tv U.S. Senate U.S. Senate CSPAN July 28, 2021 10:29am-1:17pm EDT
>> c-spanshop.org is c-span's online store. there's a collection of c-span products. brown cc what's new. your purchase will support our nonprofit operations and your time to order the congressional directory with contact information for members of congress and the biden administration. go to c-spanshop.org. >> weekends on c-span2 are and intellectual feast. every saturday you'll find events and people that explore our nation's past on a tasty tv. on sundays booktv brings you the latest in nonfiction books and authors. it's television for serious readers. learn, , discover, explorer. weekends on c-span2. >> the senate is about the gavel in to start the day. more work on nominations is
expected with a pair of president biden's national labor relations board pics. first photo set for 11:30 a.m. eastern with further votes scheduled throughout the day. later this week the senate will vote on a $3.7 billion emergency use capital security supplemental spending bill. now life to the senate chamber on c-span2. esiding officer: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. eternal god, we find rest in the shadow of your protection. shield our lawmakers in their work with your love so that they may grow in wisdom. lord,
show them how to use today's fleeting minutes for your glory, becoming your instruments to permit your kingdom to thrive on earth. sankfy their thoughts, as they remember that because of you they live and move and have their being. we praise you this day, o god, for you are the alpha and omega, the beginning and the end. we pray in your great name. amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag
of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington, d.c., july 28, 2021. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable ben ray lujan, a senator from the state of new mexico, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: patrick j. leahy, president pro tempore. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved.
mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican are leader. mr. mcconnell: yesterday our colleagues, chairman leahy and ranking member, announced add bipartisan agreement on emergency funding for several pressing security matters. appropriations committee set out to address three key priorities. first, reimbursing the costs
incurred by the capitol police, the national guard, and other law enforcement for their assistance during and after the january 6 attack on the capitol. and providing for necessary repairs and security updates to the capitol complex. second, addressing a shortfall from the efforts to keep congress a safe and functional workplace during the pandemic this past year and a half. this is everything from p.p.e. to overtime pay for staff. and, third, some urgent support for our afghanistan partners who isised in the fight against -- assisted in the fight against terrorism, announcing to flee the deteriorating situation brought about by the administration's literally disastrous decision to abandon that country. we owe a real debt to the men and women of the capitol police,
d.c. metro police, national guard, and other agencies who helped secure and protect our workplace. we're grateful to support staff from the architect of the capitol's team to the attending physician's office, to the sergeant at arms who worked day and night keeping us safe throughout the pandemic. and we intend to keep our nation's promises to brave afghans who took great risks to help fight the terrorists. so i applaud the bipartisan work of our colleagues. i'm sure neither side finds the compromise perfect, but i believe both sides should and will agree it is absolutely necessary. now, on a different matter, the massive -- massive -- taxing and spending spree that democrats want to ram through this summer has problems that go even beyond inflation, rising costs, and
massive tax hikes. the problem is not just democrats' jaw-dropping $3.5 trillion price tag, it's also the long list of bad liberal policies that this reckless taxing-and-spending spree is supposed to purchase. i spoke yesterday about just a few of those bad ideas. they're talking about amnesty for illegal immigrants, socialist price-fixing that would leave us with fewer new prescription drugs, fewer new treatments and fewer new cures. they want to permanently change the child tax credit into welfare with no -- no -- work requirements. smuggle in big chunks of the green new deal. and in case some of this weren't enough, some democrats want to use this taxing-and-spending spree to grab control over all 50 states' election laws. i thought we just had that debate a couple weeks ago. remember, for several years now our democratic friends have
claimed that effort successive election proved that they needed to grab partisan control over our elections. win our lose, when foreign interference occurred and when it did not occur, every possible result has been claimed as proof that washington democrats should rip up our democracy's rule book and write a new one that benefits them. the latest phony justification has been the false notion that a few states' mainstream voting laws equal some sort of assault on democracy as we know it. of course that is absolutely utter nonsense. americans want it to be easily to vote and hard to cheat. voter i.d. protections are hugely popular. basic voter role maintenance is common sense. the new rule in georgia provides for absentee voting than many blue states including new york.
but the facts weren't about to stop the democrats' big lie. the absurd comparison to jim crow segregation and other kind of other horrors have continued apace. to provide a little more context about this fake hysteria, we can only look internationally. as one columnist recently observed in "the washington post," the balance struck by the state of georgia amounts to, quote, one of the most expansive voting access laws in the world. most other countries do not allow no-excuse absentee voting and drop boxes are also virtually unknown elsewhere. other democracies around the world. if georgia's elections are undemocratic, then almost all of our democratic allies are also undemocratic. if liberal activists around woke corporations believe their own rhetoric, they wouldn't stop at
boycotting and threatening state of georgia. they couldn't possibly. they'd be busy trying to disinvest -- trying to divest from most of our any tow allies and -- nato allies and essentially the rest of the entire developed world. some european countries allow mail-in voting, but most do not. we constantly hear from our socialist friends how we should be emulating norway, sweden, finland, and denmark. well, none of them allow in-country postal voting, not a one of them. bring on the boycott oz, i guess. -- bring on the boycotts, i guess. and you don't want to hear about early voting. but france, germany, italy, the u.k., ireland, not a day of in-person voting in any of those countries. none of them. that's according to an international n.g.o. that studies democracy.
so remember the texas and georgia laws codify a whole lot of early voting, mail-in voting, and lots of election-day voting. and this is supposed to be the death of democracy? some outrage on a global and historic scale? give me a break. what nonsense. even going by texas' new proposals, there will be voting by mail in paris, texas, but not in paris, france. there would be almost two weeks of in-person early voting in new berlin, texas, but zero days in berlin, germany. i'm sure democrats will be yelling at the fortune 500 to boycott europe any day now. any day now. of course, the reality is that these moving goalposts are absolutely fake.
the frantic outrage is phony. it's all meant to justify a political power grab that democrats had written and waited since years before any of these new state laws, which are supposedly prompting it. yet another awful plank that my colleagues across the aisle want to hide in the reckless taxing and spending spree they hope to ram through congress. now, one final matter. last week some of our colleagues expressed disapproval of u.s. strikes against al-shabaab terrorists in somalia. i found their views difficult to understand. al-shabaab poses a significant threat to u.s. interests. you you don't have to take my word for it. late in 2019 the leader of al-shabaab, an al qaeda-affiliated terrorist group based in somalia, said, quote, our biggest target today is the americans.
the only reason we have exerted all this effort and undertaken all this preparation today is to attack the american troops, end quote. in the assessment of the commander of u.s. africa command, general steven townsend, that's coming from, quote, the largest, wealthiest, and most violent al qaeda-associated group in the world, and the primary african violent extremist organization threat to the american interests, end quote. this is not a new threat. al-shabaab was designated a foreign terrorist organization back in 2008. its leaders declared allegiance to al qaeda in 2012, a year before their tac on the westgate mall in kenya that killed 67 people. the obama administration designated the group as an
al qaeda-associated force in 2016. that made it subject to the 2001 aumf. at the time, it was difficult but telling acknowledgment that the al qaeda terrorist threat was growing. the raid that killed bin laden had clearly not ended the threat his terrorists pose to our country. as a result of this declared and demonstrated allegiance to al qaeda, al-shabaab is clearly subject to the 2021 authorization for the use of military force. no question. president obama knew it. general townsend knows it. al-shabaab themselves tell us they want americans dead. what more, what more do the skeptics need? if our colleagues do not want the u.s. military to conduct strikes against al qaeda terrorists responsible for killing americans and
threatening our interests, i would be interested to hear how they propose we defend against these threats. so by the way, with the administration's rushed withdrawal from afghanistan, there are well-founded concerns that al qaeda may be roaring back in that country. so which al qaeda affiliate should we keep -- should we stop pressuring? al-shabaab, aqap, isis? should we stop hunting for zawahiri, the leader of al qaeda? administrations of both parties have a shared interest in combating terrorists. by and large, this approach has succeeded in keeping pressure on the terrorists while keeping more americans out of harm's way. but despite the best efforts of local partners to keep the
terrorists at bay, and the best efforts of u.s. diplomats to broker peace, some terrorists do require direct action by the u.s. military to be stopped. these hard-core extremists pose a serious threat to american national security. they seek to attack our interests all around the world. including our homeland, if we let them. the threat they pose will not recede if we lose focus. in fact, the exact opposite is the case. so i hope the commander in chief will exercise the authority the congress has provided him and the tools congress has funded to keep america safe against the terrorists who continue to target our homeland and our interests abroad.
mr. schumer: mr. president, are we in a quorum? i ask unanimous consent the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: now, mr. president, with respect to infrastructure, senators continue to make good progress on both tracks of legislation. members should be prepared to vote again on cloture on the motion to proceed to the bipartisan infrastructure bill as early as tonight. on another matter, yesterday, the senate appropriations chairman, senator leahy, announced a bipartisan agreement to provide $2.1 billion in emergency supplemental funding
to support the capitol police, reimburse our national guard, and make sure all the critical functions of the capitol complex are properly funded. the toll of january 6 and the impact of covid had meant that funding for the capitol police, the capitol complex, and even for our national guard was running low. capitol police have been forced to cancel critical training and health services and have had to hold off on buying new potentially lifesaving gear like helmets and body armor and respirators. thankfully, the bipartisan agreement between the chair and ranking member of the appropriations committee will replenish these critical funds and support the hardworking men and women who keep this building, senators, staff, media, and capitol employees safe. i was pleased to hear the republican leader support this supplemental appropriations bill this morning, and i look forward to working with our republican
colleagues to swiftly passing this legislation through the senate, and i must give accolades to the rules committee led by senators klobuchar and blunt. their hearings and focus on this issue, the safety of the capitol, has helped pave the way for the agreement, and we thank them for their continued diligence. now, one final matter. by the end of today, the senate will confirm two nominees on the nlrb, the national labor relations board, gwynne wilcox and david prouty. both are champions for working americans. ms. wilcox, who hails from my home state of new york, i'm proud to say, has spent her career representing workers and unions to exercise their rights to organize. she is one of the nation's leading experts on labor law, and if confirmed, she would make history as the first african american woman to ever serve on the nlrb. like ms. wilcox, david prouty has also spent a lifetime defending the rights of
organized labor across the country. recently serving as the general counsel of the seiu, one of the nation's largest unions. over the course of american history, the labor movement has been the single most powerful force in lifting americans out of poverty and into the middle class. it was by coming to this country and joining a union that my grandfather entered the middle class and passed on even more opportunity to his children and then to me and my brother and sister. so it's no mistake -- so it is no mistake that as labor union participation has declined over the past few decades, wages have stalled as well. and folks are finding it harder and harder to stay in the middle class. if we're going to strengthen the backbone of the middle class, we need to reinvigorate the labor movement and protect the rights of workers everywhere to organize and bargain collectively for their wages. appointing these two labor champions to the nlrb is a great way to start.
and to the american people, the confirmation today of these two nlrb labor champions is a direct result of having a democratic majority in the senate versus having a republican majority. under leader mcconnell, the nfl typically divided between -- the nlrb, none of them with experience in labor policy. they are against working people and helped management and the big bosses prevent people from organizing and making it harder to stay organized if you weren't. it was awful, and it's one of the reasons middle-class incomes have not accelerated in the last two decades. in fact, the republicans were so intent on not having the nlrb defend the rights of working
people that under leader mcconnell, a democratic seat on the nlrb was held vacant for nearly three years. if the american people want to know which side each party is on, look at the nlrb, democrats promote prolabor people who fight for higher salaries, higher health benefits; republicans making sure the nlrb doesn't function and allowing the big bosses to take a dominant role in negotiations with their workers. even during the years when president trump was in the white house and republicans had a majority on the nlrb, leader mcconnell blocked democrats from appointing a minority member to the board. they didn't even want a minority member on the board even though they would have the majority, the republicans. it's not a stretch to say if democrats have not taken the majority in january, these important posts to the nlrb
might never have been filled. so look, senate democrats are working with the biden administration to make sure the national labor relations board does what intended to do -- stand up for working americans, make sure they have a better chance of getting better wages, better benefits, better pensions. i look forward to confirming these two outstanding nominees later today. i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. ms. murkowski: i request that
proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. murkowski: mr. president, i wanted to just literally pop in to the discussion here this morning. there is a great deal going on here in the capitol. the discussions on the bipartisan infrastructure bill are continuing in a good, productive way, and we're hopeful that we'll be able to move to that. a great deal of work that has gone on by folks by both sides working in extraordinary good faith and to be able to proceed on this matter, i think, will be important policy initiative but also good for our process in this body. mr. president, i don't, i don't come here this morning to speak to that at this moment but to just give a strong alaska at-a-girl shout out to lydia jacoby. a few days ago, most people outside of the state of alaska probably never heard of lydia,
17 years old from seward, alaska. seward is a pretty small community in the south central part of the state. it's a coastal community, it's a fishing community, it's a hardworking community. lydia is, she's a typical high school student at seward high school except she's a swimmer. and she an extraordinary swimmer. to see the news the other night of her gold, of her unexpected and spectacular win was a moment of pride for all alaskans, a moment of pride for americans that just makes your heart swell. so i wanted to come to the floor and share that. i actually was able to start my morning off early, but in a good way by being able to call lydia. she's over in japan obviously, and to speak with her directly, offer my congratulations. mr. president, you can tell when people are grinning ear to ear, even though you're separated by thousands of miles
and you're talking over a telephone. this morning lydia jacoby was grinning ear to ear as we were sharing, as i was sharing my words of congratulations and her just exuberance and delight for being able to represent the united states at these olympics in this way. so we're extraordinarily proud. lydia has put seward, certainly seward high school on the map. folks are coming up to me saying i didn't realize that you didn't have olympic meter swimming pools in most of your communities. well, that is true. lydia did some training that i think most would say is going to be a long, hard slog to get to any olympics, but i think this dedication of this young woman has certainly played out the. the support that she's received from her parents over the years, the support that she's received from her community is
just an example of just good, strong alaska roots. everybody working hard and just doing your best on a daily basis. and lydia jacoby has absolutely done her best. she has set the gold standard, and we're just extraordinarily proud of this young alaskan woman. with that, mr. president. the presiding officer: morning business is closed. the senate will proceed to executive session and resume consideration of the following nomination which the clerk will report. the clerk: nomination, national labor relations board, gwynne a. wilcox of new york to be a member.
mr. thune: mr. president? the presiding officer: republican whip. mr. thune: mr. president, not content with their $1.9 trillion so-called covid relief bill borrowed entirely from our children and grandchildren, democrats are readying -- readying another partisan spending spree. democrats are preparing to consider a $3.5 trillion tax-and-spending package, this one at least partially paid for by massive tax hikes, tax hikes on small businesses, tax hikes on large businesses, tax hikes on investment, tax hikes on well-off americans, and tax
hikes on the middle class. that's right, tax hikes on the middle class. now, president biden is fond of repeating that he won't raise taxes on anyone making under $400,000 a year. but the new death tax he's proposing will definitely hit some middle-class americans. let's talk about that new tax. president biden and congressional democrats are proposing to eliminate a part of the tax code known as step up in basis, or referred to oftenly as stepped-up basis. under our current tax code, when with you inherent something from an estate, whether that's stocks or a house, the value of that item is stepped up from its original value to its current market value when you receive it. this prevents you from having to pay capital gains taxes on the amount your parents' home increased in value when it was owned by your parents. let's say you inherit a house
that your parents bought for $1 see,000 but it is now worth $500,000. when you inherit that house, you are not liable for taxes on the increase in value from the time your parents bought it. the house is transferred to you at its current market value of $500,000. so if you sell the house right when you inherit it, you will receive the full value of the house instead of having to pay taxes on the amount that the house increased in value while your parents owned it. and if you sell that house two years later for $650,000, you're only required to pay taxes on the $150,000 in value it gained while it was in your possession. under democrats' proposal, however, capital gains taxes would automatically be triggered upon death if the increase in value in an individual estate has exceeded a certain amount. so if your parents' house or
family farm have increased in value more than democrats deem desirable, you would now owe capital gains taxes on amount of the increase immediately after your parents' death minus the amount democrats choose to exempt. and there are plenty, mr. president, of middle-class americans around this country who would be paying this tax. you wouldn't be protected just because you make under $400,000. now, the president has tried to get around this by arguing that democrats would be taxing dead individuals, not living ones. so if your parents die and pass on their estate, the argument suggests the tax you have to send to the federal government isn't a tax on you but on your parents. well, who does he think he's fooling? who's going to experience the loss of that money? you or your parents? who's going to be writing the check to the federal government?
you will. so let's imagine that a woman's parents die and leave her their estate and two weeks later a thief comes in and steals part of that inheritance. who are people going to think was robbed? the daughter or her decease parents? i think all of us would recognize that it was the daughter who was robbed. the same thing applies to democrats' proposed new death tax. it's not dead americans who will be writing checks to the federal government. sure, the tax is owed by the decedent or transferrer, but for all practical purposes, the cost will be borne by the descendant. even if we accepted the argument that democrats' new tax tax is a tax on the decedents, this tax would still hit some middle-class americans. it--
we're not talking about confining this taxation to individuals with a yearly income of $1.5 million. we're talking about the increase in value on an estate over a person's lifetime. there's no question that this tax would fall on the estates of some thoroughly middle-class men's. -- middle-class americans. the problems with this new death tax aren't limited to the fact it breaks president biden's pledge not to raise taxes on individuals making under $400,000 a year. there are a lot of additional problems starting with the administration and compliance costs of this tax. congress actually passed a similar proposal in the 1970's but repealed it before it went into effect because it was so complicated and unworkable. that's right. congress repealed the proposal before it was even implemented
because it was clear that collecting this tax was going to be too complicated. 40 odd years later, collecting this tax would still be an enormously complicated matter. it will would put incredible new record keeping requirements on a lot of american families and would strain the capabilities of the i.r.s., although those 87,000 new i.r.s. employees that president biden wants to add to the agency would certainly increase the available manpower to levy new tax hikes. plus i can only imagine the litigation that would arise over the evaluation of assets. what happens if the i.r.s. disagrees with the estimate of the value of your family farm or business? do you have to take the i.r.s. to court? will the i.r.s. take you to court? in addition, mr. president, there's a very real danger that americans would be paying taxes on nonexistent gains, in part due to inflation and the natural expansion of the economy. recent economic reports are raising concerns that with the
administration's robust new entitlement spendings, americans could be shouldering the burdens of significant inflation now and long into the future. but democrats' new death tax would not count for inflation none an asset like a farm which means americans would be paying a lot of money in taxes on nonexistent gains. finally had i want to talk about the threat that this tax poses to family farms and businesses. democrats claim that they will defer this tax for family farms and businesses as long as a member of the family inherits and then runs the farm or business. but it's completely unclear what this will look like in practice. will family members refer only to sons and daughters? what if a stepson wants to take over the farm or a niece? will the inheritor still be subject to the taxes then which could result in their having to sell the farm the niece wants to
run? what happens if two or more of the children want to run the farm? mr. president, there are a lot of unanswered questions and of course it's important to remember that democrats would only be deferring the tax. so if the time ever comes when the family wants to sell the farm, maybe it is getting hard to run and a neighboring family is willing to buy it the family would have to pay those taxes that were deferred when their mom or dad died. if that family farm has been handed down through a few generations already, it is completely possible that paying the taxes would consume a big part of that legacy. there is a reason 13 house democrats sent a letter to house democrat leaders expressing their concern about the proposed step up in basis repeal. it's because this tax would pose a real threat to the continued existence of family farms and businesses. it is the same reason that those in agriculture and small business communities oppose this
new death tax. i was proud to lead all 50 republican senators urging president biden to drop this misguided proposal. and i will continue to do everything i can to protect family farms and businesses from this new tax. mr. president; there should be a limit on how many times the federal government can tax you. americans' bank accounts a should not be record as a bottomless barrel of money to pay for government programs because that's exactly what's happening here. democrats want to massively and permanently expand government, and they're looking to americans and american businesses to pay nor their social experiments. and they parentally haven't spent much time considering how our economy or american families would suffer as a result of their tax-and-spending spree. mr. president, middle-class americans should not have to see
their inhere tans shrink to pay for democrats' spending, and family farms and businesses who already face challenges from our current death tax should not have to be worrying that a new death tax will spell the end of their hard-earned legacy. mr. president, i hope the democrats will think twice before moving forward with this new tax increase on americans. i yield the floor. mrs. murray: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: i ask unanimous consent to complete my remarks before the vote starts. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mrs. murray: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that kimy chernaby be granted floor privileges for the remainder of this year. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. murray: and i ask unanimous consent that andrzejczaker and hana oak other be granted privileges through
september 1, 2022. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. murray: thank you. over the last four years, the national labor relations board, which was founded to protect workers' rights, has again and again tipped the scales in favor of very large corporations, while democratic nominees to the nlrb were blocked and anti-worker nominees were jammed through, we saw decades of worker protections reversed. this has had a devastating impact on workers in our country, who are not only struggling through the pandemic but have also seen their rights to strike and organize and bargain collectively undermined and constrained in ruling after ruling. but today the senate has the opportunity to begin healing this damage by confirming two exceptionally qualified individuals. that is why i am urging all of our colleagues to join me in supporting david prouty and gwynne wilcox to serve on the nlrb. mr. prouty's career is defined by his commitment to workers
with a long record representing textile workers, hotel workers, restaurant workers, baseball players, and now as a lawyer for sciu local 32bj property workers. ms. wilcox was a lawyer representing workers before the board and defending health care workers and protecting their rights makes clear that she's got the right qualifications and values for this job. ms. wilcox is not only a high-qualified nominee, she will be an historic one. she will be the first black woman to serve on the board and her confirmation would bring us a step closer to ensuring our worker protections agencies represent the diverse workforce they serve. it's clear to me we need david prouty and gwynne wilcox on the nlrb to reverse the damage done by years of anti-worker attacks and get us back on the right track, building back an economy that works for everyone, not
just huge courts of appeals and those on the -- huge corporations and those on the cop. now more than ever, we need to join workers and defend their rights. that means voting to confirm gwynne wilcox and david prouty. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. mrs. murray: i notice the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:
the clerk: cloture motion. we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of executive calendar number 257, gwynne a. wilcox, of new york, to be a member of the national labor relations board, signed by 17 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is, is it the sense of the senate that the debate on the nomination of gwynne a. wilcox of new york to be a member of the national labor relations board shall be brought to a close. the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote:
mr. durbin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority whip. mr. durbin: are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: no. mr. durbin: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate stand in recess until 1:55 p.m. today. i further ask that all postcloture time on the wilcox nomination expire at 2:45 p.m. today. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. durbin: i have 12 requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate with the approval of the north and majority leaders. the presiding officer: duly noted. mr. durbin: mr. president, yesterday congressman ben any thompson called to order the first hearing of a special committee that most of our republican colleagues tried to block. the select committee to investigate the january 6 attack on the united states capitol. it continues to amaze me that an independent bipartisan committee to investigate the worst assault
on our democracy since the war of 1812, an assault that left one police officer dead and more than 140 injured was filibustered and stopped in its tracks by the republican leader senator mitch mcconnell. that's exactly what he did. he tried to conceal the truth about what happened on january 6. he tried to hide it from the american people and to do this without police officers in this building noticing. many of whom risked their lives on that day. well, we saw yesterday that he failed. senator mcconnell failed to stop the investigation. we're going to learn what happened on january 6 despite his effort to stop it. during the first hearing of the select committee yesterday, we heard testimony from four police officers who battled the mob for hours on january 6.
many of us witnessed it. two members of the capitol police force and two from the metropolitan police department of washington, d.c. testified. these officers were brutalized in hand-to-hand combat. some thought they were going to die. and they're still grappling with the physical and emotional trauma they suffered. officer harry dunn recounted yesterday how much or how the mob of the former president's supporters chanted the n word in his face. metropolitan police officer michael fanone testified that members of the mob attempted to steal his service weapon and kill him with it. he was dragged into the mob, tasered repeatedly, and beaten unconscious. he suffered a heart attack and traumatic brain injury. this is what officer fanone said yesterday and i quote. my fellow citizens including so
many of the people i put my life at risk to defend are downplaying or outright denying what happened. i feel like i went to hell he said and came back to protect them and the people in this room, but too many are now telling me that hell doesn't exist are a that hell wasn't exactly that bad. is that how we're going to treat police officers in the capitol? i ask that of the senators and the house members? they risk their lives every day to defend us, to defend this building, to defend what it stands for. instead of thanking them or some of my colleagues are going to deny the brutality that they faced. that cannot be. these brave officers deserve better. at the very least they deserve that the truth be told. one of the most searing images from january 6 was that of a police officer screaming in
agony as he was pinned against a metal door and beaten by this insurrectionist mob. yesterday that man metropolitan police department officer daniel hodges told the select committee and i quote, there can be no moving on without accountability. there can be no healing without making sure this will never happen again. he's right. to all the police officers who held the line on january 6, let me say clearly, you defended the american democracy, you didn't just defend this building and the members of the congress and if not for your heroism and sacrifice, the to tell of that day would have been far worse. sake solace in the fact that you did your duty, but there are members in the house failing to do theirs. right now the senate finally has a chance to do right by our police officers.
yesterday chairman leahy and vice chairman shelby voted on a funding package that will reimburse the national guardmen who were deployed to defend this building after january 6. that package would provide relief to another group of heroes who risked their lives for america and did so on foreign soil. soldiers in afghanistan, there would be immigrant visas for those who defended our troops on the front line of america's longest war as we begin to bring our troops home from afghanistan, let's not forget the heroes who supported them and risked their lives to help them. many of these individuals and families are no longer safe if the taliban takes control.
we need to give them a new home in america. i'm glad this bill provides the means to do so. i thank senator leahy for leading the negotiations. i hope every senator will support it. yesterday officer harry dunn told the select committee about the anxiety that he and other officers felt when the remaining security fence around the capitol was taken down but little else has been done to protect this building from another mob insurrection. officer dunn said when that fence came down and we lost that last layer of protection, that was hard. the fence came down and nothing has hanged. everything else is different yet nothing has changed. this is the time to show the officers that protected us and the world that when you defend america in a time of need, we'll stand by you. i urge my colleagues to support the security supplemental bill. it's the least that we can do. there's one other thing i'd like to say, mr. president. it's just too close to call.
i thought about it long and hard and it's just too close to call. in an effort to plum the depths of political meanness and irresponsible, it is just hard to choose between tucker carlson and laura ingraham. first they became our nation's leading anti-vax quacks, sowing doubt among viewers who were literally putting their lives at risk because of the lives that these two individuals are spouting. and now -- and now they are creating a braiing chorus focused on defaming the police on january 6. their mockery of the bravery of the capitol d.c. police who risked and some lost their lives in the january 6 capitol
building is cowardly and shameful. it took courage for the police to face the trump mob, it takes into courage for these fox talking heads to belittle these officers, it takes no courage to -- it's hard to imagine reading a press account of what they said yesterday and last night about the hearing that took place. the things that they did, ingraham gave the best performance in an action role to washington metropolitan police officers michael fanone who testified he feared being shot with his own gun. ingraham said there was certainly a lot of violence but it wasn't a terrorist attack, it wasn't 9/11, it wasn't the worst thing that ever happened to america, it wasn't an insurrection. and then tucker carlson
respondinging with a smirk in te hearing when fanone said he expressed post-traumatic stress. carson saying that it was a political protest that got out of hand. first the vaccines, now defaming the police. this is not irresponsible from start to finish. i would ask those at fox network, not exactly my friends allies in politics, to show common decency and common sense, common sense when it comes to these vaccines which we know if more people were vaccinated we wouldn't be facing this resurgent need for mask and fear of this new variant, and common decency when it comes to the men and women in uniform when it comes to risking their lives for this capitol, this democracy, and this government. certainly there's freedom of speech, but let's hope that good sense will dominate the
discussion over at the fox network as to whether these two ought to continue their rant. i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. mr. inhofe: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: mr. president, it's my understanding that prior to my remarks on the floor we were going to recognize the senator from minnesota for ten minutes or so and so if that is still desired by the senator from minnesota, i'd be glad to yield.
and since the senator from minnesota is not present, i'll go ahead and make my remarks. i do ask unanimous consent that i be recognized as if in morning business for such time as i shall consume. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. inhofe: thank you. first of all, i'm here today to share some news about a key subject we've been talking about for quite some time, and that la gato. it's a complicated thing. it is something where one company was able to get russia over a weekend in april of 2020 and get recognized and agreement from the f.c.c. to have an operation that deals with the -- with the individuals that are
wanting to be involved in this group. the 15 government democrats and agencies signed a petition for reconsideration of a flawed decision. keep in mind this is a decision by the f.c.c. to give the ntia and the -- and the national telecommunications and infrastructure administration because they managed federal spectrum. now, when the new administration was sworn in this january, the petitions were still pending. and the ntia, which i just now used the initials of that's very well known. this is the one that has the responsibility to take care of the department of commerce and some of their instructions, some of their activities. so i spoke with secretary gina
ra manned -- ramando, who is the secretary of the commerce about the petition for reconsideration and i also followed up with a letter. the certificate of -- the petition for consideration. the f.c.c. has been petitioned by almost every bureaucracy and many, many individuals, over 100, to have a reconsideration and this has not happened yet. and so we changed administrations and of course the new administration came in, secretary gina ramando did a great job about the importance of continuing the petition for reconsideration. i want to make sure that even with the change in administration, the government departments and agencies still wanted to see the harmful order repealed. and here's the breaking news.
i just got a letter from secretary ramando, and i'm quoting now, mr. president, quoting now, quote, there has been no change to the department of commerce or the ntia's opposition to the f.c.c. lagato order. end quote. it says this administration is in full agreement with the previous administration and they will act accordingly. she also pledges that the n tirch a will continue to pursue the petition for reconsideration. the petition that represents the department's -- departments of commerce, defense, interior, justice, homeland security, energy, transportation, nasa, f.a.a., and more. virtually the entire government. now, this is huge. this shows once again that there is bipartisan concern about the
lagato order that is continuing into the biden administration. the -- it's not an exaggeration when i say that the lagato order would be devastating to public safety, our national defense, and even our way of life, and everybody knows that. the reliability of g.p.s. and satellite communication is necessary for safety of life, operations, national security, economic activity. here's some of the day-to-day things that people might not think of as being part of the users of -- of g.p.s. and how it affects our daily lives. a big one, using your credit card or debit card when you are making a purchase or -- or any -- anything in terms of making transactions. another one, making a phone call -- even making a phone call, cellphone networks rely on
g.p.s. to sinkize cell -- synchronize cell towers, otherwise they could get bogged up and if they experience interference, your call could be dropped when moving from tower to tower. here's one people don't expict, energy -- expect, energy, you need it with a reliable g.p.s. system. whether that is pumping up your tech or grids to light your homes, we rely on g.p.s. for underground pipelines. and farmers rely on g.p.s. when fertilizing and use it to move large critical machinery from
place to place. i was in my home state of oklahoma and i learned myself how farmers are using g.p.s. now. this was a thing that wasn't true just a few years ago but it is true now. working out, if you're up there and a lot of healthy people are doing what they ought to be doing with their bodies, that's working out. a study last year found that one fifth, that's 20% of all americans use a smart watch, the g.p.s. to count steps and distances. taking a flight, commercial and civilian aviation relies on g.p.s. navigation and sat night communication -- satellite communication. countless drivers use google map and other forms of navigation systems to get them from point a to point b and they rely on
g.p.s. to do that. and while no one hopes they will need a fire truck or ambulance or other emergency services, 9/11 operators and e.m.s. use g.p.s. and satellite communications to locate a caller and navigation as quickly as possible. we had a hearing just a few weeks ago and we had the helicopter operators association talk about their emergency runs and what would happen to them if they lost the reliability of g.p.s., and there's more. weather forecasting, movement of goods on highways, surveying maritime harbors, operation with construction and mining equipment. the list goes on and on. i had a personal experience about -- about 20 years ago with one of the uses, that is, i had occasion with three individuals
and participants to fly an airplane around the world. i'm from oklahoma, we're all familiar with will rogers. some people are not quite as familiar with wiley post, he flu around with will rogers around the world. so what i was doing was replicating that flight in my plane around the world and i was using a trim bl -- trimble2ooo that has been used for flying around the world. that is a g.p.s. system. because the order allows ligado to repurpose spectrum to operate a terrestrial-based network, ligado signals on earth's surface will be much more powerful than g.p.s. causing substantial and harmful interference. and how do we know that ligado
will cause interference? the f.c.c. told us when they approved the ligado order. they said -- and this is a quote. you should listen to the f.c.c. stating ligado show expeditiously repair or replace as needed any u.s. government g.p.s. devices that experience or are likely to experience harmful interference from ligado operations. that's a quote. now, remember that quote. i'm going to tell you about a bill that we are -- introduced to correct this problem that is serious to so many people. last year we also held a hearing on the armed services committees to hear how the ligado order would impact the military and war fighting. all of the witness itself, dana diseasey, michael griffin, general raymond, they're all united. the former chief information officer at the d.o.d. said it best when asked if he thought the ligado order would have an
impact a d.o.d. or the federal spectrum. he said, quote, yes. in fact, we're sitting here today and you can have general raymond here representing our military. we would clearly suggest that we wouldn't be sitting here today if we didn't have a heavy impact on our military operations. and there's been multiple testimony about that. the ntia petition filed in april of 2020 and again signed by the departments of commerce, defense, interior, justice, homeland security, energy, transportation, as well as agencies like nasa and f.a.a. are also clearly united. there's no division of opinion on this. that alone should be enough to overturn the order. but if not, we need to make sure federal agencies, state
governments, and all other negatively impacted by actions of ligado are not left holding the bag when it comes to cost and worse, aren't put in a position where they have to push the costs on to the american consumers. everyone is on our side with this. the whole of government, over a hundred private sector groups, they all agree no one else is on the side of ligado except paid lobbyists. ligado has said this order is about winning the race to 5g and beating china. those who claim ligado proposal is necessary to defeat china's 5g push are deliberately mixing up two different and important spectrum issues in order to sell their product. the sharing of mid band 5g spectrum by d.o.d. with industry and harmful interference of
ligado's signal when the low band g.p.s. signals used in nearly every aspect of daily life, ligado spectrum, they are repurposing is not in the prime mid band spectrum being considered for 5g. and ligado's low band spectrum is not a part of the f.c.c.'s own plan to accelerate 5g development released in september of 2018 called 5g fast plan. reliable g.p.s. and satellite communications is important to every -- everyone in america and drives much of our nation's economy. we should not sacrifice g.p.s. reliability. in the event the petitions for reconsideration are not successful -- i can't imagine that they would not be because almost every bureaucracy and
much of the private sector are behind these. this is happening all over the country. but in the event that the petitions for reconsideration are not successful, i have introduced legislation and i won't give you the name of that because one of the things is that there are too many words involved. we just refer to it as the retain act to protect the users of g.p.s. by approving the ligado's order, that the f.c.c. did not. just last week champion legislation, companion legislation was passed by the house of representatives. jim cooper, mike turner, frank lucas, g.t. thompson, ken calvert, abigail spran berger -- spanberger. they introduced campaign quon legislation that we are currently introducing. and as of last week, we have more than a hundred
organizations who have signed a letter supporting the retain g.p.s. act to hold ligado accountable for interference that they caused. now, clearly -- the letter from the secretary raimondo i announced earlier is a great example of that. clearly today's announcement is a big step for the good guys. now, let me make sure people understand what we're talking about. we're talking about those who are responsible, that is, ligado, for the use of that spectrum. if and when as most people are predicting it does something that damages the g.p.s. system -- we're talking about the system that every user in america uses -- that if they do that, then they have to pay for it. that's all. they have to pay for it rather than have the public have to pay for it. now, that's really the end of what i was trying to get across to people, how serious this is. but i want to put down in the record that the -- all of the
agencies that are strongly supporting this, we have the department of the army, the department of defense, the department of the air force, department of the navy, department of commerce, nasa, department of interior, department of justice, department of homeland security, department of energy, national science foundation, department of transportation, u.s. coast guard, and the fed federal avian administration. and i do ask that at the conclusion of my remarks, that these organizations be listed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. inhofe: and i would also add to that group the ntia which represents a lot of government in addition to what i just read. and i'd like to add the names of -- i have a list right here. it's well over a hunl. we're talk -- a hundred. we're talking about the aerospace organization, agriculture industries, the
american farm bureau, all of these. virtually every recognizable organization in america is among the 105 organizations that are supporting this. i would like to ask unanimous consent that they all be listed at the appropriate place in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. inhofe: i thank you very much. with that i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota. ms. klobuchar: mr. president, i come to the floor today to speak about how we must pass emergency security supplemental appropriations legislation to deliver needed funding to the capitol police and the national guard. anyone that watched yesterday, the moving testimony of the officers that protected this capitol i think understands that we cannot wait. i appreciate the efforts by my colleagues, both over in the house as well as here in the senate. appropriations chairman leahy and ranking member shelby as
well as senator blunt who works with me on the rules committee to reach a bipartisan proposal on this critical funding issue and we should pass this agreement without delay. but after passing this important legislation, we must also continue to work to ensure that all the funding needs in the aftermath of january 6 are met, including with respect to funding for the justice department to bring those who participated in the insurrection to justice and to ensure there is sufficient funding for security improvement for the capitol. when an angry, violent mob staged an insurrection on january 6 and desecrated this chamber, the temple of our democracy, what they did over the house, what they did in the hallway, the spray paint on the columns, the parliamentarian
office in shreds, it was an attack on our republic itself. as chair of the rules committee, i knew that we had to respond immediately in two ways. one was immediately finishing our job that day and getting the ballots counted. and then two weeks later making sure that that inauguration took place on that platform which they had also desecrated only two weeks before. but the second piece was to get to the bottom of what happened. and i am glad that the house with their bipartisan select committee is continuing this work. our focus in the senate was more limited but senator blunt and senator peters and senator portman and i combined our committees to look to get some immediate answers so we could achieve this funding as well as do some other things that couldn't wait for a year, that we had to get done right away.
so that's why we convened immediate hearings with both officials who were responsible for security at the capitol, including people who are no longer in their positions and with representatives from key federal agencies. we held the first hearings of the event of that horrific day. our resulting bipartisan joint report focused on the security, planning, and response failures related to the violent and unprecedented insurrection. it includes key findings and recommendations that should be put in place without delay. we learned about one capitol police officer who could be heard on the radio that day asking a tragically simple question. does anyone have a plan? sadly, there was no plan. we found out there was no department-wide operational plan in place before january 6. we are pleased that we have a new police chief who started --
who started this last week who i know will be committed to getting that plan and working with our sergeant at arms, with our new employees here who are committed to work on this as well as all of those police officers who stood with us that day and protected us from harm. we found out in that report that although capitol police activated seven civil disturbance unit platoons, only four were trained in advanced civil service tactics and had access to full gear. one platoon couldn't access equipment that was locked on a bus. less than 10% of officers, 160 of 1,840 sworn officers were trained in advanced civil disturbance tactics. with respect to intelligence, neither the f.b.i. nor the department of homeland security issued a threat assessment or intelligence bulletin warning of the potential for violence at
the capitol on january 6. and they admitted at the hearing they didn't adequately look at social media or take it seriously. at the same time capitol police intelligence reports in advance of the attack conflicted with each other. one warned of the capitol being a target for armed violence on january 6. another rated the likelihood of civil disturbance as remote to improbable. and it appeared nothing was actually resolved. we also found out that while the national guard should have been called sooner, they began arriving at the capitol at 5:20 p.m., more than four hours after the barriers were first breached and nearly three hours after the defense department got a request for support from the capitol police. in light of these findings, our report made many recommendations pertaining to both capitol police and federal agencies. these are measures that could be acted on without delay while important oversight continues. with respect to security here at
the capitol, progress has already been made, as i mentioned, with the appointment of the new police chief. we said that should be done immediately. i have also introduced legislation with senator blunt to put in place another one of our recommendations, which is to empower the capitol police chief to directly request assistance from the d.c. national guard in emergency situations. one of the many absurd and tragically sad situations was that day when, of course, there had been messups in not requesting the guard earlier which could have changed things dramatically, but on that day the chief had to try to call the sergeant at arms of both chambers, both of whom were leading the fight against the insurrectionists with the police. had to make those phone calls because he felt that he needed that permission to be able to call in the national guard. what our bill simply does is it
gives the capitol police chief and those -- in those dire emergency situations the power to do that. the agreement announced yesterday would also go a long way toward implementing another of our recommendations, which is one of the most crucial, to ensure that the capitol police has sufficient personnel with appropriate training and equipment to fulfill its mission. crucially, yesterday's agreement includes essential funding for the capitol police and national guard including funding for exactly what's called for in our report. this comes at a critical time when the capitol police is expected to run out of funding for salaries in august and the national guard is considering having to cut upcoming training without additional support. the agreement also includes capitol police funding for improved equipment and training to ensure officers have the resources they need to fulfill their mission of protecting the
capitol. importantly, the capitol police funding also includes money for mental health support, something i specifically called for. it also fully reimburses the national guard for the costs in deploying to otocapitol, which was essential to securing the capitol following the attack. and by the way, we all know that we need to recruit more officers. having a police chief particularly one from this region, and having the funding and benefits and things we need will be helpful to recruit more capitol police. people have been working too many shifts, and they have been working too late, and they have been away from their families for too long. but while this proposal will deliver needed funding for these urgent priorities, there are other priorities that we must not forget. first, it remains imperative that the criminal
insurrectionists who overtook the capitol on january 6 are held accountable to the fullest extent of the law. the justice department has done incredible work to see that justice is done following the horrific events of that day, with more than 500 people now facing criminal charges. at the same time -- and that is, by the way, very important that we fund that; that is something we may have to take up in the future as some of these cases may be very complex. secondly, at the same time, the insurrection also made clear -- we all know this -- the need to improve the security of the capitol complex itself. this includes funds requested to upgrade the windows and doors that were destroyed by the violent mob that day and for new security measures. as we move forward, while i appreciate the funding in this bill, there may be need for additional funding. we heard again yesterday about the horrific events of january 6
during that hearing. we heard that harrowing testimony once again from brave officers who performed heroically under unimaginable circumstances. we all know the stories of staff hiding in closets. we all have seen the videos of how close it was for so many members. we owe it to those who are with us today, for those we have lost, and for those that we want to hire in the future to keep us safe. we owe it to them to pass this legislation to fund the capitol police, national guard, but we also owe it to them in the future to fund these ongoing prosecutions and other security improvements. i urge my colleagues to join me in working to ensure that we pass this bill and also that the critical funding needs are met as we move forward, for nothing is more important to this place than our democracy. thank you.
mr. cassidy: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. mr. cassidy: i ask unanimous consent that the following interns in my office be granted floor privileges today, july 28, 2021 -- bruce billiot and will sermon, and, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that my remarks may conclude short lit after 1:10. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cassidy: mr. president, i have good news for the people of louisiana and good news for the american people. we have an agreement on an infrastructure package. now -- okay, infrastructure package, what does that mean? let's just talk. $110 billion for roads and bridges nationwide.
$40 billion for roads. -- i mean, for bridges. by the way, louisiana has the third-most bridges in poor condition. so if you're stuck right now in traffic trying to get over the sabine river or the calcasieu river or the mississippi river or any of any of our other bridges, there's $40 billion for resiliency. now, my nation is flooded more than most other states -- my state is flooded more than most other states a, but every state it seems has had an issue with flooding. there is $47 billion, a significant portion of is for flooding issues, for coastal restoration, and other things regarding resiliency. there is permitting reform. so right now we know it can take six to ten years for a bridge
project, an army corps of engineers to be permitted. sometimes it takes so long to permit that the facts on the ground have actually changed and the permit almost is inaccurate. building upon pilot projects that have shown that permitting can be shortened from six years to two years, this infrastructure package has that permitting reform. there will be less money for bureaucrats and attorneys, and there will be more money for construction. what a major advance. by the way, some people have confused this bill with the $3.5 trillion democrat tax of this and-spend -- tax-and-spend extravaganza. they are two different bills. this bill is for roads and bridges and broadband and resiliency, coastal flooding and restoration. the other is for who knows what. this bill, the infrastructure
bill, has been judged by economists as to not contribute to inflation. the $3.5 trillion bill obviously is going to make the inflation we have now worse. the bill we have does not raise taxes. the $3.5 trillion bill is estimated to raise hundreds of billions of dollars in taxes. one bill i love, the other bill i hate. the infrastructure bill that's going to shorten someone's commute time across a bridge, to make their home less likely to flood, to extend broadband in areas of our country which are not served at all or poorly served -- that's the bill i love. and i think that's the bill that the american people desperately need. so let me conclude by saying this -- again, if you're stuck in bridge traffic in my state or any other state right now wondering why
this bridge in poor condition can't get fixed, help is on its way. if if you're in a place in our country -- but particularly in my state -- which has either flooded or is at risk of flooding, or if you live near a coastline and that beachfront was hundreds of years out years ago and now waves are lapping on the road in front of your house, that coastal erosion has endangered your property, your life savings, help is on the way. and if you've seen an initiative to build a bridge but have been so frustrated that it's taken so long to get the permits, that is about to change. this is legislation, bipartisan, paid for that will address all those issues. mr. president, i conclude the way i started -- we have good news. there is a bipartisan infrastructure bill that begins to address the needs of the
american people to create jobs, to take away frustrations, and to provide more security. all americans should support it. and with that, mr. president, i yield the floor -- oops. mr. president, i hang on to the floor. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate stands in recess until 1
>> right now we're all facing our greatest challenge. that's why sparklite is working round-the-clock to keep you connected . we're working hard so it's easier to do yours . >> sparklite supports c-span along with these public services giving you a front row seat to democracy . >> sunday, c-span series january 6: views from the house continues. three more members of congress share stories about what they saw, heard and experienced that day including democrat zoloft and who served as a color for the electoral vote count on that day. >> the capital officer came and said it was necessary to evacuate and that we should take the hood. there are hoods under the seat of each seat in the
chamber. take them out the and be prepared to putthem on . so everybody did. and i think when you pull the little red tag activates and so people were wearing them. there had been tiered. [bleep] released in the chamber, in the rotunda which was why we were advised we might need to wear them. but there was this tremendous kind of rolling hissing noise from all these goods with in the background of the moment. course, the pounding and the noise from the law had become much louder. at some point someone in the chambers in the gallery, a number was yelling at the republicans to call trump and have trump call off his mob.
there was some little yelling back and forth on numbers in the gallery. >> call trump. tell him to calloff his mom . >> this week you'll also hear from republican ronnie davis of illinois and pennsylvania democrats indeed. january 6, views from the house sunday at 10 pm eastern on c-span, c-span.org or listen on the free c-span radio app. now house speaker nancy pelosi discusses the legislative agenda with reporters including a new bipartisan senate infrastructure deal. other topics include student loans, the january 6 select committee work and mask guidance from the capital position.