[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 67 (Monday, April 19, 2021)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2002-S2009]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          LEGISLATIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

                        COVID-19 HATE CRIMES ACT

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will resume consideration of S. 937, which the clerk will 
report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 937) to facilitate the expedited review of 
     COVID-19 hate crimes, and for other purposes.


                           Amendment No. 1445

       (Purpose: To improve the bill.)

  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I have an amendment at the desk, and I 
ask for its immediate consideration.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report the 
amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New York [Mr. Schumer] for Ms. Hirono and 
     Ms. Collins proposes an amendment numbered 1445.

  Mr. SCHUMER. I ask to dispense with further reading of the amendment.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

[[Page S2003]]

  (The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of 
Amendments.'')
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Baldwin). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                        COVID-19 Hate Crimes Act

  Madam President, last week the Senate began consideration of the 
COVID-19 Hate Crimes Act. It is my understanding that the Democratic 
leader hopes a final vote on the bill will occur on Wednesday.
  Earnest bipartisan conversations have improved this legislation 
considerably behind the scenes. Senate Republicans have helped make the 
bill better. And I am confident that with a bipartisan process this 
week that also include votes on Republican amendments, we will be able 
to continue moving forward toward the outcome the country deserves.


                                Protests

  Madam President, on an entirely different matter, last summer our 
Nation began grappling in a renewed way with anger and pain at the fact 
that our progress toward racial justice remains unfinished. Rightly 
understood, this is not a struggle against our Nation's founding 
principles and central pillars; rather, it is a journey to make America 
even more faithful to itself to ensure that life, liberty, the pursuit 
of happiness, and equal justice under law are, indeed, the birthright 
of every single American.
  Unfortunately, some of last summer's demonstrations devolved into 
violent and destructive riots. Small businesses were looted, civic 
monuments were defaced, and government buildings attacked, not just 
insults but rocks and Molotov cocktails were thrown at the good men and 
women of law enforcement. These were efforts to use violence and 
disorder as a political tactic to influence or overrule our democratic 
processes and our justice system.
  Now, over the last few weeks, Minneapolis returned to center stage 
with the trial of the police officer who is accused of killing George 
Floyd last May. Again, the causes of civil rights, equal justice, and 
rule of law tell us that this trial and every trial must go forward 
without social pressure, political considerations, and certainly 
violent threats playing a role. Every single American deserves a fair 
trial. This is sacred.
  You do not balance the scales of justice by trying to tip them, and 
yet this past weekend, one Democratic House Member from California took 
it upon herself to visit the protesters in Minneapolis. She said: 
``We're looking for a guilty verdict.'' Like somebody window shopping 
or ordering off a menu, she is looking for a guilty verdict. If that 
verdict is not reached, the Congresswoman said demonstrators should 
``not only stay in the street . . . we've got to get more active . . . 
get more confrontational . . . make sure that they know we mean 
business.''
  It is harder to imagine anything more inappropriate than a Member of 
Congress flying in from California to inform local leaders, not so 
subtly, that this defendant had better be found guilty or else there 
will be big trouble in the streets.
  Again, so much of our Nation's quest for civil rights and equal 
justice has been the fight to get rid of extrajudicial violence, to get 
rid of rigged trials where the outcome was molded by public sentiments 
or angry mobs. It is beyond the pale for a sitting Member of the U.S. 
Congress to look at what happened last summer and imply there should be 
some kind of a sequel, a sequel if a legal case does not unfold as she 
thinks it should.
  Now, just a few hours after those comments, two members, two members 
of the National Guard who were onsite in Minneapolis keeping the peace 
were targeted in a driveby shooting. Thankfully, neither was seriously 
injured. But let's hope it doesn't take an injury or a fatality to 
remind politicians that their words actually have consequences.
  Earlier this year, of course, the country heard many strong opinions 
from Democrats about whether leaders bear responsibility when reckless 
words precede criminal violence. Instead of trying to tilt the scales 
of justice with threats, policymakers should focus on actually making 
policy.
  Last year, Senator Tim Scott and Senate Republicans tried to pass 
legislation that would have expanded body cameras, increased 
transparency in policing, and finally made lynching, at long last, a 
Federal crime. Our Democratic colleagues used the filibuster to kill it 
because it was not anti-police enough. Our colleagues on the far left 
have enough work to do here in the Capitol without trying to dictate to 
the judicial branch.


                               Hong Kong

  Madam President, on one final matter, on Friday, the Chinese 
Communist Party reminded the world what it thinks about justice, due 
process, and self-governance. Nine of Hong Kong's most devoted pro-
democracy advocates received harsh sentences. What was their crime? 
Well, it was inspiring over a million people to take to the streets in 
August 2019 to protest peacefully in support of basic freedoms.
  It was not the first time Beijing's thin-skinned authoritarians have 
brought the hammer down on Hongkongers and, sadly, it will not be the 
last. China's position is supposedly that ``only patriots''--only 
patriots should be allowed to govern Hong Kong.
  Let's review what it means to be a PRC patriot. Apparently, it means 
applauding Hong Kong's new so-called national security law cooked up by 
mainland partisans and the political repression that it enables. It 
means applauding saber-rattling and interference with civilian commerce 
in the South China Sea. It means cheering on the Communist Party as it 
uses invasive technology to repress dissent at home and turning a blind 
eye to the detention and killing of religious and ethnic minorities in 
broad daylight.
  Well, the CCP is right that real patriots should be speaking out and 
leading in Hong Kong. They are just wrong about who the true patriots 
actually are. Hong Kong's patriots are people like my friends Jimmy Lai 
and Martin Lee, who risk their safety to champion democracy. They are 
the hundreds of thousands of peaceful protesters who carried the torch 
even as their countrymen have been imprisoned.
  I appreciate the voices across the globe who are calling attention to 
the plight of the real patriots and all the other groups in Beijing's 
crosshairs.
  To the global business and government leaders who haven't yet spoken 
out, I hope you are watching closely. If Beijing feels comfortable 
treating Hongkongers this way, just think how little regard the PRC 
will show for basic international norms.
  I am also grateful to our own American leaders who fight for basic 
human rights, including our Religious Freedom Commissioners Tony 
Perkins and Gayle Manchin, who have themselves been comically 
blacklisted by Beijing and rightly wear that as a badge of honor.
  I hope the administration will add teeth to its tough talk on China 
and reassure our friends in Hong Kong that we have their backs.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority whip


                              Immigration

  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I was sure that I wouldn't like him. I 
was convinced that we weren't going to get along. I had so many 
grievances against President George W. Bush--the war in Iraq, the 
interrogation of prisoners--I really was prepared not to like him at 
all, and then I met him. Darn it. I met him and I liked him and I still 
do.
  We still have some profound differences on issues. I think back on 
his Presidency, and there are some things that I want to give him 
credit for. First and foremost, I want to thank him for being our 
President during 9/11 because, if you remember what he said after 9/
11--and how profound it is in light of our history since--he said our 
war against terrorism is not against people of the Islamic faith; it is 
a faith of peace. What a remarkable statement to make by a President 
because we have seen just the opposite since by another President from 
his party.
  He did great work when it came to global health, extraordinary work. 
He changed the world for the better. I was glad to be his ally in that 
effort.
  That wasn't the sum total of all the work on the good side of the 
ledger that he had done, and I won't recount the areas of disagreement 
because there were many, but I do want to tell you that I was touched, 
personally touched by an article that President

[[Page S2004]]

George W. Bush wrote in the Washington Post this weekend. It was about 
his new book, a collection of paintings entitled ``Out of Many, One.''
  He said, in putting this book together, he was really setting ``out 
to accomplish two things: to share some portraits of immigrants''--and 
he has become an accomplished painter--``each with a remarkable 
story,'' he says, ``I try to tell, and to humanize the debate on 
immigration and reform.''
  George W. Bush, a proud Republican, speaks not only to the people of 
America but especially to his own political party in this article. ``I 
hope that these faces, and the stories that accompany them, serve as a 
reminder,'' he writes, ``that immigration isn't just part of our 
heritage. New Americans are just as much a force for good now, with 
their energy, idealism and love of country, as they have always been.''
  He goes on to talk about some of the amazing stories, the story of a 
young man from France who followed his dream to become an American 
soldier and went on to earn the Medal of Honor, the story of a champion 
runner who barely survived ethnic violence in East Africa and who told 
President Bush: ``America has given me everything I dreamed of as a 
boy.''
  He says the backgrounds of these immigrants are varied, ``but readers 
won't have to search hard for a common theme.'' President Bush writes: 
``It's gratitude. So many immigrants are filled with appreciation, a 
spirit nicely summed up,'' he writes, ``by a Cuban American friend who 
said: `If I live for a hundred years, I could never repay what this 
country has done for me.'''
  President Bush writes: ``The help and respect historically accorded 
to new arrivals is one reason so many people still aspire and wait to 
become Americans.'' And then he asks the important question: ``How is 
it that in a country more generous to new arrivals than any other, 
immigration policy is a source of so much rancor and ill will?'' The 
short answer, he says, is that the issue has been exploited in ways 
that do little credit to either party. And no proposal on immigration 
will have credibility without confidence that our laws are carried out 
consistently and in good faith.
  ``One place to start,'' bless him, he writes, ``is DACA (Deferred 
Action for Childhood Arrivals.) Americans,'' he writes, ``who favor a 
path to citizenship for those brought here as children, known as 
`dreamers,' are not advocating open borders. They just recognize that 
young men and women who grew up in the United States, and who never 
knew any other place as home, are fundamentally American. And they 
ought not be punished for choices made by their parents.''
  Let me just add, thank you, President Bush. He speaks of our border, 
and he should. Another opportunity for agreement, he calls it. ``I have 
long said that we can be both a lawful and a welcoming nation at the 
same time.'' He writes we need a secure and efficient border, and we 
should apply all the necessary resources to ensure it.
  He goes on to say we need a modernized asylum system that provides 
humanitarian support and appropriate legal channels for refugees. The 
rules for asylum should be reformed by Congress to guard against 
unmerited entry and reserve that vital status for its intended 
recipients.
  I don't disagree with a word he has written. ``Increased legal 
immigration, focused on employment and skills,'' and here we may have 
some area of disagreement, ``is also a choice that both parties should 
be able to get behind.'' He also writes about improving our temporary 
entry program for some workers.
  And listen to what President George W. Bush writes about the 
undocumented in America, estimated to be in the numbers of millions, 11 
million. Here is what he says: ``As for the millions of undocumented 
men and women currently living in the United States, a grant of amnesty 
would be fundamentally unfair to those who came legally or are still 
waiting their turn to become citizens. But undocumented immigrants 
should be brought out of the shadows through a gradual process in which 
legal residency and citizenship must be earned, as for anyone else 
applying for that privilege. Requirements should include . . . work 
history, payment of a fine and back taxes, English proficiency,'' and 
other things.
  He closes by saying: ``If we trust those instincts in the current 
debate, then bipartisan reform is possible. And we will again see 
immigration for what it is: not a problem and source of discord, but a 
great and defining asset of the United States.''
  I was touched by those words and still am that he would be so caring 
and so pointed in his message. That is the basis for bipartisan 
immigration reform which America desperately needs.
  Now I am looking for George W. Bush and the Republicans to join the 
Democrats in a bipartisan effort to get it done. I have called together 
a group for that purpose, and we are going to meet again soon to talk 
about the progress that we might be able to make.
  I do want to thank the President. We have a job to do, and we need 
the values that George W. Bush still brings to the American people in 
this debate.


                              Gun Violence

  Madam President, over the weekend in Chicago, a 13-year-old boy, Adam 
Toledo, on March 29, in the wee hours of the morning, was stopped by 
police and shot and killed in an alley in the city of Chicago.
  Thousands have been gathering since in his memory. The videotape of 
the arrest was released last week, and there is that stark moment with 
his hands up, and he is being shot and killed--13 years old.
  There is a lengthy debate going on in our city and our Nation about 
the role of the police, the fairness of law enforcement, and what is 
happening with children in areas of poverty and guns. This past 
weekend, our Nation's epidemic of gun violence continued to devastate 
families and communities. The Adam Toledo tape wasn't the only thing 
that happened.
  In the city of Chicago, yesterday, Sunday, 7-year-old Jaslyn Adams 
was shot and killed in the backseat of a car while with her father at a 
McDonald's drive-through. She was one of 27 people shot in Chicago this 
weekend--5 of them fatally.
  In Kenosha, in the Presiding Officer's home State, a gunman in a 
tavern, on Sunday morning, killed three people and wounded three more.
  In Austin, TX, three people were fatally shot on Sunday morning in a 
reported domestic violence incident.
  Then, on Thursday of last week and for the third time this year, 
there was another mass shooting in Indianapolis at a FedEx facility. 
Eight people died.
  These were just some of the more than 100 Americans who are killed 
every single day by guns in this Nation. This, unfortunately, is not an 
isolated set of incidents, and this is not just a rare tragic weekend. 
This is America 2021. One of the key parts of an effective response to 
this crisis is understanding it, and that raises important questions 
about the news coverage of gun violence as well as anything else.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an April 5 
column of the Chicago Tribune, entitled: ``Why aren't Chicago's mass 
shootings included in the outcry over recent violence in Atlanta, 
Colorado and California?'
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the Chicago Tribune, Apr. 5, 2021]

Column: Why Aren't Chicago's Mass Shootings Included in the Outcry Over 
          Recent Violence in Atlanta, Colorado and California?

                           (By Heidi Stevens)

       When a gunman killed four people and wounded a fifth at a 
     Southern California office building last week, news outlets, 
     over and over, called it the third in a string of mass 
     shootings.
       ``The violence in the city of Orange was the third major 
     mass shooting in just over two weeks,'' an Associated Press 
     story published on chicagotribune.com read. ``Last week a 
     gunman opened fire at a supermarket in Boulder, Colorado, and 
     killed 10. A week before that, six Asian women were among 
     eight people killed at three Atlanta-area spas.''
       No mention of Chicago.
       In Sunday's New York Times, Nicholas Kristof wrote a column 
     headlined, ``How do we stop the parade of gun deaths?'' 
     Chicago gun deaths were nowhere to be found.
       But 15 people were shot at a party in Chicago's Park Manor 
     neighborhood on March 14 (two days before the Atlanta-area 
     shootings) and eight people were shot outside a Wrightwood 
     neighborhood storefront on March 26 (four days after the 
     Boulder shooting and five days before the Orange shooting.)

[[Page S2005]]

       What does it say that the violence here is so rarely 
     included in larger discussions--in the media, among 
     politicians--about mass shootings and the trauma they inflict 
     on our nation?
       ``Mass shootings are mass shootings when they involve white 
     people,'' Shaka Rawls, principal of Leo Catholic High School 
     in Chicago's Auburn Gresham neighborhood, told me. ``When 
     they're Black people, it's just something that happened over 
     there. When it's violence perpetrated by and on Black people, 
     the mainstream media can easily turn its back and say, `This 
     is what happens in those communities.' But the impact is huge 
     on those communities.''
       I called Rawls because the school he leads is located down 
     the street from the funeral home where 15 people were shot on 
     a Tuesday evening in July. Rawls raced to the scene as soon 
     as he heard the news.
       ``I will never unsee that,'' he said. ``I'm traumatized by 
     that, and this isn't my first rodeo. People are laid out on 
     the ground. People are crying. There's no ambulance on the 
     scene yet. I'm a school principal. I'm not trained for 
     this.''
       But in the days and weeks that followed, he found himself 
     having to advocate for his students and staff to receive 
     counseling and support, when he expected to be fielding 
     offers of help.
       ``So many things that happen in my community are not looked 
     at as violence perpetrated on human beings,'' he said. 
     ``Sometimes we have to remind people that these are humans. 
     The people experiencing this trauma are humans.''
       On a day-to-day basis, Chicago's gun violence doesn't go 
     unnoticed or unremarked upon. City residents and leaders face 
     near-constant criticism and ridicule for our devastatingly 
     high number of shootings and deaths.
       But I hear those shootings and deaths lobbed as a jeer far 
     more often than I hear them urgently, thoughtfully discussed 
     as a crisis deserving of all-hands-on-deck solutions. And the 
     failure to include Chicago in the national discourse about 
     mass shootings feels like a symptom of this larger problem: 
     an ``othering'' of our violence--as if it isn't as tragic, 
     isn't as much of an assault on humanity, isn't as deserving 
     of widespread calls for answers and reform.
       ``It's because we're killing each other, so it's nothing 
     out of the ordinary,'' said Danielle Stipe-Patterson, 32, who 
     lives in Park Manor. ``When it should be out of the ordinary. 
     This is traumatic. This is trauma. I can't even watch certain 
     TV shows because I'm living it. Why watch it for 
     entertainment when I literally hear the gunshots every other 
     night?''
       Stipe-Patterson's dad was shot to death in Roseland when 
     she was 8 years old. He was outside washing his car when he 
     was killed.
       ``He wasn't affiliated with any gangs,'' Stipe-Patterson 
     said. ``He was just a boy from Louisiana who had seven kids 
     and two jobs.''
       For several years, Stipe-Patterson worked as a program 
     associate for the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence 
     conducting workshops and speaking to students in and around 
     Chicago about gun violence and the importance of mental 
     health resources for both prevention and healing.
       ``At the beginning, I felt like I made a difference,'' she 
     said. ``I was able to share my story with kids who lost a 
     parent or an uncle or a brother, showing them that you can 
     still make it. After a while, sharing the story over and over 
     and over and coming home and living the problem in the 
     community, it was taxing.''
       Now she works for a nonprofit that offers arts programming 
     to kids who can't attend school because of chronic illness.
       She started to feel like legislators and other people in 
     positions of power were less interested in addressing the 
     root causes--racial segregation, long-term disinvestment on 
     the South and West sides, lack of mental health resources, 
     underfunded schools, repeated exposure to trauma--and more 
     interested in simply chalking up Chicago's violence to gangs.
       After a recent shooting on her block, Stipe-Patterson said 
     she and other neighbors tried to get information from police 
     about what happened, how they might help solve the crime, and 
     what to be on the lookout for.
       ``They wouldn't tell me anything,'' she said. ``You have to 
     solve these things in the community, but how are we supposed 
     to be a community if y'all aren't allowing us to be a 
     community? How are we supposed to change stuff if y'all 
     aren't being transparent with us?''
       Every shooting--whether it takes place on a city sidewalk 
     or inside a church or at a suburban high school--is a product 
     of what the shooter experienced in life, Rawls said.
       ``Poverty, a desperate outlook on life, poor parenting, 
     bullying at school,'' he said. ``How did they get the weapon? 
     What's the economic impact on that community? What's the 
     social and emotional impact on that community? There is not a 
     catchall solution, but those should be the questions in every 
     case. Every case.''
       Firearms are the leading cause of death for children and 
     teens in Illinois, said Kathleen Sances, president and CEO of 
     G-PAC Illinois, a gun violence prevention political action 
     committee.
       ``An average of 183 children and teens die by guns every 
     year in Illinois,'' Sances said. ``The gun violence crisis 
     disproportionately affects Black and brown children and 
     teens, who are 13 times more likely to die from gun violence 
     than their white counterparts.
       ``Black and brown children are dying and nobody's doing 
     anything about it,'' she continued. ``People who don't live 
     in impacted communities don't see the violence. They 
     dissociate themselves from those people. And I think the 
     media reinforces this perspective.''
       I agree. Yet, as a member of the media, I am engaged in an 
     endless internal dialogue about how and how much to write 
     about the violence in my beloved city. Too little is an 
     insult to the human lives shattered by it and a dodging of 
     the responsibility to shine light on our most pressing 
     problems. Too much risks reinforcing negative stereotypes 
     about a city that is so much more than the violence that has 
     forever plagued it.
       Rawls said he feels similarly conflicted over whether he 
     wants more attention paid to Chicago's mass shootings, 
     whether he would want to see Chicago listed alongside Atlanta 
     and Boulder and Orange in an AP story.
       If the attention would result in more federal resources 
     directed at the problem? If the attention were accompanied by 
     an interest in solving the root causes of gun violence, an 
     understanding of Chicago's porous borders through which 
     weapons flow, an acknowledgment of the levels of trauma and 
     fear that many of his students carry on their shoulders? 
     Sure.
       ``But the conversations don't have that tone,'' he said. 
     ``There's a, `That's what they get. They shouldn't have been 
     there' tone. I've seen it.''
       More media attention? More politicians invoking Chicago in 
     their gun reform speeches?
       ``It could be like throwing water on a grease fire,'' Rawls 
     said.
       I believe we can do better. I believe we--we in the media, 
     we in Chicago, we Americans--can refuse to settle into a 
     place where we accept gun violence as simply the cost of 
     living in this city, where we experience the gun violence 
     here as somehow less remarkable and less remarked upon than 
     gun violence elsewhere. Bullets shattering a funeral on 79th 
     Street are every bit as repellent to human nature as bullets 
     shattering the aisles of a grocery store in Boulder, 
     Colorado.
       ``I think the best thing to remember is that the things 
     that divide us are socially constructed,'' Rawls said. ``The 
     things that separate us are created by society. And if we 
     created them, we can dismantle them. I would like for 
     everyone to see each other as humans, to see this is a 
     problem happening to humans, not just those people over 
     there.''
  Mr. DURBIN. Heidi Stevens' column in the Tribune points out that the 
media often subjectively defines and covers what it considers to be 
mass shootings. All too often, mass shootings in communities of color 
are left out of the coverage, and this is wrong. It is unfair. It is 
nothing short of an outrage. It needs to change.
  We need to understand the full scope of this crisis that is killing 
so many Americans, with reliable, objective data that is quickly made 
available. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention keeps count, 
but there is a time lag with its data on firearm deaths and injuries. 
Right now, the latest official CDC report on gun deaths is from the 
year 2019. There is a website, though, Gun Violence Archive, that keeps 
track of shooting incidents virtually on a realtime basis.
  I believe that news coverage of mass shootings in America should use 
the definition and statistics provided by the Gun Violence Archive. 
They define a mass shooting as an incident in which four or more people 
are shot and either killed or injured, not including the shooter. It is 
a purely numerical standard. It is not subjective. According to the Gun 
Violence Archive's definition--I want to put this on the record in the 
Senate--so far this year, by its definition, there have been 153 mass 
shootings. Yet we are only 109 days into the year. Nine of this year's 
mass shootings so far have taken place in Chicago. Four people have 
been fatally shot in these shootings, and 50 have been injured. It is 
important to gather this data as quickly as possible so that we can 
respond effectively.
  Last week, I spoke on the floor and commended President Biden for 
speaking out. He recently announced an important set of Executive 
actions on gun violence: steps to limit untraceable ghost guns, help 
for States to pursue extreme risk protection orders. Incidentally, the 
State law in Indiana was not, apparently, solid enough or tamperproof 
enough and was overcome there by the latest mass shooting. There is the 
reporting on firearms trafficking patterns and nominating experienced 
veteran David Chipman to be the first Senate-confirmed Director of that 
Agency since 2015.
  You see, many of the critics of gun safety legislation say to just 
enforce the laws we have, but if you have been around the Senate for 
more than 15

[[Page S2006]]

minutes, you will realize the Agency that has a major responsibility in 
that, the ATF, is notorious for being underfunded, understaffed, and 
going without leadership. That is part of the design of the people who 
really don't even want to see the laws enforced.
  I am particularly encouraged by President Biden's commitment to 
providing Federal resources for community violence interdiction 
programs through the American Jobs Plan and other grant programs. This 
is the type of serious investment we need to tackle this crisis. This 
President is taking constitutional, commonsense steps to reduce gun 
violence, but what have we done? Nothing.
  I held a hearing on gun violence in the Judiciary Committee a few 
weeks ago. We are going to hold more as Senator Blumenthal, of 
Connecticut, chairs the subcommittee with that responsibility. Hearings 
are important so that we can put together legislative reforms and 
appropriate funds. The House has already passed a bipartisan bill to 
close gaps in the gun background check system. Really, the ball is in 
the Senate's court at this moment. We need 10 Senate Republicans to 
help us get to the 60 votes necessary to overcome Republican 
filibusters.
  Will our Republican colleagues stand up and vote to close these gaps 
in the law? Will our Republican colleagues support the President's call 
for funding community violence interdiction?
  We need to act. Saving lives from gun violence should not be a 
partisan issue. It is an American tragedy. Sadly, we learn by the day 
that it is not an exclusive blue State problem. It is a blue State and 
a red State problem. It is an American problem. We have had too many 
mass shootings and too many Americans dying in gun homicides, suicides, 
and accidents. Let's take the bold action that meets the scale of this 
public health crisis. Our Nation is counting on us.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama


                          Biden Administration

  Mr. TUBERVILLE. Madam President, today, I want to talk about two very 
important topics to America and to the folks back home in Alabama: 
President Biden's so-called infrastructure proposal and his proposed 
budget for the Department of Defense.
  Now, I know infrastructure and defense aren't exactly the peanut 
butter and jelly of issues, but let me tell you how they go together. 
With these two proposals, the American people can plainly see just how 
out of place President Biden's priorities are.
  I have traveled every corner of Alabama, from Mobile to Muscle 
Shoals, to our State's rural communities and urban centers. All the 
time, I hear that we need improvements to our transportation and 
infrastructure, and I have seen it with my own eyes. There are over 
100,000 miles of public roads and 16,000 bridges in Alabama. More than 
1,000 of those bridges have been condemned. Driving on poor roads costs 
Alabama drivers a total of $4.2 billion annually due to vehicle 
operating costs, traffic congestion, and car crashes.
  Yet it is not just Alabama. It is everywhere in our country. I have 
spent decades traveling around the country as a football coach, and I 
am here to tell you we need help. We need help with our infrastructure. 
Investment in infrastructure is important and very, very necessary. 
Sound infrastructure allows people to get work, keeps our goods 
flowing, and keeps America competitive. That is why every penny of 
every dollar of any infrastructure proposal should be spent on actual 
infrastructure.
  Sadly, President Biden's proposal fails that test by a long shot. Out 
of this massive $2.25 trillion proposal, only 6 percent is for roads 
and bridges. In fact, the proposal puts more money toward electric cars 
than roads, bridges, ports, and waterways combined. We have to stop 
treating government spending like it is monopoly money. When the 
American people hear about what is included in this bill, I think they 
will agree.
  The Biden administration is using the umbrella term of 
``infrastructure'' for a host of things folks back home don't associate 
with the word. Here are a couple of spending items that qualify as 
``infrastructure,'' according to President Biden: $400 billion for 
nursing care and $213 billion for government housing. I can see and 
understand where those fit in but not in an infrastructure bill. What 
gets me is the $10 billion per year for a Civilian Climate Corps. This 
$10 billion includes free housing, free clothing, free food, and an 
allowance for members while they promote ``climate justice''--$10 
billion a year. Now, is that infrastructure?
  We can debate the individual merits of these items, but, please, 
let's not pretend these are for infrastructure, because we need true 
infrastructure. To call this an infrastructure proposal is really an 
insult to the English language. The definition of ``infrastructure'' is 
not the ``kitchen sink'' approach. Let's call this proposal what it 
is--a farce. This proposal is simply the Green New Deal in disguise. 
They need to disguise it because actual infrastructure improvement is 
popular, and the Green New Deal is not.
  In order to pay for all of this spending, President Biden has 
proposed raising the corporate tax by 7 percent--the largest Federal 
tax increase since 1993. This would undo President Trump's Tax Cuts and 
Jobs Act, which spurred the greatest economy we have had in decades. I 
can tell you right now the worst possible time to raise taxes is in the 
middle of a crisis. So many employers have already been hit hard and 
are just trying to get back on their feet. Remember who really ends up 
paying for tax increases, especially corporate tax rates. It is the 
consumer, like you and me. It is not the corporations.
  As Americans for Tax Reform has pointed out, the Tax Cuts and Jobs 
Act directly led to lower utility bills for hard-working folks across 
the country. Raising taxes would directly raise electric bills on 
millions of Americans, essentially taxing them, too. Tax increases 
threaten family-owned small businesses and family farms, forcing future 
generations to sell the legacies their parents and their grandparents 
worked so hard to build.
  Here is the real kicker. As the Democrats are out there peddling this 
proposal as ``infrastructure'' and ``jobs,'' President Biden's tax 
increase will eliminate 1 million jobs in the first 2 years alone, 
according to the National Association of Manufacturers--all of that 
harm just to pay for the Democrats' wish list consisting of the Green 
New Deal. That absolutely makes no sense. We need to be focused on 
creating jobs and getting folks back to work, not destroying jobs for 
progressive pipe dreams down the road.
  This comes on the heels of a massive stimulus that just passed--the 
one the Democrats called COVID relief, but, really, less than 10 
percent of the bill went to COVID and health-related measures.
  With all the trillions of new spending proposed by the Biden 
administration so far, you would think that there wasn't any spending 
proposal that they didn't like.
  Yet when it comes to our national defense, President Biden has shown 
he cares very little about increasing investment to keep our country 
safe. President Biden recently released his ``skinny budget,'' which 
includes a cut of $7 billion for the Department of Defense after 
accounting for inflation.
  President Biden's proposal and proposed defense budget is 
disappointing, dangerous, and a disservice to the men and women in 
uniform. What is more bewildering is that it asks for our troops to do 
more on a shoestring budget. It adds more duties, like combating 
climate change and other social priorities of the Democrats to our 
already thinly stretched forces, and that is very, very dangerous.
  Regardless of whether these individual duties may be warranted--and, 
for the record, I don't think they are--we shouldn't expect our 
military to do more with less. At a time when our enemies grow bolder 
and the threats to America are increasing, ``do more with less'' is the 
last thing we should tell them to do.
  These threats to our Nation are real, and they are getting worse. 
Russia is likely preparing to invade Ukraine and finish what Putin 
started in Crimea. North Korea continues to test ballistic missiles. 
Iran is emboldened to continue its nuclear weapons program.
  And then there is China. In recent weeks, China has bullied Taiwan. 
They think now is the time to test the United States of America. China 
is

[[Page S2007]]

building up their military to directly challenge the United States for 
global supremacy.
  Over the last 10 years, China's defense spending increased by $200 
billion, while the United States of America decreased its defense 
budget $400 billion.
  We cannot let China continue to gain ground. In order to keep our 
country safe and protect democratic allies from Chinese aggression, we 
must stay well ahead of both weapons and technological advances.
  President Biden's defense budget is not just dangerous for America. 
It is bad for us all. Across our State, Alabama has more than 200,000 
jobs supporting national defense. The economic impact of the defense 
sector represents more than 8 percent of our State's GDP.
  By underinvesting in defense, the critical work done by the service 
men and women at Alabama military installations--including Redstone 
Arsenal, Fort Rucker, Maxwell-Gunter, and others--could be seriously 
hindered. It will set back our entire State's economy.
  I was just at Redstone Arsenal in Huntsville, where I heard firsthand 
from Army Material Command how badly we need to invest in modernizing 
our weapons systems across the world.
  The best way to avoid a conflict is to have a bigger and better gun 
than the other guy. Most of President Biden's appointees at the 
Department of Defense support the 2018 National Defense Strategy, which 
is a comprehensive plan to compete, deter, and defeat our adversaries.
  This defense budget threatens our military modernization efforts and 
America's ability to provide combat-ready forces. We cannot allow 
anything close to President Biden's defense budget to become law. Our 
military needs to focus on winning wars, not planting trees.
  The people of Alabama and the men and women in uniform should know 
that I will stand up to President Biden and the globalists in his 
administration who want a weak military.
  President Biden has gone on and on about unity and his reputation for 
reaching across the aisle, but ever since he came into office, his 
actions have been focused on appeasing the far-left, progressive voices 
in his party. We saw it firsthand with the stimulus bill. Shortly after 
that, we get this loaded-up, inappropriately named ``infrastructure'' 
proposal.
  It is not just about the spending, which is a lot, but it is about 
what is in these proposals--progressive wish-list items that are paid 
for by the American taxpayer, not the government, the American 
taxpayer--and are passed on party lines, not bipartisan. And that is 
where President Biden's priorities clearly lie. He is signaling that he 
is more willing to invest in progressive policy items than the safety 
of our Nation and the world.
  My colleagues and I are interested in working with President Biden on 
a bipartisan bill that addresses actual infrastructure, and we are 
ready to work on a defense budget that actually invests in our military 
and prepares us against the growing threats. We just need a President 
willing to unite rather than divide our great country.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam President, over the past few weeks, my 
Republican colleagues and I have spent quite a bit of time making sure 
the American people know just how little of President Biden's 2-plus 
trillion dollar infrastructure plan will fund actual infrastructure 
plans to fix roads and bridges that are so in need of repair.
  These are things that the Tennesseans have repeatedly told me they 
want to see in a bill: Fix the roads. Fix the bridges.
  What do they want to be taken out of that bill? They want to get rid 
of some of these provisions that have nothing to do with 
infrastructure--nothing.
  So imagine their disappointment--people who are ready for a highway 
bill, who are ready for a transportation bill, who are ready for an 
infrastructure bill--imagine their disappointment when they discovered 
that all the funding that they had hoped was going to go to potholes 
and expanding lanes on the interstate and fixing flooded back roads 
would instead be spent on electric cars, union advocates, and climate 
change ambassadors.
  I know pothole repair isn't flashy, but it is what Tennesseans need. 
An electric car does not do you one bit of good when you are going to 
have to have a four-by-four to go pull it out of the mud every single 
time it rains.
  We are pretty practical people, and my wish would be that my 
colleagues across the aisle would join us in reviewing the needs of the 
American people--the needs of the American people--and in being 
practical.
  The lack of practicality has been a recurring problem in the months 
since President Biden took office. It seems that the Democrats here in 
Washington, DC, can't resist the urge to throw money at social-media 
friendly causes that not even the most talented communicators have been 
able to tie to the pressing needs of the American people. They did it 
with COVID relief, and now they are doing it with this infrastructure 
boondoggle.
  The wish list just doesn't match the PR campaign, and that is a shame 
because this country has its own wish list of urgently needed items 
that we really can no longer afford to ignore.
  Just a few weeks ago, I took my own trip down to the southern border 
to get a sense of the situation on the ground, and it is a dire 
situation. We are facing an environmental crisis, a national security 
crisis, and a humanitarian crisis that is massive in scope. If we want 
to talk about infrastructure projects that matter, let's talk about all 
the infrastructure that President Biden abandoned back in January when 
he halted construction on the wall.
  To paraphrase a famous saying, a 450-mile-long stretch of border wall 
serves the purpose right up until you hit mile 451, and here you can 
see that is the situation that ranchers and law enforcement officials 
in southern Arizona are dealing with. The construction just stopped.
  President Biden's proclamation ordered contractors to stop work and 
abandon their progress--immediate, stop. So they walked away because 
they had to.
  What did they leave? They left behind an unfinished wall, piles of 
supplies, and roads and other infrastructure built to support 
construction crews. Everything is sitting there--sitting there at the 
border. The equipment, the border wall--it is all there wasting away--
tax dollars right there.
  All of that is now vulnerable to exploitation by the cartels and the 
traffickers because it is sitting there on the border. This is an 
absolute shame--an absolute shame. And what we know is that the cartels 
and the traffickers--whether they are drug traffickers or sex 
traffickers, or whether they are moving gangs--they are taking full 
advantage of this situation.
  I got the chance to see where the coyotes and the drug smugglers are 
coming across, now that there is no activity on the border to deter 
them from using access points built into the wall for their own 
purposes.
  In Cochise County alone, officials have seen a 200-percent increase 
in migrants this year--200 percent.
  The holes in the wall have turned into walking paths for the Sinaloa 
cartel's drug runners. Law enforcement officials have set up an 
extensive network of cameras, but there are only so many leads that 
they can chase when the Border Patrol agents, who should be supporting 
these efforts, are busy implementing useless--useless and detrimental--
catch-and-release programs.
  And see, you see where there is a gap in the wall. Why do you have 
these gaps? Because the doors that were to go into these gaps are 
sitting, not in place. Why do you have these gaps? You have them 
because the wall components are there in the dirt.
  But what did President Biden say? As of today, no more. No more. Stop 
immediately. Halt. Do not build this wall.
  And what is it that our Border Patrol tell us that they need? They 
need a wall, they need more technology, and they need more agents and 
officers on the ground. This has been their request for years--for 
years.
  On private property along the border, you can see where migrants have 
ditched their old clothes in exchange for actual uniforms that identify 
them to a cartel because they are given them by the cartel. It is their 
cartel-issued clothing, much like a work uniform.
  There are piles of discarded backpacks, water bottles, and medicine 
at regular intervals. There is no telling

[[Page S2008]]

if the people who abandoned these items made it out alive, because we 
know many do not make it out alive.
  Many of them are left to die in the desert by their handlers, the 
coyotes, and the cartels. It is vital to note that you do not cross 
that border unless you are working with the cartel, which means you 
have paid the cartel a fee to come across that border or you have 
agreed to go into modern-day slavery and work out your fee. Whether it 
is with a labor gang, an MS-13 gang, sex trafficking gang, you have to 
work that fee out once you come across.
  Now the ranchers who own these long stretches of property have seen 
evidence of this evil disregard for human life. They will tell you 
their lands are no longer safe, they do not feel free, and they are 
constantly on their guard for the safety of themselves and their 
property.
  I understand that immigration enforcement is controversial--so much 
so that during his campaign, President Biden promised to avoid the 
issue entirely by halting construction of the border wall forever. But 
we are living in the real world now, and in the real world, the globe's 
most powerful and free Republic is being taken advantage of by the 
West's most terrifying drug lords and human rights abusers, and the 
Biden administration is letting it happen. Congressional Democrats are 
letting it happen. Even though they don't want to admit it, it is 
happening. Look at the reports. Look at the footage. Talk to Customs 
and Border Patrol, and talk to the sheriffs in these counties.
  So I say to my Democratic colleagues: Do something. Do something. 
Work with us to find common ground and get this situation under control 
before it is too late. And realize that every town is a border town and 
every State is a border State until that border is secure.
  If you care about human rights, if you care about infrastructure, 
please care about this issue--care about this issue--the environmental 
crisis, the humanitarian crisis, and the national security crisis.
  You can spend the next 4 years sitting on your hands and blaming 
President Trump or Leader McConnell or me or any of my Republican 
colleagues and blame us and say: Well, there is death. There is 
destruction. There are drugs. And all of that is happening along this 
border. But that is the thing about winning elections--they do have 
consequences. And the consequence that is facing our Democratic 
colleagues right now is leading and leading on this issue. You own this 
crisis. You own this crisis. It is from President Biden's failed 
immigration and border strategy. If you fail to act, you will forever 
own the tragedy--the absolute tragedy that is unfolding along our 
southern border.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Duckworth). The Senator from Oklahoma.


                Anniversary of the Oklahoma City Bombing

  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, this week marks the 26th anniversary of 
the worst domestic terrorist attack in history, and that was the 
Oklahoma City bombing. Each year, we mark this solemn occasion, and 
this year, we come together to do it again.
  I remember that day so clearly where 168 people were murdered. I 
remember the thundering cadence of the police officers, the firemen, 
and all the first responders as they were going into the--standing 
there watching them going into a burning building, risking their lives, 
and many of them died. I had close friends who died that day, and I 
know there were so many others who lost family and friends and loved 
ones. It was a day that forever changed our proud State.
  I was flying my plane back from the Mexican border to Tulsa, and I 
didn't have quite enough gas. I had to make a stop in Dallas. I looked 
up at the FBO, and there were crowds of people around that TV set in 
Dallas. I went to see what they were watching, and I recognized it. It 
was our downtown Oklahoma City buildings. The disaster had taken place, 
and everyone was watching.
  We could have let that moment define us and change us for the worse, 
and it would have been a lot easier to do that, but that is not the 
Oklahoma way. Second Corinthians reminds us to not lose heart in times 
of struggle and tragedy, and Oklahoma did not lose heart. What arose 
from the rubble that day was the Oklahoma Standard--strangers helping 
strangers, giving sacrificially, and performing acts of service for 
each other.
  I also want to take a moment to recognize the work of the Oklahoma 
City National Memorial & Museum. For the past two decades, they have 
upheld their charge to honor those who were killed, those who survived, 
and those who were changed forever.
  So, today, please join me as we remember the victims, their families, 
and loved ones, as well as extend our thanks to all the first 
responders who were forever changed on April 19, 1995. Let's honor them 
by taking a moment to rededicate ourselves to live the Oklahoma 
Standard embodied in the actions of so many on that fateful day. We owe 
it to them.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.


                       Nomination of Vanita Gupta

  Mr. PADILLA. Madam President, I also rise today to offer my strong 
support for the nomination of Ms. Vanita Gupta to be the Associate 
Attorney General of the United States.
  In the 44-year history of the position, a woman of color has never 
served as Associate Attorney General of the United States. We have the 
opportunity to confirm a qualified, proven, and respected woman of 
color in Ms. Gupta, and the Senate should not delay any longer.
  As Associate Attorney General, Ms. Gupta would help restore 
professionalism, empathy, and dignity to the highest levels of the 
Justice Department. Through more than 5 hours of testimony--5 hours--
before the Judiciary Committee and in a lengthy career in public 
service, Ms. Gupta has demonstrated exactly why our Nation would be 
well served by her leadership in the Department of Justice.
  Throughout her career, Ms. Gupta has paid particular attention to the 
most marginalized and often the least heard among us. From representing 
wrongfully convicted individuals as a young lawyer to her time in 
leadership roles at the ACLU, the Leadership Conference, and the 
Department of Justice, Ms. Gupta has demonstrated her deep commitment 
to pursuing justice, equity, and equality for all people.
  In pursuit of that goal, Ms. Gupta has also demonstrated her desire 
and ability to work with anyone, including those who might normally 
disagree with her. Indeed, Ms. Gupta's endorsements from groups like 
the Fraternal Order of Police and individuals like Grover Norquist 
confirm that she is a thoughtful listener, a bridge builder, and a 
consensus seeker.
  In this charged political era, it is hard to imagine that any other 
nominee for Associate Attorney General could give my Republican 
colleagues more assurance that their views will be fairly considered at 
the Department of Justice. Yet, our Republican colleagues on the 
Judiciary Committee requested that Ms. Gupta's nomination be 
indefinitely stalled and that she be required to testify before the 
committee again. When those demands were rightfully declined, they 
chose to vote en bloc against referring Ms. Gupta's nomination to the 
floor.
  But the opposition to Ms. Gupta's nomination is, frankly, frivolous. 
For 4 years now, the now-minority members of the Judiciary Committee 
refused to even comment on, let alone criticize, President Trump's 
tweets antagonizing judges, Senators, everyday Americans, and so many 
others. Yet now they argue that Ms. Gupta's occasionally impassioned 
tweets over the last 4 years are somehow disqualifying, despite her 
sincere apology, her expression of respect for Members of this body, 
and her promise to participate in turning down the rhetorical 
temperature. My Republican colleagues' double standard could not be 
more clear.
  Similarly, our Republican colleagues spent the last 4 years hastily 
confirming judges and nominees who refused to answer basic questions, 
like whether or not Brown v. Board of Education was rightfully decided. 
Of course it was. But now they argue that more than 5 hours of 
testimony and 10,000 pages of documents were not sufficient to evaluate 
Ms. Gupta, who repeatedly answered each and every one of their 
questions. Again, the double standard could not be more clear.

[[Page S2009]]

  I could go on and on, but instead of continuing to point out the 
obvious hypocrisy, let me say a few more words about why I am excited 
to have Ms. Gupta serve as the Associate Attorney General.
  For years now, civil rights, voting rights, environmental justice, 
immigrants' rights, and consumer rights have found themselves as a 
second thought in the administration of our justice system. No longer. 
Under Ms. Gupta's leadership, I look forward to seeing a Justice 
Department that pursues equal justice for all of our citizens and that 
recognizes the dignity and humanity of all people.
  I look forward to seeing Ms. Gupta work with Republicans and 
Democrats, with liberals and conservatives to find solutions to our 
problems, as she has throughout her career. And I look forward to young 
girls and boys of color once again seeing someone who looks like them 
in the leadership of our Justice Department and knowing that one day, 
they, too, can reach such great heights.
  Colleagues, let's not wait a moment longer. It is time for us to 
confirm Ms. Gupta as the next Associate Attorney General of the United 
States.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________