[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> there are a lot of places to get political information, but only at c-span do you get it straight from the source.

no matter where you're from, or where you stand on the issues, c-span is america's network. unfiltered, unbiased, word for word. if it happens here or here, or here, or anywhere that matters, america is watching on c-span. powered by cable. >> and the senate gavelling in now for more work on president biden's executive nominees. three votes on the nominations are scheduled. one of the nominations is former los angeles mayor, eric garcetti. president biden has tapped for the ambassador of india. we take you live to the floor of the senate on c-span2. the president pro tempore: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain:

let us pray. our father, in whose patient hands the mighty seasons move with quiet beauty, we acknowledge today our great need acknowledge today our great need lord, we are challenged by complexities that require more than human wisdom. we sometimes feel like children grasping in the darkness. bless this government of the people, for the people and by thee people. guide its leaders to strive to process that righteousness that

results a nation. an lighted our senators with your wisdom less the darkness of your times hide the paths of your providence. we pray in your merciful name amen. >> please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america to the republic for which it stands one nation under god indivisible with liberty and justice for all. the president pro tempore: under the previous order, the --

under the previous order, the senate will proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the following nomination, which the clerk will report. the clerk: nomination, department of treasury. brent neiman of illinois to be a deputy undersecretary.

garcetti.dersecretary. the senate will recess for party meetings and return at 2154 more votes on president biden's nominees. another vote series at 5:15 p.m. eastern. tomorrow taking up a bill to repeal 1991 and 2002. a final vote is expected to coincide with the 20th anniversary of the george w. bush era of iraq next week. you were watching live coverage of the senate on c-span2.

when a deranged individual went on the roof of downtown business and discharged 83 rounds in 60 seconds killing seven innocent people and injuring dozens of others. including paralyzing an 8-year-old boy cooper roberts. it is no surprise to see decisions like the fifth circuit case a panel of judges struck down a panel law barring those with domestic restraining orders from possessing guns. with the actual danger that women and police officers face from arm domestic abuses. i do not believe the founders of this nation would have wanted

courts to simply ignore this when ignoring the constitution they wrote. the chaos that the decision was caused was predictable. courts have been steadily applying the decision to make recent judgments about gun laws of the books. now, the supreme court has opposed a radical new framework into judge thomas' decision with barely any guidance to apply it in plenty of opportunity for judges to cherry pick from history to engage in judicial activism. the gun lobby sell bruin as a landmark when but a significant challenge for police, law enforcement and a population of america when it comes to public safety. that is what we will discuss today. we have a distinguished panel of witnesses as we navigate the upheaval of efforts to navigate gun violence. i look forward to this conversation. i now turn to ranking member

grant. >> i think that this is an important hearing to have. the role of the second amendment and average everyday life, senator cornyn worked in a bipartisan fashion to make some changes to background checks, putting money into the system to deal with folks that are a danger to themselves and others to enhance public safety. there is a bipartisan approach to some of these issues. this is the difference between the parties here, i would think. they were passed for a purpose. if you live in a kingdom and the king rules, the first thing want to do is make sure nobody can object. you have to ask yourself, why do we have a second amendment to

begin with. if you understand history of the country, where you could not say bad things about the king. you really could not express yourself. the first amendment allows you to speak openly and worship the way you would choose, not the way the king would choose and on and on and on. the second amendment is to be able to bear arms. 1.7 million times per year they use firearms to defend themselves. i have a very long list of people and able to protect themselves and their property to ward off intruders for this. what we're trying to do here, i think is our democratic friends are trying to make the argument

that the cases, if they could, they would overturn those decisions. i think people on our side will be unanimous on the idea that responsible gun ownership is part of american society. guns are used every day to defend americans. i would hope that we could find common ground to go after those that abuse the right tone of weapons that act irresponsibly enforce the laws on the book. what we will be doing in response to this hearing is i have introduced legislation, federal law that would codify the decision that the second amendment is the individual right. the bruin decision, having a different legal analysis about efforts to regulate guns for the

historical perspective of why we have the second amendment, we will want to reinforce these decisions. we found bipartisan support. for the idea of background checks and trying to get guns out of the hands of people that are dangerous. we have not had much success for those involved in crime. where we are talking a lot about fentanyl, but we have not done much to deter it. all of us see the laws regarding sexual exploitation of children in need of upgrading. what i hope that we will find is some bipartisan support to go after the criminal and reinforce america's safety. this is a very dangerous time in america, mr. chairman. the policies being pursued in the major cities in this country

are not working. on the drug front, on the public safety front. here is the sad news. there's probably never been a more important time to own a weapon then now. threats to average americans are going up, not down. the second amendment as part of our constitution. part of the fabric of this nomination. making sure for a robust response for the idea for the legal framework because we believe now is the time to reinforce responsible gun ownership not to undermine it. thank you. >> thank you, senator graham. our first witness is ruth glenn.

national coalition against domestic violence. project of the national defense hotline. prior to joining this organization, served at the colorado department of human services for 28 years. nine of which he served as a director of the domestic violence program. appearing before the committee for the heritage foundation. school safety the intersection of gun violence. eric rubin assistant professor at law at the school of law. his scholarship focus on exploring violence and weapons and how that intersects with self-defense and second amendment. did i pronounce that right?

the fellow and head of research for the policing of public safety initiative of the manhattan institute where he writes on topics relating to police crime and incarceration of others. the project manager from combating crime. before he served in the national police department in san diego county and the department of justice. he has 20 years of law enforcement experience. i think all of the witnesses for being here today. each senator will have five minutes after you have five minutes for opening statement. can each of the witnesses please stand at this point to be sworn in. >> crazy right hand. to confirm the testimony you are about to give us the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you god. >> let the witnesses reflect that they have answered in the

affirmative. we will recognize you in the city arrangement that you have chosen. >> good morning. thank you and welcome to this judiciary committee. i thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today on a critical issue. the impact on victims and survivors of domestic violence. as was stated in my name ruth glenn. i am the public affairs president for the national coalition against domestic violence in the national domestic violence hotline. i will take my time to share with you why do what i do, why it is important to speak to this issue and how i am able to further for victims, survivors,

advocates and those that care for them when there is access to a firearm by abusive intimate partners. there is always a gun present during my 13 years of marriage. it was use to fight me and control me. in one instance when my son was 14 years old and he was struggling in school, my then husband aimed a gun at me, looked at her son and said, if you bring one more f in this house, i will kill your mother. i was so traumatized and terrified i could hardly think. my experience was and is unusual firearm threats. from an abusive partner. they have been injured by a firearm and include being shot, pistol whipped or sexually

assaulted. i wish that i could share with you that that was the extent of my experience, but it was not. i am unfortunate to be among that. fortunate because i was almost another statistic. one of the people murdered every seven hours murdered by an intimate partner, mostly with firearms. and access to firearms is the increase fivefold. a gunshot is the most awful sound. the smell is even worse. especially up close. i remember those two blasts. each one distinctly. the first went under my scalp, the other skipped off my forehead. when a bullet hits you, you feel a stinging sensation. distinctly metallic by being

burnt. this cannot be happening. then he shot me again in the arm this was pre-1994 when congress passed a law prohibiting two final protecting orders from having firearms. i did not have the benefit of legal protections that are now afforded to survivors with protection orders everywhere in the united states. i say almost everywhere because those are being eroded by courts confused by the supreme court ruling in bruin. pulling out the two-part test that courts were using to assist e national transportation safety board chair, jennifer hamindi, urging her to expand ntsb's investigation of norfolk southern into a comprehensive review of all seven class one freight railroad companies' safety practices. though the ntsb is currently

investigating the toxic derailment in east palestine and norfolk southern's questionable safety culture, i want to make something very clear -- norfolk southern isn't the only rail company that has spent years lobbying to loosen regulations, neglect safety upgrades, and lay off workers. norfolk southern is just one example of a dangerous, industry-wide trend within the railroad industry that puts profits over people's safety. in the last five years alone, there have been over 26,500 accidents and incidents in the rail industry, but instead of prioritizing safety the industry cut over 30,000 employees from the workforce. roughly 20%. we need the ntsb to expand its investigation, because the current data can only tell part of the story. the data tells us how many accidents have occurred, but we

want to know if they occurred in populated areas and how many gallons of oil were spilled or which toxic chemicals were released. we also need to know which of these accidents occurred because the tracks were severely degraded or poorly designed. we also want to know which negligent company policies contributed to the 2700 deaths in recent years, and if any of those could have been prevented. these are just some of the questions that my letter asks, ones that can only be answered by a complete, comprehensive, and rigorous investigation of the rail freight industry. i hope ntsb expands its investigation to include the safety practices and culture of all class 1 freight railroads. it's a necessary step to assure americans that freight rail safety will improve. in the meantime, i again commend my colleagues, senators brown and vance of ohio, fetterman and

casey of pennsylvania, for providing a check on the railroad industry. i will continue working with them to move it forward. now, on the house republicans' h.r. 1, today, house republicans are rolling out a partisan, dead-on-arrival and unserious proposal for addressing america's energy needs that they have been laughingly labeled h.r. 1. it's a nonstarter in the senate. republicans' so-called energy proposal is as bad and partisan as it gets. h.r. 1 will lock america into the most expensive and volatile, dirty sources of energy, and will set america back a decade or more in our transition towards clean, affordable energy. even a brief glance at the house gop proposal is enough to show it's not a serious package. the package is a wish list for

big oil, gutting important environmental safeguards on fossil fuel projects, while doing none of the important permitting reforms that would help bring transmission and clean energy products online faster. considering america's serious energy challenges, not to mention the disruptions caused by the war in ukraine, it's bewildering to see house republicans waste time on a big-oil wish list instead of taking our energy needs seriously and ignoring clean energy as they do. thankfully, many democrats and republicans understand that the only way we will pass a genuine energy package this congress is through bipartisan cooperation. i'm glad that there are good-faith talks under way right now between both parties, in both houses, to figure out what sort of permitting deal is possible. i strongly support these efforts, because americans should not have to go broke just

to meet their daily energy needs. we should work on a comprehensive bipartisan permitting package that can secure enough votes to pass the congress and reach the president's desk. any serious permitting package must also focus on the needs of the future, as america transitions to clean energy we need to take steps in congress to ease that transition and assure clean energy is reliable, accessible, and most importantly affordable. that includes efforts to expedite the onshoring and construction of industries critical to our economic and national security, like work we did in chips and science. permitting reform is an essential step towards laying a foundation for a clean energy future, and republicans must work with democrats on a package that meets this challenge if we're going to get anything done. white house republicans have come up in the mean time with something that falls patetically

short. on russia, on the same day a russian aircraft intercepted and forced down a u.s. surveillance drone in the black sea, it was troubling to hear some on the hard right not condemn putin so much as excuse him. the hard right, excusing putin, not even daring to condemn him. one republican governor in particular said yesterday that defending ukraine and opposing putin is not a vital national interest. he called putin's illegal and unprovoked invasion of another sovereign democracy, quote, a territorial dispute. he basically thinks the u.s. is wrong to support ukraine as they fight and die to protect their democracy, and he's certainly not alone in thinking that on the hard right. i have to wonder what he would have thought if he was around in the 1930's. we know what happened then when many refused to stand up to aggression, a world war

resulted. sadly, these remarks are not unique within the gop. for years an isolationist fever has been surging within the hard right, propagated night after night on networks like fox news. the hard right's isolationism is dangerous, it is un-american, undemocratic, and it is woefully blind to the lessons of history. it's ironic that many on the hard right, which historically opposed communism and authoritarianism, now openly flirt with autocrats like putin. these maga isolationists are making america less safe, they're making our troops less safe, and they are severely undermining american leadership on the world stage. the desire to excuse and validate putin's goals is one of the many terrible legacies of donald trump and it's as good a

reason as any why he and those who think like him should never, never come near the oval office ever again. final on aumf. yesterday we took a very important procedural step to set up a vote tomorrow on legislation officially and finally repealing the iraq aumf's of 1991 and 2022. i want to thank senators kaine and young for leading this bipartisan legislation and chairman menendez and senator risch for moving it through the foreign relations committee. i said it before and i'll say it again, every year we keep these aumf's on the books is just another chance for future administrations to abuse or misuse them beyond their original intent. world powers belong squarely in the hands of congress. that's what the constitution says, and it means the responsibility to reassert our constitutional duty and prevent

future presidents from exploiting these aumf's to bumble us into a new middle east conflict is important. the iraq war ended over ten years ago. an authorization passed in 2002. under entirely different circumstances and in a different world. it is no longer necessary or relevant in 2023. repealing the aumf will in no way hinder our national defense nor will it impact our relationship with the people of iraq. mr. president, americans are tired of endless wars in the middle east. we owe it to them, we owe it to our veterans and their families to repeal the iraq war aumf and turn the page of this chapter of our history. i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

basing today's constitutional decision-making on the legislative priorities of the past. strikeout prohibition on gun possession by people subject to or wish to include the core set the record did not contain comparable gun laws from the framing era. but of course the were not

robust protections for the victims of domestic violence back in the framing era. policymakers back then did not view women as the political equal to men. and he did not prioritize protecting the victims of domestic violence through legislation. in fact, rather than focus on protecting domestic violence victims, historically the law protected the husbands legal prerogative to inflict marital chastisement. but it would be absurd to think that the constitution today condemns us to that same view. fourth, and finally, despite initial disruption to this clause, bruen does that mean the end of reasonable gun policy. we have a long tradition of gun regulation in this country and the justices in the bruen maggiore said that properly interpreted the second amendment still allows for a variety of gun regulation. the major challenge after bruen

is how to compare historical gun laws to modern ones in light of changed circumstances. the court recognized historical loss diss on various groups of people viewed to be dangerous but it didn't construed those historical laws narrowly and concluded they could not serve as analogs for the modern laws regulating gun possession by those subjected to domestic violence restraining orders. other courts have taken a different message from the same historical gun laws. any case, judge anybody care that looked at the same laws that were considered by the rohini court. she reached a different conclusion about their meaning. she wrote quote, history is consistent with common sense. it demonstrates that legislatures have the power to prohibit dangerous people possessing guns, end quote. the central challenge for the second amendment today is

ensuring that history and common sense do not part ways. thank you for the opportunity to testify, and i look forward to your question. >> thank you, professor. mr. mangual. >> good morning, chairman durbin, ranking member graham and members of the committee. i would like to begin by thanking you all four extends to meet another invitation to testify before this body in what is perhaps the single most important policy issues of our time, public safety especially gun violence. my overarching point this morning is straightforward. when it comes to important issue a public safety our most pressing problem is not the possibility that more law-abiding citizens will now be able to carry firearms for self-defense and a small handful of states it can only allow them to do so prior to bruen. it's that is only parts of the country legislative and administrative policy choices have exacerbated the risks associated with failing to arrest, prosecute a meaningful incapacitate i risks, high rate criminal offenders. the focus of policymakers hoping to stem the tide of research in violent crime should be on identifying and plugging the

holes created on a larger by recent decreasing and incarceration efforts. failing to do so will lead to tragedy as it has in so many cases already. one of those cases the shooting death of an upstate new york last year, the c40 mother was taking her kids to school when police and prosecutors allege she was fatally shot in head by her husband. her husband was released on his own recognizance the day before the shooting. that release came after being charged with savagely beating her and assault was captured by home security camera and shared with authority. the release occurred despite the defendant having paroled in 2015 after serving time for the armed kidnapping of an ex-girlfriend and escaping from a correctional facility. new york's ale laws required release and prohibited the judge of considering the danger of this man posed to his wife or the community. the most tragic part, that she was so certain about the risk that she faced that she was reportedly wearing a bulletproof vest at the time she was killed.

all the court would offer her was a piece of paper containing an order of protection. unfortunately data from multiple sources just when it comes to domestic violence, shooting, homicides, was like the when i told her all too common, report published by the indiana criminal justice that is a reported 3036 individuals convicted of domestic violence in 2017 had a combined total of 15,396 prior arrests, a study done by jennifer to chicago found on average those arrested for shooting a homicide in that city in 2015 and 16 at 12 prior arrests including one in five at more than 20. this measure is line with recent remarks from washington, d.c. metro police chief who told members of the media earlier this month that quote the average homicide suspect has been arrested 11 times prior to them committing a homicide. what all of this tells us is that the laws we have on the books regarding firearm restrictions or any other

criminal law for that matter are no good to us illustrate the wherewithal to see to it that those who violate the rules are held to account and a way that actually protects public safety. this is where the focus of policymakers should lie. we must be seeking to find and were necessary great opportunities to maximize incapacitation benefits that attend the incarceration of bad actors. actively supporting efforts to cut down others incapacitation benefits is what congress customer gun rights restrictions and yet getting down and incapacitation is precisely criminal justice reforms have achieved over the last decade. these reforms individually and collectively have reduced the likelihood of arrest prosecution and/or incarceration for many criminal offenders as evidenced by the 24% decline in the nation's prison population and 15% decline in missions jail population between 2010-2021 as was the 25% decline in 21 as was the 25% decline in arrests between 2009-2019. none of that makes a safer especially not those stuck

living in a small license of the country were crime concentrates. the downside risk associate with the push toward incarceration and de-policing will be born disproportionally by the very same people living in the pockets of concentrated gun violence. this has make us a clue by study published last year and reported on showing the 2021 firearm homicide victimization rate approached 60 per 100,000 for black men reaching its early 1990s peak which is almost double what it was just ten years ago. the white male rate stood in the single digits. america's gun violence problem has gotten significantly worse in recent years and that should concern us all. the reversal of the progress made over the 1990s and early arts hit a very small slice of america in a big way. i'm encouraged by this committee is desire to engage with this problem but i urge its members to consider the policies most urgently in need of change are those that have lowered the transaction costs of committing

crime will raise a a transactn cost of enforcing the law. at the end of the rules without the means or rolled to a foursome are little more than empty threats and for those stuck living and america's most dangerous neighborhoods they are broken promises to be. thank you. i look forward to question. >> thank you, mr. mangual. mr. lindley spirit thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today. my name is stephen. i spent my greatness public safety for nearly three decades it's been a artist with a law enforcement started as a cadet working my way up to a detective sergeant anthony special agent. i made to the upper ends of the california department of justice, spent a decade of chief of bureau bureau firearm. today at work as combating initiative one of the nation's oldest and violence prevention organizations. i said the senior technical advisor, california gun laws and the source of the version of traffic firearms. california was a different place

when i joined in 1990. at the national city police department we responded to shootings every night. and he went on the streets had a gun and by 1993 california had a firearm homicide rate that was 46% higher than the national average. our streets were awash with guns and victims and every day my colleagues and i with our badges and her best on and hope for the best. on most -- gun violence really hits home. for me it was in 1992 when i held i held a 16-year-old boy and watched the life drain from his eyes. he got into a fight over a girl. a fight that happens every day in our country. sometimes hundreds of times. except during this fight one of the kids had a gun. what should it ended with a bruised ego and maybe a black eye it ended up having blood all over me. yes, he was going to die and i wish i could've told him he was going to be okay. i wish my story was unique but

it's representative a bigger problem that requires more than thoughts and prayers. between 1989-1991 california took its steps 91 california took its steps to address gun violence. passing an early assault weapons ban apprehensive background checks and prohibitions for violent offenders. nationally there is -- with congress passing the brady background check bill and assault weapons ban. california built on these laws establishing a regional framework of gun laws and it worked. in the o last three decades our firearm homicide mr. thune: mr. president, inflation numbers for february came out yesterday morning, and they confirmed what every american knows. we are still squarely in the middle of democrats' inflation crisis. with no end in sight. overall inflation was up 6% in february compared to a year ago, and a staggering 15% since president biden took office. 15%. grocery prices were up 10.2% in

february compared to a year ago. and 20% since president biden took office. electricity prices were up 12.9%. utility gas service was up 14.3%. rent prices were up 8.8%. and the list goes on. overall, energy prices have increased by 37.2% since president biden took office. 37.2%. and, again, there's no end in sight to this crisis. digging out of an inflation crisis like this isn't easy, but there are things that we can and should be doing to help. like restraining government spending, unleashing american energy production to help drive down energy prices, growing the economy. these are the things president biden should be pursuing. but as the president's budget

release last week made clear, the president hasn't learned anything from the last two ident biden and congressional democrats helped create our current inflation crisis with their $1.9 trillion american rescue plan spending spree, and what does president biden have planned? -- in his budget? more reckless government spending, a lot more reckless government spending. mr. president, our last federal budget before the pandemic was in 2019. that year total federal spending was $4.4 trillion. over the last three years, covid and then democrats' profligate spending pushed up the size of the budget to levels in health care system ssess of $-- in excess of 6 trillion. two reconciliation bills passed

on party lines passed a by democrats. but the need for strad covid dollars, mr. president, is long over. and given the economic havoc democrats' reckless spending has created, you would think they would be looking to returning to the budget somewhere approaching pre-covid levels. but if you'd be wrong. president biden wants to take the inflated budget of the past three years as his new base spline and then, the president is proposing $6.88 trillion in spending next year. mr. president, a 54% increase. -- over 2019 levels. and then -- and then he's proposing increased spending every year until the federal budget reaches an eye-popping $10 trillion in 2033.

$10 trillion in 2033. now, again, let me just remind people that the entire federal budget in 2019, just a few short years ago, was $4.4 trillion. president biden wants to more than double that. $4.4 trillion to $10 trillion. well, mr. president, this level of spending and the accompanying level of debt would present a serious danger for our financial stability going forward. the president's budget all but ensures that the size of our national debt would be larger than the size of our economy. in other words, we would owe more money than our entire economy produces. and these levels of spending could easily prolong our

inflation crisis for years to come. but the economic dangers of the president's budget don't end there. at the same time the president is essentially ensuring an unsustainable level of debt going forward, he's also planning to load up the economy with $4.7 trillion in tax hikes. and that's not counting some of the tax hikes that would result from the provisions -- allowing provisions of the tax cuts and jobs act to expire. he plans to undo much of the good work done by the 2017 tacts and jobs act, which helped grow our economy and improve opportunities for american workers. under the biden tax plan, american business would become less competitive in the global economy. investment would be discouraged and main street job creators and family-owned businesses would face a higher tax burden, which would make it more difficult for them to grow, expand, and create jobs. i said earlier, one of the things we could do to ease our

inflation crisis and drive down prices is increase american energy production. well, president biden's tax plan would discourage american energy production by -- by hiking taxes on oil and gas companies and not for the first time during his presidency. instead of lowering energy prices, the president's plan would likely drive them up even further, with all the new taxes. well, mr. president, the problems with the president's budget go on and on. while the president has no problem driving up spending to a staggering $10 trillion per year by 2033, somehow very little of that money gets put towards priorities like securing the border and defending our nation. for next year, the the president is proposing an increase in defense spending that fails to keep pace with current levels of inflation, meaning that his supposed defense spending increase would actually be a

defense spending cut. the department of homeland security would see an outright spending cut next year. and despite the security and humanitarian crisis wreaking havoc at our southern border, the president is proposing barely any additional funding for u.s. customs and border protection and immigration and customs enforcement next year. but somehow -- somehow the president managed to find a 15% increase in funding for the irs. think about that a that's from the 2023 enacted budget for the irs, over and above the $80 billion funding increase the irs got just last august. think about that, mr. president. last august the i $80

billion and 87,000 new employees. and yet this year, under this president's budget, they're not only going to get all that funding and massive infusion -- influx of new employees, but a 15% year over year increase in spending at the irs, at a time when defense spending will be 3.2% below the rate of inflation. you can't make it up. and 2 -- and it doesn't stop there. an additional $ed 2 billion to the irs to continue enforcement and compliance initiatives. i guess maybe what the president is thinking with respect to all of this is that he'll need more irs agents to administer all the new tax hikes that are included

in his budget proposal. it's disturbing that his tax proposal is taking precedence over the securing of our border. mr. president, president biden's budget is the wrong prescription for our country. it would shrink our economy, prolong our inflation crisis and guarantee unsustainable levels of debt. the american people had a rough couple of years under the biden administration and the president's budget would be almost guaranteed to prolong their economic pain well into the future. i hope democrats as well as republicans will recognize this and quickly consign the president's budget to where it belongs, and that is to the dustbin. mr. president, i yield the floor, and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

>> the number of guns in america owned company of weapons owned by americans has doubled. >> i am aware of that. >> are you aware that number concealed carry permits have increased by sevenfold? >> i know would increase exponentially. i will take you afterward that it is roughly -- >> are you aware between 2019- 2019-2020 15% increase in gun purchase by african-americans, 43% increase by asians, 46 increase in purchases by latino americans, 40% of those those purchases were made by first-time gun buyers? are you aware from 2005-2020, a

77% increase in gun ownership by women and that from 2019-2020 a majority of people buying guns were women, are you aware of all that? >> yes, senator, i am. >> why do you think that's going on? >> because there's a lot of americans specifically as you mentioned women and ethnic minorities who uploaded for the first time in allies beginning last couple of years looked around at the state of reality in this country, with widespread issues with policing, with the -- >> lets there for a moment. mr. lindley comes you been a police officer, thank you for your service. how is morale among police and america, generally speaking? >> thank you for the question, senator. i think overall morale is decreasing. >> and there are probably a lot of reasons for that but it's harder to get people in the law

enforcement now and i'd like to work with people to try to change that. mr. ruben, do you agree with the heller decision that interpret the second amendment to be an individual right? was that a good legal decision? >> yes, , sir. >> you do? >> yes. >> ms. glenn, your experience was terrible. your husband, former husband, had been charged with armed robbery. had he been convicted of armed robbery or -- i don't know, make sure -- >> yes, many years before the incident, yes. >> he had actually been charged with kidnapping you, to, before the shooting. >> months before the incident. >> i guess here's my point. senator cornyn has shown the way to work on responsible gun ownership limitations, and i don't think there's anything in this case this is common sense doesn't prevail. but this brew in case and case are important in my view.

mr. chairman, it reinforced the idea of the second amendment is therefore individuals and that individuals have a right to defend themselves in a responsible way even outside their home. so what i would hope this committee could do is end, to the extent possible, the revolving door policies that allow people time and time again to come back out on the streets, hurt their fellow citizens, in this situation i would just add in conclusion, the reason so many people are buying guns is because they have lost fair government to protect them. >> thank you, senator graham. senator whitehouse. >> thank you, chairman. thank you to the witnesses for being here. professor ruben, the history and tradition of fact-finding in the american judicial system is that it's done at the trial court

level. i ask that the quorum cal be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. kaine: thank you, mr. president. i rise today to talk about the importance of march 15, which for the first time has been designated international long covid awareness day. this is a topic of importance to millions of americans who deal with long covid every day and tens of millions of people around the world who are dealing with long covid from mild symptoms to symptoms that are so debilitating that they're unable to work. there's still an awful lot to learn about the condition, but we do know long covid is comprised of ongoing health problems people experience after being infected with covid-19. for some, long covid can last weeks or months. for others, like me, long covid is now -- has now lasted three years. long covid symptoms can vary. some people experience general

symptoms, like fatigue, neurological symptoms like headaches or difficulty concentrating, digestive problems, shortness of breath, heart palpitations, other neurological conditions. the prevalence of long covid is a best estimate, but the recent is survey by the census bureau, with the national center for health statistics, shows about 5.8% of americans have long covid, and that amounts to about 11% of americans who have had covid continue to experience long covid symptoms. i'm on my own long covid journey. my symptoms are mild, but they have been continuous for three years. when we were working in the capitol in march of 2020, at the very beginning of covid, most of us had dispatched our staffs and sent them home. i was working in my office together, just with my chief of staff. it was kind of a lonely time, those of us who were here remember, but we were working

hard. we were working hard to pass the first covid relief will, the bill, the cares act, to provide relief to individuals and businesses and hospitals and universities and schools in those early days. i noticed one day my nerve endings turned on like a light switch was flicked, and all of them started to tingle like my skin had been dipped in alka seltzer. it has not gone away in three years. i had a mild case of covid. i never had respiratory problems. i never had fatigue. within a few days after getting this, i was fine except for the nerve tingling. i assumed because of the pollen on my car it was hay fever gone wild. other symptoms were more like alernlgic symptoms, pink eye, skin rashes. that all went away. when i went home, i gave covid to my wife, one more thing for a husband to feel guilty about. shee she got the standard case of covid, and that made us

realize that's what i had. we both had mild cases, within a very few days we were up and at them, feeling great, but this nerve tingling sensation has never gone away. i kept waiting, thinking next week it will go away, or next month. after six months, i decided i should see a neurallologist. i went to george washington, and did fine on neurological tests, but the neurologist told me look, viruses can have a neurological aftereffect. the good news, it's probably not going to get worse. the bad news, it may not get better. the doctor was perfectly right on both counts. ity never gotten -- it's never gotten worse, and it's never gotten better. not painful, not debilitating. i can work. i can exercise, i can focus. it's harder to sleep. that would be the only area where it's affecting my life, but it's eerie that after three years it hasn't changed and my wife said, but that means you

get used to, you don't notice it. no, it's just a little too intense. i notice it all the time, everywhere. well, the good news is my symptoms are mild and i can continue to work, but as i've shared my story what i have found is many come and share their stories with me, including people here around the capitol. they share their own long covid stories, and many are very, very troubling. the marathon runner that can't walk around the block. i have a dear friend who i'm godfather to her oldest child, has very demanding, physically demanding job as a dialysis nurse, helping patients around, got covid and both fatigue and balance issues are so challenging she's not able to do the work. i had a state employee who worked in my department of transportation who saw me ride on a bike ride by his house in richmond, and he flapgd me down, stopped me -- flagged me down,

said look, i was your employee when you were governor working with the department of transportation. i'm a young dad, i have two boys under age 10, i want to be a great father for them, but i got covid. now my long covid symptoms are so significant i can't play baseball with them, can't do the kinds of things a dad wants to do with his children. this individual is now on long-term disability, unable to work at all. these are very, very serious stories. the public health emergency around covid is likely to come to an end may 11, but we can't forget millions of people who are dealing with this issue. let me share some statistics. across the united states adult women are more likely than men to experience long covid. individuals who identify as hispanic or latino experience long covid more than any other racial or ethnic group. people with disabilities are more likely to experience long covid than those without disabilities. long covid is not limited to

people like me. i just turned 65. a lot of young people are dealing with long covid symptoms. their initially covid presented differently than with most adults, but some of the long covid symptoms are those i described. 25% of people who have long covid say their symptoms significantly limit their activity and the economic cost is upward of $200 billion a year, up to four million people are out of the american workforce because of long covid at a time when i know all of us are hearing from our employers, i can't hire people, it's so hard now. the unplo incorporate -- unemployment rate is the lowest since 1969. if there are things we can do to help those four million tom back into the workforce, but it would be great for the economy. to better understand the impact of long covid, in january i worked with the agency for healthcare research and quality to gather patients and providers from virginia and state and federal officials from everywhere to come to a summit

in richmond to talk about long covid. the conversations allowed us to nearly three years in dig into long covid and what are its impacts, and most importantly what can we do. we discussed experience, shared best practices and research. i was honored to have four virginians with long covid join me in discussing their journeys. cynthia talked about having unusual symptoms and not being believed initially that she even had covid, and then not being believed she had long covid, her symptoms were more in the allergic reactions similar to mine. in fact, she went multiple times to emergency rooms because of her symptoms were so intense and found that without telling her, she was often being drug tested, because they assumed she was there and maybe she was suffering from some kind of a drug overdose. they were testing her for that, not believing her long covid story. she has since found health care professionals who believe her, and are offering her treatments

that have not ended her long covid symptoms, but are enabling her to more effectively negotiate her schedule. maddy, from southwest virginia, was kind of your quintessential do-everything 35-year-old mom of three who worked, went to school, she could juggle everything and make it seem easy. when she got covid, she got hit with fatigue so intense she couldn't do any of those things, and that spiraled into depression. she was a health care provider herself, working with seniors and really started to question what kind of purpose do i have, if i can't be the mom i want to, if i can't be the health care provider i want to be? it caused tremendous anxiety and depression. maddy's was a story of hope, because she eventually found a physician that realized covid had exacerbated an underlying medical condition called hashimoto's disease, she had

probably since birth but wasn't serious enough to notice, covid exacerbated it. she's being treated for that, and many symptoms have abated. this is not a hopelessness story. you can find she's doing better. zz.z. and katie. z.z. is a middle schooler who had serious long covid experiences, and katie talked about trying to help her son in particular not believed until she found their way to the national children's hospital up the hill from where we are. finally, rachel, longtime human resources professional at a community college in virginia, used to working with people, including people with disabilities, to help them get jobs or do coursework at the local community college. her long covid experience was so debilitating, fatigue, migraine headaches with respect to focus, she eventually had to leave her job, apply for long-term disability under social security. she was told when she applied that there were more than half a

million applications before hers. after a year, she was turned down with little explanation. she described the challenges of trying to negotiate the system and fill out forms when she is suffering from such fatigue and headaches and other symptoms that make even filling out a form difficult. these four stories were a mixture of young people and adults, some stories that didn't yet have happy endings and at least one that did have a positive ending. it was important we understand them. congress has taken some steps, and i've got colleagues in the room, i want to thank them for this. we provided $1.15 billion in federal funding to the national institutes of health to advance understanding, prevention and treme. in december, congress passed a budget that included $10 million for this agency for healthcare research and quality to do critical reassessment. these efforts are a step in the right direction, but more must be done. last week, the president introduced the fy-24 budget,

requesting additional funding for hrq and for the hrsa to do long covid. today, i'm row introduced a bill, the care for long covid act with senators markey and duckworth, eight other senators, also in a bipartisan way on the house side. it will expand research to increase understanding of treatment, efficacy and disparities and provide more recommendations, educate long covid patients and health providers, facilitate interagency cooperation, and develop partnerships between community-based organizations, social services and others. there's more work to be done. mr. president, as i conclude, i see my colleague from louisiana on the floor waiting to speak, we just have to keep focused on this to try to address this challenge. when the public health emergency ends we can't forget those who are dealing with long covid and can't forget those dealing with the significant amount of mental anxiety and stress that has been present in the lives of all for

three years. we have to accelerate research to come up with treatments and cures that work, and we have to do it with a sense of urgency. i'm committed to working with you all to do that, and i thank you, mr. president. with that, i yield the floor. mr. kennedy: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. mr. kennedy: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 30 minutes prior to the scheduled roll call vote. i do not think i will need it, but out of an abundance of caution i ask unanimous consent for that, please. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. kennedy: i do appreciate senator kaine's remarks. he is -- he has highlighted a serious problem for many americans. we don't completely understand it. i have every confidence in our medical community and our research-and-development community that we will figure it out, but in the mean time there are a lot of americans

suffering, some silently, and i appreciate senator kaine highlighting this issue. i want to talk for a few minutes, mr. president, about president biden's bailout of the three banks that went under. when i ran for this office in 2016, i observed at that time that one of the problems in america was that we had too many undeserving, i emphasize undeserving because i don't want to paint with too broad of a brush, we had too many undeserving people at the top in america getting bailouts, and we had too many undeserving people at the bottom getting handouts.

and the rest of america, most of america in the middle, was getting the bill, and i didn't think that was fair. apparently, it's still the case today, mr. president, and i still don't think it's fair. now, president biden chose to bail out three of our banks. it was a bailout. you can pretty it up any way you want to, and you can put perfume on a pig, but it still smells like a pig. this was a bailout. it was a bailout for two reasons. number one, except for the people who own the stock in the banks and their unsecured creditors, president biden and his regulators guaranteed that nobody affiliated with these banks would have any losses. and he said that's not a bailout

because money's not being provided by the american people, it's being provided by all the other banks in america. well, mr. president, as you know, you know as well as i do, there is no money faring. there isn't anything free. anything free, somebody had to work for it. by taking the hit, all the banks in america now, i'm referring to, banks are taxpayers. that's point one. point two, those banks, all the banks in america that have to pay for the president's bailout, they're just going to pass on those costs. included but not limited to their depositors. last time i checked, most depositors and banks in america were taxpayers as well. the second reason president biden's bailout is a bailout -- and this is in the fine

print -- but he has set up a, i think it's a $25 billion fund that other banks that are in trouble can borrow from. and this fund, he says, does not come from the american people. it came from the banks. once again, the costs of it will be passed on by the banks to the depositors to the taxpayers. but this $25 billion fund that banks that are in trouble can borrow from is set up as follows. the banks can borrow money as they need it, and as collateral they put up their securities. so the president says that's a safe, that's a safe bet except when you read the fine print, you find out that the securities that the banks put up as collateral to borrow money from the american people are not what's called mark to market.

they aren't, the securities are not put up at their real value. they're put up at the value at the time they were purchased. so if you bought a security that was, let's say to make it simple, $20 and it's owned by a bank and it's now worth $5, you give that $5 to the $25 billion fund, but it's really -- you get credit for $10 but it's really worth only $5. it's a bailout. and i'm not going to bubble wrap it, and i don't think we ought to try to bubble wrap it to the american people. now let me say a word about silicon valley bank. all the bank failures were an abomination, but i think silicon valley bank is symptomatic of the problem among all three.

svb, as we call it, silicon valley bank. first of all, silicon valley bank was not broke. it was not an insolvency problem. it wasn't insolvent. silicon valley bank had a liquidity problem. here's what happened. silicon valley bank took in a whole bunch of deposits on which they were paying an interest rate, and then silicon valley bank took that money and went out and bought a bunch of securities, paying a higher interest rate than silicon valley bank was paying the depositors. you say that's pretty smart. there's just one problem. the securities that silicon valley bank bought were very sensitive to interest rates,

and as interest rates went up -- and they have -- the value of those securities went down if silicon valley bank had to sell it. and sure enough, silicon valley bank got itself in the position of having to sell them because a lot of its depositors got scared about the bank's position and other reasons and said we want our money back. and silicon valley bank didn't have the money because it had to go sell these securities at a loss, and that put it at risk. and that's why it had a liquidity problem that could have been fixed. it wasn't broke. president biden's bailout could have been easily avoided if we had done -- let me put that another way.

if three things had happened. not all three, but any one of the three things i'm about to explain. let me say that again. president biden's bailout could have been avoided if one or more of three things had happened. number one, if the management of silicon valley bank had known the difference between a banking textbook and an l.l. bean catalog, silicon valley bank would have never bought securities that are so sensitive to interest rate without hedging that risk. and it's a very easy thing to do. honestly, it's banking 101. if you buy securities to back your deposits that are very sensitive to interest rates,

there are other securities you can buy to hedge that risk so you don't take the risk. i'm appalled. the bankers at silicon valley bank didn't do it. i mean it was bone deep, down to the marrow stupid. number two, okay, silicon valley bank management did it. it was like a rock, only dumber, but they did it. the regulators didn't catch it. there's been a lot of talk about silicon valley bank wasn't being regulated because of a bill passed back in 2018 and 2019. that's not true. silicon valley bank was heavily regulated. it had to file regular reports with the federal banking regulators. it was subject to stress testing. it was subject to liquidity stress testing.

all the regulators had to do was read the reports that silicon valley bank was submitting, and they would have seen the problem. you know who saw the problem? way back in november and october, stock analysts in the private sector that were covering silicon valley bank warned way back last fall, they said you know what, this bank is setting itself up for a potential liquidity problem. the private sector knew it. where were the regulators? where were they? you couldn't have found them with a search party. i guess they were asleep. but this whole debacle could have been avoided if the regulators had just done their job and stepped in and said silicon valley bank, what you're doing is dumb, and you can't do it anymore. that would have avoided it. the third thing that could have avoided president biden's

bailout, i think the bank went under on a friday, as i recall. the federal reserve, the secretary of treasury, the head of the fdic and all the other regulators allowed the bank to go under. instead, instead of getting on the telephone and calling other banks and saying i've got a situation here with silicon valley bank. it's not insolvent. it's just illiquid. we want you to buy it. that's what normally happens. and that's all the regulators had to do. why didn't they do that? there's been a lot of talk about, well, they had an auction for the bank and nobody wanted it. that's not true. there were buyers. but the problem was that the people at the fdic do not like

bank mergers. some bank mergers make sense. some bank mergers don't make sense. in this case, it would have made extraordinary sense. and so the folks at the fdic stalled and restalled, and then we had mass panic. think back to the bailouts in the 2008 and 2009. if you get a banker and you get a call from the secretary of the treasury, the head of the federal reserve and the head of the fdic saying can we sit down and talk with you and structure the terms by which you would buy this illiquid but still solvent bank, you're going to take that phone call. and the regulators didn't do that, and all of this could have been avoided. if we had done any one of those three things, any one of those three things, this mess could have been avoided.

thank you, mr. chairman. with that, i -- well, let me make one last comment. i'm going to say it again. in 2016 in america, we had too many undeserving people at the top getting bailouts, and we still do today. thank you, mr. chairman. i suggest -- or mr. president. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

this still shouldn't cause all gun laws to be struck down. the court set forth some standards but they are us not simply specified enough to bribe guidance. one of the things we're seeing in the lower courts is the courts are emphasizing different historical facts, construing the history differently and in reaching different results in the same case. so with respect to numbers, one of the things a a stream court said is modern courts have to compare modern and historical laws in light of how and why modern laws impact armed self-defense. it's unclear how a law that

simply restricts somebody from removing these serial numbers has any impact on that persons ability to engage in armed self-defense. so there are differences of opinion, and opinions are coming out. .2 different directions about what the second amendment means. >> let me ask mr. lindley. are you working in law enforcement, how does it affect you, this discussion about law-abiding people are not the problem. we all agree with that. makes sense. you do with a lot of other people who are not so law-abiding and also law-abiding people who have temperate and who have a gun and had a domestic partner. sometimes in that moment are not so law-abiding. can you comment? >> so, we talk a lot about individuals and all the arrests that they've had. one of the things we appear in the united states as you are innocent until guilty. you can have a lot of arrests

but individuals mental health problems, convicted felons, people with history of other types of violence whether it's a misdemeanor, those individuals with firearms, it's a poisonous cocktail not only to the community but to law enforcement and they are very difficult and dangerous to deal with. >> thank you. my time is up. thank you. i yield back, mr. chairman. >> senator lee. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i do think it's important in this conversation to remember when talking about legislative priorities from 200 years ago. talking about a revision of the constitution. stiffer than legislative priority when we about something into the constitution where making a law that's made to stand to stand this test of time and less or until that amendment is removed or altered it stands. it's the job of the court to interpret what that means. that's exactly what happened here. i do think it is important and i

agree with senator welch that it's very important, we always focus on the rights of the law body and keep us going when it we consider legislation, legislative strategies. one of the worst things you can do particularly where a constitutional right is involved, but really in any case where you were dealing with something that involves public safety is what are we doing that might make it more difficult for the law-abiding to defend and protect themselves? what is this legislation going to do to make us safer or less safe in the port remember a few dynamics that are well known with respect to this study of criminal offenses, and with respect to advice that we receive from season to law enforcement officers. just last week d.c. police chief robert conti remarked, quote, if we really want to see homicides

go down, keep bad guys with guns in jail. he wanted to say right now the average homicide suspect has been arrested 11 times prior to them committing a homicide. that's a problem. mr. mangual, do not respond? do you share this view that if we want to keep homicides down we have to arrest convict and detain those who are violent? >> i do sure that you especially with respect to the last part of that, sort of plan, the detainment part. the failure to incapacitate repeat offenders is that the court of america's gun violence problem and has been for a long time. if you look at the cases of people who are charged with homicide or shooting, you will and heavily seek long criminal history is that involve multiple arrest multiple convictions and often act of criminal justice statuses. until that changes we will continue to do with this problem especially given the fact over the last ten years we have

exacerbated it by enacting all kinds of reform efforts that have again lowered the transaction costs of criminal offending in important ways, whether bail reforms, discovered reforms, sentencing reforms, all of these things have come together to make it less likely that when individuals come before a court of law after being charged with a gun crime are some of the kind of serious offense the becomes less likely that they would be prosecuted and incarcerated, and if, less likely they will be there for significant period of time. .. . the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. without objection. the question is on the nomination. the pres [inaudible question] >> is there sufficient second? there appears to be.

clerk will call the roll. vote: vote: vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: the yeas are 54. the nays are 40. 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 clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion, we,

the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of executive calendar number 65, eric m. garcetti of california to be ambassador of the united states of america to the republic of india signed by 16 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is, is it the sense of the senate that debate on the nomination of eric m. garcetti of california to be ambassador extraordinary and plenipotentiary of the united states of america to the republic of india shall be brought to a close. the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

ppp. vote: vote:

vote:

vote:

vote: vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: the yeas are 52. the nays are 42. the motion is agreed to. mr. schumer: madam president. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, department of state, eric m. garcetti of california to be ambassador of the united states of america to the republic of india. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. schumer: madam president, i ask unanimous consent to complete my remarks prior to the scheduled recess. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: my remarks are very simple. the united states-india relationship is extremely important and it's a very good thing we now have an ambassador. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate stands in recess until 2:15 p.m.

the senate comes back in 2:15 p.m. eastern hear, hear on c-span2. 1979 in partnership with the cable industry c-span has provided complete coverage of the halls of congress, from the house and senate floors to congressional hearings, party briefings and committee meetings. meetings. c-span gives you a front row seat how did issues are debated and decide with no commentary, no interruptions and completely unfiltered. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. >> the name of america which

belongs to you in your national capacity. >> fourscore and seven years ag ago. >> ask not what your country can do for you. >> throughout american history president to deliver pivotal speeches during inaugurations, times of challenge and farewells. on saturday watched our ten part series speeches that a presidency" on american history tv here hear, hear the worf george washington and abraham lincoln through ronald reagan and barack obama. this week will feature ronald reagan's 1981 inaugural address decluttering that government is not the solution to our problem. government is the problem. in 1984 on the 40th anniversary of d-day president reagan spoke on the cliffs of normandy recognizing veterans that pivotal day. >> behind me as a memorial that symbolizes the range of daggers that were thrust into the top of these cliffs. and before me, are the men who put them there.

these are the boys of hope. >> watch are ten part series speeches "speeches that defined a presidency" saturdays at 9:30 a.m. and p.m. eastern on american history tv on c-span2. >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government. we are funded by these television companies and more including charter communications. >> charter is proud to be recognized as one of the best internet providers, and we're just getting started building 100,000 miles of new infrastructure to reach those who need it most. >> charter communications supports c-span as a public service along with these other television providers giving you a front row seat to democracy. >> president biden announced an exec