the clerk: ms. ernst, no. vote:

the clerk: mr. manchin, aye.

the clerk: mr. cruz, no.

the clerk: miss rosen, aye. the clerk: ms. rosen, aye.

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

vote: the clerk: mr. blumenthal, aye. the clerk: mr. fetterman, aye.

the clerk: mr. kelly, aye.

the clerk: mr. reed, aye.

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

the clerk: mrs. shaheen, aye.

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

the clerk: mrs. murray, aye. mr. cardin, aye.

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

the clerk: ms. smith, aye. ms. cortez masto, aye. ms. duckworth, aye.

the clerk: mr. lujan, aye. mr. welch, aye. the clerk: ms. baldwin, aye.

the clerk: mr. young, no. ms. cantwell, aye. the clerk: mr. coons, aye.

the clerk: mr. p sanders, aye. . mr. bennet, aye. . the clerk: mr. warnock, aye.

the clerk: mr. budd, no. the clerk: mr. schumer, aye. mrs. gillibrand, aye.

vote: . vote:

the clerk: ms. klobuchar, aye. the clerk: mr. casey, aye.

mr. padilla, aye. the clerk: ms. hirono, aye.

vote:

the clerk: mr. whitehouse, aye.

the clerk: mr. ossoff, aye.

the presiding officer: on this vote the yeas are 53, the nays are 39 and the nomination is it confirmed.

mr. lee: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. lee: madam president, one citizen, one vote. today this foundational principle is under attack. it's under attack because president biden refuses to enforce the law.

and now we face a direct threat to our entire electoral system. consider this. since president biden's inauguration on january 20, 2021, over 10 million illegal immigrants have entered the united states. now, this figure exceeds the populations of 36 states, creating a crisis that has been met with troubling silence and inaction from far too many on the other side of the aisle. with millions of unauthorized people now on u.s. soil living here in the united states, the potential for election fraud through ineligible voting is not just a hypothetical risk, no. it is a looming reality. with the influx of noncitizens under this administration, even if just a fraction, let's talk say one in 100 were to vote,

this could translate to hundreds of thousands of votes, enough to sway our tightly contested elections and potentially alter their outcomes. this is deeply concerning considering that a recent study that noncitizens have ample openings to vote illegally. it found 10% to 20% of noncitizens are registered to vote and 5% to 13% of noncitizens do vote in n nonpresidential elections. instances abound where this has been facilitated. from unsolicited voter registration forms being mailed out to noncitizens to driver's licenses issued without adequate checks, practices relying merely on the illegal aliens has opened

up the floodgates to voter fraud. it is true that is it illegal for noncitizens to vote in federal electionings, there are no effective systems in place to verify the citizenship of voters. a mere check on a box is all it takes with little risk of being caught. in short, you're on the honor system with those forms. federal law even prohibits states from requiring proof of citizenship when registering voters via federal forms. so it's not just that the states aren't doing an adequate job of verifying citizenship as a condition presto -- they are pr hibtd by law from doing so. an increasing number of localities permit noncitizens to vote in local elections. if turtsdz blurs the distinctions that have historically been meant to

protect the integrity of our elections. prominent democrats have openly discussed these tactics, in many instances as beneficial to their agenda, it's likely to help their political ambitions. only months ago every senate democrat voted to count illegal aliens in the census to help them shore up more seats in congress and more votes in the electoral college. this cannot continue. it's our responsibility, our imperative to close these gates. my bill, the save act, would ensure that this stops it because it would be a vital step in securing the electoral process. ensuring that every vote cast is legitimate and every voter is duly recognized and registered and properly brought into the system so they can vote.

the save act amends the national voter registration act, the same act that was interpreted a few years ago by the supreme court as prohibiting the states from requesting any positive proof of citizenship. so that states could ensure that only u.s. citizens may participate in federal elections. it fixes the nvra, if it were interpreted that way, it would close the loophole, the save act would require document for citizenship and specifies special documentation and requires states to establish alternative verification processes for those rare instances in which standard documents might be unavailable. furthermore, the save act compels state to proactively

remove noncitizens from voter rolls and introduces severe penalties for those who intentionally register noncitizens. this bill echos the sentiments of the american people from coast to coast, it transcends political affiliations with an overwhelming bipartisan supermajority of americans supporting it. and it speaks directly to the core of what makes our country great, fair, free, and secure elections operating within our constitutional republic. this is about protecting our elections from foreign interference, something my democratic colleagues claim to care about and long have. if we truly want our electionings to be free -- elections to be free of foreign interference, pass the save act. let's pass it today, let's pass

it right now. so for those of my colleagues opposed to this why aren't they concerned with the ability of tens of millions of foreign nationals, noncitizens in the united states, to vote in america? why should we allow tens of millions of foreign nationals who are not citizens of the united states to vote in u.s. elections? now if the biden administration insists on keeping america's border open as to my great dismay it has for the entirety of the three and a half years or so biden's been in office. they're going to insist on keeping the borders open. they must at a bare minimum ensure that none of those noncitizens are interfering in our elections. every single day that we delay, the foundation of our electoral process erodes a little more.

we cannot wait for this administration to enforce the law, to enforce the border which they haven't done. they continue to refuse to do it. more people continue to enter. but in the meantime they've let in ten million illegal aliens. the -- add to that the ones already here, 30 million noncitizens currently reside in the united states. but this administration just keeps right on trucking, not doing anything about this problem. and in fact this administration strongly opposes this legislation. now, let's run through the reasoning. the reasoning is really telling. there are several arguments raised by the white house. in the statement they issued just earlier this week. first, the white house protests. quote, it is already illegal for noncitizens to vote in federal elections. it is a federal crime punishable by prison and fines, close

quote. now, to be clear, that is on its face a correct statement of the law. i won't disagree with the statement on its four corners. but the conclusion is really messed up. as i've already stated, there's absolutely no functioning mechanism for enforcing the law. and it's worse than that. it's not just that current law doesn't create an adequate enforcement mechanism. it's that current law as interpreted by the supreme court firmively prohibits -- affirmatively prohibits the states from doing what they need to do in order to prevent noncitizens from registering to vote and subsequently voting in federal elections contrary to federal law. meanwhile, doj investigations of illegal voting are all but nonexistent.

a law without enforcement cannot, will not stop illegal behavior. and there are many, many circumstances in which notwithstanding the fact that the underlying conduct is criminally prohibited, you still need some sort of verification mechanism to make it enforceable. by the white house's own logic, it would be unnecessary and perhaps even unwise to have laws requiring a photo i.d. to buy beer and cigarettes. you know, we've got these laws on the books, after all, that already make it a crime to sell beer and cigarettes to children. so according to the white house's logic, we shouldn't need an additional law requiring age verification with a photo i.d. now, nobody would be that crazy, that insane to make that argument there. we shouldn't be making it here. it's the same argument.

the exact same argument. next, in second position, the administration makes the unsubstantiated claim that, quote, justification for the save act is based on easily disproven falsehoods, close quote, end of sentence. but then, well, the administration utterly fails, defiantly refuses to offer anything to support that statement. it's ironic because that justification for opposing it on grounds that the justification for the save act is based on disproven falsehoods, this is its own disproven falsehood. there's nothing there. there's no falsehood that's been disproven. they have not disproven the fact that noncitizens, whether legally or illegally in this country at the time, can easily obtain a voter registration,

eligibility to vote in federal elections or the physical ability to do it, rather, so long as they're willing to check a box and sign their name. they don't dispute the fact that in all 50 states and d.c., a noncitizen can apply for and receive a driver's license or that the national voter registration act makes it easy when applying for a driver's license to check a box and sign your name and thereby registered to vote in federal elections. when you add to that the fact that states are affirmatively legally prohibited based on the supreme court's interpretation a few years ago, saying that the states cannot, may not, must not ask for any kind of documentation to verify citizenship, we've got a problem. so for them to say that our justification for the save act is based on falsehoods, on easily disproven falsehoods is itself easily disproven and it's

a falsehood. third, the administration asserts that, quote, making a false claim of citizenship or unlawfully voting in an election is punishable by removal from the united states and a permanent bar to add mission, close -- admission, close quote. well, this is an interesting argument. this one is rich, mr. president, coming from this administration. look, while it's true that the naturalization form has a self-reporting mechanism that asks the applicant for the applicant has ever voted illegally. yeah, that's true. as far as i can tell, even when they do self-report in those, i suspect rare instances where they do, absolutely nothing has been done with that information under the biden administration. joe biden isn't deporting anyone for illegally voting. joe biden has opened the floodgates and just let's people

come in. so that's rich coming from this administration suggesting that there's going to be suddenly rigorous enforcement of laws governing our border security in this instance when number one, they're not doing it and number two, everywhere you look they're doing the opposite of that. fourth, the administration asserts, quote, states already have effective safeguards in place to verify voters' eligibility and maintain the accuracy of voter rolls. mr. president, that assertion is simply flat out wrong. it's just false. it's false. factually and it's false legally, meaning it is not true and it cannot be true by operation of law for reasons i've just explained. states are legally prohibited from requiring proof of citizenship when registering to vote owe on -- owe when registering voters for federal elections.

this i fear may well be a feature, not a bug for the administration, and a reason for the administration to oppose it tragically. we'll get more -- we'll get back to that more in a moment. but look, look loophole that i'm describing based on the supreme court's interpretation of the nbra, telling states that they may not and must not ask for any kind of evidence of citizenship, that's a gaping loophole that we must fix. lastly, the administration claims that instead of safeguarding our elections, this bill with its incredibly generous list of ways to demonstrate citizenship would make it harder for americans to vote. well, look, the reality is there's an expansive list of ways to demonstrate citizenship. even if you lack the documentation traditionally involved in proving it. and keep in mind it's not

unusual for americans to be asked for proof of citizenship. every single time an american citizen starts new employment, starts a new job and they fill out an i-9, they've got to provide proof of citizenship. if you're not a citizen, you've got to show evidence of your visa and your eligibility to work in the united states under that visa. if you can't do that, you can't start a job. this happens all the time. this is not as if the ability to prove citizenship and a requirement that one do so is foreign to us. nor is it the case under this bill but it would be exceptionally difficult. even if you're one of those rare individuals who for whatever reason doesn't have access to a birth certificate or something else take can prove it, we've got a long list of other ways you can do it even if you lack the traditionally utilized documentation. this bill allows all american

citizens to vote. more importantly, if enacted it would mean that no american vote could be canceled out by a vote cast illegally by a noncitizen. this bill would make it harder to cheat in elections and ensure the integrity of every ballot lawfully cast. there is no valid argument against the safe act, mr. president. none. the only reason to oppose this bill would exist if you needed illegal votes to win elections, full stop, that's it. by passing the save act, we would send a clear message that in the united states of america, voting is not just a privilege of citizenship but a cherished and protected right. as debates about election integrity rage, the save act stands out by guaranteeing that only american citizens can have

a say in our elections. american elections must be decided by american voters, full stop. so, mr. president, as if in legislative session, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of h.r. 8281 which is at the desk. further, 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 an objection? a senator: reserving the right to object. the presiding officer: the senator from california. mr. padilla: mr. president, i ask you this. how many times do we have to go through this? less than two months ago i came down to the floor of the senate to object to this very same bill. expressing concerns, asking questions, and here we are again

and nothing has changed. it doesn't matter how many times this bill comes to the floor. doesn't matter how many times our republican colleagues faint outrage over noncitizens unlawfully voting without a shred of evidence. it doesn't change the fact that as good as the proponents may make this bill -- or try to make this bill sound, it is nothing other than a solution in search of a problem. now, i speak both as a senator representing california but also as a former chief elections officer of california where i as the secretaries of state across the country, by the way, worked alongside clerks across the political spectrum at the state and local level, and given that experience, i can tell you this.

there is no credible evidence of a meaningful number of noncitizens voting in our elections. in 2016 audits show that noncitizens accounted for zero -- 0.0001% of the vote. even the conservative cato institute has said that, quote, noncitizens don't illegally vote in detectible numbers, end quote. now, i'm glad senator lee mentioned the national voter registration act. because as i r he pointed out -- because as he pointed out, it was upheld by the supreme court of the united states in terms of its guidance of what states can and should do and what they cannot do. he also didn't mention that the national voter registration act

was adopted on an overwhelming bipartisan vote of congress. but rather than propose legislation based on facts, this bill would respond to the alarming allegations that republicans themselves have fabricated. it would create more barriers to exercise the right to vote and would restrict ballot access for even more americans than is currently the case. it would make voting harder for the more than 21 million eligible voters in america who can't easily access their proof of citizenship. i don't know about you. i'm not in the habit of carrying around my birth certificate or even my passport. not everybody has a passport. doesn't mean you're not a citizen if you don't carry a passport. and i'm not just talking about democrats or republicans. i'm talking about americans of both political parties.

the bill would clearly also disproportionately impact voters which communities of color. in addition, this bill seeks to undermine faith in our elections by injecting fear and un cert certainty, particularly in an election cycle at a time when our democracy demands more calm and understanding of the integrity of the process. but senator lee and i agree op one thing, believe it or not, and that is voting is a sacred responsibility, and the right to vote in and of itself is funda fundamentally sacred. so, to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, if you're truly worried about the election and our democracy, then i ask you this, join me.

join me in passing the freedom to vote act and making sure all eligible americans -- yes, only united states citizens -- can make their voices heard at the ballot box without any unnecessary barriers or obstacles. it's the most american and the most bipartisan thing that we could do. but until then, let's be honest with the american people. so, yes, mr. president, i object. mr. lee: mr. president. the presiding officer: the objection is heard. mr. lee: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. lee: i appreciate how the presiding officer always speaks loud enough so that everyone can hear. the presiding officer also manages the floor with great assertiveness, which i also appreciate. i'm grateful to my friend and colleague, the distinguished senator, my colleague from

california, and his thoughtful approach to legislation. there are some things that he said that i feel that i need to address. one of them is a reference to a belief that there is no credible evidence of noncitizens voting, at least no credible evidence of noncitizens voting in any significant numbers. well, there are studies that go exactly the opposite direction. studies like the one that i cited just moments ago, showing that it is a nontrivial sum, such that if even something at the low end of the percentages cited in that study were correct, there could easily be enough to sway the outcome of some elections. but regardless, my friend is referring to -- what my friend

is referring to has to be taken with a grain of salt, considering how things have changed on the ground. the numerator and the den denominator of that fraction have changed over the last few years, where we've now got about 30 million noncitizens living in the united states, with about ten million who have come in who are illegally in the united states now, who entered this country unlawfully and are now living in the united states. that is not a nontrivial sum. when that many people enter the united states that quickly, and when you've now got all 50 states and d.c. that issue driver's licenses to n noncitizens, that couple with the national voter registration act and the way the national voter registration act was interpreted a few years by the supreme court of the united states, saying that the state officials who process those federal forms submitted under

the nvra so that people can register to vote in federal elections while applying for their driver's license, that creates a toxic soup in which there is an environment just ripe with opportunities for foreign interference in u.s. elections. you cannot add this many noncitizens, legal or illegal noncitizens to the united states in this short of a period of time, and couple it with that voter registration framework, and not anticipate there will be significant numbers of people who will end up registering to vote. some perhaps somewhat innocently, perhaps others less innocently. i don't know. but it would be supremely naive and worse than that willfully, willfully blind to what we all

know is going to happen unless we pass this. now, the house of representatives passed this bill yesterday, which gets to another point made by my colleague, saying that we've been down here over and over and over again doing this bill. i'm not sure what he's referring to. the bill hasn't been around that long. but something material changed yesterday. yesterday, the house verse of the save act, which is the version i'm coming to the floor today to propose, the one i just tried to pass by unanimous consent moments ago, before it was met with the objection of the senator from california. that bill was passed yesterday, less than 24 hours ago, by the house of representatives, with bipartisan support, i would add. not just republicans over there, some democrats who are con concerned, with very good reason, joined with republicans, in order to get this thing passed. so, to say that this is an area

in which there's no credible evidence of any need to act is science fiction fantasy. it is contrary to fact. it is contrary to logic. it is contrary to our understanding of human nature, contrary to our understanding of the national voter registration act and how it's been interpreted by the supreme court of the united states, and how elections work. as to my cresting colleague's -- as to my colleague's suggestion that this is feigned outrage that's animating this, nothing could be further from the truth. look, i wish this could be feigned. i wish i had the luxury of this being something wthat were feigned. mr. president, this is serious business. we lose something, we lose something as americans certainly

anytime we allow our elections to be vulnerable to interference from forces outside the united states, including foreign nationals, non-u.s. citizens inside this country. when that happens, when the public starts to perceive that others are voting in this, diluting their votes, that has dill tierious -- deleterious effects on the operation of our form of government that are very difficult to recapture once they're lost. we can't treat this casually. and so look, i will be back. it's unfortunate that we weren't able to pass this today. let me restate the point i made earlier -- there is not a legitimate reason to oppose this bill. we make it incredibly easy under this bill for any american. if you are an american citizen,

you can easily prove your citizenship, and you can do it in the way this bill requires, and you can still vote. it is not hard, it is not expensive, it need not require anyone to spend a dime, a nickel, or even a penny. it just requires you to be an american. there is not a legitimate reason to oppose this bill. there is not a logical reason to oppose this bill, unless of course your objective is different, unless of course you are just fine with, and in fact excited about or reliant upon, noncitizens voing -- noncitizens voting. that's alarming. thank you, mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: mr. president, i am back now for the 33rd time to

keep shining a little light on the right wing billionaires' covert scheme to capture and control our supreme court. as a result of that scheme, the court's right wing just took a wrecking ball to the government's ability to protect americans from big polluters and corporate cheaters. this year's billionaire bonanza came through four decisions that gifted administrative agencies -- that gutted administrative agencies' ability to do their jobs. perfect payback to the polluter billionaires who helped foot the bill to get these justices onto the court in the first place. the first decision is ohio v.

environmental protection agency, where the supreme court undermined the environmental protection agency's ability to enforce the good neighbor provision of the clean air act, the provision that defends the air quality of downwind states like mine, rhode island, from power plants and industrial facilities in upwind states, where sometimes they build the smokestacks extra high so that the pollution doesn't hit the polluting state, but it floats over and comes down and hits us in rhode island. without even full briefing on the merits, industry litigants succeeded in getting the court to stall proposed clean air regulations and place a thumb on the scales in favor of pol polluters. at the hands. federalist -- at the hands of the federalist society justices, the right of polluters to

pollute beat the right of rhode islanders to breathe clean air. then came sec v. jarkasi, where the right wing justices undercut the ability of federal agencies to hold fraudsters accountable through administrative enforcement proceedings. the court held that civil penalties for securities fraud required jury trial under the seventh amendment, undermining administrative adjudication in all sorts of civil enforcement proceedings across the federal government, protecting consumers from predatory financial institutions, workers from unsafe conditions, and the environment against polluters. i am angry that the court picked this case to express concern about the right to a civil jury, while it has been busily eroding that same civil jury right when doing so favored big

corporations over regular people. if you're a fraudster on the losing end of a regulatory violation, they're all about the seventh amendment. if you're a consumer or employee injured by a big business, off you go to private, secret, mandatory arbitration. at the hands of the federalist society justices, the right of fraudsters to commit fraud defeated the right of people to be protected from fraud. in loerp bright enterprise -- in loper bright enterprises v. raimondo, they granted chevron deference to federal agencies, when implementing laws that protect health, safety, and the environment. chevron recognized that courts should defer to an executive agency's reasonable

interpretation of a statute it's charged with administering. just reading that sentence tells you how eminently reasonable the rule was. plus, congress can't be expected to make fine grained determinations in technical areas best left to experts with decades of training and experience. in loper, the right wing justices removed that deference to expertise. the result? look at this "washington post" headline -- corporate lobbyists eye new lawsuits after supreme court limits federal power. more ways for polluters to stall regulations with delays that can save polluters billions. just to read this text, mere hours after the supreme court

sharply curbed the power of federal agencies, conservatives and corporate lobbyists began plotting how to harness the favorable ruling in a redoubled quest to whittle down climate, finance, health, labor, and technology regulations in washington. these cases are a posh grab by a -- are a power grab by a captured court, transferring authority from an elected congress and elected executive to an unaccountable judiciary ill suited to make such technical determinations. almost laughably as they did this, justice gorsuch had to amend his opinion in that ohio v. epa case because he confused nitrous oxide, laughing gas, with nitrogen oxides that were the subject of that case. so much for judges knowing technical stuff better than the

experts. the right of federalist society jus to make up -- judges to make up fake science for billionaires triumphed over the right of regular people to have real experts defend them. finally, in corner post, the federal reserve, the court held that the six-year statute of limitations to challenge a federal agent sistcy's action begins when -- agency's action begins when injured, maybe decades after the rule became law. every regulation can now be litigated for eternity. agencies will be perpetually vulnerable to litigation on every rulemaking stalled by deep-pocketed litigants armed with exotic legal theories and the backing of this captured court. as justice jackson wrote in her dissent, the tsunami of lawsuits

has the effect -- that result simply cannot be what congress intended. when enact legislation that stood up and funded federal agencies and vested this emwith authority to set the ground rules for the individuals and entities that participate in our economy and our society. at the hands of the federalist society justices, the power of special interests to tangle up regulatory agencies has defeat the right of taxpayers to protection from those special interests. here's how i explained that protection in my amicus brief in the loper case. over the last century, our society has advanced remarkably, as industries and corporations grew their motive to maximize profits caused social harms and threatened consumer safety. regulation responded.

heavy equipment and dangerous chemicals came to mines, factories and construction sites. regulators implemented workplace safety standards. meatpacking and mass production ballooned. regulators implemented sanitation requirements in production facilities. americans widely adopted the automobiles. regulators required seat belts and air bags. the modern economy necessary that ied a modernization of the u.s. regulatory framework. congress responded to the complexities of the modern world by ensuring that administrative agencies have the capacity, flexibility, and expertise to respond to new developments. part of that project was delegating clear and broad authority to executive agencies and allowing those agencies to adopt and adapt regulations to respond to new hazards. as a result, daily life in the united states is safer. workplace illnesses, injuries and death have declined.

children, on average, have lower levels of lead in their blood. food-borne illnesses have been practically wiped out. highways are no longer carnage and air travel is even safer than highway travel. so why tear down what has worked so well for generations? well, the billionaire-funded think tanks say, it's to strip power from so-called country accountable bureaucrats. they love to talk about unaccountable bureaucrat. except that federal agencies are not unaccountable. indeed, they 're way more accountable than judges. again from my aleppo brief. agency experts report to politically appointed executive agency heads, nominated by the president and confirmed by the senate. accountable. these agency heads serve at the pleasure of the president who is accountable to the people.

if the public is unhappy with how agencies are implementing congress's policies, voter can make that known at the ballot box. congress oversees agency actions through legislative committees dedicated to agency oversight and regulatory conducts oversight hearings where heads of agency are called to account. congress retains the appellate court to impact legislation to limit or reverse agency rule making so if it disagrees with the agency's actions and sometimes on an expedited calendar. furthermore, congress holds the power of the purse. every appropriations bill presents an opportunity to expand, correct, or contract agency authorities. if the public is unhappy with thousand congress is holding agencies accountable, voters can make that known at the boom box. finally, agencies are accountable to the judiciary, which has the authority to review an agency's statutory

interpretations and actions to ensugar beet that the agency's decisions are reasonable and follow appropriate processes and procedures. the myth of unaccountable administrative agencies is a fake. the real objection is that career agency employees are expert and can go toe to toe with industry tricktory and, worse, for polluters they can't put the fix in politically. with a big campaign contribution or a couple of million dollars to a super pac, because agencies are forbidden to take political considerations into account and they are forbidden to self-deal. all of this wreckage of the long-s long-standing protections of our administrative process was done by polluters who fund the republican party and paid to stack the court that dark money built.

and this is the polluter's payday. a whole smelly ecosystem of secretly funded corporate front group ofs is involved. antiregulation doctrines get cooked up in right-wing hothouses funded by polluters. they get amplified by right-wing front groups. they then they fed to the court by little flotillas of amici. secret dark money funding from billionaire special interests underpins the entire operation. much of this is the koch industry's political influence operation, a powerful right-wing dark money political polluter network. look at that loper case. the lawyers who represented the petitioners in that case worked for free, supposedly, for a

public interest law firm, supposedly, called cause of action. interesting law firm. it discloses no donors, and it does not report any compose -- any employees. "the new york times" discovered that the group's lawyers who supposedly worked for cause of action actually work for americans for prosperity, the main battleship of the koch political front group armada, an operation that is so cozy with the far-right justices it helped put on the supreme court, that justice thomas has repeatedly flown out to join fund-raisers for koch political operations, including americans for prosperity.

here's the flotilla of front groups that appeared in loper aamici curiae. the buckeye institute, cato institute, competitive enterprise institute, landmark legal foundation, mountain states legal foundation, pacific legal foundation, and of course and exxonmobil itself. donors trust and donors' capital fund are donor-provided funds, they don't do anything, they don't which would build anything, they provide

right-wing identity laundering services, they have been described as the dark money atm of the right and with donor's capital has laundered over a third of a trillion dollars into climate denial operationings, if -- operations, if you're exxonmobil and you want to support climate denial but don't want your name on the phony front group that is it -- that is doing the work, you send a check to another group and it is disclosed by them as coming from donor's trust. it is an identity laundering operation for dark money political influence. some amici also were funded by front groups affiliated with leonard leo who we know as the

operative in this court capture operation. the loper organization received $1.5 million from leonard leo's concord fund. between 2020 and 2021, $1.5 million. leo's concord fund operates also under the fictitious name of the judicial crisis network. when i say fictitious name, under virginia corporate law, concord fund has filed judicial crisis network as a fictitious name, term of art in the law, under which it is allowed to operate without disclosing that it's actually the concord fund. through the judicial crisis network, leo and his confederates spent millions of dollars on the court capture operation.

tv ads, barrages of tv ads, huge checks in for $15 million or $17 million from undisclosed donors to pump the right-wing justices that they had chosen through confirmation. so this group that helped push the justices from the federalist society list onto the supreme court then files a brief through the advancing american freedom, $1.5 million from concord into advancing american freedom. this whole thing is a billionaire-backed shell game in which the court willingly participants. -- participates. and the connection between court capture and regulation

destruction, that's not even in dispute. the court capture operation and the antiregulatory operation were admitted by trump's white house counsel don mcgahn to be, and i'm quoting him here, two sides of the same coin. you stack the court to tear down the regulations so your polluters are happy and they fund your effort to stack the court and support republican power. and about this slate of recent discussions that i discussed, he proudly told "the new york times" -- and i'm quoting him again -- none of this was an accident. none of this was an accident. indeed, it was bought and paid for. there is considerable literature about a phenomenon called regulatory capture, sometimes called agency capture. it's the capture of regulatory

agencies by industry to corrupt government decision-making. you can imagine railroad barons taking over a railroad commission whose job it is to set the rates a for their railroads. well, the supreme court has been captured in the same way. and this was no small or incidental undertaking. true north research estimates that at spent on the court capt operation. these groups were a significant part of it and these groups enjoy the benefit now,'d 508

billion is a lot of money. but just these four decisions and the public will pay the price. but that's a price that this captured court is happy to have the public pay. i'm going to conclude with justice kagan's dissent in the loper case. she pointed out, because she saw this game play out right in front of her. she's over there on the court watching this game play out, and she pointed out that the polluters' justices stopped applying the chevron doctrine back in 2016. as part of a plan because, she said, they were -- and i'm quoting her here -- preparing to overrule chevron since around that time.

an eight-yearlong plot to take out a precedent that bothers polluters. forget calling balls and strikes. these justices were on a multiyear billionaire polluters' mission. and it's not just chevron. this is a pattern. as justice kagan went on to say, this kind of self-help on the way to reversing precedent has become almost routine at this court. and here's how she -- stop applying a decision where one should, throw some gra tudus -- issue ka few separate writings questioning the decision's premises, give the whole process a few years, and

then you have a justification for overruling the decision. something she called an overruling through emfeeblement technique that mocks stare decisis. as she described it, this captured court, at the big donor's correction stalks for years and kills off precedent that the billionaires don't like, precedent that interferes with their polluting or interferes with their cheating. that stalking and killing plan may be a lot of things, mr. president, but i'll tell you what it's not, what it's not is judging. to be continued, mr. president. i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the senior senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: that would be senator reed, mr. president. am i recognized? the presiding officer: will the senator forgive me for my mistake. the junior senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: thank you, mr. president. i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to legislative session and be in a period of

morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: i have seven requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. the presiding officer: duly noted. mr. whitehouse: i ask that the appointments at the desk appear separately in the record as if made by the chair. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the consideration of senate resolution 765, remembering the honorable james mountain inhofe, which is at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 765, rae lating to the -- relating to the death of the honorable james mountain inhofe, former senator from the state of oklahoma. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection, the senate will proceed. mr. whitehouse: i ask unanimous consent that this resolution be agreed to, that its preamble be

agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. whitehouse: and i take a moment to offer my condolences to senator inhofe's family an friends. i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the consideration of senate resolution 766, submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. res. 766, recognizing september 17, 2024 as national voter registration day. the presiding officer: is there an objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection, the senate will proceed. mr. whitehouse: i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: i ask unanimous consent that the senate now proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar number

246, h.r. 110 -- 1105. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: h.r. 1105, an act to amend the dna analysis backlog elimination act of 2000 and for other purposes. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection, the senate will proceed. mr. whitehouse: i ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: i ask unanimous consent that the finance committee be discharged from further consideration of s. 159, and the senate proet to its immediate -- proceed to its immediate consideration. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. 159, a bill to amend the internal revenue service code of 1946 and so forth. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to this

measure? without objection, the committee is discharged and the united states the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. whitehouse: i now ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: i ask unanimous consent that the committee on banking, housing and urban affairs be discharged from further consideration of s. 3068 and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. 3068, a bill to require each enterprise to include on the uniform residential loan application a disclaimer and so forth and for other purposes. the presiding officer: is there an objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection, the committee is discharged and the senate will proceed with the measure.

mr. whitehouse: i ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: finally, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar number 428, s. 4351. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 3 -- to reauthorize certain poison control programs. the presiding officer: is there an objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection, the united states the senate will proceed. mr. whitehouse: i ask unanimous consent 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: without objection. and i yield the floor.

mr. cornyn: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senior senator from texas. mr. cornyn: thank you, mr. president. it's no secret that in recent years the supreme court has become a political target for our friends across the aisle, the democrats. i still remember a time, maybe it was a quaint period during our nation's history when robert jackson, former supreme court justice, said the supreme court is not final because it's always right, it's right because it's

always final. the point is there has to be someplace somewhere in the u.s. government where decisions are made on something other than a political basis. we know that in congress the political branches of government, we run for office, we stand for reelection, the voters can agree with us or disagree with us based upon our actions and we will then be held accountable at the ballot box. the same is true for the president of the united states, the head of the executive branch. but the judicial branch is supposed to be different. judges don't stand for election, they can't be removed for office for virtually anything other than impeachable behavior, which is rare, indeed, and congress can't reduce their pay during their tenure in office. all of these are designed to

preserve the independence of the judiciary. justice scalia, during his lifetime, liked to observe that constitution are -- constitutions are simply words on paper and he pointed out the former soviet union had one of the best constitutions on paper that existed at the time. but the difference between the soviet union and the united states is that we have an independent judiciary, unelected, unaccountable at the ballot box, but who continue doing their good behavior as members of the court who have to make hard decisions. their decisions are supposed to be made not on public opinion polls, not on votes cast at the ballot box, not on what is most popular, but what conforms with the constitution and laws of the

united states. they literally have to call balls and strikes. but some of our democratic colleagues have decided that when they don't like those decisions made by this independent judiciary, that the best tactic is to attack the judges and to thereby claim that somehow they are just another political branch -- an unelected political branch, but nothing could be farther from the truth. as evidence of their attempt to politicize the courts, i would point to the time that five of our democratic colleagues threatened to, quote, restructure the court. if it didn't deliver their preferred outcome in a case involving the second amendment. there was a time when some of our colleagues said we need to pack the court with more judges because we don't like the ones that currently sit on the court and we want a different outcome in the court's decision.

and then there was the time when 15 of our democratic colleagues recommended slashing the court's budget unless it implemented a preferred code of ethics dictated by the legislative branch and not an independent judiciary. and, of course, we can't forget the time when the majority leader, senator from new york, stood on the steps of the supreme court and threatened two justices by name saying they would pay the price. they wouldn't know what hit them if they didn't reach his preferred decision in a case involving abortion. over and over again many of our democratic colleagues have shown their contempt for an independent judiciary, the very foundation of our form of government and the crown jewels of what makes us different from the rest of the world.

let's forget unbiassed judges who reach decisions based on the law -- and the constitution, some of our democratic colleagues want to put their thumbs on the scales of justice in order to achieve specific results, and in pursuit of what? i would suggest that it's in pursuit of power by any means whatsoever as opposed to regarding the constitution itself and the very structure of our government as being sacrosanct, something to be celebrated and honored, they view it as something to be circumvented in order to pursue power, in order to pursue desired results. we all know that last week the supreme court concluded a busy and conventional term that included a number of cases on a wide range of matters, from voting rights and homelessness

to presidential immunity and the power of federal agencies. based on are the reaction of some on the left, you'd think the sky is falling. you'd think the apocalypse is nigh and that we reached the end of democracy as we know it. well, let's first look at the decision that the court made to strike down something called the chevron doctrine. this is a 40-year-old interpretation of an agency's power that basically deferred to an agency and created immense unaccountable authority in bureaucrats who were not elected to office. this doctrine originated in 1984 in a case where the federal government -- excuse me, the supreme court gave federal agencies broad leeway to interpret laws passed by congress. over time, chevron deference has

emboldened agencies to expand their powers far beyond what congress has authorized to enact policies that go far beyond what congress intended with little or no oversight and no accountability. if you think about it, congress is the one given the authority under our constitution to legislate, to make the laws, there is no authority under the constitution for the executive branch to make laws and certainly no authority under the constitution given to federal agencies to make laws absent authority granted to them by the legislative branch. here's one example of how the agencies have administrative agencies have abused their authority. in the wake of a horrific mass shooting in uvalde, texas, two years ago, i worked with colleagues on both sides of the

aisle to pass a bill called the bipartisan safer communities act. it was signed into law a month after the shooting and made historic investments in mental health and school safety. we also included targeted reforms to protect public safety without infringing on the rights of law-abiding citizens under the second amendment to the constitution. the firearms-related provisions of the bile westbound designed -- of the bill were designed to be targeted and extremely narrow but when it came to interpreting or implementing the law, the biden administration's bureau of alcohol, tobacco and firearms colored way outside the lines that congress authorized. the administration used these provisions as a pretext to implement broader reforms that were fragrantly rejected by congress multiple times during the course of the negotiations. in other words, we considered and rejected the very outcome

that the bureau of alcohol, tobacco, and firearms sought to achieve by this rewrite of what congress had authorized. in short, unel eelect bureaucra accountable to no one ignored the expressed will of the people's representatives in congress and took a bipartisan law that was crafted in good faith and turned it into a trojan horse for their own radical gun control policies. all contrary to the constitution. senator tillis, the senator from north carolina, and i had worked together with our friends and colleagues, senator chris murphy from connecticut, senator kyrsten sinema of arizona to be the principle authors of the bipartisan safer communities act. senator tillis and i after the bureau of alcohol, tobacco and firearms issued their

unauthorized and unconstitutional rule introduced a measure to block the biden rule and i hope that we have a chance to vote on that soon. the truth is it's already been enjoined or stayed by federal courts as being outside of the authority given to the agency to interpret the bipartisan safer communities act. in other words, an extra legal act to try to create law where congress had not. but the truth is congress shouldn't have to pass a resolution of disapproval every time the administration overreaches. that alone could be a full-time job. in its recent ruling, the supreme court affirmed what should be obvious to all of us because that's what the constitution says, that it's up to congress to pass laws, not unaccountable bureaucrats.

an unremarkable holding, really, but one that was long overdue. if an agency takes too many creative liberties with implementing the law, that matter should be examined and ultimately struck down by a court as outside the authorities that the constitution gives the executive branch agencies. again, our framers designed three coequal and distinct separate branches of government. when agencies attempt to legislate, even though the constitution does not permit it, the courts have a responsibility to step in and strike down unlawful attempts to usurp the article 1 authority granted solely to the legislative branch, including the u.s. senate. in our country all power, all political power is derived from a single source. that is consent of the government. laws that affect people across

the country should be crafted, debated, and passed by congress, not handed down through administrative actions and rule making where congress is not authorized. if a president's party wants to change the law, the only option is to come to congress and work with congress. there are no shortcuts. the executive branch doesn't have the short to legislate on its own. whether under the guys of rue -- guise of rule making or otherwise. that's why the end of the so-called chevron deference is so important to the restoration of democracy and constitutional government. it takes power out of the lands of unaccountable bureaucrats and puts the responsibility back in the hands of those of us who are members of the political branch, the legislature. we run for office. voters can vote for us or vote against us. and that's the sort of

accountability that the constitution contemplates. despite some of the dramatic overreaction by some of our colleagues, the end of chevron deference does not signal the end of democracy. it simply says the court has to look at the constitution and the laws passed by congress, and if the administration overreaches, it's the duty of the court to strike it down as being unauthorized by congress. regardless of political affiliation, everyone should want that because that is what the constitution requires. no administration, no republican administration, no democratic administration should have the authority to violate the constitution, usurp the will and the responsibilities given solely to congress. in another highly anticipated opinion, the supreme court

clarified what presidents can and cannot be sued for. well, based on some reaction of the case, you'd think the court had given the president the green light to commit murder, rob a bank or traffic illegal drugs from the white house but obviously that's not the case. as a matter of fact, the supreme court stated that official acts of a president should be given immunity about did not go on to say that individual acts that have been charged in pending cases were in fact immune. it's remanded those decisions back to the trial courts to apply the law as the court articulated. the court did not offer any sort of protection against unofficial acts. the justices didn't grant the president cart blanche to commit crimes with impunity. it simply clarified that the president is entitled to

immunity while performing official acts. this opinion is not contrary to some claims of a monumental shift in policy. presidential immunity was established in previous cases to protect the integrity of the executive branch. and it recognizes that a president, any president, a democratically elected -- democrat president or republican president needs some latitude to make tough calls on public policy and matters facing the country without the threat of being sued incessantly and being distracted from their duties to serve the american people in this office. i think back on george w. bush's presidency when the nation was attacked by al qaeda on 9/11. nearly 3,000 americans were killed on that day, and

president bush made the decision that i have to imagine was one of the most difficult decisions that any president can make. he made the decision to go to war against these terrorists. american troops were deployed in the middle east to destroy al qaeda and many on the left viewed this act of self-defense as something else entirely. some went so far as to label what the president did made him a war criminal for his decision to defend the country against terrorists. current supreme court justices brown jackson served as a federal public defender at the time and she even filed a brief accusing president bush of committing a war crime. can you imagine if the president was dragged into court every time somebody had a disagreement about what the problem decides acting in his or her official capacity? it would obviously not only

chill decision-making but it would severely limit the president's ability to govern effectively. the recourse is not in court. it's at the ballot box. presidents must be able to perform their duties without the fear of incessant and harassing litigation. the commander in chief should not have his or her hands tied by a looming threat of prosecution for actions taken during their official duties as part of the presidency of the united states. the supreme court in fact simply clarified that criminal law cannot be used as a weapon against a president for his or her official acts. but given the fact that many of our colleagues on the left have tried to weaponize the judicial system in recent years, the supreme court's decision was particularly important.

we've had a new word created recently called law fair basically using litigation as a form of warfare rather than arguing for votes and having debates about policies that are then decided by voters at the ballot box. we've seen some of our democratic colleagues attempting to use every tool to tear down president biden's campaign rival former president trump. in the process, we've seen some democrats weaponize the department of justice against president trump and his allies. and we've seen that in the district attorney in the state of new york in a recent litigation against the former president trump. prosecutors blew past exculpatory evidence when looking at the january 6 cases, for example. manhattan district attorney

alvin bragg even campaigned on the promise to prosecute president trump. this is just the latest chapter in the never ending saga that is the democrats' war against an independent judiciary. and using the courts to try to accomplish what they should be trying to accomplish not in court but at the ballot box, through legitimate debate, transparency, and ultimately the decision of the american people. some of our colleagues on the left don't want judges to follow the law. they want easy victories. they want layups. and when they can't win in congress because they don't have the votes, they want the courts to fill in the gaps and accomplish the goals that they could not accomplish in congress. some of our colleagues want the court to reach a conclusion first without regard to the facts or the law. and then work backwards to try

to come up with some sort of justification for the outcome. that's called results or gentsed -- results oriented decision-making. it's the opposite of what judges should be doing. whether that means taking down a political rival, implementing radical pro abortion policies or expanding the power of unelected bureaucrats, some of our colleagues on the left want the supreme court to be a shortcut to easy wins, easy political wins, again that they could not accomplish in the halls of congress or at the ballot box. these justices are not puppets that can be manipulated for partisan gain. they are members of a separate and coequal branch of government, and their decisions must be respected. that doesn't mean you need to agree with them, but you do need to respect their right to make the decision and to finally settle these issues, at least until congress or another branch

of government decides to overturn them on other than constitutional grounds. obviously the supreme court is the final word interpreting the constitution, and unless we see the constitution amended at some point by the american people, that's going to stand. but many of the courts' decisions are based on statutory interpretation, based on what the legislature has done, what the senate has done. and those are things that the senate can come back and address through legislation. but the biggest threat to democracy isn't the supreme court. it's a never ending series of political attacks on the court by many on the left. mr. president, i yield the floor and i'd note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: the clerk: ms. baldwin.

quorum call:

one of the easiest most we have taken all year. by voting no republicans told every woman in america, your body, our choice. republicans are saying we do not care about the women that live in states where reproductive rights are almost gone. this is the terrible legacy of the senate republicans in the trump administration. they clear the way for the supreme court to overturn roe. years ago donald trump himself said overturning roe was part of the plan. if we put another two or three justices in the supreme court that will happen. then, senate republicans even many who do not abide by the

philosophy just lay down and voted for all of the presidents nominees. to this day, senate republicans keep doubling down and trickling down on undermining women's rights despite so much blowback from the american people. senate republicans voted no on protecting contraception. voted no on protecting ivf and they voted no again yesterday on supporting the right to choose. so, we say to america, you want to know who is on your side protecting abortion and women rights, it's the democrats. every republican with one or two exceptions has universally voted to take away women's rights. that is the truth of it. our republican colleagues can run, but they cannot hide. they are voting against women because extreme groups are pushing them to do it or maybe because of belief.

either way, they are out of touch with america. now, for all of the chaos and disaster of the first trump presidency. it fails in comparison to the threat of the second trump presidency. 2025 drafted by the heritage foundation. a project overseen by former trump officials and advisers and appointees. a manifesto for the second trump presidency. what does it do? the trump manifesto raise. that is the heart and soul of the republican party. that is where they always go when they are in power, folks. when they are not empowered they give some words here and there. when they are running for office they try to run away from how they voted and how they feel. then they come here and they vote to roll over women's rights again and again and again. each time they do it becomes more extreme and more extreme. that is just the beginning on the issues.

the trump manifesto 2025 calls for the most conservative agenda america has ever seen. it calls for more tax cuts for the very wealthy. more tax cuts for the elites. it calls for reversing democrats clean energy agenda while empowering the biggest oil and gas polluters. the trump manifesto even calls for silencing and attacking all of donald trump's political opponents. can you imagine. it is like a dictatorship. it is like a dictatorship. with nothing trump says i will prosecute people. no evidence. what happened to rule of law in this grand country? what happened to the visions of the founding fathers went donald trump in the mega court takes over. the hard right is done speaking euphemisms. they are smelling blood. they are saying it straight to our faces. if you can disagree with donald trump watch your back.

it is bone chilling. it is un-american. it is dangerous for our democracy. it is an autocrats dream. if republicans get the chance to act on the ideas the damage to the america we all know and love may well be here reversible. we will never get it back. our children and grandchildren will live in a less grand country than we have lived in. the destruction would be unthinkable. it would betray everything america has represented for 248 years. scotus, above the entrance of the supreme court are these words. equal justice under law. last week the president, the conservative justices put some new writing on those walls figuratively. the president of the united states is above the law. instead of equal justice under the law, they replaced it with

the president of the united states is above the law. the aftermath of the 2020 elections, donald trump and his allies conspired for weeks to undermine the will of the people and hold a peaceful transfer of power. these efforts culminated of violent insurrection on january 6. these are the facts. many of us in the senate lived through it. within 30 feet of the hooligans that invaded the capital. no free nation can do this. trying to cling to power. that is in effect what the conservative majority on the supreme court has done. by ruling donald trump brought immunity from criminal prosecution from his actions as president after the 2020 election the conservative majority is violating the most basic premise of our constitution that no man is above the law. most americans will see what the court didn't think it was grossly political. a shameless attempt to help donald trump out the i worry

that over time americans will increasingly lose trust in what the court say they have already begun to lose that trust with these right wing mega decisions. very few of them found in any precedent at all. it could be and unraveling of trust in our democratic institutions. the good news is the constitution provides a remedy to the supreme court's terrible decision. congress has the authority to exercise strong checks on the judiciary through legislation. we should look precisely into that. one possible avenue, clarifying that donald trump's election supervision acts do not count as official acts of the presidency. such a notion should hardly be controversial. i am working with my colleagues on legislation to see what kind of proposals would be appropriate. we were all talking there are no kings here in america at that with the conservative justices have done placed the crown on the head of donald trump. they declared an effect the same

thing nixon told david frost in 1977 when "he said this is what nixon said, chased out of office the potential criminal acts. "when the president does it, that means it is not illegal". that will be the new quote, rule of law in america with these justices? what a bone chilling proposition the future presidents no longer fear prosecution for their conduct in office, and what the heck will rein them in. an election every four years. that is called comfort if the cold president can undermine elections in the first place. it is catch-22. a very evil one. a future president nor the doj arresting election workers. what if they ask attacks on the press. what if they take bribes in exchange for favors and money. what if in each of these instances they claim they were acting in an official capacity. america would be in a state of

constitutional pandemonium. the american people are tired of justices who think they are beyond accountability. we in congress should be open to sensible reasonable solutions to restore the checks and balances that the court has taken away. yield the floor. >> nato's washington summit grows to a close today, it is clearly tremendous resolve among many of our allies to make the transatlantic alliance fit for purpose. for another 75 years. but a strong and effective nato has always required strong and effective american leadership. here at home, there is reason for cautious optimism. support for leadership on collective defense is widespread last month the reagan institute

released its findings. of its latest poll on the american people's views of global issues. this is what i found. a majority of americans support a more engaged u.s. foreign policy. they hold favorable views of the nato alliance and support lethal assistance. to ukraine. despite spending years amplifying views from the fringes of our politics, a majority of republicans believes that u.s. involvement in international debts benefits america. when i asked recently whether peace prosperity and security were products of american leadership and sacrifice, more republicans and democrats actually agreed with that.

here is the kicker. they are not just telling this to pollsters. they are actually demonstrating it at the ballot box. massive double-digit margins. republican primary voters and candidates that supported the national security supplemental earlier this spring. let me say that again. not a single republican incumbent who voted to help america possessed authoritarian aggression. rebuilding arsenal democracy costs the primary. not one lost the primary. across the country voters rejected candidates who pedaled isolations and devoted instead for american leadership.

the way speaker jonathan put it earlier this week he said people come up to him at events and 31 different states and in recent months to say the same thing. we are glad congress delivered the supplemental. so, mr. president, it can often seem like a loud voice in washington, the ones that belong and responsibilities of american leadership while enjoying the peace and prosperity that it underwrites. these voices are increasingly estranged from the views of most americans. the american people know that leadership on the world stage is not some handout to allies and partners. it is an investment. an investment in our own security. they know this leadership is what preserved the us-led order. it is underpinned peace and

prosperity for decades. now they just need a president who is willing to exercise that leadership. for years the american people watch the biden administration ring at the hands over fears that standing with the sovereign democracy may invite escalation from a tariff already conducting the full skill or conquest. since last fall they have heard the president insist in one breath that america's commitment to a close ally and then withhold urgent assistance. it is good to talk about american leadership. but talk is cheap. this week would have been a great opportunity for the commander-in-chief to start backing up his words with firm commitments to start investing

seriously. it should have been the week the democratic leader brought the nda a upper senate consideration they could have been a great week to lead. fortunately, the most successful military alliance in history has had some strong leadership in brussels. which secretary general. i am deeply grateful for his tireless work on urgent and long-term challenges facing the alliance. and for his deep devotion to the cause of collective defense. the general took office months, just months after russia launched its unprovoked invasion of ukraine back in 24 teen. and after a pivotal decade, he will leave the alliance with renewed clarity and resolved to

face even graver russian aggression and linked authoritarian threats all around the world. for 10 years, he has worked relentlessly to expand allies focused to exclude serious challenges. emanating from beyond nato's orders. recognizing the links between the threats to global security he has improved the alliance engagement with critical and both specific nations like japan , south korea and australia just yesterday it is clear the decisive enabler of russia's war against ukraine. and the prc cannot enable the largest war in europe in recent history without this negatively

impacting its interest and its reputation. you successfully expanded nato most recently welcoming sweden as highly capable. in the face of russian aggression they have been an advocate and spokesman of collective defense. rather renew investment of leading the most significant since the cold war. as you navigated the diverse and spirited use of dozens of allies , the secretary-general demonstrated a keen appreciation of america's legitimate long-standing and bipartisan concerns about burden sharing across the alliance. they have repeatedly urged allies to take on more responsibility for our shared

securities. on a personal note, i am immensely grateful for the time secretary-general and i have spent working closely together. i appreciate the candor. the professionalism and his devotion to our common cause. i am particularly proud to welcome him to address a joint meeting of congress earlier in his term. as he departs his post, secretary should take great pride in the historic accomplishments of his tenure and remain optimistic. as i am in the course he has set with the alliance. he has the gratitude of allies and partners all across the free world. he will leave big shoes for his successor to fail.

now, on another matter, i have spoken before about the new york magistrate judge with a bad habit of engaging a political activism from the bench. and lying about it under oath. unfortunately, the red flags on the judge's record are not limited to the inappropriate actions she does commit. this is also the important work that she has an explicitly chosen to ignore. taken from the family members of victims of 9/11. who wrote recently to our colleagues on the judiciary committee as these loved ones sought a small piece of justice for the lives that terrorist killers had snuffed out, the judge failed to rule on the unopposed motions that they submitted that would've entitled them to participate in the next

round of compensation for grieving families. as they put it, "we cannot understand how a magistrate judge could treat 9/11 family members so callously for so bitterly disregard the duties. ". so, mr. president, i posed this question before about another administration nominee. i will ask it again. why on earth do our democratic colleagues continue to entertain lifetime with the demonstrator and ability to do the job. this sort of gross negligence is damning. it is disqualifying. practically the nomination is not worth another second of the judiciary committee's time let

alone this. one final matter inflation since president biden took office. 20.1%. working families across america are still feeling the pinch in their wallets. especially when it comes to basic necessities like housing. in new jersey one man who was watched his grandfather sore said i thought it should taper off. it does not appear to be tapering. in my state of kentucky, one resident said he was "sticker shock at the skyrocketing costs of homeowners insurance, property taxes and utility bill. he certainly is not alone. one survey showed that nearly one in five homeowners could not afford $500 emergency room repair on their home.

last month, 46% of americans reported they were struggling to keep pace financially and only 25% of this group said they planned on supporting president biden. the american people know which party at north the warnings. let money on fire and spending sprees and fueling the worst inflation this country has ever seen since the carter administration. the american people are sick and tired of bidenomics.

mr. schumer: mr. president. the presiding officer: the chair

recognizes the leader. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: so, mr. president, i come here today to speak on the continued bipartisan efforts to protect our kids from the risks of social media and other online platforms. three weeks ago i spoke here on the floor with my good friend and colleague, senator blumenthal about the need to get two bills done -- the kids online safety act and the children and teens online privacy protection act. moving on co-cosa and copa is a top priority. i've listened to so many parents whoses kids have been harmed by social media. some of these kids face bullying or were victims of exploitation and online predators. we saw their mental health suffer and horrible stories that i've heard on many occasions, in too many instances the kids took their own lives. imagine, 13, 14, 15 years old

killing themselves because of what they saw online and imagine the families that live with the hole in their heart for the rest of their lives. it's horrible. we shouldn't allow it to happen any longer. so getting these bills done is very important for the well-being of our kids, but it will require bipartisan cooperation to move forward. as so many things in the senate do. as we all know, there's been a lot of discussion about the best way to proceed. i said at the end of june i would give all objectors two weeks to offer solutions for addressing their concerns. sadly a few of our colleagues continue to block these bills without offering any constructive ideas for how to revise the text. so now we must look ahead and all options are on the table. now, mr. president,

the presiding officer: the question is on the motion to proceed. all those in favor say aye. all those opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, united states tax court, kashi way of maryland to be a judge. mr. schumer: i send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of executive calendar number 701, kashi way of maryland to be a judge of the united states tax court, signed by 18 senators as follows. mr. schumer: i ask the consent the reading of names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: i move to proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion to

proceed. all those in favor say aye. all opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. schumer: i move to proceed to executive session to consider calendar 702. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion to proceed. all those in favor say aye. all opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, united states tax court, adam b. landy of south carolina to be a judge. mr. schumer: i send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of executive calendar number 702, adam b. landy of south carolina, to be a judge of the united states tax court signed by 18 senators as

follows. mr. schumer: i ask consent the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: i move to proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion to proceed. all those in favor say aye. all opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. schumer: i move to proceed to executive session to consider calendar 551. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion to proceed. all those in favor say aye. all opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, department of state, margaret l. taylor of maryland to be a legal advisor. mr. schumer: i send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate do

hereby move to bring to a close debate on margaret l. taylor of maryland to be legal advisor of the department of state signed by 17 senators as follows. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum call for the cloture motions filed today be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the motion to reconsider can respect to the mary well nomination be considered made and laid upon the table and the president be immediately notified of the senate's action. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent the senate resume legislative session. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: i understand that there are two bills at the desk and i ask for their first reading en bloc. the presiding officer: the clerk will read the titles of the bills for the first time. the clerk: s. 4727, a bill to amend title 5, united states code, to clarify the nature of judicial review of agency interpretations of statutory and regulatory provisions, h.r.

8281, an act to amend the national vote every registration act of 1993 and so forth and for other purposes. mr. schumer: i now ask for its second reading and i object to my own request all en bloc. the presiding officer: the objection is heard. the bills will be read for the second time on the next legislative day. mr. schumer: and, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it adjourn under the provisions of s. res. 765, to then convene for for forma sessions only with no business being conducted on the following dates and times. monday, july 15, 11:15 a.m., tuesday, july -- thursday, july 18 at 10:00 a.m. monday, july 22 at 11:30 a.m. further, that when the senate adjourns on monday, july 22, it stand adjourned until 3:00 p.m. on tuesday, july 23. that on tuesday, following the prayer and pledge, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hours be

deemed ex-point of order, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day and morning business be closed, following the conclusion of morning business, the senate proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the way nomination. further, the confirmation vote on the kiko nomination be at # 5:30 on tuesday and if confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the president be immediately notified of the senate's action. further, that the cloture motions filed during today's session ripen on wednesday, july 24. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the pursuant senate resolution 765, the senate stands adjourned until 11:15 a.m. on monday, july 15, 2024, and does so as further

mark of respect to the late james inhofe, the former senator james inhofe, the former senator

watch live coverage of the president's news conference at 6:30 p.m. on c-span. c-span now our free mobile video app or online at c-span.org. >> american history tv saturdays on c-span2. exploring the people and events. at 4:15 p.m. eastern michael along with current and former governors take a retrospective look at his political career. 7:00 p.m. eastern watch american

history tv series historic convention speeches featuring notable remarks on presidential nominees and other political figures from the past several decades. this week vice president george h.w. bush accepted his party's nomination at the republican national convention in new orleans calling for kinder gentler nation. >> read my lips. >> at 9:30 p.m. eastern on the presidency, historians examine the contribution and legacy of first lady pat nixon at a conference hosted by the record -- richard nixon library and museum. exploring the american story watch american history tv saturdays on c-span2. find a full schedule on your program guide or watch online anytime at c-span.org/history. >> c-span campaign 2024 takes