protecting the constitutional rights of law-abiding americans. now, as a doctor who served in our state legislature in wyoming and now in this body, i have seen the devastating impact of mental health challenges. senator cruz talked specifically about those. that's why we address them in this bill. i've seen how much those challenges have contributed to what we have seen in these terrible acts. our bill would make a difference, make a difference by proceeding mental health professionals with the resources they need to identify and to address these behavioral health needs of our students. our bill would hire 15,000 more mental health professionals at middle schools and high schools. it also significantly increases the physical safety of our schools. our bill would double the number of police officers in our schools. it would help schools buy more

security equipment, mental detectors, door locks, and alarms. our bill also would do all of these things at no cost to the taxpayer. wouldn't add to inflation. people might ask how? well, because our bill would redirect money that has already been allocated in the democrats' spending bills. our bill would work and it wouldn't cost taxpayers a dime. school is setback in session now all across the country and now is the time to take the real action that we need to keep our kids and our schools safe. no child should live in fear of going to school. no parent should live in fear of sending their child to school. and no law-abiding gun owner should be denied his or her constitutional rights. so i want to the thank my friend

and colleague from texas for introducing this vital piece of legislation. mr. cruz: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cruz: as if in legislative session, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of s. 4845, which is at the desk. further, that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: is there objection? a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. murphy: madam president, i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. cruz: madam president, what we just saw on this floor was stunning. i am genuinely at a loss for words. this bill is common sense. there is not a constituent in

texas or nevada or connecticut if you asked, would it be a good thing to have more police officers keeping our kids safe, wouldn't say, of course it would. there's not a constituent of ours who if you asked, would it be a good thing to have more mental health counselors on campus to stop crime, would say of course it would. now, the senator from connecticut styles himself the leading advocate of gun control in the u.s. senate. i was asked by reporters, why are the democrats objecting to this? and i'll tell you what i told reporters. i have no idea. they haven't said. they haven't told me why they object to it. and so i was genuinely looking forward to seeing the senator from connecticut's remarks. i was sitting here waiting to

see, why do you oppose more police officers to keep our kids safe? why do you oppose mental health counselors in schools? i've been in the senate ten years. the senator from connecticut and i were equity willed at the same time. -- the senator from connecticut and i were elected at the same time. i was been earn gaged in many debates -- i have been engaged in many debates with the senator from connecticut. partisan fact that he chose not say a word -- the fact that he chose not to say a word about why he objects is stunning. i find myself genuinely flabbergasted. i will say, one of the reasons i think the senator from connecticut feels content not only not to argue but now to walk off the floor and not even listen to the debate he's ostensibly participating in in, one of the reasons he feels free to do so is if you look up in the senate gallery, i can count them -- there are precisely zero reporters in this gallery.

not a single one of the corporate media will report on this, and i think the senator from connecticut feels absolutely certain when he walks out, he will have reporters that will say, tell me how terrible donald trump is. and he'll lean in and say, oh, donald trump is really terrible. but not a one of the reporters will ask, hey, wait a second. why don't you want police officers keeping our kids safe? none of them will. the democrats are protected by a dishonest army of propagandists in the corporate media. cnn will not have a panel sitting around discussing why is it that the democrats simply do not care to defend their positions? let me tell you, when there's a mass murdering and the democrats stand up and give speeches and they point at republicans and say, blood is on your hands,

it's great political rhetoric. it's dishonest, but boy it gins up their donors. what we just saw revealed is the democrats have one objective when a mass murder happens and that is to take away the second amendment rights of law-abiding citizens. that is always, always, always their solution. never mind that it doesn't work. never mind that it doesn't stop violent crime. never mind that if you look at the jurisdictions across the country with the strictest gun control laws, almost every single one of them consistently has among the highest crime rates and murder rates. earlier this year the senator from connecticut authored his

big gun control package, rammed it through this body. a package which will do nothing, zero, to stop mass murders. we will see another mass murder. i practice that we don't, but evil exists in the world, and if another lunatic attacks a school and there's not a police officer at the front door to stop him, remember right now, remember this moment when the democrats said, no, we will not protect our kids. there are lots of arguments the senator from connecticut could have made. he chose to make none of them. if he does not like how the

money in this bill is specifically spent, i'm now going to propound a second unanimous consent bill. there are right now $135 billion in unspent covid relief funds to schools. under the rules the democrats have put in place, those funds cannot be spent on school security. the second bill that i'm going to ask this bill to pass is a bill that is very simple. it's one page. it says schools can spend some of that $135 billion on school security. they can decide what to spend it on, but if they decide they want to hire an additional police officer, they can spend the money on that. if they decide they want to

enhance the physical security of their campus to make their students safer, they can spend it on that. they can invest in school security. right now the democrats have blocked them from doing this. these are funds congress has already appropriated that haven't been spent, and this bill is unbelievably simple. it says the schools can choose to invest in school security. therefore, madam president, as if in legislative session, i ask unanimous consent that the committee on health, education, labor, and pensions be discharged from further consideration of s. 4586 and that at senate proceed to its immediate consideration. further, that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. murphy: reserving the right to object -- the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. murphy: thank you, madam president. the senator is right. i'm not going to engage in a

colloquy on the merits of this request or the previous request. this isn't real. this is a tv show. this is click-bait. this is theater. this isn't an actual attempt to pass legislation. senator lankford approached me about this particular bill on the floor a week ago and asked to engage in a dialogue with me about it. i thought it was a legitimate request, and i set my team to task of trying to work something out with senator lankford and now there's a unanimous consent request to pass a bill that's under negotiation, discussion between serious legislators who actually want to find a result. so, no, i'm not going to debate the merits of these u.c.'s. this isn't real. i object. mr. cruz: madam president? the presiding officer: objection is is heard. the senator from texas. mr. cruz: madam president, the senator from connecticut just gave us the sum total of his which

wisdom, as -- his wisdom, as he walks off the floor again, which is he says this isn't real. the presiding officer is well aware of the how the senate operates. when a senator arises for a unanimous consent request, one of two things happens. a senator objects or the bill passes. i have stood on this floor and passed unanimous consent requests because our colleagues chose not to object. one of the more notable instances was following multiple instances in the house of house democrats making anti-system in mittic comments. the house -- anti-semitic comments. the radical left objected and the house couldn't pass a

resolution condemning anti-semitism. i joined with senator kaine to to have the cruz-kaine resolution, a bipartisan resolution that was a clear -- it condemned bds as anti-semitism. it condemned the anti-semitic comments made by the house democrats at the outset of the dispute. when senator kaine and i came to the senate floor, we did not know if a senator would object. there were numerous senators in this body that had not joined the resolution and could easily have walked out on the floor and objected. we stood up and asked unanimous consent and much to our very pleasant surprise, the opposing party chose not to object. and the resolution passed. it passed 100-0. when the senator from connecticut says this isn't

real, the only reason this bill has not passed a the united states senate is because the senator from connecticut stood up and uttered two magic words -- i object. had he done something really simple, just shut up, just shut his mouth, just sat there, we would be standing in a position where both of these bills would have passed into law. what does it say, madam president, about the democrats' view of the american people, that they don't engage in debate, they don't engage in discussion, they don't defend their positions; they instead arrogantly say no and have full confidence their compliant cheerleaders in the media will never even tell anyone about it? i don't know how you defend the position he just took.

i was genuinely looking forward to hearing some form of an argument. i can tell you when i forced a vote on the cruz-barrasso bill on this floor and the democrats voted party-line, no we don't want more police officers in school, no, we don't want more mental health counselors in school, no, we don't want additional funding for school safety, to the best of my knowledge no reporter asked a single democrat, why are you leaving our kids vulnerable? why aren't you acting to protect children in school? because you know what? there's no money on the left for actually stopping these crimes. the money is for disarming law-abiding citizens. this is a narrow-minded political focus. we could have just passed the most significant school safety

legislation ever passed by the federal government. why didn't we? because the democrats objected. that socks wrong -- that objection is wrong, it's irresponsible, and it shows a willingness to play political games while demonstrating contempt for our constituents. today the united states senate failed the american people. today the united states senate failed the schoolchildren of america. and i pray that the consequences are not truly horrific. i pray that this body will show up and do its damn job -- debate

real issues and pass real legislation that will actually stop crime rather than the empty political gestures of the left. i yield the floor.

>> i throw a party on the white house lawn. on an entirely different matter when you combine the border crisis and the violent crime crisis, law and order ranks as the american people's number two priority, second only to the inflation crisis. the national security and soft on crime policies eroded america's physical security. cities, towns and neighborhoods across the country are reeling from a wave of violent crime. just last weekend in my state of

kentucky, some of life threatening and better with the pretty much down the line and also saw a floury of violence and six people were murdered and

>> they've poured money into radicals and liberals and district campaigns and whole stated jean data committee to not prosecute crimes.

they're being carjacked, robbed and murdered a.m.. in keeping dangerous criminals locked up. multiple violent crimes on the wrap sheet. and got out of prison early and far too much tragic stories and

it's all across the line and and asking other they'd deserve the

right to go out for a morning job and come out and play alive and it's reliable energy and any government in the civil rights of wisconsin and at the absolute minimum and it ought to be able to have it and that's one party to create and cannot deliver it.

it's in their own territory and and beating back the tollalty con gression and inspires the free world. passing with putin's footsteps and not nearly time to ease up. access of authoritarians is pushing hard when you're trying to fail. iran is equipping the russian military with armed drones like the ones they and their proxies used against american forces in syria and iraq and against our israeli imaradi and saudi partners. north korea is reportedly refilling russia's artillery stockpiles. and the prc has publicly

supported moscow's narrative through every russian atrocity. so our ukrainian friends may still face a long-hard struggle to achieve victory as they define it but western countries can help by stepping up the pace of collective assistance. ukraine's hard won cubbing syceses on the battlefield could have come actually even earlier if the biden administration and allies that take their kids from washington had been quicker and more proachetive to deliver the capabilities that ukraine accurately needed. ukraine forces are working wonders with western equipment. they quick linty grated cutting edge systems like high mars and yeah leeanne and stinger missiles and the west has to put the capabilities in the right hands has cost lives. horrible could have been avoided if the biden administration and european partners hadn't been self-deterred from providing

these tools sooner. the ukrainians need more of the weapons we've been giving them and they need to start getting them faster. and they also need new capables like long range attackments. larger drones and tax. all these weapons come from americans and looking to us for cig y'alls. and ukraine and had to do it quickly. you should also be clear with the allies and defense holiday is over. it's time for all of us to rebuild our militaries and defense industrial basis. this will take urgent investments, regulatory reform and prioritization for the capacity for references and

systems. they cannot think for one minute that trampling people's sovereignty will go un-punished. >> mr. president, yesterday was truly a tail of two parties. while one party, the democrats, gathered at the white house to celebrate the passage of our job creating agenda, the other party the maga republicans spent the day on trying to mass nationwide abortions. if people want to know the difference between the two parties, look no further. one party's focused on jobs, that's us. the other is focused on nationwide -- on nationwide abortion bans. that's the extreme maga

republicans. onements to lower inflation, one party wants to lower inflation and help families make ends meet and tackle the generational challenges we face and passed major legislation to that effect. now law enforcement the other party apparently wants to eliminate women's iowa autonomy over their own bodies. here's how you know republicans are out of line, there's a freedom of choice taken away by the maga supreme court and nationwide abortion ban is looking to see more mainstream. can you believe it, to seem more mainstream, heaven help us, mr. president. heaven help us. just how extreme they are. the court is far from being mainstream, a large portion of the republican party is truly extreme views on a woman's right to choose. in the few months since the do

dobbs decision, republican state legislature in places like indiana and south carolina and others have either introduced or enacted new abortion restrictions with alarming few exceptions of rape or incest. in years they spent three sitting supreme court justices that joined with the majority in overturning roe. >> ban on abortions were now possible, his words, possible if republicans controlled the senate. do the american people want that? do they want mcconnell, leader mitch mcconnell to be majority

leader and work to overturn, to impose a nationwide ban on abortions? i don't think so. now they're sort of running away from what their real beliefs are. but they're like the dog who caught the bus. for years they pushed to make this happen. unfortunately, to the detriment of over 100 million american women it happened, and now they don't know quite what to do. they're not back off their horribling maga principles, but they want to hide from it at the same time. because they know how unpopular it is. and to show you just where the party is at, almost immediately the court overturned roe mike pence, former republican vice president now running for president possibly in 2024 said, quote: republicans must not rest until abortion is illegal everywhere. that means a nationwide ban. that doesn't leave it up to the

states. in fact, he doubled down on just this last night saying a national abortion ban is profoundly more important than republicans' short-term interests. that's one of the leaders of the republican party which has moved so far to the right even that someone like pence who doesn't always go along with trump feels compelled to say that extreme -- to take that extreme position. and lest we forget, folks, nearly every senate republican, nearly every senate republican already voted to push national abortion bans in 2020, in 2018 and 2015. during one of these votes, the senator from south carolina who introduced the nationwide ban again yesterday said, quote: these pieces of legislation will continue to be advanced until they pass.

how do the we know that republicans will put a national abortion ban on the floor if they control the senate? not only has senator graham committed to doing it, they've done it before three times. ask they'll do it again -- and they'll do it again if they get the majority. america, beware with. america, beware. so the truth is not hard to grasp. republicans do not care about leaving abortion in the hands of the statements. no way. they do not care -- states. they do not care that a majority of americans supported roe and support abortion rights. what they care about deep down is eliminating 3r50e.com of choose across america, period. and if they're already at work right now on legislation as we heard yesterday that a will take us down that terrible, terrible path. well, it's my view that the american people aren't going to be fooled by republicans' desperate attempts to seem mainstream. you can't fake your way through

an issue so personal and so important as a woman's right to make her own health care choices. they're not going to be able to run and duck and bob and weave and tie themselves in pretzel knots. everyone knows where they're at. lindsey graham made it clear again yesterday. and people will know the republican view; abolish abortion everywhere. that's not going to change no matter what some on the other side might think. now, on the positive impacts of the democratic agenda, a much happier note. as i said a moment ago, mr. president, while maga republicans spent yesterday touting their extreme agenda, democrats focused on the things that matter most right now to the american people, lowering costs, creating good paying jobs and protecting our planet. for future generations. the inflation reduction act has not been haw for even a month --

law for even a month, not just a month, and already it's spurring new investments that that will generate years, if not decades, of robust economicking activity in industries that will stay here in america. here in america, not in china, not anywhere else for a very long time. a remarkable number of company in the energy, automotive and cool tech sectors have announced that they're either approving or accelerating new plans to grow their businesses. one of the most significant areas of activity is happening in ev and battery manufacturing, so crucial to meeting our country's growing demand for electric vehicles. china has dominated battery manufacturing for too long, and we're bringing these jobs back to america. not just talking about it, doing it. honda and lg, for instance, have teamed up to invest $4 billion for a new battery plant with an annual production of 40 gwh.

hyundai, meanwhile, has announced they might actually accelerate their timetable for building an ev battery plant in savannah, georgia. plans for getting started early next year, and now they're saying it could happen sooner. and it's the votes of people and the activity of people like raphael warnock and john ossoff that have made that happen. of course, the benefits of our bill will extend way beyond evs and batteries. solar energy industry's association predicts that the u.s. solar market will grow 40% more than expected thanks to the inflation reduction act. and numerous companies focused on renewables, carbon capture, heat pumps are announcing a flurry of investments very often citing our bill, now law, the i.r.a. all of these examples

share something important. these are the jobs of tomorrow. these industries are going to stick around for decades as our country makes the transition away from fossil fuels and towards cleaner forms of energy. the impact will be felt everywhere. it's going to take millions of workers to build these vehicles, reshape our infrastructure, install these technologies in our homes and offices. and because so much of this will be done by union labor, these will be good paying jobs at good wages with good benefits, lifting up the middle class, keeping those who are in the middle class there and allowing many others who are climbing that ladder to get into the middle class and stay there. it's a wonderful and beautiful thing. in a certain sense, we did the right thing making sure our planet doesn't burn up, but it had so many other effects like good paying jobs and strengthening the middle class. and, had we not taken action to

encourage these investments, it's likely many of these jobs would end up going overseas to asia, to europe. america would have host out. instead, we have a real chance to lead the way again. this, mr. president, is the result of democrats leading the way here in congress. we're proud, every one of us is proud of the steps we've taken to lower energy costs, to create jobs that have a real future in this country and to give working farm -- families a chance to climb up the ladder and get into that middle class. it's always about restoring that sunny american optimism that's been at the core of our economic prosperity for so long that some felt had passed us by. but, no, we democrats say it hasn't passed us by. with the best of our future is yet to come. on marriage equally, mr. president, over the past few months both sides have engaged

in good faith conversations about how to pass marriage equality into law. i truly hope for the sake of tens of millions of americans that there will be ten republicans -- at least ten republicans who will vote with us to pass this important bill soon. democrats are ready to make it happen and willing to debate reasonable compromise on the specifics. so i urge my colleagues on the other side to join us. around the country the feeling is sinking in that this is a dark time for individual rights. so codifying marriage equality is one of the best things we can do to provide peace of mind to millions of americans who are gay americans, lgbtq americans who are married and to their families, to their friends. it extends way beyond the individual couple who's married. it's an issue that hits home for many of us in this chamber including me. if we ever find ourselves in the awful situation of having marriage equality overturned by

the supreme court, i dare say the vast majority of us would see impacts in our own personal lives or the personal lives of our close family and friends in one way or another. it would be risky and perhaps foolish to hi that such a day could never come. maybe a few months ago people would think that. no more. justice thomas put his cards on the table. he said that he has been -- he's very open that the supreme court's decision protecting same-sex marriage should, in fact, be with reconsidered. and often when justice thomas says it, his other four maga republican supreme court colleague justices are thinking the same thing. to anyone who says that the high court would never be so reckless as to overturn a decision that has protected the fundamental right of millions of people, all i say to this is, wake up.

look what they did, look what they did in dobbs decision can. passing marriage equality in the senate is all about making sure such a danger never, never early eases -- materializes. millions of americans, tens of millions of americans will breathe a huge sigh of relief if we do this. and it's the right thing to do. we know that america has trod on the long path towards greater equality. we know that when the constitution was written, millions of americans were enslaved. in many states you had to be a white male, protestant property owner. that would leave you and me out, mr. president. they know that. and most americans are proud that we've made progress. there are some dark forces encapsulated and embodied in the maga republican, so many of whom are in this chamber who want to

take steps backward. we're not going to let it happen. we shouldn't let it happen. so i truly hope for the sake of tens of millions of americans the that there will be at least ten republicans who will vote with us to pass very, very important bill. i yield the floor.

[background sounds] >> good afternoon. yesterday we had a great celebration at the white house for the passage and the president's signing earlier the inflation reduction act which lowers costs for families. it's is so exciting. it's historic. there has never been anything like it to pass congress or any country in the world. to preserve our planet for the

children. that respect it is a health issues, clean air, clean water for the children, it saves money for families by releasing --ing historically. we have been working for decades to enable the secretary to be automobile to negotiate for lower prescription drug prices, and that is now the law of the land. in addition to which there will be a $2,000 cap for seniors so that they don't have to pay more than that. this is remarkable. again, it's historic. it's really a victory over the special interests. it's interesting that farmers said when we passed the bill, the democrats will -- pharma said madam president.

madam president, help wanted. i see the signs in nearly every county i visit in iowa on my 99-county tour. small businesses and public services are struggling to maintain the workforce that is vital to our communities. the des moines public school district, for example, has over 100 vacancies and is providing $50,000 incentives for retiring teachers, nurses, and administrators to stay in school. faced with a declining number of soldiers, the iowa national guard is offering signing bonuses to new recruits along with other incentives to encourage current members to reenlist. police departments across the state are also facing recruitment challenges. so the iowa state patrol is raising salaries and starting

outreach efforts with kids as young as the sixth grade to get them to start thinking about careers in law enforcement. and this need for essential workers, well, it isn't limited to just iowa. america is facing a shortage of teachers, doctors, nurses, child care providers, construction workers, truck drivers, pilots, and even accountants. and with the democrats' latest tax-and-spend spree, a shortage of accountants is something taxpayers everywhere now need to be concerned about. the democrats' response to the nationwide need for essential workers is to hire 87,000 new irs agents. the reckless tax-and-spending

bill passed by d.c. democrats last month more than doubles the size of the irs, which already has nearly 80,000 full-time employees. so what are the new irs agents being hired to do? well, audit america, of course. and very agrease civil -- and very aggressively, if a recent job announcement on the agency's website is any indication. the irs says it's seeking armed accountants willing to participate in, quote, life-threatening situations on the job, end quote. the nonpartisan congressional budget office says, with the

supersized staff, the irs audit rate, quote, would rise for all taxpayers regardless of income. cbo warps it will also result in audits of innocent americans who have paid all of their taxes and don't owe the irs a cent. that's right. even if you've paid your taxes, you still could be subjected to an unfair and costly audit by the biden administration's army of irs agents. folks, washington doesn't need anymore tax collectors. it needs to simplify the tax code. if it wasn't so complicated to calculate your tax bill, it would be a lot easier to complete your return and avoid

making mistakes. ironically, hundreds of employees at the irs itself may have willfully failed to pay their own tax bills, including tax collectors and even a criminal investigator. in total, 1,250 irs employees were identified who had not paid their tax bills in full or on time by the treasury inspector general for tax administration. more than 300 of these employees were repeat offenders. yet the tax collecting agency did little to discipline the tax evaders on its very own payroll. the irs staffers gave a variety of excuses for not paying their

taxes, including forgetting to report all of their income or being unable to use turbo tax. yep, folks, you heard that right. we have a real problem if the irs staff, who enforce the tax law, aren't paying their own taxes and can't even understand how to properly fill out their own tax forms. i've heard enough of the excuses and these washington double standards. that is why i have asked the inspector general to audit the irs to ensure that the tax collectors themselves are paying the taxes they owe, and on behalf of taxpayers in iowa and the rest of the country, i am

grateful that the i.g. has agreed. before biden's army of auditors starts harassing innocent taxpayers, let's first make sure that tax collectors have paid their own taxes. and if the threat of being audited wasn't bad enough, the reckless tax-and-spend bill also increases taxes, which will further add to the burden of small businesses already struggling with the higher costs resulting from bidenomics. and that's the real issue -- washington's misplaced priorities are creating problems for the rest of america. no one in iowa that i talk to is begging for more irs auditors. but i do hear about the urgent need for more teachers and day care providers because these

folks are absolutely essential to communities across iowa. the child care staffing crisis has an even bigger ripple effect on families because it can determine where, when, and even if a parent can work. yet four in five child care centers across the country are understaffed. this is particularly pressing for my home state because we lead the nation in the percentage of families where both parents work away from home. governor kim reynolds is working hard to increase the availability and affordability of child care, and part of her plan is to pay recruitment and retention bonuses to child care providers to recognize them for their hard work. in addition, most of iowa's

restaurants and bars are also short-staffed, which is resulting in reduced hours of service for customers and also longer shifts for current employees. to retain and attract employees, restaurants are increasing benefits like free meals, more flexible schedules, paid time off, and retirement contributions. and, folks, that is great news for these hardworking iowans. but it also increases the costs of doing business. so instead of increasing taxes on iowa's small businesses to pay for the irs's new army of auditors, washington should allow job creators to keep more of their own earnings, which can be put towards hiring more of those essential workers, whether that be child care providers, construction workers, or food

service employees who we all rely upon. that is the help that america really wants. and while my democratic friends are working overtime to audit americans, you can rest assured that republicans, we are auditing the irs. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: madam president, i ask to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. murray: thank you, madam

president. madam president, yesterday my republican colleagues introduced a national abortion ban and made it clear that they are coming after the rights of my constituents and they are coming after the rights of people across the country. this atrocious bill threatens the people of kansas, who just voted overwhelmingly to protect abortion rights. it threatens the hundreds of thousands of people in michigan, who just signed a petition for a referendum vote to protect abortion. and states like mine which already have strong abortion protections on our books. up till now, republicans have tried to play down their abortion extremism. they've tried to run away from the consequences of their extreme agenda, even as patients have been denied prescriptions that they need, even as doctors have been forced to wait until

patients' lives are in danger before they can action, even as health care crises they have caused spill across state lines to disastrous effect. but despite their empty rhetoric about leaving it to states, the truth has been painfully clear. they think they know better than women when it comes to reproductive health care decisions. they have shown again and again they do not trust women to have full control over their own bodies, and they are also willing to go after doctors. they've blocked the most basic bills, like senator cortez masto's bill that would have made sure people can still travel to other states for legally available care, or my bill making sure that doctors in states where abortion is legal cannot be punished for doing their job. over and over they have stood in the way of democrats' efforts to

protect women's abortion rights. and it's crystal clear why. this bill shows the true republican position. they want to ban abortion for everyone in every single state, and they want to punish doctors. they want to put them in prison for doing their jobs. so to anyone who lives in a blue state like mine, anyone who thinks they are safe from these attacks, here is the painful reality -- republicans are coming after your rights, and you don't have to take my word for it. the senator from south carolina said yesterday -- and i quote -- if we take back the house and the senate, i can assure you we will have a vote on our bill. there it is. couldn't be clearer. that's the maga agenda for all 50 states -- rights stripped away, doctors in prison. regardless of your

circumstances, regardless of what is best for your health, regardless of your family plans or your hopes or your fears or your dreams for your future. republicans want to control your personal decisions. they don't trust you to have full control over your own body. this is horrifying. and, madam president, when he unveiled the bill yesterday, the senator from south carolina said, and i quote, i make a prediction, we stay on it, keep talking about it, maybe in less than a decade this will be law. unquote. this will be law. this is the future they want, a national abortion ban. let me tell you something, the senator from south carolina may not have been paying attention, but democrats are already talking about this issue every week, every day, every opportunity, and women across the country have been with us fighting for the right to

abortion and fighting back against republicans' harmful attacks. we saw it in kansas. we are seeing it in michigan, and i'm seeing it everywhere i go in washington state. i have been talking to doctors and patients and women and men across our country and they are outraged -- outraged that republicans want to take away their rights, that republicans want to put doctors in prison, and i am too. i have never been madder. so here's my message to republicans. if you want to go after my constituents' rights, if you want to go after women's bodies and futures, if you want to pass a national abortion ban like this extreme bill, you're going to have to go through me because democrats are going to keep standing up for women and men across the country who do not want their rights taken away. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor.

mr. blumenthal: madam president. the presiding officer: the senior senator from connecticut. mr. blumenthal: thank you, madam president. we are here today because republicans are seeking a national ban on abortion. and if we say it once here, we should say it ten times, 100 times because literally months ago it would have been virtually unimaginable, first that roe v. wade would be struck down and, second, that republicans would propose a national ban on abortion. women across connecticut and the country are scared and angry, and to those who say those fierce and -- fears and outrage

are an illusion or unjustified, all you have to do is read their words. listen to what they say. they are promising the american people that there will be a national ban on abortion. and to the people of connecticut who think we have a safe haven because our legislature and governor have courageously established protections for roe v. wade and for women who come to connecticut seeking abortion services and for doctors who depend on our safeguard, there will be no safe haven in this country, none, nowhere if republicans go where they say explicitly they are heading. i trust women with their doctors

and their clergy and their family to make decisions about when and whether to become pregnant, whether to have children and when to terminate a pregnancy short of term. i trust women, not the government, not politicians to make these preeminently important decisions. and i promise the people of connecticut i will not back down. i will not stand for this kind of national ban on abortions. republicans have said historically, we'll let the states decide. it should be a matter of state legislatures making these decisions. this ban on abortion takes away power from women and from

states. contrary to their promises over years and years about states' rights. but more than a theoretically or hypothetical argument about the powers of state legislatures or the allocation of responsibility in our federal system, this law will have destructive and catastrophic consequences for millions of women. it will impair the every day lives of women and families across america. it is not just a woman's issue. it is on all of us to say we will not back down. we will not stand for a national ban on abortion. it is part of a tireless and seemingly boundless campaign

against women's rights, but these attacks on reproductive rights and personal freedom apparently know no limits. remember, first, republican-controlled state legislatures moved to outlaw abortion entirely, forcing women suffering from ectopic pregnancies to bleed out in hospitals and refusing to care for child raped victims. but now republicans are moving forward with plans to ban abortions everywhere under any circumstances, and they are taking away a woman's right to make her own personal health care decisions, sometimes a decision made during a devastating diagnosis out of her hands, putting those decisions

into the government's hands. make no mistake, the 15 months, all of the technical stuff that republicans invoke doesn't take away from the fact it is a national ban that will eviscerate connecticut's laws. congressional republicans will decide whether or not women can access this vital health care. eliminating access to abortion services as a result of the dobbs decision has already caused devastating consequences, the loss of reproductive services in some states has caused a ripple effect for health care providers across the united states, which proves for anyone who doubted, that banning reproductive services doesn't stop women from seeking those services, it just adds additional barriers and dangers. in fact, it unnecessarily puts their lives at risk.

this bill would place a ban on abortion across the country and it would include new york, massachusetts, not just connecticut, delaware, go across the country and pick those disaits where these rights -- states where these rights have been protected when i was in the state legislature and then as attorney general i helped write the law that helps codify roe v. wade in connecticut statute. and now connecticut has moved beyond that statute to provide a safe p haven -- a safe haven. but all of it would be gone, all of it would be overridden by this law. americans should have no doubt about where republicans stand now on this issue. they want to punish women, they want to punish doctors, they

will do it at the state level, they will it do it at the national level. no state, not even connecticut is safe from this threat. they are coming after our laws in connecticut, they are coming after women in connecticut and men who believe in the rights of women as a matter of constitutional and personal freedom to make these decisions. our laws should protect the rights of women seeking to make their own personal decisions about their reproductive health in consultation with medical providers, and i will fight tooth and nail this effort and any other effort that seeks to control, criminalize and dehumanize women making this choice and the health care providers compassionately giving them care.

the american people are in our corner. the american people, whatever they may think about abortion in their own lives for their own families for their daughters or wives or others, they support the rights of those women to control their own health care decisions. it is an intensely personal decision when it has to be made, and sometimes the threat of life, something going horribly wrong in a pregnancy is the reason for it. i will it continue to fight for all in connecticut who believe in this fundamental right. it is a matter of our constitutional dna in connecticut beginning with griswold versus connecticut which laid the groundwork for

the right of privacy p and which is the -- and which is the underpinning for that constitutional freedom. and all of us, i hope, will reject this effort to ban abortion in the united states. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor. a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senior senator from nevada. ms. cortez masto: in june, as we are hearing, the supreme court struck down roe v. wade, reversing nearly 50 years of laws that gave a woman's right to have an abortion. and kavanaugh's decision would return to the people's elected

representatives in the states. but this was never about states' rights. really, to my right-wing colleagues who want to restrict a women's fundamental rights. we know that because now they are pushing for a national abortion ban. yesterday, as we very heard, senator graham introduced a strict national abortion ban with criminal penalties for doctors who provide critical care. if it passes, this bill will preempt the laws in states across the country where abortion is still legal. including my own state of nevada. in nevada, our voters approved a ballot initiative in 1990 to enshrine a woman's right to choose in our state laws. so what happened to my colleague's claims of respecting

the rights of states to make that decision? well, apparently it wasn't enough to pack the court with supreme court justices who would vote to deprive women of the right that they have held for 50 years under the guise of states' rights. now when far-right republicans disagree with a state's decision like mine, they plan to impose their own laws. the current legislation introduced by senator graham stops the people in pro-choice states like mine, like nevada, from choosing to protect the rights of women at the same time it leaves in place stricter abortion bans in 14 states. what these far-right republicans are effectively saying now is, antichoice states, you're free to choose how ever harsh you want your abortion bans to be, but you pro-choice states,

you're out of luck. whatever the voters want in your states it really doesn't matter because we're going to impose our own laws. look, nevadans, as i said, in 1990, we worked to codify roe v. wade because we know that it is impossible to walk in another woman's shoes. we flow thap each woman -- that each woman, this is an important decision for each individual woman to make with her doctors, with her loved ones about her health care and her family planning. i do not know what another woman is going through and i do not want to restrict our speech or religion on someone else. that's why nevada voartsz voted in -- voters voted to codify roe v. wade and gave women the right to make this decision. right now we're seeing some politicians once again declare that they know what's best for every family in this nation.

they want to force the state of nevada and other states like nevada to limit women's freedoms, even though voters in my state voted to legally protect the right to choose that nevada women have had for 50 years. i have been saying for months now that some of my colleagues would never be satisfied with just overturning roe, and that they wouldn't rest until there was a national abortion ban. this bill shows every american that not only are women's rights under attack, but so is the democratic process in states like nevada. if we don't have an abortion ban on the books, our state rights don't matter. that is just unacceptable. we can't let our nieces, our daughters, our granddaughters grow up in a world where they have fewer rights than we have had in the past.

so, i for one will keep fighting back, because this is about a fundamental right for american women and the will of people in states like nevada to make this decision and vote for the right of women to choose. so thank you, madam president, and i yield the floor. ms. hirono: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from hawaii. ms. hirono: when the extreme far-right supreme court overturned roe, my republican colleagues lauded this horrendous decision, claiming that a woman's right to an abortion should be left to the states. but now they are admitting what we knew all along -- that this was never about states' rights. this has always been about republicans using their power to control women and our bodily

autonomy. despite the fact that the vast majority of the american public supports reproductive freedom, and despite the fact that voters across the country are overwhelmingly voting to protect this freedom, republicans are pandering -- i think that's a really good word, apt word -- pandering to their extreme maga base, and have now introduced a nationwide ban on abortion after 15 weeks. why 15 weeks, you ask? because that's what the senior senator from south carolina, who introduced this legislation, said he would, quote, feel comfortable at. so we now have a republican senator attempting to restrict the bodily autonomy of women across the country because that's what he feels comfortable at. it's not enough that overturning of roe had created fear and

confusion all across the country. we now have the introduction of a nationwide abortion ban further adding to the chaos. this is not some sort of hypothetical debate or hysteria, as some of my republican colleagues have claimed. if republicans take control of the senate we now know what they will do -- they will work to pass a national abortion ban. which would mean, even in my home state of hawaii, which was the first state in the country to decriminalize abortion, even before the roe decision, we did this in hawaii in 1970. and for voters in states who are pushing back against their radical legislators, and exercising their right to bring the issue of abortion to the

ballot, including states like kansas and michigan, this bill would overrule their efforts. but of course, to add to their utter hypocrisy, if states like texas or mississippi want to be even more restrictive, even more harmful to women than a 15-week ban, that would be a-ok, according to the senator from south carolina and his extreme bill. allowing republicans to regain control of congress would be catastrophic, not only for women but for our entire country, because when we women can't control what we do with our bodies, of course this impacts our families, our communities, our economy. and so, this november people are going to have a choice -- do you want to let extreme maga

republicans tell you what you can and can't do with your own body? or do you want to hold these politicians accountable for pushing their far-right extreme agenda and perpetuating the chaos, confusion, and fear that women, families, communities, and our health care professionals -- let's not forget all the doctors who are out there wondering how they can provide the kind of care that they are trained to do right now, how they can do that in the face of this kind of ban in so many states across the country, not to mention a nationwide abortion ban. so the chaos, confusion being experienced all across the country following the dobbs decision is only multiplied by

this nationwide abortion ban bill. talk about government overreach. when i hear my colleagues talking about how it should be states' rights or government should not be telling us what to do, the word hypocrites doesn't even go far enough to call them out on what they're doing. this is an outright attack on women in this country. that is how i see it. that is how more and more women and those who support our right to make decisions about our own bodies, that is how we see it. and why? because that's what's happening. madam president, i yield the floor. but clearly, this is literally a call to arms in our country. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senior senator from oregon. mr. wyden: madam president, i

come to the floor to discuss the new graham legislation to create a national abortion ban. now, the centerpiece of the senator's argument is that senator graham wants our country to believe that his national abortion ban is a moderate proposal. his words. wrong, wrong, wrong. a moderate bill would not institute criminal penalties for doctors providing lifesaving medical care. that's what this so-called moderate bill does. a moderate bill would not take rights away from american women, no matter where they live. that's what this so-called moderate bill does. a moderate bill would not create a presumption of women's guilt

by requiring them to report a rape or seek counseling before they get an abortion. this so-called moderate bill does that too. so just think about that last point. if you're trying to assess our colleague from south carolina's argument that his bill is, quote, moderate. under senator graham's new restrictions, a 12-year-old rape victim, regardless of the terror she feels or the danger she faces, could have to find a way to report her assault to police before she could get the care she needs. that is a stunning overreach, madam president, and there is absolutely nothing that is

moderate about the proposal that i just gave. now, the reality is this is not a moderate proposal, it's an extreme proposal, way out of step with the overwhelming opinion of the american people. now, the other important argument i wanted to discuss was this whole matter of how so many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have pledged loyalty, pledged loyalty to the importance of states' rights, that they're going to leave the decision on abortion to the states. what senator graham has shown is that all his talk about states' rights means that the state's got to agree with senator

graham. that's what his idea about states' rights is all about. his bill tramples, for example, on the rights of oregonians who sure don't share senator graham's view on this. and people in many other states, women and men, who voted to protect abortion, women's health care and women's individual freedom. senator graham's bill is about control. it's about government, government -- mind these words, government having control over women's bodies, rather than women having control over their bodies. it's also clear that what has always been envisioned is not just a nationwide ban on abortions but criminalizing this, with women and doctors at some point, i gather, possibly

locked behind bars. it's election season, and senator mcconnell wants everybody to forget that republicans' top priorities include passing these extreme restrictions through congress and the courts. i believe that americans know better, when it comes to this kind of legislation, that is so far removed, far removed, from the moderate claim of its sponsor. i think we ought to recognize that what we're looking at is a total national abortion ban, criminalization, and the rights of women curtailed and the power of government over them increased. senator graham's bill is the next step in that direction for republicans. introducing his proposal, senator graham basically confirmed that. if we take back the house and

senate, i can assure you we'll have a vote on my bill. so, madam president, i think we've got a lot of speakers coming, but i think the american people ought to take senator graham at his word. this is what his agenda's about. this is what he is going to be championing from sea to shining sea. so i just hope we do everything we can here in the senate, in this country, to make sure that the graham bill does not see the light of day. with that, madam president, i yield the floor, and i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. cornyn: madam president. the presiding officer: the senior senator from texas. mr. cornyn: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cornyn: madam president, yesterday new data showed what texans have known and felt for months, that inflation is simply not letting up. last month prices were up 8.3% from a year ago. economist larry summers, a

well-known former president of harvard university and member of presidential cabinets said this c.p.i. report, consumer price index report shows that the united states has a serious inflation problem. rent is up 6.7%. if you go to the grocery store to feed your family, groceries are 13.5% over what they were last year. and if you're a senior citizen suffering through the hot texas summers and need your air conditioner to work overtime, electricity to make that air conditioner run is up 16%. of course that's just since last august a year ago when we were already battling runaway inflation. here's an even more shocking figure. since president biden took office on january 20, 2021,

prices have risen 13%. so 13 cents out of every dollar that you earn, poof, it's gone away. you are that much poorer. your standard of living has been increased by 13%. inflation, of course, far outpaces wage growth, meaning the average american has effectively been handed a pay cut. a single paycheck doesn't go nearly as far today as it did a year ago. this is exactly what was predicted by leading economists when our democratic colleagues ran off with a taxpayer credit card at the end of last year. they used the rules of the senate to spend an additional $2 trillion in the name of covid relief, even though less than 10% of the money was directly related to the pandemic. and i want to differentiate

between what we did together on a bipartisan basis to deal with covid when we spent nearly $5 trillion on a bipartisan basis. there's no doubt this was a grave emergency, public health emergency, economic emergency. we did what we had to do and we got through it. but even after that, our democratic colleagues couldn't seem to kick the spending habits and unilaterally spent an extra $2 trillion, even though as i said that 20% was related -- 10% was related to the pandemic, 90% was unrelated. and then the so-called inflation reduction act which the president was celebrating yesterday when the stock market fell 1200 points, it this partisan bill amounts to another $240 billion in unnecessary spending while raising taxes at the same time.

as i said, our colleagues ironically called this bill, the inflation reduction act. and the white house chose yesterday, the day that the latest disappointing inflation figures were released to celebrate its passage. the inflation reduction act is false advertising. the penn wharton economic review of the inflation reduction act said there is no reduction of inflation for at least two full years, and, indeed, it may actually get worse. but we all knew this intuitively that if you keep on spending this much money, you're basically pouring gasoline on the inflation fire, it will get worse appeared worse and -- and worse and worse and working and middle-class families across the country have gotten hurt as a

result. since democrats have taken control of both houses of congress and the white house, texans' lives have gotten harder. inflation skyrocketed and our economy has fallen into a recession. now, this is one of the other curious things about defining terms. our democratic colleagues want to argue about whether two consecutive quarters of negative gdp are actually a recession or not. well, they were when republicans were in charge, but apparently when democrats are in charge, that definition doesn't apply. much as they tried but failed to convince the american people that the inflation reduction act would actually reduce inflation. it didn't and it won't any time soon. well, we know that the response to inflation by the federal reserve has been to raise

interest rates, and they're projected to raise them at least three-quarters of 1% or 75 basis points which will also slow down the economy and hurt job creation. so it looks like even more pain is coming. well, unfortunately we're also told that there's a looming rail strike that will have a tremendously negative impact on our economy. our economy, as we all know, depends on a network of tractor trailers, planes, trains, cargo ships to transport products around the united states and beyond. these are the very same transportation modes that make sure that your grocery store is fully stocked, that the manufacturing plants have the inventory they need in order to make their products and that, yes, our packages that we order

show up on our front doorstep on time. but a massive disruption in rail transportation is likely to occur in less than two days time. the unions that represent more than 115,000 rail workers have not been able to reach a contract agreement with railroad companies. unless they reach a breakthrough soon, rail workers will go on strike this friday, causing a national rail shutdown. if you don't think that will have a negative impact on our economy, on top of what i've already mentioned, think again. the rail system carries nearly 30% of america's freight. everything from agriculture to retail products, heavy equipment, automobiles, coal, lumber. we are talking about the critical products that impact

virtually every sector of the economy. it's tough to overstate the negative impact this will have. just look at agriculture. on the front end of production farmers and ranchers need fertilizer, seed, animal feed, and heavy equipment, all of which are likely to travel by rail at some point. and then at harvest time, our producers rely on timely rail service to transport their products to processing plants and then communities across the country. if this strike goes into effect, all of those shipments will be stalled and this comes right as we're heading into the fall harvest. farmers and ranchers will be left with huge amounts of product that they can't even transport or sale. many of these perishable products which will simply

spoil. the consequence for consumers is we'll continue to see empty shelves at the grocery stores, along with higher prices due to inflation and short supply. but this won't just impact us in the united states. railroads move roughly a third of u.s. grain exports, which are desperately need hd in globa needed in global markets, particularly with what has happened in ukraine with russia impeding the growing transportation of grain like places to africa where people are literally starving for the lack of food. the war on ukraine has exacerbated this food insecurity. if this shutdown here in america goes into effect, this squeeze will be compound and will be even tighter. of course this is just a snapshot of the impact a shutdown will have on one sector

of the economy, but the same struggles will come out when it comes to energy, rail, manufacturing, automotive and literally just about every other sector of the economy. this massive logjam will take a serious toll on our economy on top of the inflation and recession right-wing pressures we're -- recessions pressures that we are already feeling. it is estimated that the rail shutdown will cost the economy $2 billion a day. our country is hurdling toward a logistical nightmare and unfortunately, the biden administration appears to be frozen and undecided about what to do. for years our democratic colleagues, who depend on organized labor for a major part of their political support, have put the demands of labor unions ahead of the needs of consumers and the rest of the american

people. they've romanced the powerful labor lobby at every turn, and one of the fiercest union defenders now occupies the oval office. now, i'm not opposed to people joining unions. they're entitled to collectively bargain and advance their livelihood and their families' way of life. but to let one special interest group basically create a logistical nightmare with this looming rail strike is just indefensible. well, we're seeing the consequences of this kowtowing to organized labor, above the interest of any and all other americans. to hopefully prevent this looming crisis, president biden has established an emergency board to help reach a resolution and revent this strike --

prevent this strike if possible. the board has reached its recommendations to resolve this deputy nearly a month ago, but a deal is still nowhere in sight. in recent weeks a number of administration officials have joined the unions and freight companies at the negotiating table. the secretaries of labor, transportation, and agriculture have all tried to help resolve the impasse, but they've not moifd the -- moved the needle at all. i don't know how much havoc is in store, madam president, but it's not looking good. many shipments have already stopped out of fear that the operations will stop mid-journey. i read even -- even commuter trains like amtrak have already canceled some of their -- some of their routes because they know what sort of impact this strike will have if no deal is reached by friday.

inflation has already sent prices to an untenable high. the supply chain breakdown is sure to send those prices even higher. families can anticipate product shortages across the board, from grocery stores to car lots. shoppers can expect packages that they have ordered to be delayed for days or even weeks on end. and drivers should expect to see more trucks on the highway to fill the gap when the railroad shuts down. madam president, this is just another example of the failure of the biden administration to anticipate and to address the problems that the american people are facing. it seems there's a huge disconnect between what's happening here in washington, among our democratic friends and the biden administration, and what i hear from my constituents

back home. and i think that's true, largely, across the nation, that the elites in washington have become completely decoupled from the rest of the country. what that produces is special interest legislation that pleases some constituents -- labor unions, climate activists, and open borders advocates. the biden administration and our democratic majority has used their power in washington to spend trillions of dollars on things that the american people don't want, while compounding the problems that they're facing day in and day out. inflation, a recession, paralyzing supply chain shutdown on the horizon, a spike in crime, and then of course an open border, which has allowed enough illegal drugs to be

imported into the united states that it took 108,000 american lives last year. 71,000 of those 108 lives were as a result of synthetic opioids like fentanyl. synthetic opioids are raging like a brushfire across the entire country, and we're seeing, for example, at middle schools and high schools and places like haze county, right -- hayes county, right outside of austin, texas, where i live, that young people, unbeknownst to themselves, ingest small amounts of this fentanyl and ultimately end up overdosing and dying from it. so, madam president, there are huge challenges facing our country. we need to do our job. we need to work together. no one's suggesting that we give up our principles. republicans are republicans, and

democrats are democrats for a reason, because they view the role and the size of government differently. our democratic colleagues seem to think that washington and government is the answer to every problem. republicans and conservatives, on the other hand, tend to favor individual initiative and entrepreneurship and investment to create jobs and opportunity for people to get jobs and provide for their family and pursue their dream. but there's plenty of overlap where we can agree, but we have to fight inflation, we have to deal with things like the paralyzing supply chain and the threat from a rail strike that appears now to be imminent. we've got to do more to support our men and women in uniform, the police, as they battle crime in our neighborhoods and our communities, which seem to have gone up exponentially in recent years.

and then, of course, there is the one big gaping, open sore our democratic colleagues have ignored completely, and that is our open border. i mentioned the drugs, but in addition to the drugs we've seen 2.3 million migrants show up at the border just since president biden became president, because they know they're going to be able to get into the country, and they're probably going to be able to stay. because the biden administration simply does not have any plan in place to decide asylum claims, who has legitimate claims and who does not. so they engage in a program of catch-and-release, and with the litigation backlogs in our immigration courts it's no surprise that when years go by, and your ticket comes up and you're told to show up in immigration court, that people simply fade into the great american landscape and avoid detection. the only people benefiting from

this, beyond the occasional migrant, is the drug cartels and the transnational criminal organizations that network people from around the world. i know many people who aren't from a border state, like i am, think that these migrants are just from mexico or central america. but if you talk to the border patrol sector chiefs in del rio or the rio grande valley, they will tell you they are detaining people from as many as 150 different countries. now, surely, the majority are from mexico and central america, but it causes a lot of kesh when somebody can -- a lot of concern when somebody can get to our backdoor from another country, then falsely claim asylum, only to be released into the interior of the united states and never heard from again. these are all fixable problems, if we'll work together, but so far, while the american people

may have thought they elected joe biden, a moderate, they've basically seen bernie sanders' agenda. madam president, i yield the floor. mr. cornyn: i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. scott: madam president. the presiding officer: the june juror senator from florida. -- the junior senator from flow. mr. scott: i ask unanimous consent to vitiate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. scott: madam president, have you ever gone out to eat in a restaurant with a group of people, but your order was cheaper than everyone else's? maybe you weren't as hungry, or the restaurant the group be picked was more expensive than you could afford, so you selected by what you ordered. when the check comes, someone suggested the group split it evenly. now, what is your immediate

reaction? you're upset, of course, because you ordered the salad, not the filet minion, or you drank water, no the expensive wine. you ordered what you wanted and then ordered what they wanted. you shouldn't be on the hook for their cost. sadly, madam president, this illustration is far too real as last month joe biden announced that he would cancel billions of dollars in student loans. now, let's be clear, he isn't canceling students debt. no, he's transferring that debt to every american taxpayer. now, a construction worker in florida is having to foot the bill for the loans of the harvard grad, which they voluntarily accepted for an education they received. so here's what democrats are trying to say to that construction worker, you didn't go to college? democrats don't care. you pay -- you'll pay the debt of lawyers and doctors. and you'll pay for those who want ph.d.'s in poetry. talk about poetic injustice.

you went to community college or a state school and worked to graduate debt free. tough luck. joe biden wants you to pay for the advanced degrees of the privileged few. your tax dollars are now the money pot for other people's student debt. of course, joe biden's plan doesn't even begin to address the real reason of rising higher education costs. that is universities' decades-long practice of raising tuition. as governor of florida i addressed that problem and challenged our universities to keep education affordable. look at the university of florida. undergraduate tuition and fees for this academic year are less than $6500, it's the fifth-best public university in the country. you'll get a fantastic education there. meanwhile, at harvard tuition fees for the academic year cost more than 57,000. there are ways to make education affordable, but democrats and elites aren't interested in those solutions. that's why joe biden is engaging in this reckless move, even

though he doesn't solve the real issue and he lacks the proper constitutional authority. everybody knows this. that's why in july of this year, nancy pelosi herself denied the president has such power. now she said, quote, the president can't do it. that's not even a discussion. now the department of justice is engageed in interpretative gym mass sticks to owe oppose legislation for survivors after 9/11. it is so jibed can get handouts to his liberal voters. biden wants to spend money that congress has not appropriated. it's illegal. it's unconstitutional. it's a gross abuse of authority. and i won't stand for it. congress must assert its authority here. we have the power of the purse, not the president. that's why i've introduced the

debt cancellation accountability act. my bill would require the department of education to get an express appropriation from congress before they can propose waiving, discharging or reducing student loan debts to two or more brothers in an amount greater than $1 million. if we want to transfer the debt of some and make everybody pay for it, then congress needs to make that decision. we should put it up for a vote. of course, democrats in the senate won't do that. surely they could have passed a bill by now if they really wanted to, but they wanted biden to do it alone. so it's easy to see why in just the past few weeks we've seen families across the country speak out against biden's unfair and disastrous proposal. i'm hearing from floridians every day, and i know my colleagues are, too. i'd like to thank senators barrasso, lummis and braun for supporting my act. so let's pass this bill today to

reverse joe biden's decision. i'd like to turn to my colleague, senator breakers from the great state of indiana -- senator braun, from the great state of indiana. mr. braun: president biden's debt transfer does not transfer or forgive anything. these debts will still be paid. it's not like they go away. what else does it say about the whole idea that when you take on an obligation and you agree to it that you can just shirk it or get rid of it? there are many people across the country that would want to be in on that gambit as well. he has simply shifted the costs of repayment onto everyone, including the 65% of american workers who chose not to get a college degree. what about the aspiring plumber

or electrician that borrowed $20,000, $30,000, $40,000 for his or her own business? there'd be no end to it. we should focus on getting more value out of colleges rather than giving them another reason to hike prices. sadly, the only place that's been focused on is in my own home state where mitch daniels, ex-governor of indiana, froze tuition into ten years. that's getting more value out, and that's why their enrollment has gone way up. with the national debt of nearly $31 trillion, we can't continue to pile on more debt. senator scott and i -- when senator scott and i got here just a little over three and a half years ago, we were $18 trillion in debt. we throw trillions around now like we used to hundreds of billions, and it's on the backs

of our kids and grandkids every time we do it. today federal student aid owns $1 .6 trillion in outstanding federal assets. in other words, student loans. the loan program needs to be completely redone so that colleges are motivated to lower costs. this is an excuse to do the opposite. finally, president biden's actions are illegal in the first place. the president doesn't have the authority to cancel all this debt. and i'm hoping it gets taken to court because what does it say, again, for future generations, anyone that makes a commitment to take on debt and to shirk it with the stroke of a pen? even speaker pelosi agreed on this point saying she didn't think it was legal. didn't make any difference in this day and age. you plow forward. this is why i support the debt

cancellation accountability act, which requires the department of education to get express appropriation from congress to pay for any federal student loans the department proposes to waive, discharge, or reduce. i yield the floor back to senator scott. mr. scott: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. scott: i'm so thankful for senator braun's support for this bill and for all the work he's done to raise awareness about biden's reckless spending agenda. as if in legislative session, i ask unanimous consent that the committee on health, education, labor, and pensions be discharged from further consideration of senate 4483 and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration, further, that at bill be considered read add third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: is there objection? ms. warren: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. ms. warren: mr. president, reserving the right to object, this is a shameful attempt by

republicans to keep working americans buried under mountains of student debt. president biden's decision to cancel up to $20,000 of federal student debt for as many as 43 million americans with incomes under $125,000 a year is an historic step to deliver life-changing relief to working families and to help rebuild america's middle class. senator scott's bill is just one of republicans' desperate efforts to block cancellation for millions of americans. now, republicans are happy to pass out tax breaks and regulatory loopholes for billionaires and giant corporations, but they're fighting tooth and nail to keep working families from getting a penny of relief. evidently senator scott believes that $2 trillion in republican tax cuts that were not paid for

is fine so long as those tax cuts are aimed mostly at billionaires, millionaires, and giant corporations. but a program that costs a fraction as much and for which 90% of its benefits go to people earning less than $75,000 a year is now somehow a moral outrage. today he claims to worry about those taxpayers who he says will shoulder student loan cancellation. but where was senator scott or then-governor scott when donald trump and the congressional republicans handed out $2 trillion in tax breaks to billionaires and giant corporations? not a penny of which were paid for. where was he then? well, he endorsed the trump administration's plan to cutttaching for corporations and he celebrated those tax breaks

for the richest among us. he wasn't worried about how taxpayers would pay that off. not a word about the fairness for all the people who would bear that burden, as long as the benefits went mostly to the rich and the powerful. senator scott has basically laid it all out there for america to see, and that's the difference -- helping billionaires or helping working families. and that difference pretty much sums up republican and democratic differences across the board. if we're cutting a break for the rich and the powerful, republicans are on board. if we're trying to help out working people, congressional republicans take to their fainting couches and claim to be so worried about the national debt. student loan cancellation is very popular in america, including with a majority of people who have no student loan debt. and that is because there is

scarcely a working person anywhere in america today who does not know someone who is choking on student loan debt. but republicans evidently the republicans in congress live in bubbles that prevent them from meeting any of the millions of people out there who busted their tails, who worked multiple jobs, who made their payment, and who still watch their debt loads continue to climb. so met me just set the record straight here. i want to repeat an earlier point. nearly 90% of relief dollars from president biden's cancellation will go to americans earning less than $75,000 a year. and none -- none -- of the help goes to people making more than $125,000 a year. now, actually, those numbers shouldn't be shocking.

think about who owes student loan debt. senator scott talks about harvard multiple times in his speech. but it's not wealthy people who go to ivy league schools who end up with the student loan debt. it's middle- and working-class americans who were born into families who couldn't afford to pay out of pocket. in fact, 99.7% of borrowers did not attend an ivy league school. by comparison, at the university of florida -- this would happen to be, what, .3% of people who went to ivy league schools borrowed money. by comparison, i just looked it up while the senator was speaking, at the university of florida, 15% have to borrow in order to make it through to graduation. at florida state, 26% -- that's

one in every four people at florida state has to take out money in order to be in college. and at florida a&m, the numbers are even higher -- 68%, more than two-thirds of the people who are in school, have to take out money in order to make it through college. and this is true across the country. at state schools, about half of all students have to borrow to make it through. at historically black colleges and universities, the number is about 90%. so let's be really clear about who exactly congressional republicans are trying to take relief away from. it's not ivy leaguer doctors and lawyers. who are the people that senate republicans say aren't worthy of the kind of help that billionaires and giant

corporations could get in their big tax package? who do senate republicans think should be squeezed harder? who do senate republicans say should simply be left behind? well, senate republicans want to leave behind the 42% of borrowers who do not even have a four-year college diploma. these are folks who took out money, loans in order to become a nurse's aide, to become a mechanic, to go to beauty school, to get their commercial driver's license to drive a truck, and too often the wages that they were promised never materialized. senate republicans say, let them struggle. leave them behind. so who gets the most help under president biden's cancellation? senator scott said, this is all

about doctors and lawyers. let's take a look at that. the share of student loan borrowers who earned a cosmetology certificate is about double the share of borrowers who got professional degrees in law and medicine combined. senate republicans say let those cosmetology certificate holders struggle, leave them behind. similarly, there are more student loan borrowers who took out debt to earn a certificate for driving trucks and working on the railroad than those who did so to become dentists and optometrists. senate republicans say, let those truck drivers and railroad workers struggle. leave them behind. and it's not just people who

have two-year degrees or certificates who get help under president biden's cancellation. it's people who don't have any degree at all. these are people who did everything our country asked them to do, by graduating from high school and advancing their education. but life happened. they got pregnant or they had to take care of a sick family member, and they had to leave before finishing their degree. senate republicans say, let them struggle, leaf them behind. -- leave them behind. whoest goes help? it's women -- whoest goes help? it's women who hold nearly two-thirds of all outstanding student loan debt, black women in particular shoulder a disproportionate amount of the student loan debt burden. black women who hold more debt than any other group. senate republicans say, let them struggle, leave them behind. who gets help?

it's black americans who borrow more money to go to college, borrow more money in college, and have a harder time paying it off after college. they are the ones who will see their debt eliminated under president biden's cancellation plan. senate republicans say, let them struggle, leave them behind. who gets help? it's the 50% of latino borrowers with debt who will see their student loan debt completely eliminated. senate republicans say let them struggle. leave them behind. who gets help? it's the millions of people who couldn't save for retirement or buy their first home or start a family because of student debt. senate republicans say let them struggle. leave them behind. we are living in a moment when the president of the united

states has reached out literally to tens of millions of families and said, i'm putting government on your side. but the congressional republicans are determined to make this country work even better for the rich and the powerful and that is why they are trying to pass the bill that senator scott has advanced. these republicans are all for giving handouts to giant corporations and billionaires, but the minute, the minute that our country creates a little breathing room for the millions of hardworking people whose biggest sin is they tried to get an education and they grew up in a family that just couldn't afford to pay for it, those senate republicans are right here on the senate floor trying to undo it. so i want to take a minute and just look at the bigger picture to see how we got here.

we have a student debt crisis because our government stopped investing in higher education and began shifting the cost of college on to working families. i went to a great public university that cost $50 a semester, a price i could pay for on a part time waitressing job. i got to become a teacher and a law professor, a united states senator because higher education opened a million doors for a kid like me. but that opportunity no longer exists in america. today college costs thousands, even tens of thousands of dollars. and instead of investing taxpayer dollars to help bring down those costs, the state governments reduced their financial support and the federal government told everyone to borrow the money they needed to cover the rising costs of going to school.

and that has left millions of americans drowning in student loan debt. what's worse? families have had to navigate a broken student loan system riddled with bad actors who are trying to take advantage of and profit off keeping them in debt. during the trump years betsy devos, the secretary of education, threw in with the for-profit schools, and when students who had been cheated asked for some help, she turned her back. i have long pushed for more accountability and more oversight to bring down the cost of college and to make higher education and training programs more accessible. i have a plan for that. in fact, i have more than one plan for that. and i welcome any republican to join me in helping make any of

these options reality. but cancellation is the first step to fixing a broken student loan system and to delivering relief to families that have been trapped in it for far too long. one final point. the president's plan to cancel student debt will make a huge difference for tens of millions of americans in their day-to-day lives. but it will do so much more. debt cancellation is about strengthening our whole economy. better educated workers make us a wealthier nation and one with more opportunity not just for those at the top but more opportunity for everyone. just consider one example. following world war ii, a grateful nation said to returning gmplets i.'s that --

g.i.'s that taxpayers would pick up the costs of college and technical training. more than two million veterans went to college or graduate school and nearly six million used this opportunity to pursue vocational training to become construction workers, lek trixes, mechanics, and other careers. together these men and they were nearly all men built america's middle class. taxpayer investments in post-high school education meant that millions of people were better educated and they helped fuel an economic boom that lasted for decades and lifted this entire nation. and it was a bargain. every dollar that was spent on educating our veterans generated $7 to taxpayers and that is not

even counting for the significant boost to productivity from a more educated population. just think about that. a 7 to 1 payoff for investing in higher education for all our people. as president biden saw something that he could do to help tens of millions of americans struggling under the weight of student debt and invest in the future of our economy so he did it. debt cancellation was the right thing to do. and that is why the majority of americans with or without loans support cancellation. i'm celebrating because cancellation will provide life-changing relief for working families across this country. and that is why i object to the senate republicans' shameless

attempt to deny people the relief they need. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: objection is heard. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from indiana braun braun the -- mr. braun: the plan the democrats are going to give ow this was put out in biden's blueprint to put us $45 trillion in debt for ten years. we'll be paying as much on interest as we do on goods cretion near spending -- on discretionary spending domestically or the military budget. that is no business plan. how do you think they're going to pay for the debt forgiveness? they're going to borrow the money to do it to pay the people that are owed the money. one other point of clarification. when you had a practical bill, the tax cut and jobs act which was done before senator scott and i got here, it was a plan to grow economic activity, a way to

pay for it. had covid not come along, the cbo was ready to say that it was paying for itself because we were growing the economy at 3% and the $150 billion per year over ten years which is chump change now compared to the $3 trillion, the democrats have put us in debt over the last year and a half was growing the economy, was zero inflation, raising wages in the toughest spots for those wage earners we've always tried to do it without borrowing it from our kids and our grandkids. i yield back to -- the floor to senator scott. mr. scott: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. scott: let's remember what we're talking about here. we're not canceling debt. we're transferring debt. we're transferring the debt because this obligation doesn't go away. somebody still owes this money.

what we're saying is people that decided, they made the choice to go to college or go to some higher education. they don't want to pay -- they're not going to have to pay their debt and people that didn't -- already paid off their debt, they're going to pay for it. my colleague from massachusetts never acknowledged the example. we all remember when we went out to dinner and we didn't spend the most money and how somebody suggested well, let's just share it so we pay for the expensive wine and we pay for the expensive meal. that's not fair. when you talk to americans around the country and they say would you like to forgive all the debt, absolutely. free is great. but when you say you're going to pay for it, they say absolutely not. why would i pay off the debt for somebody else? and let's remember just what my bill does. it doesn't say we can't forgive student loans. it says that congress ought to decide if we do it. this is going to cost up to $1 trillion.

now, i don't think we ought to so call transfer this debt, but my bill will at least give us a chance to have a debate on it. but that's not what my colleague wants to do. i hope my colleague understands that her objection is absolutely a slap in the take us to all those workers in massachusetts and around the country that didn't go to college. construction workers, small business owners, chefs, flight attendant, firefighters, landscapers and so many other groups of people that have made the decision not to pursue a higher education for whatever reason. and there are many others who worked hard to get scholarships or those who worked part time to afford college or many others that took the time to pay off their loans. i stand with those people, working class people, people who are responsible, hardworking americans who are willing to pay off their obligations. i think about my dad. my dad had a sixth grade education. he was a truck driver. he worked his tail off. i can't imagine what he would think about working hard every day and then being forced to pay

for some other person's degree in -- as a doctor or low pressure. he would be beside himself. it would be so unfair. it's not how the real world works. it's a fancy land that joe biden is trying to turn into reality. people worked hard to see their commitments come through. democrats want to destroy that and destroy ideas of fiscal responsibility. they want to forget that we're $30 trillion in debt. they want to forget that we still have record high inflation as a result of wasteful spending. and since my colleague wants to pretend we're in this fancy l land, because objecting to my bill is an endorsement of his plan and unconstitutional transfer. as members of congress, we should be interested in checks and balances in the separation of powers. we should guard the powers reserved for the legislative branch. spending a trillion dollars with no congressional oversight is wrong. it's not exactly how our constitution was set up.

the shameless decision to bob my bill is another example of how far democrats will go to appease the radical left. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. ms. warren: mr. president, i'm still waiting for an answer to the question. where were these republicans who were talking about fiscal responsibility and what's fair in terms of transferring costs when it was the billionaires and the giant corporations who were getting a $2 trillion tax break. and let us remember, because i was here when that happens, even the conservative economists and think tanks were saying this is going to go on the debt balance because it is not paid for. at that moment they were willing to say but it's going to produce all kinds of wonderful benefits which of course did not come to pass. but what about the example i gave, the example about the investment that we made as a

country and our returning veterans, the fact that we invested so two million of them could get college diplomas, so that millions more could get technical degrees. what about the fact that the numbers show american taxpayers got a return on that investment of 7-1. this really is about who we invest in. it seems that what senator scott is saying is people shouldn't go to school. if you're in a family that you can't guarantee that you're going to have some assets to back you up, if you ever have to think about the fact that you might get sick, you might fall down, you might get hurt, and you might not be able to finish or you might not be able to turn that degree into a high-paying job or you might graduate at a moment when the economy is in a slump, what senator scott seems to be saying is don't order off

that menu. don't go to school. don't try to get a post-high school cert cal in comes willing to -- certificate in cosmetology. don't try to get a certificate in truck driving. don't try to get a two-year diploma. don't try to get a four-year diploma. that is not going to make america a better or richer country. that is not going to be an america that's going to open opportunities. and the next time senator scott or any other republican talks to me about fair, explain to me what is -- i would ask them to explain to me what is their that the daughter of a janitor, a half a century ago to go to a good four-year college on $50 a semester? why? because american taxpayers invested in those public colleges and universities. and today that opportunity is not there for a single one of our kids.

you want to talk about who has college debt? instead of talking about the .03 of 1% of i've beeny league grads who have -- of ivy league grads who have debt, look at the 68% of florida a&m grads who have college debt. that is that i amful. we need to be an america -- that is shameful. we need to be an america about creating more opportunities, not closing them off for tens of millions of people. i yield the floor. mr. scott: mr. president. mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. scott: so first off, my colleague never addressed the issue that this is a transfer of obligation. you could have a conversation about what we should have done with regard to tax cuts in the past, but this it a transfer of obligation. this is the transfer of

obligation of people who decided who go to school, and we should do everything we can to help people. but we're not addressing the problem here. i addressed it when i was governor. when i became governor in january of 2011, tuition in florida was going up 15% a year, plus inflation. i stopped it. we didn't see tuition increase while i was governor. we became the number one higher education system in the country, according to u.s. news and world reports. we solved the problem of cost of higher education, to make sure people could afford education. we did it because we invested, we kept tuition low, and we paid our universities based on three things -- do you get a degree? how much money do you make? what's the cost to get a degree. all of our universities became more efficient and more accountable. that's how you fix the problem. this does not fix the problem this does nothing to reduce tuition, does nothing to hold our universities accountable or stop universities from raising tuition -- ms. warren:

mr. president. mr. scott: this does not make sure our kids get a job or make sure our kids get good-paying jobs. ms. warren: mr. president. mr. scott: i'm disappointed in my colleague for not addressing the issue of the complete transfer of those who got an education and those who didn't. ms. warren: i ask if the senator will yield for a question. the presiding officer: will the senator yield for a question? mr. scott: i yield the floor. ms. warren: i want to ask the senator -- i'm recognized. the presiding officer: i recognized. warren wearp -- ms. warren: i want to ask if he believes that the 68% of students at florida a&m university who have student loan debt should never have gone to college. it turns out their families couldn't afford to pay for college in florida. should they never have tried? mr. scott: mr. president?

the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. scott: absolutely. i did everything i could to make sure all of our students had the opportunity to go to school. we made sure they could afford to go to school. i think we -- what i said in my bill today is this ought to be done by congress, and let's don't just do some blanket issue, transfer of obligations here. let's -- congress should be doing this. this is going to cost us up to $1 trillion, and we're going to have people like my dad, if he were still alive, a truckdriver with a sixth grade education, pay for some ivy league kid to go to school, and that is wrong. ms. warren: mr. president, can i ask for a clarification of that answer? the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. ms. warren: among the 68% of florida a&m students who have student loan debt, i believe i heard the senator say he made it possible for them to afford college. i'm wondering if he could explain how they could have

afforded college without taking on federal student loan debt. mr. scott: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. scott: i'm not suggesting you shouldn't borrow money. but what i'm suggesting is if you do borrow money, you made that decision, all right, you shouldn't transfer it to somebody like my dad, who had a sixth grade education, couldn't afford to go to school, didn't go to school. there shouldn't be a transfer to make sure they pay off your debt. that's a decision you made. you should pay off. if you have an issue because you can't pay it, let's deal with that issue. that's not what this does. whatever your issue is, joe biden says, by himself, without any act of congress, he gets to make a decision by himself, poof, your debt goes away, somebody else picks it up. that's not right. the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. sanders: i am really delighted that my colleague from florida is suddenly concerned

about transfers of wealth. i really am. because, as he may or may not know, over the last 30 years there has been a massive transfer of wealth. problem is it has gone in the wrong direction. we're talking about the shrinking of the middle class, we're talking about trillions of dollars going to the top 1%. and we are ending up in a situation today where you have billionaires, you have large corporations that don't pay a nickel in federal taxes. i always find it interesting that whenever congress does something, ever so rarely, that benefits working people or low-income people, there is an uproar -- oh, my god! you're helping young people. you're helping working people, you're helping poor people. what a terrible thing to do! but there is massive silence

when you give gigantic tax breaks to the 1% or large corporations who are now doing phenomenally well. so if my colleague from florida is interested in the transfer of wealth, let's work together, let's make sure that the working class in this country, not just the billionaires, get a fair shake. let's help young people. let's start canceling the student debt that we should have done years ago. mr. scott: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. scott: well, first off, let me make sure my colleague from vermont knows my background. i grew up in public housing, born to a single mom. i care about people making sure you get an education. that's why i made sure in florida people had the chance to get ahead. before i became governor, the state lost 832,000 jobs. by cutting taxes, streamlining, we adding 1.7 million jobs so people all over my state could get a job. that's how people get ahead. you don't get ahead by somebody

transferring obligations from one person to somebody else. that doesn't improve -- that improves a few people's lives, but that's completely unfair. some people are going to pay for somebody else's obligation that they decided to pick up, that's all i'm talking about. ms. warren: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. ms. warren: i really do think about this transfer question, and i find myself asking who paid for jeff bezos' yacht? is it the taxpayers who said, now, we, america's middle class, america's working class, is actually going to have to pick up the slack, and they'll be the ones who have to pay to keep the military, they'll have to pay for roads and bridges, they're the ones who will pay for investment in science. but the billionaires can get richer and richer and richer, and pay little or nothing in taxes. that is a giant transfer.

and yet, none of our republican colleagues seem interested in talking about that transfer and just putting a stop to the outflow from hard-working middle class families over to the billionaires and the giant corporations. i yield. mr. scott: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. scott: i think who paid for jeff bezos' yacht is the people who bought all the packages from amazon. if you get one made in china, i hope everybody will send it back. i yield the floor. mr. burr: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from north carolina. mr. burr: mr. president. , in a few minutes i'm going to ask unanimous consent for the passage of a bill. in the ibts rim, i yield time td time to my good friend, senator wicker. mr. wicker: mr. president, i seek recognition to speak on the same matter that senator burr

has raised and will raise on the unanimous consent request. think of the economy right now, mr. president. inflation is at 8 ps 3% of -- 8.3% or higher. our gdp is shrinking and supply chains have not recovered from the pandemic. the last thing we need is a shutdown of this nation's rail service, both passenger and freight. and yet, that is what we are facing in less than a day and a half from this moment, a massive rail strike that will virtually shut down our economy. now, this didn't have to happen, but i'll tell you, it's been going on since 2019. so we're in our third year of this matter. there's been negotiation among

the rails, some 37 companies, including seven major freight carriers, and 12 unions. they reached an impasse, and so pursuant to statute the president of the united states, president joe biden, appointed a peb, presidential emergency board, to help resolve this issue. and they brought the parties together and have worked with the suggestions from both sides, both labor and management, and come up with their recommendation, which the president of the united states has endorsed in full. and we are now at the point where we're asking both labor and management to agree to this recommendation of the peb. 100% of management has agreed to this recommendation of the

biden-appointed presidential emergency board. of the 12 unions, eight of the unions have agreed. we have an overwhelming majority of the unions agreeing to this, 100% of management agreeing to it, but under the law that congress in its wisdom passed years and years ago we have to have 100% of the 12 unions, and there are four holdouts at this point. pursuant to the statute, when we get to a situation like this, congress can step in, and that t is what my friend is going to ask us to do in just a few minutes. the congress can pass the recommendation of the peb in full, the senate can pass it, send it over to the house, send it to the president, who has endorsed the recommendation in full, and we can avoid this

strike. and that's what we ought to be doing. so i want to commend my friend from north carolina for his leadership in this case. if the trains stop running, our economy grinds to a halt, and that is the very reason this law is in place, and it's the very reason why it is incumbent on us as senators and representatives to pass a statute -- to pass a resolution implementing the peb. and i yield to my friend. mr. burr: i thank my colleague from mississippi. mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from north carolina again. mr. burr: mr. president, there are going to be some that say this is unprecedented by the congress. in fact, under the rail labor act, congress is allowed to intervene. in fact, congress has intervened 18 times in the past imposing peb recommendations in whole or

in part four times. if we don't do it, if we do not force this issue, at 12: 01 tomorrow night, the railroads will shut down and the economic impact on the american people is $2 billion a day. $2 billion. senator from mississippi and i have introduced a bill that will adopt the biden administration recommendations, recommendations that include a 24% increase in pay, paid retroactively in 2020, annual bonuses of $1,000, and additional paid leave. this is what's been negotiated by the peb board, but as senator wicker said there are holdouts from a standpoint of some of the major unions, even though eight have agreed to it. now, as i said, congress has taken this action 18 times, to

inconvenient in 12 different rail disputes, and it spans back to 1982, and the latest was in 1991. i dare say there are only a few in this body that were here when that happened. now, senator sanders is on the floor, and i know he's going to object, and i know he's going to object because i read his tweet this week. it said this -- congress shouldn't stand in the way of railroad workers going on strike. the rail companies have avoided barring yake, abused -- avoided bargaining, abused their workers, allied with the -- now they want congress to support their greed. don't. sounds very similar to the argument he was just making to senator scott about student loans. it sounds very similar to every argument he uses that there's this thing in america where nobody is speaking up for some. listen, this is the president's bipartisan emergency board that

he set up that came back with a recommendation to the biden administration and said here is the solution to this. it should be adopted. this is really weird that he senator wicker and i are on the floor introducing legislation that supports the president's position and the position of the president's emergency board. now, here's the key thing. this is the takeaway. we don't have to be here. senator schumer at any point can place this legislation on the floor. clearly senator sanders would object then, but let me make a promise. if senator schumer needs votes, i can deliver 48 republican votes to implement the peb recommendation and the biden endorsed position. let me say that again because i want to make sure senator schumer's staff understands.

this is about how you get to 60. i don't want to get into 101 of the united states senate but 60 votes, as the president knows, is required. i'm offering 48. he only needs to he get 12 on his side to have 60 votes to take this up, to pass it and have it over with and there's no interruption. not only is it $2 billion a day in economic impact, this is 160,000 train loads of agricultural product at a time of harvest across this country. there are some that say, well, this isn'ting if going to -- this isn't going to affect me. they haul coal, gas, petroleum, they haul gases like helium that are required for manufacturing businesses. they haul auto parts, which means you're going to see auto assembly plants shut down, not because of china, but because we let the railroad workers go on

strike and not support the president's position. so this is not political. this is republicans supporting the president's position and only asking 12 democrats to support this action. i ask my colleagues, drop this concern that you're representing one side or other. ask yourself what's best for america. we just got a report that inflation's 8.3%. 8.3%, food up .7%, housing up .6%. gasoline was down and people expected numbers to go down, 8.3%, wages aren't keeping up with that.

american families are losing money every month. food is going to be scairsed -- scarce, food isn't going to be delivered. if we thought the port case we saw last year was bad, we're going to see a complete shutdown from rail and we're a matter of months from christmas when retailers are counting on that to come in. ports like seattle and l.a., what are they going to do with those shipments? amtrak stopped their carriers, they didn't want to get halfway down the line and not be able to secure the hazardous waste. we're at a real tipping point on this and this can be solved with either no objection to the unanimous consent request or by senator schumer bringing this to the floor knowing he has 48

republicans and only needs to produce 12 to get to 60. it's an easy thing. it's an easy lift. well, my hope is that we'll take one of the two paths, but do understand that in less than 48 hours, 12:01 friday morning, the action is without action by congress, there will be a strike. so at time that, mr. president, as if in the senate legislative session, i ask unanimous consent that the committee on health, education, labor and pensions be discharged from further consideration of s.j. res. 61 and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. further, that the joint resolution be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. sanders: reserving the right to object.

the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. sanders: and i will object. and let me thank senator burr for actually reading my tweets. much appreciated. just a correction of the record. i think senator wicker said before a number of unions approved this agreement. i think as everybody knows there cannot be an approval of a union agreement unless the workers themselves have voted on it and they have not voted on it so there has not been an approval of any union of an agreement. but before i go to the rail situation, i did want to say a few words and put this issue into a broader context and then i will get to the rail situation. i think, as most americans know, today we have more income and wealth in the economy than at any time in the history of our country. people on top are doing

phenomenally well while working people are struggling to keep their heads above water. during the pandemic, while essential workers like those employed at the railroads, while these people put their lives on the line and died by the thousands, the billionaire class, the people on top, saw a $2 trillion increase in their wealth. workers died by the tens of thousands, people on top became much richer. further, as health care costs soar, we have over 70 million americans who are either uninsured or underinsured, and in addition, the united states remains the only major country on earth not to guarantee paid

family and medical leave. that's the broad issue that we have got to look at as we look at the situation in the rail industry. mr. president, as i understand it, it is not accurate to say that the president of the united states has agreed to what the pbe has come up with. they have come up with a proposal. but right now as we speak, labor secretary marty walsh is currently meeting with the rail unions and management in trying to forge an agreement. and i happen to wish them well and i hope that those meetings lead to an agreement that is fair and that is just. but let us make no mistake about what's happening in the rail industry right now, and i did

not hear one word of that from my republican colleagues, and that is that the rail industry has seen huge profits in recent years. and last year alone made a record breaking $20 billion in profit. last year the rail industry made $20 billion in profit. and let me also mention that the ceo's of many of these rail companies are enjoying huge compensation packages. for example, last year the ceo of csx made over $20 million in total compensation while the ceo's of union pacific and norfolk southern made over $40 million each in total compensation. in other words, what is happening in the rail industry is it happening all over the

country. corporate profits are soaring and ceo's are making incredibly large compensation packages. i would also add that the parent company of bnsf, one of the largest freight rail companies in america is burke shear hathaway known by -- burke sheer hathaway, owned by warren buffett. during the pandemic, as rail workers risked their lives to keep the economy going, mr. buffett became $33 billion richer. but, mr. president, in the midst of all of those profit increases for the industry, in the midst of huge compensation packages for the ceo's of the industry, in the midst of increased wealth for those who own these

companies, what's going on for the workers? i think that's a fair question to ask if we're in the midst of negotiations, what's going on for the workers? how are they doing? it turns out that the key issue in the current negotiations is not about salaries. apparently there is an agreement on that. the key issue that is being contested is about the working conditions in the industry which are absolutely unacceptable and are almost beyond belief. right now if you work in the freight rail industry, one of the most grueling and dangerous jobs in america, you are entitled to a grand total of zero sick days. in case you missed it, let me repeat it.

you are entitled to zero sick days. what that means is that if you, as a worker, get sick, if your child gets sick, if your spouse gets sick and you need to take time off of work, not only will you not get paid, you actually could get fired. and that is precisely what is happening today in the rail industry. how crazy is that? mr. president, let me remind you of what you undoubtedly know, that hundreds of americans are still dying every day from covid and tens of thousands are being hospitalized as a result of this deadly virus. what the freight rail industry is saying to its workers is

this -- it doesn't matter if you have covid. it doesn't matter if you are lying in a hospital bed because of a medical emergency, it doesn't matter if your wife just gave birth to your child, it doesn't matter. if you do not come into work no matter what the reason, we in the industry, we the bosses have the right to fire you. really? do these conditions really exist in the united states of america, the wealthiest country on earth in the year 2022? mr. president, i do wonder if the ceo of the railroad or other top executives at that railroad, i wonder if they would get fired

if they got sick or if they had a medical emergency in their families. i doubt very much that they would get fired. further, i should add that quite sensibly the federal government guarantees 12 weeks of paid family and medical leave to its workers. that's what we do as a federal government. so if you are an employee at the department of transportation in the united states, sitting behind a desk, you are appropriately, and i believe in this very much, guaranteed 12 weeks of paid family and medical leave. that's if you work at the department of transportation. but if you are an engineer running a train with tons of freight behind you, a very dangerous job, you get zero sick leave. now, that may make sense to

somebody, but it doesn't make sense to me. as a result of this reaction right-wing policy -- reactionry policy, of denying sick time, rail conductors and other rail employees are coming into work sick and exhausted, which is a danger not only to themselves but to their coworkers and everyone else who is around them. mr. president, as bart of the contract -- as part of the contract negotiations, the rail workers are asking for 15 paid sick days. in is not a radical idea. we are the only major country on earth that does not guarantee paid sick days. in germany workers are entitled to 84 weeks of paid sick leave

at 70% of their salary. in norway, workers are entitled to one year of paid sick leave at 100% of their salary, in the u.k. workers are entitled up to 28 weeks of paid sick leave. the rail workers in the united states are not asking for one year of paid sick leave. they're not asking for six months of paid sick leave. they are asking for 15 days. 15 days. now, the rail industry has said, as i understand it, that they just cannot afford to do that. just don't have the money. they say it would cost too much money to provide their workers with any paid sick days. just can't afford to do it. well, let's see. they made over $20 billion in profits last year. they provide their ceo's with huge compensation packages.

and here's something else that everyone should know who's getting involved in this issue -- last year, the rail industry spent over $18 billion not to improve rail safety, not to address the supply chain crisis in america, but to buy back its own stock and hand out huge dividends to its wealthy stockholders. in fact, since 2010, the rail industry has spent over $183 billion in stock buybacks and dividends. so here is where we are, madam president, it turns out that guaranteeing 15 paid sick days to rail workers would cost the industry a grand total of $688 million a year. that is less than 3.5% of their

annual profits. now, it seems to me that if four major rail carriers can afford to spend over $18 billion a year on stock buybacks and dividends, please, please don't tell me they cannot afford to guarantee 15 paid sick days to their workers and allow these workers to have a reasonable quality of life, which they don't enjoy today. if the burr-wicker resolution passed, rail workers would be entitled to zero paid sick days and zero unpaid sick days. that is clearly unacceptable. madam president, the outrage over the lack of paid sick leave is not the only issue being negotiated. the rail workers of this country are sick and tired of unreliable scheduling, which is having a horrendous impact on their

personal and family lives. in america today, rail workers are on call for up to 14 consecutive days, 12 hours a day. in fact, it is not uncommon for many rail workers to be on call virtually 24 hours a day, with a requirement to report to work within 90 minutes, for shifts that can last nearly 80 hours. my office has heard from rail workers who received calls from management at 2:00 in the morning requiring they show up for work at 4:00 a.m. this is not only unacceptable, it is dangerous and has led to a substantial increase in the rate of injuries in the freight rail industry. madam president, if the burr-wicker resolution were to pass, these unfair and unsafe working conditions would be allowed to continue, threatening the safety not only of the workers but of passengers as well.

finally, madam president, the burr-wicker resolution could allow the rail freight industry -- the freight rail industry to substantially increase the cost workers would have to pay for health care. so, let us db clear -- so let us be clear, we're talking about a industry that not only made $20 billion in profits last year and spent over $18 billion in stock buybacks and different did he understand, talking about an industry that slashed its workforce by nearly 30% over last six years, leaving its remaining workforce woefully understaffed and overwork, an industry that has seen profit margins nearly triple over the past 20 years. madam president, today what congress should be doing is not passing the burr-wicker resolution and forcing railroad workers back to work under horrendous working conditions. what we should be doing is

telling.ceo's -- is telling the ceo's in the rail industry treat your workers with dignity and respect, not contempt, do not fire workers for the crime of going to a doctor when they are sick, make sure that your workers have 15 paid sick days and adequate time off to rest and spend with their families, at a time when you, the industry, are making record-breaking profits, do not increase the cost of health care for your employees. the ceo's in the freight rail industry need to understand that they cannot have it all. the rail industry must agree to a contract that is fair and that is just, and if they are not prepared to do that it is time for congress to stand on the side of workers for a change and not just the head of large multinational corporations. rail workers have a right to

strike for reliable schedules. they have a right to strike for paid sick days. they have a right to strike for safe working conditions. rail workers have a right to strike for decent benefits. the burr-wicker resolution would take these fundamental rights away from workers. we cannot allow that to happen. therefore, madam president, i object. mr. wicker: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from mississippi. mr. wicker: the objection has been heard, and the senator from vermont has that right. i wonder if the senator would yield for a question concerning some assertions that he's made. it is my understanding, and the senator is correct in this regard, only two of the unions have actually voted in favor of

this plan. six others, their leadership has agreed, and we have tentative agreements with six of those. so six plus the two is the eight i mentioned. also, the senator i think is mistaken in saying that there is no sick leave policy. that would be unbelievable for the rail industry in this day and age. it works a little differently for the rail. railroad employees operate trains and have a leave policy under which they first indicate unavailability for work, and when that unavailability is the result of illness then they receive sick pay through a sickness benefit under a statutory scheme. the presidential emergency board

heard arguments on both sides, recommended an additional paid leave day, and again, i would stress that this comes on top of a 24% wage increase. but the thing that really strikes me about what my friend from vermont said is he seems to cast doubt on whether president biden is actually for this peb recommendation, and that needs to be cleared up. if the senator from vermont is suggesting that president biden is not behind this, then the white house needs to let us know immediately, because when the peb report was issued, the clear message from the white house is that president biden was in favor of this and endorses this. so if there are people in the white house listening to this,

if the president of the united states is following this debate, then he needs to clarify this. madam president, if he's backing out on his support for the peb, we need to know that. and i yield the floor. mr. sanders: if i could. mr. wicker: yes. the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. sanders: my understanding, i say to my colleague from mississippi, is that as we speak the secretary of labor is in a room, or has been today, with managements and labor, in trying to forge an agreement. so what is going on right now is they are trying to reach an agreement which is amenable to both sides. so that is a work in process. mr. w mr. burr: it's clearly to anybody listening to this debate if senator sanders had been on the peb board, the peb board wouldn't be making a

recommendation, the president wouldn't be behind it. that's where we are, short of a breakthrough in the goarks currently going on -- in the negotiations currently going on. at this grew up listening to paul harvey, he had a show "the rest of the news" the stuff you didn't hear. let me do paul harvey on senator sanders, the railroad workers today get three weeks paid leave on average, plus 11 paid vacation days. peb made a recommendation that they get one additional paid leave day. we will add that in. that's almost a month of paid leave. regardless what you call it, there's a month there. now, you mention that this wasn't as lucrative as germany and u.k. i was home all of august. nobody was asking, jeez, can you pass legislation that makes us look more like the u.k. or germany or the rest of europe? i'd be willing to bet 27 paid leave days probably is more than some of the european countries.

i'll turn to you when i finish. how about that? i gave you a gracious amount of time. peb board determined this was a good solution, and senator sanders says he's here looking out for the middle class, because nobody does that. tell me this, how are you looking out for the middle class when you're risking losing $2 billion a day in economic activity? some of those people, bernie, that you're talking about standing up for, if this rail strike continues they're going to lose their job because of you. they're going to lose their job because the president took a position and you didn't support him. you know, i've been amazed with this administration. i find it pretty difficult sitting up here taking the president's position, because at cdc today, 78% of the cdc workforce does not show up at

the office more than two days a month. we're in the middle of covid, we've got a monkey pox national medical emergency, and 78% of cdc employees, centers for disease control, do not go to the office in atlanta. as a matter of fact, by the -- i think "the new york times" report, even the secretary doesn't go into the office. at a time where you ought to have leadership, the leadership is gone. let's give the president a little bit of credit. he's showing some leadership. he realizes this is not good for every american. it doesn't matter whether you're rich or poor or in the middle. having $2 billion a day of negative economic impact, this is not good. it will ruin people's lives, just like covid, just like monkey pox has done to some americans. i'm not sure how in good conscience you can roll the dice and say, boy, 24% increase in

pay, retroactive to 2020, not 2022, 2020, a $1,000 bonus, and 27 paid leave days per year, somehow we're cheating. it's beyond me. but an objection's been heard, and now it means this is in senator schumer's hands. he's the majority leader. he can bring this legislation up on the floor. all he needs is 60 votes, because i'm convinced after hearing senator sanders he's not going to have an epiphany tonight, wake up tomorrow and say i was wrong, i'll be for this. here is the promise i'll make to senator schumer, if you bring it to the floor, i'll produce 48 republican votes for it. that means dems only need to produce 12 people to support it to keep the american people from vl a $2 billion a day negative

impact on them. it will keep the flow of goods from the east coast to the west coast, amtrak will open up again, christmas that comes in from overseas will hit l.a., seattle, everywhere, and it will make it to its retail location where my wife can buy it. you could probably squeeze 12 democrat votes just out of coastal communities that have ports, that are going to be the real loser in this. remember, it wasn't that long ago we had a port r problem. we had ships off of l.a. couldn't unload. he we felt the impact. you thought that was bad, wait until there are no trains, because then they're unloading no ships. when they back up like that, that backs up further and further when these goods are going to come in. because once they unload here, they got to go back to get more. it also means what we export in this country there's no containers and no ships coming in to export those goods.

if you're in agricultural territory, at harvest time, this is going to be devastating to you. 160 million freight cars of agriculture transported every year. and it happens in this period. i say to my colleagues, let's all hope that senator schumer will bring this up, that he will take republicans up on their position of supporting the president and a solution to this problem and that all he needs to do is produce 12 votes and at any point we can pass this legislation. i yield the floor. a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. sanders: i was not aware that senator burr was a railroad worker. let me set the record straight and tell you what the railroad workers themselves understand what the situation is. we might want to listen to them who live the experience.

so let me very briefly quote you a statement from jeremy ferguson, president of smart transportation division and dennis pierce, president, brotherhood of local engineers and teamsters. this is what they say about their working conditions. quote, meanizing engineer -- penalizing engineers and conductors for getting sick or going to a doctor's visit with termination must be stopped as part of this contract settlement. let us repeat that. our members are being terminated fof getting sick -- for getting sick or for attending routine medical visits as we crawl our way out of worldwide pandemic. no working class american should be treated with this level of harassment in the workplace for simply becoming ill or going to a routine medical visit. end of quote from the union's --

from the unions themselves. let us be clear. i don't think anybody wants a strike or wants a lockout. we hope that a settlement will be reached in the next day. but in my view, if we're going to reach a settlement, i would hope that the railroads who are making huge profits start treating their workers with the respect that they deserve. and with that i would yield the floor. mr. wicker: madam president, i appreciate the debate on this. here's where we are on this issue. we're going to have a nationwide strike within a day and a half from now. midnight, 12:01 a.m. friday. there are two things that can stop this. the distinguished majority leader can provide this peb recommendation to the floor and we will produce the republican votes to get president biden's

administration's recommendation enacted, send it to the house. the other thing that can happen is for president biden to do as i've called on him to do just a few moments ago, to make it clear that this is in fact his recommendation, his endorsement of the plan that has been put forward by the board he appointed. make that clear. and exercise the presidential leadership that is needed at this point to persuade his friends in the four holdout unions that this is what needs to be done. but that's where we were. if we don't have one of those two actions, then we will have done nothing and we'll see a strike and the economic devastation that the distinguished senator from north carolina has described. it's really up to the democratic leader and the president of the united states.

and i yield. the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire. mrs. shaheen: madam president, i'm very pleased to be on the floor today with my colleague, senator hirono, to express our strong support for the nomination of dr. rita gupta to be ambassador at large for global women's issues at the department of state. the position that dr. gupta has been nominated for leads the office of global women's issues which is charged with advancing the rights and embauerment of women and girls around the word through u.s. foreign policy. so looking at our foreign policy through a gender lens that recognizes that women are half of the word's population. not only does the office of global women's issues prioritize policies and programs to advance the status of women around the

world, it ensures that u.s. policies incorporate a gender lens at all levels of policy and decision-making. the last two and a half years of the covid-19 pandemic have demonstrated why this office is more important than ever before. around the world over those last two and a half years, the gender gap has grown as a result of the pandemic. girls are dropping out and staying out of school at a higher rate than boys. the female labor force participation rate has declined with women not only holding less secure jobs but also taking on more unpaid work at home with child care and housing. gender-base violence has increased to such an extent that the u.n. women, the u.n. body charged with advancing the rights of women globally, now warns of what they call, and i quote, a shadow pandemic of violence.

these are issues of great consequence to half of the world's population. they cannot be an afterthought. gender equity, equality, and the empowerment of women and girls must be a folk cal -- focal point of u.s. foreign policy and that's exactly what the ambassador at large has intended to facilitate. unfortunately, this position has been unfilled for too long. over the past five years beginning in the trump administration, the position of the ambassador at large for global women's issues has been filled for only one year. so 20% of the time over the last five years. during that time we've endured an unprecedented global pandemic. we've ended a 20-year war in afghanistan. we've watched as vladimir putin launched an unprovoked attack on ukraine. we've experienced a supply chain

crisis and suffered a global food shortage. and in every single one of these crises, women have been more acutely affected than men and affected in a different way than men. during the pandemic women who make up almost 70% of the health care workforce have been those who have been on the front lines of providing care for the sick and vulnerable. and with the taliban takeover of afghanistan, women's rights have been rolled back at an unprecedented rate, and we have seen 90% of the households in afghanistan have food and security and women are experiencing the greatest part of that. displacement from the war in ukraine has left millions of women vulnerable to human trafficking, even as russia continues to shell their homes and communities. and the food and security from the supply chain crisis and

global food shortage has reinforced our understanding of what we've seen for too long. that in times of hunger, it is women who eat last and who eat the least. through all of these crises, the office of global women's issues has been without a leader to spearhead its work to ensure that women's needs are incorporated in every aspect of the united states response to these crises. now, why does that matter? well, not only do women make up 50% of the world's population, but what we know is that where women are empowered, they contribute, give back more to their families. they give back more to chair communities. -- to their communities. the countries that empower women are more stable. they're more economically secure. this is a policy that is important not only to our

foreign policy at large but to our national security. and that's why we need to fill this position and why we urgently need to confirm dr. gupta. dr. gupta has spent her career in service to gender equality and women's empowerment. she knows better than most the impact that unfair gender norms and inequalities have on women and the importance of prioritizing women's leadership. and what's so unfortunate is that dr. gupta is being punished for her personal views on women's reproductive choices. and as a result of those personal views, those groups who oppose women's reproductive choices are spreading falsehoods instead of facts, and they're doing that and unfortunately to many of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have been willing to listen to those falsehoods without really looking at the facts. this sets a very dangerous

precedent for all future nominees. let me be clear. the office of global women's issues does not lead on sexual and reproductive health and rights. nor does it provide information about abortion services. when former president trump nominated someone to lead the office of global women's issues, i and my pro-choice colleagues in this body didn't ask her what her position was on choice because we knew that that was not the mission of the office of global women's issues. and she was confirmed. and i think by all accounts people thought she did a good job in the short time that she was there. so why are my republican colleagues spreading these falsehoods. they said that dr. gupta has advised the world health

organization to support abortion as a human right. they alleged that dr. gupta gave a speech saying that abortion should be an essential service. they've alleged the administration has plans to include abortion and the mandate of the office of global women's issues. let me be clear. there is no truth behind those allegations. if you missed it, let me say it again. there is no truth behind those allegations. we cannot let this idea that because somebody has a personal position on an issue that affects them that that means that they cannot be considered for a position within the government. based on that criteria, i wouldn't be able to considered for any position. so for the sake of dr. gupta's nomination today and for the sake of all of those qualified women candidates who are going

to come before the senate in the future, we can't let this divisive move become the status quo. we've got to correct the record. we need to approve dr. gupta and we need to get the office of global women's issues back operating at full capacity. with that let me yield to my colleague from hawaii senator hirono. ms. hirono: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from hawaii. ms. hirono: i rise today in support of dr. geeta r ao gupta to serve as ambassador at large for global women's issues. and i'm glad to be here with my friend from new hampshire to argue for her confirmation. as head of the state department's office of global women's issues, the ambassador at large leads our diplomatic efforts to promote the rights and empowerment of women and girls around the world.

who can argue with that kind of a mission? from supporting women's economic participation to combating domestic and gender-base violence, this work is critically important, and dr. gupta is well suited to take on this important task. dr. gupta has spent her life working to empower women across the globe. she has led several nonprofit organizations focused on advancing gender equity and has served as cochair of the world bank's gender whennen base violence task -- gender-base violence task force. but for months now republicans have blocked consideration of her nomination. why? not because she is unqualified. dr. gupta's record is impeccable and her qualifications are clear. no, republicans are blocking her nomination simply because she supports the fundamental right of all women to make decisions

about their bodies and their futures, including the decision to get an abortion. apparently it is no longer enough for my republican colleagues to push their extreme antiabortion agenda now that they've overturned roe v. wade. they are opposing anyone who expressing support for abortion access. even if it's their personal views. and not one that they are going to be pushing forward in the position that we are being asked to confirm them for. last year the republicans did the same thing to president biden's nominee to be deputy administrator of the small business administration, sba, opposing his nomination because of their opposition to sba's totally lawful pp loans to planned parenthood clinics

providing critical health care to communities across the country. the republicans i have to say have been on a terror about how dare sba provide these lawful ppp loans to planned parenthood. apparently it escapes their notice that these are lawful loans. so republicans' opposition to dr. gupta's confirmation is a dangerous position and one that threatens the health, safety, and prosperity of women here in the united states and around the world. for example, my republican colleagues raised concerns about the state of women and girls in afghanistan and yet in the another example of their hypocrisy, they are opposing a nominee who would be in a position to actually help support these women. as ambassador-at-large for global women's issues, dr. gupta will bring decades of experience to empower women, improve their

economic security, and end violence against women and girls. there is no legitimate reason for anyone to not support her nomination to this important role. the chaos and fear across the country generated by the supreme court's roe decision is spilling over to block this nomination. i thank senator shaheen for her focus on dr. gupta's nomination and her dedication to women and girls at home and abroad, and i urge my republicans to do the right thing for a change and end their bad-faith obstruction of dr. gupta's nomination. i yield back to my colleague from new hampshire. mrs. shaheen: thank you, senator hirono,and thank you for your eloquent remarks about dr. gupta's qualifications and the importance of having someone who has those kinds of

qualifications at the office of global women's issues. at this time i ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding rule 22, the senate foreign relations committee be discharged and the senate proceed to the following nomination -- p.n.1587, geeta rao gupta. that at senate vote on the nomination with no intervening action or debate, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, that no further motions be made in order to the nomination -- be in order to the nomination, and that any related statements be printed in the record. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. hagerty: madam president? reserving the right to object -- the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. hagerty: thank you. dr. gupta received a tie vote in the senate foreign relations committee. there's a senate process that's been agreed to by both parties by which the leader can discharge a nomination with a tie vote from this committee to bring it before the full senate

if he so chooses. i am saying this as a person who has been put through 30 hours of cloture myself when i served in the executive branch and went through this very process. we should not break from senate process and procedure with regard to dr. gupta's nomination. members should have the opportunity to vote and the majority leader can schedule it. additionally, i think the vast majority of senators on both sides value the economic empowerment of women everywhere around the globe. the previous administration made economic empowerment for women worldwide one of its signature initiatives. i served as a diplomat at that time in the previous administration, and the senior senator from new hampshire was a valuable partner in many of our efforts, which i very much appreciate. so i think that there is a goal we share. there are valid concerns on our side that the current administration is dismantling the bipartisan achievements of the previous administration. we deserve to be a better understanding of what this administration is doing before we rush ahead and totally bypass

the committee to confirm a person who will a chief implementer of this administration's policies. i am not comfortable giving consent to expedite consideration of this nominee. therefore, i object. the presiding officer: objection is is heard. the senator from new hampshire. mrs. shaheen: madam president, i could buy that answer, senator haggerty, and i agree, we have worked together on the foreign relations committee. i voted for you to be an ambassador. i thought you did a good job and i think you're doing a good job now. but the fact is taking up floor time to deal with qualified nominees at a time when we have limited floor time, when we have a position that needs to be filled, when we have a minority position on the foreign relations committee in opposition to authorizing permanently the office of global women's issues tells me it's something more than that. and i think dr. gupta's stalled

nomination is emblematic of the intransigence on confirming president biden's nominees for the department of state. that obstructionism is undermining our diplomatic efforts, it's demoralizing to employees at the department of state who have dedicated their lives to u.s. foreign policy, and i know you understand that because you headed and embassy. you know how critical our employees are who manage our foreign policy. eric ruben, a former ambassador to bulgaria, recently spelled out what this means for u.s. diplomacy and national security, and this is the concern that we all ought to have. in an article with the "puck" news, and i ask unanimous consent that this article be included in full for the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. shaheen: ambassador ruben put it very starkly. he said, and i quote, the u.s. no longer has the largest

diplomat oic service, he said -- diplomatic service, he said. china does. he concluded by saying that we have to stop tying one hand behind our backs in our efforts to represent our country and advance its security and prosperity. it's malpractice. it is malpractice. the fact that too many people in this chamber are dragging their feet on allowing ambassadors to be confirmed, on allowing diplomats with the department of state to be confirmed, on allowing other high-level people throughout government to be confirmed because only of their opposition to the biden administration is just untenable, and it is against our national security. so i think it's time now for the senate to do its job, to confirm dr. gupta. let's move forward, let's get our foreign policy with respect to gender throughout the world back on track, and with that, i yield the floor. mr. hagerty: madam president?

the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. hagerty: with great respect for my colleague from new hampshire, i worked very hard on the wgdp initiative. it has the potential to do so much good. i am concerned that the elements of that are being dismantled right now. i'd like to remind my colleagues, that this is a matter of priorities. i was put through 30 hours of cloture. the rules have been improved since then to reduce that amount of time. i think it would be a total of four hours in this case. yet the priorities set by the leadership of the other side indicate that they don't care as much about these positions, that they won't even schedule it. it's certainly within the senate majority leader's power to do that. rather, the senate majority leader would rather prioritize ceding the post -- seating the postal board of governors than putting ambassadors into place. so i have difficulty with this argument. and with all due respect, my objection stands.

mr. sullivan: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. mr. sullivan: madam president, my colleagues -- my colleague from tennessee was just talking about priorities of this administration and this senate, and i want to continue on that area of focus relating to what many of us believe is probably the most important priority we have in the united states senate, and that's defending our nation. madam president, budgets are a reflection of an administration's values and an administration's priorities. and as i mentioned, many of us -- and i i believe on both sides of the aisle -- see that the

number-one priority we should have in the united states senate is making sure we are a strong nation to defend this great country of ours, and to make sure we have the most lethal, well-trained military anywhere in the world, and we take care of our troops and their families. but this is not what this administration, the biden administration, believes at all. in fact, president biden's budgets clearly not only do not prioritize our military, they put them consistently last. and that's not a one-time thing. this is a pattern with this administration. madam president, here was the president's proposed budget last year. take a look at it. we all know it was trillions and trillions. department of commerce, 28%,

increase. epa, 21%. interior, 16%. on and on -- double-digit increases everywhere, except -- except -- the two agencies that actually protect the nation -- the department of defense and the department of homeland security. last year the biden budget put forward a budget that, if it was adjusted for inflation, was almost a 3% cut to otodepartment of defense. -- to the department of defense. priorities matter. this administration has not prioritized our military at all. guess who was really pleased by that budget, by the way? the dictator in beijing and the dictator in moscow. no doubt what they saw that, they loved it. thankfully, madam president, the armed services committee on

which i sit, said you know what, mr. president, we're not going to stand with this. we put forward in the ndaa last year a 3% real increase to the department of defense budget. very bipartisan in the committee, a complete rebuke to the president of the united states. saying, we don't believe in cuts, we're going to increase. the appropriators thankfully did the same. so that was the biden administration's prioritization of our military last year. now, what happened between last year and this year when the most recent budget came out? well, i think a lot of us know, madam president, but i'm going to talk a little bit about it. russia invaded ukraine. and in an april armed services hearing, general milley said that the invasion was, quote,

the greatest threat to peace and security of europe and perhaps the world in any of my time of 42 years in uniform. so this is the chairman of the armed services committee saying, we are likely seeing one of the most dangerous periods anywhere in the world in terms of national security in the last four decades. that was testimony from the president's own chairman of the armed services committee. that's russia. then, of course, their ally, china, is also taking incredibly aggressive actions all around the world. they're beginning to outcompete our country on many fronts -- critical minerals, energy, technology. certainly, xi has increased china's aggression all around the world. india threatening to invade

taiwan. economic aggression towards australia, snuffing out liberty in hong kong. what else has china done? it is dramatically increasing its defense spending, more than 7% this year. increasing a navy that is almost becoming larger than ours. this is how general milley put it in a hearing last april. quote, we're now facing two global powers -- china and russia -- each with significant military capabilities, both of whom intend to fundamentally change the current rules-based global order. we are entering a world that is becoming more unstable, and the potential for significant international conflict between great powers is increasing, not decreasing. so that is the chairman of the armed services committee again.

now, what do you think the president did seeing we have this incredibly dangerous period internationally with his next budget? last year, as i mentioned, he put the pentagon defense budget by almost 3%. dead last with homeland security in terms of agencies. so did he listen to his chairman? does he really think it's that dangerous? let's see. this is -- madam president, this is this year's defense budget. and other priorities from this administration's multitrillion-dollar budget. and, once again, you see the epa coming in at a 24% increase, commerce, h.h.s., labor, all double digits, interior, d.o.j. what about the department of defense?

4% increase with almost 9% inflation. we're talking close to a 5% real cut to the department of defense. madam president, in is outrageous. last year the president put forward almost a 4% cut to defense spending. in the interim period, we had one of the most dangerous wars that happened, serge in europe -- certainly in europe, maybe in the world in a generation, the chairman of defense comes before the senate armed services committee and says it is an incredibly dangerous time, a period of almost 50 years we haven't seen so many threats to the international order. and the president does what? he once again fryer advertises our defense -- prioritizes our

defense almost dead last. almost dead last. adjusted for inflation a 5% cut. now with this posture hearing for the secretary of defense and chairman milley, i asked the question, gentlemen, with all due respect, you just said it is the most dangerous period in almost of last 50 years. how can you come before this committee and put forward a budget that's almost a 5% cut to the department of defense and our troops? madam president, they didn't have a good answer. the truth of the matter is, i'm quite certain, that the uniformed military and probably even secretary austin do not support this budget, but they're good soldiers, they had to absolute the commander in chief and try to support it. but we don't have to support it.

and i know the american people certainly don't support it, but once again, i do know two people who support it, vladimir putin, xi jinping, look at this and this as something they're very pleased with. so, madam president, once again the armed services committee, when we met to mark up the ndaa, we voted in an overwhelming bipartisan fashion 23-3 to once again rebuke the president in a bipartisan way and significantly increase the top line for the department of defense to make sure we have a strong nation and that our troops are taken care of and so are their families. by almost $45 billion over what the president requested. bipartisan rebuke, once again by this administration, that won't prioritize our national security

and keeps putting forward budgets that prioritize the defense of our nation last. madam president, we also started in this ndaa to course correct, which we need dramatically at the pentagon. we have had civilian leadership, primarily driven by the biden administration's far-left nominees who have not been focusing the pentagon on its top priority, which is to win our nation's wars and to make sure we have the most lethal military of any country in the world. so i was able in this ndaa to put forward some amendments that i was glad to get bipartisan support on that are in the current ndaa that start a course correction. first, madam president, one of my amendments directed the pentagon to discontinue any

further investment in the dod-wide effort to root out so-called extremism within the ranks. this has been an obsession of the civilian leadership at the pentagon, many of whom know nothing about the military. it's an obsession given the incredibly low rate of extremist activity in our military as determined by the secretary of defense's own working group on this topic. the precedent write about that because they love to kind of weave the story that somehow our military is full of extremists. unfortunately, some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle play that up too. one senator at one point said 10% of the military might be extremists, a ridiculous besmirching of the men and women in our armed services. the actual report from the secretary of defense's office

found fewer than 100 cases of extremism activity in a total military force of over two -- two million people. you do the math, that's less than .005%. so let me be clear. extremism has no place in our military, it must be rooted out when discovered, but these numbers simply don't warrant the time and investment that our senior military's put into this issue and in the ndaa we have said we're not funding it anymore. the second issue, madam president, that is in the ndaa that i was able to put forward an amendment to, the department of the army and the department of the air force, according to press reports, were starting to

devise a policy that would allow each service member to veto their duty assignment if they disagree with the laws and regulations in at state or community where they were going to be assigned by the military. could you imagine the chaos that would result if every soldier, marine, or airmen said, no, i don't want to go to california. it's a regulation on the second amendment are overly burdensome on my second amendment right or any other reason. so we put in the ndaa a policy that gives service men and women the ability to veto their assignment based on where they want to go somewhere or not is not the way that our military is going to operate. that's been nipped in the bud. and, finally, a very simple amendment that put forward that just provides clarity to the men and women of the department of

defense. all it does is reminds them of what their job is. madam president, the military is too often asked to do so many different things, focus on climate change, focus on so many other issues. the military has one job, to provide combat credible military forces needed to deter our adversaries, protect the security of our nation, and win our nation's wars when called upon to do so. so i put it forward an amendment that said just that. here's your priority, here's what you're supposed to do, and it's needed because of all the things that our top civilian leaders are telling the troops they should be focused on. they should be focused on prevailing in a war, if they are called to do so, and that's what my amendment did. believe it or not, a number of

senators voted against it, but that also made the defense authorization act this year. so in addition to significantly increasing the department of defense's authorized budget, we are starting to once again get the military focused on their primary job, lethality and wins wars. so we need to bring the ndaa to the floor. we passed it 66 years in a row. as i mentioned, the administration's priorities are clearly not with regard to national defense and our military. we can tell by the budget that's been put forward. in the senate, priorities are often determined by time on the floor. to get a piece of legislation moving. and madam president, it is clear to everybody who has been here that the majority leader does not prioritize the military the

same way the president of the united states doesn't. we passed the ndaa in june, the armed services committee did, in a huge bipartisan vote. the house passed its ndaa in the house in july. so we are waiting to bring up one of the most important pieces of legislation we work on every year, the legislation that sets the policy and funds our troops and their families. where is it? senator schumer, where is it? and when are we going to bring it up? you have democrats and republicans who are looking at this floor time in september and saying, we need to bring up the ndaa. the rumor is right now the majority leader plans to bring it up in december. think about that, america. i don't even know what we're

doing right now on the senate floor, minor nominations. we should be bringing up the ndaa to protect this country and to make sure the men and women in our military know we have their back. but right now nobody has any idea, maybe the majority leader does, on when we're actually going to bring this most important bipartisan piece of legislation to the floor. so, madam president, in is why i joined a letter that we sent out today, led by senator tuberville, who serves on the armed services committee with me, signed by 20 of my colleagues. by the way, i know it will be signed by some democrat colleagues as well. they didn't want to put their name on the letter, but they feel the same, that says to the majority leader, you control the senate, you control the priority of this body, bring up the ndaa

by the end of september. here's the letter, madam president. i'd like to submit it for the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sullivan: the letter says, quote, at the founding of our nation, then-general george washington penned, quote, when the civil and military powers cooperate and aid each other, there is little things that can't go well. as general milley said at one of the most dangerous times in history, it is vital that our military and civil powers cooperate. what we need to do in this body right now is get back to the important work of bolstering our economy, fighting inflation, bringing down energy costs, unleashing american energy, and most importantly, madam president, passing the ndaa so

we can bolster the national security of this great nation in very dangerous times. i call on the majority leader, along with 20 of my colleagues and some of my democratic colleagues, to bring the ndaa to the floor and not wait until the end of the year, which is what we hear you are planning to do. i yield the floor.

ms. smith: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota. ms. smith: i ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding rule 22, the senate consider the following nominations en bloc. calendar numbers 1137, 1138, and 1108. that the senate vote on the nominations en bloc without intervening action or debate, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, that the president be immediately notified of the senate's action. the presiding officer: is there