nomination of chris, had customs and border protection currently the police chief in tucson arizona. live coverage of the u.s. senate here on c-span2 delaware. a senator: madam president, i ask unanimous consent to speak for two minutes, if i may. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. carper: thank you, madam president. 234 years ago today, the state of delaware became the first state to ratify the constitution. for one whole week, delaware was the entire united states of america, and we opened it up and 49 other states have joined us since then. for the most part, i think it's turned out well. the preamble to the constitution doesn't say we're going to form a perfect union when they adopted it all those years ago. they said in order to move toward a more perfect union, acknowledging that we're not perfect, haven't got at any right, and we may never get it right. but today, we take a big step, we can take a big step toarkd making our union -- toward

making our union a bit closer to perfection. the constitution lays out a balance of powers that certain responsibilities are fallen on the executive branch, the president, certain responsibilities on us. of course, the courts have responsibilities of their own. the president has nominated this this instance, a fellow named chris magnus, he's nominated him to serve as commissioner of customs and border protect, c.b.p., a very big and important job as the presiding officer knows. i say that leadership may be the most important in leading the success of any organization i've ever seen in government, outside of government, it's the single most important ingredient. chief chris magnus has over 40 years of exemplary public service in communities that span across this country. he has a strong track record of collaborative leadership, and his nomination earned the support of dozens and dozens of law enforcement and public safety organizations. madam president, it's been eight

months, eight months passed since our president nominated chief magnus for this critically important role at the department. the american people are counting on leadership at the agency. we have the opportunity today to confirm this nop nation and -- nomination and provide the leadership that is badly needed, especially on the borders of our nation. last thing i would say, this is also pearl harbor day, a day to remember those who lost their lives, sacrificed their lives, standing up for us, all those years ago, december 7, 1941. with that, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the question is on the nomination. is there sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: the yeas a 58, 52, nays 48. the nomination is confirmed. 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 513, chris magnus of arizona to be commissioner of u.s. customs and border protection, department of homeland security, signed by 17 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. question is, is it the sense of the senate that debate on the nomination of chris magnus of arizona to be commissioner of u.s. customs and border protection department of homeland security shall be brought to a to a close. the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: the iowas are 52, the nays are 47.

the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: department of homeland security, chris magnus of arizona to be commissioner of u.s. customs and border protection. a senator: madam president. madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from yea. mr. grassley: thank you, madam president. i come to the floor today to discuss what anybody ought to discuss with a heavy heart, because when it comes to fighting drug abuse the united states seems to be losing. over 100,000 americans have died from drug overdose in the last year alone.

these casualties could have been prevented by better drug prevention, treatment, and intervention. but the brunt of this epidemic is due to drug trafficking organizations. cartels fuel the flames of drug abuse. often using violence and causing devastateing loss of life. drug traffickers lays street drugs with fent fenta nil makiny drugs even more lethal. of course, we all know that most or all that fentanyl comes from china. china's winning a war killing americans through drug overuse without even firing a shot.

and of course, drug traffickers are not slowing down. in june of this year alone, customs and border patrol agents seized over 1,000 pounds of fentanyl. this could kill two-thirds of the population of the united states. the boots on the ground agents seize these drugs before they reach us, but what they find, what they seize is a fraction of what comes into the united states. in my home state of iowa, agents from the drug enforcement administration seize more lethal dozes of fentanyl in 2020 than there were people within the state. this means the drug enforcement administration seized enough fentanyl to kill everyone in

iowa. our law enforcement officers are critical to the fight against illicit drugs. now, listen, in the last year or two law enforcement has been subject to terrible abuse. but these brave men and women don't do just great things. madam president, they also do good, good for our country and good in protecting our people. the brave members of state and local law enforcement, you know, like the police, like the sheriffs, like the correctional officers, as well as our federal officers, deserve honest and respect. they put their lives on the line to ensure that we're all safe, and when tragedy strikes we feel the loss of our fiercest defenders.

in fact, according to the f.b.i., the rate of officers killed in the line of duty is up as of last month, 59 members of law enforcement were killed in 2021. at this point, in 2020, the number was 39. and that was still an uptick from years prior. this trend is a grim reminder of the brave, the courage, and the valor each law enforcement officer has when they go to work. d.e.a. agent mike garbo was one of our most recent casualties in the fight against illicit drug trade. he was conducting a routine

check on an amtrak train in arizona when two drug traffickers ambushed him and his fellow d.e.a. agents with gunfire. and of course, agent garbo was killed. agent garbo was a committed law enforcement person, committed to a career of public service generally, and law enforcement specifically. he served as a police officer in nashville for nearly 12 years before he joined the drug enforcement administration. he served the d.e. eamplet honorably for -- d.e.a. honorably for more than 16 years, combatting drug traffickers from all over the globe, from our southwest border all the way to afghanistan. this tragedy reminds us in

washington here that our work to stop the flow of illicit drugs and to combat drug-related crime isn't over. i support being tough on deadly drugs like fentanyl substances by pushing for permanently scheduling all fentanyl analogs. and i am leading a bipartisan effort to proactively control synthetic analogues logs and address the heightened threats of meth methamphetamine. being proactive in the fight against illicit deadly drugs is critical for multiple reasons. first, we want to make sure it's harder for drug traffickers to bring drugs into our nation and to fuel the addiction crisis. but we also need to make it harder for drug traffickers to

feel emboldened in lawlessness and to kill law enforcement people like mike garbo. madam president, it is time for us to stop sharing stories about tragedies and instead we need to rewrite the story of our future as a nation. i urge my colleagues to act for the betterment of all americans and join me in the fight against the illicit drug traffic, particularly the scheduling of fentanyl and its analogs. but most importantly, we must all, and i do, thank agent garbo and his family for putting his life on the line to protect his fellow countrymen. his sacrifice is sadly much too common, but it doesn't make it

any less powerful and tragic. we'll continue to honor this man and those who follow in his footsteps as we fight the spread of illicitly dead drugs. now, on another matter, madam president, i want to refer to the debate that's going on behind the scenes here as democrats try to put together a bill that they would call the build back better bill. i call it the blue state billionaire bailout. and it comes from that part that they're talking about increasing all of the i.r. agents by a massive amount of people to supposedly bring in x number more dollars into the federal

treasury. there's some debate about how much it will bring it in. but i want to talk about a program that hires more agents, pays for more agents, and brings in more money. and that's the private debt collection program. so, going back to what's being talked about here in the senate, behind closed doors in the democrat party, to put this blue state billionaire bailout bill together. so, i go to december 1, "washington post," secretary of treasury janet yellen. the "post" gave her two pinocchios for claiming that the bloated blue state billionaire bailout package is fully paid for. or, as she would say, the build back better bill is fully paid

for. much of the "post" column focuses on how much revenue democrats proposed to increase in the i.r.s. enforcement budget would generate. the white house and the congressional budget office have offered wildly, wildly different estimates of what that proposal would do. the estimate provided by c.b.o., that's congress' official scorekeeper, is hundreds of billions less than the number provided by the white house. i'm noting this disagreement to highlight an existing program that is bringing in additional revenue without congress spending $1 more. i'm speaking about, as i previously said, the private debt collection program.

recently, the i.r.s. provided an update of this program's enforcement and performance for fiscal year 2021. it shows the program is thriving and bringing in more and more revenue on an annual basis. and maybe i should give a personal comment on why this program is important to me, because i think i was chairman of the finance committee. i forget whether it was 2003 through 2006 during that period of time that we set this program up. this update on the latest statistics shows that this program, the private debt collection program, resulted in net revenue to the treasury of more than $1 billion in fiscal

year 2021. this is a real increase of around 129% over net revenue in fiscal year 2020 of around $ 459 million. that 2020 increase was on top of more than a 100% increase in net revenue over the year 2019. now, these numbers show that the longer the private debt collection program operates, the more it recovers to the federal treasury. the incredible numbers of fiscal year 2021 also reflect several months where the i.r.s. did not provide new cases to the private debt collection company, and without cases being given to these private debt collectors you aren't going to get more revenue.

in previous speech, i said that i was going to hold the i.r.s. commissioner responsible to his promise to provide additional cases to the collection companies by september 27. and by the way, i also want to make very clear that this private debt collection program only goes after taxpayers that aren't paying it, that the i.r.s. has given up on collecting money from. so, commissioner raddic has kept his promise. i understand that additional collection cases were provided. i commend the commissioner for following outthrew on his promise to me. and for his continued support of this very worthwhile program. the private debt collection also does more than just bring in

revenue into the treasury. it also pays for the i.r.s. to hire special compliance personnel who collect unpaid debts that are owed to the government. this amount -- those amounts are reflected in the total fiscal year numbers that i gave earlier. i understand that the program was also so successful that the i.r.s. can now hire with this additional revenue up to 400 more employees. right now, the senate is wrangling over how much revenue might be collected if you increase the budget of the i.r.s. and hire thousands of additional i.r.s. personnel. so, meanwhile, as i've shown, we currently have a program that is already bringing in more money year over year while paying for

additional i.r.s. personnel. i appreciate commissioner rettig's of this program and look forward to its continued success. i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. cornyn: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cornyn: mr. president, we're nearing the halfway point of the 117th congress, and it's time to look back and see what our democratic colleagues, now in the majority, have accomplished. unfortunately, we've seen a lot of wasted valuable time, the ignoring of critical tasks, and failing to meet some of the most basic requirements of governing.

our colleagues used the first few months of the year to ram through a partisan $2 trillion spending bill, and then they wasted the summer on the majority leader's designed-to-fail agenda. it wasn't about actually getting anything done. it was about messaging. and then they threw it in cruise control in fall, refusing to let the senate vote on anything other than low-level nominees and, again, those messaging bills. well, unsurprisingly, this partisan approach to governing, despite the fact that we have an evenly divided senate and perhaps even an evenly divided government, this partisan approach, unsurprisingly, did not lead to great results. one of the biggest, unforced errors in this tarreddiness so -- tardiness so far has been the national defense authorization act. now, i happen to believe that

providing for the common defense and supporting our men and women in the military, keeping the american people safe, protecting our freedoms is the most important work that we do here. and indeed that's reflected by the fact that the national defense authorization act has been passed 60 years, i believe it is -- 60 consecutive years. well, this is not a particularly controversial bill. in fact, it came out of the armed services committee with an impressive 23-3 vote. and you have to look long and hard to find any bill that passes the senate that enjoys as much bipartisan support. for some unknown reason, though, the democratic leader refused to bring the defense authorization bill to the floor, but then when he finally did, after it had been sitting around waiting for action for literally months, then he attached a controversial

provision, a bill, the so-called endless frontiers act, which had not been processed by the house, but in an attempt to force the house to take that bill. well, as it turned out, after a broad bipartisan support for the defense authorization bill, he had to basically pull it down. well, when you try to add something as big as the endless frontiers bill that did pass the senate to a bipartisan defense appropriations bill, that created a lot of problems. so you can't sit on a bill for months and then at the last moment try to jam another bill onto it without at least giving people an opportunity for a robust debate and amendment process. and as we know, unfortunately, during the time i've been here -- and i'm sure during the time the presiding officer has been

here, we have less and less of that robust debate and less and less of actually offering and voting on amendments on the senate floor. it is very different from the time i came here when that was commonplace. so i am disappointed that it's taken the leader this long to bring the ndaa to the floor and that so far we've been thwarted in our attempt to get this bipartisan bill done. i hear rumors that, in fact, there may be a bill being pre-conferenced with the house, so my hope is we'll get a chance to vote on this bill in the coming days. of course, as i indicated, this legislation sends critical support to our servicemembers and their families and ensures that our military bases in texas and connecticut and elsewhere have the funding they need to support the missions they serve in around the world. but it also provides the military the means to take stock in the global threat landscape.

since 9/11, we've been very focused on the terrorism threat. unfortunately, at the same time, we've seen china and russia continue to assert themselves more aggressively around the world. and so now we have in the so-called great powers competition once again, and it's critical that we have this tool known as deterrence that only comes through strength. and passing this i will about and providing the resources -- and passing that bill and providing the resources needed for our military will lead to greater peace. so the ndaa is one of the most important assignments that we've had and there's simply no excuse for leaving this in the cleanup pile to be done between now and christmas. but having said that i hope we do get it done. as i said, there's other past

due assignments, something as basic as funding the government through passing 12 separate appropriations bills that go through a committee process, are open to amendment in the committee. congress' deadline to pass the funding bills doesn't pop up out of nowhere. it hits the same day every year. back in september when the senate should have passed a group of those appropriations bills to fund the government for the next fiscal year, our colleagues on the other side, led by the democratic leader, kicked the can down the road for two months. rather than use that time to play catch-up and pass those annual appropriations bills, they simply lollygagged. the funding deadline came last week, and what happened? well, it was another continuing resolution that kicked the can down the road yet once again. this year our colleagues have

found the time to vote on partisan dead-on-arrival messaging bills, but they have yet to bring a single appropriations bill to the floor for a vote. we'll see if that changes before february when the current continuing resolution runs out. then there's another assignment that our colleagues have ignored for months, and that is the debt ceiling. while they're more than happy to spend money like they did at the first part of this year -- another $2 trillion -- and add to the national debt and plan to spend at least another, anywhere from probably close to $4.5 trillion additional more money on the build back better program, i know it's been tied at $1.-- advertised at $1.7 trillion, but outside entities like the wharton business school at the university of pennsylvania has said, if you ignore the stops and starts that are set up in the bill as

gimmicks to make it score less and if you actually extend the bill for the full ten-year budget window, it really is spending closer to $4.8 trillion. we're trying to get the congressional budget office and the joint tax -- joint committee on taxation to give us a realistic score. but if you see this $2 trillion spent at the beginning of the year with another anticipated potential up to $4.5 billion, $4.8 trillion, you can see why raising the debt limit is so critical. the treasury secretary said that we will hit the debt limit by december 15, just a week from tomorrow. again, this crisis did not just pop up out of nowhere. since july the republican leader has told our friends across the aisle that they need to raise the debt ceiling on their own. now, some have asked, why is it that we insist that democrats

raise the debt ceiling on their own when ordinarily this is a bipartisan effort? well, part of this is just a necessary political accountability. if our colleagues are going to spend trillions of dollars in borrowed money and add to the debt ceiling, at some point there has to be some transparency and electoral accountability. and i'm told now that senator schumer and senator mcconnell have agreed on a process that will allow our democratic colleagues to fulfill their responsibilities to raise the debt ceiling on their own and suffer the accountability that goes along with it. all along there was a clear road map that could have avoided this confusion, if our colleagues had simply used the budget reconciliation process. debt ceilings are routinely raised using the reconciliation process. there's no problem with the byrd

bath or any other concerns. it's something that is written into the budget act of 1974 that they could have done on their own earlier. but by delaying here to the last minute where secretary yellen says we're going to hit the debt ceiling by the 15th of december, they've created another crisis again of their own making. the reason our colleagues have essentially failed at the fundamentals of governing over this last year is because they have been distracted by their own partisan ambitions. again, you would think after the election of 2020 when you have an evenly divided senate, where the vice president is the one that breaks ties and actually determines, because of that, who is in the majority and who is in the minority, that would cancel some bipartisan consensus making where the senate is split

essentially. instead we've seen some of the most radical decision making since i've been in the senate. the build back better program, or what i would call build back bankrupt, is a bill that gives millionaires and billionaires massive tax breaks. strangely from the party who claims to be representing the working class and middle class of the country, they want to prioritize the tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires, while forcing middle-class families who can't afford to buy expensive electric cars to subsidize these fancy cars driven by others who can afford them. our colleagues say the spending spree will cost the taxpayers about $2 trillion, which of course is hardly a bargain to begin with. i remember when $1 billion used to be a lot of money around here, and now trillions of

dollars is casually tossed around like it's insignificant or not as serious a matter as it is. but we know the spending spree, as i said, the build back bankrupt or build back broke, whatever you want to call it, build back bad -- there's other names you can give it -- but it could cost as much as $5 trillion, as i said, more than two and a half times what has been advertised. we started at $6 trillion from the chairman of the budget committee, senator sanders. then it was pared down supposedly to $3.5 trillion, and then to $1.75 trillion. but the only way that was done is to propose a piece of legislation that's chock-full of gimmicks and glifs and phony -- and cliffs and phony false starts and programs that will in all likelihood be continued should our democratic colleagues

stay in a majority, or achieve a true majority. this multitrillion-dollar bill will drive up energy costs. we've already seen inflation eating away at the income of working families. when you go fill up your gas tank at the gas station, when you sit down to thanksgiving dinner, everything is more expensive now because of inflation, making it even tougher for texas families, among others, to make ends meet. and of course then there's the president falsely representing the cost of this piece of legislation, actually saying, having the temerity to say this costs zero. i don't know what he takes the american people for, but they're not stupid. they understand that when somebody stands up there and says we're going to do something that's been scored trillions of dollars and it's going to cost

zero, it really is an insult to their intelligence. for the past several months, our colleagues have devoted almost all of their energy to this build back bankrupt plan, and of course in the process failed to meet any of the most basic responsibilities of governing. but now that it's finals season, we're running out of time before the christmas holidays, they're trying to salvage their poor performance of accomplishment this year. our colleagues are quick to point the finger and blame republicans for the senate's failures, but republicans aren't the ones setting the schedule, and, frankly, the message being sent from the democratic side of the aisle is we don't want to work with republicans. we want to do this all by ourselves. and if they get the votes, they can, but they are having some difficulties now, particularly on the build back broke plan, of even getting democrats to vote for it. and i actually think our

colleagues from west virginia and arizona are doing some of their democratic colleagues a favor because i dare say there's other members of the democratic caucus who are going to be on the ballot in 2022 that would prefer not to vote on some of these very controversial provisions. our colleagues do control the senate, the house and the white house and every aspect of the legislative process is under their control. so they bear responsibility for the delay in the defense authorization bill. they bear responsibility for not passing regular appropriations, and they bear responsibility for the concerns that have been expressed by reaching the debt limit, as secretary yellen has said. and then finally, by trying to pass through the house this reckless tax-and-spending spree

bill, build back better, build back broke, build back bankrupt, by focusing so much on these pieces of legislation that will, in my estimation never pass, or certainly not in their current form and ignoring their other basic responsibilities of governing, they are the ones who ultimately get this report card for their performance during the first year of their majority. so presented with this reality of an evenly split congress, our colleagues can make a choice whether to try to work together and build consensus and do things that can actually pass or continue down this pathway of purely partisan attempts to legislate. the choice is theirs. mr. president, i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. mr. peters: mr. president, i rise today to urge my colleagues to confirm several highly qualified nominees who are waiting to get to work in critical roles across the government. therefore, i ask unanimous consent that the senate consider the following nomination. executive calendar number 404 of the district of columbia to be associate judge of the superior court of the district of columbia for the term of 15 years. that the nomination be confirmed, the motion to reconsider be made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. that no further motions be in

order to the nominations and that the president be immediately notified of the senate's action. the presiding officer: is there the presiding officer: mr. presi dent. mr. scott: mr. president, reserving the right to object, throughout his presidency, joe biden and his administration has shown a complete and total inability to place qualified people in positions of power across the federal government. we have had crisis after crisis due to the failed leadership of president biden and his appointees. i have absolutely no faith that joe biden's radical far-left nominees will uphold the really. i will not allow and consent to these nominees moving forward in an expedited manner. we should get on the record so every senator can vote on their opposition or confirmation of these nominees. therefore, i object. mr. peters: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. mr. peters: i ask it be in order to make the same request with respect to executive calendar

406, kenia seoane lopez of the district of columbia to be an associate judge of the superior court of the district of columbia for the term of 15 years. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. scott: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. scott: i object. the presiding officer: the objection is heard. the senator from michigan. mr. peters: mr. president, i ask that it be in order to make the same request with respect to executive calendar 410, sean c. staples of the district of columbia to be an associate judge of the superior court of the district of columbia for the term of 15 years. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. scott: mr. president, i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. peters: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. mr. peters: i ask that it be in order to make the same request with respect to executive calendar number 556, he ebony m. scott of the district of columbia to be associate judge of the superior court of the district of columbia for a term of 15 years. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. scott: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. scott: i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. peters: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. mr. peters: i ask that it be in order to make the same request

with respect to executive calendar number 557, donald walker of the district of columbia to be an associate judge of the superior court of the district of columbia for a term of 15 years. the presiding officer: is there objection? the senator from florida. mr. scott: i object. the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. peets peets i -- mr. peters: i make the same request with respect to calendar number 511, susan grundmann, for a -- the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. scott: mr. president. i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. mr. peters: the next two nominees have been cleared and i ask my colleagues to support their nominations. the first is michael kubayuga to

serve on the postal regulatory commission. he joined the commission in january of 2019 after he was unanimously confirmed by the senate during the last administration. earlier this month his nomination was reported from committee by a bipartisan vote and i will say that he brings insight and expertise from decades of experience from both the private and government. he has demonstrated his commitment to working in a bipartisan manner to make the postal service more effective and accountable and i would urge my colleagues to join me in supporting his nomination. next, mr. president, i would ask my colleagues to join me in confirming eric hooks to be deputy administrator for fema. he helps to lead fema's work preparing for and responding to disasters, ranging from hurricanes to historic flooding

and wildfires to the covid-19 pandemic. he has more than 30 years, also serving as homeland security advisor for the state of north carolina, he oversaw the state's emergency management agency. i would urge my colleagues to join me in swiftly confirming mr. hooks to this role as well. mr. president, i would ask unanimous consent that the senate consider the following nominations en bloc, calendar number 558 and calendar number 555, 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, and 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: is there objection? without objection.

the question occurs on nominations en bloc. all those in favor say aye. all those opposed, say nay. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the nominations are confirmed en bloc.

the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: mr. president, the senate will soon vote on the nomination of chief chris magnus to lead the u.s. customs and border protection office, and i was pleased that the senate finance committee could advance this nomination. i wanted to give the senate a brief assessment of why i think chief magnus is going to handle this job very well. he brings a unique combination of smarts, common sense, and fairness. and that is really what this job is all about. for example, having talked to

the chief now at some length, he understands that strongly enforcing our immigration laws and treating immigrants and asylum seekers humanly are not mutually exclusive. you can do both. they are not incompatible. and it's a perspective, in my view, on immigration that is going to help our communities, help public safety, and help our economy all at the same time. now, there is no doubt in my mind that chief magnus has the right qualifications for this positions. he is highly experienced. he started out in lansing, michigan, and has headed up law enforcement agencies across the country, east, west, north, and south many currently he serves

as the chief of police in tucson, arizona. that means we will have an individual leading customs and border protection who starts on day one -- day one, mr. president, with first hand nodges about the -- challenges about law enforcement on the southern border. even beyond that specific element of customs and border patrol work, his experience and range of law enforcement all over, makes him ideal to lead an agency with tens of thousands of employees, staffing 300 points of entry to our country. so i think that's the heart of why he is going to be such a positive force with respect to border security, but i also want to note that on the finance committee, we are acutely aware

that customs and border patrol is not just in the business of immigration. it is also on the front lines of enforcing american trade laws. and too often in the past that part of the mission has just gotten short shrift. today customs and border patrol is part of the effort to fight against immoral and unfair trade practices, including the use of forced labor in china and elsewhere. customs and border patrol not only investigates forced labor and demands, it is in a position to demand remediation where appropriate. it also enforces demand on forced labor products entering our country. staying a step ahead of trade cheats, whether they are involved in forced labor or not, is key to protecting american

jobs, our businesses and innovation. workers and businesses depend on healthy, functioning supply chains. we've certainly seen since the beginning of the pandemic when the supply chains break down, you have enormous headaches throughout the economy from the biggest businesses right down to individual families that are shopping this holiday season for typical holiday goods. during his nomination hearing, chief magnus assured the financial committee that customs and border patrol's trade mission will get the resources it needs if he is confirmed. he's committed to ensuring that there is adequate staffing at our ports and is going to update the customs protections.

he is a first-rate nominee. it is clear he has the right priorities when it comes to customs and border patrol challenges that many of our senators care about most, securing the border and helping to get supply chains back to normal. i believe that he is going to work with all of the members of this body on immigration and trade-related issues going forward in a way that brings democrats and republicans together. i'm very happy to support him today and as our committee has spent the most time with the chief, i'd like to say as chairman of the committee that i think he will reflect great credit on our country in a vital position, a position that comes up every day in activities across the land. he is the right person for this important job at the right time. i urge all senators to vote for

chief magnus later today. and i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: i ask to vacate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. wyden: i have the request for seven committee hearings today. they have agreement of the majority leader and minority leader. 3r50. the presiding officer: duly noted. mr. wyden: i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. dur ban: are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: we are. mr. durbin: mr. president, i rise today to talk with a issue of vital importance involving the united states attorneys. each of the 93 u.s. attorneys serves as the chief federal law enforcement officer within his or her jurisdiction. u.s. attorneys prosecute the full spectrum of criminal cases brought on behalf of the united states, from hate crimes to human trafficking to gang violence to cyber crime to narcotic to financial fraud to terrorism. the list is long, and the violations of the law that are alleged are serious. the position of the united states attorney is nearly as old as the nation itself,.

in fact, the position has existed since the first congress. president george washington signed into law the law that created these attorneys in the judiciary act of 1789. given the critical role that these surnt attorneys -- severity attorneys play in bringing justice to those who violate federal criminal laws, it is hard to imagine any member of this body would obstruct efforts to confirm these officials. doing so threatens public safety and puts at risk millions of americans' security. it's also a stark key departure from what has happened before. the last time the senate required a roll call vote on a u.s. attorney nominee was 1975. 46 years passed without the request for a roll call vote on a u.s. attorney. for decades, the senate has confirmed u.s. attorneys by voice vote or unanimous consent after they have been considered in the judiciary committee.

listen to this, mr. president: during the tripp -- trump administration, 85 of president trump's judiciary nominees monday through the committee in the senate. of those 85, the senate confirmed effort single trump nominee, by unanimous consent, without even requesting a record vote. i might add, just for the record, i believe one nominee was held for one week so that the question could be answered about his background. that's the only thing that i can recall where they even slowed down the process during the trump administration. certainly, it was within our power as democrats to stop and require a vote, but we didn't. yet now, there is a republican objection to holding a voice vote on five u.s. attorney nominees. greg harris for the central district of illinois. clare connors for hawaii. zachary cunha for rhode island.

philip sellinger from new jersey. several have been held up for weeks. weeks. by this objection. why, you ask, is there an objection to these five nominees? there must be something wrong with their records. let's take a look. greg harris, personal friend of mine, i practiced law with him in springfield, illinois. he spent nearly three decades as assistant u.s. attorney in the central district of illinois. that includes my hometown. he's tried over 50 cases to verdict and held a number of leadership positions in the u.s. attorney's office. he serves on the central illinois human trafficking task force and the bankruptcy fraud working group. his nomination is historic. he will be the first african american u.s. attorney in the district, the central district of illinois, which of course is located in mr. lincoln's hometown of springfield. the first. clare connors, currently the

attorney general of hawaii. ms. connors previously served as criminal prosecutor in the justice department's tax division, special assistant u.s. attorney in the eastern district of virginia and for nearly seven years u.s. assistant attorney in hawaii. zachary cunha currently assistant u.s. attorney in the district of rhode island in the same office he will lead upon confirmation. he's worked there for eight years. following time as an assistant u.s. attorney in both eastern district of new york and district of massachusetts. nicholas also served in maine and massachusetts in private practice and clerkship in the second circuit court of appeals. philip sellinger has had a long and distinguished legal career in new jersey. he began his legal career as a law clerk for judge anne

thompson of the district of new jersey before joining the u.s. attorney's office in new york. for the past two decades, he's been a litigator in a prominent law firm, serving as cochair of global litigation. listen to these biographies. all five nominees are eminently qualified to hold the office of u.s. attorney, to prosecute crimes and bring civil actions on behalf of the government, and to help safeguard our communities across america. there is one thing that all of these u.s. attorney nominees have in common, though. they are all from states with two democratic senators. that seems to be the only thing that they might have in common. the objections to these nominees are not that they are unqualified or that the job is not important. the objection seems to be that they're from states with two democratic senators. so, when it comes to critical issues we expect in the department of justice to be taken care of by u.s. attorneys,

issues involving terrorism, human trafficking, narcotics, public corruption, gun violence, the safety of our communities, is the fact that they happen to hail from states with two democratic senators enough to disqualify them or to leave these positions vacant? it's time to end the republican delay and get these well-qualified prosecutors confirmed and on the job. we never once during the trump administration's four years held up a u.s. attorney when it came to a voice vote, a unanimous voice vote to give them the opportunity to serve this countries. it is unthinkable that we're going to do this to these fine men and women today. and so today, i'll ask unanimous consent for a vote on these nominees. i ask unanimous consent that the senate consider the following nomination, calendar numbers 534, 35, 535, 536, 581 and 582. that the nominations be confirmed, the motions to

reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate, that no further motions be in order, the nominations, that any related statements be printed in the record, that the president be immediately notified of the senate's action. the presiding officer: is there objection? a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from arkansas. mr. cotton: i reserve the right to object. the senate is a special institution, a unique institution. james madison said the senate was the only truly innovative part of our constitution. it remains the case today that our senate is the only upper chamber in a western parliament that has more power under our constitution than does the lower chamber. that is in part because of a design of the senate and our constitution, because of our senate rules, of our traditions, of our customs. we've heard a lot about courtesy

and cleej collegiality and respect. those are very important ard here, but it has to be a two-way street. earlier this year, in the judiciary committee, during the markup for veneta gu pta to be attorney general, i was speaking, as is my right under rules. there was one republican senator preparing to speak, there may have been more. the senator from illinois in his role as chairman of the committee cut off my remarks and forced through the vote on veneta gupta. all to save one week to get her confirmed. one week. i said at the time, at this desk nine months ago, that when our rules and our traditions are so flagrantly breeched there has to be some kind of consequence, and i outlined exactly what that consequence would be at the time, that i would not expedite consideration, as the senator from illinois rightly observes

is the custom here, for any u.s. attorney nominee from a state represented by a democrat on the judiciary committee. because if there are not consequences when rules and traditions are breeched in this institution, we will soon not have rules and traditions. i also said that if the senator from illinois would simply express regret for what happened that day and pledge that it wouldn't happen again, i would be happy to let all of these nominees move forward. we have communicated this to the senator from illinois and his staff on multiple occasions. i reiterated today, i would be happy to confirm these nominees in the following few minutes if the senator from illinois would simply express regret for what happened in the hearing that day and commit that it won't happen again. which i say again is simply committing that we follow our own rules. if we hear that from the senator

from illinois, we'll have five new u.s. attorneys. and i see the senators from rhode island, hawaii, new jersey here. as the senator from illinois says, i have no objection to moving forward with any of these particular nominees. all these states can have their u.s. attorneys this afternoon. t i'll have to continue to insist we not expedite these nominations. mr. president, i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. durbin: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: mr. president, i'm been trying to understand the republican objection to these well qualified u.s. attorney nominees. and the senator from arkansas has made it clear it has nothing to do with them. it's about me. he obviously doesn't approve of what happened one day in the committee and the price to be paid is not by me but by the u.s. attorneys, well qualified, who have important jobs to fill. one member of the republican caucus is upset with the fact that back in march -- this

happened in march -- the judiciary committee moved to vote on the nomination of vanita gupta to be associate attorney general when republican members of the committee had not finished speaking in her nomination. he correctly remembers that he was speaking at approximately ten minutes to 12:00 when i interrupted him, took a roll call vote and went back to him if he wished to speak again. i'll be the first to acknowledge that i moved forward with the vote on ms. gupta's nomination over the objections of committee republicans, but put simply, the republicans forced my hand that day. the senator from arkansas talks about courtesy in this body. i'll tell him i think that it should be a hallmark of what we all do at all times. i'm fortunately truly blessed in my mind to have as the ranking member of the senate judiciary committee a real friend in chuck grassley, the republican senator from iowa. i asked him that day what was going on. i had informed the committee in writing that we would proceed where a vote on ms. gupta that

-- with a vote on ms. gupta that day. i then allowed committee republicans to speak for 94 minutes on ms. gupta's nomination, even though much of what was said was repetitive, some false, and some really unwarranted. i was in fact prepared to allow committee republicans to speak as long as they wish. turned to senator grassley and said what's the plan here? he said, well, senator tillis my return -- may return and speak and we just have these members speaking. i received assurances that the republicans would not use an obscure senate rule, the two-hour rule to cut off the markup before we voted on ms. gupta's nomination. but at 11:55 a.m., i was surprised as was senator grassley to be informed that despite their earlier assurances, a republican senator had in fact invoked the two-hour rule in an effort to prevent ms. gupta's nomination from being considered that day. and to close down the markup in the committee. my hand was forced by this

action. it was a surprise move, tactical move surely within the rules for them to make, but i did exactly what previous republican chairs of the judiciary committee did in similar situations. i ended the debate and called for the vote on the nomination. now, if you're listening to this and wondering what these arcane committee procedures have to do with u.s. attorney nominations, you're not alone. the senator is pleading that we should stand by the traditions of the senate and the traditions of the senate, these u.s. attorney nominees would go through by unanimous consent. that's a tradition of the senate as well. the simple answer is what happened with a markup debate more than eight months ago has nothing to do with these five fine individuals or with any other u.s. attorney nominee who may come before the senate. if the senator from arkansas wants me to publicly express my regret for this occurrence, i express that regret. but i want to make it clear, i

relied on my friend senator grassley. we were both surprised to know that someone had invoked the two-hour rule. caught by surprise i did what other republican chairs of the committee have done. i don't believe we should play politics with critical law enforcement nominations. they are putting our communities at risk and politicizing the law enforcement in a way that threatens public safety. if we're going to truly stand up for law and order, let these men and women go to work across america representing the department of justice. mr. cotton: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from arkansas. mr. cotton: i'd like to address the chair, a question to the senator from illinois. i appreciate those comments. i would observe that since that day, we have not had a similar circumstance in which any republican wishing to speak was cut off in a markup. can we simply have a commitment that that will not happen again in the future as it hasn't happened in the last nine months? mr. durbin: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: responding through the chair, as long as there's

openness and honesty about what is happening in procedure, i will assure you i'll do everything i can to extend that courtesy forward. that particular day you may or may not be aware of the fact that while you were speaking, we learned, senator grassley and i both learned that someone had raised the two-hour rule and it came as a surprise to both of us. when we're open and honest about what we're trying to achieve in the committee, there's no reason why we can't abide by basic courtesy in the tradition of the senate. mr. cotton: mr. president, i appreciate the remarks from the senator from illinois. i will invite him to make his unanimous consent request again. i do not intend to object further. and a voice vote is fine with me. mr. durbin: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the senate consider the following nominations en bloc, calendars number 534, 535, 536, 581, 582, 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, the president be immediately notified of the senate's action. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. the senate will proceed to the nominations en bloc. the question is on the nominations en bloc. all in favor say aye. all opposed no. the ayes appear to have it. the nominations are confirmed. the president will be immediately notified of the senate's actions. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island mr. whitehouse: i want to thank them for the way it resolved itself. for a minute we actually felt like a senate here. thank you.

mr. durbin: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the absence of a quorum is questioned. the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call: a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota. we are in a quorum. a senator: i ask unanimous consent to vitiate the quorum. the presiding officer: without objection,so ordered. the senator from minnesota. the question comes on the nomination. ms. smith: i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be.

the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote: