>> we take you now back live to the floor of the u.s. senate where coming out lawmakers are expected to vote on several nominations, including a confirmation vote on the state department counterterrorism coordinator. live coverage of the senate here on c-span2. 17 senators. the presiding officer: the mandatory quorum call has been waived. is it the sense of the senate that debate on the nomination of christopher charles fonzone, of pennsylvania, to be assistant attorney general shall be brought to a close.

the clerk will call the roll. vote: the clerk: ms. baldwin. mr. barrasso. mr. bennet. mrs. blackburn. mr. blumenthal. mr. booker. mr. boozman. mr. braun. mrs. britt. mr. brown. mr. budd. ms. butler.

ms. cantwell. mrs. capito. mr. cardin. mr. carper. mr. casey. mr. cassidy. ms. collins. mr. coons. mr. cornyn.

the clerk: ms. cortez masto. mr. cotton. mr. cramer. mr. crapo. mr. cruz. mr. daines. ms. duckworth. mr. durbin. ms. ernst. mr. fetterman.

mrs. fischer. mrs. gillibrand. mr. graham. mr. grassley. mr. hagerty. ms. hassan. mr. hawley. mr. heinrich. mr. hickenlooper. ms. hirono. mr. hoeven. mrs. hyde-smith. mr. johnson.

the clerk: mr. kaine. mr. kelly. mr. kennedy. mr. king. ms. klobuchar. mr. lankford. mr. lee. mr. lujan.

the clerk: ms. lummis. mr. manchin. mr. markey. mr. marshall. mr. mcconnell. mr. menendez. mr. merkley.

mr. moran. mr. mullin. ms. murkowski. mr. murphy. mrs. murray. mr. ossoff. mr. padilla. mr. paul. mr. peters. mr. reed. mr. ricketts. mr. risch. mr. romney. ms. rosen. mr. rounds.

mr. rubio. mr. sanders. mr. schatz. mr. schmitt. mr. schumer. mr. scott of florida. mr. scott of south carolina. mrs. shaheen. ms. sinema. ms. smith. ms. stabenow. mr. sullivan. mr. tester. mr. thune.

mr. tillis. mr. tuberville. mr. van hollen. mr. vance. mr. warner. mr. warnock. ms. warren. mr. welch. mr. whitehouse. mr. wicker. mr. wyden. mr. young. senators voting in the affirmative -- baldwin, bennet,

blumenthal, cantwell, cardin, carper, casey, collins, coons, cortez masto, duckworth, hassan, hickenlooper, kaine, kelly, king, klobuchar, manchin, merkley, ossoff, peters, rosen, shaheen, smith, tester, van hollen, warner, warnock, welch. senators voting in the negative -- britt, cotton, fischer, grassley, hoeven, kennedy, lankford, mcconnell, menendez, sinema, thune, wicker, young.

the clerk: mr. murphy, aye.

the clerk: mr. brown, aye. vote: the clerk: mr. sullivan, no. the clerk: mr. tuberville, no.

the clerk: mr. wyden, aye. the clerk: ms. murkowski, aye.

the clerk: mr. heinrich, aye. mr. ricketts, no.

the clerk: ms. stabenow, aye.

the clerk: mr. booker, aye. the clerk: mr. crapo, no.

the clerk: ms. butler, aye.

the clerk: mr. durbin, aye.

the clerk: mrs. murray, aye.

the clerk: mr. markey, aye.

the clerk: mr. schumer, aye.

the clerk: mr. reed, aye.

vote:

the clerk: mr. fetterman, aye.

the clerk: mr. whitehouse, aye.

the clerk: mr. vance, no. mr. sanders, aye.

the clerk: mr. lujan, aye.

the presiding officer: the khweis are 49, the nays are 18. the motion is agreed to. of under the previous order, the postcloture time is expired. the question is on the nomination. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be o the clerk will call the roll. vote: the clerk: ms. baldwin. mr. barrasso. mr. bennet. mrs. blackburn. mr. blumenthal. mr. booker. mr. boozman. mr. braun. mrs. britt. mr. brown. mr. budd.

ms. butler. ms. cantwell. mrs. capito. mr. cardin. mr. carper. mr. casey. mr. cassidy. ms. collins. mr. coons. mr. cornyn. ms. cortez masto. mr. cotton. mr. cramer. mr. crapo. mr. cruz. mr. daines. ms. duckworth. mr. durbin. ms. ernst.

mr. fetterman. mrs. fischer. mrs. gillibrand. mr. graham. mr. grassley. mr. hagerty. ms. hassan. mr. hawley. mr. heinrich. mr. hickenlooper. ms. hirono. mr. hoeven. mrs. hyde-smith. mr. johnson. mr. kaine. mr. kelly.

mr. kennedy. mr. king. ms. klobuchar. mr. lankford. mr. lee. mr. lujan. ms. lummis. mr. manchin. mr. markey. mr. marshall. mr. mcconnell. mr. menendez. mr. merkley. mr. moran. mr. mullin. ms. murkowski. mr. murphy. mrs. murray. mr. ossoff. mr. padilla.

mr. paul. mr. peters. mr. reed. mr. ricketts. mr. risch. mr. romney. ms. rosen. mr. rounds. mr. rubio. mr. sanders. mr. schatz. mr. schmitt. mr. schumer. mr. scott of florida. mr. scott of south carolina. mrs. shaheen. ms. sinema. ms. smith. ms. stabenow. mr. sullivan. mr. tester. mr. thune. mr. tillis. mr. tuberville. mr. van hollen. mr. vance. mr. warner. mr. warnock.

ms. warren. mr. welch. mr. whitehouse. mr. wicker. mr. wyden. mr. young.

the clerk: senators voting in the affirmative -- bennet, butler, cantwell, collins, durbin, fetterman, heinrich, hickenlooper, lujan, ossoff, reed, sanders, shaheen, smith is stabenow, tester, van hollen and wyden. senators voting in the negative -- britt, grassley, sand thune. mr. welch, aye.

the clerk: mr. warner, aye. mr. hoeven, no. the clerk: mr. brown, aye. mr. schumer, aye.

the clerk: mr. carper, aye. ms. sinema, no. mr. murphy, aye. mr. lankford, no.

the clerk: ms. murkowski, aye. the clerk: mr. merkley, aye. mr. vance, no.

the clerk: mr. kaine, aye. mr. tuberville, no.

the clerk: mr. young, no.

the clerk: mrs. murray, aye.

the clerk: mr. casey, aye. mr. king, aye.

the clerk: mr. cotton, no.

the clerk: mr. wicker, no. mr. menendez, aye. the clerk: mr. crapo, no.

the clerk: ms. warren, aye. mr. cardin, aye.

the clerk: mrs. gillibrand, aye. vote:

the clerk: mrs. fischer, no.

the clerk: ms. rosen, aye. mr. sullivan, no. mr. manchin, aye.

mr. warnock, aye.

the clerk: ms. baldwin, aye. ms. hirono, aye.

the clerk: ms. duckworth, aye. ms. hassan, aye.

the clerk: ms. cortez masto, aye.

the clerk: mr. booker, aye. mr. markey, aye.

the clerk: mr. blumenthal, aye. mr. coons, aye. the clerk: mr. kennedy, no.

the clerk: mr. peters, aye. the clerk: mr. ricketts, no.

the clerk: ms. klobuchar, aye. the clerk: mr. mcconnell, no.

vote:

the clerk: mr. kelly, aye.

the clerk: mr. whitehouse, aye. the presiding officer: the nomination is confirmed -- the nomination is confirmed. the yeas are 50, the nays are 17. under the previous order, the motion to reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table and the president will be immediately notified of the senate's action. the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules

of the senate, do hereby bring to a close debate on the nomination of executive calendar number 444, sara e. hill, of oklahoma, to be united states district judge for the northern district of oklahoma. 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 the nomination of sara e. hill, of oklahoma, to be united states sdprikt judge if -- district judge for the northern district of omnibusing oak -- of oklahoma shall be brought to a close? the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

the clerk: ms. baldwin. mr. barasso. mr. bennet. the clerk: ms. baldwin. mr. braun. mrs. britt. mr. brown. mr. budd. ms. butler.

ms. cantwell. mrs. capito. mr. cardin. mr. carper. mr. casey. mr. cassidy. ms. collins. mr. coons. mr. cornyn. ms. cortez masto. mr. cotton. mr. cramer. mr. crapo. mr. cruz. mr. daines.

ms. duckworth. mr. durbin. ms. ernst. mr. fetterman. mrs. fischer. mrs. gillibrand. mr. graham. mr. grassley. mr. hagerty. ms. hassan. mr. hawley. mr. heinrich. mr. hickenlooper. ms. hirono. mr. hoeven. mrs. hyde-smith. mr. johnson. mr. kaine. mr. kelly. mr. kennedy. mr. king. ms. klobuchar. mr. lankford. mr. lee. mr. lujan. ms. lummis. mr. manchin. mr. markey. mr. marshall. mr. mcconnell. mr. menendez. mr. merkley. mr. moran. mr. mullin. ms. murkowski. mr. murphy. mrs. murray. mr. ossoff. mr. padilla. mr. paul. mr. peters. mr. reed. mr. ricketts. mr. risch. mr. romney. ms. rosen. mr. rounds. mr. rubio. mr. sanders. mr. schatz.

mr. schmitt. mr. schumer. mr. scott of florida. mr. scott of south carolina. mrs. shaheen. ms. sinema. ms. smith. ms. stabenow. mr. sullivan. mr. tester. mr. thune. mr. tillis. mr. tuberville. mr. van hollen. mr. vance. mr. warner. mr. warnock. ms. warren. mr. welch. mr. whitehouse. mr. wicker. mr. wyden. mr. young.

senators voting in the affirmative -- baldwin, blumenthal, booker, cardin, coons, durbin, fetterman, grassley, heinrich, kelly, menendez, murkowski, murray, peters, reed, schumer, shaheen, smith, tester, warren, whitehouse, wyden.

senators voting in the negative -- britt, crapo, hoeven, manchin, mcconnell, ricketts, sullivan. mrs. fischer, no. mr. casey, aye. mr. kennedy, no. ms. butler, aye. mr. kaine, aye. vote:

the clerk: ms. collins, aye.

the clerk: mr. ossoff, aye.

the clerk: ms. cortez masto, aye.

the clerk: ms. hassan, aye. mr. van hollen, aye.

the clerk: mr. carper, aye. mr. lankford, aye.

mr. murphy, aye. mr. warner, aye. the clerk: mr. welch, aye.

the clerk: mr. brown, aye. the clerk: ms. sinema, aye.

the clerk: ms. cantwell, aye.

the clerk: mr. thune, no. the clerk: mr. warnock, aye.

the clerk: ms. hirono, aye. mr. wicker, no. mr. sanders, aye.

the clerk: mr. tuberville, no. ms. stabenow, aye. mrs. gillibrand, aye. mr. merkley, aye.

mr. cotton, no. ms. duckworth, aye.

the clerk: ms. rosen, aye. mr. markey, aye. mr. young, no.

the clerk: ms. klobuchar, aye.

the clerk: mr. king, aye.

the clerk: mr. bennet, aye. mr. lujan, aye.

the clerk: mr. hickenlooper, aye.

the presiding officer: the reyes are 52, the nays are 14. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: the judiciary, sara hill of oklahoma to be united states district judge for the northern district of oklahoma. the presiding officer: under the previous order, all time has expired. the question is on the nomination. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote: the clerk: ms. baldwin. mr. barrasso. mr. bennet.

mrs. blackburn. mr. blumenthal. mr. booker. mr. boozman. mr. braun. mrs. britt. mr. brown. mr. budd. ms. butler. ms. cantwell. mrs. capito. mr. cardin. mr. carper. mr. casey. mr. cassidy. ms. collins. mr. coons. mr. cornyn.

ms. cortez masto. mr. cotton. mr. cramer. mr. crapo. mr. cruz. mr. daines. ms. duckworth. mr. durbin. ms. ernst. mr. fetterman. mrs. fischer. mrs. gillibrand. mr. graham. mr. grassley. mr. hagerty. ms. hassan.

mr. hawley. mr. heinrich. mr. hickenlooper. ms. hirono. mr. hoeven. mrs. hyde-smith. mr. johnson. mr. kaine. mr. kelly. mr. kennedy. mr. king. ms. klobuchar. mr. lankford. mr. lee. mr. lujan. ms. lummis.

mr. manchin. mr. markey. mr. marshall. mr. mcconnell. mr. menendez. mr. merkley. mr. moran. mr. mullin. ms. murkowski. mr. murphy.

mrs. murray. mr. ossoff. mr. padilla. mr. paul. mr. peters. mr. reed. mr. ricketts. mr. risch. mr. romney. ms. rosen. mr. rounds. mr. rubio. mr. sanders. mr. schatz.

mr. schmitt. mr. schumer. mr. scott of florida. mr. scott of south carolina. mrs. shaheen. ms. sinema. ms. smith. ms. stabenow. mr. sullivan. mr. tester. mr. thune. mr. tillis. mr. tuberville. mr. van hollen. mr. vance. mr. warner.

mr. warnock. ms. warren. mr. welch. mr. whitehouse. mr. wicker. mr. wyden. mr. young. senators voting in the affirmative, blumenthal, cantwell, cardin, duckworth, fetterman, gillibrand, grassley, hassan, heinrich, hickenlooper, hirono, kaine, king, klobuchar, lankford, markey, murray, peters, reed, rosen, sanders, shaheen, smith and welch.

senators voting in the negative, britt, cotton, fischer, kennedy, manchin, ricketts, wicker and young.

the clerk: ms. stabenow, aye. mr. whitehouse, aye. ms. baldwin, aye.

the clerk: mr. bennet, aye. the clerk: mr. durbin, aye. mr. wyden, aye.

the clerk: ms. collins, aye.

the clerk: mr. ossoff, aye. mr. lujan, aye.

the clerk: mr. casey, aye.

the clerk: mr. hoeven, no. the clerk: mr. menendez, aye.

ms. cortez-masto, aye. the clerk: ms. butler, aye. the clerk: mr. brown, aye. mr. carper, aye.

mr. thune, no. mr. warner, aye.

the clerk: mr. merkley, aye.

the clerk: mr. tuberville, no.

the clerk: ms. murkowski, aye. vote vote: the clerk: ms. warren, aye.

the clerk: mr. crapo, no.

the clerk: mr. booker, aye.

the clerk: mr. warnock, aye.

the clerk: mr. sullivan, no. mr. murphy, aye. ms. sinema, aye.

the clerk: mr. kelly, aye.

the clerk: mr. schumer, aye.

the clerk: mr. tester, aye.

the clerk: mr. van hollen, aye. mr. mcconnell, no.

vote:

the clerk: mr. coons, aye. the presiding officer: on this vote the ayes are 52. the nays are 14. so the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order, the leadership -- under the previous

order, the motion to reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table, and the president will be immediately notified of the senate's action. under the previous order, the senate will resume consideration of richard nomination which the clerk will report. the clerk: nomination, department of state, elizabeth h. richard of virginia to be coordinator for counterterrorism. the presiding officer: the question is on the nomination. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be a sufficient second. the clerk will call the roll. vote: the clerk: ms. baldwin. mr. barrasso. mr. bennet. mrs. blackburn. mr. blumenthal. mr. booker. mr. boozman.

mr. braun. mrs. britt. mr. brown. mr. budd. ms. butler. mr. carper. mr. casey. mr. cassidy. ms. collins. mr. coons. mr. cornyn. ms. cortez masto. mr. cotton. mr. cramer. mr. crapo. mr. cruz. mr. daines. ms. duckworth. mr. durbin.

ms. ernst. mr. fetterman. mrs. fischer. mrs. gillibrand. mr. graham. mr. grassley. mr. hagerty. ms. hassan. mr. hawley. mr. heinrich. mr. hickenlooper. ms. hirono. mr. hoeven. mrs. hyde-smith. mr. johnson.

mr. kaine. mr. kelly. mr. kennedy. mr. king. ms. klobuchar. mr. lankford. mr. lee. mr. lujan. ms. lummis. mr. manchin. mr. markey. mr. marshall. mr. mcconnell. mr. menendez. mr. merkley. mr. moran. mr. mullin. ms. murkowski. mr. murphy. mrs. murray. mr. ossoff. mr. padilla. mr. paul. mr. peters. mr. reed.

mr. ricketts. mr. risch. mr. romney. ms. rosen. mr. rounds. mr. rubio. mr. sanders. mr. schatz. mr. schmitt. mr. schumer. mr. scott of florida. mr. scott of south carolina. mrs. shaheen. ms. sinema. ms. smith. ms. stabenow. mr. sullivan. mr. tester. mr. thune. mr. tillis. mr. tuberville. mr. van hollen. mr. vance. mr. warner. mr. warnock. ms. warren. mr. welch. mr. whitehouse. mr. wicker. mr. wyden. mr. young.

the clerk: senators voting in the affirmative -- booker, brown, butler, cantwell, cardin, coons, cortez masto, duckworth, durbin, hassan, heinrich, hirono, kaine, kelly, king, markey, mcconnell, menendez, murphy, murray, reed,

rosen, shaheen, sinema, smith, tester, van hollen, warnock, welch, and wyden. mr. carper, aye. senators voting in the negative -- britt, cotton, crapo, fisher, kennedy, lankford, sullivan, thune, and tuberville.

the clerk: mr. hickenlooper, aye. mr. merkley, aye.

the clerk: mr. grassley, no. mr. hoeven, no. the clerk: mr. fetterman, aye.

the clerk: mrs. gillibrand, aye.

the clerk: ms. warren, aye. the clerk: mr. peters, aye. mr. mcconnell, no.

ms. stabenow, aye. the clerk: ms. baldwin, aye.

the clerk: mr. manchin, aye.

the clerk: ms. collins, no.

the clerk: ms. klobuchar, aye.

the clerk: mr. wicker, no. mr. casey, aye.

the clerk: mr. ossoff, aye. mr. bennet, aye.

the clerk: mr. schumer, aye. mr. young, aye.

the clerk: mr. lujan, aye.

vote:

the clerk: mr. warner, aye.

the clerk: the yeas are 49, the nays are 15. the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order, the motion to reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table, and the president will be immediately notified of the senate's action. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. menendez: mr. president, i come to the floor today seeking unanimous consent of my legislation to reauthorize the fire fighter cancer registry, a law that was passed unanimously by congress and signed into law

in 2018. the fire fighter cancer registry improves our nation's ability to conduct research and gather data on the cancer risks that are associated with firefighting. and in doing so, we learn how to mitigate those risks. it's a vital program, one that furthers our understanding of how to protect the brave first responders who run towards danger when everyone else is running away from it. and yet, on october 1 of last year the program expired. that should have never happened. in july, this chamber passed this very legislation as part of the national defense authorization act, but unfortunately was stripped out of the house version. my bipartisan, commonsense legislation would reauthorize the program for an additional five years while bringing it in line with the current appropriation level. and since this body has already once approved reauthorizing it

at this funding level, a unanimous consent vote should be a simple task that we can all agree upon. in the house, the house energy and commerce committee has already marked up language identical to this bill, including the specific $5.5 million figure which i should add is in line with the program's current appropriation. further, the $5.5 million appropriation was the product of a negotiation -- including the international association of firefighters, all those the cdc wanted the program funded at a higher level of 7.5 million. there was an agreement on the $5.5 million which is the present -- supported by murkowski, rounds, fischer, and blumenthal, this legislation would benefit both career firefighters as well as volunteers such as my constituent he'd card dias.

mr. dias is the son of eduardo dias who passed away in 2017 from cancer. he carries on his family's legacy of service as a volunteer firefighter in new jersey. i submit to my colleagues the dais family are the reason we should support this bill today. firefighters put their lives and well-being on the line every day to keep our loved ones and our communities safe, and it's time we care for them and make their health a priority. firefighting is more than a job, it's a calling. i believe we should honor that calling by reauthorizing the firefighter cancer registry. i don't think we need to wait for a firefighter to die to honor them. we can honor them by ultimately passing this legislation so we can continue to mitigate the

risk -- the firefighters face by cancerous substances that ultimately can take their lives. as if in legislative session, i ask unanimous consent that the committee on health, education, labor and pensions be discharged from further consideration of s. 2119, the senate proceed to its immediate consideration, further that the bill be considered read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. cotton: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from arkansas. mr. cotton: reserving the right to object. i voted for this legislation in july as part of the annual defense bill, and i don't personally oppose its passage. senator lee and senator paul have reservations about the bill though they couldn't be present at the time. i object on behalf of senator lee and senator paul. the presiding officer: objection is heard. the senator from new jersey. mr. menendez: i appreciate that senator cotton is supportive.

let me say that i wish senators lee and paul were here so they could understand that why something that is bipartisan, something that passed the senate through the ndaa, something that is being mirrored by republicans in the house of representatives cannot ultimately pass this chamber. i guess it's bah-humbug to firefighters this season, but we won't stop until we get it passed. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. and observe the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: the clerk: ms. baldwin.

the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that any pending quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: thank you very much. i'm here today for the 26th time to detail the special interests billionaire-funded scheme that has overrun the united states supreme court. this evening i'd like to discuss some things about republican judiciary committee members performance in the senate judiciary committee recently as we voted on authorizing subpoenas for billionaire harlan

crow, some of his holding companies, and the court fixer leonard leo. at the end of last month we voted through the authorization for chairman durbin to issue subpoenas, and it was greeted with a barrage of talk of a variety of things, but one was how democrats were destroying the judiciary committee. we were totally going to destroy the judiciary committee. it was on us that the judiciary committee was going to be destroyed. well, all the talk about destroying the senate judiciary committee came rather in the nature of a threat. it was actually more like, if we did something that we are perfectly entitled to do to pursue subpoenas after being persistently obstructed, then republicans would destroy the committee, would undo any

goodwill or any bipartisanship or any collegial effort. somehow that republican threat to destroy the committee morphed into democrats destroying the committee, but that doesn't make any sense. if you think of a kidnapper shooting his hostage and then blaming the family for the murder of the hostage because the family hadn't yield to the kidnapper's demands, that's kind of backwards logic. also backwards logic is the argument that the subpoenas were an effort to destroy not the committee, but the supreme court. the subpoenas would destroy or damage the supreme court. okay. let's think about that for a minute. there is only one possible way that it could be true logically

that these subpoenas could do damage to the supreme court. only one, and that is if the information the subpoenas would disclose is so damaging that it would damage or destroy the court. subpoenas that turned up nothing would be no harm, no foul. if there's nothing evil to see in the information the subpoenas are pursuing, there is no harm. the necessary logical predicate of the destroy of the argument that were made by our colleagues is that subpoenas would reveal something truly horrible happened at the court that now needs to be covered up. covered up. but that's not how appearance of impropriety works.

justices of the supreme court are supposed to avoid doing things that might create even the appearance of impropriety. the appearance of impropriety issue is not that you do impropriety and then go out and cover up its appearance. we also heard a lot that day about subpoenaing private citizens, as if that were something unusual. if that is a problem, it was a very new problem because just days before the committee had subpoenaed private citizens in the tech sector on a bipartisan basis without anyone's objection. as always, our republican friends persisted in the argument that this committee has no business looking at supreme court gift disclosures. that argument was, is, and will

always be a phony. the judiciary committee has every right to oversee how an agency that congress created, the judicial conference, is implementing a law that congress passed, the judicial disclosures law. it is within the jurisdiction of the committee, it is a congressionally established body, and it is a statute passed by congress. if congress can't oversee how agencies it creates oversees laws it passes, there's no oversight left. and obviously understanding what gifts went undisclosed is essential to that inquiry.

we then heard that you can't have subpoenas because they re -- a related bill is out of the committee. but congress has every right to oversight and subpoenas at any stage in legislation. and even at no stage in legislation because the bill in question has not passed here in the senate, it has come to the senate floor but it has not passed in the senate, and because republicans not only stonewall our investigation but threatened very plainly a partisan blockade of the bill here on the floor. not a single republican vote was, i think, what they threatened. that makes it all the more obvious why continuing to build the factual case for reform is appropriate. there is precisely zero basis

for the theory that a senate committee can't look into a subject of legislation once some related legislation is out of committee. preparing for a successful floor vote on that bill is only one obvious reason why that theory is painfully wrong. if you look at all of that noise and fuss that was put up, it's hard not to deduce that maybe something else is going on here. here is my theory of the case, as i have said in previous speeches. very powerful right-wing billionaires spent years and hundreds of millions of dollars on a scheme to influence and even control the supreme court. those very powerful right-wing

billionaires are also massive funders of republican politics, including republican senate politics. the problem is that those very powerful right-wing billionaires got sloppy and their gift program to take care of certain supreme court justices started br breaking gift and disclosure rules, very likely tax rules as well with a few of the supreme court justices with whom they were rewarding with lavish entertainments. what we already know about that gift program is bad enough. how far the billionaires's hands are in the cookie jar and how

coordinated and orchestrated this secret gift program was is information that they desperately want to suppress. so they do what mega donors do and pressure members of congress to do what they want and in this case it was help the billionaires suppress the truth of what went down here. i'll close by observing that the argument that democrats are behaving improperly in our work to clean up the mess at the supreme court is an argument that has some very powerful rebuttals. the first rebuttal comes from the billionaires who are actually cooperating with our investigation. i ask unanimous consent to offer into the record at the conclusion of my remarks as

exhibits several letters reflecting that cooperation. the first dated july 25, 2023, to chairman durbin and senator whitehouse, the second dated october 18, 2023, to chairman durbin and senator whitehouse, the third dated october 31, 2023, to senators durbin and whitehouse, the fourth dated november 6, 2023 to senators durbin and whitehouse, and the fifth dated november 7, 2023, dear committee. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: thank you very much. i would also note yet another wealthy donor, not one of these in the letter, yet another wealthy donor have cooperated with the finance committee's investigation into the tax ramifications of all the secret gifts of what was disclosed and

what was not disclosed. and that donor revealed to the finance committee compelling evidence that he collected only interest, only interest, on a quarter million-dollar-plus loan to justice thomas, that the donor never collected any -- any principal payment, and that he ultimately stopped collecting either interest or principal on that quarter-million-dollar-plus loan. so the cooperation of people with our investigations rebuts the argument that we have no business. the second rebuttal comes actually from within the judiciary itself. because this is not the only avenue we're pursuing to get to

the bottom of the mess at the supreme court. when i got the judicial conference to review the scalia trick, which was to have intermediaries solicit dozens of personal invitations from hunting resort owners whom scalia often had never even met and then failed to disclose the free vacations because in his view the personal invitation made it personal hospitality within the terms of the disclosure statute, well, the members of the judicial conference, the chief judges of the circuits and of district courts who together comprise the judicial conference, those chief judges blew that trick to smither reasons

-- smithereens. they didn't question me. they dropped the hammer on the scalia trick. they put a dead finish, end to it. and later when i got the judicial conference to look at the billionaire-funded flotillas of amicus briefs that they send in through phony front groups to tell the justices what it is that they want them to do in cases and the phony front groups were not disclosing their true funders or their true intersections or their -- interconnections or their true commonalities, again, this array of very distinguished chief justices didn't look and say, well, here's a senator on an improper rampage. we can't have any of this. no, they announced that they were revisiting the amicus brief disclosure rule because it needed fixing.

and they're in the process of finalizing that right now. so two for two. when questions about this have been taken up by the judicial conference, they've actually been handled perfectly consistent with the thrust and tenure of -- tenor of our investigation. the third rebulletal that -- the third rebuttal that you'll have to trust me on is that i have heard from federal judges that this investigation is important, that we are doing good work and that we should keep the pressure on and don't let up and get to the bottom of this mess. and i don't mean my home state judges, either. when all around the country, i am getting messages of support from judges appointed by democrats and republican presidents, that what has happened at the court is a

disgrace and that had a should keep at it, that the judiciary committee should keep at it for the good and the health of the judiciary itself. by comparison, when you look at the frantic complaining about our work, it mostly comes from a small handful of dark money mouthpieces actually linked to the court-capture scheme. obviously mr. rifkin, who is leonard leo's lawyer, is out to blockade our investigation. so there's one. he represents leonard leo against our investigation, and he summoned justice alito to offer an opinion in his -- to

his and leonard leo's benefit in the pages of the "wall street journal" editorial page. another royce is leonard -- another voice is leonard leo's painting pal. you may remember this painting that was done at harlan crow's adirondack estates with the billionaire crow and justice thomas and leonard leo, the court fixer. well, also there is pal mark coraletta. he couldn't be more in the scheme than that painting shows. also carrie ^ sevarino is at the dark money funded federalist society and the judicial crisis

network. and then of course there's "the wall street journal" editorial page whose people have received a million dollars in personal cash from the dark money bradley foundation at the middle of that dark money amicus flotilla. at attorney rifkin's request, i mentioned, justice alito even provided a cameo performance. in "the wall street journal" editorial page that defended the position of his friend leonard leo in plain violation of multiple judicial ethics guidelines. all that rifkin-leo-alito stunt, "wall street journal" editorial page stunt needed was paletto and sevarino to make it a clean

sweep. steering away, mr. president, from troublesome facts is a constant theme in the mess we're trying to dig into over at the court. in the january 6 and arizona cases, what justice thomas knew about his wife's insurrection activities and when he knew it is the salient question about recusal. he's never been asked. what made justice alito say that in that "wall street journal" editorial attorney general rifkin was acting just as an interviewer and not as leonard leo's lawyer, even though rifkin was under contract to leonard leo as his lawyer at that time? that question has never been asked. what became of thomas' quarter

million-dollar loan and why was it not reported? that question has never been asked. what made justice alito think that he should suddenly start answering legal questions likely to come before the court in the pages of the "wall street journal" editorial page, despite every justice in their confirmation hearing saying, that's inappropriate. that question has never been asked. what made thomas think the judicial conference action that i described, blowing the scalia trick to smithereens, was a change in the rules and not a clarification of the rules? that question has never been asked. but it's a question that matters because the judicial conference

actually called it a clarification, and thomas' lawyers treated it as a change. and the difference is this -- if it's a change in the law, you don't have to go back and clean up your prior incomplete and false filings. if it's a clarification, you have to go back and clean up your prior defective filings. so to say that this was a change, despite the fact that the judicial conference said this it was a clarification, is a very significant legal leap, and no justification for it was offered at the time or has been proposed since. in all of these matters, the common theme is is that fact finding, the very basis of due process -- fact finding is not performed around the supreme court justices.

fact finding, despite being the essence of due process, this court avoids like the plague. all of this -- the behavior of our friends in the committee, the cooperation and support from billionaires and judges and others, the mischief of not answering basic fact questions -- all of it signals that there is a lot going on here, that there is a lot to investigate, and that our investigation must and will continue. to be continued... and with that, i yield the floor.

mr. whitehouse: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: the clerk: ms. baldwin.

cliffy young is with us and the

number of topics. i want to start with the americans views on president biden. >> their resid big story in the "washington post" yesterday that president biden becoming frustrated about his dismal polling numbers in the "washington post." >> what do you know about biden's approval rating? >> they are not good. and they've been hovering in the ipsis general hovering in the high 30s to low 40s. what we now based upon it the sitting president 40% approval rating has a better than 50-50% chance of winning next election. his numbers have been recently below that so they are not good. there's reason to be concerned. >> biden's job approval over time from provided by its those showing polling at the beginning of his presidency 40% approval

53% disapproval in the course that moment in september of 2020 when following the moment president president biden was underwater in his job approval. how hard is it to come back up above water? >> it's always difficult when i would just add to that inflation. inflation is a huge factor something like 10 points or so or more. you can improve in the presence do improve with difficulty never improve more than you decline in you never expect to be as low as he was 2.5 years ago, maybe the mid-to high 40s. but you would expect if the economy improves and the situation improves his number improves empire. >> what about the demographics when it comes to job approval numbers and what can we find out about it? >> you peel away the onion and there's a certain demographic

that has been affected. younger americans, as an example have been really impacted especially by inflation by his foreign policy as well especially when it comes to israeli hamas conflict. those are demographics that are not doing well at this point. their key constituencies that he needs in 2024 and there's a reason why his numbers are weaker than he would like. >> he's doing the best with african-americans at 90% approval rating less than his approval ratings among quite americans at 6% of americans at 39%. >> is i a key constituency for democrats and they are as well for biden. those numbers have come down. they were in the high 60s before inflation took off so there's an inflationary effect in the numbers. black americans are key

constituency and one where he needs to double down. >> talk about the end of your polling on various issues in united states. john is with ipso and we'll take your calls phone lines go by political party party republicans (202)748-8001 democrats 748 -- independents 202. he's with us for the next 40 minutes on the "washington journal." you brought it up already inflationary numbers the most important problem facing americans 19% focusing on the economy and unemployment and jobs. >> it's the economy is the economy, the economy and has been over the last few years. it took off as i was saying before when inflation rose or increase. people are concerned about their pocketbooks.

has there have been an improvement and that? the number one issue has come down a bit but it's something to worry about. >> why do so many americans think the economy so that when inflation has come down and job creation remains strong in the last many months and gas prices are low, wages are up. why is there still that feeling among people? >> first and foremost there is a lagging indicator. a lagging indicator many times as the economy so what the economy is improving people don't feel it still. it takes time to work itself through and the other point is inflation. maybe the rates have come down but the levels are still high and when you peel away the onion once again and look at the demographics a lot of affluent americans still feel the pinch. still have a problem making ends meet. >> win with the think the number started turned inflation continues to come down quick to

say it's a lagging indicator. how long does it to morph through like. >> i would say by the second quarter. you would expect an improvement in public opinion as it relates to the economy and their other issues involved. those will come to the floor but it takes time. >> the second quarter of 2024 close to election day of 2024 for biden administration looking for -- >> you know it's cutting it close. an improving economy in the second quarter has been shown to help the incumbent one that's worsening has been shown to hurt the incumbent so it will be, it is the deal ultimately where the economy will be in the second quarter. >> we are talking about pulling and americans at a variety of issues heading into an election year when you start seeing the horserace numbers in the polling

numbers especially in key states. for people who say who gets pulled come i never get pulled, nobody ever calls me from polling. how do you figure out who you're going to pull on various issues things like job approval or president biden or the most important palms facing the u.s.. >> we have different ways to get at people. in some cases we may knock on your door. in other cases we might send snail mail and other cases we might find you off the web. i would always use the analogy of taking a sample of blood. it doesn't matter where you take a sample of blood, it's a sample of blood. if we do our job right and we select a representative sample no matter what the methodology is, and samples are small. it's no more than 1000 individuals and maybe 2000 at the most. and how many americans we have come a 330 million so the chance

of being pulled in any one is low. >> we are talking about 1000 people and is adapted the 500 democrats and 500 republicans are what is representative of that? >> typical we are talking demographics so race ethnicity education and gender and everything else, if you get those right everything else falls out. the rights to distribution of republicans and democrats. we don't typically poll on that variable. we look at specifically demographics because we have a comparison with the u.s. census and it's a benchmark we used to ensure representation. >> one more poll in the news before get to phonecalls being the divide in this country right now on u.s. support for israel funding support how much support the united states is giving to those countries. >> overall if you look at the

poll numbers overall at ipsos or public polling there's a large support for both. what we find in the specific question is that americans are in favor of the status quo not giving more aid and not giving less. about the same and that's alliance with the other polling. but one caveat is republicans are much less likely to support the ukrainian effort than at the israel hamas effort. >> so you would put that in this column here when it comes to partisan divide. u.s. involvement in ukraine 44% of republicans saying that the u.s. is giving too much support ukraine in its war with russia gets 20% of republicans saying that u.s. gives too little support, 35% saying it. you can go through these bills and are they available?

>> they are on our web site. >> if you want to it's a good time to ask your questions about pulling in some of the public polling issues that ipsos has been on the field for but but ts is james of the mississippi, collins mississippi independent, james cavorting. >> how are you doing? >> very well thanks. >> i want to ask to specific questions. first of all let me say this first question then i'll ask the other one. the war with israel, when that were started, when they did on november 7 they started right there talking about the war but do you know why? i look at it like when they build that imagery in israel they went into that synagogue and shut up those people in the synagogue, they told them, they said just wait.

just wait, you are going to find out something and the media doesn't pick up on that. >> james is talking about israel over the course of history before october the seventh is i believe what he was referring to. how much polling did you do on u.s. support for israel aid packages for israel before they ramped up after the attacks? >> quite if you pulled on the subject matter. overall americans have been supportive of aid to israel. this is historically, we look at the trend over time there has been support for it. i think the caveat is the younger generation engine z and are less supportive of it but it's not something specific to israel. supported the military come intervention and military

support across-the-board and much more inward looking but for the most part when you look at the story of the ballot questions those questions relate to israel. >> is that something the younger generations always do or little bit more inward looking over time or set something specific to the current young generation? >> that's a great question but it's not something we find over time. we look at vietnam and the iraq war and young people are more likely to support interventions than over the people. this is specific to the young people today and as i was saying before they are less inclined to support real intervention military aid. obviously they have a foreign-policy view but it's different than past generations. >> why do you think that is? is a function of social media or a connected world, is it a function of recent history?

what do you think likes. >> i think you are right. being a social media -- like they are they see the world for what it is that matters to them and i also think they are distanced from the complex of the last century. the complex of especially world war ii was very important in imprinting future generations. and i think it's much less important for younger people in the united states today. >> from new jersey this is joe were public and, joe, go ahead. >> yes, talking about the economy you keep saying inflation is down. inflation is not down except 2.5% this year. inflation goes from year-to-year it's not down. since biden has been president -- and you'd doesn't take into account food and --

you go to the store and it's unbelievable. i can't believe what we are paying. it's incredible. no ways inflation down. please explain how inflation is scored. >> i think this is a very typical reaction of americans. might point initially was that the rates are down. inflation rate is not as high as it was. we aren't at eight or 9%, we are down to three but that's not what's important to them. what's important is the level how much they are paying at the pump how much they are paying for basic foodstuffs and those are still high. i think we all had to recognize that and understand public opinion from that perspective read many americans still feel the pinch. they have problems making ends meet and this inflationary

effect, the inflation is still there and affecting the numbers. >> american savings fell on credit card balances rose as inflation lingers and walk us through specifically when it comes to savings and credit card balances. >> i want to explain a little bit of angst. americans are because of the economy and what we want to explain a bit as it's just not inflation or price levels. people are running to their banks and they have gone into more debt and to consume the basic things that they need. this all adds to a sense of uncertainty about the future. if you have high credit card debt or you are taking some equity out of your home you are feeling less certain about what's going to happen in the future. >> would have people consume and what did they spend their money on in 2023. >> it's a variety of things.

they spend it on big-ticket items for their homes on the one hand and they spend it on cars as well. a lot of what they our basic foodstuffs have basic necessities of the house. >> lori ann north carolina, independent, good morning. >> this is my question, hi. i'm trying to understand how the polled people are -- and once everyone releases their polls say is quite a feat -- quinnipiac and they go back to that person, do they do it to different people and i don't understand how that works. i'm an independent and i find it hard to believe that so many americans are listening to the rhetoric on the side of the right. i voted in 2016 i votor