in on this thursday morning. today lawmakers will vote on whether to begin debate on a house approved domestic terrorism prevention bill that establishes three new offices in the justice and homeland security departments and fbi. the vote on that bill has been set for 11:30 this morning, you're watching live coverage. senate here on c-span2. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. o god our father, we wait to serve you as you desire. may we do what is right and trust you completely. lord, make us alert to the needs of those lives you seek to touch, providing us with

opportunities to transform dark yesterdays into bright tomorrows. examine and test us. judge our desires and thoughts. today use our lawmakers to bring relief to captives and deliverance to the oppressed. give our senators such faith that they will bless even those who are hard of heart. may our legislators courageously work to lift those who are brought low by sorrow and empower those who are buffetted by grief. we pray in your precious name.

amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington d.c, may 26, 2022. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable jacky rosen, a senator from the state of nevada, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: patrick j. leahy, president pro tempore.

the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. morning business is closed. and under the previous order, the senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to h.r. 350, which the clerk will report. the clerk: motion to proceed to h.r. 350, an act to authorize dedicated domestic terrorism offices within the department of homeland security, and so forth.

claim the lives of ten black americans who were massacred in buffalo. black and they were in a grocery store. that is the reason they were shot by an 18 year old with an ar-15. and then yesterday just ten days after buffalo, that plague struck again in uvalde, texas, where 19, 19 innocent children and two teachers were gunned down at robb elementary in the middle of the school day just before the start of summer when these kids were looking forward to having such a wonderful time with their family and friends, gone, they're gone. the shooter crashed his truck near the school, overpowered the police already at the scene and reportedly began shooting inside a fourth grade classroom.

19 kids, two teachers forever gone in the blink of an eye. america's gun epidemic is unmatched in of our peer nations in the world. no american is safe from it, and the american people are sick and tired of it. but we also have a problem, a big problem, here in the united states senate. a big problem in the united states senate. the problem in this sense is simple. too many members on the other side of the aisle are disconnected from the suffering of the american people. too many members on that side care more about the nra than they do about families who grieve victims of gun violence. as i said, the american people are sick and tired of mass shootings. they are sick and tired of the active shooter alerts. they are sick and tired of

children, children, nine-year-olds-year-olds come ten-year-olds, 11-year-olds being shot, gunned down in their schools. when i read the news of yesterday shooting, i ached for the families, and then thought what what if it was one of my children? i imagined what i would feel if this happened to one of them. the mere thought just thinking that was a gut punch in my stomach. the fear sent ripples down my spine. to my republican colleagues, imagine if it happened to you. imagine if this was your kid or your grandkids. how would you feel? could you ever forgive yourself and not supporting a simple law that would make these mass shootings less likely? please, please, please, dammit, put yourself in the shoes of these parents for once.

maybe that thought, putting yourself in the shoes of these parents instead of in the arms of the nra might let you wriggle free from the vice like grip of the nra. might free you to act on even a simple measure. for the sake of these children, these nine-year-olds, 10-year-olds, 11-year-olds, 11-year-olds, these beautiful children please, dammit, please think if it was your child or grandchild. now, madam president, it wasn't always this way in congress. nearly three years ago i was proud to be the author of the brady bill, and a leader of the assault weapons bans. these were major legislative accomplishments and they work because it were good commonsense laws. mr. schumer: madam president, today the senate will have a chance to act on a pernicious issue that has recently become an increasingly prevalent

component in america's gun violence epidemic, the evil spread of white supremacy and domestic terrorism. in the past two weeks the united states has endured two of the most traumatic mass shootings that we have seen in recent history. in my home state of new york, in the beloved city of buffalo, ten black americans were gunned down in broad daylight by a white supremacist, armed with an ar-15 and whose mind was poisoned by online conspiracies. white supremacist conspiracies. and two days ago 19 children -- 19 children -- 8-year olds, 9-year olds, 10-year olds, kids on the verge of beginning summer, kids with their entire lives ahead of them. we saw them holding up their trophies and proudly in their t-shirts. a few hours later they were gone, slaughtered in a

predominant latino town of uvalde, texas. two teachers, including a mother of four, were killed alongside them. many more were injured and remain in critical conditions. it was the worst school shooting in america since sandy hook. last night i looked at the pictures of each of those kids online, and i wept. taken from us, taken from their families through senseless gun violence. i can't stop thinking about the parents too who lost their kids. i can't stop imagining the paralyzing horror of being one of the parents showing up to the school after the shooting wondering where their kid was. the anxiety that will live with these parents forever, forced to wait hours before a d.n.a. test -- a d.n.a. test -- confirmed that their son or daughter was gone. i cannot imagine a hell, a hell

worse than that. and these families, my colleagues, don't want thoughts and prayers. they want their elected leaders to respond to their suffering. they don't want to be lifted up. they don't want good intentions. they want something to change. they want results. yet the maga republicans don't want to get the results. they're ossified in their opposition to any action on gun safety, no matter the cause of violence or the cost on families, nothing speaks to move them. yesterday, after beto o'rourke confronted the texas governor, the maga republican gave empty platitudes about healing and hope. he asked people to put their agendas aside and think about someone other than themselves. my god. how dare he? what an absolute fraud the

governor of texas is. and this is the same governor abbott who tomorrow -- tomorrow -- will go speak at the n.r.a. convention in houston. governor abbott, will you ask your maga buddies and your n.r.a. pals to put aside their agendas and think of someone other than themselves? like you asked the families to do? will you ask the gun manufacturing reps, who will swarm over to the n.r.a. convention, to put aside their agendas and think about someone other than themselves? of course not. the governor, governor abbott, is more likely to outline some new plan to further loosen gun restrictions. no amount of bloodshed seems to be enough for maga republicans. this nation is enraged, as well as being exhausted. it's been through this over and over and over again over the last two decades.

people are sick of mourning again and again, while listening to the same string of hollow words from the maga republicans that never lead to action. madam president, in a few moments the senate will have a chance to vote on run important -- one important cause of gun violence. the legislation before the senate today is the domestic terrorism protection act, which i scheduled for a vote earlier this week, before what happened in uvalde occurred. it was done to respond to the massacre at a supermarket in buffalo. the bill is so important because the mat shooting in buffalo was an act of domestic terrorism. we need to call it what it is, domestic terrorism. it was terrorism that fed off the poison of conspiracy theories like white replacement theory, terrorism that left ten people dead, a community forever torn usunder.

this bill will give the government the tools to monitor, find, and arrest these evil actors before they have a chance to inflict violence on their communities. and i thank my colleague, senator durbin, for championing this bill. i've been going to bed every night thinking about the families i met in buffalo in the aftermath of the shooting. i think about this little 3-year-old boy. he lost his dad, who went to that tops grocery store to buy him a birthday cake. a birthday cake for his son. that little boy's going to live with that the rest of his life. the rest of his life. and i think of all the families impacted by other racially motivated shootings over the year. buffalo certainly, and unfortunately, wasn't the first. charleston, el paso, pittsburgh, atlanta, and so many others. the shooting of asian americans, hispanic americans, gay americans, jewish americans, as well as black americans.

all because of this horrible white replacement theory. so, today is the day we can begin to debate on how to make these shootings less likely. and there's an additional benefit to moving forward today. it's a chance to have a larger debate and consider amendments for gun safety legislation in general, not just for those motivated by racism, as vital as it is to do that. i know that many members on the other side hold views that are different than the views on this side of the aisle. so let us move on this bill. let us proceed. and then they can bring them to the floor. senator johnson brought a bill to the floor yesterday about school security practices. i didn't agree with the bill, and i don't think it's the answer to mass shootings. we don't need more guns in the schools. there were security guards at the supermarket in buffalo, police and security at the school in uvalde.

but we can debate it. the same with senator cruz's plan to limit schools to only one door. fire marshals and tactical experts totally and vehemently disagree. let's debate it. there are other senators with other proposals. proposals that come from our side of the aisle -- background checks, red flag laws, the charleston loophole, assault weapons, and other ideas. look, i know the chances of getting ten votes on this bill are small, unfortunately, given the influence of maga republicans. many republicans have made their opposition clear . again, there are a lot of maga republicans for whom no amount of gun violence, whether it's domestic terrorism, a school shooting, a neighborhood shooting, or something else, will ever, ever convince them to take any action. so, madam president, if republicans obstruct debate

today, we are prepared to have an honest and realistic discussion, conversation, negotiation, for a little more time to see what they can come to the table with. we are under no illusions that this will be easy. we have been burned in the past when republicans promise to debate, only for them to break their promise, but even with long odds the issue is so important, so raw to the american people, so personal to countless families who are missing children, that we must pursue that opportunity. we also know that the american people, as many as 80% or 90%, support gun safety legislation. we have an obligation to pursue every path and explore every realistic option to break the cycle of suffering and inaction.

not trying everything is not acceptable to the families who have lost their loved ones to our nation's gun pandemic, to those beautiful children we see pictures of in the newspaper, and their families. we have to try everything. we must not leave a single stone unturned. senator murphy, who has been such a strong and valiant leader within our caucus on gun safety legislation, and who has seen the suffering firsthand of the families at sandy hook, who he's become very close to, has asked for space to see what progress can be done with senate republicans. neither he nor i is under an illusion that this will be easy. it will not. but his view, my view, and the overwhelming view of our caucus is that we need to give it a short amount of time to try. there are others too in this caucus reaching out to our republican colleagues as we speak. senator blumenthal, senator

coons, senator behind rick, -- ?eard heinrich, manchin and others. we've been in talks with gun advocacy groups, and we all have a strong and burning desire to see something real, something tangible come across, come together here in the senate. again, none of us are under any illusions that this will be easy. none of us wanted to let this drag out. we know all too well the vice grip that the n.r.a. and the maga wing hold over the g.o.p., and we have been burned in the past, america has been burned in the past. after the shootings in el paso and dayton three years ago, the republican leader promised that red flag laws and background checks would be front and center in the senate debate. he didn't put them on the floor, and republicans did nothing. but that's not an excuse for democrats not to try. too many families have suffered. too many kids have been lost. too many communities have been destroyed.

this is too important not to explore every option. i want to be clear -- this is not an invite to negotiate indefinitely. make no mistake about it. if these negotiations do not bear fruit in a short period of time, the senate will vote on gun legislation, gun safety legislation. let me repeat. if these negotiations do not bear any fruit, the senate will vote on gun safety legislation when we return. but our hope, even amidst our deep skepticism, is that during this week democrats and republicans at long last will come to agree on something meaningful that will reduce gun violence in a real way in america. senator murphy and some of our colleagues believe that it's worth a chance, and we will give it that chance. unfortunately, though, republicans haven't come forward in too long a time. there hasn't been this debate in

too long a time. but even though it hasn't happened in too long a time, we feel an obligation to give it a chance. i yield the floor.

mr. mcconnell: madam president. the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: in america,

inflation has topped 5% every month for the past year. the consumer price index continues to hover at levels our economy hasn't seen in four decades. as we head into memorial day weekend, the american people have become reluctant experts in its painful real-life effects. the average working family is now spending the equivalent of $5,000 a year on gasoline. a year ago the number was $2, $2,800. nationwide gas prices have risen 46.9 cents just in the last month. and in kentucky they've risen actually even faster. here's a quote from one of my constituents. i'm getting taken full advantage of said one dliefer in lexington -- driver in

lexington. another said that it costs so much to fill up i have to do half a tank at a time now. but president biden calls it a, quote, incredible transition. well, that's a heck of after way to describe his administration's war on the most affordable, reliable, and abundant forms of energy in our country. forcing fuel prices so high that it requires measures to transition to more expensive cars with supply chains controlled primarily by china and other who's style regimes and lower labor and environmental standards is not my idea of incredible. the pain at the pump is only one of the tangled consequences of washington democrats' radical policies and reckless spending. depending on where you're trying to go, higher fuel costs are hurting americans' ability to enjoy summer traditions. rental car costs jumped 10%,

hotel rooms are going for 22% more, and plane tickets are up 33.3%. millions of americans are having a hard enough time paying for basic expenses let alone planning summer vacations. grocery stores stock painful surprises on every aisle. ground coffee is 17.7% more expensive than it was a year ago, eggs up 22.6%. anyone wanting to grill a bacon cheeseburger over the memorial day weekend will find ground beef up 15% and bacon up 10% compared to a year ago. and utility bills arrive with gut punches. electricity rights are expect to cost 16.4% more this summer than last summer. everywhere they turn, american families are having to pare back

expectations, put dreams on hold and make bitter sacrifices. it's no longer a shocking scandal. it's just normal life in democrats' version of america. harder to fill the tank, harder to feed the family, harder to get by. now, on an entirely different matter. nine years and a couple of months ago an impressive young woman interviewed for a position in my office over in the russell building. she worked for her home state senator and then sharpened her chops on the house side. i knew five minutes into the meeting that jennifer weskowsky, that we had found someone very special and now that young staffer from a decade back is departing the senate as a commanding policy expert and one of my most indispensable

advisors. jen again as my legislative assistant for health care and then earned a promotion overseeing all policy areas. for a couple of years, jen obtained a committee position with senator hatch, but then we stole her back to our leadership office here in the capitol. for more than three years, she's been my crucial point person on some of the most complex issues we face, from health care, to education to tech to telecom. she is professional, reliable, calm, clear under pressure. she knows her portfolio like the back of her hand and jennifer aniston winly loves -- and jen loves the legislative process. she is a policy nerd's policy nerd.

now, don't get me wrong. jen's not naive. she has the realism and tenacity of grizzled veteran. but even as a top staffer who works with senators and coordinates across committees, jen's still got the same earnest as the young woman i met a decade back. i think i know why. i think she loves mastering thorny policy issues because she understands that policy impacts people. in between her first and second stints on the hill, jen served in the peace corps working on health issues in ecuador. that's hands-on experience you never forget. and toward the other book end of her senate service, jen spent the coronavirus pandemic first as an expectant mother and then with a newborn. she knew what was at stake as she tracked the science as --

and the senate's response. she hone misdemeanor in on issues that touched families' lives very directly and with that expertise she has done unbelievably well. she focused congress on the opioid epidemic, alert to the plague of substance abuse years before anybody in washington was even discussing, jen was the central player in raising the minimum tobacco age to 21. she played a huge role in structuring the relief for health care providers that kept everyone above water. she crafted support for vaccines and therapeutics that got america back on offense across many years, across many issues, jen's expertise and professionalism helped to save lives throughout kentucky and across america. it is not an exaggeration. it is literally true.

families across the commonwealth and the nation who will never meet her have benefited from the fact that she is one of the best closers on capitol hill. saying jen cares about policy because she cares about people might sound like a sort of sappy cliche, but nrve the senate can a -- but everyone in the senate can attest that there this is nothing -- that there is nothing sappy or hallmark card about her. her sense of humor is world class. she does not suffer fools. she pursues goals with a bulldog determination and a competitive fire burning below the surface. she has a deep kindness and care for others. it's really a very special package. jen has been the likeliest member mf our team -- of our team to offer someone having a bad day a pep talk and add a

witty barb. any team would be lucky to have someone as diligent and compassionate and someone as wickedly funny. it has been our special blessing to have all three in one person. as you can see jen has rendered the senate a special and unique service. the institution has repaid jen in a special and unique way as well. when we first met jen, she was jennifer conklin, but she leaves the senate with her husband officer andrew kovkowsky. after a decade of weekend conference calls and late nights, our friend is ready to

tackle new challenges. i'm so grateful for your outstanding service, jen, we know you will continue to be a force of nature wherever you go and you will keep serving the common good just in new and different ways. you've done your family proud, you've done me proud, and i hope you are proud. your fine service has literally saved lives and changed our country for the better. the presiding officer: the junior senator from kentucky. mr. paul: today we will have a

bill before us, os stebsably -- os spencably tiled r titled -- titled about domestic terrorism, but it would be the democrat plan to name our police as white supremacists and neo-nazis. i met policemen and throughout kentucky, and i've not one policeman motivated or -- or consumed with any kind of racial rage. what i've met are proud policemen and women who care about the people they protect in our society but also who care about their fellow officers. i've not met one policeman who would not defend their partner, black, white, jewish, christian, muslim. i don't see the kind of

insulting rage that the democrats have for our police. i met our country's young soldiers and marines. i don't meet racists, i don't meet white supremacists, i don't meet neo-nazis, i meet young men and women who are courageous enough to defend our country and what an insult it is to put a bill before the house and say our marines are consumed with white supremacy and neo-naziism. how insulting. i don't think you can look at a group of men and women who are more adapting of the times, and i have never heard of a marine say, i'm not going to carry my fallen colleague out because he's african american. i've never heard of an african american marine say i'm not going to carry out my fellow marine because they're white. if there's any kind of grouping in our country more acustomed to

treating people because they're your fellow soldier and your friend, it's the military. to insinuate that the military is consumed with white supremacy is an insult. to insinuate that our soldiers are somehow these terrible people, these neo-nazis and white supremacists that we're going to get a new government agency to police the marines -- the marines are a proud part of our military. our soldiers are a proud part of our country. these are the people who do not see color, who do not see race, who do not see religion. these are the people who don't leave their fallen. you think the marines go around saying we're going to leave our fallen if they have a certain race or religion? you don't see that. the marines, the soldiers in our country, the people who defend our country are the people who defend and love our country are the least consumed

with any kind of notion of race. how insulting. this will bill states as if it were ago fact in the beginning of section 5 that this bill will create an interagency task force to analyze and combat white supremacists and neo-nazi infiltration of the uniformed services and federal law enforcement. this is not just an insult to your local police or to the marines or to the army and to the navy. this is an insult to the f.b.i. it's an insult to the capitol police. this bill says that they have been infiltrated. this says that our police are consumed with some kind of race rage. it's untrue and it's slander, and it's scandalous, but it's predictable. this is the party that wants to defund the police. but this party not only wants to defund the police, they think the police are full of hatred and racism. it's not true.

every policeman in our country, every soldier in our country should look at this bill and say who are these people. white supremacy and neo-nazi infiltration of the marines, that's not true. it's an insult to every marine in our country. it's an insult to every soldier in our country. it's an insult to every policeman in our country. it's an insult to the capitol police. i don't see this in our country. i actually see our armed services as probably one of the areas where people intermix regardless of race and religion, better than any segment. these are young men and women who live in close quarts in barracks. these are young men and women who go overseas. these are young men and women who are given arms and legs, and i don't see of an example, i don't know of an example of some guy who says we were blown up by an i.e.d. but decided to leave that guy because he's of a different race. how insulting. you're going to have a task

force to investigate our soldiers. this is a federal task force that is going to go in and investigate our soldiers for white supremacy. i guess read their e-mails, read what websites they go to. because the implication is they're guilty until they can prove themselves innocent. that's what this will set up. it will set up more of government agencies that presume your guilt, but it's an insult to our armed services, to our police, and to anybody who works in law enforcement. one might well ask if democrats believe that the u.s. military and federal, state, and local police departments are all corrupted. there's white supremacy and neo-nazis running around our country? when i visit even the larger cities in kempt, when i -- in kentucky, when i visit the louisville police department, guess what? i see african americans and whites working together and brown, hispanic, whatever you want to call people, all working together. i see high-ranking people in our

department who are african american. i don't see that everybody is running around haigget each other -- hating each other. i see black officers and white officers who work together, are partners who care about each other and would defend to the last breath their partner if they were shot in the line of duty. i've seen the officers who have been shot, black and white. i don't see any of them say yeah, we're not going to do anything because that person is a certain race. this bill is an insult to every police officer in this country. this bill is an insult to everyone in our armed services. this bill says that the armed services have been infiltrated by white supremacy. so if you were a soldier in our country, if you are a policeman in our country, you need to let your congressman or senator know that you are not a white supremacist and that it is an insult for the democrats to call you a white supremacist. it's an insult for the democrats to say our police force is full of white supremacy, that our armed services is full of this.

everybody in this country who works in law enforcement should be outraged by this bill and should respond and say no, that's not me, and that's not any of my colleagues. that's not what the kentucky police force is about. that's not what the national guard is about. that's not what the marines are about. what an insult. what an insult. so what do they do? they set up a new department in the homeland security. aren't homeland security federal too? have they not been infiltrated as well? the implication of this bill is that all people are bad, that there's this great and worrisome thing that is infecting america when the opposite is true. i was born in the 1960's. every decade has gotten better. people get along better. we have more intermarriage between races. we have more integration within churches. we have -- i see less and less of this that everybody saying is now infecting us. but they don't realize that they're insulting everyone.

they're insulting the police, they're insulting the marines, our armed services. the bill creates two other departments. these essentially are departments that are going to be the thought police of the military. we just took down the ministry of truth which was in the department of homeland security. it took after couple of weeks for them to finally be ashamed that they were going to try to censor speech, and the biden administration has canceled it, or at least put it on pause. but this bill will create two other agencies, two other thought police offices at the department of justice and the f.b.i. it seems like a self-defeating choice since elsewhere in the bill we are told that federal law enforcement is completely infiltrated by white supremacists and neo-nazis. but again, none of the bill makes sense. it doesn't make sense because it was a bill that was never intended to become law -- and won't. it's a dumb washington-talking-points memo masquerading as legislation, but it's also a grave insult to

anyone involved in law enforcement, anyone involved in the military. but congressional democrats have gotten so radical, so extreme, so out of touch with the american people that when they read it, they think this is something worthwhile to do. it's a messaging bill for today. this bill will fail today, though, because the democrats' message -- hate the police, defund the police, the police are terrible people, the military are terrible people -- to slander the military and the police as racist and white supremacists, it has been roundly reap jected by the american people and -- rejected by the american people and will continue to be.

a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. lankford: is the senate currently gnaw quorum call? the presiding officer: no. mr. lankford: thank you. madam president, later on today we're going to be voting on a congressional review act dealing with the title 42. actually more specifically, the asylum rule dealing with what's happening at our southwest border right now. let me first say something i don't normally say on this floor. i'm pleased the biden administration is trying to address this. it is a step that someone in the administration has noticed there is a problem with the asylum rule, and they are trying to address it. this solution will not fix the problem, but at least we're working on the problem. if i can say this to the biden administration and to this body -- if we do not legislatively fix the asylum rule, what is happening on our southern border will never get better. we have got to address what is

the problem there. it is not that there is root causes in central america. we're the united states of america. everyone in the world wants to be here. and if all you have to do is cross the border and say the magic words, i have credible fear, and the biden administration hands you a piece of paper, and you're in the country for the next eight yearl your hearing, the whole world is going to keep coming here. now, right now, literally right now we have 8,000 people a day that are illegally crossing our border. 8,000. last summer in the midst of all the chaos when the all the cameras were focused on our southern border, there were 6,000 people a day illegally crossing the border. it is worse now than it was a year ago but the cameras have all moved on and said nothing to see here when it continues to be able to get worse literally every month. last month, a quarter million

people illegally crossed the border. half turned away with title 42 authority which the combield -- the biden administration is trying to end. but this asylum rule gives me some sense of hope that they are at least identifying what the problem is and trying to start working on it. here's the problem though, the way that this rule is actually set up, almost every negative determination made under this expedited asylum process gets appealed under the normal process anyway. so while they're creating an expedited process, all they have to do is say i disagree with the expedited process and they get through the long, protracted eight-year process anyway. it doesn't solve the problem. so while the executive branch is trying to do something, there's something that they're doing doesn't actually fix the issue. we have to change this issue in law. secretary mayorkas was on the

hill two weeks ago. he came and presented the new plan in place for what they're going to do at the border. part of that plan was this new asylum rule. bum when you read the summary, at the very end of it, they go through all their details, these high-level points of six different areas where they're going to work to be able to decrease. at the end of it the summary statement ends with, despite our best efforts, we anticipate an increase in migration. what they're saying is the policies that they currently have in place are going to continue to increase migration, even with things like this new asylum rule that they're trying to be able to put in place, because they know this doesn't actually fix the problem. n.p.p., the remain in filibusterings program that -- remain in mexico program that a federal court has required them to maintain that they're doing it in a way only to say to the federal courts we're doing something. we have 8,000 people a day that are illegally crossing the border. we have about 2 thousand people

a month that they're putting through the m.p.p. program. we have 8,000 people a day that are illegally crossing the border, currently i.c.e. is deporting 203 people a day. with 8,000 people a day crossing, 203 people actually being deported, you see the math here. they're not trying to stop the flow. they're not trying to disincentivize this. we need to actually get serious about this. so, yes, i'm going to support a congressional review act on this individual piece because it doesn't actually fix the problem. let's actually sit down and fix the problem actually in statute. that's what needs to be done. with that, i yield the floor. a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. lee: i rise to support this congressional review act resolution of disapproval. of the rule recently published by the department of homeland security and the executive office for immigration review entitled, quote, procedures for

credible screening and asylum, withholding of removal and cap protection claims by officers, close quote. we're currently experiencing an unprecedented crisis on the southern border. over one million illegal crossers had been encountered at our southern border. and with the administration fighting the migrant protection protocols and moving to remove the title 42 restrictions on entry, this crisis is about to get much, much worse. we've heard estimates of unauthorized border encounters this summer, ranging close to 20,000 daily. we don't know how to handle these numbers. and nothing has bullpen done by the administration -- has been done by the administration to deter these immigrants.

despite knowing of the coming influx, and despite understanding the statutory mandates, which require immigrants to be detained, this administration is closing detention centers. it appears we now have fewer than 20,000 detention beds available. this seems to suggest that d.h.s. has no intention of detaining these immigrants. even though it's plainly required by statute. in the midst of this unpress debited -- unprecedented crisis at our southern border, the department of homeland security under secretary mayorkas has by regulation bypassed duly enacted laws to make the asylum process a mere rubber stamp for basically anyone who can make it to our borders. because of internet and the sophistication of coyotes and cartels, every alien encountered knows to express fear of returning to their home country. thus triggering the asylum process.

this rule would change that adversarial process, whereby one actually has to produce some shred of evidence that they'll qualify for asylum to a nonadversarial process, whereby the alien merely has to assert the claim. additionally, this rule would take the asylum decisions out of the hands of immigration judges and put them into the hands of front line screeners who often have no legal skills at all. this rule violates current immigration laws, laws passed by this body, laws enacted by congress. it violates the separation of powers by usurping congressional authority to enact the laws of a nation. currently under the law, until an immigration judge has ruled on an asylum claim, the claimant is required to be detained. under the proposed rule there would be no need for detention, because no time will be required

to rubber-stamp that asylum application. it just happens. it's very interesting that this rule is about to go into effect, right before this already unprecedented crisis exponentially increases. i don't think this is by accident. it's by design. this rule demonstrates that they simply want to manage the unprecedented influx of illegal immigrants into every american city, making every town a border town. america has always been a welcoming land, a land with outstretched arms, and it always should be. i'm very proud of utahans for how well they exemplify that welcoming spirit to immigrants, including the refugees and the asylum seekers who come into our

state. i'm also concerned that if we degrade the process by administrative rule, we erode our ability to give refuge and asylum in the cases where it's truly needed, in the cases where, as a representative body, we have decided it should be given. now, in studying this rule, i was struck by the fact that it assumes asylum is a right, a legal right for anyone and everyone managing somehow to get to our border. it is not a right. asylum is a gift, a gift the ups can choose to bestow on those -- the united states can choose to bestow on those who really need it. the persecuted, when authorized by law, and consistent with the terms of the law. this rule doesn't ever mention the interests of the american citizen in this process. not once. the interest that would usually be represented in the

adjudicative, adversarial process that occurs before a judge. the american people are left out of this process. in fact, that process is eliminated by this rule. indeed, this rule is completely unconcerned with the interests of the american people. it prioritizes the claimed interests of illegal immigrants over the interests of our own people and american national security. it must be struck down, and i encourage my colleagues to support it.

mr. durbin: mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority whip. mr. durbin: thanks, mr. president. this morning, we're going to consider h.r. 350, which is legislation which i introduced some time ago. i want to describe it, because it's been inaccurately described before, and let members know what they're voting on. first, what does it relate to? domestic terrorism. is that a federal crime? you bet it is. and this particular bill makes reference to that crime. hate crimes. refers to that too. is that a real crime? it's a federal crime.

and we refer specifically. so what new crimes are created in this bill? none. not one. what we're doing is asking the federal agencies who have the responsibility of national security to give us timely reports on the incidence of domestic terrorism, and we say too them -- we say to them, there are categories which the f.b.i. has already established of domestic terrorism, and those categories i'd like to spell out a couple of them to you so it's pretty clear what we're going after here. racially and ethnically motivated violent extremism. antigovernment. antiauthority. violent extremism. animal rights, environmental violent extremism, abortion-related violent extremism, and others. so those are already categories of domestic terrorism that the f.b.i. reports on. what we are saying is give us those reports in a timely fashion so we can see the

incidence of these forms of extremism in the commission of crimes. but there's one correction that we're making that is very important. during the trump administration, they eliminated reference in this list of categories of domestic terrorism of white supremacist activity. the reason why it's important for us to include that is that we have the sworn testimony of the director of the federal bureau of investigation that this is a category of crime and terrorism in america that is metastasizing. his word, metastasizing. so we believe it's important that we be given information about the incidence of violent extremism, domestic terrorism, that relates to this type of activity, this white supremacy. i'll tell you it's not an imagined crime. we see the reality of it way too often. we just saw it two weeks ago in buffalo, new york. that shooter put his so-called manifesto on the internet and

declared, among other things, his support for the great replacement theory. the great replacement theory is a thinly veiled white supremacist theory that tries to suggest that immigrants to america are somehow only ariefg at the expense of those already here -- arriving at the expense of those already here, particularly white americans. that has been out there since the ku klux klan, maybe before it, about you it is white supremacy and inspired this man to do terrible things in buffalo and kill innocent people at that grocery store. we're asking the f.b.i. to give us this information. we'll draw conclusions, but that's basically it. no new crime is created, and nor is any new authority being created in the process. i think that is a critical element. there's one other thing that is part of this exercise this morning in voting for h.r. 350. the majority leader, senator schumer, after the events in uvalde, texas, declared that we're going to try to reach out on a bipartisan basis to come up with legislation to deal with

gun safety and safety in schools. his first effort to do this is this bill. what we're voting on is a motion to proceed to the bill. he has invited colleagues on a bipartisan basis to come forward and to offer their amendments in the field of gun safety and school safety. that's why this motion to proceed is more than just the bill i described. it is an opportunity for amendments on the floor. this morning i did an interview with cnn and they talked about the fact that we're leaving for a week for memorial day to honor our veterans and be home, then return. why aren't we staying and working? well, here's a chance for us to make it clear that we are going to work on what happened with in these terrible tragedies at uvalde, texas, and buffalo, new york, and so many others. so i'm appealing to my colleagues on the republican side of the aisle, if you have any ideas, and i hope you do, for gun safety, school safety, and to make this a safer nation, this is the vehicle to do it.

a yes, vote on the mo eggs to proceed -- the motion to proceed to h.r. 350 is your opportunity to open a process where we can consider amendments. senator schumer was very explicit. he invited democrats as well as republicans to come forward with their best ideas on a bipartisan basis. and isn't that what the people of the country are actually asking for, more than anything that we roll up our sleeves and face this challenge, which has taken so many innocent lives? in the newspaper yesterday, "the new york times," they did a feature on those wonderful little kids and the teachers who lost their lives in uvalde, texas. heartbreaking to see those kids, those beautiful little children, and to realize that they're no longer with us and that their families are grieving in a way they never imagined they would. isn't it up to us to do something about it, rather than just issue press releases? is isn't it up to us to legislate, try to find solutions? this motion to proceed opens the car to that possibilities.

we can return the week after memorial day recess and start in earnest considering amendments offered by democrats and republicans which deal with this issue. we owe the american people that. we are elected to this job to legislate, not just to give speeches, but to change the laws in this country to make it safer. this is our chance to do it. i urge my colleagues on both side of the aisle, vote for h.r. 350. this is an important bill in and of itself, but equally important is the fact that it opens the process america is longing to hear that we take seriously. i urge my colleagues to vote on the motion to proceed on h.r. 350. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: i ask unanimous consent that i be allowed to speak for up to ten minutes, followed by senator johnson for up to ten minutes prior to the

scheduled roll call votes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cornyn: thank you. well, mr. president, today is supposed to be the last day of school in uvalde, texas. each of us can remember how excited we were as children, as students, but especially we can remember being a parent the last day of school of our child attending. your child would perhaps run into your armed and recount a fun-filled day with classmates. they'd sling their backpack on the backseat of the car and talk about how excited they were about the summer, to spend days playing with their friends and their siblings, swimming at the local pool with friends, and maybe even going on a vacation with their grandparents. today those children, those parents, and those teachers in uvalde, texas, have been robbed of the excitement and normalcy that this day would normally bring.

instead of celebrating the last day of school, 21 families are making funeral arrangements. earlier this week, a monster visually murdered innocent children and their teachers at robb elementary school. so far we know that 21 people have been killed by the shooter, including 19 students and two teachers. this tragedy has absolutely shattered the tightknit community of uvalde, texas. uvalde is a town of about 15,000 people, about 65 miles from the u.s.-mexican border. there's one high school football team, one a.g.b. grocery store, and one post office. the families in uvalde have known each other and loved each other's children for as long as they can remember.

caused by this attack is shared by the entire community and i join all texans in lifting up the victims, their families, and those who are struggling to make sense of this tragedy. yesterday i was in uvalde with my fellow texans in mourning. i joined hundreds of people to donate blood and received an update from law enforcement, both in state and community leaders. as though we needed a reminder of the tight-knit community with a deputy sheriff himself who lost his own daughter in this attack and two members of the mayor's staff lost children as well. one of the conversations i had that really struck home was an older gentleman who responded to

the call for blood donations at the herbie hamm activity center. he shared with me that he lost two grandchildren in the school shooting. it is not possible to comprehend the pain he was feeling, but there he was donating blood. two young lives were stolen from his family and still this man stood in line so he could support his community in some tangible way. during the briefing from law enforcement, two of the uvalde police officers who responded to the shooting shared their harrowing experience with us, and in the face of such unthinkable evil, their courage was unwavering. one of these uvalde police officers responded to the scene, and i had a chance to thank him personally. but i want to thank all of the law enforcement officials, the

emergency medical technicians and health care workers who responded to this tragedy and continue to support the survivors and their loved ones. at times like this, i'm reminded of a quote i heard some time ago from a county commissioner in the face of a similar tragedy. he said, being a texan doesn't describe where you're from as much as it describes who your family is. today our entire family is mourning. our hearts are broken by those who lost loved one and the survivors who will never forget this terrifying and senseless attack. while the terror of this attack will weigh on all of us, we saw the spirit of my state on full display as resources poured out to help the loved ones of the community that were hurting so

badly from mental health counseling to food donations, there was an outflowing of support from the texas community. at times like this words seem so inadequate. there's no good way to completely express the heartbreak and anger that swell in your chest at a moment like this. all we can say perhaps is that our condolences are with the families grieving such a cruel and unexpected loss. i can't fathom the pain of see an empty bed where your child slept the night before. knowing we can't turn back the clock to prevent this tragedy from occurring, the obvious question is, how do we prevent something like this from happening again? at this point, law enforcement is still investigating and piecing together the full story.

in the coming days i expect we will have better information about the shooter and his background and the circumstances that led to this senseless, brutal act. once it does, i'm eager to see whether there were any gaps that might have done something to make this attack less likely, that might have even prevented this attack from taking place. in the past i've worked with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to prevent senseless tragedies occurring through things like fix nics and the mental health and safe communities act. fix nics came after the sutherland springs shooting when his background was not in a criminal background check. he was able to go to a store and

buy guns by lying. we were able to get 70 or more cosponsors on that bill because it actually addressed a real gap in the system and it would actually give us some hope that we would actually save lives in the future. i'm not interested in making a political statement. i'm not interested in the same old tired talking points. i'm actually interested in what we can do to make the terrible events that occurred in uvalde less likely in the future. and now we don't know everything we need to know, but once we do, i expect there will be informed debate about reforms we can make and i look forward to participating in those discussions. for now the focus should remain on supporting the people of this little community who suffered an immeasurable loss this week. mr. president, i yield the floor.

mr. johnson: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from wisconsin. mr. johnson: mr. president, let me first also express my condolences and associate myself with the comments by the senator from texas. the tragedy is horrific. it's hard to think of anything more awful than what happened in texas and in other schools over the last few years. but, mr. president, i come today to the floor for another reason. in support of using the congressional review act to disapprove of and prevent the invitation of a rule titled proceed fiewrs for credible --

procedures for credible screening and asylum, with holding of removal and c.a.t. protection claims by the asylum officers. i will refer to this rule as the asylum rule to make it a little simpler. as the title suggests, there's an awful lot to this, but the reason to disapprove of this is quite simple. this rule will go into effect at the end of this month on may 31. what this new rule will do is allow asylum officers to begin granting asylum without review by an article 3 immigration court. now, it's important to note that section 240 of the immigration and gnash nationality -- and

nationality act says that an immigration law will decide the inadmissibility or deport ability of an alien. now an immigration court is an article 3 court. it's a separate branch of government from a uscic officer. it is a check and balance on executive action and it's a very necessary check and balance on an executive that is not faithfully executing the laws as we have today with president biden and secretary mayorkas. on may 1 of this year, news reporter brett bayer asked secretary mayorkas in an interview, is it the objective of the biden administration to sharply reduce the total number of illegal immigrants coming

across the southern border? now the obvious answer is that is the goal, to reduce the flow of people coming into this country illegally. that ought to be every administration's goal. that's what a president and administration would do if they were faithfully executing the laws. but listen to secretary mayorkas's reply, his answer. secretary mayorkas stated, quote, it is the objective of the biden administration to make sure that we have safe, orderly, and legal pathways for individuals to be table to access our legal system. i first must note that our legal system is horribly broken. it is that legal system that is has -- that has produced this result. now, i don't expect the viewers to be to look at and to be able

to see everything on my chart. you can go to my website and download this and you can see the cause and effect of various directives, various rules, various regulations, various court orders and proceedings to cause this explosion, this out of control flow of illegal immigration. by the way, it all started back in 2009 when then-i.c.e. director morton issued a directive, the plain -- directly couldn't have seening the -- opposite of the law that detained individuals. they stopped detaining them. and then, of course, in june 2012, president obama, through his d.h.s. secretary created the daca memorandum,

which was an open invitation for unaccompanied children to come to this country because they knew once they got here they would be able to stay. if you take a look at the history here, the goal represents single -- the gold represents single adults coming to the country and blue is the very broken asylum system where you get a free pass into the country and red represents unaccompanied children. back in 2014 when president obama declared it a humanitarian crisis 200,000 people -- 2,000 people were apprehended at the border on a daily basis. now, because of different policy choices, the word gets out, different court decisions and people in central america and throughout the world realize that we are not following our asylum laws. we have a virtually open bored

and en -- border and engaging in catch and release. president obama had a surge of more than 4,000 people per day in a given month. you can see that surge here. but president trump took action. he engaged. he implemented the return to mexico policy. he made agreements with central american countries in mexico. and stopped the flow of unaccompanied children and family units. we reduced the flow of single adults exploiting our broken immigration system. but, then during the presidential debates, democratic candidates, including president biden, declared to the world that they weren't going to deport people, they're going to offer people who come into this country illegally free health care. and you can see even during 2020

as we were building the walls, we had a return to mexico policy in place, single adults realized there might be a change in policy and flooded our border. we went from 30,000 single adults coming into the country to the last two months it is 150,000 or closer to 160,000, 170,000 single ail dults. almost the -- adults. almost the win that president biden came into office and we had a new surge of family units flooding our borders, exploiting our asylum laws. this new rule that's about to take effect at the end of this month, the asylum rule, again, circumvents is contrary to stated law that says immigration judges, immigration courts need

to make that asylum determination, not members of the administration, not uscis officers. what this rule does is it gives that power to grant asylum, an awesome power that congress never meant to give to the administration. it gives that power to uscis officers and only allows a judge to take a look at that, that the asylum claim is denied by the uscis officer. this will not reduce the backlog. this will increase the flow. this is another signal throughout the world that we have an open-border policy. the only restraint right now is title 42 and this administration is working actively to overturn a court order that said you must keep title 42 restrictions in place and if the uscis officer

isn't as generous as we fear they all will be and denies asylum, you're back there in article 3 courts. so the only purpose of this rule is to -- is to increase the flow to accomplish secretary mayorkas's stated goal of make shg sure we have a -- making sure we have a safe, orderly and legal pathway for individuals to accessure illegal system. in other words, this policy on the border isn't to secure it, isn't to reduce the flow, it's to make the processing and dispersing of illegal immigrants more efficient so more will come. last year one and a quarter million people either encountered and dispersed or came in as known got-aways, came to this country illegally and

dispersed. it's a number larger than the population of eight states. that's how out of control this situation is. yet secretary mayorkas won't even call it a problem, much less a crisis. so it's obvious how harmful this rule is to our nation, to our national security. an open border is a national security threat. so i urge my colleagues to join me in using the congressional review act to disapprove of this rule and prevent its implementation. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to proceed to calendar

number 371, h.r. 350, an act to authorize dedicated domestic terrorism offices within the department of homeland security and so forth signed by 17 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is, is it the sense of the senate that debate on the motion to proceed to h.r. 350, an act to authorize dedicated domestic terrorism offices within the department of homeland security, the department of justice, and the federal bureau of investigation, to analyze and monitor domestic terrorist activity and require the federal government to take steps to prevent domestic terrorism shall be brought to a close. the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll.

vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

mr. schumer: we might issue able to bring this up at some future point, so -- no. the presiding officer: on this vote, the yeas are 47, the nays are 47. three-fifths of the senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted in the affirmative, the motion is not agreed to. mr. schumer: now, let me explain. i think entered my no vote because we might -- so we can bring this up again and gain more support. so i enter a motion to reconsider the failed cloture vote. the presiding officer: the motion is entered. under the previous order, the senate will proceed to the consideration of s.j. res. 46, which the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 39, s.j. res. 46, joint resolution providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, u.s. code and so forth.

the presiding officer: the joint resolution is considered read a third time and the question occurs on the passage of the joint resolution. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: on this vote the yeas are 46. the nays are 48. the joint resolution fails of passage. mr. mcconnell: mr. mcconnell: mr. president. the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: i enter a motion to reconsider the vote. the presiding officer: the motion is entered.

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. menendez: mr. president, i'm rising to ask unanimous consent to consider the nomination of martinez. this body should confirm him today to serve as executive director of the inter-american developmenting bank. from the world's highest per capita covid for example and death rates to the largest economic contraction anywhere in the world, latin america and india are still struggle to go recover from the pandemic. the region faces historic

refugee and migration movements that stretch across the continent. many nations must withstand in equality as well as climate change and threats to the environment. given the significant economic, social, and development challenges in latin america and the caribbean, we urgently need senate-confirmed leadership at our hemisphere's most important, multilateral development bank. the inter-american development bank is essential to addressing these issues. and it's critical that we have strong u.s. leadership at the bank. mr. martinez brings decades of experience in the public and private sectors as well as academia, and he will provide exactly that. he has advised fortune 5000 -- fortune 500 companies and he's committed to work with the senate to support a much-needed

capital increase for the bank which we approved as part of the u.s. innovation and competition act last year. this nomination has been pending for nine months. nine months. it's time for the senate to act act, especially when we have china -- and i know my colleagues on the other side of the aisle spent a lot of time talking about china and whether they were strong enough in meeting the china threat. china is all over the western hemisphere making huge investments. i talked to one foreign leader this past week from the hemisphere. he said to me listen, what's the u.s. offering? because i'm being offered $800 million, 1% over 30 years. i'm not taking it, but at some point we need to have engagement in the hemisphere economically. that's what the inter-american bank can do without costing the u.s. money. but for that you need leadership

that is focused on getting the i.d.b. to build the partnerships and programs that can help us have a presence to counter china in the first place and also to promote prosperity, security, and stability. and for all of those of my colleagues who are concerned about the southern border, let's get an organization that can help create greater prosperity and stability in the hemisphere and people won't be fleeing from the circumstances. so i don't understand why this has taken nine months, but that's what draws me to come to the floor, so i ask unanimous consent that the senate foreign relations committee be discharged and the senate proceed to the following nomination, p.n. 1028, leopold o martinez tor executive director of the inter-american bank for a term of three years, vice elliott pedrosa, that the senate vote on the nomination with no intervening, the motion

to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, that no further motions be made in order to the nomination, that any related statements be printed in the record. the presiding officer: is there objection? a senator: mr. president, reserving the right to object. the presiding officer: the senator from kansas. mr. marshall: this nominee received a tie vote in the senate foreign relations committee meaning he failed to be reported favorably to the floor. this tie vote indicates that the senate foreign relations committee republicans have significant concerns with this nominee. therefore, he should be discharged per the pros laid out in the senate power sharing agreement in the congress not pasted -- passed by unanimous consent. therefore, i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. menendez: mr. president, i'm going to be honest here. this isn't really about mr. martinez, his experience, his views. it's another thinly veiled attempt to block another of the president's nominees. and to do so at a time in which china is eating our lunch. the next time one of my colleagues gets up and talks about china, i'm going to

remind them of the position that they have taken to block one of the critical nominees that could help us meet that challenge in the western hemisphere. let me turn to another nominee that has been pending before the senate who did pass the committee, by the way, favorably. not in a tie vote but favorably. so i'm going to in a moment ask unanimous consent to confirm drs assistant administrator for usaid africa bureau. the promotion of democracy, a key goal for usaid is threatened throughout africa. in just the past two years there have been coups in sudan, chad, guinea.

authoritarians in africa have modern tools to silence dissenting voices. they deploy disinformation campaigns and sophisticated surveillance coming from china. from mali, dick tirts are turning to russian mercenaries for support. civil society leaders across the continent are courageously working to realize their aspirations and goals. they need a reliable partner at usaid to keep the struggle for democracy and their countries. that's why we have to advance this nominee today. drut muyangwa is qualified to lead the africa bureau. she brings extensive professional and academic experience in africa. she is a zanbian born immigrant to the united states where she held senior positions at the

africa center for strategic studies, national summit on africa. she was a rhodes scholar, a wingate scholar for her scholarship at oxford, the valedictorian for her graduating class at the university of zambia and she holds a doctorate in international relations from the university of oxford. i think she's well qualified. in short her qualifications are exceptional. finally, let me say that while africa faces many challenges, it's also a land of tremendous opportunity. but here again, china is all over africa in precious minerals and other precious materials, in subverting nascent democracies by their debt-trap diplomacy. and where are we? absent, because we don't even have somebody who can focus on the hemisphere. a hemisphere that we should have

gotten a lot more votes at the united nations when we were pursuing the sanctions against russia. but guess what? we don't have anybody talking to these countries. so i see no reason with somebody with such a stellar background to ultimately be objected to. so i will ask unanimous consent the senate consider the following nomination, calendar 815, muyangwa to be assistant administrator for the agency for international development, that the senate vote on the nomination without intervening action or debate, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and statements related to the nomination be printed in the record. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. marshall: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from kansas. mr. marshall: reserving the right to object. usaid awarded a $200 million grant for a ten-year viral emergeance earlier warning project known as predict. we've uncovered evidence of possible embezzlement, possible

money laundering and insideer threats as well as other concerns related to the predict and other usaid grant awards. predict was lead by a consortium spearheaded by u.c. davis and ecohealth alliance who funneled taxpayer money dollars to the wuhan institute ofology to conduct risky research on pathogens including be coronavirus research. both awarded grants to the health alliance during this same five year period leading up to and preceding the covid-19 outbreak. ecohealth is unable to produce proof of research, so we are simply asks usaid for proof of the eek health research -- ecohealth research they funded. we requested records from usaid that grant recipients are legally required to maintain.

our requests are fact-based. at this point we believe either the usaid staff is withholding the records from congress or they have failed to access them through the u.c. davis and ecohealth alliance. either option is unacceptable. as such, i object to the unanimous consent motion, but look forward to working with the chairman to address these issues. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. menendez: mr. president, through the chair, would my colleague say that have you not been provided it three rounds of documents that's been requested? mr. marshall: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from kansas. marshall --. mr. marshall: unfortunately the documents are not what we asked for. they're incomplete. we would welcome the opportunity to sit down with the chairman --. mr. menendez: through the presiding officer, has my colleague not been offered a briefing by usaid to try to answer the rest of his questions? this is an extraordinary amount of information being offered for someone who is not even a member of the foreign relations

committee, but nonetheless in order to accommodate him, we want to get to a point that he feels comfortable to do so. have you not been offered a briefing which you have not yet accepted? mr. marshall: not that i'm aware of. mr. menendez: my understanding is there has been, mr. president, an offer of a briefing made to the senator. and, by the way, this has nothing to do with dr. muyangwa. she's nominated to be assistant administrator for africa. nothing to do with china, nothing to do with wuhan, nothing to do with anything else. i would urge my colleague if you have all this information about illicit activities, please bring it forward. the committee would like to consider it. i haven't seen any of it. time to put up or shut up. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate will

proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination which the clerk will report. the clerk: nomination, department of state, marcia stephens bloom bernicat of new jersey to be director general of the foreign service. the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. menendez: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that joshua cretman, a deltailee from the state department be granted floor privileges for the duration of the 117th congress. the presiding officer: without objection. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota. mr. thune: mr. president, before i begin, i want to is express my sorrow at the terrible shooting in texas on tuesday that claimed the lives of two teachers and 19 schoolchildren. like a lot of americans, i cannot imagine the anguish these

children's parents are facing right now as they grieve for sons and daughters whom they will never again drive to school or welcome home at the end of the day. i pray that the lord will be with them in their suffering and that they will receive the comfort and the strength that they need. my prayers are with the entire uvalde community, the families of those killed, the injured, the teachers and students who suffered such terror, the medical and law enforcement personnel who responded and all those reeling from this terrible attack. mr. president, this past weekend i headed to myrtle, south dakota, a small town of around 500 people where i grew up. needless to say any trip to murdo brings back a lot of memories. first and foremost are those memories of my parents, pat and harold thune, and growing up with my three brothers and sister. we were lucky kids to have my

parents. my mom was a wonderful, loving, eternally optimistic loving who he spent most of the my growing up years as our school librarian. she was responsible for making sure that we thune kids got some culture whether we wanted it or not. she was the one who made sure we got an introduction to music and learned how to play the piano. with her encouragement, i joined the swing choir, although i'll spare you, mr. president, from any recitals. in the summer she would make us come inside for an hour every day to read. i didn't always want to come inside on those beautiful summer days. and at the time i would have much preferred to keep shooting hoops with the basket my dad attached to a pole in our backyard. but today i'm grateful for every minute that she made us spend with books. my dad, he was our hero. division 1 basketball player, world war ii combat pilot. he was a teacher at my high school. and a coach and the athletic director, and also the bus

driver. so between him and my mom, as the librarian, we thune kids were never far away from our parents' watchful eyes. my dad us to as players to play as a team. he didn't like ball hogs or people who were in the game for the personal glory. he believed your job as a member of the team was to make the people around you better. somebody else was in a better position to take the shot, you always made the extra pass. you didn't try to pad your own statistics. you played for the good of the team. it's an attitude i've tried to carry with me throughout my life. my parents gave us thune kids a strong set of values and an inhere tans of faith, in good times and bad. faith was their anchor. i'm grateful they taught us who to turn to in times of trouble.

mr. president, being in myrtle reminded me of my parents. it also made me reflect on just how lucky i was to grow up in a small town, in small-town south dakota in particular. it is true that my parents had heard all about any of the thune kids' misdemeanors before we even made it home. but even with that little drawback, small-town life was wonderful. in myrtle, you know everyone, and everyone knows you. and that gave us a sense of community and belonging that we carry to this day. growing up in myrtle also taught us just how much we are all connected. mr. president, south dakotans are independent people but we also rely on our neighbors when the going gets tough. and the going can get tough. in myrtle we now that if a roof collapsed under the weight of snow or a windstorm came through or we lost a friend or family member, the whole community would rally around to help.

small-town life has a beautiful simplicity. on summer nights, my dad would take us to get ice cream cones. we'd roll down the windows and feel the freeze and watch the sun drop behind the horizon. no staring at iphones. moments like those kept us connected to what really mattered -- our family, our community, the land. the values i saw reflected growing up in myrtle are reequity inned in towns all a -- reflected in towns all across our state. i learned work ethic and the commitment to freedom connected to the sense of responsibility and a sense of responsibility to the broader community. agriculture of course is the lifeblood of south dakota. and it's a hard way of life. it's backbreaking work in all wedges, always with the risk that -- in all weathers, always

with the risk that all can be wiped out with a storm. everybody knows that everybody has to pull their weight or the farm or ranch won't survive. i think that has helped give south dakotans their reputation for having a strong work ethic and commitment to getting the job done. i'm not kidding about that reputation. as a senator, i've traveled to a number of places around the world, and i regularly meet people, often military members, who talk about the work ethic of the south dakotans they know. i'm sure that's why south dakota has always punched above its weight. south dakotans cherish their freedoms and they also believe that with freedom comes responsibility. they have a deep appreciation for the founders' vision that as allowed us to enjoy such freedom and for the sacrifices that have been required to secure it.

with that comes an expectation that each generation has to do its part to pay freedom's price and protect all that we have been given t the south dakota values i learned growing up helped shape my political philosophy, my belief that government should be limited and that it is best when it is closest to the people. and if a matter can be handled at the state or local level, it should be. the legacy of the past is something to be cherished and preserved while leaving at the same time room for change and adaptation when needed. that freedom is a sacred gift, one that must be defended and that with freedom comes responsibility. and finally, that while government is necessary, government is not where we should look for salvation. mr. president, the legacy of growing up in south dakota is a precious one. we didn't have much money, but we were very rich in the things

that mattered. and i'm deeply grateful for those years in myrtle and the teachers and coaches and others in the community who invested in me and for everyone who continues to make it feel like home and for the privilege of living in the mt. rushmore state. it is my great honor to represent the people of south dakota in the united states senate. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. mr. kennedy: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, most of my people in louisiana i think are probably much like your people of maine. most of my people, most of our people, they just get up every day, they go to work, they obey the law, pay their taxes, they try to do the right thing by their kids, try to teach their kids morals, and they try to

save a little money for retirement as they enjoy living in what they believe is the greatest country in all of human history. but many of my people, mr. president, are struggling. president biden took office on january 20 of last year, so what are we? we're in day 490 of build back better. from where many of my people sit, nothing's been built, and nothing is back. and nothing is better. there's not a more appropriate example of that than the cost of living, inflation. when president biden took office, the cost of gasoline in

my state was $2,$2 gallon. it's betweennd 4.15 and $4.25 right now. and it's not just gasoline, mr. president. i mean, i don't need to tell you. a dozen eggs now cost $2.52. ground beef is $5.41. a pound of chicken is is $4.10. the price of oil, the price of gasoline affects so much in terms of our economy. i mean, it impacts -- most of our food and our clothes and our plastics, the things we use every day, are delivered by air, by van, by tanker, all of which

use gasoline. pharmaceuticals are affect add by the price of oil -- are affected by the price of oil. i don't think it's any secret that the biden administration is trying to disrupt the production of oil in america. i think that's just a fact. we see it in the president canceling leases on federal lands in the gulf of mexico and anwr. we see it from the difficult regulatory environment for oil and gas producers. the president has just promulgated new rules for the national environmental protection act. if those new rules come to fruition, it'll be impossible to open a new pipeline in america.

and i think we have to be honest about that. now, to be fair, the biden administration is trying to disrupt the production of oil and gas, especially oil, for environmental reasons of which we're both aware. but instead, the biden administration -- this seems curious to me -- wants us to buy oil from foreign countries, and those foreign countries deliver their oil in tankers that use 2,000 gallons of fuel an hour and emit eight tons of carbon dioxide into the environment per hour. the irony of this is rich.

inflation and oil. once again, i think so much of our inflation and all the products that we need to maintain our standard of living today starts with the price of oil. now, president biden has said he has no control over the price of oil and, therefore, the price of gasoline. but, mr. president, you can't -- you can't have regulatory control over the drilling, the transporting, the storage, the refining, the trading, and the taxation of oil, as the president does, and say you have no control over the price of the commodity. i mean, that's just not true. the president -- here's what most people in my state see, mr. president.

the president in march of last year sent every american a $1,400 stimulus check, and they were grateful. but then the biden administration for its next trick crashed their 401(k)'s, increased their food bills by as much -- for some, as much as $3,000 a year, increased their rent -- for many as much as $2,000 a year -- and increased their gas bills for as much as $1,000 a year. and they don't see that as a good trade, mr. president. and it's all derived from the -- from president biden's energy

policy, which is -- here's his energy policy -- wind, solar, and wishful thinking. it's just not realistic. and among other things, it is hurting our country. it's hurting my people in louisiana desperately because of the rise in gasoline prices. i was very disappointed to see this week that the president is -- has changed his approach to inflation and the price of gasoline. he has said we are now in a transition period, and he said it as if that were a positive thing. he said, we're on a transition. and when we get through this transition, we're going to be stronger than ever because we're not going to have to real estate lie -- rely on fossil fuels.

and i'm thinking, you know, i respect the president, but, honestly, what plan eight did he parachute in from? i had just finished reading j.p. morgan's energy report, and j.p. morgan, looking out until 2030, not 2050 -- 2030, just eight years from now, said in 2030 at the rate we're going, the demand for energy in america will be 20% greater than the supply. you know what that's going to do to the price, mr. president. the j.p. morgan energy report said that at a minimum in 2030, eight years from now, the demand for oil is going to be 10% higher in america and the demand for natural gas is going to be 18% higher. you know what that's going to do to prices? and the president is talking

about this glorious transition, as if this is going to last forever. i don't know about the good people of maine, but the good people of louisiana, they just can't afford it. and my people deserve better. now, what's the answer? here's my opinion. we got to stop spending. the federal reserve has got to be given a chance to do its job. the united states congress has a budget that we have set for the united states of america. we need to live within our budget. except for defense spending, we need to freeze spending. we need to freeze it and give the federal reserve a chance to get this inflation under control. thank you, mr. president. my people deserve better. the people of america deserve better. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from montana. mr. tester: i want to thank -- i want to thank the senator from

maine for the recognition. i appreciate it very, very much. i am going to be very brief. i would ask for up to five minutes, but i'll use less than that. okay? the presiding officer: without objection. mr. tester: today the isn't that right has agreed to move one step forward to the sergeant first class heating robertson act of 2022, i will a he try that again. the sergeant first class heating robinson pac act of 2002. i want to thank senators moran, bozeman and heinrich for working with me to deliver this bipartisan solution. it is the most comprehensive exposure package our country has ever delivered. it's been decades in the making. named -- named after a veteran who died from exposure to a toxic burn pit.

this will have the government do the right thing by allowing toxic-exposed veterans. it expands the presumption for agent orange exposure, for those who served in vietnam. yes, that's right, that's what i said. we still haven't done right by the vietnam era veterans, but this bill makes it right and it adds new conditions, new service connected conditions for agent orange, including hypertension. this expands health care for more than 3.5 million post-9/11 combat veterans whose service connects two dozen conditions caused by burn pit exposure. we have to give the v.a. the benefits it needs to better serve vets, this bill does that by funding more employees, process claims, processing claims technology and ways to

help the v.a. staff and investing in v.a. health care facilities across the country. passing this bill in congress and getting it to the president's desk is the only way to keep our end of the bargain of our all-volunteer military. this cannot be overstated. as we all know, freedom is not free. there is a price to pay when we send men and women off to wars to fight on our behalf. you don't have to be exposed to agent orange or burn pits to understand that price. veterans in my state and across the country are already paying for it and they can no longer wait. now is the time, folks, we're going to get back from memorial day, we will all be at memorial day events and we will celebrate the folks who favor the ultimate -- who gave the ultimate sacrifice. we need to celebrate those who survived but had toxic exposure. the presiding officer: the question occurs on the nomination.

is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. there is. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote: