[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 106 (Wednesday, June 22, 2022)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3053-S3065]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          MOTION TO DISCHARGE

  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, pursuant to S. Res. 27, the Judiciary 
Committee being tied on the question of reporting, I move to discharge 
the Judiciary Committee from further consideration of Hernan D. Vera, 
of California, to be United States District Judge for the Central 
District of California.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the provisions of S. Res. 27, there will 
now be up to 4 hours of debate on the motion, equally divided between 
the two leaders or their designees, with no motions, points of order, 
or amendments in order.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays are ordered.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from Arizona.


                    Bipartisan Safer Communities Act

  Ms. SINEMA. Madam President, I rise today at a time in which families 
in Arizona and across America are scared. For too long, they have seen 
unacceptable levels of violence in their communities, and it threatens 
their sense of safety and security.
  The morning after the tragic, horrible activity at Robb Elementary 
School in Uvalde, TX, we all felt that fear. We felt it when we spoke 
to our neighbors and our friends and checked on our loved ones to 
ensure they were OK.
  For decades, parents have lived with the unnerving uncertainty of 
what might happen when they send their children to school or attend 
worship services, go to the grocery store, or even simply let their 
kids play outside.
  For too long, political games in Washington on both sides of the 
aisle have stopped progress towards protecting our communities and 
keeping families safe and secure. Commonsense proposals have been 
tossed to the side by partisan lawmakers choosing politics instead of 
solutions.
  Elected officials have made a habit of insulting one another for 
offering thoughts and prayers, for blaming violence on strictly mental 
illnesses or video games or particular kinds of weapons or any cause 
that didn't align with and confirm their own predetermined beliefs.
  Casting blame and trading political barbs and attacks became the path 
of least resistance, but the communities across our country that have 
experienced senseless violence deserve better than Washington politics 
as usual. Our communities deserve a commitment by their leaders to do 
the hard work of putting aside politics, identifying problems that need 
solving, and working together towards common ground and common goals.
  On May 24, as news spread of the shooting in Uvalde and the 21 
beautiful lives cut short, my friend and colleague Chris Murphy came to 
the Senate floor, and he asked the Senate one simple question: What are 
we doing; why are we here, if not to solve a problem as existential as 
this?
  I am grateful that colleagues on both sides of the aisle have 
answered Chris's question by resolving to do the hard work, build 
consensus, and find solutions.
  Senator Murphy, a tireless advocate for families in Connecticut, 
reached out to my friend Senator John Cornyn of Texas, offering his 
condolences and assistance. Senator Cornyn was in Uvalde, comforting 
families who were experiencing the unthinkable, and Senator Murphy had, 
sadly, been in a similar place 10 years before at Sandy Hook.
  That same day, I reached out to Senator Cornyn and Senator Thom 
Tillis, two friends I have worked with to craft lasting, bipartisan 
solutions managing the crisis at our border and helping veterans access 
the benefits they have earned. We all planned to get quickly together 
to identify realistic solutions.
  Within 1 day, Senators Murphy, Cornyn, Tillis, and myself--all 
representing diverse States from across the country--sat down and 
started working together.
  That same day, we met with a larger group of 12 bipartisan Senators, 
all of whom were eager to sit down, work together, and find a path 
forward.
  Those meetings started a 4-week process, considering and working 
toward a host of solutions that would save lives, make communities 
safer, and protect Americans' constitutional rights.
  As we wrote our bill, we viewed our conversations as collaborations, 
not negotiations. We refused to frame our work as giving something up 
to getting something in return, and we stayed laser-focused on our 
shared goal of reducing violence and saving lives across American 
communities.
  We acknowledged that the root of violence plaguing our communities is 
complex. It can be partly attributed to criminals with dangerous 
weapons and attributed to a mental health crisis affecting young people 
in cities and towns across America.
  We spent hours carefully considering policy provisions, ensuring that 
we got the language right and that every policy included in our bill 
could help save lives, help children learn and grow in healthy, 
supportive environments, and make our communities safer, more vibrant 
places.
  It was hard work, and it was worth it. Together, we put aside our 
differences, focused on our shared values, and crafted a bill that 
expands resources in schools to help kids grow and learn, where they 
feel connected to their communities and where they know they can seek 
help if they need it.
  We boosted mental health resources through more community behavioral 
health clinics and increased access to telehealth services, ensuring 
that kids and families have access to care no matter where they live.
  Our mental health and school support proposals include evidence-based 
resources and programs that I saw help reduce violence when I was a 
young social worker serving in Sunnyslope and Shaw Butte Elementary 
Schools in Phoenix.
  Our provisions to protect more survivors of domestic violence will 
reduce the impact of trauma in children's lives all across the country, 
ensuring that more kids and families grow up in safe homes, free from 
violence, and free from the fear of violence.
  And acknowledging the fact that the overwhelming number of gun owners 
are law-abiding citizens, we cracked down on criminals who illegally 
sell or purchase guns and ensure that courts, consistent with clear due 
process rights, can keep dangerous weapons out of the hands of people 
who are dangerous to themselves and others.
  I am the sister of a police officer, and I grew up in a family of gun 
owners. I know firsthand how fundamental the Second Amendment is to 
families across Arizona. Arizonans have a constitutional right to bear 
and keep arms, and that right will not be infringed upon.
  Instead, our Bipartisan Safer Communities Act ensures that our 
background check system works effectively and includes those who have 
committed dangerous crimes as juveniles

[[Page S3054]]

or who have a history of domestic violence--protecting the 
constitutional rights of law-abiding Americans while reducing familial 
violence and occurrences of childhood trauma.
  All of these tools together will give families in Arizona and across 
our country more peace of mind so they can trust that their communities 
are secure and their schools are safe.
  And, critically, the broad, bipartisan support of well over 60 
Senators from across the political spectrum, including both the 
Republican and Democratic Senate leaders, ensures that when our bill is 
signed into law, it will stand the test of time.
  You know, over the past few years, we have been told, time and time 
again, that bipartisanship just isn't possible. And even after proving 
bipartisan success with our historic Infrastructure Investment and Jobs 
law last year, we continued to be asked by pundits and political 
purists to accept a new standard by which important policy can only 
come together on a party line.
  But that just isn't true. What could be more important than keeping 
families and children safe and secure in their communities and in their 
schools?
  The truth is, Americans are far more united than today's politics 
would have you believe. Ask our constituents in Arizona, Connecticut, 
Texas, North Carolina, and every State in between--ask them what they 
want to see in Washington, and they will tell you: an ability to work 
together, to solve problems, and help them build better lives for 
themselves and their families.
  Our bipartisan group of Senators rejected the notion that legislating 
must be a zero-sum game, with winners on one tally sheet and losers on 
another.
  Together, we provided an example for how Washington can and should 
work. We got out of our comfort zones; we built broad coalitions with 
unlikely allies; and we refused to demonize each other when things got 
tough.
  And I sincerely thank Senator Chris Murphy for his passion, Senator 
John Cornyn for his leadership, and Senator Thom Tillis for his 
pragmatism.
  Each of my friends and colleagues brought a unique perspective and 
expertise that allowed us, together, to craft the most holistic 
approach to community violence in nearly 30 years.
  I also want to thank all of our staffs, especially my legislative 
director, Michael Brownlie, and my counsel, Chris Leuchten, for their 
tireless hours, including working straight through Father's Day to get 
this bill right.
  You know, their efforts will save lives, help families across our 
country feel more secure, and make our schools safer.
  I promised Arizonans that I would be an independent leader for our 
State and that I would ignore the chaos of Washington and instead just 
focus on getting things done. It won't surprise anyone who might be 
listening today when I tell you that Washington hasn't always liked my 
approach. But our bipartisan bill demonstrates the difference that 
elected leaders can make in the lives of our constituents when we 
choose to heal our divisions instead of feed those divisions.
  Our historic legislation proves that bipartisan solutions are 
possible when we just stay focused on what we were sent to Washington 
to do--to solve problems, help Americans thrive, and ensure that our 
country remains a safe and secure place to call home.
  And on this particular bill, my colleagues and I join together with a 
special sense of purpose to honor the lives that were tragically lost 
to senseless violence in Uvalde, in Buffalo, in Tucson, in Parkland, in 
Charleston, at Sandy Hook, and in communities all across our country.
  Our plan will make American communities safer, and we will help 
return a sense of security to everyday American families.
  I couldn't be more grateful for this moment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hickenlooper). The Senator from 
Connecticut.
  Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, in the Gallery right now listening to the 
Senate debate on the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act is one of my 
interns. Her name is Sari Kaufman. I am glad to have her as an intern 
in my office this summer, but Sari has a story to tell because she is a 
survivor of a mass shooting.
  She was a student at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School when a 
gunman entered that campus and shot and killed her friends, her 
classmates. She reminds us that she went to more funerals in a matter 
of a week than many adults do in their entire lifetime.
  She was in debate class when the shooting started, and she ran for 
her life, as did hundreds of other survivors of that horrible day.
  No student in America should have to experience what she went 
through. No young person should have the burden that she bears to come 
to Washington and argue for changes that will make sure that other 
students don't go through the same thing, and no parent should have to 
go through the grief that parents day after day do, mass shooting after 
mass shooting, urban homicide after urban homicide, as we lose a 
generation of kids, of young people in this Nation to an epidemic of 
gun violence that can be stopped by better public policy.
  I have been on this floor hundreds of times pleading with my 
colleagues to do something, and I am so grateful that Senator Cornyn, 
Senator Tillis, and a handful of their colleagues on the Republican 
side this time stood up and sat down with Senator Sinema, myself, and 
other Democrats to find the common denominator.
  I am here on the floor to talk a little bit more about what our piece 
of legislation does, but I agree with Senator Sinema--this is a moment 
where we have shown this country what is possible here in the U.S. 
Senate.
  I talked last night about the fear that families in Connecticut and 
all across the country felt in the wake of Buffalo and Uvalde and that 
twin fear about what fate awaited their children but also what fate 
awaited our democracy if we were unable to rise to this moment to deal 
with this existential challenge--the loss of life in schools, in 
shopping malls, in supermarkets.
  And while this compromise was hard-earned, every single day for the 
last 4 weeks proved to me what can happen in this body if we decide to 
come out of our political corners.
  And let me say that this moment that we are in today, on the 
precipice of passing the most significant piece of anti-gun violence 
legislation in the last 30 years, would not be possible if it were not 
for Senator Sinema. It would not be possible if it wasn't for her 
decision to sit down and help us find a path to what was possible.
  But it is also clear that without the leadership of Senator Cornyn, 
who has been through way too many of these tragedies in his State, and 
Senator Tillis, a strong supporter of Second Amendment rights but also 
somebody who believes in this place finding a way to that common 
denominator, this day wouldn't be possible either.
  So I want to talk for a few moments about what this bill does because 
there will be a lot of folks who focus on what it doesn't do. It 
certainly doesn't do all of the things I think are necessary to end the 
epidemic of gun violence in this Nation. But it will save thousands of 
lives; there is no doubt about it in my mind. And, in fact, I could 
make the argument that every single one of the provisions in this bill, 
in and of themselves, would save thousands of lives.
  We don't get to do that very often in this place. We don't get a 
chance very often to pass legislation that has this kind of impact. So 
if you want to focus on what is not in this legislation, you can, it is 
your prerogative, but I want to spend a few minutes talking about the 
difference this legislation will make in people's lives.
  Senator Sinema and Senator Cornyn rightly focused--and I put it right 
at the top--this major, historic investment in mental health access. I 
made no secret in my belief that you can't solve America's gun violence 
epidemic simply through mental health funding, but there is no doubt 
there is an intersection, and there is no doubt that our mental health 
system is just broken--period, stop--whether you believe that it has 
any intersection with America's gun violence epidemic. There are far 
too many kids and adults in crisis in this country who cannot get 
access to mental health services. In my State, kids get stacked up in 
emergency rooms in hallways, waiting days, if not weeks, for inpatient 
beds.

[[Page S3055]]

  There is $11 billion in this bill to unlock pathways to treatment for 
kids and adults all across this country; funding in this bill for 
school and community safety--$2 billion to make our schools safer, not 
just for better door-locking mechanisms, but also in programs inside 
these schools that can try to identify kids in crisis early. There will 
be supportive school environments that cut down on the pathways to 
violence. But also there is money for community-based intervention, 
what we call violence interruption programs. We have them in 
Connecticut where you intervene when a shooting victim comes to the 
hospital. You will make sure that that incident doesn't spiral into 
retributive violence in the community--funding for school safety and 
community safety in this bill.
  And then the parts of the bill that probably get the most attention, 
the changes in our gun laws--these crisis intervention orders do work. 
Not every State has them. It was important to Senator Cornyn for money 
to go to every State regardless of whether they have red flag laws; but 
if you have a red flag law or you want to pass one, you will be able to 
get funding through this bill--significant funding--to allow you to 
implement that red flag law better. There are States that have them, 
but they don't work very well because people don't know how to access 
them. Police officers or first responders don't know what to do when 
they see somebody in crisis, when they see somebody threatening 
violence to themselves. Now, we will have funding to help States that 
will allow the authorities with court orders to be able to temporarily 
take weapons away from people who were threatening to kill themselves 
or threatening mass violence.
  We are going to keep guns away from domestic abusers, and we know 
that in States that make sure that every domestic abuser is not allowed 
to purchase or possess guns that there is a significant impact on 
domestic violence. And so our bill makes it a national policy that if 
you have carried out an act of domestic violence against your partner, 
whether you are married to them or whether you are in a serious dating 
relationship, you are not going to be able to have guns in your home.
  But because this is a compromise, we built in a process by which 
those who have no previous record and those who keep their records 
clean subsequent to the offense could get those rights back. It makes 
sense to us, especially if you are convicted of a felony, you have a 
pretty clear pathway in your States to get your rights back--your 
voting rights or your Second Amendment rights. So we set up that 
process for those who are convicted of domestic violence, dating 
misdemeanors.
  Enhanced background checks for young buyers--whether we like it or 
not, the 18-to-21-year-old profile, those are the mass shooters right 
now in this country. And so we want to make sure that we do a more 
significant background check to make sure you are a responsible gun 
buyer, including a check with the local police department.
  The shooter in Uvalde was known to local police. He didn't have an 
offense that would have prohibited him from buying those weapons. But, 
ask yourself, what would have happened if the local police department 
had gotten a phone call as a part of that background check, had been 
alerted that a young man who they knew to be in some form of crisis was 
going to buy AR-15-style weapons on his 18th birthday? Would there have 
been an opportunity for an intervention? Possibly. Maybe that tragedy 
could have been avoided by better public policy.

  In this bill, we also have new penalties for gun trafficking and 
straw purchasing. Why on Earth hasn't the United States of America had 
a law banning gun trafficking at the Federal level or banning straw 
purchasing when the main way that guns get into the flow of illegal 
traffic is through straw purchasing and through complicated gun 
trafficking networks? Now, our Federal law enforcement agencies are 
going to have available to them new tools that will allow them to cut 
down on the flow of illegal weapons throughout the country, but in 
particular and most importantly, into our cities.
  And the last thing we are going to do is more background checks 
because of this bill. We clarify in this bill the definition of a 
federally licensed gun dealer to make sure that everybody who should be 
licensed as a gun owner is. In one of the mass shootings in Texas, the 
individual who carried out the crime was mentally ill. He was a 
prohibited purchaser. He shouldn't have been able to buy a gun. He was 
actually denied a sale when he went to a bricks-and-mortar gun store, 
but he found a way around the background check system because he went 
online and found a seller there who would transfer a gun to him without 
a background check. It turned out that seller was, in fact, engaged in 
the business, but didn't believe the definition applied to him because 
the definition is admittedly confusing. So we simplified that 
definition and hope that will result--and I believe it will result--in 
more of these frequent online gun sellers registering, as they should, 
as federally licensed gun dealers which then requires them to perform 
background checks.
  Each one of these provisions arguably saves thousands of lives in and 
of themselves; but cumulatively, this is a groundbreaking piece of 
legislation--a true compromise--not as much as I would like to do but 
certainly more than some Republicans would like to do. And it is a 
message to this country that there is a path forward in this body to 
address the epidemic of gun violence. It is a message to the activists 
like Sari Kaufman, who have been coming to this place, who have been 
going to their State legislatures, asking time and time again for 
change that speaking truth to power works, that legislators do listen.
  And I hope it as an invitation for us to find more ways like this to 
work together in the future. My belief is that those who vote--even 
those who have been on the outside of these negotiations in the past 
will find that when they get back to their States, there will be 
unfamiliar supporters showing up at your events indoors, people who are 
cheering you on because we worked together to take this existential 
issue, the fear of death from gun violence, more seriously than we have 
in over 30 years.
  So I am glad to share in a little bit more detail than I was last 
night what is in this package. I believe this is a week to focus on 
what we have done and not what we have left undone and to accept this 
as an invitation to find other ways to come together around difficult, 
vexing issues in this country.
  I have a fourth grader the same age as those kids in Uvalde, and I do 
not want him to grow up in a world in which he and his classmates have 
to worry about their survival when they walk into their school every 
day. I do not want to live in a world where survivors of these 
tragedies in school after school have to become advocates and activists 
in this cause. And while this bill doesn't solve America's gun 
violence, it shows we have the potential to work together on these 
difficult vexing challenges in a brandnew lifesaving way.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic whip is recognized.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, on June 12, a bipartisan group of 20 
Senators announced an agreement on legislation to protect our children 
and communities from the epidemic of gun violence. In the days since 
then, this bipartisan group, led by Senators Murphy, Cornyn, Sinema, 
Tillis, and others, have worked to move this agreement forward.
  We took a test vote last night--our first Senate floor vote on the 
package. It was a strong bipartisan rollcall. Let's be clear: This bill 
is a compromise. In a 50/50 Senate, we expect nothing less.
  It doesn't accomplish everything I want. It certainly doesn't 
accomplish everything which the Republican colleagues who voted for it 
want either, but the reforms and investments made in this bill 
represent an important step toward making our Nation safer.
  It won't end gun violence, but it will help to reduce the number of 
shootings and killings which number 100 Americans each day, and it will 
end, perhaps, guns as the leading cause of death among our children.
  Let me highlight a few important provisions: $250 million in grants 
for community violence intervention programs which have shown great 
promise in communities in my State. This

[[Page S3056]]

would double the current annual Justice Department funding for these 
programs. The bill makes dramatic investments in mental health 
infrastructure, providing billions of dollars in school and community 
mental health grants and behavioral health clinics. It gives an 
additional $28 million to fund the trauma support in school program at 
HHS. This is a program that Senator Capito--Republican of West 
Virginia--and I created in 2018 to help break the cycle of trauma and 
violence.

  The bill also provides three-quarters of $1 billion in Byrne/JAG 
grants to help States administer crisis intervention programs like the 
extreme risk protection order laws in Illinois and 18 other States.
  The bill takes significant steps toward closing the boyfriend 
loophole: keeping guns out of the hands of dating partners who have 
been convicted of domestic violence offenses.
  It creates a new Federal offense for the crimes of straw purchasing 
and gun trafficking. This will crack down on the illicit flow of guns 
into cities like Chicago.
  Again, this bill is a compromise. There are provisions I would rather 
change and some I would rather do without; but, overall, it marks the 
most significant gun violence reduction legislation in nearly three 
decades. I commend the bipartisan effort that led us to this point, and 
we should pass this bill without delay.
  I want to call particular attention to two sections of this bill that 
I mentioned.
  One is to stop straw purchases. Straw purchases are when a person 
with a clean criminal record or with no criminal record goes to buy a 
gun for the sole purpose of giving it to another individual who has a 
criminal record and couldn't legally purchase a gun himself. That 
happens. It happened last year in Chicago. There was a straw purchase 
of a gun, and the gun was handed to a felon who turned around and used 
it to kill a Chicago policewoman named Ella French.
  Ella French was 29 years old. She was a remarkable young woman. She 
had a great future ahead of her. She was, unfortunately, shot--gunned 
down--with a straw purchase gun. The same gun was used against her 
partner in his police vehicle. He lost his sight in one eye. He 
survived. But that just shows you that these straw purchase guns are 
being used by people against police and innocent people on a regular 
basis.
  Straw purchasing--buying a gun with a clean record to hand over to 
someone who has a felony conviction--should be treated as a serious 
violent crime. This bill does that.
  The second thing that we desperately need is to deal with counseling. 
Now, I know there is a traditional political argument where Republicans 
say: Guns are not the problem--it is mental health or other issues--and 
Democrats say: It is guns, and if you don't include guns in the 
package, you are not going to get the job done.
  In my view, it includes both. You have to believe if half of the gun 
deaths in America each day are suicides, that the people who are the 
victims of those suicides needed, at least at some point in their 
lives, mental counseling. This bill provides counseling, and I hope it 
comes in the nick of time for people to turn their lives around and to 
restore hope in their futures so that they don't resort to the 
desperate decision toward suicide. Mental counseling, for them, is 
important.
  Secondly, of course, we read about the mass shooters in theaters and 
in supermarkets and in schools, and we realize that they, too, should 
have been counseled at some point in the hopes that you could try to 
divert them from this vicious path that they are about to follow. That 
is an important issue.
  The third group is one that I am more familiar with. They are those 
people who are involved in gun violence in our cities like Chicago and 
St. Louis and in so many other cities. These are young people who have 
diverted their lives away from what we consider to be normal because of 
a traumatic experience.
  Now, trauma is more than physical trauma. It can involve types of 
posttraumatic stress that really lead to fight-or-flight syndromes and 
an involvement in gangs and the use of guns without having the feeling 
of guilt toward anyone you hurt.
  These people need help. If we can reach them at an early age in 
schools, we might be able to turn their lives around. If we don't try, 
unfortunately, the violence will only continue on our streets. This 
bill that we are considering--this community safety bill that we are 
considering--provides resources to school districts to counsel young 
people.
  I think it is long overdue and is desperately needed, not just for 
those who have been through serious trauma in their lives, but for 
those facing other mental challenges. Our kids who have gone back to 
school after COVID may need a helping hand and someone they can counsel 
with. This bill starts providing those valuable resources. I believe it 
will make an important difference in the future of our country.


                               Inflation

  On another topic, Mr. President, ``inflation'' is the word on 
everyone's mind. We see proof of it plastered on gas stations 
throughout the country and in the aisles of our grocery stores. Too 
many families are struggling to pay bills. Just last week, the Federal 
Reserve launched its most forceful broadside against inflation, the 
largest increase in interest rates in nearly 30 years.

  As lawmakers, we owe the American people an honest, sober assessment 
of how we can start to bring down prices and help alleviate stress at 
the checkout lane; but, sadly, the inflation conversation has been 
twisted with dishonesty and deflection by some political critics.
  Instead of passing legislation to help reduce the cost of essential 
goods and services like prescription drugs and childcare, many are 
pointing the finger of blame at the Biden administration as if he 
invented inflation or isn't doing his best to end it. Despite the fact 
that it was former President Trump who urged the Federal Reserve to 
keep the money printer running at the start of the pandemic and that 
the Republicans oppose a bill that would prevent big oil companies from 
price gouging, we see arguments that are made totally on a political 
level.
  The bad-faith arguments we have heard from across the aisle ignore 
the essential truth: Inflation is not just an American problem; it is a 
global problem. It is happening in advanced economies like in the UK 
and France. That is largely due to disruptions in the supply chain.
  The phrase ``supply chain'' didn't mean much to America a few months 
ago, but now, we know it is an important part of our challenge. This 
began 2 years ago with the pandemic, and it has been aggravated by 
Vladimir Putin's barbaric invasion of Ukraine. It has caused the cost 
of everything from food to energy to spike.
  In the words of one conservative commentator at the Wall Street 
Journal:

       War in Ukraine Fans the Flames of Global Inflation.


                              Immigration

  Mr. President, it is crucial to recognize the United States can't 
solve these global drivers of inflation on our own, but there is one 
driver of inflation that is within our control: labor shortages. We 
have twice as many jobs that need to be filled in this country as 
unemployed people to fill them.
  What can we do?
  The chart tells you part of the story. This chart indicates that, 
under the policies of the previous administration and due to the COVID-
19 pandemic, as well as lengthy backlogs, America has experienced a 
marked decline in immigration that has had a direct and detrimental 
impact on working families.
  According to EconoFact:

       [N]et migration to the United States . . . has 
     significantly declined over the last five years due to 
     policies of the Trump administration, processing backlogs, 
     the pandemic, and other factors. This slowdown has 
     implications for the number of workers available and for 
     fiscal sustainability.

  By the end of 2021, there were 2 million fewer working-age immigrants 
in America than there would have been if the pre-2020 migration trends 
had continued.
  Now, perhaps your first instinct is, Well, that is a good thing; that 
means more jobs for American workers.
  But the reality is not that at all. This decline in immigration is 
hurting working Americans and is contributing to inflation. There are a 
number of industries in America that rely on foreign-born labor to 
provide affordable goods and services to our country--industries like 
construction, agriculture, transportation, to name just a few.

[[Page S3057]]

  Consider the healthcare industry. Nursing homes depend on a reliable 
supply of immigrant workers to provide care to the elderly and 
disabled, but since 2019, nursing homes have lost more than 15 percent 
of their workforce. Today, nearly every nursing home in the country--99 
percent, according to the Wall Street Journal--is experiencing staffing 
shortages. As a result, many of them have had to limit the number of 
new clients they accept.
  In the words of one leader in the industry:

       We're just looking for people to fill the roles that we 
     need. And time and again, we find it is the immigrant 
     population that tends to respond to us.

  So it is our grandparents who end up paying the price for the 
shortage of working-age immigrants, and they are not alone.
  If you are in the market for a new home, you may have noticed prices 
are prohibitively high, and these skyrocketing costs aren't just 
hurting potential home buyers; they are hurting renters as well. The 
cost of rent is actually outpacing inflation in America.
  One obvious way to bring housing costs back down to earth is by 
expanding the supply of homes in America. There are plenty of 
homebuilders who are willing to help fill the void, but they have got a 
problem: not enough workers.
  Down in Dallas, TX, one homebuilder named Joshua Correa has been 
forced to delay home construction projects for months because he can't 
hire field crews.
  In his own words:

       Immigration is very important for our workforce in the 
     United States . . . We're feeling [the shortage of workers] . 
     . . and if we're feeling it at the end of the day as builders 
     and developers, the consumer pays the price.

  From building new homes to providing healthcare in our homes, we rely 
on immigrants to fill critical roles; and in the absence of immigrant 
workers, we as customers end up paying higher prices.
  If we want to solve America's worker shortage, we need to drastically 
increase the number of immigrants we welcome into this country. Don't 
just take it from me. The CEO of the Chamber of Commerce of America has 
called for doubling the number of legal immigrants into this country.
  In her words:

       If we can alleviate the worker shortage, it might be the 
     fastest thing [we can] do to impact inflation.

  And that is just a short-term benefit for fixing America's broken 
immigration system. In the long term, comprehensive immigration reform 
would drive America's economic growth for years to come.
  According to the Economic Policy Institute, undocumented immigrants 
already pay nearly $12 billion in State and local taxes annually, but 
many of them are not on the books. By providing them with a path to 
legal status, we can double the amount of Federal tax revenue our 
Nation collects from this group. That is money that will fund the 
construction of roads and bridges and which will make Social Security, 
Medicare, and Medicaid payments. That is especially important when you 
consider the growing number of senior citizens in America who rely on 
these programs. By the end of this decade, more than a fifth of our 
population will be over the age of 65. These Americans need a reliable, 
working-age tax base to support them.
  A path to legal status for undocumented immigrants also would boost 
our Nation's GDP by more than $1 trillion over the next 10 years and 
create hundreds of thousands of jobs.
  Passing immigration reform will also help keep America on the cutting 
edge of innovation. Despite our former President's destructive 
immigration policies, America is still one of the top destinations in 
the world for innovators and entrepreneurs. In fact, more than half of 
our Nation's billion-dollar startups were founded by an immigrant. Let 
me repeat that. More than half of our Nation's billion-dollar startups 
were founded by immigrants. Every day that we fail to enact immigration 
reform, we are allowing a generation of potential innovators and 
skilled workers to fall through the cracks.
  I want to briefly share the story of one amazing person who almost 
fell through the cracks. His name is Dr. Alfredo Quinones, but he is 
more commonly known as Dr. Q. Today, Dr. Q--listen to this--is the 
chair of neurologic surgery at the Mayo Clinic.
  Decades ago, when he first arrived in the United States as a 
teenager, he was an undocumented farmworker. He earned little more than 
$3 an hour picking crops in the San Joaquin Valley in California. 
Eventually, he began working as a welder for a railroad. One day, he 
suffered a bad injury after falling into an empty petroleum tank. When 
he woke up in the hospital, Dr. Q decided to pursue his passion.
  He enrolled in the University of California at Berkeley and wrote his 
honor's thesis on neuroscience. That caught the attention of admissions 
officers at Harvard Medical School, where he was accepted as a student. 
He studied hard and discovered his calling: neurosurgery. Today, he 
removes about 250 brain tumors every year. Outside of the OR, Dr. Q 
devotes countless hours to pioneering research. He has a very modest 
goal--curing cancer--and is exploring novel methods, like using human 
fat cells to fight brain cancer.
  How many other Dr. Qs are out there, hiding in the shadows of our 
immigration system? Isn't it time we found out?
  In the meantime, I would like to pose a simpler question to my 
Republican colleagues: If you are genuinely interested in addressing 
inflation, will you help us move forward on this issue before the 
election?
  Your willingness to work on immigration reform will reveal the 
answer. It is one of the most consequential steps we can take to combat 
inflation.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                               Inflation

  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to talk about 
this Joe Biden-caused economic crisis that is impacting our country.
  Last week, Joe Biden said his spending is ``changing people's 
lives.'' Well, for once, I am in complete agreement with Joe Biden 
because I have been traveling the State of Wyoming this past weekend, 
talking to a lot of people, and Joe Biden's policies have been changing 
people's lives. Joe Biden's inflation is changing people's lives for 
the worst. It is costing American families about $5,000 more this year 
than it did last year just to break even. Joe Biden's inflation is 
driving families to the breaking point. Right now, working families all 
across this country are hoping for a summer break. This year's summer 
break might just break working families.
  Inflation remains at a 40-year high. Prices are going up everywhere--
gas station, grocery store, and even paying rent. Household staples 
like ground beef and chicken--highest prices ever. Inflation for eating 
at a restaurant--highest ever recorded. Families are paying $100 a week 
more than they did just a year ago just to stay afloat.
  According to a study from the University of Michigan, this is the 
biggest decline in disposable income since Herbert Hoover was 
President--Joe Biden; Herbert Hoover. Families' savings accounts are 
depleted. We now have the lowest savings rate since the great 
recession. Household debt is breaking records. Families are being 
forced to cut back in ways they didn't think possible.
  The fastest inflation of all, of course, has been on energy. Overall, 
inflation has been nearly 9 percent, but inflation for gasoline under 
Joe Biden is more than double--over 100 percent. The price of a gallon 
of gas has more than doubled since Joe Biden walked into the Oval 
Office. High energy costs mean high costs for everything else. High gas 
prices mean it is harder to get goods to the market. Diesel prices are 
also at record highs. Americans depend on farmers, and farmers depend 
on diesel. That is just a fact of life. That is why America needs 
energy now more than ever, in spite of the policies of Joe Biden.
  Rather than producing more energy, what does Joe Biden do? He is 
producing one excuse after another. He

[[Page S3058]]

continues to tighten the stranglehold on American energy, making it 
harder and harder to produce American energy, which is making American 
energy even more expensive.
  Last week, Joe Biden, President of the United States, sent a 
threatening letter to American energy companies. Now, he claims he 
wants more energy, but his actions speak much louder than the words he 
writes or speaks because Joe Biden has done just about everything 
possible to keep American energy buried in the ground. He has blocked 
so many different ways to get American energy out of the ground and to 
refineries and to export or to production. In fact, his Secretary of 
the Interior explicitly made that a campaign promise when she was 
running for Congress. The Secretary of the Interior--confirmed by the 
Democrats, opposed by me--promised to keep American energy in the 
ground. Well, that is exactly what Joe Biden is doing and having her 
do.
  By one estimate, Joe Biden has taken more than 100 actions, since he 
has been President, restricting American energy. It all started his 
first day in office. In the first few hours as President, Joe Biden 
killed the Keystone XL Pipeline--killed it flat--and then bragged about 
it. The Keystone Pipeline would have meant 800,000 barrels of oil 
delivered to this country each and every day, coming in from Canada.
  But that wasn't enough, no. A few days later, Joe Biden made another 
announcement of his anti-American energy policy. He announced he was 
going to put a pause on all new oil and gas leases on Federal land. 
Bragging about Keystone, announcing a pause on leases on Federal land, 
and now here we are after 17 months in office--none. But Barack Obama 
by this time had done 44 Federal energy leases. Not a single one by Joe 
Biden--no, not one.
  He has also shut down energy exploration near the Arctic. All you 
need to do is talk to the senior Senator, whom I share time with on the 
Energy Committee, Senator Murkowski, about what is going on there, and 
she will tell you how Joe Biden has shut down energy in the Arctic. He 
has kept more than 4,300 drilling applications collecting dust on his 
desk.
  His energy agenda is far, far to the left of any previous American 
President. His energy agenda, amazingly, is far to the left of Hillary 
Clinton's agenda when she was running in 2016--further to the left than 
Hillary. This is the most anti-American energy agenda in American 
history, and Joe Biden owns it.
  When he says he wants us to produce more, no one believes him. No one 
believes this President. You look at any poll numbers--people do not 
believe Joe Biden when he speaks, and people have stopped listening to 
him. The American people believe with their own two eyes and their 
empty wallets. They drive by the gas station, look at the price up 
there, and say: It is only going up.
  If you want to know what Joe Biden really thinks, just look at what 
he does; just listen to the people he has surrounded himself with. His 
anointed climate spokesman--and I mean anointed--is one John Kerry.
  John Kerry said last week: ``We absolutely don't'' need more oil, 
gas, and coal--``absolutely don't'' need. That is the position of this 
administration and the President of the United States. He is happy with 
high prices. John Kerry thinks we can just get rid of fossil fuels 
immediately.
  These people are living a fairy tale. They are in a cocoon of self-
delusion. That is what is going on at this White House. Joe Biden's 
fantasy of ending oil and gas is just that--a fantasy.

  He wants every American in an electric vehicle. There are not enough 
batteries; don't have enough charging stations; don't have enough of 
these vehicles. Even the Secretary of Transportation--he bought one of 
these. He bought it from Mexico, according to the news reports, and it 
got recalled, along with 49,000 other electric vehicles, because the 
battery didn't work. The battery was not reliable. Pete Buttigieg--
Mayor Pete--went from filling potholes in a small town in Indiana to 
becoming the world's highest paid salesman of electric vehicles, but 
yet his own one failed him.
  The Biden administration is convinced they are making an ``incredible 
transition.'' This isn't science; this is science fiction.
  Last week, Joe Biden's Press Secretary was asked why the President 
wasn't going to ``drill more here at home.'' After all, that is what 
the American people are calling for. That is what the economists say is 
a problem. Why aren't you drilling more at home? She says: Oh, ``[w]e 
don't need to do that.'' They don't seem to care how high energy prices 
go, what the cost of gasoline is, because they live in a pure level of 
electric vehicles.
  Earlier today, the President requested a pause on the gas tax until 
right before the election. This is the tax that funds our Federal roads 
and bridges. As a former member of the Environment and Public Works 
Committee, I know how important the highway trust fund is. It helps 
repair roads, bridges, and builds highways. Joe Biden doesn't seem to 
care about that part of it. He said: Oh, let's just call a pause of 
18\1/2\ cents a gallon. It is a gimmick. It is a gimmick that won't 
have very much effect on gas prices because gas prices would still be 
double what they were when Joe Biden took office even if you take off 
18\1/2\ cents.
  Let me remind the American public that today gasoline prices on 
average are $4.95 a gallon. It is more than double what it was the day 
he took office. We are up about $2.50 for each and every gallon, and 
Joe Biden thinks: Well, you remove 18 cents, and we will call it good. 
What a fantasy.
  Democrat economist Larry Summers has called this idea by the 
President of the United States--and let me point out that Larry Summers 
was Bill Clinton's Secretary of Treasury, economic adviser to Barack 
Obama, and president of Harvard University, and he says that what Joe 
Biden is doing--he called it ``shortsighted, ineffective, goofy and 
gimmicky.'' That is about what we are getting from this President of 
the United States--goofiness and gimmicks.
  Back in 2008, even President Obama said the idea was a gimmick. He 
ought to have credibility with the Democrats. You would think Joe Biden 
might have listened to him; he was his Vice President. President Obama 
said: This idea isn't ``designed to get you through the summer, it's 
designed to get them through an election.''
  What about the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi? She is a big Joe 
Biden fan. This is what she said of the idea. The thing the President 
proposed today, she said, is ``very showbiz''--``very showbiz.'' She 
said: It looks like you are doing something, ``[b]ut it is not 
necessarily landing in the pocket of the consumer.''
  So Joe Biden wants to look busy. It is not what the American people 
are seeing, and in so many ways, they have tuned him out. The American 
people see the price of gasoline. They see it every time they drive by 
a gas station. At the same time, Senate Democrats want to raise taxes 
on American energy. That is what we hear from the Senate Democrats.
  What is your solution?
  Well, we are going to raise taxes on American energy.
  Oh, sounds good.
  Higher taxes mean higher prices--it is that simple. Higher taxes on 
producers of oil and gas ultimately get passed on to the consumers. I 
am not sure what people don't understand about that.
  Nancy Pelosi admitted that as well. A few months ago, she admitted 
that ``a tax on production . . . the consumers [will] pay for that.''
  Look, Democrats are so desperate to try to do something, throwing one 
Hail Mary pass after another, they are now denying the laws of supply 
and demand. The Senate Democrats act like these prices come out of thin 
air. Prices are the result of supply and demand. Right now, the supply 
is too low to meet the demand of the American people. If you want lower 
prices, you have to increase the supply, and we can do that by 
producing American energy.
  High energy costs are driving up inflation all across the country. It 
is triggering a cascade of crises. The stock market is down 20 percent. 
Seniors and retirees are watching their savings evaporate, melt away.
  Last week, the Federal Reserve raised interest rates for the third 
time since March. Each increase has been larger than the last one. This 
latest increase is the largest increase in the Fed rate in 30 years.
  Oh, there is no question this is going to slow down the economy. So 
why is

[[Page S3059]]

the Federal Reserve doing something that is going to slow down the 
economy? Well, there is one reason: inflation under Joe Biden and the 
big-spending Democrats. That is the reason inflation is running 
rampant. There were trillions of dollars thrown onto the fire of 
inflation--inflation denied by the President, ignored by the President, 
dismissed by the President for month after month after month, and now 
the American people are living with inflation they cannot escape.
  So the Federal Reserve has only one choice. It is throwing on the 
emergency brake. It may still be too late to prevent a crash. The 
economy is barreling toward recession. Economists on both sides of the 
aisle say that, and Joe Biden the other day said, oh, he wasn't worried 
about that coming along.
  A recession is a complete halt to economic growth for half a year. If 
you have a recession, you still have higher prices with lower economic 
growth. We would still have higher prices, and people won't have the 
money to pay them.
  Right now, the Federal Reserve is taking desperate measures to 
counteract what Democrats have done. As a result, mortgage rates have 
already doubled this year. Mortgage applications have been cut 
dramatically. Older Americans are delaying their dreams of retirement. 
Younger Americans are giving up on their dreams of owning a home.
  It is no wonder consumer confidence in Joe Biden in the Nation right 
now is at an alltime low. Joe Biden, who earlier had been compared to 
Herbert Hoover in terms of what people are saying about both of them, 
has an even lower approval rating on inflation than did Jimmy Carter.
  Joe Biden wants to blame everybody but himself. Yet the American 
people are right when they point the finger and blame Joe Biden. With 
record inflation, record debt, and looming recession, now is not the 
time to do what the Democrats want to do, which is raise taxes. 
Democrats need to reverse course, stop the reckless spending, and above 
all, unleash American energy.
  Joe Biden should rip up his letter to energy companies and get to 
work: hold energy lease sales, approve the 4,300 drilling applications 
still sitting in limbo in the Biden White House, approve more 
pipelines, speed up the approval process. The American people, right 
now, are feeling stuck and stressed and squeezed, and the best this 
President can do is say: Let's take a holiday from gas taxes for 3 
months--when prices are up over $2.60 a gallon from the day he took 
office. And he wants to alleviate 18 cents of the pain.
  It is time for the Democrats to reverse course. We will see if Joe 
Biden listens. The Democrats are refusing to listen. Americans are 
paying a very high price today, and the Democrats, across the board, 
are going to pay a very high price in November when people go to the 
polls.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Baldwin). The junior Senator from West 
Virginia.


                                 Energy

  Mrs. CAPITO. Madam President, in March, I spoke here on the Senate 
floor about the highest reported gasoline prices ever. At that time, 
according to AAA, the average price in West Virginia, my home State, 
was $4.12. Well, today--today--West Virginia's average is up to $4.90 
while the national average is $4.96.
  Last week, the national average for a gallon of gas was more than 
$5--more than $5. Think about that. And, worse, these high gas prices 
hit our hardest working Americans the hardest. As Axios reported, 
``Americans who earn less than $50,000 a year are currently spending . 
. . 10% of their credit card bills on gas, compared with 6% for those 
households earning . . . $125,000.''
  These prices are not sustainable for the American families, 
especially when you consider not only gas, but with out-of-control 
inflation, they are battling gas, electricity, groceries, and other 
necessities.
  As the New York Times reported, ``Prices climbed 8.6 percent in the 
year through May, a reacceleration of inflation that makes it 
increasingly difficult for consumers to afford everyday purchases.''
  So people ask me: How did we get here? Unfortunately, we shouldn't be 
surprised, even if it is hard to imagine that things would get this 
bad. From the earliest days of his Presidential campaign, President 
Biden promised to be anti-American-energy. As President, his policies 
and personnel choices have delivered on his campaign promises, and high 
prices are just part of the bargain, as they would say.
  The administration has canceled pipelines, rescinded previously 
issued approvals for other pipelines, and raised barriers to building 
new ones. They have frozen oil and gas leasing and proposed raising 
royalties--costs that are passed on to every consumer and, remember, 
those hardest working Americans who are now paying 10 percent of their 
income.
  They are revising the NEPA process, which is the environmental review 
process, undoing the streamlining that was done during 2020 to speed up 
project delivery. That means faster pipelines, faster infrastructure 
development of all kinds. Biden's EPA has hammered small refineries, 
including the one in my State, by denying hardship relief that could 
immediately help lower fuel prices. And Biden's EPA has also recently 
announced a proposal under section 401 of the Clean Water Act to make 
it easier for activists to work to prevent infrastructure projects.
  Then there is the regulation on the power sector. The EPA has 
publicly announced plans to slam the electricity sector--already the 
most regulated sector by EPA--with a fresh new slate of new 
requirements.
  The damaging policies I have laid out today have led to the energy 
crisis and skyrocketing energy and electricity prices that we face 
today. These policies are going to continue to fan the flames of this 
crisis, making it worse and not better. As costs continue to climb and 
energy production gets more expensive--thanks to this regulatory 
assault--utility operators are already warning of blackouts this 
summer. Operators are under tremendous strain, thanks to the Biden 
administration's policies.
  So what has the White House done to address this crisis? Well, I 
think GasBuddy petroleum analyst Patrick De Haan said it well:

       White House begs all companies to improve situation. Can we 
     drill? We'd rather you not. Can we build a refinery? We'd 
     rather you not. Can we build a pipeline? We'd rather you not. 
     Just make it better.

  So it is no wonder that all of these mixed messages have industry and 
investors confused. I am confused. The American public is confused why 
nobody woke up to what was going on here--and the President in the 
White House. The administration made releases from the Strategic 
Petroleum Reserve. What good did that do? It hasn't started to abate 
the steady rise in gas prices. They have pointed fingers at energy 
producers and refiners with claims of price-gouging. They have pointed 
fingers at Vladimir Putin, despite the fact that gas prices were 
steadily rising months before the invasion of Ukraine.

  The White House is content to keep finger-pointing while refusing to 
take responsibility for their own actions. They know their actions are 
causing pain. They know, with these policies and pledges from our 
climate czar John Kerry to stop using our own American fuels, they are 
chilling investments that we need today. For example, who would make a 
billion-dollar, 40-year investment in the refining capacity we 
desperately need today when John Kerry promises that oil and gas 
investments will be ``stranded assets.''
  Nothing the White House has promised will fix these kinds of issues. 
The President himself says energy producers should take immediate 
action to increase the supply of gas. Yet his advisers in the White 
House are counseling everyone otherwise. In effect and in the messages 
they send, this is going to make things worse.
  This administration is fiercely determined to kill the oil and gas 
industry and baseload power sector in this country rule by rule, 
Executive action by Executive action. And the hard-working Americans 
are paying for it at the pump.
  The American people are really smart. They see what is happening 
here. The Democrats want to layer on more regulations and legislation 
that will keep passing more and more costs on to those consumers, those 
hard-working Americans who are paying 10 percent monthly from their 
monthly

[[Page S3060]]

earnings. All the while, the Biden administration is working as hard as 
it can to shutter coal and natural gas energy production and 
electricity.
  Do you know what? Without a 180-degree turn on several actions I have 
laid out, we can expect costs to stay high and blackouts and brownouts 
to occur.
  Americans deserve better. I am an optimist. Americans deserve better.
  I ask the administration to reverse course on some of these policies 
I have outlined and to put the livelihoods and the quality of life of 
our constituents first.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from Maryland.


                      50th Anniversary of Title IX

  Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, I take this time to celebrate the 50th 
anniversary of the enactment of title IX. It was passed and enacted on 
June 23, 50 years ago, when President Nixon signed title IX of the 
Education Amendments of 1972 into law, which explicitly added the 
following sex discrimination provision into the law:

       No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, 
     be excluded from participating in, be denied the benefits of, 
     or be subjected to discrimination under any education program 
     or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.

  Broadly speaking, title IX prohibits any institution that receives 
Federal education funding from discriminating against students or 
employees on the basis of sex.
  Today, I would like to reflect on how far we have come in terms of 
combating sex discrimination in the United States, how far we still 
need to go, and what steps we can take as we strive to guarantee equal 
rights and equal justice under the law for all Americans, regardless of 
their gender identification or sexual orientation.
  Sex discrimination comes in many forms and historically has included 
discrimination based on pregnancy or sex stereotypes. We have seen sex 
discrimination that includes sexual harassment in our schools and in 
the workplace, dating violence, and sex-based stalking. Such sexual 
harassment and discrimination often leads to higher rates of 
depression, anxiety, and suicide attempts for the women affected and 
can lead to higher rates of dropping out of school.
  Congress responded, in part, by passing the Violence Against Women 
Act in 1994 and recently reauthorizing it and strengthening it in 2022.
  Title IX is certainly responsible for much of the progress women have 
made in the last half a century. Today, women earn nearly 60 percent of 
the doctoral, master's, bachelor's, and associate degrees conferred in 
this Nation. A stubborn disparity still exists, however, with respect 
to women--and, in particular, women of color--earning science, 
technology, engineering, and math--STEM--degrees.
  In terms of sports, we have seen an enormous increase in women and 
girls participating in athletic activities, with more than a 1,000-
percent increase in high school-level sports and a 600-percent increase 
in collegiate-level sports--an increase that helps them develop 
leadership and teamwork skills and, in some cases, earn athletic 
scholarships and become professional athletes.
  In professions where women represent a majority of employees, women 
are still held back from obtaining leadership positions. For example, 
women represent more than three-quarters of the entire healthcare 
workforce, yet just 27 percent of chief executive officer positions in 
our hospital systems.
  Looking at title IX progress and the road ahead, the National 
Coalition for Women and Girls in Education, the National Women's Law 
Center, and others recently released a report, ``Title IX at 50.'' The 
report takes a look at title IX's impact over the last half a century, 
celebrating the significant progress to end sex discrimination in 
education while recognizing the work that remains to be done.
  Let me quote from that report:

       Despite the tremendous progress towards gender equity in 
     the last 50 years, students today continue to be deprived of 
     their education because of sex discrimination. . . . Schools 
     are not adequately protecting students from sexual 
     harassment, sex- and race-based discipline, and 
     discrimination based on their sexual orientation, gender 
     identity, or pregnancy or parenting status. Twenty percent of 
     girls have been victims of sexual assault or attempted sexual 
     assault while in high school, and 1 in 5 women and 1 in 4 
     transgender or gender nonconforming students are sexually 
     assaulted on college campuses.
       Women and girls and LGBTQI+ students continue to face sex 
     discrimination in athletics, in STEM and [career and 
     technical education] programs, and in sex-segregated 
     classrooms and schools.

  We still have progress that we need to achieve.
  I support the U.S. Department of Education's effort to undo the Trump 
administration's weakening of civil rights protections for student 
survivors and to ensure the protection of the LGBTQ community and 
students in the face of mounting violent threats, hateful rhetoric, and 
cruel attacks from State officials.
  As the Women's Law Center commented recently on the enhanced title IX 
protections:

       We urge the swift release of a robust proposed rule by the 
     Department of Education by the 50th anniversary of Title IX 
     on June 23, 2022. . . . Students are protesting across the 
     country, demanding that their schools meaningfully address 
     sex-based harassment; they are in desperate need of Title 
     IX's full protections. The proposed rule is critical to begin 
     the regulatory process for undoing the harmful changes made 
     to the Title IX rule in 2020 [by the Trump administration] . 
     . . and to address mounting threats to LGBTQI+ students and 
     school communities. While sex-based harassment in schools 
     remains pervasive, the 2020 Rule pushes schools to ignore 
     many instances of sex-based harassment, leaving scores of 
     survivors without recourse . . . [which] are harmful to 
     student survivors, [and] deter reporting. These harms 
     especially fall on women and girls of color, disabled 
     survivors, LGBTQI+ survivors, and pregnant and parenting 
     survivors, all who face stereotypes casting them as less 
     credible when they report sexual misconduct.

  As I said, we still have a road ahead of us.
  Let me close by saying that when it comes to equality for women in 
our laws and Constitution, there should be no deadline on equality. 
Most Americans already think the Equal Rights Amendment is part of our 
Constitution. The needed 38 States have completed their legal 
ratification. We now need to remove any ambiguity and finally complete 
the ratification of the 28th amendment to our Constitution.
  I have introduced bipartisan legislation with Senator Murkowski, S.J. 
Res. 1, which would rescind the ERA arbitrary ratification deadline. 
The House has passed this legislation, and it has 51 cosponsors in the 
Senate.
  After the Equal Rights Amendment itself was first passed by the 
Senate in 1972, Congress changed the 7-year deadline to 10 years, 
setting a precedent for such activity and authority. There is no 
deadline in the ERA itself. Legal enactment of the Equal Rights 
Amendment to the Constitution should take place 2 years after two-
thirds of the House and Senate and three-fourths of the States ratify. 
Nevada ratified the ERA in March of 2017; Illinois, in May of 2018; and 
Virginia, the 38th State, in January of 2020.
  Article V of the Constitution contains no time limits for the 
ratification of amendments. The States finally ratified the 27th 
Amendment in 1992 regarding congressional pay raises more than 200 
years after Congress proposed it in 1789 as part of the original Bill 
of Rights. That amendment is now part of our Constitution. The ERA time 
limit was contained in a joint resolution, not the actual text of the 
amendment.
  The ERA would simply provide that ``equality of rights under law 
shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State on 
account of sex.'' The amendment also provides that ``Congress shall 
have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions 
of this article.''
  Just like with title IX, women are not asking for privileges; they 
are simply asking to be treated equally under the law and to be 
afforded the same legal rights as men under the law.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


            Unanimous Consent Agreement--Executive Calendar

  Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
vote at 6 p.m. on the motion to discharge the nomination of Hernan D.

[[Page S3061]]

Vera to be United States District Judge for the Central District of 
California.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CARDIN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 4261

  Mr. LEE. Madam President, I return to the floor of the Senate again 
today to ask that this body take immediate action--action needed--to 
address our Nation's massive baby formula shortage.
  For months, American moms and dads have been scouring supermarkets 
and drugstores looking for baby formula. Anxiety-ridden parents are 
frantically checking online stores and pleading with family and 
friends, trying to figure out how to ship, purchase, and otherwise 
procure baby formula.
  Still, some families must hospitalize their babies because they can't 
find formula. Yes, they are hospitalizing them for that reason alone.
  Inexcusably, the crisis has only gotten worse. In May alone, reports 
show that the out-of-stock rate jumped from 43 percent to a staggering 
73 percent nationally.
  In Utah, my State--the State with the largest families, the most 
children per capita, and the highest birthrate in the Nation--reports 
show that out-of-stock rate to be as high as 88.9 percent.
  Desperate parents are now resorting to places like Facebook 
Marketplace, buying from unknown sellers at exorbitant markups. The 
failure of the Biden administration's photo-op policy has not so much 
as put a dent--even a tiny dent--in this problem.
  Now, initially, the White House said that parents should ``ask your 
pediatrician, who may have formula samples or possible alternatives,'' 
as if that were somehow a solution.
  This hollow nonresponse was embarrassing enough, but, tragically, the 
administration's response has not improved with time, in the time that 
has passed since that statement was made. When the question came up 
again, the White House press secretary spent nearly 20 seconds flipping 
through a binder, only to respond with: ``I don't have anything new.''
  That response is simply unacceptable. It is unacceptable for the 
American people generally and especially for those families dealing 
with this inexplicably, needlessly prolonged crisis.
  By failing to act, we are leaving parents in an unimaginable 
situation during one of the most stressful and impactful times of life. 
Worse, they have received no discernible answers from their elected 
officials. The White House's website lays the blame solely on Abbott's 
plant closure in Michigan ``due to safety concerns from the FDA.''
  Now, this is a very limited, narrow line of thinking. The FDA 
regularly recalls other food products, but none of those recalls 
happens to result in shortages of this magnitude or this significance 
with such weighty consequences on the youngest of Americans.
  Look, it doesn't have to be this way. There are a lot of weighty 
problems that we address in the U.S. Senate that are seemingly 
unsolvable, intractable, or, at least, very, very difficult to solve 
because they involve things that very often are beyond our ability to 
control.
  This is not one of those problems. This is within our grasp. It is 
within our control. In fact, the government is the problem. Government 
caused it, and by turning certain levers, government can relieve this 
problem and do so in a very short period of time. This suffering is 
unnecessarily being prolonged by the government itself.
  So the Senate can help these families, these American families 
struggling with this crisis, by immediately passing my bill called the 
FORMULA Act.
  This bill responds to the crisis in three simple ways to help solve 
the crisis at hand and feed American babies.
  First, my bill would suspend tariff collection on currently allowed 
formula imports. We tax imported formula at a rate of at least 17.5 
percent upon entering the United States. It can roughly double to about 
35 percent, depending on the circumstances of the shipment. We can help 
ease the skyrocketing prices and encourage companies to import as much 
baby formula as possible or as much as demand within the market 
requires by simply suspending for a period of 6 months this tariff 
collection.
  Look, the administration has acknowledged there are appropriate times 
to suspend the collection of certain taxes. For example, it is 
currently proposing suspending the gasoline tax for a period of 3 
months. Surely, it is not the Biden White House's position that 
gasoline is more important than feeding infants.
  Second, my bill would temporarily allow formula imports from several 
safe countries like those in Europe. This would enable us to access 
plentiful formula supplies from abroad and meet our current needs with 
that.
  Now, allowing these imports is not going to endanger American babies. 
The manufacturing plants in question are already approved and are 
already regulated by their home countries. And the only plants that 
operate in countries and subject to authorities that are comparable to 
those imposed by our own Food and Drug Administration, these are 
countries from which we already import pharmaceutical products.

  The fact is that parents have already begun taking matters into their 
own hands, often with dire consequences. We are hearing reports of 
parents resorting to online homemade recipes for formula that they then 
feed to their infants. Infant hospitalizations due to malnutrition are 
correspondingly increasing as a direct result of these activities and 
the shortages from which they stem.
  Doctors have voiced their concerns that homemade formulas can lead to 
liver and kidney issues and, in some cases, even heart failure. Some 
families have tried diluting the formula that they are able to access 
with more water, a tactic that health experts warn can lead to brain 
swelling and organ failure.
  Some doctors refer to this shortage as ``the worst crisis they have 
experienced in their careers.'' They have to place dehydrated children 
on IV fluids, which isn't, of course, a long-term solution; it is an 
acute and dire response to a life-threatening emergency brought about 
through an artificial government constraint on the market. These short-
term consequences are scary enough. They are scary enough for the moms 
and dads, to say nothing of the horrors the children, the infants, 
experience in the process. We still don't know what the long-term 
effects of these might be to the babies.
  Those worried about the formula quality may find solace in the fact 
that my bill retains the FDA's authority to recall foreign formulas in 
the very unlikely event that these safety issues arise. Remember, these 
are formulas produced in facilities in countries from which we already 
import pharmaceutical products based on our country's trust and 
confidence that their safety and quality standards are as secure as, if 
not more stringent than, our own.
  Additionally, my bill only calls for importing formula that is 
lawfully marketed and approved in select foreign countries. Again, 
private citizens are already doing this. The law already allows the 
personal importation of baby formula, meaning somebody can jump online 
and order it on their own, and parents are voluntarily choosing to do 
so because they have done the research and they trust that it is safe 
for their baby.
  They understand, as we do, that babies in France and Switzerland and 
of the United Kingdom are not different than babies in the United 
States of America. Formula that works for them, that is safe and 
healthy for them, is proven safe and healthy and effective for them for 
many, many decades is also going to work with respect to an American 
baby. My bill would just make this easier and more affordable for 
parents, you see, because to be one of those parents, you have got to 
have a degree of sophistication to know what you are looking for. Most 
people aren't really aware of the fact that they could jump online and 
order this.

[[Page S3062]]

  Secondly, it is really expensive to do it. They can't buy in bulk, 
and it requires extra shipping and handling costs that makes this 
prohibitively expensive for many people, even the lucky ones who become 
aware that it is even an option.
  So my bill isn't making something legal that is currently illegal in 
that respect; it is simply making it more affordable. It is making it 
so that we no longer limit access to these foreign formulas--foreign 
top-quality formulas from places like France and Switzerland and the 
United Kingdom. They will be available to poor and middle-class 
families, and not just the wealthy.
  Finally, my bill would allow WIC program recipients to buy whatever 
brand of formula is available with WIC vouchers. My bill will allow 
these parents to buy from available stock and feed their children and 
guarantees greater flexibility.
  You see, the existing formula crisis has been exacerbated by virtue 
of the fact that the WIC formula--the WIC beneficiaries are given a 
voucher. Very often, that voucher limits them to procuring only that 
brand of formula specified on the voucher itself, which, in many 
instances, might be out of stock. This would eliminate that problem.
  Keeping American infants fed should be one of the least controversial 
proposals imaginable, especially because this is something that can be 
done easily. We can bring about almost immediate relief to these 
American parents and especially to their babies, just by not causing 
the problem anymore or, at least, waiting for a few months before 
causing this problem again.
  In the meantime, the hope and the expectation is that the American 
formula industry can retool, revamp, and get back in the practice of 
producing in sufficient quantities that they will be able to meet the 
demand, but we need 6 months in order to do that.
  American babies are going hungry and the Federal Government is the 
problem. The Federal Government is causing these babies to starve and 
otherwise suffer.
  My FORMULA Act will help solve the formula crisis and ensure that 
American babies do not go unfed.
  Look, there is a reason why we see this crisis here, but not in any 
of our neighbor countries, not in any of our peer countries. No, the 
crisis exists here because this is a feature of U.S. law. We can fix 
this problem. We can help solve this crisis today. We can make sure 
Americans babies' cries do not go unanswered. We can and must pass my 
FORMULA Act.
  So, as if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the 
Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 372, S. 
4261; that the bill be considered read a third time and passed; and 
that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the 
table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. CASEY. Madam President, I rise to object to the Senator from 
Utah's request.
  I understand his concern and the concern of the people in both 
parties, both sides of the aisle here in the Senate, to take action on 
this infant formula challenge that so many families are suffering 
through right now. The unfortunate part about this proposal is that 
this will put babies at risk in ways that we don't even fully 
understand right now.
  There is bipartisan concern, and the evidence for that is the action 
of committees--bipartisan work in several committees, including the 
Agriculture Committee as well as the Health, Education, Labor, and 
Pensions Committee--bipartisan work to meet this crisis. And the focus 
of that work has been to get formula on shelves as soon as possible.
  It is important to remember how our Nation's formula crisis began. 
Abbott's recall--the manufacturer--the recall and the closure came 
after as many as nine infants died from contaminated formula. That is 
how this started, contaminated formula.
  Now, we can and we should get to the bottom of the abject failures 
that led to contaminated formula hitting the shelves. I have been 
working on this for months--many months before this crisis came to a 
head--but we can't forget our top priority here when it comes to 
protecting infants. We have got to keep our Nation's most vulnerable, 
these infants, safe.
  And it is pretty clear that the Food and Drug Administration bears 
responsibility for dropping the ball in so many ways in terms of 
inspections, but still, even despite that failure, the FDA standards 
are the best in the world.
  As I mentioned, the Agriculture and HELP Committees have already done 
bipartisan work. And I think when you saw the hearings that took place, 
especially in the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, 
there was bipartisan condemnation of the Food and Drug Administration 
and bipartisan calls for accountability at the Food and Drug 
Administration. And they should be hit very hard in terms of the 
accountability that should be imposed and must be imposed on the FDA. 
Unfortunately, this bill will completely disregard the FDA standards 
for safety which would put our children at risk.
  I would also mention the HELP Committee's work marking up a bill last 
week, an FDA bill, with amendments allowing importation during the 
shortage with appropriate guardrails to ensure formula is safe for our 
Nation's infants. These bipartisan amendments represent a more 
appropriate path forward than this approach today to limit the FDA's 
ability to protect our infants.
  Now is not the time to completely abandon safety standards. We need 
to do everything we can to get formula back on shelves, but we can't 
compromise safety at any cost.
  Here are just some examples. Go to the FDA's website under the Food 
and Drug Administration's Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition. 
Here are a few examples from their database.
  In July 2016, a 4-week-old baby in the United States was fed a stage 
1 infant milk product approved in nearly all the countries described in 
the Senator's bill but not in the United States. After consuming the 
formula, the baby experienced diarrhea, fever, vomiting, and lethargy. 
The baby ended up in the emergency room where he was diagnosed with a 
salmonella infection.
  Second example, January 2017: A 1-month-old baby was similarly 
poisoned by a product approved by the countries in this bill but not 
legally marketed in the United States, and that baby began vomiting.
  In January 2019, a 5-month-old began experiencing upper abdominal 
pain and diarrhea after consuming another such product. That is just a 
small example.
  These concerns are why the American Academy of Pediatrics for years 
has warned against importing formula from Europe. The Academy has 
published articles highlighting the dangers of buying imported baby 
formulas and advising against doing so. So despite all this, the 
Senator and others want to go forward with this bill.
  Here is the good news--the only good news in the short run. Here is 
the good news. We don't have to compromise safety standards to increase 
the supply.
  We already know that the administration's Operation Fly Formula is 
bringing formula into the United States at a pretty rapid clip--32 
flights, 19 million 8-ounce bottle equivalents of formula. That is not 
the end of it. The FDA right now is using enforcement discretion to 
allow the importation of additional select formula through normal 
distribution channels, bolstering the domestic supply of safe and 
nutritious formula by over 220 million 8-ounce bottle equivalents. Add 
the two of them together, and you have almost 240 million bottles, many 
of which have already been imported safely.
  The administration is also taking other steps to increase formula 
production domestically by invoking the Defense Production Act to 
prioritize critical ingredients and manufacturing supplies for infant 
formula production.

  So steps are being taken, but we cannot--when we are invoking these 
powers of the executive branch or enacting legislation, we cannot 
compromise on safety. We have to have the highest safety standards in 
the world, which we do, and we have got to make sure that we adhere to 
those safety standards.
  So I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ossoff). Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I appreciate the insight and the always 
thoughtful counsel of my distinguished friend and colleague, the 
Senator from Pennsylvania. I always enjoy working with

[[Page S3063]]

him. He is a voice of reason and is a delight to work with.
  I do feel compelled to respond to a few of his points. Now, yes, it 
is true, there are ambitious plans to fly formula over. They used the 
Defense Production Act to do that, to have the government to act. And 
the ambitious plans that he describes have yet to materialize. What we 
have to look at is the bottles that are available now, that have been 
flown over now, that are here now as a result of that program, is about 
13 million bottles. Do you know what the average daily consumption of 
formula is in America? Nine million. So this buys us a day and a half 
of formula--a day and a half--and it is still not solving the problem. 
So that is not a solution.
  As to the objection related to the FDA's regs, he points to the 
safety concerns and highlights a few adverse incident reports not 
necessarily linked to the formula itself but things that people 
experienced as they were switching formulas. A lot of the symptoms that 
he described--all of them, in fact, as I understand it--including 
lethargy, diarrhea, and some of those have been linked to babies 
switching formula. So, yes, when a baby switches formula, whether it is 
from one American brand to another or an American brand to a European 
brand, it is not uncommon during this transition period for babies to 
react that way.
  Now, I wish--we wish--that it wasn't necessary for them to switch to 
begin with. This was unnecessary to make them switch. In fact, another 
point that I need to refute that he made at the outset about formula 
being responsible for the contamination, for the food-borne illness, it 
was, in fact, not the formula itself that caused it. In fact, an FDA 
investigation revealed that it wasn't the formula. It was a source of 
bottled water that had itself been contaminated, and it was that 
bottled water that the parents were mixing with the formula that turned 
out to be contaminated, by no fault of their own but also by no fault 
of the manufacturer. So we have got to keep straight exactly what 
happened here and what didn't happen.
  Finally, with regard to the safety risks, I understand this, and it 
is important that we be safe in doing this. We have to remember these 
are countries from which we currently import pharmaceutical products 
because we trust that their equivalent of the FDA is safe and is 
effective. So if we don't trust them with respect to baby formula, I 
would submit that we shouldn't trust them elsewhere. But in fact, we 
can trust them in these areas. None of those adverse incident reports 
that were reported, to my knowledge, have been linked to a defect or a 
contamination in the formula itself.
  Finally, it is important to remember that we have a massive health 
crisis faced by these babies who are unable to get formula. Children 
are being hospitalized because they are dehydrated. These can have 
lasting consequences. They are occurring at a time when the baby's 
brain development is on a very critical timeline. You don't want to 
interrupt that. You don't want a supply chain disruption to lead to a 
disruption in the baby's developmental growth.
  So it is unfortunate that my friend and distinguished colleague, the 
Senator from Pennsylvania, has objected to this very reasonable, 
rational, sensible response that lists the government's impediments. I 
wish this were not the case because this would deliver meaningful 
reform, unlike the 13 million bottles--the day and a half's worth of 
formula that has been brought over to date through the Defense 
Production Act efforts that he described--this would actually solve the 
problem. And it would solve it for at least 6 months, long enough for 
our domestic production capabilities to resume.
  So it is unfortunate. I wish that were not the case. But in the 
spirit of comity and compromise, I will modify my request.
  Again, the FORMULA Act would have included these three legs, a 
regulatory component lifting the regulatory restrictions, an import 
tariff restriction, and also lifting some restrictions in the WIC 
Program.
  So I am going to counteroffer with another amendment that would 
remove the waiver of the FDA regulations for the imported formula. 
That, after all, is the concern he expressed, and so that should allow 
us to deal with it. It would keep the tariff and the WIC waivers from 
the FORMULA Act intact and therefore shouldn't raise any concerns not 
addressed by my friend and distinguished colleague.

  And so, Mr. President, as if in legislative session, I ask unanimous 
consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of 
Calendar No. 372, S. 4261; further, I ask that the Lee substitute 
amendment at the desk be considered and agreed to; that the bill, as 
amended, be considered read a third time and passed, and that the 
motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I object.
  Let me walk through why. My friend from Utah, in the spirit to try to 
work something out here, is offering a counterproposal.
  The problem that I have with this is the amendment--now we are 
talking about the Department of Agriculture, which plays a role here. I 
will get to that in a moment.
  But in this case, the amendment would direct this Agency, the 
Department of Agriculture, to allow formula to be included in the 
Women, Infants, and Children's nutrition program that does not meet 
USDA standards. So now, we have a concern that I initially raised about 
FDA standards. Now, we have USDA standards for safety and nutritional 
adequacy.
  I would also add that this amendment is unnecessary because of action 
that was taken by the leaders of the Committee on Agriculture, 
Nutrition, and Forestry. That committee passed a bipartisan bill, the 
Access to Baby Formula Act, that the President just signed into law. 
This already provides the Agency, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, 
with the discretion it needs to expand the products available to WIC 
parents and babies--right now that is the law--while also continuing to 
meet those high nutritional needs of the babies.
  So, again, the concerns here are standards--safety standards--for 
those infants.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
  The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I find this, too, unfortunate. I wish we 
could adopt all three of these reforms; again, we have a regulatory 
reform, an import tax reform, and a WIC reform. He has now expressed 
objections to the regulatory reform and the WIC reform.
  So, in the spirit of comity and cooperation and compromise, I would 
like to modify again, and I will take out the WIC restrictions--the WIC 
component of the bill--and leave only the tariff waiver. That, at 
least, would remove some of the protectionist problems that we have got 
in place that is currently prohibiting people from being able to import 
this stuff, leaving it available really only to wealthy, well-connected 
parents who know how to find this stuff and can pay the higher price 
for it. This would at least allow people to buy it in stores if we 
could lift that restriction and do so in larger quantities while 
adhering to the labeling and other regulatory requirements.
  So, Mr. President, as if in legislative session, I ask unanimous 
consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of 
Calendar No. 372, S. 4261; further, I ask that the Lee substitute 
amendment at the desk be considered and agreed to; that the bill, as 
amended, be considered read a third time and passed; and that the 
motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I object, in this case, on much more 
limited grounds. Here is the reason: The Senator from Utah is trying to 
work something out here, and we appreciate that.
  The Democratic side has not had the opportunity yet to review this 
amendment so we would seek, in the interest of comity, more time to 
review it. And on that basis, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I find it most unfortunate that, as American 
babies are starving and are literally being admitted to hospitals for 
dehydration and malnutrition because of a

[[Page S3064]]

government-created problem, we can't get to a solution here.
  I am determined to find one, and I am determined not to take no for 
an answer. We have to get to yes on that. To that end, I would like to 
modify my last request and shorten it down from 180 days--a 6-month 
suspension--to a 90-day suspension. This is the exact timeframe that 
mirrors the Biden administration's proposed time window for gas tax 
alleviation. The President has raised this and has asked us to act on 
that immediately. Look, I happen to think baby formula is a whole lot 
more important and urgent than gasoline. We can at least do this. So I 
am going to modify my request to move it down to just 90 days. We 
should be able to do that for 90 days. I am certain that we can.
  Mr. President, as if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent 
that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 
372, S. 4261; further, that the Lee substitute amendment at the desk be 
considered and agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be considered read 
a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be 
considered made and laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I object for the same narrow reason, which 
is that the Democratic side has not had the opportunity to review this 
amendment. We will do that on both this amendment and the prior 
amendment and see where we are. On that basis, I object.
  I will also add for the record, on the debate overall, I think my 
friend is expressing a real concern that both sides have. It is not as 
if we just arrived here today to start talking about this issue. As I 
have said for months now, the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 
Committee, in a bipartisan way, and the Committee on Agriculture, 
Nutrition, and Forestry, in a bipartisan way, have been working on 
these issues. So to suggest that somehow the debate just started today 
and that neither side is doing enough, I think is not accurate. Both 
sides are concerned about this. Both Houses and both parties are very 
concerned about it. It is a real crisis. The FDA should be held 
accountable. As I said earlier, it should be hit hard for this, but we 
can't compromise safety standards, and that is the reason for my 
objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
  The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I appreciate the thoughts expressed by my 
friend and distinguished colleague, the Senator from Pennsylvania. I 
share this concern and this desire to see this worked out and worked 
out on a bipartisan basis. I think it is important.
  It is true that people have been working on it. They have been 
working on it now for the better part of a month and a half. Yet 
nothing has happened. Now, I understand that Rome wasn't built in a 
day. Significant legislative reforms are not usually enacted very 
quickly. Well, they are in some places, and we are experiencing some of 
that this week, but that is a different issue altogether. I understand 
that it takes time, on many occasions, to develop a legislative 
solution. This is not one of those issues. This is just not that 
complicated.
  I appreciate the fact that people are considering it. I appreciate 
the fact that my friend and colleague, the Senator from Pennsylvania, 
is willing to try to clear this on the Democratic side. I hope and 
expect that one of the four alternatives that I have proposed today--
each in the spirit of comity and compromise and as something that 
should be acceptable to both political parties--has got to get there.
  There are issues on which we are always going to struggle to find 
solutions. This one isn't hard. We can do this. We can fix this. 
American babies are going hungry because of the mismanagement within 
our country.
  Yes, I share the Senator's belief that we have got to hold the FDA 
accountable, but I feel like we are in the same position as the unarmed 
English bobby--but with the FDA lately. The unarmed English bobby, 
being unarmed and upon seeing the commission of a crime, shouts, in a 
charming British accent, ``Stop or I will yell `stop' again.'' We need 
to actually do something to force this issue because people are going 
hungry--babies are going hungry--and there are dire, long-lasting 
consequences.
  I hope and expect that we will solve this before the end of the week. 
This issue is not going away, and neither am I.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 1658

  Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for us to take 5 
minutes to address the PUMP for Nursing Mothers Act.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, it was 10 years ago that we all got 
together and passed a bill to help women, when they go back to work, to 
be able to pump breast milk at work. We have 80 percent of women who 
are having babies today striving to breastfeed. Half of the women who 
have babies are going back to work within a very short period of time, 
and the only way they can breastfeed is to pump milk at work. This was 
a beautiful, bipartisan vision, and it was Dr. Coburn who educated us 
all about the tremendous benefits of breast milk for babies.
  But, in that work we did 10 years ago, we left out a significant 
group of women in America--those who work according to a manager's 
salary rather than according to wage. So now we have a bill that has 
come out of committee, by voice vote, to fix that, and here we are 
talking about baby formula.
  Truly, what is better, in terms of baby formula, than a mother's 
milk?
  Let us stand with the babies; let us stand with the mothers; let us 
stand with the families and fix this so that every single mother in 
America who wishes to breastfeed can do so.
  As if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 65, S. 1658; 
further, that the committee-reported substitute be withdrawn and that 
the Merkley substitute amendment at the desk be considered and agreed 
to; that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and 
passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid 
upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Wyoming.
  Ms. LUMMIS. Mr. President, in reserving the right to object, the PUMP 
Act is noble in nature, but it is an economy-sized approach without 
flexibilities for some nonstationary workplaces.
  This legislation would require that all modes of transportation that 
have employees, including railcars, be retrofitted with private, non-
bathroom enclosures to allow for breastfeeding. It would also require 
employees reasonable break time for an employee to express breast milk.
  To be clear, I recognize the need for breastfeeding women to do just 
that. However, many women in this industry are quite literally keeping 
the trains running on time. Entire supply chains could be disrupted 
because of an overly broad and burdensome regulation that is not 
crafted to fit this industry. I can't believe I am the only one who 
sees the pitfalls in this. Regulations like this risk inadvertently 
doing more harm to working women than helping them.
  I understand what it is like to juggle the need to feed your child 
while also working to provide for them. My daughter is working while 
raising two little boys.
  This whole thing just makes no sense. That is why I am working on an 
amendment that would recognize the unique situation that working moms 
in the transportation sector face. It is my hope we can work with the 
bill's sponsors to solve this small issue. Until that time, we don't 
need to exacerbate our supply chain crisis by implementing regulations 
that do not actually protect or aid women in this industry.
  For that reason, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
  The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, a huge thanks to my colleague from 
Alaska, Senator Murkowski, who has partnered with me in this effort.
  We have worked through the flexibility needed in every setting, and I

[[Page S3065]]

must say the railroads weren't the folks who came to us and said they 
needed help. In the past, we worked out every possible way to address 
this for fast-food locations and for all kinds of industries that said, 
``We need special arrangements,'' and we worked them out. We have 
worked them out in this version for the airlines.
  It really is beyond the world of reasonableness to keep saying and to 
keep finding some excuse that we can't--with the innovation, the 
inventiveness, and the ingenuity of Americans--find the ability for a 
woman to be able to express breast milk. We have solved this problem in 
much more difficult situations. I am very disappointed that, today, 
because of my colleague from Wyoming's objection, the women, the 
mothers, the babies, and the families, lose. Let's win next time.


                      Vote on Motion to Discharge

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
discharge.
  The yeas and nays have been previously ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from North Dakota (Mr. Cramer), the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Shelby), 
and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).
  The result was announced--yeas 50, nays 47, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 238 Ex.]

                                YEAS--50

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coons
     Cortez Masto
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Gillibrand
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Hickenlooper
     Hirono
     Kaine
     Kelly
     King
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Lujan
     Manchin
     Markey
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Murphy
     Murray
     Ossoff
     Padilla
     Peters
     Reed
     Rosen
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Sinema
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warnock
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--47

     Barrasso
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Braun
     Burr
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagerty
     Hawley
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Inhofe
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Lankford
     Lee
     Lummis
     Marshall
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Portman
     Risch
     Romney
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Tuberville
     Wicker
     Young

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Cramer
     Shelby
     Toomey
  The motion was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kelly). The majority leader.

                          ____________________