that raises very serious questions and either side can say definitively how that changed the outcome because we don't know which 18000 ballots that was. for either side to say no, it absolutely did not change the outcome or it absolutely did is an unprovable statement. but it clearly mathematically brought into question whether, without those 18000 ballots that were not properly registered, the outcome would have been different. >> you can see the rest of this washington discussion on her website, c-span .org. right now here on c-span2 be taking live to the u.s. senate which is about to vote on the nomination of the deputy transportation secretary also on today's agenda of the nomination of wendy sherman to be deputy secretary of state. live now to the floor of the u.s. senate here on c-span2.

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change his or her vote? if not, the yeas are 82, the nays are 15, and the nomination is confirmed. the senator -- hello. the senator from virginia is recognized. mr. warner: i ask unanimous consent that the motion be reconsidered made and laid upon the table and the president be immediately notified of the senate's action. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22, do hereby bring to a close debate on of executive

calendar 35, wendy ruth sherman, of maryland, to be deputy secretary of state. the presiding officer: the question is, is it the sense of the senate that debate on the nomination of wendy ruth sherman, of maryland, to be deputy secretary of state, shall be brought to a close. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: yeas are 55, the nays are 42. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, department of state, wendy ruth sherman of maryland to be deputy secretary.

the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: i have five 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. durbin: madam president, over the past several weeks all eyes have been on georgia and the state legislation that's being considered on voting rights of georgia citizens. in response to the new voting restrictions, the state's governor signed into law last

month and american leaders from many walks of life responded. it has really brought the issue of voter suppression to the forefront and the beginning of a national debate. we're told that hundreds, hundreds of bill changes and amendments are being offered in state legislatures across the country, all modeled after the georgia goal of the georgia outline of reducing the opportunity to vote in america. if you have a functioning democracy where people actually count votes, the number of people who show up is as important as how they vote. and i think the people in georgia have realized that with this new approach that they are taking. there's been a broad condemnation of the georgia voting law, and it's inspired a did i play of -- display of unity. it seems some of my republican colleagues would rather silence the law's critics than address

the very real issues that the law creates. over the recess the minority leader, senator mcconnell, issued a warning to the leaders of corporations who were voicing their opposition to the georgia law. he said to them, you stay out of politics. he apparently did not say keep your money out of politics, because he has been a fan of the citizens united decision which gives those same corporations not only opportunity, but the experience of spending millions of dollars in every election cycle to effect the outcome. i appreciate the republican leader's newfound passion for addressing the influence of big corporations but rather than silencing leaders in the private sector from speaking their mind, which is their constitutional right, i would invite my republican colleagues to join democrats in taking more meaningful steps to protect our political system from corporate overreach. they can join us if they wish in

supporting the for the people act, a democracy defense bill. the for the people act would limit the influence of dark money and special interests in our politics, require big-money contributors and special interests to actually drop the veil and show us who they are and tighten the rules that affect superpacs. it's a commonsense solution it for affecting every person's first right to p free speech, level the playing field of the political system so everybody has an equal say. i'd invite my republican colleagues to revive the bipartisan spirit of the voting rights act. i can remember a time when renewal of the voting rights act was a virtually unanimous bipartisan effort. unfortunately that changed in the supreme court -- and the supreme court decision didn't make it any easier. so we are trying with the john lewis voting rights amendment, advancement act to return to the days of bipartisanship in addressing the issue of race and

politics. that's especially important given the scourge of voting suppression laws we've seen in state legislatures across the country, georgia being the most recent example. this new georgia law isn't new at all. it emerges from a playbook that is over 120 years old. it goes all the way back to the 1890's when reconstruction was followed by the jim crow era in the south, when the creation of something known as the mississippi plan, historian, dr. carrol anderson who teaches at emory university, has referred to the mississippi plan, a template of state law as, quote, a dizzying array of poll taxes, literacy tests, understanding clauses, newfangled voter straidges rules and good -- registration rules and good character clauses. all of these were intentionally

racially discriminatory but dressed up in the genteel garb of the day of bringing integrity back to voting. a politician who sought to replicate the mississippi plan in the state of virginia noted that their goal -- he was very blunt in what he said -- noted their goal was to, quote, eliminate every black voter who can be gotten rid of legally without materially impairing the strength of the white electorate. today's voter restrictions might not involve poll taxes, lit are aty tests -- literacy tests or counting beans in a jar. georgia's new voting law is a deliberate effort to suppress voters, particularly voters of color. there is no other way to describe it. when the law includes provisions that make it harder for georgians to vote. let me give you some examples. i read an article last week in "the new york times," april 11.

cora sinina and reed epstein did an analysis page by page of what the georgia law would do and it was pretty clear why they did it. president biden won georgia by just 11,779 votes -- 11,779 out of five million. the new law that's being proposed and has been signed by the governor of georgia will curtail ballot access for voters in booming urban and suburban counties, home to many democratic voters. another provision makes it a crime -- a crime -- to offer water to voters waiting in line. and of course those waiting in line tend to be in densely populated communities and largely minority communities. some of the things that the georgia law will do -- voters will now have less time to request absentee ballots. georgia has cut by more than

half the period during which voters can request an absentee ballot from six months to less than three. this will most certainly reduce the number of people seeking absentee ballots and the number of people who actually vote. and the last presidential election -- and this is the key sentence that defines the goal of the georgia legislature -- in the last presidential election, 1.3 million georgians, about 26% of the state's electorate, voted with absentee ballots. 26%. of those who returned absentee ballots last year, in 2020, 65% voted for joe biden and 34% chose donald trump. you understand why the republican legislature wants to put an end to the absentee ballot? the shorter window would limit opportunities for get out the vote efforts and put strain on new local election boards which have less time to process ballot. there are strict new i.d.

requirements for absentee ballots. previously the georgia law required voters to simply sign their absentee ballot applications. now they have to provide a number from a driver's license or equivalent state issued identification, virtually certain to limit access. it's now illegal under the new georgia law for election officials to mail out absentee ballot applications to all voters. when the coronavirus pandemic hit last year, georgia's republican secretary of state, brad raffensperger mailed absentee ballot applications to every member in the state ahead of june primary. this led to absentee voting by record numbers of georgians. when mr. raffensperger didn't mail applications again for the general election, several local government agencies did so, particularly in georgia's large urban counties, a move that is now being made illegal by the law created by the legislature

and signed by governor kemp. with the loss of automatically mailed applications, some voters will invariably not request a ballot since the application served as a reminder to people they were eligible to vote. keep in mind, it wasn't the ballot that was sent without solicitation. it was an application that had to be returned by the voter before they would actually receive the ballot. it was a reminder, one that the georgia legislature would like to drop. speaking of dropping, drop boxes still exist for absentee ballots, but barely. for the 2020 election in georgia, there were 94 drop boxes across the four counties that make up the core of metropolitan p atlanta -- fulton, cobb, dekalb and gwinette. the new law limits the same counties to a total of 23 drop boxes, from 94 to 23. and it won't just be fewer drop

boxes put to deposit your ballot. instead of 24-hour access outdoors, the boxes are placed indoors at government buildings and early voting sites and thus will be unavailable for voters to drop off their ballots in the evening and nonbusiness hours, which means more reliance on mail and the uncertainty of that. mobile voting centers, as they say in "the new york times," think about an r.v. where you can vote, more than 1 1,200 people voted at the two vehicles in fulton county in the last election. these vehicles traverse the county during voting periods, effectively bringing polling sites to people. georgia has now outlawed this practice. under the georgia law, early voting is expanded in a lot of small counties but not the most pop louse dbs -- populous ones. the strict rules will affect georgians who work for a living.

they'll have less flexible schedules and fewer opportunities to vote. i spoke to you about the single greatest outrage -- ordering food and water to voters waiting in line now risks criminal misdemeanor charges. long lines for voting in georgia are an unfortunate reality and often found in the poor densely populated communities that tend to vote democratic. during the primary election last june, when temperatures hovered above 80 degrees, high humidity. there were lines in which voters waited more than two hours. now they will be denied access to water and food. if you go to the polling place under the new georgia law, it will be harder to vote. they put strict requirements there. if election problems arise, a common occurrence, it's more difficult now even in court to extend voting hours, with a mix of changes to vote counting, high turnout elections will

probably mean long waits for results. we remember what happened last year when during that period of county calculating, president trump went to town with all sorts of bizarre theories rejected by scores of courts as to voter fraud that never was found. election officials can no longer accept third-party funding, which is a measure that nods to the right-wing conspiracy theories which president trump is also peddling. with an eye toward voter fraud the state attorney general manages the election hotline. the republican controlled legislature has more control over state election board. the secretary of state for his audacity in challenging trump's vote fraud theories has been officially removed as a voting member of the state election board by the legislature in georgia. the g.o.p.-led legislature is empowered to suspend county election officials. the bottom line is this, the georgians didn't waste time taking a look at the voting results where they lost two senate seats for the first time in history and decided that they

had to change the rules. that too many voters showed up, the wrong voters. so they decided to change the rules and make it more difficult for those, particularly minority voters who wanted to come and express themselves by the right to vote. so the question now is what are we going to do about it? the u.s. chamber of commerce, coke-cola, delta airlines, and others have made it clear that this is an outrage. it's one that we shouldn't countenance or accept in the 21st century. this unfortunately was an exercise in the 19th century to reenslave african americans after the civil war. sadly, vestiges of that continued right up until the 1960's when the new civil rights act ended up banning some of the most outrageous conduct that came out of the jim crow era. now the republican party nationally, the georgia republican party, the governor, and the legislature have decided to return to those days. what a sad commentary it is on

mr. lincoln's republican party. it was embarrassing enough as a democrat to realize the earliest stages of jim crow were created, conceived, and enforced by democrats of their day. for republicans, they fought that effort, as they should, in the name of lincoln and what he brought to their party nationally. and now today the tables have turned 18. it is the democrats who are trying to bring to the public's attention what is happening in georgia and in other states. it is sad that the republicans have decided that the only way to win an election is to control the vote, that their ideas can't sell -- can't be sold anymore to voters across this country. madam president, i ask consent that the following statement i am about to make be placed in a separate part in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: thank you, madam president. madam president, no state, no community in america has been spared from the coronavirus pandemic. nationwide, we have lost nearly

570,000 mothers, fathers, grandparents, neighbors, friends. in illinois, the number is 21,000. like so many other diseases and health conditions, the pandemic has inflicted disproportionate harm on communities of color. black americans, native americans, and members of the latinx community. sadly, these disparities come as no surprise. america has a long history of medical inequality. from premature births to premature death, people of color suffer disproportionately in america's troubled health system. people of color in america suffer more chronic and acute health conditions. they are likely to go without needed medical care, shorter life expectancies. the reason for the disparities are many, but they include access to affordable health care, inadequate research, and too few health care professionals. martin luther king jr. called health care inequality, quote, the most shocking and inhumane

form of injustice. far too often, this inequality begins even before birth. it should shock the conscience of america. one of the wealthiest nations on earth that we have one of the poorest records on the globe for the maternal health. think of this. the united states is one of only 13 nations in the world where the maternal mortality rate, the death of mothers, is worse now than it was 25 years ago. how is that possible? every year in america, nearly 1,000 women die from pregnancy-related complications. 70,000 others suffered near-fatal complications as a result of pregnancy. and now, think of this. women of color in the united states are three times more likely than white women to die as a result of pregnancy. in illinois, sadly, that number is six times more likely. what makes these maternal deaths

even more tragic is that an estimated 60%, more than half of them, are preventable. i've given much thought to this and spoken with real experts, which is why robin kelly, the congresswoman from illinois and i join with senator duckworth and a number of other democratic senators introducing legislation to decrease america's rates of maternal sickness and death, especially among new mothers of color. we call our measure the moma act. one of the major provisions of this legislation is a requirement that medicaid provide health coverage for new moms for a full post-pregnancy period instead of just 60 days, which it currently is. congressman kelly and i worked hard to get a modified version of this provision in the american rescue plan, president biden's singular achievement in the first few weeks in office. and thanks to that law, states now have the option to expand their medicaid program for new mothers for the next five years.

making sure new moms have health coverage for a full year post-pregnancy will go a long way toward catching, preventing, and treating potentially life-threatening conditions and problems. this is critical because in some states, even my state of illinois, nearly 60% of pregnancy-associated deaths occur between 43 and 364 days postpartum. well, there is good news to report today. while we're still working to pass the moma act, the state of illinois pursued another avenue for expanding medicaid coverage for new moms. for over a year, illinois has been seeking a medicaid section 1115 waiver to allow medicaid-eligible women in our state to keep their health coverage for a year after their pregnancy. representatives kelly, underwood, senator duckworth and i have been championing efforts for this in our state. i am happy to announce the

biden-harris administration granted that waiver, making illinois the very first state in the nation to extend post-partum medicaid coverage for new moms. this will ensure access to vital health services and help to promote better birth outcomes and reduce the rate of maternal sickness and death in my home state, and i hope set the stage and model for other states to follow. i can think of no better way to honor this year's black maternal health week than to support state efforts to expand medicaid health care to new moms. another way would be to pass senator booker's 2021 black maternal health week resolution, which i'm proud to cosponsor. as the poet maya angelou told us we can't change the past but when we know better we must do better. we now know we can do better to protect the lives of pregnant women and newborn babies, and mime pleased that my state of illinois will be part of leading in that effort. madam president, i ask that the following statement be placed in a separate part in the record.

the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: thank you, madam president. today, in chicago, at lurie children's hospital, one of our best, little 1-year-old caden swan is in critical condition, clinging to life in the pediatric intensive care unit. last week, at 11:00 a.m. on a tuesday morning on lake shore drive, one of the busiest thoroughfares in the city, 1-year-old caden was shot in the head while riding in the back seat of a car. he was an innocent victim, hit in a road rage shooting. as we pray for caden's recovery, as we express gratitude for the medical workers who are working around the clock to keep him alive, we have to ask ourselves a basic question -- when it comes to this sickening gun violence that happens every day in our country, what are we going to do? give up or stand up?

on march 23, i held a hearing at our judiciary committee on gun violence. there was a mass shooting spree that killed eight people in atlanta, georgia, on the day when i announced the hearing. then there was a mass shooting in boulder, colorado, that killed ten people the night before the hearing. others have followed. since that hearing on march 23, according to the gun violence archive, there have been at least 38 mass shootings in less than a month in america. mass shooting is defined as an independent where at least four people were shot. this past weekend -- and i'm sorry to say this is not an exception -- 25 people were shot in the city of chicago alone. every day, we lose 109 american lives to gun violence. hundreds more are shot and wounded, carrying emotional scars for a lifetime. these victims are our neighbors,

our friends, our family, and even a 1-year-old baby like caden swan. i'm glad president biden is stepping up to this issue and taking action. last week, the president stood in the white house rose garden and called gun violence exactly what it is. it is a public health crisis. he's right. we need to take a public health approach to reduce violence that's killing so many of our fellow americans. there is a playbook that works. we need to gather data and study the problem, identify causes and risk factors, develop targeted prevention intervention strategies to help bring the number of shootings down. we have stopped epidemics before. we're in the midst of doing one now if we are willing to stand up and act, it works. president biden took action last week and announced a set of commonsense steps consistent with the second amendment and that actually will help reduce violence. he wants to reduce the

proliferation of home-made ghost guns which are untraceable and often undetectable, regulate the use of stabilizing braces that can convert effectively pistols into short-barreled rifles like the weapon that was used by the gunman in boulder, put forth a model state protection risk law that help states that want to use these interventions, restart the trafficking report that tracks patterns of illicit gun trafficking. nominate a gun shaift expert david shipman to give the a.t.f. its first confirmed leader since 2015. i'm going to pay special attention to this nominee because it comes through the senate judiciary committee. how many times have you heard it said we don't need new laws. we just need to enforce the laws that are on the books? well, one of the agencies that enforces these laws, alcohol, tobacco, and firearms division, a.t.f. what the gun lobby has done over the years to make sure the

gun -- the a.t.f. didn't have any money or didn't have any leaders. we haven't had anyone in the post for six years with senate confirmation at a.t.f. i want to change that if we can. and last but certainly not least, the president announced billions of dollars for evidence-based community violence intervention programs through the american jobs program and other grant efforts. these are smart and targeted, important proposals, well within the bounds of the constitution and the president's authority. i commend him for that action. but we shouldn't leave it to the president alone. we have a responsibility, too. we've got to make sure we close the loopholes of the gun background check system that make it too easy for criminals and those with mental instability to get guns. we've known it for years, but we haven't closed these gaps. the house has passed a universal background check legislation. now the ball is in the senate court. we need at least ten republicans if all democrats will support it. i hope my republican colleagues

are willing to stand and vote to close these gaps. there are other commonsense changes we can make that deal with gun violence and community prevention. at a hearing i held on march 23, dr. rogers of the university of chicago of medicine pointed out that n.i.h. has nearly $43 billion for medical research. only $12.5 million dedicated funding for research and to -- into reducing gun violence. we need to invest more in those research and c.d.c. research, too. we also need to support evidence-based community programs that showed that they are effective in reducing violence. saving lives from the horrors of gun violence should not be a partisan issue. it's absolutely heart breaking to think about little kayden swann, sitting in the back seat of a car on lake shore drive, which i look out from my place in chicago and see every day and realize that he was shot in the head at the age of 1 and now is fighting to survive.

the question is what are we going to do with this challenge? with 40,000 gun violence deaths every year and more than 100 every day. give up or stand up? i will tell you, i'm not going to give up. i'm going to do all i can to push commonsense constitutional reforms to bring gun violence to an end in america. madam president, i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. thune: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota. mr. thune: is the senate in a quorum call? the presiding officer: we are. mr. thune: i would ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. thune: mr. president, on good friday, another capitol police officer lost his life qendzing -- defending this building and all those in it. officer billy evans was killed when an individual rammed officer evans at the barricade he was manning. another capital police officer, officer ken shaver was injured in the attack.

mr. president, we talk about how police officers leave their homes each day not knowing what they will face. good friday's attack was a reminder of how true that s. we can only be thankful that despite the ever present risk that they will not make it back to their homes, men and women like officer evans and officer shaver still choose to serve. to put themselves on the front lines facing evil and danger so that the rest of us don't have to. i know the officers, the capitol police have had an unthinkable difficult few months. i hope they know how grateful we are for their service. today officer billy evans lies in honor in the rotunda, a fitting tribute to a man who lived and died to protect those who serve in this building. my thoughts and prayers are with officer evans' to children logan and abigail, with his mother janice and with all those who mourn this brave man. may his memory be eternal.

mr. president, on friday in what is fast becoming a theme of his presidency, president biden caved to the demands of the far left and officially established his court-packing commission. yes, court packing. an idea that had been consigned to the ash heap of history almost a century ago has been given new life by the far left who wait for it, are upset that a duly elected republican president was able to get his justices confirmed to the supreme court. that's right, mr. president. the terrible crisis we're facing is that a republican president was able to fill three vacancies on the supreme court. i confess i had missed the part in the constitution that said the supreme court is only legitimate if a majority of its members were nominated by a democrat president or at least reliably deliver liberals referred outcomes.

but liberals didn't. and now they're eager to restore balance to the supreme court by expanding the number of supreme court justices and ensuring that a democrat president fill the new spots. and president biden, the same man who once called president roosevelt's failed court-packing proposal a bone head idea and a terrible, terrible mistake to make is apparently falling in with the far left's demands. his commission composed i should say largely of left-leaning scholars, democrat operatives, and a few conservatives as bipartisan window dressing will consider court packing and other structural reforms like term limits for supreme court justices. it's funny how democrats weren't too concerned about term limits when revered liberal justices were serving for decades.

but faced with the terrible prospect that a justice barrett or justice gorsuch might have a similarly long career, the left is suddenly eager to limit supreme court terms. mr. president, there are so many things wrong with the left's court packing proposals that it's difficult to know where to begin. but let's start with the ludicrous idea that packing the court will somehow restore the court's legitimacy in the eyes of the public, not that the court's legitimacy has been lost in the eyes of anyone but far left liberals. in fact, the supreme court might be the federal institution that garners the greatest degree of respect from the public. the supreme court's approval rating routinely exceeds that of congress and usually by a substantial margin. but let's suppose for a second that liberals are correct and that the supreme court has lost its legitimacy in the eyes of the public. if that is the case, mr.

president, there is nothing, nothing democrats could do that would be more guaranteed to further undermine public trust in the court than to pack the court. nothing. the democrats seriously think they can enhance the credibility of the supreme court in the eyes of the american people by expanding it to add more democrat justices. do they think the 74 million people who voted for republicans in the last election are going to see this as adding necessary balance to the court? if they do they should think again. justice steven breyer noted just last week, it is wrong to think of the court -- and i quote -- as another political institution. and it is doubly wrong to think of its members as junior league politicians. structural alteration motivated by the perception of political influence can only feed that perception furthereroding that

trust, end quote. that quote from justice steven breyer. republicans and i venture a lot of independent voters as well will see this for what it is. an attempt by democrats to undermine an essential institution to ensure the democrat, get the supreme court rules that they want. democrats can dress up their openness to court-packing proposals and lofty language and full expressions of concern for the institution but no one, no one, mr. president, is fooled. this is about power. pure and simple. democrats want power. they want to be able to impose the policies they want when they want them. and they're afraid if the supreme court isn't packed full of democrat nominees, the supreme court might rule against them. and so more and more democrats are apparently perfectly willing to consider undermining if not

destroying a fundamental part of our system of government to guarantee, to guarantee their political power. mr. president, let's think about this in practical terms for a minute. let's suppose that democrats actually succeed? expanding the supreme court adding more democrat nomes. -- nominees. what do they think is going to happen next time there's a republican president and a republican congress? i can tell you. republicans would make their own move to restore balance and add some more republican supreme court nominees. and then i imagine when democrats retook power, they'd do the same thing. in a decade or so, mr. president, the supreme court could be expanded, i should say, to laughable proportions. think about it. how many justices are we going to have? 15? 20? 30? there would be no end to this

lunacy. mr. president, in the words of justice ruth bader ginsburg, only two years ago, and i quote, nine seems to be a good number. it's been that way for a long time. i think it was a bad idea when president franklin roosevelt tried to pack the court, end quote. that again the late justice ruth bader ginsburg. she said it was a bad idea, mr. president. for the country when president roosevelt proposed his court-packing plan, both republicans and democrats opposed it. unfortunately, democrats today seem to be more concerned with power than principle or in some cases, maybe lack the courage to stand up to the ferocity of the far left. in the past president biden has powerfully defended american

institutions. but now he seems incapable of standing up to the far left. so now we have an american president implicitly endorsing the idea of court packing by establishing a commission to study the proposal. mr. president, democrats like to talk about democracy and making sure that people have a voice. but it's becoming increasingly clear that they think their voices and the voices of liberal americans are the only voices that should be heard. if they can't win by convincing the puck to elect strong democrat -- the public to elect strong democrat majorities, they made it increasingly clear to undermine our institutions to ensure their grip on power. don't like the make upof the -- makeup of the supreme court? expand the court with new democrat justices to be sure you get the results you want. don't like senate rules like the legislative filibuster that give the minority party a voice in

legislation? change the rules. don't like your election prospects? pass legislation like h.r.1 or s.1 designed to give your party a permanent advantage in electoral contests. mr. president, i understand democrats' passion for their political beliefs. i'm pretty passionate about advancing my political prin principles. but i believe we should be advancing our principles the democratic way by persuading people to vote for us, not by undermining our democratic institutions to give our party an advantage. i'm deeply disappointed that president biden found himself unable to stand up to pressure from the radical left, but i hope, mr. president, i hope that at least some democrats find the courage to oppose these dangerous attempts to undermine our system of government.

the biden court-packing commission is a solution in search of a problem and an attempt at a raw power grab by democrats. it should quickly fade into the obscurity that it deserves. mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. mr. toomey: mr. president, i rise this afternoon to discuss the nomination of mr. gary gensler to serve as the chairman of the securities and exchange commission. to start this, i just want to remind my colleagues the mission

of the s.e.c. is really three fold. it's to protect investors, to facilitate capital formation and maintain fair, orderly, and efficient financial markets, capital markets. the fact is america's capital markets are without a doubt the envy of the world. there are no other capital markets anywhere on the planet that have the depth, liquidity, the diversity, the flexibility that allows growing businesses to grow as readily as our capital markets allow. and that's a big part of why we are outperforming the world in terms of a recovery from the pandemic, coronavirus infections and lockdowns and all the rest. it's one of many reasons but it's an important one. it's also worth remembering that that recovery can be stymied if regulators impose inappropriate

burdensome regulations, including, say, backdoor regulation by enforcements that we've seen in the past that hamper job growth, that limit access to capital, or if these regulators mandate managers of publicly traded companies to favor so-called stakeholders over the interests of the people who actually own the company, which is to say the shareholders. the s.e.c. has historically administered federal security laws and pursued its mission on a pretty bipartisan basis, but increasingly, mr. president, there are some who want the s.e.c. to stray from this tradition and instead to push the bounds of its legal and regulatory authorities in order to advance a particular liberal social and cultural agenda. now, unfortunately, when he was chairman of the cftc, mr. gensler demonstrated a

willingness to push the legal authorities, the legal limits of that agency's authority. he was responsible for a rule on limits that was overturn in court, another rule on cross-border swaps that was viewed by many, including international regulators, as exceeding the cftc's authority. and this raises questions about whether he would be willing to exceed the legal bounds on the s.e.c.'s authority as well. now, let me acknowledge that mr. gensler, without a doubt, has a great deal of knowledge and experience in our securities market. there's no question about it. he's got a lot of expertise here. but based on his record as a regulator in the past and statements he's made during the course of this nomination process, i am concerned that he will use the s.e.c. and its regulatory powers to advantages

an agenda -- to advance an agenda that should not be the pursue of the s.e.c., specifically global warming and climate change, political expend tours and issues of racial diversity and equality. the securities laws and securities regulations are not the appropriate vehicle to address any of these topics. that's the reason that we have environmental and we have political spending and we have civil rights laws and we have federal agencies that are responsible for enforcing those laws. and if anybody thinks those laws are not adequate, okay, then take it up before congress and have congress change the laws. that's -- we are the people who should be responsible because we're the ones who are accountable to the american people. it's certainly not the role of the securities and exchange commission, an independent financial regulator with no political accountability to

voters whatsoever, to address difficult, challenging, sometimes contentious political, social, and cultural issues. i have to say, nothing that mr. gensler said at his hearing or since has alleviated my concerns. mr. gensler did state that his regulatortory approach would be grounded in the supreme court's definition of materiality, but he declined to explain what that really means, what that means to him, what are the limited principles. for example, i asked him if it would be okay for companies to be forced or pressured to comply with quotas with respect to the race, the gender, or sexual orientation of their board members. in response, mr. gensler did not disavow the idea of forcing or pressuring companies to use these kinds of quotas to achieve board diversity. i also asked him if a company -- if a company's financially

insignificant spending on, say, energy or maybe political advocacy, if that can ever be material information that must be disclosed to investors. again, i was talking about financially insignificant transactions. and in response, mr. gensler indicated that if a number of motivated investors wanted to know the information, then that makes it material information even if it's financially insignificant to the company and, therefore, the s.e.c. could presumably mandate its disclosure. i think that's completely inconsistent with the whole idea of materiality. and what it seems to me the bottom line for mr. gensler is as long as there are liberal activists, invisitors who demand to -- investors who demand to

know certain things, then it would be okay to force disclosure of those issues and i was not able to discern a situation in which mr. gensler would not be willing to mandate disclosure of that kind of information. there's another issue that was concerning to me, and that was mr. gensler's answers to questions during his nomination hearing about recent stock market volatility. we've seen some extraordinary volatility in a handful of companies for a variety of relatively novel reasons, and some have suggested that we have to take a paternalistic approach to grown adults and maybe limit their ability to make investments because they don't know well enough what's good for them and maybe there are apps that make it too user friendly. i find it shocking that we would actually contemplate limiting grown adults' ability to make

their own decisions, and i wasn't sure where mr. gensler came out on this and in some respects i think he indicated that there may be some sympathy to this paternalistic view that i think would be a very, very big mistake. so, mr. president, the nomination process just never alleviated the concerns that i have. maybe my concerns will prove to have been misplaced. i certainly hope so. mr. gensler is a very intelligent, knowledgeable, thoughtful person. he is very likeable. i happen to like him personally. but because of these concerns i have, i will not be able to support his nomination, and i will be voting no later today. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that mark uada, a detailee from my office, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the congress. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. toomey: i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. brown: thank you, mr. president. i appreciate senator toomey's comments and the spirit in which they were delivered. i rise to urge my colleagues to support president biden's nominee to be chair of the securities and exchange commission, gary gensler. in march, mr. gensler appeared before the banking, housing, and you are bonn affairs committee for his -- and urban affairs committee for his nomination. the committee advanced him to the full senate on a bipartisan vote. mr. gensler is an experienced public servant with a strong record of holding wall street accountable. he will lead the s.e.c. at a time when it's become more and more obvious to more and more people that the stock market is detached from the world -- from the reality of working families' lives. mr. gensler will bring the s.e.c.'s focus back to people who make this country work. he'll push to enshould you are that markets are -- ensure that markets are a way for families to save and invest for their

children's education, for a down payment upon a homes, not a game for hedge fund managers, where workers lose every single time. mr. gensler, as chair of the commodity futures trading commission, led the implementation of reforms to bring transparency and stability to more markets. he was tough on enforcement issues. he cracked down on big banks that manipulated interest rates for years. mr. gensler is an expert on finance and markets. he previously served as secretary of the treasury for come to particular finance -- for domestic finance. he'll carry out the s.e.c.'s mission, the reason it was created -- to ensure u.s. capital markets deliver growth and investment opportunities that grow the real economy and give middle-class families the opportunity to build wealth. he understands we need to ensure confidence and stability in our

markets as the foundation to grow american businesses and support the workers that make their companies successful. mr. gensler will listen to families saving for the future as well as professionals who manage workers' pensions and retirement. he'll make sure that savers, large and small, can hold corporate executives accountable. he has shown he has the guts to take on bad actors, no matter how big or powerful they are. and he will hold them accountable. the pandemic has reminded people just how rigged the wall street system can be. mr. chairman, about two months ago arc i became chair of the committee that's called -- the senate committee on housing, banking, and urban affairs. to most in this body, it is just referred to as the banking committee or senate banking. this is a committee where wall street -- it's been all about wall street, little about housing and damn near nothing about urban affairs. those days are behind us. this committee will look out for

small investors. that's why the s.e.c. is so important and mr. gensler's words. and it will no longer be the province of wall street. if you only look at wall street, it looks like the pandemic never happened. the market reached new highs last fall. families and businesses continued to suffer. workers put their health and lives on the line to keep businesses running and once again hedge funds and insider reaped profits. over the last decade or so, we've seen profits go up. we've seen executive compensation explode upward. we've seen workers more and more productive, yet wages have been flat. that's our problem. during the pandemic, that was even worse. we can have a market that works for everyone. mr. gensler shares that goal. under his leadership, the s.e.c.

can protect people's hard-earned savings, keep our markets stable, can make their fairer. this will let us create an economy where everyone can participate. i urge my colleagues to vote yes or mr. gensler's nomination. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from mississippi. mr. wicker: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. wicker: thank you, mr. president. i rise this afternoon to say thank you and farewell to a member of the commerce committee staff who is leaving the senate soon. commander andrew l. pate, andy, as we know him, is completing his two-year assignment as senior policy advisor and coast guard congressional fellow on the senate committee on commerce, science, and transportation. for those who are not aware, the coast guard's congressional fellows program is a highly competitive program which assign coast guard officers to congressional offices and committees as detailees.

this elite program brings the coast guard's cream of the crop to washington. these officers uphold the coast guard's core values of honor, respect, and devotion to duty. these special assignments serve to educate coast guard officers on the inner workings of congress. the coast guard benefits from this program by bringing its unique perspective to the process of drafting and passing legislation as well as gaining leaders within its own ranks who deeply understand the legislative process. and of course the congress gains immensely from the obvious leadership and intelligence and work ethic of these great men and women. andy pate was an obvious choice for this fellowship, not once but twice in in july of 2008,

not long after i arrived in the senate then - lieutenant pate arrived as phi marisa coast guard fellow where he set a high bar. he completed tours as commander officer as coast guard cutters around the world. he has concentrated on search and rescue, counter narcotics, migrant interdiction, homeland security, defense operations and living marine resource protection programs, spanning the north atlantic, the equator, puerto rico, the u.s. virgin islands and the arabian gulf. andy also served as strategic analyst in the commandant's advisory group at coast guard headquarters and as a transition team member for the 25th commandant of the coast guard. he went on to become the coast guard's international security fellow at the center for strategic and international studies.

since rejoining my team in 2019, andy has had a significant impact on the commerce committee. his expertise as a cutterman and senior officer have meaningfully informed the committee's efforts, culminating in the enactment of the elijah j. cummings coast guard authorization act, to serve as his two year comeemb -- can comprehensive reauthorization. he served in the m.d. veterans health care and benefits improvement act. in response to the covid-19 pandemic, congress extended lease protections for service members in residential or vehicle leases impacted by stop movement orders. however, the original bill unintentionally omitted the coast guard. this small but important change

change, the small but important change andy initiated has had a positive impact on thousands of his fellow coast guard members and their families. this is an exciting moment for andy. soon he will assume command of the coast guard cutter mohawk in key west, florida. i know the mohawk and the coast guard will benefit from andy's steadfast spirit and determination. i salute andy's service and leadership in our nation's armed services, and i thank him for all of his hard work. i've been blessed with many fellows. i rise to speak for fellows really only when they come for two tours in my office. andy's presence on the commerce committee will be missed, but his colleagues and his country are grateful for his dedication and diligence.

i know christen, aden, carries is a and -- carissa and alexander are proud of him also. i wish andy pate the best of luck in his future endeavors. thank you, mr. president. and i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: we are. mr. cornyn: i would ask that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cornyn: mr. president, in all honesty, sometimes it's hard to figure out exactly what the

policy goals that the biden administration is striving to achieve. take the so-called covid-19 relief bill that was signed into law just last month. despite the fact that every pandemic relief bill that became law last year received broad bipartisan support, this bill did not. in fact, not a single republican voted for it. the biden administration is preparing to rinse and release the strategy with a new and misleading label, calling it infrastructure, but the reason why republicans didn't vote for the covid-19 relief bill while we did for every single one last year was because only about 10% of the bill was actually dedicated to the goal stated by the proponents. only about 10% of the massive $1.9 trillion bill was related to the pandemic, and less than

1% was related to our vaccination efforts. as i said, now the administration is preparing to -- preparing a rinse and release strategy, rinse and repeat, i should say, with a new misleading label -- infrastructure. if one of the survey questions in family feud was name something that is considered infrastructure, i would bet the top two answers would be roads and bridges. the other popular answers would probably include airports, railroads, ports, tunnels, and waterways. but our democratic colleagues are broadening that definition in ways that really are not accurate. just as they tried to brand things like environmental justice funding as pandemic relief, they are now getting very creative with the definition of infrastructure. in fact, the president's infrastructure plan has a lot in common with his covid-19 relief plan. first of all is the price tag.

the nonpartisan committee for a responsible federal budget estimates this plan would cost $2.65 trillion. that's trillion with a t. for reference, the last major infrastructure bill that became law in 2015 was widely described as the largest package in more than a decade. that overwhelmingly bipartisan legislation totaled just over $300 billion, one ninth of the cost of this new plan. but there's another similarity between these two massive proposals. a long list of unrelated progressive or liberal policy priorities. only about 5% of the spending in this colossal infrastructure plan is directed toward roads and bridges. so where does the rest of the money go? for starters this proposal would provide $174 billion for electric vehicle charges, far

more money than would go for the roads and bridges americans drive on every day. there are roughly 280 million cars on the road, the vast majority of which are internal combussion engine driven but rather provide for the vast majority of travelers, this would favor 17 -- $174 billion for electric vehicle chargers. of this includes a whopping $400 billion to support care giving for elderly and disabled americans. there's no question about the importance of quality care for these individuals, but this is no definition of infrastructure. so this is really another trojan horse. calling it one thing, making it look like one thing, and doing something entirely unrelated and different. there's $25 billion for government child care programs. $10 billion to create a civilian climate cop, whatever that is.

then there's the passive funding for sustainable buildings and private homes. this proposal would provide $213 billion to build or retrofit more than two million affordable and sustainable places to live. this is really just the green new deal 2.0. and right on queue come the unrealistic targets to lower emissions. rather than research and development or innovation, this relies on taxation and regulation and unrealistic goals. this infrastructure plan calls for a hundred percent of electricity to come from renewable sources by 2035. well, to be clear, we're nowhere close to that target now, and the effort to get there would have a devastating impact on states all across the country, including mine. last year renewables accounted for only 20% of our total electricity generation.

in texas we generate more electricity from wind turbines than any other source in the country. but yet last year alone, renewables of all kinds, solar, wind, biomass, you name it, accounted for less than 20%. natural gas accounts for more than double that. we experienced what happens when these unrealistic pie in the sky goals are set. we had 120-year weather event, the so-called polar vortex in texas, a long sustained period of subzero freezing that may be more common in massachusetts than it is in texas. as a matter of fact, like i said, it's a 120-year weather event. what we found out is the severe weather affected wind turbines which effectively froze up. snow and ice covered the solar panels. and even natural gas went

offline because the electric pumps that compress the natural gas to put it into the pipelines, those failed as well. about the only reliable fuel source during that period of time was nuclear power which represents a fraction of our total energy needs. i'm a proud supporter of renewable energy sources as well as a broader effort to reduce emissions. there's no question about that. just last week i joined folks from the north american development bank and their public and private partners to announce a new solar farm in webb county, loredo, texas, but there's a big difference between supporting renewables and what the biden administration is trying to do with this unrealistic and pie in the sky target. at the start of the pandemic, we got a small taste of the real world impact, the shift from oil to gas and what it would look like. when the pandemic hit, the need for texas' greatest natural

resource plummeted. demand dropped precipitously as people stayed home and quit driving. with fewer cars and planes on the road and sky, oil and gas producers were left with a high supply and low demand. and that's when the layoffs began. last fall, a report found that between march and august of 2020, about 107,000 oil and gas workers were laid off. to be clear, this doesn't include the countless workers who had their pay cut or were temporarily furloughed. if the biden administration enacts aggressive deadlines to eradicate our post prevalent and abundant energy sources and the jobs they create, a lot of texas energy workers and their families would be left high and dry. but the bad news doesn't stop there. the list of unrelated and downright damaging provisions in this bill is a long one.

the big question with any legislation, especially something of this size, is how are you going to pay for it. in the past the vast majority of infrastructure funding has come from the highway trust fund, but for years it's faced serious shortfalls. to a serious degree, texans have footed the bill for those shortfalls. in fact, we're one of the few states that receives less than it contributes to the highway trust fund or -- fund. we're a so-called toner straight. rather than address the burden put on donor states before the authorization expires at the end of september, the administration has completely ignored the issue altogether. the president's infrastructure plan doesn't even draw on the highway trust fund. so in order to pay for the sweeping liberal wish list, pib has proposed the large -- president biden has proposed the largest set of tax hikes in more

than half a century. by increasing the business tax rate from 21% to 28%, we'd see an increase in revenue in the short term but serious long-term economic harm. the tax burden on american companies would be greater than that of our biggest trading partners as well as our competitors, and would have far-reaching consequences on our competitiveness and our economy and jobs for hardworking american families. after all, we know the cost of these tax hikes won't be reflected in lower earnings for c.e.o.'s. the brunt would be borne by consumers who pay higher prices, workers who earn lower wages and let's not forget those who jobs would disappear entirely. the association of manufacturers found this proposal would put a million people out of work in the united states in the next two years. a million people out of work just as we are beginning to come out of the pandemic, having been

vaccinated, and taking care for both our health and the health of others and now opening up our economy. this would be the reward for the american people. one million americans out of work as a result of this misguided policy. this legislation is not about improving america's roads and bridges. it's another partisan wish list under the guys of something -- guise of something that has traditionally enjoyed bipartisan support. despite what some people think, the american people i believe are smart enough to see through this bill for what it is. an unaffordable, unwanted liberal wish list. the federal deficit is its highest since world war ii. this is not a time to go on another spending spree using barrowed money from future generations. this is a time to craft smart policies that achieve the needs of our country without driving the next generation deeper and

deeper into debt. there's no question that america's roads and bridges are real infrastructure, needs an investment from the federal government. but we can update that infrastructure for far less than $2.65 trillion. last congress the environment and public works committee developed a truly bipartisan example of an infrastructure bill. it included provisions for building our -- rebuilding our crumbling roads and bridges to improve road safety, protect the environment and grow the economy. the bill was so popular, in fact, that it passed the committee unanimously. and what was the price tag on that bill? just over 10% of the cost of the president's current proposal. it would have authorized $287 billion over five years. that's a hundred billion dollars less than what democrats proposed spending on care giving alone. a bipartisan bill to rebuild our crumbling roads and bridges is

possible. we've done it before and we can do it again. but our democratic colleagues are going to have trouble getting not only republicans but many members of their own party if they -- on board if they continue to push this sort of unrealistic economy harming sort of plan. i'm sure it comes as some surprise that putting americans out of work while driving up the deficit and hurting our global competitiveness are wildly unpopular. even smoking mirrors can't conceal the impact of this so-called infrastructure bill. mr. president, i yield the floor and i note the absence of a quorum. a senator: mr. president? mr. grassley: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: a short tribute and then maybe about an eight or nine-minute speech i have. today i want to pay tribute to

iowa state patrol sergeant jim smith who courageously gave his life in the line of duty this past friday. sergeant smith, a 27-year iowa state patrol veteran and a tactical team leader, put himself in harm's way on behalf of his fellow iowans last week, and it cost him everything. sergeant smith is being remembered as a dedicated father, a loyal public servant, a man of god who left a positive impression on everybody he encountered. i mourn for his family, fellow troopers, friends, and the entire independence iowa community at this tragic loss. mr. president, i pose the following question to my fellow

senators, something i doubt if there's much disagreement on but time is moving on. we need to take some action shortly. so this question, if a deadly poison was killing thousands of americans each year, what would you do? would you work to find the solution to prevent these deaths or would you choose to be complacent, reactive, and allow fellow citizens to die? if all levels of law enforcement were pleading for action to prevent future fatalities, would you heed their warning? the last question. or would you roll the dice with the lives that are on the line?

i know i would seek to be very proactive. i'm here today to call attention to the desired need -- the dire need for congress to schedule fentanyl-related substances before it's too late. without hyperbole or theatrics, such action could save the lives of thousands of americans. fentanyl is a synthetic opioid that is about 30 times more potent than heroin. while dangerous and deadly, fentanyl also has some medically recognized qualities, often for pain management. however, fentanyl abuse has become more common and more

dangerous in recent years because of the increase in fentanyl analogues. these analogues are chemically similar to fentanyl but many are very much more powerful and, of course, deadly. much of the illicitly manufactured fentanyl that is responsible for american overdoses and the deaths connected with it originate in china. unfortunately, these deadly drugs are not permanently controlled in the united states. as such, fentanyl analogs aren't on the same footings and other dangerous drugs as l.s.d.,

ecstasy or cocaine. the sad part is, the drug dealers know all of this. they can skirt the law by easily manipulating the structure of fentanyl so that it isn't technically covered by existing law. but that doesn't make it any less potent and dangerous. and we all know the results are lethal. how lethal? well, the center for disease control states that more than 36,000 people died from overdoses involving synthetic opioids like fentanyl, and that was in 2019. nearly 50,000 overdose deaths are projected for 2020. as is, the law can't keep up then with the rapidly evolving drug trends.

when the chemists work on these trump administration and change them just a little bit to get around the law -- on these drugs and change them just to little bit to get around the law, variations -- you know what? this process can take years. by the time an analogue is added to the schedule, you know what? the drug traffickers are already out with one or more other variations is that don't violate that law. simply put, the law can't keep up with the rapid pace of illicit drug producers and traffickers. particularly for analogue drug enforcement. how can we address this seemingly endless cycle? how can we ensure that those suffering from substance use

disorders aren't killed at the hands of greedy drug dealers? the answer is to stop fentanyl allah logs from being -- analogues from being available in the very first place. we must keep it out of our country and, hence, then being peddled by our criminals. on october 6, 2018, the drug enforcement administration public libbed a temporary order -- published add temporary order scheduling and placing all fentanyl-related substances on schedule 1. congress subsequently extended this authority until may 6 this year, just around the corner. so we have 23 days until this authority expires. congress must act to extend this scheduling order.

if we do not, we will face a surge of rapidly emerging fentanyl drugs, something where the chemists and the criminals will be ahead of anything that the justice department does. the justice department then has made clear that this class-wide scheduling order has made a big difference in chinese fentanyl entering our country. china has agreed to match u.s. policy targeting synthetic fentanyl. but if we lose the authority to rapidly detect and outlaw fentanyl anna lags, we analogues, we lose any authority we have with the chinese government in preventing fentanyl from entering our country. this scheduling order saves

lives because china reciprocates. china's motive in scheduling fentanyl analogues isn't necessarily al truistic, it's because -- altruistic, it's because the u.s. is doing it. so if we stop, china stops. and if that happens, fentanyl analogues will surely flood our communities. we can prevent this, so we must prevent it. with the ongoing increase in overdose deaths, we must continue to support efforts to curb fentanyl abuse. this means we must extend the class-wide scheduling order that otherwise expires may 6, 23 days away. now, this, i think, i'm pretty

sure isn't a political or partisan issue. senators from both sides of the aisle support efforts to schedule fentanyl substances. members of the biden administration have also indicated that administrative fentanyl is urgent -- that addressing fentanyl is urgent. before his confirmation hearing before the senate judiciary committee, attorney general garland stated that the constantly evolving nature of fentanyl analogues is -- and i want to quote the new attorney general -- a problem both for detection as well as in enforcement and that he is in favor of doing something either by scheduling or legislation to proactively address the problem of fentanyl-related substances. likewise, both law enforcement

and substance abuse prevention groups believe congress must act in scheduling fentanyl. it's up to congress to pass legislation to extend the fentanyl scheduling order. so i urge all my colleagues to join me and a lot of other republicans and democrats in the fight against fentanyl. in the midst of an opioid crisis, a polydrug crisis, a covid-19 pandemic, how can we allow for any other additional death and destruction? the clock is ticking, we're closing in on a deadline of may 6. i yield the floor. and i should suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

the presiding officer: we are in a quorum call. mr. cornyn: i ask that the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection, the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: i ask that all time be yielded back on both sides on the sherman nomination. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. cornyn: and i would call the question -- the presiding officer: all

postcloture time has expired. mr. cornyn: i call the question and ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: the question is on the nomination. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: the yea, are 56. the nays are 42. the nomination is confirmed. senator murray. mrs. murray: i ask unanimous consent the motion 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. the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of executive calendar number 33, gary gensler of maryland to be a member of the securities and exchange commission signed by 17 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived.

the question is, is it the sense of the senate that debate on the nomination of gary gensler of maryland to be a member of the securities and exchange commission shall be brought to a close. the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: the yeas are 53, the nays are 45. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, securities and exchange commission, gary gensler of maryland to be a member. ms. hassan: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire.

ms. hassan: i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to legislative session and be in a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. hassan: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the appointments at the desk appear separately in the record as if made by the chair. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. hassan: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the consideration of senate resolution 152 submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 152, honoring the memory of officer william francis billy evans of the united states capitol police for his selfless acts of heroism on the grounds of the united states capitol on april 2, 2021. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure.

ms. hassan: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. hassan: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10:30 a.m. wednesday, april 14, that follow the prayer and pledge, the morning business be deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and morning business be closed, that upon the conclusion of morning business, the senate proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the nomination of gary gensler to be a member of the securities and exchange commission. further, that the postcloture time on the gensler nomination be considered expired at 11:45 a.m. finally, that if cloture is invoked on the mallory nomination, all postcloture time be considered expired at

3:30 p.m. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. hassan: for the information of senators, there will be two roll call votes at 11:45 a.m. in relation to the gensler and mallory nominations and two roll call votes at 3:30 p.m. on the mallory nomination and cloture on the motion to proceed to s. 937, relating to covid-19 hate crimes. if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it stand adjourned under the provisions of s. res. 152 as a further mark of respect for the memory of officer william francis "billy" evans of the united states capitol police. the presiding officer: under the previous order and pursuant to senate resolution 152, the senate stands adjourned until 10:30 on april 14, 2021, and does so as a further mark of respect to the late officer william francis evans of the william francis evans of the

the senate confirmed two of president biden nominees today. deputy transportation secretary and wendy sherman as deputy secretary of state. later in the may confirmation vote expected on the nomination to chair the white house council on environmental quality. we also expect the senate to consider legislation on hate crimes against asian americans. when the senate is back in session live coverage is here on cspan2. ♪ ♪ book tv on cspan2 has topped nonfiction books and authors every weekend. saturday at 8:00 p.m. eastern former general electric ceo reflects on the challenges he faced after 911 and during the 2008 financial crisis in his book hot seat, what i learned it leaning a great american

company. sunday at 9:00 p.m. eastern on "after words", and her book remember the science of memory in the art of forgetting neuroscientist lisa genova discusses how our memory works. she is interviewed by the forgetting a podcast hope cohost. sunday at 11:00 p.m. eastern university of pennsylvania at religion profession argues racism has a foothold in white evangelical religion from slavery to current day in her book white evangelical racism buried the politics of morality in america. watch book tv this weekend and be sure to watch in depth in may with "new york times" columnist and author on cspan2. spent wisconsin congressman mike gallagher spoke about the importance of securing the u.s. supply chain against potential disruptions from china. from the woodrow wilson center this is about an