in the last week where we found out the trump, administration d justice department subpoenaed not just records of journalists, we are used to -- maybe not used to but something we have seen in history dating back to the nixon administration and so forth where journalists are targeted for their reporting on things but then it got to do something with not seen, the justice department wanted the meta data from phones basically seen where information was being sent and received whether members of the intelligence committee specifically, adam schiff, intelligence committee chairman in the house, eric swalwell were leaking information. >> we are going to leave this portion of "washington journal" because the u.s. senate is about to come in as part of our long-time commitment to bring you if delta gravel coverage of congress, we will get you there.

the senate working on judicial executive nominations at 5:30 p.m. eastern, they were on the nomination of judge brown jackson to serve on the d.c. circuit court of appeals. she'd replace their violent. now the senate coverage here on c-span2. the president pro tempore: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate with prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. o lord, our god, sometimes life's issues seem too much for us. forgive us when we speak words of despair, forgetting your promise that you will never

leave or forsake us. lord, speak to the faith of our lawmakers, causing them also to remember your promise that in everything you are working for the good of those who love you. give us all the wisdom to know that you are indeed our refuge and strength. answer us, mighty god, at a time you choose. answer our prayers because of your great love. send us forth to serve you by embracing justice, loving mercy, and walking with humility. we pray in your compassionate

name. amen. the president pro tempore: please join me in the pledge of allegiance. 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 president pro tempore: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, the senate will be in a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each.

ms. hirono: i note the absence of a quorum of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. the president pro tempore: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. leahy: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: madam president, i ask consent the call of the quorum be dispensed with.

the presiding officer: without objection. mr. leahy: madam president, we had an interesting news in vermont this morning. our governor, governor scott, announced that we've reached 80% immunity, vaccinations. so the state will in effect reopen. now, i mention this because right from the beginning -- and i've worked closely with our governor. we tried to show no partisanship in this. i'm a democrat. he's a republican. we are both first and foremost vermonters and restrictions were put in place. efforts were made to vaccinate. i know my wife, marcelle, and i went to some of these vaccination centers. we had everybody from the vermont national guard to veterans groups to schools to

nurses who are volunteering all over in those places. and everybody would line up and they had -- they'd say i'm scheduled at 9:20. i'll be there at 9:20. they -- 9:10. they just went through and people wanted to get the vaccination. there have been some hardships while it was going on because a lot of our businesses could not open or had to open just in limited ways. but, but they kept at it. and we all worked together to help with aid to the state during the covid time. and i was proud of what i might be able to do. but i'm mostly proud of the vermonters. they set politics aside. they set partisanship aside. and they said how do we make us a safer state. so i just thought i'd note that. all my trips back home, all the

times i joined with the various people, dr. levine, our chief physician in vermont, the governor, and others. our lieutenant governor mollie gray. all of us worked together and it has paid off. and i must admit when i go home this weekend, this coming weekend, i'm going to walk out that plane with the biggest smile than i usually have. i also have a smile coming home to the state where i was born. but this weekend is going to be an especially big smile. madam president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call: mr. schumer: madam president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. schumer: madam president, tonight congressional leaders

will mark what is hopefully the final -- the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent that at quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: madam president, tonight congressional leaders will mark what is hopefully the final somber milestone of the covid pandemic -- 600,000 american lives lost to the disease. it is particularly jarring at this moment, a moment of recovery, optimism, and hope to remember the enormity of lives lost over the past 15 months. not only that, we face the grim reality that these recent fatalities happened while americans were on the verge of getting the vaccine. some had their appointment just days away. so, as our fellow americans are taking their masks off, going back to work, seeing families and friends and returning, as they should, to life, let us remember those who cannot.

let us hold them in our hearts a little while longer. i'm reminded of the famous meditation by the english soldier and poet john dunn who told us that, quote, no man is an island entire of itself. every man is a piece of the continent, part of the main. so if a clod be washed ha way by the sea, is is the less. any man's loss diminishes mood because i am involved in mankind. therefore, never send to know for whom the bell tolls. it tolls for thee. the bells have told for 600,000 americans this past year, a staggering and incomprehensible sum. remember them, hold them in your hearts a little while longer. now, on a different subject, after passing the bipartisan

u.s. innovation and competition act last week and confirming the first judges of the biden era, we will continue with our legislative agenda. senate committees will continue working on a bipartisan infrastructure proposal to meet the demands of the 21st century. as i've said from the start, discussions about infrastructure investments are progressing on two tracks. one track is bipartisan. the second track pulls in other elements of president biden's american jobs plan, which will be considered even if it does not have bipartisan support. our senate committees are working on both tracks at the same time, and as a reminder to the senate, a reminder to the senate, as i've said from the start, that in order to move forward on infrastructure, we must include bold action on climate. at the moment, both tracks are moving forward and progressing

very well. in addition, before the end of the month, the senate la vote on crucial voting rights legislation. republican state legislatures across the country are passing the most draconian voting restrictions since the beginning of jim crow. congress must take action to defend our democracy. meanwhile, we will move more swiftly to confirm even more of the president's appointments, including several to the federal bench. last week was one for the record books. the senate confirmed the first slate of president biden's judicial nominees. not only were they individuals of immense talent and high character. they reflected the great cultural and experiential shall diversity of our country. mopping them was the first -- among them was the first muslim american to ever be confirmed as an article 3 judge. let me read a headline from "the

washington post." biden has nominated as many minority women to be judges in four months as trump confirmed in four years. that's an amazing, an amazing statistic. women, especially women of color, have long been underrepresented on the federal bench. along with president biden, the senate democratic majority is working quickly to close the gap. in fact, in just a few hours we'll confirm another outstanding trail-blazing nominee for the federal bench, judge ketanji brown jackson to the d.c. circuit court of appeals. judge jackson will be the first of president biden's circuit court nominees confirmed to the senators and we're starting right at the top. after the supreme court, the d.c. circuit court of appeals is the most important federal court in the country with jurisdiction over cases involving congress and the executive branch agencies, and judge jackson,

nominated to the seat once occupied by the current attorney general, is the perfect person for the job. she's had a former federal defender, she clerked for justice breyer, and since 2013 has been a district court federal judge -- a district court judge in d.c. she has all the qualities of a model jurist. she is brilliant, thoughtful, collaborative, and dedicated to applying the law impartially. for these qualities, she has earned the respect of both sides. nominees to powerful circuit courts, especially the d.c. circuit, are frequently controversial. but last week a bipartisan group of senators in the judiciary committee voted in her favor. i greatly look forward to confirming this exceptional nominee in just a few hours and continuing to restore balance to a judiciary that's been thrown out of whack by former president trump.

after judge brown jackson's confirmation, we'll return -- we'll turn to other nominees. we'll hold a cloture vote this evening on lina khan's nomination to the federal trade commission and confirm her tomorrow. tomorrow as well we'll vote on kiran ahuja and the senate will have the opportunity to advance several other opportunities as the week goes on. one final matter -- despite the fact that we are now almost six months into a new administration, the sins of the previous administration are coming to light. late last week "the new york times" reported that the trump administration's justice department delivered secret subpoenas for the personal phone data of at least a dozen people tied to the house intelligence committee, including members of congress, aides, and even family members. one was a minor. this is a gross abuse of power.

it's an assault on the separation of powers. the notion that any president via political appointees could manipulate our system to tap into personal data has the fingerprints of a dictatorship -- a dictatorship -- all over it. this appalling politicization of the department of justice by donald trump and his sycophants must be investigated by both the d.o.j. inspector general and by congress. former attorneys general barr and sessions and others involved must testify before the senate judiciary committee under oath. if they refuse, they are subject to being subpoenaed and compelled to testify under oath. the justice department must also provide information to the judiciary committee, which will vigorously investigate this abuse of power. the issue should not be partisan. under the constitution, congress is a coequal branch of government and mugs be protected

fromdon and musting protected from an overreaching executive. we expect our republican colleagues to join us in getting to the bottom of this very, very serious matter. i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: mr. majority leader. mr. schumer: i move to proceed to executive session to consider -- the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call. sure schumer i ask that the quorum call be dispensed with.

officerster without objection. mr. schumer: i move to proceed to executive session to consider calendar number 148. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all those in favor, say aye. those opposed, say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report. the clerk: nomination, environmental protection agency. radhika fox of california to be an assistant administrator. mr. schumer: i send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. 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 148, hadhika fox of california to be an assistant administrator of the environmental protection agency signed by 17 senators as follows -- mr. schumer: i ask consent the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: i move to proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: the question on the motion. all those in favor, say aye.

those opposed, say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. schumer: i move to proceed to executive session to consider calendar number 173. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all those in favor, say aye. those opposed, say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report. the clerk: nomination, the judiciary, lydia kay griggsby, of maryland to be an district judge. the presiding officer: i send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. 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 173, lydia kay griggsby of maryland to be united states district judge for the district of maryland, signed by 17 senatorsals follows -- mr. schumer: i ask consent the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: finally, i ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum calls for the

cloture motions filed today basketball i have with ad. the presiding officer: without objection. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. schumer: i move to proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all those in favor, say aye. those opposed, say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. schumer: i yield the floor. mr. mcconnell: madam president? the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: military juntas have signed power back in

february has kept up its campaign of brutal and violent repression. more than 800 people are now dead. more than 5,000 others have been detained on various charges of resistance. just today the longtime leader of burma's democracy, my good friend aung san suu kyi, stood for the beginning of a show trial. other members of the national league for democracy are awaiting their own appearances before the sham court, and many more protesters, journalists, and activists are filling burma's prisons right up to the rim. several foreigners have been among those detained, including australian economist sean t thank you. rnell, and two american journalists, mong and finster.

both u.s. citizens were denied constellar -- consular access. mr. monk even received torture during his detainment. the wider international community is receiving a sobering reminder of the challenges facing the country's pro-democracy movement and of the junta's willingness to flout even the most basic international norms and treaty obligations. i appreciate the continued attention that the biden administration is giving to the crisis. over the weekend i was particularly encouraged by the g-7's joint condemnation of the junta and by the reiteration of a shared commitment to shutting off the flow of any assistance funds that might help the military further their repression. of course, for friends of democracy, including the united states, there's more to be done

to translate words into action. it's time to expand the sanctions aimed at the military to include the infamous cronies who continue to make common cause. it's time for burma's neighbors and key trading partners to join these sanctions efforts and commit to providing increased humanitarian access and assistance, particularly i would say from thailand. it's time for greater scrutiny of the rare earth metals that give the military targets for exploitation and it's time for international bodies like the u.n. security council to put burma on the agenda and force the supporters to support the regime out in the light of day. our work isn't over, but there's reason for optimism.

the ethnic diversity has united behind the national unity government in peaceful opposition to the military rule and the n.u.g. continues to broaden and deepen this coalition. earlier this month, the national unity government announced its policy on the status of the row hinge -- h rohinga muslims, committing to greater inclusion for all of burma's ethnic minorities. so, madam president, i ask unanimous consent that the national unit government's important statement on this matter be entered into the record at this point. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: this statement represents months of work to build a cohesive, inclusive and representative government and the best path toward national reconciliation and justice for

victims of the violence. so, madam president, the n.u.g.'s efforts deserves the full support of the world's oldest democracy. the pro-democracy movement must know that the united states continues to stand with them and that we are ready to support the hard work of national reconciliation that still lies ahead. now on one final matter. late last week the democratic leader and the democratic whip gave in to the urge to pick at the scab of politically motivated investigations that have become their party's favorite weapon against the previous administration. they indicated that they were prepared to compel two former attorneys general to testify before the judiciary committee to trace leaks of national security information. in case anyone had forgotten, our colleagues are among the same democrats who spent years

demanding repeated investigations of a republican president while turning a clear eye to the clear abuses of power that infected the investigation of his campaign. so any outrage from democrats that alleged criminal leaks within their own ranks rightly drew the attention of federal investigators rings completely hollow. it is particularly disappointing that our colleagues have taken to attacking former attorney general bill barr over investigations and decisions that predated -- predated his time at department of justice. let me say that again. it is particularly disappointing that our colleagues are attacking bill barr over investigative decisions that occurred when he wasn't there yet. bill barr has served with honor and integrity. this bears the telltale signs of a witch hunt in the making.

the department of justice is empowered to investigate staff. this is subject to strict procedural protections. and the department's inspector general is fully equipped to determine whether these procedures were told -- followed in case. i'm confident that the existing inquiry will uncover the truth. there's no need for a partisan circus here in the congress. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. durbin: madam president. the presiding officer: the democratic whip. durbin i ask consent the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: madam president, i just heard the republican senate leader warn us not to initiate partisan investigations. it has only been a few weeks since he personally vetoed a bipartisan investigation of the attack on the u.s. capitol on jaiks of this year -- january 6 of this year. for those of us who lived through this incident, we find it hard to understand why a 9/11 commission, divided equally between both political parties, is in any way a partisan

investigation. and why the republican leader, who has served for so long in the senate, would not feel awkward in a way walking through the halls of this capitol and seeing the men and women of the capitol police force who have sent us a letter begging for a commission to get to the bottom of what happened on that day when 140 men and women in uniform were attacked by this insurrectionist mob inspired by president biden. so when it comes to investigations, we have offered the most sanitized version of an investigation that one could ever ask for. so why are we renewing this request when it comes to the information which is now before us? well, on friday, the d.o.j. inspector general announced he would investigate d.o.j.'s use of subpoenas to obtain communication data from members of congress and the media,

including whether the department of justice complied with applicable internal policies and whether its decisions were motivated by improper considerations. what happened was the previous president, president trump, apparently had some channel into the department of justice where he could call on -- call for investigations and information and data would be collected about members of congress. he highlighted two democratic members of congress who were coincidentally members of an investigative committee of the house intelligence committee and then its turns out in the last two days he called for an investigation of his own white house counsel. so it's very hard to follow who was in charger in the white house, the attorneys general at the time denied have any connection whatsoever to these investigations and certainly the

white house counsel wouldn't have called for an investigation of himself. so who is running the show? it's an interesting question because it gets to the issue of leaks, which is important, of course, but it gets to the most fundamental question of separation of powers in the government. if members of congress are subject to investigation by a president for something other than corruption, then certainly this can be translated into political pressure on those individuals. so i find it hard to follow the logic of the republican senate leader who denies an investigation on the january 6 mob violence on the capitol a bipartisan investigation. and then turns around and says that the president could investigate members of congress without accountability either. you wonder if there is going to be the proper constitutional authority witnessed and exhibit in this circumstance.

madam president, on a separate issue, the senate voted on a bipartisan basis to invoke cloture on judge brun brown -- judge brown jackson to the court. she is the first of the circuit court nominees that we will confirm. given her credentials, she is a nominee that deserves the support of senators from both sides of the aisle. i would like to take a minute to highlight why she is an outstanding choice. the importance of the circuit cannot be overstated. this is what barack obama said. the d.c. circuit is known as the second-highest court in the country and there's good reason for that. the judges on the d.c. circuit have a say on a broad range of issues involving everything from national security to environmental policy, from

questions of campaign finance and workers' rights. in other words, the court's decision impacts almost every aspect of our lives. thankfully in judge jackson we have a nomination who will -- nominee who will be able to serve. judge jackson was born in washington, d.c., raised in miami, florida, her parents, public school teachers, gave her a lifelong appreciation of learning and the law and instilled in her the dignity and grace that was on full display when the judge appeared before the judiciary committee in april. jackson attended harvard and harvard law school before embarking on a is star-studded legal career. she clerked on the federal district court, the first circuit court of appeals and for justice breyer, the united states supreme court, a strong

resume. she's worked at several prominent law firms, handling trial and appellate work the her true calling has been public service. in the early 2000, judge jackson worked on the u.s. sentencing commission, later served as a federal public defender in washington, d.c. this experience inspired president obama to nominate her to serve as commissioner and vice chair of the sentencing commission. in the senate, her nomination received unanimous support. a few years later, judge jackson came before the senate again when president obama chose her to fill a vacancy on the u.s. district court for the district of columbia, once again she was confirmed with unanimous support. looking at the arc of judge jackson's career, i'm struck by how much time she spent focusing on the issue of criminal sentencing, an issue deeply important to me and i believe many other colleagues. from the sentencing commission to the office of federal public

defender to the district court, judge jackson has grappled with the legal, intellectual and moral challenges that come with sentencing policy an decisions. once confirmed, she'll bring that right isal experience to the -- vital experience to the d.c. circuit. she represents the best of the judiciary. humble, hardworking, she's written nearly 600 opinions and each of them is guided by the same principles, fairness, impartiality, evenhandedness and an unyielding fidelity to the law. it's no surprise then she received the grade of unanimously well qualified from the american bar association. and it's no surprise that she has the support support of -- she has the support of legal advocates from different ideological stripes, including judge griffin, the alliance for justice, the national council of

jewish women, the fl-c.i.o., the legal defense education fund and literally dozens of former prosecutors appointed by presidents of both political parties. let me close with passage from a letter judge griffith wrote in support of judge jackson. i read this letter during her hearing and it stuck with me. judge griffith wrote, all sthoa she and i have -- although she and i have differed, i have respected her agreeable manner, success for a collegial body. we will all benefit from that approach on the d.c. circuit. i will vote for judge jackson's nomination to the d.c. circuit, urging my colleagues to do the same. i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from without. a senator: i ask unanimous consent to suspend the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. a senator: i also ask unanimous consent to allow a mechanic of my staff floor privileges for the duration of this congress. the presiding officer: without objection. a senator: madam president, i

rise today to introduce a piece of legislation called the tougher enforcement against monopolies act or the team act. mr. lee: i'm grateful that my good friend and ranking member of the judiciary committee, the senior senator from iowa, chuck grassley has joined me as a cosponsor of the bill. now, i'm aware that our house colleagues just recently introduced several bills intended to fight anticompetitive conduct by big tech. those bills, in my view, don't go far enough. america is facing a panoply of competition concerns, not just in big tech, but across the entire economy. we need a holistic approach that benefits all consumers in every industry. we need to deal with all the monopolies hurting competition. even worse, the house bills not

only have too small of a target, they use too big of a sledgehammer to hit it. they create a truly massive expansion of federal regulatory power and are the first steps toward a command and control economy. responding to big tech with big government is adding insult to injury. not to mention something i doubt any conservative will be able to support. we don't need a bigger government. we need to make the one we have work better. the team act avoids each of these mistakes. instead of a narrow focus and big government approach, this bill will improve federal antitrust enforcement for the entire economy without making government bigger. the team act improves antitrust law in two ways. the first is putting all of our antitrust enforcers on one team, the team act unites our two federal antitrust enforcement agencies into one. for over a century, american

antitrust enforcement has been something of a two-headed creature, sometimes at odds with itself. the results have been delays to enforcement and consumer redress, uncertainty for business, and even conflicting antitrust enforcement policy. just recently the two agencies actually argued against each other on opposite sides of an appeal before the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit. this arrangement isn't working for anyone, anyone that is perhaps -- exception corporations looking for an opportunity to game the system. i hope that the bill can also put our two parties on the same team when it comes to antitrust reform. our present reform movement it filled with bipartisan fervor to improve the lives of our constituents by improving competition in the markets that serve them. and protecting them from the machine monopolies that exercises so much unearned power

over huge waghts of our -- swaths of our economy. we don't agree on everything but we do agree on this. it's my sincere belief that this bill represents the best and hopefully most bipartisan path forward. that brings me to the second focus of the bill. preventing antitrust harm by monopolis. i use the term antitrust harm here very deliberately. in certain corners of the antitrust policy world it's become fashionable to talk of being pro monopoly or antimonopoly which is often tied to being pro or anti-democracy. that is also deliberate terminology. i think it's dangerous. it's a sleight of hand meant to move the conversation away from specific conduct and whether that conduct harms competition, to do so regardless and to

instead imply that all matters, all that matters in this context, in this inquiry is size and whether you support or defend a business based on its size. that position is both unserious and economically indefensible. even if the briefest moment of reflection is one -- even the briefest, most passing moment of reflection on this will demonstrate its absurdity. if you're antimonopoly, are you also anti-patent? patents are after all government-granted monopolies. the entire purpose of monopolies is to allow its holder to exclude competition for a limited period of time and charge the highest price that the market will bear. but we allow this because the prospect of collecting monopoly profits acts as an increntszive

to inknow -- incentive to innovate and invest in new ideas. the same principle is at work in market monopolies. the prospect of obtaining a monopoly through competition on the merits incentivizes competitors to offer consumers better products and services at lower prices. this free market system built on competition and innovation is responsible for many of the great achievements of mankind and the economic flourishing of the greatest civilization the world has ever known. but even more important is the foundational principle of our republic, that the law deals with conduct, not status. we punish people for what they do, not who they are. big as bad abandons that fundamental american principle of law. instead, the -- insistence on being simply antimonopoly belies

the proponent's true priorities. it means being antibusiness even when it hurts consumers. it is the economic version of cutting off your nose to spite your face. the big is bad philosophy is also part of a broader effort to overturn the consumer welfare standard. this critical component of u.s. anty trust -- antitrust law has widely been misunderstood often as a result of willful misrepresentation. the consumer welfare standard does not protect monopolis. it does not mean the government loses, and it is decidedly not limited to a narrow focus on prices. rather the consumer welfare standard is a statement about the overarching goals of antitrust law, namely that the purpose of antitrust is to advance the economic welfare of consumers as opposed to protecting the competitors

themselves or advancing unrelated social policies. as i note in my introduction to the new edition of the antitrust paradox, judge robert bork himself explicitly described the consumer welfare standard as being broader than an inquiry into price and it's one that certainly includes an inquiry into quality and innovation and consumer choice. in other words, whatever consumers value, that is what is captured by consumer welfare. but it is much easier to argue against the consumer welfare standard by pretending that it only cares about lower prices and therefore is incapable of addressing consumer harm in markets with free products such as many online services.

this misrepresentation says a lot about the true goals of the so-called antimonopoly crowd. if they really cared about the nonprice facets of competition, they wouldn't need to abandon the consumer welfare standard to promote them. but that isn't their true goal. the real problem they have with the consumer welfare standard is the way that it constrains judges from advancing unrelated policy goals. it turns out the push to abandon the consumer welfare standard is not about stopping monopolies or helping consumers. it's simply a trojan horse for woke social policy. now, a proper application of the antitrust law does have political benefits. what utah's state constitution refers to as the quote dispersion of economic and political power, close quote. but those are secondary

benefits. antitrust is not primarily a political tool. if a company acquires market power as a result of competing on the merits, then any influence that flows from that will at least be a result of consumer choice. just as citizens vote at the ballot box, consumers vote at the checkout aisle. but if that market power is obtained or grown through nefarious or anty competitive -- anticompetitive means, the resulting power is illegitimate and a threat to the republic which leads to the point that, of course, many monopolies are bad. they're genuinely bad. these are those monopolies obtained or prolonged not through competition on the merits but through anticompetitive and excludes-year -- exclusion-year conduct. this conducts obstructs rather facilitates the natural

operation of the free market using raw market power to prevent consumers from making ultimate choices and then starving them of lower prices, higher quality, and new offerings. competitive conduct benefits both businesses and consumers. anticompetitive conduct only helps the monopolist. unfortunately there have been attempts to defend some anticompetitive conduct. this is most often done through the use of speculative and convoluted economic models that claim to predict the future, almost always predicting that a merger or specific conduct won't actually harm competition. we've sadly seen an overcorrection from the days lamented by judge bork when courts and enforcers ignored basic economic analysis. now the age of soffice,

economists, and calculators have succeeded and our antitrust enforcement efforts are hampered by judge bork called an economic exstrarve began disa. the result has been some conduct and mergers which should have been condemned have instead escaped much needed scrutiny all of which is why the team act categorially rejects -- the mannakeeian belief that big is always bad while still acknowledging concentrated economic power can be just as dangerous as concentrated political power. and in fact one often leads to the other. in this way it embraces antitrust laws as sort of federalism for the economy and does so by focusing not on mere size but on antitrust harm. that is whether something actually harms consumers by harming competition.

the bill strengthens our ability to prevent and prevent antitrust harm in three ways. the team act strengthens the antitrust laws. it includes a market share-based merger presumption. improves the h.s.r. act. codifies the consumer welfare standard and makes it harder for monopolists to justify or excuse anticompetitive crust. it strengthens enforcers. in addition to enforcement at the department of justice the bill includes a merger of the filing fee consolidation act introduced by senators klobuchar and grassley. the bill roughly doubles the amount of money appropriated to federal antitrust enforcement, ensuring that our antitrust enforcers have all the resources they need to protect american consumers. the team act strengthens antitrust remedies. the bill repeals illinois brick and hahn november shoe to ensure

consumers are able to recover damages from anticompetitive conduct. even more significantly, the bill allows the justice department to recover damages on behalf of consumers and imposes civil fines for knowingly violating the antitrust laws. i believe these reforms reflect the best way to strike the balance of protecting competition and consumer welfare while limiting government intervention in the free market. in an era in which would-be monopolists want to move fast and break things, it's essential antitrust enforcers are empowered to move fast and break them up. this is the prudent and a conservative approach, better antitrust enforcement means less regulation and, thus, smaller government. this is also a wiser approach than attempting to statutorily prohibit certain categories of conduct. that approach abandons one of the greatest strengths of american antitrust law.

the fact specific nature of every inquiry. case by case adjudication is what allows us to maximize enforcement while minimizing false positives. the team act avoids the black and white pronouncements of other legislative proposals and instead updates the mechanics of how the antitrust laws are applied to address the enforcement gaps of recent decades. as i've said before, we find ourselves at a critical moment. the threat to competition and free markets is real. doing nothing is not an option. at the same time we simply cannot allow the need to, quote-unquote, do something. to push us into embracing bad policy that will have unintended consequences and push america closer to a government-regulated economy. i look forward to working

closely with my colleagues and with friends on both sides of the aisle and at both ends of the capitol in order to advance the team act and help protect american consumers. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor.

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from kansas. a senator: madam president, thank you. i'm on the floor this afternoon to discuss the issue of student athletes having greater control over their name, image, and likeness. mr. moran: over the years intercollegiate athletics has become a staple in american l culture and higher education. nowhere else in the world has a sports college model that compares to ours in a affords

young adults to put their athletic education into quality playing and continue the sport they love. over the years college athletics has grown into an increasingly profitable billion-dollar industry and the rules surrounding athlete compensation have not kept pace. now individual states have created laws that will guarantee an amateur athlete the ability to profit off their name, image, and likeness without fear of being reprimanded. again, i highlight individual states have made those decisions and are creating laws. 19 states have now passed n.i.l. legislation, and of those 19, six will go into effect in less than aing month, july 1, just really a few days away. as more and more states continue to pass their own legislation, we are quickly headed for a system that is of inconsistent state laws that will be cumbersome and in some cases unworkable for athletes and schools to navigate. intercollegiate athletics are

inherently it state matter. our model makes certain the best teams and the best athletes compete against one another no matter their geographic location. this requires a single federal standard that all schools and all athletes can operate under. college sports and the opportunities it provides students, athletes will be dramatically harmed if we are unable to pass a federal standard. each year we will have states introducing or updating their n.i.l. laws in order to gain just a the bit more of an advantage in attracting athletes to their institutions. we've already seen this begin to play out following california's passage of the first state n.i.l. law in september 2019, there has been a rush of action by 18 other states to quickly follow suit, hoping to remain competitive as athletic department recruits athletes to their state schools. the floodgates will fully open on july 1, only 16 days away when state n.i.l. laws begin to take effect. the time to act is now.

there's a compromise to be found to both empowering amateur athletes to profit from their name, image, and likeness, and guaranteeing greater protection while at the same time maintaining integrity of the one of a kind collegiate model that provides millions of people the opportunity to get a quality education. we can accomplish both of those goals and provide college athletics the certainty it needs. in february i introduced the amateur athlete protection and compensation act. my proposal to accomplish this necessary balance. my legislation would create a single set of gliens that would enable -- guidelines that would enable amateur athletes to profit by prohibiting conferences, schools and athletic associations like the ncaa from entering an amateur athlete ineligible on the basis of receiving that compensation. it provides extended health care coverage and scholarship

guarantees. i understand this legislation is not perfect in everyone's eyes. it's not perfect in its current form but it offers not only the quickest but the best path forward enacting meaningful federal legislation on issues of amateur athletic name, image and likeness. when i say it may not be perfect, there are certainly things we can negotiate to improve and it's not the extreme on either side of this issue but something that a broad set of senators, members of the house and a president could come behind and certainly it's perhaps the only piece of legislation that has a chance of being enacted any time soon. i recognize there are many ideas on what should and should not be included in an n.i.l. bill, and i welcome those conversations with my colleagues. i strongly encourage the united states senate, the commerce committee, and my colleagues on that committee to act quickly on this urgent matter and join us in this legislation to make progress on this important issue. the time is short, but if we

work together we can accomplish a goal that is needed in this country and accomplished by the time that it's needed to occur. madam president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

a senator: madam president. mr. mcconnell: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: --. the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: i ask that the calling of the quorum be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. grassley: for the past 41 years i've toured our state to hear from iowa workers, our community leaders, and our farmers at my annual 99 county meetings. so far this yeef -- year i've been in 71. as a farmer myself, i enjoy speaking with those involved in agriculture all across the state who tell me that they are third, fourth, fifth generation farmers. these folks use the same soil and barns as their grandfathers before them. everyone i speak with intends to leave their land to their

children, and leave it better than they found it. that goes way back to it being entrusted to their care. we all have that responsibility. between the use of cover crops, buffer strips, no-till farming, minimum-till farming, more conservation practices than ever before are being used on iowa's 35 million acres of farmland. and while iowa farmers are continuing to feed our country and the world, they are also doing so with fewer inputs, better soil, and water outcomes. iowa farmers should be congratulated. however, it seems like there's always a target on the backs of iowa farmers, and i could say

for maybe all american farmers. so i want to get to that target, and that has something to do with this map that i have here of the state of iowa. last week it was reported that the biden administration is moving forward to add red tape to their operations by rewriting president trump's navigable waters protection rule. in my first telephone conversation with then-e.p.a. nominee administrator regan, now the confirmed administrator -- and, by the way, confirmed by a unanimous vote of this senate -- i warned administrator regan against moving back to the obama-era

waters of the u.s. rule, waters of the united states rule that we call wotus for short. that's a regulation that they shouldn't move back to because of the burden that is placed on rural areas, including iowa farmland. in fact, under -- in fact, under the old wotus rule, 97% of iowa's land would have been subject to jurisdiction under the clean waters act. in other words, all of the blue part of iowa, with the exceptions of these areas that are white, that adds up to the blue area 93% of the land mass of iowa would be subject to

federal jurisdiction. adding more federal red tape to a farmer's day-to-day decisions on the farm is government overreach, plain and simple. but besides iowa's 86,000 farmers, a change in the truck navigable waters protection rule will also result in significant red tape and significant expense for, among others, homebuilders, golf course managers, construction companies, as they make very routine decisions about how best to use the land and run their businesses. now, imagine that. not only have new home prices risen due to inflation and

soaring loan prices -- lumber prices, and, by the way, lumber prices have added $36,000 to the price of a house just in the last year. now instead of that happening because lumber prices have gone up, now home prices, because of this proposed change in the regulation, will increase due to additional permitting that wasn't previously needed. to clear up common confusion, the trump rule that is now the law of the land did not -- did not give, for polluters, free rein to discharge pollution with no regard to the health of our nation's waterways.

regulating the discharge of pollution into waterways is important and is done through other parts of the clean water act. the trump rule made sure that where routine land use decisions were being made with little or no environmental impact, then those decisions would not be regulated by the federal government. e.p.a.'s release about its intention to overturn the navigable waters protection rule, which is the trump rule, mentions this, that 33 -- 333 projects would have required permits by the obama waters rule that did not need government paperwork under the navigable waters protection rule of the

trump administration and, of course, that is exactly the point -- exactly the point of what was wrong with the wotus rule. if you're simply moving dirt to level off a low point in the field, should that need a federal permit? if a golf course is fixing a bunker or flattening a green, should that need a federal permit? the obvious commonsense answer to both of these questions, and a lot of other questions that can be put out there for speculative purposes, what good does this red tape do for anyone? i want to underline that point. my republican colleagues and i want clean water and health qli soil for our families and -- healthy soil for our families and our communities.

this is important, but i don't want -- what i don't want is a federal government power grab that adds so much red tape to routine land use decision that it slows our economy to a halt. if the biden administration decides to go down this road of reverting to the old obama-era wotus, they will be seriously misguided. why should you put the farmers of iowa, as well as the other people, with maybe even having to get a permit to do normal farming practices? it just doesn't make sense. for an administration that is so focused on updating our nation's infrastructure, why does it make sense to propose a rule that only adds costs and delays construction with no

identifiable benefit? i urge president biden and e.p.a. administrator reagan to -- regan to listen to the farmers and landowners of the country. waive the wotus rule good-bye. put away the red tape that's going to come around as a result of what you're planning to do. i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. cornyn: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: madam president, are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: yes. mr. cornyn: i ask consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without

objection. mr. cornyn: madam president, last month more than 180,000 migrants crossed our southern border. that's the highest monthly total since the clinton administration. unaccompanied children continued to arrive at the border in the tens of thousands. more than 65,000 migrant children crossed our southern border, nearly double the amount we saw in fiscal year 2020. as bad as things are, things can and i predict will get worse. the administration's weighing whether this is an appropriate time to lift title 42, which a public health order designed to protect from the spread of covid-19 virus. but they have yet to tell us what transition plans they may have, if any, from transitioning from the current seclusion of

many adult migrants who welcoming those who are currently secluded or processing them -- excluded or processing them through our immigration courts. the humanitarian crisis at the border will likely swell even larger this summer. despite the clear need for action from congress, most of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have put on blinders. instead of a bipartisan effort to alleviate or mitigate the humanitarian and security crisis at our border, we vb one side -- we have one side pushing for action and the other side largely staying silent. the judiciary committee of the senate should be leading the charger to address this crisis in a fair and humane way. back in april, senator grassley, the ranking republican and i, sent a letter to senator durbin and senator padilla to have a

hearing of the subcommittee. two months and hundreds of thousands of migrants later, they simply refused to even hold a hearing. last month the committee on border security, the subcommittee on immigration, held its first hearing, but the topic wasn't on the border crisis, instead the topic was increased numbers of visa for undocumented immigrant workers. that's a topic we can and should discuss but certainly not with the looming crisis on the border. tomorrow morning the senate judiciary committee will continue to ignore this backlog of migrants and this blinking red light that should warn all of us that a crisis -- this crisis will get nothing but worse. and what's the topic of tomorrow's hearing in the senate judiciary committee? we're set to hold a hearing on

the unserious house-passed immigration bill. this legislation stands zero chance of being passed by the senate -- zero. it combines some of the most radical proposals from the far left in one massive bill that fails to address the needs of our country. rather than discuss the humanitarian crisis at the border, our democratic colleagues have chosen to hold a hearing on a dead-on-arrival bill, and they know it. it's a remarkable show of priorities. tomorrow i expect we'll hear a lot about discussing the deferred action on childhood arrival recipients, one of the categories of up documented immigrants who would receive a path to citizenship under this legislation. daca -- or i should say, texas is home to about 100,000 daca recipients, who are vital parts of our communities. they've grown up with our kids,

attended the same churches, shopped in the same grocery stores, and defended our freedoms in the united states military. they're also a huge driver of our economy. 96%of daca recipients recipientr working or in school. on the whole, these young people contribute more than $400 million a year in state and local taxes in texas alone. despite all the way they've strengthed our state and communities, they've been living in a constant state of unsent. that's because when president obama announced this program, he did so through shortsighted executive memorandum rather than engage congress. that's right. rather than rolling up his sleeves and working with congress to pass long-lasting immigration policy, he chose a path of least resistance that didn't involve any input from congress but merely created this

with a stroke of a pen. to say the least, this made things easier for president obama in the short run, but it caused a lot of fear -- has caused a lot of fear and uncertainty for these young people in the long run, and that continues today. they were sent unfairly on a yearslong tumultuous journey to see how the courts would weigh in on the various court challenges that we knew were going to occur. president obama knew it as well. so these young daca recipients have been left wondering whether they might be deported to a country they have no memory of and being forced to leave behind the families and the jobs and the opportunities they've worked so hard to build here in the united states. many of these young people are in their 20's and 30's now with careers, families, and plans of their own. the possibility of being forced to leave the united states is no less terrifying for them than it

would be for anyone who was born here. after years of being yanked around from court ruling to court ruling, these young men and women deserve certainty. they deserve to know whether they can apply to college, grow their families, live their lives and do you do all the things --d do all the things other americans can do without this dark cloud hanging over their plans. after all, they haven't done anything wrong. they have brought here as children, as minors. in america, we do not hold children responsible for the mistakes of adults -- in other words, their parents. that's why i believe we should take action that gives these daca recipients the certainty they deserve and the only way to do that is through more legislation, not further executive actions. and i strongly support that legislative effort. however, massive partisan bills like the legislation the house passed this year is not the answer.

i support daca recipients because they were brought here at a young age through no fault of their own. but the american dream and promise act has completely abandoned this justification in favor of rewarding recent illegal entries with green cards, even adults who violated our immigration laws. if the goal is to provide legal certainty senator our daca recipients as opposed to making a grand political statement, we need to be realistic about how we get there. we need to learn from our mistakes of the past, where we tried to build big, comprehensive immigration reform bills only to see them collapse of their own weight. which means we need to begin working on smaller packages that can gain broad support and hopefully build trust in the process. i'm not suggesting we quit there, but that is the place we need to start if we've learned from the lessons of the last 20 years. the american people overwhelmingly support allowing

daca recipients to remain in the united states, and i believe it's true of a majority of members of the senate. we have to set aside policies we can't agree on so we can make progress on the ones we do agree on, and we need to keep our efforts focused on daca recipients. if this is a priority of folks on both sides of the aisle, i hope we'll final lay be able to get a bill to the president's desk to help these young people. more broadly, though, there's no denying our immigration system is sorely in need of reform. it's outdated, it's inefficient, and it simply does not meet the needs of our country today. but there's very little room for those types of conversations until we solve the current crisis at the border. once that's under control and our bipartisan solutions act which is the only bipartisan, bicameral bill that's been introduced, once we solve that problem, i hope we'll have a

bipartisan debate about the changes that should be made to our immigration system and the daca recipients that are at the top of that list. as i said, these young men and women deserve certainty and congress cannot pass legislation to provide that certainty if our democratic colleagues and the white house insist on attaching controversial policies or ignoring the current crisis at the border, as the biden administration is appearing to do. madam president, i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. tuberville: madam president, ronald reagan said we maintain peace through our strength. weakness only invites aggression. the united states of america, a beacon of strength and freedom, generations of americans purchased this strength through

blood, treasure, and self-sacrifice. we do not want to be the first generation of americans to abandon that tradition. but we will unless we give our men and women in uniform the tools they need to do the job. the president's proposed budget does not deliver for our military. in fact, it tells our military to do less every day than what they have in the past. president biden's budget proposals cuts money from the department of defense when accounting for inflation. i've said before that this budget is disappointing, dangerous, and a disservice to our men and women in uniform. the president's advisors surely know the threat our country faces. here's what is the office of national intelligence said in its annual threat assessment.

the chinese communist party will continue to undercut the united states, drive wedges between washington and its allies and partners, and foster international norms that favor the authoritarian chinese system. that's from the president's own director of intelligence h but talk is cheap. and cheap talk is what we're getting, because this budget does not rise to meet that threat. question -- does the president not believe the dire warnings of his own advisors? at the same time, president biden and congressional democrats' policies are giving us a weak economy when it should be roaring. the last two job reports fell way short of expectations. in april, economists expected one million jobs, but we only got one-fourth of that -- 25%.

democrats' out-of-control spending is driving inflation to levels we haven't seen in over a decade. president biden's own budget assumes policies will only lead to a weak 2% g.d.p. growth -- 2% -- when it should be double that amount. democrats aren't stopping at a weak military and a weak economy. they put forth thinly veiled attempts to strip our country of what makes it so great. they want to undo our very system of federalism and local control by eliminating states' right-to-work laws through the pro act. they want a washington takeover of every state's election laws through s. 1, or as i like to call it, the corrupt politicians' act. but worst of all is teaching our kids to hate our country.

the biden administration has embraced the divisive curriculum of critical race theory to rewrite history and paint the united states as a villain. question -- how can we expect the biden administration to defend america's ideals abroad if the president won't even defend them at home? this isn't building back better. teddy roosevelt, another successful republican president, always said, speak softly and carry a big stick. president biden is certainly speaking softly, all right. but he's whittling away our big stick down to a twig. we're already seeing the results -- weakness invites aggression. president biden and his aides seem to believe that the return the appeasement policies are the

best way to ensure peace. that's going to be tough for him and for the american people. we're already seeing how these policies do not work. take palestine, for example. just two months ago, protected decided to send hundreds of millions of dollars in aid to the palestinians, and i ask, for what reason? why are we sending millions of dollars to palestine? at this time when we're having a tough point in our country with this pandemic. they just took american dollars and turned around and reigned terror on the middle east with thousands of rockets aimed at israel's civilians. it triggered the worst fighting between israel and hamas since 2014. the president's policy and millions of taxpayer dollars were wasted.

they did nothing but arm hamas. the president's policies did not work. president biden made no secret that he wanted to bring back the failed iran nuclear deal that was the pride of president obama's second term. well, iran responded by supplying hamas with those rockets to kill israeli civilians. iran is also sending warships to help their socialist ally, venezuela. again, the president's policies did not work. one of president biden's first acts in office was to cancel the keystone pipeline with our northern border neighbor, canada. yet the president is allowing russia to build the nord stream 2 gas pipeline to germany.

russia has responded by amassing troops along the ukraine border. the president's policies did not work and the week after president biden announced his skinny budget proposal with no increase to the department of defense, china sent a record number of fighter jets into the taiwanese airspace. that he is a clear pattern that the president's policies aren't working, and they're emboldening our enemies. the fallout from the administration's weaknesses isn't just limited to far-off countries across the sea. we're seeing the very real cost at our southern border. the biden administration refuses to take this crisis seriously. the number of illegal immigrants crossing the border this fiscal year is almost more than the 2006 year. and there are four months left to go in this year alone. in may of this year alone,

customs and border protection apprehended more than 1,-- 180,000 illegal immigrants along the southern border. and it is not just folks coming from central america. there have been at least 59,000 illegal immigrants apprehended who are not from mexico, guatemala, el salvador, or honduras. they're from as far -- they're from as many as 90-plus countries as far away as bangladesh, guiana, and nepal. and the problem is that it's not just people seeking a better life. customs and border patrol reports they have arrested 95 convicted sex offenders attempting to enter the u.s. since the beginning of the physical year. and those are just the ones that are being caught. biden two months ago said what's

wrong with two million illegal immigrants. what the biden administration is doing is they're not stemming the tide. president biden threw his hands up and put vice president harris in charge. has she visited the border since she's been put in charge? no. she thinks her words, quote, don't come are not enough to stop the flood of illegal immigrants. they're not. her words are too late and too little. i remember out the candidates biden -- then candidate, biden and harris pushed back on president trump for securing the border, for wanting to enforce our immigration laws as written. and folks across the globe were listening. they heard the rhetoric. they packed their bags. and they made the dangerous journey. they took then-candidates biden

and aris at their word. -- and harris at their word. it's so why many immigrants wore t-shirts that said biden, let us in. why would they listen to her saying don't come now. but here's what really got me. when asked why she hasn't come -- gone to the border to see the crisis for herself, vice president harris laughed and said, quote, i haven't been to europe either. i couldn't believe what i was hearing. we need leadership, not a tourist. well, madam vice president, i've been to the border, and i've seen how dangerous it is for these people coming here. i've actually listened to our border patrol agents who talk about how the cartels really run things and how they have total control of the united states southern border. i've seen how many drugs come across the border because our law enforcement are too busy processing illegal immigrants instead of catching the bad

guys. but i -- sat beside a teenager on the flight to houston. she had her 3 or 4-month-old baby. she was being sent on a plane by the biden administration to houston and then on her way to denver not knowing what to expect when she got there. it's not easy to see. it certainly wasn't for me. but that price of being in a position of power, to be able to do something about the problems facing people and our country, the vice president needs to see the human cost of the policies she and the president are supporting. ladies and gentlemen, peace is only possible when the united states is strong. that means a strong military, a strong economy, a strong educational system, and strong border unless we reverse our

course soon, it will be too late to stop the violence and aggression president biden's weakness has invited across the globe and here at home. madam president, i yield the floor. i notice the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from indiana brawn are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: we are brawn could we please lift it. the presiding officer: without objection. morning business is closed. under the previous order, the senate will proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the following nomination which the clerk will report. the clerk: nomination, the judiciary, ketanji brown jackson of the district of columbia to be united states circuit judge for the district of columbia circuit. mr. braun: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from indiana. mr. braun: i rise today to

introduce a resolution pledging support for the pledge of allegiance. by the way, i did the same thing last year. in 2002, 19 years ago senator tom daschle raised a similar resolution with unanimous support from the senate. it passed on the flooren eventfully -- floor uneventfully without amendment. in a few days this body can choose to do the same, to reaffirm our support for the pledge of allegiance. i rise today, too, to honor a hoosier who understood the innate value of the pledge of allegiance to civic education. in 1969 red skeldon, the american comedian and entertainer who was well known for his program on the cbs read skeleton hour wrote a speech on the importance of the pledge. reflecting on his time in a

neighboring community to where i lived, he spoke about the value instilled by one of his high school teachers in the words of the pledge of ale allegiance. after the performance of the speech, cbs received several hundred thousand requests for copies. the speech would go on to be sold as a single by slum ya records and -- columbia records and performed at the white house for president nixon. i think it would be an honor to mr. skeleton's memory and the importance of the pledge of allegiance if it were recited today on the senate floor in the words of red skeleton. when i was a small boy in vincennes, i heard, i think, one of the most outstanding speeches i ever heard in my life. i think it compares with the sermon on the mount, the gettysburg address and socrates speech to the students.

we had just finished reciting the pledge of allegiance, and he, mr. lazwell, principal of vincennes high school, pulled us all together and said boys and girls, i've been listening to you recite the pledge all semester. it seems it has become mon not news to you. or could it be you do not understand the meaning of each word. if i may, i would like to recite the pledge and give you a definition of each word. i, me, an individual, a committee of one. pledge -- dedicate all of my worldly good to give without self-pity. allegiance -- my love and my devotion. to the flag -- our standard, old glory, a symbol of

courage, and wherever she waves there is respect because your loyalty has given her a dignity that shouts freedom is everybody's job. of the united -- that means we have all come together, states, individual communities that have united into 48 great states, 48 individual communities with pride and dignity and purpose, all divided by imaginary boundaries, yet united to a common cause, and that's love of country. of america, and to the republic. a republic -- a sovereign state in which powers invested into the representatives chosen by the people to govern. us -- in the government is the people. it's from the people to the leaders, not from the leaders to the people.

for which it stands, one nationy god. indivisible -- incapable of being divided. with liberty -- which is freedom, the right of power for one to live his own life without fears, threats, or any sort of retaliation. and justice -- the principle and qualities of dealing fairly with others. for all -- for all, that means boys and girls, it's as much your country as it is mine. afterwards, mr. lazwell asked his students to recite the pledge of allegiance together with newfound appreciation for the words. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation

indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. mr. skeleton concluded his speech by saying since i was a small boy, two states have been added to our country, and two words have been added to the pledge of allegiance if you listen closely. under god. wouldn't it be a pity if someone said that is a prayer and that it be eliminated from our schools. justice as those students that day, mr. skelton included recommitted to the meaning of the words of the pledge of the allegiance, i call upon the united states senate to recommit to the meaning of these words. there are times today that the words of the pledge are tossed around without too much care. other times they are altered to remove what today is deemed

offensive or antiquated. but americans should not misuse or abuse our pledge of allegiance. the pledge of allegiance is meant to remind americans of our guiding principles and inspired adherence to those ideas which make our country great. equality under the law, recognized rights to liberty and the pursuit of happiness. this is why today i am requesting that in a few days we pass this resolution with unanimous consent. and i'm hopeful that that occurs. i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire. mrs. shaheen: is the senate in cloture? the presiding officer: no. mrs. shaheen: i ask that the vote begin immediately on the nominee. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. the question is on the nomination.

is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

.

vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: the yeas are 53. the nays are 44. 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 actions. 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 clenld number 119, lina m. khan of new york to be a federal trade commissioner signed by 17

senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is, is it the sense of the senate that debate on the nomination of lina m. khan of new york to be a federal trade commissioner shall be brought to a close. the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: yeas are 72, the nays are 25.

the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: federal trade commission, lina m.khan of new york to be a federal trade commissioner.

mrs. gillibrand: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from new york. mrs. gillibrand: i request that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: the senate is not in a quorum call. mrs. gillibrand: thank you, madam president. i rise for the eighth time to call this entire body to have the opportunity to vote and consider the military justice improvement and increasing prevention act. this commonsense reform would ensure that people in the military who have been subjected to sexual assault and other serious crimes get the justice they deserve. i ask for this vote because i want to ensure that this important reform, which is backed by a bipartisan filibuster-proof majority of the senators becomes law. if we leave this debate and this reform to the national defense authorization committee review, i have no doubts that that will

not happen. we all know how a bill becomes a law. it passes the senate and the house and is signed by the president. and we all know how this process can be subverted. we have seen popular provisions that have passed both the house and the senate be minimized, watered down or removed in conference all together. and i've certainly seen good proposals killed behind closed doors of the ndaa markup. in 2019, i introduced a much smaller reform called safe to report. that provision was designed to improve reporting rates by allowing survivors of sexual assault to report the assault without fear of retaliation in the form of misconduct charges

for related minor offenses. things like underaged drinking or breaking a curfew. that commonsense reform, which could have allowed more survivors to come forward, passed in both the house and the senate but it was removed in conference. we had to reintroduces the -- reintroduce the very same bill the following year in order for it to be included and become law in the next year, the fiscal year 2021 ndaa. if it would focus -- was removed in conference, i have little reason to believe that this once-in-a generation reform will survive. given the lack of progress we've made on sexual assault in military and the entrenched problems with the military justice system, we cannot allow

this widely supported reform to be left to the whims of those working behind closed doors in conference, a process with a rich history of subverting reforms on behalf of the department of defense. let us have this vote in the senate and let us send it to the house to become law. every day we delay this vote is another day we deny justice to the survivors of sexual assault, we deny just to -- justice to service members who have been affected by serious crimes. we deny justice to the men and women who do so much for this country. we owe it to them to not wait another minute longer. as if in legislative session, i

ask unanimous consent that at a time to be determined by the majority leader, in consultation with the republican leader, the senate armed services committee be discharged from further consideration of s. 1520, and the senate proceed to its consideration. that there be two hours for debate equally divided in the usual form and upon the use or yielding back of that time, the senate vote on that bill with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. reed: madam president, reserving my right to object. like the senator from new york, i believe that we should transfer crimes regarding sexual misconduct to a special prosecutor, as the senator from new york has outlined, and that is a decision that many other of my colleagues have made over the last few months.

in the past they have been opposed, as i have opposed to that approach. the difficult is -- difficulty is the transfer of other crimes like burglarily, arson, misappropriation of government funds or properties. those issues have not been carefully studied and they should be studied, and that's the purpose of the committee. we will take this up, we will study it very closely. we'll also look at something that has to be looked at seriously, how do we implement this reform in how much time to? how much time do we need? the last time we did this, we allowed the department of defense two years and they took all of it. the present legislation, i believe, would allow 18 months or so. this is something we have to look at. we also have to look at the

resources necessary. this involves a change in the structure of the military legal system,ing a significant -- system, a significant structuring and the committee is a place where we will get the best use of people who have dedicated themselves in the senate to thinking hard and seriously about military justice, issues of military preparedness, and all of these things. looking forward to a debate, but looking also forward to what i think is becoming increasingly secure the transfer of responsibility for sexual assault and crimes of that nature to an independent prosecutorial approach is something that i think we can anticipate going forward. with that, madam president, i would object. the presiding officer: objection is heard.

mrs. gillibrand: madam president, there are several reasons why i disagree strongly with the chairman. first of all, this is not a complex reform. in fact, only one thing changes, after the military police conclude their investigation, instead of a case file being handed over to the commander's j.a.g., the case file is handed over to the prosecutor who might have gotten that case anyway. the prosecutor reviews that case file and decides whether or not to prosecute. if he decides not to prosecute, he will send it back to the commander. only 3% of commanders have this job. 97% of commanders' jobs will not be affected by this change and they will do what they typically do, which is review the case, perhaps ask for nonjudicial punishment ps for related -- punishments for related crimes and perhaps a court-martial. that sits with the commander.

the second reason why i disagree with the chairman is if you remove one crime from the commander, you essentially create an entirely different system for survivors of sexual assault who are more often to be women who report those crimes even those males suffer more from sexual assault, they just don't report them. and that, therefore, will become a special court for women service members, and experts have said it will further marginalize them, it will further diminish them, it will further alienate them. it will be a special court for women or a pink court. third, this reform has already taken place in the countries of our allies. the u.k. did it over ten years ago for defendants' rights, israel did it over 40 years ago, canada, netherlands, australia, germany, all have taken serious crimes out of the chain of command. and in each of those instances,

they have said it has not reduced good order and discipline and it has not had any impact on climate and command control. and so the truth is that this is a change whose impact will be to give survivors of sexual assault, and any survivor of a serious crime, the confidence that the military justice system is unbiased and highly trained. the third reason why this change is so necessary to be a bright line in all serious crimes is defendants' rights. and i can tell you we now have data developed in 2017 from protect our defenders, a report that says black and brown service members are more likely to be prosecuted over white service members. if you create a bright line of serious crimes, you will not

only have -- plaintiffs and deftsd and you will protect the civil liberties and civil rights of black and brown service members from a defendant's rights perspective. the committee has had eight years to debate, discuss, have hearings, pass legislation. we've passed nearly 250 bills on this topic. they have have lost -- they have lost their sole jurisdiction over this issue, they have failed to improve sexual assault in the military and it is now time for an up-or-down vote which has 66 cosponsors in this body. it now time for an up-or-down vote on our bill. it should no longer be the purview of the ndaa and the armed services committee because they have been unwilling to have a vote on this for over five years and unwilling to take a look at how to fix these injustices within our military. our military service members deserve a military justice

system worthy of the sacrifices they make every day. madam president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk cl -- the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from nevada. a senator: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. rosen: madam president, i rise today as cochair of the senate bipartisan task force for combating anti-semitism which just relaunched this week with over half the senate as members. i'm speaking out because jewish americans and jews across the globe are in danger. they're in danger because we're

experiencing a worldwide surge in anti-semitic hate crimes and violence. in communities across america, jews have been threatened. they have been verbally accosted and brutally assaulted. anti-semitism has long been the canary in the coal mine of hatred. history teaches us that when anti-semitism takes hold, democracy itself is in peril. this issue has reared its ugly head in recent years, particularly in the past month. according to the a.d.l., anti-semitic incidents in may were double what they were during the same period last year. over the past few weebs, we've seen horrendous attacks on the jewish community. in new york, fireworks were hurled at a crowd of jewish americans. in los angeles, jewish diners were attacked. one response i saw to a recent desecration of a synagogue in

arizona has stuck with me. the response said the amount of jewish hate isn't shocking. the silence is those who committed these egregious acts wanted to send a message. they wanted to say that jews have no place here. and it is critical that we send a clear and forceful message back. we must ensure that our elected leaders, democrats and republicans, are resolute in affirming that there is zero tolerance for anti-semitism. we must honor the words of george washington who wrote to the jewish community of rhode island in 1790 that america, and i quote, gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, unquote. which is why i urge the senate to immediately take up my bipartisan resolution condemning

the recent anti-semitic incidents unconditionally and unequivocally. and i'm calling on leaders to take specific steps, specific steps to address and prevent them, including having the president nominate and the senate confirm a qualified ambassador to monitor and combat anti-semitism. fully implementing my bipartisan never-again education act to advance holocaust education. having agencies improve their collection of anti-semitic hate crime data and sufficiently funding the nonprofit security grant program to protect houses of worship and community centers from violence. i want to thank senator lankford and his staff for their work in helping to pass this resolution which currently has 74 cosponsors. as if in legislative session, i

ask unanimous consent that the judiciary committee be discharged from further consideration and the senate now proceed to s. res. 252. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. res. 252, resolution unequivocally condemning the recent rise in anti-semitic bias and harassment targeting jewish americans and standing in solidarity with those affected by anti-semitism, and for other purposes. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. the committee is discharged, and the senate will proceed. ms. rosen: i know of no further debate on the measure. the presiding officer: is there further debate? the majority leader. mr. schumer: thank you, madam president. first, let me thank senator

rosen. she has been a valiant, strong, and unrelenting fighter against anti-semitism, not just today in this wonderful resolution but every day, and we thank her for her leadership, her tremendous and needed leadership on this issue. i want to thank senator lankford as well for joining senator rosen in crafting this bipartisan resolution. because, as we all know, anti-semitism is not a partisan issue, so i very much appreciate the way they work together across the aisle to bring this resolution forward. and, madam president, it's essential we come together at this moment. over the past few years, america has once again seen the pernicious, poisonous, and dangerous rise of hate crimes. in recent weeks in particular, anti-semitism, the oldest hatred, has dramatically spiked. it, too, just like every other hate crime, is pernicious, poisonous, and dangerous. we're all horrified by the

anti-semitic attacks in new york, around the country, and around the globe. so i join my colleagues tonight to say unequivocally that this hatred must be called out, confronted, and stopped, and the senator from nevada has an excellent series of proposals to help make that happen. anti-semitism must be combated wherever and whenever it rears its ugly head. it's vile, it's reprehensible, it's counter to everything that america stands for. freedom of region, equality, respect for the dignity of every person. for too long, too long, we have seen it. and yet in the past, america has always been a refuge for the oppressed, a land of promise, opportunity, and tolerance for people from all corners of the world who came here in search of a better life. it was true for my family and many others, and hopefully it continues to be. but that noble purpose has too

often been marred by periods of isolationism, xenophobia, racial, religious intolerance. we live in a time where we must actively work to rekindle the light of tolerance that has kept anti-semitism at bay here in the united states and around the globe. as majority leader, the first jewish american to hold that honor, i will work any -- with any and all of my colleagues to face down anti-semitism and every other form of racial or religious discrimination. i strongly urge the senate to stand united against anti-semitism, and i am very grateful that we passed this resolution unanimously. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: is there further debate? if not, all in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the resolution is agreed to.

ms. rosen: i ask unanimous consent that the preamble be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. rosen: thank you, madam president. the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. schumer: i ask knack the quorum call be dispensed with -- i ask unanimous consent the quorum be dispensed with. i ask unanimous consent the senate consider the following nomination, calendar number 147. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, the clerk will report.

the clerk: nomination, environmental protection agency, michal freedhoff of maryland to be assistant administrator for toxic substances. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent that the senate vote on the nomination without intervening action or debate, and that if confirmed the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table with any action, that any statements related to the nomination be printed in the record, and that the president be immediately notified of the senate's action. the presiding officer: without objection. is there objection? without objection. the question is on the nomination. all in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the nomination is confirmed. mr. schumer: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to legislative session and be in a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for

up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10:00 a.m. tuesday, june 15. that following the prayer and pledge, the morning business be deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and morning business be closed. further, upon the conclusion of morning business, the senate proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the khan nomination. that all postcloture time expire at 11:30 a.m. second, the weekly caucus meetings. that if cloture is invoked, that all postcloture time expire at 2:30 p.m. finally, that if any of the nominations are confirmed, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, and the president be immediately notified of the senate's action.

the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. mr. schumer: if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until 10:00 a.m. tomorrow. the senate gaveled out for the day. today members voted to confirm jackson to serve on the d.c. circuit court of appeals. replacing current attorney general. members also voted on moving forward with the nomination of lena kohn, president biden's nominee for the federal trade commission. will have more from the u.s. senate with members return, live here on cspan2. ♪ ♪ see spanish unfiltered view of government. they are funded by these television companies and more including comcast.

>> think this is comedic? know it's way more than that. comcast is parting with 1000 committee centers to provide wi-fi enabled students from low income families can get the tools they need to be ready for anything. comcast supports c-span as a public service along with these other television providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy. ♪ ♪ [speaking in spanish] tonight on the communicators, roundtable discussion on telecom issues and potential regulation affecting social media, antitrust and big tech. >> we have politicians from both sides of the aisle that sort of want the same thing. they want some more regulation on tech companies but they're coming out from different angles. i think that is where we are seeing what you mentioned, the kind of piecemeal approach. they clearly want something but cannot seem to agree on what. that the democrats have

controlled the house, senate, and white house. they have made it clear part of their agenda will be criticizing and potentially pursuing forms that would affect the major social media companies were the only issue is they can't really come to a cohesive agenda. it's piecemeal at this point. from the tech companies. they will either be forced to be broken up into pieces, to do best pieces of their company and they would possibly the way they do business.