midco supports c-span as a public service along with the other television providers, giving awe front row seat to democracy. ♪♪ >> get c-span on the go and watch the day's political events live on demand anywhere on our new mobile vote app. top highlights. listen to c-span radio and discover them for free. discover c-span now today. >> on this tuesday morning, the u.s. senate about to gavel in for legislative business. today senate lawmakers will are considering a number of nominees as district court judges. a series of votes for 11 a.m. eastern today with additional

votes expected at 2:30 eastern. live coverage of the senate here on c-span2. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the chaplain dr. barry black will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. almighty god, show favor to our land and bless us with your grace. guide our lawmakers so that they will strive for complete honesty

in their work for liberty. lord, empower them to give and not count the cost, to strive and not heed the wounds. enable them to toil and not seek rest, working for no reward except of knowing they are doing your will. may each senator strive to walk blameless, speak truth, and honor you. we pray in your righteous name. amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic

for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington d.c., october 26, 2021. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable raphael g. warnock, a senator from the state of georgia, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: patrick j. leahy, president pro tempore.

mr. schumer: mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority leader is recognized.

mr. schumer: well, mr. president, today is going to be a busy day on the floor of the senate. last week i filed cloture on five of president biden's nominees to serve as u.s. district judges. and today we're going to be in -- begin working on these nominees. even as senate democrats proceed on our agenda to help working and middle-class families and tackle the climate crisis, we will not relent on speedily filling the vacancies in our federal judiciary with qualified, mainstream, and diverse jurists. yesterday we took a big step forward towards achieving that goal by confirming myrna perez to serve on the second circuit, one of the most important courts in the land. and the judges we will begin considering today continue that effort. more civil rights lawyers, more ders candidates, -- diverse candidates, more federal defenders. today the senate has confirmed 13 nominees to serve on our district courts with 20 overall

lifetime appointments to the federal bench. many of these individuals are knocking down long-standing barriers to the halls of justice. the first native american judge, the first muslim american district judge, and among all of president's nominees to date, over half, over half are women. we're proud of that. in a broader sense, president biden's judicial nominees are also expanding and rewriting the rules of who merits consideration for the bench. our federal courts have long been presided over by former corporate lawyers and prosecutors and men. to be sure, many of these individuals have served admirably as judges and i've been proud to support many of them over the years. but our federal judges more than ever, more than ever are an essential component of our democracy, and they should better reflect the richness and diversity of our nation. not just demographic and cultural diversity, as important as that s. but professional

diversity, too. we need more judges who know what it's like to defend people who normally can't afford attorneys. we need more judges who have fought for those who faced discrimination in the workplace or because of the color of their skin. we have -- we need more judges who understand the economic hardship that so many people have and when they're forced to sign documents and other things that will hurt them economically. and we need judges who have been -- who have been in the fight against these efforts stronger than they have ever been unfortunately to undermine our democracy. we need our federal bench, in other words, to mirror our country as a whole. that is how we restore balance to the bench and strengthen people's trust in the federal judiciary. so we are going as a democratic majority, we're going to keep working this week to make sure these nominees are confirmed by this chamber. i hope both sides can work in

good faith to move the process along quickly and in a bipartisan fashion. now, on build back better. mr. president, this week democrats are continuing to make important progress towards finalizing president biden's build back better plan. and we remain confident that a final deal is within reach. when democrats first set out to pass historic legislation to boost our economy and invest in everyday americans, we knew that the task wouldn't be easy. the challenges that our country faces or manifold. they're severe. from the hardship of raising a family to securing a good-paying job to affording something as basic as health care and the cost of prescription drugs. tackling these issues head-on was sure to be an impresence challenge. doing big -- immense challenge. doing big things in congress is always hard but we didn't choose elected office just to pursue the easy things. we came here to do the hard

things, the important things, the things that will impact americans, working class americans, middle-class americans, those struggling to get into the middle class and those struggling to stay there. it will impact those people for generations. that's what these negotiations have been about, doing the hard work to deliver something big for the american people. nobody, nobody is going to get everything they want, but we all know we need to keep our promise to the american people. we need to tackle the climate crisis head on, and the programs we are trying to enact will empower us to meet the president's emission goals. we need to help working parents and give every child in america a chance to succeed in school and in life, and programs being discussed will help improve countless of lives. and we need, i believe, to strengthen vital services like medicare relied on by millions of americans to make health care

more affordable. i believe this is so important, and we're working to get it done. democrats will continue fighting until we're able to pass this transformational legislation. the progress of last week illustrated how if we stick together, work towards finding that legislative sweet spot, then we can succeed. that's worth a few hard days. in fact, it's worth many hard days. we have some more work to do, but we remain committed to forging ahead until we reward the trust the american people have placed in us. i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. mcconnell: mr. president. the presiding officer: the republican leader is recognized. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: 1.7 million people. that is the record-shattering number of illegal immigrants detained along our southern border in just the last 12 months. in one year, 1.7 million people tried to take advantage of the biden administration's intentionally unsecure border

and come here illegally. this is the most ever recorded. mr. president, there are 11 states whose populations are smaller than 1.7 million. of the 1.7 million, more than a million were single adults. that is nearly two-thirds not family units, not unaccompanied children, but adults on their own. in many cases, this is not about escaping disaster or persecution this is about wanting a better job in america. it's less about emergency refugees and more about economics. legal immigration in pursuit of a better future is a core part of our country. it reflects our values, and it

makes us stronger. we're a generous country that wants to welcome ambitious new americans who come here the right way, but it is beyond disingenuous for the biden administration to pretend that huge numbers of people who simply want better jobs are emergency refugees. those are two entirely different things. in this 12-month span, authorities arrested people from 160 different countries. in this 12-month span, authorities arrested people from 160 different countries. think about that. the u.s. recognizes 195 countries in the entire world. customs and border protection ran into people from all but 35 of the entire number of countries in the world. on numerous occasions, these

people have told reporters they're coming specifically, specifically because of president biden. his campaign rhetoric and his policy decisions have directly, directly created this crisis. late last december, about a month before the president took office, he literally said the last thing we need would be if his administration pursued policy changes and caused us to, quote, end up with two million people on our border, end quote. that was the president last december. that's how president-elect biden himself defined failure on our border last december. two million people showing up. well, that's exactly what he has brought about. all because of the liberal misapprehension that a weak and porous border is a compassionate border. it's not. even now, even as president

biden faces the exact definition of failure, which he himself laid out, the administration won't change course. a few weeks ago, secretary mayorkas released radical new guidance that essentially tries to create amnesty by executive fiat. this mayorkas memo told i.c.e. that now being in the country illegally, quote, should not alone be the basis, end quote, for making arrests. a baseline policy of no enforcement with exceptions for certain extenuating circumstances. last week before the judiciary committee, under questioning from senator cornyn, even the president's own nominee to c. c.b.p. had to admit that nonenforcement policies are a magnet that make the problem worse.

even before the new mayorkas memo over the whole last 12 months, immigration arrests in the interior of the country fell, fell to their lowest level in more than a decade. i.c.e. arrested half as many people this past year as they did on average in previous years. put two and two together. c.b.p. encounters at the border are at historic highs, but i.c.e. enforcement is down to a decade low. encounters at the border at a historic high. but enforcement down to a decade low. this doesn't make any sense. unless we are looking at functional amnesty through nonenforcement. but even now, democrats keep pushing more new policies to incentivize illegal immigration. their next reckless spending

spree spending spree proposes to double down on democrats' new monthly welfare deposits that can flow directly to people who are here illegally. this is a democrat-created crisis from top to bottom. now, on another matter, on the whole, the reckless taxing and spending spree that democrats want to ram through will hurt families and help china, but when you take a close look, there are some special groups of people here at home who would make out like bandits. there are specific special interests that democrats take great pains to look after. let me give you an example. a whole chunk of money the democrats' proposal supposedly sets aside for patient health care would actually finance ultragenerous benefits for members of the powerful left-wing union, the seiu.

the big labor bonanza doesn't stop there. democrats' tax plans would allow the exploration of americans above the line deduction for charitable and nonprofit donations. but in its place, they want to subsidize a brand-new -- create a brand-new subsidy for, listen to this, union dues. tough luck for the red cross and your church collection plate. washington democrats say big labor bosses come first. democrats also propose lavishing billions of dollars on something they call environmental and climate justice block grants. environmental and climate justice block grants. it sounds like a gift-wrapped giveaway to the universe of nonprofits and activists groups that grist off of government grants.

they spend billions more on tax credits to subsidize purchases that are overwhelmingly made by wealthy people like electric cars, and $8,000 electric bicycles. then there are billions more in special subsidies and loans from the next generation of solyndras. the gravy train doesn't stop there. when the biden administration proposed spending $40 billion on public housing renovations, the senior senator from new york urged them to double down and spend another $40 billion exclusively on his hometown. exclusively on his hometown. that's $40 billion to at that housing authority that is apparently well-known for bribery and mismanagement simply because the democratic leader requested it. meanwhile, in speaker pelosi's backyard of san francisco, the elite trustees of a massive park and development project -- oh, boy they're licking their chops.

the speaker plans to set aside $200 million of the spending spree for this park that is specifically not meant to receive taxpayer money so they can focus on, quote, environmental and social justice. the democrats' spree would also tear down hyde amendment protections so they can directly fund abortion providers like planned parenthood with taxpayer dollars. so today's left cannot miss an opportunity to send planned parenthood a new slush fund. and then there's the democrats' obsession with the so-called salt cap. even as our colleagues draft the biggest tax hikes in half a century, they cannot resist the concept of special tax cuts for high earners in blue states. they want to reintroduce a federal tax subsidy for living

in high-tax states a. one outside analysis has found that a two-year repeal of the salt cap would send more than -- listen to this shall did more than $300,000 to the average household and the top one percent of our country. the average household in the bottom 60% would get $15. this isn't a joke. this is literally the salt policy that democrats want. $300,000 for the richest folks on the coast and $15 for normal families. it's the same setup everywhere you look. special interests who are connected to the democratic party, oh, they'd make out like bandits. and middle-class families? they'll get the bill.

the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. morning business is closed. under the previous order, the senate will proceed to executive session and resume consideration of the following nomination, which the clerk will report. the clerk: nomination, the judiciary. jia m. cobb of virginia to be united states district judge for the district of columbia. the presiding officer: the majority whip is recognized. mr. durbin: mr. president, i have good news. this week the united states senate is going to consider five highly qualified federal district court nominees. before briefly speaking on their recorded, i want to make a few broad observations. first, each of these nominees was recommended by the white house by their home state senators, or in the case of the d.c. district court, by district of columbia representative

eleanor holmes norton. my colleagues continued to recommend nominees who have the experience and temperament needed to serve on the federal bench. second, these nominees represent an important cross-section of professional diversity. they've serve as public defenders. they've also been prosecutors, civil rights attorneys, municipal lawyers, even sitting judges. third, all five of these nominees received bipartisan support in the judiciary committee. how about that? bipartisan support in the committee. that's a testament to their abilities, qualifications, and character, and i thank my republican colleagues who made that possible. finally, these nominees understand the limited role that a judge plays. in our judicial system, they have to be guided by even evenhandedness, impartiality and fidelity to the law. we've seen that in their records, and these records have been scrupulously reviewed by staff on both sides, democrat, republican, in addition to the

white house obviously. we've seen it in their testimony before the judiciary committee, and we've seen it in the broad support they have from the legal communities where they live. now, let me tell you a bit about each of them. first is jia cobb, nominated to the d.c. court for the district of columbia. ms. cobb has more nan 15 years' experience as a -- has more than 15 years' experience sasse a litigator. this depth of experience is one of reasons she was rated unanimously, unanimously well qualified by the american bar association. for nearly a decade, she has been represented people when it comes to housing and employment discrimination laws and critically, ms. cobb understands the distinction between being an advocate and a judge. as a judge on the district of d.c., she has promised to rule based on the law and facts

before her. next is judge karen women -- karen williams. she was unanimously rated well qualified by the a.b.a. that's a testament to her experience, which includes two decades as a prosecuting litigator. she has the strong support of both senators from new jersey. we'll also be voting this week on the nomination of patricia giles to the eastern district of virginia. ms. giles has a depend understanding of the district which she's been nominated to serve. as a federal prosecutor, she tried more than 20 cases to verdict and prosecutors and defense counsel alike have praised her fairness and her tenacity. ms. giles also received unanimous we will-qualified rating from the a.b.a. and has

the strong support of her senators. the senate will also consider judge mike am nachmanoff. he everybody ised is as federal magistrate judge since 2015 following an accomplished career as the district's appointed federal defender. judge nachmanoff also received a unanimous well qualified rating from the a.b.a. he has the strong support of both virginia senators. and like ms. giles, judge nachmanoff received praise from prosecutes and defense attorneys alike. it is a testimony to his integrity and his evenhandedness. finally, the senate is is going to consider sarala nagala, nominated to the district of connecticut bench. she is an accomplished federal prosecutor, and has devoted her career to very serious cases involving human trafficking, child exploitation, identity theft, hate crimes and fraud. like each of the nominees, she

received a numerating of well qualified from the a.b.a. and has the strong support of senators blumenthal and murphy. i urge my colleagues to join me in supporting these nominees. they'll be ready on day one to serve in the important role as district court judge. finally, let me say for many of these people, this decision to move forward and ask for an appointment to the federal judiciary carries with it status and admiration from many people -- most people, but it also may mean some personal sacrifices. they are now going to be officially in public life, and that brings with it, as we all know, some burdens. they're willing to accept that, and their families are willing to accept it if they can continue to serve as federal judges. i hope my colleagues will join me in approving them, and i hope it's done this week in a timely manner. and, mr. president, i yield the

floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: the presiding officer: the republican whip is recognized. mr. thune: thank you, mr. president. the presiding officer: we're in a quorum call.

mr. thune: i would ask unanimous consent the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. thune: mr. president, democrats continue to negotiate with each other on their reckless tax and spending spree. democrats are currently working to lower the topline number in an effort to meet some of the demands of the few moderate democrats who have reservations about unchecked government spending. now, mr. president, you might think that lowering the topline number would involve deciding what programs and spending to eliminate toll bring the bill in at a lower cost. not exactly. yes, democrats are reportedly eliminating some spending. but the word is that under pressure from progressives who are dead set against curtailing their plans for expanding government, democrats are planning to keep a lot of their most expensive proposals but simply shorten the funding window to make the cost of these programs seem lower. take democrats' fantastically

expensive child allowance. democrats have every intention of turning their child allowance into a permanent government welfare program. but in order to bring the topline number of their spending bill down, the word is that democrats are now planning to officially extend the allowance for just one year. this is a fact -- in fact, i should say a budget gimmick on top of a budget gimmick. democrats were already attempting to disguise the true cost of the child allowance by officially extending it for just four of the ten years in the bill's ten-year budget window. they were never, of course, planning to eliminate the child allowance after four years. and they're certainly not planning to eliminate it now after one year. but by officially extending it for just a year in their t tax-and-spending spree, they can manage to make the program look as if it will cost hundreds of

billions of dollars less than it will actually cost. and there are apparently repeating the strategy with a number of their other spending measures. that paid leave program. apparently the white house has proposed a smaller version that would supposedly expire after three or four years. those child care subsidies apparently those may also now ostensibly expire. the obamacare subsidies that democrats want to extend permanently. once again, it sounds like they're going to try shrinking the apparent cost with a short-term extension. but again, let's be very clear here. these short-term extensions and short-term programs are nothing more than a budget gimmick to disguise the true cost of democrats' plans. there's a one program that i've -- there isn't one program that i've named that democrats don't fully intend to make permanent. don't believe me?

just ask the progressive caucus which outlined the strategy the democrats are currently adopting in a letter to speaker pelosi. i quote from that letter. if given a choice between legislating narrowly or broadly, the caucus wrote, we strongly encourage you to choose the latter and make robust investments over a shorter window. this will help make the case for our party's ability to govern and establish a track record of success. that will pave the way for a long-term extension of benefits. end quote. so the plan, mr. president, is to make these programs permanent and permanently and massively expand the size of government. democrats hope to get americans hooked on the government benefits they're offering while hiding the true cost of those benefits from the american people until it's too late. frankly, mr. president, it's not a bad strategy. if your aim is to permanently

expand the size of government. because the truth is it's pretty hard tore eradicate even -- to eradicate even the most inefficient and ineffective program once it's been put in place. ronald reagan used to say the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth is a government program. that, of course, is what democrats are counting on. they believe that once they put these programs in place, no one from either party will be able to get rid of them. what is less clear is how democrats believe these programs are going to be funded in the long term if in fact they've given any thought to that issue at all. i wouldn't be surprised if they haven't. mr. president, it's important to note that the short-term programs and program extensions in democrats' tax-and-spending spree will be paid for by ten years of taxes. that's right. it will take ten years of taxes and other revenue-raising

measures to pay for programs that are scheduled to last as little as one year. so what happens? what happens when democrats want to extend that child allowance again next year or extend those child care subsidies for the long term? well, that's a really good question and one that i would love to hear democrats answer. are democrats going to trot out more tax hikes to pay for extending the child allowance or making the child care subsidies permanent? or are they going to just suggest that we add hundreds of billions and eventually trillions to our already dangerously large national debt? and if they opt for tax hikes, just who is going to be facing those tax hikes? democrats are eventually going to run out of money from millionaires and billionaires and then they're going to start coming after the wallets of the middle class. and of course, mr. president,

when i say that the programs in democrats' tax-and-spending spree will be paid for in ten years of taxes, i mean that democrats are claiming, claiming that those programs will be paid for because it's by no means clear that democrats' tax hikes and receive new-raising measures will actually result in the revenue they're claiming. democrats, for example, are claiming that their proposal to increase i.r.s. enforcement measures, including a new requirement that would allow the i.r.s. to look into the details of americans' spending will allow them to collect $700 billion in revenue. but the congressional budget office hasn't confirmed that estimate and there's substantial reason to doubt the democrats will be able to collect anywhere even close to that amount, even with a doubling of the i.r.s.' budget. massive expansion the number of i.r.s. employees, the number of audits of everyday americans.

and, mr. president, even if democrats do manage to rake in every dollar they're claiming, the tax hikes and revenue raisers they're proposing would have long-term costs beyond the dollar amount of the tax hikes. more than one of democrats' tax proposals would have a chilling effect on investment and economic growth which would mean a less vibrant economy with fewer jobs and opportunities for american workers. and the i.r.s. proposal i mentioned could put the dee tails of americans -- details of americans' ordinary bank activity into the hands of the i.r.s., an agency we have seen repeatedly mishandle the taxpayer data it already has. as recently as earlier this year. mr. president, democrats may be able to come up with a smaller top-line number by hiding the true cost of the government programs that they're contemplating, but they're buy now and -- their buy now and pay

later approach to government spending is going to have serious consequences for our economy and for the american people. unfortunately, by the time the full cost of democrats' massive government expansion are felt, it may be too late to do much about it. and that apparently, mr. president, is what democrats are counting on. mr. president, i yield the floor. and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from georgia. mr. warnock: i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. the clerk will now report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion. we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of executive calendar number 339, jia m. cobb of virginia to be united states district judge for the district of columbia, 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 jia m. cobb of virginia to be united states district judge for the district of columbia shall be brought to a close. the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll.

vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: on this -- on this vote, the yeas are 57 -- 51, excuse me, the nays are 46, and the motion is agreed to. the clerk will now report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22, do hereby bring to a close debate on the nomination of executive calendar number 342, karen mcglashan williams, of new jersey, to be united

states district judge for the district of new jersey, 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 karen mcglashan williams, of new jersey, to be united states district judge for the district of new jersey, shall be brought to a to close? the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are

will any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or wishing to change his or her vote? if not, the yeas are 58. the nays are 40. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, the judiciary, karen mcglashan williams of new jersey to be united states district judge for the district of new jersey. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of executive calendar number 364, patricia tolliver giles of virginia to be united states district judge for the eastern district of virginia 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 patricia tolliver giles of virginia to be united states district judge for the eastern district of virginia shall be brought to a close. the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

vote: the presiding officer: the yeas are 69, the nays are 29, and the moition is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, the judiciary, patricia tolliver giles of virginia to be united states district judge for the eastern district of virginia. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate stands in recess