vote:

vote:

vote:

the vice president: on this vote the yeas are 50. the nays are 49. three-fifths of the senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted in the affirmative, the

motion is not agreed to. mr. schumer: madam president, i enter a motion to reconsider the failed cloture vote. the vice president: the motion is entered. mr. schumer: madam president, pursuant to senate res. 27, the judiciary committee being tied on the question of reporting, i move to discharge the judiciary committee from further consideration of jennifer sung of oregon to be circuit judge. the vice president: under the provisions of s. res. 27, there will now be up to four hours of debate on the motion equally divided between the two leaders or their designees with no motions, points of order or amendments in order. mr. schumer: i ask for the yeas and nays. the vice president: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the yeas and nays are ordered. mr. schumer: madam president, for the information of the senate, we expect to vote to discharge the nomination to occur following the votes that are scheduled to being at 5:15

tonight. therefore, senators should expect three roll call votes at 5:15. these votes would be on the confirmation of the prieto and nayak nominations and on the motion to discharge the sung nomination. now, madam president, in reference to what just occurred on the floor in terms of voting rights, madam president, this is a low, low point in the history of this body. a few moments ago, senate republicans for the fourth time this year were presented with a simple question. will they vote in favor of starting debate, merely a debate, on protecting votes rights in this country. in today's case, they would join democrats in proceeding to the john lewis voting rights advancement act which would reinstate long-standing, widely embraced federal protections on the right to vote. with just one exception. republicans once again obstructed the senate from beginning its process.

given the chance to debate what is -- in what is supposed to be the world's greatest deliberative body, republicans walked away. today's obstruction was only the latest in a series of disturbing turns for the republican party. for over half a century, the policies of the voting rights act have commanded bipartisan support in this chamber. it has been reauthorized five times, including by presidents nixon, reagan, and bush. many of my republican colleagues in office today have worked in the past to improve and approve preclearance provisions similar to the ones contained in today's proposal. it was good enough for republicans back then. it should have been good enough for them today. but after today's vote, madam president, it's clear that the modern republican party has turned its back on protecting voting rights. the party of lincoln is becoming

the party of the big lie. democrats have laid out the facts for months. we are witnessing at the state level the greatest assault on voting rights since the era of segregation. before our very eyes the airs owe ears of jim crow are weakening the foundations of our democracy and by blocking debate today, senate republicans are implicitly endorsing these partisan republican actions to suppress the vote and unravel our democracy. we have said all year long that if there's anything worth the senate's attention, it's protecting our democracy. we've tried for months to get republicans to agree. we have lobbied republicans privately. we have gone through regular order. we have attempted to debate them on the floor. we have presented reasonable, commonsense proposals in june, august, october, and now in

november. each time i personally promised my republican colleagues they'd have ample opportunity to voice their concerns, offer germane amendments, and make changes to our proposal. at no point did we ever ask them to vote for our legislation. we've simply been trying to get our republican friends to start debating just as the senate was intended to do. on the floor, off the floor we held public hearings, group discussions with senators, and one-on-one meetings with the other side to try and win support. senators manchin, kaine, tester, king, durbin, klobuchar, leahy, and more have all met with republicans to initiate a dialogue. and at every turn we have been met with resistance. the sole exception in ten months has been our colleague, the senator from alaska, who voted

in favor of advancing today's legislation. today i thank her for working with us in good faith on this bill. but where is the rest of the party of lincoln? don't to -- down to the last member, the rest of the reeve conference has refused to engage, debate, even refused to acknowledge that our country faces a serious threat to democracy. madam president, the senate is better than this. a simple look at our history shows we're better than this. the same institution that passed civil rights legislation, the new deal, the great society, the bills of reconstruction should be more than capable of defending voting rights in the modern era. if as anyone who has been here for more than a few years knows, the gears of the senate have

ossifide over the years. by some measures, ten times as much compared to decades past. some might wonder if any of the great accomplishments of the past would have a chance of passage today. would the social security act pass the modern senate? what about medicare and medicaid act? what about the civil rights act of 1964? we sure hope they would, but it's difficult to see with the way this chamber works today. as i said a few weeks ago, i believe the senate needs to be restored to its rightful status as the world's greatest deliberative body. it has earned that title precisely because, yes, debate is the central feature of this body, but at the end of the day, so is governing, so is taking action, when needed, once the debate has run its due course. this is an old, old fight in this chamber. over 100 years ago, the great

senator of massachusetts, henry cabot lodge said, quote, to debate without merit is perilous but to debate but never vote is imbecile. we should heed those words today and explore whatever paths we have to restore the senate so it does what its framers intended -- debate, deliberate, compromise, and vote. we can't be satisfied in this chamber with thinking that democracy will always win out in the end if we aren't willing to put in the work to defend it. it will require constant vigilance to keep democracy alive in the 21st century. madam president, just because republicans will not join us doesn't mean democrats will stop fighting. this is too important. we will continue to fight for

voting rights and find an alternative path forward, even if it means going at it alone, to defend the most fundamental liberty we have as citizens. i yield the floor. ms. lummis: madam president? the presiding officer: the junior senator from wyoming. ms. lummis: thank you, madam president. i ask unanimous consent that the following interns in my office be granted floor privileges until november 4, 2021. alyssa burlson, shallot tenor weekly. the presiding officer: without

objection. ms. lummis: thank you, madam president. i am joining my colleagues today to highlight the real harm that the president's overreaching vaccine mandates are causing the people of wyoming and the united states. while i am vaccinated and support others making the decision to get the covid-19 vaccine to protect themselves, i am very concerned about unacceptable actions by the executive branch to force americans to get the vaccine. frankly, i cannot stay silent about these blatant violations of personal freedom. over the last several months, the president has signed numerous executive orders mandating vaccines for federal workers, contractors, and employers with over 100 workers. this is unacceptable. these mandates are far-reaching and burdensome. additionally, these mandates will not achieve the desired

results of stopping the spread of covid-19. instead, they will only further politicize health care choices, sow greater discord across the nation and exacerbate our employment crisis. i worry they will also further harm in our supply chain issues. all of these should concern every american, particularly with the holiday season rapidly approaching. consumers are going to face empty shelves in stores and for what is available prices will continue to rise. in the freight industry, these mandates could mean that up to one-third of employees will be leaving their jobs. on monday, "politico" noted that several trucking companies are looking to end their work with the federal government as the

vaccine mandate deadlines loom closer. this doesn't only impact the shipping industry but also our defense and law enforcement sectors as well. former deputy under secretary for industrial policy, william greenwald, noted that, quote, even a couple of welders or engineers who walk off their jobs on a highly classified program could wreak havoc with our national security, end quote. meanwhile, it is more than a couple of individuals who are looking at leaving. defense contractor raytheon says they expect to lose thousands of employees when the mandate goes into effect. finally, i would like to give an example of how this is impacting my home state of wyoming. across the nation, we are facing nursing shortages, but in wyoming it's becoming critical.

i've heard over and over again from my hospitals, clinics, and nursing homes that they just don't have the staff. many have left the field, whether due to the strain of covid-19 or because they believe they can find better work as traveling nurses. this has left our health care community short-staffed. if we lose additional nurses from these vaccine mandates, my state is looking at losing health care capabilities. this means turning away patients and potentially closing nursing homes. these patients at the end of their life frequently have nowhere else to go. if there's no one else to care for them, the health care system will be at the end of its rope trying to find ways to care for these patients. for these reasons, i cannot support these mandates, nor

should anyone else. knowing the damage that these mandates will cause, the president must immediately rescind these executive orders. and find a better way to keep our nation safe. thank you, madam president. the presiding officer: the junior senator from florida. oh, indiana. mr. braun: the junior from indiana. the presiding officer: i was looking at your colleague. mr. braun: so we're here today. the vaccine mandate to me, when i got back home over break, never had so many friends, fellow business owners that

actually made it a point to find me and tell me that this can't be happening. with the full navigation that we've taken through covid, i've always been clear. take it seriously. we don't know how it's going to end up. it's been over a year and a half. the point, back in indiana, most businesses, schools, all organizations have put protocols in place where it's not been an issue. it's been a nonissue of transmissions within the workplace. we finally get through it and we found the rhythm of what works and now you have a mandate that says, hey, federal employees, federal contractors, they contacted me, too. some think they'll lose 10% to 25% of their workforce. when you playbook at where we're at -- when you look at where we're at, it just does not make sense. that's why i'm leading the

congressional review act effort to try to get all senators on my side -- some son the other side of the aisle -- to say, hey, we don't need it. enough is enough. playbook at the practical -- look at the practical reasons because businesses, other organizations have tried and they've been successful at keeping their employees and their customers safe and healthy. this is coming hat -- at a point in time where it will be salt in the wound, it will be the biggest wallop that these entities have had, especially when we've been paying them to keep their employees, up to 500 employees. now we're going to force them to lose them ena -- en masse down to 100. that's why i'm here talking about it and please pull back on something that is beyond the pale, that we don't need and it's going to hurt places that we've been trying to help. i yield to the senator from florida. mr. scott: madam president? the presiding officer: the junior senator from florida. mr. scott: madam president, in

december president bush promised he would not require americans to be vaccinated or require that they carry vaccine passports. but the here he is less than ten months into his president. i think he must have forgotten what he said going back on what he said. how can the american people believe anything he says? americans are sick and tired of the government telling them what to do and are more than capable of making the right choices to protect themselves, their family, and their neighbors. but now because king biden has gone back on his word or forgotten what he said, millions of americans are facing an ultimatum -- get the vaccine or lose your job. for companies, it's either make your employees get the jab or lose your contract. biden wants to control our lives and get the government be the authority in every area of your life. nowhere in the constitute does it say that biden has this power, nowhere. i had covid.

i'm grateful that i was able to get vaccinated. i hope that all americans talk with their doctors and consider making the same decision. it's a personal decision every individual gets to make. but that's not how president biden sees it. that's why i've introduced multiple pieces of legislation to push back on these unconstitutional vaccine mandates. i've introduced the freedom to fly act to prohibit the t.s.a. from requiring americans to show proof of vaccination or produce a vaccine passport and protect the privacy of american families. i do not believe that the federal government has any business requiring travelers toss turn over their personal medical information to catch a flight. i introduced the stop mandating additional requirements for travel act to prohibit the feds from requiring americans to wear masks on public transportation like amtrak or on airplanes. i've also introduced the prevent unconstitutional vaccine mandates for interstate commerce act, which would prevent federal agencies like the department of

transportation from requiring proof of vaccination for companies trying to do business across state lines last month i introduced legislation to prevent vaccine mandates from being tied to federal assistance programs like medicare, social security, food stamps and public housing. i hoped everyone in this chamber would have agreed that we shouldn't force struggling american families to choose between social security disability checks and a personal health decision. most americans would be shocked if a politician said, it's acceptable to deny someone health insurance or food stamps simply because of their vaccine status. sadly, madam president, this is exactly what happened on this floor last month. all i did was request that americans, regardless of vaccine status, should be able to access the few of our most essential government programs and my democrat colleagues disagreed every time. the democrat party leaves no room for disagreement. they leave no program for compromise.

i think it is shameful. but unlike joe biden and democrats in washington, i don't believe that government knows better than the american people. my parents didn't have much of a formal education, but they worked hard, made the choices they felt were right for the health and well-being of our family. but as biden tries to control the lives of every american family, our economy is suffering. inflation is already skyrocketing and these vaccine mandates are going to add to it. only weeks ago the federal reserve published its latest book report. in the report, the fed found that vaccine mandates were widely cited by businesses as a reason for low labor supply and hiring and retention issues. madam president, the federal reserve admitted what i have been warning about for weeks. joe biden's unconstitutional vaccine mandates are causing higher turnover, driving americans out of their jobs, and further fueling the devastating supply chain and inflation

crisis plaguing american families. when i think about the impact of vaccine mandates, i think about my dad. he was a truck driver. anyone who has driven tax reduction or been close to -- driven trucks or been close to someone in that line of work, knows how demanding it can be. there is already a driver shortage in this country. we can't afford to lose any more due to unconstitutional mandates. or our first responders. dozens of massachusetts state troopers are threatening to resign over vaccine mandates. los angeles county could lose up to 10% of its police force. chicago may see up to 50% of its police refuse to comply with vaccine mandates. seattle is preparing for a maximum exodus of officers in the coming weeks due to people quitting over vaccine mandates. for the past several months, we have been seeing rises in violent crime and problems retaining police officers. we should not add to that ongoing problem by forcing police officers to choose

between their jobs and taking a back seat. i have called on secretary buttigieg and secretary raymondo to explain what they are doing to prevent the united states supply chains from completely crumbling over biden's failed policies and mandates. sadly, i haven't heard a word from them, but i do see them on tv all the time. these people love to get on cnn and be commentators. that's not their job. their job isn't to point out a problem. their job is to fix it. now we have seen all this destruction that this virus has caused. many of us know someone who has fallen extremely ill who has died because of covid. that's why i'm very appreciative of all those who worked so hard to develop the vaccine, but i'm 100% against these unconstitutional mandates. being vaccinated is a decision every american gets to make for themselves. it's an authoritarian overreach by king biden to threaten people with job loss unless they get the vaccine. think about it. why on earth would a president

do something they know is going to cost someone their job? our job within government is to provide people with good information so they can make informed decisions and help create jobs, not kill them. but we have seen everything joe biden does to make things worse for families and businesses in florida and across our great country. it's time to rescind these proposed unconstitutional vaccine mandates. i yield the floor to my colleague from tennessee. mrs. blackburn: thank you to the senator from florida. thank you, madam president. i ask unanimous consent to enter into a colloquy with my friend, senator marshall. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. blackburn: thank you, madam president. it is no secret that president biden's covid-19 vaccine mandates have drawn major opposition here in the senate. my republican colleagues and i have introduced multiple pieces of legislation that chip away at the various impractical,

unethical, and downright unconstitutional aspects of this latest power grab. last week, i introduced the keeping our covid-19 heroes employed act which would pull essential workers out from under these mandates and stop the white house from unilaterally firing them for refusing to submit to a shot. think about how ludicrous that is. this, of course, is the heart of the issue. these pieces of legislation are not antivaccine. and, in fact, our opposition isn't about vaccines at all. i have been vaccinated. i encourage people to talk to their physician. but this is all about the president -- the precedent the biden administration is trying to set. namely that it is acceptable for the federal government to stand

in between a patient and their doctor and to overrule science and personal choice in the name of their personal political agenda. i think my colleague, senator marshall, knows a thing or two about preserving the importance of that doctor-patient relationship. is that correct, senator? mr. marshall: the senior senator from tennessee to ask me about something so near and dear to my heart, that patient-physician relationship. i just want to start my remarks by saying i support the vaccine. i support the vaccine, but i also support the individual's right to decide whether they want the vaccine or not. and i think that's why it's so important to have this patient-physician relationship. i had the duty, the honor to treat thousands of women with a virus. i learned very quickly that the same virus could cause different problems for different patients.

and it was based upon their previous medical history, their underlying medical problems what my advice might be. and what my concern today is is that so many of these heroes of yesterday, the covid-19 heroes of yesterday are now being treated so poorly. they are being told to get the jab or else lose their job. this mandate is going to lead to unemployment, it's going to lead to more inflation and further disrupt our supply chain. and i just wish i could paint a face of all these people from kansas that are reaching out to me saying please don't make me make this choice between the jab or my job. i think of the nurses that i worked with in liberal, kansas, when the i.c.u. was overflowing. i think of the nuclear engineer folks and the union workers at wolf creek nuclear energy that kept our electricity on. i think of those union workers that worked for department of defense contracts in the aerospace industry. and now they are being kicked in the face. they are being told they are no

longer essential, that they are no longer heroes. senator blackburn, i'm supposing there is heroes in tennessee that are now being forgotten as well. mrs. blackburn: you are correct, senator marshall. and as i have said before, tennessee is a supply chain and logistic state. shipping, transportation, manufacturing, these are things that help form the backbone of our economy and those industries employ thousands upon thousands of people in our states. i will tell you these thousands of people are speaking up just as you have said they are speaking up in kansas every day. i hear from people who see what's happening on the ground, from small business owners to truck drivers, and they are sounding the alarm bells. they know that joe biden's mandate will destroy their

industry, and they are just not asking for carveouts. what they are saying is give us a plan a, a plan b, a plan c. give us options. and senator marshall, i believe you have taken a different approach to pushing back on some of these mandates. mr. marshall: and indeed there are more options out there. there are indeed more tools in the tool shed that we can use. and we plan to oppose any efforts to enforce joe biden's vaccine mandate with all the other tools at our disposal, including blocking cloture on any continuing resolution in the absence of language protecting americans from the mandates. in fact, 50 g.o.p. senators recently supported this as an amendment to the c.r. in september. senator blackburn, i know that you also would be concerned about using any type of future funding to enforce this unconstitutional mandate. mrs. blackburn: yes indeed,

senator. i am very concerned. and the biden administration has indeed weaponized the u.s. government against workers who love their job, against workers who were trying to earn a living and support their family. and we have to stand up and defend them. think about it. the biden administration is using taxpayer dollars to implement a program designed to fire the very people we need to repair our supply chain to bring manufacturing plants back online, and to keep the public safe. and yes, our law enforcement officers are very concerned about this, but don't take my word for it. ask some of these law enforcement unions. ask the fraternal order of police, the national sheriffs association, the national border

patrol council what will happen if these mandates force them to fire their unvaccinateed agents and officers. they are waving red flags right now because these mandates aren't just impractical and unethical. they are dangerous. they will take these men and women off the front lines and send them to the unemployment lines and make us vulnerable. am i correct on this point, senator marshall? mr. marshall: mrs. blackburn, absolutely, i can't agree with you more. one of the big concerns i have with our safety as well as our national security. i know both tennessee and kansas have army and national guard units, and i have been told that perhaps half of the enlisted soldiers have not had their vaccine yet, and i encourage them to do that, but if they get separated from the military, it's going to leave a huge hole

in our national security. but i'm also concerned that for those active duty soldiers who are now being separated from the military as well for refusing the vaccine. and i'm concerned what's going to happen to their record going forward. i was so discouraged when the whitehouse suggested that these soldiers get a dishonorable discharge. in case you don't know what a dishonorable discharge means, you can be treated like a felon. you lose your v.a. benefits. you may lose some of your second amendment rights and some of your voting rights as well. certainly again the impact to national security of losing thousands of our soldiers. senator blackburn, i'm sure that you have so many people that are reaching out to you of the covid-19 heroes of tennessee, and i appreciate you bringing this bill to the floor, and so happy and honored to support it. mrs. blackburn: thank you, senator, and i'm appreciative to the senator from kansas, and to all of my colleagues to joined me on the floor today to fight

this dangerous press dent set by these mandates. i think it is so vitally important for my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to understand that the american people are not interested in playing chicken with joe biden, not at all. this isn't contrarian politics to them. this is a line in the sand between a power-hungry president who wants to strip them of their fundamental rights and get them fired from their job. i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the junior senator from alabama. mr. tuberville: thank you, madam president. during a recent senate armed services committee hearing, i asked the secretary of defense what i thought was a simple question. as the leader of the department of defense, was he against dishonorable discharges for members of the military who decided not to get the covid vaccine? he hem hawed around, but he never answered my question. but to me it's simple. the answer should be we will not dishonorably discharge those who serve honorably. our country is defined by the -- defended by the bravest men and women in the world. each raised their hands and pledged their lives to defend our nation and our way of life. our service members stand the

watch while we go to work. we spend time with our values and enjoy freedoms they vow to protect. when covid broke out, our military was there for the american military members and was also mobilized in all 50 states to serve as nurses, doctors at hospitals. they drove ambulances, set up food banks, they delivered critical supplies, and they worked to keep order. but how does the president thank them for their service? a dishonorable discharge for deciding not to take the vaccine. that's ridiculous. receiving a dishonorable discharge means they lose all their veterans' benefits and their pension. in some states, it's on par with a felony conviction. that means they lose their ability to vote or to carry a gun, not to mention what it does

to their ability to find a new job. a dishonorable discharge is and should continue to be handed down for only the most reprehensible conduct in the military. now i'm for the vaccine. i've taken it. my family's taken it. and i continue to encourage others to talk about it and talk to their doctor about it. i also respect the chain of command. i know how important it is for soldiers to follow orders, but this vaccine is still new, and i'm sure the department of defense can look at other ways to manage our force rather than put a stain on the reputations of the men and women who wanted to serve and have served their country. which brings me to another point about the impact of the biden administration's vaccine mandates. when president biden made his sweeping vaccine mandates, he

did so with hubris or excessive confidence that americans would just support the policy simply because it was confident that the administration had implemented it. but the mandates are shortsighted and ill-conceived and they threaten our national security. here's how. first, it creates a false choice for our defense contractors. they are forced to choose between coming to their job and working to support our military or taking a new vaccine that they don't want. their decision should be between their doctor and their patient. second, it puts the important and critical importance of our defensive industry in jeopardy. alabama alone is home to 5,000 defense contractors. when these firms are unable to perform, our country is at risk. and, third, the guidance for

compliance has changed with little or no warning. this moving of regulatory goalposts creates uncertainty and drives up compliance costs, especially for smaller firms that lack large h.r. departments. so last week i called on the senate armed services committee chairman jack reed to schedule a hearing on this issue. i want to hear straight from the small business owners who are struggling to figure out how to comply. we need to know just how disruptions and how disruptive in their ability to complete their work may impact the defense supply chain. i also want to hear from expert witnesses within the department of defense. we need to have a full picture of the current state of the vaccine compliance. if the senate were to take action on a solution, it is

critical that we have all the facts. i've also sent a letter to the president urging him to reverse course on his federal contract vaccine mandate. on monday, the white house backed down from their arbitrary deadline of december 8 with the announcement of new flexibilities in their guidance. while this step is in the right direction, they haven't gone far enough. the vaccine mandate is still a compliance burden on small contractors no matter how flexible the white house tries to make them. our workforce will -- still will be unnecessarily impacted and our national security will still be at risk. so i'd encourage the white house to focus on protecting americans -- american liberties while pursuing a holistic effort

to combat covid. it's time that president biden recognizes that mandates are not the answer. frank conversations between doctors and patients are the answer. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. lee: mr. president, the united states is facing economic challenges that we haven't experienced in this country for decades. the supply chain crunch is leading to back-logged ports and that in turn is spilling over into empty shelves. inflation is exacting a punishing toll on american families, on their budgets, on their quality of life. it's not the well-off families that are being most harmed by it. no, it's those least prepared to endure that. it's america's poor and middle class. those who are working hard to survive from day to day trying to reach that american dream, trying to ascend the economic

ladder of the american dream -- that the american dream has long enabled. now, each of these problems in its own right would be a really serious and vexing primary concern for most people and most businesses, even during normal economic times. but these are far from normal economic times. in fact, when businesses are polled, their primary concern isn't about any of these things, it's the labor shortage. businesses are struggling to find workers. the joint economic committee of republicans released a report recently explaining that americans have lost many vital connections to work. government policies and social pressures are leading to a lower labor force participation rate than at any time in decades. this trend is worrying not only because work helps americans put food on the table and it does and it's necessary to do that, but also because work often provides a sense of

accomplishment and belonging and self-worth. work is a social good in its own right. but businesses across the country are struggling to find workers, and that's leading to more of these same problems, leading to higher prices on things that people need to buy. all this is making everything else more complicated, more difficult for america's poor and middle class. i've spoken to business owners in utah who are closing their doors for days each week because they can't find workers. some businesses are offering extremely generous salaries and signing bonuses to those who are willing to work. nonetheless, they are still struggling to find employees. now, work is often the primary connection americans have with peers. work provides a sense of involvement, taxpayer responsibility, and community with others. work is also the way we get

things done. it's how we manufacture, farm, mine, and build. work is a wreck requisite for prosperity at any level in any form. unfortunately, president biden is making work more difficult and less enticing, increasingly less possible. raising taxes on americans gives them less incentive to work. and as the penn warton budget model shows, the biden plan would cost american taxpayers $1.5 trillion in new taxes. through his unconstitutional and sweeping vaccine mandate, president biden is forcing countless american workers out of a job and preventing others from joining or rejoining the workforce. this is far from a mere abstract

constitutional transgression. this is a constitutional violation that goes far beyond the text of a document and extends deeply into the lives of the american people. the poor and the middle class. i've now heard from over 300 utahans who are at risk of losing their livelihoods due to this mandate. their stories are gut wrenching, their stories are tragic. their stories remind me of how indefensible and inexcusable and immoral this vaccine mandate truly is. these are ordinary, every day, hardworking americans who all too often are trying to make ends meet, provide for their families and otherwise get by. many of them have legitimate, medical, moral or religious objections. many of them work for employers

who have no desire to implement the mandate and who themselves are worried about their ability to keep their businesses open. now, i've heard from a number of utah businesses whose management and ownership has expressed these exact same feelings. and i've heard from utah workers who have expressed these feelings over and over and over again. let me tell you about a few people i've heard from who have described this awful situation. now, one utah business in the high-tech space has expressed concern about losing valuable employees due to the mandate. they have implemented policies to encourage vac nation and recognizes -- vaccination and recognizes the importance of

vaccination, nevertheless loafs, business owners are uncomfortable with making these decisions for their employees. the business' management said, quote, we feel strongly that it's not the government's right to require vaccination. they are absolutely right. a growing utah food manufacturer with 350 employees is very worried about the mandate's impact on that company's ability to keep product moving. this business plays an important role in food supply chains in utah throughout the western united states and throughout the country. leaders of this business said, quote, the mandate is government overreach. it is outside the scope and purpose of osha and will have dire consequences on our company and our economy in this extremely tight labor market. they know that some of their workforce would quit if the mandate were enforced.

another utah business is similarly worried. this larger operation's leadership said, quote, we're in a difficult labor situation. it's a daily struggle to be fully staffed and produce the products our customers expect. some of our employees stated they will quit if force the to be -- forced to be vaccinated, a disruption in our labor force not only means some of our customers may not receive products they expect, it may mean local, time-sensitive supply would not get processed. that disruption would be devastating. close quote. now, mr. president, it's important here that i not be misunderstood. i'm against the mandate, but i support the vaccine. i've been vaccinated. i've encouraged others to be vaccinated. these vaccines are helping countless people avoid the harms associated with covid-19.

but this mandate is already doing serious harm to our economy and to people who want the right, the basic human right, to make their own medical decisions. that's why i, along with my colleague, the senator from kansas, dr. marshall, senator marshall and i sent a letter directly to the majority leader, senator schumer. we've advised him months before the current spending period ends in december that we will oppose any funding legislation that enables the enforcement of president biden's employer vaccine mandate. it's essential to remember here, that congress, the branch of government accountable to the people at regular intervals, this is where the constitution places the power of the purse, this is where the constitution places the power to pass

legislation. congress, not the president, has the authority to decide how federal funds are spent. now, we believe our funds would be misspent in this way or any endeavor that would harm utahans and kansans and all americans would -- would worsen our difficult, economic situation or would take away fundamental medical freedoms. this now marks the 13th day that i've come to the senate floor to oppose the mandate. i'm going to do so as long as it takes to beat the mandate. i encourage all of my colleagues to join me in this effort. when i say this, i want to be clear, i'm not speaking to one side of the aisle or the other. americans overwhelmingly, regardless of whether they live in a red state, blue state or

purple state, americans overwhelmingly oppose this mandate. according to a poll recently reported on in axios, hardly a right-wing publication, revealed that 14% -- just 14% of americans believe that the response to someone not receiving the vaccine should involve them losing their job. just 14% of americans agree with president biden that you should have to choose between keeping your job and getting a vaccine that might go against your religious beliefs or that might worsen preexisting medical condition that has caused your doctor to advise you to be cautious in getting the vaccine. these decisions, mr. president, are -- are not those of the president of the united states to make.

you see, he doesn't have that power. my copy of the constitution says that the power to make law rests in this brafn of government, -- branch of government, the legislative branch, the congress. and my legislative copy says that he can't make law, which he essentially did, when he purported to have and purported to plan to exercise the power, unilaterally, acting alone, to require every worker at every -- and every employer that has more than 100 employees, more than 99 employees to get the vaccine. deep down the americans know this is not right, this is an unabashed power grab by the president of the united states. it's not one that is of the sort that the american people will accept kindly. i've said before, i'm not sure i can think of a more egregious

example of a president exercising power that's not his own in many decades. this is in some ways reminiscent of president harry truman's decision to seize every steel mill in america. in order to make sure that the output could be dedicated to the korean war effort. the american people didn't smile upon that one. neither did the supreme court of the united states, which in weeks -- which within weeks of president truman's action on april 8, 1952, decided that he didn't have that authority. some may ask, well, if it's so unconstitutional here, why hasn't the supreme court acted? i will tell you why. because president biden hasn't had the basic decency to issue an order, an order explaining the basis for his authority and providing a basis for someone to challenge the legitimacy of his authority to order every business with more than 99

employees to force its entire workforce to get vaccinated. he hasn't had the decency to do that. consequently, no one can sue yet. consequently, employers everywhere with more than 99 employees are forced to guess as to what it will look like. in the meantime, there are lawyers with good reason, and their risk management departments and human resources departments are understandably saying we don't want to get caught flatfooted especially because we have been threatened as employers with $70,000 per day per person monetary penalties. this would be crippling to literally any business. what are they doing? they are getting ahead of it. they are guessing as to what the most extreme version of the osha mandate might look like, and then they are exceeding that. and they are already in the process of threatening terms and in some ways -- in some cases imposing it. in many cases, mr. president, they are not even having the decency to fire them. they instead put them on unpaid administrative leave. this is especially cruel because

it renders them completely ineligible for unemployment. so, mr. president, i ask you, is this moral, is this just? setting aside for the moment the question -- setting aside for a moment the question of whether this is constitutional, and i assure you unequivocally it is not. but even setting aside that question is it moral, is it proper, is it acceptable to do this to america's poor and middle class? it is not. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: i want to thank senator lankford for letting me take three minutes to honor an iowan who recently passed away, a former member of the house of representatives. and i think there is only one other united states senator who would know who i'm talking about, and this would be senator schumer who served with this former member of congress from

the 1981 to 1995. so i'd like to take a moment to pay tribute to former iowa congressman neal smith who passed away yesterday at the age of 101. he was a true public servant. he entered public life for the right reasons and had no interest in self-promotion. he cared about iowa and tried to do his best for our state, and he did. neal smith was a humble but impressive man. he was a decorated bomber pilot in world war ii. after attending drake university law school with his wife bea and opening a practice with her, he became active in local government. in 1958, neal smith was elected to the house of representatives where he served for 36 years. that is longer than any other iowan has served in the house of representatives. when i was first elected to

congress as the only republican in the iowa delegation, neal smith forget about politics -- forgot about politics and was a mentor to me. i have never forgotten that. i try to follow his example. we worked in a bipartisan way on behalf of people in iowa, just as it should be. i remember congressman smith as a real defender of agriculture, small business, as a great iowan, and as a good friend. barbara and i extend our condolences to his family. they will be in my prayers. i yield the floor and thank senator lankford.

mr. lankford: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. lankford: mr. president, i have a real concern for our economy, for the future of what's happening right now, and a lot of it wraps around the vaccine mandates being laid down by president biden.

president biden announced it's time for you to get vaccinated. laid down a rule on every federal worker, every federal contractor, everyone in the military, and everyone that is in a private business with 100 employees or more, he created a new mandate for them. literally reached in to union shops and changed their collective bargaining agreement unilaterally and said the president is going to add a new feature in your collective bargaining agreement and it's going to be you will have a vaccine or you are going to be fired. he told every police officer, he told every firefighter, every doctor, every nurse, he told every member of the military, no matter how many badges that they wear, no matter how many decorations that they have received, you will be fired if you don't follow my instructions. it didn't matter if they were frontline workers. it didn't matter if they had laid their lives on the line all of last year. it didn't matter. he declared to them you will be fired if you don't follow my instructions. he made it very, very clear if

you have already had covid and recovered and you have natural immunity, i don't care. if if your personal doctor has told you not to, his perspective and what's coming down is if the c.d.c. from washington, d.c., says it's okay, it doesn't matter what your personal doctor says. while he said you can have a religious accommodation, so far as i have checked in with the military services, no one has been given a religious accommodation. and across the federal workforce, i have yet to hear of a soul getting a religious accommodation. the words are we're going to pay attention to your local doctor. the reality is it has been totally different. and we have pushed in every way possible against this administration and will continue to do that. not because it's unjust, not because quite frankly i think the vaccine is the wrong thing to do. i think it's the right thing to do, but a mandate is absolutely

the wrong thing to do. americans have a lot of different reasons to not take a vaccine. allow americans to be americans. i have a friend of mine who, by the way, is a liberal democrat. yes, i have liberal democrat friends. he caught me and said his son has had long-term covid. eight months he had has been in recovery from covid. he does not want to have the vaccine, not knowing how his body will react to that. this week, he will lose his job. because the president of the united states told him he is losing his patience. that's not right. on a separate but related subject, we continue to be able to walk towards a $2 trillion proposal that's coming down.

we hear the house is taking it up even in the next 24 to 48 hours. of course we have heard that over and over again lately. there has been a real concern about what's happening in the economy because of rising inflation. oklahomans are paying $175 more a month right now for their basic utilities, groceries, and gallon. $175 more a month that they are paying because of the rise in inflation that's happened this year. that inflation, you can take it right back to the middle of march when a $2 trillion package was passed in this body on a straight partisan vote. that everyone on this side of the aisle would say don't do this, this would cause rising inflation, and it was done anyway. as simple as i can state it, it was if you add a lot of extra money and you discourage people from working, you will get fewer products and more buyers.

it's not hard to be able to see what's going to happen as a result of that. larry summers, who used to be my democrat colleagues' favorite economist. he was a national economic council director for president obama. he has been a very outspoken, progressive economist. he wrote in february challenging this body not to do that $2 trillion package, saying thif inflation expectations rising sharply. stimulus measures of the magnitude contemplated are steps into the unknown. for credibility, they need to be accompanied by clear statements of the consequences, that they will be monitored closely. at that same time in february, he said based on the proposal that's out there, there will be an individual that normally has $22,000 worth of normal income in a year that will move to to $30,000 in benefits for the year, and that will cause problems, and boy has it. employment all over the country has had all kinds of chaotic

moments where employers are trying to hire employees and they are making more on benefits than they are at work, and it's caused all sorts of chaos across our economy. it's interesting, several progressive economists in march of this year, right after the bill passed, made general statements like a relief plan is different than a stimulus. it doesn't matter. this is not a stimulus. it's a relief plan, so we can spend as much as we want. this was my favorite one of the economists that came out. they said the risk of generalized overheating in the goods market appears low. the risk of generalized overheating in the goods market appears low. that was the statement from progressive economists in march of this year. but yet, the reality is this year there's a backup at the port of long beach and people can't get supplies all over the country and exactly what was forecast in february and march is occurring in our economy right now. larry summers again identified it this way. he made the statement, a

pandemic has punched a roughly $2 billion hole in americans' monthly wage income, and biden has proposed filling it with $100 billion. he said i know the bathtub has been too empty, but one has to think about the capacity of the bathtub and how much water is going to flow into it. what do i mean by that? that $2 trillion package that was in march has caused all the economic issues of this year, that's caused all the inflation, all the challenges in employment across our economy and across our workforce is now being followed up apparently by another $2 trillion proposal that's coming in the coming days. if we had giant inflation with the last one, by the way, with the highest inflation rate since 1982, if we had that inflation from that $2 trillion package, what's going to happen when you put another $2 trillion on top of the last $2 trillion in this economy?

the simple fact is, quoting larry summers, we don't know what will happen. we are literally taking steps into the unknown. but i can tell you, it's not hard to predict. it's just the economic issues. as i look at this package -- and it is hard to be able to look at the package that's being proposed. i've heard quite a few folks back in oklahoma on the weekends saying to me what's all in this $2 trillion package that a couple of weeks ago was $3.5 trillion, now we hear it's $2 trillion, what's actually in it? i tell them i'm not sure yet. i hear bits and pieces. to tell you how much it's moving around, last week when the package was released to the public, it was 2,400 pages. by this morning, it was 1,700 pages. but wait, now this afternoon, it's 2,000 pages long. that's in a week, it's moved from 2,400 pages to 1,700 pages to 2,000 pages as the proposal

continues to be able to change over and over again. it's incredibly difficult to be able to track what all is in it, but we can track some things that are in it. it's a massive hole that is holding for immigration. as we have seen three different major proposals on immigration on how to be able to give amnesty to the largest number of people. several have already been knocked down by the parliamentarian, but it seems to come back again to try to fund a new way to be able to do amnesty for as many people that are here and illegally present in the country as possible. that seems to be a piece of this economic proposal that's out there. we do know in this proposal that it minds as many ways as possible to be able to fund gaps in hyde funding. now, what is that? using federal dollars to be able to pay for abortions in the country, an agreement that's been in our country since 1976, that we have strong disagreements on a child's life. i happen to believe a child is a child is a child, and every child is valuable, no matter how small they are. many of my colleagues on the

other side of the aisle don't believe children are valuable until they can see them. they have to be born before they are valuable. i believe there's no difference in a child in the womb and a child outside the womb other than time. this bill is full of areas to go around the hyde rules to start allowing the funding with federal dollars to pay for the taking of human life. i'm disappointed how obsessed my democrat colleagues seem to be about finding new ways to pay for the taking of human life of children. that has not been so even as recently as two years ago. quite frankly senator biden was outspoken about protecting the hyde protections. now president biden in this -- and this body seems to be focused on how many ways we can increase abortions in america. there's a lot of energy aspects

in this. a new tax on natural gas. just five or six years ago we called the bridge fuel to the future, to be able to reduce car bottom. now natural gas is receiving punishment in this in brand new taxes. there's a block on production from the arctic national wildlife refuge. some of my democrat colleagues say we're going to cut off and protect anything from that region. it's remarkable. we're buying more oil from russia than we are in alaska, right now, twice as much in f fact. in the arctic national wildlife refuge is an area 19.3 million square acres. 19.3 million acres. that's about half the size of my home state of oklahoma. that's an enormously large area. and in that area there's 2,000 acres that would actually be set aside for oil production. so to put it in perspective,

anwar is half the size of my state of oklahoma and the oil production area that would be needed is a third of the size of the airport that i fly out. will rogers airport in oklahoma city. if you took a third of the size of the airport, that's the size of actually oil production area that would be needed in an area half the size of my entire state. yet that's being blocked in this bill. we'll see the price of energo up but we will see -- energo up but we will see a new benefit for electric vehicles that are here. for very, very wealthy americans, they'll get the benefit of $12,500 on new luxury vehicles they want to purchase as long as they're electric. there's a direct attacks on school choice in this bill that actually goes after any kind of private institution or faith-based institution. to say you'll get funding for a secular government school for one level but if you're in a faith-based school, it's a different level or none at all.

if you're in a pre-k program, in many rural communities across our state, when you come to oklahoma in many rural communities, the pre-k program and child care program is run from a local church but they won't be allowed to be able to be a provider in this. you have to be a secular provider because religious institutions are being blocked out by this bill. it does supersize the i.r.s. though. it adds $79 billion to the i.r.s. to increase audits. $79 billion. to give you a perspective of how big that is, the normal i.r.s. budget for a year is $12 billion. yet this bill gives an additional $79 billion to the i.r.s. to be able to increase audits. and if anyone has a belief those audits are only going to connect to people that make $400,000 or more, i have a bridge to sell you. i have to tell you, as i read through the bill, and it does

take some time and it's difficult to be able to get through it because it is changing so much. i'm amazed at some of the things that are in it that have been slipped through this. $350 million are being sent to unions to provide electronic voting systems for unions. $350 million $4.28 billion are being done for training activities and industry sectors and occupations for climate resilience. there's whole sections in this bill as i go through it that are set aside for specific areas. $20 million for state, local tribal governments to mitigate online services to the dot-gov internet dough main. to help cities go to the dot-gov internet domain, there's $12 million that's set aside. and there's some set aside for even some of my colleagues that are here today on the floor. $49 million carve-out for native hawaiian resilience programs in the office of native hawaiian relations. it depends on the state you're

in and the perspective that you're in. as i go through the bill and start identifying the programs, i hear broad descriptions of different programs. and i hear all this different sales of what's in it. but when you read through the bill, when you go through the details of the bill, this is the kind of stuff that you find. oh, by the way, one last piece in this ever changing bill. just within the last hour and a half, they've added a new section in the bill over on the house side. it's a bill dealing with state and local tax deductions that will help the wealthiest of americans get a bigger tax cut. yes, i did say that correctly. currently for americans that are in high tax states, they can only deduct $10,000 of their state and local taxes. only $10,000 off their state and local taxes that they actually deduct from their federal tax. the new proposal that just came out in the last hour from the house of representatives increases that to $72,500 in

deductions off state and local taxes. that will be a great tax benefit to the wealthiest americans. $72,500. all they were asking is show us what the real bill is. let the americans be able to see the real bill. have the transparency and the ability to be able to actually track through what this will mean day to day, what this will mean to our economy because we've seen what $2 trillion did to our economy this march. what's another $2 trillion going to mean on top of all of that coming up this fall? i think we are walking into the unknown except this time i think we do know what's about to happen to our economy. we need to see this bill and stop this bill before it damages our economy even more than we've

already been damaged. with that i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota. ms. klobuchar: mr. president, i look forward to responding to my colleague in the future, but i can tell you that people i know around the country want to see their costs go down. and that is exactly what this bill is about. it's about bringing families' costs down from child care to taking care of loved ones, seniors, to bring down the cost of prescription drugs, something that has eluded our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, despite a lot of claims that they would do something about it. so we look forward to debating this bill and getting it done. mr. president, i come to the floor today to speak on behalf of a very important piece of new legislation that is bipartisan. i introduced this bill, the american innovation and choice online act in the last month with senator grassley who is here with us today. and will be here shortly as well

as my colleagues senator durbin, the chair of the judiciary committee, senator lindsey graham, the former chair of the judiciary committee, richard blumenthal who is here with us today, senator john kennedy of louisiana, senator cory booker, senator josh hawley, senator cynthia lummis and senator mazie hirono who is here with us today as well as senator mark warner. america has a major monopoly power problem and nowhere is this more obvious than with tech. it is because in part it's 20% of our economy and while we love the new jobs, the new ideas, the new technology that has come out, we all know that you can't just do nothing on privacy, do nothing on competition, and that our competition laws haven't been updated in any serious way since the invention of the internet. i am here again joined with --

by senator grassley. i'm going to let him go ahead of me and then turn to senator blumenthal and senator hirono and i will finish up because they've been very patient. i so appreciate senator grassley's leadership in this area, one, to make sure our agencies have the f.t.c. and the department of justice, antitrust has the funding they need, to update merger fees as well as the work we're doing right now, so important on self-preferencing. it's this simple. companies, just because they're a dominant platform, shouldn't be able to put their own stuff in front of everyone else that advertises on their platform. they shouldn't be able to steal ideas and data and develop products off the people that are simply trying to advertise their products on the platform and develop knockoffs which is exactly what we know from some really good reporting from "the wall street journal" and others has been happening. and they shouldn't be able to

because they're dominant platforms tell people that advertise, hey, if you want to get your stuff near the top of the search engine then you're going to have to buy a whole bunch of things from us. that's what unites us on this bill. i turn it over to my friend, my neighbor from the state of iowa, senator grassley. mr. grassley: thank you, senator klobuchar. mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: it was a pleasure to work on this legislation with senator klobuchar. so we joined forces. it happens to turn out that there's ten of our senate colleagues in a bipartisan way to introduce this legislation that we call the american innovation and choice online act this bill has garnered support from all sides of the political spectrum and of course is a very commonsense measure which is meant to increase competition on

dominant digital platforms. today there are whoj a handful -- only a handful of dominant companies that control what americans can buy, what they hear and what they say online. big tech has powers over the economy that we haven't seen in generations or perhaps ever. and this power grows even larger taking over yet more of our daily lives. with this power big tech is able to pick winners and losers on their platforms. the goal of the american innovation and choice online act is to ensure that big tech can be held accountable when they engage in discriminatory and anticompetitive manner. this legislation sets clear

rules that businesses on dominant platforms must follow. this will help promote competition by targeting harmful conduct while ensuring that innovation and pro-consumer conduct is protected. i want to be clear. big tech platforms offer great products to their consumers. this isn't about breaking up companies or penalizing them for being successful. this is about ensuring that small businesses have a fair and even playing field when utilizing dominant online platforms. i also want to address many of the falsehoods that have been spread by the opponents of this legislation.

so nothing in this bill will require a company to shutdown their marketplace or prevent those companies from selling their own brand of politics. also nothing prevents a search company from showing maps or answer boxes in their search results. and also ce cellular phones cane sold with preinstalled apps. this bill simply sets clear, effective rules to protect competition and users doing business on dominant online platforms. i'm a strong believer in the free market. the united states is still the greatest country in the world for starting and growing

businesses. but big tech is making it more difficult for small businesses to realize success on these dominant platforms. so this legislation, congress must update our laws to keep up with the growing and evolving online ecosystem. big tech has the power to determine when and what we can buy, see, and say online. big tech also has the power to destroy companies, small and large, by denying them access to consumer and even to the internet itself. this time it is time that we

ensure there's effective antitrust enforcement so the american people can take the power back from these big tech giants. i want to again thank senator klobuchar for her work with me on this legislation. i also want to thank all of my colleagues from both sides of the aisle who have joined in cosponsoring this legislation. in the house of representatives, we have congressman cicilline and buck introduce a similar bill earlier this year, which has already been marked up and passed out of the house judiciary committee. the american innovation and choice online act is a bipartisan, bicameral bill, and i hope that we can move it forward so we end up bringing

real, positive change to the benefit of all americans. i yield the floor and thank senator klobuchar once again. ms. klobuchar: well, thank you very much, senator grassley. mr. president, thank you for your leadership in working with colleagues, and i'm glad you mentioned representatives cicilline and buck. they're quite the bipartisan duo. we're very proud of the work that we've done. we think it's going to make a big, big difference. so with that, i'm going to turn it over to senator hirono. ms. hirono: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from hawaii. ms. hirono: mr. president, before turning to the bipartisan bill that brings a number of to us the floor this afternoon, we have been listening to a number of my republican colleagues throw stones at build back better. i would like to simply state for

the record, democrats are committed to lowering costs for families, such as making child care more affordable and home care for seniors. democrats are committed to lowering taxes for people, such as the child tax credit that, by the way, provides much-needed financial support for families, including for the families of over 200,000 children in hawaii alone. and all by making the richest people in our country, who got the benefit of $1.5 trillion in totally unnecessary tax cuts that the republicans pushed through, by making the richest people in our country pay for these much-needed programs that actually support american families. meanwhile, what are the republicans doing? nothing, zero, nothing for american families. so i would like to set the record straight as to who actually is working hard to help

american families, and believe me, it's not the republicans. turning to the bill that we are talking about today, mr. president, today's big tech behemoths like to tout their approaches, amazon, with its ability to deliver seemingly any product to your doorstep within two days, google with its goal of making the world's information accessible to all, apple with its mission of bringing the best personal computing products and supports to the end user, and facebook looking to give users the power to build communities and bring the world closer together. each claims their success has been the direct result of their consumer focus, that consumers choose their products and

services because they are the best in class. that may have been true at some point, but it's certainly not true today. today consumers have no real choice. amazon, google, apple, and facebook have become gatekeepers that too often limit, if not outright squash, competition online. the result is unprecedented market domination that allow these small handful of giant companies to influence the choices and actions of literally billions of people every day. think about how many times each of us go on google. multiply that by the billions every day. that's the kind of influence these large companies have. take amazon. just yesterday the judiciary committee heard from a small business owner who sells his

crazy aaron's thinking potation amazon's dominant online marketplace. he watched as amazon leveraged its dominance by using the data it collects from these sales to introduce a knockoff of his product. this is consistent with reporting from reuters and others that amazon recruits small businesses to its marketplace and then systematically uses the seller data it collects to develop competing products and preferences. those products and preferences -- by placing them at the top of its search results. google uses similar tactician to preference its -- tactics to preference its own products and services. the company controls over 90% of the search market. 90%. that might not be such a big deal if google simply fulfilled

the promise of its cofounder larry page to, quote, get you out of google and to the right place as fast as possible, end quote. well, that simply isn't the case anymore. about two-thirds of searches on google result in zero clicks. in other words, they start on google and they end on google. that means, for example, that more and more diners looking for the best restaurants don't get directed to yelp, the site google's own search criteria designates as best. rather, they get google's inferior reviews. it means ma travelers looking for travel december on the top tourist attractions don't get sent to ex-speddia or trip advisor. they're stuck with google. this is becoming the case for more and more searches. apple likewise uses its complete

control over the iphone and ios operating system to give its product a leg up. the company has introduced a number of products, including apple music, air tags and others to compete with third-party products. except it's really no competition at all because apple pushes those third parties into its payment system and then charges a tax of up to 30%. sure, consumers can still use spotify or tile, but they all have to pay more to do so. in either case, apple wins. these companies have made clear time and again that they are not interested in competing on a level playing field. instead, they are determined to totally control the playing field. unless the federal government steps in, they will continue to do whatever it takes to hold onto its market dominance,

competition be damned. this isn't good for consumers. that's why i cosponsored the american innovation and choice online act. the bill will put an end to these abusive and anticompetitive practices. among other things, it will outlaw self-preferencing by the dominant online platforms, prevent these platforms from using a competitor's data to compete against them, and ban the biasing of search results to benefit the company's own products. unlike the words of the big tech behemoths, the american innovation and choice online act isn't an empty promise. it will actually put consumers first by restoring competition in the online marketplace. thank you, mr. president. i yield back to my colleague, senator blumenthal.

mr. blumenthal: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. blumenthal: thank you, mr. president. i thank my colleague from hawaii for that very powerful explanation for why we are here today, and i thank senator klobuchar for her incredibly important and impactful leadership in this area as the chairman of the subcommittee on antitrust of the judiciary committee. she has led informative and profoundly significant hearings, and now she has brought to the floor with many of us as cosponsors along with senator grassley this major piece of legislation, the american innovation and choice online act. and i would just begin by restating what a number of my colleagues have said. these complaints about inflation are really totally misplaced as

applied to the build back better legislation. in fact, the build back better legislation will drive down costs for americans, make child care affordable and accessible, make preschool free and universal for all americans, lower the cost of prescription drugs for the first time -- a major piece of legislation to lower the cost of prescription drugs for americans, and lower costs as well for energy and housing. the ripple effects of these major steps in reducing costs for everyday americans will be profound and enduring, and to my colleagues who say on the floor today that this bill is changing

or complex, yes, it is complex because it is big and impactful in lowering costs. and, yes, we've listened to america in making improvements to the bill, and we will continue to listen to americans. now, inflation also is tied to the bill that's before us, the american innovation and choice online act. competition is the lifeblood of our economy. competition is the way that prices are kept competitive in benefits to consumers. competition among businesses is the key. and today in our digital marketplaces, big tech, in effect, controls access to consumers.

go back to an earlier time in our country's history. after the civil war we saw railroad tycoons use their monopolies to favor big repeat businesses with costs to average americans. they imposed discriminatory terms on farmers and other businesses that needed access to the rails in order to get their products to the public. and the american people wanted to do something about it. congress did in 1887. congress responded by passing the interstate commerce act, which stopped railroad monopolies from offering less favorable terms to smaller businesses and farmers. the analogy is not completely exact because we're dealing now with big tech. but the principle is the same. think of it as the big tech

companies controlling the means of delivery of goods and services. they are the modern-day railroads. and in our digital markets, they are dominant gatekeepers with total control of essential online platforms. but, even worse, they have another role -- as marketers of their own products on those platforms. in other words, big tech companies own the railroads of our digital economy, but they also compete with the economies relying on those railroads to get their products to consumers. just a couple weeks ago in the commerce committee, the subcommittee on consumer protection, which i chair, a whistleblower from facebook described to the disgust and

dismay of most americans how big tech is pushing destructive and toxic content on children and how they know it and profit from it and, in fact, know from their own research and studies what the effects are of online bullying and eating disorders and other harms that are conveyed. and americans asked me, as they did many of my colleagues, what are you going to do about it? there are solutions. -- there are solutions is on privacy, on tools for parents, on other means of holding big tech accountable, and one of them is to make sure that antitrust laws are enforced and approved so that there are competing apps that offer safer

means of reaching children and other consumers. now, the app market is a place where these harms to consumer and competition are starker than anywhere else. the mobile app market has grown into a significant part of the digital economy. in 2020 alone, u.s. consumers spent nearly $33 billion in mobile app stores, downloading 13.4 billion appears. we are all dependent on our phones as our gateway to our work, our social lives, and education. but two companies, apple and google, dictate the terms of this important market. they do it exclusively. and yet they have those dual roles. first as gatekeepers of the dominant mobile operating systems and their app stores,

and second as participants on those app stores. and as with the railroad tycoons, apple and google abused that gatekeeper status to preference themselves and their business partners, driving up their own profits and consumer costs while shutting down competition and stifling innovation. higher costs, less innovation means consumers are deprived of the benefits of competition. and as with the railroad, congress needs to ensure that new entrants and smaller companies can compete on fair terms. today's digital tycoons need new rules of the road that will protect other businesses like laws protected small farmers and small businesses against the railroad tycoons, and these

rules of the road need to address the anticompetitive discrimination and self-preferencing across our app economy. i have heard from app developers who have been unable to tell their own customers about lower prices, unable to inform their own customers about better prices, from app developers whose ideas have been co-opted by apple and google under their kill or copy strategy and who are kneecapped by the onerous 30% rent fees charged to them. and if app developers don't like the term, there is simply nowhere else for them to go. so i am indebted to senator klobuchar and senator blackburn for co-authoring another bill with me. in august, i was proud to

introduce the open app markets act which would address anticompetitive discrimination and self-preferencing. i believe that it is critical that we pass that bill as well as this one to set fair, clear, and enforceable rules to protect competition and consumers within the app market. like in the app market, there are essential gatekeepers in our digital markets with enormous power and key conflicts of interest. amazon alone, for example, controls as much as 70% of all united states online marketplace sales. if you're a third-party business, apps can stop you from contacting your own customers. amazon can rank its own products ahead of you in the search. amazon can make sure that when a consumer asks alexis to buy a particular product, the consumer

receives amazon products. amazon can use its asymmetric access to data to engage in a copy and kill strategy. it can replicate your successful product, make the products themselves often more cheaply given their massive size, and then rank the products at the top of the search bar. in effect, they can make it impossible for you to compete on product quality for a price. we have a rare opportunity to improve this abuse of power. we should seize that opportunity with bipartisan support and help protect american consumers. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor. a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota. ms. klobuchar: i ask unanimous consent that i be permitted to speak up to seven minutes, senator merkley up to 15 minutes, and senator durbin up to ten minutes prior to the

scheduled votes. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. ms. klobuchar: thank you. i want to thank my colleague, senator grassley, the republican lead on this bill, senator blumenthal who has done so much work in the area of competition and protection of children and senator -- who came to the floor today as well as many cosponsors of this bill, and that includes senator durbin, the chair of the judiciary committee, senator lindsey graham, the former chair, senator kennedy, senator cory booker, senator josh hawley , senator lummis, and senator warner. so as we noted as we heard the speakers today, this is a real-world problem. this isn't something where the tech companies can say just trust us, we've got this. i think anyone that heard the whistleblower a few weeks back

in commerce knows that is not true or heard the parent i heard from last week who told me that as she tries to protect her kids, as she tries to find the right filth or to shall -- right filter or get them to stop clicking on a link or something that exposes them to bad content, she feels like it's a faucet that's on and overflowing in the sink and she is trying to mop it up and the water just keeps coming out as she goes from kid to kid to kid. i think that pretty much sums it up for how a lot of parents feel right now. and the other thing that's going on when you have dominant platforms and you don't have enough competition and you can't get competitors that might have developed the bells and whistles that would have protected us from misinformation and from bad information for our kids, well, that's what happens when you have got dominant platforms. and do you know what else happens to you? when you go to search for restaurant reviews, you might not be able to see what you

really want to see. instead, you get pushed towards less reputable and less informative reviews. or when you go to try to book a flight, you might be missing out on a better deal because a certain dominant platform's own booking tool has been pushed to the top of your results. you are basically getting ripped off. that's it, plain and simple. it also means a dominant platform using nonpublic data, nonpublic data, stuff it gathered from you, and by the way, one example, facebook mace mace $51 a quarter, a quarter off of every one of the pages that is sitting here in front of us, off of senator merkley who is patiently waiting to speak. $51 a quarter is how much they make because they have access to all this information and then the ads get targeted to us. and we don't get any of that money. dominant platforms using nonpublic data that they gather from small businesses can use their platforms -- and this is in the retail space.

we're talking here like amazon -- to build knockoff copies of their product and then compete against the people that were paying to advertise on their platform. this isn't your local grocery store chain selling store brand potato chips to compete with a brand name product. this is amazon using incredibly detailed nonpublic information that they get from their sellers on their platform to create copycat products and competition. what does it look like? in one case, amazon's private label arm accessed details on a car trunk organizer produced by a small brooklyn company called fortem. in 2019, amazon started selling three trunk organizers of its own. when shown the collection data amazon had gathered about its brand before launching their own product, fortem's co-founder

called it a big surprise. most of us don't assume they will get businesses out of the trunk organizer market, but it happened. that's why we are here supporting the american innovation and choice online act. yes, you have to update your competition laws when they haven't been changed since the internet was invented. this means apple won't be able to stifle competition. amazon won't be able to misuse small business data in order to copy their product. and google won't be able to bias their platform search results in favor of other products, their own products. the result of a fairer playing field for small and medium businesses. more options, more flexibility, and more access to markets and fostering entrepreneurship for the new kids on the block. and by the way, as senator grassley outlined, this bill does not outlaw amazon prime. let's go for the lie.

it does not do that. that's what they have been saying because they want to stop this in its tracks. or free shipping or stop apple from loading useful apps onto their ivins. no, no, this is the kind of stuff they have been saying a while. that's why senator grassley and i spent the entire summer working on this bill to make sure it did none of that. that's why we have such broad support, because this is targeted at anticompetitive conduct. we're really excited about this bill. the positive opinions it's been getting. "boston globe," "washington post," finally a promising piece of antitrust legislation in congress. i think there is other ones, but that's what they said. so commonsense rules of the road for major digital platforms allowing them to continue to operate their businesses. we're glad for these products. we like these products. we want to keep these companies drawn, but they don't need to engage in this -- strong, but they don't need to engage in this type of behavior. that's why we are here today,

and we are looking very forward to getting this bill before the judiciary committee and passed through the senate. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor. mr. merkley: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. merkley: not too long ago, we had a vote on whether or not to start a debate on the john lewis voting rights act, and the majority said yes, start the debate. then why aren't we here in that debate? well, the simple answer is we have a process whereby you have to have 60, a supermajority of the senate decide to start a debate. in other words, there is ability to exercise a veto over whether or not a bill is worthy for consideration on this floor, even if it's supported by the majority of legislators. that effort is really about destroying the ability of this senate to address the big issues

facing america. what bigger issue is there in a republic than stopping billionaires from buying elections, to stop gerrymandering from destroying equal representation, to stop state laws that create prejudicial barriers designed to target specific groups to keep them from voting, barriers to ballot boxes to steal the right to vote. what bigger, more fundamental issue is there than that? and yet, we can't even start a debate. in fact, we spend a lot of time debating whether to debate. that's wasted time on the floor. so truly that vote we took was symbolic of two things. the first is that we're failing to address one of the biggest issues we face in this nation, the integrity of our election system. the corruption of our election system. and second, that this senate has

become dysfunctional. when ben franklin was walking out of the constitutional convention, he was asked by a woman what kind of government they created. a monarchy or a public? and he is reported to have responded a republic if you can keep it. we strived through 234 years to keep that public, through war, through depression, through social unrest, through global pandemic. we fought for 234 years to ensure that as expressed by lincoln at gettysburg government of the people, by the people, and for the people shall not

perish from the earth. but as american philosopher john dewey once said, democracy has to be born anew every generation. it's up to each generation to take up the cause and fight to protect the foundations of our republic. so we are facing a moment of crisis once again when this institution has veered far afield from that time when it was declared to be the world's greatest deliberative body. now it is perhaps the world's most dysfunctional legislative body. i'm willing and unable to even vote on the biggest issue of our time, the defense of our public from the corrupting forces of power, of billionaires buying elections, of gerrymandering.

and certainly of barriers to the ballot box. but we have a responsibility to take up this cause, to understand its source, and to address it. to restore the senate as a deliberative body. one of the ways to evaluate our dysfunction is to look at the trend of the number of amendments considered on the u.s. senate floor. in the 109th session of congress, 2005 through 2007, that was 216 amendments, in the two years that just passed, that was 26. 314 amendments to 26. and most of the amendments that were allowed of those 26, went to just two members, so most members had no opportunity to

offer amendments. the trends in cloture filings, that is a motion to close debate, give us some understanding of what has happened. they were extremely rare. in the past because the senate understood that it was a simple majority body. that's the way the founders designed it. so very rarely there had to be an effort to actually close debate because members went on forever speaking, but it was rare. in 2010 through 2019, just three times. 2003 -- 2050 to 206, ten times. and in 1970 through march 7, 1975, 57 filings to close debates in four years versus 34 from 1910 forward to 1970.

this explosion -- that was just on policy legislation, led to a former in 1975. the rule for closing debate, the old rule was two-thirds of senators voting was changed to three fifths of senators duly chosen or sworn, that was 60 votes regardless of how many were voting on the floor. that rule change was started, if you will, generated just in those years from 19 # 0 to -- 1970 to 1974 when you had the 50 cloture motions, which is nothing compared to today, nothing. which i'll go on to expand on. but that 1975 rule change, because instead of saying it was a percent of those present and voting, instead it was a percent of the senate, it means that unwittingly we transformed the way that you delayed things in

order to exercise leverage. we had, under the old rule, a public process where you had to take the floor as i am right now and speak at length in order to delay while your teammates worked to negotiate an amendment, negotiate a compromise, make sure the public had read the bill, make sure the president -- press had seen the bill, all of that was valuable, all of that delay was valuable. under the old rule it was a public process. the whole nation saw it be and they could judge whether you were a champion or whether you were a disaster. and you got that feedback. under that old rule, it was not just a public process but it took enormous energy. under the new rule, no show, not necessary to show up for debate and not necessary to show up to vote. a no show, no effort veto that

transformed this senate. well, the result was it made it so easy to obstruct that people decided to obstruct a lot. that 1975 cloture rule backfired by creating this no show, no effort obstruction. let me give you a sense of this. during the period 1960 through 1970, some 25 cloture motions to close debate. but in the next decade, over 100, in the 1970's, in the 1980's, over 200 and in the 1990's, over 300 and in 20101, 029 to close debate. that is the disaster we're living in right now. and instead of it just being

let's slow things down on final passage, it became let's slow things down on amendments. so we went from zero cloture motions on amendments from 2020 through 2060 to 143 just in one tenure period and it expanded to nominations. we went from zero from 1910 through 1960 to 545 during 2010 through 2020. motion to proceed to legislation, we went from zero during the 1950's to 175 in 2010. so it expanded this process of a supermajority vote to proceed expanded from being rare to being common. it expanded from being on final passage of legislation to everything, amendments, motions to proceed, every aspect of the work that we do here.

now, here's the very strange thing. this use of a supermajority would absolutely have astounded and appalled our founders. our founders were operating under the confederation of congress at the time they were writing the constitution. and the confederation congress had a requirement for a supermajority, and that supermajority paralyzed the confederation congress. so they were not able to raise an army to put down chez's rebellion, they were not able to raise the money to pay for the revolutionary war veterans. and so our founders said whatever you do, don't adopt a supermajority. and we have hamilton writing, if two-thirds of the whole number of members had been required, the history of every political establishment in which such a principle has prevailed is a

history of impotence, perplexity and disorder. hamilton and -- in another federalist paper wrote if a minority can control the majority, tedious delays, contemptible compromises of the public good will result. and then we have madison who said in all cases where justice or the general good might require new laws or active measures, the fundamental principle of free government would be reversed under a supermajority. it would be no longer the majority that would rule, the power would be transferred to the minority. he's pointing out it stands the very structure of a legislative body on its head. he went on to note that the result of the supermajority -- remember they were experiencing this under the confederation

congress -- is to produce the following -- that the minority might take advantage to screen themselves from equitable sacrifices to the general wield or particular emergencies to extort unreasonable indulgences. so here are our founders saying we extort the supermajority, don't ever do it. they rewrote the constitution so a supermajority was reserved only for certain circumstances, like evicting members, like considering a treaty, like overruling a presidential veto. so why are we here today doing exactly what the founders said not to do? and experiencing exactly the results they had experienced under the confederation congress? so, my friends, we have a responsibility to store -- restore the function of this body. we need to streamline the nomination process. think about how a nomination

works. you vote to go to executive session, you have a motion to proceed to a nomination, you vote on proceeding, you hold a debate, you hold a vote, and then you proceeded and then you hold a debate and then you vote and then you have two hours of post-debate and then finely a vote. that is a -- finely a vote. that is a crazy system that eats up huge amounts of time when a simple vote to proceed, you're on the floor, simple time to consider it and a vote on whether or not you're going to allow the person to fill the position the person has been nominated for. and this sort of streamlining would save us all a tremendous amount of time that could be dedicated to actual debate and actual amendments. and then there's this use of the supermajority on motion to proceed to legislation using a blockade to prevent debate, not

to facilitate debate as is sometimes argued for the supermajority that it can slow things down, fa facilitate deba, make sure the bill is read, no, prevent debate. we shouldn't spend time debating about whether to debate. let's have a set hour whether to consider to move to a bill and then we either move to it or we don't. how about amendments? i noted the collapse of the ability of senators to amend. senators in the minority want to do amendments, senators in the majority want to do amendments. we all have ideas and thoughts on how to change or do things. we all want to make our case but we don't get to do it anymore. don't we have a bipartisan vested interest in restoring amendments to the deliberations of the senate? you know, i was pondering this question because we seem to be locked in a cycle where given

partisan differences in the nation, partisan differences that are increased by social media and increased by cable television, we just can't seem to come together to be able to make this place work as it's supposed to, as is our responsibility to, but we have gotten to the point where we are utterly, utterly damaging the united states of america. you know, the president of china, president xi, he's saying there's a world competition between democratic republics and authoritarian world, look what we've done in china. we went from bicycles and then had cars and traffic jams and now we have bullet trains, look at what we're accomplishing, look how many people are lifted out of poverty and look at how paralyzed the united states is. why is the united states

paralyzed? it's because this chamber cannot conduct a simple debate and vote like every state legislature across this country does. so, colleagues, let's come together. let's restore debate. let's restore amendments, let's save and improve the ability of the minority to participate in the process, but let's also remember that balance of the senate involved getting to a final decision, a simple majority vote as the founders intended. thank you, madam president. mr. durbin: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: madam president, the senate will soon be voting on a highly qualified nominee to the ninth circuit, jennifer sung. she is a distinguished jurist who will bring -- graduate of overland and yale law school, received a prestigious scanton fellowship, worked on economic legal issues at the brennan

center. she worked for minorities often from low-income, oregon governor kate brown appointed her to serve on the employment relations board known as the e.r.b., it's a three-member quasi panel, she sits on a three-member panel that reviews and evaluates the law and reaches consensus on opinions and issues. if that sounds like the same process she would follow in federal court, it is. in nearly five years on that board, she presided over 200 matters, only three of the 200 have ever been overturned. she's exhibited the kind of qualities we expect from a circuit court nominee. she has been criticized for one thing that she did in her life and some of her critics won't forget it. she signed a letter that was

opposed to judge kavanaugh's nomination to the supreme court. she has testified under oath before our committee that some statements in that letter were, in fact, overheated. more importantly she testified that she respects the authority of all members of the supreme court and recognizes the importance of faithfully following the law and precedent. the best evidence of how she'll serve on the circuit is her impressive record in the state of oregon. when you look at that record, you see that she has the support not only of many colleagues but also of employees, unions and employers. and here's what they said. impressive intelligence, diligent preparation, respectful courtroom demeanor and impartial. how about that? when i hear some of my colleagues express outrage over one letter she signed in her life i wonder if they remember some of the nominees brought before us in the last four

years. it appears there is a different standard. it has the support of senators merkley and wyden and she has been rated as well qualified and as the first asian american woman she will be the first to hold the oregon seat in the ninth circuit. her commitment to fairness and impartiality are profound and impressive. i support her and i hope my colleagues will as well. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate will resume consideration of the prieto nomination which the clerk will report. the clerk: nomination, environmental protection agency, jeffrey m. prieto of california to be an assistant administrator. the presiding officer: the question occurs on the nomination. is there sufficient second? there appears to be sufficient

second. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: the yeas are 54, the nays are 44. the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order, the senate will resume consideration of the nayak nomination, which the clerk will report. the clerk: nomination, department of labor, rajesh d. nayak of maryland to be an assistant secretary.

the presiding officer: the question occurs on the nomination. is there a sufficient second? the clerk will call -- there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: the yeas are 52, the nays are 45. the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order, the motions to reconsider are considered made and laid upon the table and the president will be immediately notified of the senate's action. the senator from washington. mrs. murray: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that all remaining time on the motion to discharge be yielded back. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. the question is on the motion to discharge. the yeas and nays have been previously ordered. the clerk will call the roll.

vote: vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

the vice president: object on this vote the yeas are 49. the nays are 49. the vice president votes in the

affirmative and the motion is agreed to. the nomination will be discharged and placed on the calendar. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

quorum call: quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: woke. mr. schumer: now, mr. president, before we adjourn this evening, in a few moments i'll move to confirm mr. tom nides as the next ambassador to israel. i'm glad the republican hold on mr. nides has been lifted and we will have an ambassador in israel to help maintain and strengthen the u.s.-israel relationship. mr. nides, i've known him for many years. he's just the right fit. he is a hardworking man, a bright panel. he's -- he has tremendous experience and cares about strengthening the relationship. this will be a good day for that relationship because we'll confirm him very, very shortly. now, so, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the consideration of the following nomination, calendar 452, thomas

r. nides of minnesota to be the ambassador extraordinary and plenipotentiary of the united states of america to the state of israel and that the senate vote on the nomination without intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, department of state, thomas r. nides of minnesota to be ambassador to the state of israel. the presiding officer: the question is on the nomination. all in favor say aye. all opposed no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the nomination is confirmed. mr. schumer: i ask consent that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table all without better conveniencing action or debate, no further motions be mord to the nomination, any statements related to the neejts be printed in the record and the him be immediately notified of the senate's action. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: now, mr. president,

i ask unanimous consent the senate consider the following nominations en bloc, calendars 428 and 443, that the senate vote on the nominations en bloc without intervening action or debate, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate, that any statements related to the nominations be printed in the record, that the president be immediately notified of the senate's action. the presiding officer: without objection. the question is on the nominations en bloc. all in favor say aye. all opposed no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the nominations are confirmed en bloc. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to legislative session and be in a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the consideration of senate res.

439 submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 439 expressing support for the designation of the week of november 1 through november 5, 2021, as national family service learning week. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, 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. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of senate con res. 19. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate concurrent resolution 19 permitting the use of the rotunda of the capitol for a ceremony as part of the commemoration of the 100th anniversary of the dedication of the tomb of the unknown soldier.

the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent that the concurrent resolution be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: finally, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10:00 a.m. thursday, november 4, that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour 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. that upon the conclusion of morning business, the senate proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the santos nomination. further, that notwithstanding rule 22, at 11:00 a.m., the senate proceed to the consideration of executive calendar 352 michael connor to be assistant secretary of the army and the senate vote on the confirms of the nomination -- confirmation of the nomination. upon disposition of the connor nomination, the cloture motion on the santos nomination ripen

and confirmation be at 1:45 p.m. if any of the confirmations 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: without objection. mr. schumer: if there's no further business to come before the senate, i ask it be adjourned under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate is adjourned until senate is adjourned until the senate hasn't gaveled out for the day during session confirmed a handful of executive branch nominees for labor and treasury department post. en bloc debate on the john lewis voting rights advancement act 50 -- 49 paid 60 votes were dated. alaska senator was the only republican to vote yes with all democrats. majority leader chuck schumer spoke on the senate floor following the failed vote. >> now madam president and reference tot