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 will reschedule

today's procedural vote to a later time. now, when it comes to replenishing covid response funding, we simply cannot afford to kick the can down the road. we need more money right away. so we have enough vaccines and testing and lifesaving therapeutics is. we want our communities to go back to normal and stay normal. if a new virus comes, if a new variant comes and we're not prepared, we could lose that ability to go back to normality, for our schools to stay open, for events to occur forks people to -- for people to gather. we don't want to do that. the best way to avoid that from happening, if, god forbid, a new variant comes, and it's likely it will, is to have us prepared. and this covid legislation has us prepared. by having an adequate supply of these new, almost miraculous therapeutics that can greatly reduce the severity of any

illness, and that can be given right after testing. we need tests, and we need to make sure that the vaccines we have are ready and updated. we can't wait. we can't wait till covid is upon us to do this. the prospect of not being prepared is scary, and americans should all -- democrats, republicans -- should be able to unite in making sure we are not prepared. we need to get covid funding done for the country before the end of the work period. it is very much needed, and so we're going to keep talking with our republicans so we can hopefully agree to a robust package that keeps our country prepared. so, with that, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the cloture motion with respect to the motion to proceed to calendar 310 h.r. 4373 ripen at a time to be determined by the majority leader in consultation with the republican leader. the presiding officer: without objection.

mr. schumer: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar 309 h.r. 3197. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 309 h.r. 3197, an act to direct the secretary of the interior to convey to the city of eunis, louisiana, certain federal land in louisiana and for other purposes. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. schumer: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed, and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar number 297 s. 1320. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 297 s. 1320, a bill to establish the cherakahua national park in the

state of arizona as a unit of the national park system and for other purposes. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. schumer: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the committee reported amendment be considered and agreed to, the bill as amended be considered read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar 311 s. 3580. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 311 s. 3580, a bill to amend title 46 united states code and so for and for other purposes. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. schumer: i further ask that the committee reported amendment be withdrawn, the substitute, which is at the desk, be considered and agreed to, and the bill as ahelpedded be considered -- amended be considered read a third time. the presiding officer: without

objection. mr. schumer: 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 as amended. all those in favor say aye. all opposed say no. the ayes have it. the bill as amended is passed. mr. schumer: i ask that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: now, mr. president, the senate has just passed very significant and much-needed legislation that will reduce costs for the american people by passing a bipartisan bill to reform unfair shipping practices hurting exports and consumers alike. we've all seen pictures of scores of ships lining up in ports, from los angeles to seattle to new york to savannah, supply chain backlogs have made it harder for goods to leave these ports and get to their international destination.

every single day that goods lie idle in our ports it costs producers more and more money. it's a serious problems, rippling from one coast to the other. these backlogs have created serious price hooks. today, according to one study, the price to transport a container from china to the west coast of the united states costs 12 times as much as it did two years ago. 12 times. talk about supply chain backlogs. this is it, a glaring, glaring example. and of course, it hurts both ways when shipping costs go up. it affects exports that we send overseas. it affects many of our farmers who need to export their goods. it also affects the imports that come back. it affects all the goods that americans buy from overseas -- appliances, food, and so many other things. when the cost of shipping is higher, the cost of goods are higher, and people have to pay too much, a whole lot more.

at this end of the -- at the end of the day, it's the american consumer that pays the higher price. thankfully, this bill will make it harder for ocean carriers to unreasonably refuse american ports and our goods, while strengthening the federal maritime commission's abilities to step in and prevent harmful practices by carriers. this bill is the sort of thing the senate should focus op. it's cost cutting, it's bipartisan, and will directly give relief to small businesses and consumers alike. i'd like to thank a good number of my colleagues who helped in this legislation. it was put together and responsiblesored bipartisan by -- sponsored bipartisan by senator klobuchar and thune and senator cantwell who understands the maritime industry probably better than any other member in this chamber was relentless in pushing this legislation. it went through her committee, and now it's passed the senate and hopefully will become law

soon, and she deserves our kudos and accolades for the good job she has done for american consumers, farmers, manufacturers, and everybody else. i yield the floor, note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: would senator withhold, majority leader withhold? mr. schumer: i withdraw that request as we have an excellent speaker right here. the presiding officer: the senator from wisconsin is recognized. ms. baldwin: i rise today in support of mr. alex wagner, the president's nominee to be assistant secretary of defense defense -- assistant secretary of the department of air force for manpower and reserve affairs, and mr. ashish s. vazirani, nominee to be deputy under secretary for personnel and readiness. as a member of the defense appropriations subcommittee, i know that the most important investment for our national

security is in our servicemembers, our real competitive advantage with russia and china. mr. wagner brings a combination of public and private sector experience to the table. he will be key in recruiting, training, and retaining the talent needed to compete in the 21st century. absent his leadership, we may miss important opportunities to invest in our servicemembers at a time when we are still standing up a new military branch, the space force. mr. vazirani will be responsible for ensuring we take care of our people, a priority for the secretary and everyone in this body. mr. vazirani has significant private sector experience as a consultant and manager. further, he served in the navy and is the father of a marine.

he has the firsthand experience and knowledge that we need to help improve the opportunities available to military families and spouses. both of these nominees are needed to help implement important priorities, like the independent review commission's sexual assault recommendations, improving diversity in the force, and addressing mental health and suicide. both of these nominees are focused on taking care of our people and ensuring the department has a -- has in place the workforce with the skill sets that we need to be successful in strategic competition with russia and china. put simply, if you are serious about countering russia and china, you should allow these nominees to be confirmed. and if you are serious about taking care of those who serve,

you should allow these nominees to be confirmed. therefore, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations en bloc, calendar number 477 and 599, that the senate voad on the nominations -- vote on the nominations en bloc without intervening action or debate, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, that any statements related to the nominations be printed in the record, and the president will be immediately notified on the senate's actions, and the senate then resume legislative session. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. hawley: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from missouri is recognized. mr. hawley: mr. president, i object and i submit a statement for the record. the presiding officer: without objection. objection is heard. ms. baldwin: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from wisconsin is recognized. ms. baldwin: i am disappointed

that my republican colleague blocked confirmation of these nominations. these nominees have been held up since last year. they were approved by the armed services committee, with a bipartisan vote, and only one member recorded as a no. it's time to end these delays and confirm these nominees. and i yield the floor. and note that a quorum is not present. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from delaware is recognized. mr. carper: are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: we are. mr. carper: mr. president, i rise today to mark a moment in history for a neighboring state, to celebrate a navy vessel named after delaware. i'll be joined by the first lady in what will feel like half -- and what will feel like half of delaware at the port to commemorate a nuclear-class submarine, the u.s.s. delaware. while the vessel was first commissioned under water and under way on mission at sea due to the covid restrictions on april 4, 2020, a first in navy history -- a first in navy history. this weekend we'll give the u.s.s. delaware and its crew a

fitting celebration above the surface of the water. it's been a long time coming, a long time coming for the u.s.s. delaware. so many people across delaware and in the navy have worked hard for not just weeks, not just months, but years to make this weekend a reality for our state and the crew. i'd be remiss not to mention my wingman in the senate, senator chris coons, and our wingwoman in the house of representatives lisa rochester, as well as our governor for their long-standing support for the u.s.s. delaware. all three will be joining us on saturday to celebrate. mr. president, you probably won't be surprised to learn that ssn71 is not the first navy vessel to bear the name "delaware. requestings "the --

it impeded the ability of the british to resupply their army in our war for independence. that was the first u.s.s. delaware. the sixth u.s.s. steal was completed in 1910, armed with ten 12-inch guns, it was the most powerful battleship in the world at the time. over 100 years would pass before another u.s. naval vessel would bear the name delaware. then one day in 2012 i came across a letter to the at the from a constituent in delaware whose name was steven lanzo. he wrote to the editor. it's been a long time since a ship was built named after the state of delaware. maybe somebody should do something about it. and i thought about it for a while, thought about it for a couple weeks actually. i pulled my staff together, said, why don't we do something about this? to a person, they said, let's do. and we did. next week i was on the phone with then-secretary of the navy mabu is, former governor of the

state of mississippi, a a longtime friend. he would go on to become the longest-serving secretary of navy in the history of our country. i explained the situation to secretary mabus. he graciously heard me out and agreed that 100 years was a long time. before we hung up, he said to me, let me think about it, tom and i'll get back to you in a couple of months. true to his word, three months later, he stated that the navy would begin construction on not one but two, maybe three submarines. the first would be the u.s.s. delaware. i could have reached through the landline and kissed him i was so happy. i didn't do that but it was a wonderful moment, one that i relished then and i certainly do today. he is a great friend, great leader of the navy then, a patriot. he's done so many things for our country. thank you, ray.

so, this weekend a decade since we -- almost a decade since i first spoke with then-secretary mabus, i'll have the great honor of finally introducing the newest u.s.s. delaware to the people of delaware. there is a whole lot of it to take in, mr. president. the u.s.s. delaware is a virginia-class u.s. nuclear submarine. the delaware will carry 26 mach torpedoes which will assist in sinking vessels. the delaware is also designed for versatile operations in shallow water ecclesiasteser to land, performing rekansans activities, delivering special forces. it's also configured to launch tomahawk cruise missiles which can be launched while the delaware is on patrol. it can strike targets nearly

10,000 miles away with pinpoint accuracy. this is one hell of a fighting machine. they have a saying down in texas, you probably heard. it says, don't mess with texas. and i would just added to that, to our adversaries, don't mess with the u.s.s. delaware. because if you do, we will eat your lunch, i promise. and oh, yes, there are -- mr. president, there are 136 crewmembers aboard the u.s.s. delaware. they hail from 20 states across our country, almost half of the states represented in the crew of our sub-. the crew also includes 15 officers and 120 enlisted men, a dozen or so who are chief petty officers. my dad was a chief petty officer for, gosh, nearly 30 years. he always told me, tom, the chiefs run the navy. and you know, they did. and my guess is they still do. but in addition to having an

opportunity to introduce the crew of the u.s.s. delaware to the people of delaware this weekend, we'll also have an opportunity to introduce delaware to the crew of the state that they are representing. and with tongue in cheek, i like to describe delaware as the 49th largest state in the union and it's comprised of three counties and one million people, for about 100 miles from north to south, about 50 miles, east to west along our southern border with maryland, your state. native americans including the anapi indians lived there before the dutch arrived. the first town and first state located where the at particular ocean -- where the atlantic ocean meets the bay. the dutch were not all that kind to the native americans who lived in that area.

the native americans literally wiped out the dutch colony. later on, the dutch would come back in greater numbers, be more kind to the native americans and the colony of lewis grew and process expert. the -- prospered. the british looked at this askance and worried about this dutch colony surrounded by british settlers and forces. one night the dutch went to bed to sleep in lewes, delaware, and the britt burned the town to the ground. the next morning when the dutch surveyed what had happened, there's one house still standing. it is believed to be maybe the oldest permanently standing house in north america and part of a national park. later on in 1631 the first swedes and finns settled in what would become the port of wilmington. their sailing ships took a turn to the west for a couple of

miles on a smaller river that they named the christina after sweden's 12-year-old child queen. along its banks, they established the colony of new sweden where wilmington stands today. the church they built there is believed to be perhaps the longest continuously serving church in north america, old swedes church. and believe it or not, there are now more swedish americans than there are swedes in sweden. 51 years later, william penn would sail up past the port of wilmington on his way to what is penn's lanza. and carrying with him the deeds from the king of england to what would later become the colony of pennsylvania and something called the lower three counties. that would be us, delaware. but the real pin's land something in what is new castle delaware.

and there is legend that has it that not only did he stop there, but he spent the night in delaware and later on he was asked, why did you stop in delaware? he said tax-free shopping. tax-free shopping. 1 should years later up the christina river, women would build many of these ships including destroyer escorts that allowed us to emerge vicker to united states in world war ii, that's only part of the story in history. throughout delaware history, the letter "c" has figure prominently. our first settlers planted corn, a lot of it. they raised chickens, a lot of them. fed them corn. our state bird is, believe it or not, the fighting blue hen. today there are nearly 300 chickens for every person who lives in the first state of delaware. later we had become known as the chemical capital of the world.

thank you, dupont, for hundreds of amazing, amazing inventions. delaware's coastline is not large but the last time i checked, it was home to more five-star beaches than any other state coastline in america. one of them is rehoboth. it is a name that translates to mean room for all. not long ago we built more cars in delaware per capita than any other state. not sursurprising they were, you guessed it, chryslers and chevrolets. while we have no sales tax, delaware is the home of incorporation of more than half the fortune 500 and the new york stock exchange. so it is important to us. while i don't know what credit card is in the wallet of most people on the floor today, there is as good chance that it's issued by a bank with operations in delaware. now, mr. president, that's a lot of c's. but even our political leaders have gotten into the act, and with names like carville, former

governor, castle, former governor, carney, current governor, coons, our senior senator, and carper, his wingman. and even though joe biden didn't start sought as one of the c boys, he was close. biden is off by one letter. but joe biden has ended up after our nation's commander in chief. that's a lot of c's. and put together in a very nice way, not bad for a scrappy kid from scranton, pennsylvania. by far the greatest contribution that delaware has made since the founding of our country occurred on december 7, 1787 when delaware became the first state to ratify our constitution. i like to see we -- the first to ratify followed shortly thereafter by maryland and pennsylvania and others. but four one week, delaware was the entire united states of americas. we opened it up and let others in, i think for the most part it's turned out pretty well -- at least until now. but the constitution that we ratified on september 7, 1787,

would become the most enduring constitution in the history of the world. by far the most replicated. none of us are perfect, certainly not me. and our constitution was not perfect either. but over time we've made it better, a lot better. and along with the bill of rights, it has provided a framework, if you will, a pact that has made our country the envy of most of the rest of the world. at the end of the day, our constitution and our declaration of independence are words on a piece of paper. without the resolve made real by the commitment and the sacrifice of men and women who wear and have worn the uniform of our country. will he me end with this, mr. president. i suspect that most of my colleagues remember studying the constitution in school, maybe in grade school, maybe in middle school. i remember it. in fact my sister and i had to learn and recite the preamble in

middle school. it begins with something like this -- we, the people, of the united states in order to form a more perfect union establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity to ordain and establish this constitution of the united states of america. the preamble of our country doesn't say in order to form a perfect union. it says a more perfect union. why is that? it's because the citizens of our great country, it is up to each of us to do our part to ensure that the arc of american history bends towards perfection and justice, even though we know we'll never fully achieve t the men and women aboard the u.s.s.

delaware will serve in defense of our nation. the crewmembers are answering the call of our nation i think weren over 230 years ago. through their sacrifice, through their service, may we grow even closer to that more perfect union. we are -- i know i am -- grateful for their service today. may god bless and protect the crew of the u.s.s. delaware, both now and in the decades to come, and may each of us live our own lives in ways to ensure that america remains a nation worthy of their sacrifice. so that a government of the people, by the people, and for the people will not perish from this earth. u.s.s. delaware -- long may she sail. and before i yield back my time,

i'd just -- i've been joined on the floor by our friend and colleague @johncornyn from texas, and senator cornyn before you arrived, i used the phrase -- i acknowledged the phrase "don't mess with texas." and i went on to explain all the weapon systems that the u.s.s. delaware has on board. it is pretty amazing, incredible submarine. and i said not to mess with texas. you better not mess with our -- our adversaries better not mess with delaware either. with that, i yield the floor to my friend from texas. senator cornyn. the presiding officer: the senator from texas is recognized. mr. cornyn: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, next week the senate will vote on confirmation of judge ketanji jackson to serve as a member of the supreme court of the united states.

since judge jackson's nomination was announced, i made it clear that i would go into this process with an open mind as i've tried to do with each nominee that's come before the judiciary committee during my time in the senate. this is now my eighth supreme court justice to participate in the confirmation of. mr. president, i've seen the good, the bad, and the ugly when it comes to judicial confirmation hearings, and i know there were some people who expressed concerns about the tough questions that judge jackson fielded. i thought she did a credible job answering those questions. she's obviously ... she's obviously incredibly smart, but i found her personally very charming as well.

judge jackson has received two degrees in harvard, completed a supreme court clerkship and served on the federal bench for nearly a decade. i hear no one questioning judge jackson's legal credentials, but a lifetime appointment to the supreme court requires far more than just the right resume. our constitutional republic requires judges who rule based on the law, not based on their personal policy preferences or beliefs, and certainly not based on a result and working their way back to a justification for that particular result. judges are required to go wherever the law may lead them. justice scalia during his lifetime said if you haven't made a decision as a judge that you personally disagree with because the law compels it, you're really probably not doing

your job as a judge, and i think there's a lot of truth to that. as i say, the job is not to start with the desired result and work backwards and cherry pick the legal reasoning to justify the decision. is the question we try to answer, those of us who served on the judiciary committee last week, is where would judge jackson fit in this mold if confirmed to the supreme court? would she be an impartial umpire who follows the letter of the law, or would she attempt to legislate from the bench? the reason that's important is because under our constitution, members of the senate are supposed to legislate, but that's also the reason why we run for election. we are held accountable each election for the votes we take and the policy positions we embrace. that's how public policy in america is supposed to be made.

not by judges who serve for a lifetime and who the voters cannot unelect like they can members of the senate. that's why their job is very different. before judge jackson was named as the nominee for the seat, president biden outlined what he was looking for in a candidate. among the many qualities and beliefs that he specified, the president said tellingly he wanted someone with the judicial philosophy that, i quote, suggests that there are unenumerated rights in the constitution and that all the amendments mean something, including the ninth amendment. those are code words, mr. president, and let me explain. this wasn't a one-off comment by president biden. he even said on the campaign

trail that he would not nominate somebody for the supreme court who did not have a view that unenumerated rights exist in the constitution. now translated into english, that's tantamount to saying that judges shouldn't be bound by a written constitution. you might wonder if they're not bound by the text and the words of the constitution, where does their authority come from? the president stated and restated a litmus test for his desired supreme court candidate, and he has clearly determined that judge jackson fits the bill. so i spent my time during the judiciary committee hearing asking her about unenumerated or what you might call invisible rights during her confirmation hearing. invisible because they're not in the text. i told judge jackson it's deeply

concerning to me and to the people i represent that five unelected and unaccountable justices could upend the will of the people by invalidating laws or inventing a new right out of whole cloth. we talked a lot about substantive due process. i suggested that she and i nerd out together, since that's not a topic people typically talk about around the kitchen table. but maybe they do in a sense i'll talk about in a moment. but substantive due process is this theory that somehow when you combine the fifth amendment due process clause with the 14th amendment due process clause, that out of that formula, unwritten and invisible rights can suddenly appear. this is really just judge-made law. we've seen many examples of

this. for example, in plessy vs. ferguson, the supreme court established the shameful doctrine of separate but equal when it came to the treatment of african americans in our country. thankfully that was later overruled by brown vs. board of education, but it is an example of the sort of horrific outcomes that can occur when judges, five judges, unelected, lifetime tenured decide to become policymakers in their own right. perhaps most famous in legal circles, certainly in law school, you learn about lochner vs. new york. that was another example, substantive due process, where the supreme court invalidated some labor regulations with regard to how long bakers could work. in that, the supreme court discovered a freedom to contract

right. again, nowhere written in the constitution, but another example of a result-oriented outcome based on unwritten constitutional rights. one of the most famous examples is roe v. wade, in which the supreme court found a constitutional right to an abortion. i asked judge jackson is the word abortion, or is the word marriage found anywhere in the constitution, and she agreed with me that, no, they're not mentioned in the constitution. now here's my point -- it's not the outcome necessarily because substantive due process can be used for good or for ill. in other words, the good is when i agree with the outcome and the ill is when i disagree. but the main problem is that unelected judges are making policy, binding the entire

country under the guise of substantive due process, which is nothing but judicial lawmaking. so this doctrine of substantive due process can be used for things you agree with and things you disagree with. but the point is this has, i think, helped us hone in on the limitless ability of five justices to discover new rights that aren't even mentioned in the constitution, and then to eliminate any sort of debate or democratic process where people actually get to vote on public policies, because essentially the supreme court has taken the issue out of the public square. they said we've already decided it and we don't really care what you think. even justice hugo black, a

noted liberal in the classical sense, he said the due process clause itself in the 5th and 14th amendment were designed to make certain that men would be governed by law, not the arbitrary fiat of the man or men in power. and you'd have to update that to say man or woman, obviously. we all know judges on the supreme court and on the federal bench are unelected and, therefore, unaccountable to the people. federal judges discovering rights that do not exist in the written constitution essentially provides a rudderless, and i would argue eventually lawless authority to the supreme court. the very nature of our three branches of government is to divide responsibilities among

those branches. as i mentioned, the political branches are the executive branch, the president, legislative branch -- obviously that's congress, the house and senate. our job is far different, and it's important to have judges understand their limited but vital role under our constitution. their job is to interpret the laws as written, not to make them up as you go along or to use a smoke screen like substantive due process to identify new rights that do not appear anywhere in the constitution. if the american people want to amend the constitution, which they've done 27 times during our nation's history, there's a way to do that. sure, it's a tough battle. you've got to win a supermajority of both houses, you've got to get ratified by the states. but you can do it, and it's been done 27 times.

but there are people who want to take a shortcut and they want judges to abuse their authority by identifying these unwritten rights. what's at stake when that happens? when judges invent new rights, decide issues that are not in their lane, as judge jackson liked to say -- she would say making policy is not in my lane -- or when a judge acts as a policymaker like congress is supposed to do, like the executive branch is supposed to do, when judges act that way, they necessarily undermine the american people's right to choose. the declaration of independence notes that the authority of governments derive from the consent of the governed. but how do judges, when they identify unmentioned rights out of whole cloth, how do we as

the american people get to consent or withhold that consent it's easy to see how judge-made law and these smoke screens like substantive due process are really methods by which some members of the judiciary undermine the basic and fundamental premise and legitimacy of our laws. because the consent of the governed to those judges is irrelevant. one unfortunate consequences of judge-made law is that, that is not in the constitution as written is that anybody who disagrees with you and this act of judicial activism can easily be accused of discrimination or even labeled a bigot, even if their belief is derived from religious conviction, which is

expressly protected by the constitution. this is what happens when invisible rights conflict with rights that are actually written into the constitution, like the first amendment, like the right to religious liberty. president biden assured the american people that he would nominate somebody who believed in unenumerated rights, so i asked judge jackson a logical question. what unenumerated rights are there? the american people deserve to know, certainly in casting our vote for or against a nomination, the senate deserves to know. but she refused to provide an answer. but this isn't the only place where judge jackson was less than candid. my colleagues and i repeatedly asked judge jackson about her judicial philosophy, a standard question during these

confirmation hearings. judge jackson has a marvelous legal education. she has vast practical experience because she was a public defender, a federal district judge, a circuit court judge and now will serve on the supreme court. so -- when you ask a judge about that sort of pet agree, -- pet pet -- what's your judicial philosophy. it's not a trick question. it's something every supreme court nominee has been asked to describe. most recently judge barrett described herself as a textualist or originalist. those are awkward terms, but i believe that means she believes in interpreting the law at

the -- as it is written or as it was when it was written. that's what she refers to as a written constitution. judge jackson previously suggested she didn't have a judicial philosophy at all, something that i find impossible to believe with somebody with this sort of experience and background and incredibly impressive education. during her confirmation hearing shrks she failed to provide much clarity beyond offering vague statements about her methodology. but a methodology is not a philosophy. we need a clear understanding of how judge jackson views judge-made law. invisible, you might say unenumerated in the words of

president biden, rights that she finds in the constitution. in order to me to fulfill my responsibility as a member of the senate to provide advice and consent, i need to know and understand how judge jackson interprets the law and the constitution. not asking her to make specific commitments on results or outcomes. i would never do that because judges are supposed to interpret -- apply the law to a case-by-case method. but after repeated questioning, the judge refused to answer that question. the pris -- prism or philosophy a supreme court nominee interprets the constitution is an indicator for determining if the judge will stay in her lane. again, those were the terms that judge jackson used, or whether

she will become a policy medicare that -- policymaker that president biden and outside groups demand justice want her to be.those groups with progressive communities want her to put her thumb on their side of the scale and judging in a results-oriented fashion. as i reviewed judge jackson's record, i saw some examples of activism bleeding through her decisions. one of judge jackson's opinions from her time on the d.c. district court demonstrates the serious concerns i have about her ability to follow the letter of the law as expressed by congress as opposed to her

personal preferences. in the case make the road new york versus macaleon, ex expedited ruling proceedings for people who illegally enter our country without the paperwork. the department of homeland security has sole and unreviewable discretion to provide expedited removal proceedings. migrants realize that they could be removed on an expedited basis, a lot of them will not take the journey from their home to our shore or our border if they know they're not going to

be successful. so this was not a minor matter. but the immigration and nationality act doesn't leave any gray area for interpretation. sole andunreviewable discretion is as clear as it comes. judge jackson went beyond the text and entered an injunction barring the use of this tool that's needed by the border patrol and immigration authorities to keep people from violating our immigration laws. unsurprisingly her decision was appealed and ultimately overdosed turned by the d.c. circuit court. i think this is a clear-cut example of judge jackson ignoring the law as written in order to achieve a result that

she preferred. the critical point to underscore is as members of congress, we are elected and accountable. we can get elected and we can get unelected when our constituents don't like what we are doing. but our authority comes from the electoral process, which is another way of saying the concern of the governed. with each bill signed into law we are interacting with the will of our constituents, and if they don't like what we're doing, you can bet we'll hear from them and certainly will in the next election, if not before. but by ignoring these laws passed by congress and signed by the president, judge jackson is doing more than just disregarding congress, she is rejecting the right of the american people to govern

themselves, it to consent to the laws or with hold their consent. if given a lifetime appointment to the supreme court, i have to wonder how many other laws would judge jackson ignore? how many other precedents would she seek to overturn simply because she doesn't agree with them? how far would she go to achieve a specific result by discovering unenumerated and, hence, invincible rights, whether it relates to immigration, abortion, religion, the second amendment or anything else you might imagine that the supreme court might consider. mr. president, the separation of power between the coequal branches of government is part of our democracy. not only do we have three branches, we have multiple levels of federal, state, and

local government. a federal system. that's because the founders of this great country and the people who ratified the constitution believed that the best way to protect their liberty was by enacting checks and balances on the authority of government because they didn't trust any person to stay in their lane. they wanted checks and balances to make sure there was a method of enforcing elected officials, including judges, to stay in their lane. six circuit -- sixth circuit judge -- chief judge jeffrey sutton recently wrote a book whose title sums up the overarching debate with a single succinct question. ultimately this is a question of who decides. do we the people decide?

do our elected representatives who we delegate the authority to make decisions on our behalf, do they decide? or do unelected, lifetime tenured unaccountable judges are they free to be roaming policymakers, enacting judge-made law which actually contradicts or conflicts with the will of the american people as evidenced by the laws passed by their elected representatives. when there's a conflict between the different levels or branches of government, who decides is how we determine who holds the power to make decisions that impact every citizen in this country. and as i said, all power, political and government authority, is derived from the

people. voters select senators, congressmen, even the president of the united states, but they have no direct say in the process of selecting supreme court justices. that's why our responsibility, part of the constitution, known as advice and consent, that's why our constitutional obligation is so important. we have the responsibility to determine whether a nominee understands the important but limited role of federal judges and can be expected to act with restraint, fairness, impartiality, and ultimately in the best interest of the american people. ultimately i fear judge jackson has a blind spot when it comes to judge-made law, and she would use her seat on the supreme court to create new rights out of whole cloth and engage in

result-oriented decision-making. mr. president, for that reason, i will oppose judge jackson's confirmation to the supreme court of the united states. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota is recognized. ms. klobuchar: mr. president, i'm here on a very important bipartisan bill, but i first wanted to address the fact that i am proud to be supporting judge jackson. i think she has incredible legal experience, more experience as a judge going into the job than four of the people had when they went on to the supreme court. she is in the top two for trial experience. she showed incredible grace under pressure when one over the top inappropriate question was

asked of her after another. she will be walking into that supreme court with her head held high and she is going to be confirmed this next week. and, as i said, i'll speak more to this later. i spoke a lot about it in the judiciary committee, but she's going to be a great supreme court justice. mr. president, i rise today to highlight my bill with senator thune, which just passed the senate, the ocean shipping reform act. we worked for months together on this bill to come to an agreement. we did everything right and got cosponsors on both sides of the aisle. i particularly want to thank bozz, my staff member on the commerce committee who did such a great job on working on this and i also want to thank

senators cantwell and wicker as their support of the bill as the chair and ranking member on the commerce committee. she worked together on some changes to the bill and i appreciated their input. as u.s. senators representing minnesota and south dakota, senator thune and i know how crucial it is for american businesses to be able to export throughout the country and across the globe. american farmers feed the world and consumers and businesses look to them for in-demand agricultural goods like soybeans, corn, dairy, poultry, pork, and beef, just to name a few. and american manufacturers support so many of the essential parts and products that fill our homes, business and store shops. and as i look at our economy as we come out of this economic downturn, we must be an economy and a country that makes stuff, that invents things, that exports to the world. and no matter how much american

ingenuity we have, there's a lot of it, if ships owned by foreign interests are going to other countries with empty containers and exporting nothing but air and then come to our country filled with foreign goods, that is not exactly an even playing field. as the past two years have highlighted, significant supply chain disruptions have occurred. there are many answers here, one being port infrastructure and rail infrastructure and the like. but what we have seen when it comes to shipping, and i'm so glad my colleague from south dakota has joined me here on the floor, what we have seen in the middle of the country where people are pretty sensible, all of a sudden they're looking at this and they see the pricing of shipping containers increase four times in just two years. that's not norm yasm we --

normal. we have also heard from u.s. companies that they have only be able to ship 60% of their orders. at the same time ocean carriers have reported record profits. it's estimated that the container shipping industry made a record $190 billion in profits in 2021, a seven-fold increase from the previous year. t it isn't a result of improved performance when our manufacturers and farmers can't ship out their goods. no. they are fleecing consumers and exporters because they know they can get away with it. and this is all while exporters and consumers are literally paying the price for the supply chain disruptions caused by unreliable service. we need to get exports to those who need them, but it's plainly obvious that the ocean carriers are prioritizing nonamerican shipments at the expense of both american exporters as in

manufacturers, so many of them in minnesota and south dakota as senator thune knows, being small businesses, as well as farmers and american consumers. it isn't sustainable, and it isn't acceptable. we can't let ocean carriers slow down our supply chain while shaking down our american businesses and farmers for their own profit. that's why we introduced the ocean shipping reform act. it just passed the senate. our bill protects american farmers and manufacturers by making it easier for them to ship ready to export goods waiting at our ports. our bill aims to level the playing field for american exporters by updating the federal rules for the global shipping industry. it will give the federal maritime commission greater authority to regulate harmful practices by these big international carriers. it directs the federal maritime commission to issue a rule prohibiting international ocean carriers from unreasonably declining shipping opportunities

for u.s. exports. this will make it harder for them to leave our products behind, just sitting there at a port in favor of shipping over to china, sailing over to china and then bringing their products back to us. in addition to giving the fmc more authority to investigate bad practices by ocean carriers, the bill also directs the federal maritime commission to set new rules for what the international carrier companies can reasonably charge and require them to certify and ultimately prove that the fees that they charge are fair. as rates continue to climb, this is more urgent than ever. and i personally believe that even before this rule goes into effect, the fact that we passed this unanimously in the u.s. senate sends a pretty strong shot against the bow because -- across the bow because there is so much more we could do and we will do if this practice continues. as i was working on this bill

with senator thune, i heard about exporters who wanted to speak out against these predatory practices, but we're scared into silence because they feared that the ocean carriers would retaliate. that's why our bill includes strong antiretaliation protections for shippers. in short this bipartisan legislation says to the foreign-owned shipping alliances charge fair prices, stop profiting off our backs, and fill your empty crates with american made products. senator thune and i have a bipartisan group of 29 cosponsors representing a variety of regions. senator cantwell, wicker, baldwin, hoeven, stabenow, marshall, peters, moran, blumenthal, young, kelly, crapo, smith of minnesota, blackburn, booker, ernst, cortez masto, the presiding officer, braun, warnock, risch, bennet, kramer, wyden, blunt, van hollen, fisher

and hickenlooper. it earned the endorsement of the american association of port authorities which represents more than 130 port authorities across north and south america, including my own port of duluth. this bill is also endorsed by more than 100 organizations, including the agriculture transportation coalition, the national retail federation, the american trucking association, and the consumer technology association. i also want to mention the house leaders on this bill. representatives john garamendy and dusty johnson of south dakota whose companion legislation has already passed the house. i see this as a truly bipartisan solution to a problem that's impacting millions of americans and a great example of what's possible when we work together. i want to congratulate senator thune for his great leadership. he may be a bit taller than me, but we have worked together on

many, many things across our border. thank you. the presiding officer: the republican whip. mr. thune: madam president, let me just join my friend and colleague and neighbor from across the border, senator klobuchar, in just acknowledging the passage of something that's really important and credit to her staff who i know worked tirelessly on this and members of my staff, in particular chance costello who worked tirelessly trying to find that common ground and thread the needle to get this done in a way that would expedite its passage here in the senate. as senator klobuchar pointed out, the leadership on the commerce committee, senators cantwell and wicker and their staffs also were instrumental in helping us get this across the finish line. but as senator klobuchar pointed out, i think this is a good example of how if you are

willing to keep grinding and keep working at it, you can come up with solutions that are bipartisan and solutions that really get at problems we're facing in this country. i don't think anybody would argue that we have a supply chain crisis in america. it's heightened the importance of addressing some of these shipping challenges, and our legislation, although it may not be the end all, certainly takes us a long way toward addressing what have been identified at many of the problems associated with trying to get goods and products through our port system into the united states. and as importantly, trying to get those products, those things we raise and grow and manufacture here in the united states to their destinations around the world. and there have been lots of examples which have been -- senator klobuchar has alluded that she and i and our staffs have in visiting with stakeholders out there, people who are impacted by this --

these bottlenecks that exist today, as we've listened to them, much of that input and feedback is incorporated into this legislation. so it does take strong measures to help tackle supply chain slowdowns and it does level the playing field for american exporters, including south dakota ag producers. and it does this in several ways. and she's covered it well, but let me just briefly touch on a couple of things. it does this by giving the f.m.c. or federal maritime commission new authorities to crack down on unfair ocean carrier practices, whether that's a refusal to carry certain cargoes or discrimination against certain commodities for exports. we all heard these examples. senator klobuchar alluded to this, containers that are leaving the united states that are empty, filled with air. or the carriers making determinations based upon the value of certain products instead of -- and then assessing

detention and demurrage fees sometimes on shippers that are unfair and unrelated really to anything that they have done. so providing the f.m.c. with more tools to quickly resolve detention disputes, bringing greater efficiency and transparency to a process that leaves many shippers frustrated and especially small businesses is what this legislation is all about. these improvements we believe are going to bring long-term positive changes to the maritime supply chain which i hope will benefit not only exporters but importers and consumers alike. the legislation not only levels the playing field for producers in south dakota and across the nature but will benefit exporters, small businesses all businesses and consumers across this country. so i hope as she does that our colleagues in the house will be able to take this up and pass it. there has been some good work done there already, much of it by my colleague in south dakota, a member of the congressional delegation from our state, dusty

johnson who has been the leader on this legislation in the house of representatives when it passed earlier this year. and now we have our chance here in the united states senate. and it is a product of tremendous amount of work. senator klobuchar's staff and my staff spent not weeks but months negotiating and there are always disagreements. there are always differences. of course when you present it to the rest of our colleagues on the senate commerce committee, they have their ideas, unique ideas about things that they want to fix and change and make better. so we went through that process, but ultimately when we brought it up for consideration in front of the senate commerce committee, there were some amendments that were offered, voted on. people got a chance to have their voices heard. a lot of the ideas that people had were incorporated into the base text. but ultimately when it was voted out, it was voted out of the senate commerce, science, and trappings committee unanimously. came out without a dissenting vote. that set us up here on the floor

of the united states senate to process in a way again that included a high level of bipartisanship. and i credit to as we brought it to the floor, there were a couple of issues we had to again deal with, individual members who had concerns, some with the legislation, some with other issues. but as is always the case here in the united states senate, an individual senator can assert their rights in a way that enables them, gives them leverage on the process, but we were able to work through those things and that product today is now passed the united states senate and hopefully if the house is inclined to do so, it would be great if they would pick it up, pass it, and put it on the president's desk and have him sign it into law because i think it will take us a long way down the road to leveling the playing field and addressing many of the concerns that have been identified by our exporters. i know the farm organizations in my state of south dakota have been very active in influencing this, very concerned about the

bottlenecks in their ability to reach export destinations in a way that allows them to maximize their profitability and in doing so, increase the prosperity of people all across the midwest in states that we represent where agriculture is the number one industry. so congrat, -- congrats to those who worked on this, to the staff who labored and to my colleague from minnesota. this is not the first time we've collaborated on issues. we share not only a border but obviously a lot of commonality in terms of the issues that impact our states. and this is one in particular where i think the farmers, ranchers, small business people, manufacturers in minnesota and in south dakota will all derive of benefit once it's enacted into law. we'll do everything we can to continue to press forward. we got it this far. we need now get some additional action by the house of representatives, whether that's -- i'm not sure what that looks

like, whether it's going to conference with them. preferably they pick up this and pass this bill, put it on the president's desk and turn it into law. i'm pleased to be able to be a part of this and to get a result today. i would be happy to yield to our colleague and the chairman of the senate ag committee who also has big equities in this. ms. stabenow: thank you, senator shiewn and senator klobuchar -- senator thune and senator klobuchar. i know the chairman of the commerce committee is coming down to speak. i wanted to say congratulations. thank you for your wonderful leadership on this. obviously with my hat on as chair of the agriculture, nutrition, and forestry committee, this is a big deal, i would say. this is a very big deal to certainly all of our growers in michigan but i know across the country. thank you for your great bipartisan work. hopefully we can get this all the way across the finish line. i know the president is anxious to sign it.

the presiding officer: the senator from washington. ms. cantwell: i would like to come to the floor and thank my colleagues, the upper midwest, for their great work on this legislation. the ocean shipping reform act of 2022. our colleagues from the upper midwest know how important agricultural products are and they know how important it is for them to reach their destination. and the fact that senator thune was the previous chair of the commerce committee knows all too well about how products can get boxed out because of other products on the rails. my colleague from minnesota knows all too importantly about exports and has been a big supporter of our export economy in general and represents a state that is very robust on the global economy. so her leadership on a very

tough issue has been very, very appreciated. i'd like to thank from the commerce committee staff a variety of people and from senator wicker's staff and senator thune's. a lot of people worked on this but niki tushell, alex, dave stewart, grace bloom, charles victory, eric ryland, michael davidson, matt fillopy and megan thompson and andrew neely, foreign gibson, brendan gabben, paul wasick, kyle fields. from senator klobuchar's staff, boss salise, couldn't do it without his hard work, the guy behind it and chance costello and rod pittman from senator schumer's staff. so today, madam president, the passage of this bipartisan legislation couldn't come at a

more important time for our growers and producers and exporters. that is t -- today we're saying that american farmers matter and their survival matters more than the exorbitant profit of international shipping companies. that's what we really try to tackle in this legislation, as our two colleagues brought forth this legislation in record time. it was passed in the house of representatives, led by congressman giramundi and davis -- i'm sorry, congressman johnson, and the two of those passed that in december, and our colleagues got this bill here in the senate in february, and we were able to pass it now here at the very end of march. i think, again, our two colleagues, senator klobuchar for leadership and senator thune, for getting this done so quickly. literally, introduced in february, passed in march. i hope it's an example what we can do on other legislation affecting our supply chain. our economy is built on trading

goods in a timely manner and our partnerships from all over the world, as the c.e.o. of anderson , hey and green in washington said, quote, the agricultural economy in our region does not work if we don't have competitive access to world markets. right now, the supply chain isn't working. our ports have been clogged, shipping companies have struggled to keep up with demand, and the cost of american exporters, who are trying to get hay, milk, and apples to the global market, have gone through the roof. it is hurting our consumers here at home as i see -- they see prices increase, and hurting our exporters when they're looking at products they are trying to get to market. american exporters are being charged more and more for contain containers and due -- for containers, ad -- and due to shipping delays really out of their control. to not increase these costs, but

basically consumers are paying more, and our exporters are having a tough time getting their products to market. according to the freight index, by december 2021, shipping container had gone from $1300 a container to $11,000 a container reports and news articles about how that's affected our supply chain, that there have been increase in costs on consumer electronics, like computers and other equipment, furniture and apparel, all seeing increases, because of increase in our shipping costs. so the federal maritime commission found that between july and september of 2021, american businesses were charged $2.2 billion in fees in addition to freight rates. that's a 50% increase compared to the three prior months. and getting overcharged is only part of the problem. some of our businesses can't even get their containers on the

ship. during 2021 there was a 24% drop in full shipping containers leaving from the ports of seattle and tacoma. that drop increased to 30% in january and february of this year. that means 30% containers -- 30% less leaving to international markets that aren't full of american products. american exporters and their products are being left on the docks, and that's why we wanted to act quickly, because the american farmer, with growing season upon us, can't afford to wait another minute for the federal trade commission to do -- the federal maritime commission to do its job and help police this market and make sure our products and farmers are not being overcharged or left on the dock. the washington state potato commission reported 11% decrease in exports from 2019, and according to dairy gold, american dairy producers lost $ 1.5 billion last year due to

poor congestion and related challenges. so all of this means that getting this legislation on to the president's desk could not be more important. that's why we acted fast in moving this legislation today to give the first reforms to the federal maritime commission in two decades. those new tools, given to the commission, are to increase the rules, to prevent american products from being left on the docks, increasing transparency, so that the fees that shippers are charged are known and can't be overcharged, and three, preventing the shipping companies from retaliating against our local american businesses. these three changes are significant changes to the authority, and the committee made sure in the changes to the legislation that these new rules need to be in place in the next

few months. we cannot continue to wait for those rules to take place until next year. they need to be done now. that is why the commerce committee, i'm sure, will work in a bipartisan fashion to see the implementation of this law and to make sure that the commission is aggressive in going after the exorbitant fees that are being charged by these international shipping companies. it's a huge task. the commission is charged with regulating a $14 trillion international shipping industry, but this industry has done nothing but become more concentrated in the last several decades. so as the supply chain challenges unfolded it's clear that the commission is left trying to rein in the practices of five very large international companies. that's why we had to act fast, and we had to be aggressive at making sure the federal maritime commission would work to put

rules in place that will help americaning a exporters and help protect -- american ag exporters and help protect consumers. i thank my colleagues for their great work. the state of washington desperately needed to see the federal maritime commission reform. i'm proud to say that we were able to get a new federal maritime commissioner, max vekich, who i think will officiallien sworn in soon, from the state of washington, who's been working on the docks for 40 years. he knows what it takes to move product. but he also knows that we need aggressive action by the federal maritime commission to protect all of us from these exorbitant shipping costs and to help us in making sure that products, like good american exporters, like our apples and hay and wheat, are not left on any dock, but reach their destination to foreign markets. i thank the president, and i yield the floor.

ms. stab now: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. ms. stabenow: i want to give a shout-out to senator cantwell. i don't know if this is a record, but monday this -- moved this so fast through the committee, it's amazing. building on the great work of the committee with the innovation and competition act. again, on behalf of all the farmers in michigan and across the country, this is a really important legislation. and madam president, as the pandemic began, congress, on a bipartisan basis, made sure our schools and summer meal programs had easy-to-use flexibilities, so they could continue to feed hungry children who are no longer physically in school or no longer able to go to a meal site in the summer because of covid. now, all across america now,

because of a lot of hard work and a lot of -- on a lot of people's part, our kids are back in school, which is great. but 90% of our schools are still struggling to provide children healthy food as a result of higher food prices, less available staff, and more supply chain delays and shortages that we know about all the time. in fact, part of that relates to this bill that was just passed on shipping. this is part of the supply chain breakdowns that has affected the ability for our schools to be able to get what they need for our children. so we've got 90%, in red, across the country of the states are saying we need these flexibilities that have been in place since the very beginning of covid. we've extended the flexibilities before, and they need them to continue to be able to feed children in our country. school cafeterias, summer meal providers, everybody is working

as hard as they can to get back to normal. but they need time to transition. so our children aren't hurt in the process. the usda, school administrators, local mayors, even school food supplies themselves have said they need these flexibilities to continue for another year. so, back in january the agricultural secretary, secretary vilsack, called on congress to once again extend what we call the nutrition waivers, so that schools and meal providers had the flexibility they need to feed children, feed hungry children, who may have their only meal at school or their only breakfast, their only lunch at school, or in the summer through the feeding programs. and we had been working in good faith, as we always do, across the aisle, to make this extension happen, and we were working on having that happen as part of the omnibus.

so, it was a real shock to me and to many other senators who care deeply about this, care deeply about our children, when republican leader mcconnell refused to agree, to extending the school nutrition flexibilities as part of the omnibus bill that we just passed, that we know was critically important to pass. we don't want the government to shut down. we had essential, critical resources for ukraine, for so many other issues, but our kids were left behind on this one. it's not right. and we need to fix it. we're in a critical transition period right now, but we are not out of the pandemic yet. without having these flexibilities extended, without this support, up to 30 million children who get their food, their only healthy meals, at

school will see their breakfasts and lunch disrupted. that makes absolutely no sense. and millions of kids will show up at their summer meal program this july and could very well see a closed sign. so that's why today senator lisa murkowski and i are introduced the support kids not red tape act, along with senator collins and all 50 members of our democratic caucus. and let me stress, this is a temporary extension with a clear end date and a lot of procedures put in place to safely get schools and summer meal programs back to normal operations. we want to give them time to transition. but i'm so grateful for our colleagues' support. 52 colleagues. we only need eight more. only need eight republicans more to join us and get this done right away, just like we did the

shipping bill. but our schools need time. our kids need time right now, rather than having this bankruptly end january 30 -- abruptly end january 30, which is not very far away. let's be clear -- to abruptly pull the lunch tray away from hungry kids at the end of june is just plain wrong. since the pandemic started in march 2020, food insecurity for families and their children has jumped by neared two-thirds -- nearly two-thirds. we all know the stories, we've all seen the lines. people across the country engaging to support each other. one in five kids come too school hungry, and school and summer programs may be the only meal that they get, and during the pandemic it was even worse. and now, because of all the challenges continuing, we're not out of the woods on this yet, in

terms of feeding our children. so, how have these flexibilities helped our children get healthy meals? one example is in rapid city, south dakota, where the local school district has partnered with meals meals on wheels in te summer to deliver meals to where the kids are. makes sense. this has been a life saver for hungry children in their rural community, where no way to get to the one school meal site that was miles and miles away. in arkansas, the food insecurity rate among children skyrocketed to over 32% during the pandemic. 32% of the children being food insecure. not being able to have a healthy meal. so, fayetteville and bentonville have provided weekly meal pack pickups with a week's worth of

breakfasts and lunches. rather than somebody, you know, a parent working, trying to figure out how do i get my child to a place to get a healthy breakfast, then by the way, i ma i have to take them back again, for a healthy lunch, or by the way, in a rural community not a lot of public transportation, it certainly affects everyone in urban areas, suburban areas, rural areas. but the distances in rural communities are an extra burden oftentimes. and so they put together the capacity to do a week's worth. that was with the flexibilities we gave them. that we want to continue. and in edgecomb county, north carolina, resourceful schools got meals to hungry kids in the summer by using the school bus. the bus wasn't being used, so put the food on the school bus to go out to neighborhoods, out

to the kids. as a result of these flexibilities, twice as many kids got summer meals during the pandemic. which is also something we need to learn from, just as we've learned the importance of high-speed internet after the pandemic and we've addressed that, which is great, we've now learned that we need to rethink some of these things here in terms of the flexibilities. for our schools sand how we deliver summer meals, how we address schools during the school year. so it goes to show you what a big difference it makes for hungry kids when we don't make them or their families or their meal providers jump through all kinds of hoops to get something as basic as a healthy meal. in schools across kentucky, from small-town madison county to metropolis jefferson county, these flexibilities have kept kids from getting caught in the

red tape and going hungry if their struggling parent just missed one piece of paper on a form. it's been a relief to school food service directors in small towns who are already working with half the staff, twice the stress of putting together healthy meals with all the food and supply chain shortages we've talked about. right now school food service directors in utah are placing orders for next year, knowing that many of the items they need are currently not available and the ones they can find have doubled in price. the flects and increased -- the flexibilities and increased funding to deal with these costs, the things we have given them to deal with this, have made it possible to make substitutions when basic items like ground beef is not available or fruit is not

available, to be able to put together something healthy in a different way. losing these flexibilities will cut their budgets by 40% and force meal providers to make pretty dire choices on which children to feed and how schools going to pay for it. without our bill to support kids and cut red tape, all of these desperately needed flexibilities are going to go away the end of june. they're just going to go away. all the support for schools, all the support for children, all the new creative things that have been able to be done to help children get healthy meals -- done. school meals, summer programs will have to scale back, some will have to stop feeding kids altogether. children will once again go hungry because of paperwork and bureaucracy outside of their control. think about it. are we on the side of

bureaucracy or the side of kids? this legislation is on the side of kids. my colleagues supporting this bill and sponsoring are on the side of kids, not red tape. the unnecessary stress is going to be felt by families in every part of our country from small towns to big cities to you subun areas. soure bill gives us a clear, easy path forward to make sure children, make sure schools have the time and the support they need to get back on their feet as we recover from the pandemic and be able to plan on how this phases out. schools across the country are telling us that these flexibilities are critical to continue, absolutely critical. so it's time for us to listen to them and do the right thing for our children.

i urge my colleagues to pass the support kids, not red tape act as soon as possible. i yield the floor. thank you. mr. whitehouse: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island is recognized. mr. whitehouse: madam president, before i get under way with the business that brings me to the floor, i'd like to take a moment to say farewell and thank you to a member of my staff who is going on to other pursuits. her name is leah siegel. she is right behind me, and she was my scheduler for many, many, many years. as every senator knows, there's a special relationship between a senator and a scheduler.

they have to be on duty more or less 24/7 when we're up and about, they have to deal with our day-to-day life and how it integrates with our offices. they very often are close to and involved with our families because of having to deal with keeping our family time extant and busy schedules. so i want to say a word of appreciation to leah. i don't know how many speeches she is he's scheduled me here on the floor for, all the scheme receives, probably all the time to make up speeches, and this one today. this one today she actually gets to be here for and doesn't have to watch on television. so to leah siegel, thank you very much, and to schedulers everywhere, you are important to us. madam president, the reason i'm

here is to announce my intention to vote for judge ketanji brown jackson to be an associate justice of the supreme court and to congratulate her on the grace and dignity with which she withstood what chairman durbin called her trial by ordeal in the judiciary committee. last week judge jackson set the gold standard for patience and courtesy from a supreme court nominee. she demonstrated hour after hour after often agonizing hour in plain view the qualities that rhode islander and reagan first circuit appointee judge bruce selya has praised in her -- an outstanding legal mind, an

exemplary judicial temperament, and a depth of experience in the courtroom that none of the sitting justices possesses. judge jackson reminded us through her personal story of perseverance and hope how historic and important it is to have a black woman about to serve on the united states supreme court. that story of perseverance and hope stretches back beyond judge jackson's own life and work into the experience of black women through american history, and it illuminates a brighter american future. so i will be proud to cast my vote for her confirmation. during the judiciary committee hearing, there were persistent

efforts to rewrite judge jackson's own history, to assign to her beliefs she has never espoused. she disexpensed with those attempts -- she dispensed with those attempts so effectively, that i won't dwell on them here. but there were other attempts in that hearing to rewrite history that i feel obliged to correct here today. the first is the notion that a justice must have a judicial philosophy. that's news to me. if a nominee has a judicial philosophy, it is definitely fair game, it is important to explore that. and it's particularly important to explore that because predisposition can come masked as judicial philosophy. but i don't see where a nominee

has to have one. and i'd actually suggest we're better off if judges don't, because judicial philosophy can so easily be code for predisposition. republicans persisted in that judicial philosophy quest, asking about judicial philosophy over 50 times. the favorite theme appeared to be the so-called judicial philosophies of originalism and textualism. doctrines which illustrate my concern about predisposition. the big dark money donors who ushered the last three justices onto the supreme court love the backward look of originalism. a backward look to an era when

industry regulation did not exist because big industry did not exist. moreover, republican justices completely ignore originalism when it suits them. as i pointed out in committee, the entire vast structure of corporate political power in america erected by republican justices over years satining affront -- is a continuing affront to original i am. there was no corporate role in politics in the constitution or the philadelphia debates or "the federalist" papers, any of the customary well-springs of

originalism would say that this is a country to be run by we the people. but how happy, how happy corporate political power makes big republican donors. so originalism goes out the window and corporate power gets baked into our system. unlike those judicial philosophies of predisposition and of convenience, judge jackson said her judicial philosophy is her methodology, consistently applying the same level of analytical rigger to a case -- rigor 0 to a case, no matter who is involved in a legal action. for a judge following your oath of office, the constitutional precedence of the court, and the text of the constitution itself should suffice.

you don't need a judicial philosophy. so where did this republican fascination with judicial philosophy come from? here are talking points distributed by twinned right-wing dark money influence groups, the so-called independent women's law center and the affiliated so-called independent women's voice. these groups are tied in with leonard leo's massive secretive $580-plus million archipelago of groups that make up the corporate capture operation. they sent these talking points

to republican senators even before judge jackson was selected. these dark money groups noted, this nominee is likely to be a woman of color and urged that republicans not argue that the president's selection process led him to choose someone who may not be the best person for the job. they said, it is ... important that you focus not on the selection process or on the nominee's paper qualifications, but rather on the need to learn more about the nominee's judicial philosophy. the marching orders were clear, and 50 efforts at judicial philosophy discussion later, we saw these talking points play out in that hearing. this rewrite of history, to

presume that every nominee should have a judicial philosophy just because right-wing nominees have a fake judicial philosophy of originalism that turns out to be sourced to right-wing money talking points, seems to me to be an effort to erase the dangers of having a judicial philosophy, particularly a judicial philosophy that masks predisposition and is selectively applied. another rewrite of history came through the witness chosen to highlight judge jackson's amicus brief, defending a 2000 massachusetts law establishing buffer zones for pro-toasts around abortion clinics. the witness was a sidewalk counselor, someone who encourages women not to go in and exercise their rights. she seemed like a very nice

woman, and she testified that she acted with compassion and love. but history and my experience don't align with that image of clinic protesters as i recall personally. crowds outside of clinics in rhode island in those years leading up to the 2000, were hostile and intimidating, kreemg to the point -- screaming to the point of murder. those coming in needed escorts to protect them. i remember pink t-shirts that safety experts were there so they could identify who was there to help them. activists went back and forth

between massachusetts and rhode island to protest outside of clinics. on the morning of december 30, 1994, bad went to worse. a man walked into a pair of abortion clinics in brookline, massachusetts. at the first clinic he shot and killed the receptionist with a modified semiautomatic rifle, then turned on others present, patients, their accompanying partners, staff. he left that clinic and traveled to the second clinic and there continued the slaughter. the man killed two people and wounded five others in this

rampage, which shook new england to the core. i was the united states attorney when word came out of these shootings at clinics just one hour up the road and that the shooter was still at-large. i thought rhode island might very well be next so i went and stood outside the planned parenthood clinic, just off the highway, with my friend and federal law enforcement colleague u.s. marshal jack laden, and we stood there on that cold morning until a police cruiser could be posted outside. i'll just say that the environment that led to massachusetts' buffer zone law

passing in 2000 was not an atmosphere of compassion and love and it is a disservice to the facts to try to rewrite history and pretend that it was. another rewrite of history that took place in this hearing was a rewrite of the brett kavanaugh hearings. the judiciary had been provided with information that a young brett kavanaugh had particularly bad behavior of young women, most particularly of this wok, that she had been physically assaulted as a young woman. you would never know of her testimony from the history

rewrite offered by republicans in the recent hearings. you would never know that she came to the judiciary committee that she testified under oath and intense public scrutiny. that she weathered the attentions of a professional prosecutor hired by the republicans, that she was calm and credible. and you would never know the f.b.i. tanked its summital background -- supplemental background investigation into these allegations, including a tipline whose tips received zero f.b.i. investigation. i've described it before as a tip dump not a tip line. the tips related to the nominee were segregated from the regular tips in the f.b.i. tip line and

sent without investigation to the white house. republicans sought to erase all of that by rewriting kavanaugh hearing history during this supreme court hearing. well, she has a face and she has a name, dr. christine blasey ford. and the big rewrite is to ignore all the evidence that our supreme court is now a captured court. apt cured in the -- captured in the same way that agencies are sometimes captured by special interest. there's a whole literature about

agency capture or regulatory capture. well, even before the trump presidency, big power right-wing donor interests began spending massive sums of money to install justices on the supreme court whom they expected to rule reliably in their favor. very often, as the presiding officer knows, if you can pick the judges, you can pick the winner. the 5-4, and now 6-3, republican majority on the court has been steadily delivering for those big donors. over 80 -- 8-0 -- 805-4 partisan

wins for big corporate and partisan donor interests under chief justice roberts. in those 5-4 partisan decisions, by the way, where there was a republican donor interest involved, it wasn't just that the 80 stood out, it was that the score was 80-0. every single one went their way. dark money lurked behind the federalist society turnstile that picked the justices. dark money lurked behind the secretive agency down the hall from the federalist society that ran the ads for them. dark money lurks behind the flotillas of front group ameeky

cure eye -- amicus curry how to rule. you would never know any of this from our republican friends in the committee. but the american people have seen those decisions, and more and more they understand that the court is rigged. that is now the court that dark money built. judge jackson, by contrast, is a walking reminder of what the court ought to be. she didn't pass through the dark-money funded turnstile at the federalist society. she arrived after a lifetime of accomplishment against unimaginable odds through a fair and honest election process, through her merits and abilities. the attacks on her in the

committee were unseemly, but there's no need to dwell on that because at the end of the day they were sound and furry -- fury signifying nothing. judge jackson will excel on the supreme court and i will proudly cast my vote to put her there. i yield the floor. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

support me doctors

>>

nuclear crisis where one did not exist. in the years since that withdrawal, iran has crept closer to a bomb, restricted access to international inspectors, and set us on a potential collision course to war with iran. our european allies wanted to build upon the iran nuclear deal, but president trump and his arms control assassin john bolton used it as target practice leaving the biden administration and our allies to pick up the pieces. on the republicans' watch, iran's breakout time, a time required to build enough nuclear material for its first nuclear

bomb, went from more than one year down to just weeks. mr. president, there is simply no good alternative to reentering the iran nuclear deal. trump has already tried the all terp tif -- tried the alternative. it has failed miserably and made the united states more vulnerable, made the middle east more vulnerable. then secretary of state mike pompeo laid out a series of demands for iran in 2018 that read more like a fantasy novel than a foreign policy speech. and where did it get us? absolutely nowhere except it got iran closer to a nuclear weapon than it had ever been before.

no, the reality is that the alternative to diplomacy or plan b is likely to include more sanctions which will lead to more enrichment of uranium and the prospect of another middle east co conflagration. in short plan b stands for plan bad. that is what is being urged by the republican party, by the trump supporters. plan bad would endorse trump's disastrous policy of maximum pressure, one that gave us maximum enrichment of uranium and other activities prohibited under the iran nuclear deal. plan b means that china's reported work to give saudi arabia, iran's nemesis, the building blocks for a nuclear

weapon will only accelerate and other gulf countries will jump into the race for a nuclear bomb as well. plan b means that iran's nuclear facilities that are above ground will go underground. plan b means that cameras and international inspectors that keep a continuous eye on iran facilities will be shuttered permanently leaving us in the dark about iran's nuclear intentions. under trump we saw maximum pressure generate maximum tension that put us on a perilous path to war. trump's plan b to diplomacy was and continues to be a complete failure. indeed we saw this in 2019 when

tensions rows to a decades long high with the assassinations of cokasim solomon if i and the strike that injured 200 u.s. foops at an -- troops at an air force base in iraq. never have we been closer to a war with iran. mr. president, if the sides currently negotiating a new iran deal are unable to get to yes on a deal, i fear that we will see increasing calls from my republican colleagues to take military action against iran. that is not a good option. my republican colleagues need to be honest with the war weary american people that doubling down on the failed policies of the trump era will likely lead

iran to retaliate by lobbying greater numbers of missiles at our troops or at the region's energy infrastructure. iran will double down on these failed policies and that may lead to iran creating a seawall to stop traffic in the straits of hamuz creating more supply chain and my republican colleagues need to be honest at doubling down on these policies risk adding to the number of gold star mothers. who have lost children to unnecessary wars far from home. perhaps most importantly, my colleagues should be obvious with the american people that these failed policies have led iran closer to a nuclear weapon, not further away from a nuclear weapon, closer to a nuclear

weapon day by day, week by week that we have followed the trump plan. these are life and death stakes. doubling down on the failed policies of trump and expecting a different result in iran is truly the definition of ins insanity. the iran nuclear deal is not a panacea, nor was it ever intended to be a panacea. what it is a verifiable agreement that cuts off each of iran's three pathways to a nuclear bomb. first iran will again have to cap its enitchment level and ship out its stock of enriched uranium that would otherwise be potential feed stock for a nuclear bomb. second, iran will finish conversion of its iraq reactor

which will close off its plutonium path to a nuclear bomb. and third and most importantly, inspectors from the international watchdog agency, the international atomic energy agency, will once again get access to the soup and nuts of iran's nuclear fuel cycle. mr. president, if we listen to the same voices who rejected a good deal in search of the impossible, who preached brinksmanship over diplomacy, we will find ourselves stuck as we are today with an iran that could have the ultimate weapon to back its coercion, a nuclear bomb. fortunately, this screenplay does not have to end with american men and women marching off to another war in the middle east, and it does not have to

end with iran entering the worst of exclusive clubs, those with nuclear weapons. mr. president, russian president vladimir putin's recent nuclear saber rattling has brought home the stakes of u.s. diplomacy with iran. a homicidal leader armed with weapons of annihilation is a threat to global peace. when putin ordered an increase in the alert level of russia's nuclear forces a couple of weeks ago, he postponed u.s. intercontinental policic miss iltests for fear that in the fog of war, russia could misinterpret an i.c.b. launch off the coast of california as a nuclear strike against russia. take also explains president

biden's reticence to impose a nato-enforced no-fly zone over ukraine. putin is failing. ukraine and its people are winning with our help. every fabricated justification for putin's senseless and illegal war has crumbled. but a direct u.s.-nato military intervention would pull the world's two largest nuclear powers closer to a war. no simulation, no exercise, no war game can assure us that such a war does not metastasize to engulf all of europe and lead to the use of nuclear weapons. mr. president, here's the scary reality -- vladimir putin could kill

millions upon millions of americans right now using a fraction of his 4,500 nuclear weapons. that is the perennial threat of nuclear arms. conventional logic says that we are safe because a russian nuclear strike would be both homicidal and suicidal for putin, but we cannot bank on the fact that putin, the pariah, has a moral basement. president george w. bush famously said he looked into vladimir putin's eyes and he saw his soul. thank goodness president biden sees it for the dark space that it is. as a result, russia's war in ukraine calls on us to challenge tired old cold war assumptions that basing our nuclear posture

on the balance of terror and relying on the rationality of our leaders will keep the peace? no, it will not. that assumption has to be completely reanalyze $in view of what putin is doing -- reanalyzed in view of what putin is doing right now. that pursuing president reagan's star wars fantasy to knock out nuclear missiles in space before they fall on american cities is wise? it is not. there is no guarantee that some of those nuclear weapons would not come and destroy american cities. and that we should spend a quarter of a trillion dollars to replace the very same u.s. intercontinental ballistic missile i is that the president won't even test during a conflict due to fears of

escalation, we should not. unfortunately, our american democracy and russia's autocracy do share one major thing in common -- both our systems give the united states and russian president the god-like powers known as sole authority to end life on the planet as we know it by ordering a nuclear first strike. as president richard nixon grimly described these powers once, quote, i can go into my office, pick up the telephone, and in 25 minutes 70 million people will be dead. we know all too well that american presidents are not infallible. neither is our early warning system, which is why we need an

emergency brake to ensure that a case of mistaken identity, a false missile launch, or a president gone wild does not trigger the unthinkable. we cannot uninvent the atom, its military applications and technological know-how. the nuclear pandora's box is sadly forever open. we must, however, do everything in our power to be able to look the next generation in the eye and say that we did everything -- everything in our power -- to avert the unfathomable, a nuclear war on this planet. and that includes supporting negotiations that not only end russia's war in ukraine but also future negotiations to end the

budding 21st century nuclear arms race, which is spinning out of control. mr. president, i was a teenager during the cuban missile crisis. had president kennedy listened to his generals rather than to his better angels, we might not be here today. this building might not be here. public service advertisements told us to duck and cover under our school desks. backpack nukes designed to repel the soviet advance on west germany rolled off the assembly lines. u.s. and soviet leaders were awoken in the middle of the night to false alarms of nuclear armageddon. these events must forever belong to our past, not to our future, a future held together by the fear of annihilation is a

burden, not an inspiration. but congress can shape a safer, more inspiring future by supporting president biden's efforts to reenter a good iran nuclear deal, and we can and we must hold ourselves to a higher standard than russia when it comes to resting the fate of humanity in the -- wresting the fate of humanity in the hands of just one human being. thank you, mr. president. this is a subject that should command the attention of every single american. we have to move further away from the threat of a nuclear catastrophe, not get closer to it, and that is why we must support a reentry into a good iran nuclear deal. the alternative is frightening

for the future, not just for the middle east but for our country and the entire planet. with that, mr. president, i submit my statement, and i have six 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. markey: i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of senate resolution 573, which was submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 573, to authorize testimony and representation in united states v. robertson et al. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. markey: i further ask that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without

objection. mr. markey: i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations en bloc -- calendar number 400, 647, and 775. that the senate vote on the nominations en bloc, with no intervening action or debate, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, that any statements related to the nominations be printed in the record, that the president be immediately notified of the senate's action. the presiding officer: without objection. the question occurs on the nominations en bloc. all those in favor, say aye. all opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the nominations are confirmed en bloc. mr. markey: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it recess until 3:00 p.m. on monday, april 4, and that the following -- and

that following the prayer and pledge, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. markey: if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it stand in recess until the previous order. the presiding officer: under the previous measure -- under the previous order, the senate stands in recess until 3:00 p.m. >> ms. mcconnell sent down a

conversation with to capitol hill reporters to discuss the legislative agenda and 2022 elections . >> there we go. as somebody who's been chasing senator mcconnell around i'm happy to have him on this page, it's much more difficult to ignore me but not because i don't like it