c-span.org and errors in its entirety at 8 p.m. eastern tonight on c-span2. we are leaving this to honor our 40+ your commitment to gavel to gavel coverage of congress, u.s. senate about to gavel in. at noon eastern to vote to confirm amber mccrindle sizzurp on u.s. postal service board of governors and at 1:45 p.m. lawmakers all the confirmation vote on don grays to be deputy secretary of commerce. now lie to the senate floor on c-span2. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. eternal god, teach us your wisdom and discipline. because of your wisdom, may our lawmakers have insights that

guide them on the path of truth. give them a passion to do what is right, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with you. because of your gift of discipline, may our senators grow in grace and in a knowledge of you, supplementing their faith with generous provisions of moral excellence, self-control, and patient endurance. lord, keep us all from deliberate sin so that the words our lips and the reflections of our hearts will please you.

we pray in your holy name. amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington, d.c., may 13, 2021. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable ben ray lujan, a senator from the state of new mexico, to

perform the duties of the chair. signed: patrick j. leahy, president pro tempore. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved.

mr. schumer: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. schumer: are we in a quorum? the presiding officer: we're not. mr. schumer: mr. president, yesterday the commerce

committee, senate commerce committee, on which you sit, came together on a bipartisan basis to advance the endless frontiers act by a vote of 24-4. 24-4. we're now one step closer to passing a bill that will keep our country one step ahead in science and technology for decades to come. it's my intention for the senate to take up the endless frontier act next week in a package with legislation to strengthen our alliances and partnerships, invest in the american semi-semiconductor industry, ensure that china pace a price for its predatory actions and boost advanced manufacturing, innovation and critical supply chains. for decades, american prosperity has been anchored by our unmatched capacities for invention and innovation in science and technology. american innovation propelled american industry and an american workforce brought those innovations to the global economy u but, unfortunately,

federal underinvestment in sciences has seen our country slip, exposing critical weak spots in our economy. the -- and if we don't fix them, we will no longer be the in my judgment-one economic leader in the -- we will no longer be the number-one economic leader in the world in the decade to come. so it is imperative that we do this. this is for our future, our future for jobs, our future for economic leadership, our future for world leadership all boils down to science, something that was ignored, unfortunately, by the last administration but, fortunately, bipartisan unity in this senate is bringing us back on the page that we need to do science. the endless frontiers act would right the ship by making one of the largest investments in american innovation in generations, allowing the u.s. to outcompete countries like campaign, create more good-paying jobs and harden our economic and our national security as well.

because this bill is vital to national security as well as to economic security. i want to really applaud chairwoman cantwell, ranking member wicker, and my partner in the endless frontiers act, senator young, all of whom worked hard, long, diligently and effectively in a bipartisan fashion to move this legislation through regular order. the full senate will consider -- and i believe should finish -- this important legislation before the end of the month with strong bipartisan support. on judges and on nominees, over the past several months, the senate has moved quickly to confirm nominees to serve in president biden's cabinet and throughout his administration. the senate also has a constitutional duty to provide advise and consent on the president's judicial nominations, and the senate will begin to fill judicial vacancies very soon.

this morning the judiciary committee is holding the first markup for a slate of president biden's judicial nominations, including two circuit nominees and three district court nominees who will all receive a vote in the committee next week. the senate is now going to scale up our efforts to fill more than 80 vacancies in the federal judiciary. it's no secret lacking a robust legislative agenda, the republican majority, under president trump, focused on judges, confirming around 200. president obama, in his eight years, appointed 320. so even though on a four-year to four-year basis, trump did more. overall, barack obama has a greater effect on the judiciary than trump. now president biden has the opportunity to fill more than 80 vacancies, likely more. under this democratic majority, the senate will swiftly and routinely take up president biden's appointments to the federal bench. it will redress the imbalance

that the trump administration caused by choosing so many judges who were so far hard-right, way out of the mainstream, not just of the american people but even of the republican party. under this democratic majority, we are going to swiftly and routinely take up president biden's appointments to the federal bench, to restore some balance. and i must say, president biden's judicial candidates provide a stark contrast to the quality -- to the caliber of president trump's nominations. president biden's nominees are qualified, mainstream, and actually reflect the diversity of the country. many have spent years as public defenders and experience that's sorely lacking on the federal berm. they also include the first native american to be nominated to the federal court, the second ever puerto rican. that's a far cry from what we got under president trump and

then majority leader mcconnell. for four years, the republican leader turned the senate into a conveyor belt for inexperienced lawyers, many with deeply radical views on women's choice, voting rights, criminal justice, and civil rights. a few of them were so extreme on the issues of race and voting that republican senators joined with democrats to reject those nominations. with president biden, we're going to bring balance back to the federal judiciary by confirming judges who are beholden to the law, not some far-right agenda. and, on another issue in the judiciary committee, this morning the judiciary committee will also vote on a very important nominee to the department of justice -- kristen clarke to serve as the assistant ag for civil rights. the daughter of jamaican immigrants, ms. clarke is extremely well-qualified and capable civil rights attorney who would be the first black woman to ever fill her position

at the justice department. but her obvious quality did not stop a few of our republican colleagues from trying to smear her record. the political right seems to relish in trying to score political points by connecting every justice department nominee, many of whom happen to be women of color, to hot-button partisan issues whether or not they have any relevance. in ms. clarke's hearing, it reached the point of absurdity when she was grilled on an obviously satirical piece she published for her college newspaper. just like for vanita gupta, ms. clarke was treated by the minority on the judiciary committee like some hair-raising radical, despite her record, her qualifications, and her support from all sides. and just like ms. gupta, ms. clarke has been endorsed by the nation's most powerful law enforcement organizations,

including the international association of chiefs of police and the major cities chiefs of police association. i urge all of my colleagues on the senate judiciary to advance her nomination today. with that, i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. mcconnell: mr. president. the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. mcconnell: i'll begin this morning where i began on monday, talking about national police week. yesterday, i got to welcome members of kentucky's fraternal order of police here to my office. i was glad for the chance to share my gratitude for their service and hear what was on their minds.

tragically, the past year's fallen officers whom we are memorializing this week, including one of kentucky's own. in early 2020, detective james kirk of the stanton police department suddenly passed away from a heart attack in the wake of struggling with an armed subject. he was only 40 years old. by all accounts, during james' nearly 20 years of office he became a model office. he served as police chief of a nearby department. his colleagues remember his easy-going, friendly nature and total professionalism. as the nation honors this brave kentuckian, we continue to hold his wife brandy, their family and the entire stanton police department in our prayers. later today detective kirk will join the forces of heroes hen

hen -- enshrined. we're honoring the u.s. capitol police. on peace officers memorial day this saturday we'll especially remember officers evans, sicknick and liebengood, all taken too soon. their sacrifices are a sharp reminder, standing with law enforcement isn't something we can only do one week every year. we need to back the blue all year round. now, mr. president, on an entirely different matter, while senators were back in our home states last week, "the washington post" ran this headline -- chinese greenhouse gas emissions now larger than those of developed countries combined. let me say that again. chinese greenhouse gas emissions now larger than those of developed countries combined. china is out-emitting the united states, india, and the entire

european union combined. they're now responsible for more than one-fourth of the entire world's emissions, and beijing admits they aren't even planning for their emissions to start declining for another decade. it's a clear reality check, no matter how much self-inflicted pain the far left might want to impose on american workers and families, it would barely make any dent in the global calculus. remember, with the united states outside the paris agreement -- with the united states outside the paris agreement, our emissions fell on their own even as our economy grew. meanwhile, countries inside the deal, like china, have kept roaring right on by. strangely, this didn't stop the biden administration from rushing to rejoin the failed

deal. and this is just one of the ways in which american competitiveness has recently seemed to take a back seat. this white house council, the pipeline project that would have increased energy security and supported american jobs, they froze expiration of did he domestic resources. after we began to modernize our defense, this p administration indicated they'll propose to cut defense spending after inflation. fewer resources for our troops, fewer tools to keep pace with china. they want to play games while our adversaries and competitors plan years and decades in advance. as former defense secretary bob

gates put it in an interview this week, cutting spending on our military would be, quote, a terrible mistake. that's president obama's defense secretary, bob gates. there could not be a more dangerous approach for the united states. shortchanging the pentagon and making america less competitive. the first draft of the so-called jobs bill that the white house put forward would play into the same dangerous dynamic. i'm talking about the multitrillion-dollar proposal that spends less than 6%, less than 6% on roads and bridges. the plan that ivy league economists say would cost hundreds of billions of dollars more than the white house says. push american workers' wages down, and somehow manage to shrink our economy despite taxing, borrowing, and

spending trillions more dollars. so, mr. president, that's not a plan to make america stronger and more competitive. it's a plan to pile up debt to leave us even weaker. it would be better news for beijing than to our own citizens. that's the bad news. the good news is that the senate can do better. this body has long tackled real infrastructure on a commonsense bipartisan basis and ended up with bills that passed by lopsided bipartisan votes. that's what we republicans are prepared to do again. that's the past i discussed with president biden at the white house just yesterday. it was a good meeting, and that's the road that the practical proposal from senator capito and a number of my fellow republican senators would begin to take us down.

if our democratic friends are finally ready to reach across the aisle and work together to locate common ground, i'm hopeful that we can do a lot of good for the country and compete with china for real. now on one final matter, the attacks being directed at innocent israeli citizens are coming from hamas and palestinian islamic jihad. both these terrorist groups receive support from iran. the regime in tehran is the most active state sponsor of terrorism in the entire world. the regime supports shia terrorists, sunni terrorists and secular terrorists. many of the rockets raining down on israel's cities are gifts from iran. technologies of terror honed by the iran proxies in yemen, iraq, syria, and lebanon.

days ago the u.s. navy seized weapons on a vessel that appears to have been dispatched from iran bound for yemen to fuel the violent houthi terrorists in violation of the u.n. embargo. just last night the houthis again fired missiles against saudi arabia, and public reporting suggests iran's proxies on top of assassinating iraqi protesters are stepping up attacks on the united states and coalition presence in iraq as well. iran is emboldened by our retreat from afghanistan. they're eager to challenge an administration that appears desperate to return to a failed deal. what former defense secretary bob gates said this week about weakness inviting challenge from china and russia applies to iran as well. the answer is not accommodation.

it is america's strength. but reportedly, this administration is considering preemptive concessions, a huge rollback of sanctions, squandering our leverage, just to leap back into a failed nuclear deal. i sincerely hope these reports prove to be wrong. it's difficult to believe an american president would consider removing terrorism or missile-related sanctions at the very moment iranian rockets are raining down on israel, iranian backed militia are attacking american facilities in iraq and iranian missiles are being trained on saudi arabia. i cannot understand why the administration is considering any sanctions relief to induce tehran back into the obama deal in the first place. it would be total malpractice to

squander our leverage just to jump back into a flawed deal. that kind of preemptive capitulation would make negotiating a better deal much, much more difficult. iran's own foreign minister has lamented that the terror masterminds of the islamic revolutionary guard's corps basically, basically run the country. so what on earth, what on earth does our administration think the successors of sul manny would do -- suleimani would do with another influx of cash? if the administration will stay smart, stay tough and work toward a better deal, that truly halts iran's nuclear and missile programs as well as the strategy to confront iranian terrorism, then the president will find support and partnership from the republican side. but if the administration chooses policies that leave america weaker and the world

more dangerous, republicans will stand up for the right course. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate will proceed to executive session and resume consideration of the following nomination which the clerk will report. the clerk: nomination, united states postal service, amber faye mcreynolds of colorado to be a governor. a senator: mr. president.

the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire. mrs. shaheen: i come to the floor to address what i believe to be an urgent policy issue in afghanistan and that's what happen to the women and girls when the united states and nato forces leave after 20 years. over the years as i've talked to my constituents and people around the country, one of the things that they have all been united on about our effort in afghanistan has been the difference that our intervention has made for women and girls. before we went into afghanistan in 2002, girls were not allowed to go to school, women were not allowed to work, there was no freedom of movement for women and girls unless they had a male escort. they couldn't listen to music. they were required to wear burkas any time they went out of their homes. and what we have seen has been

safety and security for afghan women and girls as the result of our intervention. but now all of these gains are at risk as we withdraw our forces, and the lack of emphasis on the safety and security of afghan women and girls and the peace process is what's brought us to this point. we are leaving by september and there is no plan to ensure that the rights that we achieved for women and girls are actually protected, even though we have legislation that says in conflict areas like afghanistan, we have a responsibility to ensure that women and -- women are at the negotiating table. well, as we rethink the role of the united states in afghanistan, i want to put a face on what we're talking about, what it means if we don't prioritize women's rights there. in march of this year, the

state department posthumously honored seven women who were given the international women of courage award. these are all women who were killed in afghanistan in 2020, and they're pictured here. they were murdered, assassinated really, for choosing to live their lives outside of the narrow confines of what the taliban and other extremist groups deem acceptable for women, and they reflect the thousands of other women in afghanistan who have been the targets of violence. we've seen over the last months of 2020 and beginning of 2021 that women were deliberately targeted for assassination, particularly women in high-profile positions. these women have been murdered for going to school, for reporting the news, for delivering health care, or running for public office. and we talk about them as

courageous, and certainly they are, but they should not have to be courageous to do the kinds of things that they were murdered for. it should not require courage to be a journalist like malala maiway, who is right here in the lower right-hand corner. it should not require courage to stand up for basic human rights like fatima khalil, who is up here in the middle. or freshta, who is right here. fatima was a human rights official. freshta was an activist for women's rights. and yet both of these women were killed by the taliban for doing what they believed in, for trying to improve the lives of other women. sadly, that kind of courage is what's required of all women in afghanistan today, and i worry that this reality is only going to escalate after our departure. indeed, we saw this over this

past weekend when 85 people, most of them schoolgirls, were killed in a car bomb outside of a girls school in kabul. i saw them interviewing one young woman who i think was about 14 about why she thought they had been targeted, and she said i guess it's because we want an education. so this is the future that we risk if we don't have a plan for how we're going to continue to support the women and girls of afghanistan. i also want to talk about the other four women who are pictured here, fatima in the middle was a 23-year-old prison guard. she was on her way home on a civilian bus, on her way home from work. the bus was stopped by the taliban. she was kidnapped, tar toured and murdered and two weeks later her body was sent to her family. and then there was fresta, a

35-year-old prison guard killed on her way to a taxi to get to work. again, killed by a gunman. at the bottom is general shirmila frog. she was head of the general directorate, one of the longest-serving female n.d.s. officers in afghanistan. she was assassinated when an i.e.d. explosion targeted her vehicle in kabul. and finally, i think perhaps the most horrific and barbarous of these murders was of miriam norzad. she was killed when the hospital in kabul was attacked by the taliban. she was there helping a woman deliver a baby. she refused to leave when they were attacked. she didn't want to leave the

woman she was helping as a midwife. and so the taliban not only killed her when she refused to leave the woman, they killed the mother and they killed the baby, and these are the taliban who we're being asked to join at the negotiating table a -- i can tell you, i don't intend to support any efforts that will allow the taliban to continue to commit these horrific acts a of violence. the agreement we made with the taliban has already been breached by the taliban. they've refused to cut ties with al qaeda and other terrorist groups. they continue to escalate the violence. what we're going to see over the next several months and what we do is going to impact the lives of women for generations to come in that country. which is why we must do absolutely everything in our power to support the women and those in afghanistan who want

peace and who want to see the country move beyond the extreme religious rhetoric of the taliban. these seven women didn't deserve to die. those schoolgirls in kabul didn't deserve to die. and we owe to to them and the generations that will come after them to do everything we can to prevent anymore afghan women from feet meeting the same fate. this is not a partisan issue, a woman's wish, it is a human rights issue and it is a security issue for the future of afghanistan. because if women are given -- are empowered in that country, the potential for stability is so much greater. so i urge the senate to do everything in our power to ensure that women are represented at the table in the future negotiations and that their rights are preserved in afghanistan. we must remember these women,

these seven women, and the thousands of women like them and the schoolgirls in kabul, the girls who should have the opportunity to grow up in a world with the freedoms that their mothers fought to secure. the women and girls of afghanistan are watching what we do, and we can't afford to let them down. thank you, mr. president. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

is quorum call: mr. thune: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota. mr. thune: madam president, is the senate in a quorum call? the presiding officer: it is. mr. thune: i would ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: officer without objection. mr. thune: i would ask unanimous consent that i be able to complete my remarks before

the vote. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. thune: on tuesday, the senate completed its markup of the senate elections bill, design to increase senate democrats' hold on power. we're told that passing this bill is urgent. we're told that in the last congress, too, when democrats first proposed this legislation. they said the same thing. there were serious election problems, they said, and we needed to pass this legislation to address them. then, of course, we had the 2020 elections, which democrats won, and which featured record voter turnout. in fact, the largest voter turnout since 1900. so it became just a little difficult for democrats to argue that they were grave problems with our electoral system. but they still really, really want to pass this bill, a bill that contains what one respected legal scholar has called, and i quote, some of the most

blatantly partisan, most obviously unconstitutional and most unwise provisions ever passed by a chamber of congress, end quote. so they had to come up with a new rationale for trying to jam through this legislation. and now we're being warned about a new crisis -- states -- states, which under the constitution historically have is this primary responsibility when it comes to elections, states are debating election administration measures that will return our nation to the jim crow era and so we have to pass s. 1 to prevent the damage that these states are going to do. the only thing, of course, is that this crisis is as manufactured as the last one. take georgia -- democrats have made georgia a poster child for the need to pass election legislation. georgia's new voting law, the senate democrat whip aerted is,

is a deliberate effort to suppress voters, particularly voters of color. the president, feverishly described the georgia law as, i quote, jim crow on steroids, end quote. the only problem with that argument, madam president, the law does not put up roadblocks to black americans registering to vote. those aren't my words. those are the words of "the washington post" fact-checker. but democrats haven't allowed facts or reason to intrude. the democrat whip has come down to the floor and claimed that the georgia law makes it a crime to give water to voters in line. in fact, while the law does place restrictions on activists and candidates handing out water and other items -- an obvious conflict -- it explicitly

permits officials to offer voters water. the president has repeatedly claimed that the law is designed to keep people from voting. it is not. "the washington post" gave the president four pinocchios, a rating that the "washington post" reserves for, quote, whoppers for that claim by the president of the united states. in fact, senior as "the washingn post" fact-checker piece makes clear, there's reason to think that the law might actually -- wait for it -- expand access to early voting. a fair-minded piece in "the new york times" hardly a newspaper that carries water for republicans, concluded that the voting provisions of the georgia law are, and i quote, unlikely to significantly affect turnout or democrat chances, end quote.

georgia's voting laws are actually in some ways more permissive than voting laws in some democrat-led states. georgia allows more early voting than both the president and the democrat leader's home states a, delaware and new york. and unlike georgia, neither delaware nor new york offers any not-excuse absentee voting. well, madam president, i look forward to seeing the president and the president talk about how their home states are is up promoting voter suppression. georgia's new election law is main fairly in the mainstream. the georgia law would have been likely barely a blue slip in the news cycle if democrats hadn't even an opportunity to distort this i will about. but i want to talk about the substance of the democrats' bill and why every member of congress

should somebody opposing it. madam president, we're supposed to believe that this is an election integrity bill. in fact, it's the complete opposite. this bill would undermine election integrity in this country. it would do everything from making our election system more susceptible to fraud to undermining voter favor in our electoral system by politicizing election law. let me just highlight a handful of the bill's worst provisions. note that multiple amendments to address these concerns were voted down by democrats at tuesday's markup, which says a lot about the partisan nature of the democrats' aim of this bill. first, this bill would make the federal election commission into a partisan body. let me just repeat that. this bill would make the federal election commission, the primary enforcer of election law in this country, into a partisan body. instead of an independent commission, evenly divided

between democrats and republicans, which is what it is today, the f.e.c. would become just a partisan arm of whatever president is in power. tell me -- tell me how that is supposed to enhance voter confidence in our system. every single f.e.c. ruling would be suspect. no democrat voter would trust a republican f.e.c. and no republican voter would trust a democrat one. speaking of trust, let's talk about election fraud. the bill takes aim at state voter i.d. laws, commonsense measures strongly supported by the american people to ensure that voters are who they say they are before they vote. the pew research center reports that 76% of americans, including 61% of democrats, support voter i.d. requirements. now, i've always been at a loss, madam president, to understand

congressional democrats' passionate opposition to requiring people to provide identification before voting. i haven't heard democrats spend a lot of time complaining about requiring people to have a photo i.d. to drive or to fly or to go on a tour at the white house. but somehow asking people to provide an i.d. to vote is beyond the pale. great britain is actually planning to implement a voter i.d. requirement to prevent -- you guessed it -- electoral fraud. in fact, many european countries, including france, the netherlands, and sweden, require a form of identification to vote. canada requires a form of identification to vote. it's difficult to understand democrats' fierce opposition to this commonsense

fraud-prevention measure. while we're on subject of electoral fraud, let's talk about ballot harvesting. in addition to effectively eliminating states' voter i.d. requirements, senate bill 1 would also require the states allow ballot harvesting, the controversial practice of allowing political operatives to collect and submit ballots. needless to say, ballot harvesting opens up a lot of questions about voter fraud and election integrity, and that's to put it mildly. but the democrats' bill would not just permit states to allow it; it would require them -- require them -- to allow it. madam president, i could go on and on and on. s. 1 would allow unprecedented regulation of political speech and issue advocacy. it would impose disclosure requirements for organizations that would open up donors to retaliation and intimidation. it would suspend -- i should say it would spend taxpayer dollars,

possibly tens of millions of taxpayer dollars, per candidate on public financing of political campaigns. that's right. with a soring national -- with a soaring national debt, the federal government would end up steering hundreds of millions of dollars to political campaigns. perhaps the best illustration of that, madam president, is senator cruz here in the united states senate pointed out that in the first quarter of this year under this law, the federal government would have had to cut him a check for $30 million for his campaign. madam president, this legislation is not about voter integrity. it's about -- it's not about preventing voter suppression. it's about permanently changing the electoral playing field to give democrats a permanent electoral advantage. the same reason the democrats want to pack the supreme court or admit d.c. as a state.

democrats want to use whatever political power they have to secure a permanent advantage for democrat candidates and democrat policies. mr. president, if democrats were serious about protecting the integrity of our election system, they should be working and would be working with republicans to develop bipartisan legislation, not pushing a bill that is unlikely to get a single republican vote. passing a huge federal election reform measure on a partisan basis would completely undermine one of the main purposes of election reform legislation, which is enhancing confidence in the integrity of our system. i can assure democrats that senate bill 1 would do nothing to enhance republican voters' confidence in the integrity of elections, and i suspect there are a number of democrat voters and independent voters who will also see this bill for what it is, a partisan takeover of our electoral system. mr. president, we're fortunate that our electoral system by and large seems to be operating well. as i mentioned, see the record

turnout of voters in the 2020 election. highest turnout since 1900. but there are certainly measures we could take up to further enhance election integrity, not senate bill 1, which would do nothing to further election integrity, but there are other measures we could take up, but in order to have any degree of legitimacy, any election reform measures we consider should be taken up on a bipartisan basis. and if democrats really wanted to enhance voter confidence and protect the integrity of our system, that's what they would be doing, taking up bipartisan legislation on a bipartisan basis. it's unfortunate that their aims are more partisan than public spirited. senate bill 1 is a solution in search of a problem that would result in the unprecedented politicization of our electoral system for the good of the country, every member of

congress should oppose it. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the question occurs on the mcreynolds nomination. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: on this vote the yeas are 59. the nays are 38. 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. under the previous order, the senate stands in recess until senate stands in recess until

the ceo of the memorial fund and also chief gallagher at a number of members. as you notice this morning members are dressed a little differently. some of us went out early this morning and road with the capitol police but