their money in the prime minister set out what's going to bring an end and reassure my constituents stopping illegal immigration remains key priority for this movement? >> my audible friend is right, this incident can demonstrate illegal crossing and that's why last year they have new measures for crossings including the largest ever for france and we must do more as soon as the legislation is ready will be brought to this house to ensure if you arrive in this country illegally, he will not be able to save. he will be so with the detained and removed to your own country or safe country alternative. that's the right and responsible way. >> lawmakers are working on judicial nominations.

they are expected to hold a confirmation vote for jonathan gray to be a u.s. district court judge for eastern michigan. earlier democrats met with president biden for their caucus lunches. on the confirmation of the nomination. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: is the yeas are 49. the nays are 42. the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order, the motion to reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table, and the president

will be immediately notified of the senate's action. the senior senator from mississippi. mr. wicker: thank you, mr. president. our nation is once again in an age of great power conflict. it is a dangerous time for this country, for our military, and for our citizens. the mission of the u.s. military is to deter and, if necessary, win real wars, not engage in culture wars. and so i rise this afternoon to say that this administration's current diversity, equity, and inclusion program is not only unnecessary but harmful to our military and to our national security. but first, let me do a quick history lesson.

80 years ago our country was pitted against foes from three continents. my father, among them, defended the world from an evil autocrat. back then the military was not what it should be. our ranks were segregated. but a group of fearless african american airmen challenged the conscience of the military and the nation and paved the road to change. in ferally 19 43 -- in early 19 43, the tuskegee airmen were making a the final preparations to deploy to take on the axis war machine. they made history as the first african american combat pilots and they served with honor and distinction. their actions are now the stuff of popular film and literature, and they are a cornerstone of american culture. but the valor of the tuskegee airmen did not just appear overnight. john c. robinson, a native son of my home state of mississippi,

spent a decade laying the groundwork for their heroism. borne born to a pullman porter, he completed 10th grade but was barred from furthers education. he could afford only a wagon ride on his first trip to the tuskegee institute where he would learn the engineering trades hundreds of miles a away from home. he persevered after facing several years,s from america's leading aviation school and eventually he worked as a junketeer by day and studied -- janitor by day and studied aviation at night, graduating at the top of his class with flying colors. when mussolini invaded african american he, he led one of the first war salvos. he inspired a generation as one of the first black combat

pilots. as one historian put it, it was solely because of robinson's contributions that the tuskegee program became popular with the army. only in america could the son of a mississippi porter who was denied a college education because of the color of his skin become one of the finest aviators his country ever saw. in a moment when we needed him most. this is who we are. this is what our servicemen and women sign up to defend every day. today, as then, we live in an age of great power conflict. today, as then, we face hate-filled autocrats who seek to dominate. these present the american people with a test and the tuskegee airmen story reminds us that we can pass that test. the tuskegee airmen flew the principles of the -- knew the principles of the united states -- liberty and justice for all. though not fully achieved, they were worth fighting for at home

and abroad. because of their courage, along with the leadership of our government, their focus on the core mission of the united states military to defend us in war led to the defeat of fascism in europe. but it also changed our troops. the tuskegee airmen's heroism challenged the conscience of the armed forces and the country. they paved the wait for a transformation. the u.s. military today is the largest, most diverse engine of social mobility in this country. the u.s. military is the most successful civil rights program in the history of the world. the fact is, american soldiers from all backgrounds are now promoted on the basis of their character, commitment, ability, and courage. the treatment dreamed of by the tuskegee airmen has become a reality. that is why it is so mystifying,

even disturbing, to see the current diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives. if you look at the policies of the department of defense, you would be forgiven for thinking our forces are today under a cloud of segregation and extremism. the truth is, the military now represents the best of our society and has consistently advanced the cause of equal rights, even before the rest of the country was ready to take that pivotal step. the military took that step. now commander in chief, president biden, still has the most important job that the commander in chief has ever had -- and that is leading our military in defense of the united states. but his administration is making that job harder every day by focusing on left-wing social issues. in the wake of the disastrous

retreat from afghanistan, and increasingly hostile behavior from china and russia, the president should be prioritizing military readiness. instead he has decided inexplicably to spend his first two years in office focusing on something else, on shaping the department of defense into an institution that is spearheading toxic social policies instead of focusing on military strength. this agenda has harmed military readiness and alienated a large portion of potential military recruits. the ideas propagandized by the bureaucrats and so-called diversity officers within our military are painting a false picture of reality. in addition, they clearly run afoul of america's founding principles and our country's dedication to the proposition that all men are created equal.

the mission of the united states military is to deter real wars and win them if necessary. not to wage culture wars within the rainchtion. but there are -- ranks. but there are numerous examples of how this administration has made it a top priority to push progressive social policies on the military, and it is undermining the effectiveness of our national defense. within the first six months of the biden administration, pentagon civilian leadership demanded creation of a powerful new diversity, equity, and inclusion bureaucracy focused on everything but readiness. right before the 2022 midterms, the secretary of defense released a memo warning, with no evidence whatsoever, that the recent supreme court decision on abortion would negatively impact readiness and recruiting, with no evidence whatsoever that this was true.

mr. president, every dollar we spend on defense should have a clear connection to advancing military effectiveness and lethality. my colleague, senator joni ernst, herself a veteran, has been especially clear-eyed on this topic, proposing legislation blocking the use of taxpayer dollars to fund specious efforts related to abortion at the department of defense. i agree, and i'm glad to join her in this effort. the senate armed services committee has a duty to conduct careful oversight and analysis of the department of defense. today's woke social issue agenda does not improve military effectiveness or lethality, and that's why my colleague, senator tom cotton, and house member dan bishop are introducing new legislation to stop the use of critical race theory in the department of defense, including in our

service academies. it will take strong efforts for, strong support for efforts like these to root out toxic ideas, but we must begin to do it now. misguided efforts from bureaucrats and political appointees alike to inject domestic social issues into defense policy will harm our military's ability to perform its mission. it pains me to say this, but public confidence in our services is low and shrinking. the reagan institute reports that fewer than half of americans have trust in the military, down from over 70% a few years ago. largely because of the president's decision to advance his liberal ideology on our armed services, the military now faces the biggest challenge to recruiting in the history of the modern all-volunteer force. by the ebbed -- end of this

year the army will likely be 30,000 soldiers smaller than it was the day president biden took the oath of office. the navy is actively recruiting thousands of people who are normally barred from military service, because the navy recruiters cannot find enough qualified recruits to man our growing fleet. recruiting is an essential element of military readiness. hardware is important to be sure, but if our best and brightest are discouraged from putting on a uniform, we cannot hope to field a ready force. addressing this problem starts with dreafg how we -- addressing how we shape our future leaders. our four military service academies share a commitment to excellence and boast an impressive track record of molding the officers who will lead the branches of our armed forces. and i'm delighted to help so many young mississippians gain admission to our academies.

but sadly in recent years even our academies have not been immune to the same spread of toxic race and gender-infused agenda that has inflamed so many college campuses across the nation. across the service academies, students can now find indoctrinations courses on, and i quote, the social and physical constructs of race, gender, and ethnicity in the context of social inequality in america, unqoavment and at every service academy one can now find diversity, equity, and inclusion programming listed for students. the examples of what this does to the military would be laughable if they weren't so dangerous. this past september the air force academy actually instructed cadets that the words mom and dad might not be inclusive enough.

in a less amusing part of the same briefing cadets were told to avoid the phrase colorblind. this is happening at our nation's elite service academies, not at the faculty lounge at berkeley, and it is ridiculous. many raise concerns about extremism in the military, yet after a military-wide standdown to focus on extremism in the ranks, we found out fewer than 100, fewer than 100 persons out of a military of 1.2 million active duty servicemembers, had engaged in extremist activity. general milley, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, later revealed that between the stand down and new diversity equity inclusion and training rimplets levied by the biden administration, the department of defense has spent nearly 5.

million man-hours on the issue. that represents over 64,000 hours for each confirmed case of extremism last year. to the extent there is extremism in the military -- and it is rare -- it's a problem we can work together on a bipartisan basis to solve, as senator dan sullivan has repeatedly discussed. and i appreciate his leadership. but again i say it is extremely rare in the u.s. military. in fact, many of the attempts to root out extremism have unintended consequences, including convincing potential recruits that they're not welcome in the military. these efforts have also punished americans with earnest and deeply held beliefs, people that share the same beliefs as i do, people who want to serve in the military. for example, as part of the extremism stand-down day, the

navy issued training materials to sailors stating explicitly that conservative views of marriage, abortion, and lgbtq rights are not considered mainstream. not considered mainstream. the united states navy should not sideline traditional religious and moral views by declaring them out of step with the times. let me be clear. i hope -- hold sincere convictions about the sanchggetty of life. i may be in the majority of some states and may be in the minority in others but i am entitled to my views and our department of defense has no business characterizing them as outside the mainstream. one thing that is not mainstream is the pentagon's unrelenting focus on diversity, equity, and inclusion over the past two years. the u.s. military is the largest and most diverse public institution in the country.

for decades it has been an engine of economic and social mobility and a place for americans of all stripes to come together in support of common, a common mission. from the youngest private to the most senior general, our military is composed of americans from every possible background you can imagine. we should celebrate that fact. sadly, this is not the operating men mentality of the leadership at today's pentagon. the department of defense's new diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility strategic plan aims to, and i quote, ensure equitable career and progression for military personnel by eliminating promotion and retention barriers. mr. president, by adding equity rather than equal opportunity to the military promotion process, the biden administration is

judging the selection of military leaders not on the content of their character, but on whether an individual happens to be a member of one demographic group or another. simply put, this amounts to quotas over merit. this equity approach to promotions and assignments takes a sledgehammer to the foundation of the military. and worse, it creates divisions that put our men and women in uniform at risk. it pits them against each other based on factors they cannot control. more than any other public institution, our military represents the broadest picture of american society. that is as it should be. it is not systemic racism. as one senior member of the defense official -- as one senior member of the defense department said, this rhetoric draws the ridicule of our

enemies. the chinese ministry of foreign affairs and the agents of the kremlin have shown no hesitation in ridiculing the language of woke bureaucrats. rather than fighting culture wars at the pentagon, our focus should turn to doing everything in our power to expand the population eligible and qualified for military service. i will partner with any other member of congress who wants to achieve this goal. thank you, mr. president. a senator: mr. president.

the presiding officer: the senior senator from florida. mr. rubio: no issue dominates our attention more these days than our growing rivalry with china, and rightly so. it's an historic challenge, one that i think we waited way too long to recognize, and now we're scrambling to make up for that. but i think in that, all the attention that's being paid to this, i think it's important that we remember, or at least recognize that the core and central issue here is not china per se and by itself. the core issue here is a decades-old bipartisan consensus that's entrenched in our economic, in our economics and in our politics, a consensus that said that economic globalization would deliver wealth and freedom and peace. it was almost a religious faith in the power of the free flow of people and money and goods across borders as the answer to virtually every problem that

faced the world. and that's how we built our politics. that's how we built our foreign policy. you know what? for about 50 years after world war ii, it generally worked. and the reason why it generally worked is because we didn't actually have a global market. if you looked at the economy that we were engaged in, even through free trade and the like during that period of time, it was primarily a market made up of democratic allies, of countries that shared common values and common priorities for the future. and even when the outcomes during that time were not always in our benefit, even when maybe some industry left to a country in europe or maybe during the time that japan challenged us in some sectors from asia, at least the beneficiary, even though may have harmed us in the short term, the beneficiary of that outcome was not the soviet bloc, the soviet union or some geopolitical competitor. the beneficiary was another democracy and an ally in our confrontation with communism during that period of time. the point is it generally worked

during that time because by and large the interest of the global market and the interest of our country never got out of balance too far. and then the cold war ended, and our leaders -- and i say our leaders because this was really a bipartisan thing -- our leaders became intoxicated with hubris. i remember the lexicon was it's the end of history, and the world will now be flat. and every country is now going to naturally become a free entrepreneurs democracy and economics would result in political freedom. you flood a country with capitalism and that country will not just get rich but they're going to turn into us or some version of one of our democratic allies. in pursuit of that historic gamble, we entered into all kinds of trade deals and treaties and rules and regulations on an international

scale and we irn vietd into that all kinds of country, that, by the way, did not share our values and did not have the same long-term goals as we did. their long-term goals were incompatible. of all the deals made, none has had a greater impact than the decision that was made in this century to admit china into the world trade organization. it opened up our economy to the most populist nation on earth, controlled by a communist regime. they did it not because anybody argued because it would be good. they weren't arguing this is going to help us. the central arguments with doing this behind china was, we think capitalism will change them. they're going to eat big mac's

and drink coca-cola and they will change. they argued that capitalism will change china. we now know that capitalism didn't change china, china changed capitalism. they opened up their doors and said come on in, they said we have cheap labor and workers and it flooded. millions of american jobs, important industries, factories flooded into china and they did it with the promise of luring american investors, all of it with the promise you could make a lot of money in a huge market quickly and obviously for the countries -- for the companies lower labor costs and therefore more profits for them. and we lost jobs and factories closed and towns were gutted, but the leaders said, don't worry, they're only taking the bad jobs. these bad jobs will be replaced by better jobs, americans will

be able to have those jobs and those chinese workers who took those jobs, they will get richer and with the money they start to make, they're going to start buying american products and they are going to turn -- they're going to demand democracy and freedom and change china. well, i don't think i'm going to spend a lot of time explaining that that did not work out. that is not how it played out. china allowed our companies in. but you know what they did? they forced every one of these companies to partner with a chinese company, a small one at the time. they forced you to partner with them and stole your trade secrets. they invited them in, learned what you did, and when they no longer needed you, they kicked it out, their company took over and in many cases they put the money that taught them how to do it, put them out of business. they tiewfd it to build their own economy, their own companies. the chinese middle class grew

also at an historic rate but ours collapsed. the numbers are stunning, if you look at the destruction of the american working class jobs and the rise of the middle class in china, it happened almost at the same time and almost at the same scale. china did get rich. they most certainly got rich. but they didn't use that money to buy our products. they used that money to buy the products made in china. and they didn't become a democracy either. now what you have is what was once a poor chinese communist party, now you have a rich chinese communist party that has tightened its grip on the country and is going around the world trying it to export their their authoritarian model. they say that democracy cannot solve problems. our system is better at solving problems. we can work quicker, we don't have to have a town hall meeting and we can solve your problems and for developing countries around the world, it potentially

has some appeal. we are now confronted with the consequences of this historic and catastrophic mistake and it's important to understand what some of these are and they will be familiar to you. they play out not just on the floor of the senate but in society and on politics. fist we're a nation bitterly divided. you can say we're democrats, republicans, liberals, could conservatives. americans seem to be add add ou. it seems to be those people who live in places that have benefited from this re arrangement of the global economy. they have jobs that pay well and work in a system like this, divided against the millions of working people left behind by all of these changes and live in places that are literally hollowed out. once vibrant communities that

have been gutted. youremember they said, those pee will move to get a better job. people don't move because they don't like to move and leave their communities and extended family. that didn't work that way. it's left us a country that is addicted. we are adicd to cheap exports from -- addicted to cheap exports from china and we are dependability on chinese supply chains from food to medicine to advanced technology. we had a pandemic that reminded us of this. what does it mean of these long supply chains dependent on a geopolitical country? we're vulnerable. our economy is primarily based on two sectors. what's all the news about? turn on the financial networks. the discussion is primarily two

sectors, finance, people who take your money and invest it somewhere else, that's a legitimate business, but finance and big tech, and those two industries that are now the pillar of our economy are controlled by just a small number of giant multinational corporations. the same wups that, by the way, -- ones that outsourced their jobs, and they have more power than the government. and in many cases they have more power than the government. and they have no loyalty to our people or to our country. their interest is not the national interest. they're multinationallists. in fact, they're owned by shareholders and investment funds from all over the world. this idea that globalizing our economy would create great power competition between nations was always a delusion. and i think the people of hong kong and taiwan and ukraine can tell you that this idea that

free trade always and automatically leads to peace, that isn't true either. none of us have ever lived in a world where america was not the most powerful nation on earth. i -- i grew up. i was born into and grew up in a world where two superpowers were faced off in this long, cold and dangerous cold war between communism and freedom, between a free world and people who lived and slaifd behind slaved behindr curtain. and then in my first years of college, i came of age and saw the berlin wall fall. if you told me ten years earlier the soviet union would vanish off the face of the earth, i wouldn't have believed it. it was 15:08:11 this is a test caption from the national captioning institute.

15:08:15 this is a test caption from the national captioning institute. 15:08:19 this is a test caption from the national captioning institute. 15:08:23 this is a test caption from the national captioning institute. 15:08:27 this is a test caption from the national captioning institute. 15:08:31 this is a test caption from the national captioning institute. e sophisticated than the soviethe union. the soviet union was never a noa industrial competitor, it was a political competitor. but the rival we have in china now, they have leverage over our economy. had they have influence over our society. they have an army of unpaid lobbists here in washington. these are the companies and individuals benefiting from doing business in china. and they don't care five years from now if they can't work there anymore, they're making so much money off their vechts and factory -- investments and

factories that they lobby here for free on their behalf. this is a rival that has perfected the tactic of using our own media, our own universities, our own investment funds, our own corporations against us. they've used it against us. every day. but and all of this focus on china, i talked as as much about china as anybody here, going back five, six years. but this is it not the story of what china did to us. they saw a system and took advantage of its benefits. they didn't live up to its obligations. you know why? because china was trying to make decisions that was in china anational interest, not the -- financial interest. they will never did it for any other reason. this is not the story of what china has done to us. this is the story of what we've done to ourselves.

because we've allowed the system of globalization to drive our economic policies and our politics, and it remains entrenched, even now people who agree that we have to do something about this will tell you, but we can't do that. we can't do that. because it will hurt exports, they'll put a tariff on some industry. none of this will matter in five, six years. they won't -- they won't need the tariff, farm goods from the united states, they'll own the farm. they're already buying up farm land. you don't have to worry about the investment funds won't be able to make a return on their investment in five years, they won't need the money anymore. so this system was a disaster and the result of the system was not global peace and global prosperity. the result was not the world without walls in which we were all part of one big happy human

family. the reality is people live in nations and nations have interests and by and large nations have acted in the interest of their nations. and now we see what happens when one side does that and the other does not. the result has been the rise of china and big business. the two big winners in all of this is the consolidation of corporate power in a handful of companies and key industries and the rapid and historic rise of china at our expense. china's a populous country. they will always be a superpower and they will always be one, but they did it faster because they did it at our expense. they didn't create these jobs. they moved them. they didn't create these industries, they took them. we buy solar panels from china. who invented that? we did. they lead the world in battery power. they lead the technology. i can go on and on.

they're building more coal-fired plants than any country on earth. today china has more surplus refining capacity for oil than any nation on the planet. this era has to end now. it's not about just taking on chinese. it is about changing the way we think. it's not 2000 anymore. it's not 1999 anymore. this is a different world. and in a series of speeches over the next few weeks, i'm going to attempt to outline a coherent alternative moving forward in the hopes that we don't just sit around here all do trying to out do each other about who is going to ban this or block that going to china. this is more than about banning this or stopping that. it's about a coherent approach to a difficult an historic challenge. it's a complicated one and complicated problems rarely, if ever, have simple solutions.

but the simplest way to move forward, i will have to describe it in more detail, is we need to fundamentally realign the assumses and -- assumptions and ideas behind our economic and foreign policies. we need a new system of global economics where we enter into global trade agreements, not with the goal of doing what's good for the global economy, but what's good for us. if that trade deal creates american jobs or strengthens a key comern industry, we do -- american industry, we do that. not because in the free market lab experiment ttion the right thing to do. we don't live in a lab. we live in the real world. in a lab when a factory leaves and and an -- when a factory leaves and a job is lost, it's a number on a spread sheet. in real life, a dad loses his job, a mom loses a -- a single

mom loses the ability to support a family and a community is gutted. so we'll need -- we're not talking about isolation, but bue criteria needs to be is it good for our workers or bad? sounds sim simplistic. i don't know how anybody could say we should enter into agreements that is bad for workers and key industries. we need to we should enter into policies that award those who share our values and principles. that helps create american jobs and industry, and if it can't be here, then strengthen the ability of an ally to be the source of our supplies. i will tell you this, it will not be easy. because those who prospered and flourished under the status quo still have a lot of power. and they will use it to protect that at that status quo. we have no choice but to change

direction. because our success or our failure is going to define the 21st century. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. mr. rubio: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. rubio: thank you, madam president. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

when it comes to the economy and national security, thank you for joining us. clear is coming from and what position do you take? >> we are from university foundation, private owners, individuals, families and the like. our view china is we acknowledge the real threat china's common communist party to the united states, it's an economic threat and national security threat but to be clear like the bipartisan leaders of the china committee and the house said they are hearing a couple of days ago it's not about chinese people, not about chinese americans, this is not the chinese communist party to brutalize us some people that's turned over a million muslim leaders that threatens here in the united states and china's national here

in the u.s. but police stations threatened them and their families back home if not come against the party line, is not about chinese people, it's about the chinese communist party and bad behavior at home and abroad. >> mike gallagher described this existential struggle, is that rhetoric? >> that is the reality, it's not a struggle that we are calling for it, it's a struggle that the president of united states president biden and secretary state made clear they don't wane competition with china and we as a nation want to see competition, we don't want conflict. that being said the chinese government in our country, they are threatening taiwan conducting -- engaging bad behavior and now a potential enemy supply as i run has already been, it's a significant problem and even though we try to convince them, it's better to

work together economically they continue to threaten american allies and around the globe. >> what you described together, what does it mean for the administration not only the specifics on those fronts but overall relationship china has with the united states? >> it's a real challenge. part of it is we will have to at some level disconnect our economy. in a large sense it is impossible. it doesn't matter that much of we buy cheap goods in the form of clothing and the like from china. what does matter is if we are reliant upon china having -- green energy revolution or fighter jet or semiconductors on every automobile, pharmaceutical preceptors and ppe and american people learn during the pandemic we are relying upon china. we have to ensure that is made in allied countries and where china does get in conflict with another nation whether it's taiwan or a partner in the region but with us are not reliant upon the chinese

communist party for those goods. >> you talked about looking at these issues that there were things going on with china well before the tangibles we've seen the last few weeks. describe what was going on in the background and how it has manifested itself. does that change the >> they have woken up to the challenge of china and the pandemic inspired balloon but for years the better part of the decade and a half the lanes of your of intellectual property, physical threat cyber hacking and the like, the ingenuity of america and our economy and turning to economic power overseas, companies have good medications here but they are a generation that looks like a cisco router because it is. they stoned the information and

then they have innovated on top of that so engine for the chinese economy so it's not just intellectual property, is the fact that they -- the confucius institution, they have pressure groups and police stations we didn't even know about until this year not just in america but countries around the globe. these chinese spy balloons we just learned about until we shut them down. forty nations have seen spy balloons learned, these have been flying of the u.s. trump administration and even the biden administration without the white house knowing about it. these are huge issues we have to deal with as a nation and the question becomes, how do we ensure we can have an economic relationship with china which we will not disconnect from completely but have understanding their behavior will and their efforts to export repression at home locally will not stand when it comes to

allies and partners. >> our guest with us and if you want to ask questions concerning china and practices and the relationship of united states (202)748-8000 the democrats (202)748-8001 for republican's and independents (202)748-8002. texas at (202)748-8003. describe these things going on for a while, the congress and white house depending on going back saying shrugging their shoulders saying this is what is happening, what can we do? how would you go about changing that? >> a trump administration and biden administration have been leaning on china. trade measures against china and sanctions in place so we have seen activity both trump and biden administration's accused them of genocide when it comes to the muslim leaders and is not just muslims, it's christian, buddhist, there is is out of china, to repress political dissidents, religious people and the like and trying to export

that and it seems like a great economic development problem. these chinese economic development programs come with loans and debt, countries around the globe developing nations want the investment but don't realize what is happening, they're not getting domestic jobs. so these are issues not just inside china, not just the periphery of china but around the globe and they are not affecting us here at home. theft of intellectual property, chinese spy balloons floating over our country. the threat to supply chains, pharmaceutical and now critical minerals and rare earth metals, it's a massive problem. >> if the ranking member for my house hearing not only of the committee but what he wants to see, we will hear from him and

get your thoughts on that. >> first, we must always always protect american values and interests. second, at our best, this committee can help us as americans to up the game as people. through investments in technologies of the future, workforce improvement and fixing weaknesses in our economy such as supply chains and legal immigration systems. third we must practice bipartisanship and avoid anti- chinese or asian stereotyping at all costs. we must recognize ccp wants us to be fractious, partisan and prejudice. >> the last part, the ranking member, is it bipartisan or what you saw in the first hearing, can be a bipartisan effort that works? >> this may be the one spot in congress where everybody can agree. we seek broader, democrat from

illinois, mike gallagher, republican from wisconsin, almost no daylight between the two and how important it is, a real threat china poses and we cannot give into this idea that this is about racism or the chinese americans or chinese people, it's about the chinese communist party, that behavior to its own people, the way it treats allies and partners in the region and the real threat it posed to the united states, our economy and the core national security and there's no disagreement between congress men gallagher were the rest of the members of the committee. >> first one in canada, dominic in ontario, go ahead dominic, good morning. >> i'm trying to understand why we are trying to start a war with china with china. if you pull anything in your house apart, he will find a

circuit board or a piece that has made in china printed on it. you cannot go with a country that uses all of your stuff. >> i think dominic is right, we don't want to go to war with china. the president made that clear interment gallagher, they all made clear it's not united states to go with china. i don't think work with china is imminent by any stretch. that being said, the fact is, it is china sending hundreds of warplanes week into taiwanese territory, into their airspace. china floated a spy balloons over the u.s., china withheld semiconductors and withheld personal connective equipment to the u.s. with the pandemic. there are real questions as we saw this week from the department of energy international lab about where the virus originated from, a lab week or natural evolution, i

tend to believe the lively theory, it's hard to imagine a virus begins in wuhan, it's right there investigating -- ca. the presiding officer: without objection. occasion comes mr. president, i'm here to speak about the congressional review act that the senate and house passed this week on a bipartisan basis. in particular, about the president's decision to veto that congressional review act. now, protecting americans' property is what government should do, period, end of story. and the american people deserve to know that the property that they invest for their retirement is going to go to its highest, best use. that the person managing that money is going to make sure they maximize the return so that the couple, the family, the individual invested in that retirement is making the wisest decisions for their future.

instead, president biden's new environmental and social governance rule authorizes those who manage that money to prioritize president biden's political agenda over the long-term financial health of the retirement fund of that fellow american. think about that. it isn't what's best for their retirement in their golden years when they're 65, 70, when they have to retire. it's what president biden wishes to do now as a political agenda. he is willing to jeopardize the retirement of the 152 million americans who are planning for their future to fulfill his political goal. now, it's easy to speak about 152 million people. let's bring it down to the young couple. they're 28 years old. they just had their first child. they're feeling responsible. they're feeling like they need to put money aside so that, my

gosh, it seems so far away but when they retire, they have taken care of their financial future. and they read the literature. if the return on my investment is 1% more, i have a much better life. if it's .5 or 1% less, i have not as good a life because that is the power of compounding. over that long period of time, that little bit of extra which continues to compound makes the difference sometimes between having to continue to work and the ability to buy the r.v., take off west and to see the grand canyon. that's kind of putting a human face upon this. congress knew that. when the president said he was going to endorse this rule, promulgate it if you will, put it out there, told assets don't prioritize the best return on investment, prioritize what we tell you is the better way to

invest the dollars for our political goals. congress voted on a bipartisan basis to end this esg rule and to stand up for that american worker and that american family who are diligently saving and depend upon the best rate of return to securely retire. now, instead of joining congress and supporting the workers, protecting their retirement, the president announced he will veto the effort. oh, he doesn't say that he's going to do it to hurt their long-term retiert plans -- retirement plans, but that is absolutely what it does. it puts window dressing around it. he's saving the planet. you name this, you name that. he is hurting their retirement plan and he knows it. but that is of secondary importance to him. now, by the way, for louisiana energy workers, this is more than a betrayal of their retirement. it weaponizes their retirement accounts not just against their

future but also against therapy present. those energy workers who are helping to produce the natural gas and the oil that is fueling our modern economy, that is helping to send natural gas overseas to europe so that they can better withstand the financial and the energy pressure exerted by russia over their economies, they're going to be hurt because this esg rule will tell the financial institutions not to put as much capital into the development of this essential oil and natural gas for both our economy, for our european allies. by the way, for natural gas in terms of helping to decrease global carbon emissions and did i say it? for the retirement accounts of these workers. it is another effort by washington, d.c. democrats to dismantle america's energy economy which has the byproduct,

the very unfortunate byproduct i suppose of killing the jobs of millions of americans. those investment managers helping to plan the retirement of these workers should help these workers achieve their best retirement plans. that is not necessarily the goal of the biden administration. it's not necessarily the goal of academia or environmental activists but it's the saver's money. it is not joe biden's. there's still time for the president to rethink his veto threat. the president says he's for supporting workers. then show it. he says he's for those who do less well in our economy, then show it. this esg policy will make things worse for them. don't veto. allow it to go through. supporting american workers means supporting their jobs now and supporting the retirement savings. i urge him to sign this bill.

thank you, mr. president. with that i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. wyden: madam president. the president pro tempore: the senator from oregon is recognized. the senate is in a quorum call. the president pro tempore: witho ut objection. mr. wyden: i have three requests for committees to meet during tooted's session of the senate and they include the approval of the majority and minority leaders. the president pro tempore: duly noted. mr. wyden: i ask unanimous consent that jonathan heys be granted floor privilegeses for the declaration of the 118th congress. the president pro tempore: witho ut objection. mr. wyden: madam president, today i begin an effort to provide regular updates to the senate and the country about the devastating consequences for

women in every state if texas judge kacsmaryk issues a ruling banning meth priss tone nationwide. two weeks ago i stood on the senate floor and laid out what has to happen if and when this decision comes down. president biden and the food and drug administration must ignore it. the food and drug administration has the authority and needs to keep this medication on the market without interruption regardless of what this ruling says. i've already laid out the rationale for why the case is absurd, mart less, and lacks any legal standing as well as the fda's legal authority to ignore such a ruling. today i'm not going to rehash those important points.

i want to discuss what i've heard over the last couple of weeks about the human cost if every woman in this country loses access to this. now, republicans on the supreme court said that the issue of abortion ought to be returned to the states. that the country shouldn't have a one-size-fits-all policy thata subject that is so essential to protecting the privacy rights of the women in our country. i'm going to talk about the states for a minute or two. my home state of oregon has some of the strongest protections for reproductive health in the nation. abortion is illegal. if you have health insurance, it's required to cover this critical priority. if you don't, you can still access care. there are no waiting periods.

you can get abortion medication via telemedicine and by mail, something that's crucial in large states and small states with very large rural populations like mine. in fact, despite the dangerous dobbs decision, access to reproductive care has been expanding in oregon, partially to accommodate women traveling from nearby states whose own home state laws deny them this critical cite to provides -- right to privacy. it has attorneys general fighting to keep mifer mifeprise legal in our state. i'm proud to come from a state where the law reflects that a woman's right to privacy is paramount and a woman's right to choose is hers and hers alone.

but if the plaintiffs and anti-abortion activists prevail in that case in texas, everything changes. everything changes for people facing important reproductive decisions every day and everywhere in the united states. madam president, we're talking about every single state. every one. now, despite strong laws on the books, women in my state of oregon stand to lose mifepristone, a drug that is used now in more than 50% of abortions. so much, madam president, for the idea of states' rights. all that talk about returning abortion law to the states is just going straight out the window. i've said it before, i'll repeat it here. so often the republican party

often seems concerned about states' rights only when they think a state is right otherwise they seem happy to take over and tell the states what to do. well, the people i'm honored to represent, oregonians don't appreciate that selective application of their philosophies, but here it is because of one judge hand picked by donald trump in the 16th largest district in texas, there is concern that americans from one side of the country to the other and everywhere in between will no longer be able to access the safest and most effective most relied on form of abortion care. this is not leaving decisions to the states, like the united states supreme court told us what happened back in june. looe

dobbs decision.court told us that was the very foundation of the dobbs decision and no shock to anybody. that's not what's being seen today. and here's what's going to ensue when the reckless decision in texas comes down. we know that providers are already being stretched very thin. they're harassed. they're the subject of vial threats. -- of vile threats. they're going to thrown into a landscape of confusion. over the last few months i have heard nonstop from these heroic medical professionals in my state. they worry there will be lines out the doors of women leading help. they worry about long wait times for the women who are fortunate enough to eventually receive in-person care. they worry about the women who will never make it to a doctor's office because they live in a rural county or lack the means to make the journey that will now be necessary to receive

abortion care. they worry about what will happen next. when will another judge in another state that looks nothing like oregon make it so that these providers are not able to treat women seeking to exercise their privacy rights? this is not some far-fetched slippery slope. it's happening now. now. right in front of our eyes. women have reride on -- relied on mifepristone for more than 20 years. madam president, i held the first congressional hearing on this drug in 1990 when i was a member of the other body, and finally -- finally there's been access to this drug and it provides freedom to women to make their own private medical decisions and face far less stigma. that fundamental right is potentially about to be further gutted.

this is america. aren't we for freedom? freedom to determine our own lives and futures. freedom to decide whether or when to have a family. we've heard lots of horror stories of life before roe. that too many people with immense power in this country who tragically want to yank america back to those times. i doubt those people have given a moment's consideration to the danger women face when a pregnancy goes wrong, how their lives can be at risk. this is about women's health and survival. this is about control over their lives, control over their bodies. it's about depriving oregonians and women everywhere of their fundamental right to privacy. and i'm here to say that, unfortunately, these

anti-abortion activists will not stop until abortion in every form and every state is simply banned. the need to control women's body is not going to end at attacking mifepristone, which i would say, as i did earlier, has a long record -- a long record grounded not in political rhetoric, but in scientific evidence, for being safe and effective. it will not, madam president, end with the topic of abortion either. right-wing extremists are coming after access to reproductive health care more broadly of. some law lawmakers and their als have legislation to block access to birth control -- birth control. i remember the rest president oe senate helping us in this -- i remember the president of the senate working in this body to champion for so many years for

those priorities and now we have legislation to block birth control, hif hiv prevention. the list goes on. as these acts go forward, we know who will be hurt the most, people of modest means, people of color, immigrants, lgbtq americans. i said it two weeks ago when i was on the floor to discuss the case, i'll say it again. enough. enough, enough. no more sitting back and just letting things happen. i don't want to be back here in a few days, but i fear that -- i fear that will be the case. so let me talk about political change. every since the days when i director of the grey panthers, a

senior citizens group. change starts at the grass grass level and what we really need now is a nationwide mobilization to protect a woman's right to privacy and the right to make these choices for herself. and what i'd like to ask today for everybody who shares that view, go on out there and keep mobilizing. talk to your city council member, talk to your mayor, talk to your state legislator, talk to anybody who has a certificate about how important this is to you. thisthis legislation is needed e now to make sure that mifepristone is legal and accessible. i will close with this, the fda using the authority it already has needs to keep mifepristone

on the market without any interruption regardless of judgf judge kaz merrick's ruling. we need to mobilize in oregon, michigan, and florida, and in every nook and cranny of the nation. before i yield the floor, madam president, just a note of thanks to jenny katzman, who has been in our office and her last day in the senate, sadly, is today. she served our office as chief of domestic policy and general counsel for the past three years and she's moving on, always giving public service a good name. it's been a pleasure to work with her, to work with her, to assist the people of oregon and the people of our country. during the time she's been with us, she has assisted with the confirmation of stellar judges

from our state, written legislation to make our judicial system more fair and to provide very valuable counsel to me and my staff. so i want to close as we wrap-up what is going to be, madam president, an effort on my part to provide regular updates on the consequences of what will happen if this judge in texas puts in place a nationwide ban -- nationwide, every single state. i hope i don't have to come to the floor again and again and again, but i think it's important that people understand, as i've learned in the last couple of weeks, what the human consequences are. going backward here, after the court said that there wouldn't be a nationwide ban, after they said it repeatedly, it's going

to go to the states, would be a huge mistake for america. i want to also note the president of the senate has been the leader of this cause for many, many years. i admire her greatly for that leadership and, madam president, i yield the floor and i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer:the presi: quorum. -- the president pro tempore: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

>> i want to offer my condolences for the buffalo fire department, which lost one of its fire fighters in the line of duty during the horrible tragedy and our thoughts and prayers go out to his family as well. i want to thank all of the first responders on the scene, we're profoundly grateful for all you do to keep us safe every day. now on the president's visit to our caucus launch this -- lunch this afternoon, later today senate democrats will welcome president biden to the capitol for a special caucus-backed suspended ands lunch to talk about agenda for the

118th congress we're going to keep working in a bipartisan way to make life better for the american people. if the last two years focused on getting our agenda passed into law, one of the focuses of our lunch will be on how the next two years implement the agendarme legislation must and will continue and implementation will also be a top priority. americans need to see our agenda in their own backyards when they work and balance their checkbooks. american wills see our agenda as the roads and bridges and highways they use every day finally get the fixes so needed

and american wills see our agenda in action as manufacturing, good paying manufacturing jobs, high end jobs returns to our shore as new innovations get developed here at home. we talked with president biden about one of the most important priorities that defines our party. there'll be ways to get people into the middle class and helping them stay there. we'll continue to protect social security, medicare and medicaid from the hard right and invest in infrastructure jobs and good paying union jobs, and we'll hold abusive corporations accountable for putting profits over people's safety. we're also going to make sure that once they make it into the middle class, they have the tools to stay in the middle class and that's precisely our work behind ira on chips and

science and pushing for student debt relief and increasing pell grants and so much more. i expect to also discuss how to keep americans safe and knock seizure disorders alive -- democracy alive in the 21st century. one year into putin's violent assault on ukraine, the support for ukraine will hold firm and that, praise god, has been bipartisan and leader mcconnell and i are united in that regard. we're focused on taking in all the above approach to outcompete president xi and the chinese dominies party. chips was a important step and we cannot relent and the administration has taken a few executive actions that will increase our ability to bring jobs back here but we cannot

have them with one of contrast and republicans and what was done here and tried to push a national sales tax that moved up significantly up to 30% for average families. how the heck is an average family going to pay 30% more for everything they buy? what planet are these folks on? nowhere else --

mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be dispensed with and i move to proceed to legislative session. the president pro tempore: without objection. mr. schumer: i move to proceed to legislative session. the president pro tempore: the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. those opposed no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. schumer: i move to proceed to executive session to consider calendar number 31. the president pro tempore: the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. opposed no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the

nomination. the clerk: nomination, the judiciary, robert sue water ballou of virginia to be united states district judge for the western district of virginia. mr. schumer: i send a cloture motion to the desk. the president pro tempore: the clerk will report the cloture motion. the clerk: cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate do leash hereby bring to a close debate on the nomination of executive calendar number 31, robert stewart ballou of virginia to be united states district judge for the western district of virginia signed by 18 senators. mr. schumer: i ask consent the reading of the names be waived. the president pro tempore: without objection. mr. schumer: i move to proceed to legislative session. the president pro tempore: the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. opposed no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. schumer: i move to proceed to executive session to consider calendar 42. the president pro tempore: the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. opposed no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it.

the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, the judiciary, andrew g. schopler of california to be united states district judge for the southern district of california. mr. schumer: i send a cloture motion to the desk. the president pro tempore: the clerk will report. the clerk: cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of executive calendar number 42, andrew g. schopler of california to be united states district judge for the southern district of california signed by 17 senators as follows. mr. schumer: i ask consent the reading of the names be waived. the president pro tempore: without objection. mr. schumer: i move to proceed to legislative session. the president pro tempore: the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. opposed no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. schumer: i move to proceed to executive session to consider calendar number 43. the president pro tempore: the question is on the motion.

all in favor say aye. opposed no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, the judiciary, arun subramanian of new york to be united states district judge for the southern district of new york. mr. schumer: i send a cloture motion to the desk. the president pro tempore: the clerk will report the cloture motion. the clerk: we, the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of executive calendar number 43, arun subramanian of new york to be united states district judge for the southern district of new york. mr. schumer: i ask consent the reading of the names be waived. the president pro tempore: without objection. mr. schumer: i move to proceed to legislative session. the president pro tempore: the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. opposed no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. schumer: i move to proceed to executive session to consider

calendar 45. the president pro tempore: the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. opposed no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, department of health and human services, patrice h. kunesh of minnesota to be commissioner of the administration for native americans. mr. schumer: i send a cloture motion to the desk. the president pro tempore: the clerk will report the cloture motion. the clerk: cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of executive calendar number 45, patrice h. kunesh of minnesota to be commissioner of the administration for native americans, department of health and human services signed by 17 senators as follows. mr. schumer: i ask consent the raimtion. the president pro tempore: without objection. mr. schumer: finally, i ask consent the mandatory quorum calls for the cloture motion, filed today, march 2 be waived. the president pro tempore:

without objection. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to legislative session and be in a proper morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each. the president pro tempore: without objection. mr. schumer: i understand there's a bill at the desk and i ask for its first reading. the president pro tempore: the clerk will read the title of the bill for the first time. the clerk: h.r. 347, an act to require the executive office of the president to provide an inflation estimate with respect to executive orders with a significant effect on the annual gross budget and for other purposes. mr. schumer: i now is for a second reading and in order to place the bill on the calendar under the provisions of rule 14, i object to my own request. the president pro tempore: objection is heard. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent -- the president pro tempore: the bill will receive its second reading on the next legislative day. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of s. 645 which is at the dwesk. the president pro tempore: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. 645, a bill to require the attorney general to

propose a program for making treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder and acute stress disorder available to public safety officers and for other purposes. mr. schumer: i further ask that the bill -- the president pro tempore: without objection, the senate will proceed. mr. schumer: i further ask the bill be considered read a third time. the president pro tempore: without objection. mr. schumer: i know of no further debate on the bill. the president pro tempore: is there further debate? if not, all in favor say aye. opposed no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the bill is passed. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the president pro tempore: without objection. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of s. res. 93 which was introduced earlier today. the president pro tempore: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 93 providing for members on the part of the senate of the joint committee on printing and the joint committee of congress on the library. the president pro tempore: is there objection to proceeding to the measure?

without objection, the senate will proceed. mr. schumer: i further ask the resolution be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the president pro tempore: without objection. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 3:00 p.m. on monday, march 6, that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day for their use later in the day and morning business be closed. following the conclusion of morning business, the senate proceed to executive session, resume consideration of the ballou nomination. further, the cloture motions filed today during today's session ripen at 5:30 p.m. the president pro tempore: without objection. mr. schumer: if there's no further business to come before the senate, i ask it stand adjourned under the previous order. the president pro tempore: the senate stands adjourned until 3:00 p.m. on monday.