that's what they think about, doing something about crime -- control the guns of people that abide by the law. it won't seriously reduce voopt crime if you do that -- violent crime if you do that. it focuses on issues that make up it only a tiny fraction of violent crimes, or maybe it doesn't contribute to the problem at all. for example, the administration wants to crack down on ghost guns, but ghost guns are involved in only a fraction of 1% of the crimes. particularly of the murders. biden administration also wants to focus on the so-called iron pipeline, and that's blaming red

states for guns in crime-ridden blue states. but on that issue, the bureau of alcohol, tobacco and firearms, their data shows that guns used in blue city crimes usually come from that very same blue state. finally, the biden administration wants to focus on lawful gun sellers, but we have a department of justice study finding most crimes are committed with stolen guns from the black market. so, i worry about the department of justice to reduce efforts to -- could use efforts to reduce violent crimes as a pretext to harass lawful gun

dealers and owners. gun sales have increased nationwide because americans don't feel safe anymore, they feel the police are not proactively policing, so they get a gun to protect themselves. honest people that don't break the law want to feel safe, and that makes them feel safe. i don't blame them for taking protection of their life and property into their hands. i related recently about the increases in crime that have nothing to do with guns. and yet, all we hear from this administration is about controlling guns. but what does that have to do, gun control, it's not going to stop criminals from pushing people in front of subway trains

gun control won't stop flash mobs from stealing goods from stores. it isn't going to stop the thieves from looting train yards , and you see evidence of this all the time on television, almost daily, people going into stores with bags, filling it up, and just think, in san francisco some prosecutor said if you steal less than $950 you won't be prosecuted. so, you wonder why people commit crime. if you aren't going to pay a penalty for it, why not do it? so, the biden administration is wasting precious resources and taxpayers' dollars on partisan pet projects of gun control. the biden administration has ordered the department of

justice to look like it is doing something without really doing anything at all. you know what americans actually need to reduce violent crime? they need police forces empowered to do their jobs with the right resources and protections. now, we hear the biden administration just last week in new york saying it supports police. the president himself was up there. but a leaked executive order shows it wants to take away their nonlethal, lifesaving tools and make it more difficult for police to get grants for funding. americans also need responsible bail policies. they don't -- these policies

that, if they were responsible, wouldn't let dangerous criminals back out onto the streets to kill people. they need prosecutors who will actually do their job to keep violent criminals away from the vulnerable. the biden administration has a chance to make a real difference in reducing violent crime. it's a shame that they're wasting their time and resources on a misleading message. when you see the prosecutors in los angeles and san francisco listing a whole bunch of crimes that they're never going to prosecute, it just invites law breaking. we need to stop this defund the police crusade. we need to step up prosecution. we need to eliminate progressive

prosecutors. we need to make sure that people don't get bail if they're repeat criminals or a threat to society in the final analysis, taxpayers are paying for public safety, but in some places in the united states they aren't getting their money's worth for public safety they pay for. government is set up to maintain public safety, and that's what we're all about, this war on crime, protecting the taxpayers, protecting every citizen, taxpayer or not. i yield. mr. johnson: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from wisconsin. mr. johnson: often we talk about rising crime, we talk a lot of statistics. for example, last year in milwaukee there were 194 murders. as i prepared to give some

remarks yesterday, got the stafs already this year. that's an 86% increase. unfortunately, last night, there were two more murders, so now it's up to 28. 73 law enforcement officers were intentionally killed in the line of duty last year. that's the highest it's been since 1995. we had three police officers shot in a two-week period at the end of january. those are just some of the statistics, and i'm sure you've heard a lot more on the floor here today. but one thing i don't think we talk about enough are the victims. i heard president biden's press secretary, jen psaki, last week, i guess she's monitoring different tv stations, and she remarked that one commentator was talking about soft on crime

consequences. and she giggled. i said, what does that even mean? well, i'll talk about what it means. that's an article in the "just the news" a couple days ago had some heartbreaking examples of those consequences. last week we held an event about the open border, about the catch-and-release policies of this administration, record levels of people coming to this country illegally. and what that represents from the standpoint of national security and homeland security and crime. in alabama's chilton county, two illegal immigrants, ages 27 and 28, have been charged in the murders of three adults found shot and burned in an s.u.v. in another case, in another recent case, a florida father, who believed he was taking in a

16-year-old migrant minor from honduras, a good samaritan, was killed by that migrant, who turned out to be much older and involved in crime. in florida, a 5-year-old girl riding in her mother's car was crushed to death when an illegal immigrant from honduras crashed into the car. the driver admitted he had gotten into the car after drinking six cans of 32-ounce beers. in harris county, texas, an illegal immigrant from el salvador is charged with exiting his vehicle during a routine traffic stop and fatally shooting the sheriff's deputy in the face. those are just a few examples of the consequences of soft-on-crime policies. those are crimes that were committed by illegal immigrants that take advantage of the

catch-and-release policies on the border. but we're not only just experiencing catch-and-release on the southern border, we also have catch-and-release in our criminal just system. these no-bail, low-bail policies, promoted by generally democrat district attorneys in cities governed for decades by democrats. we had a tragedy in waukesha, wisconsin. it never should have happened. this was during the walk waukesa christmas parade, when children are lined up on the street, on the curb, waiting to see santa claus. instead, they saw a salute ir. -- a slaughter. six innocent people lost their lives, 62 people were injured, their lives forever altered.

and it didn't have to happen. because the murderer had been let out on a $1,000 bail after having run over the mother of his child with that same s.u.v. that is the result, that crime, those six innocent victims, those 62 innocent victims who were injured, their family members, their loved ones are the consequences of soft-on-crime policies of democrat governance. so, as horrific as those six murders were, as horrific as the 62 injuries were, what i can't get out of my mind are those little children sitting on the curb waiting to see santa, and instead witnessing the slaughter

how do they ever recover from that? is that something that jen psaki ever thinks about? is that something that president biden ever thinks about? as jen giggles about the consequences. these are serious consequences. we need to get tough on crime. we need to put violent criminals in jail, leave them in jail so they don't create more victims. with that, madam president, i yield the floor. mr. durbin: madam president. the presiding officer: the majority whip. mr. durbin: i think senator blunt from missouri is going to ask for recognition, and i do not object for that. i was scheduled for earlier and would i ask unanimous consent that when the roll call, upcoming roll call is completed, i be the first senator

recognized. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: the second roll call, i be the first senator recognized. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. blunt: madam president, i ask unanimous consent to speak for up to five minutes before the scheduled roll call vote. the presiding officer: the senator from missouri, without objection. mr. blunt: madam president, there are really few jobs in the country as difficult, as dangerous, as demanding as the sacrifice of being a law enforcement officer. i'd suggest the one job that may possibly be harder, and certainly in my view is as hard, is to be the family member of a law enforcement officer, wondering all during that working shift what might be happening to the person you care so much about. you know, the challenges to these officers and their families, the challenges they face today are intensified as local departments struggle with staffing shortages caused by

record-high departures and difficulty filling the open positions they've got. the eastern missouri police academy had around half as many recruits join in 2021 as they had in 2020. in my hometown of springfield, missouri, they have 40 vacancies right now they're trying to fill on the department. in january, the columbia, missouri, police department had around 20 vacancies in a force that its maximum size would be 187 or so people. according to the st. louis post dispatch in september, officer departures in st. louis city and st. louis county spiked in 2021 and were at a pace to be up to 60% higher in each of those departments than they had been in the average year. in the police force here, i was with chief manger yesterday, and he pointed out that retimers ans

resignations were 50% higher than in recent years in 2021. the new chief of police at the st. louis county police force said my biggest priority is hiring and finding people who will do these jobs. these staff shortages are unfortunate, but they are in so many predictable of a movement that villainized law enforcement for political gain in many cases. officers had been demoraled by the defund the police and even put out a list of crimes that people will not be prosecuted for. that's well beyond the standard of belief that most people would have had actually until they heard it, my guess would be and these are crimes that we are just not going to prosecute people for. they saw themselves -- police

saw themselves in many cases forced out of the force because of a vaccine mandate they didn't agree with, often going to smaller forces that had less than 100 people. all of this is happening really against the backdrop of a crime wave that's hurting communities of all sizes all across the country. when i talk to police chiefs i hear concerns that a lot of good candidates are deciding that maybe law enforcement will not be the career they want to have. when i talk to police officers that i see every day and at home, many feel they simply have a job where they face danger but they don't get enough support that they need to do the job that they need to do. police work's always been dangerous. we always lost officers. they've always been courageous in their willingness to stand up, but last year was the

deadliest year ever for law enforcement officers. 558 officers died in the line of duty in 2021, 128 of them from gunshot wounds. you don't have to travel far away from here, just down pennsylvania avenue of the capitol to the national law enforcement memorial to understand when it means to lose officers and what it means to lose them in protection of the country. the marble law bears the names of thousands of officers who died in the line of duty. the memorial shows a lion protecting its cubs of we always saw law enforcement as protectors not as someone we fear. it eats away at our society. to say that we appreciate law enforcement but we really don't

want to do what is necessary to support law enforcement. there's no data that says -- i think there's no data that says one or more tweets that say defund the police that leads to two crimes or two muggings, but it simply makes common sense that when police departments are understaffed and undertrained, it increases the risk of violent crime on officers themselves and the communities they serve. as the cochair of the senate law enforcement caucus, one of my priorities has been to ensure that law enforcement officers have the support and resources they need to do the job they are asked to do and do it as safely and effectively as they possibly can. we certainly all can and i think would agree, i certainly would, there should be zero tolerance for police misconduct. taking the oath to support and defend and then somehow not

conducting yourself in the right way, if you cross that line, you ought to be held accountable. we need to view people on the line as people who are there to defund us, to serve us, we need to make this a profession that they want to be part of and if they are willing to be part of it, we have provided them to do everything they need to do safely to provide the hard work we've asked them to do. i would yield back. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the question is on the bush nomination. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: does any senator wish to vote or change their vote? if not, the yeas are 93, the nays are 2, and the nomination is agreed to. under the previous order, the motion to reconsider is made and laid upon the table, and the president will be immediately notified of the senate's actions. under the previous order, the senate will resume consideration of the following nomination, which the clerk will report.

the clerk: nomination, department of defense. john patrick coffey of new york to be general counsel of the department of navy. the presiding officer: the question is on the nomination. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: have all senators voted? does any senator wish to change his or her vote? if not, the yeas are 79, the nays are 17. the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, and the president will be immediately notified of the senate's actions. correspondent madam president? the presiding officer: -- mr. cornyn: madam president? the presiding officer: the senior senator from texas. mr. cornyn: thank you, madam president. madam president, folks in texas and across the country are looking to their elected

officials for sound leadership. family budgets are being clobbered by the worst inflation in 40 years. from gas stations to grocery stores and everywhere in between, people are spending significantly more money on their basic expenses. inflation has outpaced wage growth, giving the average worker a pay cut. that's what inflation does. it erodes and undermines yours standard of living by charging more for basic goods and services. families aren't just stressing about their finances, they're also worried about their safety. the shocking surge in violent crime that began in 2020 hasn't just continued. in many places, it's accelerating. and last year several many cities had their deadliest year

on record. with the safety and well-being of their families at the forefront, our constituents want to know what's being done to address these problems. they're pretty basic. what types of solutions do their representatives have in the senate, in the house? what actions is the white house contemplating? and how long will it be before they can experience some relief? unfortunately, when the voters gave democrats the leadership of the white house and both houses of congress, the responsibility has largely been up to them to provide that leadership when it comes to the agenda. unfortunately, the real problems that my constituents in texas are experiencing, like inflation and crime, those were the last

things for our leaders here in washington to consider. forget real problems and real families. democrats' governing strategy was dictated by partisan ambitions. our colleagues tried to give the ininternal revenue service -- the internal revenue service the unprecedented authority and manpower to snoop on the finances of virtually every single american. we're accustomed to the fact that the i.r.s. knows how much you make. that's how you calculate your taxes. but our democratic colleagues went so far as to inquire for every family, how much money do you spend and what do you spend it on? that sort of invasion of privacy is unprecedented. then our colleagues on the other side of the aisle tried to get involved in the child care business and dictate what sort of child care and where you would be able to get that child

care and how much it would cost. basically saying to those who are motivated to help support families when it comes to child care that if you are a he a faith-based -- that if you're a faith-based organization, you're not going to qualify. and because of the huge influx of money the democrats were planning to put into child care, excluding a huge segment of the child care providers, it was going to result in scarce supply and run up the price, further exacerbating inflation. then we saw when it comes to the wealthy our democratic colleagues like to be the party of the average working person and complain about big business and millionaires and billionaires. but what do they do when this comes to tax proposals?

they propose to give tax -- millionaires and billionaires a tax cut by eliminating the cap on deductibility of state and local taxes in high-tax jurisdictions like new york and california. and who would have to pick up the responsibility or deficit? well, you guessed it, it would be the middle class. then we saw our colleagues on the left use the last year to attempt a federal takeover of state-run elections. some even proposed to blow up the rules of the senate, eliminate the filibuster, the one thing that forces us to do what doesn't come naturally, which is to work together and build bipartisan consensus. there were proposals from the majority leader himself and others saying, we're going to blow up the senate because we cannot get our way, and the main reason we can't get our way is

because we're unwilling to work with the other side of the aisle. but, thank goodness, two of our lesion -- the senator from west virginia and the senator from arizona -- tapped the brakes and with ever not yet found ourselves -- and we have not yet found ourselves in that situation. so every one of these examples i've mentioned has been tried and failed in this last year. but there is of course what economists call opportunity costs. we can't take back the last year that we wasted on these partisan efforts. and a lot of the damage has been done. invaluable time has been wasted on partisan legislation that was sure to go nowhere while the most basic responsibilities of governing have been tossed aside. last year our democratic colleagues nearly dropped a debt bomb on our economy. now, we had to spend a lot of money during the covid pandemic,

and during the last year of the trump administration we did that on a bipartisan basis. but even after the eminent need for that help was subsiding, our colleagues decided to spend another $2 trillion in the first months of the biden administration. only 10% of that was covid-19 related and less than one percent had to do with people getting access to therapeutics and vaccine. our colleagues allowed the national defense authorization act to sit on the shelf, to linger on the calendar for months, leaving it until the very last minute. and then we find ourselves just nine days away from a shutdown of the federal government. our colleagues in the majority have yet to pass a single appropriations bill on a regular basis. and unless congress takes action here in the next week and a

half, the american people can add a government shutdown to the list of crises that we are facing. unfortunately, this is a familiar story. we found ourselves in this position on more than one occasion over the last several months. congress' deadline to pass funding bills doesn't just pop up out of nowhere. it hits at the same time every year -- september 30. back in september, it was clear that a year-long funding bill was nowhere in sight, and so our colleagues in the majority kicked the can down the road for two months. rather than use that time to try to pass annual appropriations bills, they wasted week after week on unserious partisan bills. by the time the new deadline rolled around, nothing had changed, and so our colleagues had to punt again, setting up a new deadline of february 18.

and, based on the way things look right now, it doesn't appear that we're any closer to an annual funding agreement than we were last september or last december. there is some rumor of a top-line funding level agreement but no real progress on the underlying substance of these appropriations bills. so you can't help but wonder, how has it taken so long to accomplish so little? our colleagues are steering the ship of state in both chambers of congress and the white house, and still we can't seem to come up with a way to do the basic function of government, which is to fund the government -- of governs, which is to fund the government. we managed to avoid government shutdowns to be sure, but that's a pretty low bar to clear. the democratic majority has introduced yet another short-term funding bill that would carry us through march 11,

and i sincerely hope that progress can be made before then. ii'm just not sure how long the conversation should -- i'm just not sure how long the conversation should continue. that's where we are. our colleagues haven't just punted critical responsibilities. in some cases, they've ignored them completely. in 2021 for the first time on record there were more than two million people who attempted to enter the united states without a visa, a passport, or legal immigration papers. two million people. and that's just the one that the border patrol encounter. it doesn't count the so-called got-aways, which is what the border patrol calls the drug something lars and other -- smugglers and other criminals. two million people is larger

than the population of a dozen individual states. that's how many new people have come into the united states during a pandemic without being vaccinated, without proof of negative covid test, and at a time when people are concerned about their jobs. well, our -- the biden administration has allowed this crisis to grow and grow and grow without any substantial action. as a matter of fact, the secretary of homeland security and other members of the president's cabinet have actually made it worse. border patrol will tell you, there's two main things they look to when it it comes to illegal immigration. they look for the push factors, which are things like poverty and violence in the states that people are coming from. we all get that. but they also talk about the

pull factors, which puts a big sign out that you're free to come to the united states without any real consequences. and you don't need to get in line, you don't need to comply with our immigration laws. you can just come as fast as you can get here. one of the biggest pull factors is the misguided guidance from the secretary of homeland security himself. i call it nonenforcement guidance. basically, secretary mayorkas has said border pa toll will not detain anyone -- patrol will not detain anyone who is offense is entering the country illegally. that sends a big welcome sign to anybody who wants to come to the united states without going through our legal immigration system. and the transnational criminal organizations that benefit from the this financially, they make

millions and millions, including billions of dollars, by smuggling people and drugs into the united states. and while an open border's message may appeal to some elements on the left, it is creating sere united states burdens for law enforcement and -- serious burdens for law enforcement in border communities. i have spent a lot of time listening to my constituents and the professionals in the border patrol about the challenges this crisis has created. border patrol agents are pulling double duty as child care providers because our laws incentivize unaccompanied minors to come to the united states. nobody actually believes they get here on their own, but once they're here, under our current laws, they have to be placed with a sponsor and told to show up for a hearing for your asylum hearing months, maybe years in the future. and nobody is surprised when as many as half of those individuals show up for their

asylum hearing. the same thing for the adults in the family units. but while you may think that this is primarily a problem for border states like texas and arizona and california and new mexico and others, it actually extends throughout the country. one of our colleagues from montana tells me that his sheriff in one of his major cities said that one of the biggest problems they have is methamphetamine that's smuggled across the u.s.-mexico border. you can't get much farther north and you can't get much farther away from the southwestern border than the state of montana, but that's what the ripple effect of this uncontrolled illegal immigration along with the drugs being smuggled across the border, that's the consequences of those failures by the administration. leaders in my state have

constantly sought for the administration to take some action. this is a federal responsibility, not a state responsibility. they've asked for more staff, better resources, and better policies to put an end to some of these pull factors. but the biden administration has done nothing to make it better. i would argue they've actually made it worse by policies like the nonenforcement policy that secretary mayorkas issued months ago. senator sinema, the senator from another border state, and the democrat and i offered the bipartisan border solutions act, along with a democrat and republican house member with the idea that maybe if we come up with a bipartisan, bicameral proposal, the biden administration would say, well, why don't we start there. why don't we start the discussions there. well, the biden administration refused to take any action, and the chairman of the senate

judiciary committee here in the senate has refused to even hold a hearing on that bill. now our democratic colleagues may control all levels of government, but for sure that's a far cry from actually governing. our colleagues can't seem to accomplish the bare minimum, let alone craft policies that address the needs of families. our colleagues seem to think that these partisan victories of the only way they can prove to voters that they know how to govern, but they got it backwards and they don't have much to show for it. the reality is our colleagues' burning focus on partisan legislation has kept them from achieving much of anything at all. our colleagues have been so distracted by their own partisan ambitions that they've allowed the senate to skate from crisis to crisis without meaningful action. i can only hope that our

colleagues will recognize that what they have been doing is not working and engage in some sort of midcourse correction in the coming months. the truth is our country deserves a government that works for the american people, not for just one political party or for any constituency within that political party like the progressive left. madam president, i yield the floor. a senator: madam president. i. the presiding officer: the senior senator from new hampshire. mrs. shaheen: thank you, madam president. i'd like to ask unanimous consent that my defense fellow, leslie cornwall, be given floor privileges for the remainder of the 117th congress. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. shaheen: thank you. i also ask unanimous consent that the senate resume consideration of the macbride nomination until 6:00 p.m. and that at 6:00 p.m. the senate vote on confirmation of the

baker and lewis nominations. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. shaheen: thank you. and for the information of the senate --. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: department of treasury, neil harvey macbride of virginia to be general counsel. mrs. shaheen: for the information of the senate, we expect to line up to three additional votes this evening. therefore, senators should expect a series of up to five roll call votes beginning at 6:00 p.m. senators are asked to vote from their desks after the first vote so we can move these along and not spend all night here. thank you, madam president. i'm actually on the floor to speak to a different issue, even though i think expediting votes is an important one, and i support that. but i'm really here to highlight the negative consequences for our country of continuing to fund our government through continuing resolutions.

one of the most basic constitutional duties of congress is the appropriations process. the nation relies on this body to provide federal funds for programs that support national defense, small businesses, our border defenses, conservation of public lands, food assistance for low-income families and so much, much more. and as a long-serving member of the senate appropriations committee, i am extremely disappointed that congress is about to pass yet another c.r. that's going to take us to march 11, nearly five months past the start of the fiscal year. now, on a positive note, i understand that there is a tentative agreement on top-line funding so that we should have budget numbers for an omnibus that would fund the remainder of the fiscal year, and that's good news. but the fundamental problem

remains. long-term c.r.'s create uncertainty and inefficiency inside and outside of the federal government. c.r.'s prevent agencies from issuing new grants or expanding programs. they curtail hiring and recruitment. and moreover, those who rely on government programs and federal resources -- and that could be either snap recipients or defense contractors -- but everyone is forced into a budgetary limbo. and simply put, when congress refuses to act, people can't do their jobs, and this is especially true for our military men and women who are serving. from russia's efforts to undermine democracies in europe to china's rapidly expanding sphere of influence to the unpredictable threat of rogue actors like north korea and iran, the threats we face today are varied and numerous, and nothing hinders our national security more than funding our

national priorities in piecemeal fashion. make no mistake, as we're engaged in this crisis right now in europe, where russia is on the borders of ukraine, threatening to invade, we can bet that vladimir putin is watching our congress to see if we can actually get an agreement to get a budget funded for the rest of this year. recently several of my colleagues from the appropriations subcommittee on defense and the armed services committee, that with marine corps commandant general berger to discuss the challenges facing the marines. the message from the general was clear. if we continue to fund our government through c.r.'s, it will erode our military readiness, it will cut training time and impede the maintenance processes we rely on to keep our soldiers safe. the impact of continued c.r.'s would be wide ranging and the

negative effects would continue to ripple for years. and we have the experience. since i've been here, in 2012 and 2013 when we had the budget cliff, we saw what happened to our military. we saw readiness of our men and women in uniform erode. thousands of pilot flight hours would be lost. critical exercises within our national allies would be canceled. our overall global presence diminished at a time in which our adversaries are seeking to outcompete us in multiple theaters. aircraft, like the brand-new kc-46 tankers that we're so proud to have stationed at pease guard base in new hampshire. they are a point of pride, a valuable strategic national asset but they spend more time on the ground rather than design the missions they were designed for. submarines, the backbone of our

nuclear deterrence and techno lodge -- technological defense against our adversaries, and by the way, the ship that china is most concerned about, they are an instantly recognizable symbol of military might and values of our country, they would be sidelined due to maintenance disruptions. that would have significant impact not just for our readiness but also for places like the portsmouth naval shipyard which has as its responsibility the maintenance and repair of our attack submarines. so what kind of a signal does it send to adversaries like russia as they continue amassing troops on the ukrainian border and threaten the stability of europe when we can't get a budget? long-term efforts to recruit and retain the best and brightest to serve in our military would be undone as bonus and incentive pays are cut and overall end

strength numbers decrease by thousands. military families would be forced to bear the burden of greater financial uncertainty on top of the many sacrifices that they already make for our country. we would be left with a smaller, less capable force that is demoralized from pay cuts and forced to shoulder greater risks for their safety. now in addition to the harm to our servicemembers and military families, we'd also be undermining the critical modernization efforts that we need to keep pace at a time when competitors like china are experiencing technological breakthroughs. just eight months ago, i'm sure we all remember that china tested an advanced hypersonic missile that was launched into space before reentering the atmosphere and nearly hitting its target. this test should serve as a wake-up call about the urgent threat that china's military breakthroughs pose. and if the united states

research and development efforts are slowed down due to the constraints of operating under a continuing resolution, we will not be able to drive the innovation needed to keep pace with china, let alone regain a convincing advantage. and make no mistake, putin isn't the only one watching to see if we can get a budget agreement in this congress. xi is also watching from china. the development of our next generation fighter to ensure we will maintain air superiority in the air will be slowed. our efforts to defend against cyberattacks that could expose national security secrets would be hamstrung. simply put, for all the might and selfless service of our service men and women, we would be asking them to defend us while tying their hands behind their backs simply because we in congress can't find the courage of compromise. i would say to my colleague, senator cornyn from texas, who talked about the narrow focus of

democrats who are in the majority in this body right now, very slim majority, worrying only about our own parochial interests, that this is an opportunity for us to work together. let's work across the aisle and see if we can't find some agreement on budget that will get this done not just for the remaining months of this fiscal year, but next year and the next year and the next year. because china doesn't just compete with us on military technology. china and our other economic competitors are pouring resources into scientific and technological innovation, and if we want to sustain our global leadership and national security, we cannot afford to be caught flatfooted. that's why last week the house of representatives passed the america competes act, which is a companion to the senate-passed

u.s. innoafghts and competition -- u.s. innovation and competition act which passed the senate months ago with a very strong bipartisan vote. these bills will soon be in conference. if passed, they will bolster innovation and international trade. but the investments to meet the authorizations that are contained in these bills can't be made under a continuing resolution. i chair the commerce, justice, and science and related agencies appropriations subcommittee, the c.j.s. subcommittee. our bipartisan c.j.s. bill included a $1 billion increase for the national science foundation. to keep pace with scientific discoveries that can power the economy in fields like artificial intelligence, quantum computing, microelectronics and advanced comiewkses. -- being communications. under a c.r. we would forfeit

the chance to fund 2300 additional research and educational grants that would support 27,500 scientists, technicians, teachers and students compared to fiscal year 2021. that means a lot of projects, and therefore potentially new discoveries, technology and industries would never get started. it also would diminish our ability to train the next generation of innovators. it isn't just the national science foundation. under a c.r., nasa wouldn't have the needed increases that will help us return humans to the moon. the high ground that china is also eyeing. we'll lose out on the opportunity to provide the department of commerce additional funding to build next-generation climate and weather satellites. and we'll help small and medium-sized manufacturers enforce export and trade laws to invest in economic investment.

-- development. furthermore, a c.r. would delay implementation of the bipartisan infrastructure bill. last year, along with nine of our colleagues, we drafted the infrastructure investment and jobs act, which is bipartisan legislation to make historic investment in our nation's infrastructure. the legislation provides $550 billion in new federal investment to respond to the needs of the country, from rebuilding crumbling roads and bridges to providing clean drinking water, addressing harmful contaminants, to expanding broadband coverage to even the most rural parts of our country. the senate passed that infrastructure bill by an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote of 69-30, and when president biden signed the infrastructure investment and jobs act into law it became the single biggest infrastructure investment in u.s. history. it's a once-in-a-lifetime

opportunity for us to invest in this country. but if we continue with c.r.'s, implementation of this bipartisan infrastructure law could be delayed. in addition, as a result of its flat obligation limitations, a c.r. would prevent state departments of transportation from accessing higher amounts of formula funding provided by the highway trust fund. the c.r. would also prohibit new starts for new formula programs authorized by the bipartisan infrastructure law, including the f.y. 2022 portion of the carbon reduction program that supports a mission-reducing transportation project and the protect formula to fund states to support transportation infrastructure resiliency. now, in addition to slowing meaningful infrastructure investments, a c.r. also fails to address urge the needs in our communities -- urgent needs in our communities.

americans want to be safe from international threats to our national and economic security, but more important they want to be safe in their communities. yet in 2020 murders rose by 30%. the senate commerce, justice and science subcommittee bill includes significant funding to help local police departments fight crime and put officers on the street. it also includes a new community violence intervention initiative to implement strat gyps to reduce whom -- strategies to reduce homicides. but in a c.r., we wouldn't have funding for this promising strategy. we would also lose the chance to provide historic levels of funding for the office of violence against women. and today, it's particularly important because a bipartisan group of senators will introduce a reauthorization of the violence against women act. but without a c.j.s. appropriations bill, we can't provide additional funding for the sexual assault services

program, which is a formula grant released to states, tribes, and other coalitions in order to provide support services like medical services, counseling, crisis intervention for victims of sexual assault. and we cannot start new programs, like restorative justice and criminal justice to repair and address the harm experienced by victims. madam president, continuing to rely on last year's funding levels and last year's programs undermines our chances to improve our military readiness, to invest in our economy, and to address emerging challenges. this week, instead of enacting funding bills for the fiscal year that began on october 1, 2021, congress will instead extend the deadline again, passing another c.r. through march 11. now, don't get me wrong, i'm glad we're continuing to keep the government open, and i

understand that senate leadership, chairman leahy, vice chairman shelby, along with our house counterparts, have reached a tentative agreement on total spending levels to allow us to use the next month to finish our work and enact a remaining year appropriations bill. but it is way past time to have made that happen. the american people deserve no less and we need to do better next year. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor. a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senior senator from florida. mr. rubio: it's hard to forget february 14, the year 2018. i was her in the u.s. senate when news reports began to emerge that there had been a shooting at a school in south florida, where i live. i was at the time, or i am still

now, but at the time all four of my kids were in school in south florida, and as a parent the first thing that flashes in your mind is where? which school was it? fortunately, we were blessed by god's grace that it was not any of the schools that my children were in, but sadly there were others, floridians on that day impacted in ways that i think will clearly forever change their lives, but i think ultimately impacted the nation. it is now well-known what happened on that terrible day, a day of complete horror that shocked the nation. today, we stop and remember those who lost their lives on that day, and those whose bravery saved lives on that day. we've learned much since that day about the things that went wrong with law enforcement, with the f.b.i., with local authorities, with the school district, and that work

continues, and the monster who committed this act is now also before -- facing the justice of the florida court system and will soon be sentenced. but i wanted to spend the brief time we had to talk about it here today to focus on what has happened since that day, and in particular the extraordinary work of some of the parents of those children who lost their lives on that tragic day. because they've turned their pain into activism in ways that have had concrete and meaningful impact. one in particular is max shacter and his family, who as they dove into this realized there was no place where school districts could go and learn about the best practices for how to safeguard a school. or any facility, for that matter. everyone was off doing their own thing, being pitched contracts and ideas by different companies who said we can add this, we can

give you that, but there didn't seem to be a single place where you could go and learn this is the best -- these are the best practices to ensure the safety of our students. and that began to change because of his work. he lost a son, alex, on that day, but from that pain he has become the national leader on the issue of a federal clearinghouse, which now exists. the previous administration, the trump administration, took executive action on it, and today there exists a clearinghouse that i hope we can put into statute through the luke and alex school safety act to make it permanent. it has become a resource where schools across the country are able to, on a ongoing realtime basis, see whether what they have in place is the highest standard and the most effective and every time there are improvements it's updated. and it's had a meaningful impact. there are schools across this country that have

vulnerabilities they didn't recognize, and those vulnerabilities aren't just physical hardening of buildings, but identifying and getting ahead of these problems. sadly what we learned from many of these tragedies is that well before that day there were clear signs that something is about to happen. i think one of the things that most struck me is multiple families who told me that as soon as the news came out that this had happened everyone knew who it was, without even having heard the name. everyone knew who did it. because the signs had been there and they had been missed. the ability of school district to now recognize that and get ahead of it is just one of the many innovations now in place because of the work of max and his family in honor of their son alex and all those who suffered greatly on that day. so, i think it's important not to just, obviously, remember the extraordinary pain, horrific event of that moment, but also to remember how these brave american families have since that day taken their pain and

turned it into action, and that today across this country many of our schools are better positioned to prevent this from ever happening to anyone else because of what they've done with this tragedy. and i wanted to take this moment today to commemorate and recognize their hard work and the work they and other families are doing, not simply to raise awareness but to spur real, concrete action that makes a meaningful difference. i now want to turn it over to my colleague from florida, who was governor on that terrible day and dealt with this all firsthand. mr. scott: madam president. the presiding officer: the other senator from florida. mr. scott: almost four years ago, the world witnessed a senseless attack at marjorie stoneman douglas high school in parkland, florida. i'm proud to join my colleague, mr. rubio, to honor the 17 victims of this tragic shooting.

alisa, skol beagle -- scott beagle, nicholas dwart, jamie guttenberg, chris hickson, luke hoyer, carol longren, joaquin olivar, allena petty, meta poll lock. alex shatner, peter wong. i often think of these innocent lives lost way too early. there were sons, daughters, parents, and partners, some were educators, athletes, musicians, many just kids with a life full of promise ahead of them. my heart breaks knowing they'll never get to pursue their dreams and their families will always have a piece of their heart missing. since that horrific day i've worked closely with many of the families to ensure no family has to experience that again. while is was governor, we passed the marjorie stoneman douglas

high school public safety act to make sure our state does everything to make sure this does not happen again. as senator, i'm fighting on the federal level, including the luke and alex school safety act, named after hiewk hoyer and alex shatner. i also worked with colleagues to pass the bipartisan eagles act, to improve school safety for students and teachers and provides more resources to law enforcement to prevent future tragedies from happening. while, unfortunately, we can't bring back the lives lost, i will work to honor and do everything in my power to protect students and educators to ensure they have a safe environment to learn and succeed. i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the consideration of resolution 508 at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. res. 508, lonnoring the memories of the -- honoring the member ris of the -- memories of the sense less attack at marjorie douglas

stoneman high school. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed. mr. scott: i ask unanimous consent that the this be considered, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table san francisco with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. scott: thank you, madam president. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from north carolina. mr. tillis: thank you, madam president. i want to start by thanking my friend from the great state of new hampshire for signing on to a letter. i want to describe and send the letter to the desk, i send to the desk a letter signed by seven members of this body and we expect several more to be added over the next day, if not this evening. ladies and gentlemen, it's pretty simple. i was thinking my mom is one of the few people that probably

watch c-span a lot when her son's on the floor. we have so many instances where we have 90 or so members standing on the floor, looking at a door to the left or the right or rear, wondering where that last senator is that's holding the vote open. mom, when i'm on the floor, looking that way, it's because we have a member who may be coming to vote or maybe not. what we have here is the situation where any one member is able to hold the vote open out of respect for that member. technically, the vote can be called after the time is called, but it's not out of respect for our members. what i've simply done is circulate with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle do say how about this as a proposition -- if you're the last member to vote and your vote will not change the outcome, then instruct the desk and presiding officer to simply call the vote. we had nearly 80 members already

agree that's a reasonable proposition, and every one of those members have an opportunity on an exception basis to say, no, this vote is important to me. you have to hold it up. they can be caught in traffic. they can be coming from the airport. any number of valid reasons. there was a vote i missed this afternoon and the reason i missed this vote is i was a ranking member on the subcommittee and the witnesses were just about to testify. i could have held the vote open or rude to the witnesses and leave and i felt like it was more important to hear their testimony. that vote, by the way, passed by a huge margin. that's an example where i'm perfectly happy to show respect to my colleagues and not hold a vote open and to move on. today we'll have votes stack up, invariably we will have someone who i don't think is malicious, but holding the vote open, if we have them or their chief of staff or anyone in that office

say that the boss has to vote on this bill then they can call the cloakroom and the vote will be held open. i want to thank senator shaheen, the presiding officer and the 77 people who signed on to this letter as to show we want to do the work of the people and do in a timely manner and to show respect to the members and the staff who are also held up for sometimes no good reason. so this is a good step forward. it's a baby step, it's not a sea change, we can be mindful of how we can affect the proceedings on the floor. i send the letter to the desk and i sent it to both cloakrooms and i will send a letter to senator schumer who i understand will gladly accept it. thank you, madamthank you, mada.

i yield the floor.

mr. durbin: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: madam president, our history books are filled with the names of great men and women who devoted their lives to others. one that may not be as recognizable as others is norman borelog. he was an american biologist, he successfully created a grain of wheat. his work has been credited with saving a billion lives worldwide. madam ma marie recure had

developed a treatment for cancer. edward jenner, the smallpox vaccine, louie pastor, rabies, lela denmark, al -- albin sabin, he came up with the oral version so we didn't have to get a shot. they improved and saved lives with breakthroughs in agriculture and science. i want to remember another person to be remembered in that same light. his name is anthony fauci grew up a yankees fan and was the captain of his high school basketball team and worked

construction jobs during breaks at school wanted to pursue a career in medicine. thank goodness he did. in 1972, anthony fauci accepted a position at the national institute of health, and for the past 38 years, he has been the leader of that institute. he has advised seven presidents of both political parties. he's guided our nation and the world through countless public health crises, sars, influenza, zika, ebola. he's best known for his work on hiv-aids. anthony fauci is known domestically through pep-4, the emergency plan for aids relief

is the main reason why hiv-aids is no longer a death sentence. some of us can remember when hiv-aids was first discovered. i can recall coming to vote in the house and somebody stopping me on the sidewalk and said, did you hear magic johnson has aids? i can remember hearings in the house budget committee when i was a young congressman when we thought it was a death sentence we were all going to face. thank goodness there were people like tony fauci who could face that. harold farmis that pep-4 likely saved some countries from economic ruin. larry cramer, a prom nent aids activist called dr. fauci the

only true and great hero of government officials in the hiv-aids crisis. dr. fauci was awarded the medal of freedom in 2008 from then-president george w. bush who called dr. fauci my hero. he has devoted his career and life to improving public health. he has saved countless lives here and around the world. these days he's working 18 hours a day, seven days a week shuttling from n.i.h. to the white house and back home. he is the classic example of american excellence and brilliant scientific mind. and despite all that i have told you about this man, some members of today's republican party have chosen to make him a public target. they think attacking dr. fauci will cause us to forget the real

history of covid-19. the republican party has consistently failed the american when it came to covid. from president trump refusing to take it seriously to the discouragement of mask wearing and vaccines to promoting horse thank liesers and -- tranquilizers and bleach. they have too little courage to face their communities and do the hard work of governing during the public health crisis so they had a convenient target to focus their blame. instead of addressing this head on they are trying to attack dr. tony fauci. they are without evidence suggesting the false narrative that dr. fauci secretly and purposely funded illicit research that caused this virus. they are even criticizing his government salary, for goodness sakes. he accrued that salary -- i

might remind them -- over four decades of public service as though he would make twice or three times that amount in the public sector today. they are questioning his financials and ties to the drug industry, even though he's made every requested document available and no malfeasance or conflicts have been found. so why do they do this? why are they determined to run this man down? why would they attack this public servant who has worked around the clock to keep us safe? that's because it's much easier to malign a person than it is to do the hard work of an acting -- than enacting policies to attack this virus and keep america healthy. their distractions have sunk so low, they're using these attacks to raise money for their political campaigns. we have republican candidates from ohio to florida who are running ads entitled fire fauci, who are promising for subpoena him and reduce his salary to zero, who are selling freedom

over fauci flip-flops. that comes from nonother than the governor of florida. a few of my senate republican colleagues have loaded up their websites with anti-fauci fervor conveniently located next to a donate here option. we have fox news anchors and podcast comedians like the infamous joe rogan giving air time to antivackers by leveling baseless claims against dr. fauci. baseless claims that have resulted in death threats and harassment against dr. fauci, his wife, and his children. let me ask you this. what have dr. fauci's most vocal critics done to advance the cause of public health? nothing. they have done nothing. worse than that, their lies about dr. fauci and covid are creating a toxic political environment that is literally killing people. 900,000 americans have now died from covid. so many of these deaths could have been prevented with

vaccinations. americans who are unvaccinated, listen to this, you know it, madam president, americans who are unvaccinated are 97 times more likely to die from covid than their vaccinated and boosted counterparts. 97 times more likely to die and yet instead of spending their time encouraging vaccinations and promoting other proven, legitimate public health measures that would end this pandemic, many in the republican party want to get their five or ten minutes of sun on fox tv and they spend their time attacking dr. fauci. these attacks are a shameful fraud and for what? to fund raise? to win another guest appearance on fox? working in politics you get used to a lot of things. grandstanding, demagoguery, hypocrisy. but what my -- some of my republican colleagues are doing to dr. fauci is the lowest form

of political life. they are lying about someone who has devoted his life to saving people, saving aids patients, containing and eradicating ebola, preventing the spread of zika and avian flu. someone who has worked harder than anyone to end this covid pandemic. a microbiologist who has advised the u.s. government for years on biological threats said this of dr. fauci. nobody is a more tireless champion of the truth and the facts. i am not entirely sure what we would do without him. dr. fauci's name is and deserves to be listed alongside our world's greatest scientific minds. history will reserve another place for those who lie about him for their own gain, inciting hatred, prolonging this pandemic and contributing to needless pain and suffering. america is blessed to have the talent, dedication, and compassion of anthony fauci in the midst of this deadly pandemic. madam president, i ask consent that an article from "the

washington post" entitled anthony fauci is up against more than a virus be placed in the record after these remarks. the presiding officer: without objection. -- madam president, i. mr. durbin: madam president, i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. tuberville: thank you, madam president. my 40 years as a coach and mentor, i've witnessed the immeasurable. the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call. mr. tuberville: i'd like to vitiate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. tuberville: thank you. wasn't coached very well from my guy back here. madam president, in my last 40 years as coach and mentor, i've witnessed the immeasurable value of sports plays and young adults. these lessons learned on the field contribute to athletes' success off the field. for example, the value of discipline, hard work, how to deal with success and failure, how to be a leader.

the importance of putting the interests of the team ahead of the individual. but many of these lessons are only realized when there is a fair and level playing field. and that is why title 9 protections have been so transformational for women and girls sports. i began my career as a high school coach coaching boys basketball, football, as well as girls basketball. this was just a few years after congress expanded title 9 ushering in a new era of opportunities for women and girls in sports. title 9 provided women and girls the long denied platform that it always had been afforded to men and boys. it ensured female athletes had the same access to funding, facilities, and athletic scholarships. before title 9, female athletes received less than 2% of the college athletic budgets.

athletic scholarships for women were virtually nonexistent. but since it was enacted, i've witnessed firsthand how they expanded provisions in title 9 changed the game for female athletes at every level. today 43% of high school girls participate in competitive sports. and since the 1970's when i first started coaching female participation at the college level, has risen 600%. additionally, america's female athletes are routinely the best performing on the world stage in both team and individual sports. in the 2016 olympics, we saw the largest number of u.s. female olympians in history. it's clear we have made important strides. but recently the adoption of policies for transgender athletes have negatively impacted the rights, privacy,

safety, and achievements of women and girls in sports. that is why we need to continue to fight to uphold and preserve title 9 protections in women and girls sports. this is a college i have -- cause i have championed in my role on the senate health, education, labor, and pension committee. when then nominee for under secretary of the u.s. department of education jane seewall testified before the committee, i pressed on the administration's position for the commitment of upholding title 9, protecting the rights of women. as expected he failed to articulate how title 9 would be protected under the biden administration. in match of last year when senate democrats were pushing through their so-called covid relief package, i led the charge here on this floor to prohibit education institutions from

receiving federal stimulus money if they failed to uphold title 9. not surprisingly it was rejected. but this is not just a debate we're having here in congress. we're seeing it all across the country. to appease the demands of the left, sports organizations from grade school to professional leagues are focusing on the concept of being inclusive at the expense of being fair. but by including biological males in women's athletics, fairness is not possible. i can't believe we're even talking about this. just last week i heard from female olympic gold medalist who reiterated this. and the study after study continues to confirm what we already know. male and female bodies have inherent biological differences that no amount of testosterone suppression can level.

male bodies have larger hearts, bigger bone structure, leaner muscle and expanded lung capacity. one study concludes, quote, on average males have 40% to 50% greater upper limb strength, 20% to 40% lower limb strength, and an average of 12 pounds more skeletal muscle than aged matched females at any given weight. the latest study published in clinical researches in europe find that, quote, current evidence shows the biological advantage and only minimal reduced when testosterone is suppressed as per current sporting guidelines for transgender athletes. you can't make a level playing field. it is unquestionably the truth that biological males have a physiologically advantage over females. sports associations across the

world are starting, finally, to pay attention. in 2019 u.s.a. power lifting sports, a female power lifting prohibited transgender participation. in 2020, world rugby became the first international sport to ban transgender women. and just last september, the u.k. sports council, the national funding bodies for sports across united kingdom issued a report concluding that allowing transgender athletes to compete in women's sports does not allow for a balanced and even playing field. forbidden. these organizations are doing the research and making recommendations in the best interest of their athletes while also maintaining fairness in sports. but then there's the ncaa or better known as the national collegiate athletic association. after a transgender collegiate swimmer began shattering -- and

i'm talking about shattering records in swimming. just in the last few weeks the public outcry was so large that the ncaa said, well, we'll review this policy. ncaa met. the board voted in support of a sport-by-sport policy that will say, quote, preserve opportunity for transgender student athletes while balancing fairness, inclusion, and safety for all who compete. in effect, this means they will defer the policy to individual national governing bodies and kick the can down the road. these governing bodies in turn generally adhere to the standards of the international olympic committee which permits transgender athletes to compete in women's sports. the independent women's law center and independent women's forum both have condemned the ncaa for adopting this approach. the ncaa had the perfect opportunity to stand up for

women and girls in sports and they blew it. the ncaa's lack of true action is disappointing and invites more questions than it provides answers. so by punting the responsibility, the ncaa leaves the door open for continued erosion of title 9 protections at the expense of women's athletics and continues to chip away the great unifier that americans know and love. we need to do better for women's athletics all across this country. so let's be clear, the question here is not should we be inclusive and supportive of all athletes. it is how. there is no pregame speech. you can give a woman or a girl who feels like they aren't competing on the same playing field. no pep talk can touch title 9's 37 words that changed everything for women's sports over 50 years ago. it afforded women and girls the

same athletic opportunities that their male counterparts have always had, and we should continue to fight for all the young girls in the future of this country. madam president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. mr. cardin: thank you, mr. president. article 2, section 2, clause 2 of the constitution provides that the president shall nominate and by and with the voice and consent of the senate, shall appoint judges of the supreme court. one of the most important constitutional responsibilities i have as a senator is to provide advice and consent of a president's supreme court nominee. a new justice is someone who could serve for a generation or more and have a profound impact on the lives of all americans for decades to come.

recently supreme court justice stephen breyer announced that he would step down once the senate confirmed his successor. in his remarks while reflecting on what he learned during his nearly three decades on the high court he said this is a complicated country. there are more than 330 million people, and my mother used to say it's every race, it's every religion, and she would emphasize this -- and it's of every point of view possible. justice breyer has built a reputation and cemented a legacy as a champion of civil rights and fought to protect american consumers and our very democratic system of government from the attempts to undermine our campaign finance system, weaken the sacred franchise, the right to vote, his thoughtful scholarship on the importance of safeguarding human rights and respecting international law will continue to influence democratic governments around the world for years to come.

when i think about a successor to justice breyer, i want to see someone who can serve as a strong and thoughtful presence on a court that is tasked with some of the most complicated legal problems and questions in our nation. each new justice is someone who could serve for a generation or more and have a profound impact on the lives of all americans for decades to come. the supreme court will make decisions on a broad range of issues such as voting rights, health care, women's reproductive freedoms, equal rights for women, climate change policy, gun safety, campaign finance, civil rights issues, and so much more. a nominee should represent the values of our constitution in such a way that allows us to expand, not restrict, the civil rights of all americans and keep powerful special interests and corporations in check. the united states constitution is not a perfect document, but its authors designed a system of government around the rule of

law and the protection from abuses of power. abuses can come from special interests or the government itself. our constitution created the supreme court of the united states as the protector of our constitutional rights. a justice should have a healthy respect for the separation of powers and checks and balances in our constitutional system. a nominee should strive to safeguard the independence of the judiciary and protect the prerogatives of each branch of government, including congress and its duly enacted laws. a strong nominee must be respectful of the diversity of the american experience and live up to his or her constitutional oath to uphold the constitution and laws of the united states as well as their judicial oath to administer justice without respect and do equal rights to the poor and to the rich. thus far, 115 justices have served in our nation's history, including baltimore's own

thurgood marshall, who was the first black supreme court justice. it's long past time to improve diversity on our nation's court, which promises equal justice under law to all those who enter its hallowed chambers. the supreme court justices should look more like the americans it serve in both its demographic and professional diversity. madam president, i know you are aware that of the 115 justices that have served through the history of the united states on the supreme court, 108 of those 115 are white male. we need greater diversity in our courts and we need greater diversity on the supreme court of the united states. in maryland, for years i've worked diligently when contradict sister arise to recommend highly qualified lawyers to the president who will better diversify our federal bench 6789 our federal district court in maryland consists of ten active district court judges who sit in baltimore and greenbelt. i am proud that our court

reflects the breadth and depth of the demographic and professional diversity in maryland, including the first black woman to serve as a federal judge of maryland and the first asian american federal judge in maryland. half of the active district judges in our state are now women. i chuckle when i recall the late ruth bay ger -- ruth bay ger ginsburg was asked how many women should be on the supreme court. when i'm sometimes asked, i'll say when there are nine. people are shocked. but there have been nine men and nobody even raised a question about that. our federal judges in maryland come from a wide variety of legal backgrounds, including having served as prosecutors, public defenders, private law firm attorneys and judges in other courts. maryland now has its first black u.s. attorney in our state's

history, who i was pleased along with senator van hollen to recommend to president biden and who was unanimously confirmed by the senate. i believe that more diverse court and justice system inspires the confidence of marylanders who seek their day in court and want to be treated fairly, with dignity and respect. i am confident that the senate, under the leadership of majority leader schumer and judiciary chair durbin, will conduct a fair hearing, vetting, and confirmation process for president biden's eventual pick to replace justice breyer. so i look forward to working with my colleagues in the senate over the coming months to give full and fair consideration to president biden's nominee to replace justice breyer in order to fill the upcoming vacancy on the supreme court. i am hopeful the american people will be proud of the process that unfolds in the senate as they watch and learn more about the constitution and the three branches of government that

interact in this unique process to select the next judge who will dispense justice on the highest court in our land. with that, madam president, i would suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. dlef dlef quorum call:

a large margin of 300-42. congress took the first to start creating the most important upgrade to our post office in decades by passing a bipartisan reform package that was years in the making with an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote in the house. it is my intention that the senate to quickly take up and pass this bipartisan, bicameral postal reform bill. we hope to take action here on

the floor to pass the bill before we go to the presidents' day recess. the post office is quite simply one of the most important institutions of american life. everyday tens of millions of americans, veterans and small businesses people living in rural communities, seniors rely on the postal service for their medicines and prescriptions for getting essential goods to correspondence to their livelihoods and with special occasions like workplace anniversaries and things like that. nevertheless our postal service has needed reform for over a decade. budgets are severely strained and its delivery services are overwhelmed and the disruptions at at least by the internet have made it harder to meet its obligations of the american people into its own employees. everyone of us have heard objections about what it's arriving far too late to do many

instances whether they be checked the people depend on for their livelihoods or prescription jugs -- drugs or whatever these complaints are growing and growing and growing. the bipartisan postal reform bill offers a much-needed reset table guaranteed delivery services to six days a week. he will put the post office on a path back to sovereignty and it will ensure that we take care of our dedicated postal work or is while also saving the post office over $50 billion. let me summarize again. this legislation is passed would ensure continued delivery service and make deliveries more efficient and timely and will put the post office on a path to civility. i want to recognize my colleagues have made it possible for this legislation to move forward. first i think i friend and colleague senator peters, chairman of the homeland

security and government affairs committee, for his leadership in bringing this bill together. i also want to thank ranking member portman for working across the aisle on this commonsense reform bill and i want to thank all of my house colleagues who work this digitally for a long time both the chair and the ranking member supported the bill on the florida house yesterday. yesterday. i've always said democrats will work on a bipartisan basis whenever we can pass commonsense legislation that will improve the lives of the american people. this bipartisan cooperate and help clear the way for sids things as the historic anti-hate crimes bill a much-needed competition bill and our bipartisan infrastructure package. this worked period alone have made great progress on bipartisan parties by ending forced arbitration for sexual harassment and assault and as

i've mentioned will soon act on the post office and i expect both sides will support passage of the short-term cr that will keep the federal government opened up for next week's deadline. i want to thank the appropriators from both sides of the aisle for working in good faith and i'm optimistic that soon they will arrive in agreement on the bill package which is far more preferable to the alternative of the cr. we are getting very close to coming to an agreement on topline numbers and as i said i am more of a mystic and i have been in a very long time that they will get in on the dole done for government spending for the rest of the year. so albies priorities, forced arbitration, poster reforming government funding our bipartisan that will last on through the recess. as i've always said for my first day as majority leader we will work in a high partisan way

whenever we can. we did it in her first year with things like the anti-hate crime legislation and the bipartisan infrastructure package and these weeks represent a productive continuation of that commitment. on this issue i am optimistic that very soon we will see the first major reform of america's postal system in decades. it will be a win for dedicated postal workers and for the american people to rely on the post office every single day. on forced arbitration before the end of the week it's my intention that the senate take action on one of the most important work place reforms we have seen in decades eliminating forced arbitration for sexual harassment and assault. yesterday i sat down with my republican colleagues senators lindsey graham and joni ernst who worked out an agreement on a few outstanding issues that will clear the path for the senate to

hold a vote very soon on this issue. i want to thank them for their good faith and cooperate in and i especially want to thank my friend and colleague from new york senator gillibrand for being a leader on this important issue for so, so long. and mr. president it's a common practice for employers to cut arbitration clauses into the fine print of employment contracts. these of service preconditions for getting hired for a new job and most employees don't realize that they have signed onto until it's too late. we can no longer ignore that forced arbitration has proven immensely harmful when it comes to sexual harassment and sexual assault and workers almost always women, face abuse or harassment at the hands of their employers. forced arbitration immediately limits their auctions to remedy

what's against them from the start in the abusers rarely faced true accountability. i think it's awful and i must change and all that is going to change very soon. bipartisan legislation to end forced arbitration for sexual harassment and assault we will ensure those who face abuse will have the freedom to exercise their basic rights to pursue action against harmful employers. this is long, long overdue and i want to commend those sites for working together to getting as close to the finish line. i expect we will hold a vote to pass this legislation in the very near future and the legislation will be felt across the country and last for a very, very long time. the bottom line ending forced arbitration for sexual harassment and assault is about making our workplaces safer holding abusive employers

accountable and making sure that every american can exercise their right to seek justice in a court of law. finally mr. president on the senate does this, concerning the activity on the floor today the senate is going to have another busy work day as we continue confirming presidential nominations to the administration. today three roll call votes are scheduled on the nominations of both ahead of united states international development finance corp. and the president's pick for assistant secretary of the army. tonight we are very likely to add additional roll call votes to complete the confirmation of several pending nominations. these votes will likely take us into the early evening and they are necessary in order to confirm nominees. i will add until this past year these nominees almost always have been approved to unanimous consent. unfortunately a few people on the other side are holding it up and making us vote on each so we

must. once again though to move things along i ask my colleagues to cast their votes quickly tonight to remain in their seats as much as possible and to be flexible in order to help move things along as quickly as possible on the senate floor as we did last week. he did a good job voting efficiently last week despite the large number of votes. i ask everyone to continue we take that pace tonight and finally off the floor i want to reiterate a few points i made yesterday. off the floor, excuse me. find me want to reiterate the three points i made yesterday regarding stock trading with members of congress. i believe this is an important issue that congress should address and it's something that

has clearly raised interest on both sides of the aisle over the past few weeks. as i said yesterday there are a number of senators with various proposals and i've asked my democratic colleagues to come together and come up with a single villa in this chamber we can work on. i hope we can pass something and i want to encourage my colleagues on the democratic side to reach out across the aisle. some of the proposals and we have a whole bunch of bipartisan support so this is something the senate should address. hopefully they can act on it soon and hopefully he can be done in a bipartisan way like many of the bills we are looking at this week. i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. senequa washington democrats >> taxing and spending spree of violent criminals are preying on the american people. millions of americans in neighborhoods descend into chaos and violence.

after the nationwide murder rate saw its biggest jump in more than 100 years in 2020 at least 12 major cities set their own all-time homicide record in 2021. rates of carjackings have doubled, tripled and even quadrupled in major metro areas. my own town of louisville said an all-time murder record last year of 188 homicides and 24 victims were children. at some point last year a staggering 65% of our homicides for going unsolved at the louisville is not -- is averaging one carjacking every 42 hours. yesterday i heard the fbi special agent in charge ohio. mr. brown: i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: thank you, madam president. before last year the committee i chair and one of the committees

on which the proceeding -- presiding officer sits, there was too much going on with wall street. we changed that. instead of listening to the biggest banks, we listened to workers and their families from all kinds of communities all over the country. we held the first-ever worker listening session. as hard as it was, no senator asked questions, we heard from about a half dozen workers who told their story. we know that workers power our economy. we heard from workers all kinds of backgrounds working all kinds of jobs, some worked for banks, some for big tech companies, others for corporations, they talked about wage staff and being laid off during the pandemic with no severance pay, they talked about the danger in their workplaces, they talked about how in some cases their

companies busted their unions. what the wall street business model does is to workers' lives. yesterday we held our second listening session, this time with renters around the country whose apartments are owned by big corporate equity funds. one of those lived in north minneapolis and told her story. it is a big problem in every city. big pocketed investors come into the community they have no connection to, they raise rents and they don't deliver their promises to their tenants. these out of town, sometimes out of country investors are raising rents often by as much as 50%, issuing and leaving toxic infestations to go worse.

renters in apt buildings and single-family homes and manufactured housing weeks heard from folks in las vegas, heightsville, maryland and one said that her rent increased by hundreds of dollars a month, she was told me have to please the investors. think about that. we have to please the investors. renters in nevada, maryland, texas, and california had their phones repeatedly flooded with wastewater and lived with road enter -- road enter infestations. one said, the wood floor buckles, we don't have heat, there are cockroaches and mice, the air conditioning units don't work, there is mold, the refrigerator doesn't work. they don't even have heat. these investors claim they are

just running a business. okay. the business is supposed to provide a decent place to live, that's part of the deal in exchange for collecting people's hard-earned money. if your building is full of mice or not heating the apartment, you're not running a business, you're running a scam. families pay a high price for it. rachel jones is a working mother in north minneapolis, she said that leaks in the garage went unanswered, the city was forced to step in because of code violations. this single mother said that the company that owns her home bought it as it is said it is a money grubbing tool. ms. within talked about the -- ms. wynne, said that they or their don't care if my neighbors

or i become homeless. cindy newman from great falls, montana, talked about her manufactured home community. she worked hard to buy her home but she rents the land it sits on. that's how manufacturing homes work, how mobile home parks work. she rents the land it sits on. she said they used to have a fair landowner who kept our community safe and eligible until the private equity firm, haven park capital took over. senator sanders walked it and we have talked about when these private equity firms come in and buy the mobile home parks and the damage that is so often done. she said the new owners in montana have stripped value out of our community. the group raised rents, added fees for water and trash removal. she said in this company bought a number of these homes, haven park all over montana and

utah -- i'm sorry, montana and iowa and other places around the country. she said it amounted to about an 86% increase, her words, for the dirt that our homes sit on. they can't pick up and move, it would cost $10,000 or $20,000. picture the mobile homes, maybe 30, 40, 50,000, some cases, they sit them and build around them and they aren't really mobile at that point. it costs $10,000 to $20,000 to move. most are seniors on fixed incomes. she said it's hard to believe we could lose our homes and life savings to greedy people. they moved into these places, five, ten years ago. the family rented the land out for $300, $300 a month. a private equity came in and dowcialed their rent. think what that does, upending those lives. people who aren't that affluent, living paycheck to paycheck, or

social security check to social security check. houses in manufactured homes communities that people can afford become harder and harder to find. families are left with an impossible choice. may money they don't have for a mommy that may put their kids at risk or gamble and looking for a new place to live with a fear they'll end up with no place to live. that's what these seven renters who represent millions of renters across the country, that's what they told us yesterday. these renters and homeowners shared their story. they've shone a light. tomorrow in our committee, we'll talk about how we ended up here, how this business model exploded around the country. for wall street investors, rent increases -- returns to shareholders. code violations and eviction violations are just the cost of doing business. but for ms. jones and ms. newman and millions of americans, these are their homes. these are their neighborhoods.

it's up to us to look out for them, not to look out for private equity firms' bottom lines. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. sanders: madam president, let us be as clear as we can be. and that is there is significant discontent throughout our country today from vermont to california, and in all 50 states. the american people are worried about covid. we are all worried about covid. we are all tired with covid. but the american people are worried about much more. they are worried about inflation, the price of food and gas and other products going up. they are worried about climate change and whether or not the

planet that they will be leaving their kids and grandchildren will be healthy and habitable. they are worried about a middle class whose real inflation accounted for wages have not risen in almost 50 years. have been stagnant and the reality that today half of our workforce is living paycheck to paycheck. the american people are worried about the massive level of income and wealth inequality which we are experiencing in which during this pandemic alone, just the last few years, the billionaire class saw an increase in their wealth by some $2 trillion while at the same time thousands of workers died

as they went to their jobs. they didn't have a choice about it. they went to work and they died. the american people are worried that their kids are not getting the quality child care that they need or that the family can afford. they are worried about the outrageous levels of student debt that their kids acquired because they chose to get a higher education. and above all else, madam president, the american people in my view are outraged that in the midst of all of these crises and more, their elected officials are simply not responding. in my view, now is the time to tell the american people that we

in congress do understand their pain. we do know what they are going through and that we are prepared to stand up for the working families of this country and take on the greed of powerful special interests who wield so much influence over the economic and political life of our nation. and today senator klobuchar and i are going to focus on one, just one of the many issues that this congress must address. the american people want action, and that is what we have got to give them. we have got to respond to the crises. and today, madam president, we're going to be talking about

prescription drugs. for decades 20, 30, 40 years, members of both political parties have come to the floor of the senate, come to the floor of the house, and they have bemoaned the high cost of prescription drugs in this country. and they promised the american people that they would lower those outrageous prices. republicans have come to the floor, democrats have come to the floor and speech after speech has been made. and not only speeches, members of both political parties have put 30-second ads on television when they ran for office. hey, vote for me. i'm going to lower the cost of prescription drugs. so for decades now members of

congress have been talking about lowering the cost of prescription drugs and for decades they have failed to deliver. talk, talk, talk, nothing happens. the cost of prescription drugs goes up. congress has failed to deliver on the democratic leadership. it has failed to deliver on the republican leadership. failed to deliver under democratic presidents. failed to deliver under republican presidents. we have failed to deliver because of the greed of the pharmaceutical industry which today is likely the most powerful corporate interests in america and is certainly the dominant political force here in washington, d.c.

so i ask my fellow americans today do you want to know why you are paying the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs? simple question. why is it that we are paying in some cases ten times more for the same exact prescription drugs that are sold in canada or in europe? do you want to know why one out of four americans -- this is really quite crazy. that in the midst of a dysfunctional health care system, we have one out of four americans would cannot afford to fill the prescriptions that their doctors write. think about that for one-half a second. people are sick. they go to the doctor. the doctor writes out a prescription. people can't afford to fill it. they end up at the emergency room. they end up in the hospital.

they get sicker because they simply cannot afford the outrageous cost of medicine. you know why millions of diabetic americans actually ration their insulin? i have talked to diabetics and kids of diabetics where their kids get sick because they cannot afford the cost of insulin. obviously diabetes today is a terrible, terrible illness impacting many millions of americans. but let me tell you why we pay the highest prices in the world, why people in america die because they can't afford prescription drugs. and the answer has everything to do with the corrupt political system in which over the past 20 years the pharmaceutical industry has spent over $4.5

billion -- not million -- $4.5 billion on lobbying and hundreds of millions of dollars in campaign contributions. yes, you heard that correctly. $4.5 billion over 20 years on lobbying. and god knows how many hunls of -- many hundreds of millions of dollars on campaign contributions. these are campaign contributions which go to republicans. these are campaign contributions that go to democrats. and i am talking about many hundreds of members of the house and senate who receive funding from the pharmaceutical industry. further, the pharmaceutical industry has over the years mounted an unprecedented lobbying effort in washington here in the nation's capital and in states all over the country. and i hope everybody hears this. because this is what power is about. this is why you pay the highest

prices in the world for prescription drugs. last year alone, the pharmaceutical industry hired more than 1700 well-paid lobbyists to come to capitol hill to protect their interests. including the former congressional leaders of both major political parties. got that? 1700 well-paid lobbyists protecting the interests of the pharmaceutical industry. get out your calculator because what that amounts to is three pharmaceutical industry lobbyists for every member of congress. 435 members in the house, 100 in the senate.

1700 well-paid lobbyists making sure that you pay the highest prices in the word for prescription drugs. and what is the result of all of that lobbying and all of those campaign contributions? well, i think the american people know it every time they walk into a drugstore. the pharmaceutical industry uniquely in the entire world is able to raise their prices any time they want to any level that they want. how many people out there walked into a drugstore, ordered their prescription, refilled their prescription. the pharmacist says i'm sorry to tell you, the cost of medicine has gone up 20%. why? because they can. they can do anything they want. want double price, triple prices? there's no law stopping them. and that's what you get when you spend billions of dollars on

lobbyists and campaign contributions. you get what you pay for and they have gotten what they paid for. madam president, not only do we pay the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs but the result of that is the pharmaceutical industry year after year makes huge profits. eight of the largest drug companies in america last year -- 2020, eight of the largest drug companies in the united states in 2020 made nearly $50 billion in profits while the c.e.o.'s of those pharmaceutical companies took home over $350 million in total compensation. eight companies, $350 million in compensation for the c.e.o.'s of those companies, $50 billion in

profits in the last year, we have information. so let's be very clear. the overriding motivation of the pharmaceutical industry is gr greed. they're -- their overriding goal is to make as much money as they can by squeezing as much as they can get from the sick, from the elderly, and from the desperate. i could give you many, many examples of the outrageous greed of the pharmaceutical industry, and i'm not even going to talk about the opioid crisis which has killed hundreds of thousands of americans. i'm not even going to go there today. but let me just mention that just a few years ago, the former c.e.o. of a drug company called gilead became a billionaire by charging $1,000 for the

hepatitis drug is a value di -- drug savaldy. became a billionaire. interestingly enough, that drug was developed by taxpayer dollars through the veterans administration. and while they charge $is,000 a treatment -- $1,000 a treatment here in the united states, turns out that it cost -- it can be purchased in india for all of $4. a thousand bucks here. $4 in india. in 2016, the chairman of mylon, received $164 million compensation package after his kojaked up the price of the epipen. you'll remember the epipen. by 550% over a nine-year period. madam president, all over this country the american people are asking a simple question. how many people in our country need

to die? how many people need to get unnecessarily sicker before congress is prepared to take on the greed and power of the pharmaceutical industry? enough is enough. a lifesaving prescription drug does not mean anything if you cannot afford that drug. you got great drugs out there. what does it mean if you can't afford that drug or if you're going to go bankrupt because you have to buy it for a family member? madam president, we cannot allow the pharmaceutical industry to charge the american people by far the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs, and that is why i have introduced today, along with senator klobuchar, legislation that would cut the cost of prescription drugs under medicare in half. not by 10%, not 30%. cut the cost of prescription

drugs under medicare in half. and it would do that by making sure that medicare pays the same low prices for prescription drugs as the veterans administration does. madam president, why is it that the v.a. pays so much less for prescription drugs than medicare? and the answer is pretty simple. while the v.a. hags been able to negotiate -- while the v.a. has been able to negotiate with the pharmaceutical industry for the past 30 years, congress banned medicare by law from doing anything to lower prescription drug prices, and the result is that, according to the nonpartisan government accountability office, medicare pays twice as much for the exact same prescription drugs as the v.a. all right, you talk about dysfunctionality, you talk about crazy. you got two branches of government. the v.a. pays x. medicare pays 2x.

how in god's sense does that make sense? if the v.a. can negotiate with the drug companies, so can medicare. and by the way, for all of the great deficit hawks here that stay up nights worrying about the deficit, let me tell you, when we do that we will save medicare some $900 billion over the next decade. so i would like to see where the deficit hawks are on this issue. $900 billion, ten years. that's real money. and, madam president, the v.a. obviously is not the only agency that negotiates for lower drug prices. that is something that takes place in every other major country on earth. madam president, there is no rational reason for the pharmaceutical industry to charge the american people

$98.70 for insulin that can be purchased in the u.k. for just $7.52 and on and on it goes. the american people are being played for suckers. they have bought the united states congress and it is time now for congress to stand up to these people. and, madam president, with that, i would mention that what we are talking about -- what senator klobuchar and i are talking about is not some radical far-left idea. see, i get that. i don't know if senator klobuchar gets that. but it is not some radical far-left idea. it is a fairly popular idea. according to an october 2021 poll by the kaiser family foundation, 83% of the american people want medicare to negotiate with the pharmaceutical to lower the cost of drugs and poll after poll shows the same thing. maybe, just maybe -- you ready

for a radical idea, madam president? -- maybe, just maybe, instead of doing the work of the lobbyists and the follow industry is we might just want to represent the american people. with that, met me yield -- let me yield to senator klobuchar. ms. klobuchar: thank you. i think you know senator sanders and i debate add number of issues beforement but we have been strongly united on one thing. that is bringing down costs for the american people. that is, as he just said, not one bit radical. we have joined together to introduce the cutting medicare prescription drug prices in half act because that's what we should be doing. america pays more. the people of this country pay more for their prescription drugs than any other country in the world. how can that be, as senator sanders has noted, when it is our country, our companies who are invested in all this

research? how can we come up short when it comes to what our people are paying for drugs? the examples in the past five years the cost of lyrica, a drug that you see them advertise on tv, millions of dollars in ads, a drug that treats nerve pain, or cymbacor, increased almost 50%. results of these kinds of increases, nearly 20% of older adults are reported not taking their medicines as prescribed because of the costs. last month alone, madam president, drug companies hiked the price of 742 drugs in america. what do we do? we sit. we sit. we talk about it, and we're not taking action. that is why senator sanders and i are putting our bill in today. we would love to spend the week debating it. we would like to move to this bill so we can get this done. we know that prescription drug prices in the united states are

more than 250% higher than other industrialized nations. what is our simple solution? the v.a., the u.s. department of veterans affairs that we empower with the lives 6 our veterans and their health care, one report that the v.a. price is often half as much as what medicare pays. why? it's simple. the v.a. negotiates for prices. medicare does. i kind of think -- and senator sanders and i know this well -- that 46 million seniors in america could get a pretty good deal if you allow the government to negotiate on their behalf. a good deal for the taxpayers of this country, for people that care about deficits, for people that care about the bottom-line budget, and a good deal for customers. and guess what? it wouldn't just help seniors. because that's such a large block of customers that it would

bring down the drug costs for everyone. the stories in my state, people like clair from st. paul, when the cost of the prescription drugs she relied on to manage her rheumatoid original righteous jumped from $60 per month to $1,400 per month, she could no longer afford it. in her words, her arthritis became so bad that she could barely handle a fork and a knife. or the young man who was a manager of a restaurant, full-time job, when he aged off his parents' insurance, what happened to him? and you know this story, madam president, he started to ration his insulin, he had severe diabetes, and he died, and his mother has made her life about getting better drug prices. and senator sanders and i believe you start with the biggest buying block. you start with seniors. you get that negotiation going. and it will make a big difference. for people who believe in free markets and negotiation and competition, i don't know how

you can say no to this proposal. it is time to allow this to be debated to move forward with this bill. let's get it on the floor and call it up for a vote. thank you, senator sanders. mr. sanders: senator klobuchar said it all. you spend a week with assistant secretaries of whatever, and that's all terribly important, but the american people want us to start acting on their need and at the top of the list that senator klobuchar just said, what she said about the folks in minnesota, you hear the same stories in vermont. people lying because they can't get prescription drugs. i say to my friend, the time now to have that debate. you with aens to vote against this bill, that's yourreavement you go home and explain it to the people. some of us still believe in attempt, by the way. so i would say that, madam

president, as if in legislative session, i ask unanimous consent that at a time to be determined today by the majority leader, following consultation of the republican leader, the senate proceed to the consideration of s. 3615 which was introduced earlier today, that there be two hours for debate equally divided, that upon the use or yielding back of time, the bill be read a third time and the senate vote on passage of the bill, with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: is there objection? a senator: reserving the right to object -- the presiding officer: the senator from idaho. mr. crapo: thank you, madam president. our nations seniors deserve meaningful solutions that increase prescription drug access and affordability. this bill, unfortunately, would double down on the deepest flaws in our current health care system and usher in a host of

new problems from fewer treatments to more bureaucracy and, yes, it's almost certain under this legislation we would see launch prices for new drugs actually increase. the solution is not to go and double down on a failed socialist theory of price-fixing and work to make our market better. even setting aside the overwhelming complementation, challenges, and technical issues that this legislation would present from the out set, the provisions included would do far more harm than good, particularly for the very older americans they are intended to help. and i would note from the outset there's talk about wanting to have process and about this legislation -- but this legislation was just introduced today. it just got a bill number today. there has been no vetting of this legislation in the committee, which is the regular order of this senate. there has been no public analysis. there has been no public review.

there has not been any hearing on in legislation. there has been not any negotiation on this legislation. and it's -- i heard numbers thrown out here about what a savings this would be. c.b.o. has not scored this legislation. and there are serious flaws with it. under this proposal, we would see a staggering decline in the game-changing research and development that our universities, medical centers, and entrepreneurs conduct every day, as vital investments in the cures of the future would decline. as countless studies of price-control mandates like the one before us today have concluded, these policies would slash new drug discoveries in the years to come up, jeopardizing some of the highest risked projects in particular. potential treatments targeted at conditions affecting seniors at high rates, like certain

cancers, would likely suffer the greatest impact as medicare would become increasingly stagnant and able to meet the evolving needs of rapidly i am aning populations. -- rapidly aging populations. after coming in under budget with satisfactory rates soaring and premiums remaining markedly stable, medicare part d would lose the market-driven structure that has made it such a success story. -- for so many seniors. instead, we would move closer to a government-run health care system, which is the idea and the goal, where bureaucratic price controls like these would become the norm. the vast majority of americans, in my opinion, still reject the notion of a government-run health care system and price controls in place of a free market. meanwhile, our frontline health care providers have weathered a truly unprecedented two years of

a pandemic and they would face a sweeping cut as this legislation aims for reductions under medicare part b with direct implications for doctors and other health care professionals across all settings. in the face of widespread provider burnout, retirements, closures and consolidation, these cuts risk accelerating trends that already jeopardize access to health care for far too many americans from all walks of life, particularly in rural and underserved communities. the v.a., which has been referenced here, for its part would inevitably see higher health care costs as any discounts or price concessions that lower drug costs for our veterans have would disappear. previous payment systems along these lines that have been suggested in the past have resulted in a host of unintended consequences, from higher launch

prices to withheld rebates and discounts. our veterans do not stand to gain from being tied to this unvetted and failed new proposal. as we confront unprecedented challenges at home and abroad, we must look to consensus-driven solutions that meet americans' everyday needs including prescription drug access and affordability. we can agree on that. members across the political spectrum have developed bipartisan drug-pricing policies that can make a meaningful difference for workers and families. i've introduced legislation which is waiting in the committee for a vetting rather than coming to the floor here to try to get it brought to the floor without even going through senate regular order. my legislation is called the lower cost, more cures act. just a quick summary of what it contains, a hard cap on annual out-of-pocket spending for all seniors under medicare part-d, with an