political future belarus especially given that conditions with ukraine and nato and eastern europe. >> before, before the choice, our fight was against this in our country and our people about 60 percent wanted the relationship and russianfe considerations and the same 50 percent, wanted a relationship with europe. our people could never have a chance to choose anything, nobody ever asked our people, where do you want to go. now situation has changed. >> you can watch the last few moments of this discussion if you're to our website cspan.org, as part of her decades long

commitment to live happily gavel coverage of congress and we take a live now to the u.s. senate which today's considering judicial nominations since and covid-19 the funny line coverage here on "c-span2". the presiding officer: the senate will co mr. sullivan: today's opening prayer will be offered by rabbi menachem greenberg, director of the mat-su jewish center, chabad lubavitch in palmer, alaska.

the guest chaplain: almighty god, master of the universe, we stand before you in prayer. in these troubling times when innocent men, women, and children have lost their lives, and millions fled their homeland due to the catastrophic war in ukraine. in the words of king david, psalms chapter 121, "i lift my eyes to the mountains. from where will my help come? my help will come from the lord, maker of heaven and earth." may you, almighty god, grant the members of this honorable body wisdom and understanding, that the ultimate way to eliminate the cause of war and bring true peace to the world is by embodying the universal values of the seven commandments issued to noah after the great flood, foremost of which is not to commit murder. almighty god, i beseech you to bless the u.s. senate assembled

today to fulfill one of your seven commandments, to govern by just laws. and in the merit of the global spiritual giant and leader, your servant, the rebbe, rabbi menachem m. schneerson, whose 120th birthday will be celebrated this coming month on the 11th day of nissan, tuesday, april 12. in 1978, this honorable body established the rebbe's birthday as education and sharing day u.s.a. and is proclaimed annually by the president of the united states, in recognition of the rebbe's global campaign to bring awareness and educate our youth about these ethical values of the seven noahide laws as the basis for a just and compassionate society. almighty god, may it be in the merit of realizing the rebbe's vision for humanity, we speedily see the fulfillment of isiah's promise, "nation shall not lift the sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore." with the coming of moshiach, amen.

the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington d.c., march 31, 2022. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable jacky rosen, a senator from the state of nevada, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: patrick j. leahy, president pro tempore.

the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. morning business is closed. under the previous order, the senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to h.r. 4373 which the clerk will report. the clerk: motion to proceed to h.r. 4373, an act together appropriations for the department of state, foreign operations and related programs for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2022, and for other purposes.

mr. sullivan: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. mr. sullivan: madam president, is the senate in a quorum call? the presiding officer: no. mr. sullivan: thank you, madam president. madam president, thank you for allowing me to open the senate with you and it was a true honor to have rabbi menachem greenberg who is doing amazing work in palmer, alaska, open the senate with his very powerful and meaningful prayer. and very appropriate prayer for what's happening in the world. i just want to say a little bit about our incredible jewish community in alaska. rabbi greenberg's parents were actually up in the gallery

watching. his father rabbi greenberg and his incredible wife este and i just want to say what they do for our community, communities throughout alaska is so powerful, so meaningful, and touches so many lives way beyond the jewish community of alaska, way beyond that community. they often -- and i love the phrase, refer to our wonderful jewish community of alaska, the frozen chosen, because it's a little cold in our state, as most americans know. but here's the thing about this community. they are incredible in terms of bringing all alaskans together. we have this annual event called the jewish gala that has hundreds and hundreds of alaskans of all faiths who participate in this every year.

it's one of my favorite things to do as an alaskan, to come and celebrate not just the jewish community but the spirit of togetherness, the spirit of faith, and the spirit of taking care of one another. that's what this incredible community does led by both rabbi greenbergs who we saw the younger today give this very powerful prayer. and i just want to thank him and his parents for being here today. it's not always easy to get to d.c. from alaska. a couple thousand miles at least. and so to our jewish community back home, to the greenbergs for all they've done, i just want on

the senate floor here offer my deepest thanks for the example they set for the entire state of alaska. it's great having them here and would they do for our state is really powerful, really important. so thank you, madam president, for allowing me to participate in the opening and the prayer this morning. i yield the floor.

patrick benfield a professor of supply chain practice here to talk about the supply chain in the u.s., how to impacted by things including russia and . thanks for joining us again. >> thanks for having me.

>> thank you for coming back. let's start with where the supply chain and i was impacted with covid and once we establish that what do russia and ukraine add to the mix? >> covid change the demand patterns in the united states. we saw a lot of changes happen, people were ordering more online. they started to remodel so it cost a lot of issues within the supply chain. the other big thing was the stimulus money that went in from the government. we saw fantastic gdp growth almost 5.7% in 2021 but the coronavirus did change how we did business. and so the first two quarters of 2022 we saw we still had to recover somewhat and then the thinking was probably by quarter three that things would get better and hopefully things would go back to normal versus what we saw in the past. >> host: that's the covid section. fact what we see at a rush and

ukraine as far as what might happen to supply chain because of the conflict. >> guest: the analogy i i like use is when you have something in that sector, , we were sick with covid early and then we get hit with his jewel political situation with the russian invasion of ukraine and so that just cause more issues within the supply chain. we were not able to recover from covid and now with his geopolitical issue we're seeing other problems. some of the viewers may notice some may not but ukraine and russia make up about 3% of gross domestic product. it's not huge but what did you make really can impact the supply chain. 30% of our wheat, global wheat come from ukraine. 20% of corn comes from russia and ukraine. 70% of neon gas from the ukraine. we get all types of metals from russia, a lot of basic materials. when the conflict started we start to see this change happen and, unfortunately, the big impact is going to be with food.

the big concern we have is again just food insecurity issues that may happen later on. we are fine as far as that goes. the big issue is ukraine has implanted anything. so the harvest in the sum is the big concern. this is where we'll start to see more food insecurity issues. ukraine is more or less breadbasket of europe and also africa and asia. without them having a summer harvest, take issues in the future. >> host: we are showing a map or show a a map to her views n the usda as far as wheat production in ukraine. is the eu most impacted or to what degree is the united states impacted? >> guest: i don't think he has staked his impacted much. it's about price. in the u.s. we will have food. that won't be a problem. the issue be our food prices will go up.

the continent i have a concern about is africa, very reliant on getting food from ukraine in from russia. if they're unable to get that you'll see some food insecurity issues which could lead to civil unrest which is a big concern. >> host: i want to play a little bit from the white house economic council of economic advisers, she talked about supply chain issues related to russia and ukraine. i'll play you what she had to say and get your response to that. >> this is an important moment for democracy, but what we do know is printed nation of ukraine what impacts on both energy prices and food prices. as the president said we can expect that while our sanctions are going to have their focus and most of the impact on the russian economy that we can expect we will see a bit of impact in the the united states as well. the first nursing at some impact on gas prices and oil prices. we can also expect some fertilizer energy prices to see

some impact on food. the president is focused on doing what he can to ensure those increases are contained and that they are not, doing what he can to ease them for the american people so he's worked k with our partners to increase additional 60 million barrels from this petroleum reserve and he has other option on the table that he will be considering as they come up. in terms of food prices, the u.s. we don't expect a shortage here because we are net exporters but we are acutely aware of the fact that there are regions in the world that depend heavily on exports of wheat in particular and other grains from ukraine and yesterday i met with a group of my colleagues, senators murray, coons, romney, blunt, burr, and graham for another round of talks as we work towards a bipartisan covid agreement. we spoke throughout the day. we talked late into the night. our staffs are continuing talks

this morning. the gap has been narrowed greatly, and we're intent on working with republicans to cross the finish line because this is vital for our country if god forbid a new variant rises in the future and that's all too likely. we would like considerably more money than our republican colleagues, but we need to reach 60 votes to get something passed through the senate. and so we're going to push as hard as we can. when it comes to replenishing covid response funding, we simply can't afford to kick the can down the road. the white house has been more than clear and more than transparent about the fact that public funds for covid are at risk of running out. we all know that a possible future variant can quickly undo much of the progress we've made against the virus. so it makes no sense whatever to hold off on covid funding that we know is very much needed right now. the more we wait, the bigger the

problem will be later if god forbid a variant hits. the bottom line is this. both sides should work to complete a covid funding -- to complete covid funding soon because that will mean more vaccines, more therapeutics, and more testing. so we can keep schools and communities open, we can stay back to normal which we are doing right now. woe is us if a future variant extends its nasty tentacles across the country and we don't have the resources in place to respond. woe is us. so again i'm bleeding with my republican colleagues. join us. we want more than you do, but we have to get something done. we have to get something done. we will keep working to arrive at a deal in good faith, and we hope, hope, hope, our republican colleagues ultimately join us in supporting a robust enough package to deal with this problem. as i said, we're making good

progress. we're getting closer and closer, but the sooner we get this deal done, the better for the country. cost cutting. it's been a productive few days here on the senate floor as we pass legislation that will help reduce costs, relieve supply chains and build on the incredible and economic growth we've seen under president biden. i'm glad to announce that the senate is on track to pass bipartisan legislation by senators klobuchar and thune to reform unfair shipping practices that are clogging up our ports, diminishing american exports, and hurting our farmers, and ultimately hurting consumers. it hurts both ways when shipping costs go way up as they have. the exports we send over, a lot of it agricultural goods, the imports that come back, a lot of it consumer goods. all are at a higher price and americans pay that higher price. so the bipartisan shipping bill is exactly the sort of thing the senate should focus on.

because it's when there's a logjam at the port of los angeles, it hurts farmers and small businesses in minnesota and north dakota and across the country, and it hurts consumers in never corner of the country, from port lad, maine, to san diego, from seattle to miami, new york and everywhere in between. so i'm glad we're making progress to getting this legislation done. the sooner the better again. the legislation, of course, is not the only step we have taken this week to strengthen supply chains to help lower costs throughout the economy. earlier this week the senate passed a strongly bipartisan jobs and competitive bill in the works for over a year which will help increase our domestic manufacturing, help address the critical chip shortage, and grow our economy by investing in american innovation. yesterday the house passed a motion requesting a conference committee in the -- and the senate will soon do the same. we're on track to initiating a

conference hopefully before the end of this work period. off the floor committees held numerous hearings zeroing in on the many dimensions of lowering -- of our lowering cost agenda. to name just a few examples, the banking committee held a hearing on monday on the growing burden of medical debt. it's a problem that is facing so many americans. the small business committee also held a hearing yesterday exploring the supply chain crisis and its implications for smaller businesses, including struggling restaurants. and today the banking committee is on the matter of seniors who struggle with affordable housing. these are just a few of -- a few examples of how both off the floor and on democrats are continuing our focus on legislation that will lower costs, help american families, and solve the deep and difficult challenges that everyday americans face to make ends meet. and we're going to keep pushing in the months ahead to translate these ideas into legislation we

can consider here in the chamber as we're doing with shipping right now. thank you, madam president. and i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. mcconnell: madam president. the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: well, the biden administration is on track for another record shattering year on our southern border. in all the wrong ways. the department of homeland security is reportedly preparing for up to 18,000 attempted border crossings per day, 18,000 per day. president biden's border crisis

is a stop of the modern democratic party's inability to support any remotely reasonable policy of border enforcement. now, thus far, the biden administration has kept the chaos at least somewhat in check by leaning on emergency authorities that are specific to the covid pandemic. to be clear, even with these title 42 authorities in place, our border has still been in crisis. last month was the worst february in more than 20 years. we just saw the worst 12-month period for illegal crossings since at least -- listen to this -- 1960. this is with title 42 in place. just imagine if president biden kills it. but the open borders far left

doesn't like title 42. so now the biden administration is preparing to cave to the radicals, end title 42, and effectively throw our borders completely wide open. ending title 42 without any real border security plan in place would spark a humanitarian and security crisis like we've never seen before. but it's pretty obvious the far left doesn't care. open borders are their objective. so at the very same time that washington democrats are pushing for more federal spending on the pandemic, they want to declare the pandemic is finished at our southern border. this doesn't add up. throwing the floodgates open for an historic spring and summer of illegal immigration would be an unforced error of historic proportions. it would be right up there with the administration's $2 trillion

in inflationary spending and their botched restreet from afghanistan. but this goes deeper than just title 42 and covid. today's democrats need the pretext of the pandemic to justify having national borders at all. the left feels they need the pretext of covid to have any -- any -- border enforcement whatsoever. this is absolutely mind-boggling. republicans and the american people reject this false choice between permanent covid versus open borders. we can't only be a sovereign nation during pandemics. americans deserve secure borders all the time. functional open borders borderse pervaded the biden agenda at literally every level. the president chose a supreme court nominee, judge jackson, who has displayed a major streak

of judicial being a vixen this very -- activism on this very subject, illegal immigration. in 2019, the judge sided with the left-wing activists and overlooked plain language that gave d.h.s. sole and unreviewable discretion over speedy removal of illegal immigrants. judge jackson literally just brushed aside the plain text of the law to reach the policy outcome she wanted. and she went even further. she issued a nationwide injunction, a nationwide injunction to impose her radical policy view on our entire country. this was a blatant case of judicial activism. the ruling read like it belonged on the opinion pages of "the washington post." even the very liberal d.c. circuit completely disagreed and overturned judge jackson with an obama appointee writing the opinion.

it should not be this hard for an administration to understand that a nation actually needs borders. i strongly urge the president to keep title 42 in place and quickly produce an actual strategy to do his job and secure our border. now, on another matter, the american people know our country is hurting. one national survey just found that only 22% say our country is headed in the right direction. seven in ten americans just told another poll that our nation's economy is, quote in poor shape, end quote. the worst inflation in 40 years is fleecing american consumers from the gas pump to the grocery store. american workers are earning raises, but prices are climbing faster than their pay. the biden administration has tried to pass the buck for this mess. they've tried to blame everything but their own radical

policies. they've claimed that a year of runaway inflation was actually -- listen to this -- putin's price hike because of a war in europe that's barely a month old. they've claimed the problem is evil profiteering c.e.o.'s because apparently the private sector was not seeking profits back when republicans had the economy humming with low inflation just a few years ago. american families aren't buying the spin for one second. when asked by another poll what they think is the main reason for rising gas prices -- listen to this -- america's top answer was, quote, the biden administration's economic policies, end quote. an outright majority of the country agree the president has made inflation worse. but the administration isn't changing course. they're actually doubling down. the biden administration began the week by proposing a budget

that would skyrocket domestic discretionary spending on liberal wish list items and smack the country with the biggest tax hike in american history. just last night democrats tried to ram through another radical nominee who would have only compounded the economic pain. president biden's choice of david weil for a senior post at the department of labor was a naked attempt to achieve through bureaucracy what the far left cannot achieve through legislation. this nominee is famous in washington for hostility to small business. he's received tens of thousands of dollars from big labor to do their bidding. he openly sought to end both the franchise system and the gig economy as we know them. fortunately, fortunately last night a bipartisan majority of senators rallied together. we save add the president and the democratic leader from bigging themselves -- digging

themselves into an even deeper hole with this nominee. also last night we learned that the president is going to drain even more oil out of the strategic petroleum reserve. the reserve is supposed to exist for crises. it is not there so that anti-energy politicians whosepologieses have raised gas prices can try to hide that from the public. it's also worth remembering that back in 2020, as oil prices were cratering, republicans tried to seize the opportunity to refill the strategic reserve. it would have been a win-win-win -- help stabilize our energy industry in the he recall will i days of the crisis -- in the early days of the crisis, got american taxpayers an incredible deal at bargain basement prices and enhanced our readiness going forward. ahhh ... but you know what

happened. snoot democrats blocked it. they said buying oil at rock-bottom prices and building up our reserve would have been, listen to this, a bailout for big oil, end quote. so the democratic democratic led about killing that proposal. our colleagues understand basic economics and basic security every chance they get. taxing, spending, radical nominations, and gimmicky half measures. the american people already blame the democrats for the fix we're in, and every week our colleagues seek new ways to prove them right. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

they can only handle it so much. so really it's kind of out of the hands to certain degree. they can influence, they can kind of help but for the most part they can't do too much. this is the dilemma we have. it's really up to the corporations and supply chain professionals to figure out how do we work within these constraints we currently have and that's the dilemma. the longer that the ukraine russian war goes on, the worst our situation is going to become for the supply chain. >> host: 202-748-8000 for democrats. 202-748-8001 for republicans. sorry, we're doing regional lines. 202-748-8000 for those of you in eastern/central time zone. mountains pacific time zone

calls at 202-748-8001. you can also send us a text if you wish at 202-748-8003 to talk to patrick penfield from syracuse university. let's talk of specifics. we talk about agriculture. oil and gas. anybody was concern for several weeks and still that gas prices but as far supply and the chain involved where are we? >> guest: rushes as the second largest exporter of oil. unfortunately we definitely have another situation with oil. you saw we taken some steps and are eu partners have taken steps to stop buying oil from russia. that just means there's less supply because were not buying from russia anymore. unfortunately prices will go up even more. i suspect in certain ce my decise jackson's nomination to the supreme court. i will oppose her, and i will vote no. my decision is based on -- upon

her record of judicial activism, flawed sentencing methodology regarding child pornography cases and a belief judge jackson will not be deterred by the plain meaning of the law when to comes to liberal cause. i find judge jackson to be a person of exceptionally good character, respected by our peers and someone mo has worked hard to achieve her current position. however, her record is overwhelming in its lack of a steady judicial philosophy, and a ten denicy to achieve outcomes in -- tendency to achieve outcomes in spite of what the law says. after a thorough review of judge jackson's record, i now know why judge jackson was a favorite of the radical left, and i will vote no. in the area of child pornography , there's been an explosion in this country of

child pornography on the internet. in 2021, groups that follow sexual abuse of children on the internet reported 29.3 million reports of individuals accessing information regarding child pornography on the internet, and it has gone from 100,000 in 2003 to 29.3 million in 2021. there's estimated that there's 85 million images and videos and other files involving sexually exploited children on the internet. now, why is this important? this is the venue of choice for the child pornographer. it is not the mail. as you can see, the internet is where these people go. in a matter after minutes they

can download hundreds, if not thousands, of images and videos of the most disgusting abuse of children. my goal is to deter that, not did count it. judge jackson's sentencing methodology, in my view, misses the mark. i don't doubt that personally she's offended by the behavior that we're all talking about, but as a judge she has an opportunity to deter the behavior of going on the internet and downloading images of exploited children. every time she has that opportunity, she refuses to exercise it. now, why is judge jackson's sentencing so different? in possession cases, she gives 29.2 months. the average nationally is 68 months. in distribution of child pornography, her sentence is 71.9 months. and the minimum is 60 months. that's what you have to give.

the average nationally they tell me is 135 months. the length of sentence for possession of child pornography imposed by judge jackson is 57% less than the national average. in the area of distribution, 40% less than the national average. why? under the sentencing guidelines, a judge if they choose can enhance the sentence based on the fact that the perpetrator used the internet. now, why do we want that as a sentencing enhancement? we want to deter the use of the internet when it comes to child pornography because there's already 85 million images and videos of children being abused and that's the venue of choice. so instead of deterring that behavior, judge jackson routinely says that she will not hold that against a terp traitor -- against a perpetrator. i think that's a mistake. she basically said it's so easy

in a matter of minutes to push a button and download a bunch of files. that seems to me an unfair way to sentence somebody. she also takes off the table a sentencing enhancement for the number or the volume of child pornography being possessed or distributed. i think that is absolutely backwards. i think what we should be doing is that every time you mash the button and download an image of a child being exploited, your time in jail should go up. that should be held against you. accessing the internet should be deterred, not ignored. so what i have to say is that the national center for missing & exploited children released a report on the 2020 data. there's a 35% increase in child sex abuse material in a single year. 29.3 million reports last year of people accessing child pornography on the internet.

at least 85 million images and filed on the internet. and when it comes time to sentence these people, judge jackson will not impose additional punishment for the fact that the volume involved and the fact they're using the internet, the venue of choice. the more you download, the more you go to jail is my view. i'm going to work with senator hawley to practice these -- correct these practices. i think she's making a terrible mistake by not enhancing sentences based on the volume, because every click of a computer is destroying a life. and we should be deterring the use of the internet when it comes to child pornography. judge jackson chooses not to. when it comes to the volume, that should be held against you. the more you abuse children, the more in your possession, the more you distribute, the longer you go to jail. and the reason her numbers are so low is because of that sentencing methodology. and i think if we don't fix this, we're making the problem

worse. and i think her approach to this issue is absolutely wrong. it loses all deterrence. and i'll be watching like a hawk future nominees who are in the sentencing business to see if they follow this model. because the model judge jackson has created is one where the more you do, it doesn't matter. the fact you used the internet where all the child pornography lies is not held against you. and i believe it should be. every click, every download means you go to jail longer in the world that i want to create of the other area of concern, guantanamo bay. remember this? this is 9/11. so guantanamo bay has been a place to house enemy combatants captured in the war on terror. judge jackson was a public defender i think for four or five get mow -- gitmo detainees

and that's a noble thing. i have no problem with somebody, a public defender anywhere in the country, defending very unpopular people and people at gitmo deserve representation. but what i found during this representation is that her briefs in the defense of amicus briefs and gitmo detainees accuse president bush and his team of being war criminals. that's not defending somebody charged or held as an enemy combatant of being part of the enemy force. that's an accusation against your own government that i think buys into the language of the left. you can vigorously defend anyone captured as an enemy combatant or potentially charged with a crime against terrorism. that is a noble thing. but when you use the language that was in her brief and she said well, i really don't remember that, i have a hard time believing that you put your name on a brief because -- that

calls the president of the united states and his team war criminals. that is not about defending somebody. that is an activist approach to the war on terror. and further, in her legal briefs she wanted to deny the united states the ability to hold gitmo detainees under the law of war indefinitely. there's about 37, 38 gitmo detainees still held that have never been charged. we know through the intel and the evidence that they're harden -- -- hardened killers committed to the jihadist cause and under war, once their petition has been reviewed by the federal courts where the courts agree with the government that the person is in fact an enemy combatant, there is no requirement to release them but judge jackson took the position as an advocate that we could not hold them indefinitely creating

a dilemma where you have to charge them with a crime or let them go. i don't consider these people criminals as much as warriors in a cause to destroy our way of life. if you choose to charge them with a crime, fine. but you don't have to make that choice. and the reason that there's 30-plus still in detention is we've chosen, republicans and democrats, to hold these people off the battlefield. if we accepted judge jackson's legal reasoning, that tool would not have been available to us as a nation. would have compromised our ability to defend ourselves, and i think that approach was the most extreme view of representation in this area. and i think it shows lack of understanding of the war in which we're in. we're not fighting criminals. these are not wayward goat herders. these are people committed to the jihadist cause and would

kill us all if they could. the next area is immigration. and before i leave gitmo, 31% of the people that have been detained since the beginning of the war have gone back to the fight. i will introduce that at the hearing next week. and that some of the senior leadership of the current taliban government were gitmo detainees that have now not only gone back to the fight but have actually gone back to serve in the taliban government that is reining oppression on the taliban people. so to those -- raining oppression on the taliban people. so those who think this is a crime we're fighting, you're wrong. it's a survival of good against evil. immigration. in case you haven't noticed, this country is being invaded by illegal immigrants. right after taking office, president biden rolled back

virtually every policy of president trump regarding asylum, deportation, basically destroyed the regime created by president trump that gave us the lowest number of illegal crossings in this country in 30 or 40 years at end of 2020 -- at the end of 2020. now every week we're setting new records. why? the policies that existed during the trump administration worked. they're being reversed by president biden. and we're being overwhelmed and the worst is yet to come. if the biden administration, the c.d.c., does away with the ability to deport illegal immigrants under title 42 of the public health law presenting a threat to covid, then you will see the numbers go up even further, and they will be thousands, 10,000 to 20,000 people a day coming across our border from countries with low vaccination rates. so when it comes to illegal

immigration, policy matters. when judge jackson was a district court judge, there was a case brought by make the road new york et al v. macileen who was the d.h.s. secretary under president trump. the group make the road new york was an arbella activist group. this is kind of a holding company, for lack of a better word, an umbrella group funded by george sors and others. this group receiving money from those folks filed a lawsuit arguing that the trump decision to deport under expedited immigration authority, people who have been here two years or less, to change obama policy and

actually fully implement the authority given to the d.h.s. secretary, they decided to go to full two years. anybody here two years and under in the category in question could be deported with expedited procedure, meaning it was a quick turnaround. this was the authority given by the congress to the d.h.s. director. owe bam pa didn't use that authority fully -- obama didn't use that authority fully. president trump doesn't to do it, make the road new york et al sued. judge jackson was the judge and she overruled the trump decision. and the statute in question said that the secretary has the sole and unreviewable discretion to use expedited deportation for people two years or less.

the statute could not have been written any clearer. if you're looking for what an activist judge is all about, this is the case, exhibit a. the law was written in the most clear terms saying the decision of the secretary is unreviewable and solely in their hands when it comes to using expe expeditedremoval procedures for people here two years or less. she ruled against the trump administration. and she basically said this was arbitrary and capricious. it wreaks of bad faith. showed contempt for the authority that the constitution's framers had vested in the judicial branch. that contempt she's talking about was a congressional act. the congressional act was designed to tell judges that the d.h.s. secretary has discretion

in this area solely and unreviewable. she found that concept defensive. so instead of following the plain letter of the law, she did general legal gymnastics to find against the trump administration. and when she said the statute created contempt for the authority that the constitution's framers had vested in the judicial branch, what she's saying i'll be damned if i'm going to be limited by a congressional act that tells me i can't do what i want to do, and the. the presiding officer: in that -- and the plaintiff from that case was from the radical left. and she ruled for them in spied of the plain meaning of the statute. mr. graham: and she was overturned by the d.c. circuit court. the court said and this is a fairly liberal court. there could hardly be a more definitive expression of congressional intent to lead the decision about the scope of

expedited removal within statutory bounds to the secretary's independent judgment. the forceful phrase sole and unreviewable discretion by exceptional terms heralds congress' judgment to commit the decision exclusively to agency discretion. she ignored the plain meaning of the statute, the language of the statute to get a result she wanted and the d.c. district court of appeals said there could hardly be a more definitive expression of congressional intent. that is judicial activism on steroids. and it makes managing our immigration problem even worse when you have activist judges that ignore the law, take discretion away given by congress to the executive branch because they don't like the outcome, that is in fact the premier definition of judicial

activism. and i find in her judging a desire to get an outcome and no matter what she has to do to get that outcome, she will pursue it. and this is a case where you couldn't have written a statute more clear and she did -- just went around it, got the results she wanted and slapped down an appeal. now, she is the first african american female slated to go to the supreme court. she, however, is not the first african american female that had potential to be on the supreme court. janice rogers brown was nominated to be on the d.c. circuit court of appeals, one of the premier appellate courts, like judge jackson was nominated

to. she is from bam. she was the daughter and granddaughter of sharecroppers, growing up in many about a bam during the -- growing up in alabama during the jim crow era. she wound up serving on the california supreme court. she is a single mother raising children. in june 2005, she was confirmed to the d.c. court in a 56-43 vote. that was after the gang of 14 broke a filibuster by my democratic colleagues against her and others. she was nominated in 2003, and her nomination was stalled for two years. here's what senator schumer said. judge brown was the least worthy pick that president hazard made for the appellate court. that's based on her record. 2005, if the president sends up

a nominee who like janice rogers brown believes that the new deal was the triumph of the socialist revolution, there will be a fight. here's what then-senator biden said. not only did he filibuster her. he said, i can assure you that -- i can assure that you there would be a very, very difficult fight and she probably would be filibustered if she were nominated to the supreme court. so, to my democratic colleagues, as you celebrate judge jackson's potential ascension to the court, as those of us on the committee who asked penetrating, relevant questions of judge jackson's judicial philosophy, how she sentenced people and why, you know, the liberal media that's completely in the tank on issues like this set on the sidelines and watched you, my democratic colleagues, stop the

ascension of an african american conservative nominee by president bush and when it came to her potential of being on the supreme court, you threatened to filibuster her. you considered her ideology unacceptable and too conservative. so if you are a he a conservative nominee of color, a woman, it's okay to use your ideology against you. if you question the ideology and the judging ability of a liberal african american nominee, you're a racist. those days are over for me. so i have very little respect for what's going on in modern america when to comes to judging. miguel estrada was nominated by president bush 43. a highly qualified man, hispanic, to be on the court. and he fell victim to the

filibuster, the wholesale filibuster of bush nominees in the 2003 era. he didn't make it through the gang eight. judge janice rogers brown got on the court, two years delayed. and when she was being considered to go on the court, joe biden, senator joe biden said she will be filibustered very, very likely. so we live in a world where if you're a person of color, a woman, and you're a conservative, everything is fair game. if you're a person of color and liberal, how dare anybody question or use the same standard against you that was used against the other nominees? i don't accept that. and finally about the hearing itself, to the liberal media, comparing this hearing to judge

kavanaugh is an absolute offense. nobody on the republican side held information back accusing judge -- justice brown of doing something that was either made up, not credible. nobody questioned her high school annual. nobody took a bunch of garbage and made it seem like the nominee had been bill cosby in his teenage years. crazy stuff, offensive stuff. what we did ask judge jackson is why do you sentence the people the way you do? explain the reasoning in the cases involving child pornography. and we went after her judicial philosophy, and it had to be contentious because the judge seldom would answer a question. but, to me, if you're going to be nominated to the supreme

court for a lifetime appointment, you should expect to be asked hard questions. you should not expect to have your life destroyed. and if you don't see a difference between the two hearings, then you're blinded bid your desire to get an outcome. here's where we're at in 2022. the only person qualified to go to the supreme court as an african american woman is a liberal. you can be equally qualified as a conservative, but a you need not apply because your ideology disqualifies you. that's not exactly the advancement i was hoping we would have in america in 2022. so judge jackson, i will vote not. i find her sentencing methodology to reinforce and take deterrence of the most

heinous a offenses off the table, the statements she made during the sentencing hearings showed a tilted sentence of compassion. i'm sure she doesn't like the behavior and feels sorry for the kids. but every time she had chance to increase punishment for the volume of material in the hands of the perpetrator, she chose not to do that. and i think she should. and going to the internet to her and downloading a bunch of files is too easy to enhance punishment? with it's just too easy to destroy lives. so when it comes to immigration, it's the most egregious case i've ever seen, quite frankly, of a judge ignoring the plain meaning of the law to get a result they wanted. and when it comes to the war on terror, i think her -- the position she wanted our country to take would make us less safe. and the language of the left in her briefs of calling bush a war criminal says more about the politics than it does the merit

of the argument. so now i know why judge jackson was the preferred pick of the radical left. now i know why they went after michelle childs, somebody i would have supported unless she had been supported, highly qualified, sensible, commonsense person. now i know. now i understand better. that's why i'm voting no to my democratic colleagues, i'll work with you when i can. but this is a bridge too far f thank you. the presiding officer: the democratic whip. mr. durbin: mr. president, i listened carefully to the presentation by my colleague and friend, senator graham of south carolina. i wanted to come to the floor to make it clear that he didn't tell you the whole story. in fact, in some ways he didn't even get close. who is this judge, ketanji brown

jackson? how can she even be considered for the supreme court if she is the preferred pick of the radical left? well, let's take a look at her background. an extraordinary story of a daughter of two public schoolteachers, a daughter of a father who decided he was going to go to law school, basically stopped working full-time. her mother supported the family. she was a little girl at the time. she remembers it well because there would be law books stacked on the kitchen table. she would come in and as a little girl bring her coloring books to sit next to her daddy while he was studying for law school. he went on to become a lawyer. family members were policemen. one of her uncles turned out to

be the chief of police in miami. she certainly had respect for her family ties to law enforcement. she was on the debate team in high school and one of the trips took her from florida up to the campus of harvard university. she was dazzled, believed that this just might be the answer to her dreams. came back to her high school and set down with her high school counselor who said to this young black woman, honey, you're shooting too high. i don't want your heart to be broken. think about other schools. don't think about that harvard university school. luxury, she ignored -- luckily, she ignored that advice, applied and was accepted. she told the story before the hearing about being on the campus at cambridge, not sure that it was the right decision, looking around and seeing a much different world than the one she grew up in, much different group

of people than she was used to socializing with. she must have shown it in her face because as she was walking across the campus one day you an african american woman saw her, looked at her and said, persevere. persevere. just that simple word captured everything for her, and she did. she persevered and completed her education at harvard and went on to harvard law school. she was an outstanding student at the law school, so much so that she became a clerk to the federal district court. did such a good job, she was promoted to be a federal circuit court clerk and then the ultimate prize for any graduating law student in america, clerk to a justice of the supreme court, ketanji brown jackson and what an irony that she worked for judge stephen breyer, whose retirement has created the vacancy she seeks. along the way she staffed the sentencing commission, she

worked in the public defender's office, she became a federal district court judge cleared by this the committee, the judiciary committee. this was her fourth time before the committee. each time she appeared, bipartisan support, including the senator who just spoke against her. and then ultimately the opportunity of a lifetime, to fill a vacancy on the supreme court. for hearing itself, first i want to commend my republican colleague, chuck grassley, a chairman of the committee a democrat couldn't be any luckier to have sitting in the chair next to you, chuck grassley. he is a gentleman, a strong, faithful republican. but he is a gentleman. and we were determined to make this hearing for this judicial nomination to the supreme court different than some that have gone before. and i want to commend the republicans on the committee -- there are 11 of them. the majority of those

republicans asked tough, probing questions, as they should. they never got personal. they never raised their vice. they were respectful throughout, a majority of them. i'm sorry to say that in a few instances that were exceptions on that side of the aisle. but i think the hearing, by and large, was a good hearing. despite a few differences, which i'll note in a minute. and at the end of the day you could not help but leave that hearing and think you had just seen -- you had just witnessed a moment in history. not just the first african american to aspire to serve on the supreme court but also a pillar of strength. i can't tell you how many people have scom up to me everywhere i've gone since that hearing and said the same thing, how did you sit through that? how could you put you want with that? i said to them, think about her sitting in front of her husband and her daughters, some of the things that were said about her,

said again this morning on the senate floor. she came out a pillar of strength, grace, and dignity under pressure. i looked up at that table several times and thought, judge, i'm taking my family. we're out of here. but she never d she never wavered. she was solid as a rock. that's why it is my honor to support her and believe that she is going to make history. some of the things they said were outrageous. this case they want to make about her sentencing guidelines when it comes to sex crimes involving children and child pornography. what did she say about it? she said they were horrible and despicable crimes, but she didn't just say it before the committee. listen to what she said in one of her cases.

united states v. hilly, a case involving this sexual misconduct to our children. the true nature of these offenses, judge ketanji brown jackson said, lies in how they affected the children who you tormented for nearly a decade when you lived on and off with their mother. that is a substantial portion of their childhood. these two children carried a burden no child should have to shoulder, the burden of protecting themselves from a man charged with they are care but who instead exploited them. then she said, this family has been torn apart, she said to the defendant, by your criminal actions. you saw it on the faces of those women. you heard it in their voices and the impact of your acts on these real victims who are still struggle to recover to this day makes your crimes among the most serious criminal offenses this court has ever sentenced. does that sound like she's soft on crime? does that sound like she didn't remember she's a mother of

daughters and cared for the impact those crimes had on the children and the family? not in any way whatsoever. you would draw a much different conclusion if you just listened to the arguments being made recently here on the floor, and it would be an unfair conclusion. the bottom line as far as i'm concerned is this -- what they've left out in the presentation is critical to the very truth of their allegations. judge ketanji brown jackson is in the mainstream of sentencing when it comes to these cases. 70% to 80% of federal judges divert from the guidelines as she has in some cases. and let me add, her accusers have been voting for federal judges proposed by president trump right and left who do exactly the same thing she does. i ask consent to enter into the record a "new york times" article of march 25, 2022,

entitled jackson's critics back judges with like rulings. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: it tells a story, and the story is very clear. we have a situation in this country where we have not upgraded the child pornography and sexual misconduct statutes in years. across the board, 70% to 80% of federal judges take the same position as judge ketanji brown jackson. the so-called deviations from the guidelines has become commonplace. as i said, the overwhelming majority of federal judges are doing this. was there a problem? there is. but the problem is that we have not upgraded the statute. we bear responsibility for this. the decision was made before the supreme court that these guidelines would not be mandatory. it was a decision joined by antoine scalia, the originalist, the conservative. it put the burden back on congress, and we have not

picked up that responsibility. so you say to yourself, well, if she were so soft on crime, it surely would have shown up in other places. let me tell you what happened. the american bar association did a review of her career as a prosecutor, as a defender on the bench. they interviewed 250 individual, prosecutors, defense lawyers, other counsel who worked with her. and i asked point black justice ann williams, who led this investigation by the a.b.a., did you hear from anyone who said she was soft on crime, that she somehow was not in the norm when it came to sentencing? none, not one. 250 people interviewed, not one came up with it. all we've heard against her has come out of the mouths of three or four people in the committee, and that's it, because there is no record for it. well, how did the american bar association grade her when it was all said and done?

unanimously well qualified. unanimously well qualified. it doesn't sound like the same person just described, does it? because it isn't. what you've heard on the floor here is a mischaracterization of her record. i'm sorry to say it's unfair, and i wish it hadn't been part of the record today. what about guantanamo? well, i have some serious differences with the senator from south carolina about guantanamo. hundreds of detainees have been sent through guantanamo since the war on terror began. many of them should have been there. but hundreds and hundreds of them have been released by presidents, republican and democrat. we're now down to 39 detainees. we're spending over $10 million for each one of them each year at guantanamo bay. and when it comes to the resolution of who was responsible for 9/11, the families have come and testified before us.

they've waited over 20 years, and they still don't have an answer. they understand that the approach at guantanamo bay is not leading to justice. it's not answering the basic factual questions. so what is her situation? why would she dare to call the republican president of the united states a war criminal? what was she thinking? well, it sounds like a terrible charge until you read the facts. and the facts were she presented a brief, and the brief referred to a body of law known as the alien tort statute. and the person she was representing in this brief was arguing that he was tortured, mistreated at guantanamo bay. and so he filed a claim under the alien tort statute, and when you do that, you see the president of the united states and the secretary of defense. they were the named defendants that included president bush. what the senator from south

carolina failed to disclose was that as that case was winding its way through, the administration changed. and if there there was an allegr crime against president bush the name of the defendant changed too -- barack obama. to argue that this was a personal charge against the president of the united states is a war criminal is a gross exaggeration and unfair on its face. the named defendants were required under the alien tort statute for the allegations that were made. that wasn't her decision. that was a decision of congress to write the specifics of the alien tort statute. the third point i want to make is immigration. yes, we have challenges in immigration. i think we all know it. but to blame her and say that she's somehow responsible for the invasion, and you saw the crowd of people coming across the border, is really unfair. what happened was there was a

lawsuit filed challenging a trump decision on policy, and she was asked to rule on it. and she ruled in one direction. the appeal was taken, and she was reversed at the circuit court. now according to the senator who just made the presentation, evidence she's in the pocket of the radical left when it doms immigration, evidence that george soros somehow is controlling her decisions is preposterous. the fact of the matter is if you look at almost 600 decisions handed down by judge ketanji brown jackson, you will find a small, small percentage that were actually reversed. and if you're looking for a second case to build a theory that she's on the radical left, i don't even think you found the first one. she has a balanced approach. she's ruled for and against democrat and republican presidents. she has shown the kind of balance we expect on the supreme court. i would say this notion that

somehow joe biden has chosen someone who is radical is a shame. she's not. she is as solid as they come, and her testimony and her appearance before the committee proved that over and over again. and i also want to say i have nothing against the south carolina judge who was in the finals but wasn't chosen by the president. in fact, president biden has asked that she be promoted from the federal district court to the federal circuit court and i'd like to get that done as quickly as we can. i think judge child's is well deserving -- judge childs is deserving of the opportunity. but the choice by president biden is clear and it was the right choice. these charges that she's somehow soft on crime because she's an african american woman and she was a public defender belies the record of this woman. we should all be judged on our record. this notion we're asked to identify ourselves by labels, we know that story, the 100 of

us who sit on this side of the chamber in the senate. we are attached to labels which we embrace and some we don't embrace. but most people who are fair will say i'm not going to judge you by your label. i'm going to judge you by your record. if you judged ketanji brown jackson by her record, written opinions, the fact that this was the fourth time she appeared before the judiciary committee and been approved the three previous times serving on the sentence commission and so many other things, you know that as an outstanding and stellar record but you know it almost has to be. if you want to be the first, you have to be the best. she is the best. despite some of the things that have been thrown at her today and in other places, the american people came out of that hearing and felt better and are stronger about her nomination than before the hearing began. it is evidence of the strength that she brings to this nomination and the value that she will bring to the supreme court. i yield the floor.

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the republican whip. thank you,that you want. i ask unanimous consent that i be permitted to speak for up to ten minutes and senator grassley for 12 minutes prior to the scheduled vote. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. thune: it's been 40 years since the 2018 farm bill. the house agriculture committee has begun holding hearings on the 2023 farm bill and i'm hoping the senate agriculture committee will begin holding hearings as well. agriculture is the lifeblood of our economy in south dakota, and advocating for farmers and ranchers is one of my top priorities in the senate. i'm fortunate enough to be a long time member of the agriculture committee which gives me an important platform.

during my time in congress i've worked on four farm bills and i'm particularly proud of the nearly 20 measures i was able to get included in the 2018 farm bill. among other things i authored provisions to improve the agriculture risk coverage program, improve the accuracy of the u.s. drought monitor, and include soil health as a research priority at the u.s. department of agriculture. i was also able to secure a number of improvements in the conservation reserve program including a provision to increase the c.r.p. age raj -- acreage cap and cost sharing on c.r.p. enrolled acres. i approved renewal for the soil health and income protection program to provide an option for farmers who don't want to take their land out of production for the 10 to 15 years required under the conservation reserve program. i was able to secure provisions for the improvement of livestock

losses due to weather-related diseases. i would have never been able to get all this done without the input of south dakota farmers and ranchers. these provisions were a direct result of extensive conversations with south dakota ag producers who provided insight into the challenges that they were facing and what improvements could be made to make things easier in this demanding way of life. as i look to the 2023 farm bill i will look to farmers and ranchers to lend knowledge to this effort. last friday i held the first of a series i plan to hold. friday's roundtable focused on the commodity and crop insurance titles of the next farm bill and i was grateful to be able to hear from representatives of the south dakota farm bureau, south dakota corn, soybean and wheat producers as well as crop insurance industry representatives. i'll be holding additional roundtables to cover other farm bill priorities including

livestock, conservation and forestry issues. i will continue to rely on the many informal conversations i have with south dakota ag producers as i travel around the state. there's nothing worse than having experts in washington come in and dictate to the real world experts, the farmers and ranchers who spend every day producing the food that feeds our nation. my goal is always to make sure that any farm legislation is directly informed by farmers and ranchers in south dakota and around the country. mr. president, i already have a list of issues that i'm looking to see addressed in the next farm bill and i plan to refine that list over the coming months in my conversations with south dakota ag producers. one thing that emerged clearly from the roundtable is the critical role of crop insurance and commodity programs. agriculture risk coverage and price loss coverage payments which help offset losses and prices for agricultural products drop are not always proving

sufficient, particularly with our current high inflation, which has sent the price of inputs like fertilizer soaring. i was able to secure improvements to the agriculture risk coverage program in the 2018 farm bill and i plan to seek further commodity type improvements in the 2023 farm bill. i also want to secure further improvements to the conservation reserve program. from my conversations with south dakota ag producers, it's clear we need to make changes to ensure c.r.p. continues to be an effective option for producers and landowners. last week i introduced the conservation and land program act which i will work to get included in the farm bill. my legislation would make c.r.p. grazing a more attractive option by providing cost sharing payments for practices for the establishment of grazing infrastructure, including fencing and water distribution. and it would increase the annual payment limit for c.r.p. which

hasn't been changed since 1985 to help account for inflation and the increase that we've seen in land values. this would expand the enrollment options available to landowners to ensure that the program effectively serves farmers and ranchers. the c.r.p. is one of multiple bills to address the concerns of farmers and ranchers, one issue i have been working on over the past year is the challenges facing livestock producers, particularly cattle producers and i will make sure they will be able to face these challenges. the life of a farmer or rancher is a challenging one. the work day starts before the sunrises and concludes after the sunsets. and the labor can be back breaking, not to mention the

deep uncertainty that goes along with this. there is so much that the weather can do to wipe out a crop in a short period of time. i'm grateful for those who have chosen and continued this way of life often for generations. the food we eat every day depends upon their work and the country would not long survive without them. i'm proud to have the honor of representing south dakota's farmers and ranchers here in the steant and i will continue to work every day to ensure that their needs are addressed. and i look forward to ensuring that the 2023 farm bill reflects the farmers and ranchers in south dakota and throughout our great country. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: thank you, mr. president. today i come to the senate floor to discuss the trafficking

victims protection reauthorization act. this has been introduced in the house and now introduced in the senate by this senator and my colleague and friend senator feinstein. this bill is a product of bipartisan work and much collaboration. i also want to thank senators cornyn and klobuchar, who are true leaders in this area and also introduced their trafficking legislation this week. i look forward to continuing to work with those two senators as well on this issue. many americans tend to view human slavery as a thing of the past. we read about it in our history books and collectively cringe at the concept of such injustice. unfortunately, however, the reality is that human slavery is

alive and well, even today in the form of sex and labor trafficking. according to the state department annual trafficking and person report, human trafficking is $150 billion business worldwide. through deception, through threats, through violence, the perpetrators of these crimes will do whatever -- whatever it takes to turn a profit at their victim's expense. with the introduction of this bill, we're acting as a voice for those human trafficking victims in the united states who cannot speak for themselves. to combat this crime within our borders, we've addressed the

scourge of -- on multiple fronts. the bill that we've championed would extend several key victim services that were established under the trafficking victims protection act. it would promote screening of human trafficking victims, enhancing training for federal investigators and start a pilot program for young people of high risk of being trafficked. our bill also includes the survivor's bill of rights, a bill i developed with survivors and an advocate named amanda nguyen, which encourages states to ensure that survivors have, at minimum, rights guaranteed to survivors under federal law. fighting for victims has been one of my top priorities as

chairman and now ranking member of senate judiciary. i considered it a privilege to shape the law to ensure that trafficking victims receive incentiveses. i also -- necessary services, i also take pride in holding perpetrators accountable for these acts. lastly, these -- this bill has the support of the national district attorneys association, rights for girls, shared hope international, covenant house, the national center for missing and exploited children, the rape abuse and incest national network, and the national center for sexual exploitation. i'm grateful for all of these groups and the important work that they do.

this bipartisan bill is a strong start and, of course, the work doesn't stop with a single piece of legislation. i look forward to marking this bill up in the judiciary committee and getting it signed into law. now, mr. president, on another relatively short matter as well. something i come to the floor frequently to speak about, and something i waited throughout last year to see if the democrats' approach to prescription drugs was going to become law and that doesn't look to me like that route is going to be successful. so i continually bring up another piece of legislation that i'm working with senator wyden on and it's a bill that says very clearly that this senator, and i think i speak for

many, many senators, that we want lower prescription drugs now. i said that in the finance committee hearing two weeks ago and i say it again. i want lower prescription drugs now. and so what are we waiting for? we have a bipartisan prescription drug package called wyden-grassley that will save seniors $72 billion and the taxpayers $95 billion. senator wyden said during the finance committee's most recent drug pricing hearing, quote, there is no question that the committee came forward -- i'm going to start this quote over again. there is no question that the committee came together in the last congress and came up with a number of constructive

bipartisan reforms, period, full stop, end of quote. why aren't we then advancing this bipartisan bill? what is the majority waiting for? one of my colleagues on the other side tweeted this, quote, potus has the authority to lower drug prices all on his own and he should use it, end of quote. the progressive caucus is calling for this same thing as well. and then in "the washington post" i read this headline. quote, advocates seek other pathways to lower drug prices. far-left groups are pushing president biden to bypass congress and assert executive authority. so is that some sort of statement that we're giving up

on the legislative path? why would we in congress not move ahead? it's not like all options for legislation have been exhausted. the majority has spent 15 months attempting to pass their bipartisan -- or their partisan prescription drug bill. it's gone nowhere. it doesn't have 60 votes, but that is not the only option. has the democratic majority given up on lowering prescription drug prices and counting on doing it only by executive order? are they saying they have to do it in a way that only democrats get credit or not do anything at all? do democrats really want to help seniors or would they rather have a campaign issue? the longer we wait, patience and taxpayers, are going to continue

to pay those high prices, and for some families, that's a suffering opposition -- position to be in. so let's work to advance a bipartisan prescription drug bill that can pass with 60-plus votes. we can do it today. it's already negotiated and ready to go. i'll work with anyone who wants to pass the bipartisan wyden-grassley bill. just give me a call. now, i said something about last year that you had to sit around and wait for the democrats to get something done on a totally partisan basis, and i don't say that they didn't work hard to get a bill passed that had -- that would have reduced prescription drug prices, but i didn't just sit around all of 2021. in the past 15 months, i want to

give you some of the things that i've been doing to try to sell a bipartisan bill. i spoke with president biden's white house staff, although i did have a short conversation with president biden himself. i met with speaker pelosi, i met with leader mccarthy, i met with -- had a phone call, i should say, with h.h.s. secretary about a -- about a bashera, and ten democrats asked the speaker for a bipartisan drug pricing bill. i didn't meet with all ten of them, but i met with at least five of them. they were receptive to doing what i wanted to do, it doesn't say they were receptive to doing

it exactly the way i wanted to do it but they were receptive to the idea and i talked to the caucus health care working group and peter well much, a democrat of vermont has been on top of this issue for years and years, i had breakfast with him. i met with congressman morris rogers because she's the top republican in the house dealing with this issue. i met with senators sinema and carper and other rank-and-file members of congress. while democrats have talked about lowering drug costs, they have not made progress. the only progress made in pricing has been under republican leadership. if republicans take control of the senate next congress, republicans will lower prescription drug prices, but we shouldn't have to wait eight or

nine months and who knows who will control the next congress in the first place? but we don't have to wait a whole year. let's lower prescription drug prices today. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. murphy: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, the process of confirming a supreme court justice is supposed to be lengthy, thoughtful, rigorous. i'm grateful to the presiding officer and to chairman durbin for doing it right with judge brown jackson. judge jackson has answered hours of questions about her judicial philosophy, why she made certain decisions, why she represented certain clients, how her background has shaped her world view. nearly every detail of her professional and personal life has been and will continue to be

interrogated publicly as she goes through the final stages of this process. but a strange thing is going to happen when judge jackson finally takes her seat on the supreme court. she will, after all of this review and scrutiny, become effectively immune from ethics standards. why is that? because every federal judge, circuit judges, district judges, court of international trade judges kowrkts of federal -- courts, federal judges, bankruptcy judges, every judge is bound by a code of ethics in order to safeguard the transparency. all federal judges, except for nine, the supreme court. and it's not because the supreme court is so highly regarded by

the american people. in fact, the opposite is true. trust in the institution's reputation is in rapid decline right now. according to a recent c-span poll, only 30% -- about 37% of likely voters believe that the supreme court acts in a, quote, serious and constitutionally counted manner, unquote. in a democracy that prides itself on arrest fair and independent judiciary, that's unacceptable. it's worrying but it's not surprising. recent revelations surrounding justice thomas and his wife's involvement in the events of january 6 have finally brought attention that those standards we try to uphold during the confirmation process quickly disappear upon confirmation. now this isn't some new

phenomenon. we've seen justices both liberal and conservative promote liberal fund-raisers, speak at partisan events, fail to recuse themselves from cases with pretty clear conflicts of interest. and if the past is prologue, the recent incident that has gained a lot of attention regarding justice thomas' family, it won't be the last. i first introduced a bill that would require the supreme court to adopt a code of ethics years ago and i'vereintroduceed it since. there's no reason why the supreme court shouldn't be subject to a code of conduct like every other federal judge. but the court disagrees. john roberts said in 2011 when he was asked about this, quote, the court has no reason to adopt a code of conduct as its definitive source of ethical

guidance, unquote. well, it has a reason now. and to be clear, i'm not talking about a code of conduct that's written by congress. instead, my legislation would require the judicial conference to create a binding code of conduct that applies to all federal judges and justices, including those on the supreme court. it's a simple step that would improve transparency, enforce accountability and restore some lost faith in the institution. and, frankly, because of that diminishing faith, it's in the court's interest to do everything possible to try to help rebuild public confidence. during justice kavanaugh's confirmation process, justice kagan put it best. she said the court's strength as an institution of american governance depends on people believing it has a certain kind of legitimacy, on people believing it's not simply an extension of politics, that its decision making has a kind of integrity to it.

if people don't believe that, they have no reason to accept what the court does. justice kagan saeed it well. -- justice kagan said it well. right now that is teetering dangerously close to the edge. the spouse of a supreme court justice was involved in an effort to organize a coup, an overthrow of a democratically elected president of the united states. that is extraordinary. that is not normal. it should not be treated as just another flavor of legitimate political action. and the fact that there is no clear binding code of conduct that addresses this kind of behavior and no clear standards of recusal for supreme court justices that the american people can see and trust is just unacceptable. i think that my democratic and republican colleagues can agree on this -- the american people deserve to know that our supreme court justices are being held to

the highest standards, whether they be justices appointed by democratic presidents or justices appointed by republican presidents. it's not enough for us to just trust the court any longer to self-enforce a secret internal code of ethics. the highest court in the land cannot be exempt from the standards that we hold every other federal judge to. i'm glad that this piece of legislation has gained additional cosponsors. just over the course of the last week. i hope that it eventually becomes a bipartisan piece of legislation, and i'd urge my colleagues to join me in holding the court to account. mr. president, i ask that the following remarks be treated as separate in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. murphy: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i know votes are pending, but i'm also coming to the floor to request, as i will in a moment, unanimous consent for the nomination and approval

of xavier ramirez to be director of the federal remade education and consul -- remediation and conciliation services. i would guess not many of my colleagues know much about the federal remediation and conciliation services. that is because we don't normally have a debate over the confirmation of its director on the floor of the united states senate. the agency is an independent one that has been in place since 1947. its mission is to preserve and promote labor management peace and cooperation by providing mediation and conflict resolution s. services. the fmcs has ten regional offices, more than 60 field offices. its headquarters are here in washington, d.c. it does the basic blocking and tackling of keeping our economy

running. it's charged with trying to avoid conflict between labor and management so we don't have strikes, so we don't have work stoppages, so that our economy runs as smoothly as possible. it's a pretty noncontroversial agency, and the individual who has been selected to run it is equally noncontroversial. he is a career public servant. xavier ramirez began at the fmcs in 2005. he's currently the director of agency initiatives there. to me, this should be a no-brainer that we could come together and decide as a body that we're going to make sure that we have someone running an agency that is pretty vital to the smooth flow of our economy and the mediation of disputes between labor and management. i'd ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to executive session to consider the

following nomination, calendar 665, xavier ramirez of illinois to be federal mediation and conciliation director, that the senate voted on the nomination without intervening action or debate, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, that any statements related to the nomination be printed in the record, that the president be immediately notified of the senate's action. the presiding officer: is there objection? a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from indiana. mr. braun: reserving the right to object, senator murphy indicates there should be no discussion really because this is such a slam dunk. i'm coming up to talk about it. we do not do regular order. our job is to be there for advice and consent on any nominee. we tried to shortcut the process not only on nominations, but even things as important as our budgets. we don't do anything any more with discussion that gets out

maybe the rest of the story. i believe that on any of these, rather than proceeding to the floor, you ought to at least have a discussion in committee. that didn't happen. there was a vote but not a discussion. and when you look at this noncontroversial nominee, i think there's at least some things to think about. harry katz, professor at the school of industrial labor relations said mr. ramirez could be open to expanding the range of disputes that the agency will consider. so kind of hinting at some political enterprise that you'd be doing more than just interpreting. he's not alone. wilma leedman former nlrb chair under president obama told the

media that mr. ramirez, quote, should be open to creative expansion of what the mediators do. we need public servants who are going to strictly interpret the law, and this looks like if we don't at least have a recorded vote, it could slip through when it's not maybe as uncontroversial as senator murphy might indicate. i have reservations about the nominee, mostly about the process, very indicative of the way things work here in general not only for nominations, but critical policy. i think that's got to change. therefore, i do object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. murphy: mr. president, i know colleagues are eager to get the vote going. 20 seconds in response. this place is grinding to a halt. it is absolutely extraordinary the number of noncontroversial nominees that are now required to move through full votes, cloture motions on the floor,

u.s. attorneys that never ever had to come to this floor for votes and debate now do. this is an exercise in fundamentally breaking the senate. this place only works with u.c. we cannot run every single nominee through regular order or we would be here 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. i'm grateful for my colleague's comments. i hope that we'll be able to confirm mr. ramirez. but this is the kind of work that the senate used to be able to do through u.c., and it is unfortunate that we continue to have this breakdown in process. thank you very much, mr. president. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate will proceed to executive session and resume consideration of the geraghty nomination. the presiding officer: the judiciary, sarah elisabeth geraghty of georgia to be united states district judge for the northern district of georgia. the presiding officer: the question is on the nomination. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be.

the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: the yeas are 52, the nays are 48. the snogs confirmed. under the previous order, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, and the president will be immediately notified of the senate's action. under the previous order, the senate will resume consideration of the castner nomination, which the clerk will report. the clerk: georgette castner of new jersey to be united states district judge for the district of new jersey. the presiding officer: question is on the nomination. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll.

vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: the yeas are 52.

the nays 47. the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order, the motion to reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table and the president will be immediately notified of the senate's action. and the senate will resume legislative session. mr. schumer: mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority leader is recognized. mr. schumer: mr. president, i have an update on today's floor schedule. at 1:45 the senate was scetdualed to hold a procedural vote related to a shell legislative vehicle we could use to pass covid response funding. our republican colleagues have requested that we do not hold the cloture vote on the motion to proceed at the present. as we are getting close to a final agreement that would garner bipartisan support. we are working diligently to finalize language, scoring and to final agreement on what should be funded in the final covid package, both domestic and international. as a sign of good faith and to encourage us to come to a final agreement, i