Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise in support of the nomination of Rufus Gifford to be Chief of Protocol with the rank of Ambassador.

Rufus, a native son of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, transitioned to a career in public service after a very successful career in the private sector.

In 2013, President Obama nominated Rufus to be U.S. Ambassador to Denmark, and he was unanimously confirmed by the U.S. Senate.

In Copenhagen, Rufus was the headliner in a reality TV show, ``I Am the Ambassador.'' The show's innovative approach to public diplomacy gave Danish viewers, particularly young people, an all-access pass into the life of a U.S. Ambassador and the U.S. diplomatic presence in the country. In a country of just 5 million people, 200,000 Danes tuned in to see how the U.S. Ambassador advanced his country's core interests. One Danish viewer said that ``it is the type of show you would watch with your mother-in-law, and she would say, oh, he is a lovely man, that Rufus Gifford.''

Rufus's effusive personality makes him the perfect choice for this new role as Chief of Protocol. In Copenhagen, Denmark, Rufus opened the Ambassador's residence to thousands of visitors. As Chief of Protocol, he will once again play host to foreign dignitaries at the White House and Blair House. His hand will be the first outstretched to greet a Prime Minister, President, or Monarch at a time when diplomacy is most needed.

Ambassador Gifford was unanimously confirmed by this body in 2013 and was

unanimously reported out of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee 4 months ago. I ask unanimous consent that Ambassador Gifford once again earn the support of the full Senate and be confirmed as Chief of Protocol with the rank of Ambassador.

I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of the following nomination: Calendar No. 320, Rufus Gifford, of Massachusetts, to be Chief of Protocol, and to have the rank of Ambassador during his tenure of service; that the nomination be confirmed; that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order on the nomination and that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Reserving the right to object, Senator Cruz knows that the Democrats have offered the Republicans--offered him a vote on Nord Stream 2 as part of consideration of the National Defense Authorization Act. His own colleagues are the ones who objected to a vote being held on the Nord Stream 2 Pipeline as part of that agreement that was generously offered by the Democrats to the Republicans.

The problem is not on this side; the problem is on the side of the Senator from Texas. Yet he continues to hold up dozens of State Department officials, many of them career officials who should be on their jobs around the world right now.

Ultimately, right now, the onus lies on the Republican side for not having a vote on the subject that the Senator from Texas has raised, the Nord Stream 2 Pipeline; therefore, I object to the motion from the gentleman from Texas.

I yield back.

Madam President, I, as well as Senator Cantwell, rise in support of Jessica Rosenworcel, President Joe Biden's nominee to serve as the Chair of the Federal Communications Commission.

In her time on the Commission, Chair Rosenworcel has been a tireless advocate for consumers in today's fast-changing media and digital landscape.

She stands up for consumers. She stands up for competition. She stands up for children. That is what the job of Chair of the Federal Communications Commission is all about, is standing up for all of those core principles that our country believes in.

She has made it very clear that she does believe that title II of the Communications Act is something that can be and must be used in order to ensure that we give full protections to broadband users in our country.

Now, more than ever, we need strong leadership at the Federal Communications Commission, as Senator Cantwell was just speaking.

We have 12 to 17 million children in the United States who did not have the internet during the first year of the COVID crisis, and we were able to build in huge funding that has reduced dramatically the number of children who do not have the internet at home, but more work must be done.

The best way to do it is to add even more money into the Build Back Better bill. If we do that, we will see that we are dealing with the fact that especially Black and Brown and immigrant children in our country have access to the tools which they are going to need to be able to get an education.

The coronavirus is coming back. It is taking a U-turn, and its implications for the education of poor children in our country is dramatic. That is why Chair Rosenworcel is the right person at the right time in order to serve as the Chair of the Federal Communications Commission.

We have to ensure the competition is at the heart of our policy. That is Chair Rosenworcel. We have to make sure the consumers benefit from these innovations in technology. That is her agenda. And we have to make sure that children--every child in our country--gets access to the technologies that are going to be necessary for every one of them to maximize their God-given abilities. That is what Chair Rosenworcel is all about.

I recommend with the strongest possible voice that I have to have a very strong vote on the floor of the Senate to confirm her for the Federal Communications Commission.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I want to spend a quick moment saying a fond thank-you and farewell to a staff member of mine who is leaving.

My deep gratitude to Ashley Harrington, who is off to great adventures. Our sadness at her leaving is matched only by our excitement for her as she starts her next chapter.

Thank you for your dedication, your humor, your invaluable skills. We are going to miss you throughout our entire office.

Nomination of Rachael S. Rollins

Mr. President, I come here today to speak in support of Suffolk County District Attorney Rachael Rollins, nominee to serve as U.S. attorney for the District of Massachusetts.

The fact that I and my Senate partner, Senator Warren, have to come to the floor at all in support of this qualified, respected, effective law enforcement official is a testimony to the unprecedented partisanship of my Republican colleagues. It is truly outrageous.

Before I share more about District Attorney Rollins' record of accomplishment--a record that my Republican colleagues have intentionally distorted and mischaracterized--I want to explain how politically partisan this U.S. attorney nomination process has become.

In September, the Judiciary Committee held a rollcall vote on Rachael Rollins' nomination to serve as U.S. attorney for the District of Massachusetts. She was voted out of committee on an 11-to-11 vote. All Democrats voted aye; all Republicans opposed the nomination.

With this vote, Judiciary Committee Republicans eviscerated a three- decade precedent of voice votes for U.S. attorney nominees for all 50 States--every single time. The committee had last held a rollcall vote on a U.S. attorney nominee in 1993. And based on a review of available materials, before the 117th Congress, the Judiciary Committee had only ever held a rollcall vote on three U.S. attorney nominees: in 1993, 1982, and 1975.

The Senate last required cloture on a U.S. attorney nominee in 1993 but ultimately confirmed that nominee by voice vote. And--listen to this--the Senate last held a rollcall vote on the floor of the Senate on a U.S. attorney nominee in 1975. We have held more impeachment votes on the floor of the Senate than votes on U.S. attorney nominees since 1975.

This obstruction of District Attorney Rollins' nomination is unwarranted, unfounded, and unprecedented. Let me underscore that last point. During the Trump administration, Judiciary Committee Democrats agreed to voice vote all 85 U.S. attorney nominees who came before them, despite disagreements with multiple nominees' records and ideology. All 85 of those U.S. attorneys in the Trump era were processed by the Judiciary Committee and received a voice vote with no recorded opposition. And the Senate, likewise, confirmed all 85 by unanimous consent on the Senate floor during the Donald Trump era.

The opposition to Rachael Rollins is nothing more than a deeply partisan ploy to score political points at the expense of the record of a respected, qualified, courageous, Black, female, progressive district attorney. It is offensive, and it is not in service to public safety-- in Massachusetts or across our Nation.

Let me tell you about District Attorney Rachael Rollins and why her record has garnered supported from all corners of the law enforcement community in Massachusetts and New England and from Republicans and Democrats alike.

District Attorney Rollins has public safety in her blood. Her father, a second-generation Irish American, fought in the Vietnam war and later worked as a corrections officer. Her maternal grandparents are from Barbados, and her mother is a first-generation American.

She represents the very best of what this country is all about: opportunity, public service, and plain old hard work.

As the district attorney for the county encompassing Boston and surrounding cities, District Attorney Rollins has a demonstrated record of success as a prosecutor. She leads an office of 300 employees, including more than 150 lawyers who handle 25,000 new criminal case filings and 1,000 criminal investigations annually. She leads a very busy office efficiently and effectively.

On the most serious crimes, her record is unassailable. In 2019, Rollins' first full year in office, the homicide unit's number of completed trials increased by 21 percent. Boston homicides declined by 31 percent in 2019, making it the lowest number in decades.

And she aggressively prosecutes drug trafficking. Between January 1, 2021, and October 12, 2021, just this year, the Suffolk County DA's office has prosecuted 147 trafficking cases. Of those cases, 98 involved charges of trafficking fentanyl, accounting for 67 percent of total drug trafficking prosecutions. District Attorney Rollins has prosecuted more drug traffickers than her predecessor.

I have personally met with and talked with District Attorney Rollins on multiple occasions about the opioid epidemic that is being fueled by fentanyl. There is no one more dedicated to ending that scourge than she is. She is committed to using the DA's office to hold fentanyl drug traffickers fully accountable, and her record proves that.

Her record on investigations is equally remarkable. In 2020, the homicide unit expanded its investigations by 44 percent. The major felony unit increased its by 22 percent, the human trafficking and exploitation unit by 19 percent, and the special prosecutions unit by 33 percent. Under District Attorney Rollins' leadership, her office is as active as it has ever been in going after the most serious crimes in Suffolk County.

But her excellence doesn't end there. District Attorney Rollins has demonstrated a commitment to working with law enforcement to advance community safety and build trust between the community and law enforcement officers. She and her office are a true partner for colleagues, and it is reflected in the coordination that they prioritize.

In June of 2020, she organized a key discussion with law enforcement executives from Greater Boston to have an open dialogue about policing practices in light of the racial reckoning that followed the murder of George Floyd. With her leadership, District Attorney Rollins and the law enforcement executives signed a letter committing to change and ensuring that there would be open communication on that topic.

District Attorney Rollins recognized the historic moment law enforcement was confronting in the wake of the Floyd murder, and she actively reached out to her law enforcement partners to show a united front in their commitment to justice. Rachael Rollins is proof that you can enforce laws and promote justice and that the community wants both.

As a result of this leadership, the Suffolk County law enforcement executives wrote a letter in support of her nomination to serve as U.S. attorney for the District of Massachusetts. In that letter, they highlighted the respect she has for the work they do to keep communities safe.

And in the wake of two incidents of hate against the Jewish community that occurred this summer, District Attorney Rollins led the response, using the resources of her office to investigate the incidents transparently and fully. She personally ensured that there would be a focus on this issue. She attended vigils for both events to ensure that there would be a commitment that was heard that the safety of the communities that had been directly impacted would be protected.

In a letter from the Anti-Defamation League of New England, it said of her actions: In the aftermath of the incidents . . . she demonstrated true allyship and solidarity with the affected communities. The importance of her commitment to this ideal cannot be overstated.

Rachael Rollins is a prosecutor at her core, but she also believes in restorative justice and is one of Massachusetts' greatest advocates for victims of crime. The local organizations that advocate for the rights of victims and their families--including Mothers for Justice & Equality, the Children's Advocacy Center of Suffolk County, the Boston Area Rape Crisis Center, and the Boston Medical Center's Violence Intervention Advocacy Program--all wrote letters in support of Rollins' nomination.

Mothers for Justice wrote that District Attorney Rollins' ``determination to bring [to justice] those who commit crimes against community is needed at the highest levels of Federal prosecution.''

The Children's Advocacy Center of Suffolk County describes her as ``a leader who clearly prioritizes the needs of children and families-- bringing an approach which is both victim-centered and squarely focused on offender accountability.''

District Attorney Rollins is clear-eyed in her commitment to justice--justice for victims, justice for families, justice for children, and justice for the communities that have not historically benefited from a system that has punished color, class, and creed. She is working to restore faith in the system by building a system that works for everyone.

Before she was district attorney, from 2007 to 2011, she served as assistant U.S. attorney for the District of Massachusetts. There she prosecuted civil and criminal cases, defended the Federal Government and Agencies in civil suits, and recovered damages for fraud and false claims submitted to the government.

Based on this record, she has the support of many law enforcement organizations and political leaders.

About District Attorney Rollins, a group of several current and former major city police wrote:

We do not always get along. In fact, we have disagreed

strongly on issues. What we can say is that she respects us

and the work we do to keep our communities safe. She can

admit when she is wrong. She can also be incredibly

persuasive when she is right. The constant throughout every

encounter we have is a mutual respect and a willingness to

learn from each other.

So, for my Republican colleagues, let me share the bottom line statistic: Crime is down in Boston. Despite the continued rise in crime nationwide in 2021, murders in Boston have dropped by one-third so far this year. According to data from the Boston Police Department, there have been 32 homicides in the first 9 months of 2021, down from 45 homicides this time last year. Murder is down in Boston. The city also saw a decrease in many types of violent crime, including domestic assault. Property crimes, such as auto thefts and burglary, are also down in the city of Boston during her tenure as our district attorney.

We know there is much more work to be done to ensure public safety and to promote justice, but under District Attorney Rollins' leadership, Boston is on the right trajectory.

Most of what we have heard from my Republican colleagues--in the committee hearing and out here on the floor--is simply untrue. Suffolk County District Attorney Rachael Rollins is a strong Black woman, committed to racial justice with a better record on crime than other old-school prosecutors, and it just plain scares them.

Her approach scares them because it is working in Boston. It can be a model for the rest of the country. Rachael Rollins is not soft on crime; she is smart on crime. Yes, District Attorney Rollins is a progressive prosecutor. But more importantly, she is an effective prosecutor. Her extensive law enforcement credentials and proven track record of reducing crime and supporting victims is clear, and it is undeniable. She is the right candidate for U.S. Attorney in Massachusetts, and Senator Warren and I deeply and proudly recommend her to the Senate for confirmation.

I have known District Attorney Rollins since she babysat for my brother's family. She is a dear friend and a loved friend, and I have been so fortunate to know her. And Massachusetts has been so fortunate to have her as one of our top law enforcement officials. She is one of the smartest, most effective, most respected leaders in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and her record proves that, unequivocally.

Despite the Republican effort to politicize her nomination and mischaracterize her record, I am confident that she will be confirmed as our next U.S. Attorney.

I urge all of my colleagues to vote yes on this discharge motion, as unnecessary as it should be, and to support the confirmation of Rachael Rollins as the next U.S. Attorney for the District of Massachusetts.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, today I remember and honor Dr. Robert William Finberg, a highly esteemed virologist, researcher, clinician, professor, and resident of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

Dr. Finberg was an example for countless across the Commonwealth. He was internationally known for his indispensable work on infectious diseases, where he focused much effort on influenza and coronaviruses.

Dr. Finberg received his undergraduate degree from the University of Chicago, after which he pursued his career in infectious disease. He obtained his medical degree from the Albert Einstein College of Medicine with AOA honors, then went on to complete his internal medicine residency at the New York University School of Medicine. He also completed an Infectious Disease Fellowship at Brigham and Women's Hospital. Dr. Finberg finished his postdoctoral training in the laboratory of Dr. Baruj Benacerraf at Harvard University where he made groundbreaking contributions to immunology. Over the course of his career, he was awarded numerous grants to continue his transformative research.

Dr. Finberg used his experience and expertise to the benefit of the Commonwealth, where he played an instrumental role in protecting our communities from COVID-19. He served in Governor Charlie Baker's COVID- 19 Vaccine Advisory Group and spearheaded research on both COVID-19 treatments and vaccines. He labored heroically to ensure that the public remained informed about the pandemic. His work was unparalleled, and his accomplishments will stand the test of time.

Dr. Finberg also shared his knowledge with those who carry on his legacy. He was an integral member of the UMass Medical School community, where he spent more than 20 years as the chair of the department of medicine. His passion for medicine and educating future healthcare providers is best exemplified by the achievements of his students and the patients who have benefited from their care. Dr. Finberg was a dedicated medical professional, mentor, and advocate.

Dr. Finberg cherished time with his family and friends and will be remembered for his warmth, compassion, and curiosity. He deeply impacted the lives of those around him. His service to his community, the Commonwealth, and the country will never be forgotten.

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

Madam President, 60 years ago, President Dwight David Eisenhower warned Americans about the unwarranted influence of the military-industrial complex. He told us of the relentless defense interests that would use their lobbying muscle to keep money flowing into the coffers of the Pentagon. While our adversaries and competitors have changed in the past six decades, the military-industrial complex's revolving door is as well greased as Ike warned our country.

Today, Congress is set to vote to increase the already-bloated defense budget in the same year that we ended our longest war--the latest proof that the military-industrial complex is alive and well and banking on a pay raise, all while Americans struggle to afford groceries and gasoline.

Here is the simple truth about the defense budget we are debating this week: We plan to spend $768 billion to fuel the military- industrial complex even in our moment of relative peace. Yet many in this Chamber are relentlessly attacking the Build Back Better act despite this spending bill being four times its size in new spending.

What we are hearing in this Chamber this week are Cold War echoes-- words that sound like talk of the bomber and the missile gap with the former Soviet Union that drove an arms race that brought us to the brink of annihilation.

Our top military general recently called China's most recent hypersonic test a ``Sputnik moment.'' That is our top military general. But how in the world can it be a ``Sputnik moment'' if we are set to spend more on defense than the next 11 countries combined, many of which are U.S. allies and partners? There is no technological or military gap that we need to close. We have the strongest military in the world.

Our rivals, our adversaries are not 10 feet tall. We are the country that is 10

feet tall, and they are looking up at us militarily. We should just understand this, as people bad-mouth our military. It is not accurate. They are afraid of us. We are technologically superior to them, whoever they may be.

But wait. As if we weren't spending enough, Congress has tossed in an additional $25 billion that was not even requested by the Pentagon in this year's budget. You heard that right--an additional $25 billion. How many kids could go to pre-K for that? How many seniors could get dental or vision coverage? How many public housing units could we build with that, with the money that has not even been requested by the Pentagon?

We should not accept the logic that says we can afford to build a $100 billion intercontinental ballistic missile that will never be used but we cannot possibly afford paid family leave that Americans desperately need.

Universal prekindergarten is too expensive, but padding the wallets of defense firm executives with taxpayer dollars is money well spent. That is insane. That is immoral.

We should not have to fight tooth and nail to meet our commitment to replenish the Green Climate Fund to help save the planet while being told to accept the need for new weapons systems that could lead to global annihilation.

It is time we stop thinking of national security solely in terms of our inventory of bombers and missiles and submarines. Trillions in defense spending did nothing to spare Americans from the greatest security threat in generations: COVID-19. We have to stop pretending that there are military solutions to the national security challenges that we face. The defense a family needs right now is protection from eviction, hunger, electricity shut off, and pollution.

Being strong on defense means learning critical lessons from the two- decade-long war in Afghanistan. Being strong on defense means that we do not shy away from telling the military-industrial complex and its army of lobbyists that we do not need to outspend our adversaries into oblivion.

Nowhere has the gold-plated defense industry been harder at work than in gilding the whopping $1.5 trillion we are projected to spend through 2046 on upgrading our nuclear weapons enterprise. Say that again--$1.5 trillion on more nuclear weapons. There is one thing this country and this world does not need, and that is more nuclear weapons.

We know that fear and distrust of an adversary's intentions empower voices in the defense bureaucracy to sell new capabilities that spur the other side to justify weapon systems of their own. But we must avoid a rerun of the Cold War, where worst-case military planning leads to thousands of missiles pointed at Washington, Moscow, and Beijing, once again casting a terrible shadow over humanity.

That is why I introduced amendments to the NDAA that would trim $75 billion off the nuclear weapons enterprise, commit to robust diplomacy with Russia and China, and prevent the President--any President, Democratic or Republican--from firing the first shot, the first nuclear weapon in a nuclear war. The United States should never be first to launch a nuclear weapon against another country--ever. That should just be our policy. We will not be the first to use nuclear weapons when we have not been attacked with nuclear weapons. That is immoral. That is wrong. It must be the policy of our country that we will not do that.

If it is true what Ronald Reagan said--that a ``nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought''--then surely we should agree to shelve Donald Trump's new sea-based warfighting nuclear weapons.

We could play Russian roulette with our future or we can adopt a saner nuclear policy, one that says we do not need the rubble to bounce over and over and over again to deter our adversaries and reassure our allies; one, through the President's Nuclear Posture Review, that rejects the military-industrial complex efforts to make the world safe for nuclear weapons rather than from nuclear weapons.

In 2020, the amount of money that one of the five biggest defense contractors received from the Pentagon--$75 billion--was nearly double the entire development and diplomacy accounts at the State Department and the U.S. Agency for Development.

As President Biden noted in Glasgow at the international climate summit earlier this month, we have an obligation to help the developing world leapfrog the fossil fuel economy to reach a green economy. Lower and middle-income countries deserve to develop and seek a higher standard of living, but we know that they can't use the dirty fuels that powered our growth if we hope to keep global warming at 1.5 degrees Celsius. My climate amendment will help those countries least to blame for the climate crisis to adapt to the impacts that they are already overwhelmingly and disproportionately experiencing.

The first of its kind National Intelligence Estimate, released in October, warned us that the intensity of wildfires and the force of hurricane winds and unrelenting droughts are a mere preview of the extreme weather events to come. The Pentagon's own report warns us of the cascading security impacts if we fail to answer the national security challenge of our generation: Governments that are unable to meet the basic needs of their people risk collapse. Driven by the climate crisis, water, food, and resource scarcity will lead millions to flood across borders as stateless climate refugees. That will lead to destabilization of countries. That will lead to national security crises in country after country as a result of the climate crisis.

We have to just deal with the reality that the CO2 is still red, white, and blue that is up there. We are the leader historically, and the rest of the world wants us to be the leader historically right now in dealing with that crisis.

My climate amendment says that we can avoid that grim future. We can redirect a mere 1 percent from the Pentagon topline towards global climate accounts to fight the climate crisis. We can come to grips with the fact that the greatest adversary we face is not a foreign army, navy, or air force; it is the transnational threats of the climate crisis, of pandemics, and of nuclear weapons.

We are not in a new Cold War. We are in a war for our common survival.

Yesterday, in an act of political gamesmanship, Senate Republicans joined me to vote against moving forward with this abominable $768 billion Defense bill. While I wish we could stop here and reassess the waste of three-quarters of a trillion dollars spent on defense, this was, sadly, just a Republican ploy to add even more pork onto this already fatty legislation.

Now, I urge my colleagues to support Senator Sanders' and my amendment to return the defense budget to the level requested by the President--a level of spending which is greater than we spent during the Korean war, the Vietnam war, and at the height of the Cold War.

Additionally, I urge my colleagues to support my amendment--co- sponsored by Senators Warren, Padilla, Booker, Merkley, and Sanders--to make a 1-percent cut to the Defense authorization to increase our support for global climate accounts.

If we do not adopt these changes, I cannot, in good conscience, support that budget. It is time we stop funding the military industrial complex, whose profit is based in conflict and annihilation. That is not an investment in our future; it is an invitation to destruction.

The bottom line is we are either going to live together or we are going to die together; we are either going to know each other or we are going to exterminate each other.

This is a period where we should be talking to our rivals. We should be negotiating with our rivals. We should be trying to reduce the nuclear arsenals. We should be trying to reduce the tension; reduce the paranoia; reduce the threat that, by accident, we can actually fight a nuclear war.

That is what we should be debating here and not just putting all of the additional new weapons systems that have been on the blueprints of the defense industry for a generation into this budget. That takes us in the wrong direction, towards less safety, more risk.

The correct vote here is to deal with the reality that we have too many nuclear weapons already and we haven't sufficiently dealt with the threat which the climate crisis is going to

pose as a national security risk to our country and the rest of the planet.

Madam President, with that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I have 5 requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority Leaders.

Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate:

Mr. President, I was necessarily absent, but had I been present, I would have voted yea on rollcall vote No. 467, confirmation of Graham Scott Steele to be an Assistant Secretary of the Treasury.

Mr. President, I was necessarily absent, but had I been present, I would have voted yea on rollcall vote No. 468, the motion to invoke cloture on Robert Farrell Bonnie to be Under Secretary of Agriculture for Farm Production and Conservation.

Mr. President, I was necessarily absent, but had I been present, I would have voted yea on rollcall vote No. 469, confirmation of Robert Farrell Bonnie to be Under Secretary of Agriculture for Farm Production and Conservation.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I rise to object to the Senator from Florida's request to pass this legislation through unanimous consent.

If we want to tackle rising fuel costs, let's do something that will actually protect American consumers and actually promote our energy independence. Let's reinstate the fossil fuel ban that was lifted in 2015.

Listen to what has happened here in our Nation since 2015, when every Republican on this Senate floor--when they controlled the Senate--voted to lift the ban on the exportation of oil from the United States. That ban had been in place for 50 years to keep American oil here.

Well, here's what the Republicans did in the House and Senate back in 2015: they lifted the ban.

Oil companies from the United States now send our oil overseas. And get this: In 2020, we exported more than 8.5 million barrels of petroleum every single day out of the United States to other countries. And, in 2020, pursuant to Republican Senators in 2015, we, in 2020, for the first time in more than 50 years, exported more barrels of petroleum every single day--exported--than imported.

Is that energy independence?

I don't think so.

And why do we do it?

I will tell you why we do it. It is for the oil companies. That is why we do it.

The Republicans don't want to do anything on climate change--oil companies. The oil companies want to export American oil, drill for it here in the United States, because they can make more money selling that oil into the international marketplace. Of course, that is what the Republicans are going to vote for back in 2015.

And here's what happened: we got up to 2021, and we now are net exporters of petroleum in our country.

So the bill that is being proposed would actually do nothing to help consumers at the pump. The one thing that we could do is reimpose the ban on the exportation of these 8.5 million barrels of oil a day. Keep it here. It is lower priced. It is drilled for in the United States. Our economy would get the benefit of that lower priced oil and people would be going up to the pump, paying a lot less per gallon of gasoline than they are doing right now.

But you are not going to hear anything from the Republican Party that takes on the oil industry and their international market using American oil to make more money because people in the rest of the world will pay more for it. But that leaves less American oil here for drivers, as they are pulling in to the pump every single day.

So this is just the greed of the domestic oil industry so that they can have unlimited international energy markets so that, ultimately-- and this is the beauty of it--they make more money overseas and they get to tip American consumers upside down at the pumps as they have got their fingers on this nozzle and watching this price of gasoline go up even as they are looking at it. It is a beautiful world for the oil industry to have the cooperation of the Republican Party on this agenda.

And so all I can say is that this proposal is just the opposite of what we should be talking about. The Republicans should be reexamining their own conscience about what they did in 2015, instead of shedding crocodile tears today as though Joe Biden did this. This net export of petroleum products is a Republican idea driven by the Republicans who sit here on the Senate floor.

And so in no way should this resolution pass, and so I object to the Senator's motion for unanimous consent.

Mr. President, yesterday, the U.S. Senate was once again presented with the opportunity to protect the will and the voices of the American people. We had a chance to protect the sanctity of our electoral processes and to preserve our democracy. We had a chance to extend voting rights. But yesterday, for the second time this year, Republicans unanimously chose obstruction over debate, suppression over representation.

All Democrats agree: The Freedom to Vote Act is commonsense legislation. It would enhance access to the ballot for all Americans--a right enshrined in our Constitution. It would enact badly needed election integrity reforms and eliminate emerging threats to our democracy. The Freedom to Vote Act would put in place key voter protections, such as automatic voter registration, making election day a holiday, and uniform early voting. It includes provisions that are broadly popular with the American people: ending partisan gerrymandering and removing special interest money from our politics.

Every single Democrat voted for this bill. Democrats are united behind voting rights. Yesterday, we came to the floor together, ready to start the debate.

My Republican colleagues have said that Democrats are attempting to frame voting restrictions as voter suppression, implying that voter suppression is some figment of our imagination, a figment of the imagination of those across the country who are suffering from these practices. Well, to my Republican colleagues, look around. Nineteen States have passed 33 new laws this year that make it harder to vote. We know that these laws disproportionately disenfranchise Black voters, Brown voters, immigrant voters; voters like a mother in Georgia, who can't vote because she can't take time off from the job she works to cover the bills in the midst of a pandemic; or the poll worker in Arizona, who was arrested--arrested--for giving a bottle of water to a woman waiting in extreme heat to vote; or the person in Texas, who couldn't vote because he didn't have a ride to the polls.

Stories like these are not exaggerations. They are facts, and they are unconscionable facts. If Congress does not step up to the plate on voting rights, then we are signaling to every person in this country that their voice does not matter. We are telling them that we are a country that cares about representation for some but not for all in our country.

Ensuring voting rights is how we show, no matter a person's background or race or hometown or economic status, that their voice can be heard and represented. Not just the wealthy, not just big corporations, not just White Americans--everybody in our country is fully protected so that they can vote, so they can express that central right in our country.

Inaction on voting rights is not an option. Voting rights are the people's power, and the people's power is how we unlock opportunity, representation, and justice for everyone in our Nation. Ensuring the right to vote is how we restore faith in our democracy and how we turn popular opinion into legislative action here on the floor of the Senate.

This is how we take action to save our planet from the existential threat of the climate crisis that is impacting us right now. This is how we take action to respond to the ongoing COVID-

19 pandemic. This is how we take action to address racial injustice across our country. This is how we create the future for our children that we want to see for them.

Republican obstruction does not mean this fight is over. Next week, the Senate will prepare for a vote on the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, and here is how we can get this done: abolish the filibuster. Abolish the filibuster. We must abolish the filibuster so that Democrats who were elected into the majority can begin to operate like a majority.

The filibuster is yet another Jim Crow-era relic that silences the voices of disenfranchised people in our country, and this antiquated, parliamentary rule is halting progress in our country.

As legislators, our job is to both listen to the people of this country and act on what we have heard from our country. Democrats have listened, and we are working toward action.

So, to my Republican colleagues, for the sake of your constituents, I urge you to join us in taking action.

If they do not, then, in the face of continued obstruction, we must abolish the filibuster and pass voting rights legislation.

The Republicans can no longer be allowed to stand behind the filibuster--a Jim Crow-era policy, a set of rules that is used on the floor of the Senate to actually deny progress for every single part of our society. The time has passed. These rules are antiquated. They are used in a discriminatory way to deliberately minimize the political power of those who are most vulnerable, and it must end. We must abolish the filibuster.

The message we are receiving from the Republican leadership is that they are going to stand fast as a party, and that their political strategy is, in fact, disenfranchisement. It is, in fact, obstructing our ability to hear every single voice in our country.

So this is the time. This is the body that must act. We have to change these rules. These rules do not work for everyone. We know that this is our constitutional time.

Back when the first Constitution was being drafted, they excluded women, and they excluded the slave population, the Black population, from being able to vote. It was a deliberate plan that had to be rectified. It was rectified by the suffrage movement for women, and it was rectified by the Civil War so that former slaves would be given the right to vote.

Well, this is our time. We see this moment for us to act on the filibuster. In the same way that the Civil War was the impediment, it has to be removed because we can see who is harmed if it is not.

So I call upon everyone to begin this action to repeal the filibuster to ensure that everyone's voice is heard in our country.

I thank the Presiding Officer for this opportunity.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I have 5 requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority Leaders.

Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate:

Mr. President, I would like to speak in support of Ms. Monica Medina's nomination to be Assistant Secretary of State for the Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs.

I have known Monica for more than 30 years and can say without a shred of doubt that she is the most qualified and competent candidate to fill this position. She has worked for decades across multiple administrations on issues of environmental law and policy. She understands well the interconnected world we live in and knows that 21st-century U.S. foreign policy goes not simply beyond the water's edge but to the seas and the skies and the sands of the world, where universal threats and their solutions lie.

Monica is a proven public servant through and through. Over the years, she has fought for what matters most. For example, during her time at the Defense Department, she worked to end discriminatory practices against women in the military, to provide them with opportunities that were previously closed to them simply because of their gender.

After her time at DOD, she continued the track record of fighting for what is most important by calling out the connection between illegal wildlife trafficking and organized criminal networks, confronting illegal fishing that is too often tied to global piracy and human rights violations.

Her expertise in globe-spanning threats to our national security is exactly why former Secretary of Defense

Leon Panetta and the Center for Strategic and International Studies have turned to her as an expert and adviser, because she knows that we can't protect ourselves at home without a robust strategy abroad.

Throughout her career, she has proven to be a pragmatic and solutions-focused public servant by working across the aisle and with stakeholders from different States and industries in the United States to find ways to protect our oceans and our ocean economy.

After the Deepwater Horizon oilspill, Monica collaborated with five Republican Governors of affected States to get $1 billion in restoration funds from oil company BP so that States could quickly stop rebounding from the disaster.

Her work at NOAA was praised by groups like the Seafood Harvesters of America, who support her experience and legacy of protecting our oceans and the workers and communities that depend upon them.

Louis Pasteur once said:

Science knows no country, because knowledge belongs to

humanity, and is the torch which illuminates the world.

Science is the highest personification of the nation because

that nation will remain the first which carries the furthest

the works of thought and intelligence.

Monica Medina has dedicated her career to promoting America's excellence in these two realms--the tools of science and the values of humanity--because it is there where America's promise to the world can be found.

I want to reiterate very strongly that she has served every mission, she has fulfilled every goal that she has been given, and every discussion that she has ever had has always resulted in people holding us in the highest regard by the key stakeholders in every issue she has touched. I want to reiterate my strong support for her nomination and hope my colleagues will join me in confirming her for this important position.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the confirmation of Judge Angel Kelley to serve as a judge on the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

In a legal career that has already spanned almost 30 years, Judge Kelley has excelled in everything she has done, and she has done a lot. She has been a trial attorney, a legal instructor, and a State court judge in my home State of Massachusetts.

She has devoted her entire professional career to serving the public. She began her practice of law representing children in delinquency and protective care cases in New York. She went on to serve as a senior trial attorney and assistant chief for litigation in the fast-paced and demanding Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. She served as an assistant U.S. attorney.

She has taught litigation skills to students at Harvard University Law School and supervised them representing indigent clients appearing in probate and family court.

As a judge sitting in the Massachusetts District and Superior Courts, she has presided over hundreds of trials. She has issued opinions in civil and criminal proceedings, addressing topics including employment discrimination, judicial immunity for testifying witnesses, grand jury integrity, the right against self-incrimination, and public records access. Her opinions suggest a thoughtful, balanced, and evenhanded approach.

Judge Kelley has throughout her career demonstrated one thing above all else, and that is an abiding commitment to our Nation's promise of equal justice under the law. She has been a leader in the Massachusetts judiciary on fulfilling this promise, especially to litigants of color. She has been a friend and mentor to many members of the legal community and their affinity groups, with her nomination receiving strong support from the Massachusetts Black Lawyers Association, the Massachusetts Hispanic Lawyers Association, and the Asian American Lawyers Association of Massachusetts, among others.

At a time when our Federal bench needs both diversity of experience and diversity of background more than ever, Judge Kelley meets the moment with qualifications that are, unfortunately, too rare for Federal judges. It is my sincere hope to see more nominees like Judge Kelley in the near future as we help reshape America's judiciary to better suit the people it serves.

In light of her qualifications, experience, and service, including a unanimous ``well qualified'' rating from the American Bar Association, Judge Kelley received bipartisan support in the Judiciary Committee to advance her nomination. I urge my colleagues to support her nomination here on the floor and vote yes to confirm her so that we can fill a long vacancy on the Massachusetts Federal court with a true, outstandingly qualified jurist who represents the best of our judicial system and our Nation.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I rise to speak about the $3.5 trillion budget resolution that will cut costs for American families, provide our seniors with comprehensive healthcare, and finally take the much- needed and long-overdue action to protect ourselves, our future, and our existence from the climate crisis.

Our urgency in action must be as fierce as the crisis on our shores, in our cities, and in our States across America. The climate deniers are out of excuses, and we are out of time.

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued its sixth assessment report. The new warning from the U.N., from the IPCC, is actually code red. They are saying that the planet is in great danger, that our country is in great danger if we do not respond to the climate crisis. And now the challenge for this Senate, for this country, is whether or not we are going to respond. And we are.

The code red warning from the United Nations is going to have a code green response from the U.S. Senate in the $3.5 trillion package.

We will invest in the technologies that will make it possible for us to respond to this dire warning from the United Nations, a warning that reaffirms what we are seeing and suffering right now across our country: Climate change is going to continue to cost us lives and livelihoods if we don't respond with the scope and the scale that this moment demands.

The report says our responsibility is unequivocal. The effects of the climate crisis are unprecedented, and we have an undeniable need to act. From increasing intensity and frequency of extreme heat to catastrophic precipitation and devastating droughts, no community will be able to hide from the most dire impacts of our human-driven climate crisis.

This report must be the final warning that we must respond. And right now we are preparing, as Senate Democrats, a budget resolution that will be our best opportunity to respond to the code red warning we have received today from the United Nations, from the climate experts of the planet.

That is our challenge, but we are going to have resistance. We have to basically sweep away this rising tide of cynicism that we hear from climate deniers, from the fossil fuel industry, and from too many Republicans.

Senate Democrats are ready to forge ahead. This budget resolution is our opportunity to prevent the most alarming consequences of the climate crisis and equip ourselves to survive the climate impacts we cannot avoid. With policies to drive deep cuts in emissions, protect communities, provide equity and justice to overburdened communities, we can respond to overwhelming evidence and take the necessary action to save our people and our planet.

We have received the final warning. We now have the best opportunity any Congress has ever had to respond. That legislation will be on the floor of the Senate in the next 2 days.

As chair of the Clean Air, Climate, and Nuclear Safety Subcommittee of the Environment and Public Works Committee, I am ready to get to work and turn this budget resolution into legislative action. This vital investment will build on what we have already done, adding on climate, equity, and even more good-paying union jobs.

We can save all of creation by engaging in massive union job creation.

We can fund a clean-energy accelerator that uses innovative, flexible financing to lower our emissions and create jobs with public dollars that can deploy and leverage private investment. This accelerator will unleash clean energy generation, energy-efficient retrofits, and opportunities in communities across our country.

We can fund environmental justice mapping efforts to understand the burdens of affected communities and direct our investments and our programs accordingly. We can provide the funding and support to monitor and to address the dangers of extreme heat, toxic chemicals, and polluted air.

We can create a civilian Climate Corps and put millions of people to work on projects to protect our communities from climate impacts, support local projects, and get trained and get to work in building our clean energy economy. We must ensure that these jobs have high standards, prevailing wages, and just recruiting and hiring practices.

And in this legislation that responds to the code red climate threat, we will have the tax breaks. The oil, gas, and coal industry, for a hundred years, have had their control over tax breaks coming out of this Congress. Well, in this bill, we are going to have the tax breaks for wind and for solar and for all-electric vehicles and for battery storage technologies. We are going to have the tax breaks for the solution to the climate crisis.

This is the moment. This is what the world is waiting to see from our country. If we are going to lead, we cannot preach temperance from a barstool. We have to step up and do the right thing and create the innovation economy that will save our country and save the world.

And we can kick start a clean energy revolution. And, not only that, we can ensure that we have a revolution that is made in America--jobs here, union jobs here, good-paying jobs here, in the United States.

We are going to have a domestic manufacturing revolution that we have not seen in a generation, and we are going to do it in the green budget resolution that we are going to bring out onto the floor of the Senate in the next 2 days.

The answer to our clean future is blowing in the wind. This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to save our people and our planet by going bigger and bolder than ever before.

Senate Democrats are going to deliver real results for Americans: for our seniors, our children, our families, our working people across our country.

As Massachusetts' own Ralph Waldo Emerson said, ``the first wealth is health.'' And this budget makes sure Americans' healthcare and futures are a priority second to none.

Under our budget resolution, every child--regardless of their ZIP Code--will have the opportunity attend pre-K. Every teen will be able to reimagine their future with the ability to enroll tuition-free in community colleges across our country.

And I will be fighting to provide critical broadband connectivity support to ensure educational success for all students at home, especially poor children, Black, Brown, immigrant children in our country.

And thanks to this budget, Medicare will now cover essentials like hearing aids, eyeglasses, and dental care for our seniors for the first time ever--covered by Medicare. Millions of women will be brought into the workforce when we provide accessible and affordable childcare for American families. And we will expand the child tax credit and make the child and dependent care tax credit permanent in our country--permanent tax relief for every family with a child in our country.

And we will do all of this by paying for all of these investments, unlike Republicans who put tax cuts for the

wealthy on the American taxpayers' dime. We will do this without any American making under $400,000 paying a single cent more in taxes and asking, instead, for the ultrawealthy and the big corporations-- including Big Oil and Big Gas--to pay more of their fair share, like workers and small businesses have always done in our country.

These are the investments that will restack the deck in our country, level the playing field, and set in motion a more just future where every child and every family has the opportunity to achieve the American dream.

The second train is finally about to pull into the station. Progressive champions in the House of Representatives are doing an incredible job holding the line to ensure that this resolution is passed alongside the bipartisan infrastructure bill.

But as we recover from the multiple crises we face, we cannot accept to return to the status quo--a status quo that has left too many people behind in our country.

Over the last several months, we have worked tirelessly to deliver for Americans COVID relief, an expanded child tax credit, $7 billion for broadband access, support for students and families, and much more.

Now we need to pass this $3.5 trillion package and not a cent less to push forward and create a more just and livable future for every person in our country. That is what this moment demands.

And I look forward to working with all of my colleagues on this budget resolution this week and taking the first steps to ensure this future is guaranteed for every child and family across our country.

We can do it for families. We can do it for our planet. That is what our agenda has to be for the remainder of this week. And I think if we respond, we will have become one of the greatest Congresses that has ever served in the history of our country.

I yield back to you.

Mr. President, today, the Senate should confirm a visionary scientist and thinker and one who will serve with distinction as Director of the Science and Technology Policy.

Dr. Eric Lander represents the kind of new American pioneer, one committed to exploring horizons defined not by the boundaries of land and shore but of genes and genius, a pioneer who sees unanswered questions not as barriers but as an expanse of possibility. He exemplifies what it means to represent a place where scientific progress is a part of our DNA.

Eric's breadth of knowledge, unparalleled experience, and innovative spirit make him uniquely suited to lead. With Dr. Lander at the head of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, all Americans will be his students, sharing his passion for science, discovery, and achievement.

Dr. Lander started his career as a mathematician. He has taught economics and has been one of the world's foremost biomedical scientists for decades.

When I was a young boy who refused to do his homework, my mother would threaten that she would donate my brain to Harvard as a completely unused human organ. Somehow, she anticipated Dr. Lander and his work on the Human Genome Project and founding of the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, which reflect his deep understanding of how science and policy can inform one another.

At the Broad Institute, he pursued collaborative science, bringing together biologists, clinicians, chemists, engineers, and computational scientists. The transformative model for scientific research that the Broad Institute represents is a new way to take on the challenge that we face today, bringing scientific discoveries and advances forward more quickly than ever before.

His contribution to science has also demonstrated how impactful research can be. The Human Genome Project was a 13-year-long project that involved hundreds of scientists across the entire world. This project is an incredible example of a publicly funded project that keeps knowledge in the public domain and a feat that provided a model for the kind of large-scale, cooperative effort that the world's biggest problems require.

The Human Genome Project has also had an enormous economic impact, with one analysis from 10 years ago estimating the $3 billion project has produced more than 330,000 jobs and nearly $800 billion in economic benefit.

Sequencing nearly the entire human genome has already led to countless advances, a trend that is certain to continue into the future. The project discovered genes that are fundamental to thousands of diseases--including heart disease, Alzheimer's, and cancer--and paved the way for novel treatments.

In addition to his groundbreaking research, he has taught MIT's introductory biology course for more than 25 years and is one of MIT's most beloved teachers. He has inspired students to grapple with complex issues, helping them become informed and active members of their communities. He has an ability to explain the science of why much better than Senators can explain the political science of why not. That ability to teach and to translate is more important than ever before.

I know Dr. Lander has the skill to rebuild the celebration of science that is the hallmark of American excellence. When his country needed him during the coronavirus pandemic, he moved to build from scratch to operation the largest noncommercial COVID testing laboratory in the country.

He has been a strong supporter of people of color in science and improving racial equity in science outcomes. He has used science as a tool for justice, playing a key role in the origins of the Innocence Project, as his commitment to justice and forensic science has spanned more than three decades.

The crises we face today of human and mind and the intersection of those two forces are daunting. We are confronted by a surging China and its race to dominate the scientific and technological landscape. That is why we must confirm Dr. Lander without delay, so he can get to work on behalf of the American people.

We have a chance tonight to give our country a leader in science and technology, which we need at this critical time.

I urge all Members to give him your support on the floor this evening.

With that, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Reserving the right to object.

Madam President, I appreciate the points that my colleague from Texas is making, but the bill he is proposing to pass by unanimous consent has not been considered by the Commerce Committee, and it would drastically and unilaterally tie the hands of the Department of Transportation from protecting communities from having massive amounts of dangerous, explosive liquefied natural gas shipped right through their towns and cities. I understand that the Republicans and natural gas companies want to railroad through the Senate a bill that would undermine the safety of the railroads in our communities, but we just can't allow this to happen.

In 2020, the Trump administration moved to allow trains of 100 or more cars to begin transporting liquefied natural gas with no additional safety regulations. It did this over the objections of the attorneys general of 15 States and the District of Columbia. Firefighters opposed it. Railroad unions that represented the railroad employees objected to it. The environmental community objected to it as did the National Transportation Safety Board.

Listen to this: A train of 110 tank cars, filled with liquefied natural gas, would have more than five times the equivalent energy of the Hiroshima atomic bomb.

We cannot put our firefighters, our railway workers, and our homes and families at risk from loose regulations on what could be catastrophically dangerous trains. Too many lives are at stake, and the Department of Transportation should have the ability to review this rule. This bill that is being propounded right now would blind our safety watchdog when we should be putting these threats under a microscope.

I object.