them for the time they have to take away and we've got to deal with this travel issue. finally i would say my concern about retaliation are real and it needs to be nipped in the bud. potential for commanding officer to refuse to grant the leave because of religious concern or just because they can refuse. so we can continue this conversation as you pointed out, it is a complex decision but i think there's no question -- >> we are going to leave the last few minutes of this program to fulfill our more than 40 year commitment to live coverage of congress. the senate's about to dabble in for the day.

senators will vote at 5:30 p.m. eastern to advance the nomination of elizabeth haynes to become u.s. district court judge for eastern virginia. later this week the senate may take up democrat bill to address inflation, healthcare and climate change. live coverage of the 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. lord, god of heaven and earth, thank you for the joy that comes

to those who delight in your presence. your mercies are new each day, for you sustain us with your wisdom as we follow your leading. today, continue to sustain our lawmakers, as they embrace your precepts and walk in your path. remind them that your way enables them to become instruments for goodness in our nation and world. help them also to see that it is the difficult road that leads to life and few find it. as our senators receive guidance from you, give them attentive hearts and open minds.

enable them to find in the diversity of ideas what is best for our nation and world. we pray in your merciful name. amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance. 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., august 1, 2022. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing

rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable mazie k. hirono, a senator from the state of hawaii, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: patrick j. leahy, president pro tempore. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. morning business is closed. under the previous order, the senate will proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination, which the clerk will report. the clerk: nomination, the judiciary. elizabeth wilson hanes of virginia to be united states district judge for the eastern district of virginia.

mr. mcconnell: madam president? the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: eastern kentucky is reeling, reeling from some of the worst flooding

in our state's history. the area is still experiencing hanefall today -- rainfall today. this horrible, tragic crisis is far from over. in jackson, waters reached 43.5 feet high, breaking an 83-year-old record. drone footage shows whole towns completely submerged. roadways have turned into rivers, rising waters have reached rooftops. across more than a dozen counties, severe rain storms have created crisis conditions. the water rose too quickly for many to react, with tragic consequences. the governor has confirmed that 30 people have lost their lives, including children. i think that number is likely to

rise in the coming days. the families who were lucky enough to get out unscathed have lost homes, businesses, and airlooms and many communities the water-logged destruction is absolute. eastern kentucky is well known its step hilltops, rolling forests and deep hollers. those features which make the region one of the most unique in the country also create complications for emergency personnel. our heroic first responders, including the national guard from kentucky and surrounding states, are working overtime to find and recover stranded residents. they rescued more than 1,400 individuals in floodwaters. nearly half of the rescues were by air. last last week i joined with every member of kentucky's congressional delegation to support the governor's request

to the president for a major disaster declaration to give our first responders federal help. president biden issued that declaration promptly and resources are already flowing into the commonwealth to assist local emergency personnel. the president called me the other day and secretary mayorkas did as well, and the fema director chris we criswell, we e grateful for all three of their speedy reaction. director criswell has been on the ground assisting with recovery efforts directly. my in this southeastern kentucky are in close touch with local officials in the area, providing all the help we can. i'll visit the affected communities myself in the coming days to meet with constituents and offer support. unthinkably painful stories continue to come to us out of eastern kentucky.

however, we've also heard moving reminders of kentuckians' selflessness. last december the city of mayfield in the western part of kentucky was devastated by tornadoes. the town lost its fire station in that storm. but despite their own challenges, last week the mayfield fire department filled an ambulance with equipment and rushed to eastern kentucky to aid relief efforts. they didn't have to think twice before helping fellow kentuckians. we saw generally -- we saw generosity all across the affected region, residents with oat boats, jet skis and kayaks put their own lives at risk to rescue their neighbors. schools, churches, parks, and businesses opened their doors to displaced families. as one resident put it over the weekend, no matter what eastern kentuckians help each other.

so i'm monitoring the situation closely and doing all i can to assist kentucky leaders on both sides of the political aisle are working together to coordinate further federal aid. thankful to everyone who has sprung into action to help with the rescue efforts, whether they were professional first responders or just good samaritans. and i am thankful for the help our state has already received from fema, their continued assistance will be vital to rebuilding in the months ahead. eastern kentucky has been devastated by these floods. our recovery process will take months, and in some places literally years. but i know we'll bounce back. kentucky has faced challenges before, and we always, always overcome.

now on a completely different matter, when it comes to our economy, american families do not trust this democratic party government one bit. nearly 90% of americans are feeling anxious about inflation. 28% approve of how president biden is handling it. just 28% approval rating. only 22% think things will get any better after another year on his watch. americans' distrust of democrats standed to reason. a year and a half ago, every single senate democrat provided the deciding vote for a $1.9 trillion reckless spending spree that's caused the worst

inflation in 40 years. the democratic leader, senator schumer, said back then, i do not think the dangers of inflation, at least in the near term, are very real. he went on to lead every single democrat to cast a deciding vote for the party-line spending spree that has destroyed families' purchasing power through inflation. now the very same people want to deal our economy another bod blow on a party-line vote. the same democrats who said that a $1.9 trillion spending spree would not cause inflation are now saying, listen to this, it's

a good idea to raise taxes, kill jobs, attack american energy, and hammer american manufacturing, all -- all -- in the middle of the apparent recession which they have already created. everyone knows that raising taxes in a recession kills jobs, but that's precisely what democrats are desperate to do. so, here's what they're proposing, a huge, new tax hike on american jobs, more than $300 billion in new taxes. the joint committee on taxation says a whopping 50% of that burden would fall directly on our nation's manufacturing sector. so, in the middle of a supply chain crisis, democrats want a huge job-killing tax hikes that

will disproportionately crush american manufacturing and manufacturing jobs. oh, and democrats also want a huge new tax hike on american natural gas. natural gas is the single largest source of electric generation for our entire country. a plurality of all the power in america comes from, you guessed it, natural gas. it's also how countless families heat their homes, and it's a linchpin of our domestic energy independence and our ability to export to our allies in europe. but the green new deal democrats are coming straight after american natural gas with huge new tax hikes. the result will be higher electricity bills, higher heating costs, less exporting to our european allies, just as putin is trying to cut them off, and 90,000 workers in the oil and gas industry, listen to

this, out of work. eliminating 90,000 workers in the oil and gas industry in the process. democrats' tax hikes on american energy don't stop there. with gas prices still sky high, our colleagues are also proposing to resurrect a defunct tax that would take direct aim at american oil refining, and they want it pegged to inflation. so, the tax hike will automatically climb up and up exactly when the country can least afford it. so, on top of all this, the democrats also want to pour new funding into the irs so they can more easily come after small businesses. irs agents get new cars, new computers. small businesses? they get more audits. add it all up, these tax hikes

and others, and democrats want to drop an anvil, an anvil on our economy at the worst possible time. the nonpartisan joint committee on taxation has demonstrated the democrats' plan would shatter, shatter president biden's promise not to raise taxes on households earning less than 400,000. households making less than half that amount, less than 200,000 would see a $16.7 billion tax hike in the year 2023 alone. this is people making under 200,000 would see a $16.7 billion tax hike next year alone. amazingly, the very lowest-earning mention, who make less than $10,000 per year, would see the largest percentage

tax hike of any group in the entire bill. so, it hits people who make below $10,000, on a percentage basis, harder than any other group in the entire bill. so democrats are labeling all these tax hikes the inflation reduction action. but nonpartisan experts have already proven that's flat out false. the budget experts at penn what theon -- at penn wharton would show this bill would slightly december crease inflation in the near term and do nothing to meaningfully reduce it in the long term. so it's not about inflation. when you raise taxes on someone, madam president, you get less of it. that's the way it, would. so in the middle of a recession, democrats wants to raise taxes on american jobs. in the middle of an energy

crisis, democrats want to raise taxes on american energy. in the middle of a middle-class inflation crisis, democrats wants to raise taxes on households way, way below the present $400,000 threshold. all of this economic genius, all of this economic genius is brought to you by the same people who called a $1.9 trillion inflation time bomb that, quote, -- the, quote, american rescue plan, and promised it wouldn't cause inflation, right before it did. we know what it looks like when democrats say they'll help the economy. and american families can't take much more of it.

i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

>> host: he is the chief executive officer with lambda legal joining us from new york to talk morning about marriage equality and the future of lgbtq+ rights. remind us again the work you do at lambda legal.

>> guest: yes. it's america's oldest legal rights advocacy group for the l lg lgbtq community. we bring lawsuits in instances of discrimination where we help to win new rights for the community such as marriage equality. the supreme court decision in 2015 which made marriage equality the law of the land. >> host: what has been your group's priority since the abortion decision in june effectively overturning roe v. wade? >> guest: well, we have two priorities. first of all, to win new protections for the most vulnerable many our community like lgbtq and trans people, and our second priority is to defend against attacks as we're starting to see around the country where over 300 anti-lgb t-bills have been introduced so far in 2022. the dobbs decision, which is one that overturned roe, is very

disturbing because it assaults the fundamental if right to privacy which is the basis of many important advances won in the court such as the owner fell decision and also the decision that can decriminalized same-sex relationships. >> host: on that decision, in that decision justice clarence thomas wrote this, is and i'm sure you're familiar with, he said -- part of what he wrote, anyway: for that reason, in future cases we should reconsider all of this court's substantive die process precedents including griswold, lawrence and overtelebecause it's demonstrable by erroneous. we have a duty to correct the error established in these precedents. the question would remain whether other constitutional provisions guarantee myriad

ott -- of rights that our substantive due process cases have generated. lots there, but what is the justice talking about in terms of this application of due processesome -- process? >> guest: well, basically, you know, he lays it out completely clearly which is he feels that the doctrines that underlay marriage equality, access to contraception which is the bris world decision -- griswold decision which dates back to 1965 and even decriminalization of same-sex relationships from 2003, he wants to throw them all out. this is a radical court, and i think we need to recognize that with very little respect for precedent. these are decisions that were decide decidedded by clear majorities where it is the obvious in the case of griswold for almost 60 years now it's been upheld numerous times, and the justice is basically saying i don't care about precedent, i don't like these things, i want

to throw them out. this is a political agenda, not a legal agenda. >> host: were you surprised when you read that, or can did you figure that this was his opportunity to put that out there? >> guest: i absolutely. the opponents of equality have had these decisions in their sights for many years. in fact, the man who wrote the texas abortion ban has already announced one of his next goals is to overturn lawrence v. texas. and we are really facing a concerted effort to roll back all of the advances we have won for our community in the last 49 years. >> host: in response -- well, let me press not in response, but to to assuage or allay some fears. justice alito had these comments writing in his decision in that case, he said: we have stated unequivocally that nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt the on precedents that do not concern abortion. we have also explained why that is so.

rights regarding con that that sense and same-sex relationships are inherently different from the right to abortion because the latter, as we have stressed -- writes alito -- uniquely involves a potential right, therefore, a right to abortion cannot be justified by afford analogies to the rights recognized in other cases by appeals to a broader right to autonomy. it's hard to see how we could be clearer. did that allay your peers any? >> guest: well, we certainly are going to hold the justices to hair word, but you'll forgive me if my level of trust is not that high. the fact is virtually all all the justices who voted for cover turning dobbs said in their confirmation hearings that roe v. wade was settled law and it was a precedent that would stand, and yet when they got the first opportunity to throw it out the window, they did. so there's a little bit of a disconnect between words and the actions of some of these justices.

we certainly are going to take the words you just read, and we are going to to argue them in courts across america. but i think we have to go back to what i said earlier which is that we have a court where some justices are not intent on interpreting and following the law. they are instead about enforcing a political agenda. and that political agenda is fundamentally hostile to voting rights, fundamentally hostile to reproductive rights, fundamentally hostile to lgbtq+ rights, and i'm afraid legal doctrine may not be enough protection. >> host: we're talking with kevin jennings, ceo from lambda legal, the future of lgbtq+ rights after the recent supreme court decision, and we'll talk in a minute too about what's being done in congress. here the phone lines, for republicans, 8001. democrats, 8000, and for independents and others, 202-748-8002. if you are a member of the lgbtq

+community, that line is 202-748-8003. we'll get to your phone calls shortly. kevin, were you surprised at all that after that -- abortion decision in particular came down, there was a delayed, sort of a delayed response from the white house. >> guest: yes, i really was. i had hoped it would be an immediate and forceful response especially given that justice alito's opinion was leaked several weeks before it was published. i am happy to say that they seem to be making up for lost time and to be doing things more aggressively now, but we're talking about what, to me, is a fundamental human right which is the right of people who get pregnant to control their own bodies. that calls, to me, for using every legislative and administrative trade in the book to protect them. >> host: the court ruled a couple of rules ago, remind us again, that same-sex marriage was legal, correct? >> guest: yes. it's the hodges decision which

was decided in 2015 which was a consolidation of several cases brought around the issue of marriage equality. and it made marriage equality which up until then had been if you look at one state, new york, it had it, but north carolina, my home state, did not. >> host: and in response to abortion, the u.s. house anyway so far quickly moved to to take up a measure that would codify that. that is the respect for marriage a act which has passed in the house. it would repeal the current defense of marriage if act which was passed in 1996, defined marriage. that 1996 act defined marriage as between one man and one woman. the defense of marriage act, as you pointed out, was ruled unconstitutional by the court in 2015. why, kevin jennings, is it so important to get it codified into lawsome. >> guest: absolutely.

the great thing about litigation is that it is responsible for the vast a majority of the advances for lgbtq+ rights since lambda was founded in 1973. the bad thing about it is litigation can be overturned, litigation can be reverse ised as we just learned so painfully in the dobbs decision. so it's absolutely kit call that the right the marry be written into the law so that future courts cannot overturn it. and i'm delighted to say that congress, at least the house, seems to be listening to america. after all, over 70% of americans support marriage equality including 51% of republicans. and in honor of that, 47 republicans voted for the respect for marriage act, and it passed by an overwhelming margin. we are very hopeful that there will be action in the senate where it sits right now and, frankly, if you care about this issue, i urge you to contact your senator because they have a bold agenda in the senate right now. we want to make sure this

doesn't get lost. it's absolutely critical that we codify the right to marry into the law so that it cannot be overturned in the future. >> host: what is your group, lambda legal, doing to push that through the senate? >> guest: we are begging people to get in touch with their senators. this is a situation where it's really going to be the voice of the people that makes the difference. if senators understand, of both parties, that the vast majority of americans do want this legislation, which polling indicates they do, they are going to do the right thing. but if we sit on our hands and hope for the best, nothing's going to advance. >> host: offhand, do you happen to know how many states have codified same-sex marriage into law? >> guest: that is a relatively small number. it's really we're talking about in the teens. in 2004, 11 states passed bans on same-sex marriage. those were overrule by the court, but what we're really facing is a patchwork situation where we still have some states

that have constitutional bans on books while we have other states that have marriage equality on the books. and the court could throw us back into a period of incredible confusion should it reverse owner fed because you could raise your legal status, and we want to avoid that at all costs. >> host: there was a headline in the new york times a couple of weeks ago saying: after roe, republican -- republicans sharpen attacks on gay and transgender rights. what's been the reaction with the people that you work with, the community, the gay and lgbtq+ community where you are on those sorts of attacks. >> guest: well, first of all, we knew this was coming. you know, the justices are somewhat like people that used to like lay's potato chips if you remember those commercials back in the '70s, they can't stop with just one.

they reversed voting rights in 2013, they just reversed reproductive rights mt. dobbs decision in 2022, and they're coming for our rights. we know our opponents have cases teed up that that they want to take to the supreme court that would reverse all the cases in the last 49 years, so we're not stupid. we knew this was coming, and we are prepared. i think in the community at large there's a tremendous amount of fear. remember, the lgbtq community, the year i was born in 1963, it was illegal in 49 states to be gay. it was illegal to to knowingly employ an open l lgbtq+ person, it was a mental illness and you could be instituted against your will back when i was born. this is recent history, and people are very aware that the progress we've made is gradual, continuous, and it can't be reversed. so i am seeing a great keel of concern in the community -- deal of concern aha we could be going

back to the bad old days when we were de facto criminals in our own country. >> host: kevin jennings, our guest. we welcome your calls and comments. we'll go first to jack from georgia on the independents line. good morning. >> caller: yes, sir, good morning. i would like to ask mr. jennings, i mean, i'm originally from savannah, georgia. i'm not gay, but i know very fine gay couples that are very highly educated people and very productive people. and since he was talking about this abortion issue, the right to life, what about the gay couples who want to adopt children? and -- a heard anything since heavy gotten into the abortion issue, how do they stand on even heterosexual and gay couples who might want to raise children

instead of a person going and having an abortion, have they ever thought about maybe, you know, have -- carrying out the pregnancy and then putting the child up for adoption where gay couples and met to prosexual couples -- and heterosexual couples want a family unit -- [inaudible] >> host: okay. kevin jennings. >> guest: first of all, jack, thank you for your question. this is an area or which we have been litigating in for many years because, unfortunately, the right to adopt or foster children has been a bridge -- [inaudible] for same-sex couples for many, many years and in country, and we very much believe that same-sex couples should have the right to adopt children like any other couple. we're litigating a case right now where a lesbian couple was denied the right to adoptment a child -- adopt a child by a adoption agency which was a religious agency and said that because a lesbian couple did

not, quote, mirror the holy family, unquote, they were not eligible to have an adoption. i find that offensive, i find that bizarre in a world in which we do have many, many, many children who do not have a home, we need to make sure that every loving couple can adopt those children if they want to provide them with a loving home. the fact is if you are a teenage foster care child, you have a 3% chance of ever being adopted. why would we prevent people who want to adopt these children, who want to provide them with loving homes, who want to provide them the with the homes that they're never had right to adopt? lambda legal believes all couples, regardless whether they are same sex or not, should have the opportunity equally to adopt children based on whether or not they can provide those children with a good home, and we are active hi litigating to make sure that same-sex couples around america have an equal opportunity to adopt children. >> host: in the case of adoption, those are generally

state laws that govern how adoption is held -- is carried out in the states, correct? >> guest: welsh it's a little more complicated than that because often the federal government request contracts out the adoption services to private providers. for example, the u.s. conference of catholic bishops received the only contract to foster refugee children in the united states. and we've sueded in nashville on behalf of kelly easter who was a lesbian who wanted to foster a refugee child and was denied the opportunity to do so because of her sexual orientation. and so often federal programs for adoption are contracted out to religious agencies who then discriminate against same-sex couples and against l lgbtq +single people, and we are determined regardless who is providing adoption services, if they're funded with your tax dollars, discrimination should not be used.

>> host: morgan next in reading, pennsylvania. good morning. >> caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. mr. jennings, i was just wondering are you concerned about how the republican party seem on embracing nazis and klan? cue clucks klan, two groups -- ku klux klan, two groups who have historically murdered gay people and how they seem to be embracing hem, showing them love and support? it started when trump call them good people many charlottesville when they murdered a young woman. is there, like, any concern? if and the governor of florida who wanted to stop black lives matter from protesting was silent when the neonazis were protesting which just says that he accept them and has no problem with them and what they believe in, which is murdering gay people. do you have any concerns about the growing support of these two

groups? >> guest: absolutely, morgan. that's a fantastic point you made and a really good question. pleasure -- importantly in idaho in june, police had to arrest over 30 members of a far-right group who had arrived in town after being incited by online sources to attack a pride celebration. so it is getting very, very dangerous to be a lgbtq+ person. it has always been dangerous, it's getting more so. same thing is true for people of color, the same hinge is true for religious groups such as jews and muslims. so i think that we have to have political leaders who, regardless of their ideology -- conservative, liberal, progressive, whatever you want to say -- who make it absolutely clear that hate groupses and hate violence simply will not be tolerated. and it is very disturbing to me when i see hate groups being call very fine people by our former president and when i see disparate treatment as you described where extreme right group withs are allowed to

protest test and efforts, people on the left-hand side of the spectrum are shut down by the authorities. so i think that we have to be very concerned about the rise of extremism on the right and the threat it poses to many different groups in our society and the fact that some political leaders seem to think aha's just find and are, in fact, embracing it. >> host: your calls for kevin generallings -- jennings, 8001, that's the republican line. 02-78 hing 000 -- 748-800 for democrats. kevin jennings, did your group, lambda legal, have a role in florida? we talk about ron desantis on program earlier, in the parents' rights bill, the so-called don't say gay bill. did you have a role in that? >> guest: yes. we filed a legal challenge to

the law last week, and we plan to take it down in court. and i want to say something about it, because ironically, bill, i started my career as a high school teacher 30 years ago. i was a high school teacher for 10 years, and whose parental rights are we defending, is what i'd like to know. it is not rights -- the rights of lgbtq+ parents whose children are being told they can't even talk about who their family is in class. it is not the right of parents who have hgbtq +children who are seeing their own children being silenced and discriminated against. so let's talk about the all .s -- parents. parents are not a monolith. there are lgbtq president -- plus parents, and i don't think any of those people want to see children told that they can't even talk about who's in their family, which is what law would do. so we are in court challenging

law. the law is blatant censorship, and it is a deliberate attempt to erase is and silence lgbtq+ people. and so i'm a little tired, frankly, of hearing about parents rights when we don't hear about all parents. many parents have lgbtq+ children can or family members, and they want to see their children learn about the full diversity of america. and these lays are violating the rights -- laws are violating the rights of those parents and families. >> host: next, first we'll hear from nelson in hollywood, florida, republican line. >> caller: good morning. mr. jennings and you radical democrats, always talk about settled law when it's convenient for you. i'd like to point out, sir, that it was settle law for millenium that marriage was between one man and one woman.

the united states of america has no such thing as settled law that has been proven over the years with things like roe v. wade. i am delighted that roe v. wade has been overturned, and i believe that the law that protects young children from propaganda by people like yourself -- i mean no disrespect, but by people like yourself -- is a good thing. it only goes up to the third grade. i also think that it is wrong to try to turn little boys into little girls, something that your organization is in favor of. your organization has done a lot of harm to children over the years. there are now children who believe that they are of a gender that they are not. and in years to come, those very same children whom you have harmed by your legal processes,

will come back to haunt you because they will have all kinds of emotional and psychological problems as well as billion problems -- physical problems percent kinds of things that's been going on. >> host: i'll give you a, chance to respond, kevin jennings, to our caller. >> guest: sure. there was really two questions in there. one was talking about lgbtq+ issues in schools and the second around issues of gender identity and gender-affirming care for young people. first of all, i do not consider it propaganda if a first grader whose parents are two women comes into school and when they draw a picture of their family, it is themselves with two women. that is not propaganda, that's the truth, and that's the reality for many children in this country, that they have lgbtq+ if parents, and they have right to see their families just as respected as anyone else in the communities. pact is everybody's -- the fact is everybody's family deserves respect, and that includes families headed by same-sex

couples or by lgbtq +single people. what weed a slow candidate is for that the law not discriminate and that medical professionals follow what is generally accepted medical standards in terms of treating trans youth. and what those standards tell us over and over again is that when a young person is trans,they are not provide with gender-affirming care, they are vastly more likely to commit suicide, vastly more likely to engage many a number of self-destructive behaviors. so what we are arguing is let the are doctors decide. legislators should not be deciding whether or not young people can get health care. and, unfortunately in the state of a alabama, he was made it a felony for doctors to provide gender-affirming care to young people. i think it should be left to the medical professionals and to the families of these children to decide what health care these young people need and that so long as medical standards are being followed, legislators should stay out of it. >> host: very similar to the

arguments regarding abortion in this country. >> guest: yeah. it's very, very interesting that the same people that are saying the government should interfere in the case of a person's right to choose are also arguing that people should interfere in a decision that really should be left to families. are we really pro-family, or are we just pro some families? it seems we're only pro the families whose ideology aligns with the conservative wing. >> host: next up is jacksonville, fg, sena, on the democrats' line. good morning. >> caller: yes, good morning. i just have a quick question, and i'm not here to stereowith type or make -- stereotype or make any kind of -- about what someone's gender may be. but my concern is that i think that it shouldn't be where little kids, little girls, little boys -- [inaudible] growing up and not know whether they're supposed to marry a

woman or a man. it's just too much confusion. it should have always stayed in the closet. maybe i'm just old-fashioned. maybe it just should have stayed where it once used to be, and maybe it wouldn't be so much psychological pain and hurting among min. it has generated a whole mess of america. thank you. >> host: okay. we'll to to joe in austin, texas. good morning. >> caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. the comment i would like to make is that as a survivor of violent crime, a violent hate crime for that that matter, that i find these people to be disingenuous that they state they are caring about might be when they papas these type of -- pass these type of laws.

they say they go to church, but i find that hard to believe. listening to the church doctrine of love and care and respect. and i'm 63, and i find this to be just disgusting behavior on their part. and that's all i have to say. thank you. >> host: okay. kevin jennings, your thoughts. >> guest: yeah. let me take the first caller's comments first. what has caused the pain and the confusion is not the greater openness around the fact that there are lgbtq+ people in the world. we have been here forever. what caused the pain and confusion was the many years when people had to lie and hide in the closet. we know when people are unable to be their authentic self, they're much more likely to attempt suicide, harm themselves, much more likely to develop substance abuse problems. so i think that the caller is right that there is a lot of pain in the lgbt lgbtq+

community, but they've identified the wrong source of pain. the source source is discriminatory attitudes that portion people not to be themselves. on the second caller's point, well, i'm -- my daddy was a baptist preacher, so i love to quote the bible. and i would agree with him really strongly because in the book of john in the bible it say ifs a man say earth he love god and hates his brother, he is a liar. if he cannot love his brother, how could he love a god who he has not seen? so i think that the fundamental commandment of jesus was to love our neighbors as ourselves. i don't think there were any asterisks in it, i don't think he said anything except for lgbtq+ people, except for muslims, except for jews. i don't think his commandments offered people an out. i think he was very, very clear that you must love all of your brothers and your sisters and, i might add, your nonbinary

siblings. and you don't get to opt out of loving somebody just because you don't particularly like them. so i do wish more of these folks would follow the precepts of the bible which, by the way, are the same precepts in many, many relegses. they're not unique to the -- religion ares. the idea that we should love and respect each other is fundamental to basically all moral relations, and i think people who claim to be people of faith who urn around and preach hate are, indeed, violating the precepts of organized religion. >> host: we've talked about your group's activities following the ruling by the supreme court and your efforts on the protecting marriage rights act that has been passed by the house. what about upcoming supreme court term that begins in october? what cases might come up that your group will be focused on? >> guest: well, many, many cases are going to be particularly, but one we're concerned about is

a situation where in colorado a developer of web sites announced that they would not serve lgbtq+ individuals because they didn't agree with hem ideologically. and this is -- mr. schumer: madam president. i ask unanimous consent the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: now, madam president, the senate gastles in for what will be -- gavels in for what will be a conventional week for our country, we will vote on elizabeth hanes to serve as judge for the eastern district of virginia. if confirmed, she will be the 75th judge confirmed since president biden's been confirmed. and we will pass the pact act this is a piece of legislation that should sail through the chamber with overwhelming

bipartisan support. the capitol steps should be the sight of nothing we should have to experience, veterans demanding that we take action. no veteran should have to resort spending the night on capitol steps to secure their benefits. but sadly in this case they have. it's unfortunate this that our republican colleagues chose to block passage even though this is the same piece of legislation many of them supported in june with one small technical fix. in the coming days we're going to give senate republicans another chance to do the right thing, to work with us so we can send this bill to the president's desk asap. since 9/11, nearly 3.5 million americans have been exposed to toxic burn pits, leading to

cancer, lung disease and other illnesses. but instead of getting the care they need without delay, many veterans have had to hire lawyers and jump through hoops and sue the veterans administration to get the help they deserve and need incurred as they served our countries in dangerous places like iraq and vietnam. is that incredible. they wasted years fighting the v.a. just to get the care they need when they should have spent that time treating their illnesses. it's equally parts tragic and infuriating. our veterans have already given their all to defend our nation from threats abroad. they shouldn't have to fight a second war here at home just to get the health care benefits they rightfully deserve. these brave americans sacrificed everything. they risked life and limb, and the very least we can do as a country to ensure they receive top care. i urge both sides to work together to quickly pass the

pact act so we can send it to the president's desk asap. now, on the inflation reduction act of 2022. this week t the senate will take action on a groundbreaking piece of legislation, one that we haven't seen in decades, the inflation reduction act of 2022. over the coming days both sides will continue conversations with the parliamentarian in order to move forward the bipartisan byrd bath process. our timeline has not changed. and i expect to bring this legislation to the senate floor to begin voting this week. already leading experts have confirmed the inflation reduction act lives up to its name. the committee for responsible federal budget, by no means a liberal group, affirmed, quote, almost every one of this bill's policies will fight inflation

and on net the entire package will, that is the committee of responsible federal budget. former treasury secretary larry summers said, quote, this bill is fighting inflation and, quote, this is disinflation r ri -- disinflationary policy that will make the economy more efficient. this is from someone who served as an economic advisor to senator mccain, writes this bill will have a material economic impact and said that the inflation reduction act will push inflation lower, that's mark zandi. in short, madam president, the inflation reduction act is going to be just what the doctor ordered to bringing down costs for american families. we're excited and eager to pass

this bill through the senate as soon as we can. and of course of huge significance, this is one of the things that makes this bill so historic. by a significant margin, our bill will also be the largest package on climate change ever -- ever passed by this congress. by our analysis this bill will cut greenhouse gas emissions by approximately 40% by 2030. that's a lot. independent studies corroborate this. according to a new study by the nonpartisan energy and ovation group, the inflation reduction act would not only create at least 1.5 million new jobs by 2030, it also affirms that our bill will achieve approximately 40% greenhouse gas reduction by the end of the decade. let me repeat that last part. this independent analysis says that our bill if enacted could cut greenhouse gases by approximately 40%.

that's the number we believe it does. that is a very, very, very big deal. but this -- but with this bill, we're going to put the country on track to meet the climate goals we need to preserve for our planet, for our children, and for our grand children. now, cutting emissions is not just about protecting our planet's health. it's also about protecting our kids' health, too. if we slash emissions, that means cleaner air for everyone which in turn means fewer people suffer health complications that arise from pollution. it means less strain on our health care system. it means that communities, poorer communities, minority communities, long exposed to harmful emissions can quite literally breathe easy at last. in -- in fact, the same study from energy and ovation found that our bill could avoid a hundred thousand asthma attacks

annually by 2030. 3900 fewer premature deaths, a hundred thousand fewer asthma attacks. these are benchmarks every single one of us should aspire to regardless of party. put simply, this legislation will save lives, create jobs, reduce costs, reduce inflation. now, over the past few days we've heard republicans go back to their time attacks they use virtually against any democratic policy. they're sounding alarms that this bill will raise taxes on american families. but it does not. here's the plain truth. the bill will not raise any taxes, any taxes on families making under $400,000 a year. instead it will close loopholes long exploited by the largest corporations that essentially give them lower tax rates than many nurse, firefighter,

teachers. you don't hear republicans admit that. why? because they know that their tax policies are utterly toxic in the minds of american people. when you increase taxes on the wealthiest and corporations who pay nothing, they say you're raising taxes on everybody. bull. they tried it in 2017. they went out there and said they had a massive tax reduction for the middle class. they called it a middle class miracle even though they were cutting taxes predominantly on the rich. i think it was 70%, 80%. it was a boondoggle in favor of the rich. they promised their tax bill would unleash a tsunami of economic activity. instead it led to record corporate stock buybacks benefiting the wealthy and nobody else. so when republicans talk about cutting taxes, what they really mean is cutting taxes for the richest of the rich. that's how their whole philosophy is. that's the people who seem to control lots of the republican

party. our bill, meanwhile, will close tax loopholes in our tax code and not touch anyone, anyone making under $400,000 a year. that, madam president, is common sense. at the end of the day, the american people want us to do a few straightforward things. they want us to lower the costs of daily expenses like health care and drugs. they want us to lower energy costs and protect our planet from future generations. and they want to make sure that everyone plays by the same rules, and that we close loopholes long exploited by powerful corporations. that's what the inflation reduction act will do. and soon democrats will take action to pass this bill and deliver on our promise to make better the lives of the american people. i yield the floor.

a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: we all know that congress has a constitutional responsibility to ensure that the executive branch executes the laws and uses taxpayers' money appropriate in accordance with congressional intent. it doesn't matter whether we have a republican president, a democrat president, a republican senate or a democrat senate. we all have the constitutional responsibility of checking the executive branch. in further of that constitutional responsibility, congress has an obligation to investigate the executive branch for fraud, for waste, for abuse,

and even gross mismanagement. and if congress finds potential wrongdoing, we have an obligation to the american people to make sure that it's public, because transparenciy of the public's business brings accountability to those who conduct that public business. last week i made public two oversight letters that i've sent to the justice department and to the fbi. these two letters are part of my investigation into a political bias that's infecting the department of justice and the fbi. these letters are based on information provided to my office by whistle-blowers, and i

hope everybody knows that i consider whistle-blowers as patriots. and whistle-blowers have to have guts and they do have guts. and director wray has personally told me that these whistle-blowers won't be subject to retaliation as often whistle-blowers in the federal government are subject to retaliation, hurting themselves professionally and maybe even losing their jobs. knew these letters that i sent -- now these letters that i sent follow up on a may 31, 2022, letter to the justice department, the fbi, and the inspector general in those letters i provided evidence of extreme left-wing bias shown by a special agent in charge by the name of tim tebow.

he is special agent in charge of the f.b.i.'s washington field office. now, he has since been referred to the office of special counsel for potential hatch act violations. tebow is at the center of my two letters sent last week. the first letter relates to an fbi investigation that tebow opened on the trump campaign and its advisers. he allegedly had help from richard pilger, an official in the justice department's election crime branch within the public integrity section. during chairman durbin's investigation into the justice

department misconduct, pilger really stood out. the committee interviewed richard donahue, the former principal deputy attorney general during the trump administration. he was also a key january 6 committee witness. donahue testified to the judiciary committee that pil pilger's conduct frustrated the department's ability to properly operate the elections crime branch. tebow and pilger played a major role in opening the criminal investigation into the trump campaign. and this isn't a preliminary investigation. it's a full investigation which requires heightened standards to

go forward with that investigation. according to the whistle-blowers that contacted my office, the opening memo for that investigation is based in substantial part on liberal news reporting. liberal news reports are not enough for a full investigation. "the washington post" reported on the investigation last tuesday. however, the post did not report that tebow and pilger were involved in opening that case. that case against trump and his advisers. yet, attorney general garland and director wray allegedly approved opening those investigations. now, as i have said in my letter

to those two people, if you're going to open an investigation, you have to do it in the right way. so let's contrast this investigation with what the fbi has done with information received from sources relating to hunter biden. whistle-blowers have told my office that the fbi maintained -- maintains many sources that provided extensive information on hunter biden. that information allegedly involves potential criminal activity such as money lau laundering. that's the same criminal concern that senator johnson and i raised in our 2020 biden report.

to clarify, that was way back in 2020. according to the whistle-blower's allegation, the underlying information was verified and was verifiable. now here is where it is appropriate to raise questions about politic and political interference in investigations. however, instead of green lighting -- green-lighting the investigative activity, the fbi shut down the hunter investigation. how did they do that? according to allegations in august 2020, fbi superry -- have advadvisory intelligence analyst opened an assessment.

that assessment was used biff the fbi officials to improperly discredit hunter biden's information as disinformation. those officials allegedly included tebow. then in october 2020, an avenue of additional hunter reporting was ordered closed at the direction of special agent te tebow. it's been alleged that tebow and others suggested to fbi agents that the information was at risk of being -- you know what -- disinformation. however, according to allegations, the source reporting was either verified or verifiable via criminal search

warrants. tebow allegedly ordered the matter closed without providing a valid reason as required by fbi guidelines. as required by fbi guidelines. in other words, tebow shut down an allegedly legitimate avenue of information. so in order to shut down hunt erp biden -- hunter biden sources and investigative leads, the fbi engaged in disinformation campaign against itself and its own agents. if these allegations are true and accurate, the justice department and the fbi are and have been substantially corrupted. before i conclude, i want to know four things regarding the summer of 2020.

yes, the summer of 2020. the opening of oaton's assessment in august 2020. secondly, efforts by the fbi officials to shut down hunter biden's investigative activity. third, efforts by the fbi to provide really unnecessary briefing to me and senator johnson in august of 2020. that briefing was purportedly about our biden investigation, but it had nothing to do with the biden investigation. leaks, fourthly and lastly, leaks relating to the briefing and the liberal media, democrats falsely accusing me and senator johnson of advancing russian information.

all those four data points happened as senator johnson and i prepared to finalize our september 2020 biden report. these data points show a plan was in place at the fbi to undermine anything related to hunter biden. attorney general garland and director wray, you both have an obligation to the country to immediately investigate these allegations and to clean house. and my oversight work on this and related matters will certainly continue. on another point and a much shorter point, just in case some of my colleagues are wondering how long i'm going to have the

floor, today i come to speak on the importance of inspectors general, i.g.'s, as they're called in this town. i.g.'s play an important role watchdogging executive branch agencies. they help make our -- make sure that government bureaucrats are held accountable when they engage in waste, fraud, and abuse of taxpayers' money. i.g.'s are force multipliers for congress in overseeing our responsibility of checks and balances of the executive branch of government. they're charged with keeping congress informed of wrongdoing and to provide objective nonpartisan recommendations on even the most politically sensitive issues. as of today, there are currently 13 i.g. vacancies throughout the

federal government. some have nominees, some don't have nominees, and some haven't had senate confirmation i.g.'s in years. now, to hone in an one vacancy -- on one vacancy that i paid special attention to over the years is that of the department of defense inspector general. believe it or not, that office has not had a senate-confirmed i.g. in more than six years. the department of defense has an annual budget of well over $700 billion and as of today it looks like they'll have a much more -- they'll have much more money the next fiscal year. now, i've spent many years calling out waste, fraud, and abuse of taxpayers' money at the department of defense, and i know full well that -- the

importance of having a senate-confirmed i.g. in place at that very department. having an independent and effective watchdog at this point is critical to keep the congress informed of all the tomfoolery that happens at the pentagon. whether that be paying exorbitant amounts of money for a hammer, constructing buildings in foreign countries that remain vacant to this day, or failing to hold contractors accountable, it all happens time and time again. we in congress need a watchdog with teeth, not afraid to fight off the corporate fat cats who seek to enrich themselves off the backs of the american taxpayer. some of these contractors have made careers from ripping off

the taxpayers through wasteful spending at the department of defense. a few thousand dollars here, a couple million there -- it turns out to be waste many times. we need a watchdog, and inspector general at this post, and we need it now. i believe my colleagues here in the senate share my beliefs and the importance of having senate-confirmed i.g.'s in these vital roles. the president must act to nominate and the senate should confirm qualified and effective watchdogs to the vacancies, like this -- particularly the one at the department of defense. i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

very familiar with this in florida. welcome to the program. we saw that donald trump, no surprise donald trump desantis position ahead of the 2024, there you have the leading candidates both in florida. what are the strengths and weaknesses as presidential contenders? >> the strength is, he's been there, done the job. the party base is predominantly behind and excited about the former president and now he called florida home. we used to brag a little bit, it

may be literally that in 24. in terms of governor, government does have this, i think is the greatest story going, the floor story, see of calm and positivity after covid he's done a tremendous job managing the states. recent budget just past at record amounts for not just education and environment including 500 million for the everglades but also tax relief and $20 billion for a rainy day reserve which in course in florida it's always sunny. his record is really good but beyond that he's sending a message the republican base is liking, a message that shows the party moved from being a party of big business to america's working class. you see that bill if you see it

in microcosm, look at miami-dade. miami-dade where the president, president biden one by seven points in 2020, decidedly moving miami-dade toward republican party. registration for the first time ever is majority republican and now addictions miami-dade could go for the republican party nominee in the reason it's significant is the role of them in for politics for democrats to win statewide is they had to get big margins in certain place, miami-dade is one. right now maybe, they'll be lucky to carry that area at all. >> give us a snapshot of his rise. you could say backbencher in the u.s. house, what brought him to the governor's chair?

>> certainly the courage of his conviction number one. first time viewers got a taste of the bill was probably on fox news but they found he didn't just talk the game, he walked the games and not ran the game. in florida today we want evidence of that, look what happens in terms of this graph between the governor and disney. disney is an american icon admired around the world for entertainment. when they decide to step into politics, the don't say gay bill which technically allows the teaching of sex ed to kindergartners. he took on disney. what happened in that you might say confrontation in december of 21, disney's ratings in florida a 76% positive, 76% had a

positive view of disney. six weeks after, it was down to 54% so there's something about what the governor is doing, it doesn't come out of the playbook but you won't find anywhere. >> in disney's case, was there ever a fear of the governor's side taking on disney like that could result in tourism? >> there's a lot of concerns from people looking on from the outside the governor pretty much takes his own counsel and that's what the sign of courage. i'll tell you why he's not viable but should be counted all the way till the end, he doesn't consult polls to figure out which way he wants to fly. he does it because he feels is the right thing, he's very intellectual, harvard educated, ephedrine, good character in class but he's not taking

counsel from the normal political advisors, he's going straight forward and so far, not just floridians but people around america. >> politico 2024 desantis declines to ask trump for reelection endorsement he's trying to separate himself from the former president, governor desantis with his own stance on things. >> with the governors doing, he's retelling the four-story and letting the story speak for it self and what he's done in florida especially with parents, school aged children and how energized they've become, he's developed support bases because of what he's done tallahassee to miami, the rhetoric of the person seeking all office inlays being careful.

focusing on reelection this fall, then after that we will see what the world looks like in his prospect. >> as a political strategist, where are his weaknesses. >> the weakness for the governor's heart to find other than those who don't like the fact he tells it like it is like it or not, i think he's okay taking criticism which is rare for public leader. he's okay of people say okay, i don't really buy that. what we are finding is libyans are, there's never more optimistic view in economics, their jobs, the state itself and governor came to office not talking like, the first part was the environment.

very different than you might've expected from the party. >> adam goodman pelican strategist, talking about long as it is, the state of florida, future of republican party. we welcome calls and comments at (202)748-8001 republican line. democrats 2-027-488-0000 and independence of dollars, (202)748-8002. who is he facing of the democratic side? >> charlie chris, a lot of floridians have a very fond of when he was not just governor but education secretary, attorney general, state senator, he's kind of run the gamut, very skilled and experienced but a former republican who became a democrat and i think the democrat party is still not one 100% sold in this incarnation as they were in previous ones and nikki breed, the commissioner

who's done a good job on the cabinet, her push right now is abortion and legalization of marijuana. this tends to be something that can generate in normal years, voter enthusiasm and turnouts but that is the issue, enthusiasm gap in florida right now between republicans and democrats, not a gap but a chasm. >> what has the governor said about the supreme court ruling on abortion and is the likely to be abortion registration by the governor and supporters in the florida legislature? >> abortion legislation is being discussed in states across the country, florida being one of them. how far to go, i'm not sure. i do know lora still is a right-center state ideologically and anything that moves forward on that other than guns, i think guns is a different issue, it

will be done with great discussion. >> he mentioned florida story so talking about long desantis and future of the republican party, whoever is the presidential 2024, what does the future of the party look like with long desantis either as standard, one of the key figures in the republican party. >> is a different party. you have to look at how people vote, 22 million floridians, that's a big gain from two and a half years ago. 350,000 alone came from the state alone lester. people like the spring of government and that's what republicans are trying to line up behind more than anything. what should government do or not do? i think they like for the governors going and they've like to wear president trump went when he was president.

>> let's get to our colors. first of florida color, mcalpine, florida, nina, good morning. >> good morning. have a couple of things, i hope i don't get cut off. my first thing was i am torn between governor desantis and former governor chris. i like both of them and i'm an undecided voter. my second thing is i received my absentee ballot in the mail yesterday and on the back where you put the stamp on and mail it, my name is written on the back of my ballot which i thought was my civic duty but it's also private i didn't think my name would go to the post office and all of that is if i

voted. i've never seen a ballot like that and those are my two concerns and i appreciate you talking about this today. >> first of all, i wish i were in florida despite the weather being warm. i appreciate your attitude which is rare when you said you like both governor desantis and charlie chris, thank you for remaining open-minded. in terms of your name on the ballot, call your collections supervisor and make sure that's not something inadvertent or wrong, clear on the part of balloting but in terms of what florida is looking at moving forward, you have governor desantis and charlie crist in the last two standing in the governors race, both of them

experienced as i said before on the show, florida story is awesome. nothing else continued gains and movement in that direction, florida becomes more laboratory of what works in america. >> donna on the line, independently. >> you on the air. >> hello. >> you on the air. go ahead. >> we have issues, i have been rehabilitated for couple of decades before you get negative feedback. starting with the military, my daughter is a major and are in and i don't want her armed or

why are our veterans starting? i want to know about the computer chip being submitted into congress. these professors and students hacking into our computers. >> i think she's talking about legislation stalled in congress and computer chips you want to ask, we've been asking our viewers about issues of the 2022 campaign, one of the top issues in florida. >> economy, our economy, our economy. literally, when you see the polls, the economy, abortion, crime and immigration.

those seem to be the top four nationally. florida i think is the most in prosperity and continuing prosperity and a lot of america. they are concerned about inflation that's not run amok, especially food prices, un secretary-general, a global health food crisis we may not be able to rectify quickly, the price is still very hi, not as high as it was a couple weeks ago but still very hi, that's driving it as opposed to other issues that might have. there's a poll that came out in the washington post that said though the majority of americans favor, those voters were 12% less likely to show up this full

as our pro-life voters to even with an issue that could have become a comeback for democrat as it may have been in past years. >> how is the issue of climate change? you touched on the environment, how important of an issue is the issue of climate change? >> increasingly important to all floridians. major investments in the environment, some had to do with water, precious resource of water. >> 250 new thousand new residents in the state, address that, right? >> right. we understand got to be deliberate. there is concern, to because of property insurance which is skyrocketing. special session recently and florida addressing just that because of things like hurricanes and the advance of

sea level rise which concerns not just floridians but everyone. >> what is the state doing, what can they do? >> for insurance rates, creating a market. the problem is when you have fewer and fewer providers of property insurance, rates go up or citizens, state backed guarantee property insurance fund soaking millions of new customers and it's a bill that goes back to the people. >> adam, argus political strategist, republican put. it just, we are talking a florida, specifically from desantis in the future of the republic and party. (202)748-8001. former republican's. (202)748-8000 but democrats. for others, 2-027-488-0002. you must have seen the ad governor newsom in california ran on television in florida over the july 4 weekend.

perhaps viewers have and i want to show that and get your reaction. here's the ad. call? the presiding officer: yes, we are. we are not in a quorum call. mrs. blackburn: thank you, madam president. joe biden and the democrats have ushered us into one of the most cynical and dangerous periods in our nation's history. for 18 months, they have wreaked havoc on the economy, welcomed drugs and crime into their own back yards and enabled the rise of the new axis of evil, which is my term for russia, china, iran, and north korea. last week was really a particularly bad week for the biden-harris administration, but it was even worse for the people

watching it play out sitting at home in their communities. inflation hit a 41-year high, consumer confidence hit an historic low, and we confirmed that the american economy is, indeed, in a recession. but rather than taking responsibility, my democratic friends decided they would go on an all-out campaign and redefine the word recession, and they insisted that the economic ruin that they've rained down us all is all in our imagination. the economy is in great shape, they say. it's better than ever, they say. but tennesseans sitting at their kitchen table trying to figure out how to make ends meet, they know different.

if ever there were a time to listen to what the american people are telling each and every one of us, it is now. and, yet, here we are facing down what is possibly the democratic party's most cynical and dangerous move to date, a trillion-plus -- trillion-plus dollar spending spree. it's full of tax increases and policies so unpopular that its negotiators had to hide its existence from our own colleagues. chuck schumer and joe manchin have dubbed this secret plan, i guess is what it was, they dubbed it the inflation reduction act, which immediately brings to mind one simple question.

how out of step can you possibly be with where the american people are? you are so out of step, and do you truly think that the american people are so stupid that they think raising taxes is going to bring a reduction in inflation? if the situation weren't so dire for people back in tennessee, i'd assume this was some sort of joke, but it's not. the american people are drowning, and chuck schumer an joe manchin -- and joe manchin have thrown them a cinderblock instead of life preserver. people cannot believe this. they absolutely cannot believe this.

this bill represents the worst elements of a radical socialist agenda that americans have already rejected, a multihundred dollar -- a multihundred billion dollars tax hike that will sabotage energy producers and make it more expensive to heat homes and fill gas tanks, a multimillion dollar pay day for the environmental activists and environmental lobby, killing price controls on prescription drugs, and tax breaks but only for the wealthiest americans. nothing in this bill will make life easier. nothing in this bill will lower gas prices or reduce inflation, but it is exactly what tennesseans were afraid would

happen if joe biden and the democrats took control of the federal government. this week every member of this body has a choice to make. will you stand with the american people or will you make their life harder every day because of more spending, more tax increases, more green new deal? will you ease their pain or make their pain worse by supporting this bloated, foolish spending spree. i hope my colleagues will come to their senses because this is a breaking point between congress and the american people. and, madam president, i cannot tell you how many times i heard that very statement this weekend from tennesseans.

they cannot even believe another trillion dollars in spending. another trillion. money does not grow on trees. if you, as an individual that has a vote on this bill, if you choose to support this bill and tax and spend this country into oblivion, that is a road that you are going to have to go down alone because the american people cannot afford to go down this road with you. madam president, i ask that the remainder of my remarks be placed separately in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. blackburn: thank you, madam president. the democratic press machine has done a great job framing the debate over much-needed changes

to the pact act as an attack on our most vulnerable veterans. this framing ignores reality. i supported the pact act, i voted for final passage last time around. i've worked for years on the issue of toxic exposure. i intend to vote for the bill again. so do many of my colleagues who have joined me in still pushing for critical improvement to this bill. before we vote on final passage this week, i would ask my colleagues one question. why wait to fix the problems we all know will hamper the effectiveness of this bill? why not fix the pact act now and ensure veterans actually have access to the care they deserve once this bill leaves the

president's desk with his signature. that's the real choice here, madam president. now, i know my democratic colleagues are on a tight timeline. they want this thing done. they want it done before the elections. they want the sign, they want to get out there and campaign on this. they want us to just move on. and not have to fix it until later. but it is not my job to make chuck schumer's life easier or those running for election, their life easier. it is my job to be certain that i represent these veterans in tennessee who have given their commitment to defend this nation. they have done is honorably. they have done it expecting care

from the v.a. for harms that have come their way, and we should make certain that they have access to the care that they need. the pact act, in its current form, is not the best that we can do, but we can get it there in a few more hours with a few amendments that would make sure this bill can help veterans suffering from the effects of toxic exposure, help them get the care that they deserve. and i want to make it clear that senator schumer and chairman tester know this. the majority of my colleagues who sit with me on the veterans' affairs committee support a vote on these amendments so much so that at one point we had all agreed to give these amendments a vote because we all know that

the v.a. is not capable of implementing this bill as it is currently written. the v.a. cannot deliver on the promise that is in this bill. in fact, it will do the exact opposite. right now the claims backlog at the v.a. sits at 168,000 cases. you heard me right on that. 168,000 cases. that is the current backlog. the pact act, as written, will increase that backlog by more than, get this -- by more than one million cases, one million. that's not according to me.

that's according to the biden nominated senate-confirmed v.a. secretary dennis mcdonough. here is what he said on march 29, 2022. estimates from v.a.'s initial technical assistance demonstrated a potential backlog increase to 1.5 million claims by the end of fiscal year 2023. madam president, i unanimous consent that secretary mcdonough's testimony be placed in the record alongside my remarks. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. blackburn: thank you, madam president. now, the reason i've paid so much attention to this backlog is because every single week the team that works with me in

tennessee handling these issues with our vso's, our veterans service officers, and our veterans keep track of what we hear from the veterans. right now in -- right now in tennessee, i have veterans telling me they're waiting almost 100 days for a primary care appointment at the v.a. now, for many vets, this is just step one. so once they contact the v.a., madam president, it is 100 days. think about that. 100 days before they get that primary care appointment, and that is if the appointment doesn't get canceled or it has to be rescheduled. so that is an average to get to step one, first step.

across tennessee veterans are waiting yet another 39 days to get mental health care. now, if they're needing dental appointments, dental surgery, dental care, that's 44 days. if they go for that primary care appointment and they need to go see a cardiologist, that's 33 days. 28 days to see a gynecologist, 30 days to go talk to someone about chronic pain. look at what is happening. the v.a. cannot meet the load in front of them. our veterans -- our veterans who have defended our nation's freedom cannot get the care they need in a timely manner. now, we've done a lot of work over the years to help the v.a.

help itself. we've given them support for hiring, we have given them support for retention, but, madam president, it takes 90 days for this agency, the v.a., to hire one person, 90 days. and think of the number of case workers they would have to hire to implement, to implement this. throwing money at the problem isn't going to make these wait times and backlogs disappear. it is imperative that we fix the pact act so it is not a false promise, so it is not false hope. if the pact act is going to work for our veterans, then the v.a. needs to embrace community care. i proposed an amendment to the

bill that would have eliminated arbitrary bureaucratic hurdles for toxic-exposed veterans who will inevitably face these long wait times. it would allow them to seek care in the community right there where they live. if they could get it faster than they could from the v.a. i offered this amendment based on my conversations with tennessee veterans who are chronically ill but cannot get into the v.a. to see a doctor and get that primary care appointment so they can move on to specialty care. many of them are deteriorating at an alarming rate and they deserve access to care as soon as they can get it. the only way that access to care

for them is going to happen is if we allow them community care. madam president, they have fought for this country. they deserve to have access to that care, but right now they cannot get it. madam president, i know you more than most understand how emper tif it is -- imperative it is for veterans to have access to the care that they need, that this government make good on its promise to our veterans, that we stop these long wait times, that we stop the delays, that we allow them that access that they have earned and that they deserve.

there is a way to fix this bill. and i know that there are some that say we're afraid this will privatize the v.a. that's their fear. and i understand that. but at some point veterans want us to take that action to put them first, not the bureaucracy first. put the veterans first. allow the veterans to make that choice. if they cannot get to the v.a. in a timely manner, if the v.a. can't get them in for an appointment, let's open this up and let the veterans out into community care so that their needs can be met in a timely

manner. madam president, a promise in a piece of legislation ought not to end up as a false hope when it comes to our nation's veterans. the best way we can fulfill our promise to toxic-exposed veterans is to give this bill the time it needs for an amendment that will allow our veterans to access the care that they need without having to wait on the v.a. to figure out how to implement this bill. surely, surely we can do this. let's have a vote on these amendments and fix this bill before it is signed into law. i yield the floor.

i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. mr. sullivan: thank you, madam president. is the senate in a quorum call? the presiding officer: yes, it is. mr. sullivan: i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sullivan: thank you, madam president. madam president, i want to talk briefly about a very sacred place on our nation's mall, the national mall, that i had the opportunity to visit yesterday. and it's the korean war memorial that millions and millions of americans have visited. something happened last wednesday that i wanted to talk about a little bit, a really important rededication of this

very moving war memorial. now, i would like to get out on the mall most days, go for a run in the morning when i'm in d.c., and i love our memorials, like everybody in america does, particularly the memorials that are dedications to the service of our military members, our veterans. our proifers is a -- our presiding officer is a veteran, i have a tremendous amount of respect for her service. world war ii, the vietnam memorial, one of the most moving memorials is the korean war veterans memorial. why? well, i think there's so much we can all learn from the korean war. in the marine corps they really drill in to you what happened during the korean war.

unfortunately, not enough americans know about the korean war, but one of the big lessons is you need to be ready. you need to be ready. in 1945 the u.s. military was the most fea fearsome military n the world, probably the history of the world. in 1950, just five years later, we had a very difficult time stopping a third world army in the opening months of the korean war. now, we rebounded as americans always do, but that is a lesson, that is a lesson for our country. my view, the leadership, uniform, civilian leadership of our military did not serve their country well, letting the state of our forces become very unready. that's one of the lessons of that very difficult, brutal war.

but, madam president, there's another lesson and it's the nobility of service for our veterans -- from our veterans that really is epitomized by service in the korean war. the memorial has many beautifully engraved sayings but one, when you think about it, is so moving and in my view depicts the nobility of american military service, particularly as it relates to that war. it says our nation honors her sons and daughters who answer the call to defend a country they never knew and a people they never met. think about that. young men and women in america sent to fight halfway around the world to defend freedom, and

that's exactly what they were doing. and they didn't know who they were defending. a lot of them doesn't even know where they were -- didn't even know where they were. to me those words capture the essence of nobility and so does the korean war memorial. you see part of it here. the centerpiece is nine large statues, soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, their grunt, infantry grunts on patrol. you can see there's a cold, wet wind whipping their ponchos. their faces are full of fear. when you look at the statues. but also pride and determ determination. and all of this, in my view, captures the nobility of our service and our sacr sacrifice.

historians have referred to the korean war as a the forgotten war. i'm al korean war history buff. i dislike that term. i think we should just get rid of it. it's kind of a pejorative term in some ways. i've always thought it downplays the sacrifice and nobility and meaning of this very brutal conflict. i've often thought and said that instead of the forgotten war, we should call it the noble war because it was a noble undertaking. it was a noble undertaking. anyone who knows the history of this war or visits the memorial or knows a korean war veteran or their family members knows that this was a noble undertaking by our great nation, saving a country literally, saving a country. and we sacrificed a lot for it.

that's the other thing, madam president, that i think is very powerful on this memorial, if you take a look at it, another depiction. you've heard it many times but it's right there. freedom is not free. freedom is not free. and indeed the freedoms that we enjoy in america that so many countries around the world enjoy right now because of our military members over the course of history, decades. i always like to say probably the greatest force in liberating man kind from oppression and tyranny in the world is the u.s. military. think about it. hundreds of millions of people. world war i, world war ii, the civil war, of course. but the korean war certainly. over 37,000 americans were killed in action.

over 8,000 still listed as missing in action. and over 103,000 americans were wounded. and of course the killed and wounded korean veterans and military and civilians from that war are literally in the millions. in the millions. but what also resonates are the very, very tangible results of the war in terms of freedom. many of us have seen the fay must -- fame famous satellite images taken over the whole peninsula. if you look at the 39th parallel and what's north, it's literally dark and looks cold and looks lifeless. and if you look at everything south in that satellite picture,

it's alive bursting with light and life. in my view, there's very few better illustrations of the disparity between freedom and authoritarianism than the image of that korean peninsula at night, those two countries. one is bright and alive. one is dark and literally dead. american citizens, american soldiers, american military kept an entire country free. so what happened last week, madam president? i didn't think this war memorial, to be honest, could be improved. one of my favorites, powerful, as i've talked about, great words, but it was improved. last wednesday i had the opportunity to attend the dedication, really the rededication of the wall of

remembrance that was added to the korean war memorial last week. the wall now has engraved on it the 36,573 americans that were killed in action. every one of them, like the vietnam wall. this is an example of what you'll see at the new memorial. i encourage everybody, every american, if you're in d.c., go take a look. go pay their respects. it is so moving. it is dramatically improved. this memorial, which i didn't think could be improved upon. importantly, madam president, intermixed in the names of the americans are also the 7,200 catoosa soldiers.

these were the korean army personnel who served with american forces, right along side them. so they're just here. they're not divided by american and korean. those are just the ones who served with the americans. again, the korean military, they're killed-in-action numbers are way higher than even these. and here's the thing, the other thing, madam president, that's so moving about this memorial. the names are actually laid out by service -- army, navy, air force, marines -- and they're actually listed according to rank, so if you look at the korean war memorial, it's mixed in. doesn't matter what service. and i.t. the date that -- and it's the date that somebody was actually killed, chrono

logically. this was by military service and their rank. why does that matter? what does it mean? well, i'll tell you what it means. it depicts the sacrifice of war regardless of what the war is. wars throughout history, up until now, always fall upon the young men and women of our great nation, the 18, 19, 20-year-olds. they're the ones who do the fighting. and they're the ones who do the dying. so, for example, this is actually a picture of the section after section after section after section, which is just u.s. army private first class, u.s. army pfc's. and it's just thousands, one group, huge sacrifice.

huge sacrifice. so i encourage everybody to go out, take a look at this newly improved korean war memorial that was dedicated last week. it was such a moving ceremony, made all the more moving by the beautiful voice of ms. america, emma broyle is, who sang "god bless america" in front of the thousands of veterans who were there, thousands -- americans, koreans. by the way, emma is a constituent of mine, the first alaskan to win ms. america, first korean american to ever win ms. america. so see did a great job -- so she did a great job. and the final thing, madam president, i just want to mention, is my -- i'm working on a senate resolution, love to get some of my colleagues here on the floor right now to join this

resolution with me. it's a simple resolution saying thank you to the korean government and the korean people, because guess who paid for this memorial? it wasn't the american taxpayer. it was the korean government and the people of korea. over 22 million. we had tremendous support from our korean war. american veterans associations, they did a great job. but the vast, vast bulk of the funding for this new, incredible, moving korean war memorial was from the people of korea and the government of korea, and they sent their defense minister, they sent their veterans affairs minister, they sense a huge delation -- they sent a huge delegation of members of their legislature all for this ceremony.

so i want to thank all of them, and i want to thank our veterans, our korean war veterans who served in the noble war, not the forgotten war -- the noble war, a proud moment of history between our two great nations, a history that has bonded us, the republic of korea and the united states of america, for decades, and now or gold star families and korean war veterans can visit the names of their friends and families and loved ones who did this, as the memorial says -- answered the call to defend a country they never knew and a people they never met. that's why this should be called the noble war. i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the

senator from virginia. mr. kaine: first, i have one request for a committee to meet during today's session of the senate. it has the approval of the majority and minority leaders. the presiding officer: duly noted. mr. kaine: madam president, second request, my remarks are coming about six minutes after i intended to start. i ask for per mugs to complete my remarks before the vote begins. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. kaine: i rise to essentially do a part two of a talk that i gave on the senate floor about two weeks ago. the first part of my talk was my analysis of the dobbs decision of the supreme court expressing my deep dissolutionment with the court's decision to cast aside a century of precedent under the 14th amendment due process clause, and in particular casting aside 50 years of using the 14th amendment to protect women's rights to make reproductive decisions with regard to contraception and abortion. i analyzed the court's opinion

and precedents at that time, but i sort of left it hanging what needs to be done because while we can critique the court decision -- and i do view it as completely an historical, not understanding the purpose of the 14th amendment. nevertheless, the court's majority ruling was the protection of reproductive freedom was now no longer a matter for constitutional protection but was instead for legislatures. legislatures. the majority seemed to assume that that would be state legislatures, but at least one of the concurring opinions acknowledged legislatures could include congress. i take the floor today in the second part of this talk to discuss a bill that i have today introduced with three other senate colleagues -- senator sinema, senator collins, senator murkowski -- the reproductive freedom for all act, taking the supreme court up on the

challenge that what we need to do to protect reproductive freedom is to legislate to do so. let me describe the origin of the bill. beginning in february, the senate has had two votes on a bill that i have cosponsored, women's health protection act, which was designed, written before the dobbs case but designed to protect reproductive freedom by disabling state legislatures from putting schemes and obstacles in the way of women making reproductive decisions. the first time we had a vote on that bill, i voted yes. it was in february. it received 49 votes. we were scheduled to have a second vote on women's health protection act in may and it occurred to me that we would like lay have the same result, we would get 49 votes. and i had a strong feeling before that vote that if that was the case, we would be leaving votes on the table.

by that i understood from talking to my colleagues that there were more than 49 members of this chamber who wanted to codify roe and related cases and protect women's rights to access contraception and abortion services, but that it wouldn't be ideal to send a message that less than a majority of the senate was committed to reproductive freedom. and so i began efforts in may to find additional votes beyond the 49 that i knew would vote yes on the whpa. and i began discussions with colleagues, including republican colleagues, to look for a way to codify roe that, yes, might be different in wordings from the women's health protection act but would accomplish the same goal of providing a federal guarantee that would operate in every zip code in this country to protect women's rights to make decisions about

contraception and abortion. and today we have introduced that bill, the reproductive freedom for all act. the name of it is a tribute to a ballot initiative that is currently under debate in michigan and scheduled for a vote to be added to the michigan constitution in november, the reproductive freedom for all initiative, and the bill that we have put together fairly closely tracks -- not identically, but fairly closely tracks the language of the ballot referendum in michigan. what does the bill do? we worked on the bill between the leak of the dobbs opinion and when dobbs was decided by the supreme court right before our july 4 recess. and we worked to make the bill as strong as we we could, but tn we set it aside because we knew

the dobbs decision might change from the leaked opinion and we wanted to see what was actually in the opinion before we finalized the bill. and it is good we waited because there were some aspects of the dobbs opinion that were a bit different. they took some sandpaper to some controversial parts of the bill. they extended -- of the case, and they extended other arguments in the case that needed a response. and so what we have done since dobbs is analyze the opinion but also, more importantly, look at life in the united states since that decision was rendered. i could give many examples of even in the month since that decision has been rendered of the tragedy of what i believe is now post-dobbs america. in particular, when a 10-year-old child has to be smuggled across state lines to receive care following her rape,

that is gruesome, that is not what this country should expect nor indeed what we should tolerate. and yet that's not an accidental by-product of the dobbs decision. that was a completely foreseeable and even foreseen consequence of the dobbs decision, that turning it over to 50 states would lead to a patchwork of horrible examples one after the next. i've spoken about another example in virginia, an individual who was living in kentucky, got a breast cancer diagnosis on the day the dobbs opinion was leaked, went to her doctor and found out that her contraception could potentially cause accelerated growth of cancer cells, and so she needed to come off contraception to get cancer treatment. she has two young children. she's worrying about her own cancer. she's trigg to keep herself healthy for herself but also for

her young children. if she were to come off contraception, there would be the chance of an unwanted pregnancy. the cancer treatments also would significantly degrade the possibility for a healthy pregnancy. but she was now living in a state that post-dobbs would not allow her to have an abortion. she wrote a piece about this in nbc news and she was fortunate enough four-week-old be able to -- enough to be able to move and get a job in virginia where she would be able to make these choices. these are the decisions we have to make every day. every person in this country, no matter what zip code they live in, should have a basic federal guarantee about contraception and the availability of abortion services. what the reproductive freedom for all act would do would be, madam president, essentially we try to put ourselves in a time

machine after dobbs and travel back to the day before the dobbs decision. it was a very narrow focus. you can look at this in other ways. some folks didn't like what the law was the day before the dobbs decision. in order to find some bipartisanship because truly the american public on a bipartisan basis wants to preserve reproductive rights, we looked at could we come up with a federal statutory guarantee that would match the state of constitutional law that existed the day before the dobbs decision and protect the rights of all to contraception access and also protect the rights of all to abortion access as it existed before dobbs. and simply put, that is this, that prior to fetal viability, no state can pass any statute regulating abortion that imposes an undue burden on a woman seeking to exercise that right. and post viability, while a

state can more significantly regulate abortion, no state can deprive any woman, any woman of the right to receive an abortion should she and her health providers determine that it's necessary to protect her life or health. and so that is the bill that i've introduced today with senators collins, murkowski, and sinema. and i thank them for working to try to show, because now we have shown that there's not a minority of the united states senate, but there's actually a majority that wants to codify roe and related cases, that we might have some differences of opinion about the right language to use to do that, but there's a difference between a senate where that is only a minority sentiment and a senate where like in the rest of the american public, that is a majority sentiment. the last thing i'll say is this, i'm very well aware, as are my cosponsors in introducing

that bill, that we do not have the votes today should it be put up for 60 votes. we don't. we don't. and yet, i am given some inspiration by the fact that we recently passed a gun safety bill where two months before there were not 60 votes either. in fact, for the ten years i've been in the senate, we've been trying to pass legislation in this chamber to deal with the scourge of gun violence, and again and again and again fallen short of 60 votes, even to proceed to legislation. but in the aftermath of tragedies in buffalo and texas, a decision was made by the members of this deliberative body that inaction was no longer an option and resolute action to protect people's rights and safety was a mandate. i believe the dobbs decision and what we've seen since is a

catastrophe that as it plays at over time in state after state will also change the dynamic in the article on branch and demonstrate the need for a national protection for reproductive rights rather than a 50-state free for automatic in automatic -- free-for-all in a race to the bottom. it is in that spirit we've introduced a bill demonstrating there is majority support and bipartisan support to protect reprotective freedom for all. with that, madam 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 the debate on

the nomination of executive calendar number 1068, elizabeth wilson hanes of virginia to be united states district judge for the eastern district of virginia, 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 nomination of elizabeth wilson hanes of virginia to be united states district judge for the eastern district of virginia 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:

vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: the yeas are 56, the nays are 33, and the motion is agreed to.

mr. schumer: madam president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. schumer: unanimous consent that the senate consider the following nominations, calendar number 1078 to 1093 and all

nominations on the secretary's desk, that tt nomination -- that the nominations be confirmed en bloc, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate, that no further motions be in order to any of the nominations, that the president be notified immediately of the senate's actions. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to legislative session to be in a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the consideration of s. res. 733, submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 733, designating september 2022 as national child awareness month and so forth. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent the committee on homeland security and governmental affairs be discharged from further consideration of s. 3905, and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. 3905, a bill to prevent organizational conflicts of interest in accesses -- acquisitions and for other purposes. the presiding officer: without objection, the committee is discharged and the senate will proceed. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent that the peters substitute amendment be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be considered a third time and passed and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent that the judiciary committee be discharged from further consideration of h. h.r. 2992 and h.r. 6943 en bloc and the senate proceed to their consideration en bloc. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the bills en bloc. the clerk: h.r. 2992, an act to

direct the attorney general to develop crisis intervention training tools for use by first responders. h.r. 6943, an act to amend the omnibus crime control. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate is discharged and the senate will proceed en bloc. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent the bills be considered read a third time and passed, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, all en bloc. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of the following bills en bloc, calendar number 419, s. 2151, calendar number 4 -- s. 4007. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. 2159, a bill -- safe streets act of 1968 and so

forth. calendar number 423, s. 4007, a bill to require the attorney general to propose a program for making treatment for post traumatic disorder and acute disorder available to public safety officers and for other purposes. the presiding officer: the senate will proceed en bloc. mr. schumer: i further ask that the committee-reported substitute amendments be agreed to, the bills as amended be considered read a third time and passed and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. all en bloc. the presiding officer: without objection. 6. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of the calendar number 421, s. 3860. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 421, s. 2860, to provide assistance to local governments with fewer than 200 law enforcement officers and for other purposes. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed. mr. schumer: i further ask that

the committee-reported substitute amendment be withdrawn, the cortez masto amendment be agreed to be and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar number 422, s. 4003. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 422, s. 4003, a bill to amend the omnibus crime control and safe streets act of 1963 and so forth psm. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed. mr. schumer: i ask that the committee-reported substitute be withdrawn, the mcconnell -- and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: and, finally, madam president, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 12 noon on

tuesday, august 2, and following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the times for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day and morning business be closed. upon the conclusion of morning business, the senate proceed to executive session to resume the consideration of the hanes nomination and the senate recess from 12:30 p.m. until 2:15 p.m. to allow for the caucus meetings and the senate vote on qirls of the -- confirmation of the nomination. if nil nominations are confirmed during tuesday's session, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the president be notified of the senate's actions immediately. the presiding officer: if there is no business to come before the senate, i ask that it stand aid understand under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until 12 senate stands adjourned until 12

>> the u.s. senate today is a denomination of elizabeth haynes to be u.s. district court judge for eastern virginia later this week is him he could revert to a busy bill extending up there in the stability then entered benefits with toxic exposed veterans and they could also start to work on the democrats bill to address inflation to healthcare, and climate change in our coverage of the senate when their next return here in cspan two. >> sees manager unfiltered view of government, funded by these television companies and more, including cox. >> homework can be hard, going to a diner for work is even harder that's what were providing lower income students access to affordable internet so more can be just homework, cox connect to compete. >> cox, along these television providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy.