done on a floor vote, an up or down vote and we had the vote twice, it was called twice because the first time republicans refused to participate in the vote. we called it again and we had the 60 votes we needed to overcome a filibuster. i believe this vote is also a once in a generation vote that needs the review and the vote of the entire senate. because not only does the congress have the responsibility to oversee the military and the entire executive branch, but this whole body has the ability to oversee individual committees if they aren't going far enough when the moment demands it. i believe this is some such time. we're here for a time such as this, we should do our job, we should vote on this measure and it should be an up or down floor vote. i yield the floor. >> the u.s. senate is about to gavel in on their agenda today, two biden administration

nominations. this morning they'll be voting on brooks la sure to head medicare and medicaid services and this afternoon a procedural vote on kristin clark to be assistant attorney general for civil rights and also on the agenda this week, a science and technology research bill. live senate coverage here 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, you watch over those who seek to do your will. you surround them with your favor, providing for all their needs, and empowering them

to become more than conquerors in fulfilling your will. may the reverential gratitude of our senators fill them with hope for all the days to come. teach them to live lives of complete honesty, as they seek to stay on the pathway you have provided for their lives. lord, as you teach our lawmakers to live according to your truth, rescue them from the forces that seek to bring pain and disgrace. we pray in your powerful 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., to the senate, under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3 of the standing rules of the senate, i appoint senator warnock, to perform the duties of the chair. signed patrick j. leahy, president pro tempore.

mr. schumer: mr. president. mr. president, before i begin on my -- the prepared remarks i have, i note that this morning,

marjorie taylor greene, republican congresswoman from georgia, once again compared preparations taken against covid to the holocaust. these are sickening, reprehensible comments, and she should stop this vile language immediately. now, a year ago today, on another month equally important, george floyd was murdered in broad daylight by a police officer sworn to protect and serve. our country was forever changed by the stomach-churning video of derek chawf inkilling mr. floyd. it marked a summer unlike any we have seen. around the world, floyd's name was chanted in many large

cities. as recently as this weekend, professional soccer players in the british premier league knelt before the game. in support of the global movement against racism touched off by george floyd. this was not only a fight for justice for one man and his family who i have had the privilege to meet with, but a fight against the discrimination that black men and women suffer at the hands of state power, not just here in america, but around the globe. it's a fight that continues today, and here in the senate, we will continue that fight when we vote to confirm the first woman, the first black woman to ever lead the justice department's civil rights division, which was created in 1957 as the civil rights movement began to uphold the constitutional rights of all americans. but particularly the most vulnerable. when it comes to justice in policing, the criminal justice system and at the ballot box,

the civil rights division is often the tip of this sphere, conducting investigations of police departments with patterns or practices of constitutional violations and defending the fundamental voting rights of every american citizen. so in a way, as we continue to pursue strong policing reform legislation, it is appropriate that we confirm kristen clarke, a proven civil rights leader, to the position of attorney general, assistant attorney general where she can continue the fight against bigotry in many ways. it is appropriate we do it today. although my republican colleagues have tried to twist her words to make her sound like some radical, ms. clarke is in reality an unusually accomplished civil rights attorney who has earned the respect of all sides. much like her future colleague at the justice department, vanita gupta, kristen clarke has been endorsed by a wide range of

law enforcement groups. the truth is ms. clarke will make an exceptional leader of the civil rights division. so again, in a very significant way, as we continue to pursue strong policing reform legislation, the fight for racial justice by confirming kristen clarke on the anniversary of george floyd's murder is particularly poignant and appropriate. of course, congress must also pursue strong legislation to end racial bias in law enforcement. senators booker and scott, as well as representative bass and others, have been working diligently behind the scenes to fashion such a bill on a bipartisan basis. that important work must continue as we strive to ensure george floyd's tragic death will not be in vain. on another matter, the senate continues to work on the u.s. innovation and competition legislation that will lay the foundation for the next century

of american economic leadership. i have spoken a lot about the substance of this bill, so this morning, i want to reinforce how bipartisan and inclusive this bill is. it is the product of at least half a dozen senate committees, meaning that every single member of the senate has had their fingerprints on this bill in one way or another. the two pieces of legislation that form the core of the bill, the endless frontier act and the strategic competition act, passed out of committee on overwhelmingly bipartisan votes. 24-4 in the commerce committee. 21-1 in the foreign relations committee. that kind of bipartisanship almost unanimous support in multiple senate committees is rare when it comes to major legislation. it goes to show just how bipartisan this issue is and this legislation is. literally, dozens of bipartisan

amendments were added to the bill before it ever reached the floor. here on the floor, we are going to continue working through a series of amendments from both sides with such a depth of cooperation and consensus between our two parties, there is no reason we can't wrap up this bill this week and achieve a strong result for our country. leader mcconnell should be welcoming this bipartisanship as we move forward on the bill. now, on a final matter, later today, a group of senators will come to the floor to highlight an important issue, d.c. statehood. the district of columbia has more residents than vermont and wyoming and nearly the same number as delaware, alaska, and several other states. they have the same obligations of citizenship. d.c. residents pay federal taxes, they can be summoned for juries, they have served in every war since the revolution, but they are all denied real representation here in congress.

d.c. statehood is an idea whose time has come. so i want to thank senator carper for organizing a group of senators to shine a spotlight on this issue today. i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the republican leader is recognized. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: the world is relieved that hamas has stopped firing rockets at israel's cities, and for the moment the fighting has stopped. israel's response to hamas terrorism was entirely justified. it was targeted, restrained, and extraordinarily precise. so it was disappointing to see disproportionate blame heaped upon israel, the victim, and disproportionate pressure put on israel's democratic coalition government to spearhead the cease-fire with the aggressors. israel's actions appeared to help restore some measure of deterrence and damaged hamas' ability to wage terror.

we have every reason to expect the terrorist commanders will seek to rebuild their arsenal with assistance from their sponsors in tehran. the biden administration was not pursue iran policies that make this process even easier. we should not lift terrorism and missile sanctions just to leap back into discussions over the flawed obama-era nuclear deal. already this administration removed terrorism sanctions on iran's houthi proxies in yemen, hoping to encourage negotiations. instead the houthis have escalated their offensive projected diplomacy and actually fired into saudi arabia. likewise, giving iran relief from sanctions will just yield more support for terrorists like hezbollah and hamas. i am encouraged that the president has committed to

refilling israel's iron dome stockpiles. i hope his budget proposal coming this friday will make room for increased military assistance to israel and reflect the fact that america's interests are not served by cutting our own defense budget. sadly, here in congress more and more democrats are falling under the anti-israel influence of the farthest left branch, from the junior senator from vermont we have a resolution to block a routine sale of precision-guided munitions that would make it harder for israel to avoid civilian casualties as it defends itself. from a congresswoman from new york, the accusation that israel is an apartheid state. historically support for israel has been bipartisan. during the last major flareup with hamas back in 2014 when hundreds of rockets were fired at israel, the senate passed a resolution reaffirming our

support for israel and making clear hamas responsibility for the violence, and we did it by unanimous consent. back in 2019, after another rocket attack, the democratic leader insisted, quote, no government can allow its civilians to be subject to rocket attack. he said he stood, quote, shoulder to shoulder with the people of israel and doing what they must do to defend their homeland. that was true in 2019. well, this month's attacks involved not hundreds, but literally thousands of rockets. and yet instead of vocal support for israel, 29 senate democrats pressured israel's coalition government to stop defending itself. one of our colleagues who ran for president said the u.s. helping our ally means, quote, supplying weapons to kill

children. their base is energized. an open letter from hundreds of former democratic party and campaign staffers have urged president biden to be harder on israel. apparently a lot can change in just two years. helping israel defend itself against terrorists shouldn't be a divisive issue. the senate should vote on senator sanders' resolution and reject it overwhelmingly. now on a related matter, the despicable age-old specter of anti-semitism continues to rear its head even here in our country. last week authorities from new york to los angeles were investigating assaults on jewish people. according to press reports, in new york city one jewish man was kicked, punched and sprayed with chemicals by five or six men yelling anti-semitic things. that happened, by the way, right in times square. a synagogue in arizona was

vandalized. so was another in illinois. a jewish family visiting south florida had a car pull up next to them and multiple occupants began screaming free palestine, die jew. that's what he got for wearing his yarmulke in public. the head of the anti-defamation league says, quote, we're tracking acts of harassment, vandalism and violence as well as a torrent of online abuse. it's happening all around the world. this garbage, this garbage didn't begin a few weeks ago. it isn't a response to geopolitics. this hatred long predates the recent fighting between israel and hamas, and it hasn't gone anywhere since the cease-fire. this spring in the shadow of this capitol building a u.s. capitol police officer was killed in broad daylight by an

unbalanced follower of the nation of islam. the extremist group led by anti-semite louis farrakhan. this trash should be the easiest thing in the world for every leader in position to call out. but perhaps because israel has become a strangely controversial issue on the far left, condemnation does not seem to be flowing as easily and unequivocally as they should. yesterday a democratic congressman from minnesota tweeted this, quote, i'll say the quiet part out loud. it's time for progressives to start condemning anti-semitism and violent attacks on jewish people with the same intention and vigor demonstrated in other parts. the silence has been deafening. end quote. i couldn't say it better

myself, mr. president. senator cotton and i are introducing new legislation to fight anti-semitism. our bill will support state and local law enforcement and ensure the bigoted thugs who are attacking jewish americans face the full force of our justice system. i'm proud to be cosponsoring this legislation, though i regret that in the year of 2021 it remains, unfortunately, necessary. i hope every one of our colleagues will join senator cotton and myself. now on one final matter, the president's decision to retreat from afghanistan is not clear-eyed or strategic. it's dangerous wishful thinking. as discussions with the administration are making clear, this decision is not underpinned by a coherent plan to mitigate the geopolitical and humanitarian risk that our departure will create. when we're gone, after we leave, there's every reason to believe that al qaeda will

regroup in its historic safe haven. giving up the high ground while the enemy is still on the battlefield isn't a strategic move. neither is banking on conducting so-called over-the-horizon counter terrorism missions without presence on the ground. if we've learned anything in the fight against terrorists, it's the importance of reliable access and local partnerships. give up the former, and we likely lose the latter. the military currently flies both reconnaissance and strike missions against terrorists from within afghanistan. the country's is not easy to get to. its immediate neighbors are iran, pakistan, and russian influenced central asian nations. they aren't likely to let us

base significant counterterrorism units in their countries. so where will we be basing these forces? how will we maintain sorties from thousands of miles away? how many forces will be required to secure our embassy? if a protaliban mob threatens to overrun it, what will we do to protect it? where will a quick reaction force be based if not in afghanistan? will it be quick? if its response time goes from minutes to hours. we learned from benghazi the so-called tyranny of distance. if the taliban takes kabul, will the biden administration recognize it as the legitimate government of afghanistan? will we shutter our embassy and our aid programs? the reality is they don't know.

they can't say. there's no plan. it's not courageous to abandon our allies. that's the view many democrats said they held when the last president considered withdrawing from syria and afghanistan. but now as afghans, especially women and girls, face even worse dangers, many democrats have suddenly become much less vocal. the horrific, horrific reports of the taliban beginning to reimpose their version of shah rhea law are just a taste of the catastrophes facing our friends in afghanistan who have borne the brunt of the fight. human rights, women's rights, counterterrorism refugee flows, as far as i can tell, the administration has no plan. but the world is watching.

allies and adversaries. democrats can dress up this decision in flowery language, but the world will see it for what it is -- retreating from the fight, abandoning our partners, this is the president's decision. he chose precipitous withdrawal from afghanistan. unbelievably, he even chose the anniversary of september 11 as the deadline. as his team dilatedly confront him -- belatedly confront him with the risks and consequences of this decision, i hope the president will think again and reconsider. the presiding officer: under the previous order, leadership time is reserved. morning business is closed. 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, department of health and human services, chiquita brooks-lasure of virginia to be administrator of medicare and medicaid services. the presiding officer: the majority whip is recognized. mr. durbin: mr. president, i ask consent to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: when i listened to the speech by senator mcconnell, the republican leader, about afghanistan, it transported me back in history to october of 2002 when i was a united states senator representing the state of illinois just days away from a reelection campaign, and we faced an historic vote here in the united states senate. the vote was whether or not we would invade iraq, whether the united states would give the president the authority to send american forces to iraq. there were 23 votes against that invasion. i was one of them. 22 democrats and 1 republican. and i can remember that night so well. it was late, past midnight when

the vote was finally taken. but we had a second vote to take too. and although i had voted against the invasion of iraq i saw the invasion of afghanistan a different story. we believed that osama bin laden and al qaeda were in afghanistan. and the story was, the story line -- and i bought it completely -- if we don't tell people like osama bin laden that there's a price to pay for attacking america and killing 3,000 innocent people, who are we and who will be the next attacker? so i voted, i voted for the invasion of afghanistan. i believed that that was the right thing to do at that moment in history. that vote passed unanimously here in the senate. there was only one dissenting vote in the house of representatives -- congresswoman barbara lee of california. virtually everyone else, everyone else, both political parties voted for the invasion of afghanistan. i will tell you, mr. president, there was not a single senator or congressman who would have stood up that

evening on that vote and announced i'm prepared to vote for the longest war in american history because that's what we ended up voting for. it was our -- it was our belief if we came into afghanistan, we could stop using this country as a haven for terrorism and we could help escort them into the 21st century. well, after 20 years, after thousands of americans gave their lives and thousands more were critically injured, after the spending of trillions of dollars in afghanistan, we learned a better lesson. our willingness was not enough. the people of afghanistan have to be prepared to embrace change for it to happen. we had to create an army in afghanistan, a security force. it virtually didn't exist. the warlords had their military and they were for sale usually to the highest bidder and we were trying to create a national security force. we were trying to create a

nation which was quite a challenge. i'm not going to dwell on what happened, the bitter disappointments. but when i hear senators come to the floor and say, isn't it a shame that we're leaving afghanistan and they are probably going to descend into chaos and many, many problems, my question is, what would you have us do? continue with the troops risking their lives in afghanistan for another 20 years, for another trillion dollars? not me. i believe we reached a point where we have to do everything we can to help afghanistan really progress into the 21st century and, yes, i feel a personal obligation to the men and women who risked their lives for our troops. for those who are opposed to or unaccepting of the notion of refugees coming to the united states, let us from have the character who risked their lives for our soldiers and who are probably now marked by the

taliban for death themselves. yes, i would open our doors to them. they gave their lives for our men and women and we should never forget it. i hope that my friends on the other side of the aisle who have strong feelings about immigration will at least realize that at least these individuals are critical to our role in history and our message to the rest of the world when we seek their assistance. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the statement i'm about to make be put in a separate part of the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: this week we will consider a critically important bill that will help secure america's role as a global leader in science and technology. the investments that the united states innovations competition act of 2021 makes in innovation will help ensure our prosperity and national security. they support american research and development and will help to grow america's industrial and manufacturing base by investing

in clean energy, cybersecurity and biotechnology. mr. president, a p few years ago, -- a few years ago i ee flectd on important moments that didn't receive the recognition they deserved. one of them was a bipartisan decision by several legislators, jon porter, a congressman from illinois, republican congressman, senator ar len specter, a republican senator from pennsylvania and tom harkin, a democratic senator from iowa. back in the day they tried to double the research budget for the national institutes of health. quite an undertaking. that was as ambitious as it gets. they did it. they ended up doubling the n.i.h. budget. they received some recognition for it, but far less than it

deserved. i went back out to the national institutes of health to dr. france he's collins, we're lucky to have him. i said, dr. collins, i remember those days with specter and harkin and porter. what can we do now, our generation, to help you at the national institutes of health? i don't think i could double the budget, i wish i could. but what could i do? he said, senator, if you could persuade congress to give us 5% real growth, real growth over inflation, it will light up the scoreboard. these researchers will stay on the job and not worry about whether next year there will be funding and remarkable things will occur. i set out to do it and i knew at the time i needed help so i turned to patty murray who is on the help and appropriations committee and we then turned to

senator roy blunt of missouri, republican leader of the subcommittee and senator alexander, retired senator from the state of tennessee. we came together and in five or six years we took the n.i.h. budget from $30 billion to $40 billion at the right moment. we didn't anticipate covid-19, but here it came, challenging us, are we ready? can we develop a vaccine in a timely fashion? thank goodness that we could. because of the investment we made as a congress and the american people in this agency, it paid off. not only did we save lives in the united states, we saved lives around the world and will continue to because of that good work. i came to believe that was critically important and went to the department of energy, sitting down with the secretary five or six years ago, and told him the story about our commitment to n.i.h. i said, i guess it's conceivable that we'll do research that will lead to some treatment of

alzheimer's and dimentia. we know that is picking up speed unfortunately because people are living longer. he said, do you have any idea of what agency of government is responsible for monitoring, creating electronic means of monitoring this sort of change in our brains and change that leads to alzheimer's? and i said, no i don't. he said it's the office of science and the department of energy. and i thought to myself, durbin, you should have known better. it isn't just n.i.h., there are agencies all around the government that do research that complement one another. so i came up with the notion, take that n.i.h. model of 5% real growth and start applying it to other research and innovation agencies of our federal government. well, this bill that we're considering this week, this united states innovation and competition act, acknowledges that and makes the investment in research. i'll have tell -- to tell you, i

can't think of anything that we can do that is more bipartisan and would be accepted by the american people than the knowledge that we are going to continue to encourage and subsidize, if you will, scientists and researchers to move us forward in innovation and technology. this bill increases funding for the national science foundation and the department of energy. that's going to spur research. that's going to help at universities in my state and all around our nation and it has been a priority, as i mentioned, for years many but one important way we can compete economically in the world is by boosting support for domestic manufacturing and strengthening our domestic supply chain. the legislation which we going to consider this week does that exactly. $52 billion to boost our domestic semiconductor manufacturing capabilities. this includes $10.5 billion for semiconductor research and development, $2 billion to support the auto industry,

$2 billion for research development for semiconductor needs at the department of defense, $500 million for coordination with foreign government partners to support semiconductor supply chains an important this bill also ensures the payment of prevailing wages on construction projects supported by this funding many semiconductor manufacturing jobs pay more than typical mferg jobs and -- manufacturing jobs and they should. but the workers who help build the facilities won't benefit from that unless we assure the same standards that we supply to other projects. research providing prevailing wage boosts worker productivity. several companies found -- it's our goal to compete with china and other nations and china, unfortunately, has morally abhorrent labor practices. let's do better. let's show them and the world that we can do better.

in 1990, the united states produced 37% of the world's semiconductors 30 years ago. 30 years ago 37%. 12% today. what a dramatic decline. we want to turn that around. now there are some who question this, who question whether the united states smud invest in this kind of technology on semiconductors. i call them the second-place finishers. they decided that the united states is going to have a solid second-place finish from this point forward. i couldn't disagree more. this nation can lead by example and investment. that's what this bill does. those against it have to explain why giving dominance in this critical industry to another country whether it's china or any other nation is in the best interest of the growth of the united states and in the best interest of the next generation of american workers. we are already facing a global

shortage in microchips, that led to shortages in my state and other places. illinois has been a leader in auto manufacturing and i believe it will be in future thanks to dedicated workers like those at the stow atlantis -- stol antis plant. that plant had to shut down a few weeks ago. why? a global shortage of semiconductors. earlier this month, sta lantist announced as many as 1,640 employees at the plant would be laid off. similar story at ford's chicago assembly plant that has 480 workers, shutdowns extend into may. we are not only seeing this in illinois. it has been estimated as 3.9 million fewer vehicles will be produced because of semiconductor shortage.

last month in the state of kentucky, ford announced a temporary shutdown of its louisville plant, impacting 8,000 employees. and ford's assembly plant is expected to close through mid-july. g.m. halted production lines in tennessee, kansas and several other facilities this spring. the news of the layoffs and plant closures underscores the urgent need for congress on a bipartisan basis to address this microchip shortage and the good news is that we have a good opportunity to pass legislation to offer hope to these workers and families. this will not only address our immediate market needs but help ensure that manufacturers don't face shortages in the future. this funding will help support jobs through the entire supply chain, construction of new facilities, manufacturing and development of chips, workers in the auto industry who depend on

this supply. this bill makes a strategic investment that will help to counter the growing threat posed by the rampant development of china's economy. i hope my colleagues will join me in supporting these important provisions to boost our domestic supply chain and support american jobs. we can defeat this measure, we can decide it's too much money, spending it at the wrong time. that's part of the second-place finish club that you might find in the united states senate. i don't want to be a part of it. i believe in the brains and the brawn of american workers. i believe they are productive people and that our researchers can lead the world as they have over and over again if we trust them and we invest in them. i yield the floor. mr. thune: mr. president. the presiding officer: the republican whip is recognized. mr. thune: thank you, mr. president.

mr. president, h.r. 1, democrats opposed election integrity bill is filled with bad ideas. making the federal election commission into a partisan party, banning voter i.d. and other safeguards against voter fraud. providing for taxpayer funding of political campaigns. nowhere is that more true when it comes to the bill ale truly -- the bill's truly terrible provision on the i.r.s. around 2013 it emerged that the obama i.r.s. had singled out conservative organizations applying for tax-exempt status, slow walking their applications. this has been going on for more than two years. and top i.r.s. officials compounded the agency's misdeeds by providing misinformation to congress.

well, mr. president, americans should brace themselves. because if h.r. 1 is ever enacted, it would allow for the same kind of targeting that went on under the obama administration, if not worse. to start with, h.r. 1, repeals a treasury department rule finalized last year that was designed to help prevent the kind of abuse that went on under the bawm i.r.s. under -- obama i.r.s. under the rule many tax-exempt organizations are not required to turn over to the i.r.s. the names of individuals who made substantial donations. this is not information that the i.r.s. needs to know for tax purposes and there is no reason the agency should have information beyond what it needs to do its job. i'm proud to be a cosponsor of leader mcconnell and senator braun's bill which would permanently codify the treasury rule and its protections against unnecessary disclosure. providing the i.r.s. with additional extraneous information opens up opportunities for the kind of abuses that we saw during the

obama administration. but stopping i.r.s. abuse doesn't seem to be a big priority for the democrat party. indeed, there's reason to believe at least some democrats would like the i.r.s. to take a more aggressive role in americans' lives. and so h.r. 12 explicitly repeals the treasury department rule. but that's not all. as if democrats were determined to prove that they intend to weaponize the i.r.s., h.r. 1 and s. 1, which is the senate version of the house bill, would allow the i.r.s. to consider organizations' views when deciding whether or not to grant them tax-exempt status. mr. president, let me repeat that. h.r. 1 and s. 1 would allow the i.r.s. to consider an organization's views when deciding whether or not to grant that organization tax-exempt status. mr. president, it's difficult to think of a more outrageous and dangerous provision. this rule would allow any administration of either party

to use the i.r.s. to censor and suppress groups whose ideas the party in power opposes. the administration in power doesn't like the position that the organization champions, say goodbye to your hopes for tax-exempt status. the obama i.r.s. scandals could look tame to the kind of political weaponization of the i.r.s. that could occur under h.r. 1. and this provision could have real political implications. selectively granting tax-exempt status could be a means of weakening political opposition. a group that can't get tax-exempt status may be a group that never gets off the ground for financial reasons, and thus a group that never becomes a significant voice in opposition to the policies of the party. think this is a worst-case scenario? let's remember that something like this already happened under the obama administration. the i.r.s. was weaponized once, and it can be weaponized again,

especially if democrats succeed in their efforts to eliminate safeguards against such abuse. and of course if the president has his way, the i.r.s. may soon be swimming in money that would substantially increase its reach. president biden wants to provide the i.r.s. with -- get this -- an additional $80 billion over ten years. that would give i.r.s. a larger budget than the department of labor, the department of commerce, the department of the interior, the centers for disease control and prevention, and other significant government agencies. it would allow the i.r.s. to hire nearly 87,000 new employees. 87,000. all told, the biden plan would double the number of i.r.s. employees over the next decade. now, the reason president biden gives for this massive increase in i.r.s. funding is increased

enforcement efforts in order to close the tax gap, the gap that exists between taxes owed and what americans actually end up paying. so there is little reason to believe that the i.r.s. will come anywhere close to recovering the amount of money the president claims it can recover, even with a massive infusion of cash. and there is reason to be seriously concerned about what that massive infusion of cash plus new reporting requirements on americans' bank and venmo accounts could mean for i.r.s. intrusion into americans' lives. president biden, of course, also claims that any increased enforcement will be targeted against wealthy americans. it was becoming a typical democrat class warfare rhetoric, the president states that ordinary americans pay their taxes while some wealthy americans dodge them. of course, according to the i.r.s., our nation has a relatively high and stable voluntary tax-compliance rate, and tax-compliance levels remain

largely unchanged since at least the 1980's. and in fact, failure to pay tax owed occurs among all kinds of taxpayers in every place along the income spectrum. but the white house isn't letting those facts interfere with its class warfare rhetoric. what's more, what guarantees will we have other than democrats' say-so at this point that this infusion of money will be restricted to combating tax evasion? as far as i can tell, there is nothing to prevent the new agency i.r.s. will hire from being retasked at some point to other priorities, like investigating the views of conservative organizations before deciding whether or not to grant them tax-exempt status. mr. president, closing the tax gap is a serious goal that deserves serious discussion, and it's possible that a targeted i.r.s. funding increase for that purpose would be worth considering. but $80 billion is a ridiculous

number. in the words of one of president obama's i.r.s. chiefs, and i quote, i'm not sure you would be able to efficiently use that much money, end quote. and any plus-up in funding for the i.r.s. should be accompanied by serious reforms, as well as many protections, not fewer protections against i.r.s. politicization. while the obama i.r.s. scandal represents one of the more egregious abuses of the agency's power, the i.r.s. is well known for serial mismanagement. like americans' inability to actually get through to the i.r.s. with their questions. "the washington post" reported in april that if you were calling the i.r.s. this tax season, you had a one in 50, one in 50 chance of actually getting to speak to a human being. in may, the treasury inspector general for tax administration released a report on the 2021 filing season which noted the i.r.s. struggle to get new hires

squared away on the job partially because it's -- and i'm going to have to quote from this report -- difficult to find working copiers to be able to prepare training packages for the new hires, end quote. that's right. and i wish those were the only agency printer or copier problems. they're not. let me quote from the inspector general's report again. this is quoting. audit teams continue to perform on-site walkthroughs at the ogden, utah, and kansas city, missouri, tax-processing centers to meet with staff to discuss challenges they are facing as it relates to addressing the ongoing backlogs of inventory. a major concern that surfaced during these walkthroughs was the lack of working printers and copiers. i.r.s. management estimated that as of march 30, 2021, 69, or 42% of 164 devices used by the

submission processing functions are unusable and others are broken but still functioning. i.r.s. employees stated that the only reason they could not use many of these devices is because they are out of ink or because the waste cartridge container is full, end quote. that, mr. president, from the inspector general's report. i wish this were a joke. but that's straight out of the i.g.'s report. mr. president, hearing that you might think that we don't need to worry about the weaponization of the i.r.s. because the agency isn't capable of work that surveys indicated, but as we know, that isn't true. the i.r.s. was successfully weaponized for political purposes during the obama administration. the same thing could happen again, especially if democrats succeed in removing protections against i.r.s. abuse.

mr. president, as our nation's revenue-collecting agency, the i.r.s. is an agency with immense power, and it's not a voluntary government program. americans don't get to choose whether or not they interact with the i.r.s. for that reason, it is vital that there be as many safeguards in place as possible to prevent the i.r.s. from abusing its power or being used for political purposes. we've seen plenty of evidence that the i.r.s. often doesn't use the money or resources that it currently has in a responsible way. and any increase in money for the i.r.s., which would certainly not be anywhere close to $80 billion, should be matched with significant reforms and increased cability -- accountability. and h.r. 1, with its multitude of unwise and unconstitutional provisions, even beyond the alarming provisions that i have

discussed today, must be stopped. otherwise, the biden legacy may be the weaponization of the i.r.s. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. booker: it's a real honor to be rising today to speak in advance of the vote on kristen clarke's nomination to serve as the attorney general of the department of justice. if she is confirm, kristen clarke will be tasked with overseeing the justice department's work to protect the civil rights of all americans. i have known kristen clarke for years. i have worked with her. i know her, and i can tell you that there can be no one better for this job. to say that kristen clarke has

an impressive resume is a gross understatement. she started her career at the justice department in the civil rights division. she worked with the naacp legal defense fund. she led the civil rights bureau for the state of new york attorney general's office, and most recently served as president and executive director of the lawyers' committee for civil rights under law. no one could blame kristen clarke after this entire career of service. all that she has given. if she decided to take a step back and find a less demanding job, perhaps far more lucrative job, but ms. clarke has dedicated herself to the highest principles of our nation, indeed the very founding ideals of this country formed with the bill of rights, focusing with this idea of civil rights for all.

this is not just her job. this has been her calling. this is her consistent conviction to serve, to sacrifice for our nation's most sacrosanct ideals. she has chosen to serve this country now at a time when we need her leadership more than ever. she is an asset to our country, and i believe she will serve with extraordinary distinction as a guardian of our civil rights. we need her experience, we snead her expertise, we need her heart, her commitment, her deep thoughtfulness. she is the daughter of immigrants, and after showing uc housing, in a low-income household, ms. clarke made it some of her most prestigious institutions, some of our most prestigious institutions made it her cause to make the best out

of herself. she is an incredible success story. she is a person who has overcome tremendous odds and advanced herself, not just for personal excellence, but for public service. this makes her, in my book, a champion, and yet there are still those in this confirmation process that want to say that ms. clarke is the wrong person for the job. they're actually using smear tactics and lies to try to misrepresent who ms. clarke is as a person. there is a saying, let the work i have done speak for me, and i wish folk would listen. she has prosecuted hate crimes. she has defended people's voting rights. she has fought against religious discrimination. she has dedicated her career to the cause of equal justice under

law. ms. clarke is the right person for this job. she is exactly who we need. at a time that we are confronting rising hate crimes in america, dramatically more incidences of vandalism and violence against asian americans, against jewish americans, against transgender americans, we need someone leading the civil rights division that will stand up for all americans who has experienced prosecuting hate crimes and makes it clear in this nation all are created equal and endowed by their creator with fundamental civil rights. that's who she is now and who she has been for her entire career. and there are folks and forces working to strip away and weaken and undermine these fundamental

rights. we see efforts to weaken our democracy, to threaten our principles. we need someone who will stand up and affirm who we are as a people, a nation that believes in robust voting rights, a nation that believes in the equal dignity of all people, a nation that believes in protecting religious liberty. we need a champion now as much as ever. we need kristen clarke leading the civil rights division at the department of justice. and it's not just me saying that. it's just not democrats saying that. there are over 70 bipartisan former state attorney generals. we see police leaders, law enforcement leaders endorsing her, prosecutors endorsing her. the antideaf nation league and 69 different local, state, and

national jewish organizations all agreeing that kristen clarke is the right person to stand for us, to work for us, to fight for us, to champion our precious civil rights at the department of justice. so many different individuals from all across the political landscape, from all different backgrounds, so many organizations representing all of our diversity are speaking out in a chorus of conviction about not just how good kristen clarke is, but how urgent her nomination is, because of who she has shown herself to be time and time again, an unassailable, impressive career of service, service, service, service. she is and has been a servant leader for all of her career, a person of profound integrity,

someone whose passion, whose sacrifice, whose struggle in the pursuit of justice has already made this nation better. i will say something on a personal note in closing. i've worked with kristen clarke for years now on things that we've done together, like a bipartisan criminal justice reform bill. i've had on occasion years ago of meeting her when she was out in washington with her son. a young guy, not that tall. and then during hear hearings in the judiciary committee, i saw her again present herself in an extraordinarily powerful manner with grace and expertise. i saw that young man now had grown up. he's a big guy. and it would be a leap of ego for me to say that i saw myself in this young man, because he's

probably a lot smarter than i was when i was his age and clearly is a better athlete, even though i will say for the record, the older i get, the better i was in sports. but i think about her career, and then i align it to what she has done in raising a young black man in america. while i couldn't project myself on to him, i thought a lot about my mom and her. my mom raised my brother and i in a nation that strove to be who we say we are, a nation of liberty and justice for all, but where she knew we were falling short. she didn't raise us to be bitter. she raised us to be better. she raised us by setting an example, a woman who from sitting in at a lunch counter to dedid segregate a restaurant to helping organize a march on washington, she showed me example, as james baldwin has

said, children are never good at listening to their elders, but they never fail to imitate them. i want you all to know that in kristen clarke, we have an extraordinary american, an extraordinary person, and a great mom. and i know what she has done with her life. she has lived perhaps with the greatest principle of all, which is for us in this generation to make a better way for the next. for us to make a more perfect union. for us to understand that the arc of the moral universe is indeed long, but we must bend it more towards justice. i tell my colleagues and urge you to confirm her to this sacrosanct and urgent position today because i am confident to the core of my being that she will not just make us proud,

she will not just defend those who are having their rights trampled or their dignity marginalized, but that she will make a better way for an america that fullfills its promise still not yet achieved for us to be a nation with liberty and justice for all. thank you, mr. president. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: mr. president, here we go again. just a few weeks ago the senate debated vanita gupta's nomination for associate attorney general. let's review the bidding from that. gupta was eminently qualified for her role. she had support from the foremost law enforcement leaders and groups in the country. she had proven herself handling high-level government responsibilities. but republicans set their hair

on fire trying to take ms. gupta down. they grasped for something, anything to dent her prospects. eventually they landed on contorting an eight-year-old op-ed, even calling her accurate responses to their questions about it lies. it wasn't pretty. now we're back on the floor with republican hair aflame again, this time over the nominee to run the justice department's civil priets -- rights division, kristen clarke. ms. clarke is eminently qualified. she knows civil rights law inside and out. she is a superb, well-trained, experienced lawyer. conservatives have endorsed her like president george w. bush's d.h.s. chertoff and michael steele. law enforcement organizations like the major chiefs

association and the international association of chiefs of police support her. she ought to have flown through committee and been a quick vote here on the floor. but, no, it's hair on fire time again. why all the quaffs aflame? look behind the smoke screens and remember that the number-one strategy of the republican party for 2022 is to keep voters from voting. and guess what? ms. clarke will run the voting rights section of the department. and ms. gupta, who used to run that same civil rights division, will super vice her as -- supervise her as assistant attorney general. behind the ruckus over ms. gupta and now ms. clarke is a dark money operation out to suppress the vote. it's got the trade craft of a covert operation cut out, front

group, secret money. and that covert operation is now focused on preventing, as our colleague senator warnock says, some people from voting. and ms. clarke and ms. gupta will be the lawful, legal opposition to the dark money voter suppression apparatus. here's what we know. when trump was in power, this covert op ran a dark money-funded apparatus within the federalist society to select federal judges. for four years the federalist society's operation was the gatekeeper to the federal bench. virtually every judicial candidate who passed through this dark money-funded turnstile was approved by big anonymous donors out to control the courts. donors got to approve judges and justices who would have their backs. that dark money turnstile was step one.

step two was dark money-funded political campaigns for senate confirmation of the nominees who got through the turnstile. for trump pops three supreme court nominees -- for trump's three supreme court nominees this was done by the judicial crisis network headquartered literally down the hall from the federalist society. not just the same building, same hallway, but they also share staff. in each supreme court confirmation, a $15 million or a $17 million check from a secret donor would fund the advertising campaign. step three, as dark money funded front organizations appearing before the donor selected justices in orchestrated flotillas with common donors behind them undisclosed to the court. when trump lost, of course, step one and step two lost their sailience and closed up job,

but with trump judges still on the court, these front groups are still at it. in one case before the supreme court right now, 50 organizations -- 50 organizations that filed briefs received funding there right-wing groups involved in this operation. dark money funding can't be traced back to its original donors obviously because it's dark money. but a 2019 "washington post" investigation revealed that one guy, leonard leo, while executive vice president of the federalist society, from 2014 to 2017 coordinated $250 million, a quarter of a billion dollars, across a network of the front groups engaged in this court capture operation. recent testimony in my court's subcommittee raised that number to over $400 million, nearly half a billion dollars, through

2018. $400 million is a lot of money, but a captured court, that's a pearl beyond price. this leo operation worked wonderfully during the trump priz. -- presidency. donors got their judges and leonard leo got their dark money. but then that "post" investigation came out and trump's polling started to tank. so like a burned agent, leonard leo bugged out. where did he bug out to? well, leo surfaced early last year with a group called the honest elections project. these phony baloney front groups love to have the name that is the exact opposite of what they're doing. this one's called the honest election project and it has been running voter suppression activities in key battleground

states, sending threatening letters to local election officials, filing lawsuits to restrict voting, and of course all dark money funded. but poke a little further and you'll discover that the honest elections project is a legal alias of something called the judicial education project, which is, you guessed it -- the sister group to judicial crisis network. yes, leo's judicial confirmation attack ad organization. and of course behind this covert op was dark money. much of it run through donors trust, the identity laundering dark money a.t.m. established by the koch's donor network. before it took on this honest elections project alias, more than 99% of the judicial

education project's 2018 revenue was a single anonymous $7.8 million donation that came through, of course, donors trust. there's no way to know who cut that check. what does all this dark money if i nay -- finagling tell us? as a report observes the honest election project, so-called melds two goals of the right wing dark money operation. one, pack the federal judiciary. and, two, bring voting rights cases before the packed courts. rigging elections by keeping some people from voting is now a republican priority. and if trump judges will help, so much the better. just recently we actually

learned more about the covert voter suppression operation. the watchdog group documented and the magazine "mother jones" uncovered a video of a presentation by the dark money group heritage action to its top donors. in the video, the presenter brags about getting what she called key provisions, key provisions into voter suppression legislation in dozens of capitals around the country. she tells the donors, and i'm quoting here, in some cases we actually draft them for them. we actually draft the laws for the state legislatures. or, she says, we have a sentinel. a sentinel. what a creepy word. we have a sentinel on our behalf give them the model legislation so it has that grassroots, from

the bottom up type of vibe. big donors love that grassroots grassroots, from the bottom up type of vibe. there is lots of dark money that fuels this covert op. heritage action says it plans to spend $24 million in eight battleground states to, quote, create an echo chamber of relentless lobbying for voter suppression bills. they say they'll be coordinating with known koch network groups like the susan b. anthony list, tea party patriots and freedom works. this operation is the kind of stuff that we might want our intelligence services to do in enemy countries to create disruption and discord and provide secret influence.

the idea that creepy billionaires are running covert operations in and against our own country, that ought to make you cringe. not only is this behavior morally corrupt, it may have broken rules. one state legislature has already floated an ethics probe into heritage actions sentinels jamming phony bills through their chamber. so back to senate republicans getting their hair on fire over kristen clarke and vanita gupta. these two women scare the daylights out of this dark money operation behind republican voter suppression. ms. clarke knows the voting rights act cold. she won voting rights cases against voter suppression laws all over the country. put jim crow 2.0 up against a

department of justice civil rights division led by kristen clarke and that dark money voter suppression operation has a problem. so the big dark money donors behind this covert operation will raise whatever ruckus they can first to try to stop vanita gupta which didn't work and now to stop kristen clarke which won't work. all in an effort to protect their dark money scheme to prevent some people from voting. you got to look behind the smoke screen sometimes to understand what's going on. it's not pretty, mr. president, but it's the truth. i yield the floor.

mr. paul: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from kentucky. mr. paul: i ask unanimous consent that the following interns in my office be granted floor privileges until august 13, 2021. daniel rankin, chip wyatt, jacob patterson, nick locally, fill steincrauss,est ter mcguire, and justin witt. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. paul: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to be able to conclude my remarks before the vote begins. the presiding officer: also without objection. mr. paul: about 50 years ago william proxmire rows in this esteemed body and told us about government waste. he called it the golden fleece award. they were studying things like dating and love and what makes love and we had these great scientific studies about love. these are william proxmire's words from the early 1970's. he was a conservative democrat.

he says i object to this study on love because no one, even the national science foundation, can argue that falling in love sf a science -- in love is a science. not only because i'm sure that even if they spend $84 million or $84 billion, they would not get an answer that anyone would believe. i'm also against this study on love because i don't want the answer. i believe that 200 million other americans want to leave some things in life a mystery. and right on top of the things that we don't need to know is why a man falls in love with a woman or vice versa. stirring words, the golden fleece award. i remember as a cird everybody -- kid everybody talked about it. it was in the newspapers. so what have we done to curb the wasteful appetite, the abusive government that happens at the national science foundation since 1972? not a damn thing. here's one of my other favorites

from williams proxmire's days. the f.a.a. was named for spending $57,000 on a study of the physical measurements of 432 airline stewardasss. this included knee to knee sitting and length of the buttocks. $57,000, your money being put to good use. fast forward and we spend about $8 billion a year with the national science foundation. is it getting any better? are they doing a better job at overseeing their money? i don't know. this bill is going to increase their funding by 68%. there's $29 billion in this bill for the national science foundation. so don't you think the american people deserve to know where their money is being spent? this was from their sister agency, the n.i.h. but we can't get started without talking about it. this is over $800,000 to study

whether or not japanese quail are more sexually promiscuous on cocaine. i'm not making this up. $800,000 of taxpayer money to study whether japanese quail are more sexually promiscuous on cocaine. you think we could have just polled the audience. you think we could have just said, what do you think? because that's sort of the answer. the answer is yes. and yet your government spent 800 grand on that. when we pointed it out five years ago, did they do anything to reform it? no, they're here today to give the agencies that are doing this research more money. another one that i think is quite revealing is this study is about panamanian male frog calls. half a million dollars and they wanted to know whether or not the male mating call is

different in the country than it is in the city. now, coming from a rural state like kentucky, i can tell you the male mating call is different in the country than it is in the city. but nobody in kentucky wants a half a million dollars spent on a panamanian frog's male mating call. this is not a good use of money. so if someone told you your government was spending this money, would you give them more? would you give the agency more if they were doing this or less? i think less. in looking at the national science foundation spending, we also found that they spent $3,000 studying ugandan gambling habits. really? we're studying why people gamble in uganda, why there's a black market in uganda. you know what? i think we know the reason. when government oppresses business and regulates business to death, they go to the black market. so if you make something illegal, you often get more of

it. but we spent $30,000 traveling over to uganda to study their gambling habits. utter waste of money. we should not reward these people with more money. we spent about a half a million on a video game. this is an app for your phone. i know we all need things to do when we should be working or at school. this is an app for schoolchildren to teach them alarmism over climate change. so you can click on the app and it will scare you to death that california is going to be under water in a hundred years none of which is true, all of which is alarmism and ha of a million dollars spent by the government to alarm our schoolchildren is not a good idea. this next study points out a problem with funding in general in our government. you give funds for something that extensively might be a good cause. so a couple of years ago they gave money for autism. $700,000 for autism. you think, autism, you know,

even myself as conservative as i am, i could probably say that's something we ought to study, autism. well, they subcontracted 700 grand of it to a bunch of egg head researchers to watch neil armstrong's statement on the moon. you remember the black and white photo? he's on the moon and he says one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind or did he really say one small step for a man. so these researchers took $700,000 to listen to that crackly old cassette recording and find out did he say man or did he say a man. so we study the preposition a and we spent 700 grand listening to the tape over and over and over again. you know what they determined? they just can't decide. they're unsure but they did recommend more money to study the problem further. this is insulting to the american taxpayer. we should not be giving these

people more money. we should be giving them dramatically less money. but it also points out one of the reforms that i have proposed for this agency. one of the problems of the national science foundation is if i want to do research on japanese quail snorting cocaine, guess what? i can ask for the same people studying snorting cocaine in animals, i can ask them to be on my pier committee. i can -- peer committee. if i want to study animal snorting cocaine, i can pick other researchers studying snorting cocaine. they say yes. if they say yes the science gets on the next peer commission and he says or she says yes, for their snorting cocaine research. this is crazy. we should not let these so-called scientists pick who is on their committee. not only that, think we ought to have a taxpayer advocate. could we not have just someone with a good dose of common sense that says we shouldn't take autism money, steal it and spend

it on a bunch of idiots listening to what neil armstrong said when we landed on the moon. so that is part of the reform we should have. one of my other all time favorites from the national science foundation, this kind of goes back to william proxmire and love and happiness. they wanted to know if you take a selfie of yourself while smiling and you look at it later in the day, will that make you happy. really? that's a half a million dollars. i don't think we need a scientist to say that's b.s. and that government has got no business doing this kind of research. i don't even know how you can call this research with a straight face but it goes on year on, year on, year on. and you think we've been complaining about this since 1972. you think we would have less of it. we're giving them more money. so we're now increasing their budget by 68% despite this kind of research. the last one i have is this.

we spent $1.3 million on insect ranching. this is money that was sent to study whether or not we could put insects into animal feed. we spent another $3 million, though, wanting to know if humans would eat ants to prevent climate change. what will you do, america, to combat climate change? will you eat ants to combat climate change? that was a study. this is not science. this is ridiculous in nature. i have one more example. we spent $1.5 million studying lizards on a treadmill. so i know you've all been curious. when lizards walk and they kind of waddle and they have a funny walk, why do they walk that way? what is going on in their knee joints? what do their hip joints look like when they waddle across the lawn. everybody wants to know that but are you willing to spend a half million of your taxpayer dollars

to take live, real time x-rays of a lizard walking on a treadmill? i tend to think, you know, maybe alzheimer's research, maybe cancer research, maybe heart research, but spending good, hard cash on x-rays of a lizard on a treadmill do not strike me as the most pressing concerns of government. so, mr. president, i would argue that instead of increasing their money, we should be decreasing their money. we also need to have oversight on where our money is being spent. there's a great deal of circumstantial evidence now that n.i.h. money went to the wuhan virology institute. there's a great deal of evidence at least suggesting that the pandemic may have started there. we don't know for certain. i'm not saying that it did. but there is evidence now that suggests that it might have. number one, there is no animal host for covid-19. we have not found of the thousands of animals we tested in the wet market, none of them

had covid-19. when you take covid-19 and you try to infect bats which is where most coronavirus come from, what do you discover? you discover covid-19 is actually not very well infected in bats. the bats don't catch it very easily. it seems that covid-19 is most adaptive for humans. but if it came from animals shouldn't there be an animal host that is readily infected by this. three individuals at the wuhan institute got sick in november of last year, sick enough to be in the hospital from a virus that was previously undisclosed. they worked in the wuhan institute. we're told this came from the wet market lab from exotic animals, but not one animal tested positive for the virus. we have an amendment we hope will be adopted by this body

that says gain of function research as defined by the n.i.h. in 2014 will not be permitted in china. we will not fund it with american dollars. but it's like so much waste in government, i think there's no reason to be sending any money to china for research. there's a -- they are a rich country, we're worried about them outcompeting us, stealing intellectual property and sending them money to do research. why don't they spend their own money? are they open enough to tell us what is going on in the lab to give them money. they have not shown us this and we are finding out people were sick in the lab in november. no more money should flow to china for research on gain of function which means increasing the virrians of covid virus to humans. so i urge this body to adopt my amendment which says, from here on out, china doesn't get any

money to create superviruss in a lab and we should continue to investigate this because three million people have died worldwide. we've disrupted the entire world's economy over a virus if it came from a lab, we need know it and it needs to be fully investigated. thank you, mr. president. the presiding officer: all time has expired. the question occurs on the chiquita brooks-lasure nomination. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: the yeas are 55, the nays are 44. the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order, the motion to reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table. the president will be

immediately notified of the senate's action. order. order in the chamber, please. the majority leader. the majority whip. mr. durbin: i understand we are moving to the cloture vote on kristen clarke. the presiding officer: there is a cloture vote next. mr. durbin: i ask that there be two minutes equally divided in support and in opposition to ms. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. could we have order, please. mr. durbin: mr. president, it is significant that at this day, this anniversary of the death of george floyd, that we are considering one of the key appointments in the biden administration to be attorney general for the civil rights division. i urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to consider

the historic importance of this moment and to support this well-deserving and well-experienced person to serve our nation in this capacity. i urge my colleagues to vote aye. the presiding officer: who seeks recognition? all time is yielded back. 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 124, kristen m. clarke of the district of columbia to be assistant attorney general, 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 the debate on the nomination of kristen m. clarke of the district of columbia to be an assistant attorney general shall be brought to a close. the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll.

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: the yeas are 51. the nays are 48. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, department of justice, kristen m. clarke of the district of columbia to be an assistant attorney general. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate stands in recess until 2:15 p.m. they will be back at 2:15 5 p.m. teacher. today senators approved the head of the medicare services, also put into