higher crime. in 2020, there was a 20% increase in murder rate nationwide. the fastest in american history. in 2021, the murder rate went up even higher. 16 cities broke their all-time records for homicide, and of course, all 16 were run by liberal democrats. of course, these included the cities that defunded the police police. austin, texas, defunded the police, and the murder rate there doubled. last year, the national murder rate reached the highest in 25 years. so far, 2022 looks like it may be even worse. so what are the democrats doing about it? they have the house. they have the senate. they have the white house. they're doing two things -- they're making it worse, and they're trying to avoid being blamed for what they are causing. how are they making it worse?

take a look at some of the nominees of president joe biden, people he put in high positions in the justice department. radical liberals. every member of the democrat body in this institution voted to confirm them. these are people that hold beliefs way out of the mainstream of the american people when it comes to their service for the department of justice. joe biden has essentially handed over the justice department leadership to radical activist whose want to defund the police. they are the people running the justice department. every single democrat voted to confirm them. people of america are shocked to learn that last march democrats, on a straight party-line vote, every republican against, every democrat for, gave almost a billion dollars in stimulus checks to 645,000 convicted

criminals. these are people either still behind bars or recently released senator tom cotton, junior senator from arkansas, and i introduced an amendment to block them from getting stimulus checks. every democrat in the senate voted to block our amendment. in effect, this he voted to subsidize criminals, convicted criminals. the democrats in charge in america, criminals have hit the jackpot. second thing the democrats are trying to do is to try to avoid getting blamed for this incredible spike in violent crime. joe biden recently went to the majority leader's hometown, new york city. right now, there's a crime wave in new york city and it's on the rise. crimes are up 40% in new york city so far this year. car thefts are almost double.

joe biden went to new york to meet with the mayor, eric adams. now, of course, mayor adams is a former police officer, and an opponent of the democrat mantra of defunding the police. so, joe biden was obviously very interested in engaging and getting his picture taken with the mayor of new york, so he could pretend to be tough on crime. voters aren't buying it. the american people that know that joe biden has supported left wing radicals who support defunding the police. there's a recent poll in new york. new yorkers were asked if crime is a, quote, very serious problem. three out of four new yorkers say it is. this is the most in 20-year history of taking a poll and asking that question. so, crime is the worst now, in the minds of the people who live there, in new york city, over the last 20 years.

two-thirds of all voters say they disapprove of joe biden on the issue of crime. biden's numbers are in the tank anyway. 40% of americans disapprove of what he is doing. we're headed in the wrong direction under democrat leadership in the senate, house, and white house. specifically in the area of crime, as well as inflation, the border and others, joe biden's numbers drop even further. two-thirds of all americans disapprove of joe biden on the issue of crime. while joe biden was in new york, he didn't say a word about the radical new district, alvin bragg. district attorney bragg is another radical left wing prosecutor. what does that mean? well, it's interesting. i'll get to that in a second. but who would support this district attorney? oh, one of his top supporters was election was the majority leader of the united states

senate. when district attorney -- on district attorney bragg's first day in office, first day, he told the whole world he would not prosecute certain crimes. he didn't care if they were on the books or not, he wasn't going to prosecute them. in other words, the district attorney said he single-handedly was going to legalize certain crimes in new york city. he told every criminal in new york that they could commit crimes, not be prosecuted, go home free. these crimes include trespassing, prostitution, and even resisting arrest. imagine being a police officer in new york city where you know people aren't going to be prosecuted for resisting arrest. knowing resisting arrest was legal, according to the district attorney. it's no wonder so many officers are quitting, so many have retired, and why it's almost

impossible to recruit. mr. president, we know what's causing today's democrat crime wave -- too few police, too many criminals walking free, too few consequences for the criminals in democrat cities and states. all of these are the result of democrat, liberal policies. these are policies that american people have continued to reject and reject again today. the american people want the law to be enforced. they want prosecutors and judges who follow the law as written. the american people are sick and tired of democrats coddling criminals. the american people support the police. it's long past time for the democrats to reverse course. it's time to reverse these

reckless democrat policies before this democrat crime wave gets even worse. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from ohio is recognized. mr. brown: thank you, mr. president. i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: thank you, mr. president. the presiding officer from maryland was in a committee with me today and heard from the president's council -- national council on economic advisers, and talked about the economy, acknowledging that inflation,

that they spend every day worrying about inflation, what we do to combat inflation, everything from we see the huge access -- excess profits in the shipping industries, among drug companies, food service companies, especially the meat packers, but also supermarket chains and oil companies, and a big part of inflation we need to combat is because these companies understand they can raise prices, because they don't have much competition. we see executive compensation continue to rise, sometimes to stratospheric levels, while who bears the burden? the burden is middle class and lower-income families in places like baltimore, cleveland, places like western maryland and southeast ohio. we know what we need to do. we also know, from our work in this committee, that the federal reserve's job is to make sure that -- they're the prince pal group in washington and the

government to combat inflation, the federal reserve. it has three vacancies, and has two other nominees that are acting federal reserve governors. and we need to confirm them. five nominations came in front of our committee last tuesday, five nominations. gause because of -- because of peculiar senate rules, went couldn't act because one of the republicans boycotted. even though sarah bloom raskin answered 189 questions, questions in the committee, 189 written questions, from -- majority from republicans, she answered all of them in 48 hours, she got even more questions. she's met with everybody, every senator of either party, on commit, off the committee that want to meet with her. she's done everything that they ask of her. yet they don't like her answers. they don't like that she

believes that the government's got to deal with climate change. they don't like that she's going to stand up to wall street. instead of just going to the committee, doing their job, voting against her, they boycotted the committee so we couldn't vote on the nom thaition -- nomination. so five jobs, five governors of the federal reserve just sit in limbo because republicans aren't doing their jobs. you come here, you vote yes or you vote no. you don't vote i'm not going to show up because i don't like this. i'm going to boycott this meeting. it simply says that republicans have been awol in the fight against inflation, because we need these fed governors in place, we need them fighting against inflation. for republicans to just say sorry, we're not going to go, is simply bailing out and not doing their job. they're being awol in combatting inflation. it's wrong for our country, wrong for our economy. and we in the majority put workers at the center of our economy, workers at the center of our economic policy.

we will continue to. republicans need to show up and just show up and do their jobs. vote no if you want, but show up and do your jobs. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. grassley: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from iowa is recognized. mr. grassley: i ask the calling of the quorum be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. the senator from iowa is recognized. mr. grassley: thank you, sir. mr. president, i was surprised to learn that facebook recently

flagged a news article that i posted on my facebook pages as, quote-unquote, false information. the article i poachessed was about -- i posted was about new durham investigation allegations against hillary clinton's campaign and its associates. the article clearly cited a federal court filing and a former congressional investigator with a deep understanding of the democrats' work to concoct the bogus russia collusion narrative that divided our nation for years. this wouldn't be an issue today if more journalists did their job of being the police of our society and governmental system and reported on all investigations, not just ones that appeal to certain political parties.

what kind of a message does this censorship send to a reporter who does take on the new allegations against the clinton campaign and its associates and then it is labeled disinformation? i don't think that that's going to encourage more journalists to cover this issue. it's truly mind blowing that these companies continue to interfere in free expression. big tech is silencing everyone they disagree with and clearly they see no check to their power. the article i cited, i cited to in my post was on foxnews.com, a mainstream news organization.

why does facebook and one of its third-party fact-checkers, partners they are, get to make the decision that this news article is considered false information? that decision should be made by the american people who should be able to view that content and decide that fact for themselves. it shouldn't be decided by our big tech overlords who seem to only find fault with content that is conservative or goes against the liberal narrative. these are the same outlets that will allowed information relating to the steele dossier to run wild and very free yet censored hunter biden's news

articles during 2020 election. now they're doing the bidding for the clinton camp. why are they so afraid of reporting that exposes the russia whole conclusion hoax? silencing or chilling free speech and the back-and-forth discussions of ideas is entirely wrong. increasingly, we see the tag, quote, unquote, misinformation or, quote, unquote, disinformation given to content that the liberal mainstream media simply disagrees with or goes against their chosen narrative. finding and seeking the truth should not be about silencing voices but allowing robust

discourse. it's time that we examine the section 230 immunity that has enabled these companies to avoid any liability. we must stop these companies from arbitrarily deciding what speech is acceptable for this free country we live in. it has become increasingly clear that these dominant platforms controlling discussion and dialogue are more beholden to cancel culture and not to the fundamentals of free speech principles that this country was founded upon. these big tech companies have few competitors and are immune from liability. these companies are unaccountable to their cust customers, the courts, and the government. if not for their monopoly power

and section 230 immunity, these companies might not be involved in the actions and censorship that we see today. as a united states senator and someone who has been vocally outspoken about my concerns with censorship on online platforms, i'll continue to do everything in my power to prevent the censorship of speech and ideas on behalf of my constituents in iowa and of course on all americans. simply put, we deserve better than woke monopolists and their liberal lap dogs deciding what we can discuss. i yield the floor.

mr. sullivan: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from alaska is recognized. mr. sullivan: mr. president, i rise today to urge my colleagues -- i think they're all going to do this -- to support senate bill 3614. that is the united states russian federation seafood reciprocity act of 2022, a bill -- pretty simple bill, mr. president that will require reciprocity between russia and the united states of america as it relates to our seafood industry and seafood trade. now, let me give you a little bit of background on this because it actually relates to what's going on in the world today. all eyes are currently on the russian aggression towards ukraine right now and for good reason. we've seen the stories that the dictator authoritarian vladimir

putin is going to invade ukraine. i think every one of us hopes that doesn't happen, but it's looking like it may. but, mr. president, what's less talked about is the last time there was an invasion by russia of ukraine, what ended up happening in terms of sanctions and in particular american seafood sanctions and the ramifications of the last russian invasion of ukraine. here's what actually happened. in 2014 when putin invaded the crimea peninsula and eastern ukraine, president obama put sanctions on russia. now, i wasn't here as a senator then, but i supported that. russia then retaliated in terms

of sanctions in 2014. and here's one of the things they did. they banned all seafood exports from america, whether it's alaska, massachusetts, into russia. so that was about nine years ago, mr. president. that ban still exists today. let me repeat this. if you're a big fisherman in massachusetts or the great state of alaska, as the senator from massachusetts knows, we both have thousands of great fishermen, you cannot export one fish to russia. nine years of a ban. and guess what? the united states let's russia seafood into america almost duty free. let me repeat that. a ban on russian exports -- i'm

sorry. american exports to russia, nine-year blockade. not one massachusetts fisherman or alaska fisherman can export his great american seafood product to russia. russia gets to import russian seafood into america duty free. that is called unfair by any measure, by any measure. and it's certainly unfair to the great fishermen of my state as well as the fishermen of massachusetts. mr. president, i've talked about alaska fishermen for as long as i've been a senator. about 66% of all seafood harvested in the united states comes from the great state of alaska. so we're big exporters. what's happened, though, in this regard, as we export, we,

alaskans, fishermen from massachusetts, as we export seafood around the world, we've not been able to export anything in that market, the russian market, for nine years. and at the same time the value of russian seafood imported into the united states -- surprise -- has skyrocketed because there's no tariff on it. skyrocketed 173% since 2013. that was the year before the embargo was imposed. again directly competing against american seafood producers, american fishermen. as a matter of fact, the russians are actually starting to steal market share from american fishermen, whether massachusetts or alaska. and we're talking hundreds of millions of dollars, mr.

president. this is unfair by anybody's definition. so my bill is very simple. like we need in all trade around the world, we just need straight up reciprocity. right now we can't export a thing to russia and they export their fish to america duty free. so the bill's simple. it just says until we can export into the russian market, they shouldn't be able to export into our market. i can't imagine any u.s. senator objecting to this. it's called reciprocity. it's called fairness. and it's righting a wrong that's been in the works for nine years now, whether you're a fishermen in massachusetts or a fishermen -- or a fisherman in alaska. so, mr. president, i've raised this issue with the obama

administration, the trump administration, now the biden administration. still waiting on reciprocity. so it's time to act. the united states senate can act. and i'm hopeful that we're going to act on this today. as a matter of fact, i've checked with all my republican colleagues, and every single one of them is supportive of basic reciprocity for fisherman. so, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the finance committee be discharged from further consideration of senate 3614 and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. further, i ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: is there objection?

a senator: reserving the right to object. the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. mr. markey: thank you, madam president. and i just want to say at this juncture that i sincerely respect the senator from alaska's concerns about the russian seafood imports. i believe it's unfair. i believe it's improper that russia has banned american seafood imports since 2014. so i agree with you. and alaska and massachusetts are the two fishing giants of the united states of america. we are. however, i have heard from seafood processors in my home state with concerns about potential sudden effects of a new immediate ban on imports on their workforce, including hundreds of union workers in the seafood processing industry.

that would be right now. so with that in mind, i'm going to object to passage of this bill at this time, but i would say to my friend from alaska that i would invite a collaboration on this subject because i think we can resolve it so that it benefits not just alaska which is very important but also massachusetts and every other state. and again, i think we can in fact bring all the stakeholders together, do it very briefly, maybe over this break that we're about to begin here in the senate. i'm very grateful to the senator from alaska for raising this very important issue. and i want to ensure him and all of the alaska fishing industry that we want to have conversations that protect the

american seafood industry and its workers. and i want to partner with him towards that goal and maybe just use the next ten days or so to accomplish that goal. so at this point i would object, madam president, to the motion. the presiding officer: is there -- the senator from alaska. mr. sullivan: madam president madam president, i appreciate my friend, senator markey, on his offer to work through this. he and i have worked together on a number of issues, actually a number of issues particularly related to america's fishermen. as he mentioned, massachusetts has a lot of fishermen. i have tens of thousands of my fellow alaskans involved in the industry. and again i think he and i certainly agree with this concept. i think every u.s. senator agrees with the concept of basic fairness in trade, basic

fairness in terms of reciprocity in trade, all trade, but especially the seafood trade. we've had nine years, madam president, of no reciprocity from russia, putin, the thug. we shouldn't have to take it anymore and it's hurting my constituents. now, my understanding of the issue raised by senator markey is that it's primarily russian pollock that is imported into massachusetts, and, as you know, senator markey, in alaska we have a huge amount of fishermen engaged in that fishery, so maybe what we should look at is make sure massachusetts workers are actually processing american, alaskan pollock, not

the authoritarian pollock in russia. and that would be a fair way to resolve this. but i appreciate the offer to work together on this. but i will tell you, we need to work quickly because it's been nine years of nonrecy pro-cal seafood trade. i'm also certain that massachusetts fishermen who once exported to russia have been hurt by this seafood blockade as well as my fishermen, and i take senator markey's offer and suggestion in good faith. hopefully we can work over the work period in the next couple weeks, get to a result on this. alaskans will supply massachusetts workers pollock or cod or whatever you're processing, and then we bring reciprocity in terms of trade which currently does not exist

between russia and the united states, and it's wrong and it's unfair, and it needs to be fixed by us, and it needs to be fixed by the biden administration as well. it had a threaded now.

about wouldn't heat up. did you have in mount, things like that . it just crossed the line from the billion use to military use. >> here's broadly what that 1994 assault weapons ban covered. it focused on 18 specific firearms within certain models. ar 15's and ak-47s.

in certain military features. it's got a limit on high-capacity magazines . it was in effect from 2004. those who owned the weapons were grandfathered in here's the key point tim kessler. it expired in 2004 and why was there an expiration link written into that law? >> no one wanted an expiration. there is a key number and how do you get to 50 percent +1 " and as the bill went on, what compromises could you make in order to get to that threshold and like i said, leading up to that vote we just never did when it counts. we never had the number of votes to pass until the very day of the vote and one of

the final compromises was it will sunset in 10 years. this is what i think it was. well, this is going to be so popular no one will ever repeal it, no one will ever let go . will move on. >> i want you to expand on that a little bit but i want to offer up our phones for our colors . 2027 48,001 four republicans, 202-748-8000 four democrats and all others 202 748 2002. jim kessler executive vice president of policy at third way and as jim mentioned, he was the legislative and policy director for then representative chuck schumer in 1994. jim kessler, let's take you back to some of the floor debate of 1994. from chuck schumer and i'd like to get your reaction to what he said then and how much of that name may ring true today.

chuck schumer. >> mister speaker, we have heard more factually inaccurate words in the last four minutes then we heard in a long time.i submit for the record a statement from the fbi director supporting the bill. put out on august 10. i submit ... you may laugh but you know why you're laughing. that is because every time, every time this bill

key part of america's diplomacy. ms. taylor certainly understands that. i'm confident she'll work to lead our partners and allies

towards a more more prosperous future ground the in respect for human dignity. there is interest in ensuring that the united states stands up and battles for human rights around the world. hehe-- for example, on the finae committee, senator brown, crapo, and i have put a lot of hours in in recent years to address the scourge of poverty. this is just one of the human rights atrocities that our country must stand up to forcefully. the senate must show that our concern for these issues is more than just idle talk. that's why the senate must not delay the nominations of highly qualified individuals like ms. michelle taylor who are up for consideration in key roles advancing human rights. now, there is a matter of the sensitivity of the time, madam president, as well.

the regular session of the u.n. human rights council begins on february 28, which is obviously just days away. it's essential in my view that we confirm our representative now. delaying ms. taylor's confirmation simply hinders the united states' ability to advocate for american values and help vulnerable people who are suffering under abuse and oppression around the world. moving this nomination forward is an opportunity for the senate to show this chamber's commitment to advancing human rights is in fact more than just talk. there's a deadline, a specific concrete deadline of february 28 that's bearing down on the chamber. there simply is no more time to delay on this important nomination. we await a colleague who would like to have a chance to be heard on this, to consider it.

i do hope that we can work this out here in the afternoon. hopefully the senate will wrap up business this afternoon because this really is time sensitive. members talk about matters that actually may be coming up. this one is upon us. i do hope that we will be able to clear ms. michele taylor to serve as the united states representative to the u.n. human rights council with the rank of ambassador before the close of business today. thank you, madam president. madam president, i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

>> that's all i have to say. >> in particular what's its views ? >> i classify us as an interline organization and we look for public policy areas. whether you like it or not we're stuck with it. in this country we have to pass laws and keep people safe. but there isn't going to be a repeal of the second amendment. not in my lifetime. on gums though, it the gentleman from new jersey is correct. we have a murder problem and violent crime problem in this country because we have a gun problemin this country . a lot of drawn statistics anybody can look at.

there is a huge proliferation right now in the last few years of people going out and buying guns like we've never seen before in this country. so in 2005 2006 each of those years , typical years the americans bought 8 million firearms. in 2019, and in 2020 and in 2021 americans bought almost 40 million firearms in each of those years. so there is really right now an explosion in the purchasing of firearms and we're also seeing particularly on the state level a listening of gun laws such that people can quote unquote defend themselves to stand your ground laws in ways they could never defend themselves before using a firearm. so we are heading towards more incidents of gun violence and gun crime and gun carnage in my view

because of the huge increase in purchasing of guns. and the loosening of laws not just to purchase them but how you can use them. >> i want to get your thoughts on the sandy hook case that was just settled. headline from foxbusiness is the sandy hook lawsuit gun manufacturer remington reach a settlement with victims families remington agreed to pay $73 million settlement to victims families although one of our viewers says this. the 73 million came from the insurance companies, not remington . that's the main reason they settled. insurance company doesn'tcare . jim, what do you think that decision is, is there a precedent there?for this cause cause on the part of gun manufacturers? >> i hope so. i was surprised, pleased and surprised by that decision. so there was a law that congress passed in 2005.it was the, it's pl aa or

something lawful, protection of lawful commerce act. i'm getting the name wrong. along that passed in 2005 that basically prevented virtually any lawsuits against the gun industry to succeed. it passed on a bipartisan basis. it's in my view one of the most reprehensible laws congress passed in my lifetime. a special protection to the gun industry and it was seen that there would be almost impossible to sue a gun manufacturer. this may have turned out that on its head. too early to tell. one of the comments on twitter that it was the insurance companies that did it. you know, that gives me some applause. i want to look at that more carefully if you had a gun industry that felt in any way culpable for what was

happening with the use of their product, you would see changes in their product that would be beneficial for this country. >> i point out from that report to a right the company said the lawsuit should have been dismissed out of a federal law, the one you're talking about that gives broad immunity to the gun industry but the connecticut supreme courtruled remington could be sued under state law over how marketed the rifle . thegovernment appealed to the supreme court and supreme court declined to hear the case . >> that could be a way around it using the state statutes and that would be a way to do it. just on this topic, the reason why that law was passed to protect the gun industry is that the plaintiffs were starting to make the same case against gun manufacturers and gun dealers that the plaintiffs were making against the

tobacco industry. and those lawsuits against the tobacco industry radically changed the way cigarettes were sold and marketed and the gun industry was wary that these lawsuits were going to radically change the way guns would be manufactured and marketed and sold as well. and congress went in and basically cut the legs out of all these lawsuits. >> let's go to darlene in las vegas, good morning. >> morning mister scanlon, hope you're both well today. there are over 40,000 gun laws on the books in the united states and nobody seems to give a darn about enforcing them. instead they want to come up with new policies, new laws when they can't be bothered to deal with thelaws on the books. and as far as gun manufacturers being sued , my goodness. we don't get to sue automakers because people drive drunk. because people use a 3000 pounds vehicle and run through innocent bystanders

on the las vegas strip. i mean, it's absolutely ridiculous. let's build faster and quicker cars so that we can race down the road and see how many people we smacked, hit, run over. excuse me, sue the gun industry. a gun in and of itself is no danger to anyone. it's the intent behind the user. but i'm old, i've been a licensed gun owner the last 32 years. >> let me first talk about the 40,000 gun laws. most of those gun laws are laws to make it easier to buy and sell and transfer weapons to use the guns. most of those laws aren't laws that are enforceable. let's just go to the lawsuits situation for a second. you can sue the automobile industry and is one of the

reason we have airbags and also safetyfeatures . here's an example of why lawsuits against the gun industry if they were allowed could be beneficial. every gun begins as a legal product and then someof into the illegal market . the caller we just talked to has had a gun for 32 years. there are particular gun stores that are the source of thousands and thousands of guns that and up being used in a crime. maybe that is just happenstance. well, people who happen to be going into those doors, that's what's happening. or maybe they are wink and a nod selling lots of firearms to people whothey know are tracking them on the black . every gun manufacturer knows which store is selling which

gun. that is a fact . if gun manufacturers the way we made drug manufacturers aware of what was happening with the legal product of opioids and how certain doctors were disturbing them, if they were made responsible legally for knowing which distributors, which gun stores were the stores for the lion's share of the guns were being trafficked and used incrimes they would alter their procedures . they would feel they would have to alter their procedures to crack down on it, on their law enforcement. not sell guns to them. they don't because there's no culpability and accountability and responsibility anywhere in the chain. >> the report from your organization from thirdly

last fall, title of the report was the crime of the crime narrative. some of the bullet points from that report say contrary to the media narrative crime decrease in 2020, spike in homicide issues is unique to homicide issues and there appears to be no difference in crime trends between states that enacted police reforms and those that did not. we talked a bit this morning about the rise in violent crime across the country. what do you describe that rise to. and how concerned should we be about? >> we don't know all the 2021 numbers so we don't know if violent crime has increased for not .

the murder numbers are generally pretty reliable and we are continuing to see some spike in murderers. it's very concerning. other crimes, car thefts, a lot of other crimes don't seem to be going up. we will know a little bit more on that probably in the months ahead. here's another statistic. homicides, the homicide rate is 40 percent higher in states that voted for donald trump then states that voted for joe biden and the homicide rates in many republican states have have actually been higher than in democratic states. so there's a narrative that the cities like new york and los angeles and san francisco, chicago and in the case of chicago it's true but the crime rates in those braces and the murder rates in those places are actually far less than lots of other

arts ofthe country . the point of our report isn't that we should be concerned about crime, we should. there is a narrative that is developing that it is happening in certain places because of certain policies generally quote unquote liberal democratic policies . and that just really isn't the case if you look out there. you look at a place like jacksonville florida . republican mayor, republican governor . voted for republican in the last elections. that has a murder rate higher than new york city and los angeles and sanfrancisco . and most other cities in america. so i feel that the crime mean that we're seeing, the stories we're seeing in the press are focused on particular places and i have a political angle to them

that is designed to benefit one party, not to enlighten policymakers to get to the right answer . >> your call to everett and grand junction colorado, republican line . >> good morning gentlemen and i like to talk about the assault rifle or assault weapon definition first. and then i got another something to read for you and it's short. this is the definition by the us army and selective fire rifle chamber first, cartridge of intermediate power and basically an assault rifle are capable of automatic fire. that's a november 14, 2018 definition. also, i'm just going to read this thing that i have pasted onthe wall because i am a gun owner but it reminds me of something . it says it wasn't a gun, it wasn't a bomb, and it wasn't a machete, it was a truck like the lady said before.

in two or three minutes mode down 84 people that are dead including 10 children. and the final sentence there is it says do you understand now?, it's not the weapon, it's the ideology. >> okay. any comments? >> i don't think anybody's saying we shouldn't rent out trucks and cars. but we really do have an entire system that is designed to put some safety measures and you need a drivers license for example to get a car. you need to have it registered, that sort of thing. i'm not saying every gun thereneeds to be a license or registration for it . but let's just realize that

most of the world is, most of america is under pretty commonsense regulations and then guns get a very radical exception.the other thing is this. we have a murder problem in this country that only a handful of other countries have. places like brazil. it's the guns. i am not a ban all guns and repeal the second amendment person. but you know, i do have eyes. i can see in front ofme . we have a massive gun crime problem in the united states that is completely unique to the united states. to say there's nothing we can do on the gun from, on regulations, on some laws is, i just think it's simple

rigid thinking. >> aquestion from mark on twitter. he says what is the percentage of violent crime done with a legally purchased weapon ? >> that's not ... the answer is in db is the question. it is manufactured legally, it's been distributed to a gun store legally and generally from that gun store it is sold legally through a background check . and then most of those guns stay legal. then some drift to the black market. the statistics are out of date but it was from a report i had done years ago. if youlook at the guns used in crime in new york city , 90 percent of the crimes, of

the guns used in those crimes were brought in another state . well, bringing a gun over state lines is illegal. so what that means is 90 percent of the guns used in crime in new york city were somehow trafficked to the city. where did they come from? most of them came from five states. georgia, florida, north carolina, virginia. there's a firearm freeway in which people buy guns in states the laws are much more lax, they put 80 or 100 of them in their car. they drive them up to places like new york and philadelphia and boston along the east coast in chicago they come from indiana and mississippi so they are gun trafficking routes and those guns get sold often for cash or for drugs in exchange. they go back and forth.

that illegal market is really one of the places where you would want to do crackdowns. we don't have a gun trafficking statute in the united states. gun trafficking just like as the previous caller, an assault weapon that the term of art. it's not a term of law. there is no federal gun traffickingstatutes . it's almost impossible to go after those people, buying 100 guns in georgia, selling that in new york city on the streets. >> host: we have maria from atlanta on the democratsline . >> good morning c-span family. i'd like to say he said the second amendment is not going anywhere. that's one of the problems. itneeds to go somewhere. because the forefathers wrote it doesn't make it right . they blame your environment, your family. it has nothing to do with it.

america has a love of guns just like the man from new jersey and until you get rid of those you will be talking about this for years to come. there's nothing politicians can dountil you get rid of guns . the reason there's crime in america is america has a love or guns. we can argue until you get rid of guns, thank you. >> to mike in akron ohio, independent line . >> good morning c-span. i have two comments.first about the second amendment. i believe our forefathers were well-intentioned but the only word that is wrong with that is the last word. the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. i believe it's to be abolished.the right to bear arms shall not be abolished because all our rights have been affected including the first amendment. second of all, the nra was started in 1871 by general

burnside. he was a union general in the civil war, not a confederate general, union general in the civil war. he served in nra as a organization about the safety , the scientific use of firearms. it's not about gun rights, it was more about gun safety, that's what the nra was about. i believe the civil war is proof positive that you can't really, in today's world have an insurrection because general sherman went through georgia like a knife through butter. i'm sure the good people in georgia have the same kind of armaments that sherman had . they couldn't even slowing down. the best way cannot be attacked by the government is people who will not turn against their own citizens . >> another view of the nra from a personal twitter pact between the gop and nra was a slot of money for political

power. this is a disaster for the general population especially after half of it was. articles finalizes the red by the gop . it's always aboutthe money and we don't matter . your response. >> both on that and the caller, the nra was a different group many years ago. there was a two within the nra in the 1970s and it became very radicalized and then continue to get more radical than other winter groups grew out of it. gun owners of america and a few others that are even more radical and then to compete for membership which is what the nra really needs, membership. like a lot of what we've seen in politics. it has become a more radical organization. even from the point where it was too far gone to begin with. look, it is a powerful

organization. i've fought the nra for 30 years. they mostly win. they are you know, they have

itself. the c.c.p.'s mantra can best be described at when at all costs, and its reckless actions paint an alarming picture for the united states and our allies. for everything from national security to economic policy, there's a clear and urgent need to re -- reorient our way of

thinking. despite what has -- despite the partisanship that has happened here, this is one area we have broad bipartisan agreement. our colleagues understand the threats imposed by the c.c.p. so the senate took a major step forward by passing the u.s. innovation and competition act. this bipartisan bill was the result of intense bipartisan negotiations with our friend senator young from indiana leading negotiations on our side of the aisle. this legislation addresses a range of issues to help the united states reduce its reliance on china and to counter looming threats from the communist party. without question, the cornerstone of usica, as it's

called, is created by the funding for chips act which i introduced with the senator from virginia, senator warner, in 2020, and nearly every senator in this body has supported. semiconductor chips, which we all had to learn a lot more about are everywhere from cell phones to cars to agricultural equipment to missile defense systems. despite our need for a strong supply of these semiconductor chips, we overwhelmingly rely on other countries, most of them in in asia to produce them. taiwan alone produces 63% of the advanced semiconductors in the world. if for some reason our supply of these semiconductors was cut off as a result of a natural disaster or another pandemic or military conflict, it would lead to very serious consequences for both our national security as well as our economy.

when we talk about the need to address threats to our supply chain and threats coming from the people's republic of china, semiconductors are front and center. now, usica provided the chips program with $52 billion to bolster domestic semiconductor manufacturing and to secure this vulnerable supply chain. this legislation passed the senate last summer by a vote of 68-32, which is an incredible bipartisan accomplishment these days. unfortunately, the house of representatives refused to act on this bipartisan bill. they said they wanted to pass their own version, which they have every right to do, of course, but they also should have been working at it diligently and acted quickly. the china communist party simply

isn't sitting around waiting on house democrats to get their act together. so it took eight months before the house of representatives passed a bill aimed at competition with china, but unfortunately they chose to go the easy way, which is to pass strictly a partisan bill, which virtually no republican supported. instead of narrowing -- mirroring the bipartisan process here in the senate, democrats only negotiated among themselves and excluded representation from that process. democratic committee chairman refumessed to consult with their republican ranking members, and they ran off with a pen and crafted a partisan and unserious bill. sure, this legislation does include a few bipartisan measures, like chips funding, as well as a proposal i led with senator casey, the senator from pennsylvania, to review limited

outbound investments in china, but house democrats don't deserve a lot of credit for including a few bipartisan bills that they already support. they kept some of the overwhelmingly partisan pieces of usica and tacked on a laundry list of unrelated and controversial provisions. the house-passed bill sends a whopping $8 billion to a un climate slush fund, which has provided more than 100 million dollars to china alone. so, if the purpose of this effort to counter threats from china, it doesn't exactly accomplish that goal when we end up sending money to china. democrats also added provisions in the house related to immigration, from creating new types of visas to removing green card caps. now, immigration's a serious and important issue, but they can't

expect to see the light of day being haphazardly tacked onto this legislation. they need to be debated and marked up by the appropriate legislative committees and negotiated r. well, in true fashion, house democrats added a range of handouts to their political supporters, especially labor unions, from massive slush funds to burdensome new labor requirements. unions would win big with the house bill. the labor bosses apparently were promised some pretty big benefits, and the democrats -- in the democrats' reckless tax-and-spending spree bill. since that bill is now dead and buried, it looks like this was their way to try to apiece their political supporters. as we've learned over the last year, our colleagues in the house can't seem to resist any opportunity to sneak in ridiculous partisan pet projects. their bill would also establish

a coral reef task force. you heard me correctly, a coral reef task force. it puts $6 million towards a national coral reef management fellowship. believe it or not, the term coral reef is mentioned more than 300 times in the house bill. no wonder it took them so long to put the bill together. of course, it's not just what's in this will that's a -- in this bill that's a problem, it's what was left out. the bill's trade title, which was one of the most important parts of what the senate did, champion by the senator from idaho, the ranking member of the finance committee, senator crapo, but the house trade bill is entirety inadequate. it extends and expands trade adjustment assistance, which is normally something we do when we approve of a trade deal, like the usmca, the u.s.-mexico-canada agreement. but they left out the most important part, which was trade

promotion authority. we know trade promotion authority is absolutely critical to brokering strong trade agreements without extraordinary delays. and what the house did by including trade adjustment assistance without trade promotion authority does nothing to advance our goals to open up markets to american-made goods and services as in agriculture. well, the house bill also fails to push for a digital trade agreement and identify countries like the people's republic of china that use censorship as a way to limit access to our tech industry. and it doesn't narrow relief from tariffs for businesses experiencing severe economic harm, that has broad bipartisan support. so it's not surprise that the house bill was passed almost entirely along party lines, unlike the bipartisan

legislation here in the senate, the house bill is an unserious attempt to help america compete with china. it just simply doesn't cut the mustard. house democrats wasted about eight months while they waited and waited and waited before even acting in this totally inadequate manner. and there's no chance, of course, the senate will pass anything that resembles the house bill. but we do need legislation to confront growing threats from china, but we need to do it correctly. so, that means what we need is a formal conference committee between the house and the senate and to ensure ultimately that the final product looks a whole lot like the senate bill, which passed, as i said, with strong bipartisan support. this is really nothing to be toyed with. this is a matter of national and economic security and something far too important for partisan

jockeying, such as demonstrated by the house of representatives in their totally inadequate and unserious piece of legislation. madam president, i yield the floor. mr. moran: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from kansas is recognized. mr. moran madam president, thank you very much. we're about, many of us, to return home to our states and visit with constituents in person, and that's a common practice for me. i can indicate to my colleagues in the senate that the

conversations, they're wide-ranging at home, but certainly if there's a theme it's the result, consequences that americans and kansans are feeling in regard to inflation. the things at the grocery store, the price at the pump, rent, all the things are rising and people are struggling to pay the bills, and things are being left out of what someone can afford in their budget because everything costs more. kansas is an energy-producing state. we certainly are an agricultural state. i would tell you, when i talk to farmers and ranchers, commodity prices have gone up. one might think that's something that would be very beneficial to farmers, but this inflation has raised the price of everything that they purchase to create the crops that feed us across america and around the world. one of the components, one of the reasons inflation is rising

so rapidly is energy costs. even for my farmers, fertilizer is made from foss fates and -- foss nates and -- phosph ates and natural gasses. diesel fuel in tractors and trucks, and our ability to provide that food for the world is hampered because we're going to lose money when we grow crops, even though they may bring a higher price than they did just a few months ago. so many components of what we purchase in this country, and one of the reasons things are, costs are rising is because of the price of oil and gas. i am confused by the policies that many in this body promote. at the same time, they are asking for relief at the pump. and yet, time and time again, what policies, what legislation, what conversations here, what actions are taken, particularly by democrats, is to reduce the

supply of oil and natural gas. it makes no sense to me when the policy -- in fact, how can it make sense for people to propose to eliminate the tax on gas? i suppose their interest is in making gas more expensive is to try to reduce the use of oil and natural gas fossil fuels. on the other hand, if they lower the tax on gas, it would be to lower the price, which is to encourage the ability to purchase. president biden asked the russians to increase their production in order to alleviate the price at the pump in the united states. we've been talking to europe about how we're going to help them solve their natural gas shortage, should we have a crisis in ukraine and natural gas can no longer be imported from russia and we're working to provide more natural gas. we should be doing everything in our country to increase the

supply. the definition of inflation is so, i think, pretty basic. it's too few goods being chased by the same amount of dollars. even this week in the banking committee, the conversation over the last month has been about whether or not the federal reserve, which has no ability, no legal ability, no purpose in setting the price of gas and oil, and they would do so by trying to restrict loans by financial institutions to oil and gas energy producers, at the same time that they're supposed to be combatting inflation. so, it seems to me, on one hand, and on the other hand, and they don't make any sense. they're not logical. in so many instances, hypocritical. we want to have an energy policy that is to produce more. i'm an all-of-the-above energy, but the policies of this country in which we see trying to

eliminate oil and natural gas, fossil fuels, at a time in which the cost at the pump, the cost in agriculture, the cost at the grocery store is rising. we should be focused on trying to make certain that americans can afford to live in this country. we will not achieve that by trying to eliminate or reduce the supply of natural gas and oil. mr. president, i will be talking to my constituents about this issue as i return home this week, and i wish that we could have a coherent conversation, discussion, and policy development. we need to produce more. the days in which we became energy independent in the last administration were ones in which we felt a sense of relief, a sense of safety and security, and i long for the days in which we are able to recognize that our national security, our economics are benefited, benefited by a strong oil and

gas industry, meeting the needs of americans and taking care of ourselves at home and providing greater national security as we deal with crises around the world. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. sullivan: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. mr. sullivan: mr. president, i want to commend my colleague and friend from kansas. he said it eloquently. the administration's policies, with i are anti-energy, they're driving up energy prices on working families, and it's national security suicide to un unilaterally disarm energy when putin uses energy as a weapon. we all know that. some of the window dressing on these bills lately from my democratic senate colleagues are just that, window dressing. we all need to go to the white house, say get your act together, mr. president, your team, produce more american energies. that's what we all need. it will help with national security. to my colleague from kansas, thank you very much. we come from states that produce

energy, and these are great american workers too, by the way, who sometimes get maligned because they produce energy. imagine that. mr. president, i want to move on to my favorite time of the week. it's thursday. so i usually come down on the senate floor and talk about the alaskan of the week. we all believe our states are the best. each loves to brag about their own state. that's great. it's what makes our country competitive. a little competition in the senate. but i happen to speak the truth when i talk about alaska is the best state, and it's because of the people. so mr. president, i'm going to talk a little bit about doug kyle, who is today's alaskan of the week. i always like to start -- you know, the pages enjoy the speech a lot. we get to talk a little bit about alaska, the adventures, what's happening in the great state of alaska. i'll give a little update on that. on january 22, that was the

polar night in nutiavak, alaska. that's the northernmost town in all of north america. what happened on january 22 is that polar night, as they call it there, finally ended. that's 65 days of darkness. on january 22, the sun crept a little bit over the horizon, briefly, like a long-lost friend, the community gathered to say hello to the sun. it's been cold up north, a cold winter, about 20 below today. it's been relatively balmy in anchorage, where our alaskan of the week lives. warm enough to be sleeting right now. in all weather, all around the state, people are getting out, gathering, enjoying the sun. it stays in our skies a little longer each day. they're dogsledding, training for the iditarod.

snow machining, playing hockey, skiing, snowboarding. so many winter sports, mr. president. we are are a state full of chock full of winter athletes, great athletes, above our weight in terms of the winter olympics. many alaskans are compete now in beijing as we speak. and we're rooting for all of them. of course, we're rooting for all of america's athletes. and we're also preparing to root for the amazing athletes who will be competing in the paraolympics also in beijing starting march 4. again many alaskans will be there competing, cross-country skier, a former alaskan of the week alum, gold medal paraolympian andrew kirka. and he will be competing in beijing again in the sit ski events. now, i'm mentioning all this,

mr. president, because our alaskan of the week doug kyle says every one of these athletes, both in the olympics and paraolympics, and all of our amateur athletes across the state are there because of athletes who have gone before them. and i think that's true. and paving that path, of course, has been all the more challenging for america's paraolympian athletes. but it's a path that doug, our alaskan of the week, has really paved. for alaska, for america, a deep one, and he's done it through grit and pain and determination. mr. president, in 1980 doug kyle brought home two gold medals from the 1980 paraolympic games in norway. that was the second ever paraolympic games. he was the first american male to bring home gold in those

games, and he spent the next 30-plus years building not only the structures and the organizations but importantly, the culture in alaska and in america to make sure other athletes with disabilities could come after him. so let me tell you a little bit about our alaskan of the week doug kyle. doug was born in beirut, lebanon. his parents don and margaret who went by midge were adventuresome. from new york they were on a four years overseas trip. don, the father, teaching high school physics and midge working at the united nations at the palestinian refugee camps. when they had doug, the oldest of what would be five children, four girls and doug. now, i know one of the girls, mr. president, really well, carrie, doug's sister, who works as part of my team in anchorage

doing constituent case work. she recently hit the milestone of helping successfully 2,000 different alaskans. carrie, great job. you are amazing. just as amazing as your brother doug. so her success rate off the charts. i see it every day. now, when doug and carrie's family came back to america, they moved to alaska. don -- don's brother, so that's the dad, don lived in anchorage, built houses and don helped him for a while. eventually don the father, doug's father, got a senior job with the federal aviation administration. doug, our alaskan of the week, was an active kid. he loved sports, mostly baseball and skiing. his plan was to follow in his father's footsteps, go to springfield college in

massachusetts. he wanted to be a physical education teacher and to play baseball. but he had some tragedy. when doug was 15 he took a trip to juneau to visit a school friend, and on august 28 in 1968, he and his friend were exploring an old gold mine in juneau. doug got struck by 24,000 volts of electricity. 24,000 volts of electricity. in the p process he lost an arm and lost a leg. as we can all expect, the next few years were very difficult ones for doug and his family. as he said when you get hit by 24,000 volts of electricity, it messes you up physically and mentally my whole world was gone. mr. president, talk about grit, determination. he spent about two years in the

hospital and his dreams he thought had died. to make it all the more difficult, his father had to move the family to the d.c. area for a job with the f.a.a. when doug was just a sophomore in high school still learning ho you to use an artificial arm and artificial leg, but the family stuck together. they had faith and they pulled through. back in alaska, though, something remarkable happened. at this point doug hadn't tried to ski again but he thought those days were over, without an arm, without a leg. but someone in their church told his parents about a program in colorado, in winter park, colorado, where they were training athletes to ski with disabilities. the first day he was there doug

went to winter park, coincided with the first day of what was then called the national hand scap championships -- handicap championships. doug said, quote, i saw amazing athletes. i saw men and women who had come back, many disabled veterans from vietnam. i saw them skiing and it opened up my eyes to a completely different world. mr. president, doug was inspired in many ways by our disabled vietnam veterans who helped train him, helped inspire him, and he came back to alaska and trained in this area and went back to winter park in 1977 to race in the nationals and did so again in 1975 -- 1979, both of which qualified him for the 1980

paraolympics. along with two gold medals from those olympics, he brought a mission back to alaska starting a ski program for people with physical disabilities. he said that at the time skiing was amazing. it would, quote, give him a feeling of motion. it was like running again. it can be fluid when it feels good up through your body. your body smiles and when your body smiles, you smile. he wanted others to have that experience. in the 1980's, mr. president, of course alaska had mountains and snow and landscape begging to be played in but did not have a culture that encouraged people with disabilities to be part of those winter activities. doug explained to a reporter in 1908 that as a one-legged skier, he was an anomaly in alaska.

he said, quote, i've been skiing there for five years by myself in alaska. someone withabilities. and they -- with disabilities. they see me coming down the slopes and they say what the heck is that. he said people just weren't seeing it in 1980. and this is where the story moves from one individual to thousands. doug and a handful of others got busy, mr. president. they formed a nonprofit called challenge alaska and they hit the road. doug who had a full time job in cable still made the time for starting this great organization challenge alaska. they got people out on the slopes. they trained them. they gathered all the adaptive equipment they could get their hands on and they dug in. mr. president, 40 years later with an expanded mission now including outdoor activities,

including summer activities, kayaking, cycling, wheelchair frisbee, fishing, camping, so much more, challenge alaska started by doug keil has helped over a thousand people in alaska get out into alaska's great outdoors in winter and summer. some of the most incredible athletes you have ever met started their careers in athletics with challenge alaska. mr. president, just two weekends ago my wife, julie, and i had the opportunity to attend challenge alaska's 40th anniversary gala dinner. now, i know a lot of my colleagues here, we go out to a lot of events when we're back home. this was one of the most inspiring events i have attended in a long, long time. julie and i got to sit with the

current executive director of challenge alaska, nate, his wife leah, daughter anna, his parents jim and laurie, his grandmother adeline. there were amazing speeches. one young man named ryan johnson, a recent high school graduate with seer bral palsy spoke. incredible. wasn't a dry eye in the house. and of course, mr. president, doug was there. doug was there. the founder challenge alaska 40 years of work and he was honored for this great life's achievement. and then 1980 article i mentioned earlier that i talked about when he was talking about skiing on the slopes alone as someone with one leg, he said that if he could have a plaque that said he was instrumental in starting a program to help other people with disabilities in

alaska to learn to enjoy the outdoors, skiing, winter, summer, he'd be a happy man. that was 40 years ago, mr. president, when he said take. well, he should be happy. he's done that and so much more. thousands of people have been positively impacted by what he's done. and here's another remarkable thing. his inspiration went far beyond alaska. it has literally touched the globe. he tells a story about how in the 1990's 13 people with disabilities from japan came to ski with and learn from the people in challenge alaska. doug was working and -- working at challenge alaska. he unfortunately wasn't able to ski with our japanese visitors but when they were leaving town, he met them at the airport to say goodbye. one of them who was also missing

an arm and a leg from a construction accident stepped forward and through an interpreter told doug that after his accident he thought about taking his own life. then this young japanese man said to doug, he saw a documentary about doug, and he said to doug, quote, i vowed that i would learn to ski and i would come to alaska to ski with challenge alaska. thank you, doug, for saving my life. that's pretty powerful stuff, mr. president, right there. one person in japan whose life was saved by doug keil and all the great people at challenge alaska. so doug, thank you for saving lives. thank you for your inspiration to so many. thank you for what you've done

for alaska, for challenge alaska, for the state, for the country, for paralympian athletes who we're going to watch and cheer on in a couple of weeks and congratulations for being our alaskan of the week. i yield the floor.

there classes and the opportunity to read what they write and the bar swelled and when they find something useful. then they skip but there are two sides so we have had to know and then he can write about and then we go through it again that is a traditional role for the academy. they have other roles, to. so i'm glad when they write that and the americans can get everybody together and figure out the transitory and you could

have a case but in any case, that cycle is important. >> the book you've written, addressing the change in our global environment to explore the court involves international issues in one chapter talks about the diplomat and engaged in exchanges around the world. would you like to talk about the role in that respect and rule of law and national community? >> the main i don't know, i think it is the useful thing to do, you don't have to convince the judge of the rule of law is

court. sure they think that. your lawyers make their living out of a, two. this is the chief justice, produce a better legal system. rule of law is what the book is about, why? why do people do it she say? it's a very long set of answers time and 200 years and all kinds of things that happen sure that's what i think is important and when you meet judges and other countries, it's helpful because it means you know each other and sometimes they will write something useful, more often night not far sometimes. the same kind of document we

have more and more the same kinds of problems, we'll have to follow it sometimes. i put some examples in their but i think the main thing, even if you never for step foot outside, still the world has changed and will change more. what i mean by that? i put this in their, a student in thailand starting at cornell and he discovered physics or whatever it was published in bangkok at a lower price in england. a lot lower. he wrote to his parents and said this. the publisher got a little

annoyed and sued him and the question was whether or not he could bring copies into the united states at a lower price and sell them. i forget the answer, that's not the important thing. the important thing is very complicated and get what seemed like a technical thing, a bunch of things like this from all over the place, i didn't understand why and then i found what i thought was the answer and in effect it said you realize your answer is going to affect $3 trillion worth. that is the world today if it

doesn't just go away. we had a very interesting case where we are absolutely seeing eye to eye about security and could have gone new york for the result of what he thought was shares in a company, even australia, over the australian stock exchange, that company bought the company in miami and the plaintiff exaggerated the value and set our security is covid. in writing that, i'm not sure but i had to read some of the older cases and they had been decided that case. he would have done it alone and

he did but what we have today what he wouldn't have had 30 years ago is we had briefs through the eu and australia, we had briefs from all over the place, mostly sending by security administrators who said leave us alone. we are trying to enforce disclosure laws because even in our country we don't interfere. you will cause more trouble than you think and what does that reflect? you can find cases in security and commerce and diseases, all over the place.

where it useful, not absolutely required but very useful to know what's happening outside our own found. so be careful, what i would like to think is when you decide, judge, even in a civil liberty case think of your decision as setting the principle that might be followed in belgium by other charges and try to get all worked out. south africa's have to file a brief as they did. in a case where a civil liberty group was doing, a company doing business in south africa. south africa files a brief --

mandela. they said stay out of it, we have a system whole truth and reconciliation we do not believe ports in the state of new york are going to contribute to what we are trying to do. now that is the world we are in and it will become more, it's worth at least thinking about these problems when cases reflect this. >> a number of foreign countries have court systems separating the constitutional function from the statutory function, separate constitution in court. what is your view on back? >> i don't think it would be good for us. i think the more our supreme court's or other courts are

involved in what i call the day-to-day commercial law and other kinds of law good. we understand we are not in a constitutional universe that has to more or less work out in ways that involve both and typical statutory. >> maybe we can turn to your most recent book, the authority of the court and the politics and part of the same for book is our steps to the court and the public can take to ensure there are boundaries and i think the five factors the court can exercise to better secure

democratic values, i think you begin with this job, would you like to expand on back? >> what i want to show here, the difficult time politically in terms of people disagreeing with each other, i want those willing to read this, understand the rule of law is the important thing and helps keep the country together and it isn't something -- say it and it happens. 150 years and they go back to the example, it's a very long complicated.

you have to convince the people. it's in their interest sometimes generally. decisions they don't like. by the way, it might be wrong. why is that a good thing to do? there is a. right now that is largely difficult. difficult to get people, what can we do about that? i say the main thing is you do your job. fast for my father used to tell me. the second one is do your job and the first one is stay on the

payroll. [laughter] you do try and the others are sort of tried to work out differences but sometimes there helpful. outside the court it's even more and others, it's why i like the chance to talk to them. it's up to you, listen. you don't like what they are saying? go talk to them. you know? don't sit there and mope. you debtor that i know how it works, you better know what constitute it and you better know how congress does work and

your state legislature city council and board of education and supreme court, learn something, 12th grade civics and why it isn't taught everywhere -- bout two weeks ago i was surprised to read in an article as part of the american rescue plan there was this $30 million program that would be sending drug par far-left -- drug par far-left kneela to people. and the administration came out and said that's not true, we're not going to use it for that. we're not going to send out crack pipes or meth pipes to anyone. they wrote a letter to a fellow senator here in that regard. i said, well, let's make sure. let's file a bill, language that just makes it clear that we're not going to sending drug

parafanila-like that taxpayers are not going to pay for that. i was surprised by the response. and the letter they wrote to senator blush, you see what -- senator blackburn, you see what the problem is here. they don't plan to send a crack pipe, they are sending a math piece, which is a straw-looking thing that you attach to the crack pipe. so the pipe will have to be shared by the addicts, but they will each have their own little tube that they can attach to smoke it. i just don't think that the federal government should be paying for that. i think most people would agree and be surprised. the things that you discover when you file these thiks and work on -- things and work on

it, and they said this is what we will do, and said we will not agree to it if it includes that device that attaches to it. so apparently they don't want to send out crack pipes, but they do want to send out the tubes that attach to the crack pipes, so that those who are addicted to crack or other illicit drugs you smoke can be consumed safely, as if there is a safe way to smoke meth or crack. i want this bill to pass. i don't know why anybody could possibly object to it, unless you believe you should be sending out a tube which attaches to a crack pipe to smoke and that can be removed to allow multiple people to use the same pipe, and that's the loophole they want, that's what they want to change this bill to send out.

there's no fancy word for it. it's crazy. this is insane. this is the kind of insanity that people read about and say this can't be true. it is true. it's worse than i thought. that's why i'm hoping we can pass this today. apparently there will be an objection. i ask unanimous consent that the committee of health, education, labor and pensions be discharged from further consideration of senate 3632 and that the senate proceed to its immediate consideration and the rubio amendment at the desk be considered and agreed to and read add thrd time and passed -- a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. leahy: mr. president, reserving the right to object, and i think my friend from florida knows i will. the ten tire issue is a misnomer. there have been a few online

things to try to make a big deal out of it and i'm sorry that some have fallen for it. the biden administration released a letter this week clarifying the misunderstanding. they stated they never authorized use of federal funding for pipes. the bill the senator from florida is proposing would go further than republicans say it would. it would severely cripple our ability to respond to addiction, which is taking 100,000 lives a year right now, including lives in his state and mine. we offered an alternative. that was rejected. we actually have to go to the c.r. now. the house is gone, we have to pass it a c.r. and send it to the president without amendments. our government funding runs out. and i might just say, let's -- i

mean, everybody has a right to speak about anything they want, anybody has a right to make any kind of political point for any group they want. but let's talk about u.s. senators. a war is about to start in ukraine in all likelihood. and what we're saying is we will start pull putting all these things -- start putting all of these things, so the government will have to shut down tomorrow night and we can stand there and putin can say, why should i listen to them? three or four people can go on their senate floor and shut down the government. why should i listen to them? so i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. rubio: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator he from floor -- the senator from florida.

mr. rubio: a couple of things to be clear. this has nothing to do with a continuing resolution. the reason we're not voting on the continuing resolution is there's a lot of people who are not here, that's why i took this opportunity to offer my bill and my observation would be, if vladimir putin is paying attention, he probably has his plans full -- his hands full, why would he be concerned about tubing that would be used for crack and meth? i think he would think it's crazy too. i get it. they are not going to send out pipes. that doesn't make me feel better because they are going to send out with the money of the american taxpayer, they can going to send out tubing which is attached to a crack pipe and can be removed so each person, multiple people can use a pipe

but use a different tube to attach to it. i don't think the american people should have to pay with it and that's what h.h.s. admitted they will do. i didn't think this would be controversial. but apparently it is so here we are. mr. leahy: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: the suggestion is made that people aren't here to vote. let's bring up the continuing resolution. let's vote it up or down, let's say that the rest of the world, including russia, the most powerful nation on earth can stay open or a few senators can say, no, golly, we've got to get something on television. we ought to close down the government. the senator from florida is welcomed to bring up his bill sometime in the regular order. let's not slow things down. let's vote on the continuing resolution, let's show the united states of america and the rest of the world that we can

stay open and that we are not afraid sty open -- stay open. we will stay open and we all -- i think we can probably say unanimously, i would hope, oppose what russia apparently is planning to do in ukraine. the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from indiana. the senate's in a quorum call. mr. braun: would you please lift the quorum call? the presiding officer: without objection. mr. braun: thank you. over the next couple of hours we're going to have another c.r. vote and get votes on amendments. when i came to the senate three years ago, a little over that, one of my main goals i always respected the senator from oklahoma, dr. tom coburn. i first saw him when he was actually on one of the shows talking about the same subject that i harp on all the time. the difference is by standards

of indebtedness, we had no real worries other than he was one that could see into the future. i come from the world of running a business, was on a school board, state legislature. you couldn't get by with what we get by with here. you had a budgeting process when i was a state legislature, you took it through -- legislator, you took it through committees, you brought in witnesses, and you fleshed it out and maybe you wouldn't need money. you did the hard work of rolling up your sleeves, which hoosiers appreciated. you know it has given us back in the state of indiana? the highest credit rating you can have as a state. it's given us rainy day funds.

when covid-19 came along, we could have gotten by without a dollar from the federal government. that's what happensn you live your everyday life with responsibility, just like every american has to, just like you have to do in any other level of government. think about running a business. imagine, up until the recent spending spree, we were only borrowing roughly 23% of every dollar that we spend here. this isn't on tangible investments. this is on consumption. there's nothing to show for it. a lot of the things we do, a lot of things that people look to us to do, we need, but we're doing a disservice to our kids and our grandkids, by the way, who we're actually borrowing the money from, web we run the -- when we run the biggest business in the world by the seat of its pants. i'm going to tell you just

generally how this all plays out four and a half years, we're going to completely go through the medicare trust fund. by the way, healthcare expenses, based upon a broken healthcare industry that is not transparent, does not deliver the consumer good value, something that all of us that own businesses other than a healthcare business have to grapple with every year. they need to reform themselves, and that would bring medicare and medicaid into where wasn't costing us so much. but still then, even if you save there, we'd probably find a way to spend the savings. we're currently basically the only reserve currency. that's what keeps our interest rates so low. historically, they've been three to four times what they are now. and you cannot run now probably

close to $1.5 trillion deficits, on to the $30 trillion we're already in debt, and think that that is a good business plan for the biggest business in the world. so, especially for the folks on the other side of the aisle, but i'm going to stay we've been complicit as republicans. we roll over to gich them what they want -- to give them what they want on domestic spending. they do the same on defense spending, which i think is probably the most important thing we do. and all of a sudden, everybody's happy. it's called bipartisan, but it's not honest to the american public. so here we're going to do what we've within doing for years -- been doing for years. we're going to vote on a c.r. later. but if we're ever going to get this place back in good shape, we've got to have the political will, the discipline to get back to budgeting, to not spend

beyond our means, because someday we may not be the reserve currency, and after we go through the medicare trust fund, which we'll probably replenish by borrowing more money, social security depletes in about 11 years. i say that because nobody here talks about it, and it wouldn't be that difficult to solve it. in the real world, you make the tough decisions, you get through it, and you're better off for it when you get that behind you. so, i'm going to leave it there this evening. i'm going to ask all of my colleagues to please vote on a balanced budget amendment that makes it so easy that it just says your resolution that you bring up each year, you you've got to do it, you've got to do it on time, has to balance the budget in ten years. that means gives a lot more latitude than what i really thought was necessary, but i

also want to make it to where every one of us can say yes to a balanced budget amendment like this because we owe it to our kids and our grandkids. i yield the floor.

mr. leahy: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar number 267 h.r. 6617, the only amendments be the lee amendment, number 4929, braun amendment, number 4930, cruz amendment, number 4927, that at 5:15:00 p.m. the senate vote in relation to the amendment in the order listed, that upon disposition of the cruz amendment, the bill be

considered read a third time, the senate vote on passage of the bill as as amended, if amended, with 60 affirmative for adoption of the braun amendment and passage of the bill and that there be two minutes for debate equally divided in the usual form prior to each vote, all without further intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. leahy: that's my request, mr. president. the presiding officer: is there

objection? without objection. under the previous order, the senate will proceed to the consideration of h.r. 6617, which the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 267, h.r. 6617, an act making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year ending september purposes. the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. lee: i call my amendment 4929 and ask that it be reported by number. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the amendment by number. the clerk: the senator from utah, mr. lee, for himself and mr. marshall, proposes an amendment, number 4929. mr. lee: mr. president, vaccine mandates are morley wrong and they're wildly unpopular. millions of americans are still required by this federal mandate to be vaccinated or lose their jobs.

the people's elected lawmakers here in congress haven't instituted these mandates. no, there's no federal law putting them in place. president biden and his bureaucrats are just treading deeply into the personal medical choices of americans without an act of congress authorizing them to do so. now, congress has the chance to make these millions of voices across america be heard. that is, after all, our job, our sole job, to make federal law, to give voice to those who elected us. we can state clearly, boldy, decisively today that federal vaccine mandates do not belong in the united states of america. we can stand for millions of vulnerable americans who just want to go to work so that they have the chance simply to put food on the table for their

families. that's not too much to ask. the pandemic is waning, and it's waning just as our economic problems are just beginning. if we want to control the high price of everything, the lack of availability that comes with the related supply-chain crisis, and keep the american economy moving, we must stand against these illegal, immoral, unconstitutional mandates. look, the american people are sick and tired of the federal government micromanaging every minute detail of their lives. they're exhausted from the mandates and from the bureaucrats who they didn't vote for and never could vote for and never would vote for. the brave men and women of our military, the federal workers, the federal contractors, people who work for federal

contractors, even a subdivision of a federal contractor that doesn't actually provide any federal contract work, along with medical professionals. all these workers across every part of our great land, who are sucked up into this mandate. they all deserve better than pink slips and boots out the door, simply for making their own medical choices. so, mr. president, i implore my colleagues, with all the urgency i'm capable of communicating, to stand up for american workers, stand up for our economy, stand up for freedom, and vote to withhold funding from these unconstitutional mandates. it's quite significant that the very first clause of the very first section of the very first

article of the constitution says that all legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in the congress of the united states, which shall consist of a senate and a house of representatives. it matters that this clause comes first, before everything else. and the reason it matters is because it's there to remind us something. the most dangerous power within our federal government is not with the judiciary, not with the executive branch, it's right here, within this branch, because we have the power to prescribe law. we have the power within the federal government to prescribe what the law says and people are to do. that's why the founding fathers were careful not to entrust it with any other branch of government, other than this one. not because those who would occupy this position would be any wiser, brighter, inherently more cautious than anyone else, except in one critical respect. this is the branch of the

federal government most accountable to the people at the most regular intervals. you can fire every member of the house every two years. you can fire one-third of us every two years. we are the branch that's accountable, and that's why we've been given the most dangerous power within government, the power to make federal law. how, then, does this relate to illegal, unconstitutional, immoral and wildly unpopular vaccine mandates? well, it matters because that's a exercise of federal law. it's an exercise of federal law that congress never enacted. within the executive branch is a authority they don't have, based on a contrivance, butchered, manipulated text that doesn't tell people they've got to choose between getting an unwanted medical procedure and unemployed -- unemployment, unemployment in a context it's likely to lead to

unemployability. and indeed, it was designed to do that. we know that because those who put these policies in place have told us as much. look, everybody's been through a lot in the last two years. democrats, republicans alike. this virus has been no respecter of persons, of red states and of blue states. just the same, mr. president, the american people understand that we're ready to move on. we're read why to not have government dictating every aspect of our lives. covid is no excuse for a government to do something that is categorically immoral. it's no excuse to do something that we all know is wrong. we would never justify anyone in rendering a threat against their friend, their neighbor, their employee, that if you don't bow, if you don't defer to presidential medical orthodoxy, i'm going to make you lose your job and make it impossible for

you to put bread on the table for your children. no sane, moral, decent person would do that. we must not allow that to do that. we must never allow the executive branch of government to exercise authority they don't have, because we didn't give it to them, and they could never have it because the constitution doesn't alo you it. we've got the chance right now to bring together red states and blue states alike. because remember, it's not red states anymore that are ditching these kinds of draconian measures within their state governments. no, it's blue states left and right. michigan, new york, new jersey, illinois. many, many more blue states are joining the number of red states that have made this decision. enough is enough. it's time for us to live our lives. i encourage my colleagues to vote yes on my amendment number 4929 and let america work again. thank you, mr. president. mr. schumer: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new york. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous

consent that the order of the votes be as follows. lee, cruz, braun, upon disposition of the braun amendment the senate vote on passage of the bill with all previous provisions remaining in effect. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. cruz: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cruz: i call up my amendment number 4927 and ask it be reported by number. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the amendment by number. the clerk: the senator from texas mr. cruz proposes an amendment numbered 4927. mr. cruz: mr. president, i rise today to speak in opposition to the abuse of power we have seen with vaccine mandates. let me say i emphatically support senator lee's amendment about which he just spoke.

president biden's vaccine mandates are illegal. they have in a significant part been struck down by the u.s. supreme court, and they are abusive. when this pandemic began senators on both sides of the aisle gave passionate speeches about the heroes in our society, about the doctors and nurses risking their lives to keep us safe. well now under this vaccine mandate, democrats are firing doctors and nurses and then complaining that we have a shortage of doctors and nurses. we've heard speeches about the heroes of our military men and women which they undoubtedly are heroes, and yet under president biden's illegal vaccine mandates, this administration is preparing to fire soldiers and sailors and airmen and marines. this administration is preparing to fire navy seals who spent decades training and fighting to defend this nation, but because

they will not submit to an arbitrary and illegal mandate, democrats are preparing to fire them. we've heard members from both sides of the aisle give speeches about police officers and firefighters, the here rose -- the heroes of 9/11 who on that tragic day ran into the building while it was on fire instead of out of the building while it's on fire. and yet under these illegal vaccine mandates, democrats are firing police officers and firefighters. we're seeing airline flights canceled all over the country and yet under these illegal vaccine mandates, airline pilots and flight attendants and mechanics and ticket agents are being fired from their jobs. mr. president, typically when i fly back and forth to houston, i fly either united airlines or

southwest. united, the company has an arbitrary policy where they are firing or putting on involuntary or unpaid leave any employees who refuse to get the vaccine. united has differed from other airlines in that regard. they've done so because they want to curry favor with the biden white house because united's c.e.o. believes making democrats at 1600 pennsylvania avenue happy is somehow in its best interest. mr. president, withoutestage ration, every single time -- without exaggeration, every single time i board a united plane, a pilot, a flight attendant, a ticket agent pulls me aside and says thank you, thank you for standing up and fighting for my rights. why the heck won't my c.e.o. fight for my rights? we're seeing blue state governors, blue state mayors who

realize that firing american heroes and forcing people to make health care decisions against their wishes is bad politics. we're seeing blue state governors and blue state mayors backing down and yet i fear we will see blue state democrats in the senate, many of whom are not on the ballot, two-thirds of whom are not on the ballot this november believing they could arbitrarily ignore the will of the people. just yesterday the people of san francisco bright blue, left-wing san fan voted out three members of the school board over their arbitrary and tyrannical policies that shut down schools for a year. the vote was nearly 80% to throw them out. i would note, by the way, their defense is everyone voting against them was a white supremacist. these were closet republicans, they said, in san francisco. san francisco voted 85% for joe

biden, but apparently they're a bunch of closet republicans there. my democratic colleagues are ignoring the will of the people and giving in to extreme partisan positions on covid. any democrat particularly any democrat on the ballot in november ought to look to san francisco, ought to look to the virginia governor's race, ought to look to the new jersey governor's race and realize the democratic party is out of step with the american people. senator lee's amendment repeals the illegal and abusive vaccine mandates from president biden. my amendment is focused on an area that people understandably rightly are deeply passionate about, which is stopping the vaccine mandates on children. we have seen jurisdictions all over the country impose vaccine mandates and say to parents if you want your child to go to

school, either give the child the vaccine or you can't send your kid to school. that is an absolute abuse of power. mr. president, the choice of the health care your kid gets ought to be the choice of the parents. if you want to vaccinate your children, that ought to be your choice. you ought to have the right, but we are seeing arrogant blue state democrats across the country say to moms and dads, i don't care what your views are. indeed the democratic candidate for governor in virginia said quite brazenly parents should have no say in what's taught to their kids. and by the way, this is applying to children as young as five years old. we are right now in the district of columbia. if a member of congress has children in the schools in d.c., the district of columbia is mandating you must vaccinate

your 5-year-old whether you want to or not. mr. president, that is wrong. my amendment is very simple. it cuts off federal funds for any institution that forces a vaccine mandate on kids. there are nearly 81 million kids in america whose rights are in jeopardy. the arrogance of these petty authoritarians in a time of crisis character is revealed and we're seeing petty authoritarians who say mom, you don't have a right to decide whether or not your 5-year-old, your 6-year-old, your 7-year-old will get this vaccine. who the heck do they think they are? i repeat, if you want to vaccinate your kids, that's your right and you should do so. but these petty tyrants have no

right to force parents to vaccinate children with a new and untested vaccine. let me be clear. i'm vaccinated. i'm pro-vaccine but i believe in individual choice. if you want to be vaccinated, fantastic. but it ought to be your choice in consultation with your doctor. and if you have kids, you ought to talk to your doctor and say hey, doc, what does the evidence show about the impact on kids? and you ought to have a real and candid conversation with your doctor, not some political bureaucrat in washington, d.c. or in the state capitol or in city hall. these mandates are wrong. they're wrong in every capacity but especially as it concerns kids. i say to the petty tyrants, the same people, by the way, who

shut down schools for a year -- i mentioned a second ago the san francisco school board. one of the school board members voted out by nearly 80% of the voters in san francisco, she said -- and i mentioned this -- the people voting against me, the people that want to open schools are white supremacists. mr. president, the millions of kids who have been hurt by school closures will be academically behind for the rest of their lives. and that harm has fallen disproportionately on low-income kids. it's fallen disproportionately on african american kids. it's fallen disproportionately on hispanic kids. and we've got a bunch of rich white liberals saying to low-income minority kids, well, tough luck, you don't get to go to school. mind you, many of those rich white liberals can afford to send their kids to private schools so their kids keep getting educated.

but the low-income kids, they're out of luck. and in this alice in wonderland world we live in, arrogant leftists say if you want schools open, if you want african american kids and hispanic kids to be able to go to school and learn to read, learn to write, and learn math and history and science and art, and climb the economic ladder and have a chansz at the american dream -- chance at the american dream, if you want minority kids have a chance to succeed, you're a white supremacist. mr. president, anyone listening to those words understands why the american people are angry. i pray in just a few minutes the senate does the right thing and rangal thing. these votes in any sane world should be 100-0. we should stand for people's individual rights, individual liberties. we should stand against petty tyrants trampling on our rights. in just a few minutes, we will see where every senator in this

body stands. i pray that we stand with the people. i yield the floor. mrs. murray: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: mr. president, i rise to speak against the lee amendment which le be voting on in just -- lee amendment which we will be voting on in just a minute. we're working on our economic and working to end a pandemic that has killed over 900,000 people. so why are a few senate republicans once again risking a government shutdown and creating problems rather than trying to work with us on the ones that our country already faces. this is not the first time i've had to point out to a handful of senate republicans that shutting down the government in the middle of a pandemic is a bad idea. it should be obvious but here i am once again because my colleagues are here once again pretending the biggest threat to our nation is not the virus but

instead it's vaccines and tests and masks that have helped actually save lives. this makes about as much sense as blaming the rescue crew for a shipwreck and threatening to sink that lifeboat unless they don't stop helping. we all want this pandemic to end. we want our schools to stay open safely. and we want people to be able to go to work safely and go about their lives like before. we are making real progress towards the goal of putting this pandemic behind us. one way to continue this progress is to do what the vast majority of senators, democrat and republican, are prepared to do. vote to keep the government open so we can work together on funding the nation's priorities through regular order. mr. president, i urge all of my colleagues to vote against this completely unnecessary amendment against a government shutdown and for common sense. thank you. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president?

i rise to speak in opposition to senator cruz's amendment 4927. mr. kaine: everyone in this body who attended school in the united states had to get vaccines to attend school. measles, mumps, rubella, polio, chicken pox. everyone in this body who has sent a child to school in the united states had to make sure that they got their children vaccinated. and is that because of a big federal mandate? no. all 51 states, utah, texas, new york, maine, washington, rhode island, wisconsin, virginia embrace their own vaccine mandates, all 51. there's some variations. iowa doesn't mandate a mumps vaccine. virginia mandates a human pamplona virus vaccine but we leave it up to local school boards and state superintendents of instruction to decide if a

vaccine is warranted. this is unprecedented in this body. an effort by the federal government to force local school boards and state superintendents of instruction to not have a vaccine mandate at the cost of taking money away from the students and the teachers and the parents. in virginia parents very strongly support vaccination of children. why would we not listen to parents? why would we not listen to the local school boards who are hearing from parents about this? i urge my colleagues to reject a massive federal overreach that would disempower school boards and states and take funding away from their children's education. please vote no on the cruz amendment.

mr. lee: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. lee: mr. president, the american people do not want a federal vaccine mandate. the american people just want to be able to go about doing their jobs. they want to be able to go to work. they don't want to be told by somebody who lacks the authority that they've got to choose between an unwanted medical procedure on the one hand and on the other hand losing their ability to put bread on the table. it's not just illegal, it's not just immoral, it's wrong. we know it's wrong and we know it's time to end this. please vote yes on my amendment. mr. kaine: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from virginia. mr. kaine: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that all remaining time be yielded back before the lee and cruz amendment votes and that the senate now vote in relation to the lee amendment. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. under the previous order, the question occurs on amendment number 4929 offered by the

senator from utah, mr. lee. the senate will be in order. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

the president pro tempore: on this amendment the yeas are 46. the nays are 47. the amendment is not agreed to. majority leader. mr. schumer: can we have some order please. the president pro tempore: the senate will be in order. majority leader. mr. schumer: mr. president, i think the members will like this announcement. i ask unanimous consent that the remaining votes be ten minutes in duration each. the president pro tempore: is there objection? without objection, so ordered.

under the previous order, the question occurs on amendment number 4927 offered by the senator from texas mr. cruz. the clerk will call -- the yeas and nays have been requested. the clerk will call the roll. is there a sufficient second? there is. the clerk will call the roll. vote : vote:

start vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change his or her vote?

the presiding officer: there will be order, please. on this vote, on this amendment, the yeas are 44, the nays are 49. the amendment is not agreed to. the senator from indiana. mr. braun: i call up my amendment number 4930 and ask that it be reported by number. the presiding officer -- the president pro tempore: the clerk will report the amendment by number. the clerk: the senator from indiana, mr. braun, proposes amendment numbered 4930. the president pro tempore: under the previous order, there will now be two minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to amendment number 4932 offered by the senator from indiana, mr. braun. mr. braun: mr. president. the president pro tempore:

could we've order, please. there's two minutes of debate. let's have order. mr. braun: i came here three years ago with a mission to rein in debt and deficits. i think a few of us actually care -- i think few of us actually care about that here, in my observation. if we did we wouldn't be passing our third short-term funding measure. in a few weeks we'll pass an omnibus bill we'll all say was bipartisan and we'll go on down the road. meanwhile, inflation will be surging ahead at 7%, 8%, highest since 1982. the last time we voted on a balanced budget amendment was in 2011. by the way, both democrats and republicans supported it back then. i'm proposing is very simple, very low threshold. it creates a point of order

against any budget resolution that doesn't reach a balanced budget in ten years. that is so simple. everyone, including the president banging the gavel, ought to be for it for the sake of our kids and our grandkids. the president pro tempore: does anybody yield time in opposition? the senator yields back time and the clerk will call the roll. the question is on the amendment. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the president pro tempore: could we have order, please. could we have order. on this vote the yeas are 47. the nays are 45. under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of the amendment, the amendment is not agreed to. under the previous order, the bill is considered read a third time, there are two minutes of debate equally divided prior to the vote on passage.

the yeas and nays have been requested. without objection, all time is yielded back. there is a request for yeas and nays. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be a sufficient second. the clerk will call the roll. vote: