and decent public service memo to what republicans say about him today. >> of course that's jerry nadler ranking member, your response. >> the ranking member is doing his job on the other side trying to protect the biden administration. i think the american public understands that but i will go back to refer to other legislation. i had a bill called a fair act us is passed through the judiciary committee in the last two months and requires audio recordings by the department of justice and what others witness testimony that's needed.we all voted for it. >> the senators returning from break to continue voting on nominees for members of the federal energy regular trade commission, live coverage here on c-span2.

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

the clerk: mr. schatz, aye. mr. moran, no.

the clerk: mr. rubio, no. the clerk: ms. murkowski, aye.

the clerk: mr.hickenlooper, aye.

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

the clerk: mr. murphy, aye.

vote:

the clerk: mr. warner, aye. the presiding officer: on this vote the yeas are 63, the nays are 31, and the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination federal

energy regulatory commission judy w. chang, of massachusetts, to be a member. r: the senator from massachusetts. ms. warren: on roll call vote 192, i voted eye, i meant to vote no. i a my vote because it will not affect the outcome. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. warren: on roll call vote 193, i voted aye a my vote because it will not affect the outcome. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. warren: thank you, mr. president.

mr. cruz: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cruz: mr. president, today i rise to speak on an issue that is personal and vital to millions of americans, the protection of in vitro fertilization. ivf is a medical miracle that has brought the joy of parenthood to millions of families who might otherwise have never experienced it. i am a strong supporter of and i am incredibly grateful for the technology that enabled parents, moms and dads desperate to bring into the world little boys and little girls to finally hold a child in their arms. it is astounding to note that over 2% of all births in america, each and every year come from ivf. that translates to millions of

parents who have been given the chance to bring new life into the world. to date more than 8 million babies have been born through ivf. however, recent developments have caused some confusion and concern among parents and among those who wish to be parents. the alabama supreme court's decision to recognize embryos created through ivf as children under the law has left manyctive parents worried, understandably worried, about the future legality of ivf. now the alabama legislature acted quickly to make clear that ivf is fully protected in the state of alabama, but nonetheless, confusion persists. to the best of my knowledge, all 100 senators in this body support ivf. seeing this confusion, confusion at unfortunately has been

fueled by democratisans, i reached out to senator katie britt from alabama, and i asked senator britt if she would join together in drafting legislation, federal legislation, that would be a clear, straightforward, ironclad protection for ivf. i believe we should put into federal law a clear and un unambiguous protection to make clear that no state in the union can ban ivf, that no local government in this country can ban ivf. senator britt and i drafted this together together. this bill is simple it is straightforward, it is clear. ivf is profoundly profound. it is an avenue of hope for millions struggling with infertilry mom and every dad at home and to every woman and man

desperately hoping to be a parent, know that our bill will ensure that ivf remains 100% protected by law. and this should not just be a policy or a general amazing -- afterer amazing, this should be a clear federal law. we invite our colleagues in the senate from both sides of the aisle to join together in supporting this crucial legislation. this should be a measure that transcends political divides. a recent poll shows that 86% of americans believe ivf should be legal and protected. this is an opportunity for us to put partisan decisions aside and to come together and unite on a shared commitment to protecting ivf. that's why in just a moment i'm going to ask unanimous consent to pass this legislation, but before i do so i want to yield to the senator from alabama,

senator britt. mrs. britt: thank you so much. mr. president, i was proud to join my colleague from texas in introducing the ivf protection act. i am grateful for his leadership on this important topic. look as a mom, i know first hand that there's no greater joy in this life than that of being a mother. ivf helps aspiring parents across our nation experience the miracle of life and start and grow a family. that's why i strongly support continued nationwide ivfaccess. ivf access is fundamentally pro family. for the millions of americans who face infertility every year ivf provides the hope of a pathway to parenthood. we all have loved ones whether they're family members or

friend have become parents or grandparents through ivf. across america about 2% of babies born are born because of ivf. that's about 200 babies per day. so think about the magnitude of that number and the faces and the stories and the dreams it represents. in recent decades millions of people have been born with the of ivf. along with my colleague senator cruz i was honored to lead senate republican colleagues in a joint statement emphasizing our shared support and continued nationwide access to ivf. ivf is legal and available in every single state across america. that includes my home state where governor ivy and the alabama legislature acted quickly and overwhelmingly earlier this year to protect ivf access for our state's families. today the senate has an opportunity to act quickly and

overwhelmingly to protect ivf access for our nation's families. that's what the ivf protection act would do. it's straightforward, just as senator cruz has said. the bill would give aspiring parents nationwide the certainty and peace of mind that ivf will remain legal and available in every single state. now, i want to break this down as directly as possible. first, there is only one bill that would protect ivf stray outside those parameters. that's our ivf protection act. there's only one bill that would protect ivf access while safeguarding religious liberties. that's our ivf protection act. and there's only one bill protect ivf access that could get 630 votes -- 60 votes in the senate and once again that's our ivf protection act. however, that's not the bill democrats are going to be putting on the floor this week. sadly they aren't interested in

a bill to actually protect ivf access and figuring out how we can get that become law. that wouldn't advance their truen electoral politics. if democrats allowed the ivf protection act to pass today, they would lose a key scare tactic they believe helps them in november. and that ultimately is what this is all about. they're in week two of their summer of scare tactics and eventually they're going to transition into a fall of fear day, the american people want secure borders. they want safe streets. they want stable crisis and they want strong families. my colleagues across the aisle know they can't sell the biden administration's record on any of these topics. it's been failure after failure yet again. have to rely on distorting and misrepresenting republicans' positions on issues including our support for ivf access. the bottom line is the american people deserve better. and there is no better path out there than our bill.

the path of common ground solutions, not show votes or scare tactics. again i want to applaud the leadership of my colleague from texas, senator cruz has been a champion as we work to make sure that the world knows that we're going to protect access to ivf. while democrats prioritize scaring families republicans will continue to fight. i yield the floor. mr. cruz: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cruz: mr. president, sometimes the folks at home can find what happens the parliamentary procedure on this floor confusing. so i want to explain what is about to happen. in just a moment i'm going to ask unanimous consent to pass the ivf protection bill into law. one of two things will happen in response. one, the democrats in this chamber can decide that ivf should be protected by federal law in which case this bill will

pass the senate 100-0. the other thing that might happen is senate democrats willwords, i object. so i want you to listen very carefully to the senate democrats, and whatever else is included in the speech understand if the remarks end with the words i object then senate democrats will have made the cynical political decision that democrats don't want ivf protected in federal law. they don't want to provide reassurance and comfort to millions of parents in america because instead they want to spend millions of dollars running campaign ads suggesting the big bad republicans want to take away ivf. i get why that could be good politics. but i hope senate democrats are not that cynical. understand again if you hear the

words i object senate democrats are saying no we will not protect ivf in federal law because we want to play politics. mr. president, as if in legislative session, and notwithstanding rule 22 i ask unanimous consent that the finance committee be discharged from further consideration of s. 4368 and its immediate consideration. i further ask that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: is there objection? mrs. murray: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: mr. president, reservinghe right to object. i am not going to mince words here. it is ridiculous to claim that this bill protecting ivf when it does nothing of the sort. in fact it explicitly allows states to restrict ivf in all

sorts of ways. it's literally in the bill text. remember it did not taf state law -- take state lawmakers in alabama passing a ban on ivf clinics in that state. under this bill there are millions of ways republican states can enact burdensome and unnecessary requirements and create the kind of legal uncertainty and risk that would force clinics to once again doors. also even though it is an inherent part of the ivf process that families will make more embryos than they need this bill does absolutely nothing, not a single thing to ensure families who use ivf can have their clinics dispose of unused embryos without facing legal threats standard medical procedure. instead, this bill completely ignores the matter ofppens to frozen

embryos in order to appease republicans' extreme antiabortion allies. this was intentional. and it leaves the door open to a lot of chaos. so this republican bill really is a p.r. tool plain and way for republicans to pretend they are not the extremists that they keep proving they are. meanwhile, there are bills some republicans are pushing for right now that would enshrine as a matter of law that life begins at conception and thatng unused embryos is essentially murder. senator cruz himself supported a personhood amendment to the u.s. constitution. no way around that. the junior senator from texas wanted to change the united states constitution to give embryos the same rights as living breathing human beings. look this stone cold reality is you cannot protect ivf and

champion fetal personhood. so i'd like to ask my colleagues who are offering this inadequate bill and i hope they do answer directly do you support letting parents have clinics dispose of unused embryos which is typical part of the ivf process? or do you support fetal personhood which by its very nature will throw ivf access into chaos? because until they clearly answer that question and it's a couple of simple ones supporting ivf will fall obviously short, just like this bill does. that's why i object. the presiding officer: the objection is heard. mr. cruz: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cruz: mr. presiden the senator from washington suggested that this bill does not protect ivf. let me read you the clear statutory language thativf. a state shall not prohibit

invitro fertilization as defined in section 4b of the ivf protection act services and shall ensure that no unit of local government in the state prohibits such services. that is clear, that is unambiguous, that is explicitly and that is ironclad. had the democrats not cynically said i object that language would have just passed the united states senate 100-0, a strong federal protection of ivf. now, democrats know that out of 50 states not single state is seeking to ban ivf. they know that the threat that they plan to spend millions of dollars trying to convince the voters is real that no state is curr know that alabama whose supreme court started this issue, the legislature promptly came into session and acted to make clear that ivf is protected. and the senator from washington

asked a question. i do find it interesting. she asked a question and wanted me to answer it but she's no longer on the senate floor to hear my answer to the question. but i'll answer it anyway. the senator from washington suggests that those states that pursue personhood amendments that that is somehow inconsistent with ivf. the one problem she has is facts and reality because there are three states alabama, georgia, and missouri all of have have adopted personhood amendments and all of which protect ivf. so ivf is legal in alabama. it's legal in georgia. it's legal in missouri.so democrats maintain that ivf is in jeep decide and yet the -- jeopardy and yet the facts are precisely to the contrary. understand why the democrats just did what they did. every democrat on the going to tell the voters if you don't vote for me a democrat mean republicans are going to come take away ivf. and i'll tell you, mr.

president, the reason they're going to say that is because the democrats' record on abortion is extreme and out of the t senator in this body has voted for legislation that would legalize abortion literally up until the moment of birth, up to and including the 39th and 40th week of pregnancy. that is radical. only 9% of americans support the extreme policy position of senate democrats on abortion. 91% of americans look at that and say that goes too far. even among those americans who call themselves pro-choice a majority of pro-choice americans look at the position of the democrats and they say wow, abortion up until the moment of delivery in tonth of preg means -- pregnancy, that is too much. democrats' split play cal strategy? -- political strategy? don't talk about their actual report on abortion.

instead try toe change the subject to last week contraception, and this week ivf. and they know that no state in the union is trying to ban contraception, and that no state in the union is tryin ban ivf. every single senator in this body supports the right to contraception. every single senator in this body supports but the democrats are counting on a docile media to pick up their message and carry their message. they know that the bills we are voting on tomorrow will fail. that's not a bug. it's a feature. they want the bills tomorrow to fail. why? because this is all about running tv ads. claiming republicans are opposed to ivf. they know it is false. and by the way, one of the reasons the bills ws they deliberately trample on religious liberty. you know, there used to be a time when there was a bipartisan commitment to religious liberty but no longer. the democrats have decided that the first amendment to the constitution no longer matters. and so the democrats' bill would

among other things force a catholic hospital to provide ivf procedures even if it was contrary to the faith of catholic doctors performing the procedure. now, our bill does not seek to force anyone to do anything. we all have a right to live according to our faith. so if your faith teaches you not to use ivf, as a doctor you should have the right to say i'm not going to participate in that. but understand the cruz-britt legislation that the djust cynically objected to would for every parent in the country. and it would become federal law except for one thing. the democrats do not want it to. because if we pass clear, strong federal protections for ivf, the issue that they're planning to campaign on would go away.

what we've just seen is one of the most cynical displays of partisan politics to ever occur on the senate floor. it's designed deliberately to deceive the american voters. it's unfortunate that democrats put politics above protecting parents and above protecting ivf. but just remember the next time you hear a democrat saying -- and they're going to spend millions of dollars sayingit -- we're the ones that want toivf, understand we could have passed strong federal legislation today, but senate democrats don't want a protection of ivf. they want a campaign issue. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from kansas. mr. ma president. we thank you for the leadership of the the senator from texas and alabama that is important to literally millions of americans as you talked about. first of all, let the record

show that today the democrats objected to arepublican-led ivf protect act. the democrats ed to protecting ivf. this is personal to so many people up here. it's personal to many republican senators. i would suppose a half a dozen of us so far have a family member maybe a child grandchildren because of ivf, staff thanks to ivf. maybe it's as personal as to anybody up here. for some 30 years of my life i had the opportunity or privilege of delivering a baby almost every day. and certainly nothing but fond, fond memories of each one of those opportunities to give a baby to a new mom and dad and just see the smile on their faces and see their lives changed forever. but not everybody was that fortunate. not everybody is that fortunate. 10% to 15% of americans have an infertility problem.

10% to 15 of married couples struggle to have children and that's why i worke hard to have an infertility clinic a place where people could come travel huniles to get help with their infertilityts. and certainly there were many basic things we could do and we helped and helped them have a baby. but if we weren't successful the next step was in vitro fertilization. and participated in hundreds of ivf cycles successful cycles and delivered many many many babies from in vitro fertilization. the country needs t that republicans believe in ivf, that we support it. i've never heard one republican senator up here say anything not heard any state trying to take this down. so i'm proud to stand up here today and support senator britt's and senator cruz's bill to protect in vitro fertilization. we're going to have an opportunity tomorrow on a show

bill. we'll have a show vote on a show bill. senator duckworth's bill on ivf has poison pills republicans could tolerate. the first poison pill is it denies freedom of religion as senator cruz talked about. freedom of religion. the bill we'll be voting on tomorrow as far as i'm concerned is unconstitutional. that as a physician, a christian physician, a god-fearing christian, there are certain things that i will not participate in but believe that in vitro fertilization is a gift from god, that god has given to do good with. and i want to make sure that we apply that. but there will be certain hospitals and physicians that don't want to participate in ivf. but the democrats' bill tomorrow forces that physician and that hospital to participate against their conscience. i think that's a violation of religious freedom. the second poison pill in that legislation, the bill's definitions are too broad. they create an unlimited, right to

all reproductive technologies. and you'd have to assume that that includes cloning and gene editing. are we ready to go out there and force hospitals and doctors to participate in cloning and gene editing? i just america is ready for that. and here's the third issue, the third poison pill that's being ignored, is this legislation by senator duckworth requires infertility clinics to go right to ivf, that they skip they can skip all the other easier steps, if you will. i won't bore the rest of the senate with some of those easier things that we could do but there are many things you could do for infertility before jumping to ivf. and i just don't think that that's good legislation to overregulate that patient-physician relationship. so it's a great honor to come here today. every day, today 200 babies were born from in vitro

fertilization. 200. let's celebrate those babies. we are the party of pro-family and pro-life. we support protecting in vitro fertilization fertilization. i ask this chamber to come together and celebrate the blessings of in vitro fertilization as mounting political disinformation campaigns that are disingenuous to the beliefs of so many in our conference. as i said before the republican party stands as the pro-family party, and nothing embodies this more than welcoming a new baby into loving arms. standing with these families means offering them encouragement and support in their journey toward safe and secure in vitro fertilization treatment. our commitment to protecting lifery family has the chance to experience that joy of parenting through in vitro fertilization. our priorities is always to make it easier for families to have a baby not harder. we must understand that there is over 8 million families now where ivf has answered their prayer. and that's why, again, i'm so

honored to stand here besides senators cruz and britt and champion this pro-family legislation and guarantee access to in vitro fertilization to all americans. thank you, and i yield back. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cruz: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. call: the clerk: ms. baldwin.

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from west virginia. mrs. capito: mr. president, i ask that we vitiate the quorum ficer: without objection. mrs. capito: thank you. well mr. president, here we go again. i rise today in this chamber as president biden and his administration enter yet another summer of executive overreach. as the administration adds layer after layer of bureaucracy that spells negative consequences for nearly every aspect of american life. i actually just had the home builders in my office today making this very point. the west virginia home builders. throughout the president's time in the white house, we haven't really seen much consistency except when it comes to his desire to grow the influence of unelected government bureaucrats

or to defy attempt, intent or to impose unnecessary rules, regulations, and red tape. these things will forever define his administration and as of june 7 of this year the 946 final rules imposed by president biden have cost the american taxpayer over $1.6 trillion. so for president biden and his administration i'd recommend a brief refresher on the history of the united states and the intent that inspired t framers of our constitution. our founding fathers were quick to recognize that power and authority vested in one body would create devastating costs for the future of our nation. that was the motivation behind establishing separated powers. creating a system of checks and balances across three equal

branches of government. however, pbiden's advocacy for the growth of the administrative state has put this separation into question. goes against article 1 of the constitution which states all legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a congress of the united states. let's just take a few examples that we've seen recently of what i wouldsider outrageous overreach. number one, first, something i've been very vocal about, which is the epa's clean power plan 2.0, which will eliminate coal-power generation completely. but it will also block new natural gas plants from coming online in the future. don't ask me how we're going to power the nation. this rule from epa is meant to put coal and natural gas employees out of work and shutter those baseload power

plants once and for all. next we have the final rule from the centers for medicare and medicaid services that imposes burdensome federal staffing mandates on long-term care facilities. this is something that could be incredibly harmful to rural states like mine. now safety first in a long-term care facility but unattainable employee requirements like this one would force many of our rural nursing homes to shut their doors, e rural health facilities are facing staffing challenges all across the country. then there's the biden hhs rule that endangers the safety and well-being of unaccompanied migrant children. currently migrant children who enter into the country illegally without an adult are detained and placed in the unaccompanied children program. the hhs rule that i'm referring to includes many harmful

practices like optional sponsor vetting. that is refusal to consider a sponsor's criminal record. so we're going to put children into the care and sponsorship of people that refusing to see if they have a criminal record. think about somebody who has a history of abuse or neglect, somebody who has a drug problem. we wouldn't know. and weak standards for post release home studies to determine a child's status or safety once in the custody of that sponsor. there are many heartbreaking stories we see with the border ueihaç crisis but this exploitation of children is one of the most devastating. i would add we've seen article after article about child labor, child trafficking that is occurring, and the administration is changing the rule to make it less prochildren. over at the department of commerce's bureau of industry and security they have an

interim final rule that targets u.s. businesses that support america's use of their second amendment rights. specifically it restricts the ability of american firearm, ammunition and related component manufacturers to obtain a license to export their products for sale. aside from the fact that it's unlawful the interim rule will have a negative impact again on these american manufacturers, nature suppliers, and the jobs that they support. and additionally at epa, we saw the coal combustion residuals final rule also known as coal ash, that retroactive and costly regulations on ash management at inactive coal-fired plants. this would throw our power grid into even more uncertainty. the volume of these efforts truly goes to show the broken

rulemaking process of this . it underscores the president's bureaucrat blunders and his administration's ineffective style of governing. while each rule may seem unrelated to one another, they strike a common chord. president biden's administrative state is out of control. they would rather impose harmful regulations -- remember i said 900 of them -- that would restrict america's rights and make life more difficult for our families than work with this congress on pragmatic solutions. and they further escalate the hidden tax generated by these regulations that often receives too little attention. the growth of the administrative state has distorted the way that policy and policy making and lawmaking works right here in washington, d.c. this shifts away from letting congress legislate, legislate,

openly defies the basis of which our country was built on and takes theower away from the people. when you take the power away from the representatives, you're taking power away from the people. remember the constitution starts with we the people. it does not start with we the administration. or me the president. i encourage president biden and my colleagues in congress to recognize that. so if we look at the summer bucket list we see -- i've talked about all of these. eliminate coal power, check. block new natural gas plants check. add burdensome federal staffing mandates on long-term facilities check. restrict second amendment rights check. president's summer bucket list has been fulfilled already and we don't even have summer officially here yet. so while president biden and his bloated bureaucracy attempt to put major restrictions on american energy decimate the

health care workforce for our seniors, tax and spend their way to higher prices and cast our southern border into chaos, and put restrictions on americans' constitutional rights senate republicans will continue to fight and hold the administration accountable, and return authority to the american people on the issues that impact every single day. that's why we were sent here. that's what we were sent to do. so with that mr. president, i yield the floor. . sta /* a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. inform my colleagues what's wrong with

our immigration enforcement involving children. in april, the biden administration finalized a rule governing its unaccompanied minors program. they did this over the objections of this senator and 38 others when we informed the administration in a letter. and we didn't object lightly. for nearly a decade my oversight has shown that the office of refugee resettlement that's orr for short, has failed to protect unaccompanied minors. biden's new rule cements orr's dangerous policies.

here's just one example of orr's many failures. this is taken from a justice department court filing. a sexual predator smuggled a 10-year-old girl that i'll call her mary that's not her real name. mary was from guatemala, smuggled to the united states on false promises of an education. when she reached the border orr mary they'd find a safe sponsor for her, and then they simply trusted everything to mary's predator andhat that predator said. mary's predator lied about being her father. he gave orr phony documents and

phony forms approvingmary's release to his sister who he claimed was mary's aunt. under biden's rule orr doesn't have to verify a sponsor's proof of identity or even guardianship. it fully background the -- and accordingly check the sponsor. the orr rule takes a sponsor's representations at near face value. then he puts employees on a 10 or 14-day clock to gets kids into the hands of the sponsors as fast as possible. then without even batting an

eye, the orr escorted mary to her fake aunt in chicago. there this 10-year-old girl was stabbed with a kitchen knife, scolded with cooking oil and repeatedly sexually assaulted by four men. now, mary you know, thought that she was coming to america to have a better life and pursue the american dream. instead she was enduring a nigh mary -- i imaged mary prayed every night for help. i reckon she spent every night asking god, how this happened to her. it happened to her because the united states turned a blind eye and by finalizing this rule the

administration of president biden isusing to remove the blindfold blindfold. orr knows it has a problem. the justice department told orr what happened to mary. last december i 38 other senators in demanding orr change its policies. but our warning fell on deaf ears. biden's orr just finalized a rule with policies that are even worse thant place mary with her abusers. under these policies in 2021, orr sent another little girl to a sexual predator in the state of kentucky who falsely claimed

to be her uncle. orr accepted the fake paperwork and unverified claims. it moves kids to nothing more than products on an assembly line. we ought to protect kids from predators. now there's a process that congress can object to these rules. it's called the congressional review act. it's something that can be done in the united states senate with just a majority vote. you don't have to stop -- have to have 60 votes to stop debate because it's limited to ten hours of debate and then you vote whatever the majority wants to do. now, this whole thing of child abuse through the immigration

system because we are not vetting the people who bring these kids in or where they're assigned it's very clear that child abuse of this type is not a democrat or republican issue. so under the congressional review act process, i'm glad to have the support of senator manchin and 43 other senators on my resolution to overturn the biden administration's awful orr rule. i hope to see more of my colleagues support this effort and if they do hope to get it to a vote and ask for their support. i yield the floor, mr. chairman. i guess i should suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call: the clerk: ms. baldwin.

mr. ricketts: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from nebraska. mr. ricketts: thank you, madam president. the presiding officer: senator, we're in a quorum call. mr. ricketts:elp me out then. what do i need to say? the presiding officer: would you like to ask consent to vitiate the quorum? mr. ricketts: i would like to ask consent to vitiate the quorum. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. ricketts: thank you very much madam president. i appreciate yit the coaching there. i would like to join my

colleagues in condemning the biden administration's continuous overreach. specifically we're talking about the epa's tailpipe emissions regulations, they're effectively an e.v. mandate. this would require up to two-thirds of all new cars being sold in 2032 to be electric vehicles. now, i don't have anything nsvehicles they're cool to drive. but the federal gernment shouldn't be picking winners and losers in the marketplace. the free market and consumers should drive american innovation not mandates from the biden administration. that's why i've introduced congressional review act to along with senator sullivan to overturn biden's e.v. mandate. there are a lot of reasons an e.v. mandate isn't just feasible. my first concern is the cost to consumers. an event i held last year bringing experts from across the

country to nebraska talking about what these mandates would mean one of the experts from harvard told us car ownership is the mostool in getting out of poverty. certainly in nebraska that is true it's a ticket to get to a job. yet buying and maintaining an electric vehicle is unaffordable to low-income áxfamilies. the average american low-income family spends $12,000, an e.v. costs $50,000. it's an unacceptable burden and barrier to our low-income families to be able to get that car so they can get to work. the second problem is that biden administration officials have admitted they have no idea how they're going to be able to accomplish their goal. one person i talked to said they're going to run into math and physics. they have no idea how they're going to be able to generate and transmit the power needed to be able to charge all thesecars.

and, in fact on the one hand, while they're trying to get us se more electric vehicles and have those be charged, on the other hand the biden administration is passing rules that is attacking american ations for our power generating plants that for require 78% of coal generation plants to shut down between 2028 and 2040. they are blocking the mining of critical minerals as well that we need to build the batteries so ambler road in alaska was one of our major copper mine deposits or think of all the lithuaniaium we have in this country, it will make us dependent on china, which proses between, you know 6 processes 6 080% to build thebatteries. there is a limitation on electric vehicles it doesn't make it feasible in a state like

alaska. e.v.s are not reliable in cold weather. the e.v. driving range can be reduced by 41%. nebraskans tell me they feel liken, d.c., bureaucrats have no idea how their policies will affect them in the part of the country. of our 147 communities designated cities in nebraska 99 do not have charges if you're in valentine or bloomfield you're 39 minutes away from a charging station. i promised my kwentsz i would -- constituents i would fight the mandates with every tool i have. the resolution of disapproval would overturn biden's e.v. mandates it has the support of 48 of my colleagues. in the coming months every member of this body opportunity to join in this

commence efforts -- commonsense effort. everyone who votes against it will have to explain why they want our folks in rural areas to get to work. i am confident that my cra will earn bipartisan majorities in the house and senate so we can send it to president biden's desk. i want to thank all ofeagues who joined me in this efforted and with -- effort and with that madam president, i yield my time. . the presiding officer: the senator fromhank you, madam president. i join my colleagues today to discuss the biden administration's onslaught of energy regulations that will make electricity more expensive and less reliable for homes and businesses across the country. mr. hoeven: in april the environmental protection agency

finalized four new regulations specifically targeting our power plants. certainly the coal-fired power plants in my state of north dakota including an expensive, unachievable new mercury and air toxic standard or mats rule. despite the epa's own regulatory analysis their own regulatory analysis stating that the previous rule was adequately protecting public health. the clean power plant 2.0, so-called clean power plant 2.0 requiring existing coal-fired and new gas-fired plants to reduce co2 emixes by 90 -- emissions by 90%, 90% when it's not yet viable. they can't do it. it puts them out of business meaning less base load electricity. they put forth a new coal ash management rule and water discharge rule imposing costly unachievable requirements on power generators all time

when we need more electricity. now, the biden administration's regulatory blizzard comes at a time when the north american electric reliability corporation or next -- nerc continues to raise concerns about elevated risks of blackouts and brownouts. the presiding officer comes from a state where you know how important it is on these really hot days a hundred degthat we have power to power people's air-conditioning. you know, it can be a life threatening situation if we don't. further, multiple independent grid operators are warning that epa's power sector rules will further threaten reliability. we need this base load for reliability of the grid nationwide. so that includes the southwest power pool which covers part of my state of north dakota stating that quotes it means southwest power pool remains concerned about the impact the final rules

will have on the region's ability to resource adequacy and ensure reliability. close quote. again, it's about that base load electricity that we need for stability and reliability of the entire grid nationwide. the pgam interconnection which serves 65 million americans noted that quote, the final rule may work to drive premature requirement of coal units that provide essential reliable services and dissuade new gas resources from coming online. again, less power when we need more. -- epa's rule quote, poses an unacceptable risk to the reliability of the system end quote. so in all cases, you know these are examples where across the country that the very institutions required to make sure that that grid is stable the baseload power is there on

the hottest day or the coldest day for reliability, they are sounding the warnings. very clear. they are sounding the warnings. these regulations will drive up the cost of operations and force power plants to prematurely close. this approach is in direct conflict with our nation's energy reality. we need more energy not less. multiple forecasts show electricity demand is projected to rise in the coming years as much as 27% in some parts of the country. fast growing areas, again like the presiding officer's state, probably going to see that 27%, maybe more as a function not only of growth but the fact that we're using more electricity in so many ways. much of the demand is coming from things like data centers, for example, that support cloud computing and artificial intelligence. dispatchable resources like coal, gas, and nuclear power plants remain critically

important to meet demand precisely because of their ability to operate regardless of whether of weather conditions. that's why in north dakota we've been working for over a decade to crack the code on carbon capture technologies allowing us to continue of fuel supply in the form of coal -- supplies with the best environmental stewardship. we've worked to bring regulatory certainty and as a result our state became the first one to be granted regulatory -- for class to ensure co2 is safely and securely stored below the surface. wyoming and l states in the nation that also have this authority. we also recently secured 350 -- $350 million for a demonstration of -- in a demonstration grant from the department of energy to advanced project tundra which will enable the coal-fired facility to capture and store

four million metric tons of co2 per yeare can lead the way in reducing sulfur oxides nitrous oxides and mercury emissions and now we're working to lead the way forward on co2. however, the biden administration's regulations are adding these costly regulatory burdens at the very time we're working to deploy these new technologies. so think about it. think we're deploying these new technologies to produce more energy more reliably based on electricity that will stabilize the grid. and we're putting new technologies on that will enhance our ability to reduce emissions not sox

no{l1}x{l0}and mercury but co2 as well but the regulations that the administration is bringing forward are going to impede our ability to do exactly that. produce moreenergy action more cost effectively, more dependably right? with better environmental standards. and that means not only deploying those technologies here but then other places around the world will follow our lead on this. i mean that's the solution. and it's being impeded by these regulations that go so far. they prevent the industry from deploying the new technology. that makes no sense. that is not common sense. that is not the way to solve a problem. so again congress needs to push back against epa's regulations that go too far undermining the reliability and affordability of the grid. i'm working with 12 of my senate colleagues on a congressional

review resolution of disapproval to overturn the mats rules. and we'll have cra's to overturn other of thesewell. for example, senator capito is leading the effort to overturn the clean power plan 2.0 rule and senator mullin is also -- a cra to overturn epa's coal ash rule. our nation i a global energy powerhouse. we have vast resoces, whether it's coal oil, natural gas, many different sources, many different types of energy. we need to use them all. and we have the best environmental standards in the world. we lead in terms of those technologies and again, environmental standards, it only makes sense for all those reasons as well as national security reasons to produce the energy here at home rather than forfeit that energy production to other parts of the w either pose a security threat to

us or at the same time produce the energy with vastly inferior environmental standards. again, common sense. blackouts and brownouts are simply unacceptable in an energy-rich nation such as ours. and again it's about global competitiveness. almost everything we do requires energy. if we're going to compete in a global ecomy, we need low-cost dependable energy so that we can outcome peat -- out compete the rest of the world. instead ofulation and green new deal style mandates we need to take the handcuffs off our energy producers. we need to allow american ingenuity to continue to do what they can do better than anyone else in the word produce more energy more cost effectively, more dependably with the best environmental standards. that's the right approach. not an approach of overregulation that handcuffs our energy producers.

with that madam president, i i yield the floor. a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from nebraska. mr. ricketts: madam president, i rise today to honor the life and legacy of a great nebraskan and great member patrick gotsche. growing up on his family farm inbraska patrick learned to love rural america and the western lifestyle. his father grew corn and had a cattle feed lot. after college he worked as a commodities broker for five years in chicago and in omaha. on the day after his daughter was born patrick came down to the hill -- came to the hill from the hospital and saw a guy trying to put a satellite dish together. he decided to help. after six hours of work the dirk was installed and patrick was hooked on satellite television. patrick then started e.t. install layingses was a --

installations which was a pioneer in the satellite industry. he first began exploring the idea of a tv channel devoted to the issues and interests of rural america. but at that moment it was only a dream. patrick worked hard making that dream a reality. in 1991 patrick moved to texas. he worked as a director of sales for superior livestock auction which pioneered satellite marketing in the liv patrick's innovations, superior livestock became the largest livestock enterprise in the country. in 2000 patrick decided to take a leap of faith. he committed full time to creating a tv network for rural america. he called his company rural media group.gottsch's dream was becoming a reality. rural free television launched with dish network in december 2000. distribution quickly increased. today it is available in more than 50 million homes

nationwide. patrick's rural media group continued to expand to the magazine rural tv rural radio, and rfdtv now app. in 2017 patrick launched the cowboy channel, the first 24-hour network devoted entirely to western sports like rodeo. the cowboy channel is now the official network of pro rodeo bringing the talents of world class cowboys and cow bills to people all over the -- cow girls to people all over the world. they claufrnled -- launched the cow girl channel dedicated ecs conclusively to women in sports. patrick loved rural america. he loved its people its values and its lifestyle. his visionary leadership brought the best of rural america into tens of millions of homes around the world. he reconnected the city and the country. his contributions to broadcasting ranching rodeo, and business will long be remembered.

my wife suzanne and i send our condolences to patrick's beloved wife angie, his three daughters and his grand children. i'm grateful to senator hyde-smith for leading the resolution to honor his life and legacy. with that thank you, madam president. i yield back. a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the majority whip . the presiding officer: the senator from mississippi. a senator: madam president, i also rise today to honor the life and legacy of my friend patrick gottsch, the founder and president of rural media group who passed away may 18. mrs. hyde-smith: he was a beloved father grandfather, who dedicated his life to supporting and promoting rural america through television.

patrick was born on june 1953 1953 and raised on his family's farm and cattle operation. from a young age he learned the value of hard work perseverance and the unique value that rural communities bring to our nation. having worked as a commodity broker on mercantile exchange and home satellite sales and as director of sales for the superior livestock auction, hee delivery television rfdtv in 2000. and it's on my tv every day. rural media grew to additionally consist of many other things including the cowboy channel. some of our very favorite. giving rural america the visibility it lacked through traditional media outlets. rural america owes much to patrick's innovation and his tenacity.

not many people have the ability to articulate and describe the true essence of how special life in rural america is like patrick did. rural communities are the heartbeat of our nation. often overlooked but essential for our nation's survival and prosperity. patrick gave rural america a voice. in an increasingly urbanized world, patrick reminded us of the value of rural america. he advocated for 2% of americans who feed the he reminded americans that our clothes and food don't magically grow on shelves at the store. we honor patrick gottsch for his unprecedented work to promote the american rural way of life that my family and i get to

enjoy every single day. he was truly a great ambassador for rural america and i know he would want us to continue to tell the story to the entire world. i offer my deepest condolences to the gottsch family during this time and i will strive to honor patrick's legacy by stressing the continued need for access to rural and agricultural media and programming for all americans. may patrick's determination, love for rural america, and persistence in telling it the great story of rural america never be forgotten. thank you, madam president. and i yield the floor. mr. durbin: madam president. the presiding officer: the majority whip. mr. durbin: madam president, i rise today in theenate to pass the defiance act, a bipartisan that provides a remedy for victims of nonconsensual sexual deepfakes

and i want to thank the senate cosponsors of this legislation. they include my ranking republican member senator lindsey graham the ranking member of the judiciary committee, as well as senators klobuchar, hawley, king and lee. this bill is truly bipartisan. and i've been proud to partner with the new york congresswoman alexander -- alexandria measure, and when i describe it it you'll understand. sadly, congresswoman ocasio-cortez herself is a victim of what is known as explicit deepfakes. i commend her for her work and courage to create tools for victims in the fight against this despicable conduct. the sprd of these deplorable deepfakes is like a fire burning out of control. what used to take extraordinary

technological expertise and a lot of time can now be done with the push of a button. countless apps can swap someone's face onto another person or can digitally remove someone's clothing. these apps are often advertised as harmless entertainment. but when explicit depicted without the person's the harm is reform the exploitation of young children and women is real lay the price that's being paid for it. imagine losing control of your own and identity. imagine how powerless victims feel when they cannot remove the content, cannot prevent it from being reproduced cannot prevent new created. the negative consequences can be profound. victims may draw into silence themselves by withdrawing from online spaces and public discourse as a protective measure. they may endure threats to their

employment education, or reputation or suffer additional criminal activity such as extortion and stalking. some experience depression anxiety, and fear of being in public and in the worst-case scenario suicide. representative ocasio-cortez recently described her own reaction to being depicted in sexual deehout her consent. she said, and i quote, there is a shock to seeing images of yourself that someone could think are real. she described how it haunts her thoughts. once these deepfakes are seen they cannot be unseen. as she put it quote, deepfakes are a way oing violent humiliation against other people. prominent women are often the target of nonconsensual sexually explicit deepfakes -- singers, actors politicians alike. you cannot escape the conclusion that these images are intended to diminish and shame women.

but, sadly,e anyone. there are many distressing reports this year of middle school and high schools struggling to respond to the spread of sexually explicit deepfakes of students. in march, at least 22 students in mchenry county in my home state of illinois learned they were depicted in deepfakes circulating online. one was a doctored version of a photo of two female students taken at the school prom. the perpetrator digitally removed their clothes. the prom is supposed to be a joyous right of passage for teenagers, a happy memory they keep for the rest of their lives. now that memory has been stolen from these two young women. sadly, we are seeing and explosion ofs like these. one researcher found that the number ofensual pornographic deep-life videos has crowed ninefold in the last years. such videos have been viewed

almost 4 billion times 4 billion times t monthly traffic to the top 20 deepfake sites increased by 285% from july 2020 to july 2023. search engines directed 25 million visits to the top five most popular deepfakn july 2023 alone. tragically under the law now, the victims have no legal remedy. time and again, victims are told nothing can be done to help them because existing laws simply do not apply to deepfakes. it is an omission that shows a blatant disregard for the trauma of children women, and girls who are victimized by this crime. but this defiance act will change that. it will give the victims a day in court. once this bill is signed into law, victims finally will have the ability to hold civilly is liable those who produce, disclose solicit or possess

sexually explicit deepfakes while knowingly disregarding that the person depicted did not consent to the conduct. i am proud that we've collaborated with the survivors and advocates on this bill. they have laced experience and -- they have lived experience and leadership that shaped this bill. this bill was crafted to comply with the first amendment of. as the center for democracy and technology wrote, it is constitutional because it addresses, quote, a uniquely compelling problem with a narrowly tailored solution. in addition to the cdt, the defiance act is supported by the national center on sexual exploi takers the sexual violence prevention association the national women's law center my image, my choice pact and many others. congresses has waited too long to act. can you imagine in your own family if it was your wife your daughter your niece or some young woman that you love who was exploited this way, who had

to see these images and try to erase them from their mind to realize thaty kpnow under the law, no power to protect themselves and are helplessly exploited and their lives can be changed for the worse. we have waited far too long to act. this is a bipartisan measure in both the house and the senate. it is past time to give victims of nonconsensual sexual exploitation and explicit deep takes the tools -- deepfakes the tools they need to fight back. as if this legislative session the committee on judiciary be discharged from further consideration 3696, the explicit images and nonconsensual images act of 2024 and the senate proceed to its immediateconsideration. i ask unanimous consent that the durbin-grassley substitute amendment at the desk be agreed to the bill, as amended be considered read a third time and passed and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. objection?

kuala lumpur madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. ms. lummis: reserving the right to object i strongly support the intent behind this legislation. we must combat the deeply harmful practice of nonconsensual deepfake pornography. it is as serious as the gentleman from illinois just described. but i'm troubled that this bill is over-ly broad in scope. the expansive definitions and wide net of liability in this bill could lead to unintended consequences that stifle american technological innovation and by extending liability to third party platforms that may unknowingly host this illicit content, i worry this bill places an untenable burden on online services to constantly

police user-generated posts. even platforms making good-faith efforts to remove illegal deepfakes could become inundated with frivolous litigation. a more prudent approach would be to tailor legislation to focus on publishers and distributors. and such legislation exists. it is the cruz-klobuchar bill. we must ensure that in our noble efforts to prevent abuse, we do not inadvertently impose overbroad restrictions and spur excessive lawsuits that would chill the development of american emerging technologies. i stand ready to work with my colleagues to find this presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. durbin: madam president. the presiding officer: the majority whip.

mr. durbin: i am disappointed. seriously disappointed. when we talk about these young women and young children being exploited and have bipartisan legislation before both the house and the senate to deal with it it is important that it be properly. first, there is no liability under this proposed law for tech platforms. despit what was said by the gentlelady from wyoming. and, secondly the idea that the people would suffer civil liability here when they didn't know what was going on listen to the language of this bill to hold civilly liable those who produce, disclose solicit possess possess sexually explicit deepfakes while knowingly -- while knowingly or recklessly disregarding the person depicted didn't have consent to the conduct. the two issues raised by the gentlelady why wyoming the senator from wyoming, are both addressed in this bipartisan measurho will shake their head and say can't the

senate even address this issue the sexual exploitation of children and young girls and attempts to ruin their lives? can't they even agree to come up with an answer? we did. we have a bill that does it and it's been stopped. we're not going to stop our efforts, madam president. this is a cause worth fighting for. and we're going to really appeal to those across america who believe as we do. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the majority whip. mr. durbin: madam president, for more than a year thet has been embroiled in an ethical crisis of its own design many. -- own design. story after story about ethical misconduct about sitting supreme court justices has led the news for months.

for decadeses, however judge -- justice chairmans thomas has accepted lavish gifts and luxury trips from a gaggle of fawning billionaires. the total dollar value of these gifts is in the millions. one supreme court, millions of dollars worth of gifts. justice alito as fishing trip that should have cost him over $100,000. but it didn't cost him a dime because the trip was funded by a billionaire and organized by right-wing kingpin leonard leo. both justice thomas and justice alito failed to disclose gifts they accepted in clear violation of financial disclosure requirements under federal law. it isn't shameless conduct that has cast a dark shea dough over the court. last summer justice alito sat for an interview with an

attorney with a case before the court. in that interview, justice alito went so far as to publicly state congress has no authority to regulate the supreme court. by doing so he made it clear that he already reached a conclusion about the constitutionality of legislation that congress was considering on the issue, legislation that will be before this body today and that could someday come before the court. more recently we learned that the flags that were associated with the january 6 insurrection and far right were displayed outside justice alito's home. this happened even as the court considered cases related to the 2020 presidential election and the insurrectionist attack on the united states capitol. justice thomas continues to hear cases related to the january 6 attacks despite his wife's involvement with efforts t overturn the 2020 election. for years justice thomas served as fundraising draw at the koch political networks annual

events. this is the same network that bankrolled another case before the court. the disqualification of a supreme court justice in any proceeding in which the justice's impartiality might reasonably be questioned. the supreme court's own code of conduct reiterates justices should disqualify themselves in cases where there is reasonable doubt about their impartiality. despite serious questions about the impartiality of justice alito and justice thomas in numerous cases, they have refused to recuse themselves from these cases. the ethics crisis at the supreme court, the highest court in the land is unacceptable. it is unsustainable and unworthy of the highest court in th land. our faith in the character and impartiality of our judges is essential to the functioning of our legal system and our constitutional form of government. but that faith requires judges especially supreme court justices to conduct themselves in a way that inspires public confidence.

the justices should serve as models for every judge in america. instead they are serving as examples for why a code of conduct is needed. the ethics crisis stems in large part from the fact that nine justices on the court are the on not bound by an enforceable code of conduct. the only federal official not bound by enforceable code of conduct. more than 12 years ago i first asked chief p justice roberts to bind a code of conduct. in november of last year the supreme court adopted an ineffective code of conduct for its justices but it does not enforce the ethics rule in any meaningful way and does not include ass violations of the code. as the court conceded in a statement, it said, quote, the code largely represents a codification of principles that have long regarded as governing our conduct.

in other words, the so-called new code did not raise the ethical standards to which the justices would be held. it simply tried to paper over the failed practices of the past. the court can address these issues itself. the court could have issued a stronger code of conduct in the first place. it could revise its own code of conduct today. but chief justice roberts repeatedly refuses to use his authority and power to implement a binding code of conduct for the supreme court. until he does congress will continue our legislative efforts. last year the judiciary committee whi reported to the senate floor the supreme court ethics recusal and transparency act, the bill which was led by senator whitehouse who is on the floor and which i am cosponsoring would require the supreme court to adopt an enforceable code of conduct and add new recusal and transparency requirements binding on the justices. it would be a real code of

conduct. this legislation and recusal requirements would apply to equally every justice on the supreme court regardless of the party of the president who appointed them. this should not be a partisan issue. an enforceable code of conduct would be a good thing for the court and for our country. it is essential to ensuring the american people have confidence in the ethical conduct of the supreme court and it's essential to restoring the court's reputation. the highest court in the land should not and cannot have the lowest ethical standards. that is why i support this legislation and why i urge my colleagues to join me. madam president, notingwith standing rule 22 and as as if in legislative i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar number 199, s. 359 supreme court ethics transparency act of 2023. i further ask that the committee-reported substitute amendment be ag as amended be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening

action or debate. the presiding officer: is there objection? a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from south carolina. mr. graham: reserving the right to object. let's be clear, this is not about improving the court. this is about undermining the court. we have three branches of government here. we've got the legislative, executive and judicial branch. this would be an overreach, undermine the court's ability to operate effectively and has been ajx continued effort by our friends on the democratic side to undermine a court they don't like. here's what the supreme court has done. in april of 2023 all nine justices signed a statement on ethics principles and practices specifying the ethics principles and practices they follow. in march 2023 the committee on financial disclosure formally amended the personal hospitality regulations in a manner that now requires more complete disclosure. in november of 2023 all nine

justices promulgated a code of conduct. the court is taking these problems seriously. the question is what are we up to here? we're trying not to empower the court or reform the court. we're trying to attack it right at the end of a term. i remember very well when the schumer, went to the court and said right in court itself i want to tell you gorsuch, cavanaugh, you release the whirlwind you'll pay the price. you won't know what hit you. and if you go forward with these awful decisions -- this is the way the court decides cases those on the other side really don't like. all i would say is there are provisions in this bill that should bother anybody that cares about an independent investigative panels in section 2 of this bill are made up of lower court judges who would actually preside over their bosses. there is one supreme court here.

this is unnerveing to have a group of lower court judges basically, having an investigative panel the ability to investigate the supreme court, the constitutionally designated supreme court. recusal that's been up to the individual justices since the court's founding. this bill would create a panel of judges to decide when a supreme court justice should be recused. again, that just puts the court in i think, disarray and fundamentally assaults the we have. all i can say is that section 7, where you have to have disclosures of amicus briefs would make it very hard for certain people to rush through their opinions about a particular matter before the court because they could get destroyed by the media. they could get destroyed byecial interest groups. and i think that chills out the ability for people to petition

the court apart from politics. so my hope is that not only will we stop this stop it forever. with that said i withhold my objection at this time. a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: is there objection? a senator: madam president, reserving the right to object. the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. mr. kennedy: madam president, reserving the right to object. and with all the respect i can muster for senator durbin -- and i mean that -- i do not mreef that most of my colleagues -- i do not believe most of my colleagues think this bill is about ethics. this bill is about abortion. in june of 2022 the united states supreme court decided the dobbs case. it returned the issue of

abortion to the american people through their states. while the supreme court was deliberating that case my colleague and my friend senator went over to the supreme court. and on the steps of the supreme court building -- i was there, i remember it like it was yesterday -- this is what senator schumer said. i quote, i want to tell you gorsuch, i want to tell you cavanaugh -- not justice gorsuch, not justice cavanaugh. i want to tell you gorsuch, i want to tell you cavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price.

you won't know what hit you, senator schumer said forward with these awful quote. what we're seeing today with this legislation, in my opinion, but most senators agree with me is part of the promised whirlwind, and i do not believe that we should try to undermine the integrity of the institution of the supreme court of the united states boughts we're un happy -- because we're unhappy with one of its opinions. i will withhold my allow my friend senator lee, to speak. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. lee: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. lee: reserving the right to object. the united states of america has benefited for nearly two and a

half centuries from hav one of the world's best most objective judicial systems in the entire world. while no system run by fallible mortal human beings can be described as perfect, ours is as good a system as has ever existed in the world, as certainly as good as any that exists in the world today. at the capstone of that is an entity that exists by virtue by operation of the constitution the supreme court of the united states. and this solution the solution being rammed through today, this is a solution in search of a problem that would itself create another problem for which there would be no solution. that problem would in turn turn one of our greatest strengths, an independent functioning judicial system one that has preserved the rule of law in this country for nearly two and a half centuries, into something of a more political p animal.

it's not what we want. it's not what the constitution contemplates. it's not what we benefited from. ust ask the question why. is there any grave moral offense that's been committed?no and is there any grave violation of law that's been committed? no. is there any violation of law that's been committed at all? no there is not. what we have here is something very very cynical. and what we have is that people on the left have a couple of cases currently pending before the supreme court of the united states cases that they're worried about the outcome, cases in which they're worried that certain justices might rule against them. and they have some justices they don't like. they have some justices that they worry are going to reject the bad arguments that they've made in those cases. and so rather than double down on making sure that their arguments are good and that they're persuasive and recognizing that they're not going to win all cases, they're

threatening, they're intimidating the justices. making it's not just a mountain out of a mole hill. they're making a mountain out of nothing. and they're doing this specifically to harass threaten and intimidate certain members of the supreme court in order to influence the outcome of pendi and make no mistake, that is what's going on here. they're trying to trigger more recusals recusals of those justices they don't like. the legislation they're offering would create more problems would make it easier for them to trigger more recusals. this is not a good outmany could. this is a political -- this is not a good outcome. this is a political effort to influence the resolution of pending litigation before the supreme court of the united states and to threaten justices that don't tow the woke line. madam president, i withhold my

objection at this moment. the presiding officer: is there objection? a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: madam president, reserving the right to object i just want to briefly summarize the arguments that my able colleagues on this side of the aisle have made. an independent judiciary are the crown jewels of our democracy. and what do i mean by that? we have the political branches of government. we've got the white hoe, the popular elected president through the electoral college. we've got individual senators various states. and then we've got the house of representatives. those are all political bodies. the judiciary, created by the the supreme court specifically was designed to be a check on the abuses of power

by the political branches of government and to hold up the constitution as a supreme law of the land. that was marbury v. madison by chief justice marshall in 1804, i believe. so the constitution is the supreme law of the land. it's not the political branches. i think we have seen every institution in washington, d.c. corrupted in one way or the other by the politicalization of previously re veer -- previously revered institutions and i'm talking specifically about the fbi and the opposition on a presidential candidate, president trump, and then the fbi director said his mission in life was to see a

special counsel appointed, which he was, robert muriel who -- robert mueller who found no bases to bring charges. apparently there are those who feel there is a two-tiered justice system in this country and that justice system, which is the crowned jewel has been corrupted by politics. and now our colleagues want to use that same corruption by politics of the independent judiciary and the supreme court of the united states. that may not be their intention. maybe it is. they want the supreme court to become subservient to the congress which is anathema to the constitutional order created by the framers. this effort lays bear an effort

by our democratic colleagues to control an entire branch of government. there's been bills filed by the senator from massachusetts and others to pack the supreme court. fortunately they haven't gone anywhere but as our colleague knows, this is -- and admitted yesterday, the chairman of the judiciary committee, this is nothing but a political exercise and it needs to end now. for these reasons, i would oppose this legislation and withhold my objection so the distinguished ranking member judiciary committee can speak. the presiding officer: is there an objection? a senator: i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. the presiding officer: the majority whip. mr. durbin: before yielding to the senator from rhode island one of the critics of this proposal said it was a solution in search of a problem. side of the aisle believes obviously, that for

one supr to accept lavish gifts and luxury trips from billionaires to the tune of millions of dollars and supreme court justice to take an undisclosed trip -- fishing trip at the cost of $100,000 is business as usual at the supreme court. the american people i'm sure will disagree. i yield the floor. i'm sorry, one last thing. i ask unanimous consent the confirmation of the chang nomination be at 11:30 a.m. tomorrow thursday june 13, following disposition of that nomination the senate resume legislative session,ha t cloture motion with respect to the motion to proceed to calendar 413, s. 4445, ripen at 1:45 p.m. and the mandatory quorum be waived. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. the senator from rhode island? bhous mr. whitehouse: first let me thank the chairman of our committee for attempting to

bring this bill to the floor and to get us on it even though the republicans have objected to supreme court ethics. it's important for us to continue to make the effort becaus american people understand that there's something gone very wrong at the supreme court. the objections that we just heard amounted to a long excursion through a great variety of topics -- through abortion through past fbi investigations through allegations abouttwo-tiered system of justice, through wokeness through things we all agree on, like separation of powers and an independent judiciary. i think it would be helpful to actually come into focus on what we're actually talking about here because most of what was

said in opposition to this bill is completely irrelevant to what we are seeking to achieve. we all accept the doctrine of separation of powers. senator blumenthal who was here is an expert in the subject. he's argued more cases before the supreme court than any other senator. to be l does not make the supreme court subservient to congress in any respect. the bill obligesicial branch of government to create its own ethicsence forcement mechanism that will be run within the judicial branch of government by the judicial branch of government. there simply is not a separation of powers concern when the judicial branch of government runs an ethics program for the

judicial branch of government that is administered within the judicial branch of government. it just ain't so, madam president. the existing state of affairs is that the ethics requirements that apply to the justices of the supreme court, first related to recusal and second related to disclosure of gifts, are laws passed bynd the enforcement, particularly of the disclosure requirements is done judicial conference. the judicial conference is a body established by congress. whenular -- when harlan crow first started giving free jet and travel secretly to clarence thomas that was taken up by the

judicial conference a decade ago. did the justices complain that the judicial conference was investigating justice thomas and his disclosures? no. of course not because the argument would make no sense. so to hear it here on the senate floor is a bit disappointing. right now the judicial conference investigates and can sanction or refer for further investigation justices of the supreme court. we are trying to fix three really simple problems. one, is factfinding. factfinding ought not to be an issue in spute. every member of government in the united states who is subject to any kind of supervision or ethics requirement, which is everybody, has a process where by the actual -- whereby the actual facts are known. even the president of thenceunited

states had to sit for an interview about the documents in his garage. it is only nine people in the entirety of government who have no obligation to do any factfinding. and that's pretty dangerous because we just saw justice alito offer facts, a description, about what went on about his family flying maga banner flags over his houses that has been proven false by information that is in incontestable. police report showed by dates that he got the order of things wrong, covid showed that it couldn't possibly be a school bus stop. so you have erroneous facts by supreme court justices with no method to review them. or they completely ignore the facts. justice thomas refuses to ever

say a word about his wife's engagement and the insurrection while he was adjudicating the rights of those investigating the insurrection. there is nobody else in the world where somebody else doesn't come in and say, sir, we have a complaint about your conduct and we're going to need to take a statement from you. this won't take long. i'm going to ask you some questions. you give your answers and at the end we'll ask you to review and sign your statement. nothing difficult about that. nothing against the separation of powers about that. nothing that chief justice roberts couldn't require right now about that. he could have supreme court staff attorneys conduct exactly that kind of work right now as the chairman has repeatedly pointed out. factfinding is a really basic elemental proposition of our american judicial process and it applies everywhere it makes no sense for the body ultimately responsible for policing proper

judicial process in the united states to not allow itself to participate in that most elemental or fundamental task of there be actual factfinding. the second is a principle so old, it is in latin, no one should judge their own case. that's pretty easy to understand and yet we let these justices alone in the united states nobody else get to be the judges of their own ethics. and obviously they havesure up. and the third issue is transparency disclosure. we know perfectly well that the justices have failed at their disclosure obligations and they can't keep their stories straight about meeting their disclosure obligations. we just had justice thomas go back into his previous disclosures to correct them and tell the world and the judicial conference which was reviewing this that his failure to file

was an accidentaleror. it was -- accidental error, but earlier he said that the same gift from the same billionaire, oh those don't have to be reported. that was personal hospitality from a dear friend. wealth which is it? -- well, which is it? is it hospitality that doesn't need to be reported or is it something that should be reported and now you're cleaning up something you you said was -- that you said was inadvertent. federal officials who commit far less in the way of disclosure mistakes have actually been prosecuted as felons, under the criminal law for those similarviolations. so we need to get this right.

all it requires is factfinding and an independent voice so it's not nemo judex, you're not judging your own cause. it would be done by judges within the judiciary, there is no separation of powers issue. that is a complete ka -- and i will close by saying that the judicial conference has been help us with all of this. the judicial conference has solicited through need erreys -- need erreys about the resort owners and and he would pretend it was personal hospitality. that is a preposterous reading of the personal hospitality

exemption. it's not just me saying that. the judges of the judicial conference said you are right, that is preposterous that isus. we are clarifying the rule that that is not acceptable. and he had done it 60 times. he was a vacation-taking fiend. my lord. so the idea that you can trust a supreme court justice with no independent review no factfinding, each the judge in his own cause to follow the rules has been sloun to smith -- blown to smithereens by the conduct of the supreme court justices themselves as our chng this is a crisis and ethics that the supreme court -- that the supreme court itself has created. it is a crisis and ethics of the supreme court that justice roberts himself and the judicial conference can solve. but if they're not going to do it we're going to do w

did before when we set up the judicial conference when we set up the recusal laws when we set up the disclosure up the system and let the judiciary enforce it. i yield the can floor. mr. blumenthal: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. blumenthal: thank you, mr. president. let me first ask that are amanda padgett, senator merkley's intern be granted privileges of the floor for the balance of the day. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. blumenthal: i want to thank my colleagues senator durbin and senator whitehouse i've been proudo be part of their team working for the most minimal kind of ethical standards for the highest court in the land. right now, that court has no enforceable code of conduct, unlike any other court in the federal system unlike any other branch of government it is so a matter

of simple ethical conduct and appearance. the supreme court has squandered its almost mystical authority, its unique power in the federal government. in a sense, that power was notfounders. the idea of judicial review came after the constitution was written. we can thank justice marshall for that idea that the supreme court can literally strike down what we do here. it's the most powerful branch of government dangerous but the most powerful. think of it for a moment. in a democratic republican --

in a democratic republic it's unelected, it has life tenure nobody can tell a justice you're too old to do this stuff anymore. it is the most anti-democratic or un-democratic ins in a democratic system of government that you could possibly imagine. so its power is really dependent on its adherence to standards of integrity that gain respect and credibility. it has no armies. it has no police force. people following those orders that it issues are because its wisdom and integrity have gained respect. this supreme court is different than any other we've seen. and it's not just two members of the supreme court, because it is the institution as a whole that's responsible, and it is

the chief justice of the court that is most responsible. and so i ask chief justice roberts, please legislation legislation. not just for the sake of your legacy. we know chief justice roberts cares about his legacy but for the sake of the court. this court is doing things justices are committing errors of extraordinary misjudgment not to mention corrupt gifts and trips and all the rest, that are, to use my colleague's words, blowing to smither evens smither smithereens the credibility and trust that this court it needs it for its decisions to be followed and respected. what we're doing here is very

simply saying to the court you must have a code of conduct that's enforceable. we're not telling them what to to decide a case in one way or another. we're not interfering with their docket. we're not in any way affecting the substantive decisions of the united states supreme court. it is simply how they conduct themselves as public officials, whether they take gifts, on trips paid for by somebody else whether they accept grants. it's common sense. you don't need to be a law school graduate to understand it. in fact this idea is more comprehensible and more impactful to the folks who go to work every day and nobody gives them college tuitions nobody takes them on private jets to islands that cost thousands of

dollars to reach. to the ordinary american the everyday american this legislation not only makes sense, i think most people assume there already is legislation like the one we're debating today. so i am not going to belabor the specific provisions of this bill. i believe we're going to have to go farther. i think there ought to be an inspector general for the courts as a part of the judicial conference just like there is in other government entities. i think there to be court reform that casts light on the shadow docket. there are a series of reforms, and some are a lot more draconian in their scope. but this act is simple in

requiring disclosure rules for gifts, travel and income that are at least as strict as those we comply with here in congress a code of ethics recusal, alito and thomas should have recused themselves long ago from decisions involving donald trump. this comprehensive judicial ethics legislation is long overdue, and my biggest regret as i stand on the floor of the senate today is that it is not bipartisan because it should be. i've argued four cases in the united states supreme court. i've been a law clerk there. i have immense respect, unshakeable respect, for the institution, the institution. i have reverence for what it reflects in america.

and sadly, the court has inflicted wounds on itself that will be difficult, and my theory is impossible to repair. but this measure will at least begin that process. thank you, and i yield the floor. mr. welch: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. welch: my colleagues on the republican side have made the assertion that this legislation would interfere with the independence of the judiciary. that's a serious assertion, and it deserves to be respected and responded to. the judiciary is an absolutely vital branch of government that is independent. it is independent in the process by which it makes decisions that come before it for its decision.

that's where it is independent. inasmuch as i disagree with many of the decisions of the supreme court, that court has the right, without interference from congress to make the and there is absolutely nothing in this legislation that interferes with the judicial power that the court alone exercises in considering cases and making decisions. there is absolutely nothing. and to suggest by our colleagues that this legislation would do that is flat out wrong. what this legislation responds to is the conduct of individual justices that is frankly, pretty shocking. you get a call hey, there's a yacht that needs you on board. hey, don't worry about how to get there. we've got a private plane. hey, don't worry, if you didn't come that seat would be

unoccupied. and the justice actually does it. they get on that plane and go and they get on the yacht. hey, by the way, we're having a fishing trip. it's in alaska. it's really cool. let's go. there's an empty seat. why don't you come? it's worth $100,000. but it doesn't have to be reported. you know when we talk about a code of ethics for the supreme court, af the examples why it's needed my constituents from vermont say, peter, what are you talking about, a code of evidentics? they -- a code of ethics? they can do that? they can take this free trip? it's really shocking. my colleague from connecticut said it right -- the chief justice has not only the authority but the responsibility to deal with the court, and he's not doing it. he is not doing it. and another point that my that i'm in 100% agreement with we need a supreme court that has the

credibility and confidence of this country, because we face very difficult decisions that are quite contentious and divide america. and when those are contested and they go to the court, and the court renders a decision that all of us have to abide by whether we were on the winning side or the losing side we absolutely must have a court that has credibility. and the credibility has to be if it's going to be enhanced by the court by following codes of cot by giving american people confidence that they're on the level. th these free trips, these private planes the private yachts. that is just self-serving and frankly gross. who has the opportunity to take those trips in the job they do? by the way, this is an important job they have but it's a job. you know you do your job, you get your paycheck you show up

for work you treat the people you work with decemberently. but you don't have -- decently. but you don't have some expectation because of the job you have that you get free special trips because you are, quote, important. that's not part of the deal here. that's not constitutionally protected. that's not anything to do with the independence of the judiciary. that is just about venal, self-serving conduct by people who happen to have a lifetime appointment. the other point that is really truly shocking and astonishing, we've got over 800 judges -- circuit court, appellate court, bankruptcy court. they can't do this. only nine folks can do it. they're on the supreme court. they should have the highest standards that apply to them self-imposed. they have no standards. this is the supreme court eroding the confidence of the public all of us whichever side of the decision we're on are entitled to have from the

people who have that lifetime appointment. and they are squandering it. they are turning a blind eye to the needs of the people they serve. so this ethics legislation is unfortunately necessary because the supreme court will not do what it has the responsibility to do. the chief justice of the united states supreme court will not face down colleagues on that court who are just disregarding normal rules of decency. so i say to the chair, my colleagues and to my colleagues on the other side of the aie, all of us should be doing everything we can to restore confidence in the judiciary. this is step one. i yield back. mr. merkley: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. merkley: mr. president, this last weekend, i held six town halls in six rural counties and people kept asking what happened to the supreme court? how did it become so corrupt?

why hasn't the chief justice reined it there? these were not an anomaly. i've held 25 town halls previous to this weekend, this year and again in community after community people want to know how has it occurred that the supreme court has squandered its integrity. well they are alarmed about the members of the taking special favors gifts worth millions of -- wait did i say millions of dollars? surely thousands, not millions. justices have taken gifts worth millionollars. the fix a court group documented the gifts since 20 -- let's see, over the last 20 years, 2004,

valued at $6,592,657 to 18 current and former justices of the court. one justice alone, justice thomas taking gifts valued 19 gifts, valued at over $4 million. justice alito accepting gifts valued atver $170,000. how is it possible that the highest court in the land has sunk to such a low level? those gifts $300,000 luxury r.v.'s fng alaska super yacht trips to russia the greek isles and indonesia. the court responded earlier this year by releasing their code of ethics a publicity stunt. a code of ethics with no teeth.

a code of ethics with no enforcement. a code of ethics that completely fails to address the obvious conflicts of interests and breaches of public trust. justice may be blind but we cannot turn a blind eye to these injustices. congress and the court are separate but equal branches of power. and it's our job to check and balance one another. and the supreme court certainly should have compelling code of ethics but it has not. and so the balance is for us to do it for them. itesponsibility to do it to protect them from their own common instincts of taking gifts that they should never touch. well the supreme court ethics recusal and transparency act will require a strong and

enforceable code of ethics for the supreme court. so that all americans can trust that cases between the court are being decided impartially based on the facts of the case the letter of the law, and the principles of our we the people constitution not based on relationships forged on super yachts and fishing trips and gifts of $3,000r.v.'s. who here if you were called to defend yourself in a suit in court would feel like getting a fair hearing if the party that brought the suit against you has been giving thousands or millions of dollars to the judge hearing the case? who here would think you're getting a fair hearing? no one. we all understand that this is corruption. we all understand that this is a

horrific conflict of interest. and we all understand it's unacceptable and the court has failed in its responsibilities to the american people. the supreme court, it has to stand for the interests of the people not the powerful. think of these life altering cases being decided by the court on reproductive rights okays worker rights -- rights on worker rights on voting rights on environmental rights on lgbtq rights so we need the american people need transparency transparency. they need legitimacy. they have need accountability. people need justice unpolluted by gifts from parties having issues before the court. so i urge my colleagues let's all stand together all hundred of us and stand up for the

integrityhe court and pass the supreme court ethics recusal and trapes act -- transparency act. it is my pleasure to yield to my colleague from the state of delaware senator coons. mr. coons: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. mr. coons: mr. president, i rise to urge this body to reconsider the objection that was just made by my colleagues. the rule of law, the system of ordered liberty which so many americans have served and sacrificed at home and abroad is a fragile thing, is at times a mere tissue and it's held together by the confidence of our people in the ethics and integrity of those whom they elect or who are appointed, nominated, confirmed to serve them. kwef' -- we've seen a number of challenging chapters around ethics and integrity and public service recently but tonight we're on this floor to speak about our supreme court and it's

a simply shocking series of revelations about ways in which justices have accepted over years huge amounts of gift ss. the suggestion has been made by a number of my colleagues that this is just democrats, that this is just a partisan attack on a few justices to try and roll back or undermine decisions they've made -- they may dislike for their legitimacy. well i can give you a compelling counterpoint. my friend and colleague senator cornyn and i have seen a whole series of stories in "the wall street journal" in 2021 that revealed that were dozens of federal judges who had stockholdings in companies where issues before them implicated the value of that company, moved us to introduce the bipartisan courthouse ethics and

transparency act. your typical bill takes six, seven, eight years to become law here in the senate. this one moved faster than almost any other. and on the senate judiciary committee and here on the floor of the senate nobody arked that the -- argued that the supreme court needed to be above it all. nobody argued that the justices of the supreme court shouldn't be required to disclose their stockholdings and be accountable for their failures to recuse or disclose. in fact that bill passed unanimous ly unanimously. why then is this one not similarly situated? every federal judge is subject to a bding code of ethics every senator. virtually every federal employee of a senior decision-making role is bound by a code of ethics. that's how the american people know that if there is some

slight or fault, some self-dealing or some action take creates the appearance of impropriety, that action will be taken. and after months and months and months of reports of misconduct failure to disclose questionable conduct by a justice or two of the supreme court, a recent poll by marquette shows that a majority of the american people have lost faith in this institution and no longer have confidence in the political independence and the ethics of our supreme court. mr. chief justice, i hope you listen or watch. we believe you to be concerned about the legitimacy of this important institution. the supreme court is the only federal court not bound by a code of conduct that isenforceable and were these disclosures and their consequences cannot be acted upon the highest court in our

land should not have the ethical standards. and we should take a vote on this bill. the supreme court ethics recusal and transparency act, it should not be controversial or partisan. this isn't about attacking one justice or another. as someone who clerked for a federal judge, as someone who as chief counsel clerked for a s are lawyers in this body and clerked for federal judges. we know the importance of having an independent judiciary. of having a nonpartisan judiciary, and the most powerful court in the land is the supreme court court. when it issued landmark decisions unanimously, it moved the arc of history. today it issues decision after decision that are 5- and that are producing challenging secondary waves in our body politic. if the supreme court is tot our framers

intended it must do so above reproach. that is not where we are today. our supreme court must make itself accountable to the american people. we shouldn't read disclosure after disclosure in the presso learn about the conduct of the justices. just a few moments ago earlier this evening, along with the rest of the delaware delegation i had the honor of meeting with the newest nominees to our nation's service academy. young men and women who are raising their right hand and volunteering to serve our nation who will be granted the opportunity at a free education in exchange for which they sign on the dotted line and agree to go serve our nation at home and abroad and to defend our nation and our constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic. i've just completed a trip to the south pacific where i

visitedvisit ed -- visited ma nello and there is a world war ii cemetery. it includes crosses marking the graves of 13,000 americans who served and sacrificed in the convujs that was the second world war. those crosses do not mark on themrepublican. the freedom for which they fought the system of justice, the rule of law, the constitution for which they took up arms against imperial japan and worked so tirelessly alongside our allies to free a world under assault from fascism and imperialism did not do so based on a sense of partisan principles but out of a commitment to our nation. we should honor those who served and sacrificed in a generation or two ago and those who are willing to serve and sacrifice today going forward by restoring ethics and tra the

united states supreme court. they have cast ahameful shadow not just the appearance of impropriety, but a genuine conflict. it can be resolved. we must help them. take the action they should take and resolve this. we should pass this bill. with that mr. president, i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer:ill the senator withhold his request. ? mr. coons: i withdraw my request. thank you. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. mr. kennedy: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i'm going to talk just for a few minutes this evening about my people in louisiana. they are hurting. inflation is gutting them like a fish.

this inflation like all inflation is manmade. and that man's name is president joe biden. president biden -- president biden has proven to be an inflation machine. he has spent trillion ss and trillions of dollars that we do not have. he has injected so much money into this economy that we are practically drowning in liquidity. and unless you're in the quad playing frisbee during e-con 101, you know inevitably that's going to cause ininflation

and -- inflation and indeed it did. i realize there is a yawning disconnect between what president biden says and what my people in louisiana are experiencing. there is. president biden says that the economy is just fine. he says the economy is just wonderful. and i'll tell you what hi people -- my people say. my people say with respect, mr. president, you need to put down the bong because in our state we are paying more to live worse worse. and we're not going to be able to retire because of you, mr. president, until four years after -- louisiana is not a wealthy state. our median household incomes is

about $50,000. that's mom and dad both working, two children. it's about $4800 a month. president biden's inflation is costing my people an extra $900 month. that's not a year. $900 a month. $11,000 a year. my average family is make once again, $58,000 a year. they've got to find all of a sudden an extra $11,000 a year. since president biden has been president, his inflation has caused the average family in louisiana an extra $22,000. you don't have to take my word for it. you can see this chart.

you don't have to be a senior at cal tech to see that the direction is up and these extra costs were caused by inflation. the prices of consumer goods in my state on average are up 20% since president biden took office. some are up a lot some are up a little less. but the average is 20%. credit card debt is up 46%. the average credit card balance in louisiana is now $5800. when you're making $58,000 a year for a family of four, $5,a. 800 is a lot. we have had a record number of people who have had to take early withdrawals from their retirement accounts, mr. president.

the average electricity bill in louisiana is up 28%. -- since president biden took office. gasoline in louisiana, up 53%. eggs 69%. bread, 28%, coffee 28%, rice 29%, flour, 30%, milk 15%, ice cream, 22%. chicken per pound, 27%. if you're a mom and dad and you're both working and you have maybe two car notes, certainly one car note and a mortgage children how can you afford this? you can't. when you group these necessities that i'm just -- i've just talked about by category what you see is on average for my

people in louisiana -- again, we're not a wealthy state -- food is up 21% on average. housing is up 290%, clothing is up 11%, used cars and trucks are up 21%, new cars and trucks are up 19%, and mortgage rates are up a breathtaking 156%. now, president biden has said truthfully -- and i agree with him on this and i'm very happy that it happened -- that inflation is coming down and it is. but let me tell you the difference between inflation and crisis. when inflation starts to go down we call that disinflation. that doesn't mean prices are

falling. that just means that prices are going up less quickly. at one point, we were experiencing 9% inflation. prices were going up an average of 9% a year. now it's somewhere in the 2% to 3.5% range. that means that prices are only going up 2% to % a year. -- 2% to 3% a year. again that doesn't mean prices are falling. that just means they're going up less quickly. that's a saying that it is very different from deinflation. deflation is when prices fall. and these prices, i'm sad to say, are permanent. they may not go up any more if we can get inflation down to roughly 1% to 2%.

but the higher prices are still permanent. and don't take my word for it. i can refer you to the testimony of both treasury secretary janet yellen and federal reserve chairman jay powell who both testified in the banking committee on which i sit. these prices are permanent. mr. president, my people are really getting good, they're really getting good at barely getting by. and it hurts. it hurts deeply. president biden's inflation in my state is a cancer on the american dream. and it didn't have to be this way. we tried to tell him we tried to tell him that -- not only we when i say many of my republican

colleagues many of my democratic colleagues did as well. jason furman, economic advisor tow president obama, i remember clearly at harvard said with all due respect, mr. president, you spend this kind of money you're going to have inflation. and we d -- and we did. and the worst part of this is biden has no plan to get it down. none. and i regret to say, but i think the only place that we're going to find economic sanity in our country again is in the voting booth. thank you, mr. president. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call: . mr. kennedy: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent for a few minutes that we come out of our quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. kennedy: i neglected to introduce one of my colleagues to the senate. ms. jess andrews. she helped me research my remarks, and i wanted to thank her. i now resuggest is the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the clerk: ms. baldwin.

a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from georgia. a senator: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. osteoporosis i ask unanimous consent that the -- mr. ossoff: i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the period of morning business and the senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each. officer fir without objection. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent that the committee on the judiciary be discharged from further consideration of s. 3984 and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. y'all l. y'all l. signal

objection? without objection. the committee is discharged, and the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the consideration of s. res. 731, which is at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: honoring the victims of the pulse nightclub on june 12, 2019. the presiding officer: without objection. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. ossoff: i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 10:00 a.m. on thursday, june 13; that following the prayer and pledge, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; following the conclusion of morning business, the senate proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the chang nomination, postcloture. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. ossoff: if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask

that it stand adjourneunder the previous order. today the seneca verb two nominees to serve on the federal energy regulatory commission. tomorrow they would vote on whether to begin on legislation to protect access to in vreatment nationwide. watch live coverage of the senate when they return tomorrow here on cspan2. this morning the senate held a hearing on a report detailing a toxic workplace culture and leadership failures. at the federal deposit insurance corporation in light of the report at the i see chair martin grunberg announced he will resign but watch the full housevices committee hearing tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern onow are free mobile video app or online at c-span.org.