likely get 60 votes to overcome a filibuster and that the speaker has also sent this in coming upd in the house tragic it's ironic commences in washington, d.c. in elected office for 54 years now that he speaking used is the right time for term limits. also it really, it befuddles me, the so-called south brooklyn defenders of democracy who ignored democracy can't ignore the willno of 14 million voters and cast aside the presidential candidate for politics -- >> we take you live now to the u.s. senate. members are returning from break and expected to vote soon. live coverage here on c-span2. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. ms. collins: mr. president the presiding officer: the senator from maine.

ms. collins: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: the senate is not in a quorum call. the senator is recognized. ms. collins: mr. president, i rise today in support of the nomination of stacey neumann to serve as the united states district court judge for the district of maine. i had the opportunity to meet with ms. neumann before her senate judiciary committee hearing in may. the committee has reported her nomination favorably with bipartisan support, and the senate will be voting on her confirmation shortly. mr. president, i've decided to support this nominee based on her extensive legal experience, including as a federal prosecutor, her in-depth

interview with me, and her hearing testimony and background check. i have concluded that she possesses the integrity, intellect, and impartiality to serve in this critical position. ms. neumann has served as a litigator at the law firm murray, plumb, and murray in portland, maine. she's been there since 2013, and handles criminal defense and civil litigation matters in state and federal courts and agencies. prior to this role, ms. neumann served in the u.s. attorney's office for the district of maine as an assistant u.s. attorney where she represented the federal government in a variety of criminal proceedings. notably a group of former

federal prosecutors from the district of maine signed a letter stating that in their view ms. neumann has, quote, distinguished herself by virtue of a keen legal mind, tireless work ethic, and balanced and measured professional demeanor. end quote. mr. president, earlier in her career, neumann served as the law clerk to a justice of the vermont supreme court as well as for a judge on the u.s. court of appeals in the second circuit. she graduated magna cum laude from both james madison university and cornell law school. the american bar association has given ms. neumann its highest rating of unanimously well qualified. if confirmed by the senate, she would be assigned to the u.s.

district court seat in vangour. based on her character, i believe stacey neumann will faithfully uphold our nation's law and the state of maine and our nation well. i urge the senate to confirm this nominee. thank you, mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from maine. mr. king: i can't really improve on the comments made by my senior colleague. i think she stated stacey neumann's qualifications brilliantly and really made the case for her confirmation. i just wanted to add a couple of notes. one is that not only does she have extraordinary qualifications in terms of having been a public defender and a federal prosecutor and a

civil litigator, she has had experience in all areas of the law, particularly areas of the law involving courtroom practice, motions, negotiations, the whole process that a judge has to preside over in our court system. in addition, though, and i think senator collins re-- really beautifully distinguished her qualifications, in addition that she has the important temperament to hold this position and to give confidence to those who appear before her in court. people have to believe that the judges and that the people involved in our judicial system are nonare partisan, are -- nonpartisan, are neutral fact finders and will do their best to apply the law fairly and evenly no matter who the parties are before them.

i believe stacey neumann has that quality of fairness and has the quality of the temperament that is so important to a successful judicial career. one final note is, as a former practicing lawyer in maine, i appreciate judges who have a bit of humility, even though they have on the black robe, they identify with the litigants before them and the counsel and don't try to run roughshod over the people before them in the court, and i think stacey neumann has that quality of a judicial temperament that is evenhanded, empathetic and i believe she will make a wonderful district court judge in bangor, maine. i feel she will be a real asset to the judiciary and the country, but particularly to the people of maine.

thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from maine. mr. king: i ask unanimous consent that the scheduled vote occur immediately at this moment in time. thank you. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. the question is on the nomination. the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby bring to a close debate on the nomination of executive calendar number 708, stacey neumann, of maine, to be united states district judge for the are district of maine. signed by 17 senators. the presiding officer: unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum

call has been waived, is it the sense of the senate that the nomination of stacey neumann to be united states district judge for the district of maine shall shall brought to -- shall be brought to close? the yeas and nays rb mandatory under -- are mandatory under the rules. the clerk will call the roll. vote: the clerk: ms. baldwin. mr. barrasso. mr. bennet. mrs. blackburn. mr. blumenthal. mr. booker. mr. boozman. mr. braun. mrs. britt. mr. brown. mr. budd. ms. butler. ms. cantwell. mrs. capito. mr. cardin. mr. carper.

mr. casey. mr. cassidy. ms. collins. mr. coons. mr. cornyn. ms. cortez masto. mr. cotton. mr. cramer. mr. crapo. mr. cruz. mr. daines. ms. duckworth. mr. durbin. ms. ernst. mr. fetterman. mrs. fischer. mrs. gillibrand. mr. graham. mr. grassley. mr. hagerty. ms. hassan. mr. hawley.

mr. heinrich. mr. hickenlooper. ms. hirono. mr. hoeven. mrs. hyde-smith. mr. johnson. mr. kaine. mr. kelly. mr. kennedy. mr. king. ms. klobuchar. mr. lankford. mr. lee. mr. lujan. ms. lummis. mr. manchin. mr. markey. mr. marshall. mr. mcconnell. mr. menendez.

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

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

mr. young. senators voting in the affirmative -- butler, are cardin, casey, collins, cortez masto, gillibrand, hassan, king, lujan, murkowski, murray, peters, reed, rosen, shaheen, sinema, smith, tillis, whitehouse, and wicker. senators voting in the negative -- barasso, boozman, braun, britt, cornyn, cotton, daines, ernst, hyde-smith, johnson, lee, lummis, marshall, mcconnell, ricketts, rounds, and rubio.

mr. tester, aye. mrs. capito, no. mr. thune, no. the clerk: mr. heinrich, aye. mrs. fischer, no.

the clerk: mrs. blackburn, no.

. the clerk: mr. hoeven, no. the clerk: mr. risch, no.

the clerk: mr. blumenthal, aye.

the clerk: mr. manchin, aye. ms. klobuchar, aye. mr. schumer, aye.

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

the clerk: mr. carper, aye. ms. duckworth, aye.

the clerk: ms. cantwell, aye.

the clerk: mr. cramer, no.

the clerk: mr. durbin, aye.

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

the clerk: mr. shats -- m mr. schatz, aye.

the clerk: mr. paul, no. vote:

the clerk: mr. welch, aye.

the clerk: mr. lankford, no.

the clerk: mr. sullivan, no.

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

the clerk: mr. graham, aye.

the clerk: mr. schmitt, no.

the clerk: mr. booker, aye. . the clerk: mr. padilla, aye. mr. wyden, aye.

the clerk: mr. hagerty, no.

the clerk: mr. brown, aye.

the clerk: mr. cassidy, no.

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

the clerk: ms. stabenow, aye. vote: the clerk: mr. crapo, no.

the clerk: mr. grassley, no.

mr. budd, no. mr. scott of florida, no. the clerk: mr. hawley, no.

the clerk: mr. tuberville, no. mr. coons, aye. the clerk: mr. hickenlooper, aye.

the clerk: ms. warren, aye.

the clerk: mr. van hollen, aye.

the clerk: mr. young, no.

vote: the clerk: ms. baldwin, aye.

the clerk: mr. cruz, no.

the clerk: mr. mullin, no. mr. kennedy, no.

the presiding officer: the yeas are 50, the nays are 41. are 50, the nays are 41.

the milestone that we will take

today congress has discussed and debated the need for reform and safeguards on the internet. we held dozens of hearings, mark zuckerberg and other egos to our committee and brought agreement something needs to be done. we need rules, safeguards despite countless bipartisan demand for legislation, nothing has happened. the legislative investigation throughout that process. we began to meet with parents.

fentanyl, exploitation and other or if it harms. as a parent of children and senator blackburn, we felt deeply the grief but admire the parents who came to us and demanded action. one of the most said to us early on speaking on behalf of of so many of them and us mark when will you stop them from killing people? when will you stop them from killing our children? u.s. senate taking action

finally. the kids online safety act is a simple straightforward measure that gives young people the printed safeguards that over there online lives. it empowers them, enables them to make choices about what they want see and hear on the internet rather than the algorithm that drives content often, addicted content about bullying and eating disorders that contribute to the destruction of their lives.

self-harm, suicide, eating disorders, substance abuse and other harmful impacts. the duty of care is flexible. fairly applied it companies with widely different sizes in the product. the social media platforms are different from videogames and they will abide.

finally audit and access to data. parents, all will be able to hold those companies truly accountable. importantly this bill drops big ten from avoiding their legal obligation to protect children and we do that through not a knowledge standard in the bill. the bill ensures meta or google know or should know that a user is a teen or child, need to provide them the safeguards under this legislation where the platforms have information

indicating they are kids, they need to act and protect them. no more sticking their heads in the sand, no more latitude in action and responsibility. there's a lot of positive and experience it but there are some really scary stuff they also experience again and again. they don't want the algorithm to do it for them. empower them. we are not blocking or censoring

content. we are simply creating an environment that is by design. at its core, this bill is a promise designed bill trying to protect consumers against the product. more money and profit at the risk or expense of injury to people. cigarettes designed to kill the customer, nicotine addiction or car manufacturers required to make their product safer by design through seatbelts and airbags or toys with small parts

endangered children can choke on those unless there is sufficient warning to parents and steps forward to make product safer putting people and children over product and that's what we are requiring social media to do can no longer rely on big tech companies to say to us, trust us. they betray that trust. congress has an obligation act. we worked exhaustively to improve this bill. feedback and crafted provision

and debated issues with anyone and everyone and i am immensely grateful. the legislation is an advocate because we share this common goal whatever issue, paramount for both of us over these past three plus years. thank you for settling this boat and ranking member crews and support for this bill in the committee and the kids online safety act had 70 cosponsors.

that is unheard of for an important substantive legislation that takes on the most powerful companies in the world. looking ahead, i'm confident we can build on this momentum, powerful momentum but we need to build on it. we can pass the act in the house and enacted into law, this call kids go back to school legislatures will be returning and having heard from those parents and children as we have her here about dangers and destruction coming from the internet.

strong support and clear pack. the years have been parents and young people. our nation is watching because the parents, not just the advocate and activist who came here who came with senators before not in congress people. the safety of our children demanding this change. they know firsthand heartbreak and loss social media can cause.

we can bring back the lives of their loved ones and save others. countless hours living through the pain, telling and retelling the stories, bringing tears and senator schumer has said, the house felt that their eyes and i want to thank senator schumer keeping his word and giving the billable not only is works congress owes the time honored alongside them. today the senate will show you

we are in the midst of a crisis in this country particularly for young people aggravated and exacerbated by big tech and the reason is simple, business model the effect on relies on competitive a lot of the 50/50 writing. bilotta control over their online lives. parents are asking for tools and safeguards gives them a measure of control fairly widely felt country. the senate shows lives of young people and political influence

regulation. we are making in treating and one day preventing and curing alzheimer's disease. these bills, s. 133, the national alzheimer's front act or napa, as it's referred to, reauthorization act and s. 134, the alzheimer's accountability and investment act would help coordinate the tools of the federal government towards reaching these important goals. and i would note on the floor is

the cochair of the alzheimer's task force in the senate, he senator markey, along with the other two cosponsors we're fortunate to have, senators warner and capito. mr. president, when i first joined the senate in 1997, there really wasn't much of a focus on alzheimer's in washington. it was often calledcy knelt -- senility and was thought of not as a disease but just part of growing old. to increase public awareness of alzheimer's disease, to branch research and to bring it to the forefront of the congressional agenda, i formed the congressional task force on alzheimer's in 1999.

a true milestone was the passage of the national alzheimer's project act which i coauthored with then-senator evan bye. before that, there was no coordinated strategic plan to focus our efforts to defeat this devastating disease and ensure that our resources for max -- were maximized and leveraged. napa tackled this project by convening to prevent and effectively treat alzheimer's disease by the year 2025, an ambitious goal to be sure. the expert council updates its plan annually.

while the 2025 goal, regrettably, will not be met, it was still important ■toset an ambitious objective in order to spur research and to instill hope. and, indeed, since then, we search remembers have -- researchers have made great strides in understanding this complex disease. to put our progress in context, 20 years ago we knew of only four genes that were associated with alzheimer's disease. now researchers have identified more than 70 associated genetic areas opening multiple new avenues for potential prevention and treatments. there is another point that helps put this into perspective. in the early 2000's, the only sure way to know whether a

person had alzheimer's was through an yoautposy, since the there's been imagining techniques, biomarker tests and more precise and earlier. are and there have been disease modified therapies targeting plaques. the national alzheimer's project act law is scheduled to expire soon. we must reauthorize the law to make sure that investments remain coordinated to maximize their impact. toward that end i introduced the

napa reauthorization act with senator warner, which would extend napa through 2035 and modernize the legislation to reflect the strides that have been made to better understand the disease such as including a new focus on promoting healthy aging, reducing risk factors and supporting family caregivers. the napa reauthorization act will allow the important work of the expert panel to continue through 2035. among its provisions, the bill would expand the council that assist annually in the development and evaluation of the national plan. it will also ensure that underserved populations, including individuals with down's syndrome who are at

greatly increased risk for alzheimer's as they age, are included in this important work. i've also introduced the alzheimer's accountability and investment act with my colleague from massachusetts, who's been such a leader in this area. it would continue through the year 2035 a requirement that the nih submit an annual budget directly to congress estimating the funding necessary to fully implement napa's research goals. only two other areas of biomedical research, cancer, and hiv-aids have been the subject of special budget development aimed at speeding discovery. this bypass budget helps us understand what additional funding is required to find better treatments, a means of

prevention, and ultimately a cure. as cochair along with senators, warner, capito and markey of the congressional task force on alzheimer's, i am committed to this effort both on a personal level as well as professionally, as a senator concerned about the impact on our families and our health care budgets. on a personal level, i know just how devastating this disease is. i just recently lost my brother-in-law to the disease, my father, grandfather, and two of my uncles also succumbed to alzheimer's. it is truly a heartbreaking disease.

it is heartbreaking when you talk to a loved one and receive only a confused look in reply. alzheimer's disease is also one of the greatest health challenges of our time. it's currently ranked as the seventh leading cause of death in the united states and nearly 7 million americans are living with the disease. it's also one of the most expensive diseases for society, costing an estimated $360 billion last year alone. reauthorization of napa and the alzheimer's accountability and investment act would ensure our country is maintaining momentum in our fight against alzheimer's, just as our investments in research are beginning to translate into promising new treatments. both laws have no mandatory

spending effects, according to the congressional budget office. both bills are cosponsored by nearly half the members of this senate. both bills have wide-ranging support from national stakeholders, including alzheimer's association, us against alzheimer's, the national down's syndrome society, and the national down's syndrome congress. and both bills were reported out of the senate help committee with broad bipartisan support last summer. mr. president, in order to change the trajectory of this disease that otherwise is projected to claim the minds of 13.8 million seniors and nearly surpass $1 trillion in annual cost by 2050, congress has the

responsibility to pursue effective public policy. ultimately, i think we're going to discover that this is a multibacterial disease, and that's why all of the research that is going on is so critical to finding effective treatments, a means of prevention, and one day a cure. and that is the purpose of these two bills. so, mr. president, as if in legislative session and notwithstanding rule 22, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar number 182, senate bill 133. the presiding officer: the clerk will report.

the clerk: calendar number 182, s. 1 33, a bill to extend the national alzheimer's project. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding in -- is there objection to proceeding? without objection, the senate la proceed. ms. collins: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported substitute amendment be withdrawn, the collins 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. ms. collins: mr. president, i know of no further debate on the bill prior to our proceeding with it as amended. the presiding officer: is there further debate? hearing none, the question is on passage of the bill, as amended. all those in favor, aye. those opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the bill, as amended, is passed. ms. collins: mr. president, i

ask unanimous consent that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. collins: mr. president, as if in legislative session, and notwithstanding rule 22, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar number 183, senate bill 134. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 183, s. 134, a bill to require an annual budget estimate and so forth. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed. ms. collins: mr. president, 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.

ms. collins: thank you, mr. president. and i'm very pleased to yield at this time to the senator from massachusetts. the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. mr. markey: thank you, mr. president. and thank to senator collins for her longtime leadership on this issue. there is no more important issue in our country than the scourge of alzheimer's. my mother, like senator collins' father, both succumbed to alzheimer's. but today there are very few families in our whole country that do not have a similar story, some relative who has had alzheimer's. my mother was diagnosed and she was a brilliant woman. she was president of the senior class in high school. but her mother died, my

grandmother, when my mother was 17, so she had to be the mother and raise her three younger sisters. so she never got to go to college. and she ultimately finished raising the first family, then at 37 married my farmering, who was a -- my father, who was a milk man and had me at 39 and my two brothers at age 40. then she raised us. now, my mother was a completely brilliant woman. she could do calculus for fun at the table even though she never had calculus in school. and my father used to say after my mother contracted alzheimer's, your mother was a brilliant woman. it was an honor that your mother married me. your mother is never stepping foot in a nursing home. no one is touching your mother at 2:00 a.m. in the morning. it was an honor that she married me.

and so at age 80, 82, 84, 86, 88, 90 my father kept my mother in our living room. that's my story. that's my family story. that's senator collins' story. that's the story of millions of families in our country. alzheimer's is a scourge that needs to be defeated. and so i learned a lot from my father and his dedication to my mother. he was a milk man. he was 6' 1", 265, so he could do it. not many could do it. two-thirds of all alzheimer's cases are women. can i say that again. two-thirds of all alzheimer's cases are women in our country. so these families are heroes,

but heroes need help. so in the house, as senator collins is leading in the senate, we were able to pass the first law. the first law said to national institutes of health, break down all the silos at nih and all of your institutes. you all have information on the brain and you don't even share that information on the brain. the institute on aging is not shav sharing with infectious diseases. put together a plan to find the cure by 2025. and i was leading in the house. that was my bill. senator collins was doing it in the senate. it was her bill. that became the law in 2011. but we realized by 2014 that a vision without funding is a hallucination. right now in our country between medicare and medicaid, our

country spends the equivalent of one-third of the defense budget's money every single year just on alzheimer's patients. one-third of the defense budget. by the year of 2050 at the pace of which alzheimer's is advancing, the alzheimer's budget in our country will equal the defense budget, because no one is saying that grandma shouldn't have a nursing home bed. so finding a cure is absolutely not an option. and so in 2014 we passed another law and that law said that each year the nih has to tell the senate appropriations committee and the house appropriations committee how much money they needed to find a cure. -- for alzheimer's by the year 2025. well, back then, there was about $5 -- it was about $500 million

a year that was spent to find a cure. last year because of that law, senator collins leading in the senate along with me, we're up to $3.7 billion a year because, obviously, prevention is preferable to cure. let's stop it. let's try to get this right at its beginnings. and we've made some progress. but we're not going to find a cure by 2025. and so what this legislation says is we're extending it out to 2035, and we're going to continue both of these programs to make sure that it gets the focus at the nih so that we will find the cure. because research is medicine's field of dreams from which we harvest the findings that give hope to families that there will

be a cure for the disease, which has been ravaging their families for generations. and alzheimer's is the one disease that we all know almost every family in our cou common. so president kennedy created the mission to the moon in 1961 and our country responded to it. with these two bills that we're passing today -- what these two bills that we're passing today have done is they've created a mission to the mind. they've created a mission to find out what is going on with the brains of not just people in our country but all around the country because we're going to have to find a cure. and it is our responsibility here to provide the leadership. -- in the united states senate. to keep the plan in place and to find the funding that will have the best, brightest young scientists in america make careers out of finding the cure for alzheimer's.

the same thing is happening with cancer. the same thing has happened with hiv. but we have to focus here on alzheimer's and keep that investment rising and rising because patients deserve it, families deserve it, caregivers across our country deserve it. we have millions of families right now, as senator collins just said, 7 million families that have this disease in their families right now and there is no cure. the end result is always inexorable. it's always inevitable. it always ends the same way. and so we are the only way in which this can be solved. $3.7 billion a year or $4 billion a year, that's a small price to pay against a disease which is going to cost the federal government an equal amount as the defense budget

every year by 2050. so we have to act. we've come a long way on research, but we have a long way to go. so here's what we hope. we hope to promote healthy aging, to reduce risk factors, to require the national alzheimer's plan to include recommendations on reducing health disparities for black, brown, and disabled americans because that's all part of this story lieven, along with women. they're all in a separate and high-risk category than men are. expanding the national alzheimer's advisory council to preventing, treating and curing alzheimer's and supporting family caregivers. that's why we can't delay another day. so i urge my colleagues to celebrate today. we've just passed two historic pieces of legislation. it sets 2035 as the target date.

and we can get this done, but we have to finish the job. and today's vote is going to clear the path for millions of alzheimer's patients and their families, for them, their loved ones, and for communities all across our country. and so i thank senator collins for her great, great leadership on this, and my family and senator collins' family. we stand here speaking for the 7 million families and the many more to come if we don't find a cure. and we thank the members of the senate for passing this historic legislation today. and with that, mr. president, i yield back. a senator: mr. president.

the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: mr. president, i'm glad i was in the chamber to witness this passage of these bills pertaining to the scourge of alzheimer's by unanimous consent. this is a rare bright spot in our activities where we actually all come together and agree on good policy. we've also taken a step to pass another piece of bipartisan legislation today, something that used to be standard operating procedure in this chamber. we would call up bipartisan legislation that would address everything from the opioid crisis to medical innovation. members would debate the bills. we would offer amendments. and in the end hold an up-or-down vote. but sadly, this has become too rare a phenomenon. in recent years the senate, controlled by our friends on the democratic side, have strayed

from our core legislative duties. instead of voting on bipartisan bills, marking them up in committee where everybody can participate, this chamber devotes instead the vast majority of its time to things from relatively unimportant nominations to partisan show votes. as a result, major tasks like funding the government, strengthening our defense are left to the last possible moment and then rushed across the finish line. but i'm glad for today that the senate has gotten back to basics and passed a strong p bipartisan package to help keep our kids safe online. every day our children see content online about suicide, eating disorders, and drug use, and other topics that are not

suitable for children. at the same time online bullying and harassment run rampant, and the statistics on teen suicide and mental health paint an alarming picture for the next generation. the bill that passed today includes two important pieces of legislation to help address that crisis. the kids online safety act introduced by senators blumenthal and blackburn, provides children and parents with the tools and safeguards they need to keep harmful content out of the children's social media feeds. more than two-thirds of the senate sponsored these bills, including this one, and i'm proud to be one of them. we also passed another bill that i was proud to cosponsor called the children and teens online privacy protection act, introduced by senators markey and cassidy.

that bill prohibits internet companies from collecting personal information from their youngest users and establishes better safeguards to protect children's privacy. it protects and prevents big tech from tracking and targeting kids with the most addictive content possible. congress has been working on legislation in this area for many years, and i want to commend senators blackburn and cassidy for getting us to this point. there are a number of other bills that have passed the judiciary committee on a bipartisan basis, as the presiding officer knows, and i hope we'll be able to turn to those soon. but these bills would he passed today struck the right balance between the first amendment and safety, which is no easy task, which is perhaps one reason why it's taken us so long to get here. but i appreciate these senators' leadership and i'm proud the

senate has finally taken an important step to help keep america's children safe online. mr. president, on another matter, i want to speak briefly about president biden's proposal to essentially unconst unconstitutionally transform the supreme court into another political branch of government. every student of government, every high school civics class teachers that ours is a government of three coequal branches, the two political branches being the senate and the house, the legislative branch and the executive branch. p conversely, the judiciary is unique in that it is unaccountable to the voters. judges are nominated by the president and then confirmed by

the senate, but as long as they are, they are conducting themselves appropriately, they can serve as long as they live, literally have life tenure. rarely, very rarely the remedy of impeachment for extraordinary cases. but as i said, that happens almost not at all. but in recent years our democratic colleagues have floated a litany of institutional changes to try to tilt the balance of power in the judiciary in their favor. they're not content to allow the courts to do their job, which is to call balls and strikes. again, judges are supposed to interpret the law and the facts and apply that to a given case and not decide ahead of time who should win and who should lose. judges don't take public opinion polls and decides what's popular, because they take the

same oath we do to uphold the constitution and laws of the united states. but they do so in a framework of judicial independence. former justice scalia used to say the independent judiciary is the gold standard, is the secret sauce for the united states form of government, because there has to be some neutral arbiter to basically decide contested cases, and that is our independent judiciary. but our democratic colleagues, since they have been upset about some of the decisions of the court, have gone so far as to suggest that the court be restructured. this was tried back in the administration of franklin delano roosevelt in the famous

court-packing cases. he wanted to add additional justices to the supreme court because he thought that would change the receptivity of the case to causes that he supported. but we've also seen changes advocated here in this senate, institutional changes by our democrat colleagues who are unhappy with the fact that they don't win 100% of the vote. they've advocated eliminating the filibuster to clear the path for radical and unpopular policy ideas. they've attempted to federalize or nationalize our voting laws and take over america's elections as opposed to having those dieded at the state -- those decided at the state level. they pushed for statehood for the district of columbia and as well as puerto rico, and presumably each of those would get two united states senators and a member of congress and thus tilt the balance of power here in the senate. but when it comes to the supreme

court, it's clear that the left is outraged over some of the court's recent decisions. as a matter of fact, not that long ago, the majority leader stood on the front steps of the supreme court and called out two sitting justices by name and essentially threatened them if they decided these cases in a way that he disagreed with. that was an extraordinary act of bad judgment by the majority leader. he actually went so far as to say justice gorsuch, justice cavanaugh, you won't know what hit you. again, shocking to, i think, most of us who regard the court as an independent and separate branch of government immune from politics. but of course many democrats are upset that the court's decision

in roe v. wade has now returned the issue of abortion to the states where on a state-by-state basis legislators and voters will decide what the appropriate limits are on abortion, which divides much of our country. they are upset about the decision on presidential immunity. they want the president to be subject to ordinary litigation on a regular basis, using what has now come to be known as lawfare to achieve political objectives. and they're concerned that the court has done away with something as arcane and relatively poorly understood as chevron deference, basically saying if an agency decides something, there's not much the courts or that congress can do about it. our colleagues don't want to keep losing cases in the courtroom, so they've adopted a new strategy.

if you can't win the game, change the rules. and their playbook has gone something like this. number one, villainize the supreme court. i mentioned the comments of the majority leader which are not unique. the strategy is to make the justices seem evil or biased or out of touch when they rule against progressive causes in the courtroom. the second step in the playbook is to offer a solution or a proposed solution to address the problems that democrats have manufactured. that involves an act which itself is unconstitutional and irresponsible, which is the overhaul of the court, the court-packing i mentioned a moment ago. and, three, is to go on the attack and stay on the attack, andville phi anyone who -- and vilify anyone who dares oppose

these changes as somehow corrupt and antidemocratic. from packing the court with liberal justices to dictating recusal requirements for the justices to holding security funding hostage, if the supreme court doesn't do what our democratic colleagues want them to do, our colleagues have offered many plans to fully assert control over this independent branch of the, of government, the judiciary. for a long time these proposals were only supported by a fringe of the democratic party, but now they have become more commonplace. it infiltrated the oval office itself. president joe biden used the pages of "the washington post" to advocate for exactly the sorts of dramatic and unconstitutional changes that i just mentioned. he wants to somehow establish term limits for justices. he wants to craft a schedule for

new appointments, force a code of ethics on the justices written by congress, and destroy the long-standing precedent of presidential immunity. these proposals are not to enhance the fairness of the court or promote equality or justice or any other good-gogo good-government objective. they're about power, about control. they would turn our most independent branch of government into a partisan branch to ensure our democrat colleagues are the ones who ultimately wield the power. it's not bad enough that president biden has promoted these radical changes, but vice president harris has fully embraced them. she made it clear if she's elected in november the assault on the independent judiciary and the supreme court will not go

away, it will accelerate. a potential harris administration would stage a full-blown coup to overtake the supreme court and eviscerate judicial independence. she basically would disregard the constitution itself and attempt to turn the court into an institution that serves at the pleasure of a political party, hers. we need to call it what it is, mr. president. the biden-harris proposal is not about protecting democracy or assuring accountability. it's about consolidating power and undermining institutions that stand in the way of their agenda. if these radical ideas were to become a reality, they would dangerously shift the balance of power and erode the independence of the supreme court. again, the crown jewels of our form of government. they would ultimately politicize the one branch of government

that was designed to be insulated from partisanship. our founders deliberately designed a federal government can three distinct but equal branches. they established a set of checks and balances to prevent any one branch to bend to its will. but that's exactly what president biden and his party is trying to do today. to blur the lines between the executive, judicial, branches to accrue more power. but here in the united states senate, an institution created for this purpose, cooler heads must prevail. we cannot stoop to the level of the mob. we have to stand up for an independent judiciary and the supreme court as an essential institution in our form of

government, regardless of how we feel about the decisions. many decisions by the supreme court i've disagreed with in the past, and i'm sure i will in the future. but as one justice said, the supreme court is not final because it's right, it's right because it's final. that's the only way to preserve the integrity of the judiciary and our invaluable checks and balances is with an independent judiciary, one that isn't politicized and doesn't bend to the will of a political party. republicans will continue to fight to protect the integrity of america's judicial system and we will not allow this president or any president or any political party to hijack the federal judiciary for their own partisan benefit.

mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. mr. sullivan: i ask unanimous consent that i be permitted to speak up to 15 minutes prior to the scheduled roll call vote. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sullivan: i have a resolution i'm looking forward to passing here on the senate floor. i'm pretty sure nobody will object to it. before i begin, i will do a huge shoutout and congratulations to aleve kelte ranched the -- and the u.s. women's rugby team,

they beat the australians to deliver the rugby team's first olympic medal. great job to the american women's rugby team. getting some medals there for our great nation. so, mr. president, i'm here on the floor today to ask unanimous consent for a long, long overdue resolution, and it's a resolution that i guarantee most americans are going to be like, what? wait. what? we haven't done that yet? the senate, the congress hasn't done that yet? and it's a resolution on this. recognizing the heroic service of our vietnam veterans and finally issuing an apology, yes,

in which the way tens of thousands of them were treated they came home after serving our nation. so that's what i'm going to do. i was told a couple of minutes ago, someone was going to object. i was like, whoa, really? let's have that debate. but, good news, mr. president, no objection. so what i wanted to do briefly is just explain the reasoning behind this resolution. and i think as a country, when you look at the broad sweep of american history, we have also ri rightfully respected, lionized and celebrated america's veterans. think about it in the last several decades. the world war ii generation. we even have a name for them, the greatest generation,

sacrificed over 400,000 americans killed in action saving the world from dictatorships and the europe and -- in europe and in the pacific, the greatest generation, literally defending freedom all over the world. when they came home, and to this day, we celebrate them. we lionize them, ticker paper parades, as it should be. then you had the korean war. and unfortunately in my view, i'm a korean war history buff, and i've studied this a lot. you had kind of an attitude of benign neglect. even the phrase, the forgotten war, which i don't like, should be called the noble war, kind of indicates this benign neglect. the veterans came home, people didn't really celebrate what they did. it wasn't really like

world war ii. it was just kind of, okay, get on with your life. you did your duty. they sacrificed of course, but there wasn't a lot. it was kind of benign neglect, as i mentioned. and then, mr. president, the vietnam war happened, and then we all know what happened, but to this day i think most americans maybe don't even understand what happened. but there's no doubt our country went off kilter and the respect given to our servicemembers, world war ii certainly at the high level, even the korean war, benign neglect, this respect rock bottom. it hit rock bottom. and, you know, it's just really sad. we all have heard stories of veterans coming home, corporals, enlisted guys, young officers, they did their duty. some of whom were drafted, said it was my turn to go. and for whatever reason, vietnam was, of course, very

contentious, but for whatever reason, when they came home, a lot of people in the american government took it out on them. slander, spit upon, all kinds of horrible epithets, i remember one of my first mess nights as a marine officer, we had a mess night with a lot of these old retired marines, very formal, sacred setting in many ways, one of the officers there talked about how he came home from vietnam, his dad was a world war ii vet, he had been in 12 months of combat, came home to see his father, hugged his dad, they're walking out-i side of the -- outside of the airport and somebody threw red paint on him and his dad. can you imagine that? you just sacrificed for your country, you're in uniform with your father who is a

world war ii vet. what did we do that for? i don't know if there's ever going to be an answer, but this happened literally to tens of thousands of vietnam veterans. and it shouldn't happen, mr. president, but it did. so what we can do here in the senate is just say, hey, we recognize your great service. it wasn't easy. you were doing your duty. and if you were treated horribly, which a lot of them were when they came home -- again, maybe you go attack president johnson or president nixon, not attack, but criticize them, but why take it on the lance corporal? that's what happened. shouldn't have happened. so what we're going to do here, mr. president. we're going to do it in a second. i'm glad to one is objecting. hope no one is objecting. my resolution, resolution 778.

it's got a lot of senators supporting it, is recognizing the courage and sacrifice of our veterans from the vietnam war and apologizing for the treatment sol many of them received when they came home. pretty simple. and welcome them home finally from the u.s. senate. this resolution lays out their heroic service, it talks about their sacrifice, 58,000 members of the armed services lost their lives. more than 300,000 americans were wounded in vietnam, and yet many who served bravely and faithfully to the united states during the vietnam war were repeatedly targeted with shameful attacks when they came home. why? i don't know. that never really happened in our history before and it should never happen again. mr. president, here's the beautiful thing about our vietnam vets. instead of being racked and

incapacitated by bitterness or anger, our vietnam veterans, and i've seen it throughout my career in the military, when they came home, they said here's what we're going to do. we were treated really poorly, we're going to work really hard to make sure that the next generation of veterans that serve overseas aren't are treated -- aren't treated poorly, that we get back to this level of world war ii treatment. and guess what, mr. president. the vietnam vets succeeded in that. the vast majority of americans, they look at our veterans, whether they agreed with the war in iraq or afghanistan or anywhere else, when they see the vets, they say thank you. heroic service. we may not have liked the war, but we're certainly not going to take it out on you, lieutenant or corporal. in that group, our vietnam vets get a lot to do with us coming back to that level. i saw this throughout my entire

military career. i retired out of the marine corps thee months -- three months ago after three years. i had a sergeant who was killed by an avalanche in alaska. great guy. and so we're having a service to bury him. very somber. i was the -- i was just a captain, but i was the lead officer overseeing this service, and these guys pull up in motorcycles, vietnam vets, it's like five of them at this service. just sitting there. after the service, they came up to me, i said, hey, thank you guys for coming to the service of my sergeant. i said, did you know him? nope. we didn't know him. we just saw that he was killed and we wanted to come here to honor him. think about that.

those are vietnam veterans in my great state of alaska who probably didn't get treated well and said we're going to go to the funeral of this marine sergeant to make sure he gets the respect that everybody should have gotten and certainly that the vietnam vet generation should have gotten but so many didn't. so this resolution, mr. president, does that. it recognizes the extraordinary sacrifice of our vietnam vets, commends them for their sacrifice and on behalf of the congress to formally being a nong the -- acknowledge the widespread mistreatment of the veterans when they came back home, and offers on behalf of the congress a long overdue apology and encourages an express of support for increased education in the schools of the united states to reflect on and

learn about the courage and sacrifice about this group of veterans. and, unfortunately, sometimes the lack of support when they came home. so that's what the resolution does, mr. president. and so, mr. president, as if in legislative session, and notwithstanding rule 22, i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the consideration of senate resolution 778, which is at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. res. 778, a resolution acknowledging the courage and sacrifice of veterans of the vietnam war and expressing regret for the mistreatment of veterans returning home from the war. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed. mr. sullivan: i ask unanimous consent, mr. president, the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. sullivan: thank you, mr. president. and with that, given that there is no objection, that senate resolution has now passed in the united states, unanimously is on record, finally in 2024, thanking our vietnam veterans for their service, for their sacrifice, acknowledging the mistreatment they got when they came home, welcoming them home and saying on behalf of the congress of the united states, we do apologize for the mistreatment that you received and we know that you are the key to making sure future generations of veterans are honored. so to our vietnam vets, welcome home. thank you. i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: under the previous order, the question is on the nomination. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote: the clerk: ms. baldwin. mr. barrasso. mr. bennet. mrs. blackburn. mr. blumenthal. mr. booker. mr. boozman. mr. braun. mrs. britt. mr. brown. mr. budd. ms. butler. ms. cantwell. mrs. capito. mr. cardin. mr. carper. mr. casey. mr. cassidy. ms. collins. mr. coons. mr. cornyn. ms. cortez masto. mr. cotton. mr. cramer. mr. crapo.

mr. cruz. mr. daines. ms. duckworth. mr. durbin. ms. ernst. mr. fetterman. mrs. fischer. mrs. gillibrand. mr. graham. mr. grassley. mr. hagerty. ms. hassan. mr. hawley. mr. heinrich. mr. hickenlooper. ms. hirono. mr. hoeven. mrs. hyde-smith. mr. johnson. mr. kaine. mr. kelly. mr. kennedy. mr. king. ms. klobuchar. mr. lankford.

mr. lee. mr. lujan. ms. lummis. mr. manchin. mr. markey. mr. marshall. mr. mcconnell. mr. menendez. mr. merkley. mr. moran. mr. mullin. ms. murkowski. mr. murphy. mrs. murray. mr. ossoff. mr. padilla. mr. paul. mr. peters. mr. reed. mr. ricketts. mr. risch. mr. romney. ms. rosen. mr. rounds. mr. rubio. mr. sanders. mr. schatz. mr. schmitt. mr. schumer.

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

the clerk: senators voting in the affirmative -- bennet, cardin, hassan, tester, tillis, and welch. senators voting in the negative -- budd, cornyn, cotton, crapo, marshall, moran, rounds, rubio, schmitt, and sullivan.

mr. johnson, no. mr. whitehouse, aye. mr. kaine, aye. mr. lee, no.

the clerk: ms. collins, aye. mrs. britt, no. the clerk: mr. wyden, aye.

mr. thune, no. the clerk: mr. cassidy, no. the clerk: mr. ricketts, no.

the clerk: mr. hickenlooper, aye.

the clerk: mr. heinrich, aye. the clerk: mr. reed, aye. ms. baldwin, aye.

vote: the clerk: mr. schatz, aye. ms. smith, aye. mrs. capito, no.

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

the clerk: mr. durbin, aye.

the clerk: ms. stabenow, aye.

the clerk: mrs. shaheen, aye.

the clerk: ms. cantwell, aye.

the clerk: mr. scott of florida, no. mr. sanders, aye. mr. cramer, no.

the clerk: mr. murphy, aye. mr. merkley, aye. mr. brown, aye.

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

the clerk: mr. grassley, no.

the clerk: mr. mullin, no. the clerk: mr. daines, no.

mr. lankford, no. ms. ernst, no. ms. warren, aye.

the clerk: mrs. murray, aye. mr. risch, no.

the clerk: mr. scott of south carolina, no. mr. hagerty, no.

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

the clerk: mr. manchin, aye. ms. murkowski, aye. mr. paul, no.

the clerk: ms. duckworth, aye. ms. fischer, no. the clerk: mr. boozman, no.

the clerk: mrs. hyde-smith, no. the clerk: mr. casey, aye. mr. barasso, no.

the clerk: mr. hoeven, no. ms. cortez masto, aye. mr. cruz, no. mr. padilla, aye.

the clerk: mr. graham, aye. ms. lummis, no. mr. carper, aye.

mr. wicker, no. the clerk: mr. braun, no. ms. klobuchar, aye. mr. tuberville, no.

the clerk: mrs. gillibrand, aye.

the clerk: mr. king, aye. the clerk: mr. mcconnell, no.

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

the clerk: mr. blumenthal, aye.

the clerk: mr. markey, aye.

the clerk: mr. hawley, no.

the clerk: mrs. blackburn, no.

the clerk: ms. butler, aye.

the clerk: mr. schumer, aye.

the clerk: mr. kennedy, no.

the presiding officer: on this issue, the -- on this

nomination, the yeas are 50. the nays are 43. the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order, the motion to reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table and the president will be immediately notified of the senate's action. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from hawaii. mr. schatz: frng you, mr. president. for -- thank you, mr. president. for so many people in lahaina, next week marks one year since the worst day of their lives. they watched in horror as wind-whipped fires barrelled into town at blistering speed and sent everything in their path up in flames. they saw the only homes in places they'd ever known and lived in fall around them and with just minutes to escape, they gathered whatever they could and ran for their lives.

it is a testament to the generosity and comrade di that typifies a way that even amid all the panic and chaos, so many people mutt their love -- put their loved ones, their neighbors and total strangers before themselves. in their darkest hour, their first instinct was to provide help. in that moment, everyday people became eternal heroes. the outpouring of kindness continued far beyond those first few hours as the grim and heartbreaking reality of death and destruction set in. people did everything they could to ease the burden, even if just a little bit. everybody pitched in. not because they were asked but because they saw that the lahaina needed help. for the survivors who lost everything in an instant, no amount of help is ever truly enough.

102 people died that day. 2200 structures, most of them homes, flattened. more than 12,000 residents were displaced overnight. s never going to be quick or easy. this was always going to be a year's long effort riddled with stubborn realities to confront and difficult challenges to overcome. and in spite of the grace and goodwill of the community, in spite of a robust federal response since the very beginning, there is still so much unmet need and unfinished work. and understandably, people are worried and anxious and exhausted. they're tired of having to uproot their families from one temporary housing unit to the next every few weeks or every few months. they're tired of wondering what the future holds. and if that future will be on

maui at all. they worry about their friends and their neighbors grabbling with depression and post-traumatic stress from the lingering trauma of the fires. they worry about their kids missing out on school and getting left behind. one year later, people's lives are nowhere near back to normal. national headlines may have moved on, but life for survivors has not. they still need help. from the very next day after the fires following president biden's disaster declaration, the federal government mobilized a sweeping recovery effort that's delivered more than $300 billion -- bdz 300 million -- $300 million in aid to date. here in congress senator hirono, representative education and i worked with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to deliver

disaster relief funding and get survivors the help that they deserve. while we should be clear-eyed about the ahead, we should reflect on what's ahead. after work by the army corps of engineers, debris removal is expected to be completed in the coming months. water and waste water services have been fully restored as of two weeks ago. and a temporary campus for king co-p kamehameha has been restored and opened its doors in april. that progress is real and it's the reason for hope, that things can and will improve. but there is still so much work left to do. housing remains the number-one issue. businesses still need help as tourism lags and people of all i

am ans need expanded access to mental health resources and other health care. every part of the government, whether it is federal, state, or county has a responsibility to help the survivors get back on their feet. and right now the for congress, that means passing the president's domestic supplemental appropriations request, which includes significant investments in the cdbgr program. cdbgr has for decades been the lifeline for disaster survivors across the country, giving them flexible, long-term assistance to rebuild their homes and their businesses in their neighborhoods. this is a proven program that has helped to revive dozens of devastated communities and has to be extended for the survivors on maui as they try to recover. for the people of lahaina, the

past year has been a period of uncertainty and unease, unspeakable grief and heartache, impossible choices, a year of what if's and what's next. nothing will ever fully replace the people and the things that are lost on that harrowing day about a year ago. but what we can do is be there for them as they recover, for as long as it takes every step of the way. that is our responsibility, and that is our promise. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: thank you, mr. president.

putin and xi often call for what they call a multipolar world. by multipolar world, these presidents of russia and china mean to criticize the postcold war -- post-cold war situation of the united states being a superpower. even some american commentators and politicians seem to agree with putin and xi. in some corners of american foreign policy thought, there is an implicit acceptance of the premise that large, horrible countries are entitled to a certain sphere of influence, and where they can at the same time

dominateary neighbors -- dominate their neighbors against the will of the people who live in those countries. the soviet union previously had an ideology of exporting communist revolution to other countries. the soviet union sought to dominate much of the eurasian content and to export its economic and political system to countries around the globe either by cunning or by force. when the berlin wall fell and the then-soviet union collapsed, many previously captive nations became free to chart their own course. as a result, many of them chose free-market democracy. those countries also naturally

chose to develop good relationships with the united states and what we call the west, countries of the west. putin clearly sees this has a humiliation, and he famously called the collapse of the soviet empire as, quote, the greatest geopolitical disaster of the 20th century, end of quote. by contrast to the soviet union, the united states is what we might call a reluctant superpower. i think sometimes too reluctant. we never set out to have the most powerful military. the instincts of the american people was to stay out of world

war i and world war ii. we then learned that our failure to nip aggression in the bud and do it early comes at a tremendous cost. still, our insting well -- instinct with a reluctant to get involved in foreign wars is to our credit. i'm not saying that we have never deviated from our general nature or made mistakes, but i believe that imperialism is contrary to the american character. during the cold war, margaret thatcher had this to say -- and bear with me because it is a long quote. margaret thatcher said this -- it is fashionable for some

commentators to speak of two superpowers, the united states and the soviet union, as though they were somehow of equal worth and equal significance. mr. speaker, that is a travesty of truth. the soviet union has never concealed its real aim. in the words of mr. brezhnev, the total triumph of all socialism all over the world is inevitable, for this triumph, we shall struggle with no lack of effort. contrast this with the record of the west. we do not aim at domination, at hegemony in any part of the world. we do not try to impose our system on others.

we do not believe that force should be the final arbiter in human affairs. we threaten no one. end of thatcher's quote. i'll further quote her in just a minute. now,man to this point -- now, listen to this point that thatcher makes because i think putin still thinks like a soviet. i continue quoting thatcher -- in talking to the soviet union, we find great difficulty in getting this message across. they judge us by their ambitions. they cannot conceive of a powerful nation not using its power for expansion and subversion. and yet they should remember that when after the last war the

united states had a monopoly on nuclear weapons, xi never -- she never once exploited her superiority. no country ever used such great power more responsibly or with such restraint, end of quote. where she says, no country ever used such great power more responsibly and with such restraint, she was referring and complimenting the united states. putin and xi talk about the united states as some sort of hegemon pushing our values on others. the fact is, whatever they think, american principles and systems of government have spread across the world primarily through example, not by force.

to understand the american view, let's look back on a speech made by john quincy adams on the 4th ofuly 1821. there's a lot of lessons that you can draw from a speech from 200 years ago. a small excerpt of this speech is often quoted in arguing for more isolationist foreign policy. i'll get to that point later. first i want to mention about the broader point of thatcher's speech, which was to sell -- adam's speech which was to celebrate the declaration of independence as an articulation of america's founding principles. john quincy adams goes on at length extolling the american founding based on natural

rights, rejecting monarchy, as we all know. so here's the quote -- america, with the same voice which spoke herself into existence as a nation, proclaimed to mankind the inextinguishable rights of human nature and the only lawful foundation of governments. at the time, revolutions had broken out in europe and latin america, threatening monarchies and empires of that day. adams -- meaning john quincy adams -- castigates empires that seek to dominate people by force. he then ends the speech with a call for a spirit of liberty. that spirit of liberty that's talked about in the declaration. and he asks that to descend upon

britain and all monarchies. in fact, the diplomat in attendance from the russian empire was appalled at the statement that john quincy adams was making. he reported to st. petersburg that the speech was, quote, an appeal to the nations of europe to rise against their governments, end of quote. this was a provocative -- this was provocative stuff for monarchists. in the excerpt of the speech that is most often quoted, adams makes a digression to clarify that he is not suggesting that the united states intervene directly to support every antimonarchy revolution. adams explains that the united states has respected the

independence of other nations and has not intervened even when -- and this quote from him -- even when conflict has been for principles to which she clings as to the last vital drop that visits the heart, end of quote. in this case, he's referring to the anticolonial revolutions taking place at that time in latin america or greece. the most famous quote from that speech comes in the following passage about the role of the united states. so quoting from john quincy adams again, wherever the standards of freedom and independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will be heart

-- there will be her heart, her benedictions, and her prayers. but she goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. she is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. she is the champion and vindicator only of her own. end of quote. people have argued that adams' words apply to specific foreign policy debates today. what is beyond question is that john quincy adams said americans ought to at least root for freedom and independence. it is our american dna to take the side of the underdog,

fighting for liberty against an em empire, as margaret thatcher explained. dictatorships and democracies aren't morally equal. however, they feel -- however they feel about the prudence of any particular foreign policy decision, americans should reject the putin-xi vision of a multipolar war. let's look at some examples and consider the alternative values of the multipolar war putin and xi are offering to 8 billion people. on sunday, september 11, 2022, grace evangelical church in

ukraine was full of worshippers. worship leaders with guitars stood in the front of the giant colorful screen displaying the lyrics of a praise song. it looked like any evangelical church here in the united states. as the congregation was singing praises to jesus, armed russian soldiers in camouflage barged in and stopped the service. i encourage every american to watch that video, and it is on video. the soldiers took the names of all the worshippers and detained the minister. in the same ukranian city, the largest church, christian church -- and that happens to be a charismatic protestant

church -- russian soldiers broke into the church with sledgehammers. they arrested the pastors in the middle of the night, waking one pastor's 9-year-old son with a gun in his face. the large cross in the front of the church was removed, the building confiscated by the russian occupiers not for religious reasons, but for secular use. before the russian invasion, there were more protestant churches in that city than orthodox churches. now as you see how the russians invade, there are no protestant churches in that community. evangelical churches are considered undesirable by russians for being too western, even being accused of being too american.

religious freedom, as we know, is a core natural right. in fact, it is the first right mentioned in our own bill of rights. the degree to which a country respects this right of religious freedom is a good barometer of the degree to which it respects individual rights in general. you cannot call yourself a free country if you suppress freedom of religion. both russia and china are among a handful of countries designated by the state department as what we call countries of particular concern because of severe violation of religious freedom. china has been holding up 2 million uighurs and other muslims in detention camps.

the state department has now officially labeled what china is doing to the uighurs and other muslims in detention camps as a gen genocide. they have been beaten with batons while strapped to chairs, interrogated while water is poured in their face, placed in prolonged solidarity confinement, constantly surveyed, deprived of sleep and food, forbidden from speaking their own language or practicing their own religion, and forced to sing patriotic songs that only xi would approve of. the chinese communist party says that these camps are for vocational education to fight extremism. here's some examples of what the

chinese communist party calls extremism -- having too many children, being an unsaved children, being born in certain years, wearing a veil or beard. my staff met with a former internee from one of these camps, obviously because that person was able to get free, she described widespread torture and rape. since this started to result in children, the chinese communist party has subjected uighur women to forced birth control and sterilization. uighurs in other countries, including the united states, have been subject to harassment and intimidation, including threats against family members

for speaking out about genocide of their people. the chinese communist party sees a threat from any belief system that provides an alternative to chinese communist party ideology. it has co-opted religious institutions that it can control while suppressing independent religious groups. this includes tibet and buddhists, chinese officials have demolished a number of tibet an monastery buildings and placed atheist communist party officials in important administrative positions. tibetan buddhists are very peaceful so they pose no threat to the government except their moral authority and their credibility, undercutting the

government's legitimacy in that region. in tibet, there have been reports of forced disappearances, arrests, physical abuse and prolonged detentions without trial of monks, of nuns and other individuals due to their religious practices. authorities arrest individuals for possessing photographs of or writings by the dalai lama. also practitioners of fong which traces its roots to traditional chinese religion have been labeled members of a cult. freedom house independently

verified 933 cases of falun kong adherence sentenced to prison terms of up to 12 years, in just a 3 1/2 year period often just for exercising their rights to freedom of expression in addition to freedom of religion. thousands more are believed to be held at various prisons and extra legal detention centers. there are reports of cases of torture, disappearance, brain washing, rape, and death of falun gong practitioners by the chinese communist party. when a person dies while in prison, their families are told that their loved ones committed suicide or died of a disease, but the bodies are cremated

before evidence can be gathered. in recent years there have been credible reports that falun gong practitioners and other political prisoners have been victims of forced organ harvesting. christianity also has had a deep historical and cultural impact on modern china. but in the mid 20th century the communist party suppressed the religion. the growth of protestantism in china in recent decades led to the emergence of what we call house churches. these are independent and not part of one of the state's sanctioned chinese communist party controlled churches. the chinese communist party has clamped down on christian actors

outside of the registered venues, banned unauthorized evangelicals online and intensified its crackdown on unauthorized protestant meeting points and underground catholic churches. christians seeking to practice their faith free of government control have to fear their identity being discovered and facing punishment or imprisonment. by contrast, taiwan has complete religious freedom. note that the new taiwanese pres president, mr. lei, is part of a vibrant protestant minority. i met him a few years ago when he was vice president-elect, and he came to washington for the national prayer breakfast. aside from geopolitics, it's

only natural that americans would sympathize with taiwan over communist china because of religious freedom in taiwan versus no religious freedom in communist china. to repeat the words of john quincy adams, wherever the standard of freedom and independence has been oregon shall be -- has been or shall be unfurled, there will be her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. so i've laid out for my colleagues the multipolar world that xi and putin want versus the freedom that is declared in our declaration of independence and practice here, and by practicing it here we hope we're

an example for other countries that prefer democracy and religious freedom. i yield the floor. mr. grassley: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: the clerk: ms. baldwin.

quorum call:

i'm proud to say the two say this indicates it's promised to every parent who has lost a child because of the risks of social media. today after a lot of hard work and the blood of twists and turns we will pass it. they will be perhaps the most important updates to the federal

laws protecting kids on the internet in decades and it's a very good first step. this was truly a bipartisan effort from the start here in the senate. i'm proud of the way both sides of the aisle came together on an issue affecting so many kids in so many families across america. but how should take note that followed the senate's example by passing cosa when they return back to senate passes it today with strong bipartisan votes for how should do the same when they return in september. these bills have real bipartisan momentum that we should seize the opportunity to send them to the president's desk. as we all know social media has many benefits that we also know about the many risks social media can pose especially to our kids. too many kids experience relentless commotion suicide substance abuse. to too many kids have their personal data collected and used

nefariously. study showed that kids today spend more time on social media than ever before and now some of -- moment to pass cosa and massey -- copa and instill guardrails for these kids. we have heard from so many families were kids took their own lives because of what happened on social media. to their everlasting credit these parent instead of the darkness lit a candle. they turned their grief into grace an amazing thing and worked doggedly to help get this bill over the finish line so what happens to their kids, their kids will never come back so what happens to their kids doesn't happen to any others. i think these brave parents and families are sharing their heartwrenching stories and i think my colleagues senators blumenthal markey and kassidy durbin and klobuchar cheer camp while in so many others for

these bills. 45 days after joe biden took the oath of office and i became the majority leader senate democrats passed a major expansion of the child tax credit. one of the signature policies of the american rescue plan. every single republican down to the last member voted against this bill. the child tax credit expansion was a stupendous success. cut child poverty in america in half, in half but it sadly expired after a year. during that your parents have money to pay for good food for their kids to pay for school supplies, to pay for clothing and the things that so many parents can't afford to do. it made the kids so much better but of course it did expire because of covid. this week the senate has a chance to do it again to pass

another expansion of the child tax credit to help get more kids out of poverty. this is just one of the many reasons, one of many reasons the senate should take up the tax relief for americans families and workers act. last night i filed cloture on this important piece of legislation penn center should expect a vote on this measure on thursday. now on the day democrats assume the majority in 2021 i promised my colleagues that i would always try my best to work first in a bipartisan way to get things done in this chamber. as i have always said bipartisanship is preferable because it's the best approach to achieving results. the senate's record over the last three years past the seven democrats and republicans have come together again and again to pass this is sort bill like infrastructure chips and science ukraine in israel aid veterans

health care and we have even pass bills on more difficult issues like safety, gun safety and marriage equality and the course together we avoided default in shutting down the government which would have wreaked such havoc in our economy and hurt so many millions of families. now just today we are getting another bipartisan bill done. we want to continue the productive streak this week with a vote on the tax bill because it will deliver so many benefits for families. they should be bipartisan. it passed in a bipartisan vote in the house and i hope republicans here in the senate choose to join us. but mr. president i have also always been clear that democrats will not shy away from moving forward on important issues when necessary to give the american people a chance to see where their elected representatives stand. putting senators on record as

one-way progress is made on important issues. can bring important issues to the forefront. it's what we did on choice, ivf, contraception last month. this week is a classic example of how we can do both in the senate, passed bipartisan legislation to get things done for the american people like kosa and coppa but put pressure on republicans to show where they stand on important issues like the child tax credit affordable housing and r&d. so this week the american people will also get a chance to see which senators in reality support tax relief for parents in as assistant housing and who opposes it. over the past few days some republican senators like the jr. senator from ohio claimed laughably that democrats somehow opposed the child tax credit. mr. president this is plain old nonsense.

democrats cannot opposed the child tax credit whatsoever. on the contrary we strongly support it. we offered it and put it together in 2021 and the child tax credit is one of the most significant achievements democrats have done over the biden/harris administration. if anyone wants to know who actually opposes the child tax credit they should ask the 49 republican senators to vote against the child tax credit and the american rescue plan. here's the truth, democrats want to pass the tax package as it will help with more kids out of poverty with another expansion of the child tax credit. democrats want to pass the tax package because it will ward distances that will invest in r&d and new equipment which will mean new jobs and greater opportunities for democrats want to pass the tax package because it makes progress on the subject i'm passionate about, affordable

housing in this package thankfully includes an expansion of low income housing tax credits, one of the best tools we have increasing the supply of housing. democrats are ready to go. the american people need tax relief. the big question right now is will republicans join us or will they stand in the way? let me just say it again i'm proud of the senate in particular to our caucus. this year is a classic example of how we can do both in the senate passed bipartisan legislation to get things done for the american people like kosa and coppa with large bipartisan majorities but also the pressure on republicans to show where they stand on important issues like the child tax credit, affordable housing and r&d tax credit for businesses. i yield the floor and then i'll be absence of the quorum. >> the senators preparing to leave for the august date work. but there's no mistaking her

most important business here in washington remains unfinished. let's take a look at how the senate has that summer so far. in june that democratically recall that the series of show votes spending precious floor time on what senate democrats seem to have thought would be political homeruns. instead they gave republicans the opportunity to reiterate our support for americans hoping to start families. in june it was the month of fear-mongering. july was the month of giving unqualified nominees lifetime promotions to the federal bench. take nancy i'll bonauto, unfortunately now a federal

judge on this 7th circuit. this is the judge infamous for letting her work pileup and blaming her clerks for lack of time management. it's particular run a good senate democrats chose to procrastinate on their most urgent responsibilities by confirming a nominee with a nearly unparalleled record of judicial -- congress has real work in front of us. some of which really should be behind us by now. like the national defense authorization act to the farm bill to annual appropriations. her colleagues on the armed services committee reported that ndaa by an overwhelming bipartisan vote over a month ago. so far, democratic leaders

haven't come close to putting this must pass author as i -- authorizing legislation out her on the floor. of course the national security priorities won't fund themselves either. the senate has the appropriations bill or any other government funding for that matter. but it least the fiscal 25 appropriations have been written for the farm bill that supposed to help americans growers and producers succeed doesn't even exist yet. apparently it's just a tringal and chair stabenow's eye. the american people sent us here to do a job and they can't help the fact that the senate majority with. the presiding officer: without objection. 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: is there objection? without objection. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the en bloc consideration of the following senate resolutions -- s. res. 780, s. res. 781, s. res. 782, s. res. 783, 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. schumer: 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. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: laid upon the table en bloc. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: i understand that there is a bill at the desk, and i ask for its first reading. the presiding officer: the clerk will read the title of the bill for the first time. the clerk: s. 4853, a bill to prohibit the federal communications commission from

promulgating on enforcing rules regarding disclosure of artificial intelligence jenrated content in -- generated in political advertisements. mr. schumer: i now ask for a second reading, and in order to place the bill on the calendar under the provisions of rule 14, i object to my own request. the presiding officer: objection is heard. the bill will be read for the second time on the next legislative day. mr. schumer: mr. president, i have eight 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. schumer: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 11:00 a.m. on wednesday, july 31, that following the prayer and pledge, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and morning business be closed. following the conclusion of morning business, the senate proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the vacca nomination. further, that the cloture motions filed during yesterday's session ripen at 11:30 a.m. that if cloture is invoked on the vacca nomination, all time

be considered expired at 2:30 p.m. and that if cloture is invoked on the saporito nomination, all time be considered expired at 5:30 p.m. further, that if any nominations are confirmed during wednesday's session, the motions to reconsider 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: if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order following the remarks of senator sanders. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: and i note the absence of a quorum. no, i don't need a quorum call. i just yield the floor.

mr. sanders: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. sanders: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, when i turn on the tv or i read the papers, i read a lot about politics, and i read about this candidate attacking that candidate, and the other candidate attacking another candidate, and on and on it goes, but somehow or another, as a nation, here in and, on the campaign trail and in the corporate media, we as a nation have a habit of forgetting to talk about some of the most important issues that affect ordinary americans. we talk about a lot of stuff but somehow we neglect to talk about

the most important issues facing our country. and at the top of my list is the reality that in america, we are rapidly becoming an oligarchic form of society. what does that mean? it means that today we have more income and wealth inequality than at any time in the history of the united states of america. it means that there are three people, one, two, three multimu multibillion multibillionaires who have more wealth than the american society. three people here, $16 -- 160 million people there. that sounds like an issue we might want to be talking about. we might just want to be asking about how well the economy is doing for ordinary people as

opposed to the people on top. and when we ask that question, the answer is pretty clear. the top 1% have never ever in american history had it so good. they're making money head over heels. what we are seeing at the same time is a working class in this country that is struggling, struggling to pay the bills, struggling to put food on the table, struggling to see that their kids get ahead. mr. president,ing according to -- mr. president, according to the rand corporation, not exactly a progressive entity, over the last 50 years, we have seen a massive transfer of wealth from ordinary americans

to the top 1%. in fact, there has been a shift of $50 trillion going from the bottom 90% to the top 1%. what does that say about american economic policy? and at the same exact time, over the last 50 years, we have seen something else that is rather extraordinary. despite the huge increase that we have all observed as a result of technology and increased worker productivity, it turns out that real inflation accounted for wages for the average american worker is lower today than it was 50 years ago. every worker in america is producing a lot more than was the case 50 years ago because of this new technology, and yet

real inflation accounted for wages are lower today than they were 50 years ago. people on top making out fantastically well. working class people falling further and further behind. and let us not forget that today in america, 60% of our people are living paycheck to paycheck. i grew up in a family that lived paycheck to paycheck. lived in a rent-controlled apartment for my whole childhood. i know something about it. and what it means that people from california to vermont, they are struggling, living under great stress, trying to figure out how they are going to be able to take care of their families at the same time as the people on top never had it so good.

but when we talk about oli oligarchy, it's not just massive income and inequality, it's not just that the working class is going nowhere in a hurry, it is also growing concentration of ownership in america. in sector after sector, whether it is media, whether it is financial services, whether it is transportation, whether it is health care, you have fewer and fewer large corporations who control what goes on in those sectors. and when you have concentration of ownership, you have price-fixing. you have corporate greed. and that is one of the reasons why inflation has had the impact that it has had and why we've seen that much inflation. mr. president, unbelievably,

there are three wall street investment firms today, black rock, vanguard, and state street, that combine control assets of $20 trillion and combined are the major stockholders in 95% of the standard & poor corporations. that is what power is about. three entities, three private wall street investment firms being able to be combined, the major stockholders in 95% of our corporations. so oligarchy is about massive income and wealth inequality. oligarchy is about the rich becoming much richer. ceo's of large corporations now making 350 times what their

workers make. oligarchy is about 60% of our people living paycheck to paycheck despite huge increases in worker productivity. but i'll tell you what oligarchy is also about. the billionaire class is not just satisfied to control the economic life of this country. they are moving aggressively to control the political life of this country. so while ordinary americans get the right to vote, they have one vote, the billionaire class as a result of this disastrous citizens united supreme court decision, they have the right not just to cast one vote as a citizen but to contribute hundreds of millions of dollars into super pacts who elect their friends and defeat their political opponents. now, if anyone in america thinks

that is what america democracy is supposed to be about, well, i have a strong disagreement with you. democracy is one person, one vote, not billionaires buying elections through their super pacts. and i would hope that here in con congress, that on the campaign trail, leaders of this country make it clear that we've got to overturn this disastrous supreme court decision on citizens united which allows billionaires to buy elections and move the public funding of elections, and that is where we should be going if we believe in democracy. mr. president, when we talk about the issues facing working families, when i go around the country -- and i was just up in maine the other day, as a matter

of fact -- you ask people about our health care system. you ask them a simple question. you say is this system working for you? and almost without exception, like the american people say is our health care system today is broken, it is dysfunctional, and it is way, way, way too expensive. and when people say that, they are right. and i hope everybody knows that in america today, we spend twice as much per person on health care as do the people of any other country, twice as much. and yet despite spending over $13,000 for every man, woman, and child, 18% of our gdp on health care, our outcomes are worse than other country that spend half as much per capita. our life expectancy way down

behind many other countries. and really obscenely the life expectancy in the united states between the people on top and working class people is ten, 12 years. in other words, if you're rich, you live as long as people in other developed countries. but if you're working class or poor, the odds are you're going to live 10 or 15 years less. now, i don't know how much we talk about that. but i think maybe it's time that we do. and maybe we talk about the reality that we remain today, mr. president, the only country in the industrialized world that does not guarantee health care to all people as a human right and that 85 million of our people are uninsured or underinsured. it's not just health care, it's prescription drugs. we're working on this as

chairman of the health committee. it's what we're doing, trying to drive down the cost of prescription drugs. but today because of the greed of the pharmaceutical industry and the inactivity of the congress in many cases we are paying ten times more for the same exact prescription drugs as do the people in other countries. and on and on it goes. we have as a nation the highest rate of childhood poverty of almost any major country on earth. this is the richest nation on earth, and we have the highest rate of childhood poverty of almost every major country on earth. in terms of our seniors, 50% of senior citizens in this country are living on $30,000 a year or less, and 25% are living on $15,000 a year or less. mr. president, i do not know how anybody, let alone a senior

citizen, lives on $15,000 or less. so, mr. president, what do we do? well, maybe for a change -- i know it's a radical idea -- we might want to hear on the floor of the senate, maybe in the house, actually discuss issues of relevance to working people. i know that's kind of an extremist, far-left idea that we talk about the real issues facing working families, but, you know, that is what i think. and maybe we come up with some serious proposals and ideas that address some of these crises. there may be differences of opinions, but let's at least discuss these issues. it seems to me, mr. president, that when so many of our elderly people are struggling, when half of older workers have nothing in the bank as they face retirement, you know, we might want to pay attention to that issue. now over in the house, some 90% of the republicans think that

what we want to do is cut social security benefits. well, i don't think that that is a particularly good idea. i think that's a dumb idea. and i think we should do exactly the opposite. instead of cutting social security benefits, we should expand social security benefits, and extend the life and the solvency of social security. well, how do you do that? it ain't hard to do. right now somebody that makes $16 million a year contributes the same amount into the social security trust fund as somebody who makes $160,000 a year. does that make sense to anybody? not to me. if you lift the cap and ask the wealthy, top 2%, 3% to start paying into the social security trust fund, that same 6% that working people pay, you know what you could do? you can do two things. you can expand social security benefits by $2200 a year. that's pretty good.

may not sound like a lot of money to somebody who is wealthy but when you're trying to get by on $20,000 a year, you know what what? that $2200 can help a lot. the other thing you can do is make social security solvent for the next 75 years so we end this discussion about social security going broke. mr. president, we had a hearing recently on the help committee on medical debt. and what we learned unbelievably is that in our broken, dysfunctional health care system, half of people in this country who are dealing with cancer, because of the high cost of cancer treatment, half of these people either go bankrupt or they deplete all of their financial resources. i mean, does anybody who has a heart, anybody who has a soul,

anybody who has a sense of morality think that it makes sense that when people come down with a terrible illness and are worried about living or dying, that they also have to worry about whether or not their family is going to go bankrupt? and i think we should learn here at the federal level here in the senate a lesson that a lot of states and cities and counties are doing. and that is ending medical debt. we should not punish people, force bankruptcy upon people who are struggling with serious illnesses. mr. president, wherever i go in my own state of vermont, my city of burlington, all over this country, people are worried about the high cost of health care in america. it is no great secret that rents are soaring. it is no great secret that shamefully as a nation we have some 600,000 americans

sleepsleeping out on the streets in america today. it is clear to me that instead of giving tax breaks to billionaires and to large corporations, maybe, just maybe, we may want to invest in building low-income, affordable, and senior citizen housing and we may want to put a cap on the kind of rent increases, as president biden suggested, that these large wall street firms are now raising the rents that they are raising for people who live in their homes. mr. president, i don't know how to describe this except to say that i am personally embarrassed, and i think the american people are embarrassed that right now in this country we have a federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour. all over this country we have workers if they're not making

$7.25, they're makinged $10, $12, $13 an hour. people can't make it. i don't care where you're at. nobody makes it on $12, $13 an hour. and we have not raised the federal minimum wage in decades. i brought a bill up. it got all of 46 votes. well, the american people do not think that folks in this country should be forced to work at starvation wages, and i hope we can bring forth legislation to raise the minimum wage through to a -- to a living wage. in my view, that should be at least $17 an hour. and when we talk about workers' rights, i can tell you from personal experiential having been involved, corporations spend hundreds of millions of dollars, illegally, trying to

prevent workers from forming unions. and that is why we must pass the pro act that will provide severe penalties against any corporation, any employer, that uses illegal tactics to deny workers the right to form a union. and, mr. president, when we talk about childhood poverty, as i'm sure you will recall, a faux years ago as a result of the -- a few years ago as a result of the american rescue plan, we provided $300 a month per child for the vast majority of working parents in this country. that tax credit had the impact, incredibly, of lowering the childhood poverty level in this country by over 40%. one provision in one large bill lowered the childhood poverty level by over 40%. to minority communities, it was

even greater than that. maybe, just maybe, as a nation we might want to end the disgrace of having the highest rate of childhood poverty of almost any major country on earth and make permanent a strong child tax credit similar to what we had in the american rescue plan. mr. president, these are just some of the issues that are out there. and there are many others. i talk to elderly people often who say, all right, we're not going to pass -- you don't have the political support to pass medicare for all. the insurance companies, the drug companies are too powerful. but at least can we expand medicare to cover dental, hearing, and vision. millions of elderly people in america can't afford to go a dentist. people have no teenage in their -- people have no teeth in their mouths. we can do that and we should do that. so, mr. president, all that i

wanted to say is that at a time when many, many americans are giving up on democracy, they are hurting, they look to the government, they vote and nothing happens. the rich get richer. they get poorer, and they're saying, hey, all of this democracy and all of this election stuff... it's all a crock. it doesn't matter. and they are willing to look at authoritarianism as a substitute for the democracy we have. so to my mind, not only is it the right thing and the moral thing to start paying attention to the needs of the long-neglected working class, long neglected by the republican party, long neglected by the democrat party, if you're interested in preserving democracy, you might want to do that as well. so, mr. president, the thrust of my message today is the time is long overdue for this congress, this senate to have a serious discussion on the serious issues

facing the working families of this country. and with that, i would yield the floor. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate stands adjourned until stands adjourned until the bill will now to the house for contion.

confirming stacy d union of maine to be district judge for the district ofne. through the remainder of the week they will consider expanding the child tax credit and work on executive and judicial nominations. we will bring you live coverage when the members return here on c-span2. this evening 2024 democratic residential candidate and vice president kamala harris speaks to voters at a campaign rally in atlanta. watch her remarks live at 7:00 p.m. eastern on c-span, c-span now our brief -- free video app or online at c-span .org. this summer's political party convention. watch live beginning monday august 19 as a party puts forward their presidential nominee. talking about the track record

and their vision for the next four years. the democratic national committee and live monday augus. watching our full coverage of the 2024 republican national convention. you can catch up on past conventions anytime on demand at c-span.org/campaign or by scanning the code. since 1979 and partnership with the cable industry, c-span has provided complete coverage of the halls of congress from the house and senate floors to congressional hearings, party briefings and committee meetings c-span gives you a front row seat to how issues are debated and decidedat with no commentar, no inter