we've seen that nato is really strong because were in a crisis but that's not really a sustainable solution. >> go ahead. >> -- >> we will break away from the speeding to take you live to the u.s. senate, part of her more than 40 your commitment to bringing you live coverage of congress. the senate is about to gavel back in following a a recess r weekly party caucus lunches. this is live coverage on c-span2. the presiding officer: the senior senator from arkansas. mr. boozman: thank you very much. i have the privilege of being

with my fellow senator tom cotton as we rise today to honor two arkansans who gave their lives in service to others recently. arkansas department of corrections officer sergeant joshua caudell was a member of the department's canine team who responded to a call to assist his fellow law enforcement officers with a disturbance call. during the course of searching for a suspect, sergeant caudell was shot and later died from his injuries. born in little rock and raised in redfield and white hall, sergeant cauderr was a white hall high school graduate of class of 2011. service was something that defined his life. in high school he participated in the school's razi program and served in the army national guard and as a ten-year member of the department of corrections with a variety of units.

he served his family with deep care and devotion. as a loving husband and father, sergeant caudell put his wife and children above all else. she shared a special bond and never left any doubt about how much they meant to each other. his friends described sergeant caudell as a kind, generous person who was a real-life hero. he loved to fish and grill, cheer on his daughter's softball team, ride horses with his fellow department of corrections field officers and support the arkansas razor backs. his sacrifice in the name of protecting the community and enforcing the rule of law will never be forgotten. we are so grateful for his example and willingness to do the tough and dangerous job of ensuring public safety. sadly the natural state lost another first responder in the last few days, west memphis firefighter jason lange. lange was traveling to another

city for an e.m.t. training class when he stopped to provide assistance to others involved in a traffic accident. he was struck by an 18 wheeler while rendering aid. originally from iowa, jason lange was an eagle scout and a volunteer firefighter who was just starting his adult life. we were fortunate that his path brought him to arkansas where he was eager to begin serving the west memphis community. lange was an enthusiastic and promising young man who on day one wanted to be an integral part of the important work that first responders do to help support those in need. he learned that example from his own family with a father who served as a police officer for decades and a brother who's a volunteer firefighter. he may have only been with the west memphis fire department for a few months, but his chief recalled viewing him as a future leader in the organization from the first time that they met.

his heroic and selfless actions will be admired and appreciated for years to come. those who perform such acts do so without regard for their own safety which is the hallmark of public service. so today we're remembering sergeant joshua caudell and firefighter jason lange for what they gave to their respective communities, themselves, totally and unflinchingly. we regret that their actions were necessary but will be forever grateful that these two men did not hesitate to put their own safety aside in the name of protecting and helping others. i join with senator cotton and so many others to share our gratitude and admiration for these heroes as well as our sorrow that they pay the ultimate price in the line of duty. we pray for their loved ones and colleagues as they mourn these fallen guardians who served others to the very end.

mr. cotton: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from arkansas. mr. cotton: today i stand with a heavy heart alongside senator boozman to mourn the deaths of two great arkansans, arkansas department of corrections sergeant joshua caudell and west memphis firefighter jason lang. they both died as they live serving fellow arkansans. like every state arkansas is suffering terribly from the crime wave that has crashed across the country in the past to and a half years. our men and women in law enforcement are on the front line of this crisis fighting against the forces of disorder, ridding our streets of poisonous drugs, facing down evil itself. sadly too many in law enforcement have paid the ultimate price while protecting the innocent and fighting the guilty. last monday another arkansan lost his life as an officer in the line of duty. the other week plasky county

sheriffs deputies were asked to check on a whom who hadn't shown up to work that day. her friends were concerned about her well-being and wanted to make sure she was safe. when deputies arrived at the house, an armed assailant opened fire forcing them to take cover and call backup. the shooter managed to escape and deputies called in canine officers to find the would-be cop killer. one officer assigned to the dangerous job was sergeant joshua caudell. he helped track the shooter to a trailer not far away. tragically unknown to the officers, the shooter was lying in wait underneath the trailer. he once again opened fire on the police this time hitting sergeant caudell and killing him. sergeant caudell was 29 years old. he had a wife and three children. my prayers and senator boozman's prayers reflect the prayers of

all arkansans going out to his family. we can only imagine their heartbreaking pain. the heinous criminal who committed this murder is now in custody. he will face justice, stern, swift, and fair. and he must face sternous justice as soon as possible because an attack on a law enforcement officer is also an attack on the rule of law, on order, on civilization itself. sadly this laying of sergeant caudell was not the only tragedy that befell our state in the last two weeks. on saturday, february 26, 20-year-old west memphis firefighter jason lang was on his way to an e.m.t. class when he saw a stranger thad gotten into a scar -- had gotten into a car accident. exactly as you would expect from such a fine public servant he pulled over and he tried to help

the crash victim. as he was selflessly helping the stranger, jason was tragically struck by an 18 wheeler and killed. jason's death is a heartbreaking loss for our state. when jason saw a fellow arkansan in distress he ran towards the danger. every young boy and girl should aspire to serve their community with the same sense of bravery. today all of arkansas weeps red and blue. my heart and senator boozman's heart goes out to all arkansas firefighters and police officers who do so much for our state each and every day. president ray gone -- reagan said in his first inaugural agrees, those who say we're in a time without heroes just don't know where to look. jason lang and joshua caudell were indeed heroes and we could look to them and we can honor their legacy. god bless them.

god bless their families. and god bless the state of arkansas. i yield the floor.

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. lee: madam president, the united states postal service is in dire trouble. the government accountability office has listed its financial viability as high-risk and it's been in that status since 2009. now, from 2007 until 2020, the postal service had losses of $87 billion and over $188 billion in unfunded liabilities and debt. from october to december of last year alone -- just a few months -- it lost $1.3 billion. i think it's a mistake to rush postal reform now when congress should instead debate and consider the country's response to the ukraine-russia situation. we could be responding to skyrocketing energy prices.

nevertheless, i do very much support dealing with the post office and reforming the post office. we have to do this. unfortunately, this bill falls far short in much more than just its timing. it does nearly nothing to make the postal service solvent. now, i've offered 12 amendments. sadly, my efforts, alopping with those of my -- along with those of my republican colleagues, have been blocked. but i can't just step aside without trying to make the bill better. today i'd like to briefly speak about just two of the 12 amendments i've filed. there's two of them in particular, and i ask that they be called up and voted on. the first strikes a provision in the bill that would require the postal service to, quote, maintain an integrated network for the delivery, close quote, of postal products and would require the disclosure of the rates that the usps charges

private companies for the last-mile delivery of packages. the term integrated network isn't defined in the bill, and it could be easily used to bundle or combine expenses, which would in turn allow the usps to further disguise serious costs and make a proper costs difficult or even impossible. the simple idea of an integrated delivery network may seem benign and the term itself sounds friendly enough, but words do matter. words in context and their meaning, these are things that matter. this particular legislative text, with no clear definition, is ripe for abuse. because the postal service is o deliver to every american, even on unprofitable

routes, the postal service may be charging lower-than-market rates in its service contracts with private companies. this may not only shortchange the postal service, making further taxpayer bailouts likely, but it could also distort competition in the package delivery market. the american people deserves a proper accounting of postal service rates, and my amendment will ensure this disclosure is provided in a fully transparent manner. my second amendment prohibits the postal service from shipping any abortion-inducing drug. chemical bortion -- chemical abortions have four times danger than other abortion,s. in december of 2021, just a few months ago everyone the food and drug administration permanently rescinded a long-standing regulation that required health care professionals to dispense chemical abortion pills to

persons in person allowing they will to be sent in the mail without basic precautions to protect the life and health of the mother. not only does this policy change -- threaten the lives and the health of women, but it raises the disturbing possibility that perpetrators of sexual abuse may be further enabled to hide their crimes from legal authorities and health professionals through mail-order abortion. furthermore, because taxpayer dollars, particularly over the last few years, have funded the postal service's operations, american taxpayer dollars are funding the operation and putting people at risk. congress must ensure that the u.s. government does not encourage or facilitate the use of these dangerous and lethal abortion drugs. i also support the efforts of my many colleagues. senator scott's amendment would alleviate some of the financial

burdens that this bill would impose on taxpayers and the medicare program by forcing the postal service to reimburse medicare for all of the additional costs that would be created by requiring future postal retirees to enroll in medicare. congress and the postal service have historically made bad policy and business decisions, and now instead of fixing those, or meaningfully addressing them, it's simply shifting workers from coverage onto taxpayers more broad lymph the postal service and the american people deserve a thoughtful bill, one that reforms its key challenges, setting is the agency up for long-term success. but without any amendments to change the trajectory, this bill only kicks the can down the road without making the serious changes that are needed today.

and so, madam president, to that end, i ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and call up amendment -- my amendment number 4936. further, i ask that the amendment be reported by number, that there be two minutes of debate equally divided on the amendment, and that the senate then vote on adoption of the amendment, with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. peters: madam president, reserving the right to object -- the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. mr. peters: madam president, the postal service reform act before us here today represents consensus on essential reforms for the united states postal service. -- overdue for over a decade. this legislation will ensure the postal service can provide long-term, reliable, six-day-a-week service across the country and put it on stable financial footing. this amendment changes key service protections in the bill

and adds new, harmful provisions tailored to special interests of postal service competitors. our bill requires the postal service to maintain its current standard of delivery at least six days per week. it is absolutely essential to protect six-day delivery so the postal service can continue serving as a critical lifeline for countless communities who rely on the mail for medications, for rent payments, for critical supplies, for social security checks and so much more. this amendment would change how the postal service operates today. by altering their integrated network that allows mail and packages to be delivered together. this is more efficient for both the postal service and for their customers. instead, this amendment seeks to undermine the postal service's ability to compete against

private carriers who do not have the same requirements to deliver to every single community in the united states of america. the amendment would also force publication of contract information to postal service competitors. this would give away commercially sensitive information to provide private carriers and provide an unfair advantage when the postal regulatory commission already reviews every postal service contract to ensure both compliance as well as fairness. i appreciated senator portman's thoughtful comments against changing the key service protections in this bill, and it's time to pass this bipartisan legislation as drafted and getting it signed into law. madam president, i object. the presiding officer: the objection is heard. mr. lee: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. lee: it's unfortunate we're not able to vote on this.

it's a simple measure, and contrary to the characterization by my friend and the distinguished senator from michigan, this is a simple transparency measure. look, the fact that there are people within the postal service reviewing the contracts doesn't solve the underlying problem. what we want is transparency. what we want to know is that the postal service isn't setting up contracts that are sweetheart deals to some companies, allowing them to be enriched on the backs of the american taxpayer and the consumer who uses the postal service. it's not too much to ask. so it's unfortunate that we can't -- all we want is a vote on that. of we ought to be able to vote on it. makes me wonder, what are they afraid of? what's the postal service afraid of? what's the harm that can come from the american people knowing how these things operate?

what's the harm that can come from striking a provision that's rife with opportunities for abuse? so that's unfortunate. i think we ought to consider that and also another amendment. i ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and call up amendment 4937, the amendment be reported by number, there be two minutes of debate equally divided on the amendment and that the senate then vote on adoption of the amendment, with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. peters: reserving the right to object -- the presiding officer: the the senator from michigan. mr. peters: madam president, this bill is limited to absolutely essential consensus, bipartisan reforms that are necessary to ensure that the postal service can survive and can continue delivering for the american people. everything in this bill has bipartisan agreement. this bill passed the house by a vote of 342-92.

it has broad support from the public, from the business community, and other stakeholders. in contrast, this amendment is inflammatory and unnecessary to the postal bill. it is meant to be a poison pill. it would add abortion-inducing drugs to the list of non-mailable matter under postal law. under current law, the list of non-mailable in the includes items ranging from grenades to explosives to controlled substances and narcotics. however, the postal service is free to mail any f.d.a.-approved drug. -- that are proscribed by health care providers and sent by a pharmacy or doctor. there are no other f.d.a.-approved medications prohibited from being mailed to patients in need.

this amendment is an attack on reproductive rights that would make it more difficult for women and families to safely access critical medical care. and it imposes an unnecessary hardship on women and families who are assessing their care using telemedicine, especially during a pandemic. this amendment simply has no place in a bipartisan postal reform bill, and madam president, i object. the presiding officer: the objection is heard. mr. lee: madam president. the presiding officer: senator from utah. mr. lee: here again, this is an amendment. the senate has to get back to the practice of amending bills. i understand not everybody is inclined to agree on it. i understand that the abortion issue is tough for a lot of people. they don't want to talk about it. but look, till a few months ago these weren't available through the mail system anyway. they still shouldn't be. i believe those who made that decision, to allow that over the last few months, were overlooking the health and

safety concerns that had previously prohibited those things from happening. but regardless, it really is unfortunate that we can't even vote on this. i understand not everybody agrees on the substance of the amendment, but what previously made the senate the world's greatest deliberative legislative body was the ability of any one member to bring up an amendment and have that voted on. i think that's unfortunate. mr. scott: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. scott: i want to thank my colleague, senator lee from utah, for his leadership on these issues, trying to make sure the legislation we pass is legislation that we'll all have the opportunity to participate in. i've been disappointed that i'm on the committee that deals with the postal service and we didn't even have a vote on this. i didn't have any opportunity in the committee to propose and i amendment. doesn't look like i'll have an opportunity here to have my

colleagues vote on an amendment. i don't think that's right. the amendment i'm going to talk about today is cosponsored by senators johnson, grassley, braun, and lankford, and i want to thank them for their support. i absolutely support getting something done to referral the postal service. it ensures it's more accountable to taxpayers. unfortunately, the bill before us doesn't do that. this legislation would add at least $6 billion to new costs to medicare, without any plan to pay for it. $6 billion. no plan to pay for it. at least $5 billion to our federal debt, a debt already surging above $30 trillion. i think we all should say that's unacceptable. this bill doesn't reduce costs. it just shifts them from one unfunded government program to another unfunded government program. let's remember, medicare costs are already skyrocketing. further jeopardizing market is a disservice to the 60 million americans, including the 4.

5 million floridians who rely on it. my amendment would fix this. it would rechoir the postal service to -- require the postal service to pay for any new costs this bill brings. to ensure medicare isn't used like a piggy bank, that the taxpayer isn't paying for the postal service bailout, and the postal service should pay their fair share. madam president, i want to make this next point very clear. my amendment is germane. it deserves a simple majority vote. it deserves a vote. i'm thankful to have the support of groups like 60 plus and the association of mature american citizens that represent the interests of american seniors. i urge my colleagues to support this. madam president, i ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and call up amendment 4933, further that the amendment be reported by number and there be two minutes of debate equally divided on the amendment and the senate vote on the adoption of the amendment with no intervening action or debate.

the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. peters: reserving the right to object. the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. mr. peters: i oppose the scott amendment which would gut the act by nullifying the medicare integration proposal. medicare integration is an absolutely key part of this bipartisan bill to provide long-term financial stability for the postal service. my colleague, senator portman, spoke recently about why these criticisms of medicare integration are simply unfounded this bill simply provides for future postal retirees, who have, may i say, who have already paid into medicare throughout their entire career, to enroll in part b and part d. roughly a quarter of postal retirees do not enroll in market, even though they are eligible. this means the postal service is stuck paying higher premiums.

this bill simply allows the postal service to do what other businesses and employers already do all across our country by integrating these retirees into medicare. this saves the postal service money and saves taxpayer money. this bill reduces the deficit over ten years by nearly 1. $5 billion. c.b.o. has already made clear that the bill does not affect the part a trust fund and will not have any effect on medicare part b or part d premiums. postal workers are already eligible for part a and the number of new postal workers going into part b will be fewer than 40,000 individuals, and that compares to 62 million people currently in the program. the postal service reform act does not harm medicare. it provides savings to the postal service and to taxpayers.

it allows the postal service to survive, regain stable financial footing, and keep delivering for every single american. and we need to stop delaying this bill. we need to pass the bill. madam president, i object. the presiding officer: the objection is heard. mr. scott: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. scott: madam president, researching the -- reserving the right to object. we need to do everything possible to protect america's medicare recipients and stop bankrupting our essential programs. senator johnson has told me repeatedly, he's been asking for years, the postal service says they're putting all this money into medicare. he's added a simple request -- how much money is the postal service paying for medicare, and what are the recipients of the postal service receiving in benefits? no one can ever get that answer, get an answer.

i asked for a c.b.o. score. they said this is going to cost at least $6 billion and it's going to increase our deficit by at least $5 billion. so we're moving -- we have an unfunded program in the postal service, and we're going to move it and hurt our medicare recipients. so my amendment, what i was told that this would not cost medicare anything, my amendment is pretty simple. whatever the incremental costs to medicare are, it should be paid by the postal service. it's the postal service retirees, they ought to pay for it. so i don't understand why we wouldn't want to do this. it's what i was told it was not going to cost anything. by the way, the c.b.o. score that is out there, it already says it's going to increase our deficit and it's going to put our medicare program in worse shape. they can only do it for -- they can only give us numbers for the fir ten years. after ten years, the numbers are

going to be even worse than the numbers i told you about. i don't get, one, why don't we vote in committee? why didn't we have the opportunity to do an amendment there? why don't we have an amendment vote on this on the floor? it's common sense. i would think we want to make sure we don't bankrupt medicare and we all want to make sure if it's going to cost medicare anything, the postal service should pay for it. madam president, i yield the floor.

>> let me start by saying we would be on the -- right now. to get our democratic colleagues to do what i believe the ukrainians need at this particular point. but where we've ended up as $14 billion -- in order to get to $14 billion we had to prevent house democrats from blocking loan guarantees to help eastern nato allies by american aircraft with their own money. which shouldn't have been a problem. the house democrats tried to cut their own administrations request for security at assistance by $300 million. in other words, it's been like

trying to pull teeth. .. mr. durbin: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: madam president, are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: we are not. mr. durbin: late last month president biden announced the nomination of judge ketanji brown jackson to be next associate justice of the supreme court. as i said, the day her nomination was announced, it's hard to think of a better jurist to replace the highly regarded justice stephen breyer. over the past ten days, we've all had a chance to learn about her record, and last week i met with her in my office. i'd like to share what impressed me the most about her. first, her breadth of experience. graduate of harvard law school, she's worked in private legal practice. she served as a federal public defender and served on the

united states sentencing commission. she's clerked at every level of the federal judiciary, for judge patty saris on the district of massachusetts, judge bruce salia on the first circuit, and justice breyer on the supreme court. that's an amazing resume. she went on to serve as a federal district court judge, currently sits on the d.c. circuit, often regarded as the second-highest court in the land. once confirmed, she'll be only the second current supreme court justice with experience as a trial court judge. that means judge jackson will bring to the court insights regarding the issues confronting the district courts every single day and these same questions often make it to the supreme court for final review. second, i was impressed with her character and temperament, they're unimpeachable. during our conversation last

week we spoke about her family, her daughters, her upbringing and the highlights of her career. i particularly enjoyed one story which she has told before about a letter that her daughter wrote to president obama a few years ago. in it, she asked the president to appoint her mother to the supreme court. while it may have taken a bit longer than judge jackson's daughter anticipated, i can only imagine how proud she is today. my conversation with judge jackson also made clear that she has the exact temperament we need on the court. she's personable, humble, approachable. that last attribute is particularly important for a supreme court justice. the supreme court should not be shrouded in secrecy and mystery. its process and its decisions should be clear and easily understood. for the people in the court as well as for the american public. with judge jackson on the court, we can trust that will be true. third, judge jackson is clearly, clearly within the judicial mainstream. she has a record of

evenhandedness and impartiality guided by the constitution, the law, and the facts of the case. she's not a partisan or an idealogue. she's independent in her thinking, and she will maintain the court's proper role. don't take my word for it. judges and lawyers from across the political spectrum have said the same thing. consider the support judge jackson enjoys from david levy, who was appointed by president george h.w. bush to serve on the eastern district of california. he wrote to the coms, and he said a supreme court nominee must be neutral, nonpartisan, exercise self-restraint, model civility and approach each case with an open mind and with a determination to reach as just, wise, and correct a result as possible. and he concluded, based on what i know of judge jackson, i believe she's been that kind of judge and will be that kind of justice. i could not agree more. often i've seen my colleagues on the other side of the aisle and their initial reaction to the

judge, judge jackson, have said i want to know more about her judicial philosophy. certainly they can draw their own conclusions, but i hope they'll read what david levy had to say as well as other conservative jurists. sadly, judge jackson has already been subject to a number of baseless attacks, so let's set the record straight. first, she's drawn criticism for refusing to comment when asked whether the supreme court should remain at its current size. well, judge jackson is exactly right not to offer an opinion. as a nominee to the supreme court and a sitting judge on the d.c. circuit, it would be totally inappropriate for her to opine on a public policy decision that only we can make in congress. indeed, judge jackson's hailing of this question mirrors the approach taken by justice amy barrett when she was nominated to the court. at her hearing when then-judge are barrett was asked about the size of the court, she responded, and i quote justice

barrett, it's a question left open to congress and if there was a specific constitutional question about the court size, she could not opine on it. judge jackson also has faced defensive questions from figures on the far right about her qualifications. this past wednesday, fox news talking head tucker carlson demanded that president biden produce judge jackson's score on the lsat exam. mr. carlson said he wanted to see judge jackson's lsat score to gauge if she was in fact, quote, a once-in-a-generation legal mind. isn't it interesting that mr. tucker carlson never once asked for lsat scores of president trump's nominees to the court, neil gorsuch, brett kavanaugh or amy coney barrett. he never once questioned their qualifications to sit on the court or their academic

credentials. judge jackson graduated magna cum laude from harvard university. not bad. as an undergrad she received a harvard scholarship for academic achievement. let me repeat that -- academic achievement. she served as supervising editor on the harvard law review. mr. carlson, of course, is notorious for his outrageous comments. i don't expect he's going to offer any am polling to judge -- apology to judge jackson, but i would urge all my republican colleagues to disavow his remarks and disassociate themselves from the innuendo. we also continue to hear falses allegations that judge jackson was handpicked by so-called liberal dark money groups. once again, that claim is completely divorced from reality. the truth is this -- president biden undertook a rigorous process to select justice prier's successor, seeking the

advice of a bipartisan group of senators. and after weeks of consideration, he and he alone chose judge jackson. president biden's selection process was deliberative, collaborative and it took seriously the senate's advise and consent role. it did not involve dark money groups. i can't help but note the irony of this line of attack coming from the other side of the aisle. after all, it was president donald trump who bragged, bragged that groups like the federal society and heritage foundation actually drove his selection process for the supreme court. as candidate trump said, and i quote, we're going to have great judges, conservative, all picked by the federalist society, end of quote. trump never at a loss for words, made it very clear where he went to find his nominee. and don mcgahn, the trump's first white house counsel said, i've been a member of the federalist society since law school. still am. so frankly, it seems like it's

been insourced. insourceed was his word. and it's worth adding that republicans, including senator mcconnell, have blocked every single effort to address the presence of hard money in our -- dark money in our political system. we should have full disclosure. i support that. we're ready to vote on the floor later on. the republican side resists. judge jackson faced baseless claims that she's a partisan democrat nominated to rubber stamp the biden agenda. she's even handed and impartial. confirmed by the senate on a bipartisan basis three different times, including last year. if judge jackson were such a partisan, why would so many prominent conservatives be supporting her? the short answer is they wouldn't. but she has that support and plenty of it, including from former republican speaker of the house paul ryan, retired d.c. circuit judge thomasing griffith,ing a george g.w.

appointee. michael luttig, bill burke, a prominent republican attorney who worked in the george w. bush administration. charles freeh who served as solicitor general during the reagan administration, and many more. these conservative jurists and attorneys have endorsed her precisely because she's independent and fair-minded. she will not rubber stamp any president's agenda. these conservative leaders know that. on the court judge jackson will be faithful to the constitution and the rule of law. finally we hear the false allegation that judge jackson will be, quote, soft on crime. look at her life. look at her record. and at the support she now has from the law enforcement community. as judge jackson noted in accepting the president's nomination, she has two uncles and a brother who serve as police officers. one of her uncles was chief of police in miami. on the bench, she's approached each criminal case in a manner that we would ask of every

judge. look at the law, look at the facts. it's not surprising that she's garnered the support of multiple law enforcement groups. this nominee, who is attributed as being soft on crime, has the endorsement of the fraternal order of police. they wrote the following about her -- we are reassured that should she be confirmed, she would approach her future cases with an open mind and treat issues related to law enforcement fairly and justly. wouldn't we all be proud to have that endorsement for our pursuits? superintendent david brown of the chicago police department wrote i have no doubt that if confirmed, judge ketanji brown jackson's appointment will make history by adding a powerful, moderate, informed voice to the highest voice of the land. as senators and the american people continue to learn more about judge jackson and her amazing record, i hope and expect they'll reach the same conclusion that leaders have reached all across america's political spectrum.

judge jackson will be a strong, fair, principled, even handed and impartial supreme court justice. in closing, let me say that we have scheduled the hearings in our judiciary committee to begin on march 21. that's 24 days after president biden announced his nominee. the previous justice nominated for the supreme court c -- amy coney barrett under president trump -- was brought to the committee for a hearing 16 days. so we are certainly within the window and beyond it in producing judge jackson on the 24th day. we are also providing materials that have been requested, including documents from the united states sentencing commission, of which judge jackson was a member. we have produced -- she will produce 12,000 pages of documents that are going to chronicle what happened in the commission while she was serving. they include minutes and the board's discussions of the important issues that were

before us. lucky for all of us, it is a very transparent agency, and they have lived up to that transparency with this disclosure. in the meantime the judge is going to do her best to meet with as many senators as possible. she has prioritized those members of the national judiciary committee on the right and on the left, democrats and republicans, as well as other leaders in the united states senate. she's available, and i'm certain if my colleagues are fair in their appraisal, they will come to the same conclusion that i have come to. she is an excellent choice to be justice breyer's successor on the supreme court. i yield the floor. a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: madam president, over the last few decades, globalization has completely reshaped the international economic order. economies around the world have become interconnected, relying on one another from agricultural

products to energy to manufacturing capabilities. it seemed to be the rule of thumb that whoever could produce a product at the lowest price got the business and the jobs that went along with it. but we're increasingly seeing vulnerabilities that this interdependence creates, with some of the clearest examples surfacing during the covid-19 pandemic. the united states, for example, leans heavily on china for masks, gloves, and gowns, personal protective equipment, and for ventilators, all of which were absolutely necessary during the beginning of the pandemic, and continuing on until today. but for a long time that was not a problem, until covid-19 showed up. i still remember the phone call i had with the governor of texas, my friend greg abbott. at the beginning of the

pandemic, i said, governor, what do you need? he said, we need testing and we need p.p.e., personal protective equipment, almost all of which is made overseas in china. china as it turns out held on to most of the supply for its own hospitals and health care workers, leaving the rest of the world to compete for the limited supply that remained. suddenly we are unable to provide our health care providers with the personal protective equipment they needed to protect themselves while they served others, namely the rest of us, their patients. as supply chain struggles grew and expanded, it wasn't just medical equipment that proved to be a problem. everything from cleaning products to automobiles were impacted. we began to realize that one of the biggest vulnerabilities is semiconductors which are critical components for our most

used product, things like smartphones, computers, televisions, cars, airplanes, cell towers, and just about everything else with an off-and-on switch. the source of our chip supply didn't used to be a problem. about three decades ago the u.s. manufactured 37% of the world's semiconductors. but as our reliance on these chips has gone up, our production has gone down, and today instead of 37% of the world's semiconductors, the united states produces only 1% of -- 12% of the global share. again, these microcircuits have become invaluable in this technological age because literally everything with an off-and-on switch requires semiconductors, and i mean everything. the lion's share of

semiconductor manufacturing, more than 60% of the world's supply, is in taiwan which, as we know, is being threatened with invasion by the peoples republic of china. but it's not just the threat of armed invasion that risks that supply chain. it's also the possibility of another pandemic or a natural disaster. this flashing red light has prompted the senate to take action by passing the chips for america act which i introduced along with the senior senator from virginia, senator warner, which was designed to incentivize u.s. semiconductor manufacturing. and in the coming weeks i hope we can finally get a bill to the president's desk that funds these critical programs and puts us on a path to more domestic semiconductor manufacturing because of those risks to the supply chain. in short a crisis hit, it

exposed our vulnerables, and we acted -- vulnerabilities and we acted. that's exactly what we need to do now regarding energy security. let me explain. in many ways the risks we're seeing with the global energy supply today are similar to those risks we experienced with critical components like semiconductors. much of the world relies on a single country for a critical product and decisions made by a dictator could lead to that supply being cut off at a moment's notice. when our allies are looking to adversaries for our most basic needs like heating, electricity, fuel, it creates huge vulnerabilities and sky high prices at the same time. this was underscored in january of 2009 when russia effectively turned the gas off to ukraine for almost three weeks.

this affected at least ten countries in europe whose natural gas traveled through ukraine. russia is still the dominant gas supplier for europe, including ukraine. last year russia supplied 40% of the -- of europe's natural gas. in 2020 russia was the third largest producer of petroleum and other liquid fuels. and the second largest producer of natural gas. this gives vladimir putin a tremendous amount of not only power but ready cash. and as we're seeing on our tv screens, that money is being used for the most nefarious of purposes, to kill innocent ukranian civilians. after coming under intense pressure by both democrats and republicans, i'm glad that the administration has finally announced a ban on russian oil imports into the united states.

we know exactly where the money they get from selling this commodity are going and we cannot continue to supply putin with blood money. i'm disappointed it did take a while for the president to see the merits of this action and only after it was clear that congress on a bipartisan basis was prepared to act. our colleagues in both chambers have produced numerous proposals to ban russian imports while pushing the administration to take action. over the weekend democrats on the house, ways, and means committee announced a bipartisan bill to do just that, but the press release once posted on the website was quickly taken down, strangely enough. reporting indicates that the white house intervened to get that press release taken down off the house, ways, and means website because it didn't want

to look like it was being boxed into taking action on russian oil imports. but through his credit once the president saw the writing on the wall, he decided to take action. but he made it seem like it was his idea even though we all know his hand was forced by bipartisan support in the congress. madam president, there's never been a more critical moment to reevaluate our reliance on rogue regimes for our energy supply. if we want to protect ourselves and our allies from the whims of a power-hungry dictator, we need to get serious about energy security. in recent years, conversations about energy policy have been consumed by debates about the environmental impact of fossil fuels, which are important but often they are not well informed. some of our colleagues have proposed everything from tr

fracking bans and the green new deal to net zero carbon deadlines. well, those efforts may bring down america's share of global emissions, but it would come at a grave cost to global energy security. and the truth is whether it's the russians or the chinese or india, developing nations with growing economies, they may pay lip service to some of the goals of carbon-free future but this is at the same time that china is building more coal-fired power plants than any other nation on earth. so they really say one thing and do another for fairly obvious reasons. they understand that constraining your own energy supply will have a negative impact on their economy and job growth and stability in each of those countries. but i want to be clear.

i support efforts to diversify our energy sources and reduce emissions. that's why in texas we embrace what's called all-of-the-above as an energy strategy. that includes oil and gas, nuclear, wind, solar, you name it. we embrace all of it. but we've learned a long time ago that solar and wind energy are dependent on the weather, for example, or the time of day because the sun doesn't always shine and the wind doesn't always blow. that's why you need a reliable base load of electricity and energy, primarily fuel from natural gas, some from nuclear, and the like. on top of that diversification of your energy supply which is proven to be so important and so successful in reducing emis

emissions, yet maintaining energy security, texas companies are also making serious strides in energy innovation. we're finding new ways to sequester carbon emissions, for example, and other ways to make our most available and affordable energy sources cleaner. i believe we need to do more to encourage innovation and converse indication -- and diversification of our energy sources but those efforts must not come at the cost of security. our top priority must be to ensure that the u.s. and our allies have reliable access to energy needed to keep the lights on and their economy running. and we need to stop putin and other dictators from getting rich off of our dependence and holding democracies like ukraine hostage. suffice it to say that the biden administration has not addressed a plan to do that. from day one the administration

has taken actions that undermine america's energy security and send even more business to russia and saudi arabia. only hours after being sworn in, president biden canceled the permit to the keystone xl pipeline and halted all new energy leasing and permitting on public lands and waters. his administration has effectively discouraged investments in new production here at home, and the u.s. is producing significantly less oil. it's now down by 1.2 million barrels per day from pre-biden administration days. without question the most logical response to the current global energy crisis is to boost production of u.s. energy sources. we can reap the economic benefits of strong production here at home and supply our friends and allies with reliable

energy around the world just -- and in the process enhancing their energy security making them less dependent on people like vladimir putin. but producers aren't able to turn on a dime. they're not able to increase their capacity overnight, but it's important for us to begin to take the steps now to strengthen our domestic energy production in light of the developments in ukraine and in europe. the sooner the biden administration views oil and gas producers as necessary rather than expendable, the better off we'll all be. that's not what the white house has suggested, by the way. in fact, they seem to be suggesting a completely different route. the biden administration doesn't want to supply europe with more american energy. he wants to help them shift their reliance from one oil-rich dictator to another. goodbye russia.

hello iran. hello venezuela. the administration is looking to other rogue regimes to supply the energy that should be produced here in america. the white house is trying to revive the ill-considered iran nuclear deal, and the white house press secretary acknowledged that a new deal would mean more oil from iran for global markets. it's reportedly considering a trip to saudi arabia to ask the kingdom to pump more oil, not here in america but go to saudi arabia hat in hand and say will you please produce more oil to help us bring down the price of gasoline. we even hear that the biden administration is trying to ease sanctions on venezuela and funnel putin's profits to maduro. the fact the biden administration is beating down the doors of the ayatollah, the

crown prince, and maduro rather than easing burdens on american producers is a bad joke. it's absurd. makes no sense whatsoever. now, ideologues may oppose american fossil fuels, but the administration's reflex of opposition to u.s. producers is creating serious risks for our security, not to mention the high prices that consumers pay at the pump. we are blessed to live in a resource-rich country, and there's no reason to put energy security of the united states and our allies at risk because president biden worries about angering the progressive radical left of his own political party. if the biden administration continues to wage war on american fossil fuels, it will create huge vulnerabilities for the u.s. and our allies.

now, i'm not suggesting we revive the 1970's oil export ban and implement isolationist energy policies, but we do need to take decisive action to reduce the world's reliance on authoritarian regimes. just as the pandemic led us to reevaluate vulnerable supply chains, this war in ukraine has opened our eyes and hopefully given us the opportunity to reevaluate global energy security. i hope this crisis will serve as a reset button for those energy security efforts, and i hope we can find some common ground between democrats and republicans to reconsider the ideological and reflexive opposition to american fossil fuels because the consequences in terms of world peace and energy security are too serious

not to revisit those preconceived notions before the ukranian invasion. madam president, i yield the floor. mr. barrasso: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: thank you it madam president. i come to the floor, first, to associate myself with the remarks of the distinguished senior senator from texas. i appreciate his comments about what's happening in ukraine right now on the ground and what's happening with energy in america and our need to become energy-independent again and to go from this current position of what had previously been energy dominance to now energy dependence, we need to return to the days of energy dominance for the united states because it's not just about our national security, it's about security for our friends and allies around the world so they don't have to be dependent upon the

likes of the killer and the thug, vladimir putin. so i come to the floor today, madam president, to talk about what's going on in ukraine and the war in ukraine and the global implications thereof. right now the world is watching in horror as vladimir putin continues with his onslaught. russia has now shelled two nuclear facilities. russia continues to attack civilian targets. russia has allegedly used clusterbombs near schools and hospitals. we know that dozens of children have been killed. russian troops have even attacked and orphanage and a kindergarten. it's heartbreaking and it's also barbarism straight out of hell. the world is right to be outraged by these vicious attacks, and we know how these attacks have been paid for.

we know how vladimir putin has funded his aggression. these atrocities were all paid for through russian energy. energy is the reason that vladimir putin can afford to invade iran. it is the cash cow that drives his military. oil and gas from russia. half of russia's economy is based on energy, and nearly half of europe's imports of energy come from russia. so, as i said, energy is the cash cow that has funded the war. russia is the number-two producer of crude oil in the world, and putin is the number-one rival to the united states in terms of energy production. well, under joe biden as president, there's been a lot less competition for vladimir putin. it's not for a lack of american energy resources, and it's

certainly not for a lack of american energy workers. no, it's because of the reckless policies of president joe biden and this administration. on friday of last week i was in cheyenne, wyoming, at the state capital where i spent five years as a state senator prior to coming to the united states senate. every member of the wyoming legislature -- republican and democrat alike -- understand fully that the resources we need to power our country are here in the united states. we have the energy in the ground, and yet this administration is not allowing us to use it. we have the workers ready to go, plenty in wyoming and around the country. the biden administration continues to block us from producing more american energy. those legislators that i talked to on friday, they know -- every one of them knows -- that on joe biden's first day in office, he

killed the keystone pipeline. they know because they follow the news. they know because joe biden bragged about it. he said, look at me. i'm going to kill the keystone x.l. pipeline. and he did it with an executive order on day one. quarter after quarter after quarter -- we're now in the fifth quarter of a row, where he's blocked all oil and gas leases on public lands. no option 0s for those lease -- no options for those leases have been held. he has also stopped exploration in the arctic. the russians russians are drillr oil in the arctic. but not us. so joe biden decides he wants to handcuff americans from doing the same thing, exploring for

energy in the arctic. at the same time it's become impossible to build a pipeline in the united states. the president's lackeys -- lackeys on the federal energy regulatory commission, they recently decided to change their approval process for natural gas pipelines. as putin's army surrounded ukraine, joe biden's lackeys on the ferc changed the way they approve pipelines. they did it as inflation hit record-high numbers, war looming in europe. its astonishing. joe manchin called them, as did i, a the chairman and rank member of the committee called them to a hearing last thursday asking them to explain themselves, why this attack on american energy?

you know, our country had produced lots of oil before covid. we're producing some now, but we're still a million barrels a day below where we were during the peak prior to covid. so when supply of production at home is down, prices go up. earlier today gasoline prices hit the highest price ever -- ever. but prices were way up even before russia invaded ukraine. the day joe biden took office, gas prices were $2.38 per gallon nationwide. today the average is $4.17. costs more than $5 a gallon in left-wing california. they may be happy to pay the price. people in wyoming are not, where they drive lots of miles to and from work. in wyoming, the number of miles driven is the highest per capita

anywhere in the country. we know what happens to families when gas prices go up. and they have to put more money in the tank that could have otherwise been used for food, for clothing, for school supplies for the kids. i understand that a gallon of gas in los angeles now is at $7. last year a typical working family paid about $1,000 more to fill their tank over the course of the year than they did the year before joe biden became president. it's a direct result of the policies of this administration. and this year it's likely to be a lot higher because these administration policies, environmental extremist driven, are making energy at home much more expensive. so today after two weeks into the war, joe biden has announced a ban on russian oil. it is about time. well, on saturday, a umin of us

were on a zoom call with president zelensky, the brave, heroic, courageous president of ukraine. he said, if we had started sanctions months ago, there would not have been a war. now the question is, what's going to replace the russian oil? because up until today, joe biden was eager to buy russian oil. eager. so the answer is, what's going to replace the russian oil? well, it darn well ought to be american oil. democrats have basically float add couple of proposals. buy from iran, they say. buy it from venezuela, they say. or don't buy any at all. on thursday the secretary of transparence said a possibility -- the secretary of transportation said a possibility was working out

something with iran. you remember, they're the ones where every friday they have a demonstration where they chant death to america and burn the american flag. and he wants to work something out with them. let me remind the people that are watching that iran is the number-one state sponsor of global terrorism. iran is on the verge of a nuclear weapon. now democrats want to give iran a windfall of american dollars. last time democrats bribed iran, the secretary of state was john kerry. he admitted right out that some of the money would go to terrorists, and we know that some of it did. democrats signed the check anyway. pallets of cash were delivered to tehran. now democrats are talking about doing it all over again. oh, and the thing about john

kerry. what did he say in an interview with the bbc weeks ago, said what was happening there did not distract, did not distract from the climate agenda. oh, yeah, we wouldn't want the death of all those people to distract from your agenda, mr. kerry. former senator kerry, former secretary of state. but he's not just the former, he is the current climate spokesman for this administration. he is the voice of climate in this administration, so that must mean that joe biden doesn't want it to distract from his climate agenda either. it is time to wake up. over the weekend, the biden administration officials went to venezuela. according to media reports, they

discussed easing sanctions on venezuela oil. nicolas maduro is one of the world's biggest cheerleaders for -- you know who? -- vladimir putin. he supports russia's war in ukraine. he apparently called the kremlin to say that just in past week. this means that the biden administration is actually actively considering and pursuing, as they were on saturday, replacing oil from russia with oil from a russian client state in our own hemisphere. it's bad energy policy. it's bad foreign policy. it almost seems to be something out of alice in wonderland. yet it still makes more sense than the third idea that democrats are floating -- let's just let energy prices go higher and higher. the press secretary said that we should just stop using oil

altogether. she said, the solution to high gas prices and war in europe is just stop using gas. this is delusional. the idea that we can immediately transition away from oil and gas is a fairy tale. it's a dangerous fairy tale at that. none of these three solutions proposed by the democrats is in the best interest of our nation, our nation's energy security, or our nation's national security. oil from iran, oil from venezuela is just as dangerous as oil from russia. changing our entire economy overnight is not an option in the real world. there's only one answer that works, and that is the answer that the american people are pleading for.

the solution to russian oil is more american oil. we must replace russian oil with american energy. to do that we need to produce more. we have the resources. we have the workers. we have the expertise. what we need is the leadership out of the white house in washington, d.c., and we're not getting it yet. we ought to produce enough american energy to supply our allies and, above all, to bring down prices for people here at home. that's why i've introduced legislation called the escape act, to escape what's happening with this control of our energy and the increasing in prices. it stands for energy security cooperation with allied partners in europe. this bill expedites the sale of american energy gas to our nato allies. i've also led a letter with every republican on the energy committee and sent it to president biden the morning after the state of the union

address. our letter details ten specific plans, ten specific actions the president could take today to produce more american energy. we are much better off producing and selling energy to our friends than being forced to buy it from our enemies. what president biden and the democrats don't seem to believe is the undeniable truth that energy security is national security. for ourselves and for our allies, we need more american energy. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. schumer: madam president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. schumer: are we in a quorum call? i ask unanimous consent that the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that at 4:50 p.m. today all post-cloture time be considered expired on h.r. 3076, that amendment 4955 be withdrawn, the bill be considered read a third time, that if a budget point of order is made, motion to waive, if waived, the senate vote on the passionage of the bill. further, on disposition of 3876, notwithstanding rule 22, the senate vote on the motions to invoact cloture on calendar numbers 547 and 719. if cloture is invoked on any of these, the senate vote on confirmation of the nominations at a time to be determined by the majority leader or his designee following consultation with the republican leader.

finally, that there be two minutes for debate equally divided in the usual form prior to each vote, all without further intervening action or debate. i also in an effort to speed up the votes, ask consent that all votes after the first vote be ten-minute votes and members should be notified to get here, stay around so we can get this done. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. mr. schumer: i yield the floor to the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: many iowans rely on pharmacists who operate independently or are part of a small community pharmacy chain. this is especially true in rural iowa, but i'll bet it's true in a lot of other rural states as well. in iowa we have over 300 independent pharmacists, and

many work in multiple rural communities. these pharmacies are small businesses serving iowa communities like muskateen and sioux city. these pharmacies want a level playing field to compete with anyone, whether that is a big chain or whether it's another independent pharmacy. yet pharmacists i hear from are being hurt by retroactive, direct, and indirect remunerations, and i'm going to keep referring to that as d.i. rimplet fees -- d.i.r. fees. they have to work with pharmaceutical benefit managers in regard to those fees and there's conflicts between them that i hear about all the time,

and this all deals with part d medicare plans. now, what i'm talking about, direct and indirect remunerations and these negotiated fees with p.b.m.'s, these are sometimes known as clawbacks. now, every day seniors go to the drugstore. they probably always pay a copay. these seniors then rightfully believe that they're paying the lowest amount possible, and that is not always the case. after the patient pays and leaves the pharmacy, their part d medicare plan or a p.b.m., pharmacy benefit managers, contacts the local pharmacist to

claw back a certain amount paid, and that's where this d.i.r. fee comes in. this action actually lowers the cost of the drug, but the patient doesn't know it. because of these d.i.r. fees seniors pay a lot more than they need to for their pills they get at the pharmacy. one iowa rural pharmacist told me d.i.r. fees, clawbacks, are not only costing the patient more in the form of a higher copay, they're also costing that local pharmacy. from 2010 to 2020, part d medicare plans and the p.b.m.'s increased the d.r. fees by over -- can you believe this --

104,000 percent. d.i.r. fees now total over $9 billion a year. pharmacists, especially those operating independently in rural areas but particularly in rural iowa that i hear about, have told me if d.i.r. fee clawbacks do not get under control, pharmacists will not survive. and of course, we hear every -- maybe not every day, but we hear quite often about those small pharmacists going out of business and these d.i.r. fees are often cited to us as one of the reasons. so, this will then leave iowans without access to the local pharmacy for medication therapy management and for other care. now, i have a bipartisan

solution to solve this problem that ends d.i.r. fee clawbacks. in 2019, the senior senator from oregon and i negotiated and introduced a bill that we entitle the prescription drug pricing reduction act, also known as grassley-wyden, but i don't even care if it's known as wyden-grassley. grassley-wyden ends d.i.r. fee clawbacks. this will reduce out-of-pocket expenses and provide pharmacies financial predictability. this move will even keep rural pharmacies viable. on top of my legislative efforts in grassley-wyden i commend the center for medicare services for issuing a proposed rule to end d.i.r. fee clawbacks.

i'm not sure that that proposed rule exactly does what the grassley-wyden bill does, but it still is a step in the right direction, and i welcome that. in welcoming it, i have submitted comments asking senator for medicare services to strengthen the proposed provision as much as the existing statute allows. and of course, we ought to finalize that proposed rule without delay. in addition to ending d.i.r. fee clawbacks i am committed to passing grassley-wyden. i hope now that democrats worked on build back better last year with provisions that they thought would reduce farm pharmaceutical drugs, and that doesn't seem to be moving, that they would take a look, instead

of going the partisan way, take a look at a bipartisan way of trying to get something done on prescription drugs. and at the same time, ending the d.i.r. fee clawback. it will lower -- this bill as a whole, besides dealing with the clawbacks, will lower prescription drug costs in a comprehensive manner, and it actually takes on big farma. and you probably know in this body, there are some people that say we should just leave big pharma alone. but i know that they do wonderful work. i know they have to have their money for research. i know that they have to be able to market their products in a free-market way. but when you have these big increases in pharmaceutical price increases, maybe a couple

times a year, it's time we do something about it. and besides this clawback provision, grassley-wyden caps out-of-pocket expenses, eliminates the donor -- the donut hole in dealing with these price increases every year. it caps rising prices at the inflation price index. it also brings more sunshine and accountability, particularly to the pharmacy benefit managers. nobody seems to be able to tell us anything what goes on between the health insurance companies, the pharmaceutical companies, the p.b.m.'s and the local pharmacists, and then how that affects the consumer. and we ought to know exactly where those moneys go and what those negotiations are, and grassley-wyden does something

about that. so i urge my colleagues to join wyden and me in that effort. i yield the floor. a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from kansas. mr. moran: madam president, thank you. i've taken the opportunity over the -- well, all the time i've been in congress to speak in support of congress acting to reform and improve the postal service, and i'm here again today, and i'm pleased to what i think is going to transpire here within the next hour. i again express my strong support for the postal service

reform act and urge my colleagues to support this critical, important piece of legislation. the united states postal service is an indispen ensible piece of -- indispensable piece of american infrastructure nationwide. back in my home state of kansas the rural communities are especially reliant on postal service for essential public services, the agency and its employees provide. however, due to the closure of numerous rural processing facilities in kansas and post office consolidations and close years, the quality of service and the efficiency of the postal service has consistently declined. the reduced effectiveness of the postal service hurts americans across the board, but they have the most detrimental impact on rural places like kansas. for as long as i've served in congress, kansans details to me the adverse effects the declining quality of the united states postal service has on their lives and expressed the need for reforms to improve its

efficacy. the concerns i hear from kansans are characteristics of a larger picture. the postal service struggling to keep up with its service commitments while still maintaining fiscal stability. over the past decade the postal service has slowly and sometimes quickly eliminated services. and in that elimination of services it created what i call a death spiral. shorter hours, fewer post offices, mail processing facilities farther away and fewer of them. this makes life extremely difficult for kansans, especially rural and highly rural kansans who rely upon the postal service to deliver essential items like medications, because there simply isn't a pharmacy for pickup, delivery nearby. and the customer looks for delivery services outside the united states postal service when the service is insufficient

and the postal service continues then to lose more revenue. for as long as i've been in congress, i think i've met with every postmaster general, and i've really delivered two messages. one related to this point i'm making right now, which is the solution to the postal service's financial condition can't simply be reducing the services. i have also suggested that instead of hiring high-priced consultants, the postmaster general and the postal service should consult with their own employees about suggestions of how to deliver better service in a more effective and efficient way and save revenue. serving rural states like my own, i understand well the crippling impact that losing postal service would have on rural communities across the country. that's why i've repeatedly acted on my conversations with kansans by encouraging congressional focus on postal service issues and have networked get postal

reform legislation passed for nearly a decade. my colleague on the senate floor with me this afternoon, senator tom carper of delaware, and i have joined him on many occasions in the past several sessions of congress. we are cosponsors, lead republican and lead democrat in reform legislation, and i've met with him and the postmaster general of the united states postal service on numerous times. we recognize that smart reforms were needed to make certain the postal service could compete in this digital age, increase revenue, and not become a taxpayer liability. several provisions of the legislation that senator carper and i have introduced are included in the postal service reform act that we are considering today. the elimination of the prefunding requirements of retiree health benefits, allowing the postal service to enter into agreements with other governmental entities with new

avenues of revenue and making six-day delivery permanent by law. in so many instances in my conversations with kansans at a town hall meeting or on the street or talking to the newspaper or editor, the lack of timely delivery of the mail has become increasingly a problem, and what would one expect when the postal service is closing o'offices -- post offices, shortening hours and closing processing facilities. i hope to make the case to the united states postal service after passage of this legislation that the postal processing facilities that have been closed in kansas should be considered for reopening. in fact, should be reopened. today the mail will leave a rural community, go to some neighboring state -- nebraska or texas or missouri -- only to be returned to the postal patron who lives a block from the person who mailed the letter to begin with. we tbheed the return of those -- we need the return of those postal processing facilities, and their departure

had dramatic and consequential effects upon the postal service. i am pleased the efforts of my colleagues and i have had have culminated now in the postal service reform act. from listening to kansans, i've recognized for years that congress must act to put the postal service on a more sustainable path and this week the senate will finally address this long-standing issue, address it in a way that a bill will become law. congressional action on postal reform will allow the postal service of serving america without imminent service reductions and the uncertainty of the future of the agency. from the veterans waiting on critical medications to be delivered from the v.a. to the farmer in rural kansas needing a part for his or her machinery, to the grandparent waiting to send a birthday card to a grandchild, this legislation puts us on a path to making certain the postal service can continue to be relied on to deliver when it matters most. i thank those who work in the post office and the postal service in my home state of

kansas, many of whom i know, and despite the challenges presented because of the united states postal service's decisions over the past decade, have worked hard to make sure that the mail is delivered and delivered on time. make sure that their customer, the postal patron, is cared for. to ensure the postal service maintains service, i urge my colleagues in the senate to support the postal service reform act when it arrives on the floor shortly for a vote. madam president, i yield the floor. a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. mr. carper: thanks, madam president. i stand in solidarity with my friend from kansas. i want to say to senator moran thank you for your great leadership and allowing me to be your wing man as we do our best not just to save the postal service, but to make sure that they are robust and germane to the future and integral to the future of our country as they

have been for the last 200-plus years. when the folks in delaware gather, we have about 25 men who gathered in a place called dover, delaware, on december 7, 1787, and we voted after negotiating for three days, debating for three days, a draft constitution. we adopted it unanimously and sent it off to the other 12 colonies. one element in the constitution that was sent to us from philadelphia by our founding fathers was the creation of a postal service. a postal service. it's been mentioned before that the first postmaster general was ben franklin, of all people. and what the founding fathers had in mind was a way to bind us together as a country. to bind us together as a country. the idea of being able to communicate through the mail, that was important. the idea of fostering better, greater economic growth, that was important. but they also were looking for a way to pull us together as a new nation, and the postal service was integral to doing that.

over the years the postal service has changed. for the most part i think it's changed in good ways. it used to be people got their mail by going to post offices or maybe in the community where they lived or close to the community where they lived. but they had to go to the post office to get it. eventually the mail was delivered to farms and to homes and to businesses across the country, and people didn't have to leave their homes to get the mail. there was a time not that long ago when we didn't have the internet. if we wanted to communicate with one another, send letters to people or cards to people, a lot of gifts to people, we would use the postal service. today we can use the internet. the internet take taketh from te postal service and giveth away. a lot of folks hit a send button for a birthday card or christmas card or any kind of holiday card. they used to send the actual cards. a lot of people don't do that

anymore. if you look at the financial condition of the postal service, one of the things that's happened most noticeably in the last 10, 15, 20 years is a drop in first class mail. a large part of that is from the internet. i like to say again the internet taketh and giveth away, but one of the great things that comes out of the internet is a lot of people are ordering items over the internet for pch. a lot of people order food but a lot of people order clothes, shoes, they order all kinds of things. and you know who has a chance to deliver it? the postal service. the postal service delivers not just one day a week but seven days a week. they are omnipresent. as we hear johnny cash singing i've been everywhere, man, and the postal service still goes everywhere, man. they also have a great partnership with, believe it or not, ups and a great partnership with fedex. fedex and ups don't want to go to every mailbox in the country every day. the postal service does six days

a week. what the postal service does in partnership with ups and fedex is take a hand off and deliver the last mile, five miles, that's ten miles to the places the postal service is going to go to any way. one of the challenges the postal service has had to try to balance their books, their finances. i remember when i was governor of delaware going to to rating agencies and the rating agency said to us before they lowered our credit rating a long time ago, they said you don't have a pension fund. you haven't funded your pension costs for your pensioners. so we created a pension fund, fully funded them. after we had done that, later on we got a triple a credit rating years later. one of the things they said you still haven't fully offset the costs of health care costs for your pensioners. we, for us that was a concern but not an enormous concern, because our pensioners had access, they were covered under medicare. unfortunately for the postal

service, the postal service has paid into medicare for years for their employees. unfortunately when those retirees reach 65, they don't have full access to the full benefits of medicare. that is not right. these are benefits paid for by the employer, the postal service, and this legislation fixes that to make sure that the right thing is done. the benefits that have been paid for through medicare are actually inured to flow to the pensioners of the postal service. the other thing that i would mention is six-day service. just -- i used to see good service by the postal service would be maybe one-day service for local, maybe in the same city; two-day service maybe to other parts of the state; three-day service coast to coast. the legislation before us today

calls for delivery within six days. for me, that's not good enough. my hope is we can come back and somehow better replace or better restore the term service. having said that, the postal service has a board of governors, and every now and then presidents have the opportunity to nominate people to serve on the board of governors. we have the tiewbt to vote them -- the opportunity to vote them up or down. we need people on the board of governors who are good at figuring out how do we help the postal service monetize the burden of going to every single mailbox in the country six days a week. how do we do that, turn that into financial opportunity much as they have with ups and fedex, and other ways as well, delivering medicines is a great example there. and there are other examples. vote by mail, i think we're only scratching the surface on vote by mail. those are all ideas that help the postal service monetize the realized revenues from this responsibility to go to every mailbox in the country.

one last thing i'd mention that is not in this legislation, is l postal vehicles. postal vehicles. there are a bunch of them, i think well over 150,000 across the country. almost every one is gas and diesel driven. you've seen others, amazon, other big fleets are transitioning away from gas and diesel, and they're doing it rather quickly. we're seeing the same kind of transformation in vehicles that we drive. why is it important? because we have way, way too much carbon dioxide in the air. it's creating climate, not just climate change, it's creating a clievment crisis. -- climate crisis. we are the most low lying state in the country. down in louisiana every 100 minutes they lose a piece of land to the ocean the size of a football field. every 100 minutes. on the west coast you have wildfires this year, last year bigger than my state. temperatures in the arctic

circle reached, i think, last year 90 degrees. more named hurricanes in the last year than any year in history. hottest summers on record. something is going on here, and what it is is way too much carbon in the air. a lot of that carbon is coming from mobile sources, including the vehicles we drive, including the fleets like the postal fleet. the postal service's fleet is about 25 years old on average. we have the opportunity here to update that. the cost of moving to electric vehicles, having charging stations is a cost that the postal service that we as taxpayers need to help underwrite that cost. having said that, the postal service in their calculation for buying gas and diesel vehicles to replace their fleet, i believe my understanding is they're using as an assumption for the cost of gas and diesel fleet, $2 a gallon charge for gas in diesel going forward. $2. we'd like to see $2, wouldn't we? that is just basically

understating by half the cost of gas and diesel for a future fleet, and that needs to be fixed. we have a great opportunity to make sure that the postal service is not just delivering the mail, rain, snow, or shine, but also doing so in a way that helps the climate crisis. we can do both. i'll close by saying i want to thank and applaud the leadership of our chair and ranking member here, from our chair gary peters, ranking member rob portman. thank you and your staffs for your work on this and for a lot of other folks that worked on this. most certainly jerry moran and his team. i especially want to say to members of my staff who have worked on these issues forever, and my friend susan collins, susan is not on the floor right now, the senator from maine, but she has spent god knows, plenty of time and effort working with me and others on these issues. this is not the end. this is not the end in terms of what we need to do on postal.

this is not the, maybe the beginning of the end. this is the end of the beginning but it's a good end to the beginning. we need to build on this and go forward on this, and i hope and pray that's exactly what we do. i thank you. i yield back. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. reed: madam president, i rise today to address an action we must take to lower energy prices for american families and businesses to make our country much more secure. vladimir putin's invasion of ukraine has revealed a vul nermt -- vulnerability that our dependence on oil creates for our economy and for average americans trying to fill up their cars and pay their heating bills. the fact is the united states has sufficient domestic production to meet our energy needs today, for producing more oil and refine product than ever before. oil production was up more than half a million barrels a day from january to december of last year and it's expected to rise

even more this year. mr. president, i noticed the arrival of senator hawley, and i think we're both prepared at this point for me to make a unanimous consent request and i'd like to do so now. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations, calendar numbers 599, 477, 472, that the nominations be confirmed, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate, that no further motions be in order to the nominations, that any related statements be printed in the record, that the president be immediately notified of the senate's action, and the senate resume legislative session. the presiding officer: is there objection. mr. hawley: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from missouri. mr. hawley: reserving the right to object. i want to say at the outset that it's always a privilege to work

with senator reed on the armed services committee and every capacity we get to work together. i look forward to that going forward. what we are being asked to do, what the senate is being asked to do today, however, is to fast track nominees for leadership positions in the department of defense to carry out a foreign policy that is manifestly failing. this administration is careening from one crisis to another endangering the security of the american people, endangering the security of the world. as the senator mentioned just a moment ago, the situation in ukraine. you don't have to look any further than there to see the latest crisis that the biden administration has led this nation into. to begin with, the administration failed to deter vladimir putin and his russian invasion before it happened. they failed to actually check putin when it would have really

mattered. how do they do this? well, for starters, when president biden came to office, he opened up russia's pipelines. then he shut down america's pipelines. he handed our energy independence that the senator was just mentioning, he handed our energy independence away. he gave it away. who stepped in to fill the void? the russians. what is russia? it's not so much a country as it is a gas station. and putin is pumping and pumping and pumping what is financing his war in ukraine. it is not leased energy policies that are giving away our energy independence, giving away our energy dominance and green lighting his energy production. that's what joe biden did when he first came to office. green lighting his production, shutting down our production. but what else? president biden had the opportunity to provide lethal military aid to ukraine last spring when the ukranians first requested it. he said no. in fact, i believe he said no repeatedly for much of the year

last year. that turns out to have been a very poor decision. now today deterrence having failed, the russians engaged in illegal invasion of a sovereign nation threatening the stability of europe, the security of europe, and of course endangering our own national security. what is the president doing? what is president biden doing? is he turning back on american energy production? is he sanctioning the russian energy sector? no. just today finally he was dragged kicking and screaming to finally agree that this country will no longer import russia's blood oil. remember, he had us importing over 670,000 barrels of russian oil every single day. today he announced finally, belatedly we won't do that anymore but what he's doing instead? he's going to every petty dictator on the face of the map and begging them to make up the difference. we learned that the president's

team has been in touch with maduro's regime, the murderous maduro regime in venezuela and is preparing to offer them a special package that will ease the restrictions, ease the sanctions, ease the punishment on that outlaw regime and get them to make up the difference in oil production from russia. we learned that the president is potentially planning a trip to saudi arabia to ask the saudis to increase their oil production to make up the difference from the russians. i wonder if the topic of jamal khashoggi will come up in those meetings. i certainly hope it will. president biden once said that he would make saudi arabia pay the price -- i'm quoting him -- and make them in fact the pariah that they are. i guess that's no longer the policy of the united states government because here's what we are reduced to under this administration. we are reduced to begging our enemies, our enemies, the dictators of the world. we're reduced to begging them to bail out a foreign policy that

is failing. not least because this administration will not allow american workers to turn on american energy. i take it from the president's remarks and from the president's policy that he has no objection in principle to pumping more oil and gas. apparently he doesn't so it can't be about climate change. he's fine with oil production but not in this country. not by american workers. heaven forbid american workers would get put back to work. heaven for bid american workers earn more. that the american people pay less at the pump as joe biden drives gas prices through the roof. this is the policy of weakness, fecklessness that this president has given us. let's not forget where it began. it began with afghanistan. and that's the reason i'm here on the floor today in particular. it has been months now, months since the fall of afghanistan. this administration has lost two nations in the space of barely

six months. the afghanistan debacle was the worst foreign policy debacle in this country's history since vietnam although stay tuned. the way this administration is going. and what has this congress done about it? who has been held accountable for it? i've come to this floor over and over and over to ask for accountability. has someone been fired? no. has someone been relieved of duty? no. now, i was here just a few weeks ago after "the washington post" reported on a 2,000-page investigation done by central command into the fall of -- into the fall of afghanistan. my team and i have been through all 2,000 + pains and i would like -- 2,000 plus page also and i would like to point out we learned about this investigative report not from a hearing conducted by this body but an investigative report by a newspaper. i'm glad somebody has some interest about what happened into afghanistan.

sadly it happens to not be this chamber. here are some of the things we learned in this 2,000-page investigative report about afghanistan. we learned from general scott miller, the commander of u.s. forces in afghanistan in early 2021 that he was extremely worried from may 2 onward as he saw key districts fall. and in fact general miller testified to us that he warned secretary austin and general milley, chairman of the joint chiefs as early as march or april that the afghanistan forces might collapse rapidly once we withdrew forces. now this report documents it and says indeed there is evidence that he was very worried, that he was warning the collapse of afghanistan would come quickly. he was warning that it would be imminent. what did the biden administration do? did they order the evacuation of our civilians? did they plan for the possible fall of the afghan government? no. the report goes on to detail that the national security council and the state department

showed a total lack of urgency right up until the final hours before the fall of kabul. we learned that rear admiral peter vasely who took over for general miller last spring and commanded u.s. forces in afghanistan during the final stains of the withdrawal provided assessments weeks before the fall of kabul, that the trajectory of afghanistan was in a downward spiral -- this is a quote from the report -- and was likely not recoverable. the report goes on to say this. rear admiral vaseley was trying to get the ambassador to see the security threat for what it really was. there was as many as ten districts falling every day getting closer and closer to kabul. the embassy needed to position for withdrawal but the ambassador didn't get it. mr. president, these are just a few of the details in this 2000-page report showing that our military commanders warned over and over and over that

kabul was on the verge of collapse, that the security dangers were mounting, that civilians needed to be evacuated, that we needed to change course, and this administration did nothing. what happened as a result? 13 servicemembers dead including one from my own state. i will never forget talking to his family, his father less than 48 hours after this young man, lance corporal jared schmitz lost his life after they served this country, giving their utter most dwetion but it didn't have to be that way. here's my point. this body should be hearing from these commanders, from these men and women who have testified in this report, who have given evidence about what happened in afghanistan. we should be hearing from them in public under oath. no more private briefings. no more closed session

briefings. we should hear from secretary austin. we should hear from general milley, from the commanders general miller under oath. they should come and testify about this report. we should do our job and until we do, i will not consent to allow the senate to bypass regular order and fast track the nominations of yet more leadership positions to continue carrying on a failed policy. i will not do it. there's a crisis in ukraine. there's a crisis in afghanistan, crises multiply across the world at the hands of this administration, and still this congress refuses to reverse course and refuses to provide the most basic oversight that it is charged with providing. i don't think it is too much to ask in the face of this, in the face of these disasters that we have the curiosity to at least have an open hearing, to at least ask who should be accountable and what should be

done. so i want to say again i appreciate senator reed's earnestness on this issue. i appreciate the fact he -- he doesn't control the floor. i would note as he look towards the clock here, last week if my memory serves on -- of the four days we're in session, we took a total of four votes in the united states senate last week. we could have voted if these nominees were as important as they say they are. we could have voted last week. we could be voting -- we could have voted earlier today. now, senator reed doesn't control the floor but i might just note to the majority leader that maybe instead of taking a vacation tomorrow which i gather is the plan, that maybe the senate ought to be here and working and maybe we ought to be here and voting because until there is some accountability for what happened in afghanistan, for what is happening with this administration's foreign policy, i'm going to ask the senate to observe regular order and do its

job and to vote. with that, mr. president, i object. the presiding officer: the objection is heard. mr. reed: thank you, mr. president. i think one of the messages that the senator from missouri was trying to convey is do our job, and one of our fundamental jobs is to review, vote upon, and confirm or not confirm nominees to critical positions in the department of defense. and this effort has completely frustrated that goal of doing our job. we have seen repeatedly blockage of nominees that are fully qualified, forcing votes and the gentleman from missouri is talking about we should have votes this week. forcing votes because one or two people object and of course the final outcome is 90 votes, 85 votes in favor of the nominee. the real of the senate was very

clear. these people should be in their office doing their jobs helping us maintain our security, not subject to the whims and the wills of one or two people. the nominees i just referred to are three individuals whose critical positions within the department of defense. the armed services committee held hearings on all three of these nominations months ago. and all three were reported out of the committee by voice vote. unanimously. no one objected. i'm unaware of any objections to these nominees relating to their qualifications for the positions which they've been nominated for. and i need not remind my colleagues that russia's invasion of ukraine, poor choice against a modern functioning democracy, how critical it is to have people in place in the department of defense. it's very difficult to complain about the policy the administration -- of the administration when there's been

a deliberate attempt for more than a year to delay critical nominees from taking a position in that department. and more importantly, i think, this is a trend that was observed by the commission on national defense strategy under president trump. it said the implementation of national defense strategy must feature empowered civilians fulfilling their statutory responsibilities, particularly regarding issues of forced management, strong civilian oversight is an essential hallmark of civil-military relations codified in the constitution and embraced throughout the nation's history. and what is frustrating that? actions like today, where fully qualified individuals pass by voice vote through the committee are held up. if there is a weakness -- and it's been identified by other sources in the national defense

strategy at the department defense -- it is in one case the lack of sufficient civilian leadership and continuity. and that's exactly what this action today will continue to foster. for example, mr. ashish lazarani, was reported on december 8. the number-two official in the department in charge of the policy and the readiness of our armed forces. mr. alex wagner was reported out of the committee in october of last year, and he would become the assistant secretary of the air force for manpower and reserve affairs, the senior official within the department of air force with the responsibility for military and civilian personnel policy and the readiness of air force and space force personnel. ms. rachel jacobson was reported

out in october of last year. she would become the assistant secretary of the army for energy, installation and the environment. she will be responsible for managing the army's physical footprint and in particular she will oversee contracts that will increase installation resilience and the modernization of army infrastructure, particularly with regard to energy, which is one of the issues we are talking about with great emphasis today and in the spreeing several weeks. all of -- preceding several weeks. all of these positions are critically important to the department of defense and i'm unaware of any substantive objection to these nominees on the basis of their qualifications. the sooner they assume their offices, the better to tackle their challenges on behalf of servicemembers and their families. i also think it is important to recognize some of this discussion about the situation in the ukraine.

the biden administration sent 650 -- $650 million in aid, military assistance and aid, to the ukrainian government in the last year. far surpassing anything that was done in the trump administration. in fact, we spent many hours here on the floor of the united states senate in an impeachment proceeding based on what many of us thought was the attempt by then-president trump to use military aid to extract a political concession from president zelensky. that's quite a stark difference than what president biden's administration has been doing for the last year. there was a reference made to dealing with saudi arabia. well, president trump's first trip overseas was to saudi arabia to can a voter with his friends, the prince and princess

of saudi arabia. his son-in-law made multiple trips over there, and it wasn't in the spirit of condemnation. it was in a spirit of businesslike behavior, i would say. khashoggi was killed by agents of m.s.b., the crown prince, but the details in the report were never israelis released by the trump administration -- released by the trump administration. president biden release $those details, earning, i think, the enmity of the crown prince. so, this story of the infect uality of the biden administration is completely in my view without basis. what we've seen -- and i think the senator from connecticut recognizes it as a member of the

foreign relations committee -- is probably the most sophisticated development of an alliance to oppose tyranny that we've seen in many, many years, when the whole world is united by the diplomacy of this nation to stand up against vladimir putin, and i must say practically the whole world, that's an amazing demonstration of diplomacy, statesmanship, and it happened because of the leadership of the president, the leadership of secretary blinken, the leadership of secretary austin, and, again, when you have switzerland joining in sanctioning a country, the greatest neutral nation in the world, that's a remarkable accomplishment. we still have a long way to go. the outcome is still very much uncertain. but to date the president's

administration has done an extraordinary job. afghanistan is an issue that we have dealt with for 20 years. and one of the first things we did was to ensure that in the national defense act there was an independent study, which will be conducted -- but it's not going to focus on the last two weeks. it's going to focus on the 20 years. it's going to assess whether the decision to invade iraq was a critical strategic mistake, which i think it was. that's why i opposed it originally. it's going to look at the dough harass agreement in -- the dohar agreement in which the trump administration said we're leaving, which gave the taliban their greatest psyche lodge cal and in a way military weapons because they went from village to village and said, here it is,

signed, sealed, and delivered, they're going. when they go, who are you going to be with? afghani or us? so in any way to estimate sort of the culpability, sort of the responsibility of our role in afghanistan, it will take that kind of 20-year look by independent experts who are concerned to find the truth, not to find a political argument. so, mr. president, i'm just very disappointed that we're going to continue to avoid our duty to ensure that there are civilians in the department of defense that are able to carry out the policy of the united states, which is the basic principle of civil and military relations in the united states and in the constitution of the united states. but, mr. president, retaining my

time, i'd now like to resume my comments with respect to the energy situation and the united states. as i indicated previously, the invasion of ukraine has revealed a vulnerability that our dependence on oil creates for our economy and four average americans -- for average americans trying to fill up their cars and pay their heating bills. the united states has sufficient energy to meet our needs today. we're producing more oil production than ever before. oil production was up more than a half a million barrels a day from january to december of last year. it is expected to rise even more this year, which i would assume would mean that more and more americans are working in the oilfields and elsewhere. in fact, i believe last year the

workforce grew to about 6.6 million jobs, which would hadn't seen in the last year or -- which we hadn't seen in the last year or two of the trump administration t gross domestic product has been significant, much more so than the preceding several years. but we do have problems economically and some of those problems are related to the international oil supply. now, we certainly don't need russian oil, and i have said we should stop importing it, and i'm glad that this morning the president announced the united states will officially ban the importation of oil from russia, denying putin a key revenue source for his illegal war. this is something both democrats and republicans have called for and the american people should know this policy choice will likely affect the price of gasoline. but even if we don't use russian oil, everyone needs to know that petroleum is traded on the world

market and the u.s. is part of that world market. the chaos putin is sowing in europe will continue to have an effect here regardless of where we get our oil. our energy reliance on fossil fuel is a matter of national security and it's time we embrace all that entails african american the reality of a world market combined with the impact on regular americans who need to fill up their car means the united states will have to make some tough choices on who we buy from if we're not buying from russia. we will have to more carefully consider what we are exporting, how we will prevent profiteering and what pain people should expect at the pump. if the climate crisis, historic fires and droughts and flooding around enough to convince my colleagues of the need to kick our addiction, i hope the

ukraine war will be enough. unfortunately, many of my republican colleagues don't seem to recognize the reality. instead they focus on never-built pipelines geared towards exporting oil, not use being it here in the united states. -- not using it here in the united states. most of that oil that was going through the pipeline that president biden i think because of many, many considerations decided against was destined for sponsoration, not use in the united states. or they make claims about any deduction under democratic president that contort the reality. it is time to wake up. indeed, the solution toss higher gas prices is more oil dependency. we need to increase the acceleration to clean renewable energy sources that aren't subject to worldwide scarcity

and manipulation by our adversary. there are however things we should do in the short term to help consumers. and, again, the advocates for the oil companies, the advocates for special tax arrangements, the advocates to continue to pump oil and pump oil and pump oil are playing, in my sense, into the hand of a putin. if our world economy is based on hydrocarbons, then russia is going to make some money. if our world economy is based on other sources of power, alternative sources of power, then his cash register is going to ring close to zero. and i'm pleased that president biden listened to me and others in congress and decided to tap into the strategic petroleum reserve to help bring down the price of oil. he wisely coordinated the release of 60 million barrels with our international partners.

the action sends a very assuring signal to markets but we need to release more to tavern down prices. we also -- to tamp down prices. we also need to insist that our middle east partners do more to meet demand in europe. we should also ask domestic oil and gas producers to pitch in, despite the other side's claims about the economy, big oil is earning some of its highest profits in years. they're not simply passing on the additional cost to the consumers reluctantly and sadly. exxonmobil and chevron reported profits of nearly $38.6 billion in 2021 but are they investing those profits in new production, particularly when they have 14 million acres in unused leases? no. instead they are issuing higher

dividends and buying back stock. these profits should be used to help consumers, not their billionaire investors. the easiest way to insulate ourselves is to become more energy efficient. when we consume less, we pay less. it's why i've long advocated better fuel economy standards for cars and trucks, something that the last administration worked against. yes, the trump administration tried to derail an increase in gas mileage that the automobile companies were in favor of. even when automakers said we should keep the tougher standards, trump said no. why? let's be more dependent on gasoline. it was not only this country's oil producing benefit, guess what? putin will benefit, and others will benefit. fortunately, the biden administration has a broader vision for a clean energy future that eases the burden on consumers. while there is much more to do,

the bipartisan infrastructure law took important steps on this front. it invests $7.5 billion to build out a national network of electric vehicle chargers, $5 billion for electric buses, and $90 billion to improve public transit systems. it included $25 billion to upgrade our power infrastructure, including by building thousands of miles of new, resilient transmission lines to facilitate transition of renewable energy. we can't just look at transportation, because consumers are also facing the pitch on home energy prices. last year, i worked to secure $4.5 billion in the american rescue plan for the low-income home energy assistance program to help consumers pay their energy bills. in the coming days, we will pass a omnibus appropriations bill to provide base funding for that program, which still lacks the resources to help all who qualified for assistance. but we need to do more.

we also need to make other long-term investments. in his state of the union address last week, president biden emphasized the need to weatherize homes and businesses to be more energy efficient, which in turn lowers energy costs and reduces greenhouse gasses and emissions, and i cannot agree more. it's why i've led the fight to fund the weatherization assistance program, which received $3.5 in the bipartisan infrastructure law. this program has helped more than seven million low-income families reduce you their energy bills by making their homes more energy efficient. it saves participants nearly $300 in energy bills a year, and a department of energy study found in one year it reduced carbon emissions -- the presiding officer: members, please take your conversations off the floor. the senator is recognized. mr. reed:it recuse -- took more than half a million cars off the

road. to make the most of this investment, this week i introduced the weatherization assistance program improvement act, along with senators collins, coons, and shaheen. our bill would make critical updates, including increasing eligibility, raising the per-unit funding level for weatherization fund projects, and setting aside projects to make critical health in conjunction with weatherization project. together, these reforms will make the program more effective and serve more households across the country ches these are significant -- these are significant steps, but we need the full package of climate energy reforms the president has called for, including tax credits and grants that would make energy cleaner, vehicles clean, and other clean technology more affordable and competitive. if we do these things, we'll make a huge difference in the lives of americans today and for generations to come. just a final thought,

mr. president. i think one of the greatest nightmares that vladimir putin has is the world that is powered by electricity, not generated by hydrocarbons. a world in which the gasoline, the oil that he has in russia is not worth $150 a barrel, but $1.50 a barrel. we can do it. and it will be one of the most significant national security endeavors when we accomplish that. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. portman: mr. president, i appreciate the comments from my colleague from rhode island. i would say that all-of-the-above energy, so i do support the energy efficiency he talked about and other

opportunities to ensure we have the ability to be energy independent, but at a time when the price per gallon is over $4 on average we also need to produce more in this countries. here we are at a time where we have an executive order from the president saying we're goes to freeze all leases on lands and waters. we have an executive order from the president stopping keystone xl pipeline. we have executive action by the mr. to rewrite the policies with regard to permitting in the waters in the united states, very important to energy products. we've got to do it all. without certainty, we're not going to get oil and gas production we should have here to be able to substitute what we're getting from places like russia. the president did the right thing by banning the russian oil, but we also should do the right thing with regard to north american production. i stand today to support the postal service bill before us. we're nearing the end of a long journey to help the postal service and the postmaster general to implement needed

reforms. last year, senator peters, who is on the floor here, and i introduced the senate version of the postal reform act. we had 28 cosponsors, equally divided between republicans and democrats. why? because the postal service is not a partisan issue. it's something that all of us should agree on. we need to save our postal service. otherwise, we're in big trouble. in the next few years it will go insolvent. this is not a bailout. there's no appropriation in this legislation. post office is really important to my constituents. young, old, rural, urban, everybody. that's why we've seen such strong bipartisan support when this bill passed the house of representatives by a vote of 342-92. that rarely happens in the house. strong from bipartisan support last night when the senate cloture vote was 74-17. saving the post office is the right thing to do. let's face it. the fact of the matter is the postal service is delivering less and less, more profitable first-class mail, to more and

more places. that economic model does not work. that's a recipe for ruin if we don't adjust to this new reality and make necessary changes. is it hard? of course it is. it's the right thing to do. we've talked about it for years here. we came together, republican and democrat, neither got exactly what we wanted, both made concessions, but we're doing the right thing for the country to save the post office. i regularly hear about this from constituents across ohio. i'm sure you hear the same. you hear from your veterans. you hear from some of your rural residents who depend on the post office for a lot, including their lifesaving medications. families rely on the post office to deliver rent checks on time, to pay utility bills, get their social security checks. in ohio, we've got no-excuse absentee voting. it worked really well over a decade in time. if you're a voter in ohio, you want your application and ballot in time. that depends on the post office. small businesses in ohio reach customers primarily through direct mail now. that's true the post office --

through the post office. this is really important that we put the post office on a sound financial footing. by the way, it can't be done just with an act of cock. -- with an act of congress. what we're doing is what the postmaster general and postal board is doing with serious reforms. the postmaster general said this bill he strongly supports because it gives him the head room he needs, the financial breathing room to make the other important reforms to save the post office. what do we do? first, we eliminate a very burdensome prefunding requirement for retiree health benefits. regardless of age, current employees have to be prefunded. this crippled the post office. no other federal agency has to do this. and private sector companies don't do this. this is prefunding. the money will be there, but it's a matter of having to prefund it that is crippling the post office financially. second, we require the post office employees who are

retiring, who have been paying into medicare their entire careers, to enroll in medicare part b and access part d. something by the way that almost every private sector employers does. if they're already in part a. third, we require the postal service to maintain current standard of a six day a week delivery through integrated delivery network of mail and package together, so those who rely on the postal service for medications and other important needs are properly served. that is really important to my constituents and to a lot of your constituents if you talk to them about it, particularly rural. the congressional budget office estimates this bill will result in a savings to the taxpayer. the savings over the next ten years is $1.5 billion. i'd also like to know what this bill does not do, because there's been misinformation out there. one, it does not appropriate new funds to the post office, period. two, it does not change the accounting or costing structure

for packages and letters, so it does not disadvantage private sector carriers. that's very important to me. this is the status quo that we're putting in place here. it does not change the accounting or costing structure for packages and letters. third, it does not allow the postal service to emptier new commercial services, like postal banking. that's also very important to he me. contrary to the claims of this bill's opponents, it does no the impact the solvency of the medicare hospital trust fund, the trust fund we all talk about, going belly up 2026. it does not affect it, period. c.b.o. has actually written something saying that, but it makes sense, people are already in part a. this bill does not increed the medicare part -- increase the medicare part b and d based on c.b.o. analysis. it's only 25% of postal employees who are not in part b and d. those additional ones make very little difference. part of it is they're paying their premiums. so let's pass this bill. we also have a budget point of

order next. again, c.b.o. estimated $ 1.5 billion savings over the ten-year budget window we have to use around here. however, c.b.o. estimated this would likely increase on-budget deficits by $5 billion or more in at least one of the four ten-year periods begins in 2032. three points. first, nub of this is related to the medicare trust fund for part a. we talk about that a lot here, we're concerned about it, it could be exhausted as early as 2026. the c.b.o. said that will not be affected. second, c.b.o.'s estimate only addresses on-budget direct spending. it excludes all future savings to the post office. pain example. premiums postal service employees pay, that's not part of the calculation. third, this point of order ignores postal workers are entitled to medicare b and d like any other eligible american

worker of it requires future postal service retirees to access these benefits, the 25% that don't already do it. private sector employees require employees to do the same thick, of course. no one raises these on them. right now, the post office is in trouble, folks. if we don't do something, and something significant, working with the post office to make their own internal reforms, we're going to be in big trouble. let's move forward on this bill. let's ensure that the post office is healthy going forward for all of our constituents. i yield back my time. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. mr. peters: i ask unanimous consent to be recognized for five minutes of re, ma. the presiding officer: without objection -- of remarks. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. peters: in just a few moment, each of our colleagues will have the opportunity to cast a historic vote to pass ground making -- groundbreaking legislation that will ensure that the united states postal service can at continue its neay

250-year tradition of delivering service to the american people. the postal service is one of our nation's most trusted and storied institutionses. since the founding. united states, the postal service has become a vital part of the fabric of our nation for generations. it has served as an indispensable public service that not only delivers critical mail, like medications and financial documents, but also helps families all across the country stay connected with each other. the postal service is the only mail carrier that delivers to every community across our nation and serves more than 160 million households, no matter how remote. however, in recent years, we have seen how burdensome financial requirements drove the postal service to use cost-cutting measures that compromised delivery services. that's why this bipartisan,

bicameral bill is so vital. it will help the postal service overcome policies that threatened its ability to effectively service the american people. i have worked closely with my ranking member, rob portman, and our 26 other senate cosponsors. , from both sides of the aisle. as well as chairwoman maloney, ranking member comer and the house committee on oversight and reform to craft these reforms and get strong bipartisan support in both the house and hopefully soon in the senate. i am grateful to each of my colleagues for their hard work and for their cooperation and their willingness to compromise during this process. our legislation, which has been 15 years in the making, will eliminate the unnecessary requirement for the postal service to prefund the cost of

retiree health benefits and will integrate postal retirees' healthcare with medicare. together these reforms, these reforms will save the postal service more than $49 billion and ensure this essential public service. which is dependent on revenues from products and service fees to fund its operations. it is set on a path for long-term financial stability. this historic legislation will also ensure every american knows what's going on with the mail in their community by requiring the postal service to post weekly local performance data online. it will also ensure this vital institution continues to deliver mail at least six days a week. by passing the postal service reform act, we can ensure the postal service is able to provide reliable service to families and small businesses, veterans, seniors, and rural

communities who rely on this essential service each and every day for years to come. by passing this legislation tonight and quickly sending it to president biden's desk, this body can show the nation that congress can indeed build consensus. we can work on a bipartisan basis and get things done for the american people. together we can enact historic, meaningful change and improve the lives of our constituents. i urge my colleagues to vote in support of this long overdue bill so that we can take an historic and significant step to bring the postal service into the future and ensure it can continue providing essential services to the american people as it has done for nearly 250 years. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: under the

previous order, all postcloture time is expired. amendment number 4955 is withdrawn, and the bill is considered read a third time. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. scott: h.r. 3076, postal reform act of 2020 would increase deficits by $5 billion or more in at least one of the four tenured periods. this increase violates section which prohibits consideration of legislation that would cause a net increase of on budget deficit and four tenure periods beyond the budget window. i raise a point of order under section 3101h-b the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year.

mr. sanders: i move to waive section 3101 of that resolution for purposes of the pending measure and i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the yeas and nays are ordered. there will be now two minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote on the motion to waive. the senator from florida. mr. scott: as i've said, i support getting something done to reform the postal service but it cannot come at the expense to american taxpayers. the federal debt has already surged above $30 trillion and just keeps growing and growing. i wrote to the congressional budget office asking what the future cost of this bill would be to medicare and how would it impact the debt. what they could tell me, there would be at least $5 billion in new deficits.

they couldn't provide data past 2031 when medicare will be most affected by this proposal. here's what we know for certain, this bill doesn't reduce costs. it shifts them from one unfunded government program to another. this bill adds at least $6 billion in new costs to medicare with no way to pay for it and adds at least $5 billion to long-term federal deficits. that's unacceptable. it's why i'm raising a point of order today. we have to stop doing business like this. we have to stop driving america deeper into debt and finally be accountable to the american taxpayers. i urge my colleagues to vote no on the budget point of order. mr. sanders: mr. president h. the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. sanders: let me congratulate senator peters and senator portman for their work. this is a bill that has been looked at and worked on for a very long time, and i am glad that in a few moments we're going to pass it. i know that the people of vermont and all over this country are increasingly concerned about the long delays they are experiencing in getting the mail they need.

senior citizens and veterans are not getting the prescription drugs they need on time. working families have been forced to pay late fees because it is taking much longer than normal for the postal service to mail their bills. the postal service reform act is a step forward in addressing those concerns, and i'm very proud to support this bill. this is a bill that will save the postal service billions of dollars a year by ending the absurd bush-era mandate forcing the postal service to prefund 75 years of future retiree health benefits for employees who haven't even been born yet. it protects six-day delivery service and gives the postal service the ability to offer new consumer products and services. the bottom line is the postal service is enormously important to people all over this country. this bill strengthens the postal service and will guarantee that

the people of our country get the quality service that they demand. thank you. the presiding officer: the question on the motion to waive. the yeas and nays were ordered. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: on this vote, the yeas were 68 and the nays were 30. three-fifths of the senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.

there will now be two minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote on passage of the bill. mr. portman: mrs., i rise in support -- mr. president, i rise in support of the bill. people know this needs to be done. the vote in the house of representatives was 342-92. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the senator from ohio. mr. portman: the postal service's business model just doesn't work. having to deliver more and more packages and fewer and fewer more profitable first class mail pieces to more and more addresses. we've got to do something to reform it. let me tell you what this bill does do and doesn't do. first what it does not do, it is not an appropriation. so there's no money going into the post office from the taxpayer. it does not change the accounting or the cost structure for packages and letters. that way it does not

disadvantage the private sector carriers some are worried about. it also does not allow the postal service to enter into new commercial services, like banking. it does not impact the solvency of the trust fund. so the medicare hospital trust fund we all worry about, predicted to ex expire about 2026, this does not affect it at all. postal service employees are already in part a. it does not increase the part d or e premiums. this does save the post office, which is incredibly important to all of our constituents, our veterans who get their prescription drugs through the mail, to people who are voting by mail, to people relying on the postal postal service to provide them what they need to survive. this is an important bill that's been worked on for 15 years. i thank my colleague, senator peters from michigan, for working on a bipartisan basis on this. let's get it done tonight. mr. schumer: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senate majority leader. mr. schumer: well,

mr. president, every day the u.s. postal service faithfully delivers for the american people. today, the senate is finally delivering for the post office. could we have order, please, mr. president. thank you. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the majority leader. mr. schumer: today, we can happily say that the postal reform is now signed, sealed, and delivered for the american people. because of today's bill, the postal service will be stronger, more efficient, and better able to serve more people, and we did it on a bipartisan basis. for over a decade, the usps, one of the most important institutions in american life, has been on an ominous trajectory, shrinking revenues, fewer delivery routes and finances in desperate need of a revamp. these problems led to late deliveries, reduced hours, increased costs, and when the postal service suffers, america

suffers. today, after much hard work, the senate is providing the postal service a much-needed reset. the legislation we're about to pass is the most significant step that congress has taken in a long time to strengthen usps. it will guarantee delivery services six days a week, but -- put the postal service on a path to solvency, and will ensure that we care for our dedicated postal workers, all while saving dollars. this postal reform bill is a win-win-win. a win for bipartisanship. a win for our postal workers. most importantly, a win for the tens of millions of americans who rely on the postal service every single day, from seniors to veterans to small businesses to rural americans to everyone in between. i want to really give a special shout-out to my colleagues who made this possible for us to pass this bill, senators peters and portman led the charge. senator carper worked long in the vineyards on this bill.

and so many others as well. of course, i want to thank the half a million postal workers who kept our country going every single day, especially during the pandemic. while so many other services were shut down during covid, the post office kept delivering goods and supplies and medicines across the economy. they are public servants of the highest order. so it's a great day for our postal workers, and it's a great day for the american people. the bill's been -- the bill has been in the works for over a decade, and today, after so much work, we are all thrilled to have finally gotten it done. and i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there is. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

the president pro tempore: senators wishing to vote in the yeas are 79. the nays are 19. the bill is passed. under the previous order, the senate will proceed to executive session. there will now be two minutes of debate equally divided. the senate will be in order. the senator from michigan. a senator: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the cloture motion on the gonzalez nomination be withdrawn. the presiding officer: is -- the president pro tempore: is there objection? not hearing objection, it's withdrawn. who yields time? mr. schumer: yield back all time. the president pro tempore: all time is yielded back. the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture.

the clerk: cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of executive calendar number 547, maria l. pagan of puerto rico to be a deputy united states trade representative geneva office with the rank of ambassador signed by 16 senators. the president pro tempore: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is, is it the sense of the senate that debate on the nomination of maria pagan of puerto rico to be a deputy united states representative, geneva office with the rank of ambassador shall be brought to a close. the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: the yeas are 78, and the nays are 19, and the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, executive office of the president, maria l. pagan of puerto rico to be a deputy united states trade representative. geneva office with the rank of ambassador. mr. casey: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania.

mr. casey: madam president, i would ask that i be permitted to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. casey: madam president, i'm here today for two purposes. i'll start with the first. the first is to rise in support of advancing the nomination of elizabeth watson to serve as the assistant secretary for congressional and intergovernmental affairs at the department of labor. ms. watson is a highly qualified nominee who was nominated in april of last year, almost a year ago now. she spent most of her career advocating for workers through labor and economic policy. ms. watson previously served as labor policy director and chief labor counsel on the house committee on education and labor. given her labor expertise and commitment to public service, she would be an enormous asset to the department of labor. it's past due that congress -- the senate i should say --

confirm her nomination. ms. watson is one of many excellent proworker nominees that have been put forward by the biden-harris administration. working families and unions built the american middle class, and working families and unions helped to make the nation what it is today. the strongest, most powerful nation in the world. every worker in america deserves to be paid a living wage and treated with dignity and respect. over the past few decades corporations have worked to undermine and weaken workers' fundamental rights to organize and collectively bargain. we should, for example, pass the pro-act which would safeguard workers' fundamental rights to ensure that workers are able to decide whether or not to join a union through a fair process. it would help restore fairness to an economy that has been rigged against workers for too long. we owe it to workers and

families to create an economy that works for them, not for the corporate interests. proworker nominees like elizabeth watson help us realize this goal. the senate should advance her nomination. so i ask unanimous consent that the senate consider the following nomination --ing elizabeth schoff watson of maryland, calendar number 687, to be assistant secretary of labor, that the nomination be confirmed, that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate, that no further motions be in order to the nomination, that any related statements be printed in the record and that the president be immediately notified of the senate's action. the presiding officer: is there objection?

a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from indiana. mr. braun: reserving the right to object. the assistant secretary of labor for congressional and inter governmental affairs works closely with congressional leaders and staff on a variety of issues, including legislation proposals, hearings, briefings, requests for information, and general topics. it's essential that the nominee is willing to work with both democrats and republicans in a bipartisan fashion. elizabeth watson is currently the executive director of the congressional progressive caucus center. director of the congressional pregnancyive -- director of the congressional progressive caucus center. during the previous administration ms. watson

retweeted posts such as white supremacists don't belong in the white house, referring to president trump. her past actions have cast doubt on her ability to be impartial and her willingness to work in a bipartisan manner. my concerns with this nominee are not unique, and there are many other members that have concerns as well. there should be a vote on this nominee. therefore, i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. casey: madam president, i want to set aside my next portion of remarks in a separate place of the record, if i can ask consent for that. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. casey: madam president, thank you very much. i rise this evening to share the urgent need to pass a bipartisan bill, a piece of legislation we've been working on for years

now that will save the lives of children. every year emergency rooms across the country treat over 22 ,000 preventable injuries. 22,000 preventable injuries caused by falling furniture like dressers or television sets. on average, roughly half -- half -- of those injured are children. and the vast majority of those killed by furniture tipovers, some 81% are children. 81% of all those killed by furniture tipovers are children. the death of a child is an unspeakable loss. there's no way to calculate it. if you haven't lived through it, i don't think any of us can understand what some families have lived through. yet, in america, the most

powerful nation on the earth, in less than 20 years more than 460 children have been killed by these furniture tipovers, and that number is the reported fatality number. compounding the grief and loss that these families experience is the fact that these deaths might have been prevented. the answer here is pretty simply standards that would make our home safer for our children. for years now senator klobuchar klobuchar, senator blumenthal, senator cotton, and i have led a bipartisan effort to pass the sturdy act. here's what all the letters in that acronym stand for. the stop tipovers of unstable,

risky dressers on youth. we call it the sturdy act. the sturdy act would require the consumer product safety commission to create a mandatory stability standard for furniture. that's all it does, create a mandatory stability standard. it would require companies to ensure their products are tested for safety and stability before being sold. it's a simple, commonsense requirement that will save the lives of children and prevent injuries. families in pennsylvania and across the nation have been waiting too long for the senate to act. there are families like the lamberts and the collises who have experienced every parent's worst nightmare, the loss of a child. these families have given my staff permission for me to share

their stories tonight on the senate floor. two stories. i'll start with what you can see on my left, katie lambert. katie lambert in 2005 was 3 years old, just 3 years old. her mom, judy, describes her as, quote, everything a 3-year-old child should be -- full of love and spontaneity, unquote. katie loved thomas the tank engine. she loved buzz lightyear. and of course, she loved her older brothers. katie's family had just moved into their new home in huntington valley pennsylvania, in southeastern pennsylvania. one day, katie was playing in her room while her mom painted in the room next door. suddenly, judy heard an awful crash, as she described it. judy ran into the room to find

3-year-old katie crushed beneath a tall mirrored wardrobe. the wardrobe had been on a carpet and was unstable. judy said, and i quote, while we don't know what katie was doing, she was probably dancing and watching herself in the mirrors, unquote. she may have bumped up against it or tried to open one of the doors, or maybe the vibration of her dancing in the room was just enough to cause it to become unstable and fall forward on her. unquote. that's what her mom, judy, said. and you can see from this photograph a beautiful little child, katie lambert, who died on that day. as her mom, judy, held her, waiting for an ambulance to arrive, katie took her last breath. she would have been 21 years old

this year, and judy wonders what would she be like today. what would she look like as a young woman? what college would she have chosen? what career path? would she like spicy food, like her brothers do? judy lambert wanted me to share a message today, and it's quoted right here on this poster. quote, please do everything you can to ensure that no other family suffers the pain we do, unquote. so said a mom about what we should do when we think of this child. and then judy went on to say, i'm begging you to pass the sturdy act now, unquote. we should listen to her words

and act. the second child i'll talk about tonight is curren collas, another family, the collas family, experienced a similar tragedy in their home, in west chester, pennsylvania. curren was just 2 years old. 2 years old with blond hair and deep blue eyes ha his mom, jackie, described as, quote, soulful, unquote. curren loved his cars. he would carefully display his collection of them in a perfect line. in february of 2014, jackie walked into curren's bedroom to wake him for the day. she discovered curren's five-drawer dresser had fallen on him. curren was trapped between it and his bed. as she waited for an ambulance to arrive, jackie tried to

resuscitate curren, but was later told by the paramedics that he had no vital signs when they took over. in the months after curren's death, jackie would sometimes stumble on his toy cars hidden around the house, reminders of her spirited son, curren. obviously, jackie and her family's life will never, ever be the same. but here's what she told us, in memory of her son. she said, even if i live until 100, it's going to be before curren and after curren, unquote just two stories tell us all we need to know about why we have to pass this bill. we could tell a lot more, from

pennsylvania and so many other states, represented by those senators i mentioned and represented by senators from other states. there's no reason, no reason at all, for families to endure this unimaginable grief, but tragically families across the nation share similar stories of losing children to these horrific furniture tipover accidents. you'll hear more of their stories from my colleagues in the days ahead. but in the memory -- in the memory of katie and curren and so many others who were lost to their families, killed in these tragedies, we must pass the sturdy act. it's not complicated, not complicated at all. we must ensure that the furniture sold to consumers is

tested, tested for safety and tested for stability. congress must do all it can. we in the senate must do all we can to ensure that no more children -- no more children -- are harmed or killed by furniture tipovers. madam president, thank you, and i yield the floor and would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. casey: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. mr. casey: i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. casey: : thank you, madam president. i ask that all post-cloture time on the pagan nomination be considered expired, with all previous provisions remake in effect. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. casey: i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to legislative session and be in

a period of morning business, with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. casey: : madam president, i ask unanimous consent that the appointment at the desk appear separately in the record as if made by the chair. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. casey: madam president, i have nine requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. the presiding officer: duly noted. mr. casey: : i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of s. res. 539, which was submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. res. 539, directing the architect of the capitol to obtain and place a memorial plaque for united states police, capitol police officer william f. evans at the north security kiosk of the capitol.

the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. casey: : i further ask that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. casey: i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar number 203 s. 66. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 203 s. 66, a bill to require the interagency task force on harmful algoblums and hypoxia to develop a plan for mitigating and controlling harmful algoblums and hypoxia in south florida and for other purposes. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. casey: i further ask the bill be considered read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection.

mr. casey: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar number 219 s. 2299. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 219 s. 2299, the bill to modify the age requirement for the student inseptemberrive payment pro -- incentive payment program of the state maritime academies. the presiding officer: without objection the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. casey: i ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. casey: i know of no further debate on the bill. the presiding officer: if there's no further debate, the question is on the passage of the bill. all those in favor say aye. all opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the bill is passed. mr. casey: i ask unanimous consent that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

the presiding officer: without objection. mr. casey: i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today it recess until 10:00 a.m. on thursday, march 10, and that following the prayer and the pledge the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the senate be in a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. casey: the senate will now be in a -- will not be in session tomorrow. if there's no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it stand in recess under the previous order. the presiding officer: the the presiding officer: the today said the lawmakers approved postal service legislation that would eliminate the requirements of the retiree

and also on the agenda this week, several executive nominations including ed gonzalez to lead u.s. immigration and customs enforcement process and it needs to pass government funding for friday's midnight deadline to avert a shut down watch live coe of the senate when they return, here on "c-span2". suet u.s. intelligence community test for any russian invasion in ukraine a national security threats, the rise before the senate select intelligence committee, thursday, and 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span three and online is cspan.org, or watch full coverage on our pre- video app, cspan now. >> cspan is your unfiltered view of government, funded by these television companies and more including cox, cox is committed to providing eligible families access to affordable internet to the connect and compete program

bridging the digital divide of one engagement at a time, cox, bringing us closer. cox support cspan, as a public service along with these other television providers, getting my front row seat to democracy. >> similar republican representatives comstock and joe walsh were a part of the discussion on whether to move the republican party. this was part of the - summit which brought together members of the gop and opposed former president donald trump and this is an hour. [applause] [applause] >> thank you thank you very much and iou was very kind very movig and so my name is mel