous financial hardship in the immediate aftermath. Just think about healthcare or mental health services for victims of human trafficking or sexual assault, emergency housing for victims of serious domestic abuse, legal fees for those who try to pursue justice for the crime committed against them. Those services can cost tens of thousands of dollars. So for nearly 35 years, the Justice Department has operated a Crime Victims Fund that uses money from Federal convictions and fines to help survivors of violent crime. It is a simple idea. It has helped thousands and thousands of Americans during the most challenging moments of their lives.

But today, this popular and effective program is in danger of going into the red. Compared to 5 years ago, the Crime Victims Fund could fall to less than one-twentieth--one-twentieth--of its former size by the end of the next fiscal year. Well, the Senate is not going to abandon Americans who survived violent crimes. Today, the Senate will pass legislation to replenish the Crime Victims Fund and set it on a path toward long-term stability. The Crime Victims Fund has been a beacon of hope and healing for countless survivors over the decades. With today's vote, survivors of violent crime can rest assured that it will continue to be that beacon of hope and healing for decades more to come.

Mr. President, I understand there is a bill at the desk that is due for a second reading.

Mr. President, in order to place the bill on the calendar under the provisions of rule XIV, I would object to further proceedings.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, for the past several months, both Democrats and Republicans have been hard at work putting together two major infrastructure bills to meet the challenges of the 21st century. We have proceeded along two tracks. The first track is a bipartisan infrastructure framework that has been agreed to by a group of Democrats and Republican Senators and the White House. The second track is a budget resolution with reconciliation instructions that will allow the Senate to take up the American Jobs and Families Plan and make historic investments in jobs, family support policies, and initiatives to fight climate change. This week, the Senate aims to make even more progress on these tracks.

Tonight, in a few minutes, I will file cloture on a shell bill, which will act as a legislative vehicle for the bipartisan infrastructure framework. That vote on cloture will take place on Wednesday. Again, that vote on Wednesday will be a vote on cloture simply to the motion to proceed to a debate on a bipartisan infrastructure bill.

I want to be clear about what these steps mean. There has been some confusion. What we are talking about this week is a vote on whether to proceed to debate on the bipartisan infrastructure framework. The motion to proceed on Wednesday is simply about getting the legislative process started here on the Senate floor; it is not a deadline to determine every final detail of the bill. All a ``yes'' vote on the motion to proceed simply means is that the Senate is ready to begin debating and amending a bipartisan infrastructure bill; no more, no less.

It is important to remember that even after the Wednesday cloture vote, there are up to 30 hours of debate before we can adopt the motion to proceed and offer amendments.

So let me be very clear about what I am committing to the Senate as majority leader. If the bipartisan group of Senators reaches a final agreement on legislative text by Thursday, I will make that agreement the pending substitute amendment for debate once the motion to proceed is adopted. If for some reason the group does not finalize the legislative text to the agreement in time for Thursday, then I will offer an amendment consisting only of the elements of the bill that have already been put through committee on a bipartisan process. This will allow this Senate to begin debate and amendments on the bipartisan base bill, which has four main components:

First, the Environment and Public Works Committee report of the water bill. This bill passed by a voice vote in committee and then 89 to 2 on the Senate floor.

Second, the Environment and Public Works Committee report of the highway bill. This passed by 20 to nothing.

Third, the Commerce Committee report on the rail and safety bill. This bill passed by 25 to 3.

Fourth, the Energy and Natural Resources Committee report of the Energy bill. This passed 13 to 7.

Again, if the text of the bipartisan deal is ready on Thursday, I will offer it as the first substitute amendment. If for some reason it is not, I will offer an amendment that consists only of the elements of the bill that have gone through committee with substantial bipartisan support, the four pieces that I mentioned just a second ago.

Now, I have spoken with the five leading Democratic negotiators: Senators Sinema, Warner, Tester, Shaheen, and Manchin. They support this approach.

I would remind my colleagues, moving to proceed to a legislative vehicle, a shell bill, for bipartisan legislation, even while the negotiators finalize the text of that legislation, is a routine process in this Chamber. We have done it repeatedly. It is a sign of good faith from both sides that negotiations will continue in earnest and both sides are committed to reaching an outcome.

Earlier this year, the Senate moved forward on a vehicle--a legislative vehicle--for what became the COVID-19 Hate Crimes Act. In fact, we went through the same process when the Senate moved to proceed to the legislative vehicle for what ultimately became the United States Innovation and Competition Act. In that legislation, our Senate committees were working on various bills that all had to do with American innovation and competition.

The Commerce Committee reported out the Endless Frontier Act. The Foreign Relations Committee reported out the Strategic Competition Act. And the Homeland Security Committee reported out additional pieces of legislation. We put them together once we voted to proceed to debate on the topic. The same thing--the very same thing is happening on the bipartisan infrastructure bill.

I understand that both sides are working very hard to turn the bipartisan infrastructure framework into final legislation, and they will continue to have more time to debate, amend, and perfect the bill once the Senate votes to take up this crucial issue.

But they have been working on this bipartisan framework for more than a month already, and it is time to begin the debate. We must make significant progress on both the bipartisan infrastructure bill and the budget resolution before the end of the work period. There is no reason we can't get the ball rolling this week on both elements of the Senate's infrastructure agenda.

Madam President, on one final matter, VOCA, tomorrow, the Senate will take up a desperately needed fix to the Victims of Crime Act. Survivors of violent crime often bear tremendous financial hardship, everything from medical costs to emergency housing, to legal fees and mental health services.

After suffering a violent crime, the last thing Americans should have to worry about is being unable to afford the basic services they need to stitch their lives back together. So, for over 35 years, the Justice Department's Crime Victims Fund has provided assistance to Americans impacted by violent crime, such as domestic abuse, sexual assault, human trafficking, DUIs, and other horrific crimes.

Traditionally, most of the funding came from penalties paid through Federal convictions, but over time the fund has shrunk dramatically. Compared to 5 years ago, next year, the victims of crime fund could fall to less than one-twentieth of its former size.

So, tomorrow, the Senate will vote on a measure to replenish the victim of crimes fund and ensure that it remains stable for the foreseeable future. This legislation passed the House with overwhelming bipartisan support, and here in the Senate it has at least 63 cosponsors. The legislation ought to sail through the Senate tomorrow.

The survivors of violent crimes deserve the peace of mind that they do not bear the burden of recovering from their trauma alone.