vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: the yeas are 58, the nays are 35. the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order, the motion to reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table, and the president will be immediately notified of the senate's action. mr. schumer: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader recognized. mr. schumer: i move to proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all those in favor, say aye.

those opposed, say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. schumer: i move to proceed to executive session to consider calendar 401. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all those in favor, say aye. those opposed, say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report. the clerk: nomination, department of the treasury. graham scott steele of california to be an assistant secretary. mr. schumer: i send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion: we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of executive calendar number 401, graham scott steele of california to be an assistant secretary of the treasury, signed by 17 senators as follows -- mr. schumer: i ask consent the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: i move to proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion.

all those in favor, say aye. those opposed, say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. schumer: move to proceed to executive session to consider calendar 345. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all those in favor, say aye. those opposed, say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report. the clerk: nomination, department of agriculture, robert bonnie. mr. schumer: i send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion: we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of executive calendar number 345, robert farrell bonnie of virginia to be under secretary of agriculture for farm production and conservation, signed by 1 senators as follows -- mr. schumer: i ask consent the reading of the names be waived.

the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: i move to proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all those in favor, say aye. those opposed, say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. schumer: i move to proceed to executive session to consider calendar 463. the presiding officer: question is on the motion. all those in favor, say aye. those opposed, say no. the ayes appear to have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk: eddie nelson of california to be under secretary of terrorism and financial crimes. mr. schumer: i send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion to inis recognize cloture. the clerk: cloture motion: we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of executive calendar 436, brian eddie nelson of california to be under secretary for terrorism and financial

crimes, signed by 17 senatorsals follows -- schumer i ask consent the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum calls for the cloture motions filed today be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: i yield the úthe senator from washington is recognized. ms. cantwell: i come to the floor to talk about the local journeyism sustainability act. before the majority leader leaves, i with aens to thank him for his leadership on such an important piece of legislation. from the very beginning, he understood the fact that diversity in news sources, about competition, about it being a key part of our democracy, and we wouldn't be at the precipice of getting support for local journalism without his help. so i thank him for that. we originally introduced legislation here in the senate that senators wyden, kelly,

schatz, americay and blumenthal all supports is. we hope our house colleagues will take this up this afternoon or tomorrow as it is included in the build back better program to making sure we have a free press that is essential to our democracy. and that we have true competition. local news is a trusted source of news. working together, journalistic standards, local newspapers and broadcasters play a critical role in holding our elected officials accountable, shining a spotlight on important news and cheablging the issues of -- challenging the issues of the community to come to light. as a friend said local news is like hanging a lamp on a problem so the light shines through. that is why we want to make sure to continue to support having these diversity voices especially while we see on the online world unfair and

uncompetitive practices that we know will be discussed by our colleagues, looked at by the department of justice, certainly legislation proposed about. but in the meantime, we want to keep these diversity of voices working. we know that since 2005, newspapers have lost more than 40,000 news room employees, about 60% of their workforce. most states have lost more than 50% of their news room workforce. and we cannot let regional and community news organizations continue to die as we navigate very challenging information-age business issues. that is why this legislation is so important. local journalism is highly trusted in communities around the country. according to a 2019 study from gallup and knight foundation, americans trust local news over national news by a two to one margin to, quote, report the news without bias, end quote. so local journalism has developed that trust based on

transparency, accuracy, ethical reporting and shining a light on important issues, including crime and corruptions and holding public officials accountable. local news reporting takes national news stories and translates them into their community news, and america's newspapers and online journalists, radio and television broadcasters are at the heart of this media landscape. during the pandemic, broadcasters continued to provide essential information to audiences, reporting the news and helping us keep connected on such an important issue. the local journalism sustainability act is essential to maintaining that trust, that p diversity of voices and that local perspective. the tax incentives in this bill will help local newspapers and digital-only news journalists and broadcast news rooms remain financially viable to retain and hire local-based journalists to cover local news stories.

this bill helps incentivize newspapers and broadcasters including those owned, investing in locally reporting news and to the relevant communities. local and regional minority-owned business and outlets also benefit from this provision which is one of the reasons why those associations representing the black press, the national publishers association, and national association of hispanic publications also support this legislation. mr. president, americans' democracy really does depend on ensuring that we have access to information and that we have informed decisions. doing so also means that we have true competition in information and news that can be verified. so i'm pleased that the house has incorporated this important provision into the build back better reconciliation program. i hope when this comes to the senate, our colleagues will join in supporting this in helping local newspapers, radio and television stations and

digital journalists continue to help us get the news. i thank the president. i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from washington is recognized. mrs. murray: thank you, mr. president. i ask that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. murray: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. murray: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i come to the floor today because it is time to make daylight savings time permanent. this sunday millions of americans are going to once again roll their clocks back and in no time next spring they'll have to roll their clocks forward. for what reason? i don't know a single person who loves to go through the trouble of figuring out whether their microwave or their oven has the hour right or anyone who looks forward to the sun setting earlier and earlier every winter. beyond convenience, this really is a matter of health and safety. studies have shown that our switch to standard time can increase rates of seasonal depression as well as heart

problems and the risk of stroke. researchers also believe that if we made daylight saving time permanent, there would be fewer car accidents and evening robberies, thanks to a more regular schedule and extra hour of sun. and there are studies that indicate permanent daylight savings time could offset reduced economic activity that we see during standard time and even lead to greater energy saving. the people in my home state of washington know this. that's why we have already passed legislation to switch to permanent daylight savings time, and it is not just washington. states across the country from florida and california and maine and many more have now passed legislation in their states or resolutions to make daylight savings time year round. but they are powerless to enact the overwhelming will of the people until they get federal approval. to put it simply,

madam president, americans want more sunshine and less depression. that is actually what i'm very proud to is cosponsor the bipartisan sunshine protection act of 2021 which would extend daylight savings time permanently. so americans can enjoy have sunlight during the moss productive hour of the day and nevada have to worry about changing -- and never have to worry about changing their clocks again. here is a bipartisan solution that we can and all get behind. i'm working hard to pass this bill, however possible but there is something that my constituents are also fed up with and so i'm also pressing the department of transportation to explore every avenue available to them to at least let states like mine whose voters overwhelmingly want permanent daylight savings time to have it. madam president, in this country when people have demanded

changes to daylight saving rules or if it benefits the country like keeping it during world war i, no one likes dark afternoons during the winter or to lose an hour of sleep every spring. and i can assure you every parent that has to deal with a child every time we change the clock and it upsets their routine, are behind us. voters across the country support this, research those it is good for public health and there is real economic saving benefits. so, madam president, i urge we pass the sunshine protection act and finally make daylight savings time permanent. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor.

mrs. fischer: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from nebraska is recognized. mrs. fischer: are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: no, we are not. mrs. fischer: thank you, madam president. 50 years ago this coming february, president nixon made history as the first american president to visit the peoples republic of china. he thought that by inviting china to join what he called the family of nations, he would incentivize the chinese communist party to liberalize at home and refrain from exporting its brand of communism abroad. that may sound naive because as we look back on those 50 years, the changes president nixon hoped for never came. but he held out hope for change because he had faith in the chinese people. he was an incredible admirer of their culture and their remarkable history. even though these past few decades have proven nixon wrong

about the c.c.p., he was right to have faith in the people of china. that's why we have to be specific when we talk about what the future holds for our two countries. the chinese people and the chinese communist party are not the same thing. in fact, the opposite is true. we have seen countless examples of the chinese people's bravery from pro democracy demonstrations in hong kong to 1989's protest in continue minute -- continue men -- tin men scare. they were born enjoying the same universal rights as in the united states. freedom of speech, assembly, religion and so many more. they deserve to live in a country that recognizes those rights and understands that true

power comes from the consent of the governed, not from the iron fist of the party oligarchy. unfortunately that iron fist is how the c.c.p. has kept its grip on power for so many decades. and they have shown no signs of slowing down under president xi jinping. as we approach the 30th anniversary of president nixon's groundbreaking trip, we need to reflect on what those 50 years have brought us. china has not become a democracy. instead the communist party is weaponizing new technologies to consolidate their rule. through what president biden's chief advisor for asia kurt campbell has called digital authoritarian yism, the c.c.p. can now track the chinese

people's every movement with facial recognition. they have developed a social credit system that ranks the likability and trustworthiness of hundreds of millions of chinese citizens. using these and other technologies, the c.c.p. is committing genocide against their own people. since april 2017, the c.c.p. has detained over one million uighurs and other muslims in especially built internment camps in shingshong province. these are chinese citizens and their own government is subjecting them to forced sterilization, sexual abuse, forced labor, physical and psychological torment, and political indoctrination. this government-sponsored ethnic

cleansing and now china is starting to carry out this kind of state-sponsored racism and genocide outside. in the autonomous region, the c.c.p. is curtailing the use of the mongolian language by shutting down mongolian language social media websites and prohibiting schools from teaching certain classes in mongolian. the next steps could be similar to what we've seen in shinshong. sadly, ethnic minorities are not the only people to find themselves on the wrong side of the c.c.p.'s many abuses of power. under president xi, china has broken its promises to the free people of hong kong. under the pretense of protecting

national security, new laws have led to the arrest of thousands of people for doing nothing more than exercising their god-given rights. taken together, all these things paint a picture of a chinese government that is doubling down on its communist roots and doing whatever it takes to control its people. and none of this should surprise us. this is the same government that forcibly sterilized its citizens as part of its one-child policy and gunned down thousands of students who were peacefully protesting in tiananmen square. and now they are turning their attention abroad. they are growing more aggressive towards other countries by the day in ways that comply with international norms and in ways

that defy those norms. in 2013 president xi formally launched his signature foreign policy effort, the belt and road initiative. through this program china offers lucrative structure investments, economic development deals to smaller and poorer nations. the ultimate goal is to create a global coalition that could challenge the long-standing network of alliances and partnerships that have been built by the united states. since belt and road began, 139 countries have joined and on every continent china is using it to expand their power. but here's the catch. if developing countries that welcomed these investments want construction to continue on their new highway system or skyscraper or if they want access to funding for future projects, they cannot speak out

against china's actions. this is why leaders of muslim majority countries who have spoken out against these crimes in the past have suddenly fallen silent. just look ataturkish president -- at turk yirk president. who said the crimes against the uighurs are genocide and there's no point in interpreting this otherwise. he said -- he said that in 2009. today he won't even talk about it and he has ordered police to break up protests about these atrocities in turkey. pakistan's prime minister, usually a champion for muslims around the world has also fallen under belt and road's spell. in june he refused to answer questions about xinjiang in an

interview with axios. others are far less subtle. they are using the infrastructure they built to spy on foreign leaders or even take over disputed regions in neighboring countries. in ethiopia, the c.c.p. offered to build the new headquarters of the african union. african union workers soon discovered that the huawei workers had been shipping their data to shanghai every day and it was riddled with chinese-developed devices. this is a perfect example with military fusion or the way the c.c.p. has so-called private corporations like huawei to do their bidding. another example hit closer to home. in 2016, a chinese company with

c.c.p. ties tried to buy a hotel in san diego. well, the hotel has a view of the naval base of san diego, the home port for the pacific fleet. the deal was ultimately block, but the fact of such a transparent attempt to keep eye on our forces is a cause for concern. china is building artificial islands in the disputed south china sea. many in this body will recall when in 2015 stood next to president obama and lied and said that china does not intend to militarize those islands. he broke his pledge within a year. along with this geographic expansion, president xi is investing in china's military. according to the center for

strategic and international studies, china now spends nearly three times as much on the people's liberation army as they did just ten years ago. they now have the world's largest navy in terms of total number of ships. the title the u.s. held two years ago. china's navy currently numbers about 355 ships and submarines. they have two aircraft carriers and at least 32 destroyers, 48 frig and 6 -- and 45 submarines. this is not a navy designed to protect a coastline, this is a navy designed to protect coasts on a global stage.

former deputy national security advisor called what china is doing, the quote, the largest peacetime military buildup in the modern era and maybe one of the largest in history. end quote. he said that in response to my questions at a senate armed services committee hearing earlier in june. and what is this new, more powerful military's highest priority? the peaceful island of democracy, taiwan. president xi has been very clear about his desire to bring taiwan under the c.c.p.'s control. the only thing stopping him is 100 miles of ocean, the taiwan strait, but the c.c.p.'s ambitions won't end with taiwan,

india, japan, south korea, and many countries in the south china sea are feeling the effects of china's aggression in ways no one expected even a decade ago. and to back up their global agenda, the c.c.p. is hard at work expanding china's nuclear arsenal. as admiral richard, the commander of stratcom wrote earlier this year, quote, china's nuclear weapon stockpile is expected to double, if not triple or quadruple over the next decade. end quote. a new report out yesterday from the pentagon paints a worse picture. it predicts that china could have at least 1,000 nuclear warheads by 2030, roughly five times what they have now. as part of this expansion, china is building at least three new

missile fields, each capable of holding over 100icbm's. and maybe most concerning, china recently tested an extremely sophisticated new weapons system that combines space capabilities with advanced hypersonics. this nuclear-capable prototype could give china a unique edge over our own arsenal. madam president, this needs to be a wakeup call for us. we must change our approach to china. we can't keep pretending that these problems don't exist. thankfully concern about china's rise is an area of bipartisan consensus here in congress. but recognizing that there's a problem is not enough. we have to get our act together

and we have to do something about it. there are many ways for us to push back against the c.c.p., but by far the most fundamental thing we can do to safeguard against china's rise is to invest in our military. the old adage peace through strength still applies today. but the biden administration has proposed, raising defense spending by only 1.6%, and taking this year's inflation into account, that means we have a proposed cut. that defies basic rojic. the -- logic. the world's not getting safer. threats like china's are not going away. when we met earlier this year to review the president's budget request and write our annual defense authorization bill, the

senate armed services committee debated defense cuts. what was the result? a huge bipartisan majority, 25 of the 26 members, voted to authorize an additional $25 billion in defense spending which primarily supported the unfunded priorities of our combatant commanders. this provides our military with the real budget growth necessary to keep pace with an adversary like china. it makes critical investments in readiness and in modernization as well as in research and development programs that help america keep our technological edge. it also includes a number of specific investments that would strengthen our force posture in the indo-pacific theater. most importantly, the bill authorizes an additional

$230 million to begin improving missile defense capabilities on guam. guam is a key element of our regional presence, but it has been increasingly threatened by china's growing arsenal. indo pay com commanders have warned of this threat since 2019 and the situation has only grown more dire since then. the resources authorized by the bill would begin to address this threat, and by improving our defensive capabilities in the region, we can keep conflict from beginning in the first place. like many of my colleagues, i am at a loss to explain why the democratic leader hasn't brought the ndaa to the floor. even if we voted on it today, this would still be one of the latest ndaa votes in history.

and so as we celebrate veterans day next week and consider the sacrifice and service of america's bravest, we should all remember our responsibility as members of congress, to give our military men and women the resources they need to successfully complete the missions that they are given. we cannot afford to delay any longer. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from ohio's recognized.

mr. brown: i thank the presiding officer and the good work she does in the state of nevada. madam president, i start by asking unanimous consent that ary and danny carlson, who is joining us today on the floor from my office all be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the 117th congress. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: thank you, madam president. everything we're doing to lead our country to build back better from this pandemic is by -- is about putting workers at the center of our economy. it's about raising wages, bringing down costs. we know what's happened in this country in the last decade. we've seen profits go up, we've seen the market go sky ward, we've seen executive compensation explode upward, yet wages in nevada and ohio and all over the country has essentially

been flat. that's why this bill -- that's why build back better is about raising wages and bringing down costs. we know what's wrong with our country. it's really -- i said 20 years, it's been 30 years, 40 years where producty has gone up, workers are earning more for their companies but they are not seeing their wages increase. they have seen their wages go flat. it is -- health care, child care, prescription drugs, higher education, housing that the presiding officer and i have worked on in the banking and housing committee, costs have doubled and quadrupled, meanwhile people's hard work isn't paying off. i remember in the committee we had more of a listening session, it was one where senators were not asking questions, we were just listening to people, which

is something that we should do more often. and one woman from west virginia who struggled all her life and working hard, she said, you know, working and poor should not be in the same sentence. think about that. she worked hard all her life, she didn't go to harvard, she didn't go to ohio state. she worked all her life. she worked and raised kids, she's still making $12, $13, $14 an hour. and that, madam president, as costs seem to go up, even middle-class families don't feel stable. that was before the pandemic. we know that in this country before the pandemic a quarter of people who rent, a quarter of them paid more than half their income, more than half their income in housing and rent. that means one thing happens in their lives, their car breaks down, their child gets sick, has to stay home from school, they maybe have a minor workplace injury and miss a week of work,

their lives can be turned upside down and be evicted, and then what happens? we know then that the pandemic has upended the global economy. supply chains are struggling. people feel their budget squeezed. they are anxious about whether prices that have gone up will go back down. we've heard a lot of politicians, particularly in this body try to stoke family's anxieties for political gain, they don't offer solutions. they think the only way to keep prices low is to keep wages even lower. that's the false choice. we work on real solutions, solutions to bring down the biggest cost americans face in the long term and to help families keep up with the cost of living. housing, child care, health care, three of the biggest items in any family's budget. build back better tackles all of them. on our banking and housing committee, everything we're doing is about making housing more affordable, whether you pay

pa mortgage -- pay a mortgage or rent, housing is just way to expensive and not available to enough people plain and simple. we need to build more homes we can afford, we need to make the houses, town houses and apartments to be more affordable. i visit communities in ohio all the time with houses that look affordable. they're listed $50,000 or $75,000 but families can't come up with the downpayment or can't find lenders to make the loans. sometimes we see these lower-cost properties snapped up by private equity, by investors paying cash. we're working to fix that with plans like targeted down payment assistance, expanding access to lower-cost mortgages. monthly premiums, deductibles, prescription drug prices still eat away at people's budget and the american rescue plan we strengthen the affordable care act to make a.c.a. insurance plans more affordable.

customers are saving an average of 40% on their monthly premiums on a.c.a.'s plans because of the american rescue plan when we passed -- which we passed in march. we'll make sure those cost savings continue so americans can save on their coverage. we'll make it more affordable for seniors and americans with disability to get the care they need at home from a workforce that actually makes a living wage. i was with a number of home care workers in cleveland the other day. these are people who take care of people we love. they take care of aging parents. they take care of a worker injured on the job. they take care of families. they make $11, $12, $13 an hour. some have been doing this for 20 years. they still don't make a living wage. as i said earlier, as the lady if west vij said, the -- west virginia said, the words working and poor shouldn't be in the same sentence. we now how powerful the lobbyists, many -- decades, many have fought medicare -- just

like the veterans administration do. i used to as a member of congress, i used to take busloads to canada about three hours away so that seniors could buy prescription drugs in windsor, ontario because it cost half as much. same brand name, same dosage, same packaging, but the canadian government negotiates prices directly to the drug companies. the american government doesn't. why? well, you know why. look down the hall. down the hall, mitch mcconnell's office, the republican leader of this house, the leader of the senate for many years. look at the lobbyists from the drug companies that line up outside his office. always telling people no, we're going to do whatever the drug companies want. we know that the entire minority, the entire republican party here is in the pockets of the drug companies. we know that. the problem is we've got to get all 50 democrats to stand up and say no, we're going to negotiate. we're going to stand with medicare beneficiaries. we're going to stand with people

who need prescription drugs of all ages, and we're going to negotiate on their behalf directly with the drug companies cutting the price. we do that with the v.a. the v.a. pays -- whether it's in reno or cleveland, whether it's in las vegas or columbus, the v.a. pays significantly less for prescription drugs than the rest of us. in this bill we're finally standing up to the drug companies. we're going to start bringing down seniors' prescription costs. for the first time ever we're empowering medicaid to negotiate directly. it's going to make a difference for seniors, a huge difference for seniors living on fixed incomes. of course we know for young families, they face generally different costs. the children of working parents often get their health insurance through medicaid or through chip but right now if a mom takes on an extra shift or if dad gets a bonus for a job well done, that tiny change, that small change in their monthly income could cause their kids to lose their insurance. what kind of policy is that? so dad works really hard.

he's really good at his job. he got a raise. mom wants to work an extra shift so she brings in a little more money home. then we take the benefit away. so we're saying to them, yeah, we believe in working hard. we believe in family values, but if you work too hard and make should much mope, we're going to take away the benefit. that kind of policy is just stupid. it's why we're including any legislation that will keep kids ensured all year. -- insured all year. parents won't have to worry getting hit with a huge medical bill. if the child gets sick the same month they work extra hours. of course, the biggest cost for so many families is child care. the build back better plan will ensure that middle-class families pay no more than 7% of their income on child care. what a relief that's going to be. again, the point of this bill is job creation. build back better is job creation is the biggest tax cut in american history for families with children and is to bring costs down. and one of the most oppressive, most burdensome, most difficult -- cost for families is child

care. a family with one toddler, two parents earn $50,000 a year, our plan will save them $5,000. $5,000 on child care costs. some families will save up to $6,500. think would that means. on top of this, as i said, is the biggest tax cut for working families in american history. in my state, in nevada, the presiding officer's state where senator cortez -- core ted mast you to represents, it's not much different than the rest of the country. more than 90% of families in ohio who have children under 18 will at a minimum get a $3,000 tax cut. at a minimum $3,000 a year. that's a real tax cut. that's not like a deduction. that's real dollars in their pocket. think about that. 90% of families in this country. in my state it's families with 2 toy 2 million children -- 2 toy 2 million children. that many kids will get at least a $3,000 tax cut.

if they have three children, they'll get $8,000 or $9,000 tax cut in the course of a year. that's one of the most important parts of this bill. it will help them keep up with the cost of diapers, child care, clothes and all the other extra expenses. one of the joys of this job, madam president, is going online, watching -- we have on our website we have tell your story what the biggest tax cut in american history for working families, tell us what that means to you. one woman wrote in. said first time in my life my son -- i can send my son to summer camp for a week. a man wrote in in cincinnati, first time ever i can finally now afford -- i can afford fast pitch softball equipment for my daughter. others said now i can put aside $100 a month for my child to go to eastern gateway or north central ohio community college. others have said -- this is the one we hear the most, madam president. you've heard so many families

talk about the last week of the month. and for people around here that make more money than this, you don't think of it much. but the last week of the month, so many families face the anxiety of how do i put together enough money to pay my rent this month. well, the child tax credit has relieved that ant for millions of -- ant for millions of -- anxiety for millions of families because they get that $100 or two children they get $600. the 15th of the month. they can ease them into paying rent -- making their rent that time. but it comes down to whose side you're on. it comes down to mitch mcconnell and the lobbyists in his office and the politicians that do his bidding, pass a tax cut for the wealthy and outsource jobs. four years ago biggest tax cut. 70% of that tax cut went to the wealthiest 1% of people. contrast that with our tax cut where 90% of ohio families, 90% of ohio families get at least $3,000 a year tax cut. it's pretty simple.

you want a tax cut for billionaires, then vote against this or you want tax cuts for works families. that's why you support build back better. you want tax cuts for drug companies or you want to bring down prescription drug prices? you want tax cuts for big banks that won't give your family a mortgage or do you want to bring down the cost of housing? when you love this country, you fight for the people and make it work. you fight for their jobs. you fight for their higher wages. you fight to bring down the cost of living. that's what we are doing. i yield the floor, madam president. thank you. a senator: thank you, madam chair. the presiding officer: the senator from ohio is recognized. mr. portman: i rise today to speak about an issue that's very concerning and it has to do with our national security and our homeland security. i'm the ranking republican on the homeland security and governmental affairs committee. and in my role on that committee, we've done a lot of

investigation into what happened in afghanistan in terms of the rushed and chaotic evacuation. and unfortunately i'm here today to talk about a new threat to our homeland security due to the biden administration's failure to adequately vet the afghan evacuees that came through this chaotic process. like many of my colleagues here on the floor, i think i can speak for them, i support the resettlement of those who stood with us and our allies who stood with us in battle, in particular, over the past two decades in afghanistan. that's important. but everybody recognizes that the rushed nature of the evacuation resulted in some of the wrong people coming out and many of the right people not being rescued from afghanistan. too many people were left behind. there's no question about that. there were american citizens left behind, permanent residents

left behind. and many of the afghans who had worked with us and our allies as interpreters, as drivers, worked at nato or worked at the united nations, they were left behind. so were a lot of people who were actually in the process of getting what's called a special immigrant visa, s.i.v. that would be our allies in afghanistan, the afghans who again stood with us as drivers or interpreters and so on. getting information has been really hard from the administration. and it's very frustrating to me but also to every one of my colleagues and to the american people. in fact, in the recent continuing resolution, we actually got language included that requires by november 30 for the administration to tell us exactly how many s.i.v. holders were left behind, how many citizens were left behind, how many people who were employees of a u.s. or u.n.-funded partner organization were left behind. we still haven't heard.

so we don't know the information. but what we do know is that very few of the evacuees who came out were either american citizens, permanent residents, or s.i.v. applicants or certainly snchtsz i.v. -- s.i.v. holders. in fact, we know from d.h.s. and state department there were only about 700 holders of s.i.v.'s that came out out of the roughly 7,800 -- 78,000 people who were evacuated to the until. only about 700 of those people were s.i.v. holders out of thousands of s.i.v. holders and applicants that were left behind in afghanistan. 78,000 people got out. but the vast majority of them, again not represented by any of these groups that we would have thought would have been brought out. it's also clear that in the rush and chaos at the c airport, thoe who were evacuated were either green card holders or afghans or special immigrant visa holders

as we talked about. so just as we have an obligation to help those resettle, who stood with us, we also have an obligation to ensure our communities are safe, we know who is being released into our communities. this means not releasing people who have not been fully vetted. we want to know who these people are. they might possibly have a record, a criminal record. they might have terrorist affiliations. and that's why you need to do the proper screening and vetting. secretary mayorkas testified in september before the homeland security and governmental affairs committee where again i serve as the top republican, the testimony was about the vetting procedures of afghan evacuees. he said and i quote, there is a robust screening and vetting process in addition to expertise both in the transit countries and here domestically. there is a robust screening and vetting process both in the transit countries and here dom

mostly -- domestically. i wish that were true but unfortunately it's not. unclassified briefing with federal officials from all the relevant national security agencies last week confirmed what our committee staff had already discovered to our in-person oversight of the vetting operations. they toured operations here in the states. they also toured operations overseas at what's called the lilly pads where people are brought from afghanistan to a foreign destination and then brought to the united states. what they found and what was confirmed in that meeting last week is that there is not a robust screening and vetting process for all afghan evacuees. it is true that there is a screening process. this is what it consists of. providing fingerprints and your name and many times a facial image so your face, your fingerprints and your name to a federal database at the overseas

lilly pads. but unless the evacuee was a known terrorist, terrorist affiliate, or criminal whose name, face, or fingerprints were stored on the system, there was no vetting, no interviews, nothing else for afghans paroled into the united states. now, here's a problem with that. our database is not complete. despite repeated attempts to obtain the information, by the way, we don't know how many afghans were successfully in getting past the database screening i just talked about. but we're told by those on the ground that it was the vast majority. in other words, very few people were picked up through this database we talked about which is d.h.s., state department, intelligence services. relying on hits on this dat database, biographic and biometric database we have is not adequate because the

databases do not have information on all afghans, certainly they don't have information on all afghans who may be terrorists or may be terrorist sympathizers or may have a criminal record. we didn't have a database like that. so we're pipging it against a -- pinging it against a database that was incomplete. the afghans with no information in the systems at all are not a known risk. i acknowledge that. most of them are good people. but this does not mean that admitting them with no additional scrutiny is an acceptable risk. the best way to know something more about someone who is in the process of being paroled into the united states is through intensive in-person interviews. that's how it's traditionally done. interviews allow officials to dig deeper into an individual's background as well as their beliefs about the western world. we learned in the 9/11 commission report that effective in-person interviews prevented at least three individuals who

were intending to join the 2001 terror plot and attacks. it kept them from entering the country and cricketed to that tragedy -- and cricking to that tragedy -- and contributing to that tragedy. if the u.s. had conducted face-to-face interviews of the 9/11 attackers, the attacks may have been prevented altogether. how soon we forget. the requirement of an in-person interview is a standard process that normally applies to all refugees. it would have been appropriate to consider most of these afghans to be refugees who would have been subject to persecution from the taliban, due to their status as a person who worked with us or because they were part of a vulnerable group, including a lot of women and girls. interestingly, the biden administration wants to treat the afghan evacuees as refugees when it comes to their benefits, but they are not following the necessary refugee security procedures to vet those individuals.

our oversight identified many other concerns with the vetting process. for example, if an afghan evacuee did have identification such as an afghan identification card or passport, the screening process did not including validation beyond a visual inspection. no follow-up. the officials working at the military bases in europe said they did not have any specific training or expertise in identifying a fraudulent afghan i.d. card. so, again, our folks went over to these foreign locations, so-called lily pads, talked to the people doing this screening process, and said, when you get an afghan i.d. card, what do you do? they said, we don't have the expertise to identify a fraudulent afghan i.d. card, so we assume that it's accurate and their identities are logged into a national security database, a u.s. national security database, in some cases, of course, then based on what could be a fake

i.d. if the evacuees did not have any identification documents, which apparently was the case with a substantial number -- no i.d. at all -- federal officials simply logged them into our databases based on what they said was their name and their date of birth. so they created a national security database from what these individuals volunteered. we're told it's not unusual for afghans not to know their actual birthday. it's just not always part of the culture to record or have that information. that's understood. but this has resulted in a number of the databases, including information about birthdays, being january 1 of a particular year. so they were simply logged as, say, january 1, 1990. the problem here is that our systems rely heavily on an individual's birthday sasse a key biographic -- as a key biographic indicate area. you get asked about your

birthday all time. now we have entered information in our systems that we cannot rely on to be accurate, and could be false identities. based on our oversight, again, trips to these sights with democratic staff members, republican staff members talking with those coordinating, with the afghan resettlement here in the united states, it appears that each side of the ocean -- folks overseas and folks here in america -- thought the other side was doing more vetting than was actually occurring. the official overseeing the screening of an evacuee at a lily pad overseas told us he thought the vetting was being done when they arrived on u.s. soil. when asked if the vetting in europe was sufficient since evacuees can and have left the bases in the united states, he said, they were not. but that's exactly what's happening. a senior official at base in the u.s. said there are no in-person

vetting interviews at any of the bases now housing evacuees and that all vetting interviews were done overseas. at the lily pads. so it's a little bit of one pointing to the other. officialsly confirm that when an evacuee arrived in the united states, the only screening conducted was the standard screening that all visitors go through at the airport. specifically, evacuees provided their information if they had it at the customs booth and were immediately paroled into the united states for two years. customs would check their information against the records created at the lily pads effectively creating a feedback loop. so the information that might not be accurate or might not be fulsome or appropriate is added to other information and one checked against the other. once here, the afghan evacuees are not detained and according to the administration more than 2,000 of these individuals have now left the military bases

where they were being housed and are freely moving about our communities. again, my view is most of these people are good people. some of them did help us. as i said, it is a relatively small number. somewhere around 75% are not s.i.v. applicants or citizens or permanent residents. but we don't know who a lot of these folks are. and, again, people think that they are at the military bases because that's where they have to be until we do further vetting. that's not true. there are no interviews being done here and they're free to walk off the military bases in a couple -- and a couple of how to have. the -- and a couple of thousands have. the only requirement is to receive vaccinations for measles and covid-19. and agreeing to update d.h.s. with any change of address. within ten days. that's it. i led an amendment with some of my colleagues to the recent

continuing resolution to ensure that not all of the afghan evacuees are automatically eligible for what's called a real i.d. if you've been to an airport recently, you know you've got have a real i.d. now to get on a plane. a real i.d. is supposed to be issued only to individuals with a valid social security number, proof of identity, which is shown through a birth certificate and two proofs of identity that show they permanently live in the united states. there is a process to get a real i.d. there was a 9/11 commission recommendddition that we have a real i.d. pressure. but while we u.s. citizens have to abide by all these requirements to get a license or i.d., congress waived one requirement for afghan evac we, the requirement to provide proof of lawful residence. this undermines the i.d. surgeon general the real i.d. -- -- this undermines the i.d. system, the real i.d. sum, and should not

happen. the amendment i offered would have required the evacuees to follow the normal process to require a real i.d. it would be to apply for asylum and then receive real i.d. until their asylum application is approved, they'd be able to fly on an airplane with a asylum application or their work authorization which many have received. unfortunately, this body rejected that amendment with a narrow vote. due to the reckless policies of the biden administration, we have the situation where an afghan evacuee with no presence in our databases, no documents establishing identity can have a cover identity created by the u.s. government -- at, for example, at the air base where we went to, stated on a stated birth date and can receive a real i.d. when they come to the united states. it doesn't seem right to people when i explain that and it's not. but that's the system. i've come down here a number of times to talk about what's going

on on the southern border. in my role as the ranking member in the homeland security committee, we do a lot of work in that area. it's getting worse instead of better in terms of the number of people coming across, the amount of drugs, the amount of human trafficking. what's astounding is that as open as our southern border is under this administration, if an afghan tried to cross our southern border, they would be interviewed. they'd be interviewed by a federal law enforcement official. the biden administration has lowered bar for security even behoe that of our southern border. we already know from the administration there are afghan evacuees who pose dangerous national security threats, who were able to pass the screening process we talked about at lily pads overseas and to arrive on u.s. soil. we still don't know how they were apprehended. but the we there are 10 evacuees who made it through this

screening into the united states prior to the national security concerns being raised and causing them currently to be detained in federal facilities as a national security threat. that's ten. we don't know how many more there are. the lack of appropriate screening and vet something of afghan evacuees by this administration is reminiscent of a pre-9/11 security mind-set. remember, we were at war in afghan for 20 years. we know that isis-k and al qaeda are operating in afghanistan. these dynamics should be secured by ensuring that all the normal vetting processes are applied to all evacuees. i stand ready to work with the administration and all of my colleagues in the senate, both sides sit down to address this to homeland security. i hope it is not too late. i believe we've got address the real i.d. eligibility of afghan evacuees and require in-person

vetting prior to distributing any new real i.d.'s to those afghan evacuees who have reached our shores. for future afghan arrivals, it is clear that vetting process must be strengthened and enforced. in talking to the federal officials on the ground overseas, they would agree. i.t. not too much to ask that -- it's not too much to ask that afghan refugees be treated the same as all refugees when it comes to security vetting. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor.

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senior senator from maryland is recognized. mr. cardin: thank you, mr. president. the covid-19 pandemic continues to take a tremendous toll on our nation. health care workers have valiantly served is our community throughout the crisis. still we face unprecedented challenges and this moment calls for historic action. the pandemic laid bare the gaps in our health care system and magnified long-standing inequities. health inequities have been eating away at our communities for many years, which is why i have fought for policies to reduce economic and social inequalities overall, ensure access to nutrition, education, and housing, and increase funding for social and mental health services. earlier this year, congress enacted some of those reforms in

the american rescue plan act, which is being much-needed help to marylanders and americans across the country. it was a strong investment to complement ongoing efforts to curtail the rapid spread of the virus, particularly as we grapple with more contagious variants such as the delta variant. now we have the opportunity to enhance that effort through the build back better act. even with the significant investments in health care over the last year and a half, americans are struggling to pay for their basic health care needs, like prescription medications and mental health care. waiting lists for home and community-based services so individuals can age in place with dignity are in the thousands or tens of thousands in states around the country. in my state of maryland, over 30,000 seniors and individuals are waiting to get access to home and community-based services. now we have the opportunity to make prescription drugs more affordable, expand access to home and community-based

services, extend enhanced financial support to individuals in the individual market, and permanently fund the children's health insurance program, the chip program. we've been working on these programs for years and in some cases for over a decade. congress is long overdue enacting a remedy to them. as we make these historic investments, we must also redouble or efforts to address the gaps in access. we have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to make rereforms in benefits. i reintroduced the medicare dental benefit act which would add dental benefits to medicare. it would help seniors and people with disabilities afford much-needed dental care. according to the wisdom tooth project of oral health america, nearly 70% of seniors lack or have limited access to dental insurance and fewer than half have access to dental care each

year. those numbers are inexcusable. we should be working to strengthen and expand access to quality, affordable dental care for all americans, regardless of age or income. that is why today i am introducing along with senator stabenow the medicaid dental benefit act which would extend comprehensive dental health benefits to tens of millions of low-income americans. currently states have flexibility to determine whether to provide benefits to medicaid enrollees. although most states, including my state, provide at least emergency dental service for adults fewer than half provide comprehensive. the consequence could not be clearer, higher costs and worst outcomes. a recent report by the agency for health care researchee quality found black, hispanic, and low-income adults visited the emergency room for dental

care at the highest rates of any group in 2018. many of you have heard me speak before of the tragic loss of deamonte driver, a 12-year-old prince george's county resident, in 2007. deamonte's death was particularly heartbreaking because it was entirely preventable. what started out as a toothache turned into a severe brain infection that could have been prevented by an $80 extraction. after surgeries and a hospital stay deamonte passed away nearly 15 years ago a few miles from this building. it's imperative we use this once in a generation opportunity to increase access to dental care which will improve the over all health of millions. adequate access to oral health is essential to prevent the death like deamonte driver from

ever happening again. let us continue to build upon the progress made to date and advancing access to oral health to protect individuals around the country. as we work to pass this legislation let us not lose sight of what is at stake. in the last few days we have seen some of the best that american health care can provide but also some of the worst. vaccines are making a critical difference in the fight against covid-19, and just this wednesday they will be available to all ages 15 and -- 5 and older. it is a momentous achievement and great achievement to families and communities around the nation. at the same time women in texas are being denied access to reproductive health care while on monday the supreme court heard elements in two cases challenging the texas anti-abortion law sb-8. roe v. wade has been the established legal precedent in this country for more than that half a century but activists

continue to push policies like sb-8 that are sending this country and women's health and well-being in the wrong direction. women and their health care should not be under constant threat. if we fail the women of america, we fail our nation. right now we have a choice on how we as a nation want to emerge from the pandemic. we continue -- we can continue on the same course leaving millions of families behind or we can answer the call of the american people and invest in high-quality, equitable health care. let us answer the call. mr. president, i would suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. ossoff: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senior senator from georgia's recognized. mr. ossoff: thank you, mr. president. i ask that the quorum call be

vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. ossoff: i ask unanimous consent that the senate consider the following nominations en bloc, calendar numbers 505 and 506, that the senate vote on the nominees en bloc, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and any statements related to the nominations be printed in the record and the president be immediately notified of the senate's actions. the presiding officer: without objection, it is so ordered. the question occurs on the nominations en bloc. all those in favor say aye. opposed, no. the ayes appear have -- to have it, the nominations are confirmed. mr. ossoff: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding rule 22, if applicable in consultation with the republican leader that the senate proceed to calendar

number 491, jonathan canter of maryland -- that upon the use or yielding back of time the senate proceed to vote without intervening action or debate, if confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate, that no further motions be in order of the nomination that the president be immediately notified and the senate resume legislative session. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. ossoff: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to legislative session and be in add period of morning business with senators per mitd to speak -- permitted to to speak before ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. ossoff: i ask that the chair lay before the senate the following message. the clerk: the bill in the senate s. 511, entitled an act to amend the omnibus crime control and safe streets act of

1968 with those who police officers who have been disabled as a result of injuries in the line of duty do pass with an amendment. mr. ossoff: i move to concur on the house amendment and i ask unanimous consent that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, it is so ordered. mr. ossoff: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to consideration of s. res. 440, submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. res. 440, recognizing national native american heritage month and celebrating the heritages and cultures of native americans to the united states. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed. mr. ossoff: i know of no further debate on the resolution. the presiding officer: is there further debate? hearing none, all in favor say aye. opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it.

the ayes have it. the resolution is agreed to. mr. ossoff: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection, it is so ordered. mr. ossoff: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate now proceed to the en bloc consideration of the following senate resolutions which were submitted earlier today. s. res. 441, s. res. 442, s. res. 443, s. res. 444, and senate resolution 445 congratulating the atlanta braves. the presiding officer: is there objection? is there objection to proceeding en bloc? without objection, the senate will proceed en bloc. mr. ossoff: i ask unanimous consent that the resolutions be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, where applicable be agreed to and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table all en bloc. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. ossoff: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that when the

senate completes its business today, it adjourn to then convene with reform sessions with no business conducted on the following dates and times, friday, november 5, 8:30 a.m., tuesday, november 9, 12 noon, and friday, 8:30 a.m. and when the senate convenience on november 12, that it next convene on november 15, following the prayer and pledge, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, and 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 consider the steele nominations, notwithstanding the provisions of rule 22, the cloture motions filed during today's session ripen at 5:30 p.m. on monday, november 15. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. ossoff: if there's no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order following the remarks of

senator sullivan. the presiding officer: without objection, it is so ordered. the senator from alaska is recognized. mr. sullivan: mr. president, i want to spend a few minutes talking about the president's nominee to be comptroller of the currency and her recent comments on those of us who are asking questions about her background because they are pretty outrageous and i think it's time in some ways -- we need to put an end to this notion that you can't criticize someone for their ideas without being charged with things like maybe racism, which kind of gets me a little bit riled up since i think i was one of the targets of her remarks. i've been down on the floor talking about some of the nominees that this administration's put forward. some are so radical, far-left, the a.t.f. nominee was actually against the fifth amendment,

another nominee who was an -- dharnlgd as an ecoterrorist -- i think a lot of senators will reject that vote. and now we have nominee to be the comptroller of the currency, s aule omarova. she is charged with charging, regulating, supervising all national banks. a really important position for a capitalist economy in particular there's -- in particular. there's a problem, though, mr. president. it doesn't seem like she much likes banks or for that matter the free market or for that matter capitalism or the financial system in america. so senators have been coming down to the floor in committee, asking questions, doing our due diligence on this nominee. i want to commend senator toomey in particular who has been doing

that, and i've been joining him. so i'm going to talk a little bit more about her background and her ideas, which, by the way, has nothing to do with her race or her sex. nothing. i just want to know what her ideas are. so i'm going to talk a little bit about that. 1989 graduate of moscow state university where she received the lenin personal academic scholarship. that's the vladimir lenin personal academic scholarship. what we know about her writing, yes, she was raised in a communist country. that's nothing against her. but sometimes you get notions of capitalism, socialism, comm communism, marxism. and her writings are something that are of interest to the committee, certainly to me, certainly to senator toomey about what she believes in terms of the financial system.

socialism, communism. here's what she tweeted in 2019, just two years ago. until i came to the u.s., i couldn't imagine things like gender pay gaps still existed in today's world. say what you want about the old ussr but there was no pay gap there. markets don't always work best. that's a tweet two years ago. say what you want about the old ussr about stalin and lenin and the -- roughly hundred million people killed during their rein. -- reign. say what you will about the ill-fated violent attempts to snuff out freedom and liberty, there and all across the world. she clarified, i never claimed men and women were treated absolutely equal in every facet of the old soviet union by people's salaries were set by

the state in a gender-blind manner. those things are still a pipe dream in american society. listen to her. this is just two years ago. still talking about the golden days of the ussr. there was gender equity all right. both sexes starved equally, and if you complained, you were sent to siberia regardless if you were a man or a woman. but, mr. president, her nostalgia for socialist, communist policies doesn't end with pay disparities. she's advocated for expanding the federal reserve's mandate to include the federal reserve people's ledger she has written about, a people's ledger by separating the lending function from the monetary function, the proposed reform that she's talked about will effectively, quote, end banking as we know it. this was written in 2014 as a

professor. these are radical, radical ideas. these are ideas. and this person is supposed to be charged with being in charge of the financial system of america. capitalism, some of us still believe in capitalism here. some don't. but it's okay to question these ideas. she's put them out there. the ranking member of the banking committee has asked for her -- a copy of her thesis. now, every member going through confirmation of the senate is supposed to give up any writings that she had. this used to be on her c.v. until a couple of years ago. then she deleted it. it's call carl mark's economic analysis and the theory of revolution in the capital. so senator toomey's asked for that. she's required to give it.

and as of now, this is a letter, mr. chairman, i would like to submit for the record, october 5. senator toomey asked for this. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sullivan: she still hasn't responded and provided it. she's required to. but again, mr. president, these are ideas. these are her ideas. very fair for united states senators to ask for these things, to evaluate these things. do we want someone who doesn't believe in the financial system and capitalism in charge of american banks? i don't. so i'd like to learn more. so we've been pressing. that's our job. that's our job. so she hasn't responded to senator toomey.

as i mentioned in a reference to a 2014 book entitled the end of banking, she wrote, quote, by separating their lending function from the monetary function, the proposed reform for the fed will effectively, quote, end banking as we know it. that's a really interesting radical idea. that's 2014. these are her ideas. these are her ideas. and if there's any doubt about her continued interest in marxist ideology, it was recently reported that she joined a facebook group called, quote, marxist analysis and policy which according to the group, quote, stands for the self-emancipation of the working class and socialism. unquote. recent -- this is recent. this wasn't when she was at old moscow state university.

recent. she has not said that story was wrong about her facebook group so we can only assume it's true. did she join that group to espouse democracy in the free market? here are the group's rules. quote, support for the torrey party is not acceptable, a culture of diverse marxist, socialist and radical views is the framework for the group. unquote. again, these are ideas, radical ideas, socialist ideas that are coming from the woman who has been nominated by the president of the united states to be in charge of all the banks, the comptroller of the currency. really important job. so we've been asking about this. we've been asking about this. we want to see her writings. this is completely legitimate, that the american people want

the senate to be doing this, vice and consent. what do you really think? do you believe in capitalism? do you believe in banks? you want to end banks as we know it? how is that going to work if you're comptroller of the currency? so we're asking for these things, asking for her thesis. and then, mr. president, sadly, because i think americans are finally getting tired of this, she was asked about this republican criticism. it's legitimate criticism. and the quote was, well, i'men easy target. this is quoting from her now. an immigrant, a woman, a minority. and ask if she thought some of the criticism of her that up' just describing -- i'm one of the critics -- was criticism based on her critics being, quote, racist. she said, quote, i think that is

true. so here's my point, mr. president. i think the american people are getting a little tired of this. i think the american people are getting a little tired of this. i and other senators have been asking very legitimate questions about this woman's beliefs, about what's in her head, about how would she be the comptroller of the currency and the response is from her, my critics are, quote, racist. let me be a little more blunt. this is patently absurd. united states senatorrers allowed to ask -- united states senators are allowed to ask questions, sometimes pointed questions of nominees. the presiding officer certainly has done that in his career, and

i respect that. but every time someone asks you a pointed question, if you come back and say well, they're doing it for these nefarious reasons like racism, it really doesn't advance the discussion now, does it? especially here on the floor of the united states senate. i really hope my colleagues here, whether you're a democrat or a republican, can maybe tell the nominee hey, don't do that again. right? don't do that again. these senators are asking, i think i'm asking very legitimate questions like number one, do you believe in capitalism? do you believe in the financial system of america? you're going to be put in charge of it. i think it's quite legit to ask her that. her writing indicates she doesn't. this nominee has some very troubling views. we are allowed, in fact, we are

required to fully vet nominees. and calling senators racist or sexist for doing so, this vetting is actually a disgraceful tactic that they might have used in the soviet union, that they might have used at moscow state university, in other areas, to silence voices. but it's not going to work here on the senate floor. so the nominee needs to drop that tactic. you're not going to silence me. you're not going to silence senator toomey. and i would just say this more generally and we all know it and we all feel it. americans, men, women, black, white, brown, native, n non-nate

-- non-native, people are starting to get tired of this tactic that when you criticize someone on their beliefs, they try to silence you or cancel you or end the discussion by bringing out you're the racist criticism. let's not do that here. this nominee needs to come forward, needs to answer questions, needs to provide us with her thesis which is about her beliefs on socialism and capitalism. and we're going to continue to do our business and the vetting, but i can tell you, i am one senator who is not going to be silenced by a woman who's being criticized, a nominee -- doesn't matter a woman or a man -- who is being criticized for very legitimate reasons and then turns around and tries to slander her critics.

it's not going to work. as a matter of fact, i think it's going to make it much harder for this nominee to be confirmed. i hope my colleagues look hard at her record, and i hope those who are advising her tell her to tone it down. those tactics might work in the soviet union where she seems to have a lot of affection for still but they're not going to work in the united states of america and they're really not going to work in the halls of the united states senate. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the united states senate stands adjourned until 8:30 tomorrow morni of

interest rules.rrow morni of this is one hour. >> given the unprecedented nature of the destructions of opening-