bail hearings. she's been quite open in what her intentions are. ms. rollins tells us that what -- that's what matters about a prosecutor. it's not taking bad guys off the street. it's not seeking justice for the victims of crime. no, it is the power to say i won't prosecute these crimes. and with ms. rollins, it's not hypothetical, because she is a district attorney. and as the boston d.a., she went so far as to write down and quote the rachael rollins policy memo, a list of 15 crimes whose

prosecution, quote, should always be declined or, quote, dismissed without conditions. charges on this list of 15 crimes should be declined or dismissed pre-arraignment without conditions. the presumption is that charges that fall into this category should always be declined. so you've got a d.a. saying these are the crimes we don't prosecute. always be declined. dismissed without conditions. so you may say, okay, maybe this is like some sort of criminal justice reform. maybe this is low-level, nonviolent marijuana possessions. teenager got caught with a joint, we're not going to prosecute. reasonable people can actually disagree on that.

we can have an intelligent conversation back and forth about that. but the beauty of it is we don't have to speculate because she put it in writing. these are the 15 crimes -- they're upside down, as are her policies -- these are the 15 crimes where charges should be dismissed pre-arraignment without condition. number one, trespass. so i want you to think about it. if you don't want to see people trespassing on your property, well, under rachael rollins, the democrats' u.s. attorney, we don't prosecute trespass. what else? shop lifting. has anyone watched the videos of the people breaking into stores and stealing and stealing and stealing and looting? you know what? joe biden and senate democrats, they're bringing that to a neighborhood near you.

shoplifting, we don't prosecute. that's what she says. shoplifting, ollie-ollie-oxen-free. you see a tv you like, pick that damned thing up and run out of the store because your friend, the fake prosecutor, is not going to charge you. larceny. really, larceny? larceny, we don't prosecute. disorderly conduct. you're a single mom coming home at night, a drunk vagrant is yelling, screaming, cursing at your kids. you know what? not a crime here. we don't prosecute that. what else? receiving stolen property. this is at least interbe elect wally -- intellectually consistent. you're going to legalize shop lifting, rob the hell out of the stores, you can steal that

tv send it to the feds. fence it. you run out and fence it right. driving with a suspended license. well, sometimes that might be okay. what was it suspended for? was it suspended for d.w.i.? was it suspended because you're a drunk who's killed people? was it suspended because you're this homicidal maniac in milwaukee who murdered six people? you know what? this d.a. says driving with a suspended license, no problem at all. no longer a crime. breaking and entering into a vacant property without property damage. so any property that's vacant, you can break in, and you're fine. locks don't matter, burglar a

alarms don't matter. burglar alarms go off, what do you do? you don't prosecute. i'm standing right here. you might say at least it's something reasonable. it's without property damage, right? well, no, the problem is it's number number eight on the list. it doesn't matter, break into the place, loot it, trash it, destroy it, all is good in joe biden's criminal-friendly america. number nine, wanton or malicious destruction of property. by the way, don't believe the democratic talking points. this stuff isn't violent. really? wanton or malicious destruction of property, not a crime in joe biden's america. threats. threats of violence. i want you to imagine right now, you've got an angry

vagrant making threats of violence against your children. you call the d.a. saying my family's being threatened. protect our safety. and what does she say? not a crime. oh well, stinks to be you. threats are just a-okay. minor in possession of alcohol. kids drink up. the beauty of it is in joe biden's america, the kids can get drunk, they can drive, they can have their license suspended, and apparently they'll get a gold star at the end of it. minor possession of alcohol. we've got senate pages here. just go down to the u.s. attorney's office, they're serving margaritas. marijuana possession, okay, i said we can debate marijuana possession. reasonable people can disagree on that now.

it doesn't specify the quantity. teenager with a joint, you could say that that may be a good candidate for diversion to something else. drug dealer with several kilos of pot in the back. maybe you ought to be prosecuting that. oh, and, by the way, how do we know she doesn't just limit it to the kids with a joint? well, what's number 13 on the list? possession with intent to distribute. so drug dealers in joe biden's america, drug dealers, it is legal. you can sell booze to kids, you can sell drugs to kids, you can sell stolen televisions to kids. she doesn't prosecute drug dealers. but, look, at least it's just pot. come on, we know, you know, in states, it's just pots.

uh-oh, number 14, non-marijuana drug possession. so for any democrats ready to go home, saying hey, we just like pot because we're democrats. no, heroin, cocaine, lsd, fentanyl, drug dealers who are poisoning our kids in joe biden's america, we don't prosecute you. and number 15 is really the crowning jewel of this -- resisting arrest. so i want you to envision what this says. you can break and enter into vacant property and do damage, you can have a homeless person trespass on your front lawn, set up a tent, threaten your children, sell them drugs, and

if a police officer shows up and tries to arrest them, they can violently resist arrest. and what does the d.a. say? all good by me. not a crime. madam president, this is in a word, nuts. this is crazy. and you know what? this is what the democrats support. i'll tell you why. the democrats are counting on the news media refusing to cover this. the democrats are counting on abc, nbc, and cbs, this is not news. the democrats are counting on cnn will not cover this. every single democrat in this body has voted for rachael rollins. they had to bring vice president harris out to break the tie.

and you know, democrats, when they go home, they like to say we're not for abolishing the police. no. you know what? when you vote to confirm a lawless so-called prosecutor who says i won't prosecute crime, you abolish the police. cops can't arrest -- cops can arrest them but the d.a. will let them go. what does she say? dismiss pre-arraignment without conditions. this is radical and extreme. and i want to make a challenge to senate democrat colleagues. some of you are in purple states, a few of you are in red states, some of you are in bright blue states. i challenge any of you in the bluest state of the union, go home to your constituents, get

any gathering in a town hall and put this chart in front of them, and ask your constituents do the people of nevada agree that we shouldn't prosecute trespassing or shoplifting or drug dealing or resisting arrest or violent threats. do the people of virginia agree that these are not crimes and shouldn't be prosecuted? and i promise you in all 50 states, there is not a state too blue where your constituents would agree on this. and so what our democratic colleagues are counting on is that people won't know. you know, before the vote, i spoke with several democrats. i tried to tell several democrats, this is a bad vote. this is a vote you are going to regret. this is a vote your constituents are going to be mad at you for. one of those democrats said,

well, the majority leader asked me to do it. you know, crack the whip, party unity, party discipline, the order from the democrats and the white house is this is the chief federal law enforcement officer in the commonwealth of massachusetts. god help you if you don't want violent criminals robbing your store. god help you if you don't want drunken homeless people setting up tents in your front yard. god help you if you don't want drug dealers selling drugs to your children, because joe biden and kamala harris have said those are all a-okay, and if you don't believe me because in this bizarre partisan world nobody believes the other side, read the memo. she entitles the memo, the rachael rollins policy memo.

she wrote it, she put her name on it in writing. this is what it says. if we lived in a time of sanity, senators on both sides, democrats listening to this would say hold on a second, that doesn't make any sense at all. let's tap the brakes. by the way, one democrat could stop this nomination. one. every individual democrat, you have the choice. it means every one of you is also the deciding vote. so when you go back to your home state, you single handedly decided this lawless so-called prosecutor should be confirmed. i tell you this, you can never again claim you oppose abolishing the police because

this vote is front and center. trespassing, not prosecuted. shoplifting, larceny, disorderly conduct, receiving stolen property, driving with a suspended license, breaking and entering with property damage, wanton and malicious destruction of property, threats, minor in possession of alcohol, marijuana possession, possession with intent to distribute, non-marijuana drug possession. i don't ever want to see a democrat stand up here talking about fentanyl. fentanyl is terrible. i don't want to see another democrat talk about the opioid crisis saying people are dying in new hampshire, people are dying in my state. they are, and you're about to vote for a prosecutor who won't prosecute the drug dealers selling those opioids and poisoning our children. and won't prosecute resisting arrest, so if the cop comes,

take a swing. to my colleagues on the democratic side of the aisle, there is still time for you to stop this nomination. i implore you listen to your constituents and do the right thing. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from virginia. mr. kaine: madam president, i ask consent the vote not begin until following my remarks. the presiding officer: is there objection? seeing none. mr. kaine: thank you, madam president. in a minute i'm going to ask unanimous consent for approval of three important nominees who are not controversial. we've been hearing reasons to oppose a nominee who has some controversy, i'm going to raise three who are not controversial. in july i had the opportunity travel to ecuador and guatemala as part of a bipartisan delegation and one of the

questions we received was not about covid-19, not about immigration, it was when is your ambassador going to get here? fortunately since then the senate has approved the nomination of ken salazar to be ambassador of mexico, but it underscores the importance of having ambassadors on the ground and the value they have. i take the floor today to talk about three noncontroversial nominees, adam shineman, of have virginia have a, mark osfield and cynthia talis. mr. sh eiman has had a long history. mark ossfield has deep experience in the americas and cynthia telles is the daughter of the first hispanic to be a united states ambassador.

her father was u.s. ambassador to costa rica 60 years ago and she has been nominated to inherit the post that he inherited. these were all voted on noncontroversially two months ago. it is particularly important, i mention to my colleagues, one thing about mr. schienman be confirmed as soon as possible. a -- his important duty will be to lead the delegation of nonproliferation of nuclear weapons to the conference. this conference happens once every five years and it's going to happen next month. if he is not confirmed before then, the united states will not have an ambassador-level official to lead the american delegation at this extensionally

important meeting. i ask unanimous consent that the senate consider the following nominations, executive calendar numbers 433, 436, 439, nominations be confirmed, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate, nor further motions be in order on these nominations, any additional statements be printed in the record and the president be immediately notified of the senate's action. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. cruz: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cruz: reserving the right to object. the eyes of history are on the senate today. if the nord nord stream 2 -- if the nord stream 2 pipeline comes online, the russian tanks rolling into ukraine increases dramatically.

we have imposed sanctions on the nord stream 2 pipeline with bipartisan unity. we can do it again. if russian tanks roll into kiev, who in this chamber wants that on their conscience? we need to stop russia from invading ukraine, and the only way to do it is by imposing sanctions on nord stream 2. we did that two years ago. we overwhelmingly passed bipartisan sanctions that president trump signed into law. and it's worth explaining why these two are linked because we're all reading in the newspaper, we've all sat, my friend from virginia, he and i have sat in briefings, classified and public briefings that over 100,000 russian troops are masted on the ukraine border. the administration declassified

its own projections that an invasion of ukraine is inmat and could as soon as january or february of next year. this disaster is the direct result of a political mistake made by joe biden. what is the nord stream 2 have to do with russia invading ukraine? well, a little bit of ancient history. the year 2014, vladimir putin invaded ukraine. why? he did it because he has said thedissolving of the soviet union -- and he wants to recreate the soviet union by force. a reassembled soviet union would be a profound threat to the safety of all americans. we spent decades with a dangerous soviet union. 2014, putin invaded ukraine,

invaded crimea, but he stopped. he didn't go through all of ukraine. why did he stop? he stopped because russian natural gas to get to europe goes through ukraine. the pipelines go through ukraine. mr. kaine: madam president, if i could invoke regular order. this is not a response to any of these three nominations. the presiding officer: is there an objection to the request? mr. cruz: reserving the right to object. there's nothing in regular order to limit my view to explain my view on this topic. the presiding officer: at the -- mr. cruz: democrats don't want to talk about joe biden's gift to russia and putin that has set

up the tanks on the border of ukraine. mr. kaine: madam president. the presiding officer: is there an objection to the original request? mr. cruz: is the chair refusing to let me speak? the presiding officer: the senate has a scheduled vote. you see members have made their way to the floor. we have a lot of business to take care of. mr. cruz: a moment ago the chair granted that time be extended until this unanimous consent request is concluded. that is the pending u.c. that was granted. mr. kaine: madam president -- mr. cruz: if senator kaine or the chair wants to silence me because you don't want to hear what is happening in ukraine, you can try to do that. mr. kaine: madam president, we have no interest in silencing senator cruz. in fact, the democrats agreed to

allow senator cruz to be present his amendment on nord stream 2 last week and it was blocked by republican colleagues. i've made a request for unanimous consent about two ambassadors to the americas and about someone who needs to attend a nuclear nonproliferation conference and lead a delegation from the united states. it happens once every five years. it's coming up. the senator is allowed to speak about nord stream 2 as long as he wants but he shouldn't interrupt a u.c. for these three individuals for a speech that he has given many times and i'm sure he will give it many more times and i'm sure we will hear it many more times, i would like a ruling for unanimous consent on threes nominees. the presiding officer: is there an objection to the original request? mr. cruz: madam president. i object and the chair and the democrats are hiding from the

truth. the presiding officer: the objection is heard. under the previous order, the question is on the nomination. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

the vice president: on this vote, the yeas are 50, the nays are 50. the senate being equally divided, the vice president votes in the affirmative, and the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order, the motion to reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table and the president will immediately be notified of the senate's action. thank you.

the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. h- 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 482, michael d. smith of virginia to be chief executive officer of the corporation for national community service. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is, is it the sense of the senate that debate on the nomination of michael d. smith of virginia to be executive officer of the corporation for national and community service shall be brought to a close. the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll.

vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: on this vote, the yeas are 60, the nays

are 39. the motion is agreed to. mr. durbin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, corporation for national and community service, michael d. smith of virginia to be chief executive officer. mr. durbin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority whip. mr. durbin: i ask unanimous consent that the vote on the confirmation of the smith nomination scheduled for 5:15 p.m. instead occur at 6:45 p.m. that upon disposition of the smith nomination, the senate resume legislative session, that all time in relation to senate joint resolution 29 be expired. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. durbin: therefore, for the information of senators, there will be two roll call votes beginning at:45 p.m. -- at 6:45 p.m. i have eight requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. the presiding officer: duly noted. mr. durbin: mr. president, yesterday chicago reported its first case of the new coronavirus variant, omicron. our state's health officials

predicted that day would come. it did. they're actively preparing for additional cases. the world health organization has identified it as a variant of concern. it has the potential for increased transmissibility and could possibility evade some protections from is examining vaccines -- from existing vaccines. as we begin to learn about this variant, some hopeful signs have emerged. on sunday, dr. fauci described early data on the severity of ohm comas, quote, encouraging. today we received preliminary findings that patients are better protected against omicron with a third pfizer dose. while it's still too soon to draw any definitive conclusions, too soon, what's clear is the historic investments we've made -- the senate, president biden -- these investments in public health are paying off. thanks to the american rescue plan, which we passed earlier this year on sadly a partisan

roll call without a single republican vote, america is more prepared. that rescue package not only funded protection and destruction -- production and distribution of vaccines, it helped detect and track new variants. it provided more than a billion dollars towards expanding and accelerating genomic sequencing, the process that allows us to analyze how the coronavirus is spreading and responding in real had time. america is sequencing roughly 80,000 virus samples a week. before president biden took office, we were sequencing fewer than 3,000. now 80,000 a week. that has made a world of difference when it comes to tracking the spread of the variant. in less than two weeks since the variant was discovered in south africa, it's been identified in at least 19 states in addition to illinois.

as we await more data on the risk omicron poses to the public, here are three things we know. first, it bears repeating, the best protection is to get vaccinated. 95% of americans are eligible, and 70% have already gotten at least one shot. within days, we will hit the impressive milestone of 200 million americans getting fully vaccinated. we need to continue to promote this incredible safety tool, and that means booster shots as well. second, america must continue to support the global vaccine campaign. as i have i've said before, covid doesn't know borders. as long as it's circulating across the globe, the risk of virus mutation is growing stronger and roaring back in the united states continues to be real. fortunately, the biden administration has already taken important steps to address global vaccine inequality and

get shots to low-income countries. just this week, usaid announced a $400 million investment in a new global vaccine access program to deliver vaccines to pleat parts of the -- to remote parts of the world. i just got off the phone with dr. atool rawandi, a surgeon at bringing ham women's hospital, a prolific author and a man who is very insightful. he has agreed to step forward and work with pennsylvania samantha power at usaid. he is the right person for this jobbie this very moment. i encourage my colleagues to let him move off the calendar. we need his expertise at usaid. we need to build on the american rescue plan's investment in public health. effective public health systems are like smoke detectors. they can alert us to deadly dangers long before they threaten. at the start of this pandemic,

america's public health system had been ignored and underfunded for years. that's the reason why we propose nearly $10 billion in the build back better plan which we're currently working on to improve laboratory capacity, to seize detection, the workforce and public health preparedness. this funding will fortify our public health system at a time when it is absolutely necessary. on a related matter, just before thanksgiving, the house of representatives passed the build back better act. it's one of the most pro-family pieces of legislation in modern history. for nearly 50 years, the wealthy in america have gotten richer while the middle class has been squeezed. build back better is about restoring fairness. four years ago when the republicans had their chance to use the reconciliation process, they really identified their highest priority -- tax breaks for the wealthiest americans. they continue to hold to the philosophy that if you give tax breaks to wealthy people,

eventually people who are in the middle-income categories, working families, will begin to see some benefits coming their way. i couldn't disagree more. families with kids more destined for college and even better jobs, if we invest in the families and give them a better chance. the wealthy will do just fine by themselves. we've got to make sure that this build back better act which president biden supports really focuses on working families. that's why the bill that passed the house has the largest tax cut for middle-class and working families ever in america's history. that bears repeating. four years ago the republicans gave a tax break to the wealthiest people in america. the bill that we're considering will give the largest tax cut for middle-class and working families in our nation's history. it helps families with big-ticket items that keep people up at night -- affordable child care, universal

prekindergarten, expanded, affordable health coverage, help with affordable housing. it makes serious investments in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. let's be very clear about t i can remember a time when the whole issue of climate change and global warming was a truly bipartisan concern. the bills that used to come to the floor were cosponsored by the likes of john mccain and joe lieberman, a republican and a democrat. both very seriously concerned about what was happening to the world's environment. that is no longer the case. it is a struggle for us to get republicans to even acknowledge that there's a challenge, let alone accept the challenge of the solutions that lie ahead. we need to make serious investments in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and the effects of climate change and critly important to our future economic prosperity we need build back better to make investments in higher education and affordability, which is the next topic i'd like to address. the pell grant program has been

the cornerstone of mechanic's investment in -- of america's investment in college student aid for more than 50 years. but it has failed to keep up with the times. it was created in 1972. think about that, almost 50 years ago. and at the time the pell grants were worth more than 75% of the average cost of attending a four-year public college or university. the tuition, fees, and living expenses. the pell grant covered 75% of it. today the pell grant covers less than 30%. what makes up the difference? student debt makes up the difference. 45 million americans now own $1.7 trillion -- that's with a t -- $1.7 trillion in student loan debt. that's more than america's combined debt to credit card companies and second only to mortgages. it's the largest consumer debt it in america. build back better will ease the squeeze of college costs by increasing the maximum pell

grant by $550. it will also expand pell grants and other forms of federal aid to daca students. these historic investments will help five million students from low-income earn college degrees and build a better, stronger america. now there's one item in here that i'm going to close with that's very important. for years i brought to the attention of the senate one industry that purports to be part of education in america -- for-profit colleges and universities. with this new pell grant, we make it clear that the $550 increase will not go to for-profit colleges. why, you ask. take a look at the record. the for-profit college industry is one of the most heavily federally subsidized sectors in america. some for-profit college companies receive 100% of their revenue from federal taxpayers. that's right, pell grants and student loans make up their entire revenue.

the university of phoenix is one of the giants in the industry, has been for years. one of the founders once called pell grants and student loans, quote, the juice for the for-profit college industry. and with one of the largest ever increases to pell grant on the table, the for-profit college industry was looking for more juice. they're not going to get it, and i'm glad they don't. i'd like to leave those who are following my remarks with a quiz. what percentage of high school students in america attend for-profit colleges and universities? the answer -- 8%. next question -- what percentage of defaults on student loans are by students from for-profit colleges and universities? the answer -- 30%. 8% of the students and 30% of the student loan dwealts. -- defaults. is it bad luck? no, by design. for-profit colleges and universities will accept anyone with a pulse. you do not have to show any

aptitude or any ambition. if you will sign on the dotted line and they can take over your pell grant and hook you up with a student loan, they are perfectly hean. -- happy. the net result is often disappointing. students have to drop out, they can't continue to pay the high tuitions at these places, and when they drop out they still have a mountain of debt to pay off. eventually they're going to default on, 30% of them are going to default on them and that is an outrageous number when you think about it. also i might add that these colleges and universities, so-called colleges and universities are notorious for fraudulent conduct, misleading their students about what they're learning and what they can earn from what they learn. it's a terrible record. for-profit colleges just spent 26% of their revenue on instruction. what do they do with 74%? they market and they take it as profit. 26% of their revenue on

education, it's a joke, and we're fools to keep perpetuating this terrible drain on the american economy and this terrible hardship on so many students and their families. so over the next, last 20 years, nearly every major for-profit college has been investigated and sued by state and federal agencies for deception and abusive practices. many like the university of phoenix and did he -- devry have paid in federal settlements since the collapse of the most infamous for-profit colleges, corinthian and i.t.t. tech, they deceived taxpayers holding the bag for default of student loans to the tune of millions of dollars. adding protections in build back better is not about congress punishing students. the for-profit college industry is doing that quite well by themselves. this is about protecting traditionally underserved, marginalized students and

prevent taxpayer dollars from being wasted on these miserable institutions. in closing i ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a letter from coalition of groups urging congress to support new protections for pell grants. among them the national urban league, the education trust and veterans education success. i urge my colleagues to resist any attempt to remove this provision during floor consideration. do not open the spigot of federal dollars to this predatory industry. they have siphoned off enough money and ruined enough lives of students as it is. we shouldn't perpetuate this terrible fraud. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the

senator from florida. mr. scott: mr. president, since being elected to the united states senate about three years ago, i have spoken often about the dangers presented by communist china. i have not been alone in this. colleagues on both sides of the aisle, republicans, democrats and independents in this body have been vocal about the threats we face from general secretary xi and his communist regime. while we may not always agree on the solutions to the problems caused by communist china, i feel we are united in the truth. the good people of china are being brutally oppressed, sensorsed, -- censored and manipulated by the chinese communist party, a regime that wants nothing more than to dominate the world and ex-continuing wish the democratic values and freedoms we stand for. their actions have made this clear to freedom loving people across the world.

one of the china's most recognizable athletes is a three-time olympian and ranked a number one player by the world tennis association. she won championships and represented her country at the highest level of competition. when she shares her story of sexual abuse by a former vice premier on social media it caught the attention of the world. and communist china's reaction to these disturbing allegations have shocked us all and verified all our fears. instead of taking her claims seriously and investigating these allegations, the communist chinese government followed its authoritarian playbook -- silence, deflect and cover up. general secretary xi is so thin-skinned and intolerant of any questioning of their government that they silenced m.

ms. swy. then communist china's state media released what they said was an e-mail from ms. swy reversing her allegations. it read like a hostage note and raised more concerns as to her whereabouts and safety. then the communist chinese government shared a couple of video of ms. swy at various structured public events and staged two vehicles with the international olympic committee. shockingly the international olympic committee didn't ask about her disappearance, they didn't ask about her allegations of abuse, but are any of us surprised. i'm pressing the international committee to speak up about communist china's genocide and other abuses for two years. they have been silent. the failure to ask these questions reveal it is more interested in appeasing the chinese communist party and maintaining its good

relationship than the safety of athletes. i'm not the only one who believes this. last week world renowned sports broadcaster bob costas appeared on cnn and told the truths the the i.o.c. is in bed with communist china. disgusting but that's the truth. the world tennis association took real action to stand up for ms. shuai. they would suspend all events in china until it is clear she was safe and in good health. they are calling for a full fledged and transparent investigation into ms. shuai's allegations. we could applaud them in showing the world how they can stand up to an evil regime. this is what courage looks like and i believe it ought to be celebrated in this body. the i.o.c. is bending over backwards to keep communist china happy. weech american athletes -- we have american athletes traveling

to beijing in weeks. it is terrifying. if communist china is willing to do this to its citizens how do we know americans will be safe during the olympics? we must demand ms. shuai be free from censorship and there be a full investigation into her series allegations of sexual assault against the former vice premier. that's why i introduced a resolution calling for that and i'm thank that other senators have joined me. the united states is the leading voice of freedom and democracy around the world. we cannot tolerate this kind of behavior and i urge my colleagues to stand together today for human rights and help pass this good resolution. as if in legislative session i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to senate resolution 474 which is at the desk. i further ask that the resolution be agreed to, 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: is there objection? mr. durbin: reserving the right to object. mr. president --. the presiding officer: the majority whip. mr. durbin: if i can be recognized. let me say to my colleague from florida, i like your resolution. i really think it speaks to the sentiments shared by the vast majority of maybe even, or maybe even all the united states senators. i'm not certain how to pronounce this young lady's name. mr. scott: it's peng shuai. mr. durbin: it's outrageous. she reports sexual abuse by a high-ranking official, and then she disappears, and they feed us occasional videotapes. i want to join you in commending the world tennis association, and i also want to add that i

think the president was correct in not only saying that we were going to withhold any diplomats being sent over to china during the next round of the olympic games, but i understand the administration is reaching out to other countries to join us, whether it's the uighurs or whether it's ms. peng shuai, outrageous human rights abuses should not be ignored. as i glance at your resolution here, it looks to me like you hit the nail on the head. so why am i reserving the right to object? here's something that i think would be helpful in the cause of human rights. what if the united states of america actually had an ambassador in china. think about that possibility. we would have someone representing our country on the scene, in beijing, working for the united states, speaking up for human rights. what's holding us back? why won't biden nominate somebody for this job? well, it turns out he did. a man named nicholas burns. we all know him.

he has a long record of diplomacy in foreign service, service in russia and other places. he is a key man in the state department and one that we can rely on, and he should be in beijing fighting for the causes that you and i agreed on today. what could possibly be holding him up? we need him there. well, it turns out he's being held out by that side of the aisle objecting to his being called. but we have a chance to solve that today. we cannot only pass your resolution, but we can appoint mr. burns as the ambassador to china and get it done, and he can be on a plane in the morning. how about that? that would be an amazing thing to accomplish, take that home to florida, i'll take it home to illinois. it's a good day's work. and so to reach that end, i ask that the pending request be modified as follows -- notwithstanding rule 22, the senate proceed to the consideration of the following nomination -- calendar 525, r. nicholas burns of massachusetts, to be ambassador of the united states of america

to the people's republic of china. the nomination be 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 to the nomination, the president be immediately notified of the senate's action, then as if in legislative session, the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of your resolution, s. res. 474 submitted earlier today, the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table without intervening action or debate. what an amazing bipartisan achievement that we can put together in just a few minutes here. the presiding officer: will the senator from florida so modify his request? mr. scott: mr. president, reserving the right to object. first, i thank my colleague for agreeing that i think we all agree that what's happened to peng shuai is wrong, and i think we all know we have to

stand up to what communist china is doing. here's my concern about nick burns. until the day he was nominated by china, he has never stood up to communist china. he has taken money from communist china. he has always looked the other way. my concern is that we ought to have a vote on him. everyone ought to have an opportunity to talk to him and get his position. because everything -- i talked to him and he never said a word about the uighurs, tibetans, about what happened in hong kong or stealing technology. i don't know what's going to happen. i'll object to the modification, but i hope my colleague will agree that the resolution is worth it to go forward and over time we'll have a vote on nick burns.

the presiding officer: objection is heard to the modification. is there objection to the original request? mr. durbin: mr. president, time's wasting. we need an ambassador in china. i'm sorry, but i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. scott: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. scott: all right. so it's pretty disappointing. all right. so my democratic colleague said that he agreed with the resolution. i think it's time that we stand up for the chinese citizens that are being oppressed by secretary xi. you know, what this resolution does is say, you know, we've got to stand up to all the oppression in china. we've got to stand up for peng shuai. we need a resolution that says, athletes that are going over there, we have your back. if you look at what's happening now, democrats are saying we're not going to do those things.

i don't think that is right. i don't believe that our platform in the senate should be that we don't stand for assaults to athletes. this is a resolution that said we're going to stand up for peng shuai. i'm appreciative of what -- i'm disappointed with the i.o.c. and i'm disappointed that we could not simply stand up for somebody who accused the vice premier of china with sexual assault. nobody would want it to happen to anybody in our family or anybody in this country and we ought to stand up it for people in china like we want to stand up for people in this country.

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. president. i'm here on the floor today to urge the senate to move immediately to vote for the confirmation and on the confirmation of dr. laurie lacasio to be the under secretary of commerce at the department of commerce and also as the director of the national institutes of standards and technology. mr. president, as of today, we have 156 pending nominations on the executive calendar. these include ambassadorial

nominations to important countries like china, japan, and others all around the world and that is harming our national security. we should be moving forward with them urgently. and then there are a whole number of nominations that relate to very important u.s. domestic agencies. and one of them is this appointment at the national institute for standards and technology. look, many americans are aware of the n.i.h., the national institutes of health. they know that that institute does very important medical research that help save lives and develop treatments to help americans and others around the world. in fact, they played a key role in the development of vaccines against covid-19. less well known, but also they important, is the national institute for standards and technology, which plays a key role in supporting american

economic competitiveness and supporting innovation for americans and american companies around the world. they also play an important role in the supply chain effort of the united states. and that, of course, has taken on an added significance in recent months as we experience bottlenecks. so we're only hurting ourselves and our country by refusing to allow this body to move forward on a vote on her nomination. we're essentially saying to this very important institute, this important government entity, we're not going to vote on your leader. so, mr. president, it's time to move forward on this. now, i want to talk a little bit about why dr. locascio is an exceptional choice for this role. and that's not only because she hails from the great state of

maryland. it's not only because she's a graduate of the university of maryland-baltimore and been a leader in the university of maryland's research endeavor since 2013. it is also and most importantly because she brings to this position three decades of experience working at all lists. she began as a research staffer and rose to become the acting director and associate director for laboratory programs. she was responsible for directing the material laboratories which is one of nist largest laboratories, she has experience at nist and she has really touched upon every endeavor within the nist

portfolio. this appointment would be important at any time, but it's especially important at this moment as we grapple with supply chain issues, we try to bolster u.s. manufacturing and try to make sure that we manufacture here in the united states essential products that we need. and this body, in addition to focusing on the manufacturing side of the ledger, also understands the importance of investment in vital research and material science in things like quantum computing, artificial intelligence. we passed with an overwhelming bipartisan vote of 68-32, the u.s. innovation and competition act. and nist has very important responsibilities in those areas and what nist does there is very important in maintaining and sharpening our position in the

world, especially as we address the growing challenge of china. i also want to mention the manufacturing extension partnership that is run out of nist, which has played a very important role right now as we've worked to fight these supply-chain blockages and also accelerate the production of personal protective equipment, m-95 masks and ventilators. that push was fueled largely by the $50 million that this body helped appropriate for the m.e.p. program in the cares act. and, again, that is a program housed at nist, helping to dewith supply-chain bottlenecks when it comes to essential protections from the pandemic. so, mr. president, there is no

justification for blocking this nomination. in fact, all we're doing is tying our hands behind our backs by depriving this important institute of their top leader at a time when we face national challenges on supply -- supply chain issues and at a time when we understand we have to be at the top of our game when it comes to innovation and cutting-edge technologies in so many areas where it's essential to meet the challenge of china and others around the world in global competition. so i would really urge my colleagues to allow this nomination to proceed. that's the right thing to do for our country, and i, at this point in time, unanimous consent that notwithstanding rule 22, the senate consider the following nomination, executive calendar number 551, department of commerce, laurie e. locascio,

of maryland, to be under secretary of commerce for standards and technology. and that the nomination be 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 on the nomination, that the president be immediately notified of the senate's action. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. scott: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. scott: reserving the right to object. first i want to acknowledge my colleague's interest in the nominee for the national institute for standards and technology. i'm not sure if my colleague is aware, but last month i sent a letter to the commerce committee informing that i would hold all of those nominees until we heard from secretary buttigieg about the supply chain crisis. there are nearly a million ships

waiting to dock to unload goods but unable to do so because of the supply chain issue. families and businesses are facing empty shelves, shortages on goods and higher prices so far i have only seen secretary buttigieg playing commentator rather than solving the problem. it's long past time for the biden administration to tell us exactly what they are doing to solve this crisis and help the american families. until we hear from the secretary buttigieg and the commerce committee, i will object to all of these nominations. it isn't personal, i look forward to hearing from the secretaries and go forward with the nominees. therefore, mr. president, i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. van hollen: mr. president. i would just ask my colleague in

the coming days, before the end of the year, to reconsider his position. he is a member of the commerce committee and he -- he knows well that there have been three hearings on supply chain issues. one on may 11, regarding freight mobility, strengthening america's supply chains and competitiveness, on july 15, on december 7, unchartered waters, challenges posed by ocean shipping supply lanes. where the committee discussed a whole range of supply chain issues. moreover, responding to these issues, if we're really serious about addressing our supply chain issues, how do it help to deny us the opportunity to vote and put in place the director of an agency that is supposed to help relieve the supply chain

bottlenecks? i know the senator from florida had to leave, but it's a very simple question. if there's a genuine interest in addressing supply chain bottlenecks and addressing the cost pressures, how does denying nist a leader help advance that agenda? clearly it does not. clearly this is harming the u.s. markets at this important time. clearly it's harming our supply chain efforts. clearly it's harming u.s. competitiveness. so i urge my colleagues to move forward on this nomination. apparently not today because the objection but let's get it done before the end of this year. mr. president, i have -- i'm not going to ask for a quorum call. that's it.

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from wisconsin. mr. johnson: mr. president, i come to the floor of the senate today to make a few points, to ask a few questions. first of all, can we all acknowledge that there is so much that we do not know about the coronavirus, about covid, the disease, or about the covid vaccines? our response to covid as a result has been in reaction to very imperfect information. so very early in the pandemic, i gave those individuals in a position to make very tough decisions with imperfect information a great deal of latitude in making those tough

calls. but over the course of the months, we have learned a lot. we've always been told to follow the science but it sure seems our health care agencies and as i refer to them, the covid gods, the dr. faucis of the world, the agency heads, the biden administration, the mainstream media and the social media, they never allowed second opinions. there's been one narrative. and they simply have not been willing to consider alternative measures. so a question i think we should all be asking ourselves is did our response work? over 780,000 americans have lost their lives.

the human toll of the economic devastation of the shutdowns. the year of lost learning to our children. the psychological harm to our children. the record overdose deaths, increase in suicides. i don't know how you can take a look at america's death rate. the last time i looked, it's a couple of weeks old, about 220 per hundred thousand population. by the way, sweden was at 145 per hundred thousand a couple of weeks ago. i don't see how anybody can take a look at the response imposed in our country by the covid gods and say it was a success. so acknowledging the fact that

there's still so much we don't know, i would appreciate a little modesty on the part of the covid gods. i would appreciate that we actually follow the advice that i've always heard when dealing with a serious medical condition, get a second opinion, get a third opinion. as i said, that's not allowed. i think it also calls for a little respect for our fellow citizens. these are some tough decisions. they are tough decisions whether or not you want to get vacc vaccinated. even more gut-wrenching and tough decisions based on these idiotic and pointless vaccine

mandates is do i subject to the coercion, to the pressure, to the fear of reprisal and take the jab or lose my job? these are tough decisions. i'm a big supporter of operation warp speed. i've had every vaccination until this one because i had covid. the covid gods aren't acknowledging natural immunity. they're not acknowledging vaccine injuries. they're not acknowledging the fact that even if you're fully vaccinated, you can still get covid, you can still transmit covid. so what's the point of the mandates? but of course that's not what we're getting from the covid

gods. now this weekend something happened that's not unusual. my words were taken completely out of context, twisted, distorted, and i was relentlessly attacked. i'd like to respond to those attacks that were headlined. fauci calls ron johnson's aid comments preposterous. fauci said, i don't have any clue what he's talking about. fauci blasted ron johnson for saying he overhyped aids. preposterous. anthony fauci rips g.o.p. senator johnson, preposterous ak cietions he's overhyped covid. so what did i say? sounds terrible. well, what i said was in response to a radio talk show host's question asking about the omicron variant.

he said it looks benign. mild symptoms. mostly people under 40. sol i answered his question about omicron, talking about a phenomenon. it makes sense how viruses generally mutate, how they become more contagious because they want to replicate, so they become more contagious but less lethal but doesn't replicate if you cure your host. nothing is guaranteed but that would be the general direction of the variants of the coronavirus. why would we assume anything worse? but that's what the covid gods are doing. they are assuming the worst. they are using every new variant to keep us in the state of fear that they have created to maintain control over our lives and rob us of our freedom, to impose freedom-robbing vaccine

mandates again that are preposterous. there's a good use of that word. that are pointless, that are idiotic. but after talking about that state of fear, i went on to say and by the way, fauci did the exact same thing with aids. he overhyped it. now, full stop. that is where the news media stopped. and he accused me falsely of downplaying aids. i have never, nor i would ever downplay the tragedy that is aids, that is covid. these are serious, deadly diseases. they've killed hundreds of thousands. i would never downplay them. when i said overhyped, i explained exactly what i was talking about in the next six

words. i said he created all kinds of fear saying it could affect the entire population when it couldn't. he's using the exact same playbook for covid. and here's the key point that i want to talk about a little bit later. ignoring therapy, pushing a vaccine. the solution to this pandemic, i've always thought, was early treatment. we still haven't robustly explored early treatment. and that's a travesty. now, dr. fauci on the show said this criticism of him, creating a state of fear, is prepo preposterous. but let's go to what he actually said back in may of 1983. now, i was alive in may of 1983.

i understand how unsettling this new disease was. i understand the state of fear, the legitimate state of fear. but response health officials should not have stopped it -- stoaped it -- stoked it and dr. fauci did. he authored an article in the journal of the medical association stating, quote, the possibility of routine close contact as with any family household can spread the disease. he added, if indeed the latter is true, then aids takes on an entirely new dimension. and then if we add to this possibility that nonsexual, nonblood borne transmission is possible, the scope of the syndrome may be enormous. now, it's important to note these aren't off-the-cuff comments. this was in a column he wrote

with forethought. dr. fauci knew what a delicate time we were as the public's awareness of this disease was emerging, when people were already frightened by what they were hearing. he was in a position of authority. he knew what he said carried weight and would be disseminated and it was. the following day headlines, the united press international published a story headlined household contact may transmit aids. the next day the associated press ran a story asking does aids spread by routine contact? the same day "the new york times" article read, quote, family contact studied in transmitting aids. and it invoked fauci's article in discussing the possibility of transmission between family members.

he stoked the fear and it quite honestly continues to this day. he stigmatized aids patients for years with his fearmongering. now, less than two months later in june of 1983, dr. fauci flip-flopped and he publicly contradicted his own fearmongerring by stating, quote, it is absolutely preposterous -- he likes that word, by the way -- is absolutely preposterous to suggest that aids can be contracted through normal social contact like being in the same room with someone or sitting on a bus with them. you heard what he said two months earlier, right? if he felt it was so preposterous on june 26, why had he raised the fear, stoked the fear just two months earlier?

now, just found out last night that not only did he write that article stoking the fear, he started giving interviews. i've seen an interview where he used the exact same words. but now he denies it. he wants to deny the reality of what he said, what he did. he wants to rewrite history. and by the way, when it comes to the aids crisis, rewriting history, i'm not the only one that is accusing him of that. in an article published or updated last -- on december 6, in 2017, in the huffington post, in their comment platform which i guess has since been taken down, an author of a book, his

name is sean strubb, wrote an article, wrote a blog for the huffpost. the book mr. strubb wrote was "body counts: a memoir of politics, sex, aids and survival" and he describes it as how he recounts the slow -- how slow the federal government was in publicizing the use of bactrim and other sulfur drugs to prevent p.c.p., the pneumonia that was then the leading killer of people with aids, in addition to his longtime and well-known use to treat that kind of pneumonia. so let me quote from mr. strubb's article. he said dr. anthony fauci is rewriting history. he's doing so to disguise his shameful role in delaying promotion of an aids treatment

that would have prevented tens of thousands of deaths in the first years of the epidemic. the article goes on to say in 1987, pioneering aids activist michael callen begged fauci, begged fauci for help in promoting the use of back rim as p.c.p. propose lacks is and -- prophalaxyis for those at high risk for p.c.p. the article goes on, had fauci listened to people with aids and the clinicians treating them, the doctors with the courage and compassion to treat aids patients, and responded accordingly, he would have saved thousands of lives. in the two years between 1987, when callen met fauci in 1989

when the guidelines were ultimately issued, two years, nearly 17,000 people with aids suffocated from p.c.p. most of these people might have lived had fauci responded appropriately. another doctor, dr. barry gingel, continuing with the article here, a medical adviser to gay men's health crisis, met with fauci to plead for his support. they didn't just say there was, quote, this preliminary activity in some small trials, as fauci claims. they explained that many front line aids physicians, following the leafed of dr. joseph sonabend were already using bactrim effectively to combat the occurrence of p.c.p. the data was clear. dr. walter hughes had proven the efficacy in p.c.p. in other

immune compromised populations, like children with leukemia. it continues. fauci refused to acknowledge the evidence and according to one account even encouraged people with aids to stop taking treatments like bactrim that weren't specifically proved for use in people with aids. dr. sonabend wrote in 2006, quote, why in the case of aids was bactrim, a known preventive measure against p.c.p., introduced so many years after a need for it had been recognized? to this must be added the question of why this neglect, the consequences of which can be measured in the tens of thousands of lives lost has received almost no attention. the media has continued to cover for dr. fauci.

the article goes on, if we don't tell the truth about the history of the aids epidemic, it will be subject to more whitewashing, as we witnessed this weekend, my aside. more distortions and more rewriting to suit the legacies of the officials in charge. these are the same officials who seem incapable of ever acknowledging or taking responsibility for the mistakes they made, mistakes that cost our community thousands of lives now, mr. president, why did i take so much time to read an excerpt from this article from 2017? it's because it's the major point i was making in my comments to brian kilmead. dr. fauci, he's using the exact same playbook for covid as he did for aids: ignoring therapy

like bactrim, or the cornucopia of cheap, generic, repurposed drugs that are available, that are being used successfully to treat covid and save lives. the solution, i've always felt, has always been early treatment. but again, dr. fauci is ignoring therapy and pushing a vaccine. why? there are medical experts, multiple medical experts, that have looked at this, who are treating covid, who are doing the research, who say upwards of 500,000 lives were needlessly lost because we ig norgd, -- ignored, and i would argue sabotaged, early treatment with cheap, generic, repurposed drugs. in fact, the f.d.a. completely

trash talked one of these repurposed drugs. a nobel prize-winning drug, termed by the world health organization as a miracle drug. ivermectin. calling it horse paste. saying come on, y'all, you're not cows. fake news stories. saying that people are lining up, clogging hospitals because overdoses of ivermectin. only to find out that is a completely false news story, like false studdies published in medical journals that had to be withdrawn two weeks later, early in the pandemic, which also poise beyond the use of some of these repurposed drugs. let's take a look at some facts. let's take a look at some facts

that when i go on media, and i describe these facts, i'm censored by the covid gods, i'm removed from youtube, as sometimes are talk show hosts. but let's look at the facts of drugs versus the vaccine. many of you had been -- will be shocked by this, because this is all being censored. this information is not allowed. again, there's one narrative, it's the narrative of the covid gods. no second or third opinions allowed. no questions are allowed to be asked. much less answered. so let's take a look at ivermectin. i've got two columns here, total adverse events, reported to either the faers system, the adverse event reporting system from the f.d.a. for drugs, and the vaers system, the vaccine

adverse event system reported to the c.d.c. the top three, first, ivermectin, over 26 years, 26 years of reporting. ivermectin has about 3,756 adverse events reported through faers that averages, that's adverse events, in terms of deaths, it averages about 15 reports of deaths per year. now, let's get something straight here. there are two main criticisms of frchlt faers and vaers. it doesn't prove causation. i get that. but it also understates adverse events. we're going to use this as a comparison. ivermectin, 15 deaths a year, in average, over 26 years of usage. high droxy chloroquine, 23,355

over 69 years. on average, about 69 death reports a year. the seasonal flu vaccine, 26 years worth of history. 198,776 total adverse events on vaers but an average of 80 deaths per year for the seasonal flu vaccine. i look at these, i go, these are pretty safe drugs. no drug is 100% safe. no human body is exactly the same. but you have to look at these drugs as having a very safe and reliable safety profile. if you have covid, let's face it, the current n.i.h. guideline on covid is to do nothing. go home, afraid, alone, isolate yourself, hope you don't get so sick you have to check yourself into hospital. the only thing they are recommending for use is monoclonal antibodies. try to get those. i've talked to so many constituents that have have notn

able to. either they're not sick enough or they're too sick, it's taking too long. virtually, the n.i.h. guidelines to this day do nothing. quick aside, how many other diseases is that the recommendation? isn't it always early detection allows for early treatment, produces better outcome? of course that's what we recommend. for every other disease except covid. because fauci ignored therapies and pushed vaccines. he's just been -- he's got his blinders on. vaccines, vaccines, vaccines. and then they scaremonger both ivermectin and hydroxy hydroxychloroquine. are you afraid of those? if you have covid, would you give those a shot? i would. i'm not a doctor or medical

researcher, but i've been in contact with doctors who have the courage and compassion to treat. when i have a friend or constituent that calls me to say what can i do, i refer them to a doctor who treats them. and i have example after example of these things working. keeping people out of hospitals, certainly preventing death. i know it's anecdotal. but the evidence is mounting, and it's getting to the point of being ir-- i think it is at the point of being irrefutable. let's compare this to the drugs of choice of dr. fauci and the covid gods. take a look at remdesavir. the studdies were weak. they changed the end point of reducing death, because it didn't, to changing dates in the hospital. they rushed through the emergency use authorization and it's been the treatment, because it's blessed by the covid gods, that hospitals will apply. now, in fairness, hospitals do

dethamexazone. they will do other things. courtico steroids. remdesivir is the big one. over $3,000 a dose, when these cost 20 to 50 bucks total, part of a multidrug, multivitamin, vitamin d, zinc. remdesivir, 6,500 adverse event. i don't have it here, 1,600 trial deaths so far since it got emergency use. that's an average of 921 a year. that's remdesivir. let's look at the covid vaccine. this will shock you. it should shock you, because nobody's talking about it. when a guy like me talks about it, i get censorsed, vilified and attacked.

927,740 total adverse effects. remember, one of the criticisms is vaers dramatically understates the total number of events. total deaths, 19,532. i realize vaers doesn't prove causation, but almost 6,000 of these worldwide deaths occurred on days zero, one, or two following vaccination. i know fauci, i know jeants woodcock, i know -- janet woodcock and francis collins are not concerned about this. i'm concerned about this. other people who have been able to avoid the censors and see this, they're concerned about it. they're making those tough choices. they also realize covid can be a deadly disease. they have to make an informed decision whether or not to get vaccinated. shouldn't they have all the information? but they're not being given all the informed. -- all the information.

it's about time they are. now, mr. president, let me conclude by just asking for the awed audience, really -- for the awed yen, really, why do i tip to push these truths, and they are truths, there's no misinformation up here. this is the truth. this isn't my numbers or my data, this is the c.d.c. and f.d.a.'s data. why do i consider to talk about these things when i get attacked , when i get vilified, when i get ridiculed, when i get censored? it's pretty simple. it's because i've acknowledged the vaccine injured. i've held events to let them tell their stories, like little matty degary, 12 years old, now 13, participated in the pfizer

trial. she's in a wheelchair. she can't eat. she has a feeding tube. pfizer has ignored her, cast her aside. they're not paying for her medical bills. that's a scandal right then and there. fran dressen, paralyzed from the waist down. fortunately, she is not whole, she is not cured. ernest ramirez, he lost his only son, his best friend. he is a single dad. i've given the vaccine-injured, the survivors, i've given them a forum to tell their stories and the media just shrugs. all they want is to be seen and heard and believed so they can be cured or so they can prevent other people from experiencing their trauma.

the real reason i continue to tell the truth, although i am attacked, is because not only have i given these individuals a forum to tell their stories, but i've seen their tears, i've hugged the vaccine-injured, the surviving spouses, the surviving parents, the surviving children. why won't we acknowledge these truths? why won't we acknowledge the vaccine-injured? until we do, until we acknowledge what the root cause of their illness might be, how is is there any hope of healing them? so, again, our response to covid

has been a miserable failure. we must acknowledge that. we can't deny reality. we need to embrace early treatment because we are going to continue to need early treatment. the vaccines aren't 100% guaranteed effective. new variants will emerge. we're going to have to treat. better start now and might as well give these cheap generic, widely available drugs a shot. with that, madam president, i yield the floor.

mrs. capito: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from west virginia. mrs. capito: thank you, madam president. i come to the floor today to talk mr. trump appropriations process for the -- i come to the floor today to talk about the appropriations process for fiscal year 2022. in the homeland security, in december there is still no clear path for the fiscal year 2022 bills. that's a real shame. that's a shame, and i'm going to talk about that. every year it's a challenge to come up with a bipartisan bill. it's difficult to fund the government, but every year we manage to do it. the main reason being that we have agreed on certain rules, rules that transcend unique political situations, where both sides know that you're required in order to reach an agreement. we realize we've got to give on each side. these rules are what vice chairman shelby has been insisting we agree on now, so we

can proceed with meaningful negotiations. so i support vice president -- or vice chairman shelby, and i encourage my democratic colleagues to come to the table akin to the shelby-leahy agreements of the past. this isn't a partisan demand but, rather, an appeal that we all recognize at the outset what is so obviously necessary for us to achieve an outcome at the end of the day. as the ranking member of the homeland security appropriations subcommittee, i come today to address that bill. i've been pleased over the last past year to work with our new chairman, chairman murphy, on our subcommittee. we've had several meetings. and thankfully there are vast areas of agreement between us on a majority of issues. i look forward to continuing to work with him to advance work on the fy 2022 bill.

a full-year agreement would be a massive achievement. like all agencies and i'd argue probably more than most agencies, d.h.s. is in a dynamic, ever-evolving threat environment. and its priorities and economies rat funding levels must be updated for the appropriation -- through the appropriations committee. further, d. h.s. is personnel-heavy and we need to make sure it keeps up with the benefits of the people in this department who are striving every day to keep our nation safe. we also need to invest in our coast guard, in our coast guard readiness, which is a part of this bill, and ensure that it's important to procurement efforts remain on schedule. i think we have great agreement on all of that. so in the midst of the holiday season, we all know the critical work of the men and women of the t.s.a. and more recently we as a nation are relying more and more

on the constant diligence of the cybersecurity and infrastructure security agency, cisa, otherwise known as someone trying to keep us safe in the cyberspace. these agencies and all those within the department stand yesterday to protect the homeland. but we in congress seem ill-prepared when it comes time to supporting and furthering their efforts. that being said, and i know chairman murphy and i agree with -- we agree on this, i loathe the fact that a c.r. would enable and pretty much encourage the department to reprogram money at their own will aside from the intention of congress. so let's secure a framework because, don't forget, we're talking here in the midst of a continuing crisis on our southern border. democrats have cited the supposed reduction in border accounting as evidence that president biden and vice

president kamala harris' policies are working. it is true that encounters have gone down. they've gone down from record highs in july to record highs in october. that's right. this october's numbers, which are the last numbers that we have, were the highest recorded numbers of any october in history, and that's astonishing. and you can see from the chart how the -- the blue is the average from 2013 to 2020 of encounters. and you can see from january on how exponentially higher all of these encounters have been. we got real problems, particularly at the border, that need to be addressed. so while a long-term c.r. would bad, as i've already discussed, a full-year fy y 2022 bill that does not address these real problems at our border is not reasonable either. but that's what the majority's

homeland bill does. literally, the first sentence of the summary says, and i quote, the fiscal year 2022 homeland security bill provides discretionary funding of $71.7 billion, which $65 million less than what the president asked in his budget and $136 million less than the 2021-enacted level that we're living under right now. that's right, the d.h.s. bill introduced by the majority that we're now told is better for the department than a c.r. actually reduces funding from last year's levels. for example, for customs and border protection, they're on the front line, the bill provides $14.5 billion, $80 million below the president's budget request and $501 million below fiscal year 2021-enacted. so the d.h.s. agency directly

responsible for border security with these numbers right here, the one that is overwhelmed by these numbers, would receive less funding than requested by president biden and, yes, less funding than is being provided right now under this continuing resolution. the same is true for immigration and customs, known as i.c.e. the agency responsible for removing migrants who received due process and are ordered removed. again, i quote, quote, for i.c.e., the bill provides $7.5 billion, $58 million below the president's budget request and $40 million below the enacted level that we're operating under now 2021. once again, another account vital to enforcing our immigration laws cut from what we are operating under the c.r. so what is in the majority's bill that is being sold as border security?

this is what they've chosen to highlight. $175 million for medical services for migrants who arrive at the border -- by the way, the department of health and human services has enormous amounts of money in their budget. $130 million for three new permanent processing facilities, and $25 million for increased transportation costs. madam president, all these investments mistake border security with border crisis management. these numbers are not going to go down if this is where we put our dollars. some of these may be necessary expenses. a reality of opening under what is ostensibly open-border poms. but -- policies. but they'll do nothing to stop border crises and maybe even facilitate the administration's catch-and-release programs. what else would the majority's boil do? 2 would rescind $1 .9 billion in

border wall system funding that we've had in the previous years. this taking a-- is taking away money for a border wall system that our border patrol has been asking for for decades and decades, is that border security is this? -- border security? this isn't just trump's border wall. we also built miles and miles of extremely is useful and effective border wall under president obama, and it was that wall, and it was a wall that you could barely distinguish sometimes with the naked eye from the recent border wall. is rescinding that known good for border security? i say no. is rescinding that money good for border security than a continuing resolution which i must point out would actually provide an additional $1.375 million for more border wall system? i'll say it again, and you can see it on the chart, illegal border crossings remain at a record high. we need to squash this delusion

that things are getting better. the american public are well aware that they aren't. therefore, we need to provide the proper resources to the agencies in charge to fix the problem, not perpetuate the crisis. so, let me reiterate what i said at the start. nobody wants a full-year c.r. we need to come together as democrats and republicans in the spirit of true compromise a void that outcome. we can only do that if we understand each other's true interests. allow me to cite another telling line from the majority's homeland security summary that i've mentioned before. listed in their key points and highlights for homeland security, the very first one that they list is, quote, addressing impacts of climate change and improving climate resilience. they don't mention number-one border security.

they don't mention number-one cybersecurity. they don't mention number-one disaster relief and recovery, which is in homeland security. they don't mention the coast guard. they don't even mention the scourge we see in all of our states of drug overdoses and this homeland security is charged with drug interdiction. to me, that says a lot. it says a lot. and it's not going to get us to the negotiations table. as i've said to the administration, as i say to my democrat colleagues, as chairman murphy and i have talked about, i think we are both ready and willing to work towards a solution. americans deserve our efforts to reach a bipartisan consensus, but that will only happen by following precedent and a willingness to compromise. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor. mrs. gillibrand: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from new york. mrs. gillibrand: madam president, i rise today to call for every senator to have the opportunity to the cast their vote on the military justice

improvement and increasing prevention act. i started calling for this up-or-down vote since may 24 because i knew and sexual assault survivor advocates knew if the armed security committee leadership had the chance, they would strip the provision out of the ndaa behind closed doors despite the overwhelming support it has. that is exactly what has just happened. time and time again i've asked on this floor for the same opportunity to have an up-or-down vote. at the same time and time again i've heard the same false promise that we would proceed under regular order and that the will of the members of this body would be respected. i was told that, quote, the best way to move forward on this issue is to ensure that all 26 members of the armed services committee have their voices heard and to consider this legislation in the course of the markup of the fiscal year 2022

defense bill, end of quote. and that it was, quote, the traditional means of making these decisions, end of quote. i was assured, quote, fulsome debate of the annual defense bill ensures that everyone's voice is heard, end of quote. here on this very floor i heard, quote, all amendments offered by senators on the committee will be fully considered during the full committee markup and that, quote, that is in fact the tradition of the committee, if a member wants a vote on an amendment, we will vote, end of quote. so we took it to the committee. we had the fulsome debate and we voted. the military justice improvement and increasing prevention act was included in the senate armed services ndaa bill and passed out of committee 23-3. that's a pretty decisive vote. but despite all of the claims that we fog regular

procedure -- follow regular procedure and everyone's voices would be heard, when the doors closed for the conference, the story changed. our votes were not respected. our voices were silenced. those promises were broken. the house and senate armed services leadership guarded our military justice reforms, stripped them from the ndaa and did a disservice to our servicemembers and our democracy. committee leadership has ignored the will of a filibuster-proof majority in the senate and a majority of the house in order to do the bidding of the pentagon. this is an act of blatant disregard for the servicemembers, veterans, and survivors who have fought for an impartial and independent military justice system. that's worthy of the sacrifice that they make every day for our country. committee leadership has also ignored president biden, our commander in chief's public support for removing felonies

from the chain of command and fallen short of even limited reforms that secretary of defense austin called for that would have removed sex crimes from the chain of command. despite claims otherwise, the ndaa does not remove sex crimes from the chain of command because the commander remains the convening authority, a central role to the military justice system. every single court-martial will still begin with the words, this court-martial was convened by order of the commander. commanders can still pick the jury, select the witnesses, and allow servicemembers accused of crimes the option of separation from service instead of facing a court-martial, a total denial of justice. we know that removing convening authority from commanders is critical to providing a system that is fair and perceived to be

fair by the servicemembers. to quote secretary austin's own panel, quote, the d.o.d.'s office of the special victim prosecutor structure must be and must be seen as independent of the chains of command of the victim and of the accused all the way through the secretaries of the military departments. anything less will likely be seen as compromising what is designed to be independent part of the military justice process. thus, significantly undermining this recommendation. finally, because of the breadth and depth of the lack of trust by junior enlisted servicemembers and are commanders, the i.r.c. goes on, it was determined that the status quo or any variation on the status quo that retained commanders as disposition authorities in sexual

harassment, sexual assault and related cases would fail to offer the change required to restore confidence in the system, end of quote. that was secretary austin's own panel. the ndaa bill does not provide meaningful change to the status quo. our bill would provide it by moving serious crimes like sexual assault out of the chain of command completely, putting them in the hands of the most capable people in the military -- those independent, impartial, highly trained, uniformed prosecutors. that is a system our servicemembers can trust. i know that because that is the reform that survivors have asked for over and over and over again. since i started calling for this vote in may, we estimated more

than 11,000 servicemembers will have been raped or sexually assaulted and more will have been victims of other serious crimes. two and three of those survivors will not even report those crimes because they know that under the current system, they are more likely to face retaliation than to receive justice. it's clear we cannot wait for committee leadership to recognize the importance of this reform. madam president, as if in legislative session, i ask unanimous consent that a time to be determined by the majority leader, in consultation with the republican leader, the senate armed services committee be discharged from further consideration of s. 1520 and the senate proceed to its consideration, that there be two hours for debate equally divided in the usual form, and that upon the use or yielding back of that time, the senate vote on the bill with no intervening action or debate.

the presiding officer: is there objection? a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from south carolina. gray gray thank --. mr. graham: reserving the right to object to my colleague from new york, i want to compliment you for the efforts you brought to the table in trying to reform the military justice system particularly in the area of sexual assault. i think we're making some real progress here. the one thing i don't like is basically taking the commander out of the loop when it doms -- comes to military justice in a fashion that basically says we can't trust our commanders to discipline their forces, that allow the crimes being proposed here taken out of the military justice system have nothing to do with sexual assault. but the theory is our commanders are discriminatory, there's racial bias in the system, and that we have a biased military justice system based on the color of your skin. quite frankly, i don't believe

that and i'm never going to say that, and that would be taking us down that road. what senator inhofe and reed have done i think makes a lot of sense. we've added to the list of crimes that would get special scrutiny -- i think it's murder, kidnapping and one other beyond the sexual assault crimes, so when there's an allegation of sexual assault, there will be a new process that goes into whether or not the case goes to trial. one of the issues is who should pick the jury. the prosecutor should pick the jury. the special prosecutor. you can't have the prosecutor piking the jury, the convening authority, commander in question will be picking the jury, but the lawyers can strike members of the jury for cause and peremptory challenges. so at the end of the day i think we've made a lot of progress. senator gillibrand's bill goes well beyond the stated purpose of what got us talking about all

of this. i think it would destroy the military justice system as we know it, destroy the role of the commander. again, our commanders are the ones who decide who takes the most risk. our commanders are given a lot of responsibility. they need to have the tools to make sure that unit is fit to fight. and they will be under scrutiny, as they should be. but we want a military justice system that makes the military the most effective fighting force in the world, and you can't have a strong military without a strong command structure. with that, i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. the senator from new york. mrs. gillibrand: i just want to thank the senator from south carolina for his work and support in this area. he has worked with me in trying to find common ground, and i appreciate that work very much. i just want to respond to a couple of his concerns. one of the reasons why we wanted to have a bright light on felonies is because we didn't

want to march -- marginalize women in the armed services. if you remove a small amount of crimes, 11 in this bill, oftentimes there will be a belief that these changes are made to give special treatment just to women servicemembers. and the reason why both senator joni ernst and senator tammy duckworth, two of the female armed service veterans in the u.s. senate from both the democrat and republican party, the reason they support this bill is because they believe if you put the bright line at felonies and treat all servicemembers the same regardless of the crime, that you won't be further marginalizing women servicemembers. they won't be perceived as receiving special treatment. and if they are being perceived as special treatment that's being perceived as a pink court, and we would like to avoid pink courts. we would like to avoid the

perception of the special treatment. we believe if you're reforming the military justice system at secretary austin has said, that it needs to be unbiased, it needs to be professionalized and independent of the chain of command, that what's good for this set of crimes is good for all set of crimes just as the i.r.c. has recommended. second, we know that this type of system actually strengthens commanders because it allows them to focus on winning wars and training troops. this bifurcated system under the ndaa is going to leave commanders without all authority to do what they would want to do and just some authority, so there will be a lot of bureaucracy that will take time and effort and may lead to undue command influence and unintended consequences. so a system that gives all that decision making directly to trained independent military prosecutors is preferable and a commander-friendly system.

in fact, our allies chose to do a bright line at serious crimes for this very reason. u.k., israel, australia, netherlands, canada, germany, they did it specifically for both plaintiffs and defendants' rights so they had an equal justice system for all parties, and they allowed commanders to focus on commanding and doing the job of winning wars and training troops. i thank you, madam president, for your attention in this matter. i'd like to submit not only my remarks, but a list of the roles that still remain with the commander, this larger list remains with the commander under this ndaa as well as a list of the offenses the ndaa takes out of the chain of command, which is 11, versus our bill that would have been 38, as well as an analysis that this is a less commander-friendly bill in current form. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. gillibrand: i yield the floor. a senator: madam president.

the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. mr. kennedy: thank you, madam president. 3479, i want to talk about the american taxpayer and medicare act of which i am a sponsor, cosponsoring this legislation with me are senator graham, senator hagerty, senator tim scott, senator rick scott, senator blackburn, senator hawley, senator cotton, senator boozman, and others who are likely to join. i'm going to make a few remarks about the bill. a number of my colleagues would also like to comment about my bill, so i will be yielding to them. and at the end of my colleagues' remarks, i will have a motion to make. madam president, as a result of

the american rescue plan, working in conjunction with the budget control act of 2011, there are cuts scheduled to take effect in 2022 with respect to medicare and with respect to our farmers. medicare specifically, unless my bill passes and unless this body takes action, will be cut $36 billion. those medicare cuts will include, but they're not limited to, but they'll include cuts to cancer treatments for our elderly. those cuts would reduce laboratory fees and analysis that our seniors depend on every single day. for the reasons i just

referenced, our farmers are also going to get cut unless we take action. specifically, the crop insurance programs on which our farmers rely. wewe're recovering from a pandemic, madam president, as we all know. now is not the time, in my judgment, to put this burden on our seniors and on our farmers. our seniors, part of the greatest generation, don't deserve them. and our farmers, the backbone of america, don't deserve these cuts either. in fact, america was born on a farm, and i think we ought to keep that in mind. at this time, madam president, i would like to yield to the senior senator from arkansas, senator boozman. mr. boozman: thank you,

madam president. i want to thank senator kennedy for his help and his leadership in this effort. we simply have to support america's health care providers, farmers and ranchers. doctors and the entire medical community are still struggling after being unable to perform non-emergency procedures during the pandemic. with an aging population be and more physicians not accepting medicare because of insufficient payment, medicare beneficiaries would face a reality of less access to quality care. that's why i introduced my own legislation to prevent these damaging cuts from harming our physicians, our providers. our agricultural community is also affected and we want to help them keep to have the best food supply. for all of these reasons i

support mr. kennedy's bill. i understand my colleague from missouri also has some concerns, and i yield to him. mr. hawley: i rise to make a very simple point, which is that medicare is too important to be held hostage to political games, and that's what's going on here now. we need to have a clean bill to fully fund and protect medicare for the millions of americans who rely on it, including over one million just in the state of missouri. and that's why i am supporting senator kennedy's bill to fully protect and secure medicare. and i will support every amendment and bill, a clean amendment and bill, to fully protect and secure medicare, including, i think, senator graham's, which he will present shortly and i will proudly cosponsor. i will just say this, i call on members of both parties -- both parties to stop using medicare

as a pawn in a political game. let's fund medicare. let's do it on its own. let's not hold it hostage to other agendas, let's not hold it hostage to other programs or other individuals ambitions, whatever they may be. let's fully protect medicare for our seniors all across this country. that should be something that we should be able to get behind and for those reasons i support senator kennedy's legislation. and now i yield to senator hoeven. mr. hoeven: i'd like to thank my colleague from missouri. as my colleagues poinltd out, we rise -- pointed out, we rise to support senator kennedy's unanimous consent request, his legislation, because we have consistently supported funding for medicare and funding for our farmers and ranchers, who work hard to provide fuel, food, and

fiber for our nation. that's why i support both the u.c. request and the amendment that senator graham is sponsoring. i'm cosponsoring that amendment as well that would ensure that we fund these priorities. i do not support linking these funds with an increase in the debt ceiling as the bill from the house would do without our amendment. we should not be tying the debt ceiling to important legislation that ensures health care providers can continue to care for our seniors and protects our farmers who produce the highest quality, lowest cost food supply in the world. so i strongly support and cosponsored the graham amendment which would strike the fast-track debt ceiling process from this bill. as we are saying very clearly, we support the funding for medicare, we support the funding for our farmers and ranchers. now, democrats who control the

white house, the senate, and the house, are trying to use reconciliation to pass a trillion-plus tax and spending bill on a partisan basis, given that they could clearly pass the debt ceiling on their own. they do not need this house legislation to do it. and with -- and with that, i will yield to my colleague. mr. marshall: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i am honored to be here to support my colleague from louisiana. i want to take my colleagues back to a year ago in 2020, covid was on the rise, our first variant, our first wave ripping through this country. our e.r.'s were overflowing, the i. krumplet beds were -- i. krumplet beds were full and doctors and nurses ran to the sound of the battle.

we took an oath to take care of our fellow man. i joined those doctors. i went to an i.c.u. in southwest kansas where we had eight bids, 12 patients, and nine ventilators. so how are we going to reward those doctors today? we're going to cut their pay. we're going to cut most doctors' pay 2% to 11%. even before covid, there was a doctor shortage, there was doctor burnout. because of this pay cut, more doctors will quit and more doctors will stop taking medicare. yesterday, the leadership on the other side of the aisle just wanted to kick doctors, but today i found out they are kicking farmers in the shin as well. holding doctors and farmers hostage is no way to run a government. i too am tired of seeing doctors and farmers used as pawns for

political gain. i support senator kennedy's bill and i'm honored to turn it back to him. mr. kennedy: madam president, americans may be poorer since president biden took office but they are not stupid. they look around washington, d.c., and they see liars and they see frauds in every direction. now, i don't think a single member of this body supports cutting medicare or hurting our farmers, especially not at this moment. i don't.

i don't. and i don't think any of my republican colleagues or any of my democratic colleagues do as well. but a deal has been made -- a deal has been made to give us -- some of us see it this way anyway, a choice between voting for a heart attack or cancer. you either have to give up your principles on the debt limit or you have to vote to cut medicare and hurt our farmers and no one wants to do that. i understand that people disagree over the debt limit, but there's no disagreement in this body over -- over not cutting medicare and not hurting our farmers. now, i'm labor.

i'm not part of management. i don't want to be part of management. wouldn't be good at management because i don't always fit in. it's not one of my best qualities. in fact, it is my best quality. and that's why i brought this bill. as senator hawley said much more eloquently than i could, the disagreement that reasonable people are having over the debt limit has been conflated in a cynical attempt to fool the american people by putting them both in a bill. that we're going to shortly be asked to vote on. and we're going to be asked to give the american people either a heart attack or cancer. you've got to choose. and i don't have to make that

choice, and i'm not going to make that choice. and that's why i brought this bill. i do not agree with my democratic bills about the debt limit. i don't support build back better. i understand many of my democratic friends do. i understand president biden does. i understand senator schumer does. i understand speaker pelosi does. and i respect that. but i don't support it. now, they are going to try to pass build back better, and they are going to try to implement it. but they can't do it without raising the debt ceiling. now, if i don't support the build back better bill, why would i want to allow them to borrow the money to implement the build back better bill? i don't -- and i'm not going to break my word and vote to do that. if my colleagues want to do

that, that's their business. i don't tell people how to vote. if i'm ever asked how to vote, i almost always say, follow your heart but take your brain with you, and that's why i brought this bill. and i want to make it very clear, and you can write this down and take it home to mama. i do not support cutting medicare, and i do not support cutting farmers. i do support keeping my word to the american people when i tell them i'm going to do something, by god, i'm going to stick and i'm not going for scared away by some cynical deal that was made in washington, d.c. now, madam president, as if in legislative session, i ask unanimous consent that the

senate proceed to the immediate consideration of s. 3344, the bill about which i have been speaking, and my colleagues, the protecting the american taxpayer and medicare act. at this time it is at the desk. i further ask that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. wyden: reserving the right to object, madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: madam president and colleagues, i yield to no senator in my support of this country's senior citizens. i was director of the gray

panthers before i went into public life and i know that there is no senator here who doesn't support senior citizens, farmers, the extraordinarily important americans that my colleagues have been talking about. but what really has not been explained here, because we all kind of talk this special lingo around here, is what my colleagues really seek to do in the kennedy amendment. what my colleague from louisiana wishes to do is rip up an agreement reached between democrats and republicans, specific colleagues, senator

schumer and mcconnell. so what they did is reach a bipartisan agreement to diffuse an economic time bomb by creating a process to avoid default. senator kennedy's proposal sticks a flame right back under that fuse. now the two parties obviously have different approaches when it comes to gamesmanship around this country's financial commitments. setting all of that aside, the fact is our country is now way too close to default for the senate to be playing games. this debate is almost entirely about financial commitments made under past presidents. it doesn't have anything to do with legislation that's still in

the works. that is a fact. the reality is my colleague from louisiana seeks to bring the country closer to default. the senate ought to be clear on the consequences if that were to come to pass. default would be an economic disaster for our country as well as for individual families and businesses. and, again, colleagues, since senior citizens came up so frequently, this has been my particular passion, it's why i went into public service. social security stops going out, the military could stop getting paid, interest rates going into the stratosphere, making existing debt even more expensive if you go forward with this proposal. costs go up for families who want to buy homes or cars,

getting a business loan becomes more expensive, jobs across the country are wiped out amid this turmoil, and all of that would happen right in the middle of the holidays when americans are simply trying to enjoy their time with families, go out and shop for presents and enjoy their time together. my view is, after almost two years of pandemic and economic chaos, people have had it hard enough. and two leaders, a democrat and a republican, have come together because they understand the senate doesn't need to add another catastrophe to their financial challenges, the challenges i just described. one, by the way that would be entirely self made. there is an agreement before the senate. an agreement between the republican leader and democratic leader.

that agreement brought the two sides together. my colleagues must not throw that agreement away, and i respect all my colleagues, all of them, but i just believe that this proposal from the senator from louisiana is misguided. it brings our country closer to default. therefore, i object. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. kennedy: madam president, i appreciate my colleague's objection. i want to say a couple more words. i didn't make a deal. now, met me say it again. let me say it a different way. i don't hate anybody. lord knows i look for grace wherever i can find it. i like every one of my colleagues. i really do. the senate is the most interesting group of people i've ever been around. i'm not -- i belong in labor

because i don't always fit in. and i do believe it is one of my best qualities. the truth of the matter is -- and this is what we're disagreeing over -- president biden, senator schumer, speaker pelosi, my other democratic friends have proposed the build back better bill. now, any economist with a pulse will tell you that it's going to cost about $5 trillion, without the gimmicks. it's going to raise taxes a couple a trillion, we'll probably end up having to borrow another $3 trillion to pay for it. we'll have to borrow the money. we don't have the $3 trillion. we don't even have 5% of it. now, i think that the bill represents a spending, taxation,

and borrowing orgy that we don't need. but i understand my democratic colleagues disagree. i get that. my democratic friends can't pass and implement the bill without raising the debt limit. that's just a fact. because they won't be able to borrow the money. now, if i don't support the bill, why do i want to support allowing them to borrow the money, especially when senator schumer, my friend senator schumer, can do it on his own? he can do it before the weekend is out. all he's got to do is do a simple amendment to the budget resolution. what am i missing here? and i know a deal has been made and some people are going to vote for it.

you're not looking at one of them. and i respect their right to make a deal. but i didn't make a deal. but i've been put in a position of saying, okay, kennedy, we're going to show you. you got to choose between keeping your word to your people or cutting medicare. and we wonder why congress polls right up there with skim milk? that's why they look around and they say frauds and liars in every direction. i really regret that my bill didn't pass. because it would have protected our elderly, and i do support protecting our elderly. and it would have protected our farmers. and i do support protecting our farmers. and this so-called deal puts them both at risk. thank you very much, madam president. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from south carolina. mr. graham: thank you. i have a different approach that

will give you the same result. but to my colleagues here, we're playing the medicare card in a very dangerous fashion. senator hawley said it pretty well. medicare is something people depend upon, and all of us understand the need to keep medicare solid. we need to reform it to save it. but this idea puts all of us in a box, and i don't appreciate it. and i won't forget it. now, this is a problem on our side -- you don't even have to listen. for four months we've been saying as a party, our democratic colleagues are spending all this money by themselves through reconciliation. they should choose that path to raise the debt ceiling. because what are we talking about? a $1.9 trillion spending bill without one republican vote through reconciliation. we have pending next week

another reconciliation proposal that scores at $1.7 trillion. if you assume every program goes away in a year. i'll be in the nba before that assumption. i don't like my chances. ronald reagan said, the closest thing to immortality on earth is a government program. so they've written the bill for the 17 big spending items to expire within one, two, or three years, and not one of them want them to expire. so the whole bill is a fraud, and the congressional budget office is going to give to me friday what the bill would cost if the sunset clauses actually went away, did go away. what would it cost if the program survived, which it will? and i anticipate, senator kennedy, it will be at least twice what we're talking about. the effect on the debt is $367

billion, only because they limited the programs to last for a year or two, rather than the ten years they're actually going to last. so the deficit is going telling from $367 billion to probably close to $2 trillion. we're going to expose that friday. they're playing a game, creating gimmicks. and senator manchin, to his credit, said, i believe build back better is full of gimmicks. we'll know friday exactly what the bill would look like without gimmicks. this is the ultimate gimmick. if you had told me four months ago, how does this movie end? i will be reading in the paper about a rules change to the senate made by the house, where i've got to pick between medicare and abandoning what i said i would do for four months, this is a deal that led to donald trump. if you wonder why there is a donald trump, it's moments like this, where everybody starts

down a road that makes perfect sense, you panic, and you throw everybody over. they would raise the debt ceiling through reconciliation because they should, and we want to do it that way to deter spending in the future. we want to make it harder to use reconciliation to spend more money than world war ii cost. if you look at the cost of world war ii in present dollars, it was $4.7 trillion when you look at all the money we spend and are going to spend, it is going to be $5.4 trillion, literally we spent more money in the last year and a half than we did to win world war ii. i think they should raise the debt ceiling, senator kennedy. through the process they used to spend the money. that made perfect sense to me as a republican. that's why i said it for four months. now, all ofs on our side -- now, all of us on our side have aempt

mo of reckoning -- have a moment of reckoning here. i don't want to default and we won't. but i do want to make sure that when republicans tell their other republicans and the public at large you can somewhat count on who we are and what we say, we naught at risk for no -- we put that at risk for no good reason. to the leadership of both sides, i like you. senator mcconnell has been a great republican leader -- minority leader, majority leader. but this has been a moment where i want to be on the record to say, i don't like this. what we've done is allow the house of representatives to change a senate rule. no matter what the subject matter, that's not a good idea. we set in place a process that allows our democratic colleagues to raise the debt ceiling without using reconciliation, the budget process, where they would have to amend the budget resolution. the very resolution they used to spend all this money.

we're simply asking, amend it to pay for it. we've taken that off the table. and people on our side are not going to accept this very well. so all i can say is, i want to make it clear, when it comes to medicare, count me in to avoid the cuts. when it comes to raising the debt ceiling, i want it done through a process that will make it harder to spend all this money in the future. i want to be part of a republican party that you can take what we say to the bank on big stuff, stuff that matters. so i have a proposal that when the bill comes over from the house, which it's here, that would allow us to vote to prevent medicare from being cut but strip out the way you're going to raise the debt ceiling, reject the idea the house can amend a senate rule to limit minority rights, that's what

we've done here. this is not a good idea, to take medicare and marry it up with anything important, as senator hawley said, because there's no end to that game. and it's not a good idea in my view, even with some members of my own party agreeing, to let the house change the senate rules. i don't like that. we're setting in motion some really dangerous stuff here. so i have the following proposal -- as if in legislative session, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate resumes consideration of house message to accompany s. 610, it be in order for me to offer amendment 4877, which strikes section b relating to the debt limit. i further ask that senate vote on adoption of the amendment prior to the vote on the motion to invoke cloture, on the motion to concur in the amendment to

s. 610s in english, i'm asking for a vote so that we can show the country that we will protect medicare but many of us are not going to have our fingerprints on a washington deal that i think stinks up the place. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. wyden: observing the right to object -- the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: thank you, madam president. now, my colleague from south carolina began his remarks with two of my very favorite subjects -- supporting america's senior citizens and playing in the nba, a lifetime dream of mine. but the fact is, this unanimous consent request from my colleague is essentially a

different way to do the same thing as the kennedy request. and, colleagues, it is wrong for exactly the same reason. the prospect of default is not simply a matter of the two sides squaring off over who's got the best talking points. the fact is, default would just be an economic disaster. i just laid out what it would mean for our small businesses and our folks who depend on keeping interest rates from shooting into the stratosphere and the military would have difficulty getting paid. that's not what america wants.

colleagues, i was just home this weekend. i got around my state, and what people said overwhelmingly is they said, hey, i heard you guys just got together, i say to my friend from south carolina, and you guys got an agreement on keeping the government open. heard that wasn't going to happen. and then they said, ron, what you've always tried to do since those gray panther days -- and my colleague from south carolina knows, i always try to be bipartisan -- they said, keep it going; keep going with that bipartisan effort. and now they're listening to a debate about my colleagues trying to bust up an agreement between the democratic leader, senator schumer, and the republican leader, mitch mcconnell, to make sure we pay

the bills for costs that have been incurred. so, my colleague from south carolina has asked for consent. i think it would be a mistake for this country. it would be a mistake particularly for our country's senior citizens. and i've devoted so much time to them and for that reason, mr. president, i object. the presiding officer: the objection is heard. mr. graham: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from south carolina. mr. graham: so why does this matter? it matters a lot about how the senate works. every member of this body has the ability to come down to the floor and object to a piece of legislation. that makes the senate different than the house. what we've done here is allowed the house to change the senate rules in a fashion where if you can get ten republicans, all of us are dealt out. so that is not a good i