and so, madam president, i ask unanimous consent that the foreign relations committee be discharged from further consideration and that the senate now proceed to senate resolution 748. i further ask that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: is there an objection? mr. wicker: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from mississippi. mr. wicker: reserving the right to object. i would simply observe that this resolution is, in fact, not the sense of the senate and it is wrong to suggest that the senate, in any way, the majority of senators in any way agree with this resolution. it is also a simple fact that the dictator, the war criminal,

vladimir putin, thinks he can wait out the clock. this resolution closes the door -- would close the door to continued support for ukraine, taking bilateral agreements off the table would simply bind america's hands. victory against the dictator putin must be our position. ukraine can't win without the support of its friends. putin knows this and surely my friend, the senior senator from utah, also knows this. we should not pass this resolution because it would hand putin a rhetorical victory, and we should not permit that. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: is there

objection? the senator from maryland. mr. cardin: reserving the right to object, mr. president, it's interesting. earlier today there was a large bipartisan group of senators that met with president zelenskyy of ukraine. we expressed our bipartisan support for the united states continuing to support ukraine's efforts to repeal the outrageous attacks to their sovereignty by mr. putin and russia. it was bipartisan support for ukraine because we recognize that ukraine is the front line in the defense of our democracy. ukraine is not asking us for our soldiers. they're asking us for our support. so i want to start in my concerns of the unanimous consent request offered by the senator from utah that the

support for the defense of ukraine enjoys overwhelming, bipartisan support here in the united states senate. and that's why i was pleased to join senator wicker on the floor. when the supplemental funding bill came up for a vote, 79 senators -- republicans and democrats alike -- backed it. why is that? it's because most senators understand what is at stake. it's because we understand that ukraine is not only fighting for themselves, they're fighting for the entire western world. it is because we understand that if putin is successful in ukraine, it will endanger our security interests and those of some of our closest european allies. yes, they're asking for financial and military support. their success, ukraine's success, will help make it possible for our soldiers not to be in another war in europe. and so supporting ukraine in

this fight against one of the most dangerous adversaries in the world is clearly in the national security interests of the united states. i also want to address one of the arguments offered by my colleague from utah -- the idea that this executive agreement should have no effect unless submitted to the senate for advice and consent. multiple administrations have used executive agreements to advance diplomatic goals nra in the u.s. national -- that are in the u.s. national security interests. along with my clearly, i support this bipartisan agreement because it does just that -- it advances ukraine's interests hand our own interests -- and our own interests in national security. unlike other administrations, in the case of this agreement, the biden administration proactively reached out to members and staff in both chambers, in both parties, to share the parameters of the negotiations while they were under way. they solicited reactions and input from congress, and they took some of our input in in

regards to the final negotiations. and unlike the practices of previous administrationed, the biden administration printed the text on the day it was signed. we in congress were kept up to date on parallel negotiations with ukraine's -- by 30 other negotiations. they're negotiating with 31 countries, bilateral security agreements so we can have a comprehensive help to yucca with its defense of democracy. many are nato, but there are also other countries that have rallied to support ukraine. so far ukraine has signed 20 bilat security deals. they include training of ukrainian troops, they include weapons delivery. i want to be clear. they do not include deployment of foreign soldiers to fight in ukraine. it is envisioned that 32 nations

will enter into bilateral security agreements with ukraine. while they will vary in some extent, they will create a robust commitment of support for ukraine. it also adds to this hearting and specifically united states bilateral with ukraine includes commitments by ukraine to continue its consolidation of democratic governance and anticorruption initiatives. it's absolutely critical we send a clear message to vladimir putin that no matter who is is in the white house, the united states will stand by ukraine in its fight to maintain its sovereignty. finally, mr. president, this is not charity. it serves our national security interests. it's because future wars will be different from the prior conflicts. they will now involve modern technology. right now ukraine is experimenting with how to be effective in such a war, and ukraine is adapting in real-time with this bilateral agreement,

ukraine will be sharing information with the united states on everything they learn on the battlefield. it will give our soldiers and military planners creative ways to use these new technologies. this agreement strengthens our national security, it strengthens ukraine, and it strengthens the resole of allies -- resolve of allies looking to the united states for leadership on the global stage. for all of these reasons, i object to the unanimous consent request. the presiding officer: objection is is heard. mr. lee: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. lee: mr. president, i appreciate the insights offered by my friend and colleague, the distinguished senator from the state of maryland. i'm grateful for his leadership in the senate, for his friendship, and all he does in looking out for the interests of our country, and i'm grateful to have his insights today on the floor explaining the reasons for his objection to the resolution that i've offered. but i'd like to note that not one of these arguments negates

the fundamental realities that we're dealing with here. not one of them negates something very fundamental in all of this, which is the requirement in the constitution, found in article 2, section 2, of the constitution that says that the president, quote, shall have power by and with the advice of the senate to make treaties provided that two-thirds of the senators present concur. that's a pretty significant requirement. so let's address each of these arguments that we've heard in the last few minutes it turn. -- in turn. the fact that we've heard arguments about the fact that there has been significant bipartisan support for ukraine aid. that doesn't negate this. i mean, first of all, providing material support, humanitarian or otherwise, to ukraine is not

the same as a treaty. a treaty creates a lasting international obligation, one that is intended specifically to outlast, as my friend from maryland noted is is the objective here, supposed to transcend one administration to the next, so that it's not just a fleeting moment. it's an ongoing sovereign obligation. for that very reason, mr. president, article 2, section 2, of the constitution requires that the senate ratify treaties before they may take effect. a president may propose them, the president may negotiate them, even sign them, but unless or until a treaty is presented to the senate and ratified in executive session by the senate, by a two-thirds supermajority vote, takes 67 votes with 100

senators, then you don't have a treaty, and you don't have that lasting sovereign international obligation. one that transcends one administration to another. as far as the argument that there's been transparency, there's been outreach by the white house to senators and communication, that's great. it's the sort of thing that ought to happen. it is in no way sufficient to provide a substitute for or an end run around article 2, section 2, of the constitution requiring that treaties be presented to the senate and ratified only with 67 votes in a 100-member chamber. so that doesn't do it. that can't take care of that here. now, look... the point here is that there's nothing in what i'm suggesting that would necessarily close any doors in the future. what i'm trying to say here is that if we're going to do this,

we're going to close doors, as is the intention behind this agreement, close doors to future administrations, to future congresses, to bind us to some kind of a lasting obligation as a sovereign nation to one or more other sovereign nations internationally, then we've got to follow the treaty process because that's what the constitution requires. so, as to the idea that ukraine is the front line, the front line of defending democracy, as i think was one of the arguments raised here, our own obligation to protect our own sovereign borders and our own people while at the same time containing and deterring other potential threats to the united states, such as those presented by

china, those have to come first. those are the front lines of our republic, our own border, our own national defense, our own national security, the safety, the freedom, the security of our own people. that is the front line that we are supposed to be focused on. that is literally our front line. and insofar as those incompatible with our efforts on another continent, those things have to be taken into account. but there again, mr. president, this is exactly the sort of thing that the senate is supposed to consider, not just in the abstract but in the context of a lasting sovereign, international obligation in the context of treaty ratification proceedings. and that takes a two-thirds supermajority vote. executive agreements do not and constitutionally should not and cannot supersede laws passed a

by congress, and there's nothing in the constitution that says that a lasting sovereign international obligation taken on by an executive agreement made by the president of the united states alone, whether with or without constituul stat to one or more membersing of congress, nothing in in that says that satisfaction the obligation. if the words of section 2 or any other provision of the constitution read otherwise, then we'd be in a different circumstance. but alas we are not in that universe. and quite fortunately, we're not. there's good reason that the founders put in there the two-thirds supermajority requirement, and we can't allow that simply to be bypassed here, not for light or casual purposes, not even for great purposes, no matter how great our purposes are, no matter how noble one's intentions might be

in the administration, in the senate, or otherwise. one can't get around this simple fact that what we're talking about here is for all practical purposes a treaty, and we're being asked to treat it as such. that requires two-thirds. we don't have that here. so no matter how much bipartisan support, no matter how much flowery rhetoric, no matter how much good can be done, no matter how evil vladimir putin is, that still doesn't change our constitutional relativities. we've each been -- constitutional realities. we've each been sworn into office under circumstances where pursuant to other provisions of the constitution, we're required to take an oath to the constitution itself. our oath requires nothing less than that we honor this and that we not pretend that we can just circumvent all of this simply by

calling something an executive agreement no matter how justified by the circumstances we may want it to be. look, at the end of the day, we have to come to grapple with the fact that we're $35 trillion in debt, that we face threats around the world, including and especially from china, china which is gaining increasingly a foothold in our own hemisphere in country after country throughout latin america. china is gaining a physical presence in addition to a more and more robust commercial arrangement, in addition to china's investment in so-called dual-use technologies which in many circumstances have military purposes behind them. it's one of many policy reasons why we've got to be focused on

china. insofar as we deplete our own resources in continuing to honor an obligation to another country in another hemisphere, we've got to take those things into account. it's one of many things that we've got to consider before taking on a treaty obligation. make no mistake, this is a treaty obligation. abraham lincoln is quoted as having asked the question first rhetorically, if you count the tail of a dog as a leg, how many legs does the dog have? people would apparently routinely, the uninitiated at least, respond, well, five legs. they'd say, no, it's still four legs. just because you call the tail of a dog a leg doesn't make it so. just because you call this a treaty and ask people to treat it as a

treaty doesn't make it so. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. lee: i ask unanimous consent that the judiciary committee be discharged from further consideration and the senate proceed to s. res. 746. the presiding officer: is there objection? the clerk will report. the clerk: s. res. 746, commemorating the passage of three years since the tragic building collapse in surfside, florida, on june 24, 2021. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. mr. lee: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent -- the presiding officer: the committee is discharged and the senate will proceed to the measure. the senator from utah. mr. lee: i ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made

and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. the senator from georgia is recognized. mr. ossoff: i ask unanimous consent that the committee on the judiciary be discharged from and the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of h.r. 3019. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: h.r. 3019, an act to establish an inspections regiment for the bureau of prisons and other purposes. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. the committee is discharged, and the senate will proceed in consideration. mr. ossoff: i further ask that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. ossoff: mr. president, how

did it come to pass that in a nation whose founding document guarantees due process and civil rights and prohibits cruel and unusual punishment, a federal prison in dublin, california, would become so notorious for the endemic sexual abuse of female inmates by prison staff that it would be known as rape club? rape club. sexual assault and abuse of federal inmates by the warden, by the chaplain. senator johnson of wisconsin and i led a bipartisan investigation of sexual assault in federal

prisons. we found that in two-thirds, two-thirds of federal prisons that housed female inmates, inmates had been sexually assaulted by members of prison staff. we found that at the u.s. penitentiary in atlanta, in my home state of georgia, for nearly a decade, unchecked corruption and civil rights abuses had been ongoing, with the knowledge of the leadership of the bureau of prisons and no effective action had been taken to address them. pretrial detainees sleeping in paper pajamas, denied access to counsel, denied access to hygiene products, denied access to fresh air. pretrial, presuchively -- presum tively innocent federal detainees.

the human rights crisis behind bars in the united states is a st stain on america's conscience. and mr. president, we just passed the most significant federal prison reform legislation in many years. and now it's on the way to the desk of the president of the united states of america. i am grateful to my colleague, senator braun of indiana, for joining me in authoring and introduced the federal prison oversight act, which has now been passed by the senate and the house. this is landmark prison reform legis legislation. it will require the inspector general of the department of justice to undertake ongoing and regular inspections of every single federal prison in the

united states. it will establish an independent ombudsman at the department of justice to investigate the health, safety, welfare and rights of incarsrated people -- of incarcerated people and staff, who will also create a secure hotline and online forum for family members and friends of incars mated -- incarcerated americans to submit complaints and inquiries. it will require the i.g. to report the findings from its routine inspections of federal prisons and recommendations to congress and to the public, and require the bureau of prisons to respond to all inspection reports within 60 days with a corrective action plan. we were able to pass this legislation because we worked together , senator johnson and i leading multiple bipartisan

investigations of human rights abuses and corruption in the federal prison system. senator braun and i forming the prison policy working group to develop bipartisan solutions like this one. i'm grateful to my colleague from georgia in the u.s. house, representative mcbath, for her tireless efforts to shepherd this bill to passage in the u.s. house. and today, we passed it on the floor of the senate. i'm grateful for the support of my colleagues. and let the leadership of the bureau of prisons know that the united states congress will no longer tolerate the wanton and ongoing and widespread abuse of those who are in their custody. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor.

mr. cardin: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. ca mr. cardin: thank you, mr. president. 75 years ago, a brutal russian dictator had pushed russia to the brink of war. soviet sponsored coups removed

governments in eastern europe. communists were trying to seek control of greece. authoritarian forces threatened american allies across europe. the peace we fought so hard to secure during world war ii was in jeopardy. to meet these challenges, the united states and nations on both sides of the atlantic that shared a democratic, free, and prosperous vision of the world, came together and formed an alliance. the north atlantic treaty organization, or nato. president truman signed the treaty, along with representatives from canada, belgium, denmark, france, iceland, italy, luxembourg, the netherlands, norway, portugal, and the united kingdom. the heart of this treaty has always been article 5. it states that, quote, the parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of

them in europe or north america shall be considered an attack against them all. mr. president, despite the incredible changes we've seen in the world over the past 75 years, the nato alliance comes together for a summit here in washington this week. the power of our solemn promise of solidarity is just as important as ever. vladimir putin's invasion of ukraine has laid bare the danger russia once again poses to europe. from the baltic states and poland to romania and bulgaria, nato member countries have seen what mr. putin's army is capable of doing in ukraine. targeting maternity wards and kindergartens. kidnapping and forcing children to relocate in russia. executing innocent civilians with their hands tied behind

their backs. for those people living in mo moscow's shadow, the only thing standing between russia's invasion and such horrific war crimes is nato. this makes the strength of our alliance vitally important. i want to thank secretary-general stoltenberg for his tireless efforts to guide the alliance through the last decade. the alliance is stronger today thanks to the recent additions of finland and sweden, thanks to the important financial contributions of member states, especially on the eastern flank, and thanks to the leadership of the biden administration, in particular secretary blinken and secretary austin. and because of the hard work of our military and political leaders on both sides of the atlantic, today nato is more unified, but there are concerns. whether it is the former

president of the united states who tells russia to, quote, do whatever the hell they want, or the delays in getting supplemental security funding for ukraine passed in the house of representatives earlier this year. diplomats on both sides of the atlantic are asking legitimate questions -- where is our alliance headed? can putin be stopped in ukraine? will nato continue to have our backs? as chair of the senate foreign relations committee, i want to be crystal clear. the answer is and must be yes. nato has been there for the united states in tough times, whether it's defending our skies after 9/11 or providing food and medical supplies to the people of new orleans after hurricane katrina. now more than ever, i believe the united states must stand shoulder to shoulder with you're european allies. that's why i backed efforts to support ukraine in its fight against russia.

that's why i will never give up pushing for the passage of the supplemental security assistance and was glad it was finally enacted. that's why i support the recent security agreement between the united states and ukraine. it is also why i support for nato to take an expanded role in coordinating the defense of ukraine. because, no matter who is in the oval office, assistance to ukraine must continue. defense of europe against russian aggression must continue. strengthening of the nato alliance must continue. above all, we must not give up hope that we can succeed. 75 years ago at the nato treaty signing, president truman said, for us, war is not inevitable. we do not believe there are blind tides of history which sweep men one way or another. in our own time, we have seen brave men overcome obstacles

that seem insurmountable and forces that seem overwhelming. men with courage and vision can still determine their own destiny. mr. president, i am confident that nato leaders, men and women, meeting here in washington this week, possess both courage and vision. they may be -- there may be debates how nato can best engage with our allies in the indo-pacific like japan, secret, and australia, or how to best popps tur -- posture ourselves on the eastern flank. i'm optimistic nato's future is bright. no question, what brings us together is our commitment to keeping authoritarian governments at bay. our commitment to democratic institutions and protections of human rights, and our commitment to peace and prosperity, our commitments to our values. so mr. president, as we welcome nato leaders to washington this week and celebrate the 75th

anniversary of the nato alliance, i urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support and protect nato's military alliance that has made our world a safer place for over seven decades. let us work together to build a future that is free, secure, and peaceful for generations to come. with that, mr. president, i would suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: the clerk:: the clerk: ms. baldwin. quorum call:

he was a man of humility, of decency and he took everyone he met with those qualities. he was also a man of deep principle. but what made him a great senator in fact one of the best that is served in this body is he was always looking for principal compromise. he was always trying to reach across the aisle see if he could, working with others, find a way forward that would be better for the country. i was terribly saddened when i learned yesterday of jim's passing. he was a leader. he was a gentleman. he was all that we expect a senator to be and much more. i served alongside jim he served on the armed services committee in the house and the senate.

i had the privilege to serve with him as the senate armed services committee. we work intern both chairman and ranking members. both the senior republican and senior democrats on the committee for many years. we produced nearly two dozen national defense authorization's acts we traveled to combat zones and military posts around the world and work to support our men in uniform, men and women in uniform. and as i said before there are many issues we disagreed upon but we were able in many, many if not most cases find a way forward but one of the issues that is so compelling and jim's a life as a young man he was in the army. he knew what it was like to

serve and sacrifice and dedicate herself to a cause beyond personal ambition he learned also something that was profound and reflected in all of its work of the committee. the decision we make here ultimately affects the lives of young americans in uniform across the globe. he knew that, he understood that. he was not sitting back here thinking about how will this affect this company and that company? it's are we doing best for the young when men and women have dedicated themselves to the country that will sacrifice where this country of doing as much as we can for the families that are serving with them? that profound sense of service

that he incubated as a young army soldier he carried through his career. he always insisted on speaking to the junior nco and junior service members. we all get a briefing by the general about his situation. he wanted to get down and talk to privates and specialists and seamen and airmen and say what is going on? how are things going are you getting adequate rations? l be v. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. welch: mr. president, one year ago this very week rain started to fall in vermont, and for days on end it did 23409 stop. the -- did not stop. the rain turned into catastrophic flooding. we had our entire usual rainfall in just days. the damage was immense.

we experienced landslides. vermonters were stranded, had to be rescued. three people tragically died. homes, farms and businesses were damaged and destroyed. the infrastructure and services that we take for granted and depend on, the wastewater plants, our dams, our bridges and even our capital city's post office were damaged by the flood. some have not yet been repaired, many in fact. the statistics from vermont are astounding. there were 214 swift water rescues. swift water rescues, people who couldn't get out of their home except by being rescued by folks on boats. and 70 evacuations. 18 drinking water and 33 wastewater systems were damaged. three wastewater systems were damaged beyond repair. 139 of our municipalities experienced flood damage. 64 state bridges and 46 state

roads were closed. over 6,000 tons of debris were removed by the state of vermont. there were 6,146 fema individual assistance registrations. was an all hands on deck moment in vermont just as it is in other communities where they face a major disaster, and people showed up. neighbors and volunteers, first responders, police officers, medical professions and emergency workers. the national guard, local news reporters, by the way, did an incredible job keeping vermonters informed. from every level of government and every political leaning, folks worked together for a common goal -- to help. a moment of appreciation to my colleagues, including the president, who may be listening. nine steps helped vermont by sending personnel or resources. thank you to the governors and senators in new hampshire,

massachusetts, pennsylvania, virginia, north carolina, tennessee, michigan, florida, and colorado. states that supported us and colleagues who supported us. it's very reassuring, i just want to say to all of my colleagues, republican and democrat, to hear your expressions of goodwill on behalf of vermonters when we suffered that catastrophic loss. since the flood, i've revisited many of the communities that were hit hard last july, and in every community i've seen strength and resilience. and it gives me confidence that we will come back stronger than before. our vermont values and i think american values, i know they are rural values have shown the country what is possible in times much great adversity. our perseverance has remained long after the flood waters have receded. but, mr. president, this takes a toll on folks. if it's your farm, if it's your

home, if it's your business, if it's a town where the select board and it's your bridge, that is tough, and it goes on. i've come to the senate floor many times to talk about how critical the resources are that the appropriations process have provided, but we need flexible funding dollars to actually finish the job and get past the red tape that's holding things up. the president's revised disaster supplemental request is absolutely critical not just for vermont, by the way, but for many communities that have suffered catastrophic weather-related events around the country. you

weather events are here to stay. i want to thank the people of vermont who as they've always done to come together and deal with the reality of what thaey face. mr. president, i yield back.

mr. welch: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. welch: i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination. danny young, that the senate vote on the nomination, it's calendar number 508, without any intervening action or debate, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, that the president be immediately notified of the senate's action and the senate resume legislative session.

the presiding officer: is the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, the clerk will report. the clerk: nomination, the judiciary, executive calendar number 508, danny lam hoan nguyen, of the district of columbia, to be an associate judge of the superior court of the district of columbia. the presiding officer: the question occurs on the nomination. all those in favor say aye. all opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the nomination is confirmed. mr. welch: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the en bloc consideration of the following senate resolutions -- s. res. 760, s. res. 761, s. res. 762. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measures en bloc? without objection. the senate will proceed to the resolutions, en bloc. mr. welch: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the resolutions be agreed to, the preambles be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, all en bloc.

the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. welch: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the en bloc consideration of the following bills -- calendar number 127, s. 612, lake tahoe restoration act. calendar number 292, s. 912. mining schools act. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measures en bloc? without objection. the senate will proceed to the measures en bloc. mr. welch: i ask that the bills be considered read a third time en bloc. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. welch: i know of no further debate on the bills, en bloc. the presiding officer: if there is no further debate, the question is on passage of the bills, en bloc. mr. welch: i further -- the presiding officer: all those in favor say aye. all opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the bills are passed, en bloc.

mr. welch: i further ask that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, all en bloc. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. welch: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar number 78, s. 412. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 78, s. had 12, a -- s. 412, a bill to provide it is unlawful to privately distribute intimate pictures with reckless disregard to the individual's lack of consent for the distribution and for other purposes. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. mr. welch: i ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported substitute amendment be withdrawn, the klobuchar substitute amendment, which is at the desk, be considered and agreed to, and the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time. the presiding officer: without objection.

mr. welch: i know of no further debate. the presiding officer: if there is no further debate, all those in favor say aye. all opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the bill, as amended, is passed. mr. welch: i ask that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. welch: mr. president, i have ten requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. the presiding officer: duly noted. mr. welch: i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it recess until 10:00 a.m. on thursday, july 11. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. welch: for the information of the senate, during thursday's session we expect senator cruz to make a motion to discharge s.j. res. 89 from the foreign relations committee. we also expect to vote on confirmation of the meriweather nomination. if there is no further business

to come before the senate, i ask that it stand in recess under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands in recess until senate stands in recess until the senate working on more of president biden's traditional nominations for lawmakers confirming charles a willoughby to be associate judge on d.c. superior court for a 15 year term. centers block consideration of a bill seeking to ensure abortion access that measure failed to get 60 votes in support. more live senate coverage and lawmakers meet tomorrow here on cspan2. >> congressional democrats continue to be asked about president biden reelection campaign some news from politico jordan carney she post senat democrats will hold a special caucus lunch tomorrow at 12:30 p.m. the democratic senatorial campaign committee to

hear from senior bitingampaign n advisors mike donnellan and steve biden campaign chair. this comes after colorado michael bennet became the first democratic senator to question mr. biden's candidacy rinsing the white house and the time since that disastrous debate has nothing to demonstrate they have a plan to win this election. warned of a potential republican landslide victory. doug across the country gather for the republican nominee for president. watch as they lay out their priorities for the next four years the party's vision for the future. the republican national convention live monday on c-span perceived that now or online at c-span.org. c-span, your unfiltered view of

the