Floor Statements

Mr. President, ``socialism,'' it is a label we hear a lot. It has been around a while--a long time--but in American politics, it is kind of applied in an unusual way. The notion that every American would pay into an insurance fund so that everyone who retired could live in basic dignity--we called it Social Security as Democrats; the Republicans called it socialism.

Do they want to remove Social Security as a socialist program? I don't know. I listened carefully as the Republican leader started talking about the weaknesses of the Democratic philosophy.

And then, in the 1960s, Lyndon Baines Johnson looked around America and saw a new class of impoverished Americans growing by the day. They were our parents and grandparents. And he decided one of their biggest problems was paying for their medical expenses and their prescription drugs eventually. So he proposed a Federal program called Medicare for everyone who reached the age of 65 in America, regardless of whether they were rich or poor. Boy, think about that.

The critics called that socialism--the notion that we would help everybody, that we would collect money during their work experience and then take care of our parents and grandparents so they could live longer, more independently. Socialism.

Now, we are discussing--and we are at an early stage--changing that Medicare Program to extend its benefits to include fundamental and basic things that have been sitting there for decades waiting to be addressed. Eyeglasses, hearing aids, dental work--we know what a difference those things make in the lives of everyone but how critically important they are to those who are elderly.

And, yes, the junior Senator from Vermont has proposed that we extend Medicare benefits to include those protections, but he is not alone. Moderates within the Democratic caucus across the board agree, it is time to take a serious look at that, and the Republican leader tells us we are flirting with socialism again.

I don't think that a poor, elderly person without dentures who can't eat their food can be ignored--or that helping them is socialism.

I might add one thing that is important. He cites the CARES Act. I remember it well. It was a little over a year ago, it was last year. The pandemic was just kicking off, and it was proposed. This CARES Act, it was over $1 trillion. It might have been the biggest bill when it was passed. It was proposed with the Trump administration, with a Democratic Congress, and it ended up with a strong bipartisan rollcall. I voted for it. Virtually every

Democratic Senator joined every Republican Senator to make it a reality: billions of dollars to deal with the pandemic. Socialist? I don't think so. It was America coming together to address a crisis. That is exactly what happened.

So what happened when we had a new President, when Donald Trump was gone--and, yes, he is gone, despite the fact that he doesn't know it. What happened when we had a new President who decided he wanted to put together a rescue plan? This rescue plan addressed some fundamentals. It addressed the promise that Donald Trump made, that $1,400 was coming to families. Really? Sounds socialistic to me.

But it was the Trump idea and it was the Biden rescue plan that pulled it off.

And the vaccines--and we can only thank the Lord and the great researchers who put that together--but it was only just a theory and inventory. But President Biden found a way to administer the COVID-19 vaccines across America, a dramatic effort. That was paid for by the American Rescue Plan. And the money loans for businesses to get started after the pandemic, money for schools to make sure they are safe when the kids return to them this fall. When the American Rescue Plan was put together by President Biden and offered in this Chamber, I am sorry to report that not one Republican Senator supported it. I hope they have had second thoughts since then. Administering the vaccines has given us hope in America, and I hope more people will take advantage of it. But that was bipartisanship that really hit the rocks. It took the Democrats and Kamala Harris to make a difference.

When I hear about socialism and bipartisanship from the other side, how far would they go in ending programs which have historically been labeled as ``socialistic''?

I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker) and the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Kaine) are necessarily absent.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, it is hard to keep up with Donald Trump, particularly his Big Lie. Like the coronavirus, it is constantly mutating.

A couple days ago, I read that one of the most vocal competitors of that Big Lie, Mike Lindell, the MyPillow Guy, has pulled all his advertising from FOX News. Why? Because FOX refused to sell him airtime for a commercial repeating the dangerous, discredited lie that the Presidential election was stolen. It is hard to imagine what level of conspiracy craziness it takes for even FOX Network to say that goes too far, but we have reached that point when it comes to the MyPillow Guy.

I don't know how Mr. MyPillow is going to peddle his products now. Maybe he will stand on the street corner handing out flyers next to one of those blow-up, scarecrow balloons that gyrates wildly in the wind. At this point, it is hard to rule anything out.

But there is another development on the Big Lie that is far darker and more disturbing. According to recent published reports, former President Donald Trump is now denouncing the brave police officers who testified last week before the select committee in the House about the mob insurrection on January 6 in this Chamber, in this Capitol. He is disparaging them with a word which I will not repeat.

His attacks on these officers is reprehensible and inexcusable and totally predictable. These officers and hundreds more battled a murderous mob sent to the Capitol by President Donald Trump to overturn an election. He sent that mob to attack this Capitol and American democracy because he couldn't bear the shame of losing. He wanted to overturn the election and cling to power like a tin-pot dictator. The police officers he now denounces still bear the wounds from the insurrection he ordered. Some other Trump supporters have attacked at least one of the police officers who testified as a ``crisis actor.''

This morning's New York Times has an article by Maureen Dowd, which I would like to quote from. She is speaking of Laura Ingraham, one of the political pundits on FOX Network. It says:

Laura Ingraham even gave awards--``Best Exaggerated

Performance,'' ``Best Political Performance'' . . . `'for the

Performance in an Action Role''--to the police who recounted

their terrifying battles with the mob. ``They came across as

political actors,'' Ingraham said. ``That doesn't help

anything. We want the police to be just police.''

Even as Ingraham was describing as ``actors'' those cops

who faced danger, Erin Smith was trying to get the death of

her husband, a veteran Washington patrolman--the second

officer to take his life after the insurrection--reclassified

from a suicide to a death in the line of duty.

After he was hit in the head with a metal pole during the

rampage, he fell into a dark depression, his wife told The

Times. On the way to his shift, he pulled his car off the

George Washington Parkway and killed himself with his service

weapon.

More than casting the police who told their stories as

drama queens and fabulists, four House Republicans,

representing the ``dregs of Congress''--

In Maureen Dowd's words--

turned up at a Washington jail on Thursday to shine a light

on the plight of insurrection suspects. One of them,

Representative Paul Gosar of Arizona, hailed them as

``political prisoners.''

Since when do Republicans care more about criminals in jail

than the cops who put them there? Since when do they coddle

domestic terrorists?

Since Donald Trump.

There was a point decades ago where, in desperation to stop the ravings of a Senator from Wisconsin, a man named Joseph Welch said to the Senator: Have you no shame? At long last, have you no shame?

That is what Joseph Welch famously asked Senator Joseph McCarthy when McCarthy tried to turn his vicious smear campaign against members of the U.S. Army after his lies had already broken the lives of so many Americans.

Now an angry, embittered ex-President is turning his vicious smear tactics against a different group of democracy's defenders. It is pointless to ask if the former President feels shame or decency or empathy. We learned long ago that he is incapable of such feelings.

So I ask my Republican colleagues: What do you say? At long last, will you

tell the former President ``enough''? ``no more''? ``you have gone too far''? ``this must stop''?

You were all here on January 6, as I was. You know those Capitol Police and Metropolitan Police risked their lives to defend you and me. Will you now defend them when they are being smeared so scandalously

We are here on a Sunday, working to pass a historic bipartisan plan to build the backbone of a strong 21st century economy that benefits all Americans. Can't we also have a bipartisan backbone to defend the men and women who defended the Capitol on January 6?

A few minutes ago, I walked into the building. They were there. You know they are going to be there to protect you, the men and women of the Capitol Police. Theirs is a dangerous job now, more dangerous because of January 6. We salute them for their bravery, and those who have questioned that bravery have really gone too far.

Mr. President, on another topic, the most frustrating aspect of America's COVID response isn't that we are being asked to wear masks again--I have my mask here--in COVID hotspots; the most maddening part of this pandemic is that Americans could have put this virus in their rearview mirror long ago.

We could have saved thousands of lives. Over 600,000 Americans are dead from COVID-19. We could have prevented a great deal of the economic pain this pandemic has inflicted on America's families and businesses. We are here now, battling a new surge and a more dangerous strain of coronavirus, in large part, because the people with big megaphones chose, cynically and cowardly and cruelly, to spread doubt and denial about this virus and the vaccines that prevent it. Their lies cost lives.

Fortunately, this past week seems to mark a turning point for America. Leaders in both the public and private sectors are stepping up for the common good and requiring their workers to get vaccinated or to get tested regularly to show they are not sick and not a danger to others. If you want the job, get the jab. It is time.

President Biden also announced that all Federal workers must get vaccinated or tested. I commend his decision. That is leadership, and it will save lives.

And to some who come to the floor of the Senate and to other places to say that the government should operate more like a business, take note: Some of the most innovative employers--Google, Netflix, Disney-- have also announced that their workers will have to be vaccinated, and there will be more.

Recently, several of our Republican colleagues took to the floor of the Senate. They even invited over their fan club from the House. They lined up right behind the speakers over on the Republican side of the aisle. And they are very strong in their feelings that the Speaker of the House should not require Members to wear masks.

Well, there is a reason for it, and the suggestion that the CDC has flip-flopped or that Dr. Fauci has flip-flopped belies the reality that the virus has flip-flopped. We are now dealing with something known as a Delta variant.

There is an urgent message for all Americans who have not been vaccinated: While you have been avoiding vaccination or waiting for just the right moment, the enemy--the COVID-19 virus--has not been idle. The Delta variant has arrived in a big and deadly way.

Here is what Dr. Rochelle Walensky, the Director of the CDC, said:

The Delta variant is more aggressive . . . more

[transferable] than previously circulating strains. It is one

of the most infectious respiratory [viruses] we know of . . .

in my 20-year career.

Now, in case you dismiss Dr. Walensky as some nonsense-talking Democratic Socialist and you prefer the expertise of Tucker Carlson or Laura Ingraham on FOX, I hope you will not ignore the grim reality in the actual numbers: Over 90 percent of those infected, hospitalized, and dying from the coronavirus Delta variant are unvaccinated--over 90 percent. People infected by the coronavirus Delta variant may carry 1,000 times--1,000 times--as much virus and for a longer period of time as those who were infected with the original coronavirus. Those infected were more than twice as likely to be hospitalized than those infected by the original coronavirus.

Vaccines still are effective against the Delta variant and coronavirus. But don't believe, if you are unvaccinated, that you are safe around vaccinated people. Early new data shows that fully vaccinated people may be able to spread the Delta variant to others as readily as unvaccinated people.

In fact, it gets down to the very basics: Until America decides to make vaccination part of our survival, we will continue, sadly, to witness infections; hospitalizations; and deaths and, God forbid, more variants.

Leaders in both public and private sectors are stepping up. We should too. People should be tested regularly, if they insist on not being vaccinated, to show that they are not sick and not a danger to others. The COVID vaccines are safe, free, readily available, and almost miraculously effective, and they are the way out of this pandemic.

One more point about COVID protection: Many on the right are spitting mad and filled with feigned confusion about the CDC's new guidance urging people in COVID hotspots to wear masks indoors even if you are vaccinated.

They say: How can we trust an Agency that keeps changing its rules?

Because the virus is changing and the guidance is changing accordingly. The virus has mutated and gained strength because tens of millions of Americans have refused to wear masks or get vaccinated.

Deliberate distortion and outraged speeches aren't going to stop the virus. If you want to take off the mask for good--and I sure do--if you want your kids to go to school without being burdened by a mask--and I certainly do--we need to tell the truth. Listen to the experts. Get the vaccine. Getting this virus behind us for good is the only way we can reopen America's economy.

In the longer term, the way to remain the world's preeminent economy is to invest in the fundamentals of strong, sustainable growth and shared prosperity.

It is good that the Senate is debating this plan. I hope that it passes this week as soon as possible, as well as our budget resolution. But in the meantime, we cannot ignore that the Nation is still in the throes of a pandemic.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a courtroom.

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

Madam President, this has been a sad week in the U.S. Senate.

First, we lost Senator Mike Enzi of Wyoming and last night brought news of the passing of Senator Carl Levin of Michigan.

Carl was an extraordinary Senator and an extraordinary person. I remember after I had been in the Senate a few years, my friends back home said: Well, who are the real stars of the U.S. Senate?

There were many who were as obvious as could be, Ted Kennedy, for example. I said: There are two you probably don't know much about that I would turn to time and again if I had to make an important decision, either policy or politics, that I know I would get a thoughtful, intelligent response. One was Paul Sarbanes of Maryland, and the other was Carl Levin of Michigan. Those two, more than many of the colleagues I served with, really represented the best of the U.S. Senate.

Carl Levin was brilliant, nothing short of brilliant, and he was my friend. Many times we sat together and talked. I reflected on the way he approached legislation. Many of us think about the big-picture items and leave the details to staff--not Carl. Somebody would bring an amendment to the floor. Carl would say: I would like to get a copy of that. That, in itself, is unusual. We usually trust our staff to look at copies of amendments.

Then he would say, as he read the amendment: Can I take this home tonight and read it and tell you what I think about it in the morning? You knew that wasn't a pose; that was a fact. Carl took his job that seriously.

He served in the Senate, representing his beloved State of Michigan, for 36 years. When he retired in 2014, he left a legacy in the Senate, certainly, of important and good legislation but, more importantly, of the image of a real Senator. He left a powerful example of what we can achieve in life and in politics when we choose integrity over ideology and common good over confrontation. His keen intellect, his honesty and fairmindedness, decency and unfailing civility earned him the respect of Senators on both sides of the aisle.

The list of laws that he can claim to have authored is long and historic.

If you knew his background, you understood where this man came from and what made him what he was in the Senate.

First and foremost, he was a son of Detroit, MI. He showed up in Washington in 1979. He was driving a 1974 American-made Dodge Dart with a hole in the floorboard. He was still driving that car 10 years later. That is how devoted he was to the U.S. auto industry, its workers, and unions.

He wasn't flashy. I don't think he owned a shirt of any other color than white. And when we would go on the informal weekends with our families, he would be wearing a white shirt, which he rolled the cuffs up on to merely let his hair down and be informal. He was just that humble a man.

But when General Motors and Chrysler faced potential collapse in 2008, he knew what he had to do. He pressed Congress and the new President to support those companies with billions of dollars in loans, and thank God he did. He saved jobs and saved companies that are still major players in the industry. By the time he retired 6 years later, the loans to those companies had been paid off, and the companies were earning record profits.

His work on the Armed Services Committee is known to all. For 36 years, he served on that committee. He was the champion of America's military and military families and veterans and one of Congress's most respected voices on national security and the military issues. He voted for the repeal of don't ask, don't tell when it was far from a popular thing to do anywhere, and he voted against the war in Iraq. I felt honored to be joining him in that vote. He and I were 2 of only 23 Senators who voted no on that, sadly, misguided war, and I will tell you for sure, before I made a final decision, I sat down in that seat right--I can see it from here, right next to Carl Levin--and we talked about what it meant. It was amazing. I was making that decision before an election, just a few weeks, but he was making that decision as chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. It was a brave vote, and history has shown that he was right.

A Jewish publication in Detroit once wrote that Carl Levin and his brother--my pal--former Congressman Sandy Levin, both deserved what they called ``honorable menschen awards,'' with the accent on ``mensch,'' for their historic service to America. I couldn't agree more.

Loretta and I extend our deepest condolences to Sandy and the entire Levin family, especially to Carl's beloved wife Barbara, their children and grandchildren.

And to their cousin Dan Levin, my pal in Chicago, IL, I know how proud the Levin family was of their name and reputation. It was well earned in whatever they chose to do--law, politics, business. Carl Levin was a great man and a good friend. I will truly miss him.

Immigration

Madam President, last night, we had an opportunity. We sat down with the President of the United States for more than an hour. We were discussing with him and with Vice President Harris our Nation's need for immigration reform.

The Presiding Officer was there, Senator Menendez, Senator Lujan, Senator Padilla, along with our colleagues in the House. We got to speak to the President in a very informal setting.

I want to thank President Biden for taking the time to meet with us. He could have taken the whole day on a victory lap in the Senate after passing the historic infrastructure plan or at least starting the debate on it 2 nights ago. But instead President Biden said: I want to meet with you. He gave us his undivided attention for more than an hour. That is because President Biden understands that we cannot wait any longer to fix America's broken immigration system.

It has been 35 years--35 years--since we passed any meaningful immigration bill. We passed it here. It was known at the time as the Simpson-Mazzoli bill, and it was sent to President Ronald Reagan, who signed it. Critics of what was signed called it amnesty, but it was a sincere and bipartisan effort to deal with a broken immigration system. We have since learned that the immigration system is broken again in many significant ways. This effort that we are discussing now has been decades in the making.

Back when we passed that original immigration reform under President Reagan, our adversary in the world was the Soviet Union. ``Top Gun'' was the most popular movie in America. Under the last administration, our broken immigration system absolutely collapsed. Former President Donald Trump's zero-tolerance policy at the southern border was not only inhumane, it was ineffective. It made our Nation weaker and less safe.

The hatred that many people in the Trump administration had for immigrants was palpable. I can go through the list of names, but I don't want to give them any satisfaction to hear their names on the floor of the Senate. But what they think of people who were not lucky enough to be born in America is just sad, in many ways, disgusting.

Some of my Republican colleagues have tried to blame President Biden, who has been in office for 6 months, with the failure of our immigration system, but the reality is Donald Trump was the one who provoked the crisis at our border.

Do you remember the speeches when he talked about all the rapists and murderers who were coming in, wanting to live in the United States? Do you remember what he did to our Muslim friends and their families when he cut off immigration from their countries?

His administration implemented policies that blocked nearly all claims by asylum seekers. They also prevented members of law enforcement from exercising prosecutorial discretion, which made it harder for ICE and DHS to apprehend true criminals. Former President Trump's hate-based policies created a massive bottleneck at our border and a giant backlog of cases that our courts are still working through.

President Biden understands that closing our doors to families and children fleeing violence is not only cruel and inhumane, it is not good policy. And it is contrary to the values of this country. The stories are legendary about when the United States closed its borders in World War II under a Democratic President, Franklin Roosevelt, turning away people who were escaping the Nazis in Europe, sending them back to their deaths in the Holocaust.

We learned a bitter lesson during that war that that is not what the United States is all about. And we have tried to make it up ever since, trying to lead the world when it came to refugees embraced in America. And those refugees have proven over and over again that they are positive influences on this Nation.

The Biden administration is bringing order to immigration enforcement, and it will take some time, but it is on its way. Since President Biden took office, roughly 7 in 10 individuals apprehended at our border have been denied entry into the country--7 out of 10. You wouldn't know that from the speeches given on the other side. Of course, there should be exceptions to the policy, humanitarian exceptions. Our Nation has a moral obligation, a moral responsibility, to provide refuge to families and unaccompanied children fleeing gang violence, natural disasters, paramilitary violence, and other crises.

This is at the heart of our values as a nation, and under President Biden's leadership, our Nation is no longer tearing babies away from mothers' arms.

I just read a story in the newspaper yesterday about efforts that are being made in Guatemala and other countries, going deep into the forests and jungles to try to find families whose children were taken away from them by the policies of the previous administration. The lengths we are going to, to try to reunite them, were totally unnecessary if they had just kept records of the families and children, but they tore these kids away from their mothers and had no plan at all to reunite them.

President Biden also recognizes that just fixing the mess of Donald Trump is not enough. We need to provide a path to citizenship for Dreamers and others who make our economy better every day and who help over the years to add to its growth. The vast majority of Americans agree with this--Democrats, Republicans, and Independents. Tens of thousands of Dreamers have been saving American lives during this pandemic as nurses and doctors and first responders. Tens of thousands more help the economy grow every day as teachers, engineers, business owners, entrepreneurs, essential workers. They even have volunteered for our military. They respect our country so much, though so many in the Senate do not respect them.

The Dreamers need to be provided a path to citizenship as well as the farmworkers who are toiling in sweltering heat right now, right now at this moment, in this terrible heat that we are witnessing across the country. They are out in the fields, picking the crops that will be on our tables today, tomorrow, and beyond.

We had a recent hearing on farmworkers in the Senate Judiciary Committee. One of the Republican Senators said: Here we are talking about mass amnesty, giving these people an automatic path to citizenship.

Automatic? Read the bill that passed the House of Representatives. Do you know what it takes to be eligible for citizenship as a farmworker under that bill? Nineteen years of back-breaking work in the fields. Automatic? Nineteen years of slaving away at jobs that Americans don't sign up for--ever--and a possibility at the end of 19 years that they can be citizens. They should be given that chance. Every day, these workers head out to the fields and do back-breaking labor, sometimes for 14 hours straight, just to put food on our tables. Giving these people a chance to become citizens is the right thing to do.

It will help our economy. Reforms of our immigration system could add $150 billion to spending power in our economy every year and, over the next 10 years, boost our Nation's GDP by $1.5 trillion. That is enough money to pay off every student loan in America just by doing the right thing for immigrants in our country.

Providing these essential workers a path to citizenship puts more money in the pockets of every American. It will create 400,000 new jobs, increase each American's annual wage by $600. These people, when they are given some clear picture of what their future will be, can plan it, can start making decisions that in the long haul will make them better and our Nation stronger. That is what it means to bring these immigrants into the sunlight and to give them a chance to be part of America.

By nearly every measure, a path to citizenship is an investment in our Nation's future. Last night, President Joe Biden agreed. It can't wait any longer. There is going to be a bill soon called reconciliation.

In 2005, Senate Republicans used the budget reconciliation process to dramatically increase the number of green cards available to immigrants. During the Trump administration, Republicans used the budget reconciliation process to enact a $1.9 trillion tax cut for wealthy donors and corporate fat cats, and they tried to use it to repeal the Affordable Care Act. So there is ample precedent for passing important legislation through budget reconciliation.

I have tried for many years to pass a citizenship program through regular order. Senate Republicans have obstructed bipartisan immigration reform time and again, filibustering the DREAM Act five times. In 20 years, I have brought the DREAM Act to the floor five times and been stopped by the filibuster. They repeatedly blocked bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform, passing the Gang of 8 bill but never returning to it.

This year, I am convinced bipartisan immigration negotiations are not going to lead us to where we need to be. Republicans made unreasonable demands in that process to limit the path to citizenship to a number that was dreamed up by President Trump as fair--650,000 current DACA recipients. Sounds like a lot. However, that approach would exclude Dreamers who have been blocked from the program for years by President Trump. Republicans also wanted to attach partisan provisions to block innocent asylum seekers and to cut legal family immigration.

For all of these reasons, I believe the only viable option, at this time, for passing a path to citizenship is through reconciliation. The overwhelming majority of Americans support this pathway for Dreamers, many of whom have risked their lives to save Americans during the pandemic. This is a critical component of our economic recovery and rebuilding our communities. It cannot wait any longer.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senate return to regular order.

Vote on Motion

Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, for almost 20 years, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, known as USCIS, has been charged with defending America's status as the land of opportunity. The Agency has nearly 20,000 employees. They operate in 220 offices around the world, where they provide assistance to immigrants seeking a new life in America and help protect America from any foreign threats.

But after 4 years of neglect and mismanagement under the Trump administration, USCIS is in dire need of leadership. Today, the Senate has an opportunity to provide that Agency with that leadership by confirming Ur Jaddou as USCIS Director. Ms. Jaddou may be the most qualified person ever to be nominated for this job. She has nearly 20 years of experience in immigration law, policy, and administration. She is the daughter of immigrants from Mexico and Iraq. She personally understands the importance of ensuring our Nation's immigration system is both accessible and safe. And if confirmed, Ms. Jaddou would make history as the very first woman to lead USCIS.

Let me tell you a little bit about her background. Ms. Jaddou began her career working on immigration policy and oversight for 9 years in the House of Representatives. She worked for my friend and former colleague Zoe Lofgren of California, who is the authoritative voice on immigration in the House of Representatives.

Following that role, Ms. Jaddou served as a senior official in the State Department and then as Chief Counsel at USCIS. As the Agency's highest ranking legal officer, Ms. Jaddou not only sharpened her mastery of immigration law, she also gained valuable experience navigating USCIS's administrative complexities and operations. As Chief Counsel at this Agency, she managed more than 220 attorneys who support the work of tens of thousands of USCIS employees who are located in offices around the world.

Ms. Jaddou's extensive background is exactly what we need at this moment.

As I mentioned, the Trump administration led a deliberate effort to undermine this Agency's work. You remember--anything relating to immigration, the Trump administration tried to create a problem. For instance, when the former President took office, USCIS had approximately $800 million in cash reserves. Not bad. Four years later, those cash reserves had been virtually depleted, putting thousands of Federal employees at the Agency at risk of being furloughed in the middle of a pandemic.

These Federal employees deserve leadership that advocates for their interests and supports their work. Ms. Jaddou is that person. In fact, the union that represents over 13,000 USCIS employees published a letter in support of her nomination, writing: ``Ms. Jaddou is well- acquainted with the significant financial and operational challenges facing the Agency.''

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce sent a letter in support of her nomination as well. They wrote: ``Ms. Jaddou's knowledge and experience would be indispensable in providing the critical leadership needed to stabilize the agency.''

Leaders inside government and outside government recognize that Ms. Jaddou is the legal expert our Nation needs to take the reins of this vital Agency.

Given the urgent need for Senate-confirmed leadership to address the critical issues they face, as well as Ms. Jaddou's eminent qualifications for that position, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting her nomination

Mr. President, I would like to say a word in response to the speech just given by the Senator from Florida, the junior Senator from Florida.

There is something called the American Rescue Plan that President Joe Biden brought before Congress. The American Rescue Plan was his first offering. We had done things before in light of the pandemic. I remember them well. It was March of 2020. We had the American CARES Act.

The American CARES Act--there was virtually unanimous, bipartisan support for a policy that was written by President Trump as well as Members of Congress. We stood together, and I am glad we did, because we were going into a pandemic, the likes of which America has not seen for 100 years. It was a dramatic investment in people, in resources, and in businesses to keep America safe through that pandemic, and it worked.

At the end of the year of 2020, we had another bill--this bill was about $900 billion--to once again help deal with unemployment compensation, loans for businesses, help for families, ways to help schools reopen. We voted again unanimously--virtually unanimously--on a bipartisan basis.

So in the Trump administration, when it came to coming together as a nation, Democrats stood with Republicans. Democrats even stood with a Republican President for the good of the Nation. I was proud of what we did. I can't imagine what America would have been like without it.

Then came the election. All bets were off. Everything changed. After the election and the Big Lie, where President Trump raced around the country--still does--claiming that he truly won the election and having no proof or evidence to that fact, we noticed a souring of this bipartisanship when it came to dealing with the pandemic.

Then came the American Rescue Plan by President Biden, the new President, who wanted to address issues that still were troubling America in light of the pandemic. What happened then when we called the American Rescue Plan? Where was the bipartisanship that we had seen during the Trump years? Completely gone. Not one single Republican Senator, including the Senator from Florida, was willing to stand up and vote for Joe Biden's American Rescue Plan; not one Member of the Republican Party in the House of Representatives.

So what was it that was in the American Rescue Plan that was so objectionable that not a single Republican would vote for it? Well, there were some ideas that turned out to be vital.

One of them was to put enough money into the Biden administration so that these lifesaving vaccines could be distributed around the United States of America and people could finally get a shot in the arm and save their lives by it. That was one of the things the Republicans weren't willing to vote for, but it wasn't the only one. We proceeded to give loans to businesses again so that they could open up and rehire their employees. Not a single Republican would vote to support that. We have $1,400 being sent to each and every family in America--a promise made by President Trump, kept by President Biden--and not a single Republican would vote to support that as well.

When you go through the list of things that we did in the American Rescue Plan, they were valuable.

One of them was a tax cut for families, families with children--a tax cut which started just a couple of weeks ago. Tax cuts used to be the war cry of the Republican Party, but when it came to tax cuts for children, not a single Republican Senator would vote for it--not one. And now they come and they argue: This Joe Biden's plan just isn't working.

Well, I will tell you what is working. We have about 50 or 60 percent of Americans vaccinated with at least one shot at this point. I hope we have more so we can put this pandemic behind us. We have done it because we had a plan to distribute this vaccine across America and still do. That was something America needed, and not a single Republican Senator would vote for it--not one.

I can't understand their thinking on this. They have lots of criticism about President Biden, but when it came to the parts of his program that really made a difference when America needed it, not a single one of them would join us.

Wouldn't it be good to get back to bipartisanship, such as the bill that we are going to be debating on the floor, the bipartisan infrastructure bill, which the Senator from Florida does not support, he said?

This notion of bipartisanship appears to be very troubling and difficult for many of my Republican colleagues, but we have a chance here because 16 Republicans, the night before last, cast a vote in favor of moving forward to really have an opportunity to do something significant for this country and its economy.

An investment in infrastructure is an investment in the future of this country. I hope that the Republicans will join us to see this completed in the next few days so we can move on to other considerations of elements that might be good in this recovery. But we need their help.

To have Republican Senators come to the floor, refuse to vote for the American Rescue Plan, and criticize even this bipartisan effort, is a suggestion that they didn't get the message: America is looking for us to cooperate, to come together to solve problems, not just to create political headlines.

We will have a chance, and I hope we do soon, to vote for this bill. I think it is an important bill that is going to revitalize this country and keep the economy on the move.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein), the Senator from Maine (Mr. King), and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) are necessarily absent.

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

Madam President, late last night, there was a vote on the floor which was historic. I will address the subject matter in a moment. But 17 Republicans joined the Democrats in an amazing commitment to building America's infrastructure. I will speak to the specifics of that in a moment.

But I wanted to recount another event this morning which was not as widely published but could be very important to many American families.

Prescription Drug Costs

Madam President, if you ask families across the United States to list the top three things they are worried about in terms of pocketbook issues and things that Congress can address, I will bet you that they will end up putting the costs of prescription drugs on that list every time. They know what happened. These prescription drug costs have gone through the roof. For many people, it is a real hardship.

I was looking this morning at some of the information we have about insulin, and, you know, for millions of Americans that is literally a life-and-death drug. Insulin was discovered decades ago. The gentleman and those who did the research to find it basically gave away all of their patent rights--the rights to make any money off of insulin--for $1. They said you can't take a life-and-death drug and put a pricetag on it. It has to be shared by people.

Jonas Salk did exactly the same thing when it came to the polio vaccine in the 1950s. He found this breakthrough vaccine--and I was one of the early schoolkids to sign up for it--and said: I don't want to make a penny off of this. This means too much to America and the world.

Bless both of those individuals for that kind of selflessness.

Yet when it comes to drugs like insulin today, and Sanofi, one of the largest producers of insulin, in the year 2000, was charging $35 for a dose of insulin. It has now had the price rise 25 times since then. The price of an insulin vial is $350, creating a real hardship and a real strain for many families who are dependent on insulin to keep themselves or their children alive.

So, this morning, we had a meeting in the Senate Judiciary Committee. We considered four pieces of legislation on a bipartisan basis--let me underline that: bipartisan basis--and passed all four measures unanimously with voice votes. I could tell you, having served on that committee for over 20 years, it is a rare day that everything goes through with bipartisan support on an issue of consequence. Today was one of those days.

One of the bills, the Stop Significant and Time-wasting Abuse Limiting Legitimate Innovation of New Generics Act--the Stop STALLING Act--by Senators Klobuchar and Grassley, was advanced by a voice vote.

What we are finding is that the pharmaceutical industry is designing new ways on a regular basis to delay the surrender of their patents. As long as they have patents--and most of those are for 20 years--they have the exclusive right to sell that drug, and no one can compete with them. At the end of 20 years, the theory goes that the generic drug companies step in, make the same drug for a much lower cost, and the consumer finally gets a break.

Well, you can imagine the lawyers and businessmen in many pharmaceutical companies who are trying to delay that moment of when the generics step in for as long as possible. This bill that we passed this morning, which will be coming to the Senate floor, addresses that.

We want to have access to generics and biosimilar treatments. We want to make sure that the loopholes and tricks that the pharmaceutical industry is using now to delay the generic drugs coming onto market come to an end. This was an amazing array of drugs that, I think, will have a direct impact on America and its future.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess from 1:10 p.m. until 1:55 p.m. today. I further ask that all postcloture time on the Wilcox nomination expire at 2:45 p.m. today.

Mr. President, yesterday, Congressman Bennie Thompson called to order the first hearing of the special committee that most of our Republican colleagues have tried to block, the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6 Attack on the U.S. Capitol.

It continues to amaze me that an independent, bipartisan committee to investigate the worst assault on our democracy since the War of 1812, an assault that left one police officer dead and more than 140 injured, was filibustered and stopped in its tracks by the Republican leader of the Senate, Mitch McConnell.

That is exactly what he did. He tried to conceal the truth about what happened on January 6. He tried to hide it from the American people and to do this without police officers in this building noticing, many of whom risked their lives on that day. Well, we saw yesterday that he failed. Senator McConnell failed to stop the investigation. We are going to learn what

happened on January 6, despite his effort to stop it.

During the first hearing of the select committee yesterday, we heard testimony from four police officers who battled the mob for hours on January 6. Many of us witnessed it. Two members of the Capitol Police Force and two from the Metropolitan Police Department of Washington, DC, testified. These officers were brutalized in hand-to-hand combat. Some thought they were going to die. And they are still grappling with the physical and emotional trauma they suffered.

Officer Harry Dunn recounted yesterday how the mob of the former President's supporters chanted the N-word in his face.

Metropolitan Police Officer Michael Fanone testified that members of the mob attempted to steal his service weapon and kill him with it. He was dragged into the mob, tasered repeatedly, and beaten unconscious. He suffered a heart attack and a traumatic brain injury. This is what Officer Fanone said yesterday: ``My fellow citizens, including so many of the people I put my life at risk to defend, are downplaying or outright denying what happened. I feel like I went to hell'' he said, ``and [came] back to protect them and the people in this room. But too many are now telling me that hell doesn't exist or that hell wasn't exactly that bad.''

Is that how we are going to treat police officers in the Capitol? I ask that of the Senators and the House Members.

They risk their lives every day to defend us, to defend this building, to defend what it stands for. Instead of thanking them, are some of my colleagues going to deny the brutality that they faced? That cannot be. These brave officers deserve better. At the very least, they deserve that the truth be told.

One of the most searing images from January 6 was that of a police officer screaming in agony as he was pinned against the metal door and beaten by this insurrectionist mob.

Yesterday, that man, Metropolitan Police Officer Daniel Hodges, told the select committee: ``There can be no moving on without accountability. There can be no healing without making sure this will never happen again.''

To all of the police officers who held the line on January 6, let me say clearly: You defended the American democracy. You didn't just defend this building and the Members of Congress. And if not for your heroism and sacrifice, the terrible toll of that day would have been far worse. Take solace in the fact that you did your duty.

But there are Members of the Senate and the House who are failing to do theirs. Right now, this Senate has a chance to finally do right by our police officers.

Yesterday, Chairman Leahy and Vice Chairman Shelby announced a bipartisan $2.1 billion security supplemental funding package that will not only pay the salaries of our Capitol Police officers, it will increase security at the Capitol. It will reimburse the National Guardsmen who were deployed to defend this building after January 6--a great sacrifice.

That package would also provide relief to another group of heroes who risked their lives for America and who did so on foreign soil: our civilian partners in Afghanistan. This package would provide an additional 8,000 special immigrant visas to Afghan interpreters who supported our diplomats and troops on the frontlines of America's longest war.

As we begin to finally bring our troops home from Afghanistan, let's not forget the heroes who supported them and risked their lives to help them. Many of these individuals and their families are no longer safe if the Taliban takes control. We need to give them a new home in America. I am glad this bill provides the means to do so.

I thank Senator Leahy for leading the negotiations. I hope every Senator will support it.

Yesterday, Officer Harry Dunn told the Select Committee about the anxiety he and other officers felt when the remaining security fence around the Capitol was taken down, but little else has been done to protect this building from another mob insurrection.

Officer Dunn said: ``When that fence came down--when we lost that last layer of protection--that was hard. . . . The fence came down and still nothing has changed. Everything is different, but still nothing has changed.''

This is the time to show the officers who protected us and the world that when you defend America in our time of need, we will stand by you. I urge all my colleagues to support the security supplemental bill. It is the least that we can do.

Mr. President, there is one other thing I would like to say. It is just too close to call. I thought about it long and hard, and it is just too close to call.

In an effort to plumb the depths of political meanness and irresponsibility, it is just hard to choose between Tucker Carlson and Laura Ingraham. First, they became our Nation's leading anti-vax quacks, making their specious arguments against lifesaving COVID-19 vaccines and sowing doubt among their viewers, who were literally putting their lives at risk because of the lies that these two individuals are spouting. And now--and now--they are creating a braying chorus focused on defaming the police who defended this building on January 6.

Their mockery of the bravery of the Capitol and DC police, who risked and some lost their lives on the January 6 attack on the Capitol Building, is cowardly and shameful.

It took courage for the police to face the Trump mob. It takes no courage for these FOX talking-heads to belittle these officers. It takes no courage to practice their well-worn smirks reacting to the bravery of these policemen.

It is hard to imagine reading a press account of what they said yesterday and last night about the hearing that took place, the things that they did. Ingraham gave the ``best performance in an action role'' to Washington Metropolitan Police Officer Michael Fanone, who, during the testimony, recalled fearing he would be shot with his own gun.

Ingraham said: ``Well, there was certainly a lot of violence that day, but it was not a terrorist attack. It wasn't 9/11. It wasn't the worst thing that ever happened to America. It wasn't an insurrection.''

And then Tucker Carlson responded with a smirk to the footage of Fanone telling the hearing he had experienced post-traumatic stress disorder.

Throughout the monologue, Carlson piled onto his previous claims about the violence just being a ``political protest that got out of hand.''

First the vaccines and now defaming the police--this is irresponsible from start to finish. I would ask those at FOX network, not exactly my friends and allies in politics, to show common decency and common sense--common sense when it comes to these vaccines, which we know if more people were vaccinated we wouldn't be facing this resurgent need for masks and fear of this new variant. And common decency when it comes to the men and women in uniform when it comes to risking their lives for this Capitol, this democracy, and this government. Certainly, there is freedom of speech, but let's hope that good sense will dominate this discussion over at the FOX network as to whether these two ought to be allowed to continue their rant.

I yield the floor

Mr. President, I have 12 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:

Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 28, 2021, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing.

Committee on Environment and Public Works

The Committee on Environment and Public Works is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 28, 2021, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing.

Committee on Finance

The Committee on Finance is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 28, 2021, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing.

Committee on Foreign Relations

The Committee on Foreign Relations is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 28, 2021, at 9 a.m., to conduct a hearing.

Committee on Foreign Relations

The Committee on Foreign Relations is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 28, 2021 at 10:15 a.m., to conduct a hearing on nominations.

Committee on Foreign Relations

The Committee on Foreign Relations is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 28, 2021, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing.

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

The Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 28, 2021, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing on nominations.

Committee on the Judiciary

The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 28, 2021, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing.

Committee on the Judiciary

The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session

of the Senate on Wednesday, July 28, 2021, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing.

Committee on Veterans' Affairs

The Committee on Veterans' Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 28, 2021, at 11:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing.

Select Committee on Intelligence

The Select Committee on Intelligence is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, August 4, 2021, at 2 p.m., to conduct a closed hearing.

Subcommittee on National Parks

The Subcommittee on National Parks of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 28, 2021, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing.

Mr. President, my wife and I received our COVID vaccinations, and we were grateful to the scientists, the doctors, the nurses, and everyone else who made those miracle medicines possible.

It is a relief to see vaccination numbers in this country picking up a little bit in the last few days after declining for months.

It is a relief to hear some of the loudest anti-vax quacks change their tune about the importance of getting vaccinated. While many of these charlatans and blowhards were dreaming up bizarre theories about the vaccines, the virus was not idle. In fact, months of confusion and quackery have given the virus a chance to mutate and, sadly, to again regain the upper hand.

This mutation, known as the Delta variant, is now in every State in the Union. COVID infections, hospitalizations, and deaths are on the rise again. Almost all--almost all--of those who are hospitalized and facing serious illness and even death are unvaccinated. We know that.

But this is a virus the world has never seen before, and the science is still evolving. What scientists don't know yet is whether people who are vaccinated against COVID can spread the Delta variant even if they experience few symptoms.

While unvaccinated people should wear a mask whenever out in public, the CDC is recommending that vaccinated people who live in high- transmission areas also wear masks in indoor public spaces for now. Further, vaccinated people who have vulnerable individuals in their households--young children or those who are immunocompromised--should wear masks in public places. And finally, the CDC is recommending universal masking for all teachers, staff members, and students in school, regardless of vaccination status.

No one--no one--wants to wear a face mask. We all hoped that those days were all behind us. But I am bringing this mask with me in my pocket to be ready to use it when needed; others should do the same.

If you want to protect yourself, your family, and your community, get the jab. It is free and safe. Until then, wear the mask when you must.

Mr. President, on another topic, I am saddened today to learn of the death of our former colleague Mike Enzi.

Mike Enzi was my friend. We were elected to the Senate the same year. Nearly a year and a half of pandemic losses has reminded us all that life is fragile and fleeting. Even so, Mike Enzi's sudden passing has left many of us stunned.

It was less than 8 months ago when Mike came up to me on the floor and bid me farewell, as he entered his retirement.

As I said, we were elected to the Senate in the same year. He was a staunch conservative Wyoming Republican. I am a proud Democrat. But over the years, we found grounds for friendship. We disagreed on a lot of issues, but we respected one another, and we trusted one another.

Trust in another's character and motives sometimes seems to be in a dwindling supply in this Chamber, but it is essential for the Senate to function. Mike Enzi of Wyoming knew that. He was willing to reach across the aisle and look for partners.

The most unlikely political alliance I could think of was Mike Enzi cochairing a committee with Senator Ted Kennedy, of all people, on education. Several years ago, he even reached across the aisle to ask me to join him in a legislative effort. It was one that I was aware of. Byron Dorgan of North Dakota had been one of the early authors of this legislation. It was basically designed to help small businesses and Main Street America have a fighting chance in the age of Amazon.

Over the years, we had seen too many mom-and-pop stores and other small businesses crushed by competition from online retail giants, in part because of an unfair advantage. Unlike brick-and-mortar merchants, online-only retailers didn't have to pay State and local sales taxes. That is unfair, and it created an advantage for the online marketers over the small businesses on Main Street. Communities and States had a harder time paying for schools, police protection, and other vital services as more sales shifted to online and sales tax revenue fell.

As a former mayor and retailer, owning a shoestore, Mike Enzi understood well how the unfair taxing system hurt brick-and-mortar retailers, and it also hurt State and local governments and their taxpayers. He had a solution, called the Marketplace Fairness Act, to apply the same sales tax rules to all retailers--simple, basic fairness. He asked me if I would be his Democratic partner in this effort. I agreed.

Our bill passed the Senate in the year 2013. Later, a Supreme Court decision clarifying that State and local governments have the authority to collect online sales tax made our bill unnecessary. But during the time we worked together, Mike Enzi was a good partner. He practiced what he called the 80 percent tool. He spoke about that tool, as he called it, in his farewell remarks here on the floor of the Senate. He said that we are ``all looking to make our communities and country a better place. We might not always agree on what the solutions are, but we can respect each other for working to find one.''

He went on to say:

The 80 percent tool is where all of our energy, attention,

and talents should be focused. If we just worked on the 20

percent that we don't agree on, and will never agree on, we

will only generate headlines about how hard we are working,

and nothing actually getting done--just gridlock.

Relying on his 80 percent tool enabled Mike Enzi to work with Ted Kennedy to reauthorize Head Start Programs for preschoolers and tuition assistance programs for college students. He loved his State. He loved the Senate. He loved America.

Mike Enzi and his wife Diana were an amazing partnership, too, for over 50 years--three children and many grandchildren.

Loretta and I send our condolences to Diana. Mike was a wonderful friend and colleague in the U.S. Senate, and he will be missed.

Madam President, this week, the Senate will consider the nomination of Todd Kim to be Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department's Environment and Natural Resources Division, known as ENRD. This Division acts as our Nation's environmental law firm. It leads efforts to reduce pollution and protect our Nation's precious national resources by enforcing Federal, civil, and criminal environmental laws, including the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and hazardous waste laws. At least that is what it is designed to do.

Under the previous President, Donald Trump, ENRD took some troubling steps in the wrong direction. It prioritized protecting polluters over the environment.

With more than 1\1/2\ million acres of the United States currently burning in a wildfire season that has been greatly exacerbated by climate change, we are mindful of the critical importance of vigorous enforcement of our Nation's environmental laws.

What the Division needs now is a leader who will bring back integrity, expertise, and a renewed commitment to enforcing our Nation's environmental and natural resources law. Mr. Kim is that leader. In fact, his career in environmental law began at ENRD, where he worked as a trial attorney. During his time with the Division, he was awarded the Justice Department's Outstanding Performance Award on three separate occasions. As a trial lawyer there, he spent 8 years representing the United States zealously and apolitically under both the Clinton and Bush administrations.

Mr. Kim's principled leadership in that role has earned him praise across the ideological spectrum. He has the strong support of former ENRD officials from both parties. Over 80 environmental law experts and academics, who often don't agree on many things, all believe he is the right person. They wrote: ``ENRD deserves one of the nation's best lawyers at its helm. Todd Kim promises to be just such a leader.''

Mr. Kim also has experience leading a large legal department. He served as the District of Columbia's first solicitor general, a role he held for over a decade.

Additionally, Mr. Kim has received support from Asian-American organizations, including Asian Americans Advancing Justice and the National Asian Pacific American Bar Association.

His nomination received strong, bipartisan support on our committee. Four of my Republican colleagues--

Senators Grassley, Graham, Cornyn, and Tillis--joined the Democratic members in advancing his nomination.

With Mr. Kim leading the ENRD, the American people can trust our Nation's public lands and natural resources will be protected by a proven expert and an accomplished lawyer. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting in favor of his nomination.