vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: have all senators voted? does any senator wish to change

his or her vote? if not, the yeas are 52, the nays are 44. the motion is agreed to. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, department of justice, matthew g. olsen of maryland to be an assistant attorney general. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent -- 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 263, christopher h. schroeder of north carolina to be assistant attorney general signed by 17 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is, is it the sense of the senate that debate on the nomination of christopher h. schroeder of north carolina to be assistant attorney general shall be brought to a close.

the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: the yeas are 55. the nays are 41. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the

nomination. the clerk: nomination, department of justice, christopher h. schroeder of north carolina to be assistant attorney general. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. scott: mr. president, right now american families are worried. the white house thinks inflation is a high-class problem. i -- what the white house continues to miss is that inflation is killing americans on low and fixed incomes. across americans families are going through grocery stores seeing higher prices. folks are passing gas station after gas station looking for lower prices to no avail. these aren't headlines or stories. these are real families living paycheck to paycheck and struggle to keep up. i grew up poor. when my parents' bills went up,

it meant it was more difficult for my family. when gas prices went it it meant we had less food to put on the table. none of us would wish that on anyone, but that's what happening in biden's america. high prices on food, high prices on gas, empty shelves and supply shortages, skyrocketing debt and big government overreach and that's just the start. energy prices are through the roof. let's look at the rising costs at the pump. this week the south florida sun signal ran a story with the headline, quote, gas prices hit their highest level since 2014. when will we get a break, unquote. as gas prices keep rising, the message from florida couldn't be more clear. last week the national gas average was $3.36 a gallon. it was $2.16 a gallon this time last year. that's a 55% increase in just one year. if you're driving a car, that means seeing an extra cost of

about $800 annually. if you're driving a truck that means you're probably seeing an extra cost of $1,400 annually. and more than 5,000 gas stations across the country are charging more than $4.50 a gallon. in one california community, gas was nearly $8 per gallon last week. that's insane. prices may go ■upevenmoreasúfor.

the presiding officer: is there objection? a senator: reserving the right to object. the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. mr. markey: mr. president, i rise to object to the senator from florida's legislation. if we want to tackle rising fuel costs, let's do something that will actually protect american consumers and actually promote our energy independence. let's reinstate the fossil fuel ban that was lifted in 2017 --

2015. so listen to what happened in our nation since 2015 when every republican when they controlled the senate on this senate floor voted to lift the ban on the exportation of oil from the united states. that ban had been in place for 50 years to keep american oil here. well, here's what the republicans did. house and senate, back in 2015, they lifted the ban, oil companies from the united states now send our oil overseas. and get this. in 2020 we exported more than 8.5 million barrels of petroleum every single day out of the united states to other countries and in 2020, pursuant to republican senators in 2015, we

in 2020, for the first time in more than 50 years, exported more barrels of petroleum every single day -- exported than imported it. is that energy independence? i don't think so. and why do we do it? i'll tell you why we do it, it's for the oil companies. that's why we do it. the republicans don't want to do anything on climate change, oil companies. the oil companies want to export american oil drilled for here in the united states because they can make more money selling that oil into the international marketplace. of course that's what the republicans are going to vote for back in 2015. and here's what happens, you get up to 2021 and we now are net exporters of petroleum in our

country. so the bill that is being proposed, it would actually do nothing to help consumers at the pump. the one thing that we could do is reimpose the ban on the exportation of these barrels of oil per day, it's lower price, it's drilled for in the united states, our economy would get the benefit of that lower-priced oil and people would go to the pump paying a lot less per gallon of gasoline than they are doing right now. but you're not going to hear anything from the republican party that takes on the oil industry and their international market using american oil to make more money because people in the rest of the world will pay more for it. but that leaves less american oil here for drivers as they are pulling in to the pump every single day. so this is just a greed of the

domestic oil industry so that they can have unlimited international energy markets so that ultimately -- and this is the beauty of it -- they make more money overseas and they get to tip american consumers upside down at the pumps as they've got their fingers on this nozzle and watching this price of gasoline go up even as they are looking at it. it's a beautiful world for the oil industry to have the cooperation of the republican party on this agenda. and so all i can say is that this proposal is just the opposite of what we should be talking about. the republicans should be reexamining their own conscience about what they did in 2015 instead of shedding crocodile tears today as if joe biden did this.

this net export of petroleum items is a republican idea driven by republicans who were here on the floor and so in no way should this resolution pass and so i object to the senator's motion for unanimous consent. the presiding officer: the objection is heard. the senator from florida. scolt scott that would -- mr. scott: , that would be interesting if it was true. you can look at oil prices and it's international oil prices. they want to send oil overseas if they could sell it in america. so, first off, i'm truly shocked my colleague would say those things. i'm shocked he would object. look, i get it. i know my democratic colleagues have to bend over backwards to protect the biden administration's disastrous energy policies, but i'm surprised they would object to transparency. if it were true, they would come back and say that is what

happened. my bill would provide greater insight into the higher cost of gas prices in the united states. we must have every family have a chance to get ahead. i watch -- i think about my mom and dad. i watched them struggle to make ends meet. this inflation, gas prices, food prices, all these things are hurting the poorest families in this country. when you get very little like we did and gas prices go up, gas prices, food prices, it means it's a very difficult time for these families. hardworking families are trying to get by, we need to make good decisions and figure out why the gas prices are going up the way they are. i'm disappointed that my colleague would object to a simple way of trying to figure out what is going on here and why gas prices are going up and what should congress do to make sure that doesn't continue. i yield the floor. mr. durbin: mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority whip. mr. durbin: mr. president, i'd

like to speak on another topic that sadly is still relevant today as it has been for so many years, and i want to start by recalling 35 years ago when i was a member of the house of representatives and faced one of the most troubling votes in my whole career. it was the height of the war on drugs. a new narcotic showed up. it was called crack cocaine. we didn't know much about it, but we knew several things. first, highly addictive, second, dirt cheap, third, if a woman who was pregnant used it, she could cause permanent harm to the baby she was carrying. we were concerned that this could be the drug of choice in the drug crisis across america and the war on drugs would be lost then. at the time we were debating this, an event took place that had no direct connection to crack cocaine, but it rocked the

capitol. there was a college basketball player named len bias, he was destined for the nba. sadly he overdosed and died. it shocked everyone and it was certainly felt in the house of representatives and perhaps it was part of the impetus of legislation we -- congress took action in 1986. i joined 400 of my house colleagues. we decided to take be a stand, a really powerful stand, against crack cocaine. we decided to create a sentencing regime for crack cocaine that would be so overwhelming that anyone across america who considered using it would think twice. we went to an extreme. we decided to impose a 100-1 disparity between crack cocaine and powdered cocaine.

what does that mean? if you're arrested with five grams of crack, you were subject to the same mandatory sentencing as someone arrested with 500 grams of powdered cocaine, a 100-1 sentencing disparity. our logic was there. yet, people know -- if people know that kind of penalty awaits, they will surely stay away from this deadly new narcotic. turned out -- it turned out we were wrong. the net result of the 100-1 disparity against crack cocaine didn't drive the cost of the drug up on the street, it drove it down. it didn't lessen the number of people who were addicted, it increased the number who were addicted. exactly the opposite of what we expected to happen. and then for a decade, maybe two decades, we reaped the whirlwind. the 100-1 disparity meant we

were filling our prisons to a level we had never seen in the history of the united states and, frankly, the world had never seen in terms of prison population. and sadly the vast majority of them were african americans. we stole away one or two generations of african american males and some females too in the process of making this terrible mistake. and it didn't make america any safer at all. in fact, it worsened the racial inequities in our just of justice system. black americans and white americans use drugs at the same rates. law makessers on both sides of the aisle -- lawmakers on dliel recognized -- both sides of the aisle recognized this was a true injustice. i tried to undo some of the damage done on the war on drugs.

we came together in 2010 to pass a bill i called the fair sentencing act. it lowered the federal drug sentences for the first time since the war on drugs. through bipartisan negotiations, we were able to significantly reduce the crack powder sentencing disparity, but we didn't eliminate it, we reduced it from 100-1 to 18-1. how did you come up with the number 18? two opposing senators, one, myself, and jeff sessions from alabama negotiated it literally in the senate gym. it is still dramatically higher than it should have been but it was also dramatic progress. now more than a decade later, we can finish the job with the equal act, a measure i introduced this year under the leadership of my friend and colleague, senator cory booker. once again, we've been able to

come together on a bipartisan basis only this time we agree we need to finish the job and end this disparity. we have help on the republican side. how about that? a bipartisan approach, senators portman, paul, tillis and graham are joining us, our house colleagues overwhelmingly agreed on a bipartisan basis as well to change this as well to go back to one to one. the legislation passed 361-66 in the house. not bad, certainly in this divided political atmosphere, it's amazing. by passing the equal act, this senate can prove we can learn from our mistakes. addiction is not a moral failing it is a disease, a treatable disease. if our nation's laws encourage people to seek treatment instead of incarcerating them for seeking self-medication, we could potentially save tens of thousands of lives every year.

i said to the people back in illinois if -- if i -- ten or 15 years ago, i said did you hear somebody downtown last night died from a drug overdose, 15 years ago you would say that's a darn shame. if i asked you, try to describe to me what that person looked like, who that person was. they would have said, my guess is that it's an african american, probably a male between 20 and 25 years of age. you would have been right. now we are seeing overdoses, particularly with opioid and fentanyls that belie that stereo type of the drug addict. we are finding addictions to opioids in every part of society, black, white, and brown, people with a lot of money and people who are dirt poor and we started looking at addiction differently.

it's not a problem with minorities, it's a problem with america that we have to cope with and we have to deal with it honestly, not with stiff criminal penlts so much as treatment -- penalties so much as treatment that can deal with these addictions and that is critically important. the war on drugs took its toll on america, it fueled the crisis of mass incarceration and we wasted -- wasted billions of federal dollars in the process, dollars that could have been spent on actually making america safe. we need to replace criminalization with common sense and passion, we can start by passing the equal act. mr. president, on a separate topic, as we round out the week, we continue to vote on a number of very important executive and judicial nominations. i want to speak about four critical positions in the justice department. mat olsen, head of the d.o.j., criminal division, chris --

christopher h. schroeder, dellinger and all of them eminently qualified, deep experience and strong credentials and they understand the importance of d.o.j. independence. matt olsen dedicated the bulk of his career to help keep our nation safe and will continue to do the same thing as assistant attorney general for national security. from the time, from his time in the justice department to his work at the national security agency to his tenure as a confirmed director of the national counterterrorism center, he has been a leader when it doms security in america. chris schrader, nominated to head the justice department's office of legal counsel significant experience including serving as counselor to the assistant attorney general and deputy assistant himself. deep understanding of the office and ready to provide the kind of skill and experience we need.

hampton y. dellinger nominated to serve as assistant a.g. for the office of legal policy. decades of public and private service. he oversaw the judicial vetting process for state judges in north carolina. i'm confident he will enable the department of justice to continue its track record of processing president biden's highly-qualified nominees. elizabeth prelogar nominated to be the u.s. solicitor general, accomplished appellate advocate, argued nine cases before the supreme court, filed hundreds of amicus briefs and other petitions. she knows this job and she knows it well, and it's time that she is given this opportunity to serve. let me conclude by saying, mr. president, these nominees are the kind of experienced people we need. we have good nominees for the court as well, and i ask that my statement be put in the record in its entirety to describe each and every one of them currently pending before the united states senate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: i yield the floor.

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. booker: thank you, thank you, mr. president. when i came to the united states senate, i found a friend, i found a mentor and i found a leader on issues of justice. the incredible friend i have in the senator from illinois, he has been leading on issues from immigration reform and fighting for dreamers all the way to being the principal leader for the democratic side for the passage of the first step act. i'll never forget he inviting me to the white house in my earliest days with then- president obama, centering me on that table. i had just gotten here, and he then was talking about these issues, the issues of mass incarceration, the issues of racial discrimination and incarceration. this what i rise to talk about really is an issue that my colleague has been dealing with for 35 years.

he gave important history. it was a bipartisan issue. 35 years ago, when the senate and the house of representatives voted to pass the anti-drug abuse act of 1986, and the president signed it into law that year, he said very specifically one of the things did was create a massive sentencing disparity between crack and powder cocaine. the bill made it so that five grams of crack cocaine, the example that my colleague gave, carried the same mandatory minimum prison sentence as 500 grams of powder cocaine. that 101 disparity. what is very powerful to me is what maya maya angel ou says. do the best you can until you know better. and then when you know better, do better.

that is the leadership of senator dick durbin. understanding that this was a failure, that the policy did not achieve its intended purpose, in fact it created, as he described, the opposite, dick durbin then led this body towards the long process of making reforms happen. i was proud that when i got into the senate, senator durbin told me the story of how we got it from 100-1 down to 18-11. it wasn't necessary -- 18-1. it wasn't based on science. it was a negotiation between senator durbin and another republican colleague. i love the story because senator durbin pushed for what we are asking for right now. he fought for 1-1. couldn't get it, but p was able to negotiate down from 100-1 to 18-1. and so what i'd like to do is read real quick the research that looked at cocaine use in

the united states from right before this bill was first passed up until 2013. i want to quote -- despite harsher adaa penalties for crack compared to powder cocaine. both powder cocaine use and the misuse of prescription drugs, the negative control decreased. the report concluded that the findings suggest that mandatory minimum sentencing may not be an effective method of deterring cocaine use. this has been the growing consensus about the war on drugs on both sides of the aisle. it has been one that has been changing policy. i am so grateful for senator durbin's work chipping away at the mistakes that were made during the time between when i was in law school in the 1990's

and mayor of the larger city in my state in 2006, we saw the prison population explode in this country, between that period we were building a new prison or jail about one every ten days. we became the place on the planet earth with the most incarcerated people, one-third of all the women incarcerated on the planet earth are now in the united states of america. one out of every four incarcerated people period in the united states of america. and a growing consensus of bipartisan work led by senator durbin with his wing man from jersey had been beginning to undermine that with our partners. and so we saw the 2018 passage of the first step act, the bill which which was made retroactive and saw thousands of people liberated from federal prison unjustly sentenced under that 1986 law.

the bill senator durbin and i wrote and introduced, the equal act, this is, again, senator durbin's leadership, is now our opportunity to do better. and it must feel good for everyone that understands the good intentions but disastrous results of the crack cocaine, powder cocaine disparity. for all those who understand that we say equal justice under law but the disproportionate impact it's had on black and brown communities further punishing african american communities in a disproportionate way, in fact incarcerating black men at rates that we now have more black men under criminal supervision in america than all the slaves in 1850. so we're working to do better. the bill that i picked up to partner with senator durbin on passed the house of representatives. and senator durbin hinted at

this, i would have never expected it, it passed with overwhelming bipartisan support. the bill was championed by democrats and republicans. it passed with 149 republicans voting for it, and now it's over here. the great thing is our list of cosponsors, which senator durbin read, is growing. i think we'll have an announcement over the next few days of other republicans joining this bill. we can't change the past, but we can make for a better future. we can't undo the disparities that have disproportionately sent african americans to prison, but we can make for a more equal and more just future. there's an old saying that the arc of the moral universe is long but bends towards justice. it was a martin luther king quote. he also says change does not roll in on the wheels of

inevitability. it must be carried in on the backs of people willing to struggle for it, people who still believe that this nation can be a symbol to this world about justice and its justice system. a terrible mistake was made 35 years ago. i was a teenager. there are people right now unjustly incarcerated and an affront to our most sacred ideal of this country, because of the liberty. they are there because of this mistake. we've not fixed it. it was grievous. we have not fixed it. it is wrong. this is our moment. it is a moment of redemption to right past wrongs, to set this nation on a more just course, to bend the arc of the moral

universe more towards justice. i urge my colleagues to support this bill. i urge them to be arc benders. together we can make this a more perfect union. thank you, mr. president.

the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. booker: thank you very much. is there a quorum or should i suggest the absence of one? forgive me then. don't do anything, okay. forgive me, mr. president. i yield the floor.

mr. grassley: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: thank you. i hear from iowans all the time

about the high cost of hearing aids. the $5,000 or $6,000 or even $10,000 costs are often shocking for seniors who are on a fixed income. 38 million americans and obviously most of the time adults have hearing loss. hearing loss makes it harder to work, harder to socialize and easier to become isolated. in 2016, i began a bipartisan effort with democrat senator warren of massachusetts to allow consumers to purchase over-the-counter hearing aids. if you can buy nonprescription reading glasses over-the-counter, it makes very good sense that you can buy very

basic hearing aids as well. when senator warren and i began our efforts, our goal was simple, by making more products more easily available to consumers, this competition will increase and then lead to lower costs. despite every special interest, we passed in 2017, a bill that's entitled over-the-counter hearing aid act. last week f.d.a. just now released proposed regulations over-the-counter hearing aids. this is very welcomed news, but it took the f.d.a. bureaucracy more than three years to draft

regulations. senator warren and i pressed both the trump administration and now the biden administration to takes action, get these regulations out so we can get these hearing aids over the counter on the market. i'm glad the f.d.a. finally did its job. now the same iowans who told me about the high cost of hearing aids can comment on the draft regulations. so everybody that wants to make such comments have until januare comments on the draft regulations. as long as the f.d.a. bureaucracy acts, and i hope they will be listening, i expect iowans can purchase over the counter hearing aids sometime early 2022.

this is good news for iowans and americans generally. i yield the floor. mrs. fischer: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from nebraska. mrs. fischer: thank you, mr. president. i rise to discuss where things stand after nine months under president biden. to start, american citizens are still left behind enemy lines in afghanistan even though the president said in august that he would get every single american home safe before pulling out our troops. and the numbers are much worse than the administration had led us to believe. as of this week, the state department is in touch with more than 400 americans who are still in afghanistan. about half of those, at least

196 american citizens, want to leave but they have been unable to do so. leaving even one american citizen who wants to come home at the mercy of the taliban is a failure in leadership. it should never have been an option. but it has been two months and there are still 196 americans in afghanistan who want out. that is unconscionable. president biden should have done what was needed to bring every last american home like he promised he would do in august. that is his number one responsibility as president to ensure the safety of the american people, but maybe we shouldn't be surprised since he hasn't been able to secure our own border. in fact, he doesn't even try to

secure our southern border. customs and border protection reported recently that they apprehended more than 1.7 million migrants attempting to cross our southern border illegally over the span of just 12 months. that's the highest total ever recorded in a single fiscal year. and if border agents encountered 1.7 million illegal migrants, imagine how many were able to cross into our country undetected. c.b.p. encountered nearly 200,000 illegal migrants last month alone, meaning that apprehensions were up by more than 230% in september 2021 compared to september of 2020. if you want to know why we have

this crisis at the border, ask the migrants themselves. many have been very honest about why they risked their lives to travel thousands of miles to the united states. if you ask them why, -- ask them why they are here, their answer is simple. the president promised to let us in. we are a nation of immigrants, but we cannot have effective legal immigration if illegal immigration is spiraling out ouf control. illegal immigration means cutting in front of millions of people who have been waiting years to come to the united states the right way. our message as a nation needs to be that if you want to come here, you have to follow our laws. you cannot just walk across the

border. president obama said it well a few weeks ago in an interview on cb -- abc news, he said, we see tragedy and hardship with families desperately trying to get here so their kids are safe and fleeing violence and catastrophe, at the same time we're a nation state, we have borders. the idea that we can just have open borders is something that, as a practical matter, is unsustainable. end quote. well, abc cut that portion of the interview out. i suppose they can't allow a former president of the united states to disagree with the radical left wing of their party. this is all taking place against the backdrop of the highest inflation rate in decades and

massive supply chain issues that threaten to cripple our recovery -- recovering economy. the white house insists these problems are only going to affect the upper class. they're high-class problems. press secretary jen psaki said the over day our supply chain issues are nothing br than the tragedy of the treadmill that's declayed. end quote. what an out-of-touch thing to say. she must be talking about her friends and neighbors here in d.c. because i don't know many nebraskans who are spending thousands of dollars on inhome treadmills. rising costs and shortages are hurting everyone. most of all the tens of millions of americans who are living paycheck to paycheck.

the president ace shameless by now pay later policies are forcing hard working -- hardworking americans to pay an extra dollar for a gallon of gas while they watch the real value of their retirement accounts slump. they may not live in washington or new york or san francisco, but these are real people. they're small business owners who are wondering if they'll be able to get the supplies that they need to meet historic demand this holiday season. there are millions of hardworking americans who rely on propane to heat their homes who are worried about getting priced out of a warm house this winter. their families -- they are families who don't know if they'll be able to put food on the table for their kids. anyone who thinks most people's first concern is whether the newest palatine is going to

arrive on time, they have no idea what working americans do to get by every single day. what has the response to these unprecedented problems been in the media? "the washington post" said it's, quote, time for some new, more realistic expectations. end quote. i think people will find that lower your expectations is not a very optimistic and it's not a very inspiring slogan for the party in power. and as dangerous as this wave of inflation is, it's really not like nobody saw it coming. larry summers, the liberal economist who directed the national economic council under president obama has been sounding the alarm for months. 's -- he's not the only one.

dozens of leading experts have warned against borrowing trillions of dollars to command the reach of government when inflation is already running rampant. but earlier this year democrats in congress spent nearly $2 trillion on an entirely partisan basis under the pretense that it was necessary to fight the pandemic. so what's the fix? what's the fix? how is president biden going to pull america back from the brink of inflation? well, he wants to spend even more of the american people's hard-earned money. the president said in august that the massive multitrillion dollar spending spree he wants this chamber to approve, quote, won't increase inflation. it will take the pressure off of

inflation. end quote. well, he leaves how that might happen to our imagination. in reality trying to spend our way out of inflation is like trying to put a fire out with lighter fluid. it is absolutely delusional. we cannot just keep spending more and more, not when as the senior senator from west virginia said recently, quote, millions of jobs are open. supply chains are strained. and unavoidable inflation taxes are draining workers' hard-earned wages as the price of gasoline and groceries continues to climb. end quote. out-of-control spending is how we got here in the first place, and the longer we keep at it,

the worst it's going to get. some democrats are fond of saying that this bill will cost zero dollars because, well, it might be paid for through new taxes. the truth is that tear plan would create -- their plan would create trillions of dollars in new entitlements, and even if they do find a way for pay for it, which i doubt, that doesn't mean it's free. that money has to come from somewhere. and the joint committee on taxation has shown that two-thirds of democrats' proposed new tax burdens, they would fall on the lower and the middle class of this country. i wish i could say the outrageous price tag is the only thing wrong with the democrats' tax-and-spend boondoggle, but what's actually in their plan might even be more

irresponsible. it would allow the i.r.s. to snoop on americans' bank accounts if their inflows and outflows exceed $10,000 per year. now, that's a lot of money. but let's put it in perspective. federal agents would get to see your house and car payments, how much you spend on groceries and gas, heating bills, school costs for your kids, and everything else that you spend in a year just to get by. so spending over $10,000 a year on these essentials that are in our lives, they would let the i.r.s. be in just about every americans' bank account. democrats' plan would also expand green energy tax credits for wealthy americans so they can buy expensive electric vehicles they can already afford. a millionaire can buy the most

expensive new tesla for $150,000, and under what the senior senator from oregon has proposed, they'll be able to claim a tax credit worth $12,500. nebraska taxpayers don't need to be subsidizing new electric cars for rich americans. and maybe worst of all, the house plan does not include the hyde amendment which republicans and democrats have agreed on for decades. if the radical left succeeds in taking that out, taxpayers will be required to pay for abortions for the first time in more than 40 years. madam president, the american people have been watching this country bounce from crisis to crisis to crisis. and after so many disasters in a row, one poll shows that

president biden's approval rating is down to just 37%, barely a third of americans approve of the job this president is doing. and a majority say this administration is not competent. that should tell president biden that his agenda isn't as popular in the rest of america as it is in the beltway bubble, but instead the president is forging ahead with more federal government controls. there's now even talk of a federal vaccine mandate. the government is going to twist an obscure labor law beyond recognition to force americans to take that vaccine. i believe in the vaccines. i believe they are safe and effective. and we should be encouraging people to choose to get vaccinated. but the government, the

government simply has no business requiring americans to do it. under the president's new executive order, businesses with more than 100 employees are being forced to comply with the vaccine mandate or submit employees to weekly testing. otherwise, they will risk losing crucial employees. i recently signed on to a letter led by the junior senator from alaska that urges the president to reconsider. there is absolutely no precedent in american history for a federal vaccine requirement. and president biden will be on entirely new legal ground if he moves ahead with this. one of the most unsettling things i've seen from this administration wasn't something that they said or did. it was something that they left

unsaid. when jen psaki broke the news that the federal government was going to try to force through this mandate, she smiled. in response to a reporter who asked if the president had the power to enforce vaccination for private employees, not federal contractors, private employees, she said yes. stay tuned. and then she grinned. without saying anything she showed that the biden administration is relishing this chance to push the limits of executive power. when you take that together with the incompetence that's been on display since january, from the afghanistan debacle to the crisis at our southern border to the administration's complete disregard for how inflation is

devastating hardworking families and the poor in our country, i think you start to get a good idea of what the biden administration is all about. they are going to trample on the constitution to advance a radical left agenda that is truly unprecedented in american history. and they don't care how many disasters they continue to create. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor. i would ask consent that the 5:15 vote occur immediately. the presiding officer: without objection. the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion, we,

the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of executive calendar number 368, hampton y. dellinger of north carolina to be an assistant attorney general signed by 17 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is, is it the sense of the senate that debate on the nomination of hampton y. dellinger of north carolina to be an assistant attorney general shall be brought to a close. the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: the yeas are 51, the nays are 45. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, department of justice, hampton y. dellinger of north carolina to be an assistant attorney general. 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 413, elizabeth prelogar of idaho to be solicitor general of the united states 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 elizabeth prelogar of idaho to be solicitor general of the united states shall be brought to a close. the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: the yeas are 53, the nays are 42. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, department of justice, elizabeth prelogar of idaho to be solicitor general of the united states. mr. brown: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. brown: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to legislative session, 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. brown: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to consideration of s. res. 429 submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. res. 429 designating october 26, 2021, as the day of the deployed.

the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed. mr. brown: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the consideration of s. res. 429 submitted earlier today. i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the consideration of s.430 submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. res. 430 calling on congress, schools, and state and local educational agencies to recognize the significant educational implications of dyslexia that must be addressed and designating october 2021 as national dyslexia awareness month. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed. mr. brown: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without

objection. mr. brown: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today it adjourn until 10:00 a.m., thursday, october 28, that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour 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 and that upon the conclusion of morning business, the senate proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the williams nomination. further, that at 11:00 a.m. the senate vote on confirmation of the williams olson and schrader nomination in the order listed, that upon disposition of the schrader nomination the senate resume consideration of the dellinger nomination postcloture and that at 2:30 the senate vote on confirmation of the dell ger and prelogar nomination provider to a vote on the robinson and haytens nomination in the order listed below.

if cloture is invoked on nomination during thursday's session postcloture time expire immediately and the senate voted on confirmations of the nominations at a time to be decided by the majority leader in consultation with the republican leader. if nominations are confirmed during thursday's session, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, the president be immediately notified of the senate's action. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: for the information of senators, there will be three roll call votes starting at 11:00 a.m., four roll call votes at 2:30. and, mr. president, if there is no business to come before the senate, i ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until senate stands adjourned until >> the u.s. senate today considered several judicial nominations for u.s. district courts and justice department posts including u.s. solicitor general. watch live coverage of the

senate next returns here on cspan2. >> c-span as your unfiltered view of government funded by these television companies and more including charter communications. >> broadbent is a force for empowerment. that is why charter has invested billions, building infrastructure upgrading technology, empowering opportunity in communities and big and small. charter is connecting us. >> charter communications support c-span as a public service. along with these other television providers giving it a front row seat to democracy. >> download c-span new mobile apps stay up-to-date with live video coverage of the days of the biggest events from live stream at the house and senate floor and key congressional hearings. the white house events in supreme court oral arguments, even live