[Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 10 (Friday, January 17, 2025)]
[Senate]
[Pages S237-S241]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
LEGISLATIVE SESSION
______
LAKEN RILEY ACT--Resumed
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
resume consideration of S. 5, which the clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 5) to require the Secretary of Homeland Security
to take into custody aliens who have been charged in the
United States with theft, and for other purposes.
Pending:
Thune (for Ernst/Grassley) amendment No. 8, to include
crimes resulting in death or serious bodily injury to the
list of offenses that, if committed by an inadmissible alien,
require mandatory detention.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The President pro tempore.
Commodity Credit Corporation
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I will speak for a couple minutes in
morning business.
I am an advocate, through the farm program, of having an absolute
limit on the amount of money that one farmer can get from the farm
program so that we target toward medium- and small-sized farmers so we
don't subsidize very big farmers to get bigger. I got such a
legislation through the House and the Senate in previous Congresses,
and, would you believe it, even though it was exactly the same language
in both Houses and that isn't supposed to be touched by the conferees,
the conferees diluted it to not a very meaningful limit.
Well, I am still concerned about limits. So today, I come to the
floor to say, as one of its last official acts, the Biden Department of
Agriculture decided to disregard the wishes of Congress by using its
authority under section 5 of the Commodity Credit Corporation's charter
to increase payment limits for specialty crop farmers from $125,000 to
$900,000 under the Marketing Assistance for Specialty Crops Program.
This increase cost American taxpayers over $650 million without a
vote of the Congress. Had this been the desire of Congress, it would
have been included in the continuing resolution passed just weeks
before.
Article I of the Constitution is very clear. Congress has the power
of the purse. It is time that we stop the abuse of that power by the
executive branch, whether that is Republican or Democrat.
So getting back to what I said when I opened my remarks. I am going
to be pursuing in the 5-year farm bill, this year, that same cap on
what one family farmer can get, and we are going to take additional
action to make sure that we reform the Commodity Credit Corporation's
law to make sure that the executive branch Secretary of Agriculture
does not have the authority to just willy-nilly put out money at the
drop of a hat.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
[[Page S238]]
Recognition of the Majority Leader
The majority leader is recognized.
S. 5
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, the first bill that a new majority
considers is an indication of its priorities. The American people are
rightly concerned about the illegal immigration crisis in this country,
and they sent a clear message in November that they want to see it
addressed. That is why the Republican majorities in the House and the
Senate have made it our first order of business to take up the Laken
Riley Act. This bill is a small but critical step for resolving the
Biden border crisis--the first of many, I might add.
The Laken Riley Act is not a complicated bill. It says that an
illegal immigrant involved in a theft-related crime must be detained.
That means, if someone who is in the country illegally--in other words,
who has already broken our laws--commits a robbery, he or she will be
detained.
If this bill had already been law, the illegal immigrant who killed
Laken Riley would not have been on the streets the day that he murdered
her. When he was cited for shoplifting, less than 5 months before that
day, he would have been detained, and Laken Riley might still be alive
today. That is what we are trying to do here: prevent another tragedy.
Unfortunately, it seems that even a simple and straightforward bill
to detain criminal illegal immigrants is too much for some on the left.
Some of our Democratic colleagues have spent the week searching for a
reason--any reason--to justify voting against this bill.
For starters, we have heard that this bill would cover too many
illegal immigrants. The admission that there are too many individuals
on our streets who have committed a crime after coming into the country
illegally is an argument for this bill, not against it.
We have also heard that Immigration and Customs Enforcement lacks the
detention capacity for the number of individuals that this bill will
require to be detained. Well, if resources are scarce, the answer is to
provide those resources. The answer is not to let criminals continue to
walk our streets.
Republicans believe that keeping criminal illegal aliens off our
street is a good investment, and we are currently working on a bill
that will provide ICE with additional agents and additional capacity.
We have also been told that this bill will overwhelm ICE, such that
there won't be enough space to detain violent criminals. Once again,
this is not an argument against the bill. It is an argument for giving
ICE more resources and for quickly deporting criminals.
These arguments say a lot more about Democrats' unwillingness to
crack down on illegal immigration than they say about this bill.
Look at the vote that we took on Wednesday. We adopted Senator
Cornyn's amendment to require illegal immigrants who assault a police
officer to be detained. Staggeringly, under current law, this is not
the case. But 2 days ago, 25 of our Democratic colleagues could not
even bring themselves to support detaining an illegal immigrant who
assaults a police officer. That is right. More than half of the
Democrats in the U.S. Senate apparently don't believe we should have to
detain these individuals.
I think that is out of step with the American people. For sure, it is
out of step with the American people.
The American people want to see an end to open borders and the chaos
they have brought to communities around the country--communities like
Athens, GA, where Laken Riley was murdered last February.
Laken Riley's death was a tragedy, and it was preventable. The bill
we are considering today may prevent a similar tragedy from affecting
another family.
Laken's loved ones have had to suffer the heartbreak of losing their
daughter, their sister, their friend--a bright light in their lives.
But her mother and stepfather said of this bill:
There is no greater gift that could be given to her and our
country than to continue her legacy by saving lives through
this bill.
Saving lives, that is what this is about.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Recognition of the Minority Leader
The Democratic leader is recognized.
SALT
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, first, a few words on SALT. A few days
ago, the House Freedom Caucus made a ridiculous proposal that Congress
should extend the SALT caps after they are set to expire this year by
imposing a new cap on New York businesses, large and small, and the
businesses in many other States. The proposal by the House Freedom
Caucus is ridiculous, and I will come back to the floor at 11 a.m.,
after the vote, with more to say about it.
Israel
Mr. President, on the Middle East and Israel, this week has been a
long time coming for the families of the Israeli hostages, for
civilians in Gaza, and for countless people across the world.
A little over an hour ago, Israel's Security Cabinet voted to approve
the ceasefire that negotiators announced earlier this week. It will
soon go to the full Cabinet for approval.
Fifteen months after Hamas's heinous attack on October 7, it is
welcome news that we are now at the brink of a cease-fire agreement
that will reduce violence in Gaza, reduce harm to innocent civilians,
and free many of the hostages. This cease-fire marks a hopeful turning
point for Israel, for the Palestinian people, and particularly for the
families of the hostages who have waited so long in agony. We will not
rest until every hostage comes home.
This agreement would not have been possible without months of
steadfast diplomacy by the United States and our allies in the region
and could not have happened and would not have happened until the
threats of Hamas and other Iranian proxies like Hezbollah were
radically reduced, which, thankfully, they have been.
I want to thank President Biden and everyone in his administration
who persistently negotiated for a year to make this agreement possible.
I thank and honor all the families of the hostages, especially those
who live in New York, for their courage and perseverance and boundless
grace amid so much grief. Among the hostages are many New Yorkers:
Omer, Edan, Sagui, Itay, Keith, Gad, and Judi.
Getting to know the families of the hostages, hearing them share
stories about their loved ones in captivity, about their hopes and
their fears and frustrations and their perseverance will be something I
will remember forever. Today, I promise them this: We will keep working
to make sure every hostage comes home.
Now, the task is to ensure that this temporary agreement paves the
way to a lasting peace. This first phase is critical for bringing home
all the hostages and preserving Israel's right to defend itself. We
must make sure that the terrorists of Hamas can never again pose a
threat to Israel or to the region. We must also do everything we can to
deliver immediate and lifesaving relief to civilians in Gaza. For 15
months, they have suffered unimaginable destruction. It will take all
parties working together to make sure the Palestinian people can
rebuild their lives with dignity, with security, and outside the
terrible shadow that Hamas cast over the Gaza Strip, including using so
many innocent civilians as human shields.
I urge the Biden administration and incoming Trump administration to
work together with all parties at the negotiating table to ensure the
deal is implemented and followed through in its entirety.
S. 5
Mr. President, next, this morning, the Senate is scheduled to hold a
cloture vote on the Laken Riley Act. A week ago, I joined with the
majority of my Democratic colleagues in voting yes to bring this bill
to the floor on the motion to proceed. We told Republicans we wanted to
have a serious and productive and fruitful debate on this legislation,
with the chance to vote on amendments to modify the bill.
Democrats filed many amendments to the bill, but unfortunately our
Republican colleagues and the Republican
[[Page S239]]
leader didn't reach an agreement with us. Two nights ago, we voted on
two amendments, one from each party, and no more. Unfortunately,
without more changes to address deficiencies in the bill, I will be
voting no.
We Democrats want to see our broken immigration system fixed. We
worked with Republicans last year on the strongest immigration bill in
a decade. While I do not support this particular bill, I stand ready to
work with both sides to pass smart, effective, tough, and commonsense
legislation to secure our borders and reform our immigration system.
Cabinet Nominations
Mr. President, on Cabinet nominations, and Mr. Ratcliffe, if one
thing is clear from this week's Cabinet hearings, it is that Donald
Trump is not building a Cabinet to serve the American people; he is
building a Cabinet to serve the special, big, powerful interests. The
American people deserve to know if the President-elect's nominees will
bring costs down and protect America or cut sweetheart deals for the
most well-off Americans while making America less safe.
Yesterday, I met with John Ratcliffe, the President-elect's nominee
for CIA Director. I raised my concerns about some of his positions and
challenged him to be rock-ribbed when it comes to the integrity of the
CIA, a place where facts, not lies, must prevail for the security of
America.
I also told Mr. Ratcliffe about my very grave concerns regarding the
nomination of Tulsi Gabbard for Director of National Intelligence
because I believe her tenure could be colossally disruptive to our
intelligence Agencies, where so many thousands work so hard, and many
risk their lives to protect us. I told Mr. Ratcliffe that I thought it
would be best if he told President-elect Trump that Tulsi Gabbard
should not have the job. I also told Mr. Ratcliffe that he needs to be
rock-ribbed and strong when she presents falsities about intelligence,
which, given her past, she almost will inevitably do. Unfortunately, I
found his answers about Ms. Gabbard to be insufficient.
Candidly, Mr. President, the truth is that many of the President-
elect's nominees are just not fit for the job, not just Ms. Gabbard. As
we continue with hearings next week on important issues like U.N.
Ambassador, Secretary of Agriculture, and Secretary of the Army,
Democrats will continue to hold the President-elect's nominees' feet to
the fire to show the American people who Donald Trump's nominees are
really fighting for.
Will Donald Trump's nominees focus on cutting costs or will they be
more interested in cutting sweetheart deals for Big Business? Will they
protect our communities or will they focus on protecting special
interests? Will they serve middle-class and working families or will
they serve the swamp? It seems all too likely the wrong answer on each
of these questions might be very, very real.
Should the time come that some of these nominees fail on the job--
which, given their lack of qualifications, sadly, seems likely--
Democrats will continue to make it clear that there were red flags all
along.
TikTok
Mr. President, finally, on TikTok, we know a lot of things are up in
the air with the TikTok ban scheduled to go into effect this weekend,
but everyone--the Biden administration, the incoming Trump
administration, even the Supreme Court--should continue working to find
a way to find an American buyer for TikTok so we can both free the app
from any influence and control from the Chinese Communist Party and
keep TikTok going, which will preserve the jobs of millions of
creators.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ricketts). The Senator from Alabama.
S. 5
Mrs. BRITT. Mr. President, over the past week and a half, the world's
greatest deliberative body has discussed and debated the Laken Riley
Act. I have taken to the Senate floor multiple times, as have several
of my Senate colleagues, to impress upon our fellow lawmakers just how
important it is to pass this bill to protect American families, to keep
criminals off our streets.
The reason we are all here today is to consider the Laken Riley Act.
And, really, it is out of a sense of duty, a moral obligation to honor
Laken, her life, and her legacy--a life cut far too short at the hands
of an illegal alien, who committed the most heinous crime we can
possibly imagine, and a legacy that continues and will continue to live
on.
Laken Riley, as my colleagues know, was an exceptional 22-year-old.
She was a beloved daughter, an extraordinary friend, a shining beacon
of light who truly lived out her faith. She was a nursing student who
wanted to help people. She had big goals and aspirations. She had hopes
and dreams to strive for over the course of her life that will never
have an opportunity to become a reality, and that is because of the
Biden-Harris open border policies.
Her killer was allowed to roam free in our country despite having
been apprehended at the border and committing multiple crimes after
being paroled into the U.S. interior. Then he reached the darkest
depths of criminality and took Laken from this world 330 days ago.
Last week, on this same floor, I read the words of Allyson and John
Phillips, Laken's mother and stepfather. They described in
heartbreaking detail the joy Laken brought to everyone fortunate enough
to know her in their lives. They said:
Not only did the people who knew and loved Laken lose a
beautiful soul. But so did our world.
This didn't have to happen. Jose Ibarra shouldn't have been anywhere
near Laken on February 22, 2024. He should have never been in the
United States. And once he had committed a crime on multiple occasions,
he should have been detained by ICE until he was removed from our
country. If he had, Laken would still be with us today. That is why we
need to pass the Laken Riley Act.
As elected representatives, our greatest responsibilities are to
listen to the will of the American people and to keep the American
people safe and secure. And on November 5 of last year, the American
people made their voices heard, and they were very clear. They told all
of us in Washington that they would no longer put up with the crimes
like the one Jose Ibarra committed, the one that stole Laken from her
loved ones.
The American people delivered a verdict, and they deserve results. We
have irresponsible, open border, soft-on-crime policies, and that must
end. It is our duty to turn their cries into action, to respond to the
clear message that they sent, to honor the charge they delivered. That
is the purpose of American democracy. And just as the purpose of our
democratic Republic is to turn the will of the people from desire to
law, the purpose of our government--the most basic function our country
has--is to protect its citizens.
That is what the Laken Riley Act does. It will help ensure other
families will not have to endure the pain a criminal illegal alien
inflicted on Laken and her loved ones. This bill will prevent countless
nightmares so daughters like Laken can go on a jog and not have their
dreams forever stolen from them.
I am proud to have bipartisan support for this bill, and I am
grateful for Senators John Fetterman and Ruben Gallego, who have
decided to sign on as cosponsors. I am heartened to see so many of my
Democratic colleagues come out in favor of this commonsense,
straightforward legislation.
But we can't lose focus now. We are so close to the finish line, so
close to delivering results for the American people, for the voters who
sent us here, and for Laken and her family.
So now, to my fellow Senators, let's do right by the American people.
Let's heed their call, help keep them safe, and pass this bill.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 2 minutes to
speak to this bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MERKLEY. We are now entering the vote that is referred to as
cloture--or close debate--but we can still consider amendments by
unanimous consent.
I came to the floor yesterday to point out that there is a deep flaw
related to children in this bill, and both the majority leader and the
floor leader have
[[Page S240]]
expressed support for an amendment process. So I am asking to work with
me and with my leadership that we might examine this challenge.
The challenge is specifically that children, without being charged,
without being convicted, are required to be arrested and imprisoned--or
not arrested but imprisoned after an arrest with no chance for appeal.
My colleagues expressed the belief that the Flores agreement somehow
provides protection, but the experts on Flores have said that is
incorrect because a bill trumps an agreement, it trumps a rule, and
Flores was about children coming to the border, not children living in
our community.
Furthermore, a family with a parent who is required mandatory
imprisonment without appeal is suddenly swept away from their children.
Realize we should care about all those children left without a parent
at their house, but that is both citizen and noncitizen children. So
let's not pretend this flaw only affects folks who are undocumented; it
affects our citizen children as well. But, again, we should care about
both sets of children thriving.
So I ask help from the majority leader and the floor leader. If we
have a dispute on legal interpretation, let's bring those lawyers
together and understand if they are ships passing in the night or is
there a misunderstanding that we can correct or clarify.
With that appeal for additional amendments by unanimous consent,
which I will continue to negotiate for, I thank you, Mr. President.
Cloture Motion
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before
the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
The bill clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
do hereby move to bring to a close debate on Calendar No. 1,
S. 5, a bill to require the Secretary of Homeland Security to
take into custody aliens who have been charged in the United
States with theft, and for other purposes.
John Thune, John Barrasso, Steve Daines, Bill Cassidy,
Katie Britt, Mike Lee, Kevin Cramer, Ted Budd, Jim
Banks, Dave McCormick, John Cornyn, John Hoeven, Rick
Scott of Florida, Roger Marshall, Tommy Tuberville, Ron
Johnson, Dan Sullivan.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum
call has been waived.
The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on S. 5, a
bill to require the Secretary of Homeland Security to take into custody
aliens who have been charged in the United States with theft, and for
other purposes, shall be brought to a close?
The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. BARRASSO. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the
Senator from Kentucky (Mr. McConnell).
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Coons) and
the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fetterman) are necessarily absent.
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 61, nays 35, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 5 Leg.]
YEAS--61
Banks
Barrasso
Blackburn
Boozman
Britt
Budd
Capito
Cassidy
Collins
Cornyn
Cortez Masto
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Curtis
Daines
Ernst
Fischer
Gallego
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hassan
Hawley
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Johnson
Justice
Kelly
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
Lummis
Marshall
McCormick
Moran
Moreno
Mullin
Murkowski
Ossoff
Paul
Peters
Ricketts
Risch
Rosen
Rounds
Rubio
Schmitt
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shaheen
Sheehy
Slotkin
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Tuberville
Warner
Wicker
Young
NAYS--35
Alsobrooks
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Blunt Rochester
Booker
Cantwell
Duckworth
Durbin
Gillibrand
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Kaine
Kim
King
Klobuchar
Lujan
Markey
Merkley
Murphy
Murray
Padilla
Reed
Sanders
Schatz
Schiff
Schumer
Smith
Van Hollen
Warnock
Warren
Welch
Whitehouse
Wyden
NOT VOTING--3
Coons
Fetterman
McConnell
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 61, the nays are
35.
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in
the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
The Senator from Texas.
Student Loans
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, yesterday, I highlighted some of President
Biden's final actions as he leaves--parting gifts, if you will. Today,
I would like to highlight another of his parting gifts. And I use that
in parentheses or with quotations because they really are a slap in the
face for the American people and American taxpayers.
This past Monday, the Department of Education canceled student loans
for 150,000 borrowers. This is not really a cancellation of those
loans. It is just a transfer of the responsibility to taxpayers and
wiping the slate clean for people who actually agreed to borrow this
money so that they can attend schools.
Then on Wednesday, just 2 days ago, the Biden administration
announced an additional cancellation of $4.5 billion for 261,000
borrowers.
The President's actions this week and the last week of his Presidency
brings this total taxpayer bailout to $183.6 billion.
Now, remember in June of 2023, the Supreme Court ruled in a 6-to-3
decision that the Department of Education lacks the authority--the
legal authority--to implement these across-the-board student loan
cancellations. But the Biden administration, never to be one that
actually obeys the law, has continued to ignore the ruling of the
Supreme Court, issuing blank check after blank check to borrowers to
let them off the hook from paying bills that they agreed to pay in the
first instance.
This policy is not just illegal; it is profoundly unfair. It is
unfair to the families who have sacrificed and saved to send their own
children to college. It is unfair to the students who worked multiple
jobs during college to avoid accruing large amounts of debt. And it is
unfair to all the graduates who have worked hard and paid off their
loans. Finally, it is unfair to Americans who have forgone a college
education because they couldn't afford the cost. And now they have to
pick up the tab for those for whom President Biden has canceled their
debt.
Any family with a mortgage, a car payment, or credit card debt knows
there is really no such thing as canceling the debt. Somebody is going
to pay. Every dollar that was borrowed will, eventually, be repaid by
somebody. It is just a matter of who that someone is. And, in this
case, it is the American taxpayer.
It is really a slap in the face, a kick in the teeth--you choose your
metaphor. But it is no surprise that the American taxpayers have
rejected the direction in which President Biden and his administration
have taken the country. They voted for a new direction on November 5.
But that just makes it even more offensive that a lameduck President
would proceed full speed ahead with more student debt cancellation
after being told ``no'' by the Supreme Court and being told ``no''
again by voters on November 5.
Back in May, along with my colleagues Senator Ernst and Senator
Cassidy, I introduced a congressional resolution of disapproval that
would have overturned the Biden administration's reckless and unfair
student loan socialism. Of course, the Democratic-controlled Senate did
not bring that CRA--the Congressional Review Act--up for a vote. But
now with Republicans in the majority, I hope this is something we can
and will address.
Student loan socialism would be a great opportunity for the
Department of Government Efficiency--headed by Elon Musk and Vivek
Ramaswamy--to take a look at it because there is nothing less efficient
and more wasteful and more unfair than taking billions of dollars from
taxpayers who didn't go to college to pay for those who did and who
agreed to pay the money back but simply now will not have to do so.
The vast majority of Americans don't benefit from this student loan
socialism. And 87 percent of Americans don't have student debt; so the
13 percent who do are now foisting that responsibility on the 87
percent. If you look at
[[Page S241]]
those who do benefit, it becomes even more clear how little sense this
makes.
Even the progressive Brookings Institute pointed out that blanket
student loan forgiveness benefits those who are better off by income,
by education, and by wealth.
Unsurprisingly, those with student loans are more likely to have
higher paying jobs. If we look back at the institutions and not just
the individuals who are benefiting from these massive taxpayer
subsidies, which is what they are, we will also find that this is
anything but an efficient use of American taxpayer dollars.
Over 100 colleges and universities in the United States, including
Columbia, Cornell, Yale, and Princeton, are currently under
investigation from the Department of Education because of their
mishandling of incidents of anti-Semitism on their campuses since
October 7, 2023.
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination on the
basis of ethnicity for institutions that receive Federal funding. So
the complaints of anti-Semitism in the wake of the terrorist attacks on
Israel have in some cases amounted to violations of Federal law.
Many of these colleges and universities are rushing to enter into
settlements with the Biden administration before the Trump
administration takes office on Monday, which, of course, is not
surprising.
President Trump has made clear that taxpayer support for those
universities that failed to end anti-Semitic propaganda that has run
rampant over the past few years, that that taxpayer support will end.
Now is not the time to reward these institutions with widespread
incentives to continue raising their tuition by canceling student debt.
If we want to address the affordability of college--an important
topic--widespread student loan socialism is not the way to do it.
So as I said, for a variety of reasons, this would be a great place
for the Department of Government Efficiency to shine the light on and
for us to do something about in the coming days.
The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget pointed out that we
could save the taxpayers as much as $550 billion by reversing all of
President Biden's actions on student loan cancellation--$550 billion.
So we have our work cut out for us. But one great place to start would
be to end the Biden administration's reckless student loan socialism.
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. DURBIN. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum
call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Equal Rights Amendment
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I would like to read into the Record a
statement from President Joe Biden, issued this morning on the Equal
Rights Amendment.
He said as follows:
I have supported the Equal Rights Amendment for more than
50 years, and I have long been clear that no one should be
discriminated against based on their sex. We, as a nation,
must affirm and protect women's full equality once and for
all.
On January 27, 2020, the Commonwealth of Virginia became
the 38th state to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment.
The American Bar Association has recognized that the Equal
Rights Amendment has cleared all necessary hurdles to be
formally added to the Constitution as the 28th Amendment. I
agree with the ABA--
President Biden said--
and with leading constitutional scholars that the Equal
Rights Amendment has become part of our Constitution.
It is long past time to recognize the will of the American
people. In keeping with my oath and duty to Constitution and
country, I affirm what I believe and what three-fourths of
the States have ratified: the 28th Amendment is the law of
the land, guaranteeing all Americans equal rights and
protections under the law regardless of their sex.
Mr. President, in response to this, I issue the following statement:
The Equal Rights Amendment is literally a century in the making, and
over the years, generations of Americans have done their part to move
it forward. They have marched on Washington, they have met with
Congressmen and Senators, and as of 2020, they have crossed a crucial
threshold--ratification of the ERA in 38 States. That is the exact
number of States needed to certify it as the 28th Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution.
It is past time to explicitly prohibit discrimination based on sex in
our Constitution. The President's announcement sends an important,
overdue message to women and girls that they are equal under the law.
Mr. President, I believe this is a moment of historic importance, and
it is the culmination of a century of effort to bring equality into the
American Constitution with the 28th Amendment.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Young). Will the Senator withhold his
request?
Mr. DURBIN. I withhold my request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
SALT
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, last fall, Donald Trump went to Long
Island, NY, and claimed he would ``get SALT back.'' That is good news--
very good news--because it was precisely Donald Trump and congressional
Republicans who created the SALT cap to begin with.
These harmful policies double tax hard-working New Yorkers. They have
hurt so many middle-class families--teachers, firefighters, police
officers, construction workers--particularly in higher cost areas like
Long Island and the Hudson Valley of New York.
So it is good that Donald Trump and some Republicans have seen the
light and that they have heard from vociferous Long Islanders, and now
they are changing their minds about SALT. But let's not forget, these
costly SALT caps are set to expire at the end of the year.
So to our friends on the other side, if you actually want to lower
costs for Long Island, Hudson Valley, and other families across the
country, all you have to do is do nothing at all on SALT caps. Let them
expire, which they will right at the end of this year, and then they
are gone for good, all of them.
Yes, if Congress simply says do nothing about SALT caps, all of it
will go away, and that is what we should do. But instead of ensuring
that New Yorkers will get SALT back, the House Freedom Caucus wants to
impose a whole new round of SALT caps. They want to place new SALT caps
on New York businesses small and large and want to push an increase in
the SALT tax on New Yorkers.
The House Freedom Caucus is a group of very powerful, hard, hard
right Republicans. The House Freedom Caucus's SALT plan will increase
costs across Long Island and the Hudson Valley almost immediately.
I have got only one response to the House Freedom's SALT proposal. As
we say in Brooklyn, forget about it. Forget about it. There is no
scenario under God's green Earth that New York taxpayers will ever
accept another unfair SALT cap like the House Freedom Caucus proposes.
New York families, from Long Island to the Hudson Valley and across the
State, have suffered long enough at the hands of broken Republican tax
policies.
I will do everything I can, first, to remove the entire SALT cap tax
and, second, to never let a new proposal that for the first time
imposes the SALT cap on businesses small and large to be put into
effect. I am going to do everything I can to fight this dastardly
proposal.
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. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________